“I feel like my aggression is being racialized.” “Of course I wouldn’t call the cops if I felt like hurting myself. I’m Black.”

Those statements represent the heightened trauma our Black and Brown patients with mental health issues have been experiencing. In the wake of increasingly publicized police brutality against Black and Brown communities, the role race plays in mental health decompensation is evident. At this moment in time, we must continue to improve our understanding of the role race plays in psychiatric disorders. We must also ask ourselves: At times, does psychiatry worsen the traumas of the communities we serve?

Some psychiatrists are afraid to speak about race. They may believe it to be too “political.” But avoiding these necessary conversations perpetuates the trauma of those we treat. It suggests that physicians are ignorant of an issue at the forefront of patients’ mental health. Psychiatry, today, is primarily focused on the biological aspects of disease. We must not forget that psychiatry is biopsychosocial. It is imperative that psychiatrists have conversations about race – and its significance to our patients and their care.

Our difficulty in discussing race in part comes from the lack of representation by Black and Brown psychiatrists. Only 10.4% of psychiatrists in the United States comprise those considered underrepresented in medicine (URM). Yet, those very groups make up 32.6% of the U.S. population and are overrepresented in psychiatric hospitals.¹ Many studies have shown that concordant racial backgrounds between patient and physician lead to a more positive patient experience² and arguably, the subsequent potential for better health outcomes. Our efforts in addressing this disparity often fall short. URM applicants may be hesitant to join an institution where diversity is lacking or where they may be the only minority.³ While there is no simple solution, I propose that psychiatrists promote the importance of mental health to Black and Brown students of all ages by collaborating with schools and community leaders.

It is important to acknowledge that the lack of diversity within psychiatry is reflective of that among all physicians. This in part stems from the barriers to medical education that Black and Brown communities face. Those who start off with more resources or have parents who are physicians are at an advantage when trying to get into medical school. In fact, one in five medical students have a parent who is a physician⁴ and about three-fourths of students come from families whose income falls among the top two quintiles.⁵ Impoverished communities, which have a disproportionate share of Black and Brown people, cannot afford to take MCAT preparatory classes or to accept unpaid “resume building” opportunities. Many medical schools continue to place more weight on test scores and research/medical experiences, despite a shift to a more holistic review process. Institutions that have tried a different approach and accepted students from more diverse backgrounds may often overlook the challenges that URM students face while in medical school and fail to provide appropriate support resources.

The result is a failure to retain such students. A study conducted at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University showed that those underrepresented in medicine were six times more likely to get dismissed from medical school, and three times more likely to both withdraw or graduate beyond 4 years, compared with their White counterparts.⁶ This is a serious issue that needs to change on a structural and systemic level.

Any discussion of race and psychiatry must acknowledge psychiatry’s history of racism against Black and Brown communities to engage in racially informed discussions with our patients. Only then can we play a better role advocating against racism within the field in the future. Dating back to the 18th century, psychiatry has promoted ideologies that promote racism. Benjamin Rush, considered the “father of American Psychiatry,” believed that Black skin was a disease derived from leprosy called “negritude.” In the late 19th century, this twisted ideology continued with the invention of the term “drapetomania,” which was used to describe enslaved people who ran away as having a mental disorder.⁷ Black prisoners were subjected to experimental treatment with substances such as LSD and bulbocapnine to subdue them.⁸ This idea that minorities were dangerous and needed to be subdued translated into a higher number of schizophrenia diagnoses, particularly among Black men, as it was used as a tool to vilify them in the 1970s. Although schizophrenia is equally prevalent among Whites and non-Whites, Black people are four times more likely to be diagnosed, compared with their White counterparts, while Hispanics are three times more likely. Studies have shown that Black and Brown men are also more likely to receive higher doses of antipsychotics.⁹

Given this history, it is not surprising that Black and Brown representation within the field is lacking and that patients may be hesitant to share their feelings about race with us. While we can’t change history, we can take a stance condemning the harmful behavior of the past. The American Psychiatric Association issued an apology earlier this year to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color for its support in structural racism.¹⁰ This is a step in the right direction, but we need more than statements or performative actions. We need to amplify the voices of Black and Brown psychiatrists and patients, as well as highlight their current and past contributions to the field. While my educational experiences focused on the work of prominent White scholars, medical curricula should showcase the work of people like Solomon Carter Fuller, MD, a Black psychiatrist who was essential to understanding Alzheimer’s, or Joseph White, PhD, sometimes referred to as the “godfather of Black psychology.”¹¹

At times, I have found myself witness to situations where colleagues make statements that not only do not condemn racism, but in fact encourage it. I have unfortunately heard some use the all-too-familiar rhetoric of reverse racism, such as: “They just assume I am racist because I am a White male” or “They’re being racist against me” or statements like “Don’t you think it is far-fetched to believe she was just sitting on a college campus doing nothing when the police were called?” Rhetoric such as this is problematic to the field of psychiatry and medicine as a whole – and only serves to further invalidate the feelings of our Black and Brown patients. We must increase exposure and education regarding racism to address this, especially the meaning of microaggressions, a concept many fail to understand.

Attention to the subject of racism has increased within medical schools and residency training programs in the wake of George Floyd’s death. However, most programs often make these lectures optional or only have one to two limited sessions. Furthermore, many do not make it mandatory for faculty to attend; they are arguably the most in need of this training given that they set the precedent of how to practice psychiatry. Some institutions have incorporated comprehensive antiracist curriculums into medical training. One model that has been successful is the Social Justice and Health Equity program within Yale University’s psychiatry residency. The curriculum has four tracks:

• Structural competency, which focuses on the mental health impact of extraclinical structures, for example a patient’s neighborhood and associated barriers of access.
• Human experience, which explores the interaction of patients and providers and how biases play a role.
• Advocacy, which teaches residents the written and oral skills to lobby for patient interests on a community and legislative level.
• History of psychiatry, which focuses on understanding psychiatry’s prior role in racism.

In each track, there are group discussions, cases led by faculty, and meetings with community leaders. Through this curriculum, residents learn about power, privilege, and how to interact with and advocate for patients in a way that promotes equity, rather than racial disparity.^12,13 This is a model that other psychiatric residency programs can promote, emulate, and benefit from.

Educating ourselves will hopefully lead to a deeper introspection of how we interact with patients and if we are promoting antiracism through our attitude and actions. Reflecting on my own personal practice, I have noted that the interplay of race, mental health, and provider decision-making becomes particularly complex when dealing with situations in which a patient exhibits increased aggression or agitation. As a second-year psychiatric resident immersed in the inpatient world, I have become familiar with patients at higher risk and greater need. The first attempt toward de-escalation involves verbal cues without any other more intrusive measures. If that fails, intramuscular (IM) medications are typically considered. If a patient has a history of aggressive behavior, the threshold to use IM medications can decrease dramatically. This is mainly to protect ourselves and our nursing staff and to prioritize safety. While I understand this rationale, I wonder about the patient’s experience. What constitutes “aggressive” behavior? For patients who have had violence used against them because of their race or who have suffered from police brutality, having police present or threatening IM medications will increasingly trigger them and escalate the situation. The aftermath can deepen the distrust of psychiatry by Black and Brown people.

How do we then handle such situations in a way that both protects our staff from physical harm and protects our patients from racial trauma? While I don’t have a great answer, I think we can benefit from standardizing what we consider aggressive behavior and have specific criteria that patients need to exhibit before administering an IM medication. In addition, discussions with the team, including residents, nurses, and attending physicians, about how to address an emergent situation before it actually happens are essential. Specifically discussing the patient’s history and race and how it may affect the situation is not something to be shied away from. Lastly, in the event that an IM medication is administered and police are present, debriefing with the patient afterward is necessary. The patient may not be willing or able to listen to you or trust you, but taking accountability and acknowledging what happened, justified or not, is a part of the process of rebuilding rapport.

Both in the purview of the individual psychiatrist and the field of psychiatry as a whole, we need to examine our behavior and not be afraid to make changes for the betterment of our patients. We must learn to talk about race with our patients and in the process, advocate for more representation of Black and Brown psychiatrists, understanding the barriers faced by these communities when pursuing the medical field. We must educate ourselves on psychiatry’s history, and equip ourselves with knowledge and tools to promote antiracism and shape psychiatry’s future. We can then apply these very tools to challenging situations we may encounter daily with the ultimate goal of improving the mental health of our patients. This is the only way we will progress and ensure that psychiatry is an equitable, antiracist field. As Ibram X. Kendi, PhD, has written, “The heartbeat of antiracism is self-reflection, recognition, admission, and fundamentally self-critique.”
 

Dr. Malik is a second-year psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She has a background in policy and grassroots organizing through her time working at the National Coalition for the Homeless and the Women’s Law Project. Dr. Malik has no disclosures.

References

1. Wyse R et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2020 Oct;44(5):523-30.

2. Cooper LA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:907-15.

3. Pierre JM et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2017;41:226-32.

4. Hartocollis A. “Getting into med school without hard sciences.” New York Times. 2010 Jul 29.

5. AAMC. An updated look at the economic diversity of U.S. medical students. Analysis in Brief. 2018 Oct;18(5).

6. Rainey ML. How do we retain minority health professions students. In: Smedley BD et al. The right thing to do, the smart thing to do: Enhancing diversity in the health professions: Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D. Institute of Medicine. National Academies Press. 2001.

7. Geller J. “Structural racism in American psychiatry and APA: Part 1.” Psychiatric News. 2020 Jun 23.

8. Mohr CL and Gordon JE. Tulane: The emergence of a modern university, 1945-1980. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. 2001.

9. Metzl JM. The protest psychosis: How schizophrenia became a Black disease. Beacon Press. 2010.

10. APA’s apology to Black, indigenous and people of color for its support of structural racism in psychiatry. American Psychiatric Association. 2021 Jan 18.

11. Black pioneers in mental health. Mental Health America. 2021.

12. Belli B. For Yale’s emerging psychiatrists, confronting racism is in the curriculum. Yale News. 2020 Jul 30.

13. Jordan A and Jackson D. Social justice and health equity curriculum. Yale School of Medicine. 2019 Sep 24.

“I feel like my aggression is being racialized.” “Of course I wouldn’t call the cops if I felt like hurting myself. I’m Black.”

Those statements represent the heightened trauma our Black and Brown patients with mental health issues have been experiencing. In the wake of increasingly publicized police brutality against Black and Brown communities, the role race plays in mental health decompensation is evident. At this moment in time, we must continue to improve our understanding of the role race plays in psychiatric disorders. We must also ask ourselves: At times, does psychiatry worsen the traumas of the communities we serve?

Some psychiatrists are afraid to speak about race. They may believe it to be too “political.” But avoiding these necessary conversations perpetuates the trauma of those we treat. It suggests that physicians are ignorant of an issue at the forefront of patients’ mental health. Psychiatry, today, is primarily focused on the biological aspects of disease. We must not forget that psychiatry is biopsychosocial. It is imperative that psychiatrists have conversations about race – and its significance to our patients and their care.

Our difficulty in discussing race in part comes from the lack of representation by Black and Brown psychiatrists. Only 10.4% of psychiatrists in the United States comprise those considered underrepresented in medicine (URM). Yet, those very groups make up 32.6% of the U.S. population and are overrepresented in psychiatric hospitals.¹ Many studies have shown that concordant racial backgrounds between patient and physician lead to a more positive patient experience² and arguably, the subsequent potential for better health outcomes. Our efforts in addressing this disparity often fall short. URM applicants may be hesitant to join an institution where diversity is lacking or where they may be the only minority.³ While there is no simple solution, I propose that psychiatrists promote the importance of mental health to Black and Brown students of all ages by collaborating with schools and community leaders.

It is important to acknowledge that the lack of diversity within psychiatry is reflective of that among all physicians. This in part stems from the barriers to medical education that Black and Brown communities face. Those who start off with more resources or have parents who are physicians are at an advantage when trying to get into medical school. In fact, one in five medical students have a parent who is a physician⁴ and about three-fourths of students come from families whose income falls among the top two quintiles.⁵ Impoverished communities, which have a disproportionate share of Black and Brown people, cannot afford to take MCAT preparatory classes or to accept unpaid “resume building” opportunities. Many medical schools continue to place more weight on test scores and research/medical experiences, despite a shift to a more holistic review process. Institutions that have tried a different approach and accepted students from more diverse backgrounds may often overlook the challenges that URM students face while in medical school and fail to provide appropriate support resources.

The result is a failure to retain such students. A study conducted at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University showed that those underrepresented in medicine were six times more likely to get dismissed from medical school, and three times more likely to both withdraw or graduate beyond 4 years, compared with their White counterparts.⁶ This is a serious issue that needs to change on a structural and systemic level.

Any discussion of race and psychiatry must acknowledge psychiatry’s history of racism against Black and Brown communities to engage in racially informed discussions with our patients. Only then can we play a better role advocating against racism within the field in the future. Dating back to the 18th century, psychiatry has promoted ideologies that promote racism. Benjamin Rush, considered the “father of American Psychiatry,” believed that Black skin was a disease derived from leprosy called “negritude.” In the late 19th century, this twisted ideology continued with the invention of the term “drapetomania,” which was used to describe enslaved people who ran away as having a mental disorder.⁷ Black prisoners were subjected to experimental treatment with substances such as LSD and bulbocapnine to subdue them.⁸ This idea that minorities were dangerous and needed to be subdued translated into a higher number of schizophrenia diagnoses, particularly among Black men, as it was used as a tool to vilify them in the 1970s. Although schizophrenia is equally prevalent among Whites and non-Whites, Black people are four times more likely to be diagnosed, compared with their White counterparts, while Hispanics are three times more likely. Studies have shown that Black and Brown men are also more likely to receive higher doses of antipsychotics.⁹

Given this history, it is not surprising that Black and Brown representation within the field is lacking and that patients may be hesitant to share their feelings about race with us. While we can’t change history, we can take a stance condemning the harmful behavior of the past. The American Psychiatric Association issued an apology earlier this year to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color for its support in structural racism.¹⁰ This is a step in the right direction, but we need more than statements or performative actions. We need to amplify the voices of Black and Brown psychiatrists and patients, as well as highlight their current and past contributions to the field. While my educational experiences focused on the work of prominent White scholars, medical curricula should showcase the work of people like Solomon Carter Fuller, MD, a Black psychiatrist who was essential to understanding Alzheimer’s, or Joseph White, PhD, sometimes referred to as the “godfather of Black psychology.”¹¹

At times, I have found myself witness to situations where colleagues make statements that not only do not condemn racism, but in fact encourage it. I have unfortunately heard some use the all-too-familiar rhetoric of reverse racism, such as: “They just assume I am racist because I am a White male” or “They’re being racist against me” or statements like “Don’t you think it is far-fetched to believe she was just sitting on a college campus doing nothing when the police were called?” Rhetoric such as this is problematic to the field of psychiatry and medicine as a whole – and only serves to further invalidate the feelings of our Black and Brown patients. We must increase exposure and education regarding racism to address this, especially the meaning of microaggressions, a concept many fail to understand.

Attention to the subject of racism has increased within medical schools and residency training programs in the wake of George Floyd’s death. However, most programs often make these lectures optional or only have one to two limited sessions. Furthermore, many do not make it mandatory for faculty to attend; they are arguably the most in need of this training given that they set the precedent of how to practice psychiatry. Some institutions have incorporated comprehensive antiracist curriculums into medical training. One model that has been successful is the Social Justice and Health Equity program within Yale University’s psychiatry residency. The curriculum has four tracks:

• Structural competency, which focuses on the mental health impact of extraclinical structures, for example a patient’s neighborhood and associated barriers of access.
• Human experience, which explores the interaction of patients and providers and how biases play a role.
• Advocacy, which teaches residents the written and oral skills to lobby for patient interests on a community and legislative level.
• History of psychiatry, which focuses on understanding psychiatry’s prior role in racism.

In each track, there are group discussions, cases led by faculty, and meetings with community leaders. Through this curriculum, residents learn about power, privilege, and how to interact with and advocate for patients in a way that promotes equity, rather than racial disparity.^12,13 This is a model that other psychiatric residency programs can promote, emulate, and benefit from.

Educating ourselves will hopefully lead to a deeper introspection of how we interact with patients and if we are promoting antiracism through our attitude and actions. Reflecting on my own personal practice, I have noted that the interplay of race, mental health, and provider decision-making becomes particularly complex when dealing with situations in which a patient exhibits increased aggression or agitation. As a second-year psychiatric resident immersed in the inpatient world, I have become familiar with patients at higher risk and greater need. The first attempt toward de-escalation involves verbal cues without any other more intrusive measures. If that fails, intramuscular (IM) medications are typically considered. If a patient has a history of aggressive behavior, the threshold to use IM medications can decrease dramatically. This is mainly to protect ourselves and our nursing staff and to prioritize safety. While I understand this rationale, I wonder about the patient’s experience. What constitutes “aggressive” behavior? For patients who have had violence used against them because of their race or who have suffered from police brutality, having police present or threatening IM medications will increasingly trigger them and escalate the situation. The aftermath can deepen the distrust of psychiatry by Black and Brown people.

How do we then handle such situations in a way that both protects our staff from physical harm and protects our patients from racial trauma? While I don’t have a great answer, I think we can benefit from standardizing what we consider aggressive behavior and have specific criteria that patients need to exhibit before administering an IM medication. In addition, discussions with the team, including residents, nurses, and attending physicians, about how to address an emergent situation before it actually happens are essential. Specifically discussing the patient’s history and race and how it may affect the situation is not something to be shied away from. Lastly, in the event that an IM medication is administered and police are present, debriefing with the patient afterward is necessary. The patient may not be willing or able to listen to you or trust you, but taking accountability and acknowledging what happened, justified or not, is a part of the process of rebuilding rapport.

Both in the purview of the individual psychiatrist and the field of psychiatry as a whole, we need to examine our behavior and not be afraid to make changes for the betterment of our patients. We must learn to talk about race with our patients and in the process, advocate for more representation of Black and Brown psychiatrists, understanding the barriers faced by these communities when pursuing the medical field. We must educate ourselves on psychiatry’s history, and equip ourselves with knowledge and tools to promote antiracism and shape psychiatry’s future. We can then apply these very tools to challenging situations we may encounter daily with the ultimate goal of improving the mental health of our patients. This is the only way we will progress and ensure that psychiatry is an equitable, antiracist field. As Ibram X. Kendi, PhD, has written, “The heartbeat of antiracism is self-reflection, recognition, admission, and fundamentally self-critique.”
 

Dr. Malik is a second-year psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She has a background in policy and grassroots organizing through her time working at the National Coalition for the Homeless and the Women’s Law Project. Dr. Malik has no disclosures.

References

1. Wyse R et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2020 Oct;44(5):523-30.

2. Cooper LA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:907-15.

3. Pierre JM et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2017;41:226-32.

4. Hartocollis A. “Getting into med school without hard sciences.” New York Times. 2010 Jul 29.

5. AAMC. An updated look at the economic diversity of U.S. medical students. Analysis in Brief. 2018 Oct;18(5).

6. Rainey ML. How do we retain minority health professions students. In: Smedley BD et al. The right thing to do, the smart thing to do: Enhancing diversity in the health professions: Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D. Institute of Medicine. National Academies Press. 2001.

7. Geller J. “Structural racism in American psychiatry and APA: Part 1.” Psychiatric News. 2020 Jun 23.

8. Mohr CL and Gordon JE. Tulane: The emergence of a modern university, 1945-1980. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. 2001.

9. Metzl JM. The protest psychosis: How schizophrenia became a Black disease. Beacon Press. 2010.

10. APA’s apology to Black, indigenous and people of color for its support of structural racism in psychiatry. American Psychiatric Association. 2021 Jan 18.

11. Black pioneers in mental health. Mental Health America. 2021.

12. Belli B. For Yale’s emerging psychiatrists, confronting racism is in the curriculum. Yale News. 2020 Jul 30.

13. Jordan A and Jackson D. Social justice and health equity curriculum. Yale School of Medicine. 2019 Sep 24.

“I feel like my aggression is being racialized.” “Of course I wouldn’t call the cops if I felt like hurting myself. I’m Black.”

Those statements represent the heightened trauma our Black and Brown patients with mental health issues have been experiencing. In the wake of increasingly publicized police brutality against Black and Brown communities, the role race plays in mental health decompensation is evident. At this moment in time, we must continue to improve our understanding of the role race plays in psychiatric disorders. We must also ask ourselves: At times, does psychiatry worsen the traumas of the communities we serve?

Some psychiatrists are afraid to speak about race. They may believe it to be too “political.” But avoiding these necessary conversations perpetuates the trauma of those we treat. It suggests that physicians are ignorant of an issue at the forefront of patients’ mental health. Psychiatry, today, is primarily focused on the biological aspects of disease. We must not forget that psychiatry is biopsychosocial. It is imperative that psychiatrists have conversations about race – and its significance to our patients and their care.

Our difficulty in discussing race in part comes from the lack of representation by Black and Brown psychiatrists. Only 10.4% of psychiatrists in the United States comprise those considered underrepresented in medicine (URM). Yet, those very groups make up 32.6% of the U.S. population and are overrepresented in psychiatric hospitals.¹ Many studies have shown that concordant racial backgrounds between patient and physician lead to a more positive patient experience² and arguably, the subsequent potential for better health outcomes. Our efforts in addressing this disparity often fall short. URM applicants may be hesitant to join an institution where diversity is lacking or where they may be the only minority.³ While there is no simple solution, I propose that psychiatrists promote the importance of mental health to Black and Brown students of all ages by collaborating with schools and community leaders.

It is important to acknowledge that the lack of diversity within psychiatry is reflective of that among all physicians. This in part stems from the barriers to medical education that Black and Brown communities face. Those who start off with more resources or have parents who are physicians are at an advantage when trying to get into medical school. In fact, one in five medical students have a parent who is a physician⁴ and about three-fourths of students come from families whose income falls among the top two quintiles.⁵ Impoverished communities, which have a disproportionate share of Black and Brown people, cannot afford to take MCAT preparatory classes or to accept unpaid “resume building” opportunities. Many medical schools continue to place more weight on test scores and research/medical experiences, despite a shift to a more holistic review process. Institutions that have tried a different approach and accepted students from more diverse backgrounds may often overlook the challenges that URM students face while in medical school and fail to provide appropriate support resources.

The result is a failure to retain such students. A study conducted at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University showed that those underrepresented in medicine were six times more likely to get dismissed from medical school, and three times more likely to both withdraw or graduate beyond 4 years, compared with their White counterparts.⁶ This is a serious issue that needs to change on a structural and systemic level.

Any discussion of race and psychiatry must acknowledge psychiatry’s history of racism against Black and Brown communities to engage in racially informed discussions with our patients. Only then can we play a better role advocating against racism within the field in the future. Dating back to the 18th century, psychiatry has promoted ideologies that promote racism. Benjamin Rush, considered the “father of American Psychiatry,” believed that Black skin was a disease derived from leprosy called “negritude.” In the late 19th century, this twisted ideology continued with the invention of the term “drapetomania,” which was used to describe enslaved people who ran away as having a mental disorder.⁷ Black prisoners were subjected to experimental treatment with substances such as LSD and bulbocapnine to subdue them.⁸ This idea that minorities were dangerous and needed to be subdued translated into a higher number of schizophrenia diagnoses, particularly among Black men, as it was used as a tool to vilify them in the 1970s. Although schizophrenia is equally prevalent among Whites and non-Whites, Black people are four times more likely to be diagnosed, compared with their White counterparts, while Hispanics are three times more likely. Studies have shown that Black and Brown men are also more likely to receive higher doses of antipsychotics.⁹

Given this history, it is not surprising that Black and Brown representation within the field is lacking and that patients may be hesitant to share their feelings about race with us. While we can’t change history, we can take a stance condemning the harmful behavior of the past. The American Psychiatric Association issued an apology earlier this year to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color for its support in structural racism.¹⁰ This is a step in the right direction, but we need more than statements or performative actions. We need to amplify the voices of Black and Brown psychiatrists and patients, as well as highlight their current and past contributions to the field. While my educational experiences focused on the work of prominent White scholars, medical curricula should showcase the work of people like Solomon Carter Fuller, MD, a Black psychiatrist who was essential to understanding Alzheimer’s, or Joseph White, PhD, sometimes referred to as the “godfather of Black psychology.”¹¹

At times, I have found myself witness to situations where colleagues make statements that not only do not condemn racism, but in fact encourage it. I have unfortunately heard some use the all-too-familiar rhetoric of reverse racism, such as: “They just assume I am racist because I am a White male” or “They’re being racist against me” or statements like “Don’t you think it is far-fetched to believe she was just sitting on a college campus doing nothing when the police were called?” Rhetoric such as this is problematic to the field of psychiatry and medicine as a whole – and only serves to further invalidate the feelings of our Black and Brown patients. We must increase exposure and education regarding racism to address this, especially the meaning of microaggressions, a concept many fail to understand.

Attention to the subject of racism has increased within medical schools and residency training programs in the wake of George Floyd’s death. However, most programs often make these lectures optional or only have one to two limited sessions. Furthermore, many do not make it mandatory for faculty to attend; they are arguably the most in need of this training given that they set the precedent of how to practice psychiatry. Some institutions have incorporated comprehensive antiracist curriculums into medical training. One model that has been successful is the Social Justice and Health Equity program within Yale University’s psychiatry residency. The curriculum has four tracks:

• Structural competency, which focuses on the mental health impact of extraclinical structures, for example a patient’s neighborhood and associated barriers of access.
• Human experience, which explores the interaction of patients and providers and how biases play a role.
• Advocacy, which teaches residents the written and oral skills to lobby for patient interests on a community and legislative level.
• History of psychiatry, which focuses on understanding psychiatry’s prior role in racism.

In each track, there are group discussions, cases led by faculty, and meetings with community leaders. Through this curriculum, residents learn about power, privilege, and how to interact with and advocate for patients in a way that promotes equity, rather than racial disparity.^12,13 This is a model that other psychiatric residency programs can promote, emulate, and benefit from.

Educating ourselves will hopefully lead to a deeper introspection of how we interact with patients and if we are promoting antiracism through our attitude and actions. Reflecting on my own personal practice, I have noted that the interplay of race, mental health, and provider decision-making becomes particularly complex when dealing with situations in which a patient exhibits increased aggression or agitation. As a second-year psychiatric resident immersed in the inpatient world, I have become familiar with patients at higher risk and greater need. The first attempt toward de-escalation involves verbal cues without any other more intrusive measures. If that fails, intramuscular (IM) medications are typically considered. If a patient has a history of aggressive behavior, the threshold to use IM medications can decrease dramatically. This is mainly to protect ourselves and our nursing staff and to prioritize safety. While I understand this rationale, I wonder about the patient’s experience. What constitutes “aggressive” behavior? For patients who have had violence used against them because of their race or who have suffered from police brutality, having police present or threatening IM medications will increasingly trigger them and escalate the situation. The aftermath can deepen the distrust of psychiatry by Black and Brown people.

How do we then handle such situations in a way that both protects our staff from physical harm and protects our patients from racial trauma? While I don’t have a great answer, I think we can benefit from standardizing what we consider aggressive behavior and have specific criteria that patients need to exhibit before administering an IM medication. In addition, discussions with the team, including residents, nurses, and attending physicians, about how to address an emergent situation before it actually happens are essential. Specifically discussing the patient’s history and race and how it may affect the situation is not something to be shied away from. Lastly, in the event that an IM medication is administered and police are present, debriefing with the patient afterward is necessary. The patient may not be willing or able to listen to you or trust you, but taking accountability and acknowledging what happened, justified or not, is a part of the process of rebuilding rapport.

Both in the purview of the individual psychiatrist and the field of psychiatry as a whole, we need to examine our behavior and not be afraid to make changes for the betterment of our patients. We must learn to talk about race with our patients and in the process, advocate for more representation of Black and Brown psychiatrists, understanding the barriers faced by these communities when pursuing the medical field. We must educate ourselves on psychiatry’s history, and equip ourselves with knowledge and tools to promote antiracism and shape psychiatry’s future. We can then apply these very tools to challenging situations we may encounter daily with the ultimate goal of improving the mental health of our patients. This is the only way we will progress and ensure that psychiatry is an equitable, antiracist field. As Ibram X. Kendi, PhD, has written, “The heartbeat of antiracism is self-reflection, recognition, admission, and fundamentally self-critique.”
 

Dr. Malik is a second-year psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She has a background in policy and grassroots organizing through her time working at the National Coalition for the Homeless and the Women’s Law Project. Dr. Malik has no disclosures.

References

1. Wyse R et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2020 Oct;44(5):523-30.

2. Cooper LA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:907-15.

3. Pierre JM et al. Acad Psychiatry. 2017;41:226-32.

4. Hartocollis A. “Getting into med school without hard sciences.” New York Times. 2010 Jul 29.

5. AAMC. An updated look at the economic diversity of U.S. medical students. Analysis in Brief. 2018 Oct;18(5).

6. Rainey ML. How do we retain minority health professions students. In: Smedley BD et al. The right thing to do, the smart thing to do: Enhancing diversity in the health professions: Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D. Institute of Medicine. National Academies Press. 2001.

7. Geller J. “Structural racism in American psychiatry and APA: Part 1.” Psychiatric News. 2020 Jun 23.

8. Mohr CL and Gordon JE. Tulane: The emergence of a modern university, 1945-1980. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. 2001.

9. Metzl JM. The protest psychosis: How schizophrenia became a Black disease. Beacon Press. 2010.

10. APA’s apology to Black, indigenous and people of color for its support of structural racism in psychiatry. American Psychiatric Association. 2021 Jan 18.

11. Black pioneers in mental health. Mental Health America. 2021.

12. Belli B. For Yale’s emerging psychiatrists, confronting racism is in the curriculum. Yale News. 2020 Jul 30.

13. Jordan A and Jackson D. Social justice and health equity curriculum. Yale School of Medicine. 2019 Sep 24.

Doctor guilty of fraud and identity theft gets 7 years in jail

Grigoriy T. Rodonaia, MD, a family physician in Port Neches, Tex., was convicted of 12 counts of healthcare fraud, three counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of making a false statement toward the end of 2020.

Dr. Rodonaia began his criminal activity in 2015, when he issued more than 600 prescriptions for scar creams using information from more than 140 beneficiaries of TRICARE, a military healthcare program, without their knowledge or consent. The pharmacy billed TRICARE a total of $6.7 million before Dr. Rodonaia’s scheme was detected. Dr. Rodonaia also forged patients’ records to say that he had examined the patients, and he submitted fraudulent records to the Defense Health Agency in response to an audit.

Dr. Rodonaia was sentenced to 7 years in federal prison on June 24, 2021, and was ordered to pay $195,607.76 in restitution.
 

Psychiatric hospital and nursing staff sued for death of patient

Jeremiah Bagley, 37, died after being restrained by psychiatric nursing staff and injected with an antipsychotic and a sedative at the Rio Grande State Center, in Harlingen, Tex.

An autopsy revealed that Mr. Bagley had several fractured vertebrae, cracked ribs, a lacerated spleen, and multiple contusions on his upper body. The autopsy report lists the cause of death as “excited delirium due to psychosis with restraint-associated blunt force trauma.”

Mr. Bagley’s father filed a lawsuit naming the hospital and 10 employees as defendants, saying that his son’s civil rights were violated. The Texas Supreme Court ruled on April 16, 2021, that the staffers who were charged must submit expert reports, despite the fact that medical malpractice was not alleged. Usually, such a lawsuit would be dismissed because a report was not served by the statutory deadline, but in a 9-0 decision, the high court allowed the case to proceed.

Plaintiff attorney Katie P. Klein told the Claims Journal, “He probably struck someone and everybody got mad and they jumped him. He had four or five people on him, which was not permitted.”
 

Ob.gyn. gets 59 years in prison

Javaid Perwaiz, MD, a 71-year-old ob/gyn from Chesapeake, Va., was convicted of performing medically unnecessary and irreversible surgeries, including hysterectomies and sterilizations, on multiple patients for more than 10 years.

Karl Schumann, acting special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Norfolk, Va. field office, said in a statement, “With unnecessary, invasive medical procedures, Dr Perwaiz not only caused enduring complications, pain, and anxiety to his patients, but he assaulted the most personal part of their lives and even robbed some of their future.”

Dr. Perwaiz was also convicted of 52 counts of healthcare fraud and of making false statements in late 2020. His fraud allegedly cost insurance programs nearly $21 million. The investigation began in September 2018 after a hospital employee contacted the FBI after suspecting that Dr. Perwaiz was performing unnecessary surgeries. More than 25 former patients testified at the trial, and the court received more than 60 victim impact statements.

Dr. Perwaiz had a long criminal history, according to the New York Times. In 1982, Dr. Perwaiz lost medical privileges at Maryview Hospital, in Portsmouth, Va., because of performing unnecessary surgeries and displaying poor clinical judgment. His medical license was reinstated in 1998.
 

Doctor who prescribed opioids out of car charged with murder

George M. Blatti, MD, a family physician in New York, was charged with five counts of murder for the opioid-related deaths of his patients and 11 counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree, according to the New York Times. Dr. Blatti’s medical license has been revoked, and he has pleaded not guilty.

Dr. Blatti had been seeing patients and giving prescriptions out of his car in parking lots, where he would prescribe pain medications without examining the patients. Many of these patients were struggling with addiction to opioids or other drugs. The alleged victims — three men and two women, who were between the ages of 30 and 60 — were prescribed 45,000 pills over 4 years, despite the fact that each showed clear signs of addiction, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Blatti knew that several of his patients had died of overdoses, and he ignored pleas from their family members to stop enabling their addictions. They also say he ignored warnings from insurers about excessive opioid prescribing and was questioned by the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct about it in 2017.

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

Doctor guilty of fraud and identity theft gets 7 years in jail

Grigoriy T. Rodonaia, MD, a family physician in Port Neches, Tex., was convicted of 12 counts of healthcare fraud, three counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of making a false statement toward the end of 2020.

Dr. Rodonaia began his criminal activity in 2015, when he issued more than 600 prescriptions for scar creams using information from more than 140 beneficiaries of TRICARE, a military healthcare program, without their knowledge or consent. The pharmacy billed TRICARE a total of $6.7 million before Dr. Rodonaia’s scheme was detected. Dr. Rodonaia also forged patients’ records to say that he had examined the patients, and he submitted fraudulent records to the Defense Health Agency in response to an audit.

Dr. Rodonaia was sentenced to 7 years in federal prison on June 24, 2021, and was ordered to pay $195,607.76 in restitution.
 

Psychiatric hospital and nursing staff sued for death of patient

Jeremiah Bagley, 37, died after being restrained by psychiatric nursing staff and injected with an antipsychotic and a sedative at the Rio Grande State Center, in Harlingen, Tex.

An autopsy revealed that Mr. Bagley had several fractured vertebrae, cracked ribs, a lacerated spleen, and multiple contusions on his upper body. The autopsy report lists the cause of death as “excited delirium due to psychosis with restraint-associated blunt force trauma.”

Mr. Bagley’s father filed a lawsuit naming the hospital and 10 employees as defendants, saying that his son’s civil rights were violated. The Texas Supreme Court ruled on April 16, 2021, that the staffers who were charged must submit expert reports, despite the fact that medical malpractice was not alleged. Usually, such a lawsuit would be dismissed because a report was not served by the statutory deadline, but in a 9-0 decision, the high court allowed the case to proceed.

Plaintiff attorney Katie P. Klein told the Claims Journal, “He probably struck someone and everybody got mad and they jumped him. He had four or five people on him, which was not permitted.”
 

Ob.gyn. gets 59 years in prison

Javaid Perwaiz, MD, a 71-year-old ob/gyn from Chesapeake, Va., was convicted of performing medically unnecessary and irreversible surgeries, including hysterectomies and sterilizations, on multiple patients for more than 10 years.

Karl Schumann, acting special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Norfolk, Va. field office, said in a statement, “With unnecessary, invasive medical procedures, Dr Perwaiz not only caused enduring complications, pain, and anxiety to his patients, but he assaulted the most personal part of their lives and even robbed some of their future.”

Dr. Perwaiz was also convicted of 52 counts of healthcare fraud and of making false statements in late 2020. His fraud allegedly cost insurance programs nearly $21 million. The investigation began in September 2018 after a hospital employee contacted the FBI after suspecting that Dr. Perwaiz was performing unnecessary surgeries. More than 25 former patients testified at the trial, and the court received more than 60 victim impact statements.

Dr. Perwaiz had a long criminal history, according to the New York Times. In 1982, Dr. Perwaiz lost medical privileges at Maryview Hospital, in Portsmouth, Va., because of performing unnecessary surgeries and displaying poor clinical judgment. His medical license was reinstated in 1998.
 

Doctor who prescribed opioids out of car charged with murder

George M. Blatti, MD, a family physician in New York, was charged with five counts of murder for the opioid-related deaths of his patients and 11 counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree, according to the New York Times. Dr. Blatti’s medical license has been revoked, and he has pleaded not guilty.

Dr. Blatti had been seeing patients and giving prescriptions out of his car in parking lots, where he would prescribe pain medications without examining the patients. Many of these patients were struggling with addiction to opioids or other drugs. The alleged victims — three men and two women, who were between the ages of 30 and 60 — were prescribed 45,000 pills over 4 years, despite the fact that each showed clear signs of addiction, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Blatti knew that several of his patients had died of overdoses, and he ignored pleas from their family members to stop enabling their addictions. They also say he ignored warnings from insurers about excessive opioid prescribing and was questioned by the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct about it in 2017.

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

Doctor guilty of fraud and identity theft gets 7 years in jail

Grigoriy T. Rodonaia, MD, a family physician in Port Neches, Tex., was convicted of 12 counts of healthcare fraud, three counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of making a false statement toward the end of 2020.

Dr. Rodonaia began his criminal activity in 2015, when he issued more than 600 prescriptions for scar creams using information from more than 140 beneficiaries of TRICARE, a military healthcare program, without their knowledge or consent. The pharmacy billed TRICARE a total of $6.7 million before Dr. Rodonaia’s scheme was detected. Dr. Rodonaia also forged patients’ records to say that he had examined the patients, and he submitted fraudulent records to the Defense Health Agency in response to an audit.

Dr. Rodonaia was sentenced to 7 years in federal prison on June 24, 2021, and was ordered to pay $195,607.76 in restitution.
 

Psychiatric hospital and nursing staff sued for death of patient

Jeremiah Bagley, 37, died after being restrained by psychiatric nursing staff and injected with an antipsychotic and a sedative at the Rio Grande State Center, in Harlingen, Tex.

An autopsy revealed that Mr. Bagley had several fractured vertebrae, cracked ribs, a lacerated spleen, and multiple contusions on his upper body. The autopsy report lists the cause of death as “excited delirium due to psychosis with restraint-associated blunt force trauma.”

Mr. Bagley’s father filed a lawsuit naming the hospital and 10 employees as defendants, saying that his son’s civil rights were violated. The Texas Supreme Court ruled on April 16, 2021, that the staffers who were charged must submit expert reports, despite the fact that medical malpractice was not alleged. Usually, such a lawsuit would be dismissed because a report was not served by the statutory deadline, but in a 9-0 decision, the high court allowed the case to proceed.

Plaintiff attorney Katie P. Klein told the Claims Journal, “He probably struck someone and everybody got mad and they jumped him. He had four or five people on him, which was not permitted.”
 

Ob.gyn. gets 59 years in prison

Javaid Perwaiz, MD, a 71-year-old ob/gyn from Chesapeake, Va., was convicted of performing medically unnecessary and irreversible surgeries, including hysterectomies and sterilizations, on multiple patients for more than 10 years.

Karl Schumann, acting special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Norfolk, Va. field office, said in a statement, “With unnecessary, invasive medical procedures, Dr Perwaiz not only caused enduring complications, pain, and anxiety to his patients, but he assaulted the most personal part of their lives and even robbed some of their future.”

Dr. Perwaiz was also convicted of 52 counts of healthcare fraud and of making false statements in late 2020. His fraud allegedly cost insurance programs nearly $21 million. The investigation began in September 2018 after a hospital employee contacted the FBI after suspecting that Dr. Perwaiz was performing unnecessary surgeries. More than 25 former patients testified at the trial, and the court received more than 60 victim impact statements.

Dr. Perwaiz had a long criminal history, according to the New York Times. In 1982, Dr. Perwaiz lost medical privileges at Maryview Hospital, in Portsmouth, Va., because of performing unnecessary surgeries and displaying poor clinical judgment. His medical license was reinstated in 1998.
 

Doctor who prescribed opioids out of car charged with murder

George M. Blatti, MD, a family physician in New York, was charged with five counts of murder for the opioid-related deaths of his patients and 11 counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree, according to the New York Times. Dr. Blatti’s medical license has been revoked, and he has pleaded not guilty.

Dr. Blatti had been seeing patients and giving prescriptions out of his car in parking lots, where he would prescribe pain medications without examining the patients. Many of these patients were struggling with addiction to opioids or other drugs. The alleged victims — three men and two women, who were between the ages of 30 and 60 — were prescribed 45,000 pills over 4 years, despite the fact that each showed clear signs of addiction, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Blatti knew that several of his patients had died of overdoses, and he ignored pleas from their family members to stop enabling their addictions. They also say he ignored warnings from insurers about excessive opioid prescribing and was questioned by the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct about it in 2017.

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

A new decision pathway for the management of hypertriglyceridemia, prompted by a large and growing body of evidence that elevated triglycerides to a targetable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), has been issued by the American College of Cardiology.

According to the chairman of the writing committee, Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, the recommendations amplify and update more than alter the hypertriglyceridemia treatment recommendations in the 2018 joint multisociety blood cholesterol guidelines issued in 2018.

This decision pathway, however, is focused on triglycerides alone.

“The previous guidelines included a section on strategies for addressing hypertriglyceridemia to reduce ASCVD risk, but this new decision pathway builds on the recommendations with more details and with additional information,” explained Dr. Virani, professor of medicine in the section of cardiovascular research, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Within this newly published document, the definitions of hypertriglyceridemia and rationale for treatment are followed by detailed algorithms for four specific patient groups with varying triglyceride levels:

• Adults with ASCVD.
• Adults at least 40 years of age with diabetes but no ASCVD.
• Adults at least 20 years of age with no ASCVD or diabetes.
• Adults at least 20 years of age with severe hypertriglyceridemia.

“In the design of these algorithms, we made an active effort to make them suitable for use by primary care physicians as well as specialists,” said Dr. Virani. Despite “lots of boxes and arrows,” the flowcharts for each of these patient groups permit clinicians to follow the decision pathway without having to reread the text.

The common emphasis in all four algorithms is to begin by evaluating patients for secondary causes of hypertriglyceridemia, such as multifactorial chylomicronemia syndrome and other diseases associated with elevated triglycerides. The next steps, also common to all algorithms, are to optimize diet and lifestyle changes that lower triglycerides, optimize glycemic control, and optimize statin therapy.

“Although commonly recognized for their impact on LDL-C, statins also provide a 10%-30% dose-dependent reduction in triglycerides in patients with elevated levels,” the guidelines state. Statins are considered a fundamental step to secondary prevention of ASCVD regardless of triglyceride levels.

Once treatable causes or contributors to hypertriglyceridemia have been addressed, lifestyle interventions and statin therapy have been optimized, pharmacologic therapy directed specifically at control of hypertriglyceridemia “can be considered” in those at highest risk of ASCVD events, but Dr. Virani explained that this is never an early or first step in control of elevated triglycerides.

“The entire working group agreed that lifestyle interventions should be highlighted front and center before considering any other intervention,” Dr. Virani explained.

Pharmacologic therapy for hypertriglyceridemia is not ignored. Prescription omega-3 fatty acid products are preferred over nonprescription dietary supplements, which may vary in quality and purity. But these products, rather than a standalone solution, are best applied within the context of efforts to improve diet, lower body weight, and increase physical activity.

Several trials have associated ethyl ester and carboxylic acid preparations with meaningful reductions in triglycerides, but these drugs, including icosapent ethyl (IPE), are not without adverse events. In the pivotal REDUCE-IT trial, IPE was linked with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation relative to placebo.

IPE is “the best option” and the only therapy with an indication for reduction in ASCVD risk, according to Dr. Virani, but he explained that safety concerns led the authors of the new decision pathway to employ cautious language in regard to its use, suggesting that it be “considered” in high-risk patients after other methods of lowering triglycerides have been optimized.

In the algorithm for the four different risk groups, the decision pathways follow stratifications for different levels of hypertriglyceridemia (defined under fasting and nonfasting conditions) and also for specific levels of LDL cholesterol. ASCVD risk assessment is also a factor in determining the next steps along the decision pathway.

According to Michael Davidson, MD, director of the lipid clinic at the University of Chicago, the emphasis on lifestyle changes for hypertriglyceridemia and the prudent language in regard to pharmacologic therapy is appropriate.

“In light of the controversies regarding the REDUCE-IT trial, the writing committee has done a nice job with providing useful guidance regarding the utilization of icosapent ethyl in higher risk patients,” Dr. Davidson said.

Calling the ACC decision pathway “a welcome enhancement of the 2018 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines,” Dr. Davidson praised the way in which the limitations of the evidence regarding pharmacologic therapies were explained.

“Most importantly, this decision pathway helps clinicians appreciate that hypertriglyceridemia can be best managed with lifestyle changes and addressing potential secondary causes,” Dr. Davidson said.

Dr. Virani reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Davidson reports financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies including those making or pursuing therapies for control of hypertriglyceridemia.

A new decision pathway for the management of hypertriglyceridemia, prompted by a large and growing body of evidence that elevated triglycerides to a targetable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), has been issued by the American College of Cardiology.

According to the chairman of the writing committee, Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, the recommendations amplify and update more than alter the hypertriglyceridemia treatment recommendations in the 2018 joint multisociety blood cholesterol guidelines issued in 2018.

This decision pathway, however, is focused on triglycerides alone.

“The previous guidelines included a section on strategies for addressing hypertriglyceridemia to reduce ASCVD risk, but this new decision pathway builds on the recommendations with more details and with additional information,” explained Dr. Virani, professor of medicine in the section of cardiovascular research, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Within this newly published document, the definitions of hypertriglyceridemia and rationale for treatment are followed by detailed algorithms for four specific patient groups with varying triglyceride levels:

• Adults with ASCVD.
• Adults at least 40 years of age with diabetes but no ASCVD.
• Adults at least 20 years of age with no ASCVD or diabetes.
• Adults at least 20 years of age with severe hypertriglyceridemia.

“In the design of these algorithms, we made an active effort to make them suitable for use by primary care physicians as well as specialists,” said Dr. Virani. Despite “lots of boxes and arrows,” the flowcharts for each of these patient groups permit clinicians to follow the decision pathway without having to reread the text.

The common emphasis in all four algorithms is to begin by evaluating patients for secondary causes of hypertriglyceridemia, such as multifactorial chylomicronemia syndrome and other diseases associated with elevated triglycerides. The next steps, also common to all algorithms, are to optimize diet and lifestyle changes that lower triglycerides, optimize glycemic control, and optimize statin therapy.

“Although commonly recognized for their impact on LDL-C, statins also provide a 10%-30% dose-dependent reduction in triglycerides in patients with elevated levels,” the guidelines state. Statins are considered a fundamental step to secondary prevention of ASCVD regardless of triglyceride levels.

Once treatable causes or contributors to hypertriglyceridemia have been addressed, lifestyle interventions and statin therapy have been optimized, pharmacologic therapy directed specifically at control of hypertriglyceridemia “can be considered” in those at highest risk of ASCVD events, but Dr. Virani explained that this is never an early or first step in control of elevated triglycerides.

“The entire working group agreed that lifestyle interventions should be highlighted front and center before considering any other intervention,” Dr. Virani explained.

Pharmacologic therapy for hypertriglyceridemia is not ignored. Prescription omega-3 fatty acid products are preferred over nonprescription dietary supplements, which may vary in quality and purity. But these products, rather than a standalone solution, are best applied within the context of efforts to improve diet, lower body weight, and increase physical activity.

Several trials have associated ethyl ester and carboxylic acid preparations with meaningful reductions in triglycerides, but these drugs, including icosapent ethyl (IPE), are not without adverse events. In the pivotal REDUCE-IT trial, IPE was linked with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation relative to placebo.

IPE is “the best option” and the only therapy with an indication for reduction in ASCVD risk, according to Dr. Virani, but he explained that safety concerns led the authors of the new decision pathway to employ cautious language in regard to its use, suggesting that it be “considered” in high-risk patients after other methods of lowering triglycerides have been optimized.

In the algorithm for the four different risk groups, the decision pathways follow stratifications for different levels of hypertriglyceridemia (defined under fasting and nonfasting conditions) and also for specific levels of LDL cholesterol. ASCVD risk assessment is also a factor in determining the next steps along the decision pathway.

According to Michael Davidson, MD, director of the lipid clinic at the University of Chicago, the emphasis on lifestyle changes for hypertriglyceridemia and the prudent language in regard to pharmacologic therapy is appropriate.

“In light of the controversies regarding the REDUCE-IT trial, the writing committee has done a nice job with providing useful guidance regarding the utilization of icosapent ethyl in higher risk patients,” Dr. Davidson said.

Calling the ACC decision pathway “a welcome enhancement of the 2018 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines,” Dr. Davidson praised the way in which the limitations of the evidence regarding pharmacologic therapies were explained.

“Most importantly, this decision pathway helps clinicians appreciate that hypertriglyceridemia can be best managed with lifestyle changes and addressing potential secondary causes,” Dr. Davidson said.

Dr. Virani reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Davidson reports financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies including those making or pursuing therapies for control of hypertriglyceridemia.

A new decision pathway for the management of hypertriglyceridemia, prompted by a large and growing body of evidence that elevated triglycerides to a targetable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), has been issued by the American College of Cardiology.

According to the chairman of the writing committee, Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, the recommendations amplify and update more than alter the hypertriglyceridemia treatment recommendations in the 2018 joint multisociety blood cholesterol guidelines issued in 2018.

This decision pathway, however, is focused on triglycerides alone.

“The previous guidelines included a section on strategies for addressing hypertriglyceridemia to reduce ASCVD risk, but this new decision pathway builds on the recommendations with more details and with additional information,” explained Dr. Virani, professor of medicine in the section of cardiovascular research, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Within this newly published document, the definitions of hypertriglyceridemia and rationale for treatment are followed by detailed algorithms for four specific patient groups with varying triglyceride levels:

• Adults with ASCVD.
• Adults at least 40 years of age with diabetes but no ASCVD.
• Adults at least 20 years of age with no ASCVD or diabetes.
• Adults at least 20 years of age with severe hypertriglyceridemia.

“In the design of these algorithms, we made an active effort to make them suitable for use by primary care physicians as well as specialists,” said Dr. Virani. Despite “lots of boxes and arrows,” the flowcharts for each of these patient groups permit clinicians to follow the decision pathway without having to reread the text.

The common emphasis in all four algorithms is to begin by evaluating patients for secondary causes of hypertriglyceridemia, such as multifactorial chylomicronemia syndrome and other diseases associated with elevated triglycerides. The next steps, also common to all algorithms, are to optimize diet and lifestyle changes that lower triglycerides, optimize glycemic control, and optimize statin therapy.

“Although commonly recognized for their impact on LDL-C, statins also provide a 10%-30% dose-dependent reduction in triglycerides in patients with elevated levels,” the guidelines state. Statins are considered a fundamental step to secondary prevention of ASCVD regardless of triglyceride levels.

Once treatable causes or contributors to hypertriglyceridemia have been addressed, lifestyle interventions and statin therapy have been optimized, pharmacologic therapy directed specifically at control of hypertriglyceridemia “can be considered” in those at highest risk of ASCVD events, but Dr. Virani explained that this is never an early or first step in control of elevated triglycerides.

“The entire working group agreed that lifestyle interventions should be highlighted front and center before considering any other intervention,” Dr. Virani explained.

Pharmacologic therapy for hypertriglyceridemia is not ignored. Prescription omega-3 fatty acid products are preferred over nonprescription dietary supplements, which may vary in quality and purity. But these products, rather than a standalone solution, are best applied within the context of efforts to improve diet, lower body weight, and increase physical activity.

Several trials have associated ethyl ester and carboxylic acid preparations with meaningful reductions in triglycerides, but these drugs, including icosapent ethyl (IPE), are not without adverse events. In the pivotal REDUCE-IT trial, IPE was linked with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation relative to placebo.

IPE is “the best option” and the only therapy with an indication for reduction in ASCVD risk, according to Dr. Virani, but he explained that safety concerns led the authors of the new decision pathway to employ cautious language in regard to its use, suggesting that it be “considered” in high-risk patients after other methods of lowering triglycerides have been optimized.

In the algorithm for the four different risk groups, the decision pathways follow stratifications for different levels of hypertriglyceridemia (defined under fasting and nonfasting conditions) and also for specific levels of LDL cholesterol. ASCVD risk assessment is also a factor in determining the next steps along the decision pathway.

According to Michael Davidson, MD, director of the lipid clinic at the University of Chicago, the emphasis on lifestyle changes for hypertriglyceridemia and the prudent language in regard to pharmacologic therapy is appropriate.

“In light of the controversies regarding the REDUCE-IT trial, the writing committee has done a nice job with providing useful guidance regarding the utilization of icosapent ethyl in higher risk patients,” Dr. Davidson said.

Calling the ACC decision pathway “a welcome enhancement of the 2018 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines,” Dr. Davidson praised the way in which the limitations of the evidence regarding pharmacologic therapies were explained.

“Most importantly, this decision pathway helps clinicians appreciate that hypertriglyceridemia can be best managed with lifestyle changes and addressing potential secondary causes,” Dr. Davidson said.

Dr. Virani reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Davidson reports financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies including those making or pursuing therapies for control of hypertriglyceridemia.

Vidyard Video

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:  

• Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) manual skills exam: Tips and tricks
• Complete pelvic peritonectomy
• Considerations for the surgical management of diaphragmatic endometriosis

Vidyard Video

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:  

• Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) manual skills exam: Tips and tricks
• Complete pelvic peritonectomy
• Considerations for the surgical management of diaphragmatic endometriosis

Vidyard Video

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:  

• Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) manual skills exam: Tips and tricks
• Complete pelvic peritonectomy
• Considerations for the surgical management of diaphragmatic endometriosis

Many of the changes to cancer clinical trials forced through by the COVID-19 pandemic should remain, as they have made trials “more patient centered and efficient,” according to a group of thought leaders in oncology.

Among the potential improvements were more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessment of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.

These changes should be implemented on a permanent basis, the group argues in a commentary published online July 21, 2021, in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“The ability to distribute oral investigational drugs by mail to patients at their home has probably been the single most impactful change to clinical trial conduct, linked with virtual visits with patients to assess side effects and symptoms,” commented lead author Keith Flaherty, MD, who is director of clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the AACR board of directors.

“This has made it more feasible for patients for whom participation in clinical trials poses a disruption of their ability to work or provide care for family members to participate in trials,” he added in a press statement issued by the AACR.
 

Pandemic halted many clinical trials

A survey of cancer programs in early 2020 showed that nearly 60% halted screening and/or enrollment for at least some trials because of COVID-19.

“In the spring of 2020, clinical trial conduct halted and then restarted focusing on the bare minimum procedures that first allowed patients continued access to their experimental therapies, and then allowed clinical trial sites and sponsors to collect information on the effects of the therapies,” the authors said.

“The COVID-19–induced changes to clinical trials were a big challenge, probably the largest change in clinical trial conduct since the start of modern oncology clinical testing,” they commented.

“But it also represents an opportunity to rethink the key aspects of clinical trial conduct that are strictly necessary to reach the goal of testing the effectiveness of cancer therapies, and which others are dispensable or provide only minor additional contributions,” they added.

As previously reported at the time by this news organization, efforts to find alternative approaches to conducting trials amid the pandemic led to the emergence of a few “silver linings.”

Key adaptations made to clinical trials and highlighted by the authors include:

• Uptake of remote consenting and telemedicine
• Use of alternative laboratories and imaging centers
• Delivery or administration of investigational drugs at patients’ homes or local clinics
• Commercial attainment of study drugs already approved for other indications

Indeed, the restrictions encountered during the pandemic underscore the importance of designing patient-centered trials versus study site–centered trials, added Antoni Ribas, MD, commentary coauthor and immediate past president of the AACR.

Many of the changes implemented during the pandemic could help increase access for patients living in underserved communities who are underrepresented in clinical trials, he explained.
 

Harnessing the lessons learned

The authors also recommended the following additional adaptations, which they believe will enhance efficiency and further expand access to clinical trials:

• Incorporating patient-reported outcomes and alternative endpoints in efficacy assessments
• Aiming for 100% remote drug infusions and monitoring
• Increasing funding for clinical trials conducted in underserved communities
• Expanding clinical trial eligibility to include patients with a wide range of comorbidities
• Reducing collection of low-grade adverse events and allowing minor protocol deviations

The group’s recommendations are based on discussions by the AACR COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force, in which they participated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology is also working to leverage pandemic-related lessons to streamline care and trial planning.

ASCO’s “Road to Recovery” recommendations, published in December 2020, aim to “ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality,” the authors explained.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues further underscore the importance of focusing on improvements going forward.

“Guided by lessons learned, many of the remote assessments and trial efficiencies deployed during the pandemic can be preserved and improved upon. We strongly encourage use of these streamlined procedures where appropriate in future prospectively designed cancer clinical trials,” they wrote.

Dr. Flaherty reported receiving personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ribas reported receiving grants from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Many of the changes to cancer clinical trials forced through by the COVID-19 pandemic should remain, as they have made trials “more patient centered and efficient,” according to a group of thought leaders in oncology.

Among the potential improvements were more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessment of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.

These changes should be implemented on a permanent basis, the group argues in a commentary published online July 21, 2021, in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“The ability to distribute oral investigational drugs by mail to patients at their home has probably been the single most impactful change to clinical trial conduct, linked with virtual visits with patients to assess side effects and symptoms,” commented lead author Keith Flaherty, MD, who is director of clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the AACR board of directors.

“This has made it more feasible for patients for whom participation in clinical trials poses a disruption of their ability to work or provide care for family members to participate in trials,” he added in a press statement issued by the AACR.
 

Pandemic halted many clinical trials

A survey of cancer programs in early 2020 showed that nearly 60% halted screening and/or enrollment for at least some trials because of COVID-19.

“In the spring of 2020, clinical trial conduct halted and then restarted focusing on the bare minimum procedures that first allowed patients continued access to their experimental therapies, and then allowed clinical trial sites and sponsors to collect information on the effects of the therapies,” the authors said.

“The COVID-19–induced changes to clinical trials were a big challenge, probably the largest change in clinical trial conduct since the start of modern oncology clinical testing,” they commented.

“But it also represents an opportunity to rethink the key aspects of clinical trial conduct that are strictly necessary to reach the goal of testing the effectiveness of cancer therapies, and which others are dispensable or provide only minor additional contributions,” they added.

As previously reported at the time by this news organization, efforts to find alternative approaches to conducting trials amid the pandemic led to the emergence of a few “silver linings.”

Key adaptations made to clinical trials and highlighted by the authors include:

• Uptake of remote consenting and telemedicine
• Use of alternative laboratories and imaging centers
• Delivery or administration of investigational drugs at patients’ homes or local clinics
• Commercial attainment of study drugs already approved for other indications

Indeed, the restrictions encountered during the pandemic underscore the importance of designing patient-centered trials versus study site–centered trials, added Antoni Ribas, MD, commentary coauthor and immediate past president of the AACR.

Many of the changes implemented during the pandemic could help increase access for patients living in underserved communities who are underrepresented in clinical trials, he explained.
 

Harnessing the lessons learned

The authors also recommended the following additional adaptations, which they believe will enhance efficiency and further expand access to clinical trials:

• Incorporating patient-reported outcomes and alternative endpoints in efficacy assessments
• Aiming for 100% remote drug infusions and monitoring
• Increasing funding for clinical trials conducted in underserved communities
• Expanding clinical trial eligibility to include patients with a wide range of comorbidities
• Reducing collection of low-grade adverse events and allowing minor protocol deviations

The group’s recommendations are based on discussions by the AACR COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force, in which they participated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology is also working to leverage pandemic-related lessons to streamline care and trial planning.

ASCO’s “Road to Recovery” recommendations, published in December 2020, aim to “ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality,” the authors explained.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues further underscore the importance of focusing on improvements going forward.

“Guided by lessons learned, many of the remote assessments and trial efficiencies deployed during the pandemic can be preserved and improved upon. We strongly encourage use of these streamlined procedures where appropriate in future prospectively designed cancer clinical trials,” they wrote.

Dr. Flaherty reported receiving personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ribas reported receiving grants from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Many of the changes to cancer clinical trials forced through by the COVID-19 pandemic should remain, as they have made trials “more patient centered and efficient,” according to a group of thought leaders in oncology.

Among the potential improvements were more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessment of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.

These changes should be implemented on a permanent basis, the group argues in a commentary published online July 21, 2021, in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“The ability to distribute oral investigational drugs by mail to patients at their home has probably been the single most impactful change to clinical trial conduct, linked with virtual visits with patients to assess side effects and symptoms,” commented lead author Keith Flaherty, MD, who is director of clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the AACR board of directors.

“This has made it more feasible for patients for whom participation in clinical trials poses a disruption of their ability to work or provide care for family members to participate in trials,” he added in a press statement issued by the AACR.
 

Pandemic halted many clinical trials

A survey of cancer programs in early 2020 showed that nearly 60% halted screening and/or enrollment for at least some trials because of COVID-19.

“In the spring of 2020, clinical trial conduct halted and then restarted focusing on the bare minimum procedures that first allowed patients continued access to their experimental therapies, and then allowed clinical trial sites and sponsors to collect information on the effects of the therapies,” the authors said.

“The COVID-19–induced changes to clinical trials were a big challenge, probably the largest change in clinical trial conduct since the start of modern oncology clinical testing,” they commented.

“But it also represents an opportunity to rethink the key aspects of clinical trial conduct that are strictly necessary to reach the goal of testing the effectiveness of cancer therapies, and which others are dispensable or provide only minor additional contributions,” they added.

As previously reported at the time by this news organization, efforts to find alternative approaches to conducting trials amid the pandemic led to the emergence of a few “silver linings.”

Key adaptations made to clinical trials and highlighted by the authors include:

• Uptake of remote consenting and telemedicine
• Use of alternative laboratories and imaging centers
• Delivery or administration of investigational drugs at patients’ homes or local clinics
• Commercial attainment of study drugs already approved for other indications

Indeed, the restrictions encountered during the pandemic underscore the importance of designing patient-centered trials versus study site–centered trials, added Antoni Ribas, MD, commentary coauthor and immediate past president of the AACR.

Many of the changes implemented during the pandemic could help increase access for patients living in underserved communities who are underrepresented in clinical trials, he explained.
 

Harnessing the lessons learned

The authors also recommended the following additional adaptations, which they believe will enhance efficiency and further expand access to clinical trials:

• Incorporating patient-reported outcomes and alternative endpoints in efficacy assessments
• Aiming for 100% remote drug infusions and monitoring
• Increasing funding for clinical trials conducted in underserved communities
• Expanding clinical trial eligibility to include patients with a wide range of comorbidities
• Reducing collection of low-grade adverse events and allowing minor protocol deviations

The group’s recommendations are based on discussions by the AACR COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force, in which they participated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology is also working to leverage pandemic-related lessons to streamline care and trial planning.

ASCO’s “Road to Recovery” recommendations, published in December 2020, aim to “ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality,” the authors explained.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues further underscore the importance of focusing on improvements going forward.

“Guided by lessons learned, many of the remote assessments and trial efficiencies deployed during the pandemic can be preserved and improved upon. We strongly encourage use of these streamlined procedures where appropriate in future prospectively designed cancer clinical trials,” they wrote.

Dr. Flaherty reported receiving personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ribas reported receiving grants from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

AGA journals’ reach record-high Impact Factors

AGA is proud to announce that its journals have maintained their exceptional standing in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology, based on Impact Factor. The Impact Factor is a measure of the frequency with which articles published in the previous 2 years are cited and is commonly used to rank the significance of journals within their fields.

Gastroenterology, AGA’s flagship journal, received a record-high Impact Factor of 22.682, a substantial increase from its 2019 Impact Factor of 17.37. Gastroenterology maintains its position among an elite group of journals focused on publishing original research, spanning basic to clinical, in our field. Co–Editors in Chief (EICs) Richard M. Peek Jr., MD, and Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, remarked, “We would like to thank our entire board of editors and reviewers, as well as the incredible AGA editorial staff, for their exceptional work in this challenging pandemic year as we continue to publish articles and reviews of outstanding quality that are widely used by our readership. It is an honor to be part of such a remarkable team.”

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), AGA’s clinically focused journal, also reached a record high with an Impact Factor of 11.382, pulling ahead as the field’s top exclusively clinically oriented journal. This puts CGH at a rank of 8th among 92 journals in the field. Fasiha Kanwal, MD, MSHS, EIC of CGH, noted, “We are delighted that CGH remains in a strong position in the top 10 GI journals in terms of Impact Factor. On behalf of the CGH board of editors, I want to extend a warm and most heartfelt thanks to our authors, reviewers, and readers!  We would not have been able to achieve this milestone without your support, contributions, and the faith that you place in us.”

To round things out, Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH), AGA’s basic and translational open-access journal also reached a record high with an Impact Factor of 9.225, placing it 13th, and second among nonclinical journals in that topic area. EICs Klaus Kaestner, PhD, and Michael Pack, MD, stated, “As co-EICs of CMGH, we send congratulations to the journal’s board of editors, editorial board, reviewers, and superb editorial staff on this year’s Impact Factor. We are honored to work with these outstanding colleagues and to provide our readership with highly impactful and cutting-edge research and review articles.”

In its online announcement, AGA congratulates and thanks the boards of all three journals for their editorial leadership. We also thank our authors, readers, and reviewers for their continued support of AGA’s journals. We look forward to continuing to push the envelope in scientific publishing in the upcoming year.
 

AGA journals select new editorial fellows

The AGA journals Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH), and Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (TIGE) recently selected the recipients of their editorial fellowships, which will run from July 2021 through June 2022. The AGA editorial fellowship program is in its 4th year. 

• Amisha Ahuja, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Helenie Kefalalkes, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Katherine Falloon, MD (CGH)
• Judy Trieu, MD, MPH (CGH)
• Lindsey Kennedy, PhD (CMGH)
• Vivian Ortiz, MD (CMGH)  
• Sagarika Satyavada, MD (TIGE)
• Eric Swei, MD (TIGE)

Gain perspectives, insights, and experience in diagnostic and therapeutic GI care

Accurately diagnosing and treating GI disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, or eosinophilic esophagitis are challenging for any health care practitioners. Why not be the advanced practice provider (APP) in your practice that others look to for providing the best course of action for patients? The all-virtual 2021 Principles of GI for the NP and PA, Aug. 14-15, 2021, explores these GI conditions in detail, as well as colorectal cancer and disorders of the liver and pancreas, to give you a foundation in which to provide superlative patient care.

The virtual format also offers a safe and affordable forum for learning from your home or office as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic continues to be felt throughout 2021. You’ll also benefit from on-demand access for 2 years after the live course so you can reference and refresh what you learned.

Take the opportunity to refine your skills and improve your patient care outcomes. 
 

Honor your peers with an AGA Recognition Award

When you think about outstanding GI educators, clinicians, investigators, and mentors, who comes to mind?  

Share your appreciation by nominating your colleagues for a prestigious 2022 AGA Recognition Award! 

Make your nominee stand out by sharing specific examples of how they have devoted themselves to eradicating the world of digestive disease, demonstrated innovation in bettering our community, and made a lasting impact, all of which exemplifies an outstanding AGA member. 

Need some inspiration? Read about our 2021 winners before submitting your nomination. 

AGA journals’ reach record-high Impact Factors

AGA is proud to announce that its journals have maintained their exceptional standing in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology, based on Impact Factor. The Impact Factor is a measure of the frequency with which articles published in the previous 2 years are cited and is commonly used to rank the significance of journals within their fields.

Gastroenterology, AGA’s flagship journal, received a record-high Impact Factor of 22.682, a substantial increase from its 2019 Impact Factor of 17.37. Gastroenterology maintains its position among an elite group of journals focused on publishing original research, spanning basic to clinical, in our field. Co–Editors in Chief (EICs) Richard M. Peek Jr., MD, and Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, remarked, “We would like to thank our entire board of editors and reviewers, as well as the incredible AGA editorial staff, for their exceptional work in this challenging pandemic year as we continue to publish articles and reviews of outstanding quality that are widely used by our readership. It is an honor to be part of such a remarkable team.”

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), AGA’s clinically focused journal, also reached a record high with an Impact Factor of 11.382, pulling ahead as the field’s top exclusively clinically oriented journal. This puts CGH at a rank of 8th among 92 journals in the field. Fasiha Kanwal, MD, MSHS, EIC of CGH, noted, “We are delighted that CGH remains in a strong position in the top 10 GI journals in terms of Impact Factor. On behalf of the CGH board of editors, I want to extend a warm and most heartfelt thanks to our authors, reviewers, and readers!  We would not have been able to achieve this milestone without your support, contributions, and the faith that you place in us.”

To round things out, Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH), AGA’s basic and translational open-access journal also reached a record high with an Impact Factor of 9.225, placing it 13th, and second among nonclinical journals in that topic area. EICs Klaus Kaestner, PhD, and Michael Pack, MD, stated, “As co-EICs of CMGH, we send congratulations to the journal’s board of editors, editorial board, reviewers, and superb editorial staff on this year’s Impact Factor. We are honored to work with these outstanding colleagues and to provide our readership with highly impactful and cutting-edge research and review articles.”

In its online announcement, AGA congratulates and thanks the boards of all three journals for their editorial leadership. We also thank our authors, readers, and reviewers for their continued support of AGA’s journals. We look forward to continuing to push the envelope in scientific publishing in the upcoming year.
 

AGA journals select new editorial fellows

The AGA journals Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH), and Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (TIGE) recently selected the recipients of their editorial fellowships, which will run from July 2021 through June 2022. The AGA editorial fellowship program is in its 4th year. 

• Amisha Ahuja, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Helenie Kefalalkes, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Katherine Falloon, MD (CGH)
• Judy Trieu, MD, MPH (CGH)
• Lindsey Kennedy, PhD (CMGH)
• Vivian Ortiz, MD (CMGH)  
• Sagarika Satyavada, MD (TIGE)
• Eric Swei, MD (TIGE)

Gain perspectives, insights, and experience in diagnostic and therapeutic GI care

Accurately diagnosing and treating GI disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, or eosinophilic esophagitis are challenging for any health care practitioners. Why not be the advanced practice provider (APP) in your practice that others look to for providing the best course of action for patients? The all-virtual 2021 Principles of GI for the NP and PA, Aug. 14-15, 2021, explores these GI conditions in detail, as well as colorectal cancer and disorders of the liver and pancreas, to give you a foundation in which to provide superlative patient care.

The virtual format also offers a safe and affordable forum for learning from your home or office as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic continues to be felt throughout 2021. You’ll also benefit from on-demand access for 2 years after the live course so you can reference and refresh what you learned.

Take the opportunity to refine your skills and improve your patient care outcomes. 
 

Honor your peers with an AGA Recognition Award

When you think about outstanding GI educators, clinicians, investigators, and mentors, who comes to mind?  

Share your appreciation by nominating your colleagues for a prestigious 2022 AGA Recognition Award! 

Make your nominee stand out by sharing specific examples of how they have devoted themselves to eradicating the world of digestive disease, demonstrated innovation in bettering our community, and made a lasting impact, all of which exemplifies an outstanding AGA member. 

Need some inspiration? Read about our 2021 winners before submitting your nomination. 

AGA journals’ reach record-high Impact Factors

AGA is proud to announce that its journals have maintained their exceptional standing in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology, based on Impact Factor. The Impact Factor is a measure of the frequency with which articles published in the previous 2 years are cited and is commonly used to rank the significance of journals within their fields.

Gastroenterology, AGA’s flagship journal, received a record-high Impact Factor of 22.682, a substantial increase from its 2019 Impact Factor of 17.37. Gastroenterology maintains its position among an elite group of journals focused on publishing original research, spanning basic to clinical, in our field. Co–Editors in Chief (EICs) Richard M. Peek Jr., MD, and Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, remarked, “We would like to thank our entire board of editors and reviewers, as well as the incredible AGA editorial staff, for their exceptional work in this challenging pandemic year as we continue to publish articles and reviews of outstanding quality that are widely used by our readership. It is an honor to be part of such a remarkable team.”

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), AGA’s clinically focused journal, also reached a record high with an Impact Factor of 11.382, pulling ahead as the field’s top exclusively clinically oriented journal. This puts CGH at a rank of 8th among 92 journals in the field. Fasiha Kanwal, MD, MSHS, EIC of CGH, noted, “We are delighted that CGH remains in a strong position in the top 10 GI journals in terms of Impact Factor. On behalf of the CGH board of editors, I want to extend a warm and most heartfelt thanks to our authors, reviewers, and readers!  We would not have been able to achieve this milestone without your support, contributions, and the faith that you place in us.”

To round things out, Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH), AGA’s basic and translational open-access journal also reached a record high with an Impact Factor of 9.225, placing it 13th, and second among nonclinical journals in that topic area. EICs Klaus Kaestner, PhD, and Michael Pack, MD, stated, “As co-EICs of CMGH, we send congratulations to the journal’s board of editors, editorial board, reviewers, and superb editorial staff on this year’s Impact Factor. We are honored to work with these outstanding colleagues and to provide our readership with highly impactful and cutting-edge research and review articles.”

In its online announcement, AGA congratulates and thanks the boards of all three journals for their editorial leadership. We also thank our authors, readers, and reviewers for their continued support of AGA’s journals. We look forward to continuing to push the envelope in scientific publishing in the upcoming year.
 

AGA journals select new editorial fellows

The AGA journals Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH), and Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (TIGE) recently selected the recipients of their editorial fellowships, which will run from July 2021 through June 2022. The AGA editorial fellowship program is in its 4th year. 

• Amisha Ahuja, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Helenie Kefalalkes, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Katherine Falloon, MD (CGH)
• Judy Trieu, MD, MPH (CGH)
• Lindsey Kennedy, PhD (CMGH)
• Vivian Ortiz, MD (CMGH)  
• Sagarika Satyavada, MD (TIGE)
• Eric Swei, MD (TIGE)

Gain perspectives, insights, and experience in diagnostic and therapeutic GI care

Accurately diagnosing and treating GI disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, or eosinophilic esophagitis are challenging for any health care practitioners. Why not be the advanced practice provider (APP) in your practice that others look to for providing the best course of action for patients? The all-virtual 2021 Principles of GI for the NP and PA, Aug. 14-15, 2021, explores these GI conditions in detail, as well as colorectal cancer and disorders of the liver and pancreas, to give you a foundation in which to provide superlative patient care.

The virtual format also offers a safe and affordable forum for learning from your home or office as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic continues to be felt throughout 2021. You’ll also benefit from on-demand access for 2 years after the live course so you can reference and refresh what you learned.

Take the opportunity to refine your skills and improve your patient care outcomes. 
 

Honor your peers with an AGA Recognition Award

When you think about outstanding GI educators, clinicians, investigators, and mentors, who comes to mind?  

Share your appreciation by nominating your colleagues for a prestigious 2022 AGA Recognition Award! 

Make your nominee stand out by sharing specific examples of how they have devoted themselves to eradicating the world of digestive disease, demonstrated innovation in bettering our community, and made a lasting impact, all of which exemplifies an outstanding AGA member. 

Need some inspiration? Read about our 2021 winners before submitting your nomination. 

Background: Postcontrast acute kidney injury (PC-AKI) is known to have a mild, often self-limiting, clinical course. Despite this, preventative measures are advised by international guidelines in high-risk patients.

Dr. Moulder is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: Postcontrast acute kidney injury (PC-AKI) is known to have a mild, often self-limiting, clinical course. Despite this, preventative measures are advised by international guidelines in high-risk patients.

Dr. Moulder is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: Postcontrast acute kidney injury (PC-AKI) is known to have a mild, often self-limiting, clinical course. Despite this, preventative measures are advised by international guidelines in high-risk patients.

Dr. Moulder is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

When used for appropriate patients, MRI imaging is helpful in congenital melanocytic nevus (CMN) management and may help predict neurologic outcomes or drive neurosurgical intervention, results from a small multi-institutional study showed.

“The majority of congenital nevi are considered low risk for cutaneous and/or systemic complications,” Holly Neale said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “However, a subset of children born with higher-risk congenital nevi require close monitoring, as some features of congenital nevi have been associated with cutaneous melanoma, central nervous system melanoma, melanin in the brain or spine, and structural irregularities in the brain or spine. It’s important to understand which congenital nevi are considered higher risk in order to guide management and counseling decisions.”

One major management decision is to do a screening magnetic resonance image of the CNS to evaluate for neurologic involvement, said Ms. Neale, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. Prior studies have shown that congenital nevi that are bigger than 20 cm, posterior axial location, and having more than one congenital nevus may predict CNS abnormalities, while recent guidelines from experts in the field suggest that any child with more than one congenital nevus at birth undergo screening MRI.

“However, guidelines are evolving, and more data is required to better understand the CNS abnormalities and patient outcomes for children with congenital nevi,” said Ms. Neale, who spent the past year as a pediatric dermatology research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

To address this knowledge gap, she and colleagues at the University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Boston Children’s Hospital performed a retrospective chart review between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2019, of individuals ages 18 and younger who had an MRI of the brain or spine with at least one dermatologist-diagnosed nevus as identified via key words in the medical record. Of the 909 patients screened, 46 met inclusion criteria, evenly split between males and females.

The most common location of the largest nevus was the trunk (in 41% of patients), followed by lesions that spanned multiple regions. More than one-third of patients had giant nevi (greater than 40 cm).

“The majority of images were considered nonconcerning, which includes normal, benign, or other findings such as trauma related, infectious, or orthopedic, which we did not classify as abnormal as it did not guide our study question,” Ms. Neale said. Specifically, 8% of spine images and 27% of brain images were considered “concerning,” defined as any finding that prompted further workup or monitoring, which includes findings concerning for melanin.

The most common brain finding was melanin (in eight children), and one child with brain melanin also had findings suggestive of melanin in the thoracic spine. The most common finding in spine MRIs was fatty filum (in four children), requiring intervention for tethering in only one individual. No cases of cutaneous melanoma developed during the study period, and only one patient with abnormal imaging had CNS melanoma, which was fatal.

All patients with findings suggestive of CNS melanin had more than four nevi present at birth, which is in line with current imaging screening guidelines. In addition, children with concerning imaging had higher rates of death, neurodevelopmental problems, seizures, and neurosurgery, compared with their counterparts with unremarkable imaging findings. Describing preliminary analyses, Ms. Neale said that a chi square analysis was performed to test statistical significance of these differences, “and neurosurgery was the only variable that children with concerning imaging were significantly more likely to experience, although sample size limits detection for the other variables.”

The authors concluded that MRI is a helpful tool when used in the appropriate clinical context for the management of congenital nevi. “As more children undergo imaging, we may discover more nonmelanin abnormalities,” she said.

Joseph M. Lam, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the increased risk of CNS melanin in patients with larger lesions and in those with multiple lesions confirms previous reports.

“It is interesting to note that some patients with nonconcerning imaging results still had neurodevelopmental problems and seizures, albeit at a lower rate than those with concerning imaging results,” said Dr. Lam, a pediatric dermatologist at British Columbia Children’s Hospital, Vancouver. “The lack of a control group for comparison of rates of neurological sequelae, such as NDP, seizures and nonmelanin structural anomalies, limits the generalizability of the findings. However, this is a nice study that helps us understand better the CNS anomalies in CMN.”

Ms. Neale acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the lack of a control group without CMN, the small number of patients, the potential for referral bias, and its retrospective design. Also, the proximity of the study period does not allow for chronic follow-up and detection of the development of melanoma or other problems in the future.

Ms. Neale and associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Lam disclosed that he has received speaker fees from Pierre Fabre.

[email protected]

When used for appropriate patients, MRI imaging is helpful in congenital melanocytic nevus (CMN) management and may help predict neurologic outcomes or drive neurosurgical intervention, results from a small multi-institutional study showed.

“The majority of congenital nevi are considered low risk for cutaneous and/or systemic complications,” Holly Neale said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “However, a subset of children born with higher-risk congenital nevi require close monitoring, as some features of congenital nevi have been associated with cutaneous melanoma, central nervous system melanoma, melanin in the brain or spine, and structural irregularities in the brain or spine. It’s important to understand which congenital nevi are considered higher risk in order to guide management and counseling decisions.”

One major management decision is to do a screening magnetic resonance image of the CNS to evaluate for neurologic involvement, said Ms. Neale, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. Prior studies have shown that congenital nevi that are bigger than 20 cm, posterior axial location, and having more than one congenital nevus may predict CNS abnormalities, while recent guidelines from experts in the field suggest that any child with more than one congenital nevus at birth undergo screening MRI.

“However, guidelines are evolving, and more data is required to better understand the CNS abnormalities and patient outcomes for children with congenital nevi,” said Ms. Neale, who spent the past year as a pediatric dermatology research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

To address this knowledge gap, she and colleagues at the University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Boston Children’s Hospital performed a retrospective chart review between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2019, of individuals ages 18 and younger who had an MRI of the brain or spine with at least one dermatologist-diagnosed nevus as identified via key words in the medical record. Of the 909 patients screened, 46 met inclusion criteria, evenly split between males and females.

The most common location of the largest nevus was the trunk (in 41% of patients), followed by lesions that spanned multiple regions. More than one-third of patients had giant nevi (greater than 40 cm).

“The majority of images were considered nonconcerning, which includes normal, benign, or other findings such as trauma related, infectious, or orthopedic, which we did not classify as abnormal as it did not guide our study question,” Ms. Neale said. Specifically, 8% of spine images and 27% of brain images were considered “concerning,” defined as any finding that prompted further workup or monitoring, which includes findings concerning for melanin.

The most common brain finding was melanin (in eight children), and one child with brain melanin also had findings suggestive of melanin in the thoracic spine. The most common finding in spine MRIs was fatty filum (in four children), requiring intervention for tethering in only one individual. No cases of cutaneous melanoma developed during the study period, and only one patient with abnormal imaging had CNS melanoma, which was fatal.

All patients with findings suggestive of CNS melanin had more than four nevi present at birth, which is in line with current imaging screening guidelines. In addition, children with concerning imaging had higher rates of death, neurodevelopmental problems, seizures, and neurosurgery, compared with their counterparts with unremarkable imaging findings. Describing preliminary analyses, Ms. Neale said that a chi square analysis was performed to test statistical significance of these differences, “and neurosurgery was the only variable that children with concerning imaging were significantly more likely to experience, although sample size limits detection for the other variables.”

The authors concluded that MRI is a helpful tool when used in the appropriate clinical context for the management of congenital nevi. “As more children undergo imaging, we may discover more nonmelanin abnormalities,” she said.

Joseph M. Lam, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the increased risk of CNS melanin in patients with larger lesions and in those with multiple lesions confirms previous reports.

“It is interesting to note that some patients with nonconcerning imaging results still had neurodevelopmental problems and seizures, albeit at a lower rate than those with concerning imaging results,” said Dr. Lam, a pediatric dermatologist at British Columbia Children’s Hospital, Vancouver. “The lack of a control group for comparison of rates of neurological sequelae, such as NDP, seizures and nonmelanin structural anomalies, limits the generalizability of the findings. However, this is a nice study that helps us understand better the CNS anomalies in CMN.”

Ms. Neale acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the lack of a control group without CMN, the small number of patients, the potential for referral bias, and its retrospective design. Also, the proximity of the study period does not allow for chronic follow-up and detection of the development of melanoma or other problems in the future.

Ms. Neale and associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Lam disclosed that he has received speaker fees from Pierre Fabre.

[email protected]

When used for appropriate patients, MRI imaging is helpful in congenital melanocytic nevus (CMN) management and may help predict neurologic outcomes or drive neurosurgical intervention, results from a small multi-institutional study showed.

“The majority of congenital nevi are considered low risk for cutaneous and/or systemic complications,” Holly Neale said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “However, a subset of children born with higher-risk congenital nevi require close monitoring, as some features of congenital nevi have been associated with cutaneous melanoma, central nervous system melanoma, melanin in the brain or spine, and structural irregularities in the brain or spine. It’s important to understand which congenital nevi are considered higher risk in order to guide management and counseling decisions.”

One major management decision is to do a screening magnetic resonance image of the CNS to evaluate for neurologic involvement, said Ms. Neale, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. Prior studies have shown that congenital nevi that are bigger than 20 cm, posterior axial location, and having more than one congenital nevus may predict CNS abnormalities, while recent guidelines from experts in the field suggest that any child with more than one congenital nevus at birth undergo screening MRI.

“However, guidelines are evolving, and more data is required to better understand the CNS abnormalities and patient outcomes for children with congenital nevi,” said Ms. Neale, who spent the past year as a pediatric dermatology research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

To address this knowledge gap, she and colleagues at the University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Boston Children’s Hospital performed a retrospective chart review between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2019, of individuals ages 18 and younger who had an MRI of the brain or spine with at least one dermatologist-diagnosed nevus as identified via key words in the medical record. Of the 909 patients screened, 46 met inclusion criteria, evenly split between males and females.

The most common location of the largest nevus was the trunk (in 41% of patients), followed by lesions that spanned multiple regions. More than one-third of patients had giant nevi (greater than 40 cm).

“The majority of images were considered nonconcerning, which includes normal, benign, or other findings such as trauma related, infectious, or orthopedic, which we did not classify as abnormal as it did not guide our study question,” Ms. Neale said. Specifically, 8% of spine images and 27% of brain images were considered “concerning,” defined as any finding that prompted further workup or monitoring, which includes findings concerning for melanin.

The most common brain finding was melanin (in eight children), and one child with brain melanin also had findings suggestive of melanin in the thoracic spine. The most common finding in spine MRIs was fatty filum (in four children), requiring intervention for tethering in only one individual. No cases of cutaneous melanoma developed during the study period, and only one patient with abnormal imaging had CNS melanoma, which was fatal.

All patients with findings suggestive of CNS melanin had more than four nevi present at birth, which is in line with current imaging screening guidelines. In addition, children with concerning imaging had higher rates of death, neurodevelopmental problems, seizures, and neurosurgery, compared with their counterparts with unremarkable imaging findings. Describing preliminary analyses, Ms. Neale said that a chi square analysis was performed to test statistical significance of these differences, “and neurosurgery was the only variable that children with concerning imaging were significantly more likely to experience, although sample size limits detection for the other variables.”

The authors concluded that MRI is a helpful tool when used in the appropriate clinical context for the management of congenital nevi. “As more children undergo imaging, we may discover more nonmelanin abnormalities,” she said.

Joseph M. Lam, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the increased risk of CNS melanin in patients with larger lesions and in those with multiple lesions confirms previous reports.

“It is interesting to note that some patients with nonconcerning imaging results still had neurodevelopmental problems and seizures, albeit at a lower rate than those with concerning imaging results,” said Dr. Lam, a pediatric dermatologist at British Columbia Children’s Hospital, Vancouver. “The lack of a control group for comparison of rates of neurological sequelae, such as NDP, seizures and nonmelanin structural anomalies, limits the generalizability of the findings. However, this is a nice study that helps us understand better the CNS anomalies in CMN.”

Ms. Neale acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the lack of a control group without CMN, the small number of patients, the potential for referral bias, and its retrospective design. Also, the proximity of the study period does not allow for chronic follow-up and detection of the development of melanoma or other problems in the future.

Ms. Neale and associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Lam disclosed that he has received speaker fees from Pierre Fabre.

[email protected]

Clinical trials underway across the United States are exploring the use of robotic surgical devices for nipple-sparing mastectomy, but are either not collecting cancer outcomes or not doing so as a primary measure – despite a stiff warning from the Food and Drug Administration that those outcomes are important.

The FDA warning was issued in February 2019 to both the public and physicians. The FDA cautioned that the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgical devices for mastectomy “have not been established” and robots are not approved for the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.

The agency also noted that “diminished long-term survival” was associated with robotic surgery in another women’s cancer, that of hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

The FDA also made a surprising statement. The agency typically approves the robot for surgical use based on 30-day complication rates (compared with standards of care). But it said that going forward it “anticipates” that any evaluation of new use of robots in cancer “would be supported” by cancer outcomes such as progression-free survival and overall survival, which require much longer follow-up.

In short, the FDA hinted that it would change how it regulated medical devices, or at least robots used in women’s cancers. “The FDA takes women’s health very seriously,” said the organization.

Fast forward to 2021, and there are several prospective clinical trials of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy underway in the United States, including a five-center study sponsored by Intuitive Surgical, the maker of da Vinci robots, the dominant machine on the market. There are also single-center studies at Ohio State and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

However, in each case, the study design either excludes cancer outcomes or does not primarily focus on those measures.

Instead, the primary outcomes are relatively short term and include safety and efficacy measures such as en bloc (in one piece) removal of the breast tissue, conversions to open mastectomy, and the incidence of adverse events during surgery and up to 6 weeks after surgery.

Importantly, none of the studies is a randomized trial; all have single arms.

That’s not what is needed, says breast surgeon Julie A. Margenthaler, MD of Washington University in St. Louis.

“I firmly believe that robotic-assisted mastectomy should only be considered in the context of a well-designed, randomized trial evaluating patient selection, patient safety, surgical complications, and oncologic outcomes with a concomitant cost analysis,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote in an essay published last year in JAMA Surgery.

As with the FDA warning, she cites worse survival with commonly used minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, saying it “is a stark reminder that the marketing of robotic surgery has its roots in cosmesis and convenience rather than oncologic outcomes.”

In addition, robotic surgery is prohibitively expensive, said Dr. Margenthaler. In fact, cost is her “main criticism regarding robotic-assisted mastectomy.” It costs an additional $6,000 for robot use per procedure, according to a study conducted at a center in Taiwan. “I simply cannot be convinced that this will ever achieve cost-effective or even cost-neutral status,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote.
 

Not looking at the right outcomes

“They’re not looking at the right outcomes,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, about the current trials in the United States. He is a former surgeon and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and is now a patient advocate after his wife, Amy Reed, MD, died of uterine cancer in 2017 following a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with a power morcellator that resulted in the upstaging of an undetected gynecologic cancer.

“You have to look at oncologic outcomes and do randomized, noninferiority trials to demonstrate that those cancer outcomes are at least equivalent to standard of care,” he said in an interview.

The current U.S. trials are “totally inappropriate,” he said.

Are randomized trials forthcoming after this initial set of single-arm trials? This news organization reached out to Intuitive Surgical, maker of the market leader da Vinci robotic surgical equipment to find out.  

“Any plans for use of da Vinci Xi surgical system in nipple-sparing mastectomy will be based on these [single-arm] study results as well as other data and evidence,” said a company spokesperson, who did not confirm use of a randomized trial.

What about the FDA? Will the agency change its current approach to approving robots in surgeries for women’s cancers and require – not just anticipate – cancer-related outcomes data? At press time, the FDA did not respond to a request for comment.  

Not having a randomized trial with cancer outcomes in any eventual FDA review opens the door for robotic mastectomy to be cleared for use in some mastectomies with short-term, nononcologic data, said Dr. Noorchashm.
 

Safety concerns with robotic mastectomy

Proponents of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, which is coupled with reconstruction to preserve the shape of both the breast and nipple-areola area, suggest that improved patient cosmesis is a significant advantage with the high-tech intervention, said Dr. Margenthaler.

That’s because most robotic mastectomies performed to date (almost exclusively in Europe and Asia) have employed a 3- to 5-cm vertical incision located behind the lateral breast fold, allowing the scar to be hidden under the patient’s arm.

But therein also lies a safety concern, she asserted.

The “oncologic integrity” of the specimen on extraction is in question in some cases, she wrote, because of “such a small opening.”

Dr. Noorchashm agreed: “It all comes down to trying to get a large specimen out of a small incision.”

Traditional open mastectomy optimally yields the en bloc removal of a tumor – in one whole piece – to avoid fragmenting the cancerous tissue and possibly leaving residual disease behind. These undesirable events are associated with a higher risk for recurrence and treatment failure, he explained.

Thus, there is a need for a randomized trial with longer-term oncologic outcomes that compares the new approach with traditional open mastectomy, argued both Dr. Margenthaler and Dr. Noorchashm.
 

In defense of single-arm trials

“Oncologic safety is what we are concerned about and what we would like to study,” said Ko Un (Clara) Park, MD, a breast surgeon at The Ohio State University in Columbus.

Dr. Park is leading a single-center, single-arm pilot study of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy enrolling up to 20 women with early-stage breast cancer or inherited genetic risk factors (but no cancer diagnosis). The trial, sponsored by a Pelotonia Idea Grant and Ohio State, recently enrolled its first patient.

The study’s primary outcomes include the feasibility of removal of the breast tissue en bloc; however, none of the outcomes are classic oncologic metrics such as progression-free survival.

The en bloc removal outcome is in direct response to the FDA’s concerns about minimally invasive cancer surgeries in women, Dr. Park said in an interview. The pilot trial has an investigational device exemption (IDE) granted by the FDA.

“The reason why we can’t just open a randomized controlled study (of robot versus open) and measure oncologic outcomes like recurrence-free survival is because, before we get to that point, we have to make sure” basic safety issues are addressed and established, she explained.

But Dr. Noorchashm said that argument is missing the larger, more important point: “They are still doing an oncologic procedure – you are still obliged to do noninferiority [randomized] testing with respect to cancer outcomes.”

Dr. Park sounded a different note: “We are doing it as safely as we can do it.”
 

Prophylactic use is also a cancer surgery

Intuitive’s five-center trial does not include en bloc removal of the breast gland as a primary outcome. Instead, the two primary outcomes are conversions to open mastectomy (efficacy measure) and the incidence of adverse events during surgery to 42 days after surgery (safety measure).

The company’s trial does not include any women with breast cancer, but is limited to women at increased risk for breast cancer and seeking prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy surgery.

Enrollment in the 145-patient single-arm trial began in the last few months and has a primary completion date of December 2022. It also has an IDE from the FDA.

“I do think that things like this need to be done with caution,” said Katherine Kopkash, MD, an investigator in the Intuitive trial and a breast surgeon at NorthShore University HealthSystem in Evanston, Ill., referring to the trial’s FDA exemption.  

Dr. Kopkash said in an interview that the researchers in the multisite, single-arm Intuitive trial will also track oncologic outcomes, but the trial description at clinicaltrials.gov does not indicate that.

Both Dr. Kopkash and Dr. Park cited the high-profile missteps that took place in 2018 at Monmouth County Medical Center in Long Branch, N.J., during what was described as the first-ever use of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for invasive cancer in the United States, as reported by Medscape Medical News. However, neither the center or surgeon, Stephen Chagares, MD, requested or received an IDE from the FDA, and use of robotic mastectomy was halted after two cases.

It’s conceivable that Intuitive will seek out FDA clearance for use of its da Vinci system in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with data in a prophylactic setting and then expand the pool of patients, argued Dr. Noorchashm.

“Even if you introduce a new technology ... for a narrow subset of patients, the application of it eventually occurs on a ‘sliding scale,’ ” he said.

The former surgeon gave an example: The first device used in gastric bypass surgery was cleared for use in 2001 by the FDA for adults who were “severely morbidly obese.” But by the late 2000s, the operation was also being performed on people with lower body mass indexes who hadn’t exhausted traditional weight loss procedures. “It was very lucrative,” Dr. Noorchashm said about the surgery.
 

Surgeons only get one body

Intuitive has been hugely successful in developing and marketing its da Vinci system around the world for general and oncologic surgeries, with more than 1 million surgeries in 2018, a greater than sevenfold increase in 10 years, according to the authors of a new essay published in the June issue of the Annals of Surgery. The authors include breast surgeon Rosa F. Hwang, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who is also an investigator for the Intuitive trial.

However, robotic mastectomy is still a new surgery – only about 150 patients have been treated in the world, mostly in Italy, France, Taiwan, and Korea, the authors noted.

Despite such small numbers, “there’s a lot of interest in bringing this to the United States,” said Dr. Park.

One of the arguments in favor of robotic mastectomy for nipple-sparing procedures has nothing to do with patients. Instead, it is improved ergonomics – the robot makes a tough surgery easier on the surgeon.

Even stalwart robot critic Dr. Margenthaler conceded that this was possibly a winning feature.

“Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a very physically demanding procedure for the surgeon, resulting in higher rates of neck and back pain and fatigue compared with a standard skin-sparing approach,” she noted. She suggested, however, that practitioners of traditional mastectomy ought to first experiment with changes to patient positioning and incision placement to alleviate stress before looking to the robot for change.

When this news organization interviewed NorthShore University’s Dr. Kopkash, she had conducted four nipple-sparing mastectomies in the previous week. “It’s a difficult procedure on our bodies. I just turned 40 and I’m considered young for a surgeon. We get one body for our career and we have to figure out ways to make it work and protect it.”

Intuitive Surgical is funding the five-center clinical trial of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, and UT Southwestern is funding its own trial. The Ohio State trial is funded by the university and a Pelotonia Idea Grant. Dr. Noorchashm and Dr. Margenthaler have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Clinical trials underway across the United States are exploring the use of robotic surgical devices for nipple-sparing mastectomy, but are either not collecting cancer outcomes or not doing so as a primary measure – despite a stiff warning from the Food and Drug Administration that those outcomes are important.

The FDA warning was issued in February 2019 to both the public and physicians. The FDA cautioned that the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgical devices for mastectomy “have not been established” and robots are not approved for the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.

The agency also noted that “diminished long-term survival” was associated with robotic surgery in another women’s cancer, that of hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

The FDA also made a surprising statement. The agency typically approves the robot for surgical use based on 30-day complication rates (compared with standards of care). But it said that going forward it “anticipates” that any evaluation of new use of robots in cancer “would be supported” by cancer outcomes such as progression-free survival and overall survival, which require much longer follow-up.

In short, the FDA hinted that it would change how it regulated medical devices, or at least robots used in women’s cancers. “The FDA takes women’s health very seriously,” said the organization.

Fast forward to 2021, and there are several prospective clinical trials of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy underway in the United States, including a five-center study sponsored by Intuitive Surgical, the maker of da Vinci robots, the dominant machine on the market. There are also single-center studies at Ohio State and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

However, in each case, the study design either excludes cancer outcomes or does not primarily focus on those measures.

Instead, the primary outcomes are relatively short term and include safety and efficacy measures such as en bloc (in one piece) removal of the breast tissue, conversions to open mastectomy, and the incidence of adverse events during surgery and up to 6 weeks after surgery.

Importantly, none of the studies is a randomized trial; all have single arms.

That’s not what is needed, says breast surgeon Julie A. Margenthaler, MD of Washington University in St. Louis.

“I firmly believe that robotic-assisted mastectomy should only be considered in the context of a well-designed, randomized trial evaluating patient selection, patient safety, surgical complications, and oncologic outcomes with a concomitant cost analysis,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote in an essay published last year in JAMA Surgery.

As with the FDA warning, she cites worse survival with commonly used minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, saying it “is a stark reminder that the marketing of robotic surgery has its roots in cosmesis and convenience rather than oncologic outcomes.”

In addition, robotic surgery is prohibitively expensive, said Dr. Margenthaler. In fact, cost is her “main criticism regarding robotic-assisted mastectomy.” It costs an additional $6,000 for robot use per procedure, according to a study conducted at a center in Taiwan. “I simply cannot be convinced that this will ever achieve cost-effective or even cost-neutral status,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote.
 

Not looking at the right outcomes

“They’re not looking at the right outcomes,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, about the current trials in the United States. He is a former surgeon and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and is now a patient advocate after his wife, Amy Reed, MD, died of uterine cancer in 2017 following a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with a power morcellator that resulted in the upstaging of an undetected gynecologic cancer.

“You have to look at oncologic outcomes and do randomized, noninferiority trials to demonstrate that those cancer outcomes are at least equivalent to standard of care,” he said in an interview.

The current U.S. trials are “totally inappropriate,” he said.

Are randomized trials forthcoming after this initial set of single-arm trials? This news organization reached out to Intuitive Surgical, maker of the market leader da Vinci robotic surgical equipment to find out.  

“Any plans for use of da Vinci Xi surgical system in nipple-sparing mastectomy will be based on these [single-arm] study results as well as other data and evidence,” said a company spokesperson, who did not confirm use of a randomized trial.

What about the FDA? Will the agency change its current approach to approving robots in surgeries for women’s cancers and require – not just anticipate – cancer-related outcomes data? At press time, the FDA did not respond to a request for comment.  

Not having a randomized trial with cancer outcomes in any eventual FDA review opens the door for robotic mastectomy to be cleared for use in some mastectomies with short-term, nononcologic data, said Dr. Noorchashm.
 

Safety concerns with robotic mastectomy

Proponents of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, which is coupled with reconstruction to preserve the shape of both the breast and nipple-areola area, suggest that improved patient cosmesis is a significant advantage with the high-tech intervention, said Dr. Margenthaler.

That’s because most robotic mastectomies performed to date (almost exclusively in Europe and Asia) have employed a 3- to 5-cm vertical incision located behind the lateral breast fold, allowing the scar to be hidden under the patient’s arm.

But therein also lies a safety concern, she asserted.

The “oncologic integrity” of the specimen on extraction is in question in some cases, she wrote, because of “such a small opening.”

Dr. Noorchashm agreed: “It all comes down to trying to get a large specimen out of a small incision.”

Traditional open mastectomy optimally yields the en bloc removal of a tumor – in one whole piece – to avoid fragmenting the cancerous tissue and possibly leaving residual disease behind. These undesirable events are associated with a higher risk for recurrence and treatment failure, he explained.

Thus, there is a need for a randomized trial with longer-term oncologic outcomes that compares the new approach with traditional open mastectomy, argued both Dr. Margenthaler and Dr. Noorchashm.
 

In defense of single-arm trials

“Oncologic safety is what we are concerned about and what we would like to study,” said Ko Un (Clara) Park, MD, a breast surgeon at The Ohio State University in Columbus.

Dr. Park is leading a single-center, single-arm pilot study of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy enrolling up to 20 women with early-stage breast cancer or inherited genetic risk factors (but no cancer diagnosis). The trial, sponsored by a Pelotonia Idea Grant and Ohio State, recently enrolled its first patient.

The study’s primary outcomes include the feasibility of removal of the breast tissue en bloc; however, none of the outcomes are classic oncologic metrics such as progression-free survival.

The en bloc removal outcome is in direct response to the FDA’s concerns about minimally invasive cancer surgeries in women, Dr. Park said in an interview. The pilot trial has an investigational device exemption (IDE) granted by the FDA.

“The reason why we can’t just open a randomized controlled study (of robot versus open) and measure oncologic outcomes like recurrence-free survival is because, before we get to that point, we have to make sure” basic safety issues are addressed and established, she explained.

But Dr. Noorchashm said that argument is missing the larger, more important point: “They are still doing an oncologic procedure – you are still obliged to do noninferiority [randomized] testing with respect to cancer outcomes.”

Dr. Park sounded a different note: “We are doing it as safely as we can do it.”
 

Prophylactic use is also a cancer surgery

Intuitive’s five-center trial does not include en bloc removal of the breast gland as a primary outcome. Instead, the two primary outcomes are conversions to open mastectomy (efficacy measure) and the incidence of adverse events during surgery to 42 days after surgery (safety measure).

The company’s trial does not include any women with breast cancer, but is limited to women at increased risk for breast cancer and seeking prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy surgery.

Enrollment in the 145-patient single-arm trial began in the last few months and has a primary completion date of December 2022. It also has an IDE from the FDA.

“I do think that things like this need to be done with caution,” said Katherine Kopkash, MD, an investigator in the Intuitive trial and a breast surgeon at NorthShore University HealthSystem in Evanston, Ill., referring to the trial’s FDA exemption.  

Dr. Kopkash said in an interview that the researchers in the multisite, single-arm Intuitive trial will also track oncologic outcomes, but the trial description at clinicaltrials.gov does not indicate that.

Both Dr. Kopkash and Dr. Park cited the high-profile missteps that took place in 2018 at Monmouth County Medical Center in Long Branch, N.J., during what was described as the first-ever use of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for invasive cancer in the United States, as reported by Medscape Medical News. However, neither the center or surgeon, Stephen Chagares, MD, requested or received an IDE from the FDA, and use of robotic mastectomy was halted after two cases.

It’s conceivable that Intuitive will seek out FDA clearance for use of its da Vinci system in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with data in a prophylactic setting and then expand the pool of patients, argued Dr. Noorchashm.

“Even if you introduce a new technology ... for a narrow subset of patients, the application of it eventually occurs on a ‘sliding scale,’ ” he said.

The former surgeon gave an example: The first device used in gastric bypass surgery was cleared for use in 2001 by the FDA for adults who were “severely morbidly obese.” But by the late 2000s, the operation was also being performed on people with lower body mass indexes who hadn’t exhausted traditional weight loss procedures. “It was very lucrative,” Dr. Noorchashm said about the surgery.
 

Surgeons only get one body

Intuitive has been hugely successful in developing and marketing its da Vinci system around the world for general and oncologic surgeries, with more than 1 million surgeries in 2018, a greater than sevenfold increase in 10 years, according to the authors of a new essay published in the June issue of the Annals of Surgery. The authors include breast surgeon Rosa F. Hwang, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who is also an investigator for the Intuitive trial.

However, robotic mastectomy is still a new surgery – only about 150 patients have been treated in the world, mostly in Italy, France, Taiwan, and Korea, the authors noted.

Despite such small numbers, “there’s a lot of interest in bringing this to the United States,” said Dr. Park.

One of the arguments in favor of robotic mastectomy for nipple-sparing procedures has nothing to do with patients. Instead, it is improved ergonomics – the robot makes a tough surgery easier on the surgeon.

Even stalwart robot critic Dr. Margenthaler conceded that this was possibly a winning feature.

“Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a very physically demanding procedure for the surgeon, resulting in higher rates of neck and back pain and fatigue compared with a standard skin-sparing approach,” she noted. She suggested, however, that practitioners of traditional mastectomy ought to first experiment with changes to patient positioning and incision placement to alleviate stress before looking to the robot for change.

When this news organization interviewed NorthShore University’s Dr. Kopkash, she had conducted four nipple-sparing mastectomies in the previous week. “It’s a difficult procedure on our bodies. I just turned 40 and I’m considered young for a surgeon. We get one body for our career and we have to figure out ways to make it work and protect it.”

Intuitive Surgical is funding the five-center clinical trial of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, and UT Southwestern is funding its own trial. The Ohio State trial is funded by the university and a Pelotonia Idea Grant. Dr. Noorchashm and Dr. Margenthaler have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Clinical trials underway across the United States are exploring the use of robotic surgical devices for nipple-sparing mastectomy, but are either not collecting cancer outcomes or not doing so as a primary measure – despite a stiff warning from the Food and Drug Administration that those outcomes are important.

The FDA warning was issued in February 2019 to both the public and physicians. The FDA cautioned that the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgical devices for mastectomy “have not been established” and robots are not approved for the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.

The agency also noted that “diminished long-term survival” was associated with robotic surgery in another women’s cancer, that of hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

The FDA also made a surprising statement. The agency typically approves the robot for surgical use based on 30-day complication rates (compared with standards of care). But it said that going forward it “anticipates” that any evaluation of new use of robots in cancer “would be supported” by cancer outcomes such as progression-free survival and overall survival, which require much longer follow-up.

In short, the FDA hinted that it would change how it regulated medical devices, or at least robots used in women’s cancers. “The FDA takes women’s health very seriously,” said the organization.

Fast forward to 2021, and there are several prospective clinical trials of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy underway in the United States, including a five-center study sponsored by Intuitive Surgical, the maker of da Vinci robots, the dominant machine on the market. There are also single-center studies at Ohio State and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

However, in each case, the study design either excludes cancer outcomes or does not primarily focus on those measures.

Instead, the primary outcomes are relatively short term and include safety and efficacy measures such as en bloc (in one piece) removal of the breast tissue, conversions to open mastectomy, and the incidence of adverse events during surgery and up to 6 weeks after surgery.

Importantly, none of the studies is a randomized trial; all have single arms.

That’s not what is needed, says breast surgeon Julie A. Margenthaler, MD of Washington University in St. Louis.

“I firmly believe that robotic-assisted mastectomy should only be considered in the context of a well-designed, randomized trial evaluating patient selection, patient safety, surgical complications, and oncologic outcomes with a concomitant cost analysis,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote in an essay published last year in JAMA Surgery.

As with the FDA warning, she cites worse survival with commonly used minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, saying it “is a stark reminder that the marketing of robotic surgery has its roots in cosmesis and convenience rather than oncologic outcomes.”

In addition, robotic surgery is prohibitively expensive, said Dr. Margenthaler. In fact, cost is her “main criticism regarding robotic-assisted mastectomy.” It costs an additional $6,000 for robot use per procedure, according to a study conducted at a center in Taiwan. “I simply cannot be convinced that this will ever achieve cost-effective or even cost-neutral status,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote.
 

Not looking at the right outcomes

“They’re not looking at the right outcomes,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, about the current trials in the United States. He is a former surgeon and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and is now a patient advocate after his wife, Amy Reed, MD, died of uterine cancer in 2017 following a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with a power morcellator that resulted in the upstaging of an undetected gynecologic cancer.

“You have to look at oncologic outcomes and do randomized, noninferiority trials to demonstrate that those cancer outcomes are at least equivalent to standard of care,” he said in an interview.

The current U.S. trials are “totally inappropriate,” he said.

Are randomized trials forthcoming after this initial set of single-arm trials? This news organization reached out to Intuitive Surgical, maker of the market leader da Vinci robotic surgical equipment to find out.  

“Any plans for use of da Vinci Xi surgical system in nipple-sparing mastectomy will be based on these [single-arm] study results as well as other data and evidence,” said a company spokesperson, who did not confirm use of a randomized trial.

What about the FDA? Will the agency change its current approach to approving robots in surgeries for women’s cancers and require – not just anticipate – cancer-related outcomes data? At press time, the FDA did not respond to a request for comment.  

Not having a randomized trial with cancer outcomes in any eventual FDA review opens the door for robotic mastectomy to be cleared for use in some mastectomies with short-term, nononcologic data, said Dr. Noorchashm.
 

Safety concerns with robotic mastectomy

Proponents of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, which is coupled with reconstruction to preserve the shape of both the breast and nipple-areola area, suggest that improved patient cosmesis is a significant advantage with the high-tech intervention, said Dr. Margenthaler.

That’s because most robotic mastectomies performed to date (almost exclusively in Europe and Asia) have employed a 3- to 5-cm vertical incision located behind the lateral breast fold, allowing the scar to be hidden under the patient’s arm.

But therein also lies a safety concern, she asserted.

The “oncologic integrity” of the specimen on extraction is in question in some cases, she wrote, because of “such a small opening.”

Dr. Noorchashm agreed: “It all comes down to trying to get a large specimen out of a small incision.”

Traditional open mastectomy optimally yields the en bloc removal of a tumor – in one whole piece – to avoid fragmenting the cancerous tissue and possibly leaving residual disease behind. These undesirable events are associated with a higher risk for recurrence and treatment failure, he explained.

Thus, there is a need for a randomized trial with longer-term oncologic outcomes that compares the new approach with traditional open mastectomy, argued both Dr. Margenthaler and Dr. Noorchashm.
 

In defense of single-arm trials

“Oncologic safety is what we are concerned about and what we would like to study,” said Ko Un (Clara) Park, MD, a breast surgeon at The Ohio State University in Columbus.

Dr. Park is leading a single-center, single-arm pilot study of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy enrolling up to 20 women with early-stage breast cancer or inherited genetic risk factors (but no cancer diagnosis). The trial, sponsored by a Pelotonia Idea Grant and Ohio State, recently enrolled its first patient.

The study’s primary outcomes include the feasibility of removal of the breast tissue en bloc; however, none of the outcomes are classic oncologic metrics such as progression-free survival.

The en bloc removal outcome is in direct response to the FDA’s concerns about minimally invasive cancer surgeries in women, Dr. Park said in an interview. The pilot trial has an investigational device exemption (IDE) granted by the FDA.

“The reason why we can’t just open a randomized controlled study (of robot versus open) and measure oncologic outcomes like recurrence-free survival is because, before we get to that point, we have to make sure” basic safety issues are addressed and established, she explained.

But Dr. Noorchashm said that argument is missing the larger, more important point: “They are still doing an oncologic procedure – you are still obliged to do noninferiority [randomized] testing with respect to cancer outcomes.”

Dr. Park sounded a different note: “We are doing it as safely as we can do it.”
 

Prophylactic use is also a cancer surgery

Intuitive’s five-center trial does not include en bloc removal of the breast gland as a primary outcome. Instead, the two primary outcomes are conversions to open mastectomy (efficacy measure) and the incidence of adverse events during surgery to 42 days after surgery (safety measure).

The company’s trial does not include any women with breast cancer, but is limited to women at increased risk for breast cancer and seeking prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy surgery.

Enrollment in the 145-patient single-arm trial began in the last few months and has a primary completion date of December 2022. It also has an IDE from the FDA.

“I do think that things like this need to be done with caution,” said Katherine Kopkash, MD, an investigator in the Intuitive trial and a breast surgeon at NorthShore University HealthSystem in Evanston, Ill., referring to the trial’s FDA exemption.  

Dr. Kopkash said in an interview that the researchers in the multisite, single-arm Intuitive trial will also track oncologic outcomes, but the trial description at clinicaltrials.gov does not indicate that.

Both Dr. Kopkash and Dr. Park cited the high-profile missteps that took place in 2018 at Monmouth County Medical Center in Long Branch, N.J., during what was described as the first-ever use of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for invasive cancer in the United States, as reported by Medscape Medical News. However, neither the center or surgeon, Stephen Chagares, MD, requested or received an IDE from the FDA, and use of robotic mastectomy was halted after two cases.

It’s conceivable that Intuitive will seek out FDA clearance for use of its da Vinci system in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with data in a prophylactic setting and then expand the pool of patients, argued Dr. Noorchashm.

“Even if you introduce a new technology ... for a narrow subset of patients, the application of it eventually occurs on a ‘sliding scale,’ ” he said.

The former surgeon gave an example: The first device used in gastric bypass surgery was cleared for use in 2001 by the FDA for adults who were “severely morbidly obese.” But by the late 2000s, the operation was also being performed on people with lower body mass indexes who hadn’t exhausted traditional weight loss procedures. “It was very lucrative,” Dr. Noorchashm said about the surgery.
 

Surgeons only get one body

Intuitive has been hugely successful in developing and marketing its da Vinci system around the world for general and oncologic surgeries, with more than 1 million surgeries in 2018, a greater than sevenfold increase in 10 years, according to the authors of a new essay published in the June issue of the Annals of Surgery. The authors include breast surgeon Rosa F. Hwang, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who is also an investigator for the Intuitive trial.

However, robotic mastectomy is still a new surgery – only about 150 patients have been treated in the world, mostly in Italy, France, Taiwan, and Korea, the authors noted.

Despite such small numbers, “there’s a lot of interest in bringing this to the United States,” said Dr. Park.

One of the arguments in favor of robotic mastectomy for nipple-sparing procedures has nothing to do with patients. Instead, it is improved ergonomics – the robot makes a tough surgery easier on the surgeon.

Even stalwart robot critic Dr. Margenthaler conceded that this was possibly a winning feature.

“Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a very physically demanding procedure for the surgeon, resulting in higher rates of neck and back pain and fatigue compared with a standard skin-sparing approach,” she noted. She suggested, however, that practitioners of traditional mastectomy ought to first experiment with changes to patient positioning and incision placement to alleviate stress before looking to the robot for change.

When this news organization interviewed NorthShore University’s Dr. Kopkash, she had conducted four nipple-sparing mastectomies in the previous week. “It’s a difficult procedure on our bodies. I just turned 40 and I’m considered young for a surgeon. We get one body for our career and we have to figure out ways to make it work and protect it.”

Intuitive Surgical is funding the five-center clinical trial of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, and UT Southwestern is funding its own trial. The Ohio State trial is funded by the university and a Pelotonia Idea Grant. Dr. Noorchashm and Dr. Margenthaler have no relevant financial disclosures.

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