Ota nevus is a dermal melanocytosis that is typically characterized by blue, gray, or brown pigmented patches in the periorbital region.¹ The condition has a prevalence of 0.04% in a Philadelphia study of 6915 patients and is most notable in patients with skin of color, affecting up to 0.6% of Asians,² 0.038% of white individuals, and 0.014% of black individuals.^3,4 The appearance of an Ota nevus often imparts a negative psychosocial impact on the patient, prompting requests for treatment and/or removal.⁵Laser treatment of Ota nevi must be carefully implemented, especially in Fitzpatrick skin types IV through VI. Although 532- and 755-nm Q-switched nanosecond lasers have been used to treat Ota nevi,^5,6 typically only moderate improvement is seen; further treatment at higher fluences will only increase the risk for dyspigmentation and scarring.⁶

We report a case of successful treatment of an Ota nevus following 2 treatment sessions with the 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser, which is a novel application in patients with skin of color (Fitzpatrick skin types IV-VI). The Q-switched nanosecond laser has been shown to be moderately effective at treating Ota nevi.⁶ 

Case Report

An 18-year-old woman with Fitzpatrick skin type IV presented for cosmetic removal of an 8×5-cm dark brown-blue patch on the right temple and malar and buccal cheek present since birth that had failed to respond to an unknown laser treatment that was administered outside of the United States (Figure, A). To ascertain the diagnosis, a biopsy was performed, showing histology consistent with Ota nevus. Initially, the 755-nm Q-switched nanosecond laser was recommended for treatment. Over the course of 7 months (1 treatment session per month [Table]), the patient saw improvement but not to the desired extent. The patient then underwent 2 treatments at 4-week intervals with the 1064-nm solid-state picosecond and nanosecond lasers; however, no improvement was seen following these 2 sessions (Table).

The next month the patient received treatment with a novel 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser using the following parameters: fluence, 0.5 J/cm²; spot size, 6 mm; repetition rate, 1 Hz; pulse duration, 750 picoseconds; 339 pulses. The end point was whitening. A remarkable clinical response was demonstrated 6 weeks later (Figure, B). A second treatment with the 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser was then performed at 14 months. On a return visit 2 months after the second treatment, the patient showed dramatic improvement, almost to the degree of complete resolution (Figure, C). 

Comment

Pigmentation disorders are more common in patients with skin of color, and those affected may experience psychological effects secondary to these dermatoses, prompting requests for treatment and/or removal.⁷ Although the 532- and 755-nm Q-switched nanosecond lasers have been used to treat Ota nevi,³ the challenge remains for patients with skin of color, as these lasers work through photothermolysis, which generates heat and may cause thermal damage by targeting melanin. Because more melanin is present in skin of color patients, the threshold for too much heat is lower and these patients are at a higher risk for adverse events such as scarring and hyperpigmentation.^6,8

By delivering energy in shorter pulses, the novel 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser shows greater fragmentation of melanosomes into melanin particles that are eventually phagocytosed.⁸ In our patient, dramatic improvement was noted after only 2 treatments, as evidenced by other picosecond treatments on Ota nevi,^6,8 suggesting that fewer treatments are necessary when using the 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser for Ota nevi.

Although the 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser was cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for tattoo removal, this laser shows potential use in other pigmentary disorders, particularly in patients with skin of color, as demonstrated in our case. With continued understanding through further studies, this picosecond laser with a shorter pulse duration may prove to be a safer and more effective alternative to the Q-switched nanosecond laser.

Conclusion

As shown in our case, the 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser appears to be a safe and effective modality for treating Ota nevi. This case demonstrates the potential utility of this laser in patients desiring more complete clearing, as it removes pigment more rapidly with lower risk for serious adverse effects. The 9th Cosmetic Surgery Forum will be held November 29-December 2, 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Get more information at www.cosmeticsurgeryforum.com.

Ota nevus is a dermal melanocytosis that is typically characterized by blue, gray, or brown pigmented patches in the periorbital region.¹ The condition has a prevalence of 0.04% in a Philadelphia study of 6915 patients and is most notable in patients with skin of color, affecting up to 0.6% of Asians,² 0.038% of white individuals, and 0.014% of black individuals.^3,4 The appearance of an Ota nevus often imparts a negative psychosocial impact on the patient, prompting requests for treatment and/or removal.⁵Laser treatment of Ota nevi must be carefully implemented, especially in Fitzpatrick skin types IV through VI. Although 532- and 755-nm Q-switched nanosecond lasers have been used to treat Ota nevi,^5,6 typically only moderate improvement is seen; further treatment at higher fluences will only increase the risk for dyspigmentation and scarring.⁶

We report a case of successful treatment of an Ota nevus following 2 treatment sessions with the 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser, which is a novel application in patients with skin of color (Fitzpatrick skin types IV-VI). The Q-switched nanosecond laser has been shown to be moderately effective at treating Ota nevi.⁶ 

Case Report

An 18-year-old woman with Fitzpatrick skin type IV presented for cosmetic removal of an 8×5-cm dark brown-blue patch on the right temple and malar and buccal cheek present since birth that had failed to respond to an unknown laser treatment that was administered outside of the United States (Figure, A). To ascertain the diagnosis, a biopsy was performed, showing histology consistent with Ota nevus. Initially, the 755-nm Q-switched nanosecond laser was recommended for treatment. Over the course of 7 months (1 treatment session per month [Table]), the patient saw improvement but not to the desired extent. The patient then underwent 2 treatments at 4-week intervals with the 1064-nm solid-state picosecond and nanosecond lasers; however, no improvement was seen following these 2 sessions (Table).

The next month the patient received treatment with a novel 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser using the following parameters: fluence, 0.5 J/cm²; spot size, 6 mm; repetition rate, 1 Hz; pulse duration, 750 picoseconds; 339 pulses. The end point was whitening. A remarkable clinical response was demonstrated 6 weeks later (Figure, B). A second treatment with the 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser was then performed at 14 months. On a return visit 2 months after the second treatment, the patient showed dramatic improvement, almost to the degree of complete resolution (Figure, C). 

Comment

Pigmentation disorders are more common in patients with skin of color, and those affected may experience psychological effects secondary to these dermatoses, prompting requests for treatment and/or removal.⁷ Although the 532- and 755-nm Q-switched nanosecond lasers have been used to treat Ota nevi,³ the challenge remains for patients with skin of color, as these lasers work through photothermolysis, which generates heat and may cause thermal damage by targeting melanin. Because more melanin is present in skin of color patients, the threshold for too much heat is lower and these patients are at a higher risk for adverse events such as scarring and hyperpigmentation.^6,8

By delivering energy in shorter pulses, the novel 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser shows greater fragmentation of melanosomes into melanin particles that are eventually phagocytosed.⁸ In our patient, dramatic improvement was noted after only 2 treatments, as evidenced by other picosecond treatments on Ota nevi,^6,8 suggesting that fewer treatments are necessary when using the 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser for Ota nevi.

Although the 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser was cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for tattoo removal, this laser shows potential use in other pigmentary disorders, particularly in patients with skin of color, as demonstrated in our case. With continued understanding through further studies, this picosecond laser with a shorter pulse duration may prove to be a safer and more effective alternative to the Q-switched nanosecond laser.

Conclusion

As shown in our case, the 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser appears to be a safe and effective modality for treating Ota nevi. This case demonstrates the potential utility of this laser in patients desiring more complete clearing, as it removes pigment more rapidly with lower risk for serious adverse effects. The 9th Cosmetic Surgery Forum will be held November 29-December 2, 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Get more information at www.cosmeticsurgeryforum.com.

Ota nevus is a dermal melanocytosis that is typically characterized by blue, gray, or brown pigmented patches in the periorbital region.¹ The condition has a prevalence of 0.04% in a Philadelphia study of 6915 patients and is most notable in patients with skin of color, affecting up to 0.6% of Asians,² 0.038% of white individuals, and 0.014% of black individuals.^3,4 The appearance of an Ota nevus often imparts a negative psychosocial impact on the patient, prompting requests for treatment and/or removal.⁵Laser treatment of Ota nevi must be carefully implemented, especially in Fitzpatrick skin types IV through VI. Although 532- and 755-nm Q-switched nanosecond lasers have been used to treat Ota nevi,^5,6 typically only moderate improvement is seen; further treatment at higher fluences will only increase the risk for dyspigmentation and scarring.⁶

We report a case of successful treatment of an Ota nevus following 2 treatment sessions with the 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser, which is a novel application in patients with skin of color (Fitzpatrick skin types IV-VI). The Q-switched nanosecond laser has been shown to be moderately effective at treating Ota nevi.⁶ 

Case Report

An 18-year-old woman with Fitzpatrick skin type IV presented for cosmetic removal of an 8×5-cm dark brown-blue patch on the right temple and malar and buccal cheek present since birth that had failed to respond to an unknown laser treatment that was administered outside of the United States (Figure, A). To ascertain the diagnosis, a biopsy was performed, showing histology consistent with Ota nevus. Initially, the 755-nm Q-switched nanosecond laser was recommended for treatment. Over the course of 7 months (1 treatment session per month [Table]), the patient saw improvement but not to the desired extent. The patient then underwent 2 treatments at 4-week intervals with the 1064-nm solid-state picosecond and nanosecond lasers; however, no improvement was seen following these 2 sessions (Table).

The next month the patient received treatment with a novel 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser using the following parameters: fluence, 0.5 J/cm²; spot size, 6 mm; repetition rate, 1 Hz; pulse duration, 750 picoseconds; 339 pulses. The end point was whitening. A remarkable clinical response was demonstrated 6 weeks later (Figure, B). A second treatment with the 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser was then performed at 14 months. On a return visit 2 months after the second treatment, the patient showed dramatic improvement, almost to the degree of complete resolution (Figure, C). 

Comment

Pigmentation disorders are more common in patients with skin of color, and those affected may experience psychological effects secondary to these dermatoses, prompting requests for treatment and/or removal.⁷ Although the 532- and 755-nm Q-switched nanosecond lasers have been used to treat Ota nevi,³ the challenge remains for patients with skin of color, as these lasers work through photothermolysis, which generates heat and may cause thermal damage by targeting melanin. Because more melanin is present in skin of color patients, the threshold for too much heat is lower and these patients are at a higher risk for adverse events such as scarring and hyperpigmentation.^6,8

By delivering energy in shorter pulses, the novel 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser shows greater fragmentation of melanosomes into melanin particles that are eventually phagocytosed.⁸ In our patient, dramatic improvement was noted after only 2 treatments, as evidenced by other picosecond treatments on Ota nevi,^6,8 suggesting that fewer treatments are necessary when using the 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser for Ota nevi.

Although the 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser was cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for tattoo removal, this laser shows potential use in other pigmentary disorders, particularly in patients with skin of color, as demonstrated in our case. With continued understanding through further studies, this picosecond laser with a shorter pulse duration may prove to be a safer and more effective alternative to the Q-switched nanosecond laser.

Conclusion

As shown in our case, the 532-nm solid-state picosecond laser appears to be a safe and effective modality for treating Ota nevi. This case demonstrates the potential utility of this laser in patients desiring more complete clearing, as it removes pigment more rapidly with lower risk for serious adverse effects. The 9th Cosmetic Surgery Forum will be held November 29-December 2, 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Get more information at www.cosmeticsurgeryforum.com.

The first pregnancy losses with Zika-related birth defects since last summer were reported March 14 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Two new cases were reported to the U.S. Zika Pregnancy Registry between Feb. 21 and March 14 – the time period covered by the most recent release of data from the CDC. That brings the total number of Zika virus–related pregnancy losses to seven since the beginning of 2016 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, along with 54 liveborn infants with Zika-related birth defects. The CDC stopped reporting adverse pregnancy outcomes in Puerto Rico and the other U.S. territories in early October 2016 because Puerto Rico’s Zika Active Pregnancy Surveillance System is not using the same inclusion criteria as its mainland counterpart.

[email protected]

The first pregnancy losses with Zika-related birth defects since last summer were reported March 14 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Two new cases were reported to the U.S. Zika Pregnancy Registry between Feb. 21 and March 14 – the time period covered by the most recent release of data from the CDC. That brings the total number of Zika virus–related pregnancy losses to seven since the beginning of 2016 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, along with 54 liveborn infants with Zika-related birth defects. The CDC stopped reporting adverse pregnancy outcomes in Puerto Rico and the other U.S. territories in early October 2016 because Puerto Rico’s Zika Active Pregnancy Surveillance System is not using the same inclusion criteria as its mainland counterpart.

[email protected]

The first pregnancy losses with Zika-related birth defects since last summer were reported March 14 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Two new cases were reported to the U.S. Zika Pregnancy Registry between Feb. 21 and March 14 – the time period covered by the most recent release of data from the CDC. That brings the total number of Zika virus–related pregnancy losses to seven since the beginning of 2016 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, along with 54 liveborn infants with Zika-related birth defects. The CDC stopped reporting adverse pregnancy outcomes in Puerto Rico and the other U.S. territories in early October 2016 because Puerto Rico’s Zika Active Pregnancy Surveillance System is not using the same inclusion criteria as its mainland counterpart.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – Accumulating experience is showing the benefits of various models of care for cancer survivors in terms of health care use and costs, while also suggesting that some provide higher-quality care than others, according to a pair of studies reported at a symposium on quality care sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Initiative for breast cancer survivors

“In 2011, Cancer Care Ontario did a quick environmental scan of our 14 regional cancer centers and found that the transition of breast cancer survivors from oncologists to primary care was very variable, and that centers often didn’t transition patients very frequently,” said Nicole Mittmann, PhD, first author on one of the studies, chief research officer for Cancer Care Ontario, and an investigator at Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto.

The advisory organization therefore implemented the Well Follow-Up Care Initiative to facilitate appropriate transition of breast cancer survivors. Each regional center was given a $100,000 incentive to roll out a model of the initiative.

Dr. Mittmann and her coinvestigators used provincial administrative databases to compare health care use and associated costs between 2,324 breast cancer survivors who were transitioned with the initiative and 2,324 propensity-matched control survivors who were not. The survivors were about 5 years out from their breast cancer diagnosis at baseline and had median follow-up of 2 years.

Study results reported at the symposium showed that the mean annual total cost of care per patient paid for by the provincial health ministry was $6,575 for the transitioned group and $10,832 for the nontransitioned group, a difference of $4,257 (39%). The main drivers were reduced costs of long-term care and cancer clinic visits.

Findings were similar for median annual costs, which amounted to $2,261 for the transitioned group and $2,903 for the control group, a difference of $638.

Compared with the nontransitioned group, the transitioned group had significantly fewer annual visits to medical oncologists (0.39 vs. 1.29) and radiation oncologists (0.16 vs. 0.36), while visits to general or family practitioners were statistically indistinguishable (7.35 and 7.91), Dr. Mittmann reported. There was also a trend toward fewer emergency department visits.

The transitioned group had fewer bone scans, CT and MRI scans, and radiographs annually, but differences were not significant.

Reassuringly, Dr. Mittmann said, survivors who were transitioned did not fare worse than their nontransitioned counterparts in overall survival; if anything, they tended to live longer. “We think that because the individual cancer centers enrolled patients that they thought were very well that this is a very well and highly selected and maybe a biased group,” Dr. Mittmann acknowledged. “But we certainly see that they are not doing worse than the control group.”

“About $1.4 million was distributed to the cancer centers” for the initiative, she noted. “That generated a savings for the health system of $1.5 million, if you are looking at median costs, to $9.9 million, if you are looking at mean costs.

“The transition of appropriate breast cancer survivors to the community appears to be safe and effective outside of a clinical trial, at least based on this particular retrospective analysis using databases,” she said. “The overall costs are not increased, and they may actually be decreased based on our data, and certainly these results will inform policy.”

The investigators plan several next steps, such as encouraging senior leadership at Cancer Care Ontario and the Ministry of Health to endorse the findings, according to Dr. Mittmann. In addition, “[we plan to] engage with both oncology and primary care leadership and think about how we can potentially roll out a program like this, and develop tools, whether those are letters or information packages, and education, to … appropriately transition individuals.”

Considerations in interpreting the study’s findings include the quality of the matching of survivors, according to invited discussant Monika K. Krzyzanowska, MD, a medical oncologist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, and a clinical lead of Quality Care and Access, Systemic Treatment Program, at Cancer Care Ontario. “The quality of that match depends on what’s in the model, so there could be potential for residual confounding, and administrative data may not have all of the elements that you would need to get a perfect match.”

Comparison of survivorship care models

Two-thirds of the large and growing population of cancer survivors are at least 5 years out from diagnosis, stimulating considerable discussion in the oncology community about how to best address their needs, according to Sarah Raskin, PhD, senior author on the second study and a research scientist at the Institute for Patient-Centered Initiatives and Health Equity at George Washington University Cancer Center, Washington.

“Yet, for a lack of cancer survivorship–specific guidelines from research or practice, cancer centers are increasingly developing survivorship care in a variety of ways, many of which are ad hoc or unproven as yet,” she said.

Dr. Raskin and her colleagues compared three emerging models of survivorship care: a specialized consultative model and a specialized longitudinal model – whereby patients have a single or multiple formalized survivorship visits, respectively, with care typically led by an oncology nurse-practitioner – and an oncology-embedded model – whereby survivorship is addressed as a part of ongoing oncology follow-up care, typically by the oncologist.

The investigators worked with survivors to develop the Patient-Prioritized Measure of High-Quality Survivorship Care, a 46-question scale assessing nine components of survivorship care that capture the health care priorities and needs that matter most to patients. Each component is rated on a scale from 0 (not at all met) to 1 (somewhat met) to 2 (definitely met).

Analyses were based on responses of 827 survivors of breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer who received care at 28 U.S. institutions using one of the above models and who were surveyed by telephone about the care received 1 week after their initial survivorship visit.

Results showed that survivors cared for under the three models differed significantly with respect to scores for seven of the nine components of quality of care, Dr. Raskin reported. The exceptions were practical life support, where the mean score was about 0.6-0.8 across the board, and having a medical home, where the mean score was about 1.8-1.9 across the board.

The specialized consult model of care had the highest scores for mental health and social support, information and resources, and supportive and prepared clinicians. The specialized longitudinal model of care had the highest scores for empowered and engaged patients, open patient-clinician communication, care coordination and transitions, and access to full spectrum of care. The oncology-embedded model had the lowest scores. Analysis of the tool’s 46 individual questions showed that patients cared for at institutions using the oncology-embedded model were significantly less likely than were counterparts cared for at institutions using the specialized models to report that the institution performed various activities such as offering a treatment summary, inquiring about the patient’s biggest worries or problems, and explaining the reasons why tests were needed (P less than .05 for each).

For some metrics, the overall proportion reporting that an activity was performed was low, regardless of the model being used. For example, only 48% of all patients reported being helped to set goals or make short-term plans to manage follow-up care and improve health, merely 24% reported being provided emotional and social support to deal with changes in relationships, and just 19% reported being referred to special providers for other medical problems.

“Overall, all three models are performing highly in terms of providing survivors with a medical home and communicating with patients. However, all three are performing quite low in terms of providing mental health and social support, as well as practical life support,” said Dr. Raskin.

“By model, we see that the embedded ongoing care model is significantly underperforming compared with both specialized models on seven of nine components, and we have some hypotheses from our early work with [Commission on Cancer]–accredited centers to explain this,” she added. “Embedded survivorship models have a lot of variability – many are high performers but others are low performers as compared with specialized programs. Embedded survivorship care models are typically led by the treating oncologist, who historically has focused on treating sick patients and less so on providing social supports for follow-up of well patients or ‘well-er’ patients. At the same time, specialized models focus predominantly on survivorship care and providing services and referrals for survivors, which may explain their high scores.

“We know that the higher quality of care measures presented here do not necessarily translate to better patient outcomes, and that’s actually going to be the next phase of our analysis,” she concluded.

The study sample may have had some selection bias, and it is unclear how well validated the tool was, according to Dr. Krzyzanowska, the discussant. Another issue was its assessment of quality of care at only a single time point.

Nonetheless, the findings show “that measuring quality of survivorship care from a patient perspective is feasible and valuable. We have already heard about [need for] survivorship plans in survivorship care, so certainly the work that was just presented is extremely important to help to fill some of these gaps,” she said.

“I’m not sure that we yet know what the optimal model of survivorship care is without the information of the other outcomes. Furthermore, there’s different survivor populations and different ways that health care is organized, so perhaps there isn’t really one optimal model, but the model has to fit with the context,” Dr. Krzyzanowska concluded. “That being said … the tool that they have created can be a great tool for existing survivorship care programs to assess and improve the quality of their care.”

Dr. Mittmann and Dr. Raskin had no disclosures to report.

ORLANDO – Accumulating experience is showing the benefits of various models of care for cancer survivors in terms of health care use and costs, while also suggesting that some provide higher-quality care than others, according to a pair of studies reported at a symposium on quality care sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Initiative for breast cancer survivors

“In 2011, Cancer Care Ontario did a quick environmental scan of our 14 regional cancer centers and found that the transition of breast cancer survivors from oncologists to primary care was very variable, and that centers often didn’t transition patients very frequently,” said Nicole Mittmann, PhD, first author on one of the studies, chief research officer for Cancer Care Ontario, and an investigator at Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto.

The advisory organization therefore implemented the Well Follow-Up Care Initiative to facilitate appropriate transition of breast cancer survivors. Each regional center was given a $100,000 incentive to roll out a model of the initiative.

Dr. Mittmann and her coinvestigators used provincial administrative databases to compare health care use and associated costs between 2,324 breast cancer survivors who were transitioned with the initiative and 2,324 propensity-matched control survivors who were not. The survivors were about 5 years out from their breast cancer diagnosis at baseline and had median follow-up of 2 years.

Study results reported at the symposium showed that the mean annual total cost of care per patient paid for by the provincial health ministry was $6,575 for the transitioned group and $10,832 for the nontransitioned group, a difference of $4,257 (39%). The main drivers were reduced costs of long-term care and cancer clinic visits.

Findings were similar for median annual costs, which amounted to $2,261 for the transitioned group and $2,903 for the control group, a difference of $638.

Compared with the nontransitioned group, the transitioned group had significantly fewer annual visits to medical oncologists (0.39 vs. 1.29) and radiation oncologists (0.16 vs. 0.36), while visits to general or family practitioners were statistically indistinguishable (7.35 and 7.91), Dr. Mittmann reported. There was also a trend toward fewer emergency department visits.

The transitioned group had fewer bone scans, CT and MRI scans, and radiographs annually, but differences were not significant.

Reassuringly, Dr. Mittmann said, survivors who were transitioned did not fare worse than their nontransitioned counterparts in overall survival; if anything, they tended to live longer. “We think that because the individual cancer centers enrolled patients that they thought were very well that this is a very well and highly selected and maybe a biased group,” Dr. Mittmann acknowledged. “But we certainly see that they are not doing worse than the control group.”

“About $1.4 million was distributed to the cancer centers” for the initiative, she noted. “That generated a savings for the health system of $1.5 million, if you are looking at median costs, to $9.9 million, if you are looking at mean costs.

“The transition of appropriate breast cancer survivors to the community appears to be safe and effective outside of a clinical trial, at least based on this particular retrospective analysis using databases,” she said. “The overall costs are not increased, and they may actually be decreased based on our data, and certainly these results will inform policy.”

The investigators plan several next steps, such as encouraging senior leadership at Cancer Care Ontario and the Ministry of Health to endorse the findings, according to Dr. Mittmann. In addition, “[we plan to] engage with both oncology and primary care leadership and think about how we can potentially roll out a program like this, and develop tools, whether those are letters or information packages, and education, to … appropriately transition individuals.”

Considerations in interpreting the study’s findings include the quality of the matching of survivors, according to invited discussant Monika K. Krzyzanowska, MD, a medical oncologist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, and a clinical lead of Quality Care and Access, Systemic Treatment Program, at Cancer Care Ontario. “The quality of that match depends on what’s in the model, so there could be potential for residual confounding, and administrative data may not have all of the elements that you would need to get a perfect match.”

Comparison of survivorship care models

Two-thirds of the large and growing population of cancer survivors are at least 5 years out from diagnosis, stimulating considerable discussion in the oncology community about how to best address their needs, according to Sarah Raskin, PhD, senior author on the second study and a research scientist at the Institute for Patient-Centered Initiatives and Health Equity at George Washington University Cancer Center, Washington.

“Yet, for a lack of cancer survivorship–specific guidelines from research or practice, cancer centers are increasingly developing survivorship care in a variety of ways, many of which are ad hoc or unproven as yet,” she said.

Dr. Raskin and her colleagues compared three emerging models of survivorship care: a specialized consultative model and a specialized longitudinal model – whereby patients have a single or multiple formalized survivorship visits, respectively, with care typically led by an oncology nurse-practitioner – and an oncology-embedded model – whereby survivorship is addressed as a part of ongoing oncology follow-up care, typically by the oncologist.

The investigators worked with survivors to develop the Patient-Prioritized Measure of High-Quality Survivorship Care, a 46-question scale assessing nine components of survivorship care that capture the health care priorities and needs that matter most to patients. Each component is rated on a scale from 0 (not at all met) to 1 (somewhat met) to 2 (definitely met).

Analyses were based on responses of 827 survivors of breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer who received care at 28 U.S. institutions using one of the above models and who were surveyed by telephone about the care received 1 week after their initial survivorship visit.

Results showed that survivors cared for under the three models differed significantly with respect to scores for seven of the nine components of quality of care, Dr. Raskin reported. The exceptions were practical life support, where the mean score was about 0.6-0.8 across the board, and having a medical home, where the mean score was about 1.8-1.9 across the board.

The specialized consult model of care had the highest scores for mental health and social support, information and resources, and supportive and prepared clinicians. The specialized longitudinal model of care had the highest scores for empowered and engaged patients, open patient-clinician communication, care coordination and transitions, and access to full spectrum of care. The oncology-embedded model had the lowest scores. Analysis of the tool’s 46 individual questions showed that patients cared for at institutions using the oncology-embedded model were significantly less likely than were counterparts cared for at institutions using the specialized models to report that the institution performed various activities such as offering a treatment summary, inquiring about the patient’s biggest worries or problems, and explaining the reasons why tests were needed (P less than .05 for each).

For some metrics, the overall proportion reporting that an activity was performed was low, regardless of the model being used. For example, only 48% of all patients reported being helped to set goals or make short-term plans to manage follow-up care and improve health, merely 24% reported being provided emotional and social support to deal with changes in relationships, and just 19% reported being referred to special providers for other medical problems.

“Overall, all three models are performing highly in terms of providing survivors with a medical home and communicating with patients. However, all three are performing quite low in terms of providing mental health and social support, as well as practical life support,” said Dr. Raskin.

“By model, we see that the embedded ongoing care model is significantly underperforming compared with both specialized models on seven of nine components, and we have some hypotheses from our early work with [Commission on Cancer]–accredited centers to explain this,” she added. “Embedded survivorship models have a lot of variability – many are high performers but others are low performers as compared with specialized programs. Embedded survivorship care models are typically led by the treating oncologist, who historically has focused on treating sick patients and less so on providing social supports for follow-up of well patients or ‘well-er’ patients. At the same time, specialized models focus predominantly on survivorship care and providing services and referrals for survivors, which may explain their high scores.

“We know that the higher quality of care measures presented here do not necessarily translate to better patient outcomes, and that’s actually going to be the next phase of our analysis,” she concluded.

The study sample may have had some selection bias, and it is unclear how well validated the tool was, according to Dr. Krzyzanowska, the discussant. Another issue was its assessment of quality of care at only a single time point.

Nonetheless, the findings show “that measuring quality of survivorship care from a patient perspective is feasible and valuable. We have already heard about [need for] survivorship plans in survivorship care, so certainly the work that was just presented is extremely important to help to fill some of these gaps,” she said.

“I’m not sure that we yet know what the optimal model of survivorship care is without the information of the other outcomes. Furthermore, there’s different survivor populations and different ways that health care is organized, so perhaps there isn’t really one optimal model, but the model has to fit with the context,” Dr. Krzyzanowska concluded. “That being said … the tool that they have created can be a great tool for existing survivorship care programs to assess and improve the quality of their care.”

Dr. Mittmann and Dr. Raskin had no disclosures to report.

ORLANDO – Accumulating experience is showing the benefits of various models of care for cancer survivors in terms of health care use and costs, while also suggesting that some provide higher-quality care than others, according to a pair of studies reported at a symposium on quality care sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Initiative for breast cancer survivors

“In 2011, Cancer Care Ontario did a quick environmental scan of our 14 regional cancer centers and found that the transition of breast cancer survivors from oncologists to primary care was very variable, and that centers often didn’t transition patients very frequently,” said Nicole Mittmann, PhD, first author on one of the studies, chief research officer for Cancer Care Ontario, and an investigator at Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto.

The advisory organization therefore implemented the Well Follow-Up Care Initiative to facilitate appropriate transition of breast cancer survivors. Each regional center was given a $100,000 incentive to roll out a model of the initiative.

Dr. Mittmann and her coinvestigators used provincial administrative databases to compare health care use and associated costs between 2,324 breast cancer survivors who were transitioned with the initiative and 2,324 propensity-matched control survivors who were not. The survivors were about 5 years out from their breast cancer diagnosis at baseline and had median follow-up of 2 years.

Study results reported at the symposium showed that the mean annual total cost of care per patient paid for by the provincial health ministry was $6,575 for the transitioned group and $10,832 for the nontransitioned group, a difference of $4,257 (39%). The main drivers were reduced costs of long-term care and cancer clinic visits.

Findings were similar for median annual costs, which amounted to $2,261 for the transitioned group and $2,903 for the control group, a difference of $638.

Compared with the nontransitioned group, the transitioned group had significantly fewer annual visits to medical oncologists (0.39 vs. 1.29) and radiation oncologists (0.16 vs. 0.36), while visits to general or family practitioners were statistically indistinguishable (7.35 and 7.91), Dr. Mittmann reported. There was also a trend toward fewer emergency department visits.

The transitioned group had fewer bone scans, CT and MRI scans, and radiographs annually, but differences were not significant.

Reassuringly, Dr. Mittmann said, survivors who were transitioned did not fare worse than their nontransitioned counterparts in overall survival; if anything, they tended to live longer. “We think that because the individual cancer centers enrolled patients that they thought were very well that this is a very well and highly selected and maybe a biased group,” Dr. Mittmann acknowledged. “But we certainly see that they are not doing worse than the control group.”

“About $1.4 million was distributed to the cancer centers” for the initiative, she noted. “That generated a savings for the health system of $1.5 million, if you are looking at median costs, to $9.9 million, if you are looking at mean costs.

“The transition of appropriate breast cancer survivors to the community appears to be safe and effective outside of a clinical trial, at least based on this particular retrospective analysis using databases,” she said. “The overall costs are not increased, and they may actually be decreased based on our data, and certainly these results will inform policy.”

The investigators plan several next steps, such as encouraging senior leadership at Cancer Care Ontario and the Ministry of Health to endorse the findings, according to Dr. Mittmann. In addition, “[we plan to] engage with both oncology and primary care leadership and think about how we can potentially roll out a program like this, and develop tools, whether those are letters or information packages, and education, to … appropriately transition individuals.”

Considerations in interpreting the study’s findings include the quality of the matching of survivors, according to invited discussant Monika K. Krzyzanowska, MD, a medical oncologist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, and a clinical lead of Quality Care and Access, Systemic Treatment Program, at Cancer Care Ontario. “The quality of that match depends on what’s in the model, so there could be potential for residual confounding, and administrative data may not have all of the elements that you would need to get a perfect match.”

Comparison of survivorship care models

Two-thirds of the large and growing population of cancer survivors are at least 5 years out from diagnosis, stimulating considerable discussion in the oncology community about how to best address their needs, according to Sarah Raskin, PhD, senior author on the second study and a research scientist at the Institute for Patient-Centered Initiatives and Health Equity at George Washington University Cancer Center, Washington.

“Yet, for a lack of cancer survivorship–specific guidelines from research or practice, cancer centers are increasingly developing survivorship care in a variety of ways, many of which are ad hoc or unproven as yet,” she said.

Dr. Raskin and her colleagues compared three emerging models of survivorship care: a specialized consultative model and a specialized longitudinal model – whereby patients have a single or multiple formalized survivorship visits, respectively, with care typically led by an oncology nurse-practitioner – and an oncology-embedded model – whereby survivorship is addressed as a part of ongoing oncology follow-up care, typically by the oncologist.

The investigators worked with survivors to develop the Patient-Prioritized Measure of High-Quality Survivorship Care, a 46-question scale assessing nine components of survivorship care that capture the health care priorities and needs that matter most to patients. Each component is rated on a scale from 0 (not at all met) to 1 (somewhat met) to 2 (definitely met).

Analyses were based on responses of 827 survivors of breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer who received care at 28 U.S. institutions using one of the above models and who were surveyed by telephone about the care received 1 week after their initial survivorship visit.

Results showed that survivors cared for under the three models differed significantly with respect to scores for seven of the nine components of quality of care, Dr. Raskin reported. The exceptions were practical life support, where the mean score was about 0.6-0.8 across the board, and having a medical home, where the mean score was about 1.8-1.9 across the board.

The specialized consult model of care had the highest scores for mental health and social support, information and resources, and supportive and prepared clinicians. The specialized longitudinal model of care had the highest scores for empowered and engaged patients, open patient-clinician communication, care coordination and transitions, and access to full spectrum of care. The oncology-embedded model had the lowest scores. Analysis of the tool’s 46 individual questions showed that patients cared for at institutions using the oncology-embedded model were significantly less likely than were counterparts cared for at institutions using the specialized models to report that the institution performed various activities such as offering a treatment summary, inquiring about the patient’s biggest worries or problems, and explaining the reasons why tests were needed (P less than .05 for each).

For some metrics, the overall proportion reporting that an activity was performed was low, regardless of the model being used. For example, only 48% of all patients reported being helped to set goals or make short-term plans to manage follow-up care and improve health, merely 24% reported being provided emotional and social support to deal with changes in relationships, and just 19% reported being referred to special providers for other medical problems.

“Overall, all three models are performing highly in terms of providing survivors with a medical home and communicating with patients. However, all three are performing quite low in terms of providing mental health and social support, as well as practical life support,” said Dr. Raskin.

“By model, we see that the embedded ongoing care model is significantly underperforming compared with both specialized models on seven of nine components, and we have some hypotheses from our early work with [Commission on Cancer]–accredited centers to explain this,” she added. “Embedded survivorship models have a lot of variability – many are high performers but others are low performers as compared with specialized programs. Embedded survivorship care models are typically led by the treating oncologist, who historically has focused on treating sick patients and less so on providing social supports for follow-up of well patients or ‘well-er’ patients. At the same time, specialized models focus predominantly on survivorship care and providing services and referrals for survivors, which may explain their high scores.

“We know that the higher quality of care measures presented here do not necessarily translate to better patient outcomes, and that’s actually going to be the next phase of our analysis,” she concluded.

The study sample may have had some selection bias, and it is unclear how well validated the tool was, according to Dr. Krzyzanowska, the discussant. Another issue was its assessment of quality of care at only a single time point.

Nonetheless, the findings show “that measuring quality of survivorship care from a patient perspective is feasible and valuable. We have already heard about [need for] survivorship plans in survivorship care, so certainly the work that was just presented is extremely important to help to fill some of these gaps,” she said.

“I’m not sure that we yet know what the optimal model of survivorship care is without the information of the other outcomes. Furthermore, there’s different survivor populations and different ways that health care is organized, so perhaps there isn’t really one optimal model, but the model has to fit with the context,” Dr. Krzyzanowska concluded. “That being said … the tool that they have created can be a great tool for existing survivorship care programs to assess and improve the quality of their care.”

Dr. Mittmann and Dr. Raskin had no disclosures to report.

Surgeons need to do more to identify patients who are taking opioids preoperatively, because this is a population that appears to be at a higher risk of worse surgical outcomes, according to a large retrospective investigation.

“Opioid users represent a potentially high-risk surgical population and may require tailored perioperative care [and] the prevalence and clinical impact of this problem in the general surgery population remain unclear,” wrote the authors of a study, led by David C. Cron, a medical student of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Given the impact of pain control and gastrointestinal function on hospital stay, it is intuitive that opioid users may have increased hospital length of stay (LOS) and may incur more costs [and] also be at higher risk for surgical complications.”

The study was published in the Annals of Surgery (2017;465[4]696-701).

Mr. Cron and his coauthors made a study cohort retrospectively from abdominopelvic surgery patients from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) database who had surgery between 2008 and 2014. All patients were treated at the University of Michigan, and were admitted within 2 days of undergoing their operation. Any patient with data indicating use of buprenorphine prior to surgery, or those were who opioid naive before admission but received opioids after being admitted, were excluded.

Investigators found a total of 3,107 patients in the MSQC database that underwent abdominopelvic surgery at the University of Michigan during the designated time frame; from that group, 2,413 were ultimately found to match the inclusion criteria for the study. The primary outcomes were 90-day total hospital costs, along with patient LOS, and 30-day rates of complications and readmissions. Data underwent covariate risk adjustment to account for age, race, gender, body mass index, insurance class, and other factors.

“Major complications are recorded by the MSQC and include: surgical site infection, deep venous thrombosis, acute renal failure, postoperative bleeding requiring transfusion, stroke, unplanned intubation, fascial dehiscence, prolonged mechanical ventilation longer than 48 hours, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, vascular graft loss, and renal insufficiency,” the authors noted.

Of the 2,413 subjects overall, 502 (20.8%) were found to use opioids before surgery. Differences between opioid users and nonusers were not significant in terms of age (P = .10), gender (P = .76), and race (P = .78). After adjustment, data indicated that preoperative opioid users had 9.2% higher hospital costs than nonusers (95% confidence interval, 2.8%-15.6%, P = .005) and 12.4% longer hospital stay (95% CI, 2.3%-23.5%; P = .015). Complications and readmission rates were quantified by odds ratios, which were also found to be significantly higher in subjects who were preoperative opioid users: OR = 1.36 (95% CI, 1.04-1.78; P = .023) and OR = 1.57 (95% CI, 1.08-2.29; P = .018), respectively.

The study had some limitations, including being conducted at a single center and potentially not generalizable to other types of health care facilities and population types. Additionally, information on opioid dosage and duration of use was lacking, making it that “possible that some opioid users in our study were using opioids over a shorter time period for pain related to their surgical disease,” according to the investigators.

“These results argue the potential cost-effectiveness of intervention in this unique patient population,” Mr. Cron and his colleagues concluded. “Opioid use is a potentially modifiable risk factor, and major surgery can provide powerful leverage to improve health behavior [and] our institution has implemented a preoperative program to optimize high-risk patients for surgery.”

Mr. Cron received funding from the 2015 AOA Carolyn L. Kuckein Student Research Fellowship and the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation Student Research Award for this study. He and his coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Surgeons need to do more to identify patients who are taking opioids preoperatively, because this is a population that appears to be at a higher risk of worse surgical outcomes, according to a large retrospective investigation.

“Opioid users represent a potentially high-risk surgical population and may require tailored perioperative care [and] the prevalence and clinical impact of this problem in the general surgery population remain unclear,” wrote the authors of a study, led by David C. Cron, a medical student of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Given the impact of pain control and gastrointestinal function on hospital stay, it is intuitive that opioid users may have increased hospital length of stay (LOS) and may incur more costs [and] also be at higher risk for surgical complications.”

The study was published in the Annals of Surgery (2017;465[4]696-701).

Mr. Cron and his coauthors made a study cohort retrospectively from abdominopelvic surgery patients from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) database who had surgery between 2008 and 2014. All patients were treated at the University of Michigan, and were admitted within 2 days of undergoing their operation. Any patient with data indicating use of buprenorphine prior to surgery, or those were who opioid naive before admission but received opioids after being admitted, were excluded.

Investigators found a total of 3,107 patients in the MSQC database that underwent abdominopelvic surgery at the University of Michigan during the designated time frame; from that group, 2,413 were ultimately found to match the inclusion criteria for the study. The primary outcomes were 90-day total hospital costs, along with patient LOS, and 30-day rates of complications and readmissions. Data underwent covariate risk adjustment to account for age, race, gender, body mass index, insurance class, and other factors.

“Major complications are recorded by the MSQC and include: surgical site infection, deep venous thrombosis, acute renal failure, postoperative bleeding requiring transfusion, stroke, unplanned intubation, fascial dehiscence, prolonged mechanical ventilation longer than 48 hours, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, vascular graft loss, and renal insufficiency,” the authors noted.

Of the 2,413 subjects overall, 502 (20.8%) were found to use opioids before surgery. Differences between opioid users and nonusers were not significant in terms of age (P = .10), gender (P = .76), and race (P = .78). After adjustment, data indicated that preoperative opioid users had 9.2% higher hospital costs than nonusers (95% confidence interval, 2.8%-15.6%, P = .005) and 12.4% longer hospital stay (95% CI, 2.3%-23.5%; P = .015). Complications and readmission rates were quantified by odds ratios, which were also found to be significantly higher in subjects who were preoperative opioid users: OR = 1.36 (95% CI, 1.04-1.78; P = .023) and OR = 1.57 (95% CI, 1.08-2.29; P = .018), respectively.

The study had some limitations, including being conducted at a single center and potentially not generalizable to other types of health care facilities and population types. Additionally, information on opioid dosage and duration of use was lacking, making it that “possible that some opioid users in our study were using opioids over a shorter time period for pain related to their surgical disease,” according to the investigators.

“These results argue the potential cost-effectiveness of intervention in this unique patient population,” Mr. Cron and his colleagues concluded. “Opioid use is a potentially modifiable risk factor, and major surgery can provide powerful leverage to improve health behavior [and] our institution has implemented a preoperative program to optimize high-risk patients for surgery.”

Mr. Cron received funding from the 2015 AOA Carolyn L. Kuckein Student Research Fellowship and the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation Student Research Award for this study. He and his coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Surgeons need to do more to identify patients who are taking opioids preoperatively, because this is a population that appears to be at a higher risk of worse surgical outcomes, according to a large retrospective investigation.

“Opioid users represent a potentially high-risk surgical population and may require tailored perioperative care [and] the prevalence and clinical impact of this problem in the general surgery population remain unclear,” wrote the authors of a study, led by David C. Cron, a medical student of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Given the impact of pain control and gastrointestinal function on hospital stay, it is intuitive that opioid users may have increased hospital length of stay (LOS) and may incur more costs [and] also be at higher risk for surgical complications.”

The study was published in the Annals of Surgery (2017;465[4]696-701).

Mr. Cron and his coauthors made a study cohort retrospectively from abdominopelvic surgery patients from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) database who had surgery between 2008 and 2014. All patients were treated at the University of Michigan, and were admitted within 2 days of undergoing their operation. Any patient with data indicating use of buprenorphine prior to surgery, or those were who opioid naive before admission but received opioids after being admitted, were excluded.

Investigators found a total of 3,107 patients in the MSQC database that underwent abdominopelvic surgery at the University of Michigan during the designated time frame; from that group, 2,413 were ultimately found to match the inclusion criteria for the study. The primary outcomes were 90-day total hospital costs, along with patient LOS, and 30-day rates of complications and readmissions. Data underwent covariate risk adjustment to account for age, race, gender, body mass index, insurance class, and other factors.

“Major complications are recorded by the MSQC and include: surgical site infection, deep venous thrombosis, acute renal failure, postoperative bleeding requiring transfusion, stroke, unplanned intubation, fascial dehiscence, prolonged mechanical ventilation longer than 48 hours, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, vascular graft loss, and renal insufficiency,” the authors noted.

Of the 2,413 subjects overall, 502 (20.8%) were found to use opioids before surgery. Differences between opioid users and nonusers were not significant in terms of age (P = .10), gender (P = .76), and race (P = .78). After adjustment, data indicated that preoperative opioid users had 9.2% higher hospital costs than nonusers (95% confidence interval, 2.8%-15.6%, P = .005) and 12.4% longer hospital stay (95% CI, 2.3%-23.5%; P = .015). Complications and readmission rates were quantified by odds ratios, which were also found to be significantly higher in subjects who were preoperative opioid users: OR = 1.36 (95% CI, 1.04-1.78; P = .023) and OR = 1.57 (95% CI, 1.08-2.29; P = .018), respectively.

The study had some limitations, including being conducted at a single center and potentially not generalizable to other types of health care facilities and population types. Additionally, information on opioid dosage and duration of use was lacking, making it that “possible that some opioid users in our study were using opioids over a shorter time period for pain related to their surgical disease,” according to the investigators.

“These results argue the potential cost-effectiveness of intervention in this unique patient population,” Mr. Cron and his colleagues concluded. “Opioid use is a potentially modifiable risk factor, and major surgery can provide powerful leverage to improve health behavior [and] our institution has implemented a preoperative program to optimize high-risk patients for surgery.”

Mr. Cron received funding from the 2015 AOA Carolyn L. Kuckein Student Research Fellowship and the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation Student Research Award for this study. He and his coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – For low-income and minority children with asthma, parents’ perception of a child’s asthma control may be an important predictor of future acute visits, independent of guideline-based criteria for asthma control, judging from the results from a prospective cohort study.

The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP)–based assessment of asthma control incorporates symptoms, nighttime awakenings, and activity interference; short-acting beta 2-agonist use, lung function, and history of exacerbations, “but it does not take into account parental perceptions of asthma control,” lead study author Suzanne Rossi, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. “We also know that parental report of symptom frequency and their perception of their child’s asthma control are frequently discordant.”

marekuliasz/Thinkstock

[email protected]

ATLANTA – For low-income and minority children with asthma, parents’ perception of a child’s asthma control may be an important predictor of future acute visits, independent of guideline-based criteria for asthma control, judging from the results from a prospective cohort study.

The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP)–based assessment of asthma control incorporates symptoms, nighttime awakenings, and activity interference; short-acting beta 2-agonist use, lung function, and history of exacerbations, “but it does not take into account parental perceptions of asthma control,” lead study author Suzanne Rossi, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. “We also know that parental report of symptom frequency and their perception of their child’s asthma control are frequently discordant.”

marekuliasz/Thinkstock

[email protected]

ATLANTA – For low-income and minority children with asthma, parents’ perception of a child’s asthma control may be an important predictor of future acute visits, independent of guideline-based criteria for asthma control, judging from the results from a prospective cohort study.

The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP)–based assessment of asthma control incorporates symptoms, nighttime awakenings, and activity interference; short-acting beta 2-agonist use, lung function, and history of exacerbations, “but it does not take into account parental perceptions of asthma control,” lead study author Suzanne Rossi, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. “We also know that parental report of symptom frequency and their perception of their child’s asthma control are frequently discordant.”

marekuliasz/Thinkstock

[email protected]

In the July 2010 issue of GI & Hepatology News, Dr. Howard Levy reviewed a number of strategies for recognizing of hereditary colon cancer, specifically Lynch syndrome. At that time, the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) working group had recommended universal molecular tumor testing.

The EGAPP recommendation was the first of several ensuing endorsements of universal tumor testing using immunohistochemistry (IHC) or microsatellite instability (MSI) analysis. For example, the AGA Guideline on Diagnosis and Management of Lynch Syndrome (Gastroenterology. 2015;149[3]:777-82) issued a strong recommendation for tumor testing. We have learned about reflexive BRAF or promoter hypermethylation testing and, in some cases, tumor sequencing for double somatic mutations to identify sporadic MSI-high cases. While tumor testing is widely endorsed and is cost effective, implementation and quality control still remain challenges in clinical practice.

In addition to widespread endorsement of tumor testing, there have been a number of important developments in our understanding of Lynch syndrome. A recent publication estimated the prevalence of mismatch-repair gene mutations associated with Lynch syndrome at 1 in 279. Cancer risks in Lynch syndrome are significantly elevated over the general population, and it has become clear that there are distinct risk estimates depending on the gene that is mutated. New risk prediction models, such as PREMM1,2,6, have improved test characteristics over Amsterdam and Bethesda criteria for identification of mutation carriers. The Colorectal Adenoma/Carcinoma Prevention Programme (CAPP) trials have shown that aspirin is chemopreventive in Lynch syndrome. Survival in Lynch syndrome patients who develop colorectal cancer is over 90% based on results from a prospective database. Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has been shown to be effective in treatment of metastatic MSI-high colorectal cancer including from Lynch syndrome patients. Immunotherapy has also shown to be effective in patients with biallelic mismatch repair deficiency (BMMRD), a childhood cancer syndrome characterized by brain and gastrointestinal tumors, among others.

Sonia S. Kupfer, MD, is assistant professor of gastroenterology, director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk and Prevention Clinic at the University of Chicago, and an Associate Editor of GI & Hepatology News.

In the July 2010 issue of GI & Hepatology News, Dr. Howard Levy reviewed a number of strategies for recognizing of hereditary colon cancer, specifically Lynch syndrome. At that time, the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) working group had recommended universal molecular tumor testing.

The EGAPP recommendation was the first of several ensuing endorsements of universal tumor testing using immunohistochemistry (IHC) or microsatellite instability (MSI) analysis. For example, the AGA Guideline on Diagnosis and Management of Lynch Syndrome (Gastroenterology. 2015;149[3]:777-82) issued a strong recommendation for tumor testing. We have learned about reflexive BRAF or promoter hypermethylation testing and, in some cases, tumor sequencing for double somatic mutations to identify sporadic MSI-high cases. While tumor testing is widely endorsed and is cost effective, implementation and quality control still remain challenges in clinical practice.

In addition to widespread endorsement of tumor testing, there have been a number of important developments in our understanding of Lynch syndrome. A recent publication estimated the prevalence of mismatch-repair gene mutations associated with Lynch syndrome at 1 in 279. Cancer risks in Lynch syndrome are significantly elevated over the general population, and it has become clear that there are distinct risk estimates depending on the gene that is mutated. New risk prediction models, such as PREMM1,2,6, have improved test characteristics over Amsterdam and Bethesda criteria for identification of mutation carriers. The Colorectal Adenoma/Carcinoma Prevention Programme (CAPP) trials have shown that aspirin is chemopreventive in Lynch syndrome. Survival in Lynch syndrome patients who develop colorectal cancer is over 90% based on results from a prospective database. Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has been shown to be effective in treatment of metastatic MSI-high colorectal cancer including from Lynch syndrome patients. Immunotherapy has also shown to be effective in patients with biallelic mismatch repair deficiency (BMMRD), a childhood cancer syndrome characterized by brain and gastrointestinal tumors, among others.

Sonia S. Kupfer, MD, is assistant professor of gastroenterology, director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk and Prevention Clinic at the University of Chicago, and an Associate Editor of GI & Hepatology News.

In the July 2010 issue of GI & Hepatology News, Dr. Howard Levy reviewed a number of strategies for recognizing of hereditary colon cancer, specifically Lynch syndrome. At that time, the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) working group had recommended universal molecular tumor testing.

The EGAPP recommendation was the first of several ensuing endorsements of universal tumor testing using immunohistochemistry (IHC) or microsatellite instability (MSI) analysis. For example, the AGA Guideline on Diagnosis and Management of Lynch Syndrome (Gastroenterology. 2015;149[3]:777-82) issued a strong recommendation for tumor testing. We have learned about reflexive BRAF or promoter hypermethylation testing and, in some cases, tumor sequencing for double somatic mutations to identify sporadic MSI-high cases. While tumor testing is widely endorsed and is cost effective, implementation and quality control still remain challenges in clinical practice.

In addition to widespread endorsement of tumor testing, there have been a number of important developments in our understanding of Lynch syndrome. A recent publication estimated the prevalence of mismatch-repair gene mutations associated with Lynch syndrome at 1 in 279. Cancer risks in Lynch syndrome are significantly elevated over the general population, and it has become clear that there are distinct risk estimates depending on the gene that is mutated. New risk prediction models, such as PREMM1,2,6, have improved test characteristics over Amsterdam and Bethesda criteria for identification of mutation carriers. The Colorectal Adenoma/Carcinoma Prevention Programme (CAPP) trials have shown that aspirin is chemopreventive in Lynch syndrome. Survival in Lynch syndrome patients who develop colorectal cancer is over 90% based on results from a prospective database. Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has been shown to be effective in treatment of metastatic MSI-high colorectal cancer including from Lynch syndrome patients. Immunotherapy has also shown to be effective in patients with biallelic mismatch repair deficiency (BMMRD), a childhood cancer syndrome characterized by brain and gastrointestinal tumors, among others.

Sonia S. Kupfer, MD, is assistant professor of gastroenterology, director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk and Prevention Clinic at the University of Chicago, and an Associate Editor of GI & Hepatology News.

HOUSTON—A novel protocol designed to speed patients with large-vessel occlusion strokes in and out of primary stroke centers and on to centers where they can undergo definitive thrombectomy treatment produced significant improvements in treatment speed and outcomes among 22 Rhode Island patients managed with the full protocol.

New Protocol Speeds Transfers

He and his associates started the new protocol at 14 Rhode Island primary stroke centers in July 2015 with the following three main features:

• When a patient with a suspected large vessel occlusion with a Los Angeles Motor Score of 4 or 5 arrives at the primary stroke center soon after symptom onset, a call immediately goes out to the Emergency Medical Services transfer center of Rhode Island Hospital to coordinate the transport that will move the patient from the primary center to the comprehensive stroke center when needed.

• The initial CT scan at the primary center is run as the definitive scan, including a conventional CT scan to rule out hemorrhage and allow IV thrombolytic therapy with t-PA and CT angiography to locate the occluding clot.

• The CT images are immediately uploaded to a cloud-based library so that neurologists at Rhode Island Hospital can read the images on their phones and plan the management strategy.

During the 11 months following the start of the protocol, the Rhode Island network identified 70 patients as candidates for thrombectomy, including 22 managed using the complete protocol and 48 managed using only parts of the new protocol.

The median time from stroke symptom onset to revascularization with thrombectomy was 184 minutes in the 22 patients managed under the full protocol and 233 minutes among 48 similar patients who were not fully managed with the protocol, Dr. McTaggart reported. This difference in median times was entirely driven by a difference in the door-in-door-out time at the primary stroke center, which was a median of 64 minutes for the 22 patients managed with the full protocol and a median of 104 minutes without the full protocol, a 38% relative decrease that was statistically significant.

Time to Reperfusion Improved

Time to initiation of IV t-PA at the primary stroke center also improved from a median of 65 minutes without the full protocol to a median of 40 minutes with it, a statistically significant difference. “The primary stroke center physicians tell us they have greater confidence to start t-PA when they have a consult that can identify the patient’s clot,” he said.

Consistent with the shorter time to revascularization, the prevalence after 90 days of a functionally good outcome—a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2—occurred in 50% of patients managed with the full protocol and 25% of those managed with a partial protocol, a statistically significant difference.

To put the 184 minutes median time from stroke onset to reperfusion into perspective, Dr. McTaggart noted that it is comparable to the time to reperfusion documented recently in a US registry of patients undergoing thrombectomy who had been transported directly to the comprehensive stroke centers where their thrombectomy was done.

Change Is Not Easy

He also acknowledged the challenges he and his associates faced while setting up this network. Getting buy-in from all the regional primary strokes centers was “a ton of work,” Dr. McTaggart. “We told the primary stroke center staffs that thrombectomy is a powerful treatment, with a number needed to treat of three to get one improved outcome. That is a convincing argument. The thrombectomy data [that became available in early 2015] made the argument for the protocol and network more compelling.”

Current and Future Goals

Primary stroke centers keep the stroke patients who do not have a clot occlusion suitable for thrombectomy, which means the comprehensive center thrombectomy team receives fewer false-alarm patients. Dr. McTaggart’s current goal is to have primary stroke centers get incoming patients out and on the road to a thrombectomy center within 45 minutes. In the future, primary stroke centers will perform CT imaging on all patients with suspected strokes, not just the severely affected patients with a Los Angeles Motor Score of 4 or 5. Additional useful steps toward speeding appropriate stroke patients to thrombectomy is direct ambulance transport of selected, high-probability patients directly to a comprehensive stroke center and use of mobile stroke units to bring CT imaging and the start of t-PA treatment out into the field.

—Mitchel L. Zoler

HOUSTON—A novel protocol designed to speed patients with large-vessel occlusion strokes in and out of primary stroke centers and on to centers where they can undergo definitive thrombectomy treatment produced significant improvements in treatment speed and outcomes among 22 Rhode Island patients managed with the full protocol.

New Protocol Speeds Transfers

He and his associates started the new protocol at 14 Rhode Island primary stroke centers in July 2015 with the following three main features:

• When a patient with a suspected large vessel occlusion with a Los Angeles Motor Score of 4 or 5 arrives at the primary stroke center soon after symptom onset, a call immediately goes out to the Emergency Medical Services transfer center of Rhode Island Hospital to coordinate the transport that will move the patient from the primary center to the comprehensive stroke center when needed.

• The initial CT scan at the primary center is run as the definitive scan, including a conventional CT scan to rule out hemorrhage and allow IV thrombolytic therapy with t-PA and CT angiography to locate the occluding clot.

• The CT images are immediately uploaded to a cloud-based library so that neurologists at Rhode Island Hospital can read the images on their phones and plan the management strategy.

During the 11 months following the start of the protocol, the Rhode Island network identified 70 patients as candidates for thrombectomy, including 22 managed using the complete protocol and 48 managed using only parts of the new protocol.

The median time from stroke symptom onset to revascularization with thrombectomy was 184 minutes in the 22 patients managed under the full protocol and 233 minutes among 48 similar patients who were not fully managed with the protocol, Dr. McTaggart reported. This difference in median times was entirely driven by a difference in the door-in-door-out time at the primary stroke center, which was a median of 64 minutes for the 22 patients managed with the full protocol and a median of 104 minutes without the full protocol, a 38% relative decrease that was statistically significant.

Time to Reperfusion Improved

Time to initiation of IV t-PA at the primary stroke center also improved from a median of 65 minutes without the full protocol to a median of 40 minutes with it, a statistically significant difference. “The primary stroke center physicians tell us they have greater confidence to start t-PA when they have a consult that can identify the patient’s clot,” he said.

Consistent with the shorter time to revascularization, the prevalence after 90 days of a functionally good outcome—a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2—occurred in 50% of patients managed with the full protocol and 25% of those managed with a partial protocol, a statistically significant difference.

To put the 184 minutes median time from stroke onset to reperfusion into perspective, Dr. McTaggart noted that it is comparable to the time to reperfusion documented recently in a US registry of patients undergoing thrombectomy who had been transported directly to the comprehensive stroke centers where their thrombectomy was done.

Change Is Not Easy

He also acknowledged the challenges he and his associates faced while setting up this network. Getting buy-in from all the regional primary strokes centers was “a ton of work,” Dr. McTaggart. “We told the primary stroke center staffs that thrombectomy is a powerful treatment, with a number needed to treat of three to get one improved outcome. That is a convincing argument. The thrombectomy data [that became available in early 2015] made the argument for the protocol and network more compelling.”

Current and Future Goals

Primary stroke centers keep the stroke patients who do not have a clot occlusion suitable for thrombectomy, which means the comprehensive center thrombectomy team receives fewer false-alarm patients. Dr. McTaggart’s current goal is to have primary stroke centers get incoming patients out and on the road to a thrombectomy center within 45 minutes. In the future, primary stroke centers will perform CT imaging on all patients with suspected strokes, not just the severely affected patients with a Los Angeles Motor Score of 4 or 5. Additional useful steps toward speeding appropriate stroke patients to thrombectomy is direct ambulance transport of selected, high-probability patients directly to a comprehensive stroke center and use of mobile stroke units to bring CT imaging and the start of t-PA treatment out into the field.

—Mitchel L. Zoler

HOUSTON—A novel protocol designed to speed patients with large-vessel occlusion strokes in and out of primary stroke centers and on to centers where they can undergo definitive thrombectomy treatment produced significant improvements in treatment speed and outcomes among 22 Rhode Island patients managed with the full protocol.

New Protocol Speeds Transfers

He and his associates started the new protocol at 14 Rhode Island primary stroke centers in July 2015 with the following three main features:

• When a patient with a suspected large vessel occlusion with a Los Angeles Motor Score of 4 or 5 arrives at the primary stroke center soon after symptom onset, a call immediately goes out to the Emergency Medical Services transfer center of Rhode Island Hospital to coordinate the transport that will move the patient from the primary center to the comprehensive stroke center when needed.

• The initial CT scan at the primary center is run as the definitive scan, including a conventional CT scan to rule out hemorrhage and allow IV thrombolytic therapy with t-PA and CT angiography to locate the occluding clot.

• The CT images are immediately uploaded to a cloud-based library so that neurologists at Rhode Island Hospital can read the images on their phones and plan the management strategy.

During the 11 months following the start of the protocol, the Rhode Island network identified 70 patients as candidates for thrombectomy, including 22 managed using the complete protocol and 48 managed using only parts of the new protocol.

The median time from stroke symptom onset to revascularization with thrombectomy was 184 minutes in the 22 patients managed under the full protocol and 233 minutes among 48 similar patients who were not fully managed with the protocol, Dr. McTaggart reported. This difference in median times was entirely driven by a difference in the door-in-door-out time at the primary stroke center, which was a median of 64 minutes for the 22 patients managed with the full protocol and a median of 104 minutes without the full protocol, a 38% relative decrease that was statistically significant.

Time to Reperfusion Improved

Time to initiation of IV t-PA at the primary stroke center also improved from a median of 65 minutes without the full protocol to a median of 40 minutes with it, a statistically significant difference. “The primary stroke center physicians tell us they have greater confidence to start t-PA when they have a consult that can identify the patient’s clot,” he said.

Consistent with the shorter time to revascularization, the prevalence after 90 days of a functionally good outcome—a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2—occurred in 50% of patients managed with the full protocol and 25% of those managed with a partial protocol, a statistically significant difference.

To put the 184 minutes median time from stroke onset to reperfusion into perspective, Dr. McTaggart noted that it is comparable to the time to reperfusion documented recently in a US registry of patients undergoing thrombectomy who had been transported directly to the comprehensive stroke centers where their thrombectomy was done.

Change Is Not Easy

He also acknowledged the challenges he and his associates faced while setting up this network. Getting buy-in from all the regional primary strokes centers was “a ton of work,” Dr. McTaggart. “We told the primary stroke center staffs that thrombectomy is a powerful treatment, with a number needed to treat of three to get one improved outcome. That is a convincing argument. The thrombectomy data [that became available in early 2015] made the argument for the protocol and network more compelling.”

Current and Future Goals

Primary stroke centers keep the stroke patients who do not have a clot occlusion suitable for thrombectomy, which means the comprehensive center thrombectomy team receives fewer false-alarm patients. Dr. McTaggart’s current goal is to have primary stroke centers get incoming patients out and on the road to a thrombectomy center within 45 minutes. In the future, primary stroke centers will perform CT imaging on all patients with suspected strokes, not just the severely affected patients with a Los Angeles Motor Score of 4 or 5. Additional useful steps toward speeding appropriate stroke patients to thrombectomy is direct ambulance transport of selected, high-probability patients directly to a comprehensive stroke center and use of mobile stroke units to bring CT imaging and the start of t-PA treatment out into the field.

—Mitchel L. Zoler

Approximately 35 million Americans are affected by irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). April is IBS Awareness Month, which is a perfect time to ensure you have the resources to care for your IBS patients.

To help your IBS patients, AGA provides credible, accessible education information on the following topics in English and Spanish.

• • What is irritable bowel syndrome?
• • Symptoms
• • Getting tested
• • Newly diagnosed
• • Treatment
• • Complications

Visit www.gastro.org/IBS to access our patient materials.

Approximately 35 million Americans are affected by irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). April is IBS Awareness Month, which is a perfect time to ensure you have the resources to care for your IBS patients.

To help your IBS patients, AGA provides credible, accessible education information on the following topics in English and Spanish.

• • What is irritable bowel syndrome?
• • Symptoms
• • Getting tested
• • Newly diagnosed
• • Treatment
• • Complications

Visit www.gastro.org/IBS to access our patient materials.

Approximately 35 million Americans are affected by irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). April is IBS Awareness Month, which is a perfect time to ensure you have the resources to care for your IBS patients.

To help your IBS patients, AGA provides credible, accessible education information on the following topics in English and Spanish.

• • What is irritable bowel syndrome?
• • Symptoms
• • Getting tested
• • Newly diagnosed
• • Treatment
• • Complications

Visit www.gastro.org/IBS to access our patient materials.

Those of us who consider ourselves centrists are feeling pretty lonely right now. It seems everyone else, or at least all of the folks in Washington, have fled to the extreme political poles and left us to search for a patch of middle ground to stand on. It appears that without courageous leadership the silent majority has splintered and gravitated to the tails of what was once a bell-shaped curve.

One issue that might attract support from both sides of the political spectrum emerged from the Nov. 18, 2016, report from the United States Department of Agriculture that listed sweetened drinks as the No. 1 purchase by households participating in SNAP (“Foods Typically Purchased by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Households”). The data reveal that households in this $74 billion program are spending 5% of their food dollars on soft drinks and almost 10% on sweetened beverages – soft drinks, fruit juices, energy drinks, and sweetened teas.

Several states (including Maine), dozens of other municipalities (most notably New York City under Mayor Michael Bloomberg), and a variety of medical groups have asked the USDA to reconsider its guidelines. Arguing that selectively banning certain items would generate too much red tape and be unfair to food stamp recipients, the department has been resistant to change (“In the Shopping Cart of a Food Stamp Household: Lots of Soda,” by Anahad O’Connor, New York Times, Jan. 13, 2017). One has to wonder how much of the department’s hesitancy is a reflection of the millions of dollars the food and beverage industries have invested in lobbying against change.

There are some ultra liberals (or progressives if you prefer) who feel that no one should be deprived of the privilege of buying unhealthy food simply because he or she is poor. At the other end of the spectrum there are conservatives who would prefer to scrap the whole SNAP program because it is a wasteful frill of the welfare state. However, I have to believe that the vast majority of folks on both sides of the political divide believe that feeding the less fortunate is important, but that spending their tax money on junk food and soft drinks is a bad idea.

While we still are learning that the causes of our obesity epidemic are far more complex than we once imagined, I think most people believe that soft drinks and junk food are playing a significant role – even though these same folks may have found it difficult to change their own behavior. According to the New York Times article mentioned above, Kevin Concannon, the USDA undersecretary for food, nutrition, and consumer services, said that instead of restricting food, the USDA has prioritized incentive programs to encourage participants to purchase more nutritious foods. However, a 2014 study of more than 19,000 SNAP recipients by Stanford researchers determined that an incentive program would not affect obesity rates, while banning sugary drinks would “significantly reduce obesity prevalence and type 2 diabetes incidence” (Health Aff. Jun 2014;33[6]:1032-9).

All we need now are a few courageous senators and congressmen to buck the soft drink lobby and bring this issue to the front burner. I have to believe that there are more than enough people, both liberals and conservatives, who would venture together on the middle ground and support removing sweetened drinks from the SNAP program. If I’m correct, it would be a refreshing example of some much needed legislative cooperation. Or, am I just a lonely dreamer longing for some company here in the center?
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Those of us who consider ourselves centrists are feeling pretty lonely right now. It seems everyone else, or at least all of the folks in Washington, have fled to the extreme political poles and left us to search for a patch of middle ground to stand on. It appears that without courageous leadership the silent majority has splintered and gravitated to the tails of what was once a bell-shaped curve.

One issue that might attract support from both sides of the political spectrum emerged from the Nov. 18, 2016, report from the United States Department of Agriculture that listed sweetened drinks as the No. 1 purchase by households participating in SNAP (“Foods Typically Purchased by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Households”). The data reveal that households in this $74 billion program are spending 5% of their food dollars on soft drinks and almost 10% on sweetened beverages – soft drinks, fruit juices, energy drinks, and sweetened teas.

Several states (including Maine), dozens of other municipalities (most notably New York City under Mayor Michael Bloomberg), and a variety of medical groups have asked the USDA to reconsider its guidelines. Arguing that selectively banning certain items would generate too much red tape and be unfair to food stamp recipients, the department has been resistant to change (“In the Shopping Cart of a Food Stamp Household: Lots of Soda,” by Anahad O’Connor, New York Times, Jan. 13, 2017). One has to wonder how much of the department’s hesitancy is a reflection of the millions of dollars the food and beverage industries have invested in lobbying against change.

There are some ultra liberals (or progressives if you prefer) who feel that no one should be deprived of the privilege of buying unhealthy food simply because he or she is poor. At the other end of the spectrum there are conservatives who would prefer to scrap the whole SNAP program because it is a wasteful frill of the welfare state. However, I have to believe that the vast majority of folks on both sides of the political divide believe that feeding the less fortunate is important, but that spending their tax money on junk food and soft drinks is a bad idea.

While we still are learning that the causes of our obesity epidemic are far more complex than we once imagined, I think most people believe that soft drinks and junk food are playing a significant role – even though these same folks may have found it difficult to change their own behavior. According to the New York Times article mentioned above, Kevin Concannon, the USDA undersecretary for food, nutrition, and consumer services, said that instead of restricting food, the USDA has prioritized incentive programs to encourage participants to purchase more nutritious foods. However, a 2014 study of more than 19,000 SNAP recipients by Stanford researchers determined that an incentive program would not affect obesity rates, while banning sugary drinks would “significantly reduce obesity prevalence and type 2 diabetes incidence” (Health Aff. Jun 2014;33[6]:1032-9).

All we need now are a few courageous senators and congressmen to buck the soft drink lobby and bring this issue to the front burner. I have to believe that there are more than enough people, both liberals and conservatives, who would venture together on the middle ground and support removing sweetened drinks from the SNAP program. If I’m correct, it would be a refreshing example of some much needed legislative cooperation. Or, am I just a lonely dreamer longing for some company here in the center?
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Those of us who consider ourselves centrists are feeling pretty lonely right now. It seems everyone else, or at least all of the folks in Washington, have fled to the extreme political poles and left us to search for a patch of middle ground to stand on. It appears that without courageous leadership the silent majority has splintered and gravitated to the tails of what was once a bell-shaped curve.

One issue that might attract support from both sides of the political spectrum emerged from the Nov. 18, 2016, report from the United States Department of Agriculture that listed sweetened drinks as the No. 1 purchase by households participating in SNAP (“Foods Typically Purchased by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Households”). The data reveal that households in this $74 billion program are spending 5% of their food dollars on soft drinks and almost 10% on sweetened beverages – soft drinks, fruit juices, energy drinks, and sweetened teas.

Several states (including Maine), dozens of other municipalities (most notably New York City under Mayor Michael Bloomberg), and a variety of medical groups have asked the USDA to reconsider its guidelines. Arguing that selectively banning certain items would generate too much red tape and be unfair to food stamp recipients, the department has been resistant to change (“In the Shopping Cart of a Food Stamp Household: Lots of Soda,” by Anahad O’Connor, New York Times, Jan. 13, 2017). One has to wonder how much of the department’s hesitancy is a reflection of the millions of dollars the food and beverage industries have invested in lobbying against change.

There are some ultra liberals (or progressives if you prefer) who feel that no one should be deprived of the privilege of buying unhealthy food simply because he or she is poor. At the other end of the spectrum there are conservatives who would prefer to scrap the whole SNAP program because it is a wasteful frill of the welfare state. However, I have to believe that the vast majority of folks on both sides of the political divide believe that feeding the less fortunate is important, but that spending their tax money on junk food and soft drinks is a bad idea.

While we still are learning that the causes of our obesity epidemic are far more complex than we once imagined, I think most people believe that soft drinks and junk food are playing a significant role – even though these same folks may have found it difficult to change their own behavior. According to the New York Times article mentioned above, Kevin Concannon, the USDA undersecretary for food, nutrition, and consumer services, said that instead of restricting food, the USDA has prioritized incentive programs to encourage participants to purchase more nutritious foods. However, a 2014 study of more than 19,000 SNAP recipients by Stanford researchers determined that an incentive program would not affect obesity rates, while banning sugary drinks would “significantly reduce obesity prevalence and type 2 diabetes incidence” (Health Aff. Jun 2014;33[6]:1032-9).

All we need now are a few courageous senators and congressmen to buck the soft drink lobby and bring this issue to the front burner. I have to believe that there are more than enough people, both liberals and conservatives, who would venture together on the middle ground and support removing sweetened drinks from the SNAP program. If I’m correct, it would be a refreshing example of some much needed legislative cooperation. Or, am I just a lonely dreamer longing for some company here in the center?
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

A simple, flexible and versatile way to ensure The AGA Research Foundation can continue our work for years to come is a gift in your will or living trust, known as a charitable bequest. To make a charitable bequest, you need a current will or living trust.

Your gift can be made as a percentage of your estate. Or you can make a specific bequest by giving a certain amount of cash, securities, or property. After your lifetime, the AGA Research Foundation receives your gift.

We hope you’ll consider including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your will or living trust. It’s simple – just a few sentences in your will or trust are all that is needed. The official bequest language for the AGA Research Foundation is: “I, [name], of [city, state, ZIP], give, devise, and bequeath to the AGA Research Foundation [written amount or percentage of the estate or description of property] for its unrestricted use and purpose.”

When planning a future gift, it’s sometimes difficult to determine what size donation will make sense. Emergencies happen, and you need to make sure your family is financially taken care of first. Including a bequest of a percentage of your estate ensures that your gift will remain proportionate no matter how your estate’s value fluctuates over the years.

Whether you would like to put your donation to work today or benefit us after your lifetime, you can find a charitable plan that lets you provide for your family and support the AGA Research Foundation.

Please contact us for more information at [email protected] or visit http://gastro.planmylegacy.org/.

A simple, flexible and versatile way to ensure The AGA Research Foundation can continue our work for years to come is a gift in your will or living trust, known as a charitable bequest. To make a charitable bequest, you need a current will or living trust.

Your gift can be made as a percentage of your estate. Or you can make a specific bequest by giving a certain amount of cash, securities, or property. After your lifetime, the AGA Research Foundation receives your gift.

We hope you’ll consider including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your will or living trust. It’s simple – just a few sentences in your will or trust are all that is needed. The official bequest language for the AGA Research Foundation is: “I, [name], of [city, state, ZIP], give, devise, and bequeath to the AGA Research Foundation [written amount or percentage of the estate or description of property] for its unrestricted use and purpose.”

When planning a future gift, it’s sometimes difficult to determine what size donation will make sense. Emergencies happen, and you need to make sure your family is financially taken care of first. Including a bequest of a percentage of your estate ensures that your gift will remain proportionate no matter how your estate’s value fluctuates over the years.

Whether you would like to put your donation to work today or benefit us after your lifetime, you can find a charitable plan that lets you provide for your family and support the AGA Research Foundation.

Please contact us for more information at [email protected] or visit http://gastro.planmylegacy.org/.

A simple, flexible and versatile way to ensure The AGA Research Foundation can continue our work for years to come is a gift in your will or living trust, known as a charitable bequest. To make a charitable bequest, you need a current will or living trust.

Your gift can be made as a percentage of your estate. Or you can make a specific bequest by giving a certain amount of cash, securities, or property. After your lifetime, the AGA Research Foundation receives your gift.

We hope you’ll consider including a gift to the AGA Research Foundation in your will or living trust. It’s simple – just a few sentences in your will or trust are all that is needed. The official bequest language for the AGA Research Foundation is: “I, [name], of [city, state, ZIP], give, devise, and bequeath to the AGA Research Foundation [written amount or percentage of the estate or description of property] for its unrestricted use and purpose.”

When planning a future gift, it’s sometimes difficult to determine what size donation will make sense. Emergencies happen, and you need to make sure your family is financially taken care of first. Including a bequest of a percentage of your estate ensures that your gift will remain proportionate no matter how your estate’s value fluctuates over the years.

Whether you would like to put your donation to work today or benefit us after your lifetime, you can find a charitable plan that lets you provide for your family and support the AGA Research Foundation.

Please contact us for more information at [email protected] or visit http://gastro.planmylegacy.org/.