The Federal Trade Commission’s proposed regulation that would ban noncompete agreements across the country seems like potential good news for doctors. Of course, many hospitals and employers are against it. As a result, the FTC’s sweeping proposal has tongues wagging on both sides of the issue.

Many physicians are thrilled that they may soon have more control over their career and not be stuck in jobs where they feel frustrated, underpaid, or blocked in their progress.

If passed, the proposed ban would allow physicians to get a new job with a competing organization, bucking a long-standing trend that hospitals and health care systems have heavily relied on to keep staff in place. As of 2018, as many as 45% of primary care physicians had inked such agreements with their employers.

Typically, the agreements prevent physicians from practicing medicine with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area. No matter how attractive an alternate offer of employment might be, doctors are bound by the agreements to say no if the offer exists in that defined area and time period.

The period for public comment on the proposed regulation ended on April 19, and there is currently no set date for a decision.

In a Medscape poll of 558 physicians, more than 9 out of 10 respondents said that they were either currently bound by a noncompete clause or that they had been bound by one in the past that had forced them to temporarily stop working, commute long distances, move to a different area, or switch fields.

The new proposal would make it illegal for an employer, such as a hospital or large group, to enter a noncompete with a worker; maintain a noncompete with a worker; or represent to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a noncompete.

It also would not only ban future noncompete agreements but also retroactively invalidate existing ones. The FTC reasons that noncompete clauses could potentially increase worker earnings as well as lower health care costs by billions of dollars. If the ruling were to move forward, it would represent part of President Biden’s “worker-forward” priorities, focusing on how competition can be a good thing for employees. The President billed the FTC’s announcement as a “huge win for workers.”

In its statements on the proposed ban, the FTC claimed that it could lower consumer prices across the board by as much as $150 billion per year and return nearly $300 million to workers each year.

However, even if passed, the draft rule would keep in place nonsolicitation rules that many health care organizations have put into place. That means that, if a physician leaves an employer, he or she cannot reach out to former patients and colleagues to bring them along or invite them to switch to him or her in the new job.

Within that clause, however, the FTC has specified that if such nonsolicitation agreement has the “equivalent effect” of a noncompete, the agency would deem it such. That means, even if that rule stays, it could be contested and may be interpreted as violating the noncompete law. So there’s value in reading all the fine print should the ban move forward.
 

Could the ban bring potential downsides?

Most physicians view the potential to break free of a noncompete agreement as a victory. Peter Glennon, an employment litigation attorney with The Glennon Law Firm in Rochester, N.Y., says not so fast. “If you ask anyone if they’d prefer a noncompete agreement, of course they’re going to say no,” he said in an interview. “It sounds like a restriction, one that can hold you back.”

Mr. Glennon believes that there are actually upsides to physician noncompetes. For instance, many noncompetes come with sign-on bonuses that could potentially disappear without the agreements. There’s also the fact that when some physicians sign a noncompete agreement, they then receive pro bono training and continuing education along with marketing and promotion of their skills. Without signing a noncompete, employers may be less incentivized to provide all those benefits to their physician employers.

Those benefits – and the noncompetes – also vary by specialty, Mr. Glennon said. “In 2021, Washington, DC, banned noncompetes for doctors making less than $250,000. So, most generalists there can walk across the street and get a new job. For specialists like cardiologists or neurosurgeons, however, advanced training and marketing benefits matter, so many of them don’t want to lose noncompetes.”

Still, most physicians hope that the FTC’s ban takes hold. Manan Shah, MD, founder, and chief medical officer at Wyndly, an allergy relief startup practice, is one of them.

“Initially, it might disincentivize hospital systems from helping new physicians build up their name and practice because they might be concerned about a physician leaving and starting anew,” he said. “But in the long term, hospitals require physicians to bring their patients to them for care, so the best hospitals will always compete for the best physicians and support them as they build up their practice.”

Dr. Shah views noncompetes as overly prohibitive to physicians. “Right now, if a physician starts a job at a large hospital system and realizes they want to switch jobs, the noncompete distances are so wide they often have to move cities to continue practicing,” he said. “Picking up and starting over in a new city isn’t an option for everyone and can be especially difficult for someone with a family.”

Where Mr. Glennon argued that a physician leaving a team-based practice might harm patients, Shah takes a different perspective. “Imagine you have a doctor whom you trust and have been working with,” he said. “If something changes at their hospital and they decide to move, you literally have to find a new doctor instead of just being able to see them at another location down the street.”

Another potential burden of the noncompete agreements is that they could possibly squelch doctor’s desires to hang up their own shingle. According to Dr. Shah, the agreements make it so that if a physician wants to work independently, it’s nearly impossible to fly solo. “This is frustrating because independent practices have been shown to be more cost effective and allow patients to build better relationships with their doctors,” he claimed.

A 2016 study from Annals of Family Medicine supports that claim, at least for small general practices. Another study appearing in JAMA concurred. It does point out, however, that the cost equation is nuanced and that benefits of larger systems include more resilience to economic downturns and can provide more specialized care.
 

Will nonprofit hospitals be subject to this noncompete ban?

Further complicating the noncompete ban issue is how it might impact nonprofit institutions versus their for-profit peers. Most hospitals structured as nonprofits would be exempt from the rule because the FTC Act provides that it can enforce against “persons, partnerships, or corporations,” which are further defined as entities “organized to carry on business for their own profit or that of their members.”

The fallout from this, said Dr. Shah, is that it “would disproportionately affect health care providers, since many hospital systems are nonprofits. This is disconcerting because we know that many nonprofit systems make large profits anyway and can offer executive teams’ lucrative packages, while the nurses, assistants, and physicians providing the care are generally not well compensated.”

So far, about nine states plus Washington, D.C., have already put noncompete bans in place, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each varies in its specifics. Some, like Indiana, outright ban them, whereas others limit them based on variables like income and industry. “We’re seeing these states responding to local market conditions,” said Darryl Drevna, senior director of regulatory affairs at the American Medical Group Association. “Health care is a hyperlocal market. Depending on the situation, the bans adapt and respond specific to those states.”

Should the federal ban take hold, however, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.

Some opponents of the federal ban proposal question its authority to begin with, however, Mr. Glennon included. “Many people believe the FTC is overstepping,” he said. “Some people believe that Section 5 of the FTC Act does not give it the authority to police labor markets.”

Mr. Drevna noted that the FTC has taken an aggressive stance, one that will ultimately wind up in the courts. “How it works out is anyone’s guess,” he said. “Ideally, the FTC will consider the comments and concerns of groups like AMGA and realize that states are best suited to regulate in this area.”

In general, the ban’s supporters are employees/physicians; those who oppose it are their employers. Joining the AMGA in speaking out against the noncompete ban is the American Hospital Association, whereas the American College of Emergency Physicians has come out largely in support of the ban.

Still, doctors like Dr. Shah remain hopeful. “I am optimistic that perhaps my colleagues will not continue to be stuck in overrestrictive noncompetes, but I am also realistic,” he said. “Hospital systems are already coming out strongly against this and they have deep pockets, so I won’t be surprised if it does not come to pass.”

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

The Federal Trade Commission’s proposed regulation that would ban noncompete agreements across the country seems like potential good news for doctors. Of course, many hospitals and employers are against it. As a result, the FTC’s sweeping proposal has tongues wagging on both sides of the issue.

Many physicians are thrilled that they may soon have more control over their career and not be stuck in jobs where they feel frustrated, underpaid, or blocked in their progress.

If passed, the proposed ban would allow physicians to get a new job with a competing organization, bucking a long-standing trend that hospitals and health care systems have heavily relied on to keep staff in place. As of 2018, as many as 45% of primary care physicians had inked such agreements with their employers.

Typically, the agreements prevent physicians from practicing medicine with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area. No matter how attractive an alternate offer of employment might be, doctors are bound by the agreements to say no if the offer exists in that defined area and time period.

The period for public comment on the proposed regulation ended on April 19, and there is currently no set date for a decision.

In a Medscape poll of 558 physicians, more than 9 out of 10 respondents said that they were either currently bound by a noncompete clause or that they had been bound by one in the past that had forced them to temporarily stop working, commute long distances, move to a different area, or switch fields.

The new proposal would make it illegal for an employer, such as a hospital or large group, to enter a noncompete with a worker; maintain a noncompete with a worker; or represent to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a noncompete.

It also would not only ban future noncompete agreements but also retroactively invalidate existing ones. The FTC reasons that noncompete clauses could potentially increase worker earnings as well as lower health care costs by billions of dollars. If the ruling were to move forward, it would represent part of President Biden’s “worker-forward” priorities, focusing on how competition can be a good thing for employees. The President billed the FTC’s announcement as a “huge win for workers.”

In its statements on the proposed ban, the FTC claimed that it could lower consumer prices across the board by as much as $150 billion per year and return nearly $300 million to workers each year.

However, even if passed, the draft rule would keep in place nonsolicitation rules that many health care organizations have put into place. That means that, if a physician leaves an employer, he or she cannot reach out to former patients and colleagues to bring them along or invite them to switch to him or her in the new job.

Within that clause, however, the FTC has specified that if such nonsolicitation agreement has the “equivalent effect” of a noncompete, the agency would deem it such. That means, even if that rule stays, it could be contested and may be interpreted as violating the noncompete law. So there’s value in reading all the fine print should the ban move forward.
 

Could the ban bring potential downsides?

Most physicians view the potential to break free of a noncompete agreement as a victory. Peter Glennon, an employment litigation attorney with The Glennon Law Firm in Rochester, N.Y., says not so fast. “If you ask anyone if they’d prefer a noncompete agreement, of course they’re going to say no,” he said in an interview. “It sounds like a restriction, one that can hold you back.”

Mr. Glennon believes that there are actually upsides to physician noncompetes. For instance, many noncompetes come with sign-on bonuses that could potentially disappear without the agreements. There’s also the fact that when some physicians sign a noncompete agreement, they then receive pro bono training and continuing education along with marketing and promotion of their skills. Without signing a noncompete, employers may be less incentivized to provide all those benefits to their physician employers.

Those benefits – and the noncompetes – also vary by specialty, Mr. Glennon said. “In 2021, Washington, DC, banned noncompetes for doctors making less than $250,000. So, most generalists there can walk across the street and get a new job. For specialists like cardiologists or neurosurgeons, however, advanced training and marketing benefits matter, so many of them don’t want to lose noncompetes.”

Still, most physicians hope that the FTC’s ban takes hold. Manan Shah, MD, founder, and chief medical officer at Wyndly, an allergy relief startup practice, is one of them.

“Initially, it might disincentivize hospital systems from helping new physicians build up their name and practice because they might be concerned about a physician leaving and starting anew,” he said. “But in the long term, hospitals require physicians to bring their patients to them for care, so the best hospitals will always compete for the best physicians and support them as they build up their practice.”

Dr. Shah views noncompetes as overly prohibitive to physicians. “Right now, if a physician starts a job at a large hospital system and realizes they want to switch jobs, the noncompete distances are so wide they often have to move cities to continue practicing,” he said. “Picking up and starting over in a new city isn’t an option for everyone and can be especially difficult for someone with a family.”

Where Mr. Glennon argued that a physician leaving a team-based practice might harm patients, Shah takes a different perspective. “Imagine you have a doctor whom you trust and have been working with,” he said. “If something changes at their hospital and they decide to move, you literally have to find a new doctor instead of just being able to see them at another location down the street.”

Another potential burden of the noncompete agreements is that they could possibly squelch doctor’s desires to hang up their own shingle. According to Dr. Shah, the agreements make it so that if a physician wants to work independently, it’s nearly impossible to fly solo. “This is frustrating because independent practices have been shown to be more cost effective and allow patients to build better relationships with their doctors,” he claimed.

A 2016 study from Annals of Family Medicine supports that claim, at least for small general practices. Another study appearing in JAMA concurred. It does point out, however, that the cost equation is nuanced and that benefits of larger systems include more resilience to economic downturns and can provide more specialized care.
 

Will nonprofit hospitals be subject to this noncompete ban?

Further complicating the noncompete ban issue is how it might impact nonprofit institutions versus their for-profit peers. Most hospitals structured as nonprofits would be exempt from the rule because the FTC Act provides that it can enforce against “persons, partnerships, or corporations,” which are further defined as entities “organized to carry on business for their own profit or that of their members.”

The fallout from this, said Dr. Shah, is that it “would disproportionately affect health care providers, since many hospital systems are nonprofits. This is disconcerting because we know that many nonprofit systems make large profits anyway and can offer executive teams’ lucrative packages, while the nurses, assistants, and physicians providing the care are generally not well compensated.”

So far, about nine states plus Washington, D.C., have already put noncompete bans in place, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each varies in its specifics. Some, like Indiana, outright ban them, whereas others limit them based on variables like income and industry. “We’re seeing these states responding to local market conditions,” said Darryl Drevna, senior director of regulatory affairs at the American Medical Group Association. “Health care is a hyperlocal market. Depending on the situation, the bans adapt and respond specific to those states.”

Should the federal ban take hold, however, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.

Some opponents of the federal ban proposal question its authority to begin with, however, Mr. Glennon included. “Many people believe the FTC is overstepping,” he said. “Some people believe that Section 5 of the FTC Act does not give it the authority to police labor markets.”

Mr. Drevna noted that the FTC has taken an aggressive stance, one that will ultimately wind up in the courts. “How it works out is anyone’s guess,” he said. “Ideally, the FTC will consider the comments and concerns of groups like AMGA and realize that states are best suited to regulate in this area.”

In general, the ban’s supporters are employees/physicians; those who oppose it are their employers. Joining the AMGA in speaking out against the noncompete ban is the American Hospital Association, whereas the American College of Emergency Physicians has come out largely in support of the ban.

Still, doctors like Dr. Shah remain hopeful. “I am optimistic that perhaps my colleagues will not continue to be stuck in overrestrictive noncompetes, but I am also realistic,” he said. “Hospital systems are already coming out strongly against this and they have deep pockets, so I won’t be surprised if it does not come to pass.”

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

The Federal Trade Commission’s proposed regulation that would ban noncompete agreements across the country seems like potential good news for doctors. Of course, many hospitals and employers are against it. As a result, the FTC’s sweeping proposal has tongues wagging on both sides of the issue.

Many physicians are thrilled that they may soon have more control over their career and not be stuck in jobs where they feel frustrated, underpaid, or blocked in their progress.

If passed, the proposed ban would allow physicians to get a new job with a competing organization, bucking a long-standing trend that hospitals and health care systems have heavily relied on to keep staff in place. As of 2018, as many as 45% of primary care physicians had inked such agreements with their employers.

Typically, the agreements prevent physicians from practicing medicine with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area. No matter how attractive an alternate offer of employment might be, doctors are bound by the agreements to say no if the offer exists in that defined area and time period.

The period for public comment on the proposed regulation ended on April 19, and there is currently no set date for a decision.

In a Medscape poll of 558 physicians, more than 9 out of 10 respondents said that they were either currently bound by a noncompete clause or that they had been bound by one in the past that had forced them to temporarily stop working, commute long distances, move to a different area, or switch fields.

The new proposal would make it illegal for an employer, such as a hospital or large group, to enter a noncompete with a worker; maintain a noncompete with a worker; or represent to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a noncompete.

It also would not only ban future noncompete agreements but also retroactively invalidate existing ones. The FTC reasons that noncompete clauses could potentially increase worker earnings as well as lower health care costs by billions of dollars. If the ruling were to move forward, it would represent part of President Biden’s “worker-forward” priorities, focusing on how competition can be a good thing for employees. The President billed the FTC’s announcement as a “huge win for workers.”

In its statements on the proposed ban, the FTC claimed that it could lower consumer prices across the board by as much as $150 billion per year and return nearly $300 million to workers each year.

However, even if passed, the draft rule would keep in place nonsolicitation rules that many health care organizations have put into place. That means that, if a physician leaves an employer, he or she cannot reach out to former patients and colleagues to bring them along or invite them to switch to him or her in the new job.

Within that clause, however, the FTC has specified that if such nonsolicitation agreement has the “equivalent effect” of a noncompete, the agency would deem it such. That means, even if that rule stays, it could be contested and may be interpreted as violating the noncompete law. So there’s value in reading all the fine print should the ban move forward.
 

Could the ban bring potential downsides?

Most physicians view the potential to break free of a noncompete agreement as a victory. Peter Glennon, an employment litigation attorney with The Glennon Law Firm in Rochester, N.Y., says not so fast. “If you ask anyone if they’d prefer a noncompete agreement, of course they’re going to say no,” he said in an interview. “It sounds like a restriction, one that can hold you back.”

Mr. Glennon believes that there are actually upsides to physician noncompetes. For instance, many noncompetes come with sign-on bonuses that could potentially disappear without the agreements. There’s also the fact that when some physicians sign a noncompete agreement, they then receive pro bono training and continuing education along with marketing and promotion of their skills. Without signing a noncompete, employers may be less incentivized to provide all those benefits to their physician employers.

Those benefits – and the noncompetes – also vary by specialty, Mr. Glennon said. “In 2021, Washington, DC, banned noncompetes for doctors making less than $250,000. So, most generalists there can walk across the street and get a new job. For specialists like cardiologists or neurosurgeons, however, advanced training and marketing benefits matter, so many of them don’t want to lose noncompetes.”

Still, most physicians hope that the FTC’s ban takes hold. Manan Shah, MD, founder, and chief medical officer at Wyndly, an allergy relief startup practice, is one of them.

“Initially, it might disincentivize hospital systems from helping new physicians build up their name and practice because they might be concerned about a physician leaving and starting anew,” he said. “But in the long term, hospitals require physicians to bring their patients to them for care, so the best hospitals will always compete for the best physicians and support them as they build up their practice.”

Dr. Shah views noncompetes as overly prohibitive to physicians. “Right now, if a physician starts a job at a large hospital system and realizes they want to switch jobs, the noncompete distances are so wide they often have to move cities to continue practicing,” he said. “Picking up and starting over in a new city isn’t an option for everyone and can be especially difficult for someone with a family.”

Where Mr. Glennon argued that a physician leaving a team-based practice might harm patients, Shah takes a different perspective. “Imagine you have a doctor whom you trust and have been working with,” he said. “If something changes at their hospital and they decide to move, you literally have to find a new doctor instead of just being able to see them at another location down the street.”

Another potential burden of the noncompete agreements is that they could possibly squelch doctor’s desires to hang up their own shingle. According to Dr. Shah, the agreements make it so that if a physician wants to work independently, it’s nearly impossible to fly solo. “This is frustrating because independent practices have been shown to be more cost effective and allow patients to build better relationships with their doctors,” he claimed.

A 2016 study from Annals of Family Medicine supports that claim, at least for small general practices. Another study appearing in JAMA concurred. It does point out, however, that the cost equation is nuanced and that benefits of larger systems include more resilience to economic downturns and can provide more specialized care.
 

Will nonprofit hospitals be subject to this noncompete ban?

Further complicating the noncompete ban issue is how it might impact nonprofit institutions versus their for-profit peers. Most hospitals structured as nonprofits would be exempt from the rule because the FTC Act provides that it can enforce against “persons, partnerships, or corporations,” which are further defined as entities “organized to carry on business for their own profit or that of their members.”

The fallout from this, said Dr. Shah, is that it “would disproportionately affect health care providers, since many hospital systems are nonprofits. This is disconcerting because we know that many nonprofit systems make large profits anyway and can offer executive teams’ lucrative packages, while the nurses, assistants, and physicians providing the care are generally not well compensated.”

So far, about nine states plus Washington, D.C., have already put noncompete bans in place, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each varies in its specifics. Some, like Indiana, outright ban them, whereas others limit them based on variables like income and industry. “We’re seeing these states responding to local market conditions,” said Darryl Drevna, senior director of regulatory affairs at the American Medical Group Association. “Health care is a hyperlocal market. Depending on the situation, the bans adapt and respond specific to those states.”

Should the federal ban take hold, however, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.

Some opponents of the federal ban proposal question its authority to begin with, however, Mr. Glennon included. “Many people believe the FTC is overstepping,” he said. “Some people believe that Section 5 of the FTC Act does not give it the authority to police labor markets.”

Mr. Drevna noted that the FTC has taken an aggressive stance, one that will ultimately wind up in the courts. “How it works out is anyone’s guess,” he said. “Ideally, the FTC will consider the comments and concerns of groups like AMGA and realize that states are best suited to regulate in this area.”

In general, the ban’s supporters are employees/physicians; those who oppose it are their employers. Joining the AMGA in speaking out against the noncompete ban is the American Hospital Association, whereas the American College of Emergency Physicians has come out largely in support of the ban.

Still, doctors like Dr. Shah remain hopeful. “I am optimistic that perhaps my colleagues will not continue to be stuck in overrestrictive noncompetes, but I am also realistic,” he said. “Hospital systems are already coming out strongly against this and they have deep pockets, so I won’t be surprised if it does not come to pass.”

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

Adding the immunotherapy cemiplimab to chemotherapy for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not only improved overall survival but also led to quality-of-life benefits, new data show.

In the trial, patients who received the PD-1 inhibitor plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in the first-line setting reported significant improvements in pain symptoms and delay in time to deterioration, as well as improvements in disease-related symptoms, such as dyspnea, constipation, nausea, and vomiting.

Overall, “the findings support the concept that the superior efficacy and favorable safety profile of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy translate to better patient-reported outcomes compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer, “ corresponding author Tamta Makharadze, MD, of LTD High Technology Hospital Med Center in Batumi, Georgia, said in a press release.

The delays reported in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration “are particularly pertinent, given the anticipated continued improvements in cancer survivorship among patients with advanced NSCLC,” the authors explained.

The research was published online May 8 in Cancer.

Quality of life is especially important for patients with advanced NSCLC, for whom the benefits of improved survival must be weighed against the potential drawbacks of treatment toxicities, which can severely impact quality of life, the authors noted.

In the initial multinational phase 3 EMPOWER-Lung 3 trial, Dr. Makharadze and colleagues randomly assigned 466 patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or stage IV NSCLC to receive either 350 mg of cemiplimab (Libtayo, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) every 3 weeks along with investigator’s choice of platinum‐doublet chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy. Investigator’s choice of chemotherapy was either paclitaxel plus carboplatin or cisplatin, pemetrexed plus carboplatin, or cisplatin.

The researchers found that the addition of cemiplimab to chemotherapy was associated with a significant, almost 9-month improvement in overall survival. While the trial also highlighted significant improvements in quality of life, functioning, and most symptoms with cemiplimab in comparison with placebo, the current study provides more details on these patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes.

In the latest analysis, Dr. Makharadze and colleagues evaluated data on the 312 patients in the cemiplimab arm and the 154 in the placebo arm. The median age of the patients was 63 years, and most (83.9%) were men.

Patients in the cemiplimab arm reported significant improvements in pain symptoms from baseline, as measured with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life–Core 30 (QLQ‐C30) score (–4.98; P = .004).

Patients who were treated with cemiplimab also reported a significant delay in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; P < .0001).

Significant delays in the time to deterioration in other functioning and symptom scales favored the cemiplimab group, including dyspnea (HR, 0.54), nausea/vomiting (HR, 0.39), and constipation (HR, 0.48).

The cemiplimab group also reported significantly delayed time to deterioration in physical (HR, 0.62) and emotional functioning (HR, 0.52) compared with the placebo arm as well as significant overall improvements from baseline in global health status/quality of life scores.

No significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes favoring the placebo group were observed on any quality-of-life metric evaluated using the symptom scales.

As for study limitations, the authors said that although about 86% of patients in both arms completed at least one question at baseline and post baseline, “the results may have overrepresented the patients who did well in both treatment arms because patients who progressed no longer completed the questionnaires.”

Nevertheless, the results “show that the favorable efficacy achieved with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy over placebo plus chemotherapy is accompanied by significant overall improvement in pain and significant delay in [time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration] in multiple patient‐reported cancer‐related and lung cancer–specific functions and symptoms,” the authors concluded.

The study was sponsored by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.
 

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

Adding the immunotherapy cemiplimab to chemotherapy for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not only improved overall survival but also led to quality-of-life benefits, new data show.

In the trial, patients who received the PD-1 inhibitor plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in the first-line setting reported significant improvements in pain symptoms and delay in time to deterioration, as well as improvements in disease-related symptoms, such as dyspnea, constipation, nausea, and vomiting.

Overall, “the findings support the concept that the superior efficacy and favorable safety profile of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy translate to better patient-reported outcomes compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer, “ corresponding author Tamta Makharadze, MD, of LTD High Technology Hospital Med Center in Batumi, Georgia, said in a press release.

The delays reported in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration “are particularly pertinent, given the anticipated continued improvements in cancer survivorship among patients with advanced NSCLC,” the authors explained.

The research was published online May 8 in Cancer.

Quality of life is especially important for patients with advanced NSCLC, for whom the benefits of improved survival must be weighed against the potential drawbacks of treatment toxicities, which can severely impact quality of life, the authors noted.

In the initial multinational phase 3 EMPOWER-Lung 3 trial, Dr. Makharadze and colleagues randomly assigned 466 patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or stage IV NSCLC to receive either 350 mg of cemiplimab (Libtayo, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) every 3 weeks along with investigator’s choice of platinum‐doublet chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy. Investigator’s choice of chemotherapy was either paclitaxel plus carboplatin or cisplatin, pemetrexed plus carboplatin, or cisplatin.

The researchers found that the addition of cemiplimab to chemotherapy was associated with a significant, almost 9-month improvement in overall survival. While the trial also highlighted significant improvements in quality of life, functioning, and most symptoms with cemiplimab in comparison with placebo, the current study provides more details on these patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes.

In the latest analysis, Dr. Makharadze and colleagues evaluated data on the 312 patients in the cemiplimab arm and the 154 in the placebo arm. The median age of the patients was 63 years, and most (83.9%) were men.

Patients in the cemiplimab arm reported significant improvements in pain symptoms from baseline, as measured with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life–Core 30 (QLQ‐C30) score (–4.98; P = .004).

Patients who were treated with cemiplimab also reported a significant delay in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; P < .0001).

Significant delays in the time to deterioration in other functioning and symptom scales favored the cemiplimab group, including dyspnea (HR, 0.54), nausea/vomiting (HR, 0.39), and constipation (HR, 0.48).

The cemiplimab group also reported significantly delayed time to deterioration in physical (HR, 0.62) and emotional functioning (HR, 0.52) compared with the placebo arm as well as significant overall improvements from baseline in global health status/quality of life scores.

No significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes favoring the placebo group were observed on any quality-of-life metric evaluated using the symptom scales.

As for study limitations, the authors said that although about 86% of patients in both arms completed at least one question at baseline and post baseline, “the results may have overrepresented the patients who did well in both treatment arms because patients who progressed no longer completed the questionnaires.”

Nevertheless, the results “show that the favorable efficacy achieved with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy over placebo plus chemotherapy is accompanied by significant overall improvement in pain and significant delay in [time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration] in multiple patient‐reported cancer‐related and lung cancer–specific functions and symptoms,” the authors concluded.

The study was sponsored by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.
 

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

Adding the immunotherapy cemiplimab to chemotherapy for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not only improved overall survival but also led to quality-of-life benefits, new data show.

In the trial, patients who received the PD-1 inhibitor plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in the first-line setting reported significant improvements in pain symptoms and delay in time to deterioration, as well as improvements in disease-related symptoms, such as dyspnea, constipation, nausea, and vomiting.

Overall, “the findings support the concept that the superior efficacy and favorable safety profile of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy translate to better patient-reported outcomes compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer, “ corresponding author Tamta Makharadze, MD, of LTD High Technology Hospital Med Center in Batumi, Georgia, said in a press release.

The delays reported in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration “are particularly pertinent, given the anticipated continued improvements in cancer survivorship among patients with advanced NSCLC,” the authors explained.

The research was published online May 8 in Cancer.

Quality of life is especially important for patients with advanced NSCLC, for whom the benefits of improved survival must be weighed against the potential drawbacks of treatment toxicities, which can severely impact quality of life, the authors noted.

In the initial multinational phase 3 EMPOWER-Lung 3 trial, Dr. Makharadze and colleagues randomly assigned 466 patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or stage IV NSCLC to receive either 350 mg of cemiplimab (Libtayo, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) every 3 weeks along with investigator’s choice of platinum‐doublet chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy. Investigator’s choice of chemotherapy was either paclitaxel plus carboplatin or cisplatin, pemetrexed plus carboplatin, or cisplatin.

The researchers found that the addition of cemiplimab to chemotherapy was associated with a significant, almost 9-month improvement in overall survival. While the trial also highlighted significant improvements in quality of life, functioning, and most symptoms with cemiplimab in comparison with placebo, the current study provides more details on these patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes.

In the latest analysis, Dr. Makharadze and colleagues evaluated data on the 312 patients in the cemiplimab arm and the 154 in the placebo arm. The median age of the patients was 63 years, and most (83.9%) were men.

Patients in the cemiplimab arm reported significant improvements in pain symptoms from baseline, as measured with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life–Core 30 (QLQ‐C30) score (–4.98; P = .004).

Patients who were treated with cemiplimab also reported a significant delay in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; P < .0001).

Significant delays in the time to deterioration in other functioning and symptom scales favored the cemiplimab group, including dyspnea (HR, 0.54), nausea/vomiting (HR, 0.39), and constipation (HR, 0.48).

The cemiplimab group also reported significantly delayed time to deterioration in physical (HR, 0.62) and emotional functioning (HR, 0.52) compared with the placebo arm as well as significant overall improvements from baseline in global health status/quality of life scores.

No significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes favoring the placebo group were observed on any quality-of-life metric evaluated using the symptom scales.

As for study limitations, the authors said that although about 86% of patients in both arms completed at least one question at baseline and post baseline, “the results may have overrepresented the patients who did well in both treatment arms because patients who progressed no longer completed the questionnaires.”

Nevertheless, the results “show that the favorable efficacy achieved with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy over placebo plus chemotherapy is accompanied by significant overall improvement in pain and significant delay in [time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration] in multiple patient‐reported cancer‐related and lung cancer–specific functions and symptoms,” the authors concluded.

The study was sponsored by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.
 

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

Higher body mass index and changes in BMI over time may increase a person’s risk for gastrointestinal cancer, according to new data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

The researchers found that being overweight or obese in early and middle adulthood was associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and noncolorectal GI cancers. Maintaining or increasing BMI over time among overweight or obese individuals was also associated with an increased GI cancer risk.

Aspirin use did not significantly modify these associations, suggesting that aspirin may not be as effective for cancer prevention among overweight or obese individuals.

The results provide “relatively consistent messaging that overweight or obesity from early to later adulthood as well as BMI increases throughout adulthood were associated with increased risk of GI cancers, especially CRC,” the authors of an editorial accompanying the study wrote.

These “important findings highlight the unmet need to identify the critical time window linking adiposity and GI cancer,” said editorialists Mengyao Shi, MBBS, MPD, and Yin Cao, ScD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

A growing body of evidence has revealed a strong association between obesity and GI cancers, with chronic inflammation being a likely cause. As rates of overweight and obesity continue to grow, better understanding of the association between obesity and cancer has become increasingly important.

In the analysis, Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, MPH, with Ohio State University, Columbus, and Asad Umar, PhD, DVM, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., explored associations between BMI in early adulthood (age 20), middle adulthood (age 50) and later adulthood (age 55 and over) and GI cancer risk in 135,161 adults from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial.

BMI was determined using self-reported height and weight at each age time point. The median age at enrollment was 62 years, and 50% of participants were women. Overweight BMI was 25.0-29.9 kg/m² and obese BMI was 30 or higher.

During as many as 21 years of follow-up, 2,803 individuals developed CRC and 2,285 developed non-CRC GI cancers (esophageal, liver, gastric, and pancreatic).

Overweight BMI in early, middle, and later adulthood was associated with an increased risk of CRC (hazard ratio, 1.23 for early and middle years; HR, 1.21 for later years). Obese BMI in middle and later adulthood was also associated with increased risk of CRC (HR, 1.55 and 1.39, respectively). 

The authors observed similar associations between BMI in middle and later adulthood and overall GI and non-CRC GI risk.

“When modeled continuously, we observed 2%-4% increased risk of both CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer with each 1-unit increase in BMI across all time points,” the researchers said.

Their data also suggest that BMI over time may be associated with GI cancer risk. Adults who exhibited no change in overweight or obese BMIs between early and later adulthood and those who exhibited increases in BMI from underweight or normal in early adulthood to overweight or obese BMI in later adulthood had a significantly higher risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer.

Among frequent aspirin users, those with overweight or obese BMIs in early, middle, and later adulthood still had an increased risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer (hazard ratios, 1.44, 1.45, and 1.43, respectively).

The finding that regular weekly aspirin use did not modify GI cancer risk suggests that obesity may alter the cancer-preventive effect of aspirin, the researchers suggested. Individuals with obesity may need to increase aspirin frequency or dosage to see an effect, but upping the dose comes with its own risks, including GI bleeding.

Overall, until now, most epidemiologic studies have examined BMI at one time point, “missing the opportunity to delineate the contribution of adiposity throughout the life course,” Dr. Shi and Dr. Cao wrote.

“As we continue to investigate precision-based interventions to intercept the link between obesity and cancer, it is imperative to reiterate the importance of maintaining a healthy weight and lifestyle from an early age and incorporate it widely into cancer prevention strategies at all levels with immediate implementation,” the editorialists concluded.

This study was supported in part by funds from Ohio State University and the NIH. The study authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cao has received personal fees from Geneoscopy for consulting.

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

Higher body mass index and changes in BMI over time may increase a person’s risk for gastrointestinal cancer, according to new data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

The researchers found that being overweight or obese in early and middle adulthood was associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and noncolorectal GI cancers. Maintaining or increasing BMI over time among overweight or obese individuals was also associated with an increased GI cancer risk.

Aspirin use did not significantly modify these associations, suggesting that aspirin may not be as effective for cancer prevention among overweight or obese individuals.

The results provide “relatively consistent messaging that overweight or obesity from early to later adulthood as well as BMI increases throughout adulthood were associated with increased risk of GI cancers, especially CRC,” the authors of an editorial accompanying the study wrote.

These “important findings highlight the unmet need to identify the critical time window linking adiposity and GI cancer,” said editorialists Mengyao Shi, MBBS, MPD, and Yin Cao, ScD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

A growing body of evidence has revealed a strong association between obesity and GI cancers, with chronic inflammation being a likely cause. As rates of overweight and obesity continue to grow, better understanding of the association between obesity and cancer has become increasingly important.

In the analysis, Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, MPH, with Ohio State University, Columbus, and Asad Umar, PhD, DVM, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., explored associations between BMI in early adulthood (age 20), middle adulthood (age 50) and later adulthood (age 55 and over) and GI cancer risk in 135,161 adults from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial.

BMI was determined using self-reported height and weight at each age time point. The median age at enrollment was 62 years, and 50% of participants were women. Overweight BMI was 25.0-29.9 kg/m² and obese BMI was 30 or higher.

During as many as 21 years of follow-up, 2,803 individuals developed CRC and 2,285 developed non-CRC GI cancers (esophageal, liver, gastric, and pancreatic).

Overweight BMI in early, middle, and later adulthood was associated with an increased risk of CRC (hazard ratio, 1.23 for early and middle years; HR, 1.21 for later years). Obese BMI in middle and later adulthood was also associated with increased risk of CRC (HR, 1.55 and 1.39, respectively). 

The authors observed similar associations between BMI in middle and later adulthood and overall GI and non-CRC GI risk.

“When modeled continuously, we observed 2%-4% increased risk of both CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer with each 1-unit increase in BMI across all time points,” the researchers said.

Their data also suggest that BMI over time may be associated with GI cancer risk. Adults who exhibited no change in overweight or obese BMIs between early and later adulthood and those who exhibited increases in BMI from underweight or normal in early adulthood to overweight or obese BMI in later adulthood had a significantly higher risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer.

Among frequent aspirin users, those with overweight or obese BMIs in early, middle, and later adulthood still had an increased risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer (hazard ratios, 1.44, 1.45, and 1.43, respectively).

The finding that regular weekly aspirin use did not modify GI cancer risk suggests that obesity may alter the cancer-preventive effect of aspirin, the researchers suggested. Individuals with obesity may need to increase aspirin frequency or dosage to see an effect, but upping the dose comes with its own risks, including GI bleeding.

Overall, until now, most epidemiologic studies have examined BMI at one time point, “missing the opportunity to delineate the contribution of adiposity throughout the life course,” Dr. Shi and Dr. Cao wrote.

“As we continue to investigate precision-based interventions to intercept the link between obesity and cancer, it is imperative to reiterate the importance of maintaining a healthy weight and lifestyle from an early age and incorporate it widely into cancer prevention strategies at all levels with immediate implementation,” the editorialists concluded.

This study was supported in part by funds from Ohio State University and the NIH. The study authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cao has received personal fees from Geneoscopy for consulting.

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

Higher body mass index and changes in BMI over time may increase a person’s risk for gastrointestinal cancer, according to new data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

The researchers found that being overweight or obese in early and middle adulthood was associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and noncolorectal GI cancers. Maintaining or increasing BMI over time among overweight or obese individuals was also associated with an increased GI cancer risk.

Aspirin use did not significantly modify these associations, suggesting that aspirin may not be as effective for cancer prevention among overweight or obese individuals.

The results provide “relatively consistent messaging that overweight or obesity from early to later adulthood as well as BMI increases throughout adulthood were associated with increased risk of GI cancers, especially CRC,” the authors of an editorial accompanying the study wrote.

These “important findings highlight the unmet need to identify the critical time window linking adiposity and GI cancer,” said editorialists Mengyao Shi, MBBS, MPD, and Yin Cao, ScD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

A growing body of evidence has revealed a strong association between obesity and GI cancers, with chronic inflammation being a likely cause. As rates of overweight and obesity continue to grow, better understanding of the association between obesity and cancer has become increasingly important.

In the analysis, Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, MPH, with Ohio State University, Columbus, and Asad Umar, PhD, DVM, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., explored associations between BMI in early adulthood (age 20), middle adulthood (age 50) and later adulthood (age 55 and over) and GI cancer risk in 135,161 adults from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial.

BMI was determined using self-reported height and weight at each age time point. The median age at enrollment was 62 years, and 50% of participants were women. Overweight BMI was 25.0-29.9 kg/m² and obese BMI was 30 or higher.

During as many as 21 years of follow-up, 2,803 individuals developed CRC and 2,285 developed non-CRC GI cancers (esophageal, liver, gastric, and pancreatic).

Overweight BMI in early, middle, and later adulthood was associated with an increased risk of CRC (hazard ratio, 1.23 for early and middle years; HR, 1.21 for later years). Obese BMI in middle and later adulthood was also associated with increased risk of CRC (HR, 1.55 and 1.39, respectively). 

The authors observed similar associations between BMI in middle and later adulthood and overall GI and non-CRC GI risk.

“When modeled continuously, we observed 2%-4% increased risk of both CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer with each 1-unit increase in BMI across all time points,” the researchers said.

Their data also suggest that BMI over time may be associated with GI cancer risk. Adults who exhibited no change in overweight or obese BMIs between early and later adulthood and those who exhibited increases in BMI from underweight or normal in early adulthood to overweight or obese BMI in later adulthood had a significantly higher risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer.

Among frequent aspirin users, those with overweight or obese BMIs in early, middle, and later adulthood still had an increased risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer (hazard ratios, 1.44, 1.45, and 1.43, respectively).

The finding that regular weekly aspirin use did not modify GI cancer risk suggests that obesity may alter the cancer-preventive effect of aspirin, the researchers suggested. Individuals with obesity may need to increase aspirin frequency or dosage to see an effect, but upping the dose comes with its own risks, including GI bleeding.

Overall, until now, most epidemiologic studies have examined BMI at one time point, “missing the opportunity to delineate the contribution of adiposity throughout the life course,” Dr. Shi and Dr. Cao wrote.

“As we continue to investigate precision-based interventions to intercept the link between obesity and cancer, it is imperative to reiterate the importance of maintaining a healthy weight and lifestyle from an early age and incorporate it widely into cancer prevention strategies at all levels with immediate implementation,” the editorialists concluded.

This study was supported in part by funds from Ohio State University and the NIH. The study authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cao has received personal fees from Geneoscopy for consulting.

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

Stroke is a “disease of disparities,” with racial and ethnic inequities in incidence, prevalence, treatment, and outcomes, and research is needed to identify structural or “upstream” interventions to address the problem, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

“There are enormous inequities in stroke care, which lead to significant gaps in functional outcomes after stroke for people from historically disenfranchised racial and ethnic groups, including Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples,” writing group chair Amytis Towfighi, MD, professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, says in a news release.

“While research has historically focused on describing these inequities, it is critical to develop and test interventions to address them,” Dr. Towfighi adds.

The scientific statement was published online in the journal Stroke.

It follows a 2020 AHA presidential advisory that declared structural racism a fundamental driver of poor health and early death from heart disease and stroke.

Dr. Towfighi and colleagues reviewed the literature on interventions to address racial and ethnic inequities to identify gaps and areas for future research.

They note that various interventions have shown promise in reducing inequities across the stroke continuum of care.

For example, data suggest that careful attention to stroke preparedness among patients, caregivers, and emergency medical services can reduce inequities in getting people suspected of having a stroke to the emergency department quickly, with delivery of prompt treatment.

However, insufficient research attention has been paid to reducing inequities in rehabilitation, recovery, and social reintegration, the writing group says.

In addition, most studies have addressed patient-level factors, such as medication adherence, health literacy, and health behaviors, but not upstream social factors such as structural racism, housing, income, food security, and access to care, which also affect stroke incidence, care, and outcomes.

“Combating the effects of systemic racism will involve upstream interventions, including policy changes, place-based interventions, and engaging with the health care systems that serve predominantly historically disenfranchised populations and the communities they serve, understanding the barriers, and collaboratively developing solutions to address barriers,” the writing group says.

Further research is needed across the stroke continuum of care to tackle racial and ethnic inequities in stroke care and improve outcomes, they say.

“It’s critical for historically disenfranchised communities to participate in research so that researchers may collaborate in addressing the communities’ needs and concerns,” Bernadette Boden-Albala, DrPH, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, says in the news release.

“Opportunities include working with community stakeholder groups and community organizations to advocate for partnerships with hospitals, academic medical centers, local colleges and universities; or joining community advisory boards and volunteering with the American Heart Association,” Dr. Boden-Albala adds.

Dr. Towfighi encourages health care professionals to “think outside the ‘stroke box.’ Sustainable, effective interventions to address inequities will likely require collaboration with patients, their communities, policymakers, and other sectors.”

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The research had no commercial funding.
 

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

Stroke is a “disease of disparities,” with racial and ethnic inequities in incidence, prevalence, treatment, and outcomes, and research is needed to identify structural or “upstream” interventions to address the problem, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

“There are enormous inequities in stroke care, which lead to significant gaps in functional outcomes after stroke for people from historically disenfranchised racial and ethnic groups, including Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples,” writing group chair Amytis Towfighi, MD, professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, says in a news release.

“While research has historically focused on describing these inequities, it is critical to develop and test interventions to address them,” Dr. Towfighi adds.

The scientific statement was published online in the journal Stroke.

It follows a 2020 AHA presidential advisory that declared structural racism a fundamental driver of poor health and early death from heart disease and stroke.

Dr. Towfighi and colleagues reviewed the literature on interventions to address racial and ethnic inequities to identify gaps and areas for future research.

They note that various interventions have shown promise in reducing inequities across the stroke continuum of care.

For example, data suggest that careful attention to stroke preparedness among patients, caregivers, and emergency medical services can reduce inequities in getting people suspected of having a stroke to the emergency department quickly, with delivery of prompt treatment.

However, insufficient research attention has been paid to reducing inequities in rehabilitation, recovery, and social reintegration, the writing group says.

In addition, most studies have addressed patient-level factors, such as medication adherence, health literacy, and health behaviors, but not upstream social factors such as structural racism, housing, income, food security, and access to care, which also affect stroke incidence, care, and outcomes.

“Combating the effects of systemic racism will involve upstream interventions, including policy changes, place-based interventions, and engaging with the health care systems that serve predominantly historically disenfranchised populations and the communities they serve, understanding the barriers, and collaboratively developing solutions to address barriers,” the writing group says.

Further research is needed across the stroke continuum of care to tackle racial and ethnic inequities in stroke care and improve outcomes, they say.

“It’s critical for historically disenfranchised communities to participate in research so that researchers may collaborate in addressing the communities’ needs and concerns,” Bernadette Boden-Albala, DrPH, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, says in the news release.

“Opportunities include working with community stakeholder groups and community organizations to advocate for partnerships with hospitals, academic medical centers, local colleges and universities; or joining community advisory boards and volunteering with the American Heart Association,” Dr. Boden-Albala adds.

Dr. Towfighi encourages health care professionals to “think outside the ‘stroke box.’ Sustainable, effective interventions to address inequities will likely require collaboration with patients, their communities, policymakers, and other sectors.”

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The research had no commercial funding.
 

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

Stroke is a “disease of disparities,” with racial and ethnic inequities in incidence, prevalence, treatment, and outcomes, and research is needed to identify structural or “upstream” interventions to address the problem, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

“There are enormous inequities in stroke care, which lead to significant gaps in functional outcomes after stroke for people from historically disenfranchised racial and ethnic groups, including Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples,” writing group chair Amytis Towfighi, MD, professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, says in a news release.

“While research has historically focused on describing these inequities, it is critical to develop and test interventions to address them,” Dr. Towfighi adds.

The scientific statement was published online in the journal Stroke.

It follows a 2020 AHA presidential advisory that declared structural racism a fundamental driver of poor health and early death from heart disease and stroke.

Dr. Towfighi and colleagues reviewed the literature on interventions to address racial and ethnic inequities to identify gaps and areas for future research.

They note that various interventions have shown promise in reducing inequities across the stroke continuum of care.

For example, data suggest that careful attention to stroke preparedness among patients, caregivers, and emergency medical services can reduce inequities in getting people suspected of having a stroke to the emergency department quickly, with delivery of prompt treatment.

However, insufficient research attention has been paid to reducing inequities in rehabilitation, recovery, and social reintegration, the writing group says.

In addition, most studies have addressed patient-level factors, such as medication adherence, health literacy, and health behaviors, but not upstream social factors such as structural racism, housing, income, food security, and access to care, which also affect stroke incidence, care, and outcomes.

“Combating the effects of systemic racism will involve upstream interventions, including policy changes, place-based interventions, and engaging with the health care systems that serve predominantly historically disenfranchised populations and the communities they serve, understanding the barriers, and collaboratively developing solutions to address barriers,” the writing group says.

Further research is needed across the stroke continuum of care to tackle racial and ethnic inequities in stroke care and improve outcomes, they say.

“It’s critical for historically disenfranchised communities to participate in research so that researchers may collaborate in addressing the communities’ needs and concerns,” Bernadette Boden-Albala, DrPH, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, says in the news release.

“Opportunities include working with community stakeholder groups and community organizations to advocate for partnerships with hospitals, academic medical centers, local colleges and universities; or joining community advisory boards and volunteering with the American Heart Association,” Dr. Boden-Albala adds.

Dr. Towfighi encourages health care professionals to “think outside the ‘stroke box.’ Sustainable, effective interventions to address inequities will likely require collaboration with patients, their communities, policymakers, and other sectors.”

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The research had no commercial funding.
 

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

The history and findings in this case are suggestive of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

CKD affects between 8% and 16% of the population worldwide. Risk factors for CKD are numerous and include T2D, hypertension, and prediabetes. Diabetes is the leading cause of CKD. Up to 40% of patients with diabetes develop diabetic kidney disease, which can progress to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis or kidney transplantation. In fact, diabetic kidney disease is the top cause of ESRD in the United States.

Diagnostic criteria for CKD include elevated urinary albumin excretion (albuminuria) and/or eGFR < 60 mL/1.73 m² that persists for more than 3 months. The normal presentation of diabetic kidney disease includes long-standing diabetes, retinopathy, albuminuria without gross hematuria, and gradually progressive decline of eGFR. However, signs of diabetic kidney disease may be present in patients at diagnosis or without retinopathy in T2D. Reduced eGFR without albuminuria has been frequently reported in both type 1 diabetes (T1D) and T2D and is becoming increasingly common as the prevalence of diabetes rises in the United States.

Chronic kidney disease is usually identified through routine screening with serum chemistry profile and urine studies or as an incidental finding. Less often, patients may present with symptoms, such as gross hematuria, "foamy urine" (a sign of albuminuria), nocturia, flank pain, or decreased urine output. In advanced cases, patients may report fatigue, poor appetite, nausea, vomiting, a metallic taste, unintentional weight loss, pruritus, changes in mental status, dyspnea, and/or peripheral edema.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes describes five stages of CKD. Stages 1-2 are defined by evidence of high albuminuria with eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m², while stages 3-5 are defined by progressively lower ranges of eGFR. Of note, at any eGFR, the degree of albuminuria is associated with risk for cardiovascular disease, CKD progression, and mortality. Thus, as noted by the ADA Standards, both eGFR and albuminuria should be used to guide treatment decisions; additionally, eGFR levels are essential for modifying drug dosages or restrictions of use, and the degree of albuminuria should influence selection of antihypertensive agents and glucose-lowering medications.

According to the ADA 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes, for people with non–dialysis-dependent CKD, dietary protein intake should be ∼0.8 g/kg body weight per day (the recommended daily allowance), as this level has been shown to slow GFR decline compared with higher levels of dietary protein intake, with evidence of a greater effect over time. Conversely, higher levels of dietary protein intake (> 20% of daily calories from protein or > 1.3 g/kg/d) have been associated with increased albuminuria, more rapid kidney function loss, and cardiovascular disease mortality. For patients on dialysis, higher levels of dietary protein intake should be considered, because malnutrition is a significant problem in some of these patients.

Urinary excretion of sodium and potassium may be impaired in patients with reduced eGFR. Thus, restriction of dietary sodium to < 2300 mg/d may help to control blood pressure and reduce cardiovascular risk, and restriction of dietary potassium may be necessary to control serum potassium concentration. 

Intensive glycemic control with the goal of achieving near-normoglycemia has been shown to delay the onset and progression of albuminuria and reduced eGFR in patients with diabetes. Insulin alone was used to lower blood glucose in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study of T1D while a variety of agents were used in clinical trials of T2D, supporting the conclusion that glycemic control itself helps prevent CKD and its progression. However, the presence of CKD affects the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control and several glucose-lowering medications. In the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial of T2D, increased adverse effects of intensive glycemic control (hypoglycemia and mortality) were seen among patients with kidney disease at baseline. Moreover, it may take at least 2 years to see improved eGFR outcomes as an effect of intensive glycemic control. Therefore, in some patients with prevalent CKD and substantial comorbidity, target A1c levels may be less intensive.

According to guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration, eGFR should be monitored while taking metformin and metformin is contraindicated in patients with an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m². Clinicians should assess the benefits and risks of continuing treatment when eGFR falls to < 45 mL/min/1.73 m². 

The ADA recommends that sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors be given to all patients with stage 3 CKD or higher and T2D, regardless of glycemic control, as they have been shown to delay CKD progression and reduce heart failure risk independent of glycemic control. Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) also have direct effects on the kidney and have been reported to improve renal outcomes compared with placebo. In patients for whom cardiovascular risk is a predominant problem, the ADA suggests using GLP-1 RAs for cardiovascular risk reduction.

Comprehensive guidance on the management of CKD in patients with T2D is available in the ADA 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes.

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Diabetes, Endocrine, and Metabolic Disorders, Eastern Virginia Medical School; EVMS Medical Group, Norfolk, Virginia

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

The history and findings in this case are suggestive of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

CKD affects between 8% and 16% of the population worldwide. Risk factors for CKD are numerous and include T2D, hypertension, and prediabetes. Diabetes is the leading cause of CKD. Up to 40% of patients with diabetes develop diabetic kidney disease, which can progress to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis or kidney transplantation. In fact, diabetic kidney disease is the top cause of ESRD in the United States.

Diagnostic criteria for CKD include elevated urinary albumin excretion (albuminuria) and/or eGFR < 60 mL/1.73 m² that persists for more than 3 months. The normal presentation of diabetic kidney disease includes long-standing diabetes, retinopathy, albuminuria without gross hematuria, and gradually progressive decline of eGFR. However, signs of diabetic kidney disease may be present in patients at diagnosis or without retinopathy in T2D. Reduced eGFR without albuminuria has been frequently reported in both type 1 diabetes (T1D) and T2D and is becoming increasingly common as the prevalence of diabetes rises in the United States.

Chronic kidney disease is usually identified through routine screening with serum chemistry profile and urine studies or as an incidental finding. Less often, patients may present with symptoms, such as gross hematuria, "foamy urine" (a sign of albuminuria), nocturia, flank pain, or decreased urine output. In advanced cases, patients may report fatigue, poor appetite, nausea, vomiting, a metallic taste, unintentional weight loss, pruritus, changes in mental status, dyspnea, and/or peripheral edema.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes describes five stages of CKD. Stages 1-2 are defined by evidence of high albuminuria with eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m², while stages 3-5 are defined by progressively lower ranges of eGFR. Of note, at any eGFR, the degree of albuminuria is associated with risk for cardiovascular disease, CKD progression, and mortality. Thus, as noted by the ADA Standards, both eGFR and albuminuria should be used to guide treatment decisions; additionally, eGFR levels are essential for modifying drug dosages or restrictions of use, and the degree of albuminuria should influence selection of antihypertensive agents and glucose-lowering medications.

According to the ADA 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes, for people with non–dialysis-dependent CKD, dietary protein intake should be ∼0.8 g/kg body weight per day (the recommended daily allowance), as this level has been shown to slow GFR decline compared with higher levels of dietary protein intake, with evidence of a greater effect over time. Conversely, higher levels of dietary protein intake (> 20% of daily calories from protein or > 1.3 g/kg/d) have been associated with increased albuminuria, more rapid kidney function loss, and cardiovascular disease mortality. For patients on dialysis, higher levels of dietary protein intake should be considered, because malnutrition is a significant problem in some of these patients.

Urinary excretion of sodium and potassium may be impaired in patients with reduced eGFR. Thus, restriction of dietary sodium to < 2300 mg/d may help to control blood pressure and reduce cardiovascular risk, and restriction of dietary potassium may be necessary to control serum potassium concentration. 

Intensive glycemic control with the goal of achieving near-normoglycemia has been shown to delay the onset and progression of albuminuria and reduced eGFR in patients with diabetes. Insulin alone was used to lower blood glucose in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study of T1D while a variety of agents were used in clinical trials of T2D, supporting the conclusion that glycemic control itself helps prevent CKD and its progression. However, the presence of CKD affects the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control and several glucose-lowering medications. In the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial of T2D, increased adverse effects of intensive glycemic control (hypoglycemia and mortality) were seen among patients with kidney disease at baseline. Moreover, it may take at least 2 years to see improved eGFR outcomes as an effect of intensive glycemic control. Therefore, in some patients with prevalent CKD and substantial comorbidity, target A1c levels may be less intensive.

According to guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration, eGFR should be monitored while taking metformin and metformin is contraindicated in patients with an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m². Clinicians should assess the benefits and risks of continuing treatment when eGFR falls to < 45 mL/min/1.73 m². 

The ADA recommends that sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors be given to all patients with stage 3 CKD or higher and T2D, regardless of glycemic control, as they have been shown to delay CKD progression and reduce heart failure risk independent of glycemic control. Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) also have direct effects on the kidney and have been reported to improve renal outcomes compared with placebo. In patients for whom cardiovascular risk is a predominant problem, the ADA suggests using GLP-1 RAs for cardiovascular risk reduction.

Comprehensive guidance on the management of CKD in patients with T2D is available in the ADA 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes.

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Diabetes, Endocrine, and Metabolic Disorders, Eastern Virginia Medical School; EVMS Medical Group, Norfolk, Virginia

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

The history and findings in this case are suggestive of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

CKD affects between 8% and 16% of the population worldwide. Risk factors for CKD are numerous and include T2D, hypertension, and prediabetes. Diabetes is the leading cause of CKD. Up to 40% of patients with diabetes develop diabetic kidney disease, which can progress to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis or kidney transplantation. In fact, diabetic kidney disease is the top cause of ESRD in the United States.

Diagnostic criteria for CKD include elevated urinary albumin excretion (albuminuria) and/or eGFR < 60 mL/1.73 m² that persists for more than 3 months. The normal presentation of diabetic kidney disease includes long-standing diabetes, retinopathy, albuminuria without gross hematuria, and gradually progressive decline of eGFR. However, signs of diabetic kidney disease may be present in patients at diagnosis or without retinopathy in T2D. Reduced eGFR without albuminuria has been frequently reported in both type 1 diabetes (T1D) and T2D and is becoming increasingly common as the prevalence of diabetes rises in the United States.

Chronic kidney disease is usually identified through routine screening with serum chemistry profile and urine studies or as an incidental finding. Less often, patients may present with symptoms, such as gross hematuria, "foamy urine" (a sign of albuminuria), nocturia, flank pain, or decreased urine output. In advanced cases, patients may report fatigue, poor appetite, nausea, vomiting, a metallic taste, unintentional weight loss, pruritus, changes in mental status, dyspnea, and/or peripheral edema.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes describes five stages of CKD. Stages 1-2 are defined by evidence of high albuminuria with eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m², while stages 3-5 are defined by progressively lower ranges of eGFR. Of note, at any eGFR, the degree of albuminuria is associated with risk for cardiovascular disease, CKD progression, and mortality. Thus, as noted by the ADA Standards, both eGFR and albuminuria should be used to guide treatment decisions; additionally, eGFR levels are essential for modifying drug dosages or restrictions of use, and the degree of albuminuria should influence selection of antihypertensive agents and glucose-lowering medications.

According to the ADA 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes, for people with non–dialysis-dependent CKD, dietary protein intake should be ∼0.8 g/kg body weight per day (the recommended daily allowance), as this level has been shown to slow GFR decline compared with higher levels of dietary protein intake, with evidence of a greater effect over time. Conversely, higher levels of dietary protein intake (> 20% of daily calories from protein or > 1.3 g/kg/d) have been associated with increased albuminuria, more rapid kidney function loss, and cardiovascular disease mortality. For patients on dialysis, higher levels of dietary protein intake should be considered, because malnutrition is a significant problem in some of these patients.

Urinary excretion of sodium and potassium may be impaired in patients with reduced eGFR. Thus, restriction of dietary sodium to < 2300 mg/d may help to control blood pressure and reduce cardiovascular risk, and restriction of dietary potassium may be necessary to control serum potassium concentration. 

Intensive glycemic control with the goal of achieving near-normoglycemia has been shown to delay the onset and progression of albuminuria and reduced eGFR in patients with diabetes. Insulin alone was used to lower blood glucose in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study of T1D while a variety of agents were used in clinical trials of T2D, supporting the conclusion that glycemic control itself helps prevent CKD and its progression. However, the presence of CKD affects the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control and several glucose-lowering medications. In the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial of T2D, increased adverse effects of intensive glycemic control (hypoglycemia and mortality) were seen among patients with kidney disease at baseline. Moreover, it may take at least 2 years to see improved eGFR outcomes as an effect of intensive glycemic control. Therefore, in some patients with prevalent CKD and substantial comorbidity, target A1c levels may be less intensive.

According to guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration, eGFR should be monitored while taking metformin and metformin is contraindicated in patients with an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m². Clinicians should assess the benefits and risks of continuing treatment when eGFR falls to < 45 mL/min/1.73 m². 

The ADA recommends that sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors be given to all patients with stage 3 CKD or higher and T2D, regardless of glycemic control, as they have been shown to delay CKD progression and reduce heart failure risk independent of glycemic control. Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) also have direct effects on the kidney and have been reported to improve renal outcomes compared with placebo. In patients for whom cardiovascular risk is a predominant problem, the ADA suggests using GLP-1 RAs for cardiovascular risk reduction.

Comprehensive guidance on the management of CKD in patients with T2D is available in the ADA 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes.

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Diabetes, Endocrine, and Metabolic Disorders, Eastern Virginia Medical School; EVMS Medical Group, Norfolk, Virginia

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

The results from a prognostic genomic assay called HER2DX convinced a group of Spanish oncologists to change treatment plans for 56% of 89 patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer, according to new research.

The prospective pilot study is small, and the researchers didn’t report on how the patients fared, according to a poster presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. Plus, the test itself hasn’t been analyzed prospectively. But the study’s lead author, Olga Martínez-Sáez, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the 56% number is significant.

“We consider this percentage to be clinically very relevant,” said Dr. Martínez-Sáez, an oncologist at Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and the University of Barcelona. “HER2DX can change practice.”

Also in an interview, Kent Hoskins, MD, associate chief of hematology/oncology at University of Illinois at Chicago, described HER2DX as a next-generation genomic test that builds on assays developed 2 decades ago to help identify patients who would benefit – or not – from adjuvant chemotherapy.

Dr. Hoskins, who isn’t connected to the new study but has studied genomic tests for breast cancer, said the HER2DX test seeks to provide guidance to oncologists about which of several treatments are most effective in treating patients with HER2+ breast cancer.

“The overall trend in the HER2+ space is escalating therapy, and the cure rates have improved quite substantially,” he said. “But do they all need that much therapy? That’s the clinical question that this assay is addressing.”

The assay examines clinical features and the expression of 4 gene signatures, Dr. Martínez-Sáez said. It provides a risk score estimating the likelihood of recurrence plus a score that estimates the likelihood of achieving pathological complete response (pCR) with trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant therapy and an ERBB2 mRNA score.

In a retrospective 2022 study published in eBioMedicine, researchers reported that the assay “predicts response following neoadjuvant letrozole in combination with dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in early-stage HER2-positive/hormone receptor–positive breast cancer.”

In the 2022 study, researchers wrote that assay results and other scores “might help better tailor systemic therapy in this context and identify candidates for avoiding chemotherapy, a therapy associated with short- and long-term toxicities and impact in quality of life.”

For the new study, a decision-impact analysis, researchers tracked 89 patients with HER2+ breast cancer (median age = 53 years, range 30-79, and 52% postmenopausal), the poster says. Most had T1-2 tumors (87%), negative nodes (64%), grade 2 (56%) or 3 (41%) tumors, and ductal histology (87%). And most were hormone receptor positive (65%). Seventy-eight percent of patients received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), and 22% underwent upfront surgery.

In 56% of cases, oncologists changed their treatment decisions after getting the results of the HER2DX assays. In 59% of these cases, oncologists de-escalated therapy; in 41%, they escalated therapy, opting for more intense chemotherapy 65% of the time, according to the poster.

Clinician confidence in their decisions improved in 67% of cases, the researchers reported in their poster. Among 56 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy who could be evaluated, “HER2DX pCR score was significantly associated with pCR (81% in pCR-medium/high and 32% in pCR-low; odds ratio=9.3, P = 0.001) independently of the rest of variables.”

Dr. Hoskins said the new report suggests that the assay can change treatment decisions, although he cautioned that “this study does not in itself establish its place in standard of care.” Large, prospective, randomized research is still needed, he said.

Dr. Martínez-Sáez said, in an interview, that the HER2DX assay should cost about as much as genomic assays for other breast cancer subtypes. These kinds of tests have cost several thousand dollars each in recent years.

What’s next? The decision impact study is ongoing. As for research into the assay itself, “prospective clinical trials are planned to demonstrate its clinical utility to de-escalate and guide therapy,” Dr. Martínez-Sáez said.

No funding is reported. Reveal Genomics is the developer of the HER2DX assay. Dr. Martinez- Saez reports financial relationships with Novartis, Eisai, Roche, and Reveal Genomics. Other study authors report multiple disclosures. Dr. Hoskins discloses non-financial research support from Agendia, which makes the MammaPrint early-breast-cancer assay.

The results from a prognostic genomic assay called HER2DX convinced a group of Spanish oncologists to change treatment plans for 56% of 89 patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer, according to new research.

The prospective pilot study is small, and the researchers didn’t report on how the patients fared, according to a poster presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. Plus, the test itself hasn’t been analyzed prospectively. But the study’s lead author, Olga Martínez-Sáez, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the 56% number is significant.

“We consider this percentage to be clinically very relevant,” said Dr. Martínez-Sáez, an oncologist at Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and the University of Barcelona. “HER2DX can change practice.”

Also in an interview, Kent Hoskins, MD, associate chief of hematology/oncology at University of Illinois at Chicago, described HER2DX as a next-generation genomic test that builds on assays developed 2 decades ago to help identify patients who would benefit – or not – from adjuvant chemotherapy.

Dr. Hoskins, who isn’t connected to the new study but has studied genomic tests for breast cancer, said the HER2DX test seeks to provide guidance to oncologists about which of several treatments are most effective in treating patients with HER2+ breast cancer.

“The overall trend in the HER2+ space is escalating therapy, and the cure rates have improved quite substantially,” he said. “But do they all need that much therapy? That’s the clinical question that this assay is addressing.”

The assay examines clinical features and the expression of 4 gene signatures, Dr. Martínez-Sáez said. It provides a risk score estimating the likelihood of recurrence plus a score that estimates the likelihood of achieving pathological complete response (pCR) with trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant therapy and an ERBB2 mRNA score.

In a retrospective 2022 study published in eBioMedicine, researchers reported that the assay “predicts response following neoadjuvant letrozole in combination with dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in early-stage HER2-positive/hormone receptor–positive breast cancer.”

In the 2022 study, researchers wrote that assay results and other scores “might help better tailor systemic therapy in this context and identify candidates for avoiding chemotherapy, a therapy associated with short- and long-term toxicities and impact in quality of life.”

For the new study, a decision-impact analysis, researchers tracked 89 patients with HER2+ breast cancer (median age = 53 years, range 30-79, and 52% postmenopausal), the poster says. Most had T1-2 tumors (87%), negative nodes (64%), grade 2 (56%) or 3 (41%) tumors, and ductal histology (87%). And most were hormone receptor positive (65%). Seventy-eight percent of patients received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), and 22% underwent upfront surgery.

In 56% of cases, oncologists changed their treatment decisions after getting the results of the HER2DX assays. In 59% of these cases, oncologists de-escalated therapy; in 41%, they escalated therapy, opting for more intense chemotherapy 65% of the time, according to the poster.

Clinician confidence in their decisions improved in 67% of cases, the researchers reported in their poster. Among 56 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy who could be evaluated, “HER2DX pCR score was significantly associated with pCR (81% in pCR-medium/high and 32% in pCR-low; odds ratio=9.3, P = 0.001) independently of the rest of variables.”

Dr. Hoskins said the new report suggests that the assay can change treatment decisions, although he cautioned that “this study does not in itself establish its place in standard of care.” Large, prospective, randomized research is still needed, he said.

Dr. Martínez-Sáez said, in an interview, that the HER2DX assay should cost about as much as genomic assays for other breast cancer subtypes. These kinds of tests have cost several thousand dollars each in recent years.

What’s next? The decision impact study is ongoing. As for research into the assay itself, “prospective clinical trials are planned to demonstrate its clinical utility to de-escalate and guide therapy,” Dr. Martínez-Sáez said.

No funding is reported. Reveal Genomics is the developer of the HER2DX assay. Dr. Martinez- Saez reports financial relationships with Novartis, Eisai, Roche, and Reveal Genomics. Other study authors report multiple disclosures. Dr. Hoskins discloses non-financial research support from Agendia, which makes the MammaPrint early-breast-cancer assay.

The results from a prognostic genomic assay called HER2DX convinced a group of Spanish oncologists to change treatment plans for 56% of 89 patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer, according to new research.

The prospective pilot study is small, and the researchers didn’t report on how the patients fared, according to a poster presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. Plus, the test itself hasn’t been analyzed prospectively. But the study’s lead author, Olga Martínez-Sáez, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the 56% number is significant.

“We consider this percentage to be clinically very relevant,” said Dr. Martínez-Sáez, an oncologist at Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and the University of Barcelona. “HER2DX can change practice.”

Also in an interview, Kent Hoskins, MD, associate chief of hematology/oncology at University of Illinois at Chicago, described HER2DX as a next-generation genomic test that builds on assays developed 2 decades ago to help identify patients who would benefit – or not – from adjuvant chemotherapy.

Dr. Hoskins, who isn’t connected to the new study but has studied genomic tests for breast cancer, said the HER2DX test seeks to provide guidance to oncologists about which of several treatments are most effective in treating patients with HER2+ breast cancer.

“The overall trend in the HER2+ space is escalating therapy, and the cure rates have improved quite substantially,” he said. “But do they all need that much therapy? That’s the clinical question that this assay is addressing.”

The assay examines clinical features and the expression of 4 gene signatures, Dr. Martínez-Sáez said. It provides a risk score estimating the likelihood of recurrence plus a score that estimates the likelihood of achieving pathological complete response (pCR) with trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant therapy and an ERBB2 mRNA score.

In a retrospective 2022 study published in eBioMedicine, researchers reported that the assay “predicts response following neoadjuvant letrozole in combination with dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in early-stage HER2-positive/hormone receptor–positive breast cancer.”

In the 2022 study, researchers wrote that assay results and other scores “might help better tailor systemic therapy in this context and identify candidates for avoiding chemotherapy, a therapy associated with short- and long-term toxicities and impact in quality of life.”

For the new study, a decision-impact analysis, researchers tracked 89 patients with HER2+ breast cancer (median age = 53 years, range 30-79, and 52% postmenopausal), the poster says. Most had T1-2 tumors (87%), negative nodes (64%), grade 2 (56%) or 3 (41%) tumors, and ductal histology (87%). And most were hormone receptor positive (65%). Seventy-eight percent of patients received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), and 22% underwent upfront surgery.

In 56% of cases, oncologists changed their treatment decisions after getting the results of the HER2DX assays. In 59% of these cases, oncologists de-escalated therapy; in 41%, they escalated therapy, opting for more intense chemotherapy 65% of the time, according to the poster.

Clinician confidence in their decisions improved in 67% of cases, the researchers reported in their poster. Among 56 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy who could be evaluated, “HER2DX pCR score was significantly associated with pCR (81% in pCR-medium/high and 32% in pCR-low; odds ratio=9.3, P = 0.001) independently of the rest of variables.”

Dr. Hoskins said the new report suggests that the assay can change treatment decisions, although he cautioned that “this study does not in itself establish its place in standard of care.” Large, prospective, randomized research is still needed, he said.

Dr. Martínez-Sáez said, in an interview, that the HER2DX assay should cost about as much as genomic assays for other breast cancer subtypes. These kinds of tests have cost several thousand dollars each in recent years.

What’s next? The decision impact study is ongoing. As for research into the assay itself, “prospective clinical trials are planned to demonstrate its clinical utility to de-escalate and guide therapy,” Dr. Martínez-Sáez said.

No funding is reported. Reveal Genomics is the developer of the HER2DX assay. Dr. Martinez- Saez reports financial relationships with Novartis, Eisai, Roche, and Reveal Genomics. Other study authors report multiple disclosures. Dr. Hoskins discloses non-financial research support from Agendia, which makes the MammaPrint early-breast-cancer assay.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) made headlines earlier this year with the high-profile case of prominent U.S. Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD). Yet, until very recently, progress in treating this most common form of lymphoma has been stalled for more than 2 decades.

Significant breakthroughs have come in just the past few weeks and months, through the use of CAR T-cell and immunotherapies and with the approval in April by the Food and Drug Administration of polatuzumab for frontline DLBCL.

“Until the publishing of data from the POLARIX study (NCT03274492), which led to the approval of polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (pola + R-CHP), we had not had a breakthrough in frontline DLBCL therapies since the addition of rituximab 22 years ago,” said Dr. Charalambos Andreadis, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco’s Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center.

University of California, San Francisco

“Pola + R-CHP is an improvement over the standard-of-care treatment, R-CHOP (rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), giving treatment naive patients an increase in PFS without an increase in side effects,” Dr. Andreadis said.

R-CHP-polatuzumab was approved only for patients with an International Prognostic Indices score between 2 and 5, leaving patients with IPI scores of 0 or 1 with the frontline standard of care (SoC) treatment of R-CHOP, which has a cure rate of between 60% and 70%.

“The highest likelihood of relapse is in the first year following treatment. After 2 years in remission, patients’ chance of relapsing is the same as the general populations’ chance of getting DLBCL for the first time. This is why even a slight increase in the progression-free survival rate with the addition of pola is so significant,” Dr. Andreadis noted.

Historically, patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) DLBCL who did not respond to R-CHOP or who experienced disease relapse less than a year after primary intervention were treated with alternative chemotherapy regimens, often followed by autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT). Randomized control studies have shown that CAR T-cell therapies yield higher success rates than chemotherapy and ASCT, leading to the SoC in RR patients being CAR-T cell therapy directly following failed primary treatment.

“There are many new CAR T-cell platforms in development, as well as novel combination strategies that aim to target critical genetic pathways,” Kieron Dunleavy, MD, professor of medicine at the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University Hospital, said in an interview. “While access to CAR T-cell therapies is becoming easier and more feasible in many centers, fast access continues to be an issue for many patients, often depending on geography and socioeconomic factors.”

Asked about the latest breakthroughs in treating DLBCL, Dr. Dunleavy said, “A significant proportion of patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL do not have easy access to CAR T-cell therapies, so this needs to be addressed and improved. Sometimes the rapidity of clinical progression in DLBCL can make these therapies challenging to deliver, considering logistical issues like apheresis and insurance approvals, which are frequently complex. This highlights the need for alternative and ‘easier to deliver’ CAR-T cells and our continued prioritization of developing alternative effective agents for DLBCL.

“Currently, commercially approved CAR T-cells in DLBCL target the CD-19 marker on lymphoma cells but CAR T-cells targeting other and more than one antigen as well as alternative anti CD19 agents like loncastuximab and tafasitamab are similarly FDA approved and available for patients,” Dr. Dunleavy concluded.

Dr. Dunleavy is affiliated with the MedStar Georgetown Lymphoma group, where Rep. Raskin publicly announced that he had completed 4 months of chemotherapy treatment for DLBCL. On April 27, in an open letter to the U.S. public, he wrote that he rang the bell at MedStar to mark his preliminary diagnosis of being “in remission,” with a “90% prognosis of no relapse.”

Interviewed about the latest advances in treating DLBCL, Jason Westin, MD, associate professor of lymphoma and myeloma at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that even with improvements in overall survival possible with CAR T-cell therapies, “usually, a clinical trial should be considered strongly, as it is often the best option for patients, both in a newly diagnosed or in a relapsed setting, as they allow access to tomorrow’s breakthrough therapies today.”

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Dr. Westin cited the example of bispecific T-cell engagers (BITE) as a promising therapy that is available to patients in clinical trials. These agents bind to one side to the lymphoma cell, but they also have a binding arm for T-cells, so they activate a patient’s own immune cells to kill lymphoma cells, in some cases offering a cure when CAR T-cell therapy has failed.

The first BITE to be approved, mosunetuzumab, is authorized only for the treatment of follicular lymphoma. However, data from a recent clinical study indicated that the agent yields complete responses in 24% of heavily pretreated patients with RR DLBCL.

Another BITE, glofitamab, was approved in Canada in March 2023 for use in RR DLBCL. Based on its high efficacy, it soon may be approved elsewhere.

Dr. Andreadis noted, “We are finally at a point where for both treatment naive and RR DLBCL patients, there are several promising options on the horizon that don’t involve ASCT. Furthermore, these breakthroughs reinforce each other, as there are studies in which therapies like BITE are being brought to the front line and pola to RR cases.”

The growing field of new frontline and RR DLBCL therapies lend credence to the optimism of specialists who treat DLBCL – and to the sanguine note that Congressman Raskin struck in published comments about his treatment for DLBCL.

Dr. Andreadis reported ties with BMS, Novartis, Roche, Genmab, Merck, Gilead, AbbVie, and J&J. Dr. Dunleavy disclosed relationships with ONO Pharmaceuticals, Kymera, Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Amgen, ADC Therapeutics, MorphoSys and Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Cellectar. Dr. Westin reported ties with Kite/Gilead, BMS, Novartis, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Morphosys/Incyte, ADC Therapeutics, Kymera, Nurix, and MonteRosa.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) made headlines earlier this year with the high-profile case of prominent U.S. Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD). Yet, until very recently, progress in treating this most common form of lymphoma has been stalled for more than 2 decades.

Significant breakthroughs have come in just the past few weeks and months, through the use of CAR T-cell and immunotherapies and with the approval in April by the Food and Drug Administration of polatuzumab for frontline DLBCL.

“Until the publishing of data from the POLARIX study (NCT03274492), which led to the approval of polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (pola + R-CHP), we had not had a breakthrough in frontline DLBCL therapies since the addition of rituximab 22 years ago,” said Dr. Charalambos Andreadis, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco’s Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center.

University of California, San Francisco

“Pola + R-CHP is an improvement over the standard-of-care treatment, R-CHOP (rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), giving treatment naive patients an increase in PFS without an increase in side effects,” Dr. Andreadis said.

R-CHP-polatuzumab was approved only for patients with an International Prognostic Indices score between 2 and 5, leaving patients with IPI scores of 0 or 1 with the frontline standard of care (SoC) treatment of R-CHOP, which has a cure rate of between 60% and 70%.

“The highest likelihood of relapse is in the first year following treatment. After 2 years in remission, patients’ chance of relapsing is the same as the general populations’ chance of getting DLBCL for the first time. This is why even a slight increase in the progression-free survival rate with the addition of pola is so significant,” Dr. Andreadis noted.

Historically, patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) DLBCL who did not respond to R-CHOP or who experienced disease relapse less than a year after primary intervention were treated with alternative chemotherapy regimens, often followed by autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT). Randomized control studies have shown that CAR T-cell therapies yield higher success rates than chemotherapy and ASCT, leading to the SoC in RR patients being CAR-T cell therapy directly following failed primary treatment.

“There are many new CAR T-cell platforms in development, as well as novel combination strategies that aim to target critical genetic pathways,” Kieron Dunleavy, MD, professor of medicine at the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University Hospital, said in an interview. “While access to CAR T-cell therapies is becoming easier and more feasible in many centers, fast access continues to be an issue for many patients, often depending on geography and socioeconomic factors.”

Asked about the latest breakthroughs in treating DLBCL, Dr. Dunleavy said, “A significant proportion of patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL do not have easy access to CAR T-cell therapies, so this needs to be addressed and improved. Sometimes the rapidity of clinical progression in DLBCL can make these therapies challenging to deliver, considering logistical issues like apheresis and insurance approvals, which are frequently complex. This highlights the need for alternative and ‘easier to deliver’ CAR-T cells and our continued prioritization of developing alternative effective agents for DLBCL.

“Currently, commercially approved CAR T-cells in DLBCL target the CD-19 marker on lymphoma cells but CAR T-cells targeting other and more than one antigen as well as alternative anti CD19 agents like loncastuximab and tafasitamab are similarly FDA approved and available for patients,” Dr. Dunleavy concluded.

Dr. Dunleavy is affiliated with the MedStar Georgetown Lymphoma group, where Rep. Raskin publicly announced that he had completed 4 months of chemotherapy treatment for DLBCL. On April 27, in an open letter to the U.S. public, he wrote that he rang the bell at MedStar to mark his preliminary diagnosis of being “in remission,” with a “90% prognosis of no relapse.”

Interviewed about the latest advances in treating DLBCL, Jason Westin, MD, associate professor of lymphoma and myeloma at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that even with improvements in overall survival possible with CAR T-cell therapies, “usually, a clinical trial should be considered strongly, as it is often the best option for patients, both in a newly diagnosed or in a relapsed setting, as they allow access to tomorrow’s breakthrough therapies today.”

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Dr. Westin cited the example of bispecific T-cell engagers (BITE) as a promising therapy that is available to patients in clinical trials. These agents bind to one side to the lymphoma cell, but they also have a binding arm for T-cells, so they activate a patient’s own immune cells to kill lymphoma cells, in some cases offering a cure when CAR T-cell therapy has failed.

The first BITE to be approved, mosunetuzumab, is authorized only for the treatment of follicular lymphoma. However, data from a recent clinical study indicated that the agent yields complete responses in 24% of heavily pretreated patients with RR DLBCL.

Another BITE, glofitamab, was approved in Canada in March 2023 for use in RR DLBCL. Based on its high efficacy, it soon may be approved elsewhere.

Dr. Andreadis noted, “We are finally at a point where for both treatment naive and RR DLBCL patients, there are several promising options on the horizon that don’t involve ASCT. Furthermore, these breakthroughs reinforce each other, as there are studies in which therapies like BITE are being brought to the front line and pola to RR cases.”

The growing field of new frontline and RR DLBCL therapies lend credence to the optimism of specialists who treat DLBCL – and to the sanguine note that Congressman Raskin struck in published comments about his treatment for DLBCL.

Dr. Andreadis reported ties with BMS, Novartis, Roche, Genmab, Merck, Gilead, AbbVie, and J&J. Dr. Dunleavy disclosed relationships with ONO Pharmaceuticals, Kymera, Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Amgen, ADC Therapeutics, MorphoSys and Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Cellectar. Dr. Westin reported ties with Kite/Gilead, BMS, Novartis, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Morphosys/Incyte, ADC Therapeutics, Kymera, Nurix, and MonteRosa.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) made headlines earlier this year with the high-profile case of prominent U.S. Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD). Yet, until very recently, progress in treating this most common form of lymphoma has been stalled for more than 2 decades.

Significant breakthroughs have come in just the past few weeks and months, through the use of CAR T-cell and immunotherapies and with the approval in April by the Food and Drug Administration of polatuzumab for frontline DLBCL.

“Until the publishing of data from the POLARIX study (NCT03274492), which led to the approval of polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (pola + R-CHP), we had not had a breakthrough in frontline DLBCL therapies since the addition of rituximab 22 years ago,” said Dr. Charalambos Andreadis, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco’s Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center.

University of California, San Francisco

“Pola + R-CHP is an improvement over the standard-of-care treatment, R-CHOP (rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), giving treatment naive patients an increase in PFS without an increase in side effects,” Dr. Andreadis said.

R-CHP-polatuzumab was approved only for patients with an International Prognostic Indices score between 2 and 5, leaving patients with IPI scores of 0 or 1 with the frontline standard of care (SoC) treatment of R-CHOP, which has a cure rate of between 60% and 70%.

“The highest likelihood of relapse is in the first year following treatment. After 2 years in remission, patients’ chance of relapsing is the same as the general populations’ chance of getting DLBCL for the first time. This is why even a slight increase in the progression-free survival rate with the addition of pola is so significant,” Dr. Andreadis noted.

Historically, patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) DLBCL who did not respond to R-CHOP or who experienced disease relapse less than a year after primary intervention were treated with alternative chemotherapy regimens, often followed by autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT). Randomized control studies have shown that CAR T-cell therapies yield higher success rates than chemotherapy and ASCT, leading to the SoC in RR patients being CAR-T cell therapy directly following failed primary treatment.

“There are many new CAR T-cell platforms in development, as well as novel combination strategies that aim to target critical genetic pathways,” Kieron Dunleavy, MD, professor of medicine at the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University Hospital, said in an interview. “While access to CAR T-cell therapies is becoming easier and more feasible in many centers, fast access continues to be an issue for many patients, often depending on geography and socioeconomic factors.”

Asked about the latest breakthroughs in treating DLBCL, Dr. Dunleavy said, “A significant proportion of patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL do not have easy access to CAR T-cell therapies, so this needs to be addressed and improved. Sometimes the rapidity of clinical progression in DLBCL can make these therapies challenging to deliver, considering logistical issues like apheresis and insurance approvals, which are frequently complex. This highlights the need for alternative and ‘easier to deliver’ CAR-T cells and our continued prioritization of developing alternative effective agents for DLBCL.

“Currently, commercially approved CAR T-cells in DLBCL target the CD-19 marker on lymphoma cells but CAR T-cells targeting other and more than one antigen as well as alternative anti CD19 agents like loncastuximab and tafasitamab are similarly FDA approved and available for patients,” Dr. Dunleavy concluded.

Dr. Dunleavy is affiliated with the MedStar Georgetown Lymphoma group, where Rep. Raskin publicly announced that he had completed 4 months of chemotherapy treatment for DLBCL. On April 27, in an open letter to the U.S. public, he wrote that he rang the bell at MedStar to mark his preliminary diagnosis of being “in remission,” with a “90% prognosis of no relapse.”

Interviewed about the latest advances in treating DLBCL, Jason Westin, MD, associate professor of lymphoma and myeloma at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said that even with improvements in overall survival possible with CAR T-cell therapies, “usually, a clinical trial should be considered strongly, as it is often the best option for patients, both in a newly diagnosed or in a relapsed setting, as they allow access to tomorrow’s breakthrough therapies today.”

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Dr. Westin cited the example of bispecific T-cell engagers (BITE) as a promising therapy that is available to patients in clinical trials. These agents bind to one side to the lymphoma cell, but they also have a binding arm for T-cells, so they activate a patient’s own immune cells to kill lymphoma cells, in some cases offering a cure when CAR T-cell therapy has failed.

The first BITE to be approved, mosunetuzumab, is authorized only for the treatment of follicular lymphoma. However, data from a recent clinical study indicated that the agent yields complete responses in 24% of heavily pretreated patients with RR DLBCL.

Another BITE, glofitamab, was approved in Canada in March 2023 for use in RR DLBCL. Based on its high efficacy, it soon may be approved elsewhere.

Dr. Andreadis noted, “We are finally at a point where for both treatment naive and RR DLBCL patients, there are several promising options on the horizon that don’t involve ASCT. Furthermore, these breakthroughs reinforce each other, as there are studies in which therapies like BITE are being brought to the front line and pola to RR cases.”

The growing field of new frontline and RR DLBCL therapies lend credence to the optimism of specialists who treat DLBCL – and to the sanguine note that Congressman Raskin struck in published comments about his treatment for DLBCL.

Dr. Andreadis reported ties with BMS, Novartis, Roche, Genmab, Merck, Gilead, AbbVie, and J&J. Dr. Dunleavy disclosed relationships with ONO Pharmaceuticals, Kymera, Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Amgen, ADC Therapeutics, MorphoSys and Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Cellectar. Dr. Westin reported ties with Kite/Gilead, BMS, Novartis, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Morphosys/Incyte, ADC Therapeutics, Kymera, Nurix, and MonteRosa.

SEATTLE – The majority of patients who underwent a teledermatology follow-up after Mohs micrographic surgery reported that they preferred it to in-person follow up, according to new findings.

In addition, nearly all patients surveyed (91.4%) were willing to go through electronic follow-up again.

“A big takeaway from our study is that streamlining this process is really essential for successful implementation,” said study author Laura Rezac, MD, a PGY IV dermatology resident at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. “This study demonstrated the flexibility and convenience for both patients and surgeons and can serve as a prototype for future innovation.”

The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

The role of telehealth has rapidly expanded over the past decade, with its use accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic and transforming into an indispensable resource. It can be synchronous, Dr. Rezac explained, which is when telehealth happens in live, real-time settings where the patient interacts with a clinician. This usually occurs via phone or video, and providers and patients communicate directly.

Conversely, asynchronous telehealth, also known as “store-and-forward,” is often used for patient intake or follow-up care. For example, in dermatology, a patient can send a photo of a skin condition that is then reviewed by a dermatologist later.

“A pilot survey regarding the adoption of telemedicine in Mohs surgery found that, although most dermatologic surgeons felt that it can play a role, most said that they didn’t plan on using it after the pandemic,” said Dr. Rezac.

The survey, which was reported by this news organization, found that 80% of surveyed surgeons said that they turned to telemedicine during the pandemic, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic.

There were numerous perceived barriers to the use of telemedicine, and the one most commonly cited was the uncertainty of how telemedicine fits in the workflow of clinical practice. Other limitations reported were for physical exams (88%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).

“The survey did identify one key use of telemedicine in Mohs and that was for [postoperative] visits,” she said. “But thus far, a postoperative evaluation after Mohs via an integrated asynchronous ‘store and forward’ teledermatology platform has not yet been evaluated.”

In the study, Dr. Rezac and colleagues sought to evaluate feasibility and efficacy, as well as patient attitudes, using a telemedicine platform for postoperative follow-up. A total of 163 patients who were treated with Mohs at a single academic institution during the 9-month study period (December 2021 through August 2022) responded to a survey and elected to participate in postoperative follow-up using telemedicine.

Dr. Rezac explained how their procedure was implemented for the patient. “On the day of the follow-up, the patient receives a text with a link that takes them to the MyChart website or app on their phone,” she said. “Once they log in, they see that they have a message telling them that they have a teledermatology message waiting for them. When they view it, they are taken to the curated message with instructions and a phone call if they need assistance, and then at the bottom, it shows they have a task to complete, which is the questionnaire.”

The patient will then be prompted to upload photos, which can be taken with their phone camera. The next step is to answer questions regarding the surgical site or pain concerns, and finally, patients are asked to respond to a few short questions about this type of follow-up. Once submitted, then they wait to be contacted by the surgeon.

On the surgeon’s side, these answers come into their EPIC inbox, and they can respond via a MyChart message.

Patient response was overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Rezac noted. Of the patients, 80.4% found the electronic surgery follow-up process to be “easy” or “very easy,” while only 4% found it “difficult” or “very difficult,” she said. “Also, 75.5% preferred electronic follow-up while 17.2% preferred in-person follow-up.”

There were limitations to this study, primarily that the asynchronous method does reduce live interaction, which could be an issue, depending on person’s needs, she pointed out. “But it is easy to schedule a phone call or video call or office visit.”

“The universal barrier is how to adopt it into the workflow, which includes training of staff,” she continued, “But this was a very streamlined process and gave very detailed instructions to the staff. Additionally, widespread use is limited to dermatological proficiency and access, and patients have to be amenable to it, so there is a selection bias since these patients chose to participate.”

Asked to comment on the study, Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University in Washington, said: “The COVID pandemic changed how practices and providers considered follow-up visits for small routine matters. Postoperative visits are often simple and do not require an in-depth, in-person evaluation.” Dr. Patel was not involved with this research.

“This study highlights the comfort of the vast majority of patients to have follow-up postoperative visits conducted via teledermatology – an approach that can help cut overall costs and also increase access for patients who are more in need of in-office care,” he added.

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Rezac reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
 

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

SEATTLE – The majority of patients who underwent a teledermatology follow-up after Mohs micrographic surgery reported that they preferred it to in-person follow up, according to new findings.

In addition, nearly all patients surveyed (91.4%) were willing to go through electronic follow-up again.

“A big takeaway from our study is that streamlining this process is really essential for successful implementation,” said study author Laura Rezac, MD, a PGY IV dermatology resident at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. “This study demonstrated the flexibility and convenience for both patients and surgeons and can serve as a prototype for future innovation.”

The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

The role of telehealth has rapidly expanded over the past decade, with its use accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic and transforming into an indispensable resource. It can be synchronous, Dr. Rezac explained, which is when telehealth happens in live, real-time settings where the patient interacts with a clinician. This usually occurs via phone or video, and providers and patients communicate directly.

Conversely, asynchronous telehealth, also known as “store-and-forward,” is often used for patient intake or follow-up care. For example, in dermatology, a patient can send a photo of a skin condition that is then reviewed by a dermatologist later.

“A pilot survey regarding the adoption of telemedicine in Mohs surgery found that, although most dermatologic surgeons felt that it can play a role, most said that they didn’t plan on using it after the pandemic,” said Dr. Rezac.

The survey, which was reported by this news organization, found that 80% of surveyed surgeons said that they turned to telemedicine during the pandemic, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic.

There were numerous perceived barriers to the use of telemedicine, and the one most commonly cited was the uncertainty of how telemedicine fits in the workflow of clinical practice. Other limitations reported were for physical exams (88%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).

“The survey did identify one key use of telemedicine in Mohs and that was for [postoperative] visits,” she said. “But thus far, a postoperative evaluation after Mohs via an integrated asynchronous ‘store and forward’ teledermatology platform has not yet been evaluated.”

In the study, Dr. Rezac and colleagues sought to evaluate feasibility and efficacy, as well as patient attitudes, using a telemedicine platform for postoperative follow-up. A total of 163 patients who were treated with Mohs at a single academic institution during the 9-month study period (December 2021 through August 2022) responded to a survey and elected to participate in postoperative follow-up using telemedicine.

Dr. Rezac explained how their procedure was implemented for the patient. “On the day of the follow-up, the patient receives a text with a link that takes them to the MyChart website or app on their phone,” she said. “Once they log in, they see that they have a message telling them that they have a teledermatology message waiting for them. When they view it, they are taken to the curated message with instructions and a phone call if they need assistance, and then at the bottom, it shows they have a task to complete, which is the questionnaire.”

The patient will then be prompted to upload photos, which can be taken with their phone camera. The next step is to answer questions regarding the surgical site or pain concerns, and finally, patients are asked to respond to a few short questions about this type of follow-up. Once submitted, then they wait to be contacted by the surgeon.

On the surgeon’s side, these answers come into their EPIC inbox, and they can respond via a MyChart message.

Patient response was overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Rezac noted. Of the patients, 80.4% found the electronic surgery follow-up process to be “easy” or “very easy,” while only 4% found it “difficult” or “very difficult,” she said. “Also, 75.5% preferred electronic follow-up while 17.2% preferred in-person follow-up.”

There were limitations to this study, primarily that the asynchronous method does reduce live interaction, which could be an issue, depending on person’s needs, she pointed out. “But it is easy to schedule a phone call or video call or office visit.”

“The universal barrier is how to adopt it into the workflow, which includes training of staff,” she continued, “But this was a very streamlined process and gave very detailed instructions to the staff. Additionally, widespread use is limited to dermatological proficiency and access, and patients have to be amenable to it, so there is a selection bias since these patients chose to participate.”

Asked to comment on the study, Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University in Washington, said: “The COVID pandemic changed how practices and providers considered follow-up visits for small routine matters. Postoperative visits are often simple and do not require an in-depth, in-person evaluation.” Dr. Patel was not involved with this research.

“This study highlights the comfort of the vast majority of patients to have follow-up postoperative visits conducted via teledermatology – an approach that can help cut overall costs and also increase access for patients who are more in need of in-office care,” he added.

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Rezac reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
 

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

SEATTLE – The majority of patients who underwent a teledermatology follow-up after Mohs micrographic surgery reported that they preferred it to in-person follow up, according to new findings.

In addition, nearly all patients surveyed (91.4%) were willing to go through electronic follow-up again.

“A big takeaway from our study is that streamlining this process is really essential for successful implementation,” said study author Laura Rezac, MD, a PGY IV dermatology resident at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. “This study demonstrated the flexibility and convenience for both patients and surgeons and can serve as a prototype for future innovation.”

The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

The role of telehealth has rapidly expanded over the past decade, with its use accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic and transforming into an indispensable resource. It can be synchronous, Dr. Rezac explained, which is when telehealth happens in live, real-time settings where the patient interacts with a clinician. This usually occurs via phone or video, and providers and patients communicate directly.

Conversely, asynchronous telehealth, also known as “store-and-forward,” is often used for patient intake or follow-up care. For example, in dermatology, a patient can send a photo of a skin condition that is then reviewed by a dermatologist later.

“A pilot survey regarding the adoption of telemedicine in Mohs surgery found that, although most dermatologic surgeons felt that it can play a role, most said that they didn’t plan on using it after the pandemic,” said Dr. Rezac.

The survey, which was reported by this news organization, found that 80% of surveyed surgeons said that they turned to telemedicine during the pandemic, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic.

There were numerous perceived barriers to the use of telemedicine, and the one most commonly cited was the uncertainty of how telemedicine fits in the workflow of clinical practice. Other limitations reported were for physical exams (88%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).

“The survey did identify one key use of telemedicine in Mohs and that was for [postoperative] visits,” she said. “But thus far, a postoperative evaluation after Mohs via an integrated asynchronous ‘store and forward’ teledermatology platform has not yet been evaluated.”

In the study, Dr. Rezac and colleagues sought to evaluate feasibility and efficacy, as well as patient attitudes, using a telemedicine platform for postoperative follow-up. A total of 163 patients who were treated with Mohs at a single academic institution during the 9-month study period (December 2021 through August 2022) responded to a survey and elected to participate in postoperative follow-up using telemedicine.

Dr. Rezac explained how their procedure was implemented for the patient. “On the day of the follow-up, the patient receives a text with a link that takes them to the MyChart website or app on their phone,” she said. “Once they log in, they see that they have a message telling them that they have a teledermatology message waiting for them. When they view it, they are taken to the curated message with instructions and a phone call if they need assistance, and then at the bottom, it shows they have a task to complete, which is the questionnaire.”

The patient will then be prompted to upload photos, which can be taken with their phone camera. The next step is to answer questions regarding the surgical site or pain concerns, and finally, patients are asked to respond to a few short questions about this type of follow-up. Once submitted, then they wait to be contacted by the surgeon.

On the surgeon’s side, these answers come into their EPIC inbox, and they can respond via a MyChart message.

Patient response was overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Rezac noted. Of the patients, 80.4% found the electronic surgery follow-up process to be “easy” or “very easy,” while only 4% found it “difficult” or “very difficult,” she said. “Also, 75.5% preferred electronic follow-up while 17.2% preferred in-person follow-up.”

There were limitations to this study, primarily that the asynchronous method does reduce live interaction, which could be an issue, depending on person’s needs, she pointed out. “But it is easy to schedule a phone call or video call or office visit.”

“The universal barrier is how to adopt it into the workflow, which includes training of staff,” she continued, “But this was a very streamlined process and gave very detailed instructions to the staff. Additionally, widespread use is limited to dermatological proficiency and access, and patients have to be amenable to it, so there is a selection bias since these patients chose to participate.”

Asked to comment on the study, Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University in Washington, said: “The COVID pandemic changed how practices and providers considered follow-up visits for small routine matters. Postoperative visits are often simple and do not require an in-depth, in-person evaluation.” Dr. Patel was not involved with this research.

“This study highlights the comfort of the vast majority of patients to have follow-up postoperative visits conducted via teledermatology – an approach that can help cut overall costs and also increase access for patients who are more in need of in-office care,” he added.

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Rezac reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
 

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

A broad shave biopsy was performed at the base of the lesion and the results were consistent with a thick nodular melanoma with a Breslow depth of 5.5 mm.

Melanoma is the deadliest skin cancer in the United States with mortality risk corresponding with the depth of the tumor.¹ Nodular melanomas grow faster than all other types of melanoma. For this reason, a concerning raised lesion with a risk of melanoma should not be observed for change over time; it should be biopsied promptly. In this case, a depth of 5.5 mm was cause for quick action. Patients with tumors > 1 mm in depth (and some tumors > 0.8 mm) should be offered sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) along with wide local excision to evaluate for lymphatic spread. Patients with thinner tumors may undergo wide local excision without SLNB.

In this case, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines would dictate a 2-cm margin for a wide local incision; the patient underwent a modified version of this with Surgical Oncology to accommodate maintenance of hand function. This patient’s SLNB was negative, so the melanoma was classified as Stage IIC.

In the recent past, there were no additional treatments for patients with late Stage II disease (thick tumors without evidence of metastasis). However, in December 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab in patients with node-negative late Stage II melanoma after demonstration of improved recurrence-free survival in the KEYNOTE trial.² Evidence of improved long-term survival is mixed with adjuvant therapy, and studies evaluating the best role of adjuvant therapy are ongoing.

This patient was started on a regimen of pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks, which he will continue for as long as 1 year. He has tolerated this regimen without difficulty and has no evidence of disease.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

A broad shave biopsy was performed at the base of the lesion and the results were consistent with a thick nodular melanoma with a Breslow depth of 5.5 mm.

Melanoma is the deadliest skin cancer in the United States with mortality risk corresponding with the depth of the tumor.¹ Nodular melanomas grow faster than all other types of melanoma. For this reason, a concerning raised lesion with a risk of melanoma should not be observed for change over time; it should be biopsied promptly. In this case, a depth of 5.5 mm was cause for quick action. Patients with tumors > 1 mm in depth (and some tumors > 0.8 mm) should be offered sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) along with wide local excision to evaluate for lymphatic spread. Patients with thinner tumors may undergo wide local excision without SLNB.

In this case, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines would dictate a 2-cm margin for a wide local incision; the patient underwent a modified version of this with Surgical Oncology to accommodate maintenance of hand function. This patient’s SLNB was negative, so the melanoma was classified as Stage IIC.

In the recent past, there were no additional treatments for patients with late Stage II disease (thick tumors without evidence of metastasis). However, in December 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab in patients with node-negative late Stage II melanoma after demonstration of improved recurrence-free survival in the KEYNOTE trial.² Evidence of improved long-term survival is mixed with adjuvant therapy, and studies evaluating the best role of adjuvant therapy are ongoing.

This patient was started on a regimen of pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks, which he will continue for as long as 1 year. He has tolerated this regimen without difficulty and has no evidence of disease.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

A broad shave biopsy was performed at the base of the lesion and the results were consistent with a thick nodular melanoma with a Breslow depth of 5.5 mm.

Melanoma is the deadliest skin cancer in the United States with mortality risk corresponding with the depth of the tumor.¹ Nodular melanomas grow faster than all other types of melanoma. For this reason, a concerning raised lesion with a risk of melanoma should not be observed for change over time; it should be biopsied promptly. In this case, a depth of 5.5 mm was cause for quick action. Patients with tumors > 1 mm in depth (and some tumors > 0.8 mm) should be offered sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) along with wide local excision to evaluate for lymphatic spread. Patients with thinner tumors may undergo wide local excision without SLNB.

In this case, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines would dictate a 2-cm margin for a wide local incision; the patient underwent a modified version of this with Surgical Oncology to accommodate maintenance of hand function. This patient’s SLNB was negative, so the melanoma was classified as Stage IIC.

In the recent past, there were no additional treatments for patients with late Stage II disease (thick tumors without evidence of metastasis). However, in December 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab in patients with node-negative late Stage II melanoma after demonstration of improved recurrence-free survival in the KEYNOTE trial.² Evidence of improved long-term survival is mixed with adjuvant therapy, and studies evaluating the best role of adjuvant therapy are ongoing.

This patient was started on a regimen of pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks, which he will continue for as long as 1 year. He has tolerated this regimen without difficulty and has no evidence of disease.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

The biopsy revealed abundant lymphocytes, neutrophils, and eosinophils consistent with a diagnosis of cutaneous B cell pseudolymphoma. The pseudolymphoma was caused by an exaggerated response to a tick bite.

As the name implies, B cell pseudolymphomas clinically and histologically mimic the various patterns of cutaneous lymphoma, often appearing as a firm, pink to dark violet nodule. A biopsy is mandatory to distinguish between pseudolymphoma and true lymphoma. There is an association between pseudolymphomas and Borrelia burgdorferi, the organism responsible for Lyme disease. Thus, testing for Lyme disease is recommended for patients with pseudolymphomas who live in endemic areas. Patients who test positive should be treated with doxycycline 100 mg bid for 10 days.

In the absence of Lyme disease, a pseudolymphoma may resolve spontaneously over weeks or months. Resolution can be hastened with topical superpotent steroids, intralesional steroids, or systemic steroids. Treatment can begin with topical clobetasol 0.05% bid. If the lesion does not resolve, the next step would be intralesional triamcinolone 10 mg/mL injected directly into the nodule until it blanches slightly. Injections should be repeated every 3 to 4 weeks for a total of 2 to 3 injections.

The patient in this case had negative Lyme serology and was treated with 2 injections of triamcinolone 10 mg/mL administered 3 weeks apart. She experienced complete resolution.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

The biopsy revealed abundant lymphocytes, neutrophils, and eosinophils consistent with a diagnosis of cutaneous B cell pseudolymphoma. The pseudolymphoma was caused by an exaggerated response to a tick bite.

As the name implies, B cell pseudolymphomas clinically and histologically mimic the various patterns of cutaneous lymphoma, often appearing as a firm, pink to dark violet nodule. A biopsy is mandatory to distinguish between pseudolymphoma and true lymphoma. There is an association between pseudolymphomas and Borrelia burgdorferi, the organism responsible for Lyme disease. Thus, testing for Lyme disease is recommended for patients with pseudolymphomas who live in endemic areas. Patients who test positive should be treated with doxycycline 100 mg bid for 10 days.

In the absence of Lyme disease, a pseudolymphoma may resolve spontaneously over weeks or months. Resolution can be hastened with topical superpotent steroids, intralesional steroids, or systemic steroids. Treatment can begin with topical clobetasol 0.05% bid. If the lesion does not resolve, the next step would be intralesional triamcinolone 10 mg/mL injected directly into the nodule until it blanches slightly. Injections should be repeated every 3 to 4 weeks for a total of 2 to 3 injections.

The patient in this case had negative Lyme serology and was treated with 2 injections of triamcinolone 10 mg/mL administered 3 weeks apart. She experienced complete resolution.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

The biopsy revealed abundant lymphocytes, neutrophils, and eosinophils consistent with a diagnosis of cutaneous B cell pseudolymphoma. The pseudolymphoma was caused by an exaggerated response to a tick bite.

As the name implies, B cell pseudolymphomas clinically and histologically mimic the various patterns of cutaneous lymphoma, often appearing as a firm, pink to dark violet nodule. A biopsy is mandatory to distinguish between pseudolymphoma and true lymphoma. There is an association between pseudolymphomas and Borrelia burgdorferi, the organism responsible for Lyme disease. Thus, testing for Lyme disease is recommended for patients with pseudolymphomas who live in endemic areas. Patients who test positive should be treated with doxycycline 100 mg bid for 10 days.

In the absence of Lyme disease, a pseudolymphoma may resolve spontaneously over weeks or months. Resolution can be hastened with topical superpotent steroids, intralesional steroids, or systemic steroids. Treatment can begin with topical clobetasol 0.05% bid. If the lesion does not resolve, the next step would be intralesional triamcinolone 10 mg/mL injected directly into the nodule until it blanches slightly. Injections should be repeated every 3 to 4 weeks for a total of 2 to 3 injections.

The patient in this case had negative Lyme serology and was treated with 2 injections of triamcinolone 10 mg/mL administered 3 weeks apart. She experienced complete resolution.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.