MDedge ObGyn

Most women with breast cancer undergo primary surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis and any later may be associated with worse overall survival, according to findings from a case series.

With no national quality metrics delineating optimal breast cancer surgery timing, the researchers recommend surgery before 8 weeks from breast cancer diagnosis.

“This time interval does not appear to have a detrimental association with cancer outcomes and allows for multidisciplinary care,” the researchers, led by Alyssa A. Wiener, MD, from University of Wisconsin–Madison, said.

But, in an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists questioned whether faster surgery is always better.

“Efficiency might associate with quality, but doesn’t always ensure it,” Rita Mukhtar, MD, and Laura Esserman, MD, with the division of surgical oncology, University of California, San Francisco, said.

The study and editorial were published online in JAMA Surgery.


 

Optimal timing for surgery?

Some studies have found worse survival outcomes for women who experience delays between breast cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment, but the optimal window for surgery and the point at which surgery becomes less advantageous remain unknown.

Using the National Cancer Database, Dr. Wiener and colleagues identified 373,334 women (median age, 61) who were diagnosed with stage I to stage III ductal or lobular breast cancer from 2010 to 2014 and followed up through 2019.

All women underwent surgery as their first course of treatment. Patients with prior breast cancer, those who had neoadjuvant or experimental therapy or missing receptor information, and those who were diagnosed with breast cancer on the date of their primary surgery were excluded.

Most patients had timely surgery. The median time to surgery was 30 days, and 88% of patients underwent surgery before the 57-day time point.

Only 12% of patients had surgery more than 8 weeks after their diagnosis. Factors associated with longer times to surgery included age younger than 45, having Medicaid or no insurance, and lower household income.

The overall 5-year survival for the cohort was high at 90%. On multivariable analysis, the researchers found no statistically significant association between time to surgery and overall survival when surgery was performed between 0 and 8 weeks.

However, women who had surgery 9 or more weeks after diagnosis had a significantly higher rate of death within 5 years, compared with those who had surgery performed between 0 and 4 weeks (hazard ratio, 1.15; P < .001). Performing surgery up to 9 weeks (57-63 days) post diagnosis also did not appear to be negatively associated with survival.

This study “highlights that time to treatment of breast cancer is important,” said Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Breast Surgery Quality Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study. “Surgery is only one-third of the treatment of breast cancer, so these patients who had longer delays to the OR may have also not started their postsurgery treatments in time.”

In addition, the study found that socioeconomic status – Medicaid or uninsured status and lower household incomes – was associated with longer times to surgery.

“Socioeconomic factors like these may be independently associated with worse outcomes and may contribute to some of the disparities in cancer outcomes observed for resource-limited patients due to delayed care,” the authors said.

Identifying 8 weeks as a goal for time to surgery can help uncover delays associated with socioeconomic factors and provide adequate time for decision-making, the researchers noted.
 

Is faster always better?

Dr. Wiener and colleagues cautioned, however, that their findings should be considered “hypothesis generating,” given that decision-making surrounding breast cancer surgery is complex.

Importantly, the authors noted, tumor characteristics, such as tumor size, nodal status, and receptor subtype, appeared to have a pronounced impact on overall survival, compared with timing of surgery. For instance, compared with a tumor size of 2 cm or fewer, larger tumors – those > 2 cm to ≤ 5 cm and > 5 cm – were associated with worse survival (HR, 1.80 and 2.62, respectively).

“This highlights that tumor biology is the primary driver of patients’ breast cancer outcomes,” the authors noted.

In an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists highlighted that faster may not always be better.

For instance, Dr. Mukhtar and Dr. Esserman explained, if a patient with a large node-positive, triple-negative breast cancer receives surgery within a week of diagnosis, “one must question whether this timely care represents quality care, as the opportunity to understand tumor response and affect breast cancer survival has been lost.”

The editorialists noted that time to surgery might also matter very little for indolent, screen-detected cancers, and time to treatment start might matter a lot for fast-growing, interval cancers.

In addition, they questioned whether including the socioeconomic factors highlighted in the overall model would “mitigate the association between time to surgery and survival seen in this study.”

Overall, “operating too soon could indicate lack of quality, while operating too late perhaps reflects lack of access to care,” the editorialists said.

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wiener and Dr. Cate report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Esserman is a member of the Blue Cross Medical advisory panel, is a board member of the Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, and leads an investigator-initiated vaccine trial for high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ, which is funded by Merck.

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

Most women with breast cancer undergo primary surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis and any later may be associated with worse overall survival, according to findings from a case series.

With no national quality metrics delineating optimal breast cancer surgery timing, the researchers recommend surgery before 8 weeks from breast cancer diagnosis.

“This time interval does not appear to have a detrimental association with cancer outcomes and allows for multidisciplinary care,” the researchers, led by Alyssa A. Wiener, MD, from University of Wisconsin–Madison, said.

But, in an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists questioned whether faster surgery is always better.

“Efficiency might associate with quality, but doesn’t always ensure it,” Rita Mukhtar, MD, and Laura Esserman, MD, with the division of surgical oncology, University of California, San Francisco, said.

The study and editorial were published online in JAMA Surgery.


 

Optimal timing for surgery?

Some studies have found worse survival outcomes for women who experience delays between breast cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment, but the optimal window for surgery and the point at which surgery becomes less advantageous remain unknown.

Using the National Cancer Database, Dr. Wiener and colleagues identified 373,334 women (median age, 61) who were diagnosed with stage I to stage III ductal or lobular breast cancer from 2010 to 2014 and followed up through 2019.

All women underwent surgery as their first course of treatment. Patients with prior breast cancer, those who had neoadjuvant or experimental therapy or missing receptor information, and those who were diagnosed with breast cancer on the date of their primary surgery were excluded.

Most patients had timely surgery. The median time to surgery was 30 days, and 88% of patients underwent surgery before the 57-day time point.

Only 12% of patients had surgery more than 8 weeks after their diagnosis. Factors associated with longer times to surgery included age younger than 45, having Medicaid or no insurance, and lower household income.

The overall 5-year survival for the cohort was high at 90%. On multivariable analysis, the researchers found no statistically significant association between time to surgery and overall survival when surgery was performed between 0 and 8 weeks.

However, women who had surgery 9 or more weeks after diagnosis had a significantly higher rate of death within 5 years, compared with those who had surgery performed between 0 and 4 weeks (hazard ratio, 1.15; P < .001). Performing surgery up to 9 weeks (57-63 days) post diagnosis also did not appear to be negatively associated with survival.

This study “highlights that time to treatment of breast cancer is important,” said Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Breast Surgery Quality Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study. “Surgery is only one-third of the treatment of breast cancer, so these patients who had longer delays to the OR may have also not started their postsurgery treatments in time.”

In addition, the study found that socioeconomic status – Medicaid or uninsured status and lower household incomes – was associated with longer times to surgery.

“Socioeconomic factors like these may be independently associated with worse outcomes and may contribute to some of the disparities in cancer outcomes observed for resource-limited patients due to delayed care,” the authors said.

Identifying 8 weeks as a goal for time to surgery can help uncover delays associated with socioeconomic factors and provide adequate time for decision-making, the researchers noted.
 

Is faster always better?

Dr. Wiener and colleagues cautioned, however, that their findings should be considered “hypothesis generating,” given that decision-making surrounding breast cancer surgery is complex.

Importantly, the authors noted, tumor characteristics, such as tumor size, nodal status, and receptor subtype, appeared to have a pronounced impact on overall survival, compared with timing of surgery. For instance, compared with a tumor size of 2 cm or fewer, larger tumors – those > 2 cm to ≤ 5 cm and > 5 cm – were associated with worse survival (HR, 1.80 and 2.62, respectively).

“This highlights that tumor biology is the primary driver of patients’ breast cancer outcomes,” the authors noted.

In an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists highlighted that faster may not always be better.

For instance, Dr. Mukhtar and Dr. Esserman explained, if a patient with a large node-positive, triple-negative breast cancer receives surgery within a week of diagnosis, “one must question whether this timely care represents quality care, as the opportunity to understand tumor response and affect breast cancer survival has been lost.”

The editorialists noted that time to surgery might also matter very little for indolent, screen-detected cancers, and time to treatment start might matter a lot for fast-growing, interval cancers.

In addition, they questioned whether including the socioeconomic factors highlighted in the overall model would “mitigate the association between time to surgery and survival seen in this study.”

Overall, “operating too soon could indicate lack of quality, while operating too late perhaps reflects lack of access to care,” the editorialists said.

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wiener and Dr. Cate report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Esserman is a member of the Blue Cross Medical advisory panel, is a board member of the Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, and leads an investigator-initiated vaccine trial for high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ, which is funded by Merck.

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

Most women with breast cancer undergo primary surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis and any later may be associated with worse overall survival, according to findings from a case series.

With no national quality metrics delineating optimal breast cancer surgery timing, the researchers recommend surgery before 8 weeks from breast cancer diagnosis.

“This time interval does not appear to have a detrimental association with cancer outcomes and allows for multidisciplinary care,” the researchers, led by Alyssa A. Wiener, MD, from University of Wisconsin–Madison, said.

But, in an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists questioned whether faster surgery is always better.

“Efficiency might associate with quality, but doesn’t always ensure it,” Rita Mukhtar, MD, and Laura Esserman, MD, with the division of surgical oncology, University of California, San Francisco, said.

The study and editorial were published online in JAMA Surgery.


 

Optimal timing for surgery?

Some studies have found worse survival outcomes for women who experience delays between breast cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment, but the optimal window for surgery and the point at which surgery becomes less advantageous remain unknown.

Using the National Cancer Database, Dr. Wiener and colleagues identified 373,334 women (median age, 61) who were diagnosed with stage I to stage III ductal or lobular breast cancer from 2010 to 2014 and followed up through 2019.

All women underwent surgery as their first course of treatment. Patients with prior breast cancer, those who had neoadjuvant or experimental therapy or missing receptor information, and those who were diagnosed with breast cancer on the date of their primary surgery were excluded.

Most patients had timely surgery. The median time to surgery was 30 days, and 88% of patients underwent surgery before the 57-day time point.

Only 12% of patients had surgery more than 8 weeks after their diagnosis. Factors associated with longer times to surgery included age younger than 45, having Medicaid or no insurance, and lower household income.

The overall 5-year survival for the cohort was high at 90%. On multivariable analysis, the researchers found no statistically significant association between time to surgery and overall survival when surgery was performed between 0 and 8 weeks.

However, women who had surgery 9 or more weeks after diagnosis had a significantly higher rate of death within 5 years, compared with those who had surgery performed between 0 and 4 weeks (hazard ratio, 1.15; P < .001). Performing surgery up to 9 weeks (57-63 days) post diagnosis also did not appear to be negatively associated with survival.

This study “highlights that time to treatment of breast cancer is important,” said Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Breast Surgery Quality Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study. “Surgery is only one-third of the treatment of breast cancer, so these patients who had longer delays to the OR may have also not started their postsurgery treatments in time.”

In addition, the study found that socioeconomic status – Medicaid or uninsured status and lower household incomes – was associated with longer times to surgery.

“Socioeconomic factors like these may be independently associated with worse outcomes and may contribute to some of the disparities in cancer outcomes observed for resource-limited patients due to delayed care,” the authors said.

Identifying 8 weeks as a goal for time to surgery can help uncover delays associated with socioeconomic factors and provide adequate time for decision-making, the researchers noted.
 

Is faster always better?

Dr. Wiener and colleagues cautioned, however, that their findings should be considered “hypothesis generating,” given that decision-making surrounding breast cancer surgery is complex.

Importantly, the authors noted, tumor characteristics, such as tumor size, nodal status, and receptor subtype, appeared to have a pronounced impact on overall survival, compared with timing of surgery. For instance, compared with a tumor size of 2 cm or fewer, larger tumors – those > 2 cm to ≤ 5 cm and > 5 cm – were associated with worse survival (HR, 1.80 and 2.62, respectively).

“This highlights that tumor biology is the primary driver of patients’ breast cancer outcomes,” the authors noted.

In an accompanying editorial, two surgical oncologists highlighted that faster may not always be better.

For instance, Dr. Mukhtar and Dr. Esserman explained, if a patient with a large node-positive, triple-negative breast cancer receives surgery within a week of diagnosis, “one must question whether this timely care represents quality care, as the opportunity to understand tumor response and affect breast cancer survival has been lost.”

The editorialists noted that time to surgery might also matter very little for indolent, screen-detected cancers, and time to treatment start might matter a lot for fast-growing, interval cancers.

In addition, they questioned whether including the socioeconomic factors highlighted in the overall model would “mitigate the association between time to surgery and survival seen in this study.”

Overall, “operating too soon could indicate lack of quality, while operating too late perhaps reflects lack of access to care,” the editorialists said.

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wiener and Dr. Cate report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Esserman is a member of the Blue Cross Medical advisory panel, is a board member of the Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, and leads an investigator-initiated vaccine trial for high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ, which is funded by Merck.

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

Virtual Reality Learning Environments (VRLEs) can help medical students understand stages of fetal development and better retain the information, at least in the short term, results from a randomized, controlled trial suggest.

However, the authors note a major limitation in using these devices is the potential for cybersickness and in this study almost half of the participants using the VR headsets experienced dizziness (43%) and disorientation (48%); 38% reported impaired balance.

Findings of a research team led by Grace Ryan, a medical student at the University College Dublin Perinatal Research Centre, were published online in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

Forty-one University College Dublin students completed the study after randomization either to a group that had a 15-minute VRLE learning experience on the stages of fetal development (n = 21) or to a traditional PowerPoint tutorial via Zoom on the same topic (n = 20).
 

Knowledge gaged with multiple-choice questions

Students’ knowledge was then assessed with multiple-choice questionnaires at three time points: before the presentations, immediately after the presentations, and a week after the intervention.

The secondary outcome was level of satisfaction and self-confidence.

Within-group differences in knowledge scores were significant among all three time points for both the intervention (P < .01; 95% confidence interval, 5.33-6.19) and control group (P = .02; 95% CI, 5.74-6.49).

But students retained the information level only in the VR group 1 week after the training.

In the VR group, knowledge scores were significantly higher after the intervention, compared with baseline. In the control group, knowledge scores were significantly higher immediately after the presentation, compared with baseline, but scores decreased nonsignificantly between the time point after the presentation, compared with 1 week after.

Mean levels of satisfaction and self-confidence in learning were higher in the VRLE group, compared with the control group: 54.2 (standard deviation, 7.5) and 50.5 (SD, 7.2), respectively, but were not significant (P = .21).
 

VR group went on a ‘treasure hunt’

The VR intervention involved an immersive experience that explored the stages of fetal development. The experience was designed in collaboration with the University College Dublin School of Computer Science using online tutorials and documentation from the literature.

Obstetrics and gynecology clinical professionals provided expert validation.

The VR program took the students on a “treasure hunt” for information, linking images to key learning points on fetal development. Students used controllers to select organs on the fetal images they visualized relevant to a stage of development, unlocking key information that appeared on the assessment.
 

Zoom vs. VR

The traditional control group had a 15-minute face-to-face teaching tutorial (via Zoom because of COVID-19 restrictions) on the information and used a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. The researchers took 15 minutes before the tutorial to explain the study and requirements for participation.

The factual content was the same for both groups and was taught by the same clinical tutor in both groups for consistency.

Aparna Srindhar, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview that, from the images in the VR system in this study, “It is unclear what the advantage of the VR over Zoom was. If the VR is showing texts and images very similar to the Zoom in-person teaching, then it may not produce drastically different results in short-term knowledge retention.”

At UCLA, she says, clinicians have used virtual reality in the patient care setting but not in the teaching setting; they have used smart glasses and other modalities in teaching real-time procedures.

Mastering information on fetal development can be difficult because the material is complex and includes details not visible to the naked eye, the authors note.

Regarding the cybersickness side effects, the authors write, “With increased use and the advancement of VR technology, side effect profiles are expected to decrease. Future studies should include a larger cohort to explore the use of VR further as a learning tool for medical students.”

The study authors and Dr. Sridhar report no relevant financial relationships.

Virtual Reality Learning Environments (VRLEs) can help medical students understand stages of fetal development and better retain the information, at least in the short term, results from a randomized, controlled trial suggest.

However, the authors note a major limitation in using these devices is the potential for cybersickness and in this study almost half of the participants using the VR headsets experienced dizziness (43%) and disorientation (48%); 38% reported impaired balance.

Findings of a research team led by Grace Ryan, a medical student at the University College Dublin Perinatal Research Centre, were published online in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

Forty-one University College Dublin students completed the study after randomization either to a group that had a 15-minute VRLE learning experience on the stages of fetal development (n = 21) or to a traditional PowerPoint tutorial via Zoom on the same topic (n = 20).
 

Knowledge gaged with multiple-choice questions

Students’ knowledge was then assessed with multiple-choice questionnaires at three time points: before the presentations, immediately after the presentations, and a week after the intervention.

The secondary outcome was level of satisfaction and self-confidence.

Within-group differences in knowledge scores were significant among all three time points for both the intervention (P < .01; 95% confidence interval, 5.33-6.19) and control group (P = .02; 95% CI, 5.74-6.49).

But students retained the information level only in the VR group 1 week after the training.

In the VR group, knowledge scores were significantly higher after the intervention, compared with baseline. In the control group, knowledge scores were significantly higher immediately after the presentation, compared with baseline, but scores decreased nonsignificantly between the time point after the presentation, compared with 1 week after.

Mean levels of satisfaction and self-confidence in learning were higher in the VRLE group, compared with the control group: 54.2 (standard deviation, 7.5) and 50.5 (SD, 7.2), respectively, but were not significant (P = .21).
 

VR group went on a ‘treasure hunt’

The VR intervention involved an immersive experience that explored the stages of fetal development. The experience was designed in collaboration with the University College Dublin School of Computer Science using online tutorials and documentation from the literature.

Obstetrics and gynecology clinical professionals provided expert validation.

The VR program took the students on a “treasure hunt” for information, linking images to key learning points on fetal development. Students used controllers to select organs on the fetal images they visualized relevant to a stage of development, unlocking key information that appeared on the assessment.
 

Zoom vs. VR

The traditional control group had a 15-minute face-to-face teaching tutorial (via Zoom because of COVID-19 restrictions) on the information and used a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. The researchers took 15 minutes before the tutorial to explain the study and requirements for participation.

The factual content was the same for both groups and was taught by the same clinical tutor in both groups for consistency.

Aparna Srindhar, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview that, from the images in the VR system in this study, “It is unclear what the advantage of the VR over Zoom was. If the VR is showing texts and images very similar to the Zoom in-person teaching, then it may not produce drastically different results in short-term knowledge retention.”

At UCLA, she says, clinicians have used virtual reality in the patient care setting but not in the teaching setting; they have used smart glasses and other modalities in teaching real-time procedures.

Mastering information on fetal development can be difficult because the material is complex and includes details not visible to the naked eye, the authors note.

Regarding the cybersickness side effects, the authors write, “With increased use and the advancement of VR technology, side effect profiles are expected to decrease. Future studies should include a larger cohort to explore the use of VR further as a learning tool for medical students.”

The study authors and Dr. Sridhar report no relevant financial relationships.

Virtual Reality Learning Environments (VRLEs) can help medical students understand stages of fetal development and better retain the information, at least in the short term, results from a randomized, controlled trial suggest.

However, the authors note a major limitation in using these devices is the potential for cybersickness and in this study almost half of the participants using the VR headsets experienced dizziness (43%) and disorientation (48%); 38% reported impaired balance.

Findings of a research team led by Grace Ryan, a medical student at the University College Dublin Perinatal Research Centre, were published online in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

Forty-one University College Dublin students completed the study after randomization either to a group that had a 15-minute VRLE learning experience on the stages of fetal development (n = 21) or to a traditional PowerPoint tutorial via Zoom on the same topic (n = 20).
 

Knowledge gaged with multiple-choice questions

Students’ knowledge was then assessed with multiple-choice questionnaires at three time points: before the presentations, immediately after the presentations, and a week after the intervention.

The secondary outcome was level of satisfaction and self-confidence.

Within-group differences in knowledge scores were significant among all three time points for both the intervention (P < .01; 95% confidence interval, 5.33-6.19) and control group (P = .02; 95% CI, 5.74-6.49).

But students retained the information level only in the VR group 1 week after the training.

In the VR group, knowledge scores were significantly higher after the intervention, compared with baseline. In the control group, knowledge scores were significantly higher immediately after the presentation, compared with baseline, but scores decreased nonsignificantly between the time point after the presentation, compared with 1 week after.

Mean levels of satisfaction and self-confidence in learning were higher in the VRLE group, compared with the control group: 54.2 (standard deviation, 7.5) and 50.5 (SD, 7.2), respectively, but were not significant (P = .21).
 

VR group went on a ‘treasure hunt’

The VR intervention involved an immersive experience that explored the stages of fetal development. The experience was designed in collaboration with the University College Dublin School of Computer Science using online tutorials and documentation from the literature.

Obstetrics and gynecology clinical professionals provided expert validation.

The VR program took the students on a “treasure hunt” for information, linking images to key learning points on fetal development. Students used controllers to select organs on the fetal images they visualized relevant to a stage of development, unlocking key information that appeared on the assessment.
 

Zoom vs. VR

The traditional control group had a 15-minute face-to-face teaching tutorial (via Zoom because of COVID-19 restrictions) on the information and used a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. The researchers took 15 minutes before the tutorial to explain the study and requirements for participation.

The factual content was the same for both groups and was taught by the same clinical tutor in both groups for consistency.

Aparna Srindhar, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview that, from the images in the VR system in this study, “It is unclear what the advantage of the VR over Zoom was. If the VR is showing texts and images very similar to the Zoom in-person teaching, then it may not produce drastically different results in short-term knowledge retention.”

At UCLA, she says, clinicians have used virtual reality in the patient care setting but not in the teaching setting; they have used smart glasses and other modalities in teaching real-time procedures.

Mastering information on fetal development can be difficult because the material is complex and includes details not visible to the naked eye, the authors note.

Regarding the cybersickness side effects, the authors write, “With increased use and the advancement of VR technology, side effect profiles are expected to decrease. Future studies should include a larger cohort to explore the use of VR further as a learning tool for medical students.”

The study authors and Dr. Sridhar report no relevant financial relationships.

Much attention has been focused recently on the idea that breast cancer with a low expression of HER2 can be treated with HER2-targeted agents. Not surprisingly, manufacturers of these drugs have pounced on this idea, as it opens up a whole new patient population: previously these drugs were only for tumors with a high HER2 expression.

There is a large potential market at stake: HER2-low (also referred to as ERBB2-low), as defined by a score of 0 to 3+ on immunohistochemistry (IHC), is seen in approximately 50%-60% of all breast cancers

However, there is still much debate over whether low-HER2 breast cancer is, in fact, a separate clinical entity.

A new large-scale analysis concludes that it is not. The authors argued that it actually it represents a series of biological differences from HER2-negative disease that do not have a strong bearing on outcomes.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Oncology.

For the study, researchers from the University of Chicago examined data on more than 1.1 million breast cancer patients recorded as HER2-negative in the U.S. National Cancer Database, and re-classified almost two thirds as HER2-low on further analysis.

They found that HER2-low status was associated with higher estrogen receptor (ER) expression, as well as a lower rate of pathologic complete response, compared with HER2-negative disease. It was also linked to an improvement in overall survival on multivariate analysis of up to 9% in advance stage triple negative tumors.

“However, the clinical significance of these differences is questionable,” the researchers commented.

HER2-low status alone “should not influence neoadjuvant treatment decisions with currently approved regimens,” they added.

These results “do not support classification of HER2-low breast cancer as a distinct clinical subtype,” the team concluded.

Not necessarily, according to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, director of the new drugs and early drug development for innovative therapies division at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan. He argued the opposite case, that HER2-low is a separate clinical entity, in a recent debate on the topic held at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In a comment, Dr. Curigliano said that a “major strength” of the current study is its large patient cohort, which reflects the majority of cancer diagnoses in the United States, but that it nevertheless has “important limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.”

The inclusion of only overall survival in the dataset limits the ability to make associations between HER2-low status and cancer-specific prognosis, as “survival may lag years behind recurrence.”

The lack of centralized assessment of IHC results is also an issue, as “some of the results may be associated with regional variation in practice of classifying cases as HER2 0 versus HER2 1+.”

“In my opinion, this is a great limitation,” he said, in being able to conclude that there is “no prognostic difference between ERBB2-low and -negative patients.”

He also noted that, from a molecular point of view, “the key determinant of the gene expression profile is the expression of hormone receptors, [and] if we perform a correction for hormone receptor expression, only marginal differences in gene expression are found” between HER2-low and HER2-negative tumors.

“Similarly, large genomic studies have identified no specific and consistent difference in genomic profiles,” Dr. Curigliano said, and so, HER2-low disease, “as currently defined, should not be considered a distinct molecular entity, but rather a heterogeneous group of tumors, with biology primarily driven by hormone receptor expression.”
 

Analysis quoted by both sides

Senior author of the new analysis, Frederick M. Howard, MD, from the section of hematology-oncology in the department of medicine at the University of Chicago, said that his team’s work was quoted by both sides of the debate at SABCS 2022.

This reflects the fact that, while differences between ERBB2-low and -negative are present, it is “questionable how clinically significant those differences are,” he said in an interview. It’s a matter of “the eye of the beholder.”

Dr. Howard does not think that clinicians are going to modify standard treatment regimens based solely on HER2-low status, and that low expression of the protein “is probably just a reflection of some underlying biologic processes.”

Dr. Howard agreed with Dr. Curigliano that a “caveat” of their study is that the IHC analyses were performed locally, especially as it has shown that there can be discordance between pathologists in around 40% of cases, and that the associations they found might therefore be “strengthened” by more precise quantification of HER2 expression.

“But, even then,” Dr. Howard continued, “I doubt that [ERBB2-low status] is going to be that strong a prognostic factor.”

He believes that advances in analytic techniques will, in the future, allow tumors to be characterized more precisely, and it may be that HER2-low tumors end up being called something else in 5 years.
 

Renewed interest in this subgroup

In their paper, Dr. Howard and colleagues pointed out that, as a group, HER2-low tumors are heterogeneous, with HER2-low found in both hormone receptor–positive and triple-negative breast cancers. Also, various studies have come to different conclusions about what HER2 low means prognostically, with conclusions ranging from negative to neutral and to positive prognoses.

However, new research has shown that patients with HER2-low tumors can benefit from HER2-targeted drugs. In particular, the recent report that the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in ERBB2-low tumors led to “renewed interest in the subgroup,” the researchers noted.

To examine this subgroup further, they embarked on their analysis. Examining the National Cancer Database, they gathered information on more than 1.1 million U.S. patients diagnosed with HER2-negative invasive breast cancer in the 10-year period 2010-2019, and for whom IHC results were available.

The patients were reclassified as having HER2-low disease if they had an IHC score of 1+, or 2+ with a negative in situ hybridization test, while those with an IHC score of 0 were deemed to be HER2-negative. They were followed up until Nov. 30, 2022.

These patients had a mean age of 62.4 years, and 99.1% were female. The majority (78.6%) were non-Hispanic white. HER2-low was identified in 65.5% of the cohort, while 34.5% were HER2-negative.

The proportion of HER2-low disease was lower in non-Hispanic black (62.8%) and Hispanic (61%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients, at 66.1%.

HER2-low disease was also more common in hormone receptor–positive than triple-negative tumors, at just 51.5%, rising to 58.6% for progesterone receptor–positive, ER-negative, and 69.1% for PR-positive, ER-positive tumors.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis taking into account age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidity score, and treatment facility type, among other factors, revealed that the likelihood of HER2-low disease was significantly with increased ER expression, at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.15 for each 10% increase (P < .001).

Non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Pacific Islander patients had similar rates of HER2-low disease as non-Hispanic White patients after adjustment, whereas Native American patients had an increased rate, at an aOR of 1.22 (P < .001), and Hispanic patients had a lower rate, at an aOR of 0.85 (P < .001).

HER2-low status was associated with a slightly reduced likelihood of having a pathologic complete response (aOR, 0.89; P < .001), with similar results when restricting the analysis to patients with triple negative or hormone receptor-positive tumors.

After a median follow-up of 54 months, HER2-low disease was associated with a minor improvement in survival on multivariate analysis, at an adjusted hazard ratio for death of 0.98 (P < .001).

The greatest improvement in survival was seen in patients with stage III and IV triple-negative breast cancer, at HRs of 0.92 and 0.91, respectively, although the researchers noted that this represented only a 2% and 0.4% improvement in 5-year overall survival, respectively.

The study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the American Society of Clinical Oncology/Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Susan G. Komen, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the University of Chicago Elwood V. Jensen Scholars Program. Dr. Howard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Curigliano has relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Celltrion, Veracyte, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Scientific Affairs Group, and Ellipsis.

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

Much attention has been focused recently on the idea that breast cancer with a low expression of HER2 can be treated with HER2-targeted agents. Not surprisingly, manufacturers of these drugs have pounced on this idea, as it opens up a whole new patient population: previously these drugs were only for tumors with a high HER2 expression.

There is a large potential market at stake: HER2-low (also referred to as ERBB2-low), as defined by a score of 0 to 3+ on immunohistochemistry (IHC), is seen in approximately 50%-60% of all breast cancers

However, there is still much debate over whether low-HER2 breast cancer is, in fact, a separate clinical entity.

A new large-scale analysis concludes that it is not. The authors argued that it actually it represents a series of biological differences from HER2-negative disease that do not have a strong bearing on outcomes.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Oncology.

For the study, researchers from the University of Chicago examined data on more than 1.1 million breast cancer patients recorded as HER2-negative in the U.S. National Cancer Database, and re-classified almost two thirds as HER2-low on further analysis.

They found that HER2-low status was associated with higher estrogen receptor (ER) expression, as well as a lower rate of pathologic complete response, compared with HER2-negative disease. It was also linked to an improvement in overall survival on multivariate analysis of up to 9% in advance stage triple negative tumors.

“However, the clinical significance of these differences is questionable,” the researchers commented.

HER2-low status alone “should not influence neoadjuvant treatment decisions with currently approved regimens,” they added.

These results “do not support classification of HER2-low breast cancer as a distinct clinical subtype,” the team concluded.

Not necessarily, according to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, director of the new drugs and early drug development for innovative therapies division at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan. He argued the opposite case, that HER2-low is a separate clinical entity, in a recent debate on the topic held at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In a comment, Dr. Curigliano said that a “major strength” of the current study is its large patient cohort, which reflects the majority of cancer diagnoses in the United States, but that it nevertheless has “important limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.”

The inclusion of only overall survival in the dataset limits the ability to make associations between HER2-low status and cancer-specific prognosis, as “survival may lag years behind recurrence.”

The lack of centralized assessment of IHC results is also an issue, as “some of the results may be associated with regional variation in practice of classifying cases as HER2 0 versus HER2 1+.”

“In my opinion, this is a great limitation,” he said, in being able to conclude that there is “no prognostic difference between ERBB2-low and -negative patients.”

He also noted that, from a molecular point of view, “the key determinant of the gene expression profile is the expression of hormone receptors, [and] if we perform a correction for hormone receptor expression, only marginal differences in gene expression are found” between HER2-low and HER2-negative tumors.

“Similarly, large genomic studies have identified no specific and consistent difference in genomic profiles,” Dr. Curigliano said, and so, HER2-low disease, “as currently defined, should not be considered a distinct molecular entity, but rather a heterogeneous group of tumors, with biology primarily driven by hormone receptor expression.”
 

Analysis quoted by both sides

Senior author of the new analysis, Frederick M. Howard, MD, from the section of hematology-oncology in the department of medicine at the University of Chicago, said that his team’s work was quoted by both sides of the debate at SABCS 2022.

This reflects the fact that, while differences between ERBB2-low and -negative are present, it is “questionable how clinically significant those differences are,” he said in an interview. It’s a matter of “the eye of the beholder.”

Dr. Howard does not think that clinicians are going to modify standard treatment regimens based solely on HER2-low status, and that low expression of the protein “is probably just a reflection of some underlying biologic processes.”

Dr. Howard agreed with Dr. Curigliano that a “caveat” of their study is that the IHC analyses were performed locally, especially as it has shown that there can be discordance between pathologists in around 40% of cases, and that the associations they found might therefore be “strengthened” by more precise quantification of HER2 expression.

“But, even then,” Dr. Howard continued, “I doubt that [ERBB2-low status] is going to be that strong a prognostic factor.”

He believes that advances in analytic techniques will, in the future, allow tumors to be characterized more precisely, and it may be that HER2-low tumors end up being called something else in 5 years.
 

Renewed interest in this subgroup

In their paper, Dr. Howard and colleagues pointed out that, as a group, HER2-low tumors are heterogeneous, with HER2-low found in both hormone receptor–positive and triple-negative breast cancers. Also, various studies have come to different conclusions about what HER2 low means prognostically, with conclusions ranging from negative to neutral and to positive prognoses.

However, new research has shown that patients with HER2-low tumors can benefit from HER2-targeted drugs. In particular, the recent report that the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in ERBB2-low tumors led to “renewed interest in the subgroup,” the researchers noted.

To examine this subgroup further, they embarked on their analysis. Examining the National Cancer Database, they gathered information on more than 1.1 million U.S. patients diagnosed with HER2-negative invasive breast cancer in the 10-year period 2010-2019, and for whom IHC results were available.

The patients were reclassified as having HER2-low disease if they had an IHC score of 1+, or 2+ with a negative in situ hybridization test, while those with an IHC score of 0 were deemed to be HER2-negative. They were followed up until Nov. 30, 2022.

These patients had a mean age of 62.4 years, and 99.1% were female. The majority (78.6%) were non-Hispanic white. HER2-low was identified in 65.5% of the cohort, while 34.5% were HER2-negative.

The proportion of HER2-low disease was lower in non-Hispanic black (62.8%) and Hispanic (61%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients, at 66.1%.

HER2-low disease was also more common in hormone receptor–positive than triple-negative tumors, at just 51.5%, rising to 58.6% for progesterone receptor–positive, ER-negative, and 69.1% for PR-positive, ER-positive tumors.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis taking into account age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidity score, and treatment facility type, among other factors, revealed that the likelihood of HER2-low disease was significantly with increased ER expression, at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.15 for each 10% increase (P < .001).

Non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Pacific Islander patients had similar rates of HER2-low disease as non-Hispanic White patients after adjustment, whereas Native American patients had an increased rate, at an aOR of 1.22 (P < .001), and Hispanic patients had a lower rate, at an aOR of 0.85 (P < .001).

HER2-low status was associated with a slightly reduced likelihood of having a pathologic complete response (aOR, 0.89; P < .001), with similar results when restricting the analysis to patients with triple negative or hormone receptor-positive tumors.

After a median follow-up of 54 months, HER2-low disease was associated with a minor improvement in survival on multivariate analysis, at an adjusted hazard ratio for death of 0.98 (P < .001).

The greatest improvement in survival was seen in patients with stage III and IV triple-negative breast cancer, at HRs of 0.92 and 0.91, respectively, although the researchers noted that this represented only a 2% and 0.4% improvement in 5-year overall survival, respectively.

The study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the American Society of Clinical Oncology/Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Susan G. Komen, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the University of Chicago Elwood V. Jensen Scholars Program. Dr. Howard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Curigliano has relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Celltrion, Veracyte, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Scientific Affairs Group, and Ellipsis.

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

Much attention has been focused recently on the idea that breast cancer with a low expression of HER2 can be treated with HER2-targeted agents. Not surprisingly, manufacturers of these drugs have pounced on this idea, as it opens up a whole new patient population: previously these drugs were only for tumors with a high HER2 expression.

There is a large potential market at stake: HER2-low (also referred to as ERBB2-low), as defined by a score of 0 to 3+ on immunohistochemistry (IHC), is seen in approximately 50%-60% of all breast cancers

However, there is still much debate over whether low-HER2 breast cancer is, in fact, a separate clinical entity.

A new large-scale analysis concludes that it is not. The authors argued that it actually it represents a series of biological differences from HER2-negative disease that do not have a strong bearing on outcomes.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Oncology.

For the study, researchers from the University of Chicago examined data on more than 1.1 million breast cancer patients recorded as HER2-negative in the U.S. National Cancer Database, and re-classified almost two thirds as HER2-low on further analysis.

They found that HER2-low status was associated with higher estrogen receptor (ER) expression, as well as a lower rate of pathologic complete response, compared with HER2-negative disease. It was also linked to an improvement in overall survival on multivariate analysis of up to 9% in advance stage triple negative tumors.

“However, the clinical significance of these differences is questionable,” the researchers commented.

HER2-low status alone “should not influence neoadjuvant treatment decisions with currently approved regimens,” they added.

These results “do not support classification of HER2-low breast cancer as a distinct clinical subtype,” the team concluded.

Not necessarily, according to Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, director of the new drugs and early drug development for innovative therapies division at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan. He argued the opposite case, that HER2-low is a separate clinical entity, in a recent debate on the topic held at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

In a comment, Dr. Curigliano said that a “major strength” of the current study is its large patient cohort, which reflects the majority of cancer diagnoses in the United States, but that it nevertheless has “important limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.”

The inclusion of only overall survival in the dataset limits the ability to make associations between HER2-low status and cancer-specific prognosis, as “survival may lag years behind recurrence.”

The lack of centralized assessment of IHC results is also an issue, as “some of the results may be associated with regional variation in practice of classifying cases as HER2 0 versus HER2 1+.”

“In my opinion, this is a great limitation,” he said, in being able to conclude that there is “no prognostic difference between ERBB2-low and -negative patients.”

He also noted that, from a molecular point of view, “the key determinant of the gene expression profile is the expression of hormone receptors, [and] if we perform a correction for hormone receptor expression, only marginal differences in gene expression are found” between HER2-low and HER2-negative tumors.

“Similarly, large genomic studies have identified no specific and consistent difference in genomic profiles,” Dr. Curigliano said, and so, HER2-low disease, “as currently defined, should not be considered a distinct molecular entity, but rather a heterogeneous group of tumors, with biology primarily driven by hormone receptor expression.”
 

Analysis quoted by both sides

Senior author of the new analysis, Frederick M. Howard, MD, from the section of hematology-oncology in the department of medicine at the University of Chicago, said that his team’s work was quoted by both sides of the debate at SABCS 2022.

This reflects the fact that, while differences between ERBB2-low and -negative are present, it is “questionable how clinically significant those differences are,” he said in an interview. It’s a matter of “the eye of the beholder.”

Dr. Howard does not think that clinicians are going to modify standard treatment regimens based solely on HER2-low status, and that low expression of the protein “is probably just a reflection of some underlying biologic processes.”

Dr. Howard agreed with Dr. Curigliano that a “caveat” of their study is that the IHC analyses were performed locally, especially as it has shown that there can be discordance between pathologists in around 40% of cases, and that the associations they found might therefore be “strengthened” by more precise quantification of HER2 expression.

“But, even then,” Dr. Howard continued, “I doubt that [ERBB2-low status] is going to be that strong a prognostic factor.”

He believes that advances in analytic techniques will, in the future, allow tumors to be characterized more precisely, and it may be that HER2-low tumors end up being called something else in 5 years.
 

Renewed interest in this subgroup

In their paper, Dr. Howard and colleagues pointed out that, as a group, HER2-low tumors are heterogeneous, with HER2-low found in both hormone receptor–positive and triple-negative breast cancers. Also, various studies have come to different conclusions about what HER2 low means prognostically, with conclusions ranging from negative to neutral and to positive prognoses.

However, new research has shown that patients with HER2-low tumors can benefit from HER2-targeted drugs. In particular, the recent report that the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in ERBB2-low tumors led to “renewed interest in the subgroup,” the researchers noted.

To examine this subgroup further, they embarked on their analysis. Examining the National Cancer Database, they gathered information on more than 1.1 million U.S. patients diagnosed with HER2-negative invasive breast cancer in the 10-year period 2010-2019, and for whom IHC results were available.

The patients were reclassified as having HER2-low disease if they had an IHC score of 1+, or 2+ with a negative in situ hybridization test, while those with an IHC score of 0 were deemed to be HER2-negative. They were followed up until Nov. 30, 2022.

These patients had a mean age of 62.4 years, and 99.1% were female. The majority (78.6%) were non-Hispanic white. HER2-low was identified in 65.5% of the cohort, while 34.5% were HER2-negative.

The proportion of HER2-low disease was lower in non-Hispanic black (62.8%) and Hispanic (61%) patients than in non-Hispanic White patients, at 66.1%.

HER2-low disease was also more common in hormone receptor–positive than triple-negative tumors, at just 51.5%, rising to 58.6% for progesterone receptor–positive, ER-negative, and 69.1% for PR-positive, ER-positive tumors.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis taking into account age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidity score, and treatment facility type, among other factors, revealed that the likelihood of HER2-low disease was significantly with increased ER expression, at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.15 for each 10% increase (P < .001).

Non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Pacific Islander patients had similar rates of HER2-low disease as non-Hispanic White patients after adjustment, whereas Native American patients had an increased rate, at an aOR of 1.22 (P < .001), and Hispanic patients had a lower rate, at an aOR of 0.85 (P < .001).

HER2-low status was associated with a slightly reduced likelihood of having a pathologic complete response (aOR, 0.89; P < .001), with similar results when restricting the analysis to patients with triple negative or hormone receptor-positive tumors.

After a median follow-up of 54 months, HER2-low disease was associated with a minor improvement in survival on multivariate analysis, at an adjusted hazard ratio for death of 0.98 (P < .001).

The greatest improvement in survival was seen in patients with stage III and IV triple-negative breast cancer, at HRs of 0.92 and 0.91, respectively, although the researchers noted that this represented only a 2% and 0.4% improvement in 5-year overall survival, respectively.

The study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the American Society of Clinical Oncology/Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Susan G. Komen, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the University of Chicago Elwood V. Jensen Scholars Program. Dr. Howard reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Curigliano has relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Celltrion, Veracyte, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Scientific Affairs Group, and Ellipsis.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for adjuvant abemaciclib (Verzenio) in combination with endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer who are at high risk for recurrence.

Abemaciclib was previously approved for this group of high-risk patients with the requirement that they have a Ki-67 score of at least 20%. The new expansion removes the Ki-67 testing requirement, meaning more patients are now eligible to receive this drug. High-risk patients eligible for the CDK4/6 inhibitor can now be identified solely on the basis of nodal status, tumor size, and tumor grade.

The FDA’s decision to expand the approval was based on 4-year data from the phase 3 monarchE trial of adjuvant abemaciclib, which showed benefit in invasive disease-free survival beyond the 2-year treatment course.

At 4 years, 85.5% of patients remained recurrence free with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy, compared with 78.6% who received endocrine therapy alone, an absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival of 6.9%.

“The initial Verzenio FDA approval in early breast cancer was practice changing and now, through this indication expansion, we have the potential to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence for many more patients, relying solely on commonly utilized clinicopathologic features to identify them,” Erika P. Hamilton, MD, an investigator on the monarchE clinical trial, said in a press release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for adjuvant abemaciclib (Verzenio) in combination with endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer who are at high risk for recurrence.

Abemaciclib was previously approved for this group of high-risk patients with the requirement that they have a Ki-67 score of at least 20%. The new expansion removes the Ki-67 testing requirement, meaning more patients are now eligible to receive this drug. High-risk patients eligible for the CDK4/6 inhibitor can now be identified solely on the basis of nodal status, tumor size, and tumor grade.

The FDA’s decision to expand the approval was based on 4-year data from the phase 3 monarchE trial of adjuvant abemaciclib, which showed benefit in invasive disease-free survival beyond the 2-year treatment course.

At 4 years, 85.5% of patients remained recurrence free with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy, compared with 78.6% who received endocrine therapy alone, an absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival of 6.9%.

“The initial Verzenio FDA approval in early breast cancer was practice changing and now, through this indication expansion, we have the potential to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence for many more patients, relying solely on commonly utilized clinicopathologic features to identify them,” Erika P. Hamilton, MD, an investigator on the monarchE clinical trial, said in a press release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for adjuvant abemaciclib (Verzenio) in combination with endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer who are at high risk for recurrence.

Abemaciclib was previously approved for this group of high-risk patients with the requirement that they have a Ki-67 score of at least 20%. The new expansion removes the Ki-67 testing requirement, meaning more patients are now eligible to receive this drug. High-risk patients eligible for the CDK4/6 inhibitor can now be identified solely on the basis of nodal status, tumor size, and tumor grade.

The FDA’s decision to expand the approval was based on 4-year data from the phase 3 monarchE trial of adjuvant abemaciclib, which showed benefit in invasive disease-free survival beyond the 2-year treatment course.

At 4 years, 85.5% of patients remained recurrence free with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy, compared with 78.6% who received endocrine therapy alone, an absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival of 6.9%.

“The initial Verzenio FDA approval in early breast cancer was practice changing and now, through this indication expansion, we have the potential to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence for many more patients, relying solely on commonly utilized clinicopathologic features to identify them,” Erika P. Hamilton, MD, an investigator on the monarchE clinical trial, said in a press release.

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

I am often asked about the impact of dietary nutrients on bone health, particularly as many patients with low bone density, many with a history of multiple fractures, are referred to me. Many factors affect bone density, an important predictor of fracture risk, including genetics, body weight and muscle mass, bone loading exercise, menstrual status, other hormonal factors, nutritional status, optimal absorption of dietary nutrients, and medication use.

Dietary nutrients include macronutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, fat, and fiber) and micronutrients (such as dietary minerals and vitamins). The importance of micronutrients such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and vitamins C, D, and K in optimizing bone mineralization and bone formation has been well documented.

The impact of protein intake on bone health is slightly more controversial, with some studies suggesting that increased protein intake may be deleterious to bone by increasing acid load, which in turn, increases calcium loss in urine. Overall data analysis from multiple studies support the finding that a higher protein intake is modestly beneficial for bone at certain sites, such as the spine.

Though data regarding the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone are not as robust, it’s important to understand these effects given the increasing knowledge of the deleterious impact of processed carbohydrates on weight and cardiometabolic outcomes. This leads to the growing recommendations to limit carbohydrates in diet.
 

Quality and quantity of carbs affect bone health

Available studies suggest that both the quality and quantity of carbohydrates that are in a diet as well as the glycemic index of food may affect bone outcomes. Glycemic index refers to the extent of blood glucose elevation that occurs after the intake of any specific food. Foods with a higher glycemic index cause a rapid increase in blood glucose, whereas those with a low glycemic index result in a slower and more gradual increase. Examples of high–glycemic index food include processed and baked foods (such as breakfast cereals [unless whole grain], pretzels, cookies, doughnuts, pastries, cake, white bread, bagels, croissants, and corn chips), sugar-sweetened beverages, white rice, fast food (such as pizza and burgers), and potatoes. Examples of low glycemic index foods include vegetables, fruits, legumes, dairy and dairy products (without added sugar), whole-grain foods (such as oat porridge), and nuts.

A high–glycemic index diet has been associated with a greater risk for obesity and cardiovascular disease, and with lower bone density, an increased risk for fracture. This has been attributed to acute increases in glucose and insulin levels after consumption of high–glycemic index food, which causes increased oxidative stress and secretion of inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha, that activate cells in bone that increase bone loss.

Higher blood glucose concentrations induced by a higher dietary glycemic index can have deleterious effects on osteoblasts, the cells important for bone formation, and increase bone loss through production of advanced glycation end products that affect the cross linking of collagen in bone (important for bone strength), as well as calcium loss in urine. This was recently reported in a study by Garcia-Gavilan and others, in which the authors showed that high dietary glycemic index and dietary glucose load are associated with a higher risk for osteoporosis-related fractures in an older Mediterranean population who are at high risk for cardiovascular events. Similar data were reported by Nouri and coauthors in a study from Iran.

The quantity and quality of dietary carbohydrates may also have an impact on bone. The quality of carbohydrates has been assessed using the carbohydrate quality index (CQI) and the low carbohydrate diet score (LCDS). The CQI takes into account dietary fiber intake, glycemic index, intake of processed vs. whole grain, and solid vs. total carbohydrates in diet. A higher CQI diet is associated with reduced cardiovascular risk. Higher LCDS reflects lower carbohydrate and higher fat and protein intake.

Diets that are rich in refined or processed carbohydrates with added sugar are proinflammatory and increase oxidative stress, which may lead to increased bone loss, low bone density, and increased fracture risk. These foods also have a high glycemic index.

In contrast, diets that are rich in whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and olive oil have a lower glycemic index and are beneficial to bone. These diets have a higher CQI and LCDS (as reported by Nouri and coauthors) and provide a rich source of antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients (such as calcium, magnesium, and vitamins B, C, and K), which are all beneficial to bone. Gao and others have reported that implementing a low glycemic index pulse-based diet (lentils, peas, beans) is superior to a regular hospital diet in preventing the increase in bone loss that typically occurs during hospitalization with enforced bed rest.

Most reports of the impact of carbohydrates on bone health are from observational studies. In an interventional study, Dalskov and coauthors randomly assigned children aged 5-18 years who had parents with overweight to one of five diets (high protein/low glycemic index, high protein/high glycemic index, low protein/low glycemic index, low protein/high glycemic index, or regular) for 6 months.

Contrasting with our understanding that protein intake is overall good for bone, this study found that among patients receiving a high–glycemic index diet, those who were on a high-protein diet had greater reductions in a bone formation marker than did those on a low-protein diet, with no major changes observed with the other diets. This suggests the influence of associated dietary nutrients on bone outcomes and that protein intake may modify the effects of dietary carbohydrates on bone formation. Similarly, the fat content of food can alter the glycemic index and thus may modify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone.

In summary, available data suggest that the quantity and quality of carbohydrates, including the glycemic index of food, may affect bone health and that it is important to exercise moderation in the consumption of such foods. However, there are only a few studies that have examined these associations, and more studies are necessary to further clarify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone as well as any modifications of these effects by other associated food groups. These studies will allow us to refine our recommendations to our patients as we advance our understanding of the impact of the combined effects of various dietary nutrients on bone.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is chief of the division of pediatric endocrinology, Mass General for Children, Boston, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.

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

I am often asked about the impact of dietary nutrients on bone health, particularly as many patients with low bone density, many with a history of multiple fractures, are referred to me. Many factors affect bone density, an important predictor of fracture risk, including genetics, body weight and muscle mass, bone loading exercise, menstrual status, other hormonal factors, nutritional status, optimal absorption of dietary nutrients, and medication use.

Dietary nutrients include macronutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, fat, and fiber) and micronutrients (such as dietary minerals and vitamins). The importance of micronutrients such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and vitamins C, D, and K in optimizing bone mineralization and bone formation has been well documented.

The impact of protein intake on bone health is slightly more controversial, with some studies suggesting that increased protein intake may be deleterious to bone by increasing acid load, which in turn, increases calcium loss in urine. Overall data analysis from multiple studies support the finding that a higher protein intake is modestly beneficial for bone at certain sites, such as the spine.

Though data regarding the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone are not as robust, it’s important to understand these effects given the increasing knowledge of the deleterious impact of processed carbohydrates on weight and cardiometabolic outcomes. This leads to the growing recommendations to limit carbohydrates in diet.
 

Quality and quantity of carbs affect bone health

Available studies suggest that both the quality and quantity of carbohydrates that are in a diet as well as the glycemic index of food may affect bone outcomes. Glycemic index refers to the extent of blood glucose elevation that occurs after the intake of any specific food. Foods with a higher glycemic index cause a rapid increase in blood glucose, whereas those with a low glycemic index result in a slower and more gradual increase. Examples of high–glycemic index food include processed and baked foods (such as breakfast cereals [unless whole grain], pretzels, cookies, doughnuts, pastries, cake, white bread, bagels, croissants, and corn chips), sugar-sweetened beverages, white rice, fast food (such as pizza and burgers), and potatoes. Examples of low glycemic index foods include vegetables, fruits, legumes, dairy and dairy products (without added sugar), whole-grain foods (such as oat porridge), and nuts.

A high–glycemic index diet has been associated with a greater risk for obesity and cardiovascular disease, and with lower bone density, an increased risk for fracture. This has been attributed to acute increases in glucose and insulin levels after consumption of high–glycemic index food, which causes increased oxidative stress and secretion of inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha, that activate cells in bone that increase bone loss.

Higher blood glucose concentrations induced by a higher dietary glycemic index can have deleterious effects on osteoblasts, the cells important for bone formation, and increase bone loss through production of advanced glycation end products that affect the cross linking of collagen in bone (important for bone strength), as well as calcium loss in urine. This was recently reported in a study by Garcia-Gavilan and others, in which the authors showed that high dietary glycemic index and dietary glucose load are associated with a higher risk for osteoporosis-related fractures in an older Mediterranean population who are at high risk for cardiovascular events. Similar data were reported by Nouri and coauthors in a study from Iran.

The quantity and quality of dietary carbohydrates may also have an impact on bone. The quality of carbohydrates has been assessed using the carbohydrate quality index (CQI) and the low carbohydrate diet score (LCDS). The CQI takes into account dietary fiber intake, glycemic index, intake of processed vs. whole grain, and solid vs. total carbohydrates in diet. A higher CQI diet is associated with reduced cardiovascular risk. Higher LCDS reflects lower carbohydrate and higher fat and protein intake.

Diets that are rich in refined or processed carbohydrates with added sugar are proinflammatory and increase oxidative stress, which may lead to increased bone loss, low bone density, and increased fracture risk. These foods also have a high glycemic index.

In contrast, diets that are rich in whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and olive oil have a lower glycemic index and are beneficial to bone. These diets have a higher CQI and LCDS (as reported by Nouri and coauthors) and provide a rich source of antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients (such as calcium, magnesium, and vitamins B, C, and K), which are all beneficial to bone. Gao and others have reported that implementing a low glycemic index pulse-based diet (lentils, peas, beans) is superior to a regular hospital diet in preventing the increase in bone loss that typically occurs during hospitalization with enforced bed rest.

Most reports of the impact of carbohydrates on bone health are from observational studies. In an interventional study, Dalskov and coauthors randomly assigned children aged 5-18 years who had parents with overweight to one of five diets (high protein/low glycemic index, high protein/high glycemic index, low protein/low glycemic index, low protein/high glycemic index, or regular) for 6 months.

Contrasting with our understanding that protein intake is overall good for bone, this study found that among patients receiving a high–glycemic index diet, those who were on a high-protein diet had greater reductions in a bone formation marker than did those on a low-protein diet, with no major changes observed with the other diets. This suggests the influence of associated dietary nutrients on bone outcomes and that protein intake may modify the effects of dietary carbohydrates on bone formation. Similarly, the fat content of food can alter the glycemic index and thus may modify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone.

In summary, available data suggest that the quantity and quality of carbohydrates, including the glycemic index of food, may affect bone health and that it is important to exercise moderation in the consumption of such foods. However, there are only a few studies that have examined these associations, and more studies are necessary to further clarify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone as well as any modifications of these effects by other associated food groups. These studies will allow us to refine our recommendations to our patients as we advance our understanding of the impact of the combined effects of various dietary nutrients on bone.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is chief of the division of pediatric endocrinology, Mass General for Children, Boston, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.

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

I am often asked about the impact of dietary nutrients on bone health, particularly as many patients with low bone density, many with a history of multiple fractures, are referred to me. Many factors affect bone density, an important predictor of fracture risk, including genetics, body weight and muscle mass, bone loading exercise, menstrual status, other hormonal factors, nutritional status, optimal absorption of dietary nutrients, and medication use.

Dietary nutrients include macronutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, fat, and fiber) and micronutrients (such as dietary minerals and vitamins). The importance of micronutrients such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and vitamins C, D, and K in optimizing bone mineralization and bone formation has been well documented.

The impact of protein intake on bone health is slightly more controversial, with some studies suggesting that increased protein intake may be deleterious to bone by increasing acid load, which in turn, increases calcium loss in urine. Overall data analysis from multiple studies support the finding that a higher protein intake is modestly beneficial for bone at certain sites, such as the spine.

Though data regarding the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone are not as robust, it’s important to understand these effects given the increasing knowledge of the deleterious impact of processed carbohydrates on weight and cardiometabolic outcomes. This leads to the growing recommendations to limit carbohydrates in diet.
 

Quality and quantity of carbs affect bone health

Available studies suggest that both the quality and quantity of carbohydrates that are in a diet as well as the glycemic index of food may affect bone outcomes. Glycemic index refers to the extent of blood glucose elevation that occurs after the intake of any specific food. Foods with a higher glycemic index cause a rapid increase in blood glucose, whereas those with a low glycemic index result in a slower and more gradual increase. Examples of high–glycemic index food include processed and baked foods (such as breakfast cereals [unless whole grain], pretzels, cookies, doughnuts, pastries, cake, white bread, bagels, croissants, and corn chips), sugar-sweetened beverages, white rice, fast food (such as pizza and burgers), and potatoes. Examples of low glycemic index foods include vegetables, fruits, legumes, dairy and dairy products (without added sugar), whole-grain foods (such as oat porridge), and nuts.

A high–glycemic index diet has been associated with a greater risk for obesity and cardiovascular disease, and with lower bone density, an increased risk for fracture. This has been attributed to acute increases in glucose and insulin levels after consumption of high–glycemic index food, which causes increased oxidative stress and secretion of inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha, that activate cells in bone that increase bone loss.

Higher blood glucose concentrations induced by a higher dietary glycemic index can have deleterious effects on osteoblasts, the cells important for bone formation, and increase bone loss through production of advanced glycation end products that affect the cross linking of collagen in bone (important for bone strength), as well as calcium loss in urine. This was recently reported in a study by Garcia-Gavilan and others, in which the authors showed that high dietary glycemic index and dietary glucose load are associated with a higher risk for osteoporosis-related fractures in an older Mediterranean population who are at high risk for cardiovascular events. Similar data were reported by Nouri and coauthors in a study from Iran.

The quantity and quality of dietary carbohydrates may also have an impact on bone. The quality of carbohydrates has been assessed using the carbohydrate quality index (CQI) and the low carbohydrate diet score (LCDS). The CQI takes into account dietary fiber intake, glycemic index, intake of processed vs. whole grain, and solid vs. total carbohydrates in diet. A higher CQI diet is associated with reduced cardiovascular risk. Higher LCDS reflects lower carbohydrate and higher fat and protein intake.

Diets that are rich in refined or processed carbohydrates with added sugar are proinflammatory and increase oxidative stress, which may lead to increased bone loss, low bone density, and increased fracture risk. These foods also have a high glycemic index.

In contrast, diets that are rich in whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and olive oil have a lower glycemic index and are beneficial to bone. These diets have a higher CQI and LCDS (as reported by Nouri and coauthors) and provide a rich source of antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients (such as calcium, magnesium, and vitamins B, C, and K), which are all beneficial to bone. Gao and others have reported that implementing a low glycemic index pulse-based diet (lentils, peas, beans) is superior to a regular hospital diet in preventing the increase in bone loss that typically occurs during hospitalization with enforced bed rest.

Most reports of the impact of carbohydrates on bone health are from observational studies. In an interventional study, Dalskov and coauthors randomly assigned children aged 5-18 years who had parents with overweight to one of five diets (high protein/low glycemic index, high protein/high glycemic index, low protein/low glycemic index, low protein/high glycemic index, or regular) for 6 months.

Contrasting with our understanding that protein intake is overall good for bone, this study found that among patients receiving a high–glycemic index diet, those who were on a high-protein diet had greater reductions in a bone formation marker than did those on a low-protein diet, with no major changes observed with the other diets. This suggests the influence of associated dietary nutrients on bone outcomes and that protein intake may modify the effects of dietary carbohydrates on bone formation. Similarly, the fat content of food can alter the glycemic index and thus may modify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone.

In summary, available data suggest that the quantity and quality of carbohydrates, including the glycemic index of food, may affect bone health and that it is important to exercise moderation in the consumption of such foods. However, there are only a few studies that have examined these associations, and more studies are necessary to further clarify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone as well as any modifications of these effects by other associated food groups. These studies will allow us to refine our recommendations to our patients as we advance our understanding of the impact of the combined effects of various dietary nutrients on bone.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is chief of the division of pediatric endocrinology, Mass General for Children, Boston, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.

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

In hindsight, Nikki Ruston said, she should have recognized the red flags.

The office in Miami where she scheduled what’s known as a Brazilian butt lift had closed and transferred her records to a different facility, she said. The price she was quoted – and paid upfront – increased the day of the procedure, and she said she did not meet her surgeon until she was about to be placed under general anesthesia.

“I was ready to walk out,” said Ms. Ruston, 44, of Lake Alfred in Central Florida. “But I had paid everything.”

A few days after the July procedure, Ms. Ruston was hospitalized because of infection, blood loss, and nausea, her medical records show.

“I went cheap. That’s what I did,” Ms. Ruston recalled recently. “I looked for the lowest price, and I found him on Instagram.”

Daniel Chang/KHN

People like Ms. Ruston are commonly lured to office-based surgery centers in South Florida through social media marketing that makes Brazilian butt lifts and other cosmetic surgery look deceptively painless, safe, and affordable, say researchers, patient advocates, and surgeon groups.

Unlike ambulatory surgery centers and hospitals, where a patient might stay overnight for observation after treatment, office-based surgery centers offer procedures that don’t typically require an inpatient stay and are regulated as an extension of a doctor’s private practice.

Daniel Chang/KHN

But such surgical offices are often owned by corporations that can offer discount prices by contracting with surgeons who are incentivized to work on as many patients per day as possible, in as little time as possible, according to state regulators and physicians critical of the facilities.

Ms. Ruston said she now lives with constant pain, but for other patients a Brazilian butt lift cost them their lives. After a rash of deaths, and in the absence of national standards, Florida regulators were the first in the nation to enact rules in 2019 meant to make the procedures safer. More than 3 years later, data shows deaths still occur.

Daniel Chang/KHN

Patient advocates and some surgeons – including those who perform the procedure themselves – anticipate the problem will only get worse. Emergency restrictions imposed by the state’s medical board in June expired in September, and the corporate business model popularized in Miami is spreading to other cities.

“We’re seeing entities that have a strong footprint in low-cost, high-volume cosmetic surgery, based in South Florida, manifesting in other parts of the country,” said Bob Basu, MD, MPH, a vice president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and a practicing physician in Houston.

During a Brazilian butt lift, fat is taken via liposuction from other areas of the body – such as the torso, back, or thighs – and injected into the buttocks. More than 61,000 buttock augmentation procedures, both butt lifts and implants, were performed nationwide in 2021, a 37% increase from the previous year, according to data from the Aesthetic Society, a trade group of plastic surgeons.

As with all surgery, complications can occur. Miami-Dade County’s medical examiner has documented nearly three dozen cosmetic surgery patient deaths since 2009, of which 26 resulted from a Brazilian butt lift. In each case, the person died from a pulmonary fat embolism, when fat entered the bloodstream through veins in the gluteal muscles and stopped blood from flowing to the lungs.

No national reporting system or insurance code tracks outcomes and patient demographics for a Brazilian butt lift. About 3% of surgeons worldwide had a patient die as a result of the procedure, according to a 2017 report from an Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force.

Medical experts said the problem is driven, in part, by having medical professionals like physician assistants and nurse practitioners perform key parts of the butt lift instead of doctors. It’s also driven by a business model that is motivated by profit, not safety, and incentivizes surgeons to exceed the number of surgeries outlined in their contracts.

In May, after a fifth patient in as many months died of complications in Miami-Dade County, Kevin Cairns, MD, proposed the state’s emergency rule to limit the number of butt lifts a surgeon could perform each day.

“I was getting sick of reading about women dying and seeing cases come before the board,” said Dr. Cairns, a physician and former member of the Florida Board of Medicine.

Some doctors performed as many as seven, according to disciplinary cases against surgeons prosecuted by the Florida Department of Health. The emergency rule limited them to no more than three, and required the use of an ultrasound to help surgeons lower the risk of a pulmonary fat clot.

But a group of physicians who perform Brazilian butt lifts in South Florida clapped back and formed Surgeons for Safety. They argued the new requirements would make the situation worse. Qualified doctors would have to do fewer procedures, they said, thus driving patients to dangerous medical professionals who don’t follow rules.

The group has since donated more than $350,000 to the state’s Republican Party, Republican candidates, and Republican political action committees, according to campaign contribution data from the Florida Department of State.

Surgeons for Safety declined KHN’s repeated interview requests. Although the group’s president, Constantino Mendieta, MD, wrote in an August editorial that he agreed not all surgeons have followed the standard of care, he called the limits put on surgeons “arbitrary.” The rule sets “a historic precedent of controlling surgeons,” he said during a meeting with Florida’s medical board.

In January, Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia, a Republican, filed a draft bill with the state legislature that proposes no limit on the number of Brazilian butt lifts a surgeon can perform in a day. Instead, it requires office surgery centers where the procedures are performed to staff one physician per patient and prohibits surgeons from working on more than one person at a time.

The bill would also allow surgeons to delegate some parts of the procedure to other clinicians under their direct supervision.

Florida’s legislature convenes on March 7.

Consumers considering cosmetic procedures are urged to be cautious. Like Ms. Ruston, many people base their expectations on before-and-after photos and marketing videos posted on social media platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram.

“That’s very dangerous,” said Dr. Basu, of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. “They’re excited about a low price and they forget about doing their homework,” he said.

The average price of a buttocks augmentation in 2021 was $4,000, according to data from the Aesthetic Society. But that’s only for the physician’s fee and does not cover anesthesia, operating room fees, prescriptions, or other expenses. A “safe” Brazilian butt lift, performed in an accredited facility and with proper aftercare, costs between $12,000 and $18,000, according to a recent article on the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ website.

Although Florida requires a physician’s license to perform liposuction on patients who are under general anesthesia, it’s common in the medical field for midlevel medical practitioners, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, to do the procedure in office settings, according to Mark Mofid, MD, who coauthored the 2017 Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force study.

By relying on staffers who don’t have the same specialty training and get paid less, office-based surgeons can complete more butt lifts per day and charge a lower price.

“They’re doing all of them simultaneously in three or four different rooms, and it’s being staffed by one surgeon,” said Dr. Mofid, a plastic surgeon in San Diego, who added that he does not perform more than one Brazilian butt lift in a day. “The surgeon isn’t doing the actual case. It’s assistants.”

Dr. Basu said patients should ask whether their doctor holds privileges to perform the same procedure at a hospital or ambulatory surgery center, which have stricter rules than office surgery centers in terms of who can perform butt lifts and how they should be done.

People in search of bargains are reminded that cosmetic surgery can have other serious risks beyond the deadly fat clots, such as infection and organ puncture, plus problems with the kidneys, heart, and lungs.

Ms. Ruston’s surgery was performed by a board-certified plastic surgeon she said she found on Instagram. She was originally quoted $4,995, which she said she paid in full before surgery. But when she arrived in Miami, she said, the clinic tacked on fees for liposuction and for postsurgical garments and devices.

“I ended up having to pay, like, $8,000,” Ms. Ruston said. A few days after Ms. Ruston returned home to Lake Alfred, she said, she started to feel dizzy and weak and called 911.

Paramedics took her to an emergency room, where doctors diagnosed her with anemia due to blood loss, and blood and abdominal infections, her medical records show.

“If I could go back in time,” she said, “I wouldn’t have had it done.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In hindsight, Nikki Ruston said, she should have recognized the red flags.

The office in Miami where she scheduled what’s known as a Brazilian butt lift had closed and transferred her records to a different facility, she said. The price she was quoted – and paid upfront – increased the day of the procedure, and she said she did not meet her surgeon until she was about to be placed under general anesthesia.

“I was ready to walk out,” said Ms. Ruston, 44, of Lake Alfred in Central Florida. “But I had paid everything.”

A few days after the July procedure, Ms. Ruston was hospitalized because of infection, blood loss, and nausea, her medical records show.

“I went cheap. That’s what I did,” Ms. Ruston recalled recently. “I looked for the lowest price, and I found him on Instagram.”

Daniel Chang/KHN

People like Ms. Ruston are commonly lured to office-based surgery centers in South Florida through social media marketing that makes Brazilian butt lifts and other cosmetic surgery look deceptively painless, safe, and affordable, say researchers, patient advocates, and surgeon groups.

Unlike ambulatory surgery centers and hospitals, where a patient might stay overnight for observation after treatment, office-based surgery centers offer procedures that don’t typically require an inpatient stay and are regulated as an extension of a doctor’s private practice.

Daniel Chang/KHN

But such surgical offices are often owned by corporations that can offer discount prices by contracting with surgeons who are incentivized to work on as many patients per day as possible, in as little time as possible, according to state regulators and physicians critical of the facilities.

Ms. Ruston said she now lives with constant pain, but for other patients a Brazilian butt lift cost them their lives. After a rash of deaths, and in the absence of national standards, Florida regulators were the first in the nation to enact rules in 2019 meant to make the procedures safer. More than 3 years later, data shows deaths still occur.

Daniel Chang/KHN

Patient advocates and some surgeons – including those who perform the procedure themselves – anticipate the problem will only get worse. Emergency restrictions imposed by the state’s medical board in June expired in September, and the corporate business model popularized in Miami is spreading to other cities.

“We’re seeing entities that have a strong footprint in low-cost, high-volume cosmetic surgery, based in South Florida, manifesting in other parts of the country,” said Bob Basu, MD, MPH, a vice president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and a practicing physician in Houston.

During a Brazilian butt lift, fat is taken via liposuction from other areas of the body – such as the torso, back, or thighs – and injected into the buttocks. More than 61,000 buttock augmentation procedures, both butt lifts and implants, were performed nationwide in 2021, a 37% increase from the previous year, according to data from the Aesthetic Society, a trade group of plastic surgeons.

As with all surgery, complications can occur. Miami-Dade County’s medical examiner has documented nearly three dozen cosmetic surgery patient deaths since 2009, of which 26 resulted from a Brazilian butt lift. In each case, the person died from a pulmonary fat embolism, when fat entered the bloodstream through veins in the gluteal muscles and stopped blood from flowing to the lungs.

No national reporting system or insurance code tracks outcomes and patient demographics for a Brazilian butt lift. About 3% of surgeons worldwide had a patient die as a result of the procedure, according to a 2017 report from an Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force.

Medical experts said the problem is driven, in part, by having medical professionals like physician assistants and nurse practitioners perform key parts of the butt lift instead of doctors. It’s also driven by a business model that is motivated by profit, not safety, and incentivizes surgeons to exceed the number of surgeries outlined in their contracts.

In May, after a fifth patient in as many months died of complications in Miami-Dade County, Kevin Cairns, MD, proposed the state’s emergency rule to limit the number of butt lifts a surgeon could perform each day.

“I was getting sick of reading about women dying and seeing cases come before the board,” said Dr. Cairns, a physician and former member of the Florida Board of Medicine.

Some doctors performed as many as seven, according to disciplinary cases against surgeons prosecuted by the Florida Department of Health. The emergency rule limited them to no more than three, and required the use of an ultrasound to help surgeons lower the risk of a pulmonary fat clot.

But a group of physicians who perform Brazilian butt lifts in South Florida clapped back and formed Surgeons for Safety. They argued the new requirements would make the situation worse. Qualified doctors would have to do fewer procedures, they said, thus driving patients to dangerous medical professionals who don’t follow rules.

The group has since donated more than $350,000 to the state’s Republican Party, Republican candidates, and Republican political action committees, according to campaign contribution data from the Florida Department of State.

Surgeons for Safety declined KHN’s repeated interview requests. Although the group’s president, Constantino Mendieta, MD, wrote in an August editorial that he agreed not all surgeons have followed the standard of care, he called the limits put on surgeons “arbitrary.” The rule sets “a historic precedent of controlling surgeons,” he said during a meeting with Florida’s medical board.

In January, Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia, a Republican, filed a draft bill with the state legislature that proposes no limit on the number of Brazilian butt lifts a surgeon can perform in a day. Instead, it requires office surgery centers where the procedures are performed to staff one physician per patient and prohibits surgeons from working on more than one person at a time.

The bill would also allow surgeons to delegate some parts of the procedure to other clinicians under their direct supervision.

Florida’s legislature convenes on March 7.

Consumers considering cosmetic procedures are urged to be cautious. Like Ms. Ruston, many people base their expectations on before-and-after photos and marketing videos posted on social media platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram.

“That’s very dangerous,” said Dr. Basu, of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. “They’re excited about a low price and they forget about doing their homework,” he said.

The average price of a buttocks augmentation in 2021 was $4,000, according to data from the Aesthetic Society. But that’s only for the physician’s fee and does not cover anesthesia, operating room fees, prescriptions, or other expenses. A “safe” Brazilian butt lift, performed in an accredited facility and with proper aftercare, costs between $12,000 and $18,000, according to a recent article on the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ website.

Although Florida requires a physician’s license to perform liposuction on patients who are under general anesthesia, it’s common in the medical field for midlevel medical practitioners, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, to do the procedure in office settings, according to Mark Mofid, MD, who coauthored the 2017 Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force study.

By relying on staffers who don’t have the same specialty training and get paid less, office-based surgeons can complete more butt lifts per day and charge a lower price.

“They’re doing all of them simultaneously in three or four different rooms, and it’s being staffed by one surgeon,” said Dr. Mofid, a plastic surgeon in San Diego, who added that he does not perform more than one Brazilian butt lift in a day. “The surgeon isn’t doing the actual case. It’s assistants.”

Dr. Basu said patients should ask whether their doctor holds privileges to perform the same procedure at a hospital or ambulatory surgery center, which have stricter rules than office surgery centers in terms of who can perform butt lifts and how they should be done.

People in search of bargains are reminded that cosmetic surgery can have other serious risks beyond the deadly fat clots, such as infection and organ puncture, plus problems with the kidneys, heart, and lungs.

Ms. Ruston’s surgery was performed by a board-certified plastic surgeon she said she found on Instagram. She was originally quoted $4,995, which she said she paid in full before surgery. But when she arrived in Miami, she said, the clinic tacked on fees for liposuction and for postsurgical garments and devices.

“I ended up having to pay, like, $8,000,” Ms. Ruston said. A few days after Ms. Ruston returned home to Lake Alfred, she said, she started to feel dizzy and weak and called 911.

Paramedics took her to an emergency room, where doctors diagnosed her with anemia due to blood loss, and blood and abdominal infections, her medical records show.

“If I could go back in time,” she said, “I wouldn’t have had it done.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In hindsight, Nikki Ruston said, she should have recognized the red flags.

The office in Miami where she scheduled what’s known as a Brazilian butt lift had closed and transferred her records to a different facility, she said. The price she was quoted – and paid upfront – increased the day of the procedure, and she said she did not meet her surgeon until she was about to be placed under general anesthesia.

“I was ready to walk out,” said Ms. Ruston, 44, of Lake Alfred in Central Florida. “But I had paid everything.”

A few days after the July procedure, Ms. Ruston was hospitalized because of infection, blood loss, and nausea, her medical records show.

“I went cheap. That’s what I did,” Ms. Ruston recalled recently. “I looked for the lowest price, and I found him on Instagram.”

Daniel Chang/KHN

People like Ms. Ruston are commonly lured to office-based surgery centers in South Florida through social media marketing that makes Brazilian butt lifts and other cosmetic surgery look deceptively painless, safe, and affordable, say researchers, patient advocates, and surgeon groups.

Unlike ambulatory surgery centers and hospitals, where a patient might stay overnight for observation after treatment, office-based surgery centers offer procedures that don’t typically require an inpatient stay and are regulated as an extension of a doctor’s private practice.

Daniel Chang/KHN

But such surgical offices are often owned by corporations that can offer discount prices by contracting with surgeons who are incentivized to work on as many patients per day as possible, in as little time as possible, according to state regulators and physicians critical of the facilities.

Ms. Ruston said she now lives with constant pain, but for other patients a Brazilian butt lift cost them their lives. After a rash of deaths, and in the absence of national standards, Florida regulators were the first in the nation to enact rules in 2019 meant to make the procedures safer. More than 3 years later, data shows deaths still occur.

Daniel Chang/KHN

Patient advocates and some surgeons – including those who perform the procedure themselves – anticipate the problem will only get worse. Emergency restrictions imposed by the state’s medical board in June expired in September, and the corporate business model popularized in Miami is spreading to other cities.

“We’re seeing entities that have a strong footprint in low-cost, high-volume cosmetic surgery, based in South Florida, manifesting in other parts of the country,” said Bob Basu, MD, MPH, a vice president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and a practicing physician in Houston.

During a Brazilian butt lift, fat is taken via liposuction from other areas of the body – such as the torso, back, or thighs – and injected into the buttocks. More than 61,000 buttock augmentation procedures, both butt lifts and implants, were performed nationwide in 2021, a 37% increase from the previous year, according to data from the Aesthetic Society, a trade group of plastic surgeons.

As with all surgery, complications can occur. Miami-Dade County’s medical examiner has documented nearly three dozen cosmetic surgery patient deaths since 2009, of which 26 resulted from a Brazilian butt lift. In each case, the person died from a pulmonary fat embolism, when fat entered the bloodstream through veins in the gluteal muscles and stopped blood from flowing to the lungs.

No national reporting system or insurance code tracks outcomes and patient demographics for a Brazilian butt lift. About 3% of surgeons worldwide had a patient die as a result of the procedure, according to a 2017 report from an Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force.

Medical experts said the problem is driven, in part, by having medical professionals like physician assistants and nurse practitioners perform key parts of the butt lift instead of doctors. It’s also driven by a business model that is motivated by profit, not safety, and incentivizes surgeons to exceed the number of surgeries outlined in their contracts.

In May, after a fifth patient in as many months died of complications in Miami-Dade County, Kevin Cairns, MD, proposed the state’s emergency rule to limit the number of butt lifts a surgeon could perform each day.

“I was getting sick of reading about women dying and seeing cases come before the board,” said Dr. Cairns, a physician and former member of the Florida Board of Medicine.

Some doctors performed as many as seven, according to disciplinary cases against surgeons prosecuted by the Florida Department of Health. The emergency rule limited them to no more than three, and required the use of an ultrasound to help surgeons lower the risk of a pulmonary fat clot.

But a group of physicians who perform Brazilian butt lifts in South Florida clapped back and formed Surgeons for Safety. They argued the new requirements would make the situation worse. Qualified doctors would have to do fewer procedures, they said, thus driving patients to dangerous medical professionals who don’t follow rules.

The group has since donated more than $350,000 to the state’s Republican Party, Republican candidates, and Republican political action committees, according to campaign contribution data from the Florida Department of State.

Surgeons for Safety declined KHN’s repeated interview requests. Although the group’s president, Constantino Mendieta, MD, wrote in an August editorial that he agreed not all surgeons have followed the standard of care, he called the limits put on surgeons “arbitrary.” The rule sets “a historic precedent of controlling surgeons,” he said during a meeting with Florida’s medical board.

In January, Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia, a Republican, filed a draft bill with the state legislature that proposes no limit on the number of Brazilian butt lifts a surgeon can perform in a day. Instead, it requires office surgery centers where the procedures are performed to staff one physician per patient and prohibits surgeons from working on more than one person at a time.

The bill would also allow surgeons to delegate some parts of the procedure to other clinicians under their direct supervision.

Florida’s legislature convenes on March 7.

Consumers considering cosmetic procedures are urged to be cautious. Like Ms. Ruston, many people base their expectations on before-and-after photos and marketing videos posted on social media platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram.

“That’s very dangerous,” said Dr. Basu, of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. “They’re excited about a low price and they forget about doing their homework,” he said.

The average price of a buttocks augmentation in 2021 was $4,000, according to data from the Aesthetic Society. But that’s only for the physician’s fee and does not cover anesthesia, operating room fees, prescriptions, or other expenses. A “safe” Brazilian butt lift, performed in an accredited facility and with proper aftercare, costs between $12,000 and $18,000, according to a recent article on the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ website.

Although Florida requires a physician’s license to perform liposuction on patients who are under general anesthesia, it’s common in the medical field for midlevel medical practitioners, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, to do the procedure in office settings, according to Mark Mofid, MD, who coauthored the 2017 Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force study.

By relying on staffers who don’t have the same specialty training and get paid less, office-based surgeons can complete more butt lifts per day and charge a lower price.

“They’re doing all of them simultaneously in three or four different rooms, and it’s being staffed by one surgeon,” said Dr. Mofid, a plastic surgeon in San Diego, who added that he does not perform more than one Brazilian butt lift in a day. “The surgeon isn’t doing the actual case. It’s assistants.”

Dr. Basu said patients should ask whether their doctor holds privileges to perform the same procedure at a hospital or ambulatory surgery center, which have stricter rules than office surgery centers in terms of who can perform butt lifts and how they should be done.

People in search of bargains are reminded that cosmetic surgery can have other serious risks beyond the deadly fat clots, such as infection and organ puncture, plus problems with the kidneys, heart, and lungs.

Ms. Ruston’s surgery was performed by a board-certified plastic surgeon she said she found on Instagram. She was originally quoted $4,995, which she said she paid in full before surgery. But when she arrived in Miami, she said, the clinic tacked on fees for liposuction and for postsurgical garments and devices.

“I ended up having to pay, like, $8,000,” Ms. Ruston said. A few days after Ms. Ruston returned home to Lake Alfred, she said, she started to feel dizzy and weak and called 911.

Paramedics took her to an emergency room, where doctors diagnosed her with anemia due to blood loss, and blood and abdominal infections, her medical records show.

“If I could go back in time,” she said, “I wouldn’t have had it done.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

When the Food and Drug Administration first approved the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, Calif.) for adult use in 2000, it altered the face of minimally invasive surgery across a multitude of specialties. Improved three-dimensional visualization and enhanced instrument articulation facilitates complex dissections and intracorporeal suturing. While the standard of care for gender-affirming vaginoplasty remains the single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty, robotic procedures are quickly emerging as alternative options for both primary and revisional surgeries.

The single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty requires an adequate amount of penoscrotal tissue not only to line a neovaginal canal that measures 12-15 cm, but also to create external vulvar structures. While this is often sufficient in most candidates, there is an increasing number of patients who are receiving puberty blockers, resulting in penoscrotal hypoplasia.

Alternatively, there are patients who experience loss of vaginal depth and vaginal stenosis who seek revisional surgeries. Additional donor sites for skin grafting are available and include the lower abdomen and thighs, although patients may not want these donor site scars. With these donor sites, there is also concern about graft contracture, which could lead to recurrent vaginal stenosis.¹ Robotic peritoneal vaginoplasty and robotic enteric vaginoplasty can serve as additional options for patients seeking revisional surgery or who have insufficient genital skin. One benefit of using peritoneal flaps is that they are hairless and are well vascularized with minimal donor site morbidity.¹ Currently, there are two predominant techniques that utilize peritoneal flaps: the modified Davydov procedure and the tubularized urachus-peritoneal hinge flap.

The modified Davydov technique, which originated in the treatment of congenital vaginal agenesis in cisgender women, involves the creation of anterior and posterior peritoneal flaps. This type of peritoneal vaginoplasty is more commonly utilized for primary cases.

Ideally, there is a robotic surgeon (typically a urologist) working in tandem with the perineal surgeon. The robotic surgeon makes a horizontal incision along the peritoneal ridge at the rectovesical junction and continues the dissection within Denonvilliers fascia, between the prostate and rectum, to the pelvic floor. This dissection is like that performed in a robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Simultaneously, the perineal surgeon will break through the pelvic floor with assistance of the robotic view. Peritoneal flaps are raised from the anterior rectum and posterior bladder.^2,3 In primary cases, the penoscrotal flap is introduced into the abdomen from the perineum and sutured to the anterior and posterior peritoneum to create a circumferential canal. At the apex of the neovagina, these anterior and posterior flaps are then sutured together.^2,3

The tubularized urachus-peritoneal hinge flap technique is predominantly used for revision cases in patients who experienced neovaginal shortening and desire increased neovaginal depth. As peritoneal reach is limited, candidates for this procedure must have both adequate width and neovaginal canal depth.⁴ Once intra-abdominal access is achieved, an anterior peritoneal flap is mobilized to the level of the bladder and rotated 180 degrees inferiorly.⁴ The superior aspect of the flap is flipped is mobilized and is sutured to the peritoneum at the apex of the neovaginal canal.

The main benefit of these procedures, compared with traditional techniques, is increased neovaginal depth. The average vaginal length in patients undergoing peritoneal vaginoplasties is 14.2 cm, compared with 11.6 cm achieved in those using skin grafts.^1,3 However, many surgeons report achieving 14-15 cm of depth with the traditional vaginoplasty. There are insufficient short- and long-term data for the peritoneal technique to recommend this as a first-line procedure.

Complications for peritoneal vaginoplasty procedures are similar to those of single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty cases but with additional operative risks associated with laparoscopic/robotic surgery. These risks include injury to viscera and major vessels during initial intra-abdominal access, intra-abdominal adhesions, port site hernias, need to convert to an open procedure, and equipment malfunction.² Additional postoperative risks include pelvic abscess formation, dehiscence of the peritoneal-vaginal incision, and peritoneal perforation during dilation.^2,3 Surgeons and institutions must also weigh the cost of using the robot versus the cost of additional revisional surgical procedures. While initial studies evaluating robotic peritoneal vaginoplasty procedures have yielded promising preliminary results, additional studies are warranted.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Salibian AA et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147(4):634e-43e.

2. Dy GW et al. In: Nikolavsky D and Blakely SA, eds. Urological care for the transgender patient: A comprehensive guide. Switzerland: Springer, 2021:237-48.

3. Jacoby A et al. J Urol. 2019;201(6):1171-5.

4. Smith SM et al. J Sex Med. 2022;10(6):100572.

When the Food and Drug Administration first approved the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, Calif.) for adult use in 2000, it altered the face of minimally invasive surgery across a multitude of specialties. Improved three-dimensional visualization and enhanced instrument articulation facilitates complex dissections and intracorporeal suturing. While the standard of care for gender-affirming vaginoplasty remains the single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty, robotic procedures are quickly emerging as alternative options for both primary and revisional surgeries.

The single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty requires an adequate amount of penoscrotal tissue not only to line a neovaginal canal that measures 12-15 cm, but also to create external vulvar structures. While this is often sufficient in most candidates, there is an increasing number of patients who are receiving puberty blockers, resulting in penoscrotal hypoplasia.

Alternatively, there are patients who experience loss of vaginal depth and vaginal stenosis who seek revisional surgeries. Additional donor sites for skin grafting are available and include the lower abdomen and thighs, although patients may not want these donor site scars. With these donor sites, there is also concern about graft contracture, which could lead to recurrent vaginal stenosis.¹ Robotic peritoneal vaginoplasty and robotic enteric vaginoplasty can serve as additional options for patients seeking revisional surgery or who have insufficient genital skin. One benefit of using peritoneal flaps is that they are hairless and are well vascularized with minimal donor site morbidity.¹ Currently, there are two predominant techniques that utilize peritoneal flaps: the modified Davydov procedure and the tubularized urachus-peritoneal hinge flap.

The modified Davydov technique, which originated in the treatment of congenital vaginal agenesis in cisgender women, involves the creation of anterior and posterior peritoneal flaps. This type of peritoneal vaginoplasty is more commonly utilized for primary cases.

Ideally, there is a robotic surgeon (typically a urologist) working in tandem with the perineal surgeon. The robotic surgeon makes a horizontal incision along the peritoneal ridge at the rectovesical junction and continues the dissection within Denonvilliers fascia, between the prostate and rectum, to the pelvic floor. This dissection is like that performed in a robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Simultaneously, the perineal surgeon will break through the pelvic floor with assistance of the robotic view. Peritoneal flaps are raised from the anterior rectum and posterior bladder.^2,3 In primary cases, the penoscrotal flap is introduced into the abdomen from the perineum and sutured to the anterior and posterior peritoneum to create a circumferential canal. At the apex of the neovagina, these anterior and posterior flaps are then sutured together.^2,3

The tubularized urachus-peritoneal hinge flap technique is predominantly used for revision cases in patients who experienced neovaginal shortening and desire increased neovaginal depth. As peritoneal reach is limited, candidates for this procedure must have both adequate width and neovaginal canal depth.⁴ Once intra-abdominal access is achieved, an anterior peritoneal flap is mobilized to the level of the bladder and rotated 180 degrees inferiorly.⁴ The superior aspect of the flap is flipped is mobilized and is sutured to the peritoneum at the apex of the neovaginal canal.

The main benefit of these procedures, compared with traditional techniques, is increased neovaginal depth. The average vaginal length in patients undergoing peritoneal vaginoplasties is 14.2 cm, compared with 11.6 cm achieved in those using skin grafts.^1,3 However, many surgeons report achieving 14-15 cm of depth with the traditional vaginoplasty. There are insufficient short- and long-term data for the peritoneal technique to recommend this as a first-line procedure.

Complications for peritoneal vaginoplasty procedures are similar to those of single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty cases but with additional operative risks associated with laparoscopic/robotic surgery. These risks include injury to viscera and major vessels during initial intra-abdominal access, intra-abdominal adhesions, port site hernias, need to convert to an open procedure, and equipment malfunction.² Additional postoperative risks include pelvic abscess formation, dehiscence of the peritoneal-vaginal incision, and peritoneal perforation during dilation.^2,3 Surgeons and institutions must also weigh the cost of using the robot versus the cost of additional revisional surgical procedures. While initial studies evaluating robotic peritoneal vaginoplasty procedures have yielded promising preliminary results, additional studies are warranted.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Salibian AA et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147(4):634e-43e.

2. Dy GW et al. In: Nikolavsky D and Blakely SA, eds. Urological care for the transgender patient: A comprehensive guide. Switzerland: Springer, 2021:237-48.

3. Jacoby A et al. J Urol. 2019;201(6):1171-5.

4. Smith SM et al. J Sex Med. 2022;10(6):100572.

When the Food and Drug Administration first approved the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, Calif.) for adult use in 2000, it altered the face of minimally invasive surgery across a multitude of specialties. Improved three-dimensional visualization and enhanced instrument articulation facilitates complex dissections and intracorporeal suturing. While the standard of care for gender-affirming vaginoplasty remains the single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty, robotic procedures are quickly emerging as alternative options for both primary and revisional surgeries.

The single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty requires an adequate amount of penoscrotal tissue not only to line a neovaginal canal that measures 12-15 cm, but also to create external vulvar structures. While this is often sufficient in most candidates, there is an increasing number of patients who are receiving puberty blockers, resulting in penoscrotal hypoplasia.

Alternatively, there are patients who experience loss of vaginal depth and vaginal stenosis who seek revisional surgeries. Additional donor sites for skin grafting are available and include the lower abdomen and thighs, although patients may not want these donor site scars. With these donor sites, there is also concern about graft contracture, which could lead to recurrent vaginal stenosis.¹ Robotic peritoneal vaginoplasty and robotic enteric vaginoplasty can serve as additional options for patients seeking revisional surgery or who have insufficient genital skin. One benefit of using peritoneal flaps is that they are hairless and are well vascularized with minimal donor site morbidity.¹ Currently, there are two predominant techniques that utilize peritoneal flaps: the modified Davydov procedure and the tubularized urachus-peritoneal hinge flap.

The modified Davydov technique, which originated in the treatment of congenital vaginal agenesis in cisgender women, involves the creation of anterior and posterior peritoneal flaps. This type of peritoneal vaginoplasty is more commonly utilized for primary cases.

Ideally, there is a robotic surgeon (typically a urologist) working in tandem with the perineal surgeon. The robotic surgeon makes a horizontal incision along the peritoneal ridge at the rectovesical junction and continues the dissection within Denonvilliers fascia, between the prostate and rectum, to the pelvic floor. This dissection is like that performed in a robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Simultaneously, the perineal surgeon will break through the pelvic floor with assistance of the robotic view. Peritoneal flaps are raised from the anterior rectum and posterior bladder.^2,3 In primary cases, the penoscrotal flap is introduced into the abdomen from the perineum and sutured to the anterior and posterior peritoneum to create a circumferential canal. At the apex of the neovagina, these anterior and posterior flaps are then sutured together.^2,3

The tubularized urachus-peritoneal hinge flap technique is predominantly used for revision cases in patients who experienced neovaginal shortening and desire increased neovaginal depth. As peritoneal reach is limited, candidates for this procedure must have both adequate width and neovaginal canal depth.⁴ Once intra-abdominal access is achieved, an anterior peritoneal flap is mobilized to the level of the bladder and rotated 180 degrees inferiorly.⁴ The superior aspect of the flap is flipped is mobilized and is sutured to the peritoneum at the apex of the neovaginal canal.

The main benefit of these procedures, compared with traditional techniques, is increased neovaginal depth. The average vaginal length in patients undergoing peritoneal vaginoplasties is 14.2 cm, compared with 11.6 cm achieved in those using skin grafts.^1,3 However, many surgeons report achieving 14-15 cm of depth with the traditional vaginoplasty. There are insufficient short- and long-term data for the peritoneal technique to recommend this as a first-line procedure.

Complications for peritoneal vaginoplasty procedures are similar to those of single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty cases but with additional operative risks associated with laparoscopic/robotic surgery. These risks include injury to viscera and major vessels during initial intra-abdominal access, intra-abdominal adhesions, port site hernias, need to convert to an open procedure, and equipment malfunction.² Additional postoperative risks include pelvic abscess formation, dehiscence of the peritoneal-vaginal incision, and peritoneal perforation during dilation.^2,3 Surgeons and institutions must also weigh the cost of using the robot versus the cost of additional revisional surgical procedures. While initial studies evaluating robotic peritoneal vaginoplasty procedures have yielded promising preliminary results, additional studies are warranted.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Salibian AA et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147(4):634e-43e.

2. Dy GW et al. In: Nikolavsky D and Blakely SA, eds. Urological care for the transgender patient: A comprehensive guide. Switzerland: Springer, 2021:237-48.

3. Jacoby A et al. J Urol. 2019;201(6):1171-5.

4. Smith SM et al. J Sex Med. 2022;10(6):100572.

Frequent aspirin intake may reduce a woman’s risk of getting ovarian cancer, regardless of genetic susceptibility, new research suggests.

The study found that daily or almost daily aspirin use was associated with a 13% reduction in ovarian cancer risk, which was not modified by an individual’s polygenic score (PGS).

“Our findings suggest that frequent use of aspirin is associated with reduced ovarian cancer risk, regardless of whether a woman has lower or higher genetic susceptibility to ovarian cancer, as predicted by a set of known, common risk variants,” said lead author Lauren M. Hurwitz, PhD, MHS, division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer face difficult survival odds, which make preventive strategies especially important. Evidence suggests that frequent aspirin use can reduce the risk for ovarian cancer by about 13%, but it’s unclear whether genetic factors change those odds.

Although promising for chemoprevention, aspirin use can also come with downsides, including gastric ulcer and hemorrhagic stroke, which is why identifying and targeting individuals at higher risk for ovarian cancer who may benefit from frequent aspirin use is important.

In the current analysis, Dr. Hurwitz and colleagues used a PGS to determine whether the protective effects of daily or near-daily aspirin use for 6 months or more could be modified by genetics.

The study was a pooled analysis of eight case-controlled studies from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium conducted in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia over a 14-year period. The researchers looked at genetic data and data on frequent aspirin use among 4,476 case patients with nonmucinous ovarian cancer (average age, 57) and 6,659 control participants (average age, 58). Overall, 575 patients (13%) and 1,030 controls (15%) reported frequent aspirin use.

The authors used a PGS previously developed using 22 single-nucleotide variants. Because this PGS was developed for nonmucinous epithelial ovarian cancer, only these patients were included in the analysis.

Consistent with previous evidence, the authors found that frequent aspirin use was associated with a 13% lower risk for nonmucinous ovarian cancer (odds ratio, 0.87). And, notably, this association did not differ by PGS. Risk reductions were greatest for high-grade serous (OR, 0.83) and endometrioid tumors (OR, 0.73), with no evidence that PGS modified this association.

Overall, “we observed consistent protective associations between frequent aspirin use and nonmucinous ovarian cancer across strata of genetic susceptibility to ovarian cancer,” the authors conclude. “This work expands on the evidence base to suggest that chemoprevention programs could target individuals at higher risk of ovarian cancer.”

However, the authors noted that they were unable to test for effect modifications by specific pathogenic variants, such as BRCA1 or BRCA2.  

“Our study did not address whether aspirin use is associated with reduced ovarian cancer risk among BRCA or other pathogenic variant carriers, and so our findings should not be used to inform discussions around aspirin use for these specific high-risk groups,” Dr. Hurwitz said. “Women with higher genetic susceptibility to ovarian cancer based on these common risk variants should discuss with their doctor the benefits and harms of taking aspirin for disease prevention.”

This study was supported by a grant from the DoD Ovarian Cancer Research Program. Dr. Hurwitz reports no relevant financial relationships, but several coauthors did report funding and support.
 

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

Frequent aspirin intake may reduce a woman’s risk of getting ovarian cancer, regardless of genetic susceptibility, new research suggests.

The study found that daily or almost daily aspirin use was associated with a 13% reduction in ovarian cancer risk, which was not modified by an individual’s polygenic score (PGS).

“Our findings suggest that frequent use of aspirin is associated with reduced ovarian cancer risk, regardless of whether a woman has lower or higher genetic susceptibility to ovarian cancer, as predicted by a set of known, common risk variants,” said lead author Lauren M. Hurwitz, PhD, MHS, division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer face difficult survival odds, which make preventive strategies especially important. Evidence suggests that frequent aspirin use can reduce the risk for ovarian cancer by about 13%, but it’s unclear whether genetic factors change those odds.

Although promising for chemoprevention, aspirin use can also come with downsides, including gastric ulcer and hemorrhagic stroke, which is why identifying and targeting individuals at higher risk for ovarian cancer who may benefit from frequent aspirin use is important.

In the current analysis, Dr. Hurwitz and colleagues used a PGS to determine whether the protective effects of daily or near-daily aspirin use for 6 months or more could be modified by genetics.

The study was a pooled analysis of eight case-controlled studies from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium conducted in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia over a 14-year period. The researchers looked at genetic data and data on frequent aspirin use among 4,476 case patients with nonmucinous ovarian cancer (average age, 57) and 6,659 control participants (average age, 58). Overall, 575 patients (13%) and 1,030 controls (15%) reported frequent aspirin use.

The authors used a PGS previously developed using 22 single-nucleotide variants. Because this PGS was developed for nonmucinous epithelial ovarian cancer, only these patients were included in the analysis.

Consistent with previous evidence, the authors found that frequent aspirin use was associated with a 13% lower risk for nonmucinous ovarian cancer (odds ratio, 0.87). And, notably, this association did not differ by PGS. Risk reductions were greatest for high-grade serous (OR, 0.83) and endometrioid tumors (OR, 0.73), with no evidence that PGS modified this association.

Overall, “we observed consistent protective associations between frequent aspirin use and nonmucinous ovarian cancer across strata of genetic susceptibility to ovarian cancer,” the authors conclude. “This work expands on the evidence base to suggest that chemoprevention programs could target individuals at higher risk of ovarian cancer.”

However, the authors noted that they were unable to test for effect modifications by specific pathogenic variants, such as BRCA1 or BRCA2.  

“Our study did not address whether aspirin use is associated with reduced ovarian cancer risk among BRCA or other pathogenic variant carriers, and so our findings should not be used to inform discussions around aspirin use for these specific high-risk groups,” Dr. Hurwitz said. “Women with higher genetic susceptibility to ovarian cancer based on these common risk variants should discuss with their doctor the benefits and harms of taking aspirin for disease prevention.”

This study was supported by a grant from the DoD Ovarian Cancer Research Program. Dr. Hurwitz reports no relevant financial relationships, but several coauthors did report funding and support.
 

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

Frequent aspirin intake may reduce a woman’s risk of getting ovarian cancer, regardless of genetic susceptibility, new research suggests.

The study found that daily or almost daily aspirin use was associated with a 13% reduction in ovarian cancer risk, which was not modified by an individual’s polygenic score (PGS).

“Our findings suggest that frequent use of aspirin is associated with reduced ovarian cancer risk, regardless of whether a woman has lower or higher genetic susceptibility to ovarian cancer, as predicted by a set of known, common risk variants,” said lead author Lauren M. Hurwitz, PhD, MHS, division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer face difficult survival odds, which make preventive strategies especially important. Evidence suggests that frequent aspirin use can reduce the risk for ovarian cancer by about 13%, but it’s unclear whether genetic factors change those odds.

Although promising for chemoprevention, aspirin use can also come with downsides, including gastric ulcer and hemorrhagic stroke, which is why identifying and targeting individuals at higher risk for ovarian cancer who may benefit from frequent aspirin use is important.

In the current analysis, Dr. Hurwitz and colleagues used a PGS to determine whether the protective effects of daily or near-daily aspirin use for 6 months or more could be modified by genetics.

The study was a pooled analysis of eight case-controlled studies from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium conducted in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia over a 14-year period. The researchers looked at genetic data and data on frequent aspirin use among 4,476 case patients with nonmucinous ovarian cancer (average age, 57) and 6,659 control participants (average age, 58). Overall, 575 patients (13%) and 1,030 controls (15%) reported frequent aspirin use.

The authors used a PGS previously developed using 22 single-nucleotide variants. Because this PGS was developed for nonmucinous epithelial ovarian cancer, only these patients were included in the analysis.

Consistent with previous evidence, the authors found that frequent aspirin use was associated with a 13% lower risk for nonmucinous ovarian cancer (odds ratio, 0.87). And, notably, this association did not differ by PGS. Risk reductions were greatest for high-grade serous (OR, 0.83) and endometrioid tumors (OR, 0.73), with no evidence that PGS modified this association.

Overall, “we observed consistent protective associations between frequent aspirin use and nonmucinous ovarian cancer across strata of genetic susceptibility to ovarian cancer,” the authors conclude. “This work expands on the evidence base to suggest that chemoprevention programs could target individuals at higher risk of ovarian cancer.”

However, the authors noted that they were unable to test for effect modifications by specific pathogenic variants, such as BRCA1 or BRCA2.  

“Our study did not address whether aspirin use is associated with reduced ovarian cancer risk among BRCA or other pathogenic variant carriers, and so our findings should not be used to inform discussions around aspirin use for these specific high-risk groups,” Dr. Hurwitz said. “Women with higher genetic susceptibility to ovarian cancer based on these common risk variants should discuss with their doctor the benefits and harms of taking aspirin for disease prevention.”

This study was supported by a grant from the DoD Ovarian Cancer Research Program. Dr. Hurwitz reports no relevant financial relationships, but several coauthors did report funding and support.
 

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

The amount of medical knowledge is said to double every 73 days, making it much tougher for physicians to identify innovative findings and newer guidelines for helping patients. Yet not keeping up with the latest information can put doctors at risk. 

“Most doctors are feeling lost about keeping up to date,” said John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine. “The vast majority of new studies are either wrong or not useful, but physicians cannot sort out which are those studies.”

The sheer number of new studies may even force some doctors to retreat from areas where they have not kept up, said Stephen A. Martin, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “When doctors don’t feel they can stay current, they may refer more cases to specialists or narrow their focus,” he said.
 

Some specialties have a greater challenge than others

Dr. Martin said the deluge of studies heavily impacts generalists because they have a wider field of information to keep up with. However, certain specialties like oncology are particularly flooded with new findings.

Specialties with the greatest number of published studies are reportedly oncology, cardiology, and neurology. A 2021 study found that the number of articles with the word “stroke” in them increased five times from 2000 to 2020. And investigative treatments targeting cancer nearly quadrupled just between 2010 and 2020.

What’s more, physicians spend a great deal of time sifting through studies that are ultimately useless. In a survey of internists by Univadis, which is part of WebMD/Medscape, 82% said that fewer than half of the studies they read actually had an impact on how they practice medicine.

“You often have to dig into an article and learn more about a finding before you now whether it’s useful,” Dr. Martin said. “And in the end, relatively few new findings are truly novel ones that are useful for patient care.”
 

So what can a physician do? First, find out what you don’t know

Looking for new findings needs to be carried out systematically, according to William B. Cutrer, MD, MEd, a pediatric intensivist who is associate dean for undergraduate medical education at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“Before you start, you have to know what you don’t know, and that’s often not so easy,” he said. “You may get a spark about what you don’t know in an encounter with a patient or colleague or through patient outcomes data,” he said. 

Dr. Martin, on the other hand, advocates a broad approach that involves finding out at least a little about everything in one’s field. “If you have a good base, you’re not starting from zero when you encounter a new clinical situation,” he said.

“The idea is that you don’t need to memorize most things, but you do need to know how to access them,” Dr. Martin said. “I memorize the things I do all the time, such as dosing or indicated testing, but I look up things that I don’t see that often and ones that have some complexity.”
 

Updating the old ways

For generations, doctors have stayed current by going to meetings, conversing with colleagues, and reading journals, but many physicians have updated these methods through various resources on the internet.

For example, meetings went virtual during the pandemic, and now that face-to-face meetings are back, many of them retain a virtual option, said Kevin Campbell, MD, a cardiologist at Health First Medical Group, Melbourne, Fla. “I typically go to one or two conferences a year, but I also learn a lot digitally,” he said. 

As to journal reading, “assessing an article is an essential skill,” Dr. Cutrer said. “It’s important to quickly decide whether a journal article is worth reading or not. One answer to this problem is to consult summaries of important articles. But summaries are sometimes unhelpful, and it is hard to know which articles are significant. Therefore, doctors have been reaching out to others who can research the articles for them.”   

For many years, some physicians have pooled their resources in journal clubs. “You get a chance to cross-cultivate your skills with others,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “But you need someone who is well informed and dedicated to run the journal club, using evidence-based principles.”

Dr. Cutrer said physicians like to cast their net wide because they are understandably wary of changing their practice based on one study. “Unless there is one large study that is really well designed, doctors will need two or more findings to be convinced,” he said. This requires having the ability to match studies across many journals.
 

Using research summaries

In the past two decades, physicians have gained access to countless summaries of journal articles prepared by armies of clinical experts working for review services such as the New England Journal of Medicine’s “Journal Watch,” Annals of Internal Medicine’s “In the Clinic,” and BMJ’s “State of the Arts.”

In addition to summarizing findings from a wide variety of journals in plain language, reviewers may compare them to similar studies and assess the validity of the finding by assigning a level of evidence.

Some commercial ventures provide similar services. Betsy Jones, executive vice president of clinical decisions at EBSCO, said the DynaMed service is now available through an app on the physician’s smartphone or through the electronic health record.

Physicians like this approach. Many specialists have noted that reading full-length articles was not an efficient use of their time, while even more said that reviews are efficient.
 

Exchanging information online

Physicians are increasingly keeping current by using the internet, especially on social media, Dr. Cutrer said. “Young doctors in particular are more likely to keep up digitally,” he said.

Internet-based information has become so widespread that disparities in health care from region to region have somewhat abated, according to Stuart J. Fischer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Summit Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, New Jersey. “One positive outcome of this plethora of information today is that geographic disparities in clinical practice are not as great as they used to be,” he said.  

Rather than chatting up colleagues in the hallway, many physicians have come to rely on internet-based discussion boards. 
 

Blogs, podcasts, and Twitter

Blogs and podcasts, often focused on a specialty, can be a great way for physicians to keep up, said UMass Chan professor Dr. Martin. “Podcasts in particular have enhanced the ability to stay current,” he said. “You want to find someone you trust.”

Internal medicine podcasts include Annals on Call, where doctors discuss articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Curbsiders, where two internists interview a guest expert.

Orthopedic surgeons can visit podcasts like Nailed it, Orthobullets, the Ortho Show, and Inside Orthopedics. Neurologists can consult Brainwaves, Neurology Podcast, Practical Neurology Podcast, and Clinical Neurology with KD. And pediatricians can drop in on Talking Pediatrics, The Cribsiders, and PedsCases.

Meanwhile, Twitter has become a particularly effective way to broadcast new findings, speeding up the transition from the bench to the bedside, said Dr. Campbell, the Florida cardiologist. 

“I visit cardio-specific resources on Twitter,” he said. “They can be real-time video chats or posted messages. They spur discussion like a journal club. Colleagues present cases and drop in and out of the discussion.”

Others are not as enthusiastic. Although Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis is in the heart of the Silicon Valley, he is leery of some of the new digital methods. “I don’t use Twitter,” he says. “You just add more people to the process, which could only make things more confusing. I want to be able to think a lot about it.”
 

Cutting-edge knowledge at the point of care

Consulting the literature often takes place at the point of care, when a particular patient requires treatment. This can be done by using clinical decision support (CDS) and by using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which are typically developed by panels of doctors at specialty societies.

“It used to be that the doctor was expected to know everything,” said Ms. Jones at DynaMed. “Today there is no way to keep up with it all. Doctors often need a quick memory jog.”

Ms. Jones said the CDS result always requires the doctor’s interpretation. “It is up to the doctor to decide whether a new finding is the best choice for his or her patient,” she said.

Dr. Martin recommends going easy on point-of-care resources. “They can be used for showing a patient a differential diagnosis list or checking the cost of a procedure, but they are harder to use for novel developments that require time and context to evaluate their impact,” he said.

CPGs, meanwhile, have a high profile in the research world. In a 2018 study, Dr. Ioannidis found that 8 of the 15 most-cited articles were CPGs, disease definitions, or disease statistics.

Dr. Fischer said CPGs are typically based on thorough reviews of the literature, but they do involve experts’ interpretation of the science. “It can be difficult to obtain specific answers to some medical questions, especially for problems with complex treatments or variations,” he said.

As a result, Dr. Fischer said doctors have to use their judgment in applying CPGs to a specific patient. “For example, the orthopedic surgeon would normally recommend a total hip replacement for patients with a bad hip, but it might not be appropriate for an overweight patient.”
 

Stay skeptical

There are many novel ways for physicians to keep current, including summaries of articles, discussion boards, blogs, podcasts, Twitter, clinical decision support, and clinical practice guidelines.

Even with all these new services, though, doctors need to retain a healthy amount of skepticism about new research findings, Dr. Ioannidis said. “Ask yourself questions such as: Does it deal with a real problem? Am I getting the real information? Is it relevant to real patients? Is it offering good value for money?”

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

The amount of medical knowledge is said to double every 73 days, making it much tougher for physicians to identify innovative findings and newer guidelines for helping patients. Yet not keeping up with the latest information can put doctors at risk. 

“Most doctors are feeling lost about keeping up to date,” said John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine. “The vast majority of new studies are either wrong or not useful, but physicians cannot sort out which are those studies.”

The sheer number of new studies may even force some doctors to retreat from areas where they have not kept up, said Stephen A. Martin, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “When doctors don’t feel they can stay current, they may refer more cases to specialists or narrow their focus,” he said.
 

Some specialties have a greater challenge than others

Dr. Martin said the deluge of studies heavily impacts generalists because they have a wider field of information to keep up with. However, certain specialties like oncology are particularly flooded with new findings.

Specialties with the greatest number of published studies are reportedly oncology, cardiology, and neurology. A 2021 study found that the number of articles with the word “stroke” in them increased five times from 2000 to 2020. And investigative treatments targeting cancer nearly quadrupled just between 2010 and 2020.

What’s more, physicians spend a great deal of time sifting through studies that are ultimately useless. In a survey of internists by Univadis, which is part of WebMD/Medscape, 82% said that fewer than half of the studies they read actually had an impact on how they practice medicine.

“You often have to dig into an article and learn more about a finding before you now whether it’s useful,” Dr. Martin said. “And in the end, relatively few new findings are truly novel ones that are useful for patient care.”
 

So what can a physician do? First, find out what you don’t know

Looking for new findings needs to be carried out systematically, according to William B. Cutrer, MD, MEd, a pediatric intensivist who is associate dean for undergraduate medical education at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“Before you start, you have to know what you don’t know, and that’s often not so easy,” he said. “You may get a spark about what you don’t know in an encounter with a patient or colleague or through patient outcomes data,” he said. 

Dr. Martin, on the other hand, advocates a broad approach that involves finding out at least a little about everything in one’s field. “If you have a good base, you’re not starting from zero when you encounter a new clinical situation,” he said.

“The idea is that you don’t need to memorize most things, but you do need to know how to access them,” Dr. Martin said. “I memorize the things I do all the time, such as dosing or indicated testing, but I look up things that I don’t see that often and ones that have some complexity.”
 

Updating the old ways

For generations, doctors have stayed current by going to meetings, conversing with colleagues, and reading journals, but many physicians have updated these methods through various resources on the internet.

For example, meetings went virtual during the pandemic, and now that face-to-face meetings are back, many of them retain a virtual option, said Kevin Campbell, MD, a cardiologist at Health First Medical Group, Melbourne, Fla. “I typically go to one or two conferences a year, but I also learn a lot digitally,” he said. 

As to journal reading, “assessing an article is an essential skill,” Dr. Cutrer said. “It’s important to quickly decide whether a journal article is worth reading or not. One answer to this problem is to consult summaries of important articles. But summaries are sometimes unhelpful, and it is hard to know which articles are significant. Therefore, doctors have been reaching out to others who can research the articles for them.”   

For many years, some physicians have pooled their resources in journal clubs. “You get a chance to cross-cultivate your skills with others,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “But you need someone who is well informed and dedicated to run the journal club, using evidence-based principles.”

Dr. Cutrer said physicians like to cast their net wide because they are understandably wary of changing their practice based on one study. “Unless there is one large study that is really well designed, doctors will need two or more findings to be convinced,” he said. This requires having the ability to match studies across many journals.
 

Using research summaries

In the past two decades, physicians have gained access to countless summaries of journal articles prepared by armies of clinical experts working for review services such as the New England Journal of Medicine’s “Journal Watch,” Annals of Internal Medicine’s “In the Clinic,” and BMJ’s “State of the Arts.”

In addition to summarizing findings from a wide variety of journals in plain language, reviewers may compare them to similar studies and assess the validity of the finding by assigning a level of evidence.

Some commercial ventures provide similar services. Betsy Jones, executive vice president of clinical decisions at EBSCO, said the DynaMed service is now available through an app on the physician’s smartphone or through the electronic health record.

Physicians like this approach. Many specialists have noted that reading full-length articles was not an efficient use of their time, while even more said that reviews are efficient.
 

Exchanging information online

Physicians are increasingly keeping current by using the internet, especially on social media, Dr. Cutrer said. “Young doctors in particular are more likely to keep up digitally,” he said.

Internet-based information has become so widespread that disparities in health care from region to region have somewhat abated, according to Stuart J. Fischer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Summit Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, New Jersey. “One positive outcome of this plethora of information today is that geographic disparities in clinical practice are not as great as they used to be,” he said.  

Rather than chatting up colleagues in the hallway, many physicians have come to rely on internet-based discussion boards. 
 

Blogs, podcasts, and Twitter

Blogs and podcasts, often focused on a specialty, can be a great way for physicians to keep up, said UMass Chan professor Dr. Martin. “Podcasts in particular have enhanced the ability to stay current,” he said. “You want to find someone you trust.”

Internal medicine podcasts include Annals on Call, where doctors discuss articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Curbsiders, where two internists interview a guest expert.

Orthopedic surgeons can visit podcasts like Nailed it, Orthobullets, the Ortho Show, and Inside Orthopedics. Neurologists can consult Brainwaves, Neurology Podcast, Practical Neurology Podcast, and Clinical Neurology with KD. And pediatricians can drop in on Talking Pediatrics, The Cribsiders, and PedsCases.

Meanwhile, Twitter has become a particularly effective way to broadcast new findings, speeding up the transition from the bench to the bedside, said Dr. Campbell, the Florida cardiologist. 

“I visit cardio-specific resources on Twitter,” he said. “They can be real-time video chats or posted messages. They spur discussion like a journal club. Colleagues present cases and drop in and out of the discussion.”

Others are not as enthusiastic. Although Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis is in the heart of the Silicon Valley, he is leery of some of the new digital methods. “I don’t use Twitter,” he says. “You just add more people to the process, which could only make things more confusing. I want to be able to think a lot about it.”
 

Cutting-edge knowledge at the point of care

Consulting the literature often takes place at the point of care, when a particular patient requires treatment. This can be done by using clinical decision support (CDS) and by using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which are typically developed by panels of doctors at specialty societies.

“It used to be that the doctor was expected to know everything,” said Ms. Jones at DynaMed. “Today there is no way to keep up with it all. Doctors often need a quick memory jog.”

Ms. Jones said the CDS result always requires the doctor’s interpretation. “It is up to the doctor to decide whether a new finding is the best choice for his or her patient,” she said.

Dr. Martin recommends going easy on point-of-care resources. “They can be used for showing a patient a differential diagnosis list or checking the cost of a procedure, but they are harder to use for novel developments that require time and context to evaluate their impact,” he said.

CPGs, meanwhile, have a high profile in the research world. In a 2018 study, Dr. Ioannidis found that 8 of the 15 most-cited articles were CPGs, disease definitions, or disease statistics.

Dr. Fischer said CPGs are typically based on thorough reviews of the literature, but they do involve experts’ interpretation of the science. “It can be difficult to obtain specific answers to some medical questions, especially for problems with complex treatments or variations,” he said.

As a result, Dr. Fischer said doctors have to use their judgment in applying CPGs to a specific patient. “For example, the orthopedic surgeon would normally recommend a total hip replacement for patients with a bad hip, but it might not be appropriate for an overweight patient.”
 

Stay skeptical

There are many novel ways for physicians to keep current, including summaries of articles, discussion boards, blogs, podcasts, Twitter, clinical decision support, and clinical practice guidelines.

Even with all these new services, though, doctors need to retain a healthy amount of skepticism about new research findings, Dr. Ioannidis said. “Ask yourself questions such as: Does it deal with a real problem? Am I getting the real information? Is it relevant to real patients? Is it offering good value for money?”

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

The amount of medical knowledge is said to double every 73 days, making it much tougher for physicians to identify innovative findings and newer guidelines for helping patients. Yet not keeping up with the latest information can put doctors at risk. 

“Most doctors are feeling lost about keeping up to date,” said John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine. “The vast majority of new studies are either wrong or not useful, but physicians cannot sort out which are those studies.”

The sheer number of new studies may even force some doctors to retreat from areas where they have not kept up, said Stephen A. Martin, MD, professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “When doctors don’t feel they can stay current, they may refer more cases to specialists or narrow their focus,” he said.
 

Some specialties have a greater challenge than others

Dr. Martin said the deluge of studies heavily impacts generalists because they have a wider field of information to keep up with. However, certain specialties like oncology are particularly flooded with new findings.

Specialties with the greatest number of published studies are reportedly oncology, cardiology, and neurology. A 2021 study found that the number of articles with the word “stroke” in them increased five times from 2000 to 2020. And investigative treatments targeting cancer nearly quadrupled just between 2010 and 2020.

What’s more, physicians spend a great deal of time sifting through studies that are ultimately useless. In a survey of internists by Univadis, which is part of WebMD/Medscape, 82% said that fewer than half of the studies they read actually had an impact on how they practice medicine.

“You often have to dig into an article and learn more about a finding before you now whether it’s useful,” Dr. Martin said. “And in the end, relatively few new findings are truly novel ones that are useful for patient care.”
 

So what can a physician do? First, find out what you don’t know

Looking for new findings needs to be carried out systematically, according to William B. Cutrer, MD, MEd, a pediatric intensivist who is associate dean for undergraduate medical education at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“Before you start, you have to know what you don’t know, and that’s often not so easy,” he said. “You may get a spark about what you don’t know in an encounter with a patient or colleague or through patient outcomes data,” he said. 

Dr. Martin, on the other hand, advocates a broad approach that involves finding out at least a little about everything in one’s field. “If you have a good base, you’re not starting from zero when you encounter a new clinical situation,” he said.

“The idea is that you don’t need to memorize most things, but you do need to know how to access them,” Dr. Martin said. “I memorize the things I do all the time, such as dosing or indicated testing, but I look up things that I don’t see that often and ones that have some complexity.”
 

Updating the old ways

For generations, doctors have stayed current by going to meetings, conversing with colleagues, and reading journals, but many physicians have updated these methods through various resources on the internet.

For example, meetings went virtual during the pandemic, and now that face-to-face meetings are back, many of them retain a virtual option, said Kevin Campbell, MD, a cardiologist at Health First Medical Group, Melbourne, Fla. “I typically go to one or two conferences a year, but I also learn a lot digitally,” he said. 

As to journal reading, “assessing an article is an essential skill,” Dr. Cutrer said. “It’s important to quickly decide whether a journal article is worth reading or not. One answer to this problem is to consult summaries of important articles. But summaries are sometimes unhelpful, and it is hard to know which articles are significant. Therefore, doctors have been reaching out to others who can research the articles for them.”   

For many years, some physicians have pooled their resources in journal clubs. “You get a chance to cross-cultivate your skills with others,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “But you need someone who is well informed and dedicated to run the journal club, using evidence-based principles.”

Dr. Cutrer said physicians like to cast their net wide because they are understandably wary of changing their practice based on one study. “Unless there is one large study that is really well designed, doctors will need two or more findings to be convinced,” he said. This requires having the ability to match studies across many journals.
 

Using research summaries

In the past two decades, physicians have gained access to countless summaries of journal articles prepared by armies of clinical experts working for review services such as the New England Journal of Medicine’s “Journal Watch,” Annals of Internal Medicine’s “In the Clinic,” and BMJ’s “State of the Arts.”

In addition to summarizing findings from a wide variety of journals in plain language, reviewers may compare them to similar studies and assess the validity of the finding by assigning a level of evidence.

Some commercial ventures provide similar services. Betsy Jones, executive vice president of clinical decisions at EBSCO, said the DynaMed service is now available through an app on the physician’s smartphone or through the electronic health record.

Physicians like this approach. Many specialists have noted that reading full-length articles was not an efficient use of their time, while even more said that reviews are efficient.
 

Exchanging information online

Physicians are increasingly keeping current by using the internet, especially on social media, Dr. Cutrer said. “Young doctors in particular are more likely to keep up digitally,” he said.

Internet-based information has become so widespread that disparities in health care from region to region have somewhat abated, according to Stuart J. Fischer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Summit Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, New Jersey. “One positive outcome of this plethora of information today is that geographic disparities in clinical practice are not as great as they used to be,” he said.  

Rather than chatting up colleagues in the hallway, many physicians have come to rely on internet-based discussion boards. 
 

Blogs, podcasts, and Twitter

Blogs and podcasts, often focused on a specialty, can be a great way for physicians to keep up, said UMass Chan professor Dr. Martin. “Podcasts in particular have enhanced the ability to stay current,” he said. “You want to find someone you trust.”

Internal medicine podcasts include Annals on Call, where doctors discuss articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Curbsiders, where two internists interview a guest expert.

Orthopedic surgeons can visit podcasts like Nailed it, Orthobullets, the Ortho Show, and Inside Orthopedics. Neurologists can consult Brainwaves, Neurology Podcast, Practical Neurology Podcast, and Clinical Neurology with KD. And pediatricians can drop in on Talking Pediatrics, The Cribsiders, and PedsCases.

Meanwhile, Twitter has become a particularly effective way to broadcast new findings, speeding up the transition from the bench to the bedside, said Dr. Campbell, the Florida cardiologist. 

“I visit cardio-specific resources on Twitter,” he said. “They can be real-time video chats or posted messages. They spur discussion like a journal club. Colleagues present cases and drop in and out of the discussion.”

Others are not as enthusiastic. Although Stanford’s Dr. Ioannidis is in the heart of the Silicon Valley, he is leery of some of the new digital methods. “I don’t use Twitter,” he says. “You just add more people to the process, which could only make things more confusing. I want to be able to think a lot about it.”
 

Cutting-edge knowledge at the point of care

Consulting the literature often takes place at the point of care, when a particular patient requires treatment. This can be done by using clinical decision support (CDS) and by using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which are typically developed by panels of doctors at specialty societies.

“It used to be that the doctor was expected to know everything,” said Ms. Jones at DynaMed. “Today there is no way to keep up with it all. Doctors often need a quick memory jog.”

Ms. Jones said the CDS result always requires the doctor’s interpretation. “It is up to the doctor to decide whether a new finding is the best choice for his or her patient,” she said.

Dr. Martin recommends going easy on point-of-care resources. “They can be used for showing a patient a differential diagnosis list or checking the cost of a procedure, but they are harder to use for novel developments that require time and context to evaluate their impact,” he said.

CPGs, meanwhile, have a high profile in the research world. In a 2018 study, Dr. Ioannidis found that 8 of the 15 most-cited articles were CPGs, disease definitions, or disease statistics.

Dr. Fischer said CPGs are typically based on thorough reviews of the literature, but they do involve experts’ interpretation of the science. “It can be difficult to obtain specific answers to some medical questions, especially for problems with complex treatments or variations,” he said.

As a result, Dr. Fischer said doctors have to use their judgment in applying CPGs to a specific patient. “For example, the orthopedic surgeon would normally recommend a total hip replacement for patients with a bad hip, but it might not be appropriate for an overweight patient.”
 

Stay skeptical

There are many novel ways for physicians to keep current, including summaries of articles, discussion boards, blogs, podcasts, Twitter, clinical decision support, and clinical practice guidelines.

Even with all these new services, though, doctors need to retain a healthy amount of skepticism about new research findings, Dr. Ioannidis said. “Ask yourself questions such as: Does it deal with a real problem? Am I getting the real information? Is it relevant to real patients? Is it offering good value for money?”

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