MDedge ObGyn

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Approximately one-quarter of mothers with diabetes failed induction of labor, and this failure was associated with a range of adverse outcomes for mothers and infants, based on data from more than 2,000 individuals.

Uncontrolled diabetes remains a risk factor for cesarean delivery, Ali Alhousseini, MD, of Corewell Health East, Dearborn, Michigan, and colleagues wrote in a study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Identifying and stratifying associated risk factors for failed induction of labor [IOL] may improve counseling and intrapartum care,” the researchers wrote in their abstract.

The researchers reviewed data from 2,172 mothers with diabetes who underwent IOL at a single university medical center between January 2013 and December 2021. They examined a range of maternal characteristics including age, ethnicity, gestational age, medical comorbidities, insulin administration, parity, and health insurance.

A total of 567 mothers with diabetes (26.1%) failed IOL and underwent cesarean delivery.

Overall, failed IOL was significantly associated with nulliparity (P = .0001), as well as preexisting diabetes compared with gestational diabetes, diabetes control with insulin, maternal essential hypertension, preeclampsia, and polyhydramnios (P = .001 for all). Other factors significantly associated with failed IOL included prenatal diagnosis of fetal growth restriction (P = .008), and placental abnormalities (P = .027).

Neonatal factors of weight, large for gestational age, head circumference, and height were not significantly associated with failed IOL (P > .05 for all).

As for neonatal outcomes, failed IOL was significantly associated with admission to neonatal intensive care unit, hyperbilirubinemia, and longer hospital stay (P = .001 for all). Failed IOL was significantly associated with lower 1-minute APGAR scores, but not with lower 5-minute APGAR scores, the researchers noted (P = .033 for 1-minute score). No association was noted between failed IOL and neonatal readmission, lower umbilical cord pH value, or maternal ethnicity.

The findings were limited by the retrospective design, but data analysis is ongoing, Dr. Alhousseini said. The researchers are continuing to assess the roles not only of optimal glucose control, but other maternal factors in improving maternal and neonatal outcomes, he said.
 

Data Add to Awareness of Risk Factors

The current study is important because of the increasing incidence of diabetes and the need to examine associated risk factors in pregnancy, Michael Richley, MD, a maternal fetal medicine physician at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “The average age of onset of diabetes is becoming younger and type 2 diabetes in pregnancy is an increasingly common diagnosis,” said Dr. Richley, who was not involved in the study.  

The increase in both maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes is expected given the risk factors identified in the study, said Dr. Richley. “The patients with diabetes also were sicker at baseline, with hypertensive disorders, growth restriction, and pregestational diabetes,” he noted.

The study findings support data from previous research, Dr. Richley said. The message to clinicians is that patients with diabetes not only have an increased risk of needing a cesarean delivery but also have an increased risk of poor outcomes if a cesarean delivery is needed, he said.

Although a prospective study would be useful to show causality as opposed to just an association, such a study is challenging in this patient population given the limitations of conducting research on labor and delivery, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Richley had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately one-quarter of mothers with diabetes failed induction of labor, and this failure was associated with a range of adverse outcomes for mothers and infants, based on data from more than 2,000 individuals.

Uncontrolled diabetes remains a risk factor for cesarean delivery, Ali Alhousseini, MD, of Corewell Health East, Dearborn, Michigan, and colleagues wrote in a study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Identifying and stratifying associated risk factors for failed induction of labor [IOL] may improve counseling and intrapartum care,” the researchers wrote in their abstract.

The researchers reviewed data from 2,172 mothers with diabetes who underwent IOL at a single university medical center between January 2013 and December 2021. They examined a range of maternal characteristics including age, ethnicity, gestational age, medical comorbidities, insulin administration, parity, and health insurance.

A total of 567 mothers with diabetes (26.1%) failed IOL and underwent cesarean delivery.

Overall, failed IOL was significantly associated with nulliparity (P = .0001), as well as preexisting diabetes compared with gestational diabetes, diabetes control with insulin, maternal essential hypertension, preeclampsia, and polyhydramnios (P = .001 for all). Other factors significantly associated with failed IOL included prenatal diagnosis of fetal growth restriction (P = .008), and placental abnormalities (P = .027).

Neonatal factors of weight, large for gestational age, head circumference, and height were not significantly associated with failed IOL (P > .05 for all).

As for neonatal outcomes, failed IOL was significantly associated with admission to neonatal intensive care unit, hyperbilirubinemia, and longer hospital stay (P = .001 for all). Failed IOL was significantly associated with lower 1-minute APGAR scores, but not with lower 5-minute APGAR scores, the researchers noted (P = .033 for 1-minute score). No association was noted between failed IOL and neonatal readmission, lower umbilical cord pH value, or maternal ethnicity.

The findings were limited by the retrospective design, but data analysis is ongoing, Dr. Alhousseini said. The researchers are continuing to assess the roles not only of optimal glucose control, but other maternal factors in improving maternal and neonatal outcomes, he said.
 

Data Add to Awareness of Risk Factors

The current study is important because of the increasing incidence of diabetes and the need to examine associated risk factors in pregnancy, Michael Richley, MD, a maternal fetal medicine physician at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “The average age of onset of diabetes is becoming younger and type 2 diabetes in pregnancy is an increasingly common diagnosis,” said Dr. Richley, who was not involved in the study.  

The increase in both maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes is expected given the risk factors identified in the study, said Dr. Richley. “The patients with diabetes also were sicker at baseline, with hypertensive disorders, growth restriction, and pregestational diabetes,” he noted.

The study findings support data from previous research, Dr. Richley said. The message to clinicians is that patients with diabetes not only have an increased risk of needing a cesarean delivery but also have an increased risk of poor outcomes if a cesarean delivery is needed, he said.

Although a prospective study would be useful to show causality as opposed to just an association, such a study is challenging in this patient population given the limitations of conducting research on labor and delivery, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Richley had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately one-quarter of mothers with diabetes failed induction of labor, and this failure was associated with a range of adverse outcomes for mothers and infants, based on data from more than 2,000 individuals.

Uncontrolled diabetes remains a risk factor for cesarean delivery, Ali Alhousseini, MD, of Corewell Health East, Dearborn, Michigan, and colleagues wrote in a study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Identifying and stratifying associated risk factors for failed induction of labor [IOL] may improve counseling and intrapartum care,” the researchers wrote in their abstract.

The researchers reviewed data from 2,172 mothers with diabetes who underwent IOL at a single university medical center between January 2013 and December 2021. They examined a range of maternal characteristics including age, ethnicity, gestational age, medical comorbidities, insulin administration, parity, and health insurance.

A total of 567 mothers with diabetes (26.1%) failed IOL and underwent cesarean delivery.

Overall, failed IOL was significantly associated with nulliparity (P = .0001), as well as preexisting diabetes compared with gestational diabetes, diabetes control with insulin, maternal essential hypertension, preeclampsia, and polyhydramnios (P = .001 for all). Other factors significantly associated with failed IOL included prenatal diagnosis of fetal growth restriction (P = .008), and placental abnormalities (P = .027).

Neonatal factors of weight, large for gestational age, head circumference, and height were not significantly associated with failed IOL (P > .05 for all).

As for neonatal outcomes, failed IOL was significantly associated with admission to neonatal intensive care unit, hyperbilirubinemia, and longer hospital stay (P = .001 for all). Failed IOL was significantly associated with lower 1-minute APGAR scores, but not with lower 5-minute APGAR scores, the researchers noted (P = .033 for 1-minute score). No association was noted between failed IOL and neonatal readmission, lower umbilical cord pH value, or maternal ethnicity.

The findings were limited by the retrospective design, but data analysis is ongoing, Dr. Alhousseini said. The researchers are continuing to assess the roles not only of optimal glucose control, but other maternal factors in improving maternal and neonatal outcomes, he said.
 

Data Add to Awareness of Risk Factors

The current study is important because of the increasing incidence of diabetes and the need to examine associated risk factors in pregnancy, Michael Richley, MD, a maternal fetal medicine physician at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “The average age of onset of diabetes is becoming younger and type 2 diabetes in pregnancy is an increasingly common diagnosis,” said Dr. Richley, who was not involved in the study.  

The increase in both maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes is expected given the risk factors identified in the study, said Dr. Richley. “The patients with diabetes also were sicker at baseline, with hypertensive disorders, growth restriction, and pregestational diabetes,” he noted.

The study findings support data from previous research, Dr. Richley said. The message to clinicians is that patients with diabetes not only have an increased risk of needing a cesarean delivery but also have an increased risk of poor outcomes if a cesarean delivery is needed, he said.

Although a prospective study would be useful to show causality as opposed to just an association, such a study is challenging in this patient population given the limitations of conducting research on labor and delivery, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Richley had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Measures of fetal breathing movement were lower in fetuses of pregnant patients who received buprenorphine, compared with controls, based on data from 177 individuals.

The findings were presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists by Caroline Bulger, MD, of East Tennessee State University, Johnson City.

Pregnant patients with opioid-use disorder in the community surrounding Johnson City receive medication-assisted therapy with buprenorphine during the prenatal period, Dr. Bulger and colleagues wrote in their abstract. The current prenatal program for substance use disorder was established in 2016 based on patient requests for assistance in lowering their buprenorphine dosages during pregnancy, said senior author Martin E. Olsen, MD, also of East Tennessee State University, in an interview.

“Buprenorphine medication–assisted treatment in pregnancy is associated with long-term effects on childhood development such as smaller neonatal brains, decreased school performance, and low birth weight;” however, data on the fetal effects of buprenorphine are limited, said Dr. Olsen.

The current study was conducted to evaluate a short-term finding of the fetal effects of buprenorphine, Dr. Olsen said.

“This study was performed after obstetric sonographers at our institution noted that biophysical profile [BPP] ultrasound assessments of the fetuses of mothers on buprenorphine took longer than for other patients,” said Dr. Olsen.

The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of 131 patients who received buprenorphine and 46 who were followed for chronic hypertension and served as high-risk controls. Patients were seen at a single institution between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2020.

The researchers hypothesized that BPP of fetuses in patients receiving buprenorphine might be different from controls because of the effects of buprenorphine.

Overall, patients who received buprenorphine were more likely to have a fetal breathing score of zero than those who underwent a BPP for hypertension. A significant relationship emerged between buprenorphine dosage and breathing motion assessment; patients on high-dose buprenorphine were more likely than patients on low doses to have values of zero on fetal breathing motion assessment, and a chi-squared test yielded a P value of .04269.

The takeaway for clinical practice is that clinicians performing BPP ultrasounds on buprenorphine-exposed fetuses can expect that these assessments may take longer on average than assessments of other high-risk patients, said Dr. Olsen. “Additional assessment after a low BPP score is still indicated for these fetuses just as in other high-risk pregnancies,” he said.

The study was limited primarily by the retrospective design, Dr. Olsen said.

Although current treatment guidelines do not emphasize the effects of maternal buprenorphine use on fetal development, these findings support previous research showing effects of buprenorphine on fetal brain structure, the researchers wrote in their abstract. Looking ahead, “We recommend additional study on the maternal buprenorphine medication–assisted treatment dose effects for fetal and neonatal development with attention to such factors as head circumference, birth weight, achievement of developmental milestones, and school performance,” Dr. Olsen said.

“We and others have shown that the lowest effective dose of buprenorphine can lower neonatal abstinence syndrome/neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome rates,” but data showing an impact of lowest effective dose management on long-term complications of fetal buprenorphine exposure are lacking, he noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Measures of fetal breathing movement were lower in fetuses of pregnant patients who received buprenorphine, compared with controls, based on data from 177 individuals.

The findings were presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists by Caroline Bulger, MD, of East Tennessee State University, Johnson City.

Pregnant patients with opioid-use disorder in the community surrounding Johnson City receive medication-assisted therapy with buprenorphine during the prenatal period, Dr. Bulger and colleagues wrote in their abstract. The current prenatal program for substance use disorder was established in 2016 based on patient requests for assistance in lowering their buprenorphine dosages during pregnancy, said senior author Martin E. Olsen, MD, also of East Tennessee State University, in an interview.

“Buprenorphine medication–assisted treatment in pregnancy is associated with long-term effects on childhood development such as smaller neonatal brains, decreased school performance, and low birth weight;” however, data on the fetal effects of buprenorphine are limited, said Dr. Olsen.

The current study was conducted to evaluate a short-term finding of the fetal effects of buprenorphine, Dr. Olsen said.

“This study was performed after obstetric sonographers at our institution noted that biophysical profile [BPP] ultrasound assessments of the fetuses of mothers on buprenorphine took longer than for other patients,” said Dr. Olsen.

The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of 131 patients who received buprenorphine and 46 who were followed for chronic hypertension and served as high-risk controls. Patients were seen at a single institution between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2020.

The researchers hypothesized that BPP of fetuses in patients receiving buprenorphine might be different from controls because of the effects of buprenorphine.

Overall, patients who received buprenorphine were more likely to have a fetal breathing score of zero than those who underwent a BPP for hypertension. A significant relationship emerged between buprenorphine dosage and breathing motion assessment; patients on high-dose buprenorphine were more likely than patients on low doses to have values of zero on fetal breathing motion assessment, and a chi-squared test yielded a P value of .04269.

The takeaway for clinical practice is that clinicians performing BPP ultrasounds on buprenorphine-exposed fetuses can expect that these assessments may take longer on average than assessments of other high-risk patients, said Dr. Olsen. “Additional assessment after a low BPP score is still indicated for these fetuses just as in other high-risk pregnancies,” he said.

The study was limited primarily by the retrospective design, Dr. Olsen said.

Although current treatment guidelines do not emphasize the effects of maternal buprenorphine use on fetal development, these findings support previous research showing effects of buprenorphine on fetal brain structure, the researchers wrote in their abstract. Looking ahead, “We recommend additional study on the maternal buprenorphine medication–assisted treatment dose effects for fetal and neonatal development with attention to such factors as head circumference, birth weight, achievement of developmental milestones, and school performance,” Dr. Olsen said.

“We and others have shown that the lowest effective dose of buprenorphine can lower neonatal abstinence syndrome/neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome rates,” but data showing an impact of lowest effective dose management on long-term complications of fetal buprenorphine exposure are lacking, he noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Measures of fetal breathing movement were lower in fetuses of pregnant patients who received buprenorphine, compared with controls, based on data from 177 individuals.

The findings were presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists by Caroline Bulger, MD, of East Tennessee State University, Johnson City.

Pregnant patients with opioid-use disorder in the community surrounding Johnson City receive medication-assisted therapy with buprenorphine during the prenatal period, Dr. Bulger and colleagues wrote in their abstract. The current prenatal program for substance use disorder was established in 2016 based on patient requests for assistance in lowering their buprenorphine dosages during pregnancy, said senior author Martin E. Olsen, MD, also of East Tennessee State University, in an interview.

“Buprenorphine medication–assisted treatment in pregnancy is associated with long-term effects on childhood development such as smaller neonatal brains, decreased school performance, and low birth weight;” however, data on the fetal effects of buprenorphine are limited, said Dr. Olsen.

The current study was conducted to evaluate a short-term finding of the fetal effects of buprenorphine, Dr. Olsen said.

“This study was performed after obstetric sonographers at our institution noted that biophysical profile [BPP] ultrasound assessments of the fetuses of mothers on buprenorphine took longer than for other patients,” said Dr. Olsen.

The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of 131 patients who received buprenorphine and 46 who were followed for chronic hypertension and served as high-risk controls. Patients were seen at a single institution between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2020.

The researchers hypothesized that BPP of fetuses in patients receiving buprenorphine might be different from controls because of the effects of buprenorphine.

Overall, patients who received buprenorphine were more likely to have a fetal breathing score of zero than those who underwent a BPP for hypertension. A significant relationship emerged between buprenorphine dosage and breathing motion assessment; patients on high-dose buprenorphine were more likely than patients on low doses to have values of zero on fetal breathing motion assessment, and a chi-squared test yielded a P value of .04269.

The takeaway for clinical practice is that clinicians performing BPP ultrasounds on buprenorphine-exposed fetuses can expect that these assessments may take longer on average than assessments of other high-risk patients, said Dr. Olsen. “Additional assessment after a low BPP score is still indicated for these fetuses just as in other high-risk pregnancies,” he said.

The study was limited primarily by the retrospective design, Dr. Olsen said.

Although current treatment guidelines do not emphasize the effects of maternal buprenorphine use on fetal development, these findings support previous research showing effects of buprenorphine on fetal brain structure, the researchers wrote in their abstract. Looking ahead, “We recommend additional study on the maternal buprenorphine medication–assisted treatment dose effects for fetal and neonatal development with attention to such factors as head circumference, birth weight, achievement of developmental milestones, and school performance,” Dr. Olsen said.

“We and others have shown that the lowest effective dose of buprenorphine can lower neonatal abstinence syndrome/neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome rates,” but data showing an impact of lowest effective dose management on long-term complications of fetal buprenorphine exposure are lacking, he noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Welcome everyone. I’m Dr. John White. I’m the chief medical officer at WebMD. Does your biologic sex impact your health? Does it have any play in how you’re diagnosed, how you’re treated in terms of what symptoms you have? Of course it does. We all know that. But that’s not something that many people believed 5, 10 years ago, certainly not 20 years ago. And it was only because of leaders like my guest today, Phyllis Greenberger, who really championed the need for research on women’s health. She has a new book out, which I love. It’s called Sex Cells: the Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare. Please welcome my very good friend, Phyllis Greenberger.

Thank you.

Phyllis, It’s great to see you today.

It’s great to see you as well.

Now, you and I have been talking about this for easily 2 decades.

At least.

And some people think, oh, of course it makes sense. Although I saw you disagreeing that not everyone still believes that. But what has been that journey? Why has it been so hard to make people understand, as you point out early on in your book, women are not smaller men?

I think the basic reason was that it was just believed that men and women were the same except for their reproductive organs. So minus the reproductive organs, whether it was a device, a diagnostic, or therapeutic, if it was used and successful on a male, that it would be successful on a female. We’re really very far from understanding the differences, and there’s still a lot of distrust and disbelief and ignorance about it. And so there’s still a long way to go.

But you talk about that in the book, that there’s still a long way to go. Why is that? What’s the biggest obstacle? Is it just misinformation, lack of information? People don’t understand the science? There’s still resistance in some areas. Why is that?

I think it’s misinformation, and I gave a presentation, I don’t know how many years ago, at least 20 years ago, about the curriculum. And at the time, there was no women’s health in the curriculum. It was health. So if it was on cardiovascular issues or on osteoporosis, it was sort of the basic. And at the time, there would maybe be one woman whose job was women’s health, and she’d have an office, and otherwise there was nothing. And maybe they talked about breast cancer, who knows. But I spoke to someone just the other day, in view of all the attention that the book is getting now, whether that’s changed, whether it’s necessary and required. And she said it’s not. So, it’s not necessarily on the curriculum of all research and medical institutions, and even if women’s health, quote unquote, is on the curriculum, it doesn’t mean that they’re really looking at sex differences. And the difference is obvious. I mean, gender is really, it’s a social construct, but biological sex is how disease occurs and develops. And so if you’re not looking, and because there’s so little research now on sex differences that I don’t even know, I mean, how much you could actually teach.

So what needs to change? This book is a manifesto in many ways in how we need to include women; we need to make research more inclusive of everyone. But we’re not there yet. So what needs to change, Phyllis?

During this whole saga of trying to get people to listen to me and to the society, we really started out just looking at clinical trials and that, as you mentioned, I mean, there are issues in rural communities. There’s travel issues for women and child care. There’s a lot of disbelief or fear of clinical trials in some ethnicities. I do think, going to the future, that technology can help that. I mean, if people have broadband, which of course is also an issue in rural areas.

What could women do today? What should women listeners hear and then be doing? Should they be saying something to their doctor? Should they be asking specific questions? When they interact with the health care system, how can they make sure they’re getting the best care that’s appropriate for them when we know that sex cells matter?

Well, that’s a good question. It depends on, frankly, if your doctor is aware of this, if he or she has learned anything about this in school, which, I had already said, we’re not sure about that because research is still ongoing and there’s so much we don’t know. So I mean, you used to think, or I used to think, that you go to, you want a physician who’s older and more experienced. But now I think you should be going to a physician who’s younger and hopefully has learned about this, because the physicians that were educated years ago and have been practicing for 20, 30 years, I don’t know how much they know about this, whether they’re even aware of it.

Phyllis, you are a woman of action. You’ve lived in the DC area. You have championed legislative reforms, executive agendas. What do you want done now? What needs to be changed today? The curriculum is going to take time, but what else needs to change?

That’s a good question. I mean, if curriculum is going to take a while and you can ask your doctor if he prescribes the medication, whether it’s been tested on women, but then if it hasn’t been tested on women, but it’s the only thing that there is for your condition, I mean, so it’s very difficult. The Biden administration, as you know, just allocated a hundred million dollars for women’s health research.

What do you hope to accomplish with this book?

Well, what I’m hoping is that I spoke to someone at AMWA and I’m hoping — and AMWA is an association for women medical students. And I’m hoping that’s the audience. The audience needs to be. I mean, obviously everybody that I know that’s not a doctor that’s read it, found it fascinating and didn’t know a lot of the stuff that was in it. So I think it’s an interesting book anyway, and I think women should be aware of it. But really I think it needs to be for medical students.

And to your credit, you built the Society for Women’s Health Research into a powerful force in Washington under your tenure in really promoting the need for Office of Women’s Health and Research in general. The book is entitled Sex Cells, the Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare. Phyllis Greenberger, thank you so much for all that you’ve done for women’s health, for women’s research. We wouldn’t be where we are today if it wasn’t for you. So thanks.

Thank you very much, John. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.

Dr. Whyte, is chief medical officer, WebMD, New York, NY. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Greenberger is a women’s health advocate and author of “Sex Cells: The Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare”

This interview originally appeared on WebMD on May 23, 2024. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Welcome everyone. I’m Dr. John White. I’m the chief medical officer at WebMD. Does your biologic sex impact your health? Does it have any play in how you’re diagnosed, how you’re treated in terms of what symptoms you have? Of course it does. We all know that. But that’s not something that many people believed 5, 10 years ago, certainly not 20 years ago. And it was only because of leaders like my guest today, Phyllis Greenberger, who really championed the need for research on women’s health. She has a new book out, which I love. It’s called Sex Cells: the Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare. Please welcome my very good friend, Phyllis Greenberger.

Thank you.

Phyllis, It’s great to see you today.

It’s great to see you as well.

Now, you and I have been talking about this for easily 2 decades.

At least.

And some people think, oh, of course it makes sense. Although I saw you disagreeing that not everyone still believes that. But what has been that journey? Why has it been so hard to make people understand, as you point out early on in your book, women are not smaller men?

I think the basic reason was that it was just believed that men and women were the same except for their reproductive organs. So minus the reproductive organs, whether it was a device, a diagnostic, or therapeutic, if it was used and successful on a male, that it would be successful on a female. We’re really very far from understanding the differences, and there’s still a lot of distrust and disbelief and ignorance about it. And so there’s still a long way to go.

But you talk about that in the book, that there’s still a long way to go. Why is that? What’s the biggest obstacle? Is it just misinformation, lack of information? People don’t understand the science? There’s still resistance in some areas. Why is that?

I think it’s misinformation, and I gave a presentation, I don’t know how many years ago, at least 20 years ago, about the curriculum. And at the time, there was no women’s health in the curriculum. It was health. So if it was on cardiovascular issues or on osteoporosis, it was sort of the basic. And at the time, there would maybe be one woman whose job was women’s health, and she’d have an office, and otherwise there was nothing. And maybe they talked about breast cancer, who knows. But I spoke to someone just the other day, in view of all the attention that the book is getting now, whether that’s changed, whether it’s necessary and required. And she said it’s not. So, it’s not necessarily on the curriculum of all research and medical institutions, and even if women’s health, quote unquote, is on the curriculum, it doesn’t mean that they’re really looking at sex differences. And the difference is obvious. I mean, gender is really, it’s a social construct, but biological sex is how disease occurs and develops. And so if you’re not looking, and because there’s so little research now on sex differences that I don’t even know, I mean, how much you could actually teach.

So what needs to change? This book is a manifesto in many ways in how we need to include women; we need to make research more inclusive of everyone. But we’re not there yet. So what needs to change, Phyllis?

During this whole saga of trying to get people to listen to me and to the society, we really started out just looking at clinical trials and that, as you mentioned, I mean, there are issues in rural communities. There’s travel issues for women and child care. There’s a lot of disbelief or fear of clinical trials in some ethnicities. I do think, going to the future, that technology can help that. I mean, if people have broadband, which of course is also an issue in rural areas.

What could women do today? What should women listeners hear and then be doing? Should they be saying something to their doctor? Should they be asking specific questions? When they interact with the health care system, how can they make sure they’re getting the best care that’s appropriate for them when we know that sex cells matter?

Well, that’s a good question. It depends on, frankly, if your doctor is aware of this, if he or she has learned anything about this in school, which, I had already said, we’re not sure about that because research is still ongoing and there’s so much we don’t know. So I mean, you used to think, or I used to think, that you go to, you want a physician who’s older and more experienced. But now I think you should be going to a physician who’s younger and hopefully has learned about this, because the physicians that were educated years ago and have been practicing for 20, 30 years, I don’t know how much they know about this, whether they’re even aware of it.

Phyllis, you are a woman of action. You’ve lived in the DC area. You have championed legislative reforms, executive agendas. What do you want done now? What needs to be changed today? The curriculum is going to take time, but what else needs to change?

That’s a good question. I mean, if curriculum is going to take a while and you can ask your doctor if he prescribes the medication, whether it’s been tested on women, but then if it hasn’t been tested on women, but it’s the only thing that there is for your condition, I mean, so it’s very difficult. The Biden administration, as you know, just allocated a hundred million dollars for women’s health research.

What do you hope to accomplish with this book?

Well, what I’m hoping is that I spoke to someone at AMWA and I’m hoping — and AMWA is an association for women medical students. And I’m hoping that’s the audience. The audience needs to be. I mean, obviously everybody that I know that’s not a doctor that’s read it, found it fascinating and didn’t know a lot of the stuff that was in it. So I think it’s an interesting book anyway, and I think women should be aware of it. But really I think it needs to be for medical students.

And to your credit, you built the Society for Women’s Health Research into a powerful force in Washington under your tenure in really promoting the need for Office of Women’s Health and Research in general. The book is entitled Sex Cells, the Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare. Phyllis Greenberger, thank you so much for all that you’ve done for women’s health, for women’s research. We wouldn’t be where we are today if it wasn’t for you. So thanks.

Thank you very much, John. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.

Dr. Whyte, is chief medical officer, WebMD, New York, NY. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Greenberger is a women’s health advocate and author of “Sex Cells: The Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare”

This interview originally appeared on WebMD on May 23, 2024. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Welcome everyone. I’m Dr. John White. I’m the chief medical officer at WebMD. Does your biologic sex impact your health? Does it have any play in how you’re diagnosed, how you’re treated in terms of what symptoms you have? Of course it does. We all know that. But that’s not something that many people believed 5, 10 years ago, certainly not 20 years ago. And it was only because of leaders like my guest today, Phyllis Greenberger, who really championed the need for research on women’s health. She has a new book out, which I love. It’s called Sex Cells: the Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare. Please welcome my very good friend, Phyllis Greenberger.

Thank you.

Phyllis, It’s great to see you today.

It’s great to see you as well.

Now, you and I have been talking about this for easily 2 decades.

At least.

And some people think, oh, of course it makes sense. Although I saw you disagreeing that not everyone still believes that. But what has been that journey? Why has it been so hard to make people understand, as you point out early on in your book, women are not smaller men?

I think the basic reason was that it was just believed that men and women were the same except for their reproductive organs. So minus the reproductive organs, whether it was a device, a diagnostic, or therapeutic, if it was used and successful on a male, that it would be successful on a female. We’re really very far from understanding the differences, and there’s still a lot of distrust and disbelief and ignorance about it. And so there’s still a long way to go.

But you talk about that in the book, that there’s still a long way to go. Why is that? What’s the biggest obstacle? Is it just misinformation, lack of information? People don’t understand the science? There’s still resistance in some areas. Why is that?

I think it’s misinformation, and I gave a presentation, I don’t know how many years ago, at least 20 years ago, about the curriculum. And at the time, there was no women’s health in the curriculum. It was health. So if it was on cardiovascular issues or on osteoporosis, it was sort of the basic. And at the time, there would maybe be one woman whose job was women’s health, and she’d have an office, and otherwise there was nothing. And maybe they talked about breast cancer, who knows. But I spoke to someone just the other day, in view of all the attention that the book is getting now, whether that’s changed, whether it’s necessary and required. And she said it’s not. So, it’s not necessarily on the curriculum of all research and medical institutions, and even if women’s health, quote unquote, is on the curriculum, it doesn’t mean that they’re really looking at sex differences. And the difference is obvious. I mean, gender is really, it’s a social construct, but biological sex is how disease occurs and develops. And so if you’re not looking, and because there’s so little research now on sex differences that I don’t even know, I mean, how much you could actually teach.

So what needs to change? This book is a manifesto in many ways in how we need to include women; we need to make research more inclusive of everyone. But we’re not there yet. So what needs to change, Phyllis?

During this whole saga of trying to get people to listen to me and to the society, we really started out just looking at clinical trials and that, as you mentioned, I mean, there are issues in rural communities. There’s travel issues for women and child care. There’s a lot of disbelief or fear of clinical trials in some ethnicities. I do think, going to the future, that technology can help that. I mean, if people have broadband, which of course is also an issue in rural areas.

What could women do today? What should women listeners hear and then be doing? Should they be saying something to their doctor? Should they be asking specific questions? When they interact with the health care system, how can they make sure they’re getting the best care that’s appropriate for them when we know that sex cells matter?

Well, that’s a good question. It depends on, frankly, if your doctor is aware of this, if he or she has learned anything about this in school, which, I had already said, we’re not sure about that because research is still ongoing and there’s so much we don’t know. So I mean, you used to think, or I used to think, that you go to, you want a physician who’s older and more experienced. But now I think you should be going to a physician who’s younger and hopefully has learned about this, because the physicians that were educated years ago and have been practicing for 20, 30 years, I don’t know how much they know about this, whether they’re even aware of it.

Phyllis, you are a woman of action. You’ve lived in the DC area. You have championed legislative reforms, executive agendas. What do you want done now? What needs to be changed today? The curriculum is going to take time, but what else needs to change?

That’s a good question. I mean, if curriculum is going to take a while and you can ask your doctor if he prescribes the medication, whether it’s been tested on women, but then if it hasn’t been tested on women, but it’s the only thing that there is for your condition, I mean, so it’s very difficult. The Biden administration, as you know, just allocated a hundred million dollars for women’s health research.

What do you hope to accomplish with this book?

Well, what I’m hoping is that I spoke to someone at AMWA and I’m hoping — and AMWA is an association for women medical students. And I’m hoping that’s the audience. The audience needs to be. I mean, obviously everybody that I know that’s not a doctor that’s read it, found it fascinating and didn’t know a lot of the stuff that was in it. So I think it’s an interesting book anyway, and I think women should be aware of it. But really I think it needs to be for medical students.

And to your credit, you built the Society for Women’s Health Research into a powerful force in Washington under your tenure in really promoting the need for Office of Women’s Health and Research in general. The book is entitled Sex Cells, the Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare. Phyllis Greenberger, thank you so much for all that you’ve done for women’s health, for women’s research. We wouldn’t be where we are today if it wasn’t for you. So thanks.

Thank you very much, John. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.

Dr. Whyte, is chief medical officer, WebMD, New York, NY. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Greenberger is a women’s health advocate and author of “Sex Cells: The Fight to Overcome Bias and Discrimination in Women’s Healthcare”

This interview originally appeared on WebMD on May 23, 2024. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Most younger women diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer will succeed if they attempt to become pregnant after treatment, according to new research.

The findings, presented May 23 in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) represent the most comprehensive look to date at fertility outcomes following treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 (Abstract 1518).

Kimia Sorouri, MD, a research fellow at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues, looked at data from the Young Women’s Breast Cancer study, a multicenter longitudinal cohort study, for 1213 U.S. and Canadian women (74% non-Hispanic white) who were diagnosed with stages 0-III breast cancer between 2006 and 2016. None of the included patients had metastatic disease, prior hysterectomy, or prior oophorectomy at diagnosis.

During a median 11 years of follow up, 197 of the women reported attempting pregnancy. Of these, 73% reported becoming pregnant, and 65% delivered a live infant a median 4 years after cancer diagnosis. The median age at diagnosis was 32 years, and 28% opted for egg or embryo freezing to preserve fertility. Importantly, 68% received chemotherapy, which can impair fertility, with only a small percentage undergoing ovarian suppression during chemotherapy treatment.

Key predictors of pregnancy or live birth in this study were “financial comfort,” a self-reported measure defined as having money left over to spend after bills are paid (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% CI 1.01-4.12; P = .047); younger age at the time of diagnosis; and undergoing fertility preservation interventions at diagnosis (OR, 2.78; 95% CI 1.29-6.00; P = .009). Chemotherapy and other treatment factors were not seen to be associated with pregnancy or birth outcomes.

“Current research that informs our understanding of the impact of breast cancer treatment on pregnancy and live birth rates is fairly limited,” Dr. Sorouri said during an online press conference announcing the findings. Quality data on fertility outcomes has been limited to studies in certain subgroups, such as women with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, she noted, while other studies “have short-term follow-up and critically lack prospective assessment of attempt at conception.”

The new findings show, Dr. Sorouri said, “that in this modern cohort with a heightened awareness of fertility, access to fertility preservation can help to mitigate a portion of the damage from chemotherapy and other agents. Importantly, this highlights the need for increased accessibility of fertility preservation services for women newly diagnosed with breast cancer who are interested in a future pregnancy.”

Commenting on Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ findings, Julie Gralow, MD, a breast cancer researcher and ASCO’s chief medical officer, stressed that, while younger age at diagnosis and financial comfort were two factors outside the scope of clinical oncology practice, “we can impact fertility preservation prior to treatment.”

She called it “critical” that every patient be informed of the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment on future fertility, and that all young patients interested in future fertility be offered fertility preservation prior to beginning treatment.

Ann Partridge, MD, of Dana-Farber, said in an interview that the findings reflected a decades’ long change in approach. “Twenty years ago when we first started this cohort, people would tell women ‘you can’t get pregnant. It’s too dangerous. You won’t be able to.’ And some indeed aren’t able to, but the majority who are attempting are succeeding, especially if they preserve their eggs or embryos. So even if chemo puts you into menopause or made you subfertile, if you’ve preserved eggs or embryos, we now can mitigate that distressing effect that many cancer patients have suffered from historically. That’s the good news here.”

Nonetheless, Dr. Partridge, an oncologist and the last author of the study, noted, the results reflected success only for women actively attempting pregnancy. “Remember, we’re not including the people who didn’t attempt. There may be some who went into menopause who never banked eggs or embryos, and may never have tried because they went to a doctor who told them they’re not fertile.” Further, she said, not all insurances cover in vitro fertilization for women who have had breast cancer.

The fact that financial comfort was correlated with reproductive success, Dr. Partridge said, speaks to broader issues about access. “It may not be all about insurers. It may be to have the ability, to have the time, the education and the wherewithal to do this right — and about being with doctors who talk about it.”

Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ study was sponsored by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Susan G. Komen. Several co-authors disclosed receiving speaking and/or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies, and one reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Sorouri reported no industry funding, while Dr. Partridge reported research funding from Novartis.

Most younger women diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer will succeed if they attempt to become pregnant after treatment, according to new research.

The findings, presented May 23 in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) represent the most comprehensive look to date at fertility outcomes following treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 (Abstract 1518).

Kimia Sorouri, MD, a research fellow at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues, looked at data from the Young Women’s Breast Cancer study, a multicenter longitudinal cohort study, for 1213 U.S. and Canadian women (74% non-Hispanic white) who were diagnosed with stages 0-III breast cancer between 2006 and 2016. None of the included patients had metastatic disease, prior hysterectomy, or prior oophorectomy at diagnosis.

During a median 11 years of follow up, 197 of the women reported attempting pregnancy. Of these, 73% reported becoming pregnant, and 65% delivered a live infant a median 4 years after cancer diagnosis. The median age at diagnosis was 32 years, and 28% opted for egg or embryo freezing to preserve fertility. Importantly, 68% received chemotherapy, which can impair fertility, with only a small percentage undergoing ovarian suppression during chemotherapy treatment.

Key predictors of pregnancy or live birth in this study were “financial comfort,” a self-reported measure defined as having money left over to spend after bills are paid (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% CI 1.01-4.12; P = .047); younger age at the time of diagnosis; and undergoing fertility preservation interventions at diagnosis (OR, 2.78; 95% CI 1.29-6.00; P = .009). Chemotherapy and other treatment factors were not seen to be associated with pregnancy or birth outcomes.

“Current research that informs our understanding of the impact of breast cancer treatment on pregnancy and live birth rates is fairly limited,” Dr. Sorouri said during an online press conference announcing the findings. Quality data on fertility outcomes has been limited to studies in certain subgroups, such as women with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, she noted, while other studies “have short-term follow-up and critically lack prospective assessment of attempt at conception.”

The new findings show, Dr. Sorouri said, “that in this modern cohort with a heightened awareness of fertility, access to fertility preservation can help to mitigate a portion of the damage from chemotherapy and other agents. Importantly, this highlights the need for increased accessibility of fertility preservation services for women newly diagnosed with breast cancer who are interested in a future pregnancy.”

Commenting on Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ findings, Julie Gralow, MD, a breast cancer researcher and ASCO’s chief medical officer, stressed that, while younger age at diagnosis and financial comfort were two factors outside the scope of clinical oncology practice, “we can impact fertility preservation prior to treatment.”

She called it “critical” that every patient be informed of the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment on future fertility, and that all young patients interested in future fertility be offered fertility preservation prior to beginning treatment.

Ann Partridge, MD, of Dana-Farber, said in an interview that the findings reflected a decades’ long change in approach. “Twenty years ago when we first started this cohort, people would tell women ‘you can’t get pregnant. It’s too dangerous. You won’t be able to.’ And some indeed aren’t able to, but the majority who are attempting are succeeding, especially if they preserve their eggs or embryos. So even if chemo puts you into menopause or made you subfertile, if you’ve preserved eggs or embryos, we now can mitigate that distressing effect that many cancer patients have suffered from historically. That’s the good news here.”

Nonetheless, Dr. Partridge, an oncologist and the last author of the study, noted, the results reflected success only for women actively attempting pregnancy. “Remember, we’re not including the people who didn’t attempt. There may be some who went into menopause who never banked eggs or embryos, and may never have tried because they went to a doctor who told them they’re not fertile.” Further, she said, not all insurances cover in vitro fertilization for women who have had breast cancer.

The fact that financial comfort was correlated with reproductive success, Dr. Partridge said, speaks to broader issues about access. “It may not be all about insurers. It may be to have the ability, to have the time, the education and the wherewithal to do this right — and about being with doctors who talk about it.”

Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ study was sponsored by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Susan G. Komen. Several co-authors disclosed receiving speaking and/or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies, and one reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Sorouri reported no industry funding, while Dr. Partridge reported research funding from Novartis.

Most younger women diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer will succeed if they attempt to become pregnant after treatment, according to new research.

The findings, presented May 23 in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) represent the most comprehensive look to date at fertility outcomes following treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 (Abstract 1518).

Kimia Sorouri, MD, a research fellow at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleagues, looked at data from the Young Women’s Breast Cancer study, a multicenter longitudinal cohort study, for 1213 U.S. and Canadian women (74% non-Hispanic white) who were diagnosed with stages 0-III breast cancer between 2006 and 2016. None of the included patients had metastatic disease, prior hysterectomy, or prior oophorectomy at diagnosis.

During a median 11 years of follow up, 197 of the women reported attempting pregnancy. Of these, 73% reported becoming pregnant, and 65% delivered a live infant a median 4 years after cancer diagnosis. The median age at diagnosis was 32 years, and 28% opted for egg or embryo freezing to preserve fertility. Importantly, 68% received chemotherapy, which can impair fertility, with only a small percentage undergoing ovarian suppression during chemotherapy treatment.

Key predictors of pregnancy or live birth in this study were “financial comfort,” a self-reported measure defined as having money left over to spend after bills are paid (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% CI 1.01-4.12; P = .047); younger age at the time of diagnosis; and undergoing fertility preservation interventions at diagnosis (OR, 2.78; 95% CI 1.29-6.00; P = .009). Chemotherapy and other treatment factors were not seen to be associated with pregnancy or birth outcomes.

“Current research that informs our understanding of the impact of breast cancer treatment on pregnancy and live birth rates is fairly limited,” Dr. Sorouri said during an online press conference announcing the findings. Quality data on fertility outcomes has been limited to studies in certain subgroups, such as women with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, she noted, while other studies “have short-term follow-up and critically lack prospective assessment of attempt at conception.”

The new findings show, Dr. Sorouri said, “that in this modern cohort with a heightened awareness of fertility, access to fertility preservation can help to mitigate a portion of the damage from chemotherapy and other agents. Importantly, this highlights the need for increased accessibility of fertility preservation services for women newly diagnosed with breast cancer who are interested in a future pregnancy.”

Commenting on Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ findings, Julie Gralow, MD, a breast cancer researcher and ASCO’s chief medical officer, stressed that, while younger age at diagnosis and financial comfort were two factors outside the scope of clinical oncology practice, “we can impact fertility preservation prior to treatment.”

She called it “critical” that every patient be informed of the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment on future fertility, and that all young patients interested in future fertility be offered fertility preservation prior to beginning treatment.

Ann Partridge, MD, of Dana-Farber, said in an interview that the findings reflected a decades’ long change in approach. “Twenty years ago when we first started this cohort, people would tell women ‘you can’t get pregnant. It’s too dangerous. You won’t be able to.’ And some indeed aren’t able to, but the majority who are attempting are succeeding, especially if they preserve their eggs or embryos. So even if chemo puts you into menopause or made you subfertile, if you’ve preserved eggs or embryos, we now can mitigate that distressing effect that many cancer patients have suffered from historically. That’s the good news here.”

Nonetheless, Dr. Partridge, an oncologist and the last author of the study, noted, the results reflected success only for women actively attempting pregnancy. “Remember, we’re not including the people who didn’t attempt. There may be some who went into menopause who never banked eggs or embryos, and may never have tried because they went to a doctor who told them they’re not fertile.” Further, she said, not all insurances cover in vitro fertilization for women who have had breast cancer.

The fact that financial comfort was correlated with reproductive success, Dr. Partridge said, speaks to broader issues about access. “It may not be all about insurers. It may be to have the ability, to have the time, the education and the wherewithal to do this right — and about being with doctors who talk about it.”

Dr. Sorouri and colleagues’ study was sponsored by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Susan G. Komen. Several co-authors disclosed receiving speaking and/or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies, and one reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Sorouri reported no industry funding, while Dr. Partridge reported research funding from Novartis.

Sexual harassment, bullying, and gender bias are still very real occupational hazards for ob.gyn. trainees and practitioners alike — even in this female-dominated field, a systematic evidence review found.

Published in JAMA Network Open, by Ankita Gupta, MD, MPH, a urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery specialist at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, and colleagues, the analysis found rates as high as 71% for sexual harassment, coercion, or unwanted advances. It also noted high rates of bullying, gender bias, and microaggressions. “We were struck by the continued high rates of harassment,” Dr. Gupta said in an interview. “Much of the literature within academic medicine has suggested the unequal distribution of women among medical specialties is the cause of sexual and gender harassment, but despite ob.gyns. being overwhelmingly female, we found that gender bias continues to occur at alarmingly high rates.”

Furthermore, among studies where this was reported, almost 25% of respondents had experienced sexual coercion. Not unexpectedly, this mistreatment often went unreported to institutional leadership out of fear of retaliation.

“We were also surprised to find a high rate of 51% for sexual harassment among male respondents as well, suggesting that both gender and power dynamics play a role in harassment,” Dr. Gupta said.

The primary perpetrators of unwanted behaviors were other doctors, overwhelmingly attending physicians, although residents and fellows were also identified as perpetrators, especially when harassment was reported by medical students, she added. “This once again points to the underreported abuse of professional power.” Women were rarely the perpetrators — just 10% — although they were the perpetrators in 57.7% of cases when the victim was male.

“Another interesting aspect of this is gender bias and microaggressions in the operating room,” she continued. While female surgeons often experience bias coming from OR staff, the review found that 94.4% of female ob.gyns. had been mistaken for non-physicians, 88.9% had pre-apologized for asking for something from a surgical technician or nurse, and 83.3% needed to make such requests multiple times. “These instances demonstrate gender bias in both male and female operating room staff toward female ob.gyns.”

Undermining and bullying behaviors are common in surgical specialties, Dr. Gupta explained, and the tantrums, swearing, and humiliation of trainees may be considered as much a rite of passage as the long hours. “As a trainee, you are taught to ignore such behavior as reporting it comes with fear of repercussions.”

This review bore this out, with only 8%-12% of respondents across studies reporting harassment and then predominantly to another trainee. “Sexual harassment and microaggressions can further lead to loss of career opportunities and burnout and I have come across many ob.gyns. who have chosen alternate paths owing to negative experiences,” Dr. Gupta said.

The Analysis

A joint effort by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and the and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, the analysis looked at existing literature from inception through June 2023.

A total of 10 eligible studies with 5852 participants addressed prevalence and 12 eligible studies in 2906 participants addressed interventions. Among the findings across different studies:

• Sexual harassment was noted by 250 of 907 physicians (27.6%) and 181 of 255 female gynecologic oncologists (70.9%).
• Workplace discrimination ranged from 142 of 249 female gynecologic oncologists (57.0%) to 354 of 527 female gynecologic oncologists (67.2%); among male gynecologic oncologists 138 of 358 (38.5%) reported discrimination.
• Bullying was reported by 131 of 248 female gynecologic oncologists (52.8%).
• Ob.gyn. trainees commonly experienced sexual harassment: 253 of 366 respondents (69.1%); this included gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion.
• Mistreatment of medical students during ob.gyn. rotation was indicated by 168 of 668 (25.1%).
• Perpetrators of harassment included physicians (30.1%), other trainees (13.1%), and OR staff (7.7%).

These findings are consistent with those of other recent investigations. A systematic review from 2022 found that 25% of ob.gyn., 32% of general surgery, and 21% of medical interns and students reported bullying .

In another 2022 review, in which ob.gyn. program directors were mainly women and department chairs mainly men, the prevalence of sexual harassment did not differ based on the gender of program directors and chairs.

A study from 2021 reported that 27% of academic surgical trainees, including ob.gyns., reported sexual harassment.

Going back to 2004, a study across multiple medical specialties found that ob.gyn. was second only to general surgery as the specialty associated with the highest rates of sexual harassment.

Despite institutional anti-discrimination policies, real-life interventions seem ineffective. “Disappointingly, we found that most interventions to address harassment had not been appropriately evaluated and did not show a decrease in sexual harassment,” Dr. Gupta said. “Interventions that were successful in reducing mistreatment of trainees required institutional buy-in at multiple levels, including leadership, management, and administration,” she said.

Multi-pronged strategies might include providing tools to educate healthcare staff about harassment and empowering bystanders to intervene when encountering such situations. “Further, independent offices where all complaints are evaluated by an intermediary third party and requiring professionalism to be a criterion for promotion criterion can be useful strategies,” she said.

She noted that residents may model harassing behavior perpetrated by senior attending physicians, thereby creating a cycle of mistreatment. “Equipping clinicians to be better surgical educators, providing clinical support, and modeling positive behavior may help disrupt the culture of harassment.” While the best solutions may be unclear, it is clear that much work remains to be done before the ob.gyn. working environment catches up to official institutional anti-discrimination policies.

This study was supported by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. Dr. Gupta disclosed no competing interests. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical or biomedical companies.

Sexual harassment, bullying, and gender bias are still very real occupational hazards for ob.gyn. trainees and practitioners alike — even in this female-dominated field, a systematic evidence review found.

Published in JAMA Network Open, by Ankita Gupta, MD, MPH, a urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery specialist at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, and colleagues, the analysis found rates as high as 71% for sexual harassment, coercion, or unwanted advances. It also noted high rates of bullying, gender bias, and microaggressions. “We were struck by the continued high rates of harassment,” Dr. Gupta said in an interview. “Much of the literature within academic medicine has suggested the unequal distribution of women among medical specialties is the cause of sexual and gender harassment, but despite ob.gyns. being overwhelmingly female, we found that gender bias continues to occur at alarmingly high rates.”

Furthermore, among studies where this was reported, almost 25% of respondents had experienced sexual coercion. Not unexpectedly, this mistreatment often went unreported to institutional leadership out of fear of retaliation.

“We were also surprised to find a high rate of 51% for sexual harassment among male respondents as well, suggesting that both gender and power dynamics play a role in harassment,” Dr. Gupta said.

The primary perpetrators of unwanted behaviors were other doctors, overwhelmingly attending physicians, although residents and fellows were also identified as perpetrators, especially when harassment was reported by medical students, she added. “This once again points to the underreported abuse of professional power.” Women were rarely the perpetrators — just 10% — although they were the perpetrators in 57.7% of cases when the victim was male.

“Another interesting aspect of this is gender bias and microaggressions in the operating room,” she continued. While female surgeons often experience bias coming from OR staff, the review found that 94.4% of female ob.gyns. had been mistaken for non-physicians, 88.9% had pre-apologized for asking for something from a surgical technician or nurse, and 83.3% needed to make such requests multiple times. “These instances demonstrate gender bias in both male and female operating room staff toward female ob.gyns.”

Undermining and bullying behaviors are common in surgical specialties, Dr. Gupta explained, and the tantrums, swearing, and humiliation of trainees may be considered as much a rite of passage as the long hours. “As a trainee, you are taught to ignore such behavior as reporting it comes with fear of repercussions.”

This review bore this out, with only 8%-12% of respondents across studies reporting harassment and then predominantly to another trainee. “Sexual harassment and microaggressions can further lead to loss of career opportunities and burnout and I have come across many ob.gyns. who have chosen alternate paths owing to negative experiences,” Dr. Gupta said.

The Analysis

A joint effort by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and the and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, the analysis looked at existing literature from inception through June 2023.

A total of 10 eligible studies with 5852 participants addressed prevalence and 12 eligible studies in 2906 participants addressed interventions. Among the findings across different studies:

• Sexual harassment was noted by 250 of 907 physicians (27.6%) and 181 of 255 female gynecologic oncologists (70.9%).
• Workplace discrimination ranged from 142 of 249 female gynecologic oncologists (57.0%) to 354 of 527 female gynecologic oncologists (67.2%); among male gynecologic oncologists 138 of 358 (38.5%) reported discrimination.
• Bullying was reported by 131 of 248 female gynecologic oncologists (52.8%).
• Ob.gyn. trainees commonly experienced sexual harassment: 253 of 366 respondents (69.1%); this included gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion.
• Mistreatment of medical students during ob.gyn. rotation was indicated by 168 of 668 (25.1%).
• Perpetrators of harassment included physicians (30.1%), other trainees (13.1%), and OR staff (7.7%).

These findings are consistent with those of other recent investigations. A systematic review from 2022 found that 25% of ob.gyn., 32% of general surgery, and 21% of medical interns and students reported bullying .

In another 2022 review, in which ob.gyn. program directors were mainly women and department chairs mainly men, the prevalence of sexual harassment did not differ based on the gender of program directors and chairs.

A study from 2021 reported that 27% of academic surgical trainees, including ob.gyns., reported sexual harassment.

Going back to 2004, a study across multiple medical specialties found that ob.gyn. was second only to general surgery as the specialty associated with the highest rates of sexual harassment.

Despite institutional anti-discrimination policies, real-life interventions seem ineffective. “Disappointingly, we found that most interventions to address harassment had not been appropriately evaluated and did not show a decrease in sexual harassment,” Dr. Gupta said. “Interventions that were successful in reducing mistreatment of trainees required institutional buy-in at multiple levels, including leadership, management, and administration,” she said.

Multi-pronged strategies might include providing tools to educate healthcare staff about harassment and empowering bystanders to intervene when encountering such situations. “Further, independent offices where all complaints are evaluated by an intermediary third party and requiring professionalism to be a criterion for promotion criterion can be useful strategies,” she said.

She noted that residents may model harassing behavior perpetrated by senior attending physicians, thereby creating a cycle of mistreatment. “Equipping clinicians to be better surgical educators, providing clinical support, and modeling positive behavior may help disrupt the culture of harassment.” While the best solutions may be unclear, it is clear that much work remains to be done before the ob.gyn. working environment catches up to official institutional anti-discrimination policies.

This study was supported by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. Dr. Gupta disclosed no competing interests. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical or biomedical companies.

Sexual harassment, bullying, and gender bias are still very real occupational hazards for ob.gyn. trainees and practitioners alike — even in this female-dominated field, a systematic evidence review found.

Published in JAMA Network Open, by Ankita Gupta, MD, MPH, a urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery specialist at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, and colleagues, the analysis found rates as high as 71% for sexual harassment, coercion, or unwanted advances. It also noted high rates of bullying, gender bias, and microaggressions. “We were struck by the continued high rates of harassment,” Dr. Gupta said in an interview. “Much of the literature within academic medicine has suggested the unequal distribution of women among medical specialties is the cause of sexual and gender harassment, but despite ob.gyns. being overwhelmingly female, we found that gender bias continues to occur at alarmingly high rates.”

Furthermore, among studies where this was reported, almost 25% of respondents had experienced sexual coercion. Not unexpectedly, this mistreatment often went unreported to institutional leadership out of fear of retaliation.

“We were also surprised to find a high rate of 51% for sexual harassment among male respondents as well, suggesting that both gender and power dynamics play a role in harassment,” Dr. Gupta said.

The primary perpetrators of unwanted behaviors were other doctors, overwhelmingly attending physicians, although residents and fellows were also identified as perpetrators, especially when harassment was reported by medical students, she added. “This once again points to the underreported abuse of professional power.” Women were rarely the perpetrators — just 10% — although they were the perpetrators in 57.7% of cases when the victim was male.

“Another interesting aspect of this is gender bias and microaggressions in the operating room,” she continued. While female surgeons often experience bias coming from OR staff, the review found that 94.4% of female ob.gyns. had been mistaken for non-physicians, 88.9% had pre-apologized for asking for something from a surgical technician or nurse, and 83.3% needed to make such requests multiple times. “These instances demonstrate gender bias in both male and female operating room staff toward female ob.gyns.”

Undermining and bullying behaviors are common in surgical specialties, Dr. Gupta explained, and the tantrums, swearing, and humiliation of trainees may be considered as much a rite of passage as the long hours. “As a trainee, you are taught to ignore such behavior as reporting it comes with fear of repercussions.”

This review bore this out, with only 8%-12% of respondents across studies reporting harassment and then predominantly to another trainee. “Sexual harassment and microaggressions can further lead to loss of career opportunities and burnout and I have come across many ob.gyns. who have chosen alternate paths owing to negative experiences,” Dr. Gupta said.

The Analysis

A joint effort by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and the and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, the analysis looked at existing literature from inception through June 2023.

A total of 10 eligible studies with 5852 participants addressed prevalence and 12 eligible studies in 2906 participants addressed interventions. Among the findings across different studies:

• Sexual harassment was noted by 250 of 907 physicians (27.6%) and 181 of 255 female gynecologic oncologists (70.9%).
• Workplace discrimination ranged from 142 of 249 female gynecologic oncologists (57.0%) to 354 of 527 female gynecologic oncologists (67.2%); among male gynecologic oncologists 138 of 358 (38.5%) reported discrimination.
• Bullying was reported by 131 of 248 female gynecologic oncologists (52.8%).
• Ob.gyn. trainees commonly experienced sexual harassment: 253 of 366 respondents (69.1%); this included gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion.
• Mistreatment of medical students during ob.gyn. rotation was indicated by 168 of 668 (25.1%).
• Perpetrators of harassment included physicians (30.1%), other trainees (13.1%), and OR staff (7.7%).

These findings are consistent with those of other recent investigations. A systematic review from 2022 found that 25% of ob.gyn., 32% of general surgery, and 21% of medical interns and students reported bullying .

In another 2022 review, in which ob.gyn. program directors were mainly women and department chairs mainly men, the prevalence of sexual harassment did not differ based on the gender of program directors and chairs.

A study from 2021 reported that 27% of academic surgical trainees, including ob.gyns., reported sexual harassment.

Going back to 2004, a study across multiple medical specialties found that ob.gyn. was second only to general surgery as the specialty associated with the highest rates of sexual harassment.

Despite institutional anti-discrimination policies, real-life interventions seem ineffective. “Disappointingly, we found that most interventions to address harassment had not been appropriately evaluated and did not show a decrease in sexual harassment,” Dr. Gupta said. “Interventions that were successful in reducing mistreatment of trainees required institutional buy-in at multiple levels, including leadership, management, and administration,” she said.

Multi-pronged strategies might include providing tools to educate healthcare staff about harassment and empowering bystanders to intervene when encountering such situations. “Further, independent offices where all complaints are evaluated by an intermediary third party and requiring professionalism to be a criterion for promotion criterion can be useful strategies,” she said.

She noted that residents may model harassing behavior perpetrated by senior attending physicians, thereby creating a cycle of mistreatment. “Equipping clinicians to be better surgical educators, providing clinical support, and modeling positive behavior may help disrupt the culture of harassment.” While the best solutions may be unclear, it is clear that much work remains to be done before the ob.gyn. working environment catches up to official institutional anti-discrimination policies.

This study was supported by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. Dr. Gupta disclosed no competing interests. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical or biomedical companies.

TOPLINE:

Vaginal estrogen therapy does not increase the risk for recurrence in women with hormone receptor (HR)–negative breast cancer or in those with HR–positive tumors concurrently treated with tamoxifen but should be avoided in aromatase inhibitor users, a French study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Survivors of breast cancer often experience genitourinary symptoms due to declining estrogen levels. Vaginal estrogen therapies, including estriol and promestriene (3-propyl ethyl, 17B-methyl estradiol), can prevent these symptoms, but the effect on breast cancer outcomes remains uncertain.
• Researchers used French insurance claims data to emulate a target trial assessing the effect of initiating vaginal estrogen therapy — any molecule, promestriene, or estriol — on disease-free survival in survivors of breast cancer.
• Patients included in the study had a median age of 54 years; 85% were HR-positive, and 15% were HR–negative. The researchers conducted subgroup analyses based on HR status and endocrine therapy regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 134,942 unique patients, 1739 started vaginal estrogen therapy — 56%, promestriene; 34%, estriol; and 10%, both. 
• Initiation of vaginal estrogen therapy led to a modest decrease in disease-free survival in patients with HR–positive tumors (−2.1 percentage point at 5 years), particularly in those concurrently treated with an aromatase inhibitor (−3.0 percentage points).
• No decrease in disease-free survival was observed in patients with HR–negative tumors or in those treated with tamoxifen.
• In aromatase inhibitor users, starting estriol led to a “more severe and premature” decrease in disease-free survival (−4.2 percentage point after 3 years) compared with initiating promestriene (1.0 percentage point difference at 3 years).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study addresses a very important survivorship issue — sexual dysfunction in cancer patients — which is associated with anxiety and depression and should be considered a crucial component of survivorship care,” said study discussant Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, with University of Genova, Genova, Italy.

Our results suggest that using vaginal estrogen therapy “is safe in individuals with HR-negative tumors and in those concurrently treated with tamoxifen,” said study presenter Elise Dumas, PhD, with Institut Curie, Paris, France. For breast cancer survivors treated with aromatase inhibitors, vaginal estrogen therapy should be avoided as much as possible, but promestriene is preferred over estriol in this subgroup of patients.

SOURCE:

The research (Abstract 268MO) was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer 2024 Annual Congress on May 17, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were discussed in the presentation.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding was provided by Monoprix and the French National Cancer Institute. Dumas declared no conflicts of interest. Lambertini has financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies including Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, and others.

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

TOPLINE:

Vaginal estrogen therapy does not increase the risk for recurrence in women with hormone receptor (HR)–negative breast cancer or in those with HR–positive tumors concurrently treated with tamoxifen but should be avoided in aromatase inhibitor users, a French study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Survivors of breast cancer often experience genitourinary symptoms due to declining estrogen levels. Vaginal estrogen therapies, including estriol and promestriene (3-propyl ethyl, 17B-methyl estradiol), can prevent these symptoms, but the effect on breast cancer outcomes remains uncertain.
• Researchers used French insurance claims data to emulate a target trial assessing the effect of initiating vaginal estrogen therapy — any molecule, promestriene, or estriol — on disease-free survival in survivors of breast cancer.
• Patients included in the study had a median age of 54 years; 85% were HR-positive, and 15% were HR–negative. The researchers conducted subgroup analyses based on HR status and endocrine therapy regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 134,942 unique patients, 1739 started vaginal estrogen therapy — 56%, promestriene; 34%, estriol; and 10%, both. 
• Initiation of vaginal estrogen therapy led to a modest decrease in disease-free survival in patients with HR–positive tumors (−2.1 percentage point at 5 years), particularly in those concurrently treated with an aromatase inhibitor (−3.0 percentage points).
• No decrease in disease-free survival was observed in patients with HR–negative tumors or in those treated with tamoxifen.
• In aromatase inhibitor users, starting estriol led to a “more severe and premature” decrease in disease-free survival (−4.2 percentage point after 3 years) compared with initiating promestriene (1.0 percentage point difference at 3 years).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study addresses a very important survivorship issue — sexual dysfunction in cancer patients — which is associated with anxiety and depression and should be considered a crucial component of survivorship care,” said study discussant Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, with University of Genova, Genova, Italy.

Our results suggest that using vaginal estrogen therapy “is safe in individuals with HR-negative tumors and in those concurrently treated with tamoxifen,” said study presenter Elise Dumas, PhD, with Institut Curie, Paris, France. For breast cancer survivors treated with aromatase inhibitors, vaginal estrogen therapy should be avoided as much as possible, but promestriene is preferred over estriol in this subgroup of patients.

SOURCE:

The research (Abstract 268MO) was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer 2024 Annual Congress on May 17, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were discussed in the presentation.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding was provided by Monoprix and the French National Cancer Institute. Dumas declared no conflicts of interest. Lambertini has financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies including Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, and others.

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

TOPLINE:

Vaginal estrogen therapy does not increase the risk for recurrence in women with hormone receptor (HR)–negative breast cancer or in those with HR–positive tumors concurrently treated with tamoxifen but should be avoided in aromatase inhibitor users, a French study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Survivors of breast cancer often experience genitourinary symptoms due to declining estrogen levels. Vaginal estrogen therapies, including estriol and promestriene (3-propyl ethyl, 17B-methyl estradiol), can prevent these symptoms, but the effect on breast cancer outcomes remains uncertain.
• Researchers used French insurance claims data to emulate a target trial assessing the effect of initiating vaginal estrogen therapy — any molecule, promestriene, or estriol — on disease-free survival in survivors of breast cancer.
• Patients included in the study had a median age of 54 years; 85% were HR-positive, and 15% were HR–negative. The researchers conducted subgroup analyses based on HR status and endocrine therapy regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 134,942 unique patients, 1739 started vaginal estrogen therapy — 56%, promestriene; 34%, estriol; and 10%, both. 
• Initiation of vaginal estrogen therapy led to a modest decrease in disease-free survival in patients with HR–positive tumors (−2.1 percentage point at 5 years), particularly in those concurrently treated with an aromatase inhibitor (−3.0 percentage points).
• No decrease in disease-free survival was observed in patients with HR–negative tumors or in those treated with tamoxifen.
• In aromatase inhibitor users, starting estriol led to a “more severe and premature” decrease in disease-free survival (−4.2 percentage point after 3 years) compared with initiating promestriene (1.0 percentage point difference at 3 years).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study addresses a very important survivorship issue — sexual dysfunction in cancer patients — which is associated with anxiety and depression and should be considered a crucial component of survivorship care,” said study discussant Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, with University of Genova, Genova, Italy.

Our results suggest that using vaginal estrogen therapy “is safe in individuals with HR-negative tumors and in those concurrently treated with tamoxifen,” said study presenter Elise Dumas, PhD, with Institut Curie, Paris, France. For breast cancer survivors treated with aromatase inhibitors, vaginal estrogen therapy should be avoided as much as possible, but promestriene is preferred over estriol in this subgroup of patients.

SOURCE:

The research (Abstract 268MO) was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer 2024 Annual Congress on May 17, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were discussed in the presentation.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding was provided by Monoprix and the French National Cancer Institute. Dumas declared no conflicts of interest. Lambertini has financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies including Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, and others.

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

SAN FRANCISCO — Primary care providers placed contraceptive intrauterine devices (IUDs) incorrectly nearly twice as often as ob.gyn. providers at a single institution, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Adequate training for providers regarding proper techniques for IUD insertion is imperative for good clinical practice, patient satisfaction, and effectiveness of the LARC [long-acting reversible contraceptive],” Kerrilyn Hewell, MD, a fourth-year resident ob.gyn. at Southern Illinois University in Springfield, reported. “Primary care providers are often seen for contraception management. Therefore, the significantly higher malpositioned rate indicates the need to implement an enhanced simulation/education curriculum for IUD insertion.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor and chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, was not involved in the study but said it was not surprising.

“The reasons for obtaining an ultrasound are not discussed in the abstract, so the primary care physicians may have found more problems by ordering more ultrasounds,” Dr. Ault told this news organization. “The takeaway would be to order an ultrasound if you are unsure of placement of the IUD. Malpositioned IUDs may be at risk for expulsion and women may be at risk for unplanned pregnancy.”

The researchers conducted a retrospective review of all adult women’s ultrasounds from the ob.gyn. department of the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine between 2017 and 2020 in which an IUD was documented. Two physicians certified by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine interpreted the images to determine whether the IUD was positioned correctly.

Among 602 ultrasounds included, 562 of the IUDs were placed by an ob.gyn., and 40 were placed by a primary care provider. Most of the IUDs were properly positioned (82%) while 18% were malpositioned. When the researchers compared positioning by specialty, they found that 30% of the malpositioned IUDs had been placed by primary care providers, compared to 17% of malpositioned IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. (P = .043).

The most common type of malpositioning was placement low in the cervix (40.4%) or low but not in the cervix (25.7%). Other types of malpositioning included a deviated axis, the device being inverted or transverse, the IUD arms being folded, the device being embedded, or the device placed outside the uterus.

Of the 136 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. resident, 17% were malpositioned. Only 6 IUDs had been placed by a primary care resident, and one was malpositioned. Among midlevel providers, 17% of 78 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 33% (5) of 15 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned. Among attending physicians, 18% of the 348 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 30% of the 40 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned.

No external funding was noted, and the authors and Dr. Ault had no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO — Primary care providers placed contraceptive intrauterine devices (IUDs) incorrectly nearly twice as often as ob.gyn. providers at a single institution, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Adequate training for providers regarding proper techniques for IUD insertion is imperative for good clinical practice, patient satisfaction, and effectiveness of the LARC [long-acting reversible contraceptive],” Kerrilyn Hewell, MD, a fourth-year resident ob.gyn. at Southern Illinois University in Springfield, reported. “Primary care providers are often seen for contraception management. Therefore, the significantly higher malpositioned rate indicates the need to implement an enhanced simulation/education curriculum for IUD insertion.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor and chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, was not involved in the study but said it was not surprising.

“The reasons for obtaining an ultrasound are not discussed in the abstract, so the primary care physicians may have found more problems by ordering more ultrasounds,” Dr. Ault told this news organization. “The takeaway would be to order an ultrasound if you are unsure of placement of the IUD. Malpositioned IUDs may be at risk for expulsion and women may be at risk for unplanned pregnancy.”

The researchers conducted a retrospective review of all adult women’s ultrasounds from the ob.gyn. department of the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine between 2017 and 2020 in which an IUD was documented. Two physicians certified by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine interpreted the images to determine whether the IUD was positioned correctly.

Among 602 ultrasounds included, 562 of the IUDs were placed by an ob.gyn., and 40 were placed by a primary care provider. Most of the IUDs were properly positioned (82%) while 18% were malpositioned. When the researchers compared positioning by specialty, they found that 30% of the malpositioned IUDs had been placed by primary care providers, compared to 17% of malpositioned IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. (P = .043).

The most common type of malpositioning was placement low in the cervix (40.4%) or low but not in the cervix (25.7%). Other types of malpositioning included a deviated axis, the device being inverted or transverse, the IUD arms being folded, the device being embedded, or the device placed outside the uterus.

Of the 136 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. resident, 17% were malpositioned. Only 6 IUDs had been placed by a primary care resident, and one was malpositioned. Among midlevel providers, 17% of 78 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 33% (5) of 15 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned. Among attending physicians, 18% of the 348 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 30% of the 40 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned.

No external funding was noted, and the authors and Dr. Ault had no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO — Primary care providers placed contraceptive intrauterine devices (IUDs) incorrectly nearly twice as often as ob.gyn. providers at a single institution, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Adequate training for providers regarding proper techniques for IUD insertion is imperative for good clinical practice, patient satisfaction, and effectiveness of the LARC [long-acting reversible contraceptive],” Kerrilyn Hewell, MD, a fourth-year resident ob.gyn. at Southern Illinois University in Springfield, reported. “Primary care providers are often seen for contraception management. Therefore, the significantly higher malpositioned rate indicates the need to implement an enhanced simulation/education curriculum for IUD insertion.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor and chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, was not involved in the study but said it was not surprising.

“The reasons for obtaining an ultrasound are not discussed in the abstract, so the primary care physicians may have found more problems by ordering more ultrasounds,” Dr. Ault told this news organization. “The takeaway would be to order an ultrasound if you are unsure of placement of the IUD. Malpositioned IUDs may be at risk for expulsion and women may be at risk for unplanned pregnancy.”

The researchers conducted a retrospective review of all adult women’s ultrasounds from the ob.gyn. department of the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine between 2017 and 2020 in which an IUD was documented. Two physicians certified by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine interpreted the images to determine whether the IUD was positioned correctly.

Among 602 ultrasounds included, 562 of the IUDs were placed by an ob.gyn., and 40 were placed by a primary care provider. Most of the IUDs were properly positioned (82%) while 18% were malpositioned. When the researchers compared positioning by specialty, they found that 30% of the malpositioned IUDs had been placed by primary care providers, compared to 17% of malpositioned IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. (P = .043).

The most common type of malpositioning was placement low in the cervix (40.4%) or low but not in the cervix (25.7%). Other types of malpositioning included a deviated axis, the device being inverted or transverse, the IUD arms being folded, the device being embedded, or the device placed outside the uterus.

Of the 136 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. resident, 17% were malpositioned. Only 6 IUDs had been placed by a primary care resident, and one was malpositioned. Among midlevel providers, 17% of 78 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 33% (5) of 15 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned. Among attending physicians, 18% of the 348 IUDs placed by an ob.gyn. and 30% of the 40 IUDs placed by a primary care provider were malpositioned.

No external funding was noted, and the authors and Dr. Ault had no disclosures.

Each month I set out on an expedition to find a topic for this column. I came across a new book Rebel Health by Susannah Fox that I thought might be a good one. It’s both a treatise on the shortcomings of healthcare and a Baedeker for patients on how to find their way to being better served. Her argument is that many patients’ needs are unmet and their conditions are often invisible to us in mainstream healthcare. We fail to find solutions to help them. Patients would benefit from more open access to their records and more resources to take control of their own health, she argues. A few chapters in, I thought, “Oh, here we go, another diatribe on doctors and how we care most about how to keep patients in their rightful, subordinate place.” The “Rebel” title is provocative and implies patients need to overthrow the status quo. Well, I am part of the establishment. I stopped reading. This book doesn’t apply to me, I thought.

After all, I’m a healthcare progressive, right? My notes and results have been open for years. I encourage shared decision-making and try to empower patients as much as treat them. The idea that I or my colleagues are unwilling to do whatever is necessary to meet our patients’ needs was maddening. We dedicate our lives to it. My young daughter often greets me in the morning by asking if I’ll be working tonight. Most nights, I am — answering patient messages, collaborating with colleagues to help patients, keeping up with medical knowledge. I was angry at what felt like unjust criticism, especially that we’d neglect patients because their problems are not obvious or worse, there is not enough money to be made helping them. Harrumph.

Kaiser Permanente

That’s when I realized the best thing for me was to read the entire book and digest the arguments. I pride myself on being well-read, but I fall into a common trap: the podcasts I listen to, news I consume, and books I read mostly affirm my beliefs. It is a healthy choice to seek dispositive data and contrasting stories rather than always feeding our personal opinions.

Rebel Health was not written by Robespierre. It was penned by a thoughtful, articulate patient advocate with over 20 years experience. She has far more bona fides than I could achieve in two lifetimes. In the book, she reminds us that scientific advances in the last 100 years have made medicine more effective but also disintermediated caregivers, family, and patients. Patients and caregivers can not only help but also offer innovative and customized solutions to their problems. She describes four patient archetypes: seekers, networkers, solvers, and champions, and offers a four-quadrant model to visualize how some patients are unhelped by our current healthcare system. She advocates for frictionless, open access to health data and tries to inspire patients to connect, innovate, and create to fill the voids that exist in healthcare. We have come a long way from the immured system of a decade ago; much of that is the result of patient advocates. But healthcare is still too costly, too fragmented and too many patients unhelped. “Community is a superpower,” she writes. I agree, we should assemble all the heroes in the universe for this challenge.

Fox also tells stories of patients who solved diagnostic dilemmas through their own research and advocacy. I thought of my own contrasting experiences of patients whose DIY care was based on misinformation and how their false confidence led to poorer outcomes for them. I want to share with her readers how physicians feel hurt when patients question our competence or place the opinion of an adversarial Redditor over ours. Physicians are sometimes wrong and often in doubt. Most of us care deeply about our patients regardless of how visible their diagnosis or how easy they are to appease.

We don’t have time to engage back-and-forth on an insignificantly abnormal test they find in their open chart or why B12 and hormone testing would not be helpful for their disease. It’s also not the patients’ fault. Having unfettered access to their data might add work, but it also adds value. They are trying to learn and be active in their care. Physicians are frustrated mostly because we don’t have time to meet these unmet needs. Everyone is trying their best and we all want the same thing: patients to be satisfied and well.

As for learning the skill of being open-minded, an excellent reference is Adam Grant’s Think Again. It’s inspiring and instructive of how we can all be more open, including how to have productive arguments rather than fruitless fights. We live in divisive times. Perhaps if we all put in effort to be open-minded, push down righteous indignation, and advance more honest humility we’d all be a bit better off.

Patients are the primary audience for the Rebel Health book. Yet, as we care about them and we all want to make healthcare better, it is worth reading in its entirety. I told my daughter I don’t have to work tonight because I’ve written my article this month. When she’s a little older, I’ll tell her all about it. To be successful, she’ll have to be as open-minded as she is smart. She can learn both.

I have no conflict of interest in the book.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Each month I set out on an expedition to find a topic for this column. I came across a new book Rebel Health by Susannah Fox that I thought might be a good one. It’s both a treatise on the shortcomings of healthcare and a Baedeker for patients on how to find their way to being better served. Her argument is that many patients’ needs are unmet and their conditions are often invisible to us in mainstream healthcare. We fail to find solutions to help them. Patients would benefit from more open access to their records and more resources to take control of their own health, she argues. A few chapters in, I thought, “Oh, here we go, another diatribe on doctors and how we care most about how to keep patients in their rightful, subordinate place.” The “Rebel” title is provocative and implies patients need to overthrow the status quo. Well, I am part of the establishment. I stopped reading. This book doesn’t apply to me, I thought.

After all, I’m a healthcare progressive, right? My notes and results have been open for years. I encourage shared decision-making and try to empower patients as much as treat them. The idea that I or my colleagues are unwilling to do whatever is necessary to meet our patients’ needs was maddening. We dedicate our lives to it. My young daughter often greets me in the morning by asking if I’ll be working tonight. Most nights, I am — answering patient messages, collaborating with colleagues to help patients, keeping up with medical knowledge. I was angry at what felt like unjust criticism, especially that we’d neglect patients because their problems are not obvious or worse, there is not enough money to be made helping them. Harrumph.

Kaiser Permanente

That’s when I realized the best thing for me was to read the entire book and digest the arguments. I pride myself on being well-read, but I fall into a common trap: the podcasts I listen to, news I consume, and books I read mostly affirm my beliefs. It is a healthy choice to seek dispositive data and contrasting stories rather than always feeding our personal opinions.

Rebel Health was not written by Robespierre. It was penned by a thoughtful, articulate patient advocate with over 20 years experience. She has far more bona fides than I could achieve in two lifetimes. In the book, she reminds us that scientific advances in the last 100 years have made medicine more effective but also disintermediated caregivers, family, and patients. Patients and caregivers can not only help but also offer innovative and customized solutions to their problems. She describes four patient archetypes: seekers, networkers, solvers, and champions, and offers a four-quadrant model to visualize how some patients are unhelped by our current healthcare system. She advocates for frictionless, open access to health data and tries to inspire patients to connect, innovate, and create to fill the voids that exist in healthcare. We have come a long way from the immured system of a decade ago; much of that is the result of patient advocates. But healthcare is still too costly, too fragmented and too many patients unhelped. “Community is a superpower,” she writes. I agree, we should assemble all the heroes in the universe for this challenge.

Fox also tells stories of patients who solved diagnostic dilemmas through their own research and advocacy. I thought of my own contrasting experiences of patients whose DIY care was based on misinformation and how their false confidence led to poorer outcomes for them. I want to share with her readers how physicians feel hurt when patients question our competence or place the opinion of an adversarial Redditor over ours. Physicians are sometimes wrong and often in doubt. Most of us care deeply about our patients regardless of how visible their diagnosis or how easy they are to appease.

We don’t have time to engage back-and-forth on an insignificantly abnormal test they find in their open chart or why B12 and hormone testing would not be helpful for their disease. It’s also not the patients’ fault. Having unfettered access to their data might add work, but it also adds value. They are trying to learn and be active in their care. Physicians are frustrated mostly because we don’t have time to meet these unmet needs. Everyone is trying their best and we all want the same thing: patients to be satisfied and well.

As for learning the skill of being open-minded, an excellent reference is Adam Grant’s Think Again. It’s inspiring and instructive of how we can all be more open, including how to have productive arguments rather than fruitless fights. We live in divisive times. Perhaps if we all put in effort to be open-minded, push down righteous indignation, and advance more honest humility we’d all be a bit better off.

Patients are the primary audience for the Rebel Health book. Yet, as we care about them and we all want to make healthcare better, it is worth reading in its entirety. I told my daughter I don’t have to work tonight because I’ve written my article this month. When she’s a little older, I’ll tell her all about it. To be successful, she’ll have to be as open-minded as she is smart. She can learn both.

I have no conflict of interest in the book.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Each month I set out on an expedition to find a topic for this column. I came across a new book Rebel Health by Susannah Fox that I thought might be a good one. It’s both a treatise on the shortcomings of healthcare and a Baedeker for patients on how to find their way to being better served. Her argument is that many patients’ needs are unmet and their conditions are often invisible to us in mainstream healthcare. We fail to find solutions to help them. Patients would benefit from more open access to their records and more resources to take control of their own health, she argues. A few chapters in, I thought, “Oh, here we go, another diatribe on doctors and how we care most about how to keep patients in their rightful, subordinate place.” The “Rebel” title is provocative and implies patients need to overthrow the status quo. Well, I am part of the establishment. I stopped reading. This book doesn’t apply to me, I thought.

After all, I’m a healthcare progressive, right? My notes and results have been open for years. I encourage shared decision-making and try to empower patients as much as treat them. The idea that I or my colleagues are unwilling to do whatever is necessary to meet our patients’ needs was maddening. We dedicate our lives to it. My young daughter often greets me in the morning by asking if I’ll be working tonight. Most nights, I am — answering patient messages, collaborating with colleagues to help patients, keeping up with medical knowledge. I was angry at what felt like unjust criticism, especially that we’d neglect patients because their problems are not obvious or worse, there is not enough money to be made helping them. Harrumph.

Kaiser Permanente

That’s when I realized the best thing for me was to read the entire book and digest the arguments. I pride myself on being well-read, but I fall into a common trap: the podcasts I listen to, news I consume, and books I read mostly affirm my beliefs. It is a healthy choice to seek dispositive data and contrasting stories rather than always feeding our personal opinions.

Rebel Health was not written by Robespierre. It was penned by a thoughtful, articulate patient advocate with over 20 years experience. She has far more bona fides than I could achieve in two lifetimes. In the book, she reminds us that scientific advances in the last 100 years have made medicine more effective but also disintermediated caregivers, family, and patients. Patients and caregivers can not only help but also offer innovative and customized solutions to their problems. She describes four patient archetypes: seekers, networkers, solvers, and champions, and offers a four-quadrant model to visualize how some patients are unhelped by our current healthcare system. She advocates for frictionless, open access to health data and tries to inspire patients to connect, innovate, and create to fill the voids that exist in healthcare. We have come a long way from the immured system of a decade ago; much of that is the result of patient advocates. But healthcare is still too costly, too fragmented and too many patients unhelped. “Community is a superpower,” she writes. I agree, we should assemble all the heroes in the universe for this challenge.

Fox also tells stories of patients who solved diagnostic dilemmas through their own research and advocacy. I thought of my own contrasting experiences of patients whose DIY care was based on misinformation and how their false confidence led to poorer outcomes for them. I want to share with her readers how physicians feel hurt when patients question our competence or place the opinion of an adversarial Redditor over ours. Physicians are sometimes wrong and often in doubt. Most of us care deeply about our patients regardless of how visible their diagnosis or how easy they are to appease.

We don’t have time to engage back-and-forth on an insignificantly abnormal test they find in their open chart or why B12 and hormone testing would not be helpful for their disease. It’s also not the patients’ fault. Having unfettered access to their data might add work, but it also adds value. They are trying to learn and be active in their care. Physicians are frustrated mostly because we don’t have time to meet these unmet needs. Everyone is trying their best and we all want the same thing: patients to be satisfied and well.

As for learning the skill of being open-minded, an excellent reference is Adam Grant’s Think Again. It’s inspiring and instructive of how we can all be more open, including how to have productive arguments rather than fruitless fights. We live in divisive times. Perhaps if we all put in effort to be open-minded, push down righteous indignation, and advance more honest humility we’d all be a bit better off.

Patients are the primary audience for the Rebel Health book. Yet, as we care about them and we all want to make healthcare better, it is worth reading in its entirety. I told my daughter I don’t have to work tonight because I’ve written my article this month. When she’s a little older, I’ll tell her all about it. To be successful, she’ll have to be as open-minded as she is smart. She can learn both.

I have no conflict of interest in the book.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

The first of May is marked as the World Maternal Mental Health Day, a time for patient groups, medical societies, clinicians, and other colleagues who care for women to highlight maternal mental health and to advocate for increased awareness, enhanced access to care, decrease in stigma, and development of the most effective treatments.

In this spirit, and within the context of greater mental health awareness, I wanted to highlight the ironic dichotomy we see in reproductive psychiatry today. Namely, although we have many useful treatments available in the field to treat maternal psychiatric illness, there are barriers to accessing mental healthcare that prevent women from receiving treatment and getting well.

Thinking back on the last few years from the other side of the pandemic, when COVID concerns turned the experience of motherhood on its side in so many ways, we can only acknowledge that it is an important time in the field of reproductive psychiatry. We have seen not only the development of new pharmacologic (neurosteroids) and nonpharmacologic therapies (transcranial magnetic stimulation, cognitive-behaviorial therapy for perinatal depression), but also the focus on new digital apps for perinatal depression that may be scalable and that may help bridge the voids in access to effective treatment from the most rural to the most urban settings.

In a previous column, I wrote about the potential difficulties of identifying at-risk women with postpartum psychiatric illness, particularly within the context of disparate data collection methods and management of data. Hospital systems that favor paper screening methods rather than digital platforms pose special problems. I also noted an even larger concern: namely, once screened, it can be very challenging to engage women with postpartum depression in treatment, and women may ultimately not navigate to care for a variety of reasons. These components are but one part of the so-called “perinatal treatment cascade.” When we look at access to care, patients would ideally move from depression screening as an example and, following endorsement of significant symptoms, would receive a referral, which would result in the patient being seen, followed up, and getting well. But that is not what is happening.

A recent preliminary study published as a short communication in the Archives of Women’s Mental Health highlighted this issue. The authors used the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to follow symptoms of depression in 145 pregnant women in ob.gyn. services, and found that there were low levels of adherence to psychiatric screenings and referrals in the perinatal period. Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry found 30.8% of women with postpartum depression were identified clinically, 15.8% received treatment, and 3.2% achieved remission. That is the gulf, in 2024, that we have not managed to bridge.

The findings show the difficulty women experience accessing perinatal mental health resources. While we’ve known for a long time that the “perinatal treatment cascade” is real, what we don’t understand are the variables in the mix, particularly for patients in marginalized groups. We also do not know where women fall off the curve with regard to accessing care. In my mind, if we’re going to make a difference, we need to know the answer to that question.

Part of the issue is that the research into understanding why women fall off the curve is incomplete. You cannot simply hand a sheet to a woman with an EPDS score of 12 who’s depressed and has a newborn and expect her to navigate to care. What we should really be doing is investing in care navigation for women.

The situation is analogous to diagnosing and treating cardiac abnormalities in a catheterization laboratory. If a patient has a blocked coronary artery and needs a stent, then they need to go to the cath lab. We haven’t yet figured out the process in reproductive psychiatry to optimize the likelihood that patients will be screened and then referred to receive the best available treatment.

Some of our ob.gyn. colleagues have been working to improve access to perinatal mental health services, such as offering on-site services, and offering training and services to patients and providers on screening, assessment, and treatment. At the Center for Women’s Mental Health, we are conducting the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression study, which is a universal screening and referral program for women at our center. While some progress is being made, there are still far too many women who are falling through the cracks and not receiving the care they need.

It is both ironic and sad that the growing number of available treatments in reproductive psychiatry are scalable, yet we haven’t figured out how to facilitate access to care. While we should be excited about new treatments, we also need to take the time to understand what the barriers are for at-risk women accessing mental healthcare in the postpartum period.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The first of May is marked as the World Maternal Mental Health Day, a time for patient groups, medical societies, clinicians, and other colleagues who care for women to highlight maternal mental health and to advocate for increased awareness, enhanced access to care, decrease in stigma, and development of the most effective treatments.

In this spirit, and within the context of greater mental health awareness, I wanted to highlight the ironic dichotomy we see in reproductive psychiatry today. Namely, although we have many useful treatments available in the field to treat maternal psychiatric illness, there are barriers to accessing mental healthcare that prevent women from receiving treatment and getting well.

Thinking back on the last few years from the other side of the pandemic, when COVID concerns turned the experience of motherhood on its side in so many ways, we can only acknowledge that it is an important time in the field of reproductive psychiatry. We have seen not only the development of new pharmacologic (neurosteroids) and nonpharmacologic therapies (transcranial magnetic stimulation, cognitive-behaviorial therapy for perinatal depression), but also the focus on new digital apps for perinatal depression that may be scalable and that may help bridge the voids in access to effective treatment from the most rural to the most urban settings.

In a previous column, I wrote about the potential difficulties of identifying at-risk women with postpartum psychiatric illness, particularly within the context of disparate data collection methods and management of data. Hospital systems that favor paper screening methods rather than digital platforms pose special problems. I also noted an even larger concern: namely, once screened, it can be very challenging to engage women with postpartum depression in treatment, and women may ultimately not navigate to care for a variety of reasons. These components are but one part of the so-called “perinatal treatment cascade.” When we look at access to care, patients would ideally move from depression screening as an example and, following endorsement of significant symptoms, would receive a referral, which would result in the patient being seen, followed up, and getting well. But that is not what is happening.

A recent preliminary study published as a short communication in the Archives of Women’s Mental Health highlighted this issue. The authors used the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to follow symptoms of depression in 145 pregnant women in ob.gyn. services, and found that there were low levels of adherence to psychiatric screenings and referrals in the perinatal period. Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry found 30.8% of women with postpartum depression were identified clinically, 15.8% received treatment, and 3.2% achieved remission. That is the gulf, in 2024, that we have not managed to bridge.

The findings show the difficulty women experience accessing perinatal mental health resources. While we’ve known for a long time that the “perinatal treatment cascade” is real, what we don’t understand are the variables in the mix, particularly for patients in marginalized groups. We also do not know where women fall off the curve with regard to accessing care. In my mind, if we’re going to make a difference, we need to know the answer to that question.

Part of the issue is that the research into understanding why women fall off the curve is incomplete. You cannot simply hand a sheet to a woman with an EPDS score of 12 who’s depressed and has a newborn and expect her to navigate to care. What we should really be doing is investing in care navigation for women.

The situation is analogous to diagnosing and treating cardiac abnormalities in a catheterization laboratory. If a patient has a blocked coronary artery and needs a stent, then they need to go to the cath lab. We haven’t yet figured out the process in reproductive psychiatry to optimize the likelihood that patients will be screened and then referred to receive the best available treatment.

Some of our ob.gyn. colleagues have been working to improve access to perinatal mental health services, such as offering on-site services, and offering training and services to patients and providers on screening, assessment, and treatment. At the Center for Women’s Mental Health, we are conducting the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression study, which is a universal screening and referral program for women at our center. While some progress is being made, there are still far too many women who are falling through the cracks and not receiving the care they need.

It is both ironic and sad that the growing number of available treatments in reproductive psychiatry are scalable, yet we haven’t figured out how to facilitate access to care. While we should be excited about new treatments, we also need to take the time to understand what the barriers are for at-risk women accessing mental healthcare in the postpartum period.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The first of May is marked as the World Maternal Mental Health Day, a time for patient groups, medical societies, clinicians, and other colleagues who care for women to highlight maternal mental health and to advocate for increased awareness, enhanced access to care, decrease in stigma, and development of the most effective treatments.

In this spirit, and within the context of greater mental health awareness, I wanted to highlight the ironic dichotomy we see in reproductive psychiatry today. Namely, although we have many useful treatments available in the field to treat maternal psychiatric illness, there are barriers to accessing mental healthcare that prevent women from receiving treatment and getting well.

Thinking back on the last few years from the other side of the pandemic, when COVID concerns turned the experience of motherhood on its side in so many ways, we can only acknowledge that it is an important time in the field of reproductive psychiatry. We have seen not only the development of new pharmacologic (neurosteroids) and nonpharmacologic therapies (transcranial magnetic stimulation, cognitive-behaviorial therapy for perinatal depression), but also the focus on new digital apps for perinatal depression that may be scalable and that may help bridge the voids in access to effective treatment from the most rural to the most urban settings.

In a previous column, I wrote about the potential difficulties of identifying at-risk women with postpartum psychiatric illness, particularly within the context of disparate data collection methods and management of data. Hospital systems that favor paper screening methods rather than digital platforms pose special problems. I also noted an even larger concern: namely, once screened, it can be very challenging to engage women with postpartum depression in treatment, and women may ultimately not navigate to care for a variety of reasons. These components are but one part of the so-called “perinatal treatment cascade.” When we look at access to care, patients would ideally move from depression screening as an example and, following endorsement of significant symptoms, would receive a referral, which would result in the patient being seen, followed up, and getting well. But that is not what is happening.

A recent preliminary study published as a short communication in the Archives of Women’s Mental Health highlighted this issue. The authors used the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to follow symptoms of depression in 145 pregnant women in ob.gyn. services, and found that there were low levels of adherence to psychiatric screenings and referrals in the perinatal period. Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry found 30.8% of women with postpartum depression were identified clinically, 15.8% received treatment, and 3.2% achieved remission. That is the gulf, in 2024, that we have not managed to bridge.

The findings show the difficulty women experience accessing perinatal mental health resources. While we’ve known for a long time that the “perinatal treatment cascade” is real, what we don’t understand are the variables in the mix, particularly for patients in marginalized groups. We also do not know where women fall off the curve with regard to accessing care. In my mind, if we’re going to make a difference, we need to know the answer to that question.

Part of the issue is that the research into understanding why women fall off the curve is incomplete. You cannot simply hand a sheet to a woman with an EPDS score of 12 who’s depressed and has a newborn and expect her to navigate to care. What we should really be doing is investing in care navigation for women.

The situation is analogous to diagnosing and treating cardiac abnormalities in a catheterization laboratory. If a patient has a blocked coronary artery and needs a stent, then they need to go to the cath lab. We haven’t yet figured out the process in reproductive psychiatry to optimize the likelihood that patients will be screened and then referred to receive the best available treatment.

Some of our ob.gyn. colleagues have been working to improve access to perinatal mental health services, such as offering on-site services, and offering training and services to patients and providers on screening, assessment, and treatment. At the Center for Women’s Mental Health, we are conducting the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression study, which is a universal screening and referral program for women at our center. While some progress is being made, there are still far too many women who are falling through the cracks and not receiving the care they need.

It is both ironic and sad that the growing number of available treatments in reproductive psychiatry are scalable, yet we haven’t figured out how to facilitate access to care. While we should be excited about new treatments, we also need to take the time to understand what the barriers are for at-risk women accessing mental healthcare in the postpartum period.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].