Ob.Gyn. News

Nearly half (46%) of ob.gyn.s, and physicians generally, said in a new survey their employers were not paying enough attention to the extent of burnout among their physicians.

Findings of the survey were reported in Medscape’s Ob/Gyn Practice Issues Report 2024.

“It’s a big problem,” said Nigel Girgrah, MD, PhD, chief wellness officer at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, Louisiana. But he added he expects that 46% level to drop in the next few years.

“There’s an increasing awareness among executives in healthcare that well-being is a leading quality indicator, if not the indicator, of favorable outcomes in patient care, staff turnover, and other vital areas,” he said.

However, there are structural barriers that threaten work-life balance, says Eve Espey, MD, MPH, chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. In a specialty made up mostly of women, she notes, there is no federal policy on paid medical leave, leading to women ob.gyn.s pulling double duty at work and at home.

“To me, the most important way to engage on burnout is not offering yoga lessons; it’s dealing with these big structural issues,” she said.
 

What’s Driving the Burnout

Ob.gyn. survey respondents said the top two reasons for burnout are too many bureaucratic tasks, such as paperwork and charting, (cited by 62%) and too many hours at work (cited by 53%).

More than half (55%) said the paperwork burden had increased in the past year; 34% said it stayed the same; and 11% said it had decreased.

“I think the regulatory burden has gotten higher for most of my colleagues,” Dr. Espey, said. “Coding and billing rules are pretty opaque to most ob.gyn.s and a lot of the tasks that used to be done by medical assistants are now done by physicians.”
 

‘Big Hope’ Is AI

“The big hope on the horizon is AI and programs that do basically what scribes do,” Dr. Espey said. “People feel like that will be a game-changer when it comes to paperwork.”

She said the root problem is that EHRs are used mostly for billing, not for communication. Two thirds of the respondents said they sometimes or always copy and paste from charts, which can lead to note bloat.

“You can’t write concise notes in EHRs,” Dr. Espey said. “I think this is an area where the promise of AI would be very helpful.”

Nearly 40% of ob.gyn.s were enthusiastic about the potential for AI in the survey; 43% were neutral on the subject; and the remainder were apprehensive. Asked about how their practices have most commonly used AI so far, 23% said it was used for researching conditions. The next highest usage was for help in diagnosing conditions (mentioned by 13%).

More than half (53%) of the ob.gyn.s said they thought AI would free up more time for patient conversations and care while only 38% of doctors generally thought it would.
 

Hard to Spend More Time With One Patient

Nearly three in 10 ob.gyn.s said they have a patient quota at their workplace, compared with one in four for physicians generally.

“Clearly, there can be thresholds (for ob.gyn.s) in the office and ambulatory care settings,” said Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, a Sacramento ob.gyn. affiliated with University of California–Davis Medical Center. She added that on the inpatient side, patient quotas come from the allotted time an ob.gyn. can spend with a patient. “There are definitely hoops to jump through when we want to spend more time with a patient, and it can be tough for them to get a follow-up appointment.”

Most ob.gyn.s (62%) in the survey would give their employer good ratings for offering an engaging and welcoming atmosphere. But nearly 40% said their employer emphasizes patient quotas and CPT codes more than care quality.

Data for this report were drawn from several Medscape surveys performed between March and October of 2023.
 

Nearly half (46%) of ob.gyn.s, and physicians generally, said in a new survey their employers were not paying enough attention to the extent of burnout among their physicians.

Findings of the survey were reported in Medscape’s Ob/Gyn Practice Issues Report 2024.

“It’s a big problem,” said Nigel Girgrah, MD, PhD, chief wellness officer at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, Louisiana. But he added he expects that 46% level to drop in the next few years.

“There’s an increasing awareness among executives in healthcare that well-being is a leading quality indicator, if not the indicator, of favorable outcomes in patient care, staff turnover, and other vital areas,” he said.

However, there are structural barriers that threaten work-life balance, says Eve Espey, MD, MPH, chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. In a specialty made up mostly of women, she notes, there is no federal policy on paid medical leave, leading to women ob.gyn.s pulling double duty at work and at home.

“To me, the most important way to engage on burnout is not offering yoga lessons; it’s dealing with these big structural issues,” she said.
 

What’s Driving the Burnout

Ob.gyn. survey respondents said the top two reasons for burnout are too many bureaucratic tasks, such as paperwork and charting, (cited by 62%) and too many hours at work (cited by 53%).

More than half (55%) said the paperwork burden had increased in the past year; 34% said it stayed the same; and 11% said it had decreased.

“I think the regulatory burden has gotten higher for most of my colleagues,” Dr. Espey, said. “Coding and billing rules are pretty opaque to most ob.gyn.s and a lot of the tasks that used to be done by medical assistants are now done by physicians.”
 

‘Big Hope’ Is AI

“The big hope on the horizon is AI and programs that do basically what scribes do,” Dr. Espey said. “People feel like that will be a game-changer when it comes to paperwork.”

She said the root problem is that EHRs are used mostly for billing, not for communication. Two thirds of the respondents said they sometimes or always copy and paste from charts, which can lead to note bloat.

“You can’t write concise notes in EHRs,” Dr. Espey said. “I think this is an area where the promise of AI would be very helpful.”

Nearly 40% of ob.gyn.s were enthusiastic about the potential for AI in the survey; 43% were neutral on the subject; and the remainder were apprehensive. Asked about how their practices have most commonly used AI so far, 23% said it was used for researching conditions. The next highest usage was for help in diagnosing conditions (mentioned by 13%).

More than half (53%) of the ob.gyn.s said they thought AI would free up more time for patient conversations and care while only 38% of doctors generally thought it would.
 

Hard to Spend More Time With One Patient

Nearly three in 10 ob.gyn.s said they have a patient quota at their workplace, compared with one in four for physicians generally.

“Clearly, there can be thresholds (for ob.gyn.s) in the office and ambulatory care settings,” said Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, a Sacramento ob.gyn. affiliated with University of California–Davis Medical Center. She added that on the inpatient side, patient quotas come from the allotted time an ob.gyn. can spend with a patient. “There are definitely hoops to jump through when we want to spend more time with a patient, and it can be tough for them to get a follow-up appointment.”

Most ob.gyn.s (62%) in the survey would give their employer good ratings for offering an engaging and welcoming atmosphere. But nearly 40% said their employer emphasizes patient quotas and CPT codes more than care quality.

Data for this report were drawn from several Medscape surveys performed between March and October of 2023.
 

Nearly half (46%) of ob.gyn.s, and physicians generally, said in a new survey their employers were not paying enough attention to the extent of burnout among their physicians.

Findings of the survey were reported in Medscape’s Ob/Gyn Practice Issues Report 2024.

“It’s a big problem,” said Nigel Girgrah, MD, PhD, chief wellness officer at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, Louisiana. But he added he expects that 46% level to drop in the next few years.

“There’s an increasing awareness among executives in healthcare that well-being is a leading quality indicator, if not the indicator, of favorable outcomes in patient care, staff turnover, and other vital areas,” he said.

However, there are structural barriers that threaten work-life balance, says Eve Espey, MD, MPH, chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. In a specialty made up mostly of women, she notes, there is no federal policy on paid medical leave, leading to women ob.gyn.s pulling double duty at work and at home.

“To me, the most important way to engage on burnout is not offering yoga lessons; it’s dealing with these big structural issues,” she said.
 

What’s Driving the Burnout

Ob.gyn. survey respondents said the top two reasons for burnout are too many bureaucratic tasks, such as paperwork and charting, (cited by 62%) and too many hours at work (cited by 53%).

More than half (55%) said the paperwork burden had increased in the past year; 34% said it stayed the same; and 11% said it had decreased.

“I think the regulatory burden has gotten higher for most of my colleagues,” Dr. Espey, said. “Coding and billing rules are pretty opaque to most ob.gyn.s and a lot of the tasks that used to be done by medical assistants are now done by physicians.”
 

‘Big Hope’ Is AI

“The big hope on the horizon is AI and programs that do basically what scribes do,” Dr. Espey said. “People feel like that will be a game-changer when it comes to paperwork.”

She said the root problem is that EHRs are used mostly for billing, not for communication. Two thirds of the respondents said they sometimes or always copy and paste from charts, which can lead to note bloat.

“You can’t write concise notes in EHRs,” Dr. Espey said. “I think this is an area where the promise of AI would be very helpful.”

Nearly 40% of ob.gyn.s were enthusiastic about the potential for AI in the survey; 43% were neutral on the subject; and the remainder were apprehensive. Asked about how their practices have most commonly used AI so far, 23% said it was used for researching conditions. The next highest usage was for help in diagnosing conditions (mentioned by 13%).

More than half (53%) of the ob.gyn.s said they thought AI would free up more time for patient conversations and care while only 38% of doctors generally thought it would.
 

Hard to Spend More Time With One Patient

Nearly three in 10 ob.gyn.s said they have a patient quota at their workplace, compared with one in four for physicians generally.

“Clearly, there can be thresholds (for ob.gyn.s) in the office and ambulatory care settings,” said Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, a Sacramento ob.gyn. affiliated with University of California–Davis Medical Center. She added that on the inpatient side, patient quotas come from the allotted time an ob.gyn. can spend with a patient. “There are definitely hoops to jump through when we want to spend more time with a patient, and it can be tough for them to get a follow-up appointment.”

Most ob.gyn.s (62%) in the survey would give their employer good ratings for offering an engaging and welcoming atmosphere. But nearly 40% said their employer emphasizes patient quotas and CPT codes more than care quality.

Data for this report were drawn from several Medscape surveys performed between March and October of 2023.
 

Premenopausal patients with hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) continued to show consistent benefit when treated with CDK4/6 inhibition plus endocrine therapy compared with chemotherapy, according to updated survival outcomes of the Young-PEARL study.

“The combination of palbociclib plus exemestane plus leuprolide showed a consistent significant improvement in PFS [progression-free survival] compared to the capecitabine arm,” Yeon Hee Park, MD, PhD, from Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
 

Study Methods and Results

Young-PEARL, a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 study, included 184 patients, median age 44 years, who had relapsed or progressed during previous tamoxifen therapy, with one line of previous chemotherapy for mBC allowed. Patients were randomized to palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (oral palbociclib 125 mg per day for 21 days every 4 weeks, oral exemestane 25 mg per day for 28 days, plus leuprolide 3.75 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks) or chemotherapy (oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m^2, twice daily for 2 weeks every 3 weeks).

Previously published initial results (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Dec;20[12]:1750-1759) for the primary endpoint showed a median PFS of 20.1 months in the palbociclib group versus 14.4 months in the capecitabine group, (hazard ratio [HR] 0.659, P = .0235) after median follow-up of 17 months.

Updated results showed this benefit was maintained after a median of 54 months, with a PFS of 19.5 months in the palbociclib arm, versus 14 months in capecitabine arm (HR 0.744, P = .0357), Dr. Park reported. However, this PFS benefit did not lead to an overall survival (OS) benefit, with median OS being similar: 54.8 versus 57.8 months in the palbociclib and capecitabine groups, respectively (HR = 1.02, P = .92).

To explore why PFS — but not OS — was better in the palbociclib arm, the researchers conducted a multivariate analysis which showed that going on to an additional CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment after the end of the study was as an independent variable favoring OS. Because more patients in the capecitabine arm received a post-study CDK4/6 inhibitor (49.3%) compared with in the palbociclib group (15%), this weighted the OS to the capecitabine arm, Dr. Park explained in an interview.

“In the capecitabine arm, excluding post-study CDK4/6 inhibitor use, the median OS was 38.8 months.” This was inferior to the 49 months OS seen in the palbociclib arm (P = .065), she said.

“As expected, hematologic toxicity was more common in the palbociclib arm compared with in the capecitabine arm,” Dr. Park said (92% vs 86%), with neutropenia topping the list [of all adverse events] (65.2% vs 27.9%, all grades). However, “most [adverse events] were not that serious,” Dr. Park said. Arthralgia was more common in the palbociclib arm (25% vs 7%), and diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome were more common in the capecitabine arm (15.2% vs 39.5% and 79.1% vs 2.2%).
 

Study Validates Endocrine Therapy + CDK4/6 Inhibitor as First Line

Commenting on Young-PEARL in an interview, Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, said, “The point of this study was to compare whether upfront chemotherapy would be better than upfront hormonal therapy for patients who had metastatic ER positive breast cancer.”

“This is the first study in probably 20 years that has compared these two approaches, and it validated that for the vast majority of patients with ER positive metastatic breast cancer, the appropriate first treatment is endocrine therapy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor,” continued Dr. Burstein, a breast cancer expert at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

Dr. Park disclosed honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Boryung, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; research funding from AstraZeneca, Gencurix, Genome Insight, NGeneBio, Pfizer; and Roche; and travel/accommodations/expenses from Gilead. Dr. Burstein disclosed a research grant from the National Cancer Institute.

Premenopausal patients with hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) continued to show consistent benefit when treated with CDK4/6 inhibition plus endocrine therapy compared with chemotherapy, according to updated survival outcomes of the Young-PEARL study.

“The combination of palbociclib plus exemestane plus leuprolide showed a consistent significant improvement in PFS [progression-free survival] compared to the capecitabine arm,” Yeon Hee Park, MD, PhD, from Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
 

Study Methods and Results

Young-PEARL, a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 study, included 184 patients, median age 44 years, who had relapsed or progressed during previous tamoxifen therapy, with one line of previous chemotherapy for mBC allowed. Patients were randomized to palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (oral palbociclib 125 mg per day for 21 days every 4 weeks, oral exemestane 25 mg per day for 28 days, plus leuprolide 3.75 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks) or chemotherapy (oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m^2, twice daily for 2 weeks every 3 weeks).

Previously published initial results (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Dec;20[12]:1750-1759) for the primary endpoint showed a median PFS of 20.1 months in the palbociclib group versus 14.4 months in the capecitabine group, (hazard ratio [HR] 0.659, P = .0235) after median follow-up of 17 months.

Updated results showed this benefit was maintained after a median of 54 months, with a PFS of 19.5 months in the palbociclib arm, versus 14 months in capecitabine arm (HR 0.744, P = .0357), Dr. Park reported. However, this PFS benefit did not lead to an overall survival (OS) benefit, with median OS being similar: 54.8 versus 57.8 months in the palbociclib and capecitabine groups, respectively (HR = 1.02, P = .92).

To explore why PFS — but not OS — was better in the palbociclib arm, the researchers conducted a multivariate analysis which showed that going on to an additional CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment after the end of the study was as an independent variable favoring OS. Because more patients in the capecitabine arm received a post-study CDK4/6 inhibitor (49.3%) compared with in the palbociclib group (15%), this weighted the OS to the capecitabine arm, Dr. Park explained in an interview.

“In the capecitabine arm, excluding post-study CDK4/6 inhibitor use, the median OS was 38.8 months.” This was inferior to the 49 months OS seen in the palbociclib arm (P = .065), she said.

“As expected, hematologic toxicity was more common in the palbociclib arm compared with in the capecitabine arm,” Dr. Park said (92% vs 86%), with neutropenia topping the list [of all adverse events] (65.2% vs 27.9%, all grades). However, “most [adverse events] were not that serious,” Dr. Park said. Arthralgia was more common in the palbociclib arm (25% vs 7%), and diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome were more common in the capecitabine arm (15.2% vs 39.5% and 79.1% vs 2.2%).
 

Study Validates Endocrine Therapy + CDK4/6 Inhibitor as First Line

Commenting on Young-PEARL in an interview, Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, said, “The point of this study was to compare whether upfront chemotherapy would be better than upfront hormonal therapy for patients who had metastatic ER positive breast cancer.”

“This is the first study in probably 20 years that has compared these two approaches, and it validated that for the vast majority of patients with ER positive metastatic breast cancer, the appropriate first treatment is endocrine therapy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor,” continued Dr. Burstein, a breast cancer expert at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

Dr. Park disclosed honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Boryung, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; research funding from AstraZeneca, Gencurix, Genome Insight, NGeneBio, Pfizer; and Roche; and travel/accommodations/expenses from Gilead. Dr. Burstein disclosed a research grant from the National Cancer Institute.

Premenopausal patients with hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) continued to show consistent benefit when treated with CDK4/6 inhibition plus endocrine therapy compared with chemotherapy, according to updated survival outcomes of the Young-PEARL study.

“The combination of palbociclib plus exemestane plus leuprolide showed a consistent significant improvement in PFS [progression-free survival] compared to the capecitabine arm,” Yeon Hee Park, MD, PhD, from Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
 

Study Methods and Results

Young-PEARL, a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 study, included 184 patients, median age 44 years, who had relapsed or progressed during previous tamoxifen therapy, with one line of previous chemotherapy for mBC allowed. Patients were randomized to palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (oral palbociclib 125 mg per day for 21 days every 4 weeks, oral exemestane 25 mg per day for 28 days, plus leuprolide 3.75 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks) or chemotherapy (oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m^2, twice daily for 2 weeks every 3 weeks).

Previously published initial results (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Dec;20[12]:1750-1759) for the primary endpoint showed a median PFS of 20.1 months in the palbociclib group versus 14.4 months in the capecitabine group, (hazard ratio [HR] 0.659, P = .0235) after median follow-up of 17 months.

Updated results showed this benefit was maintained after a median of 54 months, with a PFS of 19.5 months in the palbociclib arm, versus 14 months in capecitabine arm (HR 0.744, P = .0357), Dr. Park reported. However, this PFS benefit did not lead to an overall survival (OS) benefit, with median OS being similar: 54.8 versus 57.8 months in the palbociclib and capecitabine groups, respectively (HR = 1.02, P = .92).

To explore why PFS — but not OS — was better in the palbociclib arm, the researchers conducted a multivariate analysis which showed that going on to an additional CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment after the end of the study was as an independent variable favoring OS. Because more patients in the capecitabine arm received a post-study CDK4/6 inhibitor (49.3%) compared with in the palbociclib group (15%), this weighted the OS to the capecitabine arm, Dr. Park explained in an interview.

“In the capecitabine arm, excluding post-study CDK4/6 inhibitor use, the median OS was 38.8 months.” This was inferior to the 49 months OS seen in the palbociclib arm (P = .065), she said.

“As expected, hematologic toxicity was more common in the palbociclib arm compared with in the capecitabine arm,” Dr. Park said (92% vs 86%), with neutropenia topping the list [of all adverse events] (65.2% vs 27.9%, all grades). However, “most [adverse events] were not that serious,” Dr. Park said. Arthralgia was more common in the palbociclib arm (25% vs 7%), and diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome were more common in the capecitabine arm (15.2% vs 39.5% and 79.1% vs 2.2%).
 

Study Validates Endocrine Therapy + CDK4/6 Inhibitor as First Line

Commenting on Young-PEARL in an interview, Harold Burstein, MD, PhD, said, “The point of this study was to compare whether upfront chemotherapy would be better than upfront hormonal therapy for patients who had metastatic ER positive breast cancer.”

“This is the first study in probably 20 years that has compared these two approaches, and it validated that for the vast majority of patients with ER positive metastatic breast cancer, the appropriate first treatment is endocrine therapy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor,” continued Dr. Burstein, a breast cancer expert at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

Dr. Park disclosed honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Boryung, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; research funding from AstraZeneca, Gencurix, Genome Insight, NGeneBio, Pfizer; and Roche; and travel/accommodations/expenses from Gilead. Dr. Burstein disclosed a research grant from the National Cancer Institute.

Potential harms and benefits should be weighed carefully before women and their physicians decide on breast cancer screening, according to updated guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

The draft guidelines stem from a review of more than 165 recent randomized controlled trials, observational studies, mathematical models, and other data.

The guideline working group included four breast cancer experts (a medical oncologist, a radiation oncologist, a surgical oncologist, and a radiologist), three patient partners, six family physicians, a nurse practitioner, evidence review teams, and other experts.

To avoid potential conflicts of interest, the oncologists provided input but did not vote on the final recommendations, Guylène Thériault, MD, a family physician and chair of the task force and Breast Cancer Working Group, said in an interview. 

The guideline recommends that, after the potential benefits and harms of screening have been considered, mammography should be accessible every 2-3 years to women (ie, people assigned female at birth) between ages 40 and 74 years who are at average or moderately increased risk.

Women with a personal or extensive family history of breast cancer or genetic mutations that would increase breast cancer risk; those who have symptoms, such as a lump; those who feel they may be at high risk; and those who are transgender women should consult a healthcare provider about appropriate options, according to the updated guidelines, which do not apply to these patients.

The draft guidelines were published online on May 30 and are open for public comment until August 30.
 

‘Three Big Questions’

To develop the guidelines, the work group asked “three big questions,” said Dr. Thériault. The first was the effectiveness of breast cancer screening for women aged 40 years and over. For this question, this systematic review, unlike the 2018 guideline update, included not only randomized trials but also observational data to ensure that the work group considered all available data.

“The second question was about comparative effectiveness,” which is something the United States considered for the latest US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) update, said Dr. Thériault. The USPSTF asked questions such as “What happens if we start screening patients at age 40 years? Or at age 50 years? What happens if we stop at age 74 years? Or if we use different tests such as 3D versus digital mammography?”

The Canadian Task Force relied on the evidence that the USPSTF found after grading it with its own criteria, she said. The results were similar, and so are the recommendations in this area. “For example, we don’t recommend supplementary screening for women with dense breasts because there are no studies to inform patient-oriented benefits.”

The third question was about the values and preferences of women regarding breast cancer screening, which is something the United States didn’t examine. “We had looked at that issue in 2018, and this time around, even though we expanded the type of studies, we got the same message: That there are differences between women in their 40s and those who are age 50 years and over.”

“The majority of women in their 40s think that the harms outweigh the benefits and are not interested in screening,” said Dr. Thériault. “But when I say the majority, that’s not every woman. So, we had to recognize that there is variability. And the majority, but not all, of women ages 50-74 years thinks the benefits are higher than the harms. That’s why we say in our recommendation that from ages 40 to 74, it’s a personal choice.”
 

Responding to Objections

Not surprisingly, the task force has heard objections to its draft guidelines. The first is that women aged 40-49 years are being denied mammograms, said Michelle Nadler, MD, a medical oncologist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada. “This [objection] has attained a lot of media coverage, which is unfortunate, because people who have not read the guidelines may believe this is true. The guidelines clearly state that an eligible, informed woman of this age group who wants a screening mammogram should receive one.”

The second commonly heard objection is that the task force is overestimating the harms of screening, such as anxiety and overdiagnosis, she said. But an outcome of “anxiety” was not factored into the guideline. Overdiagnosis was calculated on the basis of the literature, and estimates were converted to a common denominator so that they could be compared, said Dr. Nadler. The same was true of benefits.

Another objection was that screening could mean less need for chemotherapy or full axillary dissection, Dr. Nadler said. However, the task force did not find any primary studies that evaluated these outcomes.

Critics also said that the recommendations do not account for racial or ethnic variations. Although more research is likely needed in this area, “the task force states that individuals should be informed of all of their breast cancer risk factors, including race/ethnicity, and that this should be factored into decisions about screening,” said Dr. Nadler.

“I was very surprised that the task force was accused by some parties of paternalism,” added René Wittmer, MD, adjunct clinical professor of family medicine at the University of Montreal and chair of Choosing Wisely Quebec, Montreal, Canada. “In my opinion, the importance they place on shared decision-making is contrary to medical paternalism and aims to empower women to make a decision that fits with their values and preferences.”

Nevertheless, the inclusion of modeling studies and observational trials “may cause the potential benefits to be amplified, compared with what is seen in randomized controlled trials,” he said in an interview.
 

Decision Aids Help

Once the guidelines are finalized, decision aids will be available to patients and providers to help guide screening discussions, said Dr. Nadler. “Primary care providers need to be aware of an individual’s personal risk factors for breast cancer to know if they are at average, above average, or high lifetime risk of breast cancer. These guidelines do not apply to those with > 20% lifetime risk of breast cancer.”

“The standards for risk communication are in absolute numbers over a common denominator,” she noted. “This is how primary care providers discuss other important primary care topics like smoking cessation, cardiovascular disease (and decisions about statin medications), and osteoporosis risk. These same standards should apply for breast cancer screening.”

Furthermore, she said, providers “should be aware that individuals from marginalized communities may benefit from more than one conversation until they are able to make a decision about screening that is right for them.”

“There is good evidence showing that most advances we’ve seen in breast cancer outcomes (ie, reduction in breast cancer mortality) are likely due to improvements in treatment, not screening,” said Dr. Wittmer. “In fact, mortality reductions are seen even in age groups or countries where there is no routine screening. This means that women benefit from advances in treatments, whether they choose to get screened or not.”
 

‘Mammography Saves Lives’

Commenting on the updated guidelines, Janie Lee, MD, professor of radiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine and director of breast imaging at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, said: “For the USPSTF, benefits of life years gained were also considered, in addition to breast cancer deaths averted. To save more lives from breast cancer, guidelines may focus on screening women at older ages, when annual rates of breast cancer are higher.” By contrast, when thinking in terms of years of life saved, focusing on screening younger women, who have more years of life left, increases benefits. “Both are important outcomes that we want to improve with effective screening.”

That said, “we should follow the guidelines of our specific national organizations,” she continued. “Overall populations and healthcare systems are different between the US and Canada.”

For example, “the USPSTF specifically highlighted the potential for reducing breast cancer mortality in Black women, who are more likely to develop biologically aggressive tumors that are diagnosed at more advanced stages, when making updated recommendations earlier this year,” she said. “The Canadian guidelines did not make specific recommendations by race or ethnicity group, instead highlighting the need for more research on the impact of screening in these groups.”

In addition, “screening every year versus every other year is more routine in the US compared with Canada,” she noted. And nonmedical factors that influence health and that may influence access to medical care and timely diagnosis of breast cancer “may be different between our two countries.”

“The most important take-home message is that the scientific evidence is strong that screening mammography saves lives,” said Dr. Lee. “These new recommendations will hopefully result in more early diagnoses of breast cancer and save more lives. Screening works best when it’s used regularly, regardless of how frequently you return. Once you start screening, please urge your patients to plan to return.”

Dr. Nadler disclosed speaker honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis and Exact Sciences outside the scope of this interview and innovation funding from the NSH/UHN AMO Innovation Fund Competition for Developing and Implementing a Consensus Recommendation for Breast Cancer Screening Best Practices. Dr. Thériault is chair of the task force and chair of the working group for the draft guidelines. Dr. Wittmer is chair of Choosing Wisely Quebec. Dr. Lee reported no relevant financial relationships related to her interview.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Potential harms and benefits should be weighed carefully before women and their physicians decide on breast cancer screening, according to updated guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

The draft guidelines stem from a review of more than 165 recent randomized controlled trials, observational studies, mathematical models, and other data.

The guideline working group included four breast cancer experts (a medical oncologist, a radiation oncologist, a surgical oncologist, and a radiologist), three patient partners, six family physicians, a nurse practitioner, evidence review teams, and other experts.

To avoid potential conflicts of interest, the oncologists provided input but did not vote on the final recommendations, Guylène Thériault, MD, a family physician and chair of the task force and Breast Cancer Working Group, said in an interview. 

The guideline recommends that, after the potential benefits and harms of screening have been considered, mammography should be accessible every 2-3 years to women (ie, people assigned female at birth) between ages 40 and 74 years who are at average or moderately increased risk.

Women with a personal or extensive family history of breast cancer or genetic mutations that would increase breast cancer risk; those who have symptoms, such as a lump; those who feel they may be at high risk; and those who are transgender women should consult a healthcare provider about appropriate options, according to the updated guidelines, which do not apply to these patients.

The draft guidelines were published online on May 30 and are open for public comment until August 30.
 

‘Three Big Questions’

To develop the guidelines, the work group asked “three big questions,” said Dr. Thériault. The first was the effectiveness of breast cancer screening for women aged 40 years and over. For this question, this systematic review, unlike the 2018 guideline update, included not only randomized trials but also observational data to ensure that the work group considered all available data.

“The second question was about comparative effectiveness,” which is something the United States considered for the latest US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) update, said Dr. Thériault. The USPSTF asked questions such as “What happens if we start screening patients at age 40 years? Or at age 50 years? What happens if we stop at age 74 years? Or if we use different tests such as 3D versus digital mammography?”

The Canadian Task Force relied on the evidence that the USPSTF found after grading it with its own criteria, she said. The results were similar, and so are the recommendations in this area. “For example, we don’t recommend supplementary screening for women with dense breasts because there are no studies to inform patient-oriented benefits.”

The third question was about the values and preferences of women regarding breast cancer screening, which is something the United States didn’t examine. “We had looked at that issue in 2018, and this time around, even though we expanded the type of studies, we got the same message: That there are differences between women in their 40s and those who are age 50 years and over.”

“The majority of women in their 40s think that the harms outweigh the benefits and are not interested in screening,” said Dr. Thériault. “But when I say the majority, that’s not every woman. So, we had to recognize that there is variability. And the majority, but not all, of women ages 50-74 years thinks the benefits are higher than the harms. That’s why we say in our recommendation that from ages 40 to 74, it’s a personal choice.”
 

Responding to Objections

Not surprisingly, the task force has heard objections to its draft guidelines. The first is that women aged 40-49 years are being denied mammograms, said Michelle Nadler, MD, a medical oncologist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada. “This [objection] has attained a lot of media coverage, which is unfortunate, because people who have not read the guidelines may believe this is true. The guidelines clearly state that an eligible, informed woman of this age group who wants a screening mammogram should receive one.”

The second commonly heard objection is that the task force is overestimating the harms of screening, such as anxiety and overdiagnosis, she said. But an outcome of “anxiety” was not factored into the guideline. Overdiagnosis was calculated on the basis of the literature, and estimates were converted to a common denominator so that they could be compared, said Dr. Nadler. The same was true of benefits.

Another objection was that screening could mean less need for chemotherapy or full axillary dissection, Dr. Nadler said. However, the task force did not find any primary studies that evaluated these outcomes.

Critics also said that the recommendations do not account for racial or ethnic variations. Although more research is likely needed in this area, “the task force states that individuals should be informed of all of their breast cancer risk factors, including race/ethnicity, and that this should be factored into decisions about screening,” said Dr. Nadler.

“I was very surprised that the task force was accused by some parties of paternalism,” added René Wittmer, MD, adjunct clinical professor of family medicine at the University of Montreal and chair of Choosing Wisely Quebec, Montreal, Canada. “In my opinion, the importance they place on shared decision-making is contrary to medical paternalism and aims to empower women to make a decision that fits with their values and preferences.”

Nevertheless, the inclusion of modeling studies and observational trials “may cause the potential benefits to be amplified, compared with what is seen in randomized controlled trials,” he said in an interview.
 

Decision Aids Help

Once the guidelines are finalized, decision aids will be available to patients and providers to help guide screening discussions, said Dr. Nadler. “Primary care providers need to be aware of an individual’s personal risk factors for breast cancer to know if they are at average, above average, or high lifetime risk of breast cancer. These guidelines do not apply to those with > 20% lifetime risk of breast cancer.”

“The standards for risk communication are in absolute numbers over a common denominator,” she noted. “This is how primary care providers discuss other important primary care topics like smoking cessation, cardiovascular disease (and decisions about statin medications), and osteoporosis risk. These same standards should apply for breast cancer screening.”

Furthermore, she said, providers “should be aware that individuals from marginalized communities may benefit from more than one conversation until they are able to make a decision about screening that is right for them.”

“There is good evidence showing that most advances we’ve seen in breast cancer outcomes (ie, reduction in breast cancer mortality) are likely due to improvements in treatment, not screening,” said Dr. Wittmer. “In fact, mortality reductions are seen even in age groups or countries where there is no routine screening. This means that women benefit from advances in treatments, whether they choose to get screened or not.”
 

‘Mammography Saves Lives’

Commenting on the updated guidelines, Janie Lee, MD, professor of radiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine and director of breast imaging at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, said: “For the USPSTF, benefits of life years gained were also considered, in addition to breast cancer deaths averted. To save more lives from breast cancer, guidelines may focus on screening women at older ages, when annual rates of breast cancer are higher.” By contrast, when thinking in terms of years of life saved, focusing on screening younger women, who have more years of life left, increases benefits. “Both are important outcomes that we want to improve with effective screening.”

That said, “we should follow the guidelines of our specific national organizations,” she continued. “Overall populations and healthcare systems are different between the US and Canada.”

For example, “the USPSTF specifically highlighted the potential for reducing breast cancer mortality in Black women, who are more likely to develop biologically aggressive tumors that are diagnosed at more advanced stages, when making updated recommendations earlier this year,” she said. “The Canadian guidelines did not make specific recommendations by race or ethnicity group, instead highlighting the need for more research on the impact of screening in these groups.”

In addition, “screening every year versus every other year is more routine in the US compared with Canada,” she noted. And nonmedical factors that influence health and that may influence access to medical care and timely diagnosis of breast cancer “may be different between our two countries.”

“The most important take-home message is that the scientific evidence is strong that screening mammography saves lives,” said Dr. Lee. “These new recommendations will hopefully result in more early diagnoses of breast cancer and save more lives. Screening works best when it’s used regularly, regardless of how frequently you return. Once you start screening, please urge your patients to plan to return.”

Dr. Nadler disclosed speaker honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis and Exact Sciences outside the scope of this interview and innovation funding from the NSH/UHN AMO Innovation Fund Competition for Developing and Implementing a Consensus Recommendation for Breast Cancer Screening Best Practices. Dr. Thériault is chair of the task force and chair of the working group for the draft guidelines. Dr. Wittmer is chair of Choosing Wisely Quebec. Dr. Lee reported no relevant financial relationships related to her interview.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Potential harms and benefits should be weighed carefully before women and their physicians decide on breast cancer screening, according to updated guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

The draft guidelines stem from a review of more than 165 recent randomized controlled trials, observational studies, mathematical models, and other data.

The guideline working group included four breast cancer experts (a medical oncologist, a radiation oncologist, a surgical oncologist, and a radiologist), three patient partners, six family physicians, a nurse practitioner, evidence review teams, and other experts.

To avoid potential conflicts of interest, the oncologists provided input but did not vote on the final recommendations, Guylène Thériault, MD, a family physician and chair of the task force and Breast Cancer Working Group, said in an interview. 

The guideline recommends that, after the potential benefits and harms of screening have been considered, mammography should be accessible every 2-3 years to women (ie, people assigned female at birth) between ages 40 and 74 years who are at average or moderately increased risk.

Women with a personal or extensive family history of breast cancer or genetic mutations that would increase breast cancer risk; those who have symptoms, such as a lump; those who feel they may be at high risk; and those who are transgender women should consult a healthcare provider about appropriate options, according to the updated guidelines, which do not apply to these patients.

The draft guidelines were published online on May 30 and are open for public comment until August 30.
 

‘Three Big Questions’

To develop the guidelines, the work group asked “three big questions,” said Dr. Thériault. The first was the effectiveness of breast cancer screening for women aged 40 years and over. For this question, this systematic review, unlike the 2018 guideline update, included not only randomized trials but also observational data to ensure that the work group considered all available data.

“The second question was about comparative effectiveness,” which is something the United States considered for the latest US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) update, said Dr. Thériault. The USPSTF asked questions such as “What happens if we start screening patients at age 40 years? Or at age 50 years? What happens if we stop at age 74 years? Or if we use different tests such as 3D versus digital mammography?”

The Canadian Task Force relied on the evidence that the USPSTF found after grading it with its own criteria, she said. The results were similar, and so are the recommendations in this area. “For example, we don’t recommend supplementary screening for women with dense breasts because there are no studies to inform patient-oriented benefits.”

The third question was about the values and preferences of women regarding breast cancer screening, which is something the United States didn’t examine. “We had looked at that issue in 2018, and this time around, even though we expanded the type of studies, we got the same message: That there are differences between women in their 40s and those who are age 50 years and over.”

“The majority of women in their 40s think that the harms outweigh the benefits and are not interested in screening,” said Dr. Thériault. “But when I say the majority, that’s not every woman. So, we had to recognize that there is variability. And the majority, but not all, of women ages 50-74 years thinks the benefits are higher than the harms. That’s why we say in our recommendation that from ages 40 to 74, it’s a personal choice.”
 

Responding to Objections

Not surprisingly, the task force has heard objections to its draft guidelines. The first is that women aged 40-49 years are being denied mammograms, said Michelle Nadler, MD, a medical oncologist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada. “This [objection] has attained a lot of media coverage, which is unfortunate, because people who have not read the guidelines may believe this is true. The guidelines clearly state that an eligible, informed woman of this age group who wants a screening mammogram should receive one.”

The second commonly heard objection is that the task force is overestimating the harms of screening, such as anxiety and overdiagnosis, she said. But an outcome of “anxiety” was not factored into the guideline. Overdiagnosis was calculated on the basis of the literature, and estimates were converted to a common denominator so that they could be compared, said Dr. Nadler. The same was true of benefits.

Another objection was that screening could mean less need for chemotherapy or full axillary dissection, Dr. Nadler said. However, the task force did not find any primary studies that evaluated these outcomes.

Critics also said that the recommendations do not account for racial or ethnic variations. Although more research is likely needed in this area, “the task force states that individuals should be informed of all of their breast cancer risk factors, including race/ethnicity, and that this should be factored into decisions about screening,” said Dr. Nadler.

“I was very surprised that the task force was accused by some parties of paternalism,” added René Wittmer, MD, adjunct clinical professor of family medicine at the University of Montreal and chair of Choosing Wisely Quebec, Montreal, Canada. “In my opinion, the importance they place on shared decision-making is contrary to medical paternalism and aims to empower women to make a decision that fits with their values and preferences.”

Nevertheless, the inclusion of modeling studies and observational trials “may cause the potential benefits to be amplified, compared with what is seen in randomized controlled trials,” he said in an interview.
 

Decision Aids Help

Once the guidelines are finalized, decision aids will be available to patients and providers to help guide screening discussions, said Dr. Nadler. “Primary care providers need to be aware of an individual’s personal risk factors for breast cancer to know if they are at average, above average, or high lifetime risk of breast cancer. These guidelines do not apply to those with > 20% lifetime risk of breast cancer.”

“The standards for risk communication are in absolute numbers over a common denominator,” she noted. “This is how primary care providers discuss other important primary care topics like smoking cessation, cardiovascular disease (and decisions about statin medications), and osteoporosis risk. These same standards should apply for breast cancer screening.”

Furthermore, she said, providers “should be aware that individuals from marginalized communities may benefit from more than one conversation until they are able to make a decision about screening that is right for them.”

“There is good evidence showing that most advances we’ve seen in breast cancer outcomes (ie, reduction in breast cancer mortality) are likely due to improvements in treatment, not screening,” said Dr. Wittmer. “In fact, mortality reductions are seen even in age groups or countries where there is no routine screening. This means that women benefit from advances in treatments, whether they choose to get screened or not.”
 

‘Mammography Saves Lives’

Commenting on the updated guidelines, Janie Lee, MD, professor of radiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine and director of breast imaging at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, said: “For the USPSTF, benefits of life years gained were also considered, in addition to breast cancer deaths averted. To save more lives from breast cancer, guidelines may focus on screening women at older ages, when annual rates of breast cancer are higher.” By contrast, when thinking in terms of years of life saved, focusing on screening younger women, who have more years of life left, increases benefits. “Both are important outcomes that we want to improve with effective screening.”

That said, “we should follow the guidelines of our specific national organizations,” she continued. “Overall populations and healthcare systems are different between the US and Canada.”

For example, “the USPSTF specifically highlighted the potential for reducing breast cancer mortality in Black women, who are more likely to develop biologically aggressive tumors that are diagnosed at more advanced stages, when making updated recommendations earlier this year,” she said. “The Canadian guidelines did not make specific recommendations by race or ethnicity group, instead highlighting the need for more research on the impact of screening in these groups.”

In addition, “screening every year versus every other year is more routine in the US compared with Canada,” she noted. And nonmedical factors that influence health and that may influence access to medical care and timely diagnosis of breast cancer “may be different between our two countries.”

“The most important take-home message is that the scientific evidence is strong that screening mammography saves lives,” said Dr. Lee. “These new recommendations will hopefully result in more early diagnoses of breast cancer and save more lives. Screening works best when it’s used regularly, regardless of how frequently you return. Once you start screening, please urge your patients to plan to return.”

Dr. Nadler disclosed speaker honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis and Exact Sciences outside the scope of this interview and innovation funding from the NSH/UHN AMO Innovation Fund Competition for Developing and Implementing a Consensus Recommendation for Breast Cancer Screening Best Practices. Dr. Thériault is chair of the task force and chair of the working group for the draft guidelines. Dr. Wittmer is chair of Choosing Wisely Quebec. Dr. Lee reported no relevant financial relationships related to her interview.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.

The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.

This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
 

1. Find Relocation Resources

First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.

Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.

Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.

Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.

When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.

If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
 

2. Reach Out and Buddy Up

Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.

Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.

On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.

Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.

To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
 

3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’

Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”

“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
 

4. Move Early

Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.

Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.

“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
 

5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary

During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.

Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”

Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.

“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
 

6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever

When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.

Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”

Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.

Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”

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

Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.

The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.

This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
 

1. Find Relocation Resources

First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.

Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.

Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.

Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.

When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.

If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
 

2. Reach Out and Buddy Up

Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.

Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.

On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.

Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.

To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
 

3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’

Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”

“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
 

4. Move Early

Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.

Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.

“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
 

5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary

During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.

Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”

Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.

“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
 

6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever

When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.

Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”

Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.

Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”

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

Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.

The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.

This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
 

1. Find Relocation Resources

First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.

Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.

Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.

Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.

When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.

If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
 

2. Reach Out and Buddy Up

Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.

Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.

On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.

Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.

To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
 

3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’

Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”

“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
 

4. Move Early

Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.

Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.

“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
 

5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary

During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.

Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”

Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.

“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
 

6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever

When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.

Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”

Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.

Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”

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

More than 90% of internet users are active on social media, which had 4.76 billion users worldwide in January 2023. The digital revolution has reshaped the news landscape and changed how users interact with information. Social media has fostered an active relationship with the media, including the ability to interact directly with the content presented. It also has augmented media’s ability to reach a large audience with tight deadlines.

These developments suggest that social media can be a useful tool in everyday medical practice for professionals and patients. But social media also can spread misinformation, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This characteristic is the focus of the latest research by Fabiana Zollo, a computer science professor at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy, and coordinator of the Data Science for Society laboratory. The research was published in The BMJ. Ms. Zollo’s research group aims to assess the effect of social media on misinformation and consequent behaviors related to health. “The study results focus primarily on two topics, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccinations, but can also be applied to other health-related behaviors such as smoking and diet,” Ms. Zollo told Univadis Italy.

Social media has become an important tool for public health organizations to inform and educate citizens. Institutions can use it to monitor choices and understand which topics are being discussed most at a given time, thus comprehending how the topics evolve and take shape in public discourse. “This could lead to the emergence of people’s perceptions, allowing us to understand, among other things, what the population’s needs might be, including informational needs,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

Tenuous Causal Link

While social media offers public health organizations the opportunity to inform and engage the public, it also raises concerns about misinformation and the difficulty of measuring its effect on health behavior. Although some studies have observed correlations between exposure to misinformation on social media and levels of adherence to vaccination campaigns, establishing a causal link is complex. As the authors emphasize, “despite the importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s behavior and the broad hypotheses within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a clear causal association between social media and health behaviors.” Establishing a clear causal link between information obtained from social media and offline behavior is challenging due to methodologic limitations and the complexity of connections between online and offline behaviors. Studies often rely on self-reported data, which may not accurately reflect real behaviors, and struggle to isolate the effect of social media from other external influences. Moreover, many studies primarily focus on Western countries, limiting the generalizability of the results to other cultural and geographical conditions.

Another issue highlighted by Ms. Zollo and colleagues is the lack of complete and representative data. Studies often lack detailed information about participants, such as demographic or geolocation data, and rely on limited samples. This lack makes it difficult to assess the effect of misinformation on different segments of the population and in different geographic areas.

“The main methodologic difficulty concerns behavior, which is difficult to measure because it would require tracking a person’s actions over time and having a shared methodology to do so. We need to understand whether online stated intentions do or do not translate into actual behaviors,” said Ms. Zollo. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s general behavior and the broad hypotheses expressed within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a causal association between social media and health behaviors.
 

Institutions’ Role

Social media is a fertile ground for the formation of echo chambers (where users find themselves dialoguing with like-minded people, forming a distorted impression of the real prevalence of that opinion) and for reinforcing polarized positions around certain topics. “We know that on certain topics, especially those related to health, there is a lot of misinformation circulating precisely because it is easy to leverage factors such as fear and beliefs, even the difficulties in understanding the technical aspects of a message,” said Ms. Zollo. Moreover, institutions have not always provided timely information during the pandemic. “Often, when there is a gap in response to a specific informational need, people turn elsewhere, where those questions find answers. And even if the response is not of high quality, it sometimes confirms the idea that the user had already created in their mind.”

The article published in The BMJ aims primarily to provide information and evaluation insights to institutions rather than professionals or healthcare workers. “We would like to spark the interest of institutions and ministries that can analyze this type of data and integrate it into their monitoring system. Social monitoring (the observation of what happens on social media) is a practice that the World Health Organization is also evaluating and trying to integrate with more traditional tools, such as questionnaires. The aim is to understand as well as possible what a population thinks about a particular health measure, such as a vaccine: Through data obtained from social monitoring, a more realistic and comprehensive view of the problem could be achieved,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

A Doctor’s Role

And this is where the doctor comes in: All the information thus obtained allows for identifying the needs that the population expresses and that “could push a patient to turn elsewhere, toward sources that provide answers even if of dubious quality or extremely oversimplified.” The doctor can enter this landscape by trying to understand, even with the data provided by institutions, what needs the patients are trying to fill and what drives them to seek elsewhere and to look for a reference community that offers the relevant confirmations.

From the doctor’s perspective, therefore, it can be useful to understand how these dynamics arise and evolve because they could help improve interactions with patients. At the institutional level, social monitoring would be an excellent tool for providing services to doctors who, in turn, offer a service to patients. If it were possible to identify areas where a disinformation narrative is developing from the outset, both the doctor and the institutions would benefit.
 

Misinformation vs Disinformation

The rapid spread of false or misleading information on social media can undermine trust in healthcare institutions and negatively influence health-related behaviors. Ms. Zollo and colleagues, in fact, speak of misinformation in their discussion, not disinformation. “In English, a distinction is made between misinformation and disinformation, a distinction that we are also adopting in Italian. When we talk about misinformation, we mean information that is generally false, inaccurate, or misleading but has not been created with the intention to harm, an intention that is present in disinformation,” said Ms. Zollo.

The distinction is often not easy to define even at the operational level, but in her studies, Ms. Zollo is mainly interested in understanding how the end user interacts with content, not the purposes for which that content was created. “This allows us to focus on users and the relationships that are created on various social platforms, thus bypassing the author of that information and focusing on how misinformation arises and evolves so that it can be effectively combated before it translates into action (ie, into incorrect health choices),” said Ms. Zollo.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 90% of internet users are active on social media, which had 4.76 billion users worldwide in January 2023. The digital revolution has reshaped the news landscape and changed how users interact with information. Social media has fostered an active relationship with the media, including the ability to interact directly with the content presented. It also has augmented media’s ability to reach a large audience with tight deadlines.

These developments suggest that social media can be a useful tool in everyday medical practice for professionals and patients. But social media also can spread misinformation, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This characteristic is the focus of the latest research by Fabiana Zollo, a computer science professor at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy, and coordinator of the Data Science for Society laboratory. The research was published in The BMJ. Ms. Zollo’s research group aims to assess the effect of social media on misinformation and consequent behaviors related to health. “The study results focus primarily on two topics, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccinations, but can also be applied to other health-related behaviors such as smoking and diet,” Ms. Zollo told Univadis Italy.

Social media has become an important tool for public health organizations to inform and educate citizens. Institutions can use it to monitor choices and understand which topics are being discussed most at a given time, thus comprehending how the topics evolve and take shape in public discourse. “This could lead to the emergence of people’s perceptions, allowing us to understand, among other things, what the population’s needs might be, including informational needs,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

Tenuous Causal Link

While social media offers public health organizations the opportunity to inform and engage the public, it also raises concerns about misinformation and the difficulty of measuring its effect on health behavior. Although some studies have observed correlations between exposure to misinformation on social media and levels of adherence to vaccination campaigns, establishing a causal link is complex. As the authors emphasize, “despite the importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s behavior and the broad hypotheses within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a clear causal association between social media and health behaviors.” Establishing a clear causal link between information obtained from social media and offline behavior is challenging due to methodologic limitations and the complexity of connections between online and offline behaviors. Studies often rely on self-reported data, which may not accurately reflect real behaviors, and struggle to isolate the effect of social media from other external influences. Moreover, many studies primarily focus on Western countries, limiting the generalizability of the results to other cultural and geographical conditions.

Another issue highlighted by Ms. Zollo and colleagues is the lack of complete and representative data. Studies often lack detailed information about participants, such as demographic or geolocation data, and rely on limited samples. This lack makes it difficult to assess the effect of misinformation on different segments of the population and in different geographic areas.

“The main methodologic difficulty concerns behavior, which is difficult to measure because it would require tracking a person’s actions over time and having a shared methodology to do so. We need to understand whether online stated intentions do or do not translate into actual behaviors,” said Ms. Zollo. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s general behavior and the broad hypotheses expressed within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a causal association between social media and health behaviors.
 

Institutions’ Role

Social media is a fertile ground for the formation of echo chambers (where users find themselves dialoguing with like-minded people, forming a distorted impression of the real prevalence of that opinion) and for reinforcing polarized positions around certain topics. “We know that on certain topics, especially those related to health, there is a lot of misinformation circulating precisely because it is easy to leverage factors such as fear and beliefs, even the difficulties in understanding the technical aspects of a message,” said Ms. Zollo. Moreover, institutions have not always provided timely information during the pandemic. “Often, when there is a gap in response to a specific informational need, people turn elsewhere, where those questions find answers. And even if the response is not of high quality, it sometimes confirms the idea that the user had already created in their mind.”

The article published in The BMJ aims primarily to provide information and evaluation insights to institutions rather than professionals or healthcare workers. “We would like to spark the interest of institutions and ministries that can analyze this type of data and integrate it into their monitoring system. Social monitoring (the observation of what happens on social media) is a practice that the World Health Organization is also evaluating and trying to integrate with more traditional tools, such as questionnaires. The aim is to understand as well as possible what a population thinks about a particular health measure, such as a vaccine: Through data obtained from social monitoring, a more realistic and comprehensive view of the problem could be achieved,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

A Doctor’s Role

And this is where the doctor comes in: All the information thus obtained allows for identifying the needs that the population expresses and that “could push a patient to turn elsewhere, toward sources that provide answers even if of dubious quality or extremely oversimplified.” The doctor can enter this landscape by trying to understand, even with the data provided by institutions, what needs the patients are trying to fill and what drives them to seek elsewhere and to look for a reference community that offers the relevant confirmations.

From the doctor’s perspective, therefore, it can be useful to understand how these dynamics arise and evolve because they could help improve interactions with patients. At the institutional level, social monitoring would be an excellent tool for providing services to doctors who, in turn, offer a service to patients. If it were possible to identify areas where a disinformation narrative is developing from the outset, both the doctor and the institutions would benefit.
 

Misinformation vs Disinformation

The rapid spread of false or misleading information on social media can undermine trust in healthcare institutions and negatively influence health-related behaviors. Ms. Zollo and colleagues, in fact, speak of misinformation in their discussion, not disinformation. “In English, a distinction is made between misinformation and disinformation, a distinction that we are also adopting in Italian. When we talk about misinformation, we mean information that is generally false, inaccurate, or misleading but has not been created with the intention to harm, an intention that is present in disinformation,” said Ms. Zollo.

The distinction is often not easy to define even at the operational level, but in her studies, Ms. Zollo is mainly interested in understanding how the end user interacts with content, not the purposes for which that content was created. “This allows us to focus on users and the relationships that are created on various social platforms, thus bypassing the author of that information and focusing on how misinformation arises and evolves so that it can be effectively combated before it translates into action (ie, into incorrect health choices),” said Ms. Zollo.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 90% of internet users are active on social media, which had 4.76 billion users worldwide in January 2023. The digital revolution has reshaped the news landscape and changed how users interact with information. Social media has fostered an active relationship with the media, including the ability to interact directly with the content presented. It also has augmented media’s ability to reach a large audience with tight deadlines.

These developments suggest that social media can be a useful tool in everyday medical practice for professionals and patients. But social media also can spread misinformation, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This characteristic is the focus of the latest research by Fabiana Zollo, a computer science professor at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy, and coordinator of the Data Science for Society laboratory. The research was published in The BMJ. Ms. Zollo’s research group aims to assess the effect of social media on misinformation and consequent behaviors related to health. “The study results focus primarily on two topics, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccinations, but can also be applied to other health-related behaviors such as smoking and diet,” Ms. Zollo told Univadis Italy.

Social media has become an important tool for public health organizations to inform and educate citizens. Institutions can use it to monitor choices and understand which topics are being discussed most at a given time, thus comprehending how the topics evolve and take shape in public discourse. “This could lead to the emergence of people’s perceptions, allowing us to understand, among other things, what the population’s needs might be, including informational needs,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

Tenuous Causal Link

While social media offers public health organizations the opportunity to inform and engage the public, it also raises concerns about misinformation and the difficulty of measuring its effect on health behavior. Although some studies have observed correlations between exposure to misinformation on social media and levels of adherence to vaccination campaigns, establishing a causal link is complex. As the authors emphasize, “despite the importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s behavior and the broad hypotheses within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a clear causal association between social media and health behaviors.” Establishing a clear causal link between information obtained from social media and offline behavior is challenging due to methodologic limitations and the complexity of connections between online and offline behaviors. Studies often rely on self-reported data, which may not accurately reflect real behaviors, and struggle to isolate the effect of social media from other external influences. Moreover, many studies primarily focus on Western countries, limiting the generalizability of the results to other cultural and geographical conditions.

Another issue highlighted by Ms. Zollo and colleagues is the lack of complete and representative data. Studies often lack detailed information about participants, such as demographic or geolocation data, and rely on limited samples. This lack makes it difficult to assess the effect of misinformation on different segments of the population and in different geographic areas.

“The main methodologic difficulty concerns behavior, which is difficult to measure because it would require tracking a person’s actions over time and having a shared methodology to do so. We need to understand whether online stated intentions do or do not translate into actual behaviors,” said Ms. Zollo. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s general behavior and the broad hypotheses expressed within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a causal association between social media and health behaviors.
 

Institutions’ Role

Social media is a fertile ground for the formation of echo chambers (where users find themselves dialoguing with like-minded people, forming a distorted impression of the real prevalence of that opinion) and for reinforcing polarized positions around certain topics. “We know that on certain topics, especially those related to health, there is a lot of misinformation circulating precisely because it is easy to leverage factors such as fear and beliefs, even the difficulties in understanding the technical aspects of a message,” said Ms. Zollo. Moreover, institutions have not always provided timely information during the pandemic. “Often, when there is a gap in response to a specific informational need, people turn elsewhere, where those questions find answers. And even if the response is not of high quality, it sometimes confirms the idea that the user had already created in their mind.”

The article published in The BMJ aims primarily to provide information and evaluation insights to institutions rather than professionals or healthcare workers. “We would like to spark the interest of institutions and ministries that can analyze this type of data and integrate it into their monitoring system. Social monitoring (the observation of what happens on social media) is a practice that the World Health Organization is also evaluating and trying to integrate with more traditional tools, such as questionnaires. The aim is to understand as well as possible what a population thinks about a particular health measure, such as a vaccine: Through data obtained from social monitoring, a more realistic and comprehensive view of the problem could be achieved,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

A Doctor’s Role

And this is where the doctor comes in: All the information thus obtained allows for identifying the needs that the population expresses and that “could push a patient to turn elsewhere, toward sources that provide answers even if of dubious quality or extremely oversimplified.” The doctor can enter this landscape by trying to understand, even with the data provided by institutions, what needs the patients are trying to fill and what drives them to seek elsewhere and to look for a reference community that offers the relevant confirmations.

From the doctor’s perspective, therefore, it can be useful to understand how these dynamics arise and evolve because they could help improve interactions with patients. At the institutional level, social monitoring would be an excellent tool for providing services to doctors who, in turn, offer a service to patients. If it were possible to identify areas where a disinformation narrative is developing from the outset, both the doctor and the institutions would benefit.
 

Misinformation vs Disinformation

The rapid spread of false or misleading information on social media can undermine trust in healthcare institutions and negatively influence health-related behaviors. Ms. Zollo and colleagues, in fact, speak of misinformation in their discussion, not disinformation. “In English, a distinction is made between misinformation and disinformation, a distinction that we are also adopting in Italian. When we talk about misinformation, we mean information that is generally false, inaccurate, or misleading but has not been created with the intention to harm, an intention that is present in disinformation,” said Ms. Zollo.

The distinction is often not easy to define even at the operational level, but in her studies, Ms. Zollo is mainly interested in understanding how the end user interacts with content, not the purposes for which that content was created. “This allows us to focus on users and the relationships that are created on various social platforms, thus bypassing the author of that information and focusing on how misinformation arises and evolves so that it can be effectively combated before it translates into action (ie, into incorrect health choices),” said Ms. Zollo.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lenacapavir, a twice-yearly injectable HIV-1 capsid inhibitor, has shown 100% efficacy in preventing HIV in women at a high risk for infection, according to an interim analysis of the phase 3 PURPOSE 1 trial.

The results were so promising that the independent data monitoring committee recommended that Gilead Sciences stop the blinded phase of the trial and offer open-label lenacapavir to all participants.

The results were both unexpected and exciting. “I’ve been in the HIV field for a really long time, and there’s no other phase 3 PrEP trial that found zero infections,” said Moupali Das, MD, PhD, executive director of clinical development at Gilead Sciences, Foster City, California.

PURPOSE 1 is evaluating the safety and efficacy of two regimens — twice-yearly subcutaneous lenacapavir for pre-exposure prophylaxis and once-daily oral Descovy (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg) — in women and girls aged 16-25 years. The two drugs are being compared with the standard once-daily oral Truvada (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg).

There were no cases of HIV infection among the more than 2000 women in the lenacapavir group; in contrast, the incidence of HIV in the Descovy group was 2.02 per 100 person-years and in the Truvada group was 1.69 per 100 person-years.

The background incidence of HIV, one of the primary endpoints of the trial, was 2.41 per 100 person-years with lenacapavir. All the drugs were shown to be safe and well tolerated, and the full interim data from the trial will be released at an upcoming conference, according to Dr. Das.
 

No New Cases

The medical community is “thrilled” with the results so far, said Monica Gandhi, MD, director of the UCSF-Gladstone Center for AIDS Research. “We have to wait for the full data, but so far, it has been 100% effective and far superior to other treatments.”

Dr. Gandhi said she is waiting to see more details on side effects and tolerability, as well as discontinuation rates in the trial and the reasons people dropped out. For example, lenacapavir tends to cause nodules to form under the skin, which are the depots from which the drug is released over the course of 6 months. Gandhi said she is interested in whether any participants found them bothersome enough to discontinue the treatment.

The global HIV epidemic is still ongoing, with 1.3 million new infections in 2022, and existing oral PrEP options, and even the long-acting injectable cabotegravir, have so far failed to make as much of a dent in infection rates as hoped, said Dr. Gandhi. “We’ve been waiting for another option.”

The twice-yearly lenacapavir shot is easy and convenient to administer, compared with oral PrEP. Many people — especially younger individuals such as those enrolled in PURPOSE 1 — find it difficult to remember to take the pills every day.
 

A Discreet Option

Many participants in the trial said that they were uncomfortable with the stigma that can be attached to HIV PrEP. They did not want people to see the pill bottle in their house or hear it rattling in their purse. So an injection given just twice a year in a doctor’s office is attractive.

“This is a discrete option. People were very excited about the privacy and not having to take daily pills,” said Dr. Das. “PrEP only works if you take it.”

Better adherence to the treatment regimen is likely one reason that lenacapavir outperformed oral PrEP. But lenacapavir also has a unique mechanism of action as a multistage viral capsid inhibitor, Dr. Das said. It targets the capsid both before and after the virus integrates into the nucleus, which could be another reason for its potency.

Although the results are encouraging, there is still some concern about how accessible the drug will be, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the burden of HIV is the highest. “No one has any clue on how Gilead plans to make this accessible,” said Dr. Gandhi.
 

Access Issues

The company has not signed up for the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) to allow companies to manufacture generic formulations of lenacapavir, which Dr. Gandhi said is the traditional route to provide cheaper alternatives in poorer countries. The “disastrous” rollout of injectable cabotegravir, which is still not widely available in lower-income countries, is a worrying precedent.

Gilead Sciences confirmed that all 5300 participants in the PURPOSE 1 study will have the option to continue receiving lenacapavir until the drug is generally available in their country. The company has committed to ensuring a dedicated Gilead Sciences supply in the countries where the need is the greatest until voluntary licensing partners are able to supply high-quality, low-cost versions of lenacapavir.

And rather than going through the third-party MPP, Gilead Sciences is negotiating a voluntary licensing program directly with other partners to supply generic versions of the drug in poorer countries.

Lenacapavir is already approved for the treatment of multidrug-resistant HIV but is not yet approved for HIV prevention. A sister trial, PURPOSE 2, is ongoing and is testing lenacapavir in men who have sex with men and in transgender men, transgender women, and nonbinary individuals who have sex with partners assigned male at birth. Should those results, expected by the end of 2024 or early 2025, be positive, the company will move forward with regulatory filings for lenacapavir PrEP.

Three other trials are also ongoing. PURPOSE 3 and PURPOSE 4 are smaller US-based studies of women and people who inject drugs, and PURPOSE 5 is enrolling people at a high risk for HIV in France and the United Kingdom to provide European data for European regulators.

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

Lenacapavir, a twice-yearly injectable HIV-1 capsid inhibitor, has shown 100% efficacy in preventing HIV in women at a high risk for infection, according to an interim analysis of the phase 3 PURPOSE 1 trial.

The results were so promising that the independent data monitoring committee recommended that Gilead Sciences stop the blinded phase of the trial and offer open-label lenacapavir to all participants.

The results were both unexpected and exciting. “I’ve been in the HIV field for a really long time, and there’s no other phase 3 PrEP trial that found zero infections,” said Moupali Das, MD, PhD, executive director of clinical development at Gilead Sciences, Foster City, California.

PURPOSE 1 is evaluating the safety and efficacy of two regimens — twice-yearly subcutaneous lenacapavir for pre-exposure prophylaxis and once-daily oral Descovy (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg) — in women and girls aged 16-25 years. The two drugs are being compared with the standard once-daily oral Truvada (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg).

There were no cases of HIV infection among the more than 2000 women in the lenacapavir group; in contrast, the incidence of HIV in the Descovy group was 2.02 per 100 person-years and in the Truvada group was 1.69 per 100 person-years.

The background incidence of HIV, one of the primary endpoints of the trial, was 2.41 per 100 person-years with lenacapavir. All the drugs were shown to be safe and well tolerated, and the full interim data from the trial will be released at an upcoming conference, according to Dr. Das.
 

No New Cases

The medical community is “thrilled” with the results so far, said Monica Gandhi, MD, director of the UCSF-Gladstone Center for AIDS Research. “We have to wait for the full data, but so far, it has been 100% effective and far superior to other treatments.”

Dr. Gandhi said she is waiting to see more details on side effects and tolerability, as well as discontinuation rates in the trial and the reasons people dropped out. For example, lenacapavir tends to cause nodules to form under the skin, which are the depots from which the drug is released over the course of 6 months. Gandhi said she is interested in whether any participants found them bothersome enough to discontinue the treatment.

The global HIV epidemic is still ongoing, with 1.3 million new infections in 2022, and existing oral PrEP options, and even the long-acting injectable cabotegravir, have so far failed to make as much of a dent in infection rates as hoped, said Dr. Gandhi. “We’ve been waiting for another option.”

The twice-yearly lenacapavir shot is easy and convenient to administer, compared with oral PrEP. Many people — especially younger individuals such as those enrolled in PURPOSE 1 — find it difficult to remember to take the pills every day.
 

A Discreet Option

Many participants in the trial said that they were uncomfortable with the stigma that can be attached to HIV PrEP. They did not want people to see the pill bottle in their house or hear it rattling in their purse. So an injection given just twice a year in a doctor’s office is attractive.

“This is a discrete option. People were very excited about the privacy and not having to take daily pills,” said Dr. Das. “PrEP only works if you take it.”

Better adherence to the treatment regimen is likely one reason that lenacapavir outperformed oral PrEP. But lenacapavir also has a unique mechanism of action as a multistage viral capsid inhibitor, Dr. Das said. It targets the capsid both before and after the virus integrates into the nucleus, which could be another reason for its potency.

Although the results are encouraging, there is still some concern about how accessible the drug will be, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the burden of HIV is the highest. “No one has any clue on how Gilead plans to make this accessible,” said Dr. Gandhi.
 

Access Issues

The company has not signed up for the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) to allow companies to manufacture generic formulations of lenacapavir, which Dr. Gandhi said is the traditional route to provide cheaper alternatives in poorer countries. The “disastrous” rollout of injectable cabotegravir, which is still not widely available in lower-income countries, is a worrying precedent.

Gilead Sciences confirmed that all 5300 participants in the PURPOSE 1 study will have the option to continue receiving lenacapavir until the drug is generally available in their country. The company has committed to ensuring a dedicated Gilead Sciences supply in the countries where the need is the greatest until voluntary licensing partners are able to supply high-quality, low-cost versions of lenacapavir.

And rather than going through the third-party MPP, Gilead Sciences is negotiating a voluntary licensing program directly with other partners to supply generic versions of the drug in poorer countries.

Lenacapavir is already approved for the treatment of multidrug-resistant HIV but is not yet approved for HIV prevention. A sister trial, PURPOSE 2, is ongoing and is testing lenacapavir in men who have sex with men and in transgender men, transgender women, and nonbinary individuals who have sex with partners assigned male at birth. Should those results, expected by the end of 2024 or early 2025, be positive, the company will move forward with regulatory filings for lenacapavir PrEP.

Three other trials are also ongoing. PURPOSE 3 and PURPOSE 4 are smaller US-based studies of women and people who inject drugs, and PURPOSE 5 is enrolling people at a high risk for HIV in France and the United Kingdom to provide European data for European regulators.

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

Lenacapavir, a twice-yearly injectable HIV-1 capsid inhibitor, has shown 100% efficacy in preventing HIV in women at a high risk for infection, according to an interim analysis of the phase 3 PURPOSE 1 trial.

The results were so promising that the independent data monitoring committee recommended that Gilead Sciences stop the blinded phase of the trial and offer open-label lenacapavir to all participants.

The results were both unexpected and exciting. “I’ve been in the HIV field for a really long time, and there’s no other phase 3 PrEP trial that found zero infections,” said Moupali Das, MD, PhD, executive director of clinical development at Gilead Sciences, Foster City, California.

PURPOSE 1 is evaluating the safety and efficacy of two regimens — twice-yearly subcutaneous lenacapavir for pre-exposure prophylaxis and once-daily oral Descovy (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg) — in women and girls aged 16-25 years. The two drugs are being compared with the standard once-daily oral Truvada (emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg).

There were no cases of HIV infection among the more than 2000 women in the lenacapavir group; in contrast, the incidence of HIV in the Descovy group was 2.02 per 100 person-years and in the Truvada group was 1.69 per 100 person-years.

The background incidence of HIV, one of the primary endpoints of the trial, was 2.41 per 100 person-years with lenacapavir. All the drugs were shown to be safe and well tolerated, and the full interim data from the trial will be released at an upcoming conference, according to Dr. Das.
 

No New Cases

The medical community is “thrilled” with the results so far, said Monica Gandhi, MD, director of the UCSF-Gladstone Center for AIDS Research. “We have to wait for the full data, but so far, it has been 100% effective and far superior to other treatments.”

Dr. Gandhi said she is waiting to see more details on side effects and tolerability, as well as discontinuation rates in the trial and the reasons people dropped out. For example, lenacapavir tends to cause nodules to form under the skin, which are the depots from which the drug is released over the course of 6 months. Gandhi said she is interested in whether any participants found them bothersome enough to discontinue the treatment.

The global HIV epidemic is still ongoing, with 1.3 million new infections in 2022, and existing oral PrEP options, and even the long-acting injectable cabotegravir, have so far failed to make as much of a dent in infection rates as hoped, said Dr. Gandhi. “We’ve been waiting for another option.”

The twice-yearly lenacapavir shot is easy and convenient to administer, compared with oral PrEP. Many people — especially younger individuals such as those enrolled in PURPOSE 1 — find it difficult to remember to take the pills every day.
 

A Discreet Option

Many participants in the trial said that they were uncomfortable with the stigma that can be attached to HIV PrEP. They did not want people to see the pill bottle in their house or hear it rattling in their purse. So an injection given just twice a year in a doctor’s office is attractive.

“This is a discrete option. People were very excited about the privacy and not having to take daily pills,” said Dr. Das. “PrEP only works if you take it.”

Better adherence to the treatment regimen is likely one reason that lenacapavir outperformed oral PrEP. But lenacapavir also has a unique mechanism of action as a multistage viral capsid inhibitor, Dr. Das said. It targets the capsid both before and after the virus integrates into the nucleus, which could be another reason for its potency.

Although the results are encouraging, there is still some concern about how accessible the drug will be, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the burden of HIV is the highest. “No one has any clue on how Gilead plans to make this accessible,” said Dr. Gandhi.
 

Access Issues

The company has not signed up for the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) to allow companies to manufacture generic formulations of lenacapavir, which Dr. Gandhi said is the traditional route to provide cheaper alternatives in poorer countries. The “disastrous” rollout of injectable cabotegravir, which is still not widely available in lower-income countries, is a worrying precedent.

Gilead Sciences confirmed that all 5300 participants in the PURPOSE 1 study will have the option to continue receiving lenacapavir until the drug is generally available in their country. The company has committed to ensuring a dedicated Gilead Sciences supply in the countries where the need is the greatest until voluntary licensing partners are able to supply high-quality, low-cost versions of lenacapavir.

And rather than going through the third-party MPP, Gilead Sciences is negotiating a voluntary licensing program directly with other partners to supply generic versions of the drug in poorer countries.

Lenacapavir is already approved for the treatment of multidrug-resistant HIV but is not yet approved for HIV prevention. A sister trial, PURPOSE 2, is ongoing and is testing lenacapavir in men who have sex with men and in transgender men, transgender women, and nonbinary individuals who have sex with partners assigned male at birth. Should those results, expected by the end of 2024 or early 2025, be positive, the company will move forward with regulatory filings for lenacapavir PrEP.

Three other trials are also ongoing. PURPOSE 3 and PURPOSE 4 are smaller US-based studies of women and people who inject drugs, and PURPOSE 5 is enrolling people at a high risk for HIV in France and the United Kingdom to provide European data for European regulators.

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

CHICAGO — The landscape of antibody-drug conjugates, or ADCs, continues to grow more crowded in metastatic breast cancer. Indications are expanding, new agents are emerging, combinations with other drug classes are being tested, and many patients with this disease are now receiving more than one ADC.

ADCs use antibodies to bind to the surface proteins of cancer cells to deliver a potent payload of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Three are approved for use in pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer: sacituzumab govitecan, or SG, for patients with triple-negative disease; trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, for patients with HER2-positive and HER2-low disease; and trastuzumab emtansine, or T-DM1, for patients with HER2-positive disease. A fourth agent, datopotamab deruxtecan, or Dato-DXd, is being assessed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in pretreated HR-positive, HER2-negative patients, and others, including sacituzumab tirumotecan, are being tested in clinical trials.At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) showed better progression free survival than chemotherapy in people with HR-positive, HER 2-low metastatic breast cancers. These findings, from the DESTINY Breast-06 trial, were among the most talked-about at ASCO, and are likely to change clinical practice (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1000]).

But other ADC results presented at ASCO showed that there is still much to be worked out about the timing and sequencing of these agents, as well as their synergy with other drug classes, in metastatic breast cancer.
 

An ADC gets its first test, and falls short

Antonio Giordano, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented findings from an open-label phase 2 study of the ADC enfortumab vedotin (EV), an agent currently approved for use in advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, at ASCO. This study included two cohorts of previously treated metastatic breast cancer patients: one with triple-negative disease (n = 42) and the other with HR-positive HER2-negative (n = 45).

Dr. Giordano and his colleagues’ study is the first to look at this ADC in breast cancer. EV’s antibody targets the cell adhesion molecule Nectin-4.

The researchers found that though EV demonstrated anti-tumor activity in both cohorts — with 19% of the triple-negative patients and 15.6% of the HR-positive/HER2-negative patients responding — the results did not meet the prespecified response thresholds for either cohort. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 16; abstr 1005]).

In an interview, Dr. Giordano said that studies in urothelial cancer had shown better response to EV associated with more expression of Nectin-4, but this study did not see such clear associations between expression and response. While there is no question that Nectin-4 is highly expressed in breast cancer and therefore a viable target, he said, “it may need to be looked at a little more deeply.”

It could also be the case, Dr. Giordano said, that the effect of EV’s payload may have been less robust in participants who had been previously treated with taxane chemotherapy, as nearly all patients in the two cohorts were.

“Taxanes are microtubule disruptors. And with this drug we had a payload with pretty much the same mechanism of action,” Dr. Giordano said. Ideally, he said, he would like to test the agent in a first-line setting, possibly in combination with an immunotherapy agent.

The timing of ADCs is as important as their targets and their payloads — and something that investigators are still struggling to figure out, he said.

A third of the patients in the triple-negative cohort of his study had been previously treated with SG, and a handful of individuals with T-Dxd, he noted.

“We’re in the middle of an ADC revolution,” he said. “It’s really key to figure out the best sequencing for a patient and if it’s actually worth it to do it. Very often we see patients respond best to the first ADC. But sometimes we see patients that do not respond to the first ADC and then they respond to the second one. It’s not very frequent, but it happens.”
 

Hint of Benefit from Adding Immunotherapy to SG

In a separate presentation at ASCO, Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, also of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, presented results from the SACI-IO HR+ trial, a randomized phase 2 study of SG (Trodelvy, Gilead) with and without pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) in 104 patients with metastatic HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer who received prior endocrine therapy and up to one chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease. SACI-IO HR+ is the first randomized trial to report the efficacy of a topoisomerase I-inhibitor ADC with an immune checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of breast cancer.

The addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor did not result in a significant improvement in median progression-free survival in the overall population, Dr. Garrido-Castro reported. Median PFS was 8.1 vs 6.2 months with the combination of SG plus pembrolizumab or sacituzumab govitecan alone, respectively. At a median follow-up of 12.5 months, there was also no significant difference seen in median overall survival (OS): 18.5 vs 18.0 months.

About 40% of participants were found to have PD-L1-positive tumors and, among this subgroup, there was a 4.4-month increase in median PFS and 6.0-month increase in median OS with the addition of pembrolizumab to SG, although this did not reach statistical significance. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1004]).

“While the study did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit with the addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the ADC, there is an interesting signal for potential synergistic activity between the two agents, particularly in those patients with PD-L1 positive tumors,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said in an interview. She noted that the sample sizes for the PD-L1 subgroup were relatively small, and overall survival data are not yet mature.

A separate phase 3 study is looking at the experimental ADC called sacituzumab tirumotecan with and without pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who have received prior endocrine therapy and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, she said.

Similar to SG, sacituzumab tirumotecan is a TROP2-directed ADC with a topoisomerase I-inhibitor payload. With an estimated enrollment of 1,200 patients, this trial may help shed light on whether adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the topoisomerase I-inhibitor TROP2-directed ADC improves outcomes in the subgroup of patients with PD-L1 positive tumors, Dr. Garrido-Castro said.
 

Unlocking the Order and Timing of ADCs

Dr. Garrido-Castro is also leading a study that will evaluate the sequential use of ADCs in metastatic breast cancer. That trial, to be called TRADE-DXd, will enroll patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who have received up to one prior line of chemotherapy and no previous topoisomerase I-inhibitors. Participants will receive either T-DXd or Dato-DXd as the first ADC, and then switch to the other ADC (Dato-DXd or T-DXd, respectively) at the time of progression, thus switching the target of the ADC from HER2 to TROP2 or vice versa.

“In real-world practice now, there are patients who receive sequential ADCs, because they are candidates for both,” Dr. Garrido-Castro explained. However, more robust data are needed to refine the selection of the initial antibody drug conjugate and to determine who is more likely to benefit from a second — or maybe even third — ADC.

“One potential mechanism of resistance to antibody drug conjugates is the downregulation of the target of the antibody drug conjugate,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said. “Thus, an important question is, if you modify the target of the ADC, is it possible to overcome that mechanism of resistance?” Another possible mechanism of resistance is to the chemotherapy payload of the ADCs, she said.

Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study will collect tumor samples and blood samples for the purposes of planned correlative analyses to try to better understand the mechanisms that drive response and resistance to these agents.

Dr. Giordano commented that Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study was likely to result in a much better understanding of ADCs and how to use them strategically.

At Dana-Farber, “we collect a lot of samples of patients receiving ADCs. And we are trying to do all kinds of work on circulating tumor DNA, immunohistochemistry expression, and protein expression,” he said. “We are trying to figure out how ADCs really work, and why they stop working.”

Dr. Giordano and colleagues’ study was funded by Astellas Pharma and by Seagen, which was bought by Pfizer in 2023. Dr. Giordano disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, and several of his coauthors reported relationships with this and other companies. Two were Astellas employees.

Dr. Garrido-Castro and colleagues’ study was funded by Merck and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Garrido-Castro disclosed receiving research support from Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Zenith Epigenetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Biovica, Foundation Medicine, 4D Path, Precede Biosciences; scientific advisory board/consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo; speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo; and other support from Roche/Genentech, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Merck, while her coauthors reported similar relationships.

CHICAGO — The landscape of antibody-drug conjugates, or ADCs, continues to grow more crowded in metastatic breast cancer. Indications are expanding, new agents are emerging, combinations with other drug classes are being tested, and many patients with this disease are now receiving more than one ADC.

ADCs use antibodies to bind to the surface proteins of cancer cells to deliver a potent payload of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Three are approved for use in pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer: sacituzumab govitecan, or SG, for patients with triple-negative disease; trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, for patients with HER2-positive and HER2-low disease; and trastuzumab emtansine, or T-DM1, for patients with HER2-positive disease. A fourth agent, datopotamab deruxtecan, or Dato-DXd, is being assessed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in pretreated HR-positive, HER2-negative patients, and others, including sacituzumab tirumotecan, are being tested in clinical trials.At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) showed better progression free survival than chemotherapy in people with HR-positive, HER 2-low metastatic breast cancers. These findings, from the DESTINY Breast-06 trial, were among the most talked-about at ASCO, and are likely to change clinical practice (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1000]).

But other ADC results presented at ASCO showed that there is still much to be worked out about the timing and sequencing of these agents, as well as their synergy with other drug classes, in metastatic breast cancer.
 

An ADC gets its first test, and falls short

Antonio Giordano, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented findings from an open-label phase 2 study of the ADC enfortumab vedotin (EV), an agent currently approved for use in advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, at ASCO. This study included two cohorts of previously treated metastatic breast cancer patients: one with triple-negative disease (n = 42) and the other with HR-positive HER2-negative (n = 45).

Dr. Giordano and his colleagues’ study is the first to look at this ADC in breast cancer. EV’s antibody targets the cell adhesion molecule Nectin-4.

The researchers found that though EV demonstrated anti-tumor activity in both cohorts — with 19% of the triple-negative patients and 15.6% of the HR-positive/HER2-negative patients responding — the results did not meet the prespecified response thresholds for either cohort. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 16; abstr 1005]).

In an interview, Dr. Giordano said that studies in urothelial cancer had shown better response to EV associated with more expression of Nectin-4, but this study did not see such clear associations between expression and response. While there is no question that Nectin-4 is highly expressed in breast cancer and therefore a viable target, he said, “it may need to be looked at a little more deeply.”

It could also be the case, Dr. Giordano said, that the effect of EV’s payload may have been less robust in participants who had been previously treated with taxane chemotherapy, as nearly all patients in the two cohorts were.

“Taxanes are microtubule disruptors. And with this drug we had a payload with pretty much the same mechanism of action,” Dr. Giordano said. Ideally, he said, he would like to test the agent in a first-line setting, possibly in combination with an immunotherapy agent.

The timing of ADCs is as important as their targets and their payloads — and something that investigators are still struggling to figure out, he said.

A third of the patients in the triple-negative cohort of his study had been previously treated with SG, and a handful of individuals with T-Dxd, he noted.

“We’re in the middle of an ADC revolution,” he said. “It’s really key to figure out the best sequencing for a patient and if it’s actually worth it to do it. Very often we see patients respond best to the first ADC. But sometimes we see patients that do not respond to the first ADC and then they respond to the second one. It’s not very frequent, but it happens.”
 

Hint of Benefit from Adding Immunotherapy to SG

In a separate presentation at ASCO, Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, also of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, presented results from the SACI-IO HR+ trial, a randomized phase 2 study of SG (Trodelvy, Gilead) with and without pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) in 104 patients with metastatic HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer who received prior endocrine therapy and up to one chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease. SACI-IO HR+ is the first randomized trial to report the efficacy of a topoisomerase I-inhibitor ADC with an immune checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of breast cancer.

The addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor did not result in a significant improvement in median progression-free survival in the overall population, Dr. Garrido-Castro reported. Median PFS was 8.1 vs 6.2 months with the combination of SG plus pembrolizumab or sacituzumab govitecan alone, respectively. At a median follow-up of 12.5 months, there was also no significant difference seen in median overall survival (OS): 18.5 vs 18.0 months.

About 40% of participants were found to have PD-L1-positive tumors and, among this subgroup, there was a 4.4-month increase in median PFS and 6.0-month increase in median OS with the addition of pembrolizumab to SG, although this did not reach statistical significance. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1004]).

“While the study did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit with the addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the ADC, there is an interesting signal for potential synergistic activity between the two agents, particularly in those patients with PD-L1 positive tumors,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said in an interview. She noted that the sample sizes for the PD-L1 subgroup were relatively small, and overall survival data are not yet mature.

A separate phase 3 study is looking at the experimental ADC called sacituzumab tirumotecan with and without pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who have received prior endocrine therapy and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, she said.

Similar to SG, sacituzumab tirumotecan is a TROP2-directed ADC with a topoisomerase I-inhibitor payload. With an estimated enrollment of 1,200 patients, this trial may help shed light on whether adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the topoisomerase I-inhibitor TROP2-directed ADC improves outcomes in the subgroup of patients with PD-L1 positive tumors, Dr. Garrido-Castro said.
 

Unlocking the Order and Timing of ADCs

Dr. Garrido-Castro is also leading a study that will evaluate the sequential use of ADCs in metastatic breast cancer. That trial, to be called TRADE-DXd, will enroll patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who have received up to one prior line of chemotherapy and no previous topoisomerase I-inhibitors. Participants will receive either T-DXd or Dato-DXd as the first ADC, and then switch to the other ADC (Dato-DXd or T-DXd, respectively) at the time of progression, thus switching the target of the ADC from HER2 to TROP2 or vice versa.

“In real-world practice now, there are patients who receive sequential ADCs, because they are candidates for both,” Dr. Garrido-Castro explained. However, more robust data are needed to refine the selection of the initial antibody drug conjugate and to determine who is more likely to benefit from a second — or maybe even third — ADC.

“One potential mechanism of resistance to antibody drug conjugates is the downregulation of the target of the antibody drug conjugate,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said. “Thus, an important question is, if you modify the target of the ADC, is it possible to overcome that mechanism of resistance?” Another possible mechanism of resistance is to the chemotherapy payload of the ADCs, she said.

Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study will collect tumor samples and blood samples for the purposes of planned correlative analyses to try to better understand the mechanisms that drive response and resistance to these agents.

Dr. Giordano commented that Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study was likely to result in a much better understanding of ADCs and how to use them strategically.

At Dana-Farber, “we collect a lot of samples of patients receiving ADCs. And we are trying to do all kinds of work on circulating tumor DNA, immunohistochemistry expression, and protein expression,” he said. “We are trying to figure out how ADCs really work, and why they stop working.”

Dr. Giordano and colleagues’ study was funded by Astellas Pharma and by Seagen, which was bought by Pfizer in 2023. Dr. Giordano disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, and several of his coauthors reported relationships with this and other companies. Two were Astellas employees.

Dr. Garrido-Castro and colleagues’ study was funded by Merck and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Garrido-Castro disclosed receiving research support from Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Zenith Epigenetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Biovica, Foundation Medicine, 4D Path, Precede Biosciences; scientific advisory board/consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo; speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo; and other support from Roche/Genentech, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Merck, while her coauthors reported similar relationships.

CHICAGO — The landscape of antibody-drug conjugates, or ADCs, continues to grow more crowded in metastatic breast cancer. Indications are expanding, new agents are emerging, combinations with other drug classes are being tested, and many patients with this disease are now receiving more than one ADC.

ADCs use antibodies to bind to the surface proteins of cancer cells to deliver a potent payload of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Three are approved for use in pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer: sacituzumab govitecan, or SG, for patients with triple-negative disease; trastuzumab deruxtecan, or T-DXd, for patients with HER2-positive and HER2-low disease; and trastuzumab emtansine, or T-DM1, for patients with HER2-positive disease. A fourth agent, datopotamab deruxtecan, or Dato-DXd, is being assessed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in pretreated HR-positive, HER2-negative patients, and others, including sacituzumab tirumotecan, are being tested in clinical trials.At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, T-DXd (Enhertu, AstraZeneca) showed better progression free survival than chemotherapy in people with HR-positive, HER 2-low metastatic breast cancers. These findings, from the DESTINY Breast-06 trial, were among the most talked-about at ASCO, and are likely to change clinical practice (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1000]).

But other ADC results presented at ASCO showed that there is still much to be worked out about the timing and sequencing of these agents, as well as their synergy with other drug classes, in metastatic breast cancer.
 

An ADC gets its first test, and falls short

Antonio Giordano, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, presented findings from an open-label phase 2 study of the ADC enfortumab vedotin (EV), an agent currently approved for use in advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, at ASCO. This study included two cohorts of previously treated metastatic breast cancer patients: one with triple-negative disease (n = 42) and the other with HR-positive HER2-negative (n = 45).

Dr. Giordano and his colleagues’ study is the first to look at this ADC in breast cancer. EV’s antibody targets the cell adhesion molecule Nectin-4.

The researchers found that though EV demonstrated anti-tumor activity in both cohorts — with 19% of the triple-negative patients and 15.6% of the HR-positive/HER2-negative patients responding — the results did not meet the prespecified response thresholds for either cohort. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 16; abstr 1005]).

In an interview, Dr. Giordano said that studies in urothelial cancer had shown better response to EV associated with more expression of Nectin-4, but this study did not see such clear associations between expression and response. While there is no question that Nectin-4 is highly expressed in breast cancer and therefore a viable target, he said, “it may need to be looked at a little more deeply.”

It could also be the case, Dr. Giordano said, that the effect of EV’s payload may have been less robust in participants who had been previously treated with taxane chemotherapy, as nearly all patients in the two cohorts were.

“Taxanes are microtubule disruptors. And with this drug we had a payload with pretty much the same mechanism of action,” Dr. Giordano said. Ideally, he said, he would like to test the agent in a first-line setting, possibly in combination with an immunotherapy agent.

The timing of ADCs is as important as their targets and their payloads — and something that investigators are still struggling to figure out, he said.

A third of the patients in the triple-negative cohort of his study had been previously treated with SG, and a handful of individuals with T-Dxd, he noted.

“We’re in the middle of an ADC revolution,” he said. “It’s really key to figure out the best sequencing for a patient and if it’s actually worth it to do it. Very often we see patients respond best to the first ADC. But sometimes we see patients that do not respond to the first ADC and then they respond to the second one. It’s not very frequent, but it happens.”
 

Hint of Benefit from Adding Immunotherapy to SG

In a separate presentation at ASCO, Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, also of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, presented results from the SACI-IO HR+ trial, a randomized phase 2 study of SG (Trodelvy, Gilead) with and without pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) in 104 patients with metastatic HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer who received prior endocrine therapy and up to one chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease. SACI-IO HR+ is the first randomized trial to report the efficacy of a topoisomerase I-inhibitor ADC with an immune checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of breast cancer.

The addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor did not result in a significant improvement in median progression-free survival in the overall population, Dr. Garrido-Castro reported. Median PFS was 8.1 vs 6.2 months with the combination of SG plus pembrolizumab or sacituzumab govitecan alone, respectively. At a median follow-up of 12.5 months, there was also no significant difference seen in median overall survival (OS): 18.5 vs 18.0 months.

About 40% of participants were found to have PD-L1-positive tumors and, among this subgroup, there was a 4.4-month increase in median PFS and 6.0-month increase in median OS with the addition of pembrolizumab to SG, although this did not reach statistical significance. (J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17; abstr LBA1004]).

“While the study did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit with the addition of the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the ADC, there is an interesting signal for potential synergistic activity between the two agents, particularly in those patients with PD-L1 positive tumors,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said in an interview. She noted that the sample sizes for the PD-L1 subgroup were relatively small, and overall survival data are not yet mature.

A separate phase 3 study is looking at the experimental ADC called sacituzumab tirumotecan with and without pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who have received prior endocrine therapy and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, she said.

Similar to SG, sacituzumab tirumotecan is a TROP2-directed ADC with a topoisomerase I-inhibitor payload. With an estimated enrollment of 1,200 patients, this trial may help shed light on whether adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor to the topoisomerase I-inhibitor TROP2-directed ADC improves outcomes in the subgroup of patients with PD-L1 positive tumors, Dr. Garrido-Castro said.
 

Unlocking the Order and Timing of ADCs

Dr. Garrido-Castro is also leading a study that will evaluate the sequential use of ADCs in metastatic breast cancer. That trial, to be called TRADE-DXd, will enroll patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who have received up to one prior line of chemotherapy and no previous topoisomerase I-inhibitors. Participants will receive either T-DXd or Dato-DXd as the first ADC, and then switch to the other ADC (Dato-DXd or T-DXd, respectively) at the time of progression, thus switching the target of the ADC from HER2 to TROP2 or vice versa.

“In real-world practice now, there are patients who receive sequential ADCs, because they are candidates for both,” Dr. Garrido-Castro explained. However, more robust data are needed to refine the selection of the initial antibody drug conjugate and to determine who is more likely to benefit from a second — or maybe even third — ADC.

“One potential mechanism of resistance to antibody drug conjugates is the downregulation of the target of the antibody drug conjugate,” Dr. Garrido-Castro said. “Thus, an important question is, if you modify the target of the ADC, is it possible to overcome that mechanism of resistance?” Another possible mechanism of resistance is to the chemotherapy payload of the ADCs, she said.

Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study will collect tumor samples and blood samples for the purposes of planned correlative analyses to try to better understand the mechanisms that drive response and resistance to these agents.

Dr. Giordano commented that Dr. Garrido-Castro’s study was likely to result in a much better understanding of ADCs and how to use them strategically.

At Dana-Farber, “we collect a lot of samples of patients receiving ADCs. And we are trying to do all kinds of work on circulating tumor DNA, immunohistochemistry expression, and protein expression,” he said. “We are trying to figure out how ADCs really work, and why they stop working.”

Dr. Giordano and colleagues’ study was funded by Astellas Pharma and by Seagen, which was bought by Pfizer in 2023. Dr. Giordano disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, and several of his coauthors reported relationships with this and other companies. Two were Astellas employees.

Dr. Garrido-Castro and colleagues’ study was funded by Merck and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Garrido-Castro disclosed receiving research support from Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Zenith Epigenetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Biovica, Foundation Medicine, 4D Path, Precede Biosciences; scientific advisory board/consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo; speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo; and other support from Roche/Genentech, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Merck, while her coauthors reported similar relationships.

As Pride Month drew to a close, the Supreme Court made a shocking announcement. For the first time in the history of the court, it is willing to hear a legal challenge regarding gender-affirming care for minors. The justices will review whether a 2023 Tennessee law, SB1, which bans hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and surgery for transgender minors, is unconstitutional. This is the first time the Supreme Court will directly weigh in on gender-affirming care.

There are few topics as politically and medically divisive as gender-affirming care for minors. When the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) released its updated Standards of Care, SOC8, one of the noticeable changes to the document was its approach to caring for transgender children and adolescents.

Dr. Brandt

Before I highlight these recommendations and the ensuing controversy, it is imperative to establish proper terminology. Unfortunately, medical and legal terms often differ. Both activists and opponents use these terms interchangeably, which makes discourse about an already emotionally charged topic extremely difficult. From a legal perspective, the terms “minor” and “child” often refer to individuals under the age of majority. In the United States, the age of majority is 18. However, the term child also has a well-established medical definition. A child is an individual between the stages of infancy and puberty. Adolescence is a transitional period marked by the onset of puberty until adulthood (typically the age of majority). As medical providers, understanding these definitions is essential to identifying misinformation pertaining to this type of healthcare.

For the purposes of this article, I will be adhering to the medical terminology. Now, I want to be very clear. WPATH does not endorse surgical procedures on children. Furthermore, surgeons are not performing gender-affirming surgeries on children. On adolescents, rarely. But children, never.

According to the updated SOC8, the only acceptable gender-affirming intervention for children is psychosocial support.¹ This does not include puberty blockers, hormones, or surgery, but rather allowing a child to explore their gender identity by experimenting with different clothing, toys, hairstyles, and even an alternative name that aligns more closely with their gender identity.¹

It is only after children reach adolescence that medical, and in rare cases, surgical interventions, can be considered. Puberty blockers are appropriate for patients who have started puberty and experience gender dysphoria. These medications are reversible, and their purpose is to temporarily pause puberty to allow the adolescent to further explore their gender identity.

The most significant side effect of puberty blockers is decreased bone density.¹ As a result, providers typically do not prescribe these medications for more than 2-3 years. After discontinuation of the medication, bone density returns to baseline.¹ If the adolescent’s gender identity is marked and sustained over time, hormone therapy, such as testosterone or estrogen is then considered. Unlike puberty blockers, these medications can have permanent side effects. Testosterone use can lead to irreversible hair growth, alopecia, clitoromegaly, and voice deepening, while estrogen can cause permanent breast growth and halt sperm production.¹ Future fertility and these side effects are discussed with the patient in detail prior to the initiation of these medications.

Contrary to the current political narrative, gender-affirming care for children and adolescents is not taken lightly. These individuals often receive years of multidisciplinary assessments, with a focus on gender identity development, social development and support, and diagnostic assessment of possible co-occurring mental health or developmental concerns and capacity for decision making.¹ The clinical visits also occur with parental support and consent.

WPATH SOC8 also delineates the provider qualifications for health care professionals assessing these patients. Providers must be licensed by their statutory bodies and hold a postgraduate degree by a nationally accredited statutory institution; receive theoretical and evidence-based training and develop expertise in child, adolescent, and family mental health across the developmental spectrum; receive training and have expertise in gender identity development and gender diversity in children and adolescence; have the ability to assess capacity to assent/consent; receive training and develop expertise in autism spectrum disorders and other neurodevelopmental presentations; and to continue engaging in professional development in all areas relevant to gender-diverse children, adolescents, and families.¹

The most controversial aspect of gender-affirming care for children and adolescents relates to surgical treatment. While the rates of gender-affirming surgeries have increased for this age group over the years, the overall rate of gender-affirming surgery for adolescents is markedly lower compared with other adolescents seeking cosmetic surgeries and compared with transgender adults undergoing gender-affirming surgery.

In a cohort study conducted between 2016 to 2020, 48,019 patients were identified who had undergone gender-affirming surgery.² Only 3678 or 7.7% of patients were aged between 12 and 18, with the most common procedure being chest/breast surgery.² So, under about 1000 cases per year were gender-affirming surgeries on patients under 18.

During 2020 alone, the number of cisgender adolescents between the ages of 13 and 19 who underwent breast augmentation and breast reduction was 3233 and 4666, respectively.³ The outrage about gender-affirming surgeries on transgender youth, yet the silence on cosmetic procedures in this same age group, speaks volumes.

All surgeries on adolescents should be taken seriously and with caution, regardless of gender identity. However, current legislation disproportionately targets only transgender youth. For whatever reason, surgeries on transgender individuals are labeled as “body mutilation,” whereas surgeries on cisgender youth are not even discussed. Such inflammatory rhetoric and complete lack of empathy impedes the common goal of all parties: what is in the best interest of the minor? Unfortunately, in a few short months, the answer to this question will be determined by a group of nine justices who have no experience in medicine or transgender health care, instead of by medical experts and the parents who care for these individuals.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pennsylvania. She has no conflicts of interest.
 

References

1. Coleman E et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, version 8. Int J Transgender Health. 2022;23(sup):S1-S259.

2. Wright JD et al. National estimates of gender affirming surgery in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Aug 1;6(8):e2330348.

3. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. ASPS National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. 2020.

As Pride Month drew to a close, the Supreme Court made a shocking announcement. For the first time in the history of the court, it is willing to hear a legal challenge regarding gender-affirming care for minors. The justices will review whether a 2023 Tennessee law, SB1, which bans hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and surgery for transgender minors, is unconstitutional. This is the first time the Supreme Court will directly weigh in on gender-affirming care.

There are few topics as politically and medically divisive as gender-affirming care for minors. When the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) released its updated Standards of Care, SOC8, one of the noticeable changes to the document was its approach to caring for transgender children and adolescents.

Dr. Brandt

Before I highlight these recommendations and the ensuing controversy, it is imperative to establish proper terminology. Unfortunately, medical and legal terms often differ. Both activists and opponents use these terms interchangeably, which makes discourse about an already emotionally charged topic extremely difficult. From a legal perspective, the terms “minor” and “child” often refer to individuals under the age of majority. In the United States, the age of majority is 18. However, the term child also has a well-established medical definition. A child is an individual between the stages of infancy and puberty. Adolescence is a transitional period marked by the onset of puberty until adulthood (typically the age of majority). As medical providers, understanding these definitions is essential to identifying misinformation pertaining to this type of healthcare.

For the purposes of this article, I will be adhering to the medical terminology. Now, I want to be very clear. WPATH does not endorse surgical procedures on children. Furthermore, surgeons are not performing gender-affirming surgeries on children. On adolescents, rarely. But children, never.

According to the updated SOC8, the only acceptable gender-affirming intervention for children is psychosocial support.¹ This does not include puberty blockers, hormones, or surgery, but rather allowing a child to explore their gender identity by experimenting with different clothing, toys, hairstyles, and even an alternative name that aligns more closely with their gender identity.¹

It is only after children reach adolescence that medical, and in rare cases, surgical interventions, can be considered. Puberty blockers are appropriate for patients who have started puberty and experience gender dysphoria. These medications are reversible, and their purpose is to temporarily pause puberty to allow the adolescent to further explore their gender identity.

The most significant side effect of puberty blockers is decreased bone density.¹ As a result, providers typically do not prescribe these medications for more than 2-3 years. After discontinuation of the medication, bone density returns to baseline.¹ If the adolescent’s gender identity is marked and sustained over time, hormone therapy, such as testosterone or estrogen is then considered. Unlike puberty blockers, these medications can have permanent side effects. Testosterone use can lead to irreversible hair growth, alopecia, clitoromegaly, and voice deepening, while estrogen can cause permanent breast growth and halt sperm production.¹ Future fertility and these side effects are discussed with the patient in detail prior to the initiation of these medications.

Contrary to the current political narrative, gender-affirming care for children and adolescents is not taken lightly. These individuals often receive years of multidisciplinary assessments, with a focus on gender identity development, social development and support, and diagnostic assessment of possible co-occurring mental health or developmental concerns and capacity for decision making.¹ The clinical visits also occur with parental support and consent.

WPATH SOC8 also delineates the provider qualifications for health care professionals assessing these patients. Providers must be licensed by their statutory bodies and hold a postgraduate degree by a nationally accredited statutory institution; receive theoretical and evidence-based training and develop expertise in child, adolescent, and family mental health across the developmental spectrum; receive training and have expertise in gender identity development and gender diversity in children and adolescence; have the ability to assess capacity to assent/consent; receive training and develop expertise in autism spectrum disorders and other neurodevelopmental presentations; and to continue engaging in professional development in all areas relevant to gender-diverse children, adolescents, and families.¹

The most controversial aspect of gender-affirming care for children and adolescents relates to surgical treatment. While the rates of gender-affirming surgeries have increased for this age group over the years, the overall rate of gender-affirming surgery for adolescents is markedly lower compared with other adolescents seeking cosmetic surgeries and compared with transgender adults undergoing gender-affirming surgery.

In a cohort study conducted between 2016 to 2020, 48,019 patients were identified who had undergone gender-affirming surgery.² Only 3678 or 7.7% of patients were aged between 12 and 18, with the most common procedure being chest/breast surgery.² So, under about 1000 cases per year were gender-affirming surgeries on patients under 18.

During 2020 alone, the number of cisgender adolescents between the ages of 13 and 19 who underwent breast augmentation and breast reduction was 3233 and 4666, respectively.³ The outrage about gender-affirming surgeries on transgender youth, yet the silence on cosmetic procedures in this same age group, speaks volumes.

All surgeries on adolescents should be taken seriously and with caution, regardless of gender identity. However, current legislation disproportionately targets only transgender youth. For whatever reason, surgeries on transgender individuals are labeled as “body mutilation,” whereas surgeries on cisgender youth are not even discussed. Such inflammatory rhetoric and complete lack of empathy impedes the common goal of all parties: what is in the best interest of the minor? Unfortunately, in a few short months, the answer to this question will be determined by a group of nine justices who have no experience in medicine or transgender health care, instead of by medical experts and the parents who care for these individuals.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pennsylvania. She has no conflicts of interest.
 

References

1. Coleman E et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, version 8. Int J Transgender Health. 2022;23(sup):S1-S259.

2. Wright JD et al. National estimates of gender affirming surgery in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Aug 1;6(8):e2330348.

3. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. ASPS National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. 2020.

As Pride Month drew to a close, the Supreme Court made a shocking announcement. For the first time in the history of the court, it is willing to hear a legal challenge regarding gender-affirming care for minors. The justices will review whether a 2023 Tennessee law, SB1, which bans hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and surgery for transgender minors, is unconstitutional. This is the first time the Supreme Court will directly weigh in on gender-affirming care.

There are few topics as politically and medically divisive as gender-affirming care for minors. When the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) released its updated Standards of Care, SOC8, one of the noticeable changes to the document was its approach to caring for transgender children and adolescents.

Dr. Brandt

Before I highlight these recommendations and the ensuing controversy, it is imperative to establish proper terminology. Unfortunately, medical and legal terms often differ. Both activists and opponents use these terms interchangeably, which makes discourse about an already emotionally charged topic extremely difficult. From a legal perspective, the terms “minor” and “child” often refer to individuals under the age of majority. In the United States, the age of majority is 18. However, the term child also has a well-established medical definition. A child is an individual between the stages of infancy and puberty. Adolescence is a transitional period marked by the onset of puberty until adulthood (typically the age of majority). As medical providers, understanding these definitions is essential to identifying misinformation pertaining to this type of healthcare.

For the purposes of this article, I will be adhering to the medical terminology. Now, I want to be very clear. WPATH does not endorse surgical procedures on children. Furthermore, surgeons are not performing gender-affirming surgeries on children. On adolescents, rarely. But children, never.

According to the updated SOC8, the only acceptable gender-affirming intervention for children is psychosocial support.¹ This does not include puberty blockers, hormones, or surgery, but rather allowing a child to explore their gender identity by experimenting with different clothing, toys, hairstyles, and even an alternative name that aligns more closely with their gender identity.¹

It is only after children reach adolescence that medical, and in rare cases, surgical interventions, can be considered. Puberty blockers are appropriate for patients who have started puberty and experience gender dysphoria. These medications are reversible, and their purpose is to temporarily pause puberty to allow the adolescent to further explore their gender identity.

The most significant side effect of puberty blockers is decreased bone density.¹ As a result, providers typically do not prescribe these medications for more than 2-3 years. After discontinuation of the medication, bone density returns to baseline.¹ If the adolescent’s gender identity is marked and sustained over time, hormone therapy, such as testosterone or estrogen is then considered. Unlike puberty blockers, these medications can have permanent side effects. Testosterone use can lead to irreversible hair growth, alopecia, clitoromegaly, and voice deepening, while estrogen can cause permanent breast growth and halt sperm production.¹ Future fertility and these side effects are discussed with the patient in detail prior to the initiation of these medications.

Contrary to the current political narrative, gender-affirming care for children and adolescents is not taken lightly. These individuals often receive years of multidisciplinary assessments, with a focus on gender identity development, social development and support, and diagnostic assessment of possible co-occurring mental health or developmental concerns and capacity for decision making.¹ The clinical visits also occur with parental support and consent.

WPATH SOC8 also delineates the provider qualifications for health care professionals assessing these patients. Providers must be licensed by their statutory bodies and hold a postgraduate degree by a nationally accredited statutory institution; receive theoretical and evidence-based training and develop expertise in child, adolescent, and family mental health across the developmental spectrum; receive training and have expertise in gender identity development and gender diversity in children and adolescence; have the ability to assess capacity to assent/consent; receive training and develop expertise in autism spectrum disorders and other neurodevelopmental presentations; and to continue engaging in professional development in all areas relevant to gender-diverse children, adolescents, and families.¹

The most controversial aspect of gender-affirming care for children and adolescents relates to surgical treatment. While the rates of gender-affirming surgeries have increased for this age group over the years, the overall rate of gender-affirming surgery for adolescents is markedly lower compared with other adolescents seeking cosmetic surgeries and compared with transgender adults undergoing gender-affirming surgery.

In a cohort study conducted between 2016 to 2020, 48,019 patients were identified who had undergone gender-affirming surgery.² Only 3678 or 7.7% of patients were aged between 12 and 18, with the most common procedure being chest/breast surgery.² So, under about 1000 cases per year were gender-affirming surgeries on patients under 18.

During 2020 alone, the number of cisgender adolescents between the ages of 13 and 19 who underwent breast augmentation and breast reduction was 3233 and 4666, respectively.³ The outrage about gender-affirming surgeries on transgender youth, yet the silence on cosmetic procedures in this same age group, speaks volumes.

All surgeries on adolescents should be taken seriously and with caution, regardless of gender identity. However, current legislation disproportionately targets only transgender youth. For whatever reason, surgeries on transgender individuals are labeled as “body mutilation,” whereas surgeries on cisgender youth are not even discussed. Such inflammatory rhetoric and complete lack of empathy impedes the common goal of all parties: what is in the best interest of the minor? Unfortunately, in a few short months, the answer to this question will be determined by a group of nine justices who have no experience in medicine or transgender health care, instead of by medical experts and the parents who care for these individuals.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pennsylvania. She has no conflicts of interest.
 

References

1. Coleman E et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, version 8. Int J Transgender Health. 2022;23(sup):S1-S259.

2. Wright JD et al. National estimates of gender affirming surgery in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Aug 1;6(8):e2330348.

3. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. ASPS National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. 2020.

Recent research on popular weight loss drugs has uncovered surprising benefits beyond their intended use, like lowering the risk of fatal heart attacks. And now there may be another unforeseen advantage: People with type 2 diabetes who took these drugs had a lower risk of having 10 out of 13 obesity-related cancers, compared to those who used insulin therapy.

That’s according to a study published July 5 in JAMA Network Open where researchers studied glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (known as GLP-1RAs), a class of drugs used to treat diabetes and obesity. Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound, which have become well-known recently because they are linked to rapid weight loss, contain GLP-1RAs.

For the study, they looked at electronic health records of 1.7 million patients who had type 2 diabetes, no prior diagnosis of obesity-related cancers, and had been prescribed GLP-1RAs, insulins, or metformin from March 2005 to November 2018.

The scientists found that compared to patients who took insulin, people who took GLP-1RAs had a “significant risk reduction” in 10 of 13 obesity-related cancers. Those 10 cancers were esophageal, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma.

Compared with patients taking insulin, patients taking GLP-1RAs showed no statistically significant reduction in stomach cancer and no reduced risk of breast and thyroid cancers, the study said.

But the study found no decrease in cancer risk with GLP-1RAs compared with metformin.

While the study results suggest that these drugs may reduce the risk of certain obesity-related cancers better than insulins, more research is needed, they said.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.