Feature

A new Senate bill would require Medicare to test two tools routinely used by credit card companies to prevent fraud: Artificial intelligence (AI)-trained algorithms to detect suspicious activity and a system to quickly alert Medicare patients on whose behalf payment is being sought.

Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) recently introduced the Medicare Transaction Fraud Prevention Act, which calls for a 2-year test of this approach.

The experiment, targeted to start in 2025, would focus on durable medical equipment and clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and cover Medicare beneficiaries who receive electronic notices about claims.

The legislation would direct the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to test the use of predictive risk-scoring algorithms in finding fraud. The program would be modeled on the systems that credit card companies already use. Transactions could be scored from 1 (least risky) to 99 (most risky).

CMS would then check directly by email or phone call with selected Medicare enrollees about transactions considered to present a high risk for fraud.

Many consumers have benefited from this approach when used to check for fraud on their credit cards, Braun noted during a November hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Credit card companies often can intervene before a fraudulent transaction is cleared.

“There’s no reason we wouldn’t want to minimally at least mimic that,” Braun said at the hearing.

Asking Medicare enrollees to verify certain purchases could give CMS increased access to vital predictive data, test proof of concept, and save hundreds of millions of dollars, Braun said.

Concerns Raised

So far, Braun has only one cosponsor for the bill, Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), and the bill has drawn some criticism.

Brett Meeks, executive director of the Health Innovation Alliance, a trade group representing technology companies, insurers, and consumer organizations, objected to requiring Medicare enrollees to verify flagged orders. CMS should internally root out fraud through technology, not burden seniors, Meeks told this news organization.

Meeks said he has been following the discussion about the use of AI in addressing Medicare fraud. Had a bill broadly targeted Medicare fraud through AI, his alliance might have backed it, he said. But the current proposed legislation has a narrower focus.

Focusing on durable medical equipment, for example, could have unintended consequences like denying power wheelchairs to people with debilitating conditions like multiple sclerosis, Meeks said.

But Braun’s bill won a quick nod of approval from a researcher who studies the use of AI to detect Medicare fraud. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, PhD, director of the Data Mining and Machine Learning Lab at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, said he sees an advantage to Braun’s approach of involving Medicare enrollees in the protection of their benefits.

The bill does not authorize funding for the pilot project, and it’s unclear what it would cost.

Detecting Medicare Fraud

The federal government has stepped up Medicare fraud investigations in recent years, and more doctors are getting caught.

A study published in 2018 examined cases of physicians excluded from Medicare using data from the US Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The OIG has the right to exclude clinicians from Medicare for fraud or other reasons. Chen and coauthors looked at Medicare physician exclusions from 2007 to 2017. They found that exclusions due to fraud increased an estimated 14% per year on average from a base level of 139 exclusions in 2007.

In 2019, CMS sought feedback on new ways to use AI to detect fraud. In a public request for information, the agency said Medicare scrutinizes fewer claims for payment than commercial insurers do.

About 99.7% of Medicare fee-for-service claims are processed and paid within 17 days without any medical review, CMS said at the time.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A new Senate bill would require Medicare to test two tools routinely used by credit card companies to prevent fraud: Artificial intelligence (AI)-trained algorithms to detect suspicious activity and a system to quickly alert Medicare patients on whose behalf payment is being sought.

Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) recently introduced the Medicare Transaction Fraud Prevention Act, which calls for a 2-year test of this approach.

The experiment, targeted to start in 2025, would focus on durable medical equipment and clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and cover Medicare beneficiaries who receive electronic notices about claims.

The legislation would direct the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to test the use of predictive risk-scoring algorithms in finding fraud. The program would be modeled on the systems that credit card companies already use. Transactions could be scored from 1 (least risky) to 99 (most risky).

CMS would then check directly by email or phone call with selected Medicare enrollees about transactions considered to present a high risk for fraud.

Many consumers have benefited from this approach when used to check for fraud on their credit cards, Braun noted during a November hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Credit card companies often can intervene before a fraudulent transaction is cleared.

“There’s no reason we wouldn’t want to minimally at least mimic that,” Braun said at the hearing.

Asking Medicare enrollees to verify certain purchases could give CMS increased access to vital predictive data, test proof of concept, and save hundreds of millions of dollars, Braun said.

Concerns Raised

So far, Braun has only one cosponsor for the bill, Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), and the bill has drawn some criticism.

Brett Meeks, executive director of the Health Innovation Alliance, a trade group representing technology companies, insurers, and consumer organizations, objected to requiring Medicare enrollees to verify flagged orders. CMS should internally root out fraud through technology, not burden seniors, Meeks told this news organization.

Meeks said he has been following the discussion about the use of AI in addressing Medicare fraud. Had a bill broadly targeted Medicare fraud through AI, his alliance might have backed it, he said. But the current proposed legislation has a narrower focus.

Focusing on durable medical equipment, for example, could have unintended consequences like denying power wheelchairs to people with debilitating conditions like multiple sclerosis, Meeks said.

But Braun’s bill won a quick nod of approval from a researcher who studies the use of AI to detect Medicare fraud. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, PhD, director of the Data Mining and Machine Learning Lab at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, said he sees an advantage to Braun’s approach of involving Medicare enrollees in the protection of their benefits.

The bill does not authorize funding for the pilot project, and it’s unclear what it would cost.

Detecting Medicare Fraud

The federal government has stepped up Medicare fraud investigations in recent years, and more doctors are getting caught.

A study published in 2018 examined cases of physicians excluded from Medicare using data from the US Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The OIG has the right to exclude clinicians from Medicare for fraud or other reasons. Chen and coauthors looked at Medicare physician exclusions from 2007 to 2017. They found that exclusions due to fraud increased an estimated 14% per year on average from a base level of 139 exclusions in 2007.

In 2019, CMS sought feedback on new ways to use AI to detect fraud. In a public request for information, the agency said Medicare scrutinizes fewer claims for payment than commercial insurers do.

About 99.7% of Medicare fee-for-service claims are processed and paid within 17 days without any medical review, CMS said at the time.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A new Senate bill would require Medicare to test two tools routinely used by credit card companies to prevent fraud: Artificial intelligence (AI)-trained algorithms to detect suspicious activity and a system to quickly alert Medicare patients on whose behalf payment is being sought.

Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) recently introduced the Medicare Transaction Fraud Prevention Act, which calls for a 2-year test of this approach.

The experiment, targeted to start in 2025, would focus on durable medical equipment and clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and cover Medicare beneficiaries who receive electronic notices about claims.

The legislation would direct the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to test the use of predictive risk-scoring algorithms in finding fraud. The program would be modeled on the systems that credit card companies already use. Transactions could be scored from 1 (least risky) to 99 (most risky).

CMS would then check directly by email or phone call with selected Medicare enrollees about transactions considered to present a high risk for fraud.

Many consumers have benefited from this approach when used to check for fraud on their credit cards, Braun noted during a November hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Credit card companies often can intervene before a fraudulent transaction is cleared.

“There’s no reason we wouldn’t want to minimally at least mimic that,” Braun said at the hearing.

Asking Medicare enrollees to verify certain purchases could give CMS increased access to vital predictive data, test proof of concept, and save hundreds of millions of dollars, Braun said.

Concerns Raised

So far, Braun has only one cosponsor for the bill, Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), and the bill has drawn some criticism.

Brett Meeks, executive director of the Health Innovation Alliance, a trade group representing technology companies, insurers, and consumer organizations, objected to requiring Medicare enrollees to verify flagged orders. CMS should internally root out fraud through technology, not burden seniors, Meeks told this news organization.

Meeks said he has been following the discussion about the use of AI in addressing Medicare fraud. Had a bill broadly targeted Medicare fraud through AI, his alliance might have backed it, he said. But the current proposed legislation has a narrower focus.

Focusing on durable medical equipment, for example, could have unintended consequences like denying power wheelchairs to people with debilitating conditions like multiple sclerosis, Meeks said.

But Braun’s bill won a quick nod of approval from a researcher who studies the use of AI to detect Medicare fraud. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, PhD, director of the Data Mining and Machine Learning Lab at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, said he sees an advantage to Braun’s approach of involving Medicare enrollees in the protection of their benefits.

The bill does not authorize funding for the pilot project, and it’s unclear what it would cost.

Detecting Medicare Fraud

The federal government has stepped up Medicare fraud investigations in recent years, and more doctors are getting caught.

A study published in 2018 examined cases of physicians excluded from Medicare using data from the US Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The OIG has the right to exclude clinicians from Medicare for fraud or other reasons. Chen and coauthors looked at Medicare physician exclusions from 2007 to 2017. They found that exclusions due to fraud increased an estimated 14% per year on average from a base level of 139 exclusions in 2007.

In 2019, CMS sought feedback on new ways to use AI to detect fraud. In a public request for information, the agency said Medicare scrutinizes fewer claims for payment than commercial insurers do.

About 99.7% of Medicare fee-for-service claims are processed and paid within 17 days without any medical review, CMS said at the time.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

As emergency medicine doctors, we regularly give medical advice to family and close friends when they get sick or are injured and don’t know what to do. In a matter of moments, we triage, diagnose, and assemble a logical plan, whatever the issue may be. This skill comes from our training and years of experience in treating emergencies and also routine medical matters. The value proposition is clear.

Frankly, it’s a service everyone should have. Think about the potential time and money saved if this option for medical care and triage was broadly available. Overtriage would plummet. That’s when people run to the emergency department (ED) and wait endless hours, only to be reassured or receive limited treatment. Undertriage would also decline. That’s when people should go to the ED but, unwisely, wait. For example, this may occur when symptoms of dizziness end up being a stroke.

Why doesn’t everyone have an ED doctor they can call? The primary reason is that the current system mostly doesn’t support it. The most common scenario is that insurance companies pay us to see patients in an expensive box called the ED. Most EDs are situated within an even more expensive box, called a hospital.

Here’s the good news: Better access to emergency care and people who are formally trained in emergency medicine and routine matters of urgent care is increasing.

One example is telemedicine, where a remote doctor — either your own or a doctor through an app — conducts a visit. Telemedicine is more common since the pandemic, now that insurance pays for it. In emergency situations, it’s rare that your own doctor can see you immediately by telemedicine. By contrast, direct-to-consumer telemedicine (eg, Teladoc, Doctor On Demand, and others) connects you with a random doctor.

In many apps, it’s unclear not only who the doctor is, but more importantly, what their specific medical specialty or training is. It may be an ED doctor evaluating your child’s fever, or it may be a retired general surgeon or an adult rheumatology specialist in the midst of their fellowship, making an extra buck, who may have no pediatric training.
 

Training Matters

Clinical training and whether the doctor knows you matters. A recent JAMA study from Ontario, Canada, found that patients with virtual visits who saw outside family physicians (whom they had never met) compared with their own family physicians were 66% more likely to visit an ED within 7 days after the visit. This illustrates the importance of understanding your personal history in assessing acute symptoms.

Some healthcare systems do use ED physicians for on-demand telehealth services, such as Thomas Jefferson’s JeffConnect. Amazon Clinic recently entered this space, providing condition-specific acute or chronic care to adults aged 18-64 years for a fee that is, notably, not covered by insurance.

A second innovative approach, albeit not specifically in the realm of a personal emergency medicine doctor, is artificial intelligence (AI)–powered kiosks. A concierge medicine company known as Forward recently unveiled an innovative concept known as CarePods that are now available in Sacramento, California; Chandler, Arizona; and Chicago. For a membership fee, you swipe into what looks like an oversize, space-age porta-potty. You sit in a chair and run through a series of health apps, which includes a biometric body scan along with mental health screenings. It even takes your blood (without a needle) and sequences your DNA. Results are reviewed by a doctor (not yours) who talks to you by video. They advertise that AI helps make the diagnosis. Although diagnostic AI is emerging and exciting, its benefit is not clear in emergency conditions. Yet, one clear value in a kiosk over telemedicine is the ability to obtain vital signs and lab results, which are useful for diagnosis.

Another approach is the telehealth offerings used in integrated systems of care, such as Kaiser Permanente. Kaiser is both an insurance company and a deliverer of healthcare services. Kaiser maintains a nurse call center and can handle urgent e-visits. Integrated systems not only help triage patients’ acute issues but also have access to their personal health histories. They can also provide a definitive plan for in-person treatment or a specific referral. A downside of integrated care is that it often limits your choice of provider.

Insurance companies also maintain call-in lines such as HumanaFirst, which is also staffed by nurses. We have not seen data on the calls such services receive, but we doubt people that want to call their insurance company when sick or injured, knowing that the insurer benefits when you receive less care. Additionally, studies have found that nurse-only triage is not as effective as physician triage and results in higher ED referral rates.
 

The Concierge Option

Probably the closest thing to having your own personal emergency medicine doctor is concierge medicine, which combines personalized care and accessibility. Concierge doctors come in many forms, but they usually charge a fixed fee for 24/7 availability and same-day appointments. A downside of concierge medicine is its expense ($2000–$3500 per year), and that many don’t take insurance. Concierge medicine is also criticized because, as doctors gravitate toward it, people in the community often lose their physician if they can’t afford the fees.

Ultimately, remote medical advice for emergency care is clearly evolving in new ways. The inability of traditional care models to achieve this goal will lead to innovation to improve the available options that have led us to think outside of the proverbial “box” we refer to as the ED-in-the-case.

At this time, will any option come close to having a personal emergency medicine physician willing to answer your questions, real-time, as with family and close friends? We think not.

But the future certainly holds promise for alternatives that will hopefully make payers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services take notice. Innovations in personalized care that reduce costs will be critical in our current healthcare landscape.
 

Dr. Pines is clinical professor of emergency medicine at George Washington University in Washington, DC, and chief of clinical innovation at US Acute Care Solutions in Canton, Ohio. He disclosed ties with CSL Behring and Abbott Point-of-Care. Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As emergency medicine doctors, we regularly give medical advice to family and close friends when they get sick or are injured and don’t know what to do. In a matter of moments, we triage, diagnose, and assemble a logical plan, whatever the issue may be. This skill comes from our training and years of experience in treating emergencies and also routine medical matters. The value proposition is clear.

Frankly, it’s a service everyone should have. Think about the potential time and money saved if this option for medical care and triage was broadly available. Overtriage would plummet. That’s when people run to the emergency department (ED) and wait endless hours, only to be reassured or receive limited treatment. Undertriage would also decline. That’s when people should go to the ED but, unwisely, wait. For example, this may occur when symptoms of dizziness end up being a stroke.

Why doesn’t everyone have an ED doctor they can call? The primary reason is that the current system mostly doesn’t support it. The most common scenario is that insurance companies pay us to see patients in an expensive box called the ED. Most EDs are situated within an even more expensive box, called a hospital.

Here’s the good news: Better access to emergency care and people who are formally trained in emergency medicine and routine matters of urgent care is increasing.

One example is telemedicine, where a remote doctor — either your own or a doctor through an app — conducts a visit. Telemedicine is more common since the pandemic, now that insurance pays for it. In emergency situations, it’s rare that your own doctor can see you immediately by telemedicine. By contrast, direct-to-consumer telemedicine (eg, Teladoc, Doctor On Demand, and others) connects you with a random doctor.

In many apps, it’s unclear not only who the doctor is, but more importantly, what their specific medical specialty or training is. It may be an ED doctor evaluating your child’s fever, or it may be a retired general surgeon or an adult rheumatology specialist in the midst of their fellowship, making an extra buck, who may have no pediatric training.
 

Training Matters

Clinical training and whether the doctor knows you matters. A recent JAMA study from Ontario, Canada, found that patients with virtual visits who saw outside family physicians (whom they had never met) compared with their own family physicians were 66% more likely to visit an ED within 7 days after the visit. This illustrates the importance of understanding your personal history in assessing acute symptoms.

Some healthcare systems do use ED physicians for on-demand telehealth services, such as Thomas Jefferson’s JeffConnect. Amazon Clinic recently entered this space, providing condition-specific acute or chronic care to adults aged 18-64 years for a fee that is, notably, not covered by insurance.

A second innovative approach, albeit not specifically in the realm of a personal emergency medicine doctor, is artificial intelligence (AI)–powered kiosks. A concierge medicine company known as Forward recently unveiled an innovative concept known as CarePods that are now available in Sacramento, California; Chandler, Arizona; and Chicago. For a membership fee, you swipe into what looks like an oversize, space-age porta-potty. You sit in a chair and run through a series of health apps, which includes a biometric body scan along with mental health screenings. It even takes your blood (without a needle) and sequences your DNA. Results are reviewed by a doctor (not yours) who talks to you by video. They advertise that AI helps make the diagnosis. Although diagnostic AI is emerging and exciting, its benefit is not clear in emergency conditions. Yet, one clear value in a kiosk over telemedicine is the ability to obtain vital signs and lab results, which are useful for diagnosis.

Another approach is the telehealth offerings used in integrated systems of care, such as Kaiser Permanente. Kaiser is both an insurance company and a deliverer of healthcare services. Kaiser maintains a nurse call center and can handle urgent e-visits. Integrated systems not only help triage patients’ acute issues but also have access to their personal health histories. They can also provide a definitive plan for in-person treatment or a specific referral. A downside of integrated care is that it often limits your choice of provider.

Insurance companies also maintain call-in lines such as HumanaFirst, which is also staffed by nurses. We have not seen data on the calls such services receive, but we doubt people that want to call their insurance company when sick or injured, knowing that the insurer benefits when you receive less care. Additionally, studies have found that nurse-only triage is not as effective as physician triage and results in higher ED referral rates.
 

The Concierge Option

Probably the closest thing to having your own personal emergency medicine doctor is concierge medicine, which combines personalized care and accessibility. Concierge doctors come in many forms, but they usually charge a fixed fee for 24/7 availability and same-day appointments. A downside of concierge medicine is its expense ($2000–$3500 per year), and that many don’t take insurance. Concierge medicine is also criticized because, as doctors gravitate toward it, people in the community often lose their physician if they can’t afford the fees.

Ultimately, remote medical advice for emergency care is clearly evolving in new ways. The inability of traditional care models to achieve this goal will lead to innovation to improve the available options that have led us to think outside of the proverbial “box” we refer to as the ED-in-the-case.

At this time, will any option come close to having a personal emergency medicine physician willing to answer your questions, real-time, as with family and close friends? We think not.

But the future certainly holds promise for alternatives that will hopefully make payers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services take notice. Innovations in personalized care that reduce costs will be critical in our current healthcare landscape.
 

Dr. Pines is clinical professor of emergency medicine at George Washington University in Washington, DC, and chief of clinical innovation at US Acute Care Solutions in Canton, Ohio. He disclosed ties with CSL Behring and Abbott Point-of-Care. Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As emergency medicine doctors, we regularly give medical advice to family and close friends when they get sick or are injured and don’t know what to do. In a matter of moments, we triage, diagnose, and assemble a logical plan, whatever the issue may be. This skill comes from our training and years of experience in treating emergencies and also routine medical matters. The value proposition is clear.

Frankly, it’s a service everyone should have. Think about the potential time and money saved if this option for medical care and triage was broadly available. Overtriage would plummet. That’s when people run to the emergency department (ED) and wait endless hours, only to be reassured or receive limited treatment. Undertriage would also decline. That’s when people should go to the ED but, unwisely, wait. For example, this may occur when symptoms of dizziness end up being a stroke.

Why doesn’t everyone have an ED doctor they can call? The primary reason is that the current system mostly doesn’t support it. The most common scenario is that insurance companies pay us to see patients in an expensive box called the ED. Most EDs are situated within an even more expensive box, called a hospital.

Here’s the good news: Better access to emergency care and people who are formally trained in emergency medicine and routine matters of urgent care is increasing.

One example is telemedicine, where a remote doctor — either your own or a doctor through an app — conducts a visit. Telemedicine is more common since the pandemic, now that insurance pays for it. In emergency situations, it’s rare that your own doctor can see you immediately by telemedicine. By contrast, direct-to-consumer telemedicine (eg, Teladoc, Doctor On Demand, and others) connects you with a random doctor.

In many apps, it’s unclear not only who the doctor is, but more importantly, what their specific medical specialty or training is. It may be an ED doctor evaluating your child’s fever, or it may be a retired general surgeon or an adult rheumatology specialist in the midst of their fellowship, making an extra buck, who may have no pediatric training.
 

Training Matters

Clinical training and whether the doctor knows you matters. A recent JAMA study from Ontario, Canada, found that patients with virtual visits who saw outside family physicians (whom they had never met) compared with their own family physicians were 66% more likely to visit an ED within 7 days after the visit. This illustrates the importance of understanding your personal history in assessing acute symptoms.

Some healthcare systems do use ED physicians for on-demand telehealth services, such as Thomas Jefferson’s JeffConnect. Amazon Clinic recently entered this space, providing condition-specific acute or chronic care to adults aged 18-64 years for a fee that is, notably, not covered by insurance.

A second innovative approach, albeit not specifically in the realm of a personal emergency medicine doctor, is artificial intelligence (AI)–powered kiosks. A concierge medicine company known as Forward recently unveiled an innovative concept known as CarePods that are now available in Sacramento, California; Chandler, Arizona; and Chicago. For a membership fee, you swipe into what looks like an oversize, space-age porta-potty. You sit in a chair and run through a series of health apps, which includes a biometric body scan along with mental health screenings. It even takes your blood (without a needle) and sequences your DNA. Results are reviewed by a doctor (not yours) who talks to you by video. They advertise that AI helps make the diagnosis. Although diagnostic AI is emerging and exciting, its benefit is not clear in emergency conditions. Yet, one clear value in a kiosk over telemedicine is the ability to obtain vital signs and lab results, which are useful for diagnosis.

Another approach is the telehealth offerings used in integrated systems of care, such as Kaiser Permanente. Kaiser is both an insurance company and a deliverer of healthcare services. Kaiser maintains a nurse call center and can handle urgent e-visits. Integrated systems not only help triage patients’ acute issues but also have access to their personal health histories. They can also provide a definitive plan for in-person treatment or a specific referral. A downside of integrated care is that it often limits your choice of provider.

Insurance companies also maintain call-in lines such as HumanaFirst, which is also staffed by nurses. We have not seen data on the calls such services receive, but we doubt people that want to call their insurance company when sick or injured, knowing that the insurer benefits when you receive less care. Additionally, studies have found that nurse-only triage is not as effective as physician triage and results in higher ED referral rates.
 

The Concierge Option

Probably the closest thing to having your own personal emergency medicine doctor is concierge medicine, which combines personalized care and accessibility. Concierge doctors come in many forms, but they usually charge a fixed fee for 24/7 availability and same-day appointments. A downside of concierge medicine is its expense ($2000–$3500 per year), and that many don’t take insurance. Concierge medicine is also criticized because, as doctors gravitate toward it, people in the community often lose their physician if they can’t afford the fees.

Ultimately, remote medical advice for emergency care is clearly evolving in new ways. The inability of traditional care models to achieve this goal will lead to innovation to improve the available options that have led us to think outside of the proverbial “box” we refer to as the ED-in-the-case.

At this time, will any option come close to having a personal emergency medicine physician willing to answer your questions, real-time, as with family and close friends? We think not.

But the future certainly holds promise for alternatives that will hopefully make payers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services take notice. Innovations in personalized care that reduce costs will be critical in our current healthcare landscape.
 

Dr. Pines is clinical professor of emergency medicine at George Washington University in Washington, DC, and chief of clinical innovation at US Acute Care Solutions in Canton, Ohio. He disclosed ties with CSL Behring and Abbott Point-of-Care. Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians at Valley-Wide Health Systems never know who will appear at their clinic in San Luis, a town of about 600 people in southern Colorado.

“If someone’s in labor, they’ll show up. If someone has a laceration, they’ll show up,” said nurse practitioner Emelin Martinez, the chief medical officer for the healthcare system serving 13 rural Colorado counties.

But she struggled to find a full-time medical provider for that clinic, the only one in Costilla County. Born and raised in the area, Martinez filled some of the gap by driving about 45 minutes from Alamosa, the nearest city, once a week for months. A physician assistant from another town chipped in, too.

As one of the nation’s more than 1000 federally designated primary care shortage areas, Costilla County has many carrots to dangle in front of medical providers willing to practice there, including federal student loan repayments, bonus Medicare payments, and expedited visas for foreign clinicians. Still, Ms. Martinez said, its latest opening remained unfilled for more than a year. Not a single physician applied.

Policymakers have long tried to lure more primary care providers to the areas of the nation that have fewer than one physician for every 3500 residents. Recent examples include the Biden administration boosting funding in 2022 to address shortages and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) pushing sweeping primary care legislation in 2023.

But researchers steeped in the issue have a persistent frustration: It’s hard to know if any policy is working given that the data the federal government collects on primary care shortage areas has been flawed for a long time. One of the biggest gaps is that the system counts only physicians, not the myriad other healthcare professionals who now provide much of our nation›s primary care.

Additionally, a Health Affairs study shows the federal designations, which help allocate an estimated $1 billion in annual funding through at least 20 federal programs aimed at boosting primary care capacity, haven›t helped much.

In fact, Costilla County is among more than 180 federally designated areas that have remained stuck on the primary care shortage list for at least 40 years, according to a KFF Health News analysis. That›s even as the overall number of licensed US physicians more than doubled from 1990 to 2022 to over 1 million, according to the Federation of State Medical Boards, outpacing overall population growth.

No one disputes that much of the nation is starved for primary care clinicians, with patients having to wait weeks to get appointments or travel long distances for basic preventive care. Many doctors decide against primary care career paths, let alone practicing in isolated communities, because those jobs entail heavy workloads and earn less money and respect than specialists. But how does the nation solve the problem without knowing exactly where it is? And what tools must be used? Does a physician need to be the one providing the care?

Whitney Zahnd, president of the board of the Iowa Rural Health Association, said the fact that some rural areas have had such federal shortage designations for decades doesn’t prove they are ineffective. “Had the program not been there, would it have been even worse?” she said.

Federal funding supports 18,000 primary care doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to provide care to more than 18 million patients in the highest-need urban and rural communities across the country, said David Bowman, a spokesperson for the Health Resources and Services Administration, which manages the shortage designations. He said more than 80% of clinicians who get such scholarships or loan repayments continue to practice in shortage areas beyond their obligation of several years.

But that doesn’t mean they stick around forever.

Justin Markowski, a Yale School of Public Health doctoral student, coauthored the Health Affairs study that found the federal shortage designation makes no difference in upping physician density long-term. He is skeptical of policy ideas that promise big primary care fixes. That includes the Biden administration’s investment in more scholarships and loan repayments through the National Health Service Corps.

“You’re just throwing more money at a set of programs that don’t really seem to work,” he said. “We’ll see in a few years, but I’ll be shocked if it actually moved any physicians or any other advanced practice providers.”

One possible explanation for the persistence of shortage areas is that such incentives are too small or too fleeting.

But another issue is how shortages are measured. The government considers geographic shortage areas, now numbering just over 1000, but also population groups such as migrant farmworkers and individual facilities such as prisons that lack enough providers. Yet it’s up to state offices to identify populations and locations that might qualify as shortage areas and submit them to HRSA, which then scores the extent of any shortages. The funding and staffing for those state offices vary, creating an uneven foundation from which to map actual shortages.

“Some states became very adept at the equivalent of gerrymandering, where they were piecing together census blocks or census tracts in odd shapes in order to maximize the areas that are eligible,” said Stephen Petterson, a senior scholar at the Robert Graham Center, a policy think tank in Washington, DC, that focuses on primary care.

The federal Government Accountability Office has highlighted such issues since at least 1995, when it released a report identifying widespread data problems with the shortage area system and concluding it had “little assurance that federal funds are used where most needed.” The report noted one of the persistent shortcomings is that the system counts only physicians, not other key primary care providers.

Since 1998, federal officials have made three attempts to update the 1970s-era rules that define what counts as a shortage area. The authors of the Affordable Care Act tried most recently, tasking a committee of experts to decide on an update.

Among other things, the committee concluded in its 2011 report that nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certified nurse midwives should be counted as primary care providers. But the recommendations fell short by just a handful of votes.

“We failed and the committee as a whole failed and HRSA failed by not moving the process forward,” said Petterson, who presented to the committee on how to comprehensively measure primary care needs.

Steve Holloway, who directs the Colorado health department’s Primary Care Office, served on the committee. Without action at the federal level, he then led a team to create Colorado’s own health professional shortage area designations that factor in nurse practitioners and physician assistants, not just doctors.

He said it’s taken about 6 years to create a tool and map of Colorado to answer a deceptively simple question: “How many actual flesh-and-blood, live clinicians are seeing patients?”

Ed Salsberg, who was the lead federal government representative on that committee and who headed HRSA’s National Center for Health Workforce Analysis, said the rest of the nation needs more precise data, too.

“It’s so important for the nation to target its resources to the highest-need communities,” he said. “It’s time again to try one more time to develop an improved methodology.”

In the past few years, more readily available data from insurance claims has allowed researchers to distinguish the medical providers who are practicing primary care from those who have specialized or retired.

Candice Chen, an associate professor of health policy and management at George Washington University’s Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity, used claims data that reflects one large slice of the American population — about 66 million Medicaid beneficiaries — to map the primary care workforce.

Meanwhile, Monica O’Reilly-Jacob, a nurse-scientist who recently moved from Boston College to Columbia University’s School of Nursing, studied Medicare claims to conclude that fewer than 70% of physicians typically considered primary care providers were actually providing primary care. The rest, she said, often find more lucrative positions, such as subspecializing or working in hospitals. By contrast, nurse practitioners are likely undercounted. Her study found that close to half are providing primary care.

But such publicly available data leaves out much of the country, given that fewer than 40% of Americans are insured through Medicaid or Medicare.

“There’s no government organization that’s tracking: Who trained in what, where, and where are they now, and what are they practicing,” said Alison Huffstetler, medical director of the Robert Graham Center. “And if we don’t know who is doing what kind of care — and where — then there is no way for us to equitably manage the patient-to-clinician ratio across every state.”

In Costilla County, Ms. Martinez finally found someone to provide primary care: An experienced physician assistant who moved from Texas in December.

The physician assistant’s presence should bump the county out of its dire shortage, according to Colorado’s measure. But since he isn’t a physician, he’ll remain invisible in the national data and Costilla County will likely remain on the books as a federal shortage area.

Data reporter Hannah Recht, data editor Holly K. Hacker, and rural editor/correspondent Tony Leys contributed to this report.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Clinicians at Valley-Wide Health Systems never know who will appear at their clinic in San Luis, a town of about 600 people in southern Colorado.

“If someone’s in labor, they’ll show up. If someone has a laceration, they’ll show up,” said nurse practitioner Emelin Martinez, the chief medical officer for the healthcare system serving 13 rural Colorado counties.

But she struggled to find a full-time medical provider for that clinic, the only one in Costilla County. Born and raised in the area, Martinez filled some of the gap by driving about 45 minutes from Alamosa, the nearest city, once a week for months. A physician assistant from another town chipped in, too.

As one of the nation’s more than 1000 federally designated primary care shortage areas, Costilla County has many carrots to dangle in front of medical providers willing to practice there, including federal student loan repayments, bonus Medicare payments, and expedited visas for foreign clinicians. Still, Ms. Martinez said, its latest opening remained unfilled for more than a year. Not a single physician applied.

Policymakers have long tried to lure more primary care providers to the areas of the nation that have fewer than one physician for every 3500 residents. Recent examples include the Biden administration boosting funding in 2022 to address shortages and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) pushing sweeping primary care legislation in 2023.

But researchers steeped in the issue have a persistent frustration: It’s hard to know if any policy is working given that the data the federal government collects on primary care shortage areas has been flawed for a long time. One of the biggest gaps is that the system counts only physicians, not the myriad other healthcare professionals who now provide much of our nation›s primary care.

Additionally, a Health Affairs study shows the federal designations, which help allocate an estimated $1 billion in annual funding through at least 20 federal programs aimed at boosting primary care capacity, haven›t helped much.

In fact, Costilla County is among more than 180 federally designated areas that have remained stuck on the primary care shortage list for at least 40 years, according to a KFF Health News analysis. That›s even as the overall number of licensed US physicians more than doubled from 1990 to 2022 to over 1 million, according to the Federation of State Medical Boards, outpacing overall population growth.

No one disputes that much of the nation is starved for primary care clinicians, with patients having to wait weeks to get appointments or travel long distances for basic preventive care. Many doctors decide against primary care career paths, let alone practicing in isolated communities, because those jobs entail heavy workloads and earn less money and respect than specialists. But how does the nation solve the problem without knowing exactly where it is? And what tools must be used? Does a physician need to be the one providing the care?

Whitney Zahnd, president of the board of the Iowa Rural Health Association, said the fact that some rural areas have had such federal shortage designations for decades doesn’t prove they are ineffective. “Had the program not been there, would it have been even worse?” she said.

Federal funding supports 18,000 primary care doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to provide care to more than 18 million patients in the highest-need urban and rural communities across the country, said David Bowman, a spokesperson for the Health Resources and Services Administration, which manages the shortage designations. He said more than 80% of clinicians who get such scholarships or loan repayments continue to practice in shortage areas beyond their obligation of several years.

But that doesn’t mean they stick around forever.

Justin Markowski, a Yale School of Public Health doctoral student, coauthored the Health Affairs study that found the federal shortage designation makes no difference in upping physician density long-term. He is skeptical of policy ideas that promise big primary care fixes. That includes the Biden administration’s investment in more scholarships and loan repayments through the National Health Service Corps.

“You’re just throwing more money at a set of programs that don’t really seem to work,” he said. “We’ll see in a few years, but I’ll be shocked if it actually moved any physicians or any other advanced practice providers.”

One possible explanation for the persistence of shortage areas is that such incentives are too small or too fleeting.

But another issue is how shortages are measured. The government considers geographic shortage areas, now numbering just over 1000, but also population groups such as migrant farmworkers and individual facilities such as prisons that lack enough providers. Yet it’s up to state offices to identify populations and locations that might qualify as shortage areas and submit them to HRSA, which then scores the extent of any shortages. The funding and staffing for those state offices vary, creating an uneven foundation from which to map actual shortages.

“Some states became very adept at the equivalent of gerrymandering, where they were piecing together census blocks or census tracts in odd shapes in order to maximize the areas that are eligible,” said Stephen Petterson, a senior scholar at the Robert Graham Center, a policy think tank in Washington, DC, that focuses on primary care.

The federal Government Accountability Office has highlighted such issues since at least 1995, when it released a report identifying widespread data problems with the shortage area system and concluding it had “little assurance that federal funds are used where most needed.” The report noted one of the persistent shortcomings is that the system counts only physicians, not other key primary care providers.

Since 1998, federal officials have made three attempts to update the 1970s-era rules that define what counts as a shortage area. The authors of the Affordable Care Act tried most recently, tasking a committee of experts to decide on an update.

Among other things, the committee concluded in its 2011 report that nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certified nurse midwives should be counted as primary care providers. But the recommendations fell short by just a handful of votes.

“We failed and the committee as a whole failed and HRSA failed by not moving the process forward,” said Petterson, who presented to the committee on how to comprehensively measure primary care needs.

Steve Holloway, who directs the Colorado health department’s Primary Care Office, served on the committee. Without action at the federal level, he then led a team to create Colorado’s own health professional shortage area designations that factor in nurse practitioners and physician assistants, not just doctors.

He said it’s taken about 6 years to create a tool and map of Colorado to answer a deceptively simple question: “How many actual flesh-and-blood, live clinicians are seeing patients?”

Ed Salsberg, who was the lead federal government representative on that committee and who headed HRSA’s National Center for Health Workforce Analysis, said the rest of the nation needs more precise data, too.

“It’s so important for the nation to target its resources to the highest-need communities,” he said. “It’s time again to try one more time to develop an improved methodology.”

In the past few years, more readily available data from insurance claims has allowed researchers to distinguish the medical providers who are practicing primary care from those who have specialized or retired.

Candice Chen, an associate professor of health policy and management at George Washington University’s Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity, used claims data that reflects one large slice of the American population — about 66 million Medicaid beneficiaries — to map the primary care workforce.

Meanwhile, Monica O’Reilly-Jacob, a nurse-scientist who recently moved from Boston College to Columbia University’s School of Nursing, studied Medicare claims to conclude that fewer than 70% of physicians typically considered primary care providers were actually providing primary care. The rest, she said, often find more lucrative positions, such as subspecializing or working in hospitals. By contrast, nurse practitioners are likely undercounted. Her study found that close to half are providing primary care.

But such publicly available data leaves out much of the country, given that fewer than 40% of Americans are insured through Medicaid or Medicare.

“There’s no government organization that’s tracking: Who trained in what, where, and where are they now, and what are they practicing,” said Alison Huffstetler, medical director of the Robert Graham Center. “And if we don’t know who is doing what kind of care — and where — then there is no way for us to equitably manage the patient-to-clinician ratio across every state.”

In Costilla County, Ms. Martinez finally found someone to provide primary care: An experienced physician assistant who moved from Texas in December.

The physician assistant’s presence should bump the county out of its dire shortage, according to Colorado’s measure. But since he isn’t a physician, he’ll remain invisible in the national data and Costilla County will likely remain on the books as a federal shortage area.

Data reporter Hannah Recht, data editor Holly K. Hacker, and rural editor/correspondent Tony Leys contributed to this report.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Clinicians at Valley-Wide Health Systems never know who will appear at their clinic in San Luis, a town of about 600 people in southern Colorado.

“If someone’s in labor, they’ll show up. If someone has a laceration, they’ll show up,” said nurse practitioner Emelin Martinez, the chief medical officer for the healthcare system serving 13 rural Colorado counties.

But she struggled to find a full-time medical provider for that clinic, the only one in Costilla County. Born and raised in the area, Martinez filled some of the gap by driving about 45 minutes from Alamosa, the nearest city, once a week for months. A physician assistant from another town chipped in, too.

As one of the nation’s more than 1000 federally designated primary care shortage areas, Costilla County has many carrots to dangle in front of medical providers willing to practice there, including federal student loan repayments, bonus Medicare payments, and expedited visas for foreign clinicians. Still, Ms. Martinez said, its latest opening remained unfilled for more than a year. Not a single physician applied.

Policymakers have long tried to lure more primary care providers to the areas of the nation that have fewer than one physician for every 3500 residents. Recent examples include the Biden administration boosting funding in 2022 to address shortages and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) pushing sweeping primary care legislation in 2023.

But researchers steeped in the issue have a persistent frustration: It’s hard to know if any policy is working given that the data the federal government collects on primary care shortage areas has been flawed for a long time. One of the biggest gaps is that the system counts only physicians, not the myriad other healthcare professionals who now provide much of our nation›s primary care.

Additionally, a Health Affairs study shows the federal designations, which help allocate an estimated $1 billion in annual funding through at least 20 federal programs aimed at boosting primary care capacity, haven›t helped much.

In fact, Costilla County is among more than 180 federally designated areas that have remained stuck on the primary care shortage list for at least 40 years, according to a KFF Health News analysis. That›s even as the overall number of licensed US physicians more than doubled from 1990 to 2022 to over 1 million, according to the Federation of State Medical Boards, outpacing overall population growth.

No one disputes that much of the nation is starved for primary care clinicians, with patients having to wait weeks to get appointments or travel long distances for basic preventive care. Many doctors decide against primary care career paths, let alone practicing in isolated communities, because those jobs entail heavy workloads and earn less money and respect than specialists. But how does the nation solve the problem without knowing exactly where it is? And what tools must be used? Does a physician need to be the one providing the care?

Whitney Zahnd, president of the board of the Iowa Rural Health Association, said the fact that some rural areas have had such federal shortage designations for decades doesn’t prove they are ineffective. “Had the program not been there, would it have been even worse?” she said.

Federal funding supports 18,000 primary care doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to provide care to more than 18 million patients in the highest-need urban and rural communities across the country, said David Bowman, a spokesperson for the Health Resources and Services Administration, which manages the shortage designations. He said more than 80% of clinicians who get such scholarships or loan repayments continue to practice in shortage areas beyond their obligation of several years.

But that doesn’t mean they stick around forever.

Justin Markowski, a Yale School of Public Health doctoral student, coauthored the Health Affairs study that found the federal shortage designation makes no difference in upping physician density long-term. He is skeptical of policy ideas that promise big primary care fixes. That includes the Biden administration’s investment in more scholarships and loan repayments through the National Health Service Corps.

“You’re just throwing more money at a set of programs that don’t really seem to work,” he said. “We’ll see in a few years, but I’ll be shocked if it actually moved any physicians or any other advanced practice providers.”

One possible explanation for the persistence of shortage areas is that such incentives are too small or too fleeting.

But another issue is how shortages are measured. The government considers geographic shortage areas, now numbering just over 1000, but also population groups such as migrant farmworkers and individual facilities such as prisons that lack enough providers. Yet it’s up to state offices to identify populations and locations that might qualify as shortage areas and submit them to HRSA, which then scores the extent of any shortages. The funding and staffing for those state offices vary, creating an uneven foundation from which to map actual shortages.

“Some states became very adept at the equivalent of gerrymandering, where they were piecing together census blocks or census tracts in odd shapes in order to maximize the areas that are eligible,” said Stephen Petterson, a senior scholar at the Robert Graham Center, a policy think tank in Washington, DC, that focuses on primary care.

The federal Government Accountability Office has highlighted such issues since at least 1995, when it released a report identifying widespread data problems with the shortage area system and concluding it had “little assurance that federal funds are used where most needed.” The report noted one of the persistent shortcomings is that the system counts only physicians, not other key primary care providers.

Since 1998, federal officials have made three attempts to update the 1970s-era rules that define what counts as a shortage area. The authors of the Affordable Care Act tried most recently, tasking a committee of experts to decide on an update.

Among other things, the committee concluded in its 2011 report that nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certified nurse midwives should be counted as primary care providers. But the recommendations fell short by just a handful of votes.

“We failed and the committee as a whole failed and HRSA failed by not moving the process forward,” said Petterson, who presented to the committee on how to comprehensively measure primary care needs.

Steve Holloway, who directs the Colorado health department’s Primary Care Office, served on the committee. Without action at the federal level, he then led a team to create Colorado’s own health professional shortage area designations that factor in nurse practitioners and physician assistants, not just doctors.

He said it’s taken about 6 years to create a tool and map of Colorado to answer a deceptively simple question: “How many actual flesh-and-blood, live clinicians are seeing patients?”

Ed Salsberg, who was the lead federal government representative on that committee and who headed HRSA’s National Center for Health Workforce Analysis, said the rest of the nation needs more precise data, too.

“It’s so important for the nation to target its resources to the highest-need communities,” he said. “It’s time again to try one more time to develop an improved methodology.”

In the past few years, more readily available data from insurance claims has allowed researchers to distinguish the medical providers who are practicing primary care from those who have specialized or retired.

Candice Chen, an associate professor of health policy and management at George Washington University’s Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity, used claims data that reflects one large slice of the American population — about 66 million Medicaid beneficiaries — to map the primary care workforce.

Meanwhile, Monica O’Reilly-Jacob, a nurse-scientist who recently moved from Boston College to Columbia University’s School of Nursing, studied Medicare claims to conclude that fewer than 70% of physicians typically considered primary care providers were actually providing primary care. The rest, she said, often find more lucrative positions, such as subspecializing or working in hospitals. By contrast, nurse practitioners are likely undercounted. Her study found that close to half are providing primary care.

But such publicly available data leaves out much of the country, given that fewer than 40% of Americans are insured through Medicaid or Medicare.

“There’s no government organization that’s tracking: Who trained in what, where, and where are they now, and what are they practicing,” said Alison Huffstetler, medical director of the Robert Graham Center. “And if we don’t know who is doing what kind of care — and where — then there is no way for us to equitably manage the patient-to-clinician ratio across every state.”

In Costilla County, Ms. Martinez finally found someone to provide primary care: An experienced physician assistant who moved from Texas in December.

The physician assistant’s presence should bump the county out of its dire shortage, according to Colorado’s measure. But since he isn’t a physician, he’ll remain invisible in the national data and Costilla County will likely remain on the books as a federal shortage area.

Data reporter Hannah Recht, data editor Holly K. Hacker, and rural editor/correspondent Tony Leys contributed to this report.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that had progressed despite treatment with novel hormonal therapy had a slight but statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with a combination of a targeted agent and immunotherapy compared with a second-line novel hormonal therapy.

The combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cabozantinib (Cabometyx), and the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), was associated with a median PFS of 6.3 months vs 4.2 months for patients assigned to second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone, or enzalutamide (Xtandi) in the CONTACT-02 trial, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, reported at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. 

“CONTACT 2 is the first phase 3 trial of the TKI/ICI combination to show statistically significant improvement in PFS in patients with mCRPC,” said Dr. Agarwal, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

­­The data support the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with mCRPC that has progressed on novel hormonal therapy, he said.
 

Study Design Questioned

That opinion, however, was not shared by Kim N. Chi, MD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant.

Dr. Chi acknowledged that the study results as presented were positive, but also pointed to several limitations, including the small difference between the treatment groups in radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS).

“I would say the rPFS benefit is modest, and in the absence of other improvements the difference in the median rPFS is equivalent from one scan to the next in the scanning cycle. I would argue about the clinical significance of that,” he said.

He also noted that there was no improvement in the investigational arm in patient-reported outcomes, and that pain progression and quality-of-life deterioration occurred within 2 to 4 months, which is “quite quick.”

Additionally, he questioned the choice of an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) switch as the control arm of the study.

“I’d also argue that ARPI switch is not the best standard of care for this patient population with measurable disease and 40% visceral metastases; there are better options,” he said.

For example, in phase 3 trials, docetaxel and cabazitaxel (Jevtana) have consistently demonstrated radiographic PFS of 8 to 9 months. In addition, lutetium-177–PSMA-617, a radioligand therapy that delivers beta-particle radiation to PSMA-expressing cells and the tumor microenvironment, has also been shown to have PFS and overall survival benefits, he said.

“Irrespective of regulatory decisions, I personally could not recommend this at this time, given the data that we’ve seen and the better options that are available for this patient population,” Dr. Chi said.
 

Real-World Practice

“Kim Chi offered a pretty fair critique and summary of the control arm, but in real world practice, ARPI switch, from abi [abiraterone] to enza [enzalutamide] or enza to abi continues to be used in routine clinical practice for various reasons,” Xin Gao, MD, a genitourinary oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview.

“There are patients who can’t tolerate chemotherapy or don’t want chemotherapy, and we do know also that there are patients who can benefit from an ARPI switch, especially some patients with more indolent disease,” said Dr. Gao, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the study.

He noted that some patients being switched from abiraterone to enzalutamide have clinical responses, and that the ARPIs are generally more tolerable than chemotherapy.

In addition, CONTACT-02 is one of a series of trials in which ARPI switch was used as the control arm, and many of these trials were initiated before there were data confirming the superior efficacy of some newer therapeutic options, Dr. Gao noted.

He agreed, however that there is growing evidence to show that ARPI switch may not be the optimal choice for patients with more measurable disease, especially visceral metastases, and other more aggressive forms of mCRPC.
 

CONTACT-02 Details

Investigators in the phase 3 study screened 866 men with mCRPC and after stratification by liver metastases, prior docetaxel use for castration-sensitive prostate cancer, and disease stage for which the first novel hormonal therapy was given. About 500 patients (507) were randomized to receive either oral cabozantinib 40 mg daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks or second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone 1000 mg with oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily, or oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily.

After a median follow-up of 14.3 months in the PFS intention-to-treat population, the median ­PFS by blinded central review was 6.3 months with cabozantinib/atezolizumab and 4.2 months with second hormonal therapy. This translated into a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .0002). The results were similar for a PFS analysis according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria.

The combination was also associated with modest improvements in PFS in prespecified subgroups, including patients who had liver or bone metastases and those who had previously received docetaxel.

There were no significant differences in overall survival at the time of data cutoff. Overall survival data were not mature and will be reported at a later date.

Disease control rates, a composite of complete and partial responses and stable disease, were 73% with the combination and 55% with second hormonal therapy (P value not shown).
 

Safety Data

The safety analysis indicated that patients found the ARPI switch easier to tolerate than the combination.

Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 40% of patients on the combination, vs 3% of patients on second hormonal therapy, and treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 13% and 2%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients assigned to the combination vs. 23% of patients assigned to the ARPI switch.

In all, 8% of patients on the combination and 12% on second hormonal therapy died on study, but none of the deaths were deemed to be treatment related.­­

CONTACT-02 was sponsored by Exelixis in partnerships with Ipsen and Takeda.

Dr. Agarwal disclosed institutional research funding from Exelixis, Roche, Takeda, and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with Roche and others. Dr. Gao has served as a consultant or advisor to several companies, not including the sponsors of the study, and has served as principal investigator at his institution, which has received research funding from Exelixis, Takeda, and others.

Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that had progressed despite treatment with novel hormonal therapy had a slight but statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with a combination of a targeted agent and immunotherapy compared with a second-line novel hormonal therapy.

The combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cabozantinib (Cabometyx), and the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), was associated with a median PFS of 6.3 months vs 4.2 months for patients assigned to second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone, or enzalutamide (Xtandi) in the CONTACT-02 trial, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, reported at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. 

“CONTACT 2 is the first phase 3 trial of the TKI/ICI combination to show statistically significant improvement in PFS in patients with mCRPC,” said Dr. Agarwal, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

­­The data support the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with mCRPC that has progressed on novel hormonal therapy, he said.
 

Study Design Questioned

That opinion, however, was not shared by Kim N. Chi, MD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant.

Dr. Chi acknowledged that the study results as presented were positive, but also pointed to several limitations, including the small difference between the treatment groups in radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS).

“I would say the rPFS benefit is modest, and in the absence of other improvements the difference in the median rPFS is equivalent from one scan to the next in the scanning cycle. I would argue about the clinical significance of that,” he said.

He also noted that there was no improvement in the investigational arm in patient-reported outcomes, and that pain progression and quality-of-life deterioration occurred within 2 to 4 months, which is “quite quick.”

Additionally, he questioned the choice of an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) switch as the control arm of the study.

“I’d also argue that ARPI switch is not the best standard of care for this patient population with measurable disease and 40% visceral metastases; there are better options,” he said.

For example, in phase 3 trials, docetaxel and cabazitaxel (Jevtana) have consistently demonstrated radiographic PFS of 8 to 9 months. In addition, lutetium-177–PSMA-617, a radioligand therapy that delivers beta-particle radiation to PSMA-expressing cells and the tumor microenvironment, has also been shown to have PFS and overall survival benefits, he said.

“Irrespective of regulatory decisions, I personally could not recommend this at this time, given the data that we’ve seen and the better options that are available for this patient population,” Dr. Chi said.
 

Real-World Practice

“Kim Chi offered a pretty fair critique and summary of the control arm, but in real world practice, ARPI switch, from abi [abiraterone] to enza [enzalutamide] or enza to abi continues to be used in routine clinical practice for various reasons,” Xin Gao, MD, a genitourinary oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview.

“There are patients who can’t tolerate chemotherapy or don’t want chemotherapy, and we do know also that there are patients who can benefit from an ARPI switch, especially some patients with more indolent disease,” said Dr. Gao, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the study.

He noted that some patients being switched from abiraterone to enzalutamide have clinical responses, and that the ARPIs are generally more tolerable than chemotherapy.

In addition, CONTACT-02 is one of a series of trials in which ARPI switch was used as the control arm, and many of these trials were initiated before there were data confirming the superior efficacy of some newer therapeutic options, Dr. Gao noted.

He agreed, however that there is growing evidence to show that ARPI switch may not be the optimal choice for patients with more measurable disease, especially visceral metastases, and other more aggressive forms of mCRPC.
 

CONTACT-02 Details

Investigators in the phase 3 study screened 866 men with mCRPC and after stratification by liver metastases, prior docetaxel use for castration-sensitive prostate cancer, and disease stage for which the first novel hormonal therapy was given. About 500 patients (507) were randomized to receive either oral cabozantinib 40 mg daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks or second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone 1000 mg with oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily, or oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily.

After a median follow-up of 14.3 months in the PFS intention-to-treat population, the median ­PFS by blinded central review was 6.3 months with cabozantinib/atezolizumab and 4.2 months with second hormonal therapy. This translated into a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .0002). The results were similar for a PFS analysis according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria.

The combination was also associated with modest improvements in PFS in prespecified subgroups, including patients who had liver or bone metastases and those who had previously received docetaxel.

There were no significant differences in overall survival at the time of data cutoff. Overall survival data were not mature and will be reported at a later date.

Disease control rates, a composite of complete and partial responses and stable disease, were 73% with the combination and 55% with second hormonal therapy (P value not shown).
 

Safety Data

The safety analysis indicated that patients found the ARPI switch easier to tolerate than the combination.

Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 40% of patients on the combination, vs 3% of patients on second hormonal therapy, and treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 13% and 2%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients assigned to the combination vs. 23% of patients assigned to the ARPI switch.

In all, 8% of patients on the combination and 12% on second hormonal therapy died on study, but none of the deaths were deemed to be treatment related.­­

CONTACT-02 was sponsored by Exelixis in partnerships with Ipsen and Takeda.

Dr. Agarwal disclosed institutional research funding from Exelixis, Roche, Takeda, and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with Roche and others. Dr. Gao has served as a consultant or advisor to several companies, not including the sponsors of the study, and has served as principal investigator at his institution, which has received research funding from Exelixis, Takeda, and others.

Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that had progressed despite treatment with novel hormonal therapy had a slight but statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with a combination of a targeted agent and immunotherapy compared with a second-line novel hormonal therapy.

The combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cabozantinib (Cabometyx), and the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), was associated with a median PFS of 6.3 months vs 4.2 months for patients assigned to second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone, or enzalutamide (Xtandi) in the CONTACT-02 trial, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, reported at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. 

“CONTACT 2 is the first phase 3 trial of the TKI/ICI combination to show statistically significant improvement in PFS in patients with mCRPC,” said Dr. Agarwal, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

­­The data support the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with mCRPC that has progressed on novel hormonal therapy, he said.
 

Study Design Questioned

That opinion, however, was not shared by Kim N. Chi, MD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant.

Dr. Chi acknowledged that the study results as presented were positive, but also pointed to several limitations, including the small difference between the treatment groups in radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS).

“I would say the rPFS benefit is modest, and in the absence of other improvements the difference in the median rPFS is equivalent from one scan to the next in the scanning cycle. I would argue about the clinical significance of that,” he said.

He also noted that there was no improvement in the investigational arm in patient-reported outcomes, and that pain progression and quality-of-life deterioration occurred within 2 to 4 months, which is “quite quick.”

Additionally, he questioned the choice of an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) switch as the control arm of the study.

“I’d also argue that ARPI switch is not the best standard of care for this patient population with measurable disease and 40% visceral metastases; there are better options,” he said.

For example, in phase 3 trials, docetaxel and cabazitaxel (Jevtana) have consistently demonstrated radiographic PFS of 8 to 9 months. In addition, lutetium-177–PSMA-617, a radioligand therapy that delivers beta-particle radiation to PSMA-expressing cells and the tumor microenvironment, has also been shown to have PFS and overall survival benefits, he said.

“Irrespective of regulatory decisions, I personally could not recommend this at this time, given the data that we’ve seen and the better options that are available for this patient population,” Dr. Chi said.
 

Real-World Practice

“Kim Chi offered a pretty fair critique and summary of the control arm, but in real world practice, ARPI switch, from abi [abiraterone] to enza [enzalutamide] or enza to abi continues to be used in routine clinical practice for various reasons,” Xin Gao, MD, a genitourinary oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview.

“There are patients who can’t tolerate chemotherapy or don’t want chemotherapy, and we do know also that there are patients who can benefit from an ARPI switch, especially some patients with more indolent disease,” said Dr. Gao, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the study.

He noted that some patients being switched from abiraterone to enzalutamide have clinical responses, and that the ARPIs are generally more tolerable than chemotherapy.

In addition, CONTACT-02 is one of a series of trials in which ARPI switch was used as the control arm, and many of these trials were initiated before there were data confirming the superior efficacy of some newer therapeutic options, Dr. Gao noted.

He agreed, however that there is growing evidence to show that ARPI switch may not be the optimal choice for patients with more measurable disease, especially visceral metastases, and other more aggressive forms of mCRPC.
 

CONTACT-02 Details

Investigators in the phase 3 study screened 866 men with mCRPC and after stratification by liver metastases, prior docetaxel use for castration-sensitive prostate cancer, and disease stage for which the first novel hormonal therapy was given. About 500 patients (507) were randomized to receive either oral cabozantinib 40 mg daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks or second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone 1000 mg with oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily, or oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily.

After a median follow-up of 14.3 months in the PFS intention-to-treat population, the median ­PFS by blinded central review was 6.3 months with cabozantinib/atezolizumab and 4.2 months with second hormonal therapy. This translated into a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .0002). The results were similar for a PFS analysis according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria.

The combination was also associated with modest improvements in PFS in prespecified subgroups, including patients who had liver or bone metastases and those who had previously received docetaxel.

There were no significant differences in overall survival at the time of data cutoff. Overall survival data were not mature and will be reported at a later date.

Disease control rates, a composite of complete and partial responses and stable disease, were 73% with the combination and 55% with second hormonal therapy (P value not shown).
 

Safety Data

The safety analysis indicated that patients found the ARPI switch easier to tolerate than the combination.

Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 40% of patients on the combination, vs 3% of patients on second hormonal therapy, and treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 13% and 2%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients assigned to the combination vs. 23% of patients assigned to the ARPI switch.

In all, 8% of patients on the combination and 12% on second hormonal therapy died on study, but none of the deaths were deemed to be treatment related.­­

CONTACT-02 was sponsored by Exelixis in partnerships with Ipsen and Takeda.

Dr. Agarwal disclosed institutional research funding from Exelixis, Roche, Takeda, and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with Roche and others. Dr. Gao has served as a consultant or advisor to several companies, not including the sponsors of the study, and has served as principal investigator at his institution, which has received research funding from Exelixis, Takeda, and others.

Once the standard treatment for adult patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), stem cell transplants have fallen out of favor somewhat in recent years, with immunotherapy and pediatric-inspired chemotherapy regimens moving to the forefront. But hematologists differ on how to treat relapsed/refractory patients with Philadelphia-chromosome negative (Ph-negative) ALL who are minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) are still part of the hematology armamentarium for relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients with Ph-negative ALL who are MRD positive. However, when asked about the best treatment strategy for patients who are MRD-negative, hematologist Mark R. Litzow, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview, “There is no firm consensus about that.”

Discussing how medicine has evolved over the past 20 to 30 years, Dr. Litzow recalled that HSCT used to be standard treatment for adult patients with ALL. “We felt that in most instances, chemotherapy alone was not going to be effective in curing them. A vast majority would relapse,” he said. Nowadays, however, specialists differ on the use of HSCT in patients with Ph-negative, MRD-negative ALL.

A pair of commentaries in the January issue of The Lancet Hematology tackle this topic from different perspectives. On one hand, hematologist Patrice Chevallier, MD, of the University of Nantes in France, argues that for such patients, HSCT “remains a valid option,”and MRD status shouldn’t be the sole factor used for a decision.

However, hematologist Nicolas Boissel, MD, PhD, of Paris Cité University, contends that detectable early MRD is the “only robust predictor” of HSCT benefit in patients under 60 with Ph-negative ALL, and it has “unproven” benefit in older patients.

As Dr. Chevallier notes, “allogeneic HSCT is indicated in patients defined as having a high risk of relapse. Currently, a high level of residual leukemic cells after treatment is recognized as the strongest, and sometimes sole, criterion defining high-risk patients.”

As first- and second-line therapy in pediatric patients and as first-line therapy in adults, the “rule” is to offer HSCT to MRD-positive patients but not MRD-negative ones, he writes. “In older patients and those who are relapsed or refractory, the recent demonstration of efficient immunotherapies and cell therapies has launched the debate on the role of MRD status and the question of whether or not to transplant patients who are MRD-negative in both settings.”

Dr. Chevallier notes that “there is no standard definition of an MRD-negative status,” and the best timing for evaluation is unknown. Further, he adds, a “variable proportion of MRD-negative patients still relapse after treatment — up to 25% of patients who respond early and more than 50% of patients who respond late.”

He also points out that there’s an 80% chance that patients will convert from MRD negative to MRD positive after blinatumomab therapy, and he highlights the low long-term survival rate (20%) after brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus), a CAR T-cell therapy.

As for older patients, Dr. Chevallier observes that improved chemo-immunotherapy and conditioning regimens could spark a rethinking of the feasibility of HSCT. However, for now, in those patients, “MRD is not decisional, and allogeneic HSCT is not a routine practice,” he writes.

In his commentary, Dr. Boissel points out that there have been no controlled studies of HSCT in the first-remission setting, although he writes that some data suggests that HSCT may be helpful for patients in high-risk genetic subgroups, regardless of MRD status. On the other hand, “converging observations suggest no benefit of HSCT in MRD-positive patients treated with blinatumomab in the front-line setting.”

If MRD monitoring is unavailable, Dr. Boissel adds, “it seems reasonable to use early blast clearance or other baseline high-risk features to indicate HSCT.”

How can hematologists make the best decision about HSCT?

In an interview, City of Hope Medical Center (Duarte, California) hematologist-oncologist Ibrahim T. Aldoss, MD, said that chemotherapy — with or without immunotherapy — can often be enough to treat younger patients without high-risk genetic factors. “Potentially, these patients can be spared from transplants,” he said, although patients with resistant MRD “clearly need transplants.”

The risks of transplants are significant, he noted. While they can reduce the risk of relapse, the risk of dying during remission is higher vs chemotherapy. “So you have to balance the risks that you’re willing to take,” he said, keeping in mind that some patients can be cured with chemotherapy.

In addition, Dr. Aldoss said, acute graft-versus-host disease in the first few months after transplant can become chronic. “Many years later, patients can be struggling to where it actually impacts their daily activity. And unfortunately, patients can die from it.”

In the big picture, “you cannot have a generalized statement about whether you shouldn’t do transplants in every MRD-negative patient,” he said. However, “if you do achieve MRD negativity, most patients likely don’t need transplants.”

The Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Litzow urged colleagues to consider several factors when making decisions. Do patients have a high level of comorbidities that would raise the risk of death from HSCT? He noted that there’s nearly a 20% risk of death from HSCT, and comorbidities can boost the risk to 40%-50%.

Also, does the patient have a suitable donor? While advances have boosted the number of eligible donors, he said, “not everybody has an ideal donor.”

If a patient is MRD-negative but not a good candidate for a transplant, Dr. Litzow said consolidation therapy followed by maintenance therapy may be indicated. “Continue to check their bone marrow and their blood periodically as they’re going through treatment and reassess their MRD status to make sure they’re staying negative. If they turn MRD-positive during the course of their therapy, then we have to step back and rethink the role of transplant.”

As for cost, Dr. Litzow points out that HSCT is very expensive, although ALL is an accepted indication for HSCT. However, “if someone doesn’t have medical insurance, then it can be difficult to consider them having a transplant.”

What’s next? In his commentary, Dr. Boissel writes that his team aims to study whether HSCT is helpful in patients with high-risk B-cell ALL “who reach MRD negativity after a consolidation phase including blinatumomab.”

Dr. Aldoss discloses relationships with Amgen, Kite, Pfizer, Jazz, AbbVie, Sobi, Agios, Autolus, and MacroGenics. Dr. Litzow reports ties with Amgen. Dr. Boissel declares relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis, and Servier. Dr. Chevallier has no disclosures.

Once the standard treatment for adult patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), stem cell transplants have fallen out of favor somewhat in recent years, with immunotherapy and pediatric-inspired chemotherapy regimens moving to the forefront. But hematologists differ on how to treat relapsed/refractory patients with Philadelphia-chromosome negative (Ph-negative) ALL who are minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) are still part of the hematology armamentarium for relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients with Ph-negative ALL who are MRD positive. However, when asked about the best treatment strategy for patients who are MRD-negative, hematologist Mark R. Litzow, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview, “There is no firm consensus about that.”

Discussing how medicine has evolved over the past 20 to 30 years, Dr. Litzow recalled that HSCT used to be standard treatment for adult patients with ALL. “We felt that in most instances, chemotherapy alone was not going to be effective in curing them. A vast majority would relapse,” he said. Nowadays, however, specialists differ on the use of HSCT in patients with Ph-negative, MRD-negative ALL.

A pair of commentaries in the January issue of The Lancet Hematology tackle this topic from different perspectives. On one hand, hematologist Patrice Chevallier, MD, of the University of Nantes in France, argues that for such patients, HSCT “remains a valid option,”and MRD status shouldn’t be the sole factor used for a decision.

However, hematologist Nicolas Boissel, MD, PhD, of Paris Cité University, contends that detectable early MRD is the “only robust predictor” of HSCT benefit in patients under 60 with Ph-negative ALL, and it has “unproven” benefit in older patients.

As Dr. Chevallier notes, “allogeneic HSCT is indicated in patients defined as having a high risk of relapse. Currently, a high level of residual leukemic cells after treatment is recognized as the strongest, and sometimes sole, criterion defining high-risk patients.”

As first- and second-line therapy in pediatric patients and as first-line therapy in adults, the “rule” is to offer HSCT to MRD-positive patients but not MRD-negative ones, he writes. “In older patients and those who are relapsed or refractory, the recent demonstration of efficient immunotherapies and cell therapies has launched the debate on the role of MRD status and the question of whether or not to transplant patients who are MRD-negative in both settings.”

Dr. Chevallier notes that “there is no standard definition of an MRD-negative status,” and the best timing for evaluation is unknown. Further, he adds, a “variable proportion of MRD-negative patients still relapse after treatment — up to 25% of patients who respond early and more than 50% of patients who respond late.”

He also points out that there’s an 80% chance that patients will convert from MRD negative to MRD positive after blinatumomab therapy, and he highlights the low long-term survival rate (20%) after brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus), a CAR T-cell therapy.

As for older patients, Dr. Chevallier observes that improved chemo-immunotherapy and conditioning regimens could spark a rethinking of the feasibility of HSCT. However, for now, in those patients, “MRD is not decisional, and allogeneic HSCT is not a routine practice,” he writes.

In his commentary, Dr. Boissel points out that there have been no controlled studies of HSCT in the first-remission setting, although he writes that some data suggests that HSCT may be helpful for patients in high-risk genetic subgroups, regardless of MRD status. On the other hand, “converging observations suggest no benefit of HSCT in MRD-positive patients treated with blinatumomab in the front-line setting.”

If MRD monitoring is unavailable, Dr. Boissel adds, “it seems reasonable to use early blast clearance or other baseline high-risk features to indicate HSCT.”

How can hematologists make the best decision about HSCT?

In an interview, City of Hope Medical Center (Duarte, California) hematologist-oncologist Ibrahim T. Aldoss, MD, said that chemotherapy — with or without immunotherapy — can often be enough to treat younger patients without high-risk genetic factors. “Potentially, these patients can be spared from transplants,” he said, although patients with resistant MRD “clearly need transplants.”

The risks of transplants are significant, he noted. While they can reduce the risk of relapse, the risk of dying during remission is higher vs chemotherapy. “So you have to balance the risks that you’re willing to take,” he said, keeping in mind that some patients can be cured with chemotherapy.

In addition, Dr. Aldoss said, acute graft-versus-host disease in the first few months after transplant can become chronic. “Many years later, patients can be struggling to where it actually impacts their daily activity. And unfortunately, patients can die from it.”

In the big picture, “you cannot have a generalized statement about whether you shouldn’t do transplants in every MRD-negative patient,” he said. However, “if you do achieve MRD negativity, most patients likely don’t need transplants.”

The Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Litzow urged colleagues to consider several factors when making decisions. Do patients have a high level of comorbidities that would raise the risk of death from HSCT? He noted that there’s nearly a 20% risk of death from HSCT, and comorbidities can boost the risk to 40%-50%.

Also, does the patient have a suitable donor? While advances have boosted the number of eligible donors, he said, “not everybody has an ideal donor.”

If a patient is MRD-negative but not a good candidate for a transplant, Dr. Litzow said consolidation therapy followed by maintenance therapy may be indicated. “Continue to check their bone marrow and their blood periodically as they’re going through treatment and reassess their MRD status to make sure they’re staying negative. If they turn MRD-positive during the course of their therapy, then we have to step back and rethink the role of transplant.”

As for cost, Dr. Litzow points out that HSCT is very expensive, although ALL is an accepted indication for HSCT. However, “if someone doesn’t have medical insurance, then it can be difficult to consider them having a transplant.”

What’s next? In his commentary, Dr. Boissel writes that his team aims to study whether HSCT is helpful in patients with high-risk B-cell ALL “who reach MRD negativity after a consolidation phase including blinatumomab.”

Dr. Aldoss discloses relationships with Amgen, Kite, Pfizer, Jazz, AbbVie, Sobi, Agios, Autolus, and MacroGenics. Dr. Litzow reports ties with Amgen. Dr. Boissel declares relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis, and Servier. Dr. Chevallier has no disclosures.

Once the standard treatment for adult patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), stem cell transplants have fallen out of favor somewhat in recent years, with immunotherapy and pediatric-inspired chemotherapy regimens moving to the forefront. But hematologists differ on how to treat relapsed/refractory patients with Philadelphia-chromosome negative (Ph-negative) ALL who are minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) are still part of the hematology armamentarium for relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients with Ph-negative ALL who are MRD positive. However, when asked about the best treatment strategy for patients who are MRD-negative, hematologist Mark R. Litzow, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview, “There is no firm consensus about that.”

Discussing how medicine has evolved over the past 20 to 30 years, Dr. Litzow recalled that HSCT used to be standard treatment for adult patients with ALL. “We felt that in most instances, chemotherapy alone was not going to be effective in curing them. A vast majority would relapse,” he said. Nowadays, however, specialists differ on the use of HSCT in patients with Ph-negative, MRD-negative ALL.

A pair of commentaries in the January issue of The Lancet Hematology tackle this topic from different perspectives. On one hand, hematologist Patrice Chevallier, MD, of the University of Nantes in France, argues that for such patients, HSCT “remains a valid option,”and MRD status shouldn’t be the sole factor used for a decision.

However, hematologist Nicolas Boissel, MD, PhD, of Paris Cité University, contends that detectable early MRD is the “only robust predictor” of HSCT benefit in patients under 60 with Ph-negative ALL, and it has “unproven” benefit in older patients.

As Dr. Chevallier notes, “allogeneic HSCT is indicated in patients defined as having a high risk of relapse. Currently, a high level of residual leukemic cells after treatment is recognized as the strongest, and sometimes sole, criterion defining high-risk patients.”

As first- and second-line therapy in pediatric patients and as first-line therapy in adults, the “rule” is to offer HSCT to MRD-positive patients but not MRD-negative ones, he writes. “In older patients and those who are relapsed or refractory, the recent demonstration of efficient immunotherapies and cell therapies has launched the debate on the role of MRD status and the question of whether or not to transplant patients who are MRD-negative in both settings.”

Dr. Chevallier notes that “there is no standard definition of an MRD-negative status,” and the best timing for evaluation is unknown. Further, he adds, a “variable proportion of MRD-negative patients still relapse after treatment — up to 25% of patients who respond early and more than 50% of patients who respond late.”

He also points out that there’s an 80% chance that patients will convert from MRD negative to MRD positive after blinatumomab therapy, and he highlights the low long-term survival rate (20%) after brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus), a CAR T-cell therapy.

As for older patients, Dr. Chevallier observes that improved chemo-immunotherapy and conditioning regimens could spark a rethinking of the feasibility of HSCT. However, for now, in those patients, “MRD is not decisional, and allogeneic HSCT is not a routine practice,” he writes.

In his commentary, Dr. Boissel points out that there have been no controlled studies of HSCT in the first-remission setting, although he writes that some data suggests that HSCT may be helpful for patients in high-risk genetic subgroups, regardless of MRD status. On the other hand, “converging observations suggest no benefit of HSCT in MRD-positive patients treated with blinatumomab in the front-line setting.”

If MRD monitoring is unavailable, Dr. Boissel adds, “it seems reasonable to use early blast clearance or other baseline high-risk features to indicate HSCT.”

How can hematologists make the best decision about HSCT?

In an interview, City of Hope Medical Center (Duarte, California) hematologist-oncologist Ibrahim T. Aldoss, MD, said that chemotherapy — with or without immunotherapy — can often be enough to treat younger patients without high-risk genetic factors. “Potentially, these patients can be spared from transplants,” he said, although patients with resistant MRD “clearly need transplants.”

The risks of transplants are significant, he noted. While they can reduce the risk of relapse, the risk of dying during remission is higher vs chemotherapy. “So you have to balance the risks that you’re willing to take,” he said, keeping in mind that some patients can be cured with chemotherapy.

In addition, Dr. Aldoss said, acute graft-versus-host disease in the first few months after transplant can become chronic. “Many years later, patients can be struggling to where it actually impacts their daily activity. And unfortunately, patients can die from it.”

In the big picture, “you cannot have a generalized statement about whether you shouldn’t do transplants in every MRD-negative patient,” he said. However, “if you do achieve MRD negativity, most patients likely don’t need transplants.”

The Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Litzow urged colleagues to consider several factors when making decisions. Do patients have a high level of comorbidities that would raise the risk of death from HSCT? He noted that there’s nearly a 20% risk of death from HSCT, and comorbidities can boost the risk to 40%-50%.

Also, does the patient have a suitable donor? While advances have boosted the number of eligible donors, he said, “not everybody has an ideal donor.”

If a patient is MRD-negative but not a good candidate for a transplant, Dr. Litzow said consolidation therapy followed by maintenance therapy may be indicated. “Continue to check their bone marrow and their blood periodically as they’re going through treatment and reassess their MRD status to make sure they’re staying negative. If they turn MRD-positive during the course of their therapy, then we have to step back and rethink the role of transplant.”

As for cost, Dr. Litzow points out that HSCT is very expensive, although ALL is an accepted indication for HSCT. However, “if someone doesn’t have medical insurance, then it can be difficult to consider them having a transplant.”

What’s next? In his commentary, Dr. Boissel writes that his team aims to study whether HSCT is helpful in patients with high-risk B-cell ALL “who reach MRD negativity after a consolidation phase including blinatumomab.”

Dr. Aldoss discloses relationships with Amgen, Kite, Pfizer, Jazz, AbbVie, Sobi, Agios, Autolus, and MacroGenics. Dr. Litzow reports ties with Amgen. Dr. Boissel declares relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis, and Servier. Dr. Chevallier has no disclosures.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has proven itself as a prognostic tool, but questions remain as to whether it can be used to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Much of the uncertainty surrounds the sensitivity of ctDNA at the time when decisions regarding adjuvant therapy are being made.

Those were some of the key points made during a series of presentations and discussions on ctDNA at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

In a morning session, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, presented the first interim results from the multicenter, prospective observational BESPOKE CRC study, which included 689 patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer. The trial was designed to determine what effect ctDNA results would have on adjuvant chemotherapy treatment decisions. Over a median follow-up of 24.8 months, 623 patients had ctDNA results available. ctDNA positivity was associated with worse 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) at 29.86% versus 91.59% in the stage II/III combined group (hazard ratio [HR], 12.1; P < .0001) and in stage II (HR, 18.8; P < .0001) and stage III (HR, 9.9; P < .0001) analyzed separately.

In ctDNA-positive patients, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with longer DFS than in those who did not undergo adjuvant chemotherapy (HR, 3.06; P = .0025), but there was no difference in DFS between ctDNA-negative patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and those who didn’t. Patients who achieved ctDNA clearance had a longer median DFS (24.2 versus 13.8 months; HR, 0.4; P = .045).
 

Patient Anxiety Concerns

Dr. Kasi noted the importance of considering the patient’s view of ctDNA. There may be some concerns that such tests could cause patient anxiety, but he referenced a poster at ASCO GI which suggested the opposite. “It actually reduced anxiety, and 90% of the patients felt confident in the treatment they were receiving. They [said that] they will continue using the assay, and they value the additional information,” said Dr. Kasi, who is a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

During the Q&A after the talk, David Ellison, MD, a medical oncology and hematology specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, also in New York asked Dr. Kasi: “Did this [positive ctDNA] test just prompt earlier imaging? Was it any better than conventional surveillance like CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) or imaging?” he asked.

Dr. Kasi responded that the data showed ctDNA positivity 6-9 months earlier than cancer detection through traditional imaging.

“It doesn’t necessarily replace the ongoing surveillance. This particular study did not guide or make it as a protocol as to what to do. Everything was done as part of standard of care, the usual surveillance that the cancer center follows, he said. “I think [ctDNA] would help complement the ongoing care and in conjunction with somebody who has, for example, an indeterminant lung nodule, but also has ctDNA positivity, I think it adds confidence to the decisions that one might be making.”

Eujung Kim, MD, PhD, an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, wondered if there might be chemoresistant tumor cells remaining that are not shedding DNA. “You have to keep the biology in mind as well make decisions in conjunction with the clinical situation, as opposed to in isolation with ctDNA results,” Dr. Kasi responded.

In the same session, Jeannie Tie, MD, described results from the AGITG DYNAMIC-Rectal trial, which was a randomized study to determine if ctDNA could inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in locally advanced rectal cancer. The analysis included 230 patients who were randomized to ctDNA-informed management (n = 155), with a positive test leading to adjuvant chemotherapy, or a standard arm where adjuvant therapy decisions were left to the physician (n = 75).

Adjuvant chemotherapy use was higher in the control arm (77% versus 46%; P < .001). Lymphovascular invasion was more common in the control arm (odds ratio [OR], 3.06; P = .023), and recurrence-free survival was higher in patients who remained ctDNA negative (HR, 0.29; P < .001) despite all ctDNA-positive patients and only 23% of ctDNA-negative patients undergoing chemotherapy.

The sites of relapses were also different, with 78% occurring in patients who were ctDNA negative after surgery occurring only in the lung, versus just 1% of metastases solely in the lung among those who were ctDNA positive.

In ctDNA-positive patients, 50% of relapses were only in the liver and 19% were in the liver and lung.

Over 36 months, 16% of ctDNA-negative patients developed distant relapses and 2.8% developed locoregional relapses, versus 36% and 7.1% in the ctDNA-positive group.

“Regrettably, we could not conclude about the noninferiority of [using ctDNA to guide adjuvant therapy decisions] due to the premature study closure and small sample size. We confirmed the significantly lower risk of recurrence in post-op ctDNA-negative patients compared to ctDNA-positive patients, as well as the differential pattern of relapse where lung metastases predominate in ctDNA-negative patients, while liver metastases were the dominant side of relapse in ctDNA-positive patients,” said Dr. Tie, who is a medical oncologist at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victoria, Australia.
 

GALAXY Study Results Updated

In an afternoon session, Hiroki Yukami, MD, PhD, presented updated results of the GALAXY study, which examined 2998 patients with stage I-IV colorectal cancer who underwent ctDNA surveillance over a median 16.14 months following surgery. ctDNA-positive status was associated with worse DFS (HR, 10.53; P < .0001) in all stages as well as in stage II/III (HR, 12.05; P < .0001). The researchers also distinguished between patients with sustained ctDNA clearance and those with transient ctDNA clearance, in which a positive test occurred after an initial negative result. Recurrences occurred in 7.1% of patients with sustained ctDNA clearance, versus 85.2% of patients with transient clearance (P < .0001) and 89.4% of those with no clearance (P < .0001). “Sustained clearance indicates superior DFS compared to transient or no clearance,” said Dr. Yukami during his presentation.

Of 117 patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy after testing ctDNA positive, subsequent ctDNA clearance was associated with better DFS (HR, 6.72; P < .0001). There were also better DFS outcomes among patients who saw a greater decline in ctDNA plasma levels after adjuvant chemotherapy (0%-50% versus 50%-100% reduction; HR, 2.41; P = .001).

Aparna Raj Parikh, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, served as a discussant for the GALAXY study. She acknowledged that ctDNA is the most powerful prognostic marker in oncology, but to be clinically useful it is necessary to consider its utility at the landmark time point, which is when decisions are made whether to treat with adjuvant chemotherapy. At that time point, the sensitivity of ctDNA is about 48% in the GALAXY study, which Dr. Parikh said is consistent with other data.
 

ctDNA ‘not sensitive enough’

“We know that postoperative ctDNA is only capturing 40%-50% of patients with recurrences in non–stage IV patients in multiple datasets to date. I think it’s really important to keep in mind the sensitivity of the different time points when you’re actually thinking about how to use this in clinic. The first generation of tests are certainly promising, but I would make the argument that these are just not sensitive enough,” said Dr. Parikh.

“Landmark testing is not yet sensitive enough to deescalate care in a patient where chemotherapy would otherwise be indicated, and surveillance testing has not yet demonstrated clinical utility. I think our goal to actually deescalate care would be to try to lower the ctDNA-negative population recurrence risk to akin to stage I patients, with that 5-year DFS of 93%-95%,” Dr. Parikh said.

Dr. Parikh offered some advice on how to use ctDNA outside of a clinical trial setting. She said that positive ctDNA results can help drive the decision to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy in concert with clinical and other factors.

“I’m pretty convinced by the data that ctDNA is prognostic, and though we still need outcomes data, in particular scenarios where I’m thinking of not giving chemotherapy, a positive test may sway me in that direction,” she said. She gave examples such as patients with a single high-risk feature, or a stage III patient with marginal performance status, or an elderly patient with low-risk stage III disease.

Dr. Kasi has financial relationships with Precision Biosensors, Elicio Therapeutics, Bayer, BostonGene, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Delcath Systems, Eisai, Elicio Therapeutics, Exact Sciences, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Illumina, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Natera, NeoGenomics, QED Therapeutics, SAGA Diagnostics, Seagen, SERVIER, Taiho Oncology, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Boston Scientific, and Tersera. Dr. Tie, Dr. Kim, Dr. Ellison, and Dr. Yukami did not disclose conflicts of interest. Dr. Parikh has financial relationships with Abbvie, Bayer, Biofidelity, CheckMate Pharmaceuticals, CVS, Delcath Systems, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Illumina, Lily, SAGA Diagnostics, Scarce, Seagen, Taiho Oncology, Takeda, UpToDate, and Value Analytics Labs.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has proven itself as a prognostic tool, but questions remain as to whether it can be used to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Much of the uncertainty surrounds the sensitivity of ctDNA at the time when decisions regarding adjuvant therapy are being made.

Those were some of the key points made during a series of presentations and discussions on ctDNA at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

In a morning session, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, presented the first interim results from the multicenter, prospective observational BESPOKE CRC study, which included 689 patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer. The trial was designed to determine what effect ctDNA results would have on adjuvant chemotherapy treatment decisions. Over a median follow-up of 24.8 months, 623 patients had ctDNA results available. ctDNA positivity was associated with worse 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) at 29.86% versus 91.59% in the stage II/III combined group (hazard ratio [HR], 12.1; P < .0001) and in stage II (HR, 18.8; P < .0001) and stage III (HR, 9.9; P < .0001) analyzed separately.

In ctDNA-positive patients, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with longer DFS than in those who did not undergo adjuvant chemotherapy (HR, 3.06; P = .0025), but there was no difference in DFS between ctDNA-negative patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and those who didn’t. Patients who achieved ctDNA clearance had a longer median DFS (24.2 versus 13.8 months; HR, 0.4; P = .045).
 

Patient Anxiety Concerns

Dr. Kasi noted the importance of considering the patient’s view of ctDNA. There may be some concerns that such tests could cause patient anxiety, but he referenced a poster at ASCO GI which suggested the opposite. “It actually reduced anxiety, and 90% of the patients felt confident in the treatment they were receiving. They [said that] they will continue using the assay, and they value the additional information,” said Dr. Kasi, who is a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

During the Q&A after the talk, David Ellison, MD, a medical oncology and hematology specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, also in New York asked Dr. Kasi: “Did this [positive ctDNA] test just prompt earlier imaging? Was it any better than conventional surveillance like CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) or imaging?” he asked.

Dr. Kasi responded that the data showed ctDNA positivity 6-9 months earlier than cancer detection through traditional imaging.

“It doesn’t necessarily replace the ongoing surveillance. This particular study did not guide or make it as a protocol as to what to do. Everything was done as part of standard of care, the usual surveillance that the cancer center follows, he said. “I think [ctDNA] would help complement the ongoing care and in conjunction with somebody who has, for example, an indeterminant lung nodule, but also has ctDNA positivity, I think it adds confidence to the decisions that one might be making.”

Eujung Kim, MD, PhD, an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, wondered if there might be chemoresistant tumor cells remaining that are not shedding DNA. “You have to keep the biology in mind as well make decisions in conjunction with the clinical situation, as opposed to in isolation with ctDNA results,” Dr. Kasi responded.

In the same session, Jeannie Tie, MD, described results from the AGITG DYNAMIC-Rectal trial, which was a randomized study to determine if ctDNA could inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in locally advanced rectal cancer. The analysis included 230 patients who were randomized to ctDNA-informed management (n = 155), with a positive test leading to adjuvant chemotherapy, or a standard arm where adjuvant therapy decisions were left to the physician (n = 75).

Adjuvant chemotherapy use was higher in the control arm (77% versus 46%; P < .001). Lymphovascular invasion was more common in the control arm (odds ratio [OR], 3.06; P = .023), and recurrence-free survival was higher in patients who remained ctDNA negative (HR, 0.29; P < .001) despite all ctDNA-positive patients and only 23% of ctDNA-negative patients undergoing chemotherapy.

The sites of relapses were also different, with 78% occurring in patients who were ctDNA negative after surgery occurring only in the lung, versus just 1% of metastases solely in the lung among those who were ctDNA positive.

In ctDNA-positive patients, 50% of relapses were only in the liver and 19% were in the liver and lung.

Over 36 months, 16% of ctDNA-negative patients developed distant relapses and 2.8% developed locoregional relapses, versus 36% and 7.1% in the ctDNA-positive group.

“Regrettably, we could not conclude about the noninferiority of [using ctDNA to guide adjuvant therapy decisions] due to the premature study closure and small sample size. We confirmed the significantly lower risk of recurrence in post-op ctDNA-negative patients compared to ctDNA-positive patients, as well as the differential pattern of relapse where lung metastases predominate in ctDNA-negative patients, while liver metastases were the dominant side of relapse in ctDNA-positive patients,” said Dr. Tie, who is a medical oncologist at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victoria, Australia.
 

GALAXY Study Results Updated

In an afternoon session, Hiroki Yukami, MD, PhD, presented updated results of the GALAXY study, which examined 2998 patients with stage I-IV colorectal cancer who underwent ctDNA surveillance over a median 16.14 months following surgery. ctDNA-positive status was associated with worse DFS (HR, 10.53; P < .0001) in all stages as well as in stage II/III (HR, 12.05; P < .0001). The researchers also distinguished between patients with sustained ctDNA clearance and those with transient ctDNA clearance, in which a positive test occurred after an initial negative result. Recurrences occurred in 7.1% of patients with sustained ctDNA clearance, versus 85.2% of patients with transient clearance (P < .0001) and 89.4% of those with no clearance (P < .0001). “Sustained clearance indicates superior DFS compared to transient or no clearance,” said Dr. Yukami during his presentation.

Of 117 patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy after testing ctDNA positive, subsequent ctDNA clearance was associated with better DFS (HR, 6.72; P < .0001). There were also better DFS outcomes among patients who saw a greater decline in ctDNA plasma levels after adjuvant chemotherapy (0%-50% versus 50%-100% reduction; HR, 2.41; P = .001).

Aparna Raj Parikh, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, served as a discussant for the GALAXY study. She acknowledged that ctDNA is the most powerful prognostic marker in oncology, but to be clinically useful it is necessary to consider its utility at the landmark time point, which is when decisions are made whether to treat with adjuvant chemotherapy. At that time point, the sensitivity of ctDNA is about 48% in the GALAXY study, which Dr. Parikh said is consistent with other data.
 

ctDNA ‘not sensitive enough’

“We know that postoperative ctDNA is only capturing 40%-50% of patients with recurrences in non–stage IV patients in multiple datasets to date. I think it’s really important to keep in mind the sensitivity of the different time points when you’re actually thinking about how to use this in clinic. The first generation of tests are certainly promising, but I would make the argument that these are just not sensitive enough,” said Dr. Parikh.

“Landmark testing is not yet sensitive enough to deescalate care in a patient where chemotherapy would otherwise be indicated, and surveillance testing has not yet demonstrated clinical utility. I think our goal to actually deescalate care would be to try to lower the ctDNA-negative population recurrence risk to akin to stage I patients, with that 5-year DFS of 93%-95%,” Dr. Parikh said.

Dr. Parikh offered some advice on how to use ctDNA outside of a clinical trial setting. She said that positive ctDNA results can help drive the decision to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy in concert with clinical and other factors.

“I’m pretty convinced by the data that ctDNA is prognostic, and though we still need outcomes data, in particular scenarios where I’m thinking of not giving chemotherapy, a positive test may sway me in that direction,” she said. She gave examples such as patients with a single high-risk feature, or a stage III patient with marginal performance status, or an elderly patient with low-risk stage III disease.

Dr. Kasi has financial relationships with Precision Biosensors, Elicio Therapeutics, Bayer, BostonGene, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Delcath Systems, Eisai, Elicio Therapeutics, Exact Sciences, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Illumina, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Natera, NeoGenomics, QED Therapeutics, SAGA Diagnostics, Seagen, SERVIER, Taiho Oncology, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Boston Scientific, and Tersera. Dr. Tie, Dr. Kim, Dr. Ellison, and Dr. Yukami did not disclose conflicts of interest. Dr. Parikh has financial relationships with Abbvie, Bayer, Biofidelity, CheckMate Pharmaceuticals, CVS, Delcath Systems, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Illumina, Lily, SAGA Diagnostics, Scarce, Seagen, Taiho Oncology, Takeda, UpToDate, and Value Analytics Labs.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has proven itself as a prognostic tool, but questions remain as to whether it can be used to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Much of the uncertainty surrounds the sensitivity of ctDNA at the time when decisions regarding adjuvant therapy are being made.

Those were some of the key points made during a series of presentations and discussions on ctDNA at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

In a morning session, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, presented the first interim results from the multicenter, prospective observational BESPOKE CRC study, which included 689 patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer. The trial was designed to determine what effect ctDNA results would have on adjuvant chemotherapy treatment decisions. Over a median follow-up of 24.8 months, 623 patients had ctDNA results available. ctDNA positivity was associated with worse 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) at 29.86% versus 91.59% in the stage II/III combined group (hazard ratio [HR], 12.1; P < .0001) and in stage II (HR, 18.8; P < .0001) and stage III (HR, 9.9; P < .0001) analyzed separately.

In ctDNA-positive patients, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with longer DFS than in those who did not undergo adjuvant chemotherapy (HR, 3.06; P = .0025), but there was no difference in DFS between ctDNA-negative patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and those who didn’t. Patients who achieved ctDNA clearance had a longer median DFS (24.2 versus 13.8 months; HR, 0.4; P = .045).
 

Patient Anxiety Concerns

Dr. Kasi noted the importance of considering the patient’s view of ctDNA. There may be some concerns that such tests could cause patient anxiety, but he referenced a poster at ASCO GI which suggested the opposite. “It actually reduced anxiety, and 90% of the patients felt confident in the treatment they were receiving. They [said that] they will continue using the assay, and they value the additional information,” said Dr. Kasi, who is a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

During the Q&A after the talk, David Ellison, MD, a medical oncology and hematology specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, also in New York asked Dr. Kasi: “Did this [positive ctDNA] test just prompt earlier imaging? Was it any better than conventional surveillance like CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) or imaging?” he asked.

Dr. Kasi responded that the data showed ctDNA positivity 6-9 months earlier than cancer detection through traditional imaging.

“It doesn’t necessarily replace the ongoing surveillance. This particular study did not guide or make it as a protocol as to what to do. Everything was done as part of standard of care, the usual surveillance that the cancer center follows, he said. “I think [ctDNA] would help complement the ongoing care and in conjunction with somebody who has, for example, an indeterminant lung nodule, but also has ctDNA positivity, I think it adds confidence to the decisions that one might be making.”

Eujung Kim, MD, PhD, an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, wondered if there might be chemoresistant tumor cells remaining that are not shedding DNA. “You have to keep the biology in mind as well make decisions in conjunction with the clinical situation, as opposed to in isolation with ctDNA results,” Dr. Kasi responded.

In the same session, Jeannie Tie, MD, described results from the AGITG DYNAMIC-Rectal trial, which was a randomized study to determine if ctDNA could inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in locally advanced rectal cancer. The analysis included 230 patients who were randomized to ctDNA-informed management (n = 155), with a positive test leading to adjuvant chemotherapy, or a standard arm where adjuvant therapy decisions were left to the physician (n = 75).

Adjuvant chemotherapy use was higher in the control arm (77% versus 46%; P < .001). Lymphovascular invasion was more common in the control arm (odds ratio [OR], 3.06; P = .023), and recurrence-free survival was higher in patients who remained ctDNA negative (HR, 0.29; P < .001) despite all ctDNA-positive patients and only 23% of ctDNA-negative patients undergoing chemotherapy.

The sites of relapses were also different, with 78% occurring in patients who were ctDNA negative after surgery occurring only in the lung, versus just 1% of metastases solely in the lung among those who were ctDNA positive.

In ctDNA-positive patients, 50% of relapses were only in the liver and 19% were in the liver and lung.

Over 36 months, 16% of ctDNA-negative patients developed distant relapses and 2.8% developed locoregional relapses, versus 36% and 7.1% in the ctDNA-positive group.

“Regrettably, we could not conclude about the noninferiority of [using ctDNA to guide adjuvant therapy decisions] due to the premature study closure and small sample size. We confirmed the significantly lower risk of recurrence in post-op ctDNA-negative patients compared to ctDNA-positive patients, as well as the differential pattern of relapse where lung metastases predominate in ctDNA-negative patients, while liver metastases were the dominant side of relapse in ctDNA-positive patients,” said Dr. Tie, who is a medical oncologist at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victoria, Australia.
 

GALAXY Study Results Updated

In an afternoon session, Hiroki Yukami, MD, PhD, presented updated results of the GALAXY study, which examined 2998 patients with stage I-IV colorectal cancer who underwent ctDNA surveillance over a median 16.14 months following surgery. ctDNA-positive status was associated with worse DFS (HR, 10.53; P < .0001) in all stages as well as in stage II/III (HR, 12.05; P < .0001). The researchers also distinguished between patients with sustained ctDNA clearance and those with transient ctDNA clearance, in which a positive test occurred after an initial negative result. Recurrences occurred in 7.1% of patients with sustained ctDNA clearance, versus 85.2% of patients with transient clearance (P < .0001) and 89.4% of those with no clearance (P < .0001). “Sustained clearance indicates superior DFS compared to transient or no clearance,” said Dr. Yukami during his presentation.

Of 117 patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy after testing ctDNA positive, subsequent ctDNA clearance was associated with better DFS (HR, 6.72; P < .0001). There were also better DFS outcomes among patients who saw a greater decline in ctDNA plasma levels after adjuvant chemotherapy (0%-50% versus 50%-100% reduction; HR, 2.41; P = .001).

Aparna Raj Parikh, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, served as a discussant for the GALAXY study. She acknowledged that ctDNA is the most powerful prognostic marker in oncology, but to be clinically useful it is necessary to consider its utility at the landmark time point, which is when decisions are made whether to treat with adjuvant chemotherapy. At that time point, the sensitivity of ctDNA is about 48% in the GALAXY study, which Dr. Parikh said is consistent with other data.
 

ctDNA ‘not sensitive enough’

“We know that postoperative ctDNA is only capturing 40%-50% of patients with recurrences in non–stage IV patients in multiple datasets to date. I think it’s really important to keep in mind the sensitivity of the different time points when you’re actually thinking about how to use this in clinic. The first generation of tests are certainly promising, but I would make the argument that these are just not sensitive enough,” said Dr. Parikh.

“Landmark testing is not yet sensitive enough to deescalate care in a patient where chemotherapy would otherwise be indicated, and surveillance testing has not yet demonstrated clinical utility. I think our goal to actually deescalate care would be to try to lower the ctDNA-negative population recurrence risk to akin to stage I patients, with that 5-year DFS of 93%-95%,” Dr. Parikh said.

Dr. Parikh offered some advice on how to use ctDNA outside of a clinical trial setting. She said that positive ctDNA results can help drive the decision to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy in concert with clinical and other factors.

“I’m pretty convinced by the data that ctDNA is prognostic, and though we still need outcomes data, in particular scenarios where I’m thinking of not giving chemotherapy, a positive test may sway me in that direction,” she said. She gave examples such as patients with a single high-risk feature, or a stage III patient with marginal performance status, or an elderly patient with low-risk stage III disease.

Dr. Kasi has financial relationships with Precision Biosensors, Elicio Therapeutics, Bayer, BostonGene, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Delcath Systems, Eisai, Elicio Therapeutics, Exact Sciences, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Illumina, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Natera, NeoGenomics, QED Therapeutics, SAGA Diagnostics, Seagen, SERVIER, Taiho Oncology, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Boston Scientific, and Tersera. Dr. Tie, Dr. Kim, Dr. Ellison, and Dr. Yukami did not disclose conflicts of interest. Dr. Parikh has financial relationships with Abbvie, Bayer, Biofidelity, CheckMate Pharmaceuticals, CVS, Delcath Systems, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Illumina, Lily, SAGA Diagnostics, Scarce, Seagen, Taiho Oncology, Takeda, UpToDate, and Value Analytics Labs.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Foreign-trained doctors can supplement the nation’s waning physician workforce and bring diverse perspectives to patient care, but a new study finds that most never enter comparable roles after immigration, raising questions about the feasibility of educational and licensing pathways for international medical graduates (IMGs). 

Conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the nonprofit Upwardly Global, the study analyzed the data of 300 physicians who immigrated to the United States between 2004 and 2022. 

Although 85% of IMGs found employment, only 1 in 3 became a medical resident or doctor. 

Despite the study’s small sample size, it highlights the hurdles IMGs face, the authors noted. Even though they have a medical degree and potentially years of clinical experience in another country, they typically must start all over again in the US — passing the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), obtaining clinical experience, and securing a residency spot. 

If unable to complete these steps, IMGs may pursue other healthcare jobs for which they’re overqualified and underpaid, given their experience. The study found that 23% of IMGs who were not on track to become physicians worked as medical assistants. Others became clinical researchers, medical interpreters, and case managers. 

Russian ob/gyn Maxim Nikolaevskiy moved to the US in 2018 and understands why some IMGs switch career paths. His wife, who also trained as a physician in Russia, opted to enroll in a respiratory therapy program after they immigrated to Minnesota, whereas he found work as a research coordinator. The pressure to find housing, enroll their kids in school, and establish new routines took much of their focus. 

Dr. Nikolaevskiy told this news organization that IMGs often struggle to find a residency program willing to consider their unique career trajectory, which looks markedly different from that of someone trained in the US. 

“Multiple residency programs refuse IMGs’ applications, saying they graduated too long ago, without understanding they worked as a physician before,” he said. Immigrant doctors accepting nonphysician jobs once in the US, often out of financial necessity, only adds to this confusion. 

New federal and state legislation aim to reduce practice barriers for IMGs and shore up physician shortages and access for some of the nation›s most vulnerable counties. 

The Conrad State 30 and Physician Access Reauthorization Act, supported by the American Medical Association, would revamp the J-1 visa waiver program to permit more immigrant physicians to work in medically underserved areas instead of returning to their home countries. 

Last year, Alabama streamlined rules to allow IMGs to practice earlier. Effective July 1, those residing in Tennessee may skip residency requirements and receive a temporary medical license once they pass the state medical board and prove they have completed a 3-year postgraduate training program in their licensing country or recently fulfilled physician duties outside the US. 

Washington state now issues 2-year medical licenses to foreign-trained doctors, no residency required, with the possibility of renewal. Doctors must meet other requirements, including passing all steps of the USMLE and establishing a practice agreement with a supervising physician. Illinois recently passed a similar law that will take effect in January 2025. 

Beyond laws, communities can embrace IMGs and offer career guidance and clinical opportunities. Daniel Weber, MD, founded the International Healthcare Professionals Program in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to provide this critical support. 

“It is daunting to master a new language and pass medical licensing and English proficiency exams while working full time to support themselves and their families,” Dr. Weber said. 

Some participants have entered US residency training programs, but Weber told this news organization that many others have earned nursing degrees and are on track to become nurse practitioners. 

More than 5 years after leaving Russia, Dr. Nikolaevskiy is inching closer to practicing medicine again. 

He recently completed the Bridge to Residency for Immigrant International Doctor Graduates (BRIIDGE) program at the University of Minnesota Medical School. The 9-month program offers clinical experiences in community settings, outpatient primary care, and inpatient general medicine and pediatrics, clearing the way for him to apply for family medicine residency and possibly match in this cycle. 

“If not for the BRIIDGE program, I would still be [doing] medical monitoring in clinical trials or pharmacovigilance jobs. I’m grateful for the clinical experience and the people and institutions ready to give me a second chance,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Foreign-trained doctors can supplement the nation’s waning physician workforce and bring diverse perspectives to patient care, but a new study finds that most never enter comparable roles after immigration, raising questions about the feasibility of educational and licensing pathways for international medical graduates (IMGs). 

Conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the nonprofit Upwardly Global, the study analyzed the data of 300 physicians who immigrated to the United States between 2004 and 2022. 

Although 85% of IMGs found employment, only 1 in 3 became a medical resident or doctor. 

Despite the study’s small sample size, it highlights the hurdles IMGs face, the authors noted. Even though they have a medical degree and potentially years of clinical experience in another country, they typically must start all over again in the US — passing the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), obtaining clinical experience, and securing a residency spot. 

If unable to complete these steps, IMGs may pursue other healthcare jobs for which they’re overqualified and underpaid, given their experience. The study found that 23% of IMGs who were not on track to become physicians worked as medical assistants. Others became clinical researchers, medical interpreters, and case managers. 

Russian ob/gyn Maxim Nikolaevskiy moved to the US in 2018 and understands why some IMGs switch career paths. His wife, who also trained as a physician in Russia, opted to enroll in a respiratory therapy program after they immigrated to Minnesota, whereas he found work as a research coordinator. The pressure to find housing, enroll their kids in school, and establish new routines took much of their focus. 

Dr. Nikolaevskiy told this news organization that IMGs often struggle to find a residency program willing to consider their unique career trajectory, which looks markedly different from that of someone trained in the US. 

“Multiple residency programs refuse IMGs’ applications, saying they graduated too long ago, without understanding they worked as a physician before,” he said. Immigrant doctors accepting nonphysician jobs once in the US, often out of financial necessity, only adds to this confusion. 

New federal and state legislation aim to reduce practice barriers for IMGs and shore up physician shortages and access for some of the nation›s most vulnerable counties. 

The Conrad State 30 and Physician Access Reauthorization Act, supported by the American Medical Association, would revamp the J-1 visa waiver program to permit more immigrant physicians to work in medically underserved areas instead of returning to their home countries. 

Last year, Alabama streamlined rules to allow IMGs to practice earlier. Effective July 1, those residing in Tennessee may skip residency requirements and receive a temporary medical license once they pass the state medical board and prove they have completed a 3-year postgraduate training program in their licensing country or recently fulfilled physician duties outside the US. 

Washington state now issues 2-year medical licenses to foreign-trained doctors, no residency required, with the possibility of renewal. Doctors must meet other requirements, including passing all steps of the USMLE and establishing a practice agreement with a supervising physician. Illinois recently passed a similar law that will take effect in January 2025. 

Beyond laws, communities can embrace IMGs and offer career guidance and clinical opportunities. Daniel Weber, MD, founded the International Healthcare Professionals Program in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to provide this critical support. 

“It is daunting to master a new language and pass medical licensing and English proficiency exams while working full time to support themselves and their families,” Dr. Weber said. 

Some participants have entered US residency training programs, but Weber told this news organization that many others have earned nursing degrees and are on track to become nurse practitioners. 

More than 5 years after leaving Russia, Dr. Nikolaevskiy is inching closer to practicing medicine again. 

He recently completed the Bridge to Residency for Immigrant International Doctor Graduates (BRIIDGE) program at the University of Minnesota Medical School. The 9-month program offers clinical experiences in community settings, outpatient primary care, and inpatient general medicine and pediatrics, clearing the way for him to apply for family medicine residency and possibly match in this cycle. 

“If not for the BRIIDGE program, I would still be [doing] medical monitoring in clinical trials or pharmacovigilance jobs. I’m grateful for the clinical experience and the people and institutions ready to give me a second chance,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Foreign-trained doctors can supplement the nation’s waning physician workforce and bring diverse perspectives to patient care, but a new study finds that most never enter comparable roles after immigration, raising questions about the feasibility of educational and licensing pathways for international medical graduates (IMGs). 

Conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the nonprofit Upwardly Global, the study analyzed the data of 300 physicians who immigrated to the United States between 2004 and 2022. 

Although 85% of IMGs found employment, only 1 in 3 became a medical resident or doctor. 

Despite the study’s small sample size, it highlights the hurdles IMGs face, the authors noted. Even though they have a medical degree and potentially years of clinical experience in another country, they typically must start all over again in the US — passing the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), obtaining clinical experience, and securing a residency spot. 

If unable to complete these steps, IMGs may pursue other healthcare jobs for which they’re overqualified and underpaid, given their experience. The study found that 23% of IMGs who were not on track to become physicians worked as medical assistants. Others became clinical researchers, medical interpreters, and case managers. 

Russian ob/gyn Maxim Nikolaevskiy moved to the US in 2018 and understands why some IMGs switch career paths. His wife, who also trained as a physician in Russia, opted to enroll in a respiratory therapy program after they immigrated to Minnesota, whereas he found work as a research coordinator. The pressure to find housing, enroll their kids in school, and establish new routines took much of their focus. 

Dr. Nikolaevskiy told this news organization that IMGs often struggle to find a residency program willing to consider their unique career trajectory, which looks markedly different from that of someone trained in the US. 

“Multiple residency programs refuse IMGs’ applications, saying they graduated too long ago, without understanding they worked as a physician before,” he said. Immigrant doctors accepting nonphysician jobs once in the US, often out of financial necessity, only adds to this confusion. 

New federal and state legislation aim to reduce practice barriers for IMGs and shore up physician shortages and access for some of the nation›s most vulnerable counties. 

The Conrad State 30 and Physician Access Reauthorization Act, supported by the American Medical Association, would revamp the J-1 visa waiver program to permit more immigrant physicians to work in medically underserved areas instead of returning to their home countries. 

Last year, Alabama streamlined rules to allow IMGs to practice earlier. Effective July 1, those residing in Tennessee may skip residency requirements and receive a temporary medical license once they pass the state medical board and prove they have completed a 3-year postgraduate training program in their licensing country or recently fulfilled physician duties outside the US. 

Washington state now issues 2-year medical licenses to foreign-trained doctors, no residency required, with the possibility of renewal. Doctors must meet other requirements, including passing all steps of the USMLE and establishing a practice agreement with a supervising physician. Illinois recently passed a similar law that will take effect in January 2025. 

Beyond laws, communities can embrace IMGs and offer career guidance and clinical opportunities. Daniel Weber, MD, founded the International Healthcare Professionals Program in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to provide this critical support. 

“It is daunting to master a new language and pass medical licensing and English proficiency exams while working full time to support themselves and their families,” Dr. Weber said. 

Some participants have entered US residency training programs, but Weber told this news organization that many others have earned nursing degrees and are on track to become nurse practitioners. 

More than 5 years after leaving Russia, Dr. Nikolaevskiy is inching closer to practicing medicine again. 

He recently completed the Bridge to Residency for Immigrant International Doctor Graduates (BRIIDGE) program at the University of Minnesota Medical School. The 9-month program offers clinical experiences in community settings, outpatient primary care, and inpatient general medicine and pediatrics, clearing the way for him to apply for family medicine residency and possibly match in this cycle. 

“If not for the BRIIDGE program, I would still be [doing] medical monitoring in clinical trials or pharmacovigilance jobs. I’m grateful for the clinical experience and the people and institutions ready to give me a second chance,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With last month’s American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual conference in the rearview mirror, Ghulam Rehman “Manni” Mohyuddin, MD, a young medical oncologist who reaches out to colleagues via social media, hopes his efforts to support and inspire trainees at ASH 2023 will help propel them forward in their chosen field of medicine.

Ahead of the conference held in San Diego in December, Dr. Mohyuddin, a blood cancer specialist with a focus on multiple myeloma and medical education, put out a heartfelt appeal on X (formerly Twitter): “If you’re a trainee and interested in meeting me at #ASH23, please reach out … (especially if [international medical graduate]) I’d love to meet and offer support in whatever capacity I can! I can’t have a research project for each one of you, but happy to help/mentor in any other way possible,” he posted on X back in late November.

An international medical graduate himself, Dr. Mohyuddin recalls how overwhelmed he felt when he first attended an annual ASH conference as a trainee, so he aims to reassure others that they “don’t have to know everything.”

“It’s about networking and broadening horizons,” he said in an interview that took place between ASH sessions, his own research presentations, and meetings with the many trainees who took him up on the offer he made via X. “I’ve spent most of this ASH meeting trainees — it’s the most rewarding thing for me at these meetings.

“Reassurance is a lot of what we do in oncology,” he continued, drawing a connection between his affinity for helping trainees and providing compassionate care to patients. “For an oncologist, the single most important thing is having excellent communication skills and being able to express support and empathy. The ability to connect deeply with your patients during their time of need is profoundly important.

“You can compensate for lack of knowledge, because we have so many other sources of support for knowledge, but you simply cannot compensate for poor communication skills, and your patient suffers as a result,” he said.
 

Relationship Building

In addition to the guidance he received from mentors, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that it was the chance to build supportive, empathetic relationships that drew him to specialize in blood cancer and, in particular, to caring for patients with multiple myeloma and conducting research focused on improving the patient experience.

Dr. Mohyuddin attended medical school at the Aga Khan University in Pakistan, then completed his internal medicine residency and fellowship at the University of Kansas in Kansas City. As a chief resident there, he focused on novel approaches to education delivery and improving access to research for trainees. As a fellow, he developed clinical and research interests in multiple myeloma, which he describes as an “incredibly rewarding field” marked by “truly spectacular advances over the last two decades.”

“There are some cancers you can cure, which means you don’t get to see patients often, and there are some you can’t cure, where patients die early, and there’s not a lot of time to build a relationship,” he said. “But there are some where patients can do well even though they aren’t currently cured, and you get to form really amazing and meaningful relationships over a long period of time.

“Multiple myeloma occupies that space, and that’s why I’m drawn to it,” Dr. Mohyuddin added, noting that he doesn’t shy away from forging emotional connections with patients. “I recognize that makes me vulnerable, but I think that is essentially what your patients deserve from you — to be invested at an emotional level with them through their suffering.”
 

Improving value and the patient experience

“One thing, philosophically, that I research is value in multiple myeloma care: identifying areas where we are overtreating patients and where we can do less and get away with it,” he said.

Despite the major advances in multiple myeloma in recent years, which “represent a lot of what is going right with oncology,” this blood cancer still “also represents a lot of what is wrong with oncology,” he noted. As an example, he cited “the approval of low-value drugs, the sequencing of drugs, adding more and more drugs without responsibly addressing quality-of-life questions, and identifying more responsible ways to provide high-value efficacious care without bankrupting the economy.

“So my research and policy work apply to that,” he explained. “What can we do better? What sort of trials should we be doing? What populations do we enroll? Are we asking the right questions or looking at trivialities? Are we serving patients foremost?”

Sometimes, this means comparing multiple myeloma staging systems in a real-world cohort, or assessing whether a widely available, cheap, and safe drug like budesonide can help patients avoid diarrhea during chemotherapy, whether control arms in myeloma randomized trials are fair, whether drugs ever get approved in low- or middle-income countries after their approval in the United States, and whether smoldering myeloma, a multiple myeloma precursor, really requires treatment, as current guidelines suggest, or if patients would do just as well — or perhaps better — with a close surveillance protocol.

“Pharma won’t do those studies and many key opinion leaders feel the question [about whether smoldering myeloma needs to be treated] has already been answered, so we are launching a prospective study that will define the natural history of smoldering myeloma and allow for patients to stay off therapy while undergoing rigorous surveillance with imaging,” he said.

Another study Dr. Mohyuddin hopes to launch soon will look at a “start low, go slow” treatment approach for the frailest patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.

His upbringing in Pakistan, where there are “mind-boggling” differences in health care access, affordability, and outcomes when compared with the United States, provided a foundation for both his “enthusiasm for cost-effective care” and his desire to give back, he said.

Another aspect of life in Pakistan — an across-the-board sense of closeness and solidarity in families and communities that is sometimes lacking in the United States — contributed to his desire to build relationships.

“That is something I dearly miss,” he said. “I am very privileged and so thankful to be here in the US, but that is one thing I do deeply miss.”
 

Connecting and Making a Difference

Dr. Mohyuddin seeks connection through his relationships with patients, trainees, and his many followers on social media platforms like X, where he frequently shares his thoughts on research quality and findings, heme/onc trends, and treatment-related insight.

“How to treat myeloma after #ASH23,” he posted on X as the conference came to a close. His takeaways: Don’t treat smoldering myeloma, do quadruple therapy for transplant-eligible patients (but no cd38 maintenance therapy afterward), don’t do quads for carfilzomib in newly diagnosed frail or older patients, and don’t do a salvage autologous transplant, no matter how good the first transplant was.

Dr. Mohyuddin also works to make a difference through his research and involvement in helping to launch initiatives like Common Sense Oncology, an ambitious global effort to reform cancer clinical trials and care, and through a current project with colleagues in India and Pakistan to create a consortium for pooling data on hematologic malignancies from South Asian countries. The hope is that such a collaborative effort will lead to good prospective research relevant to the needs of participating countries, he explained.

“Those are things where I want to make a difference. Taking care of patients is number one, but more than research, the number two thing for me is teaching and hopefully inspiring trainees and others to think differently, to look at data differently,” he said, noting that despite the major advances in myeloma, the reality is that “a lot of what we offer in oncology is very marginal.”

The effect sizes of interventions are often very small, and outcomes can still be really bad, he explained, adding that “[i]t really hits you when you see a lot of death and suffering. It’s a huge wake-up call … we have so many advances, but the reality is very, very sobering.

“Critically understanding and interpreting data is something where education really fails us. I’m incredibly passionate about it. I’ve found great resources to help me interpret data better, and I want to make them more accessible and inspire others to understand better,” he said. “We need to know how to defend ourselves from the hype.”

His efforts have not gone unnoticed. Dr. Mohyuddin was the recipient of the 2023 Hematology and Medical Oncology Fellowship Faculty Teaching Award at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, where he is currently a faculty member.

“The recognition means more than any publication or grant award,” he said. “It’s great to know that medical education is appreciated, because so often we are in a rat race of getting more papers and grants out, but teaching and inspiring people is what is really, really important to me.”

With last month’s American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual conference in the rearview mirror, Ghulam Rehman “Manni” Mohyuddin, MD, a young medical oncologist who reaches out to colleagues via social media, hopes his efforts to support and inspire trainees at ASH 2023 will help propel them forward in their chosen field of medicine.

Ahead of the conference held in San Diego in December, Dr. Mohyuddin, a blood cancer specialist with a focus on multiple myeloma and medical education, put out a heartfelt appeal on X (formerly Twitter): “If you’re a trainee and interested in meeting me at #ASH23, please reach out … (especially if [international medical graduate]) I’d love to meet and offer support in whatever capacity I can! I can’t have a research project for each one of you, but happy to help/mentor in any other way possible,” he posted on X back in late November.

An international medical graduate himself, Dr. Mohyuddin recalls how overwhelmed he felt when he first attended an annual ASH conference as a trainee, so he aims to reassure others that they “don’t have to know everything.”

“It’s about networking and broadening horizons,” he said in an interview that took place between ASH sessions, his own research presentations, and meetings with the many trainees who took him up on the offer he made via X. “I’ve spent most of this ASH meeting trainees — it’s the most rewarding thing for me at these meetings.

“Reassurance is a lot of what we do in oncology,” he continued, drawing a connection between his affinity for helping trainees and providing compassionate care to patients. “For an oncologist, the single most important thing is having excellent communication skills and being able to express support and empathy. The ability to connect deeply with your patients during their time of need is profoundly important.

“You can compensate for lack of knowledge, because we have so many other sources of support for knowledge, but you simply cannot compensate for poor communication skills, and your patient suffers as a result,” he said.
 

Relationship Building

In addition to the guidance he received from mentors, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that it was the chance to build supportive, empathetic relationships that drew him to specialize in blood cancer and, in particular, to caring for patients with multiple myeloma and conducting research focused on improving the patient experience.

Dr. Mohyuddin attended medical school at the Aga Khan University in Pakistan, then completed his internal medicine residency and fellowship at the University of Kansas in Kansas City. As a chief resident there, he focused on novel approaches to education delivery and improving access to research for trainees. As a fellow, he developed clinical and research interests in multiple myeloma, which he describes as an “incredibly rewarding field” marked by “truly spectacular advances over the last two decades.”

“There are some cancers you can cure, which means you don’t get to see patients often, and there are some you can’t cure, where patients die early, and there’s not a lot of time to build a relationship,” he said. “But there are some where patients can do well even though they aren’t currently cured, and you get to form really amazing and meaningful relationships over a long period of time.

“Multiple myeloma occupies that space, and that’s why I’m drawn to it,” Dr. Mohyuddin added, noting that he doesn’t shy away from forging emotional connections with patients. “I recognize that makes me vulnerable, but I think that is essentially what your patients deserve from you — to be invested at an emotional level with them through their suffering.”
 

Improving value and the patient experience

“One thing, philosophically, that I research is value in multiple myeloma care: identifying areas where we are overtreating patients and where we can do less and get away with it,” he said.

Despite the major advances in multiple myeloma in recent years, which “represent a lot of what is going right with oncology,” this blood cancer still “also represents a lot of what is wrong with oncology,” he noted. As an example, he cited “the approval of low-value drugs, the sequencing of drugs, adding more and more drugs without responsibly addressing quality-of-life questions, and identifying more responsible ways to provide high-value efficacious care without bankrupting the economy.

“So my research and policy work apply to that,” he explained. “What can we do better? What sort of trials should we be doing? What populations do we enroll? Are we asking the right questions or looking at trivialities? Are we serving patients foremost?”

Sometimes, this means comparing multiple myeloma staging systems in a real-world cohort, or assessing whether a widely available, cheap, and safe drug like budesonide can help patients avoid diarrhea during chemotherapy, whether control arms in myeloma randomized trials are fair, whether drugs ever get approved in low- or middle-income countries after their approval in the United States, and whether smoldering myeloma, a multiple myeloma precursor, really requires treatment, as current guidelines suggest, or if patients would do just as well — or perhaps better — with a close surveillance protocol.

“Pharma won’t do those studies and many key opinion leaders feel the question [about whether smoldering myeloma needs to be treated] has already been answered, so we are launching a prospective study that will define the natural history of smoldering myeloma and allow for patients to stay off therapy while undergoing rigorous surveillance with imaging,” he said.

Another study Dr. Mohyuddin hopes to launch soon will look at a “start low, go slow” treatment approach for the frailest patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.

His upbringing in Pakistan, where there are “mind-boggling” differences in health care access, affordability, and outcomes when compared with the United States, provided a foundation for both his “enthusiasm for cost-effective care” and his desire to give back, he said.

Another aspect of life in Pakistan — an across-the-board sense of closeness and solidarity in families and communities that is sometimes lacking in the United States — contributed to his desire to build relationships.

“That is something I dearly miss,” he said. “I am very privileged and so thankful to be here in the US, but that is one thing I do deeply miss.”
 

Connecting and Making a Difference

Dr. Mohyuddin seeks connection through his relationships with patients, trainees, and his many followers on social media platforms like X, where he frequently shares his thoughts on research quality and findings, heme/onc trends, and treatment-related insight.

“How to treat myeloma after #ASH23,” he posted on X as the conference came to a close. His takeaways: Don’t treat smoldering myeloma, do quadruple therapy for transplant-eligible patients (but no cd38 maintenance therapy afterward), don’t do quads for carfilzomib in newly diagnosed frail or older patients, and don’t do a salvage autologous transplant, no matter how good the first transplant was.

Dr. Mohyuddin also works to make a difference through his research and involvement in helping to launch initiatives like Common Sense Oncology, an ambitious global effort to reform cancer clinical trials and care, and through a current project with colleagues in India and Pakistan to create a consortium for pooling data on hematologic malignancies from South Asian countries. The hope is that such a collaborative effort will lead to good prospective research relevant to the needs of participating countries, he explained.

“Those are things where I want to make a difference. Taking care of patients is number one, but more than research, the number two thing for me is teaching and hopefully inspiring trainees and others to think differently, to look at data differently,” he said, noting that despite the major advances in myeloma, the reality is that “a lot of what we offer in oncology is very marginal.”

The effect sizes of interventions are often very small, and outcomes can still be really bad, he explained, adding that “[i]t really hits you when you see a lot of death and suffering. It’s a huge wake-up call … we have so many advances, but the reality is very, very sobering.

“Critically understanding and interpreting data is something where education really fails us. I’m incredibly passionate about it. I’ve found great resources to help me interpret data better, and I want to make them more accessible and inspire others to understand better,” he said. “We need to know how to defend ourselves from the hype.”

His efforts have not gone unnoticed. Dr. Mohyuddin was the recipient of the 2023 Hematology and Medical Oncology Fellowship Faculty Teaching Award at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, where he is currently a faculty member.

“The recognition means more than any publication or grant award,” he said. “It’s great to know that medical education is appreciated, because so often we are in a rat race of getting more papers and grants out, but teaching and inspiring people is what is really, really important to me.”

With last month’s American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual conference in the rearview mirror, Ghulam Rehman “Manni” Mohyuddin, MD, a young medical oncologist who reaches out to colleagues via social media, hopes his efforts to support and inspire trainees at ASH 2023 will help propel them forward in their chosen field of medicine.

Ahead of the conference held in San Diego in December, Dr. Mohyuddin, a blood cancer specialist with a focus on multiple myeloma and medical education, put out a heartfelt appeal on X (formerly Twitter): “If you’re a trainee and interested in meeting me at #ASH23, please reach out … (especially if [international medical graduate]) I’d love to meet and offer support in whatever capacity I can! I can’t have a research project for each one of you, but happy to help/mentor in any other way possible,” he posted on X back in late November.

An international medical graduate himself, Dr. Mohyuddin recalls how overwhelmed he felt when he first attended an annual ASH conference as a trainee, so he aims to reassure others that they “don’t have to know everything.”

“It’s about networking and broadening horizons,” he said in an interview that took place between ASH sessions, his own research presentations, and meetings with the many trainees who took him up on the offer he made via X. “I’ve spent most of this ASH meeting trainees — it’s the most rewarding thing for me at these meetings.

“Reassurance is a lot of what we do in oncology,” he continued, drawing a connection between his affinity for helping trainees and providing compassionate care to patients. “For an oncologist, the single most important thing is having excellent communication skills and being able to express support and empathy. The ability to connect deeply with your patients during their time of need is profoundly important.

“You can compensate for lack of knowledge, because we have so many other sources of support for knowledge, but you simply cannot compensate for poor communication skills, and your patient suffers as a result,” he said.
 

Relationship Building

In addition to the guidance he received from mentors, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that it was the chance to build supportive, empathetic relationships that drew him to specialize in blood cancer and, in particular, to caring for patients with multiple myeloma and conducting research focused on improving the patient experience.

Dr. Mohyuddin attended medical school at the Aga Khan University in Pakistan, then completed his internal medicine residency and fellowship at the University of Kansas in Kansas City. As a chief resident there, he focused on novel approaches to education delivery and improving access to research for trainees. As a fellow, he developed clinical and research interests in multiple myeloma, which he describes as an “incredibly rewarding field” marked by “truly spectacular advances over the last two decades.”

“There are some cancers you can cure, which means you don’t get to see patients often, and there are some you can’t cure, where patients die early, and there’s not a lot of time to build a relationship,” he said. “But there are some where patients can do well even though they aren’t currently cured, and you get to form really amazing and meaningful relationships over a long period of time.

“Multiple myeloma occupies that space, and that’s why I’m drawn to it,” Dr. Mohyuddin added, noting that he doesn’t shy away from forging emotional connections with patients. “I recognize that makes me vulnerable, but I think that is essentially what your patients deserve from you — to be invested at an emotional level with them through their suffering.”
 

Improving value and the patient experience

“One thing, philosophically, that I research is value in multiple myeloma care: identifying areas where we are overtreating patients and where we can do less and get away with it,” he said.

Despite the major advances in multiple myeloma in recent years, which “represent a lot of what is going right with oncology,” this blood cancer still “also represents a lot of what is wrong with oncology,” he noted. As an example, he cited “the approval of low-value drugs, the sequencing of drugs, adding more and more drugs without responsibly addressing quality-of-life questions, and identifying more responsible ways to provide high-value efficacious care without bankrupting the economy.

“So my research and policy work apply to that,” he explained. “What can we do better? What sort of trials should we be doing? What populations do we enroll? Are we asking the right questions or looking at trivialities? Are we serving patients foremost?”

Sometimes, this means comparing multiple myeloma staging systems in a real-world cohort, or assessing whether a widely available, cheap, and safe drug like budesonide can help patients avoid diarrhea during chemotherapy, whether control arms in myeloma randomized trials are fair, whether drugs ever get approved in low- or middle-income countries after their approval in the United States, and whether smoldering myeloma, a multiple myeloma precursor, really requires treatment, as current guidelines suggest, or if patients would do just as well — or perhaps better — with a close surveillance protocol.

“Pharma won’t do those studies and many key opinion leaders feel the question [about whether smoldering myeloma needs to be treated] has already been answered, so we are launching a prospective study that will define the natural history of smoldering myeloma and allow for patients to stay off therapy while undergoing rigorous surveillance with imaging,” he said.

Another study Dr. Mohyuddin hopes to launch soon will look at a “start low, go slow” treatment approach for the frailest patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.

His upbringing in Pakistan, where there are “mind-boggling” differences in health care access, affordability, and outcomes when compared with the United States, provided a foundation for both his “enthusiasm for cost-effective care” and his desire to give back, he said.

Another aspect of life in Pakistan — an across-the-board sense of closeness and solidarity in families and communities that is sometimes lacking in the United States — contributed to his desire to build relationships.

“That is something I dearly miss,” he said. “I am very privileged and so thankful to be here in the US, but that is one thing I do deeply miss.”
 

Connecting and Making a Difference

Dr. Mohyuddin seeks connection through his relationships with patients, trainees, and his many followers on social media platforms like X, where he frequently shares his thoughts on research quality and findings, heme/onc trends, and treatment-related insight.

“How to treat myeloma after #ASH23,” he posted on X as the conference came to a close. His takeaways: Don’t treat smoldering myeloma, do quadruple therapy for transplant-eligible patients (but no cd38 maintenance therapy afterward), don’t do quads for carfilzomib in newly diagnosed frail or older patients, and don’t do a salvage autologous transplant, no matter how good the first transplant was.

Dr. Mohyuddin also works to make a difference through his research and involvement in helping to launch initiatives like Common Sense Oncology, an ambitious global effort to reform cancer clinical trials and care, and through a current project with colleagues in India and Pakistan to create a consortium for pooling data on hematologic malignancies from South Asian countries. The hope is that such a collaborative effort will lead to good prospective research relevant to the needs of participating countries, he explained.

“Those are things where I want to make a difference. Taking care of patients is number one, but more than research, the number two thing for me is teaching and hopefully inspiring trainees and others to think differently, to look at data differently,” he said, noting that despite the major advances in myeloma, the reality is that “a lot of what we offer in oncology is very marginal.”

The effect sizes of interventions are often very small, and outcomes can still be really bad, he explained, adding that “[i]t really hits you when you see a lot of death and suffering. It’s a huge wake-up call … we have so many advances, but the reality is very, very sobering.

“Critically understanding and interpreting data is something where education really fails us. I’m incredibly passionate about it. I’ve found great resources to help me interpret data better, and I want to make them more accessible and inspire others to understand better,” he said. “We need to know how to defend ourselves from the hype.”

His efforts have not gone unnoticed. Dr. Mohyuddin was the recipient of the 2023 Hematology and Medical Oncology Fellowship Faculty Teaching Award at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, where he is currently a faculty member.

“The recognition means more than any publication or grant award,” he said. “It’s great to know that medical education is appreciated, because so often we are in a rat race of getting more papers and grants out, but teaching and inspiring people is what is really, really important to me.”