Diversity in Medicine

To the Editor:

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) is a chronic progressive type of scarring alopecia that primarily affects women of African descent.¹ The disorder rarely is reported in men, which may be due to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. Early diagnosis and treatment are the cornerstones to slow or halt disease progression and prevent permanent damage to hair follicles. This study aimed to investigate the time to diagnosis and disease severity among males with CCCA.

We conducted a retrospective chart review of male patients older than 18 years seen in outpatient clinics at an academic dermatology department (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) between January 2012 and December 2022. An electronic query using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions, code L66.9 (cicatricial alopecia, unspecified) was performed. Patients were included if they had a clinical diagnosis of CCCA, histologic evidence of CCCA, and scalp photographs from the initial dermatology visit. Patients with folliculitis decalvans, scalp biopsy features that limited characterization, or no scalp biopsy were excluded from the study. Onset of CCCA was defined as the patient-reported start time of hair loss and/or scalp symptoms. To determine alopecia severity, the degree of central scalp hair loss was independently assessed by 2 dermatologists (S.C.T., T.O.) using the central scalp alopecia photographic scale in African American women.^2,3 This 6-point photographic scale displays images with grades ranging from 0 (normal) to 5 (bald scalp); higher grades indicate probable and more severe CCCA. The scale also divides the central hair loss in a frontal-accentuation or vertex-predominant pattern, which corresponds to the A or B designations, respectively; thus, a score of 5A indicates probable severe CCCA with a frontal accentuation pattern, while 5B indicates probable severe CCCA with hair loss focused on the vertex scalp. This study was approved by the University of Pennsylvania institutional review board (approval #850730).

Of 108 male patients, 12 met the eligibility criteria. Nearly all patients (91.7% [11/12]) had a CCCA severity grade of 3 or higher at the initial dermatology visit, indicating extensive hair loss (Table). The clinical appearance of severity grades 2 through 5 is demonstrated in the Figure. Among patients with a known disease duration prior to diagnosis, 72.7% (8/11) were diagnosed more than 1 year after onset of CCCA, and 45.4% (5/11) were diagnosed more than 5 years after onset. On average (SD), it took 6.4 (5.9) years for patients to receive a diagnosis of CCCA after the onset of scalp symptoms and/or hair loss.

Randomized controlled trials evaluating treatment of CCCA are lacking, and anecdotal evidence posits a better treatment response in early CCCA; however, our results suggest that most male patients present with advanced CCCA and receive a diagnosis years after disease onset. Similar research in alopecia areata has shown that 72.4% (105/145) of patients received their diagnosis within a year after onset of symptoms, and the mean time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis was 1 year.⁴ In contrast, male patients with CCCA experience considerable diagnostic delays. This disparity indicates the need for clinicians to increase recognition of CCCA in men and quickly refer them to a dermatologist for prompt treatment.

Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) commonly is at the top of the differential diagnosis for hair loss on the vertex of the scalp in males, but clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for CCCA, especially when scalp symptoms or atypical features of AGA are present.⁵ Androgenetic alopecia typically is asymptomatic, whereas the symptoms of CCCA may include itching, tenderness, and/or burning.^6,7 Trichoscopy is useful to evaluate for scarring, and a scalp biopsy may reveal other features to lower AGA on the differential. Educating patients, barbers, and hairstylists about the importance of early intervention also may encourage earlier visits before the scarring process is advanced. Further exploration into factors impacting diagnosis and CCCA severity may uncover implications for prognosis and treatment.

This study was limited by a small sample size, retrospective design, and single-center analysis. Some patients had comorbid hair loss conditions, which could affect disease severity. Moreover, the central scalp alopecia photographic scale² was not validated in men or designed for assessment of the nonclassical hair loss distributions noted in some of our patients. Nonetheless, we hope these data will support clinicians in efforts to advocate for early diagnosis and treatment in patients with CCCA to ultimately help improve outcomes.

To the Editor:

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) is a chronic progressive type of scarring alopecia that primarily affects women of African descent.¹ The disorder rarely is reported in men, which may be due to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. Early diagnosis and treatment are the cornerstones to slow or halt disease progression and prevent permanent damage to hair follicles. This study aimed to investigate the time to diagnosis and disease severity among males with CCCA.

We conducted a retrospective chart review of male patients older than 18 years seen in outpatient clinics at an academic dermatology department (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) between January 2012 and December 2022. An electronic query using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions, code L66.9 (cicatricial alopecia, unspecified) was performed. Patients were included if they had a clinical diagnosis of CCCA, histologic evidence of CCCA, and scalp photographs from the initial dermatology visit. Patients with folliculitis decalvans, scalp biopsy features that limited characterization, or no scalp biopsy were excluded from the study. Onset of CCCA was defined as the patient-reported start time of hair loss and/or scalp symptoms. To determine alopecia severity, the degree of central scalp hair loss was independently assessed by 2 dermatologists (S.C.T., T.O.) using the central scalp alopecia photographic scale in African American women.^2,3 This 6-point photographic scale displays images with grades ranging from 0 (normal) to 5 (bald scalp); higher grades indicate probable and more severe CCCA. The scale also divides the central hair loss in a frontal-accentuation or vertex-predominant pattern, which corresponds to the A or B designations, respectively; thus, a score of 5A indicates probable severe CCCA with a frontal accentuation pattern, while 5B indicates probable severe CCCA with hair loss focused on the vertex scalp. This study was approved by the University of Pennsylvania institutional review board (approval #850730).

Of 108 male patients, 12 met the eligibility criteria. Nearly all patients (91.7% [11/12]) had a CCCA severity grade of 3 or higher at the initial dermatology visit, indicating extensive hair loss (Table). The clinical appearance of severity grades 2 through 5 is demonstrated in the Figure. Among patients with a known disease duration prior to diagnosis, 72.7% (8/11) were diagnosed more than 1 year after onset of CCCA, and 45.4% (5/11) were diagnosed more than 5 years after onset. On average (SD), it took 6.4 (5.9) years for patients to receive a diagnosis of CCCA after the onset of scalp symptoms and/or hair loss.

Randomized controlled trials evaluating treatment of CCCA are lacking, and anecdotal evidence posits a better treatment response in early CCCA; however, our results suggest that most male patients present with advanced CCCA and receive a diagnosis years after disease onset. Similar research in alopecia areata has shown that 72.4% (105/145) of patients received their diagnosis within a year after onset of symptoms, and the mean time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis was 1 year.⁴ In contrast, male patients with CCCA experience considerable diagnostic delays. This disparity indicates the need for clinicians to increase recognition of CCCA in men and quickly refer them to a dermatologist for prompt treatment.

Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) commonly is at the top of the differential diagnosis for hair loss on the vertex of the scalp in males, but clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for CCCA, especially when scalp symptoms or atypical features of AGA are present.⁵ Androgenetic alopecia typically is asymptomatic, whereas the symptoms of CCCA may include itching, tenderness, and/or burning.^6,7 Trichoscopy is useful to evaluate for scarring, and a scalp biopsy may reveal other features to lower AGA on the differential. Educating patients, barbers, and hairstylists about the importance of early intervention also may encourage earlier visits before the scarring process is advanced. Further exploration into factors impacting diagnosis and CCCA severity may uncover implications for prognosis and treatment.

This study was limited by a small sample size, retrospective design, and single-center analysis. Some patients had comorbid hair loss conditions, which could affect disease severity. Moreover, the central scalp alopecia photographic scale² was not validated in men or designed for assessment of the nonclassical hair loss distributions noted in some of our patients. Nonetheless, we hope these data will support clinicians in efforts to advocate for early diagnosis and treatment in patients with CCCA to ultimately help improve outcomes.

To the Editor:

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) is a chronic progressive type of scarring alopecia that primarily affects women of African descent.¹ The disorder rarely is reported in men, which may be due to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. Early diagnosis and treatment are the cornerstones to slow or halt disease progression and prevent permanent damage to hair follicles. This study aimed to investigate the time to diagnosis and disease severity among males with CCCA.

We conducted a retrospective chart review of male patients older than 18 years seen in outpatient clinics at an academic dermatology department (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) between January 2012 and December 2022. An electronic query using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions, code L66.9 (cicatricial alopecia, unspecified) was performed. Patients were included if they had a clinical diagnosis of CCCA, histologic evidence of CCCA, and scalp photographs from the initial dermatology visit. Patients with folliculitis decalvans, scalp biopsy features that limited characterization, or no scalp biopsy were excluded from the study. Onset of CCCA was defined as the patient-reported start time of hair loss and/or scalp symptoms. To determine alopecia severity, the degree of central scalp hair loss was independently assessed by 2 dermatologists (S.C.T., T.O.) using the central scalp alopecia photographic scale in African American women.^2,3 This 6-point photographic scale displays images with grades ranging from 0 (normal) to 5 (bald scalp); higher grades indicate probable and more severe CCCA. The scale also divides the central hair loss in a frontal-accentuation or vertex-predominant pattern, which corresponds to the A or B designations, respectively; thus, a score of 5A indicates probable severe CCCA with a frontal accentuation pattern, while 5B indicates probable severe CCCA with hair loss focused on the vertex scalp. This study was approved by the University of Pennsylvania institutional review board (approval #850730).

Of 108 male patients, 12 met the eligibility criteria. Nearly all patients (91.7% [11/12]) had a CCCA severity grade of 3 or higher at the initial dermatology visit, indicating extensive hair loss (Table). The clinical appearance of severity grades 2 through 5 is demonstrated in the Figure. Among patients with a known disease duration prior to diagnosis, 72.7% (8/11) were diagnosed more than 1 year after onset of CCCA, and 45.4% (5/11) were diagnosed more than 5 years after onset. On average (SD), it took 6.4 (5.9) years for patients to receive a diagnosis of CCCA after the onset of scalp symptoms and/or hair loss.

Randomized controlled trials evaluating treatment of CCCA are lacking, and anecdotal evidence posits a better treatment response in early CCCA; however, our results suggest that most male patients present with advanced CCCA and receive a diagnosis years after disease onset. Similar research in alopecia areata has shown that 72.4% (105/145) of patients received their diagnosis within a year after onset of symptoms, and the mean time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis was 1 year.⁴ In contrast, male patients with CCCA experience considerable diagnostic delays. This disparity indicates the need for clinicians to increase recognition of CCCA in men and quickly refer them to a dermatologist for prompt treatment.

Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) commonly is at the top of the differential diagnosis for hair loss on the vertex of the scalp in males, but clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for CCCA, especially when scalp symptoms or atypical features of AGA are present.⁵ Androgenetic alopecia typically is asymptomatic, whereas the symptoms of CCCA may include itching, tenderness, and/or burning.^6,7 Trichoscopy is useful to evaluate for scarring, and a scalp biopsy may reveal other features to lower AGA on the differential. Educating patients, barbers, and hairstylists about the importance of early intervention also may encourage earlier visits before the scarring process is advanced. Further exploration into factors impacting diagnosis and CCCA severity may uncover implications for prognosis and treatment.

This study was limited by a small sample size, retrospective design, and single-center analysis. Some patients had comorbid hair loss conditions, which could affect disease severity. Moreover, the central scalp alopecia photographic scale² was not validated in men or designed for assessment of the nonclassical hair loss distributions noted in some of our patients. Nonetheless, we hope these data will support clinicians in efforts to advocate for early diagnosis and treatment in patients with CCCA to ultimately help improve outcomes.

The ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 2023^1,2 on the use of race-based criteria in college admissions was met with a range of reactions across the country. Given the implications of this decision on the future makeup of higher education, the downstream effects on medical school admissions, and the possible further impact on graduate medical education programs, we sought to explore the potential impact of the landmark decision from the perspective of dermatology residency program directors and offer insights on this pivotal judgment.

Background on the SCOTUS Ruling

In June 2023, SCOTUS issued its formal decision on 2 court cases brought by the organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill¹ and Harvard University (Cambridge, Massachusetts)² that addressed college admissions practices dealing with the use of race as a selection criterion in the application process. The cases alleged that these universities had overly emphasized race in the admissions process and thus were in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the 14th Amendment.^1,2

The SCOTUS justices voted 6 to 3 in favor of the argument presented by the SFFA, determining that the use of race in the college admissions process essentially constituted a form of racial discrimination. The ruling was in contrast to a prior decision in 2003 that centered on law school admissions at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Michigan) in which SCOTUS previously had determined that race could be used as one factor amongst other criteria in the higher education selection process.³ In the 2023 decision siding with SFFA, SCOTUS did acknowledge that it was still acceptable for selection processes to consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”²

Effect on Undergraduate Admissions

Prior to the 2023 ruling, several states had already passed independent laws against the use of affirmative action or race-based selection criteria in the admissions process at public colleges and universities.⁴ As a result, these institutions would already be conforming to the principles set forth in the SCOTUS ruling and major changes to their undergraduate admissions policies would not be expected; however, a considerable number of colleges and universities—particularly those considered highly selective with applicant acceptance rates that are well below the national average—reported the use of race as a factor in their admissions processes in standardized reporting surveys.⁵ For these institutions, it is no longer considered acceptable (based on the SCOTUS decision) to use race as a singular factor in admissions or to implement race-conscious decision-making—in which individuals are considered differently based solely on their race—as part of the undergraduate selection process.

In light of these rulings, many institutions have explicitly committed to upholding principles of diversity in their recruitment processes, acknowledging the multifaceted nature of diversity beyond strictly racial terms—including but not limited to socioeconomic diversity, religious diversity, or gender diversity—which is in compliance with the interpretation ruling by the US Department of Education and the US Department of Justice.⁶ Additionally, select institutions have taken approaches to explicitly include questions on ways in which applicants have overcome obstacles or challenges, allowing an opportunity for individuals who have had such experiences related to race an opportunity to incorporate these elements into their applications. Finally, some institutions have taken a more limited approach, eliminating ways in which race is explicitly addressed in the application and focusing on race-neutral elements of the application in their approach to selection.⁷

Because the first college admission cycle since the 2023 SCOTUS ruling is still underway, we have yet to witness the full impact of this decision on the current undergraduate admissions landscape.

Effect on Medical School Admissions and Rotations

Although SCOTUS specifically examined the undergraduate admissions process, the ruling on race-conscious admissions also had a profound impact on graduate school admissions including medical school admission processes.^1,2,8,9 This is because the language of the majority opinion refers to “university programs” in its ruling, which also has been broadly interpreted to include graduate school programs. As with undergraduate admissions, it has been interpreted by national medical education organizations and institutions that medical schools also cannot consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity as a specific factor in the admissions process.^1,2,8,9

Lived individual experiences, including essays that speak to an applicant’s lived experiences and career aspirations related to race, still can be taken into account. In particular, holistic review still can be utilized to evaluate medical school candidates and may play a more integral role in the medical school admissions process now than in the past.^8,10,11 After the ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that “today’s decision leaves intact holistic college admissions and recruitment efforts that seek to enroll diverse classes without using racial classifications.”¹

The ruling asserted that universities may define their mission as they see fit. As a result, the ruling did not affect medical school missions or strategic plans, including those that may aim to diversify the health care workforce.^8,10,11 The ruling also did not affect the ability to utilize pathway programs to encourage a career in medicine or recruitment relationships with diverse undergraduate or community-based organizations. Student interest groups also can be involved in the relationship-building or recruitment activities for medical schools.^8,10,11 Guidance from the US Department of Education and US Department of Justice noted that institutions may consider race in identifying prospective applicants through recruitment and outreach, “provided that their outreach and recruitment programs do not provide targeted groups of prospective students preference in the admissions process, and provided that all students—whether part of a specifically targeted group or not—enjoy the same opportunity to apply and compete for admission.”¹²

In regard to pathways programs, slots cannot be reserved and preference cannot be given to applicants who participated in these programs if race was a factor in selecting participants.⁸ Similarly, medical school away electives related to diversity cannot be reserved for those of a specific race or ethnicity; however, these electives can utilize commitment to stated aims and missions of the rotation, such as a commitment to diversity within medicine, as a basis to selecting candidates.⁸

The ruling did not address how race or ethnicity is factored into financial aid or scholarship determination. There has been concern in higher education that the legal framework utilized in the SCOTUS decision could affect financial aid and scholarship decisions; therefore, many institutions are proceeding with caution in their approach.⁸

Effect on Residency Selection

Because the SCOTUS ruling references colleges and universities, not health care employers, it should not affect the residency selection process; however, there is variability in how health care institutions are interpreting the impact of the ruling on residency selection, with some taking a more prescriptive and cautious view on the matter. Additionally, with that said, residency selection is considered an employment practice covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,¹³ which already prohibits the consideration of race in hiring decisions.⁷ Under Title VII, it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against someone because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and it is “unlawful to use policies or practices that seem neutral but have the effect of discriminating against people because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.” Title VII also states that employers cannot “make employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about a person’s abilities, traits, or performance because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.”¹³

Importantly, Title VII does not imply that employers need to abandon their diversity, equity, or inclusion initiatives, and it does not imply that employers must revoke their mission to improve diversity in the workforce. Title VII does not state that racial information cannot be available. It would be permissible to use racial data to assess recruitment trends, identify inequities, and create programs to eliminate barriers and decrease bias¹⁴; for example, if a program identified that, based on their current review system, students who are underrepresented in medicine were disproportionately screened out of the applicant pool or interview group, they may wish to revisit their review process to identify and eliminate possible biases. Programs also may wish to adopt educational programs for reviewers (eg, implicit bias training) or educational content on the potential for bias in commonly used review criteria, such as the US Medical Licensing Examination, clerkship grades, and the Medical Student Performance Evaluation.¹⁵ Reviewers can and should consider applications in an individualized and holistic manner in which experiences, traits, skills, and academic metrics are assessed together for compatibility with the values and mission of the training program.¹⁶

Future Directions for Dermatology

Beyond the SCOTUS ruling, there have been other shifts in the dermatology residency application process that have affected candidate review. Dermatology programs recently have adopted the use of preference signaling in residency applications. Preliminary data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for the 2024 application cycle indicated that of the 81 programs analyzed, there was a nearly 0% chance of an applicant receiving an interview invitation from a program that they did not signal. The median signal-to-interview conversion rate for the 81 dermatology programs analyzed was 55% for gold signals and 15% for silver signals.¹⁷ It can be inferred from these data that programs are using preference signaling as important criteria for consideration of interview invitation. Programs may choose to focus most of their attention on the applicant pool who has signaled them. Because the number and type of signals available is equal among all applicants, we hope that this provides an equitable way for all applicants to garner holistic review from programs that interested them. In addition, there has been a 30% decrease in average applications submitted per dermatology applicant.¹⁸ With a substantial decline in applications to dermatology, we hope that reviewers are able to spend more time devoted to comprehensive holistic review.

Although signals are equitable for applicants, their distribution among programs may not be; for example, in a given year, a program might find that all their gold signals came from non–underrepresented in medicine students. We encourage programs to carefully review applicant data to ensure their recruitment process is not inadvertently discriminatory and is in alignment with their goals and mission.

The ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 2023^1,2 on the use of race-based criteria in college admissions was met with a range of reactions across the country. Given the implications of this decision on the future makeup of higher education, the downstream effects on medical school admissions, and the possible further impact on graduate medical education programs, we sought to explore the potential impact of the landmark decision from the perspective of dermatology residency program directors and offer insights on this pivotal judgment.

Background on the SCOTUS Ruling

In June 2023, SCOTUS issued its formal decision on 2 court cases brought by the organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill¹ and Harvard University (Cambridge, Massachusetts)² that addressed college admissions practices dealing with the use of race as a selection criterion in the application process. The cases alleged that these universities had overly emphasized race in the admissions process and thus were in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the 14th Amendment.^1,2

The SCOTUS justices voted 6 to 3 in favor of the argument presented by the SFFA, determining that the use of race in the college admissions process essentially constituted a form of racial discrimination. The ruling was in contrast to a prior decision in 2003 that centered on law school admissions at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Michigan) in which SCOTUS previously had determined that race could be used as one factor amongst other criteria in the higher education selection process.³ In the 2023 decision siding with SFFA, SCOTUS did acknowledge that it was still acceptable for selection processes to consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”²

Effect on Undergraduate Admissions

Prior to the 2023 ruling, several states had already passed independent laws against the use of affirmative action or race-based selection criteria in the admissions process at public colleges and universities.⁴ As a result, these institutions would already be conforming to the principles set forth in the SCOTUS ruling and major changes to their undergraduate admissions policies would not be expected; however, a considerable number of colleges and universities—particularly those considered highly selective with applicant acceptance rates that are well below the national average—reported the use of race as a factor in their admissions processes in standardized reporting surveys.⁵ For these institutions, it is no longer considered acceptable (based on the SCOTUS decision) to use race as a singular factor in admissions or to implement race-conscious decision-making—in which individuals are considered differently based solely on their race—as part of the undergraduate selection process.

In light of these rulings, many institutions have explicitly committed to upholding principles of diversity in their recruitment processes, acknowledging the multifaceted nature of diversity beyond strictly racial terms—including but not limited to socioeconomic diversity, religious diversity, or gender diversity—which is in compliance with the interpretation ruling by the US Department of Education and the US Department of Justice.⁶ Additionally, select institutions have taken approaches to explicitly include questions on ways in which applicants have overcome obstacles or challenges, allowing an opportunity for individuals who have had such experiences related to race an opportunity to incorporate these elements into their applications. Finally, some institutions have taken a more limited approach, eliminating ways in which race is explicitly addressed in the application and focusing on race-neutral elements of the application in their approach to selection.⁷

Because the first college admission cycle since the 2023 SCOTUS ruling is still underway, we have yet to witness the full impact of this decision on the current undergraduate admissions landscape.

Effect on Medical School Admissions and Rotations

Although SCOTUS specifically examined the undergraduate admissions process, the ruling on race-conscious admissions also had a profound impact on graduate school admissions including medical school admission processes.^1,2,8,9 This is because the language of the majority opinion refers to “university programs” in its ruling, which also has been broadly interpreted to include graduate school programs. As with undergraduate admissions, it has been interpreted by national medical education organizations and institutions that medical schools also cannot consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity as a specific factor in the admissions process.^1,2,8,9

Lived individual experiences, including essays that speak to an applicant’s lived experiences and career aspirations related to race, still can be taken into account. In particular, holistic review still can be utilized to evaluate medical school candidates and may play a more integral role in the medical school admissions process now than in the past.^8,10,11 After the ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that “today’s decision leaves intact holistic college admissions and recruitment efforts that seek to enroll diverse classes without using racial classifications.”¹

The ruling asserted that universities may define their mission as they see fit. As a result, the ruling did not affect medical school missions or strategic plans, including those that may aim to diversify the health care workforce.^8,10,11 The ruling also did not affect the ability to utilize pathway programs to encourage a career in medicine or recruitment relationships with diverse undergraduate or community-based organizations. Student interest groups also can be involved in the relationship-building or recruitment activities for medical schools.^8,10,11 Guidance from the US Department of Education and US Department of Justice noted that institutions may consider race in identifying prospective applicants through recruitment and outreach, “provided that their outreach and recruitment programs do not provide targeted groups of prospective students preference in the admissions process, and provided that all students—whether part of a specifically targeted group or not—enjoy the same opportunity to apply and compete for admission.”¹²

In regard to pathways programs, slots cannot be reserved and preference cannot be given to applicants who participated in these programs if race was a factor in selecting participants.⁸ Similarly, medical school away electives related to diversity cannot be reserved for those of a specific race or ethnicity; however, these electives can utilize commitment to stated aims and missions of the rotation, such as a commitment to diversity within medicine, as a basis to selecting candidates.⁸

The ruling did not address how race or ethnicity is factored into financial aid or scholarship determination. There has been concern in higher education that the legal framework utilized in the SCOTUS decision could affect financial aid and scholarship decisions; therefore, many institutions are proceeding with caution in their approach.⁸

Effect on Residency Selection

Because the SCOTUS ruling references colleges and universities, not health care employers, it should not affect the residency selection process; however, there is variability in how health care institutions are interpreting the impact of the ruling on residency selection, with some taking a more prescriptive and cautious view on the matter. Additionally, with that said, residency selection is considered an employment practice covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,¹³ which already prohibits the consideration of race in hiring decisions.⁷ Under Title VII, it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against someone because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and it is “unlawful to use policies or practices that seem neutral but have the effect of discriminating against people because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.” Title VII also states that employers cannot “make employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about a person’s abilities, traits, or performance because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.”¹³

Importantly, Title VII does not imply that employers need to abandon their diversity, equity, or inclusion initiatives, and it does not imply that employers must revoke their mission to improve diversity in the workforce. Title VII does not state that racial information cannot be available. It would be permissible to use racial data to assess recruitment trends, identify inequities, and create programs to eliminate barriers and decrease bias¹⁴; for example, if a program identified that, based on their current review system, students who are underrepresented in medicine were disproportionately screened out of the applicant pool or interview group, they may wish to revisit their review process to identify and eliminate possible biases. Programs also may wish to adopt educational programs for reviewers (eg, implicit bias training) or educational content on the potential for bias in commonly used review criteria, such as the US Medical Licensing Examination, clerkship grades, and the Medical Student Performance Evaluation.¹⁵ Reviewers can and should consider applications in an individualized and holistic manner in which experiences, traits, skills, and academic metrics are assessed together for compatibility with the values and mission of the training program.¹⁶

Future Directions for Dermatology

Beyond the SCOTUS ruling, there have been other shifts in the dermatology residency application process that have affected candidate review. Dermatology programs recently have adopted the use of preference signaling in residency applications. Preliminary data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for the 2024 application cycle indicated that of the 81 programs analyzed, there was a nearly 0% chance of an applicant receiving an interview invitation from a program that they did not signal. The median signal-to-interview conversion rate for the 81 dermatology programs analyzed was 55% for gold signals and 15% for silver signals.¹⁷ It can be inferred from these data that programs are using preference signaling as important criteria for consideration of interview invitation. Programs may choose to focus most of their attention on the applicant pool who has signaled them. Because the number and type of signals available is equal among all applicants, we hope that this provides an equitable way for all applicants to garner holistic review from programs that interested them. In addition, there has been a 30% decrease in average applications submitted per dermatology applicant.¹⁸ With a substantial decline in applications to dermatology, we hope that reviewers are able to spend more time devoted to comprehensive holistic review.

Although signals are equitable for applicants, their distribution among programs may not be; for example, in a given year, a program might find that all their gold signals came from non–underrepresented in medicine students. We encourage programs to carefully review applicant data to ensure their recruitment process is not inadvertently discriminatory and is in alignment with their goals and mission.

The ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 2023^1,2 on the use of race-based criteria in college admissions was met with a range of reactions across the country. Given the implications of this decision on the future makeup of higher education, the downstream effects on medical school admissions, and the possible further impact on graduate medical education programs, we sought to explore the potential impact of the landmark decision from the perspective of dermatology residency program directors and offer insights on this pivotal judgment.

Background on the SCOTUS Ruling

In June 2023, SCOTUS issued its formal decision on 2 court cases brought by the organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill¹ and Harvard University (Cambridge, Massachusetts)² that addressed college admissions practices dealing with the use of race as a selection criterion in the application process. The cases alleged that these universities had overly emphasized race in the admissions process and thus were in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the 14th Amendment.^1,2

The SCOTUS justices voted 6 to 3 in favor of the argument presented by the SFFA, determining that the use of race in the college admissions process essentially constituted a form of racial discrimination. The ruling was in contrast to a prior decision in 2003 that centered on law school admissions at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Michigan) in which SCOTUS previously had determined that race could be used as one factor amongst other criteria in the higher education selection process.³ In the 2023 decision siding with SFFA, SCOTUS did acknowledge that it was still acceptable for selection processes to consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”²

Effect on Undergraduate Admissions

Prior to the 2023 ruling, several states had already passed independent laws against the use of affirmative action or race-based selection criteria in the admissions process at public colleges and universities.⁴ As a result, these institutions would already be conforming to the principles set forth in the SCOTUS ruling and major changes to their undergraduate admissions policies would not be expected; however, a considerable number of colleges and universities—particularly those considered highly selective with applicant acceptance rates that are well below the national average—reported the use of race as a factor in their admissions processes in standardized reporting surveys.⁵ For these institutions, it is no longer considered acceptable (based on the SCOTUS decision) to use race as a singular factor in admissions or to implement race-conscious decision-making—in which individuals are considered differently based solely on their race—as part of the undergraduate selection process.

In light of these rulings, many institutions have explicitly committed to upholding principles of diversity in their recruitment processes, acknowledging the multifaceted nature of diversity beyond strictly racial terms—including but not limited to socioeconomic diversity, religious diversity, or gender diversity—which is in compliance with the interpretation ruling by the US Department of Education and the US Department of Justice.⁶ Additionally, select institutions have taken approaches to explicitly include questions on ways in which applicants have overcome obstacles or challenges, allowing an opportunity for individuals who have had such experiences related to race an opportunity to incorporate these elements into their applications. Finally, some institutions have taken a more limited approach, eliminating ways in which race is explicitly addressed in the application and focusing on race-neutral elements of the application in their approach to selection.⁷

Because the first college admission cycle since the 2023 SCOTUS ruling is still underway, we have yet to witness the full impact of this decision on the current undergraduate admissions landscape.

Effect on Medical School Admissions and Rotations

Although SCOTUS specifically examined the undergraduate admissions process, the ruling on race-conscious admissions also had a profound impact on graduate school admissions including medical school admission processes.^1,2,8,9 This is because the language of the majority opinion refers to “university programs” in its ruling, which also has been broadly interpreted to include graduate school programs. As with undergraduate admissions, it has been interpreted by national medical education organizations and institutions that medical schools also cannot consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity as a specific factor in the admissions process.^1,2,8,9

Lived individual experiences, including essays that speak to an applicant’s lived experiences and career aspirations related to race, still can be taken into account. In particular, holistic review still can be utilized to evaluate medical school candidates and may play a more integral role in the medical school admissions process now than in the past.^8,10,11 After the ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that “today’s decision leaves intact holistic college admissions and recruitment efforts that seek to enroll diverse classes without using racial classifications.”¹

The ruling asserted that universities may define their mission as they see fit. As a result, the ruling did not affect medical school missions or strategic plans, including those that may aim to diversify the health care workforce.^8,10,11 The ruling also did not affect the ability to utilize pathway programs to encourage a career in medicine or recruitment relationships with diverse undergraduate or community-based organizations. Student interest groups also can be involved in the relationship-building or recruitment activities for medical schools.^8,10,11 Guidance from the US Department of Education and US Department of Justice noted that institutions may consider race in identifying prospective applicants through recruitment and outreach, “provided that their outreach and recruitment programs do not provide targeted groups of prospective students preference in the admissions process, and provided that all students—whether part of a specifically targeted group or not—enjoy the same opportunity to apply and compete for admission.”¹²

In regard to pathways programs, slots cannot be reserved and preference cannot be given to applicants who participated in these programs if race was a factor in selecting participants.⁸ Similarly, medical school away electives related to diversity cannot be reserved for those of a specific race or ethnicity; however, these electives can utilize commitment to stated aims and missions of the rotation, such as a commitment to diversity within medicine, as a basis to selecting candidates.⁸

The ruling did not address how race or ethnicity is factored into financial aid or scholarship determination. There has been concern in higher education that the legal framework utilized in the SCOTUS decision could affect financial aid and scholarship decisions; therefore, many institutions are proceeding with caution in their approach.⁸

Effect on Residency Selection

Because the SCOTUS ruling references colleges and universities, not health care employers, it should not affect the residency selection process; however, there is variability in how health care institutions are interpreting the impact of the ruling on residency selection, with some taking a more prescriptive and cautious view on the matter. Additionally, with that said, residency selection is considered an employment practice covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,¹³ which already prohibits the consideration of race in hiring decisions.⁷ Under Title VII, it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against someone because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and it is “unlawful to use policies or practices that seem neutral but have the effect of discriminating against people because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.” Title VII also states that employers cannot “make employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about a person’s abilities, traits, or performance because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.”¹³

Importantly, Title VII does not imply that employers need to abandon their diversity, equity, or inclusion initiatives, and it does not imply that employers must revoke their mission to improve diversity in the workforce. Title VII does not state that racial information cannot be available. It would be permissible to use racial data to assess recruitment trends, identify inequities, and create programs to eliminate barriers and decrease bias¹⁴; for example, if a program identified that, based on their current review system, students who are underrepresented in medicine were disproportionately screened out of the applicant pool or interview group, they may wish to revisit their review process to identify and eliminate possible biases. Programs also may wish to adopt educational programs for reviewers (eg, implicit bias training) or educational content on the potential for bias in commonly used review criteria, such as the US Medical Licensing Examination, clerkship grades, and the Medical Student Performance Evaluation.¹⁵ Reviewers can and should consider applications in an individualized and holistic manner in which experiences, traits, skills, and academic metrics are assessed together for compatibility with the values and mission of the training program.¹⁶

Future Directions for Dermatology

Beyond the SCOTUS ruling, there have been other shifts in the dermatology residency application process that have affected candidate review. Dermatology programs recently have adopted the use of preference signaling in residency applications. Preliminary data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for the 2024 application cycle indicated that of the 81 programs analyzed, there was a nearly 0% chance of an applicant receiving an interview invitation from a program that they did not signal. The median signal-to-interview conversion rate for the 81 dermatology programs analyzed was 55% for gold signals and 15% for silver signals.¹⁷ It can be inferred from these data that programs are using preference signaling as important criteria for consideration of interview invitation. Programs may choose to focus most of their attention on the applicant pool who has signaled them. Because the number and type of signals available is equal among all applicants, we hope that this provides an equitable way for all applicants to garner holistic review from programs that interested them. In addition, there has been a 30% decrease in average applications submitted per dermatology applicant.¹⁸ With a substantial decline in applications to dermatology, we hope that reviewers are able to spend more time devoted to comprehensive holistic review.

Although signals are equitable for applicants, their distribution among programs may not be; for example, in a given year, a program might find that all their gold signals came from non–underrepresented in medicine students. We encourage programs to carefully review applicant data to ensure their recruitment process is not inadvertently discriminatory and is in alignment with their goals and mission.

NASHVILLE, Tennessee — In a population of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), ocrelizumab had high efficacy and an acceptable safety profile, according to the results of a 1-year analysis of the CHIMES trial. The study is the first-ever prospective study of an MS disease-modifying therapy (DMT) exclusively performed in under-represented populations, and offers lessons to researchers aiming to design more inclusive clinical trials to bolster participation by under-represented populations.

“The goal was to better understand efficacy of therapy in under-represented populations because we typically have very low numbers of these patients in our clinical trials, although there are multiple studies over the past decades suggesting that there may be poorer outcomes in Black and Hispanic individuals, particularly in the United States, and that there also may be more aggressive disease,” said Mitzi Williams, MD, who presented the study in a poster session at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

The team recruited 113 Black participants and 69 Hispanic participants, and, in fact, over-recruited the target number by 25%, and did so 2 months before the launch of the study in July 2020, which just happened to be in the midst of a global pandemic.

After 48 weeks of ocrelizumab treatment, 46.0% of Black participants and 58.0% of Hispanic participants achieved no evidence of disease activity in three components (NEDA-3), while 94.7% and 95.7% were free from relapses, respectively, and 94.7% and 94.2% were free from disease worsening. Serious adverse events occurred in 6.2% and 4.3% of each group, respectively, and there were no new safety signals in either group.

“The good news is that the efficacy and safety was very similar to what we saw in other clinical trials. I don’t think we really expected it to be much different, because when we think about race, it’s a social construct, not a biologic construct. What we do hope to find out is more about some of the interplay of social determinants of health, and how getting on high efficacy treatment can improve and increase productivity and outcomes in the long term,” said Dr. Williams, who is medical director of Joi Life Wellness Group, Smyrna, Georgia.

The researchers succeeded by involving patient advocates and advocacy organizations at the very earliest stages of the trial design. “We were very intentional about looking at things like social determinants of health, childcare, transportation, and things like that to ease some of the burden of participating in the trial, obviously in a legal and compliant way,” said Dr. Williams. The team also ensured complete and accurate translation of patient materials into Spanish.

The study was also a phase 4 trial, which may have simplified recruitment. “So it’s a therapy that’s already approved, which may make people feel more comfortable, but obviously the goal is for our phase 3 trials to make sure that we are recruiting represented populations. We’re taking these learnings and applying them to the broader clinical trial population so that hopefully we won’t have to come back and do phase 4 studies like this,” said Dr. Williams.

She noted that the results of more inclusive studies don’t just benefit underserved populations. “You have groups of people that are suffering and having more disability from a condition, and you need to understand why. When we broaden the population to understand those that are most vulnerable and underserved and [having the worst outcomes], it really helps us to better treat everybody. Because if we can get a hold of those factors that make us do the worst, then we can also better understand the factors that make us do the best,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Inclusive Recruitment in Clinical Trials

Asked for comment, Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, highlighted the importance of inclusive recruitment. “The study is very important because historically and even in most recent clinical trials, these groups were markedly under-represented and most completed clinical trials derive conclusions based on the study of a nondiverse, White-non-Hispanic predominant population,” said Dr. Obeidat, who is an associate professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. He pointed to a systematic review showing that the median percentage of White participants in MS clinical trials was 93% and ranged from 86% to 98%.

“Several factors may contribute to the disparity in clinical trial participation, and solutions must be explored and developed. CHIMES is a first step in this direction where the study itself is designed to address disparity in MS clinical trial participation,” said Dr. Obeidat.

Dr. Obeidat also pointed to the need to consider other forms of diversity in clinical trials, such as older patients and those with advanced disability. “Investigators, coordinators, and other staff should all strive to be as inclusive as possible in clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Williams has received consulting fees from Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech Inc., Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, and TG Therapeutics, and serves on speakers bureaus for Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Janssen, Genentech, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Ahmed Z. Obeidat has financial relationships with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Banner Life Sciences, BD Biosciences, Biogen, Biologix Solutions, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genentech, GW Pharmaceuticals, Horizon Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio.

NASHVILLE, Tennessee — In a population of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), ocrelizumab had high efficacy and an acceptable safety profile, according to the results of a 1-year analysis of the CHIMES trial. The study is the first-ever prospective study of an MS disease-modifying therapy (DMT) exclusively performed in under-represented populations, and offers lessons to researchers aiming to design more inclusive clinical trials to bolster participation by under-represented populations.

“The goal was to better understand efficacy of therapy in under-represented populations because we typically have very low numbers of these patients in our clinical trials, although there are multiple studies over the past decades suggesting that there may be poorer outcomes in Black and Hispanic individuals, particularly in the United States, and that there also may be more aggressive disease,” said Mitzi Williams, MD, who presented the study in a poster session at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

The team recruited 113 Black participants and 69 Hispanic participants, and, in fact, over-recruited the target number by 25%, and did so 2 months before the launch of the study in July 2020, which just happened to be in the midst of a global pandemic.

After 48 weeks of ocrelizumab treatment, 46.0% of Black participants and 58.0% of Hispanic participants achieved no evidence of disease activity in three components (NEDA-3), while 94.7% and 95.7% were free from relapses, respectively, and 94.7% and 94.2% were free from disease worsening. Serious adverse events occurred in 6.2% and 4.3% of each group, respectively, and there were no new safety signals in either group.

“The good news is that the efficacy and safety was very similar to what we saw in other clinical trials. I don’t think we really expected it to be much different, because when we think about race, it’s a social construct, not a biologic construct. What we do hope to find out is more about some of the interplay of social determinants of health, and how getting on high efficacy treatment can improve and increase productivity and outcomes in the long term,” said Dr. Williams, who is medical director of Joi Life Wellness Group, Smyrna, Georgia.

The researchers succeeded by involving patient advocates and advocacy organizations at the very earliest stages of the trial design. “We were very intentional about looking at things like social determinants of health, childcare, transportation, and things like that to ease some of the burden of participating in the trial, obviously in a legal and compliant way,” said Dr. Williams. The team also ensured complete and accurate translation of patient materials into Spanish.

The study was also a phase 4 trial, which may have simplified recruitment. “So it’s a therapy that’s already approved, which may make people feel more comfortable, but obviously the goal is for our phase 3 trials to make sure that we are recruiting represented populations. We’re taking these learnings and applying them to the broader clinical trial population so that hopefully we won’t have to come back and do phase 4 studies like this,” said Dr. Williams.

She noted that the results of more inclusive studies don’t just benefit underserved populations. “You have groups of people that are suffering and having more disability from a condition, and you need to understand why. When we broaden the population to understand those that are most vulnerable and underserved and [having the worst outcomes], it really helps us to better treat everybody. Because if we can get a hold of those factors that make us do the worst, then we can also better understand the factors that make us do the best,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Inclusive Recruitment in Clinical Trials

Asked for comment, Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, highlighted the importance of inclusive recruitment. “The study is very important because historically and even in most recent clinical trials, these groups were markedly under-represented and most completed clinical trials derive conclusions based on the study of a nondiverse, White-non-Hispanic predominant population,” said Dr. Obeidat, who is an associate professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. He pointed to a systematic review showing that the median percentage of White participants in MS clinical trials was 93% and ranged from 86% to 98%.

“Several factors may contribute to the disparity in clinical trial participation, and solutions must be explored and developed. CHIMES is a first step in this direction where the study itself is designed to address disparity in MS clinical trial participation,” said Dr. Obeidat.

Dr. Obeidat also pointed to the need to consider other forms of diversity in clinical trials, such as older patients and those with advanced disability. “Investigators, coordinators, and other staff should all strive to be as inclusive as possible in clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Williams has received consulting fees from Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech Inc., Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, and TG Therapeutics, and serves on speakers bureaus for Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Janssen, Genentech, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Ahmed Z. Obeidat has financial relationships with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Banner Life Sciences, BD Biosciences, Biogen, Biologix Solutions, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genentech, GW Pharmaceuticals, Horizon Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio.

NASHVILLE, Tennessee — In a population of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), ocrelizumab had high efficacy and an acceptable safety profile, according to the results of a 1-year analysis of the CHIMES trial. The study is the first-ever prospective study of an MS disease-modifying therapy (DMT) exclusively performed in under-represented populations, and offers lessons to researchers aiming to design more inclusive clinical trials to bolster participation by under-represented populations.

“The goal was to better understand efficacy of therapy in under-represented populations because we typically have very low numbers of these patients in our clinical trials, although there are multiple studies over the past decades suggesting that there may be poorer outcomes in Black and Hispanic individuals, particularly in the United States, and that there also may be more aggressive disease,” said Mitzi Williams, MD, who presented the study in a poster session at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

The team recruited 113 Black participants and 69 Hispanic participants, and, in fact, over-recruited the target number by 25%, and did so 2 months before the launch of the study in July 2020, which just happened to be in the midst of a global pandemic.

After 48 weeks of ocrelizumab treatment, 46.0% of Black participants and 58.0% of Hispanic participants achieved no evidence of disease activity in three components (NEDA-3), while 94.7% and 95.7% were free from relapses, respectively, and 94.7% and 94.2% were free from disease worsening. Serious adverse events occurred in 6.2% and 4.3% of each group, respectively, and there were no new safety signals in either group.

“The good news is that the efficacy and safety was very similar to what we saw in other clinical trials. I don’t think we really expected it to be much different, because when we think about race, it’s a social construct, not a biologic construct. What we do hope to find out is more about some of the interplay of social determinants of health, and how getting on high efficacy treatment can improve and increase productivity and outcomes in the long term,” said Dr. Williams, who is medical director of Joi Life Wellness Group, Smyrna, Georgia.

The researchers succeeded by involving patient advocates and advocacy organizations at the very earliest stages of the trial design. “We were very intentional about looking at things like social determinants of health, childcare, transportation, and things like that to ease some of the burden of participating in the trial, obviously in a legal and compliant way,” said Dr. Williams. The team also ensured complete and accurate translation of patient materials into Spanish.

The study was also a phase 4 trial, which may have simplified recruitment. “So it’s a therapy that’s already approved, which may make people feel more comfortable, but obviously the goal is for our phase 3 trials to make sure that we are recruiting represented populations. We’re taking these learnings and applying them to the broader clinical trial population so that hopefully we won’t have to come back and do phase 4 studies like this,” said Dr. Williams.

She noted that the results of more inclusive studies don’t just benefit underserved populations. “You have groups of people that are suffering and having more disability from a condition, and you need to understand why. When we broaden the population to understand those that are most vulnerable and underserved and [having the worst outcomes], it really helps us to better treat everybody. Because if we can get a hold of those factors that make us do the worst, then we can also better understand the factors that make us do the best,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Inclusive Recruitment in Clinical Trials

Asked for comment, Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, highlighted the importance of inclusive recruitment. “The study is very important because historically and even in most recent clinical trials, these groups were markedly under-represented and most completed clinical trials derive conclusions based on the study of a nondiverse, White-non-Hispanic predominant population,” said Dr. Obeidat, who is an associate professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. He pointed to a systematic review showing that the median percentage of White participants in MS clinical trials was 93% and ranged from 86% to 98%.

“Several factors may contribute to the disparity in clinical trial participation, and solutions must be explored and developed. CHIMES is a first step in this direction where the study itself is designed to address disparity in MS clinical trial participation,” said Dr. Obeidat.

Dr. Obeidat also pointed to the need to consider other forms of diversity in clinical trials, such as older patients and those with advanced disability. “Investigators, coordinators, and other staff should all strive to be as inclusive as possible in clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Williams has received consulting fees from Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech Inc., Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, and TG Therapeutics, and serves on speakers bureaus for Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Janssen, Genentech, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Ahmed Z. Obeidat has financial relationships with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Banner Life Sciences, BD Biosciences, Biogen, Biologix Solutions, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genentech, GW Pharmaceuticals, Horizon Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Compared with White patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), non-White Hispanic patients more commonly presented younger than 70 years of age and were more often female. In addition, the most affected site was the upper limb/shoulder, which differs from what has been reported in previous studies.

Those are key findings from a retrospective study of national cancer data that was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“Merkel cell carcinoma is an infrequent and aggressive form of neuroendocrine skin cancer that mainly impacts individuals of White ethnicity, with a general occurrence rate of 0.7 instances per 100,000 person-years,” one of the study authors, Luis J. Borda, MD, chief dermatology resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, told this news organization. The incidence of MCC is increasing among all racial groups, especially in the Hispanic population, he added.

To determine how age, sex, and primary site of MCC differ in White vs non-White Hispanic patients, the researchers evaluated the 22 population-based cancer registries of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program from 2000 through 2020. They reported categorical variables as counts and percentages and used chi-square test with Yates’s correction to assess the association between categorical variables.

Of the 17,920 MCCs identified by the researchers, 40 (0.22%) were in non-White Hispanic patients. Compared with the White patients with MCC, significantly fewer non-White Hispanic patients were age 70 years or older (50% vs 72.1%, respectively; P < .001), and MCC was more common in female non-White Hispanic patients (23, or 57.5%), while White patients with MCC were predominantly male (11,309, or 63.2%; P < .05). “This suggests that MCC in non-White Hispanic patients may involve different risk factors related to age beyond just cumulative UV exposure and aging-related immunosenescence, which may additionally account for the higher prevalence of females in this cohort, as historically male outdoor occupation has resulted in increased lifetime cumulative UV exposure,” Dr. Borda said.

The head and neck were the most common sites of disease involvement in White patients (41.9% vs 27.5% in non-White Hispanic patients; P = .09), while the upper limb and shoulder were the most common sites of disease involvement in non-White Hispanic patients (37.5% vs 23.8% in White patients; P = .06). This finding “differs from previous studies showing head/neck being the most common site in Hispanics,” Dr. Borda said, adding that this could be a result of White patients not being included in the Hispanic cohort in this study. “Because non-White Hispanic patients have darker skin, they may have proportionally more cases on sun-protected skin, as is described by the present data, suggesting that they are less likely to have UV-driven MCC.”

The study “highlights distinct demographic and clinical characteristics of MCC among non-White Hispanic patients compared to their White counterparts, emphasizing the importance of considering race/ethnicity in understanding the epidemiology of this rare but increasingly prevalent cancer,” Dr. Borda said. He and his co-authors are planning to do further research on the increasing incidence of MCC in non-White Hispanic patients and on staging at diagnosis compared to White patients.

Dr. Borda acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the small sample size in the non-White Hispanic group, the retrospective nature of SEER data, selection bias, and the potential for underreporting. He and his co-authors reported having no financial disclosures.

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

Compared with White patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), non-White Hispanic patients more commonly presented younger than 70 years of age and were more often female. In addition, the most affected site was the upper limb/shoulder, which differs from what has been reported in previous studies.

Those are key findings from a retrospective study of national cancer data that was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“Merkel cell carcinoma is an infrequent and aggressive form of neuroendocrine skin cancer that mainly impacts individuals of White ethnicity, with a general occurrence rate of 0.7 instances per 100,000 person-years,” one of the study authors, Luis J. Borda, MD, chief dermatology resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, told this news organization. The incidence of MCC is increasing among all racial groups, especially in the Hispanic population, he added.

To determine how age, sex, and primary site of MCC differ in White vs non-White Hispanic patients, the researchers evaluated the 22 population-based cancer registries of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program from 2000 through 2020. They reported categorical variables as counts and percentages and used chi-square test with Yates’s correction to assess the association between categorical variables.

Of the 17,920 MCCs identified by the researchers, 40 (0.22%) were in non-White Hispanic patients. Compared with the White patients with MCC, significantly fewer non-White Hispanic patients were age 70 years or older (50% vs 72.1%, respectively; P < .001), and MCC was more common in female non-White Hispanic patients (23, or 57.5%), while White patients with MCC were predominantly male (11,309, or 63.2%; P < .05). “This suggests that MCC in non-White Hispanic patients may involve different risk factors related to age beyond just cumulative UV exposure and aging-related immunosenescence, which may additionally account for the higher prevalence of females in this cohort, as historically male outdoor occupation has resulted in increased lifetime cumulative UV exposure,” Dr. Borda said.

The head and neck were the most common sites of disease involvement in White patients (41.9% vs 27.5% in non-White Hispanic patients; P = .09), while the upper limb and shoulder were the most common sites of disease involvement in non-White Hispanic patients (37.5% vs 23.8% in White patients; P = .06). This finding “differs from previous studies showing head/neck being the most common site in Hispanics,” Dr. Borda said, adding that this could be a result of White patients not being included in the Hispanic cohort in this study. “Because non-White Hispanic patients have darker skin, they may have proportionally more cases on sun-protected skin, as is described by the present data, suggesting that they are less likely to have UV-driven MCC.”

The study “highlights distinct demographic and clinical characteristics of MCC among non-White Hispanic patients compared to their White counterparts, emphasizing the importance of considering race/ethnicity in understanding the epidemiology of this rare but increasingly prevalent cancer,” Dr. Borda said. He and his co-authors are planning to do further research on the increasing incidence of MCC in non-White Hispanic patients and on staging at diagnosis compared to White patients.

Dr. Borda acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the small sample size in the non-White Hispanic group, the retrospective nature of SEER data, selection bias, and the potential for underreporting. He and his co-authors reported having no financial disclosures.

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

Compared with White patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), non-White Hispanic patients more commonly presented younger than 70 years of age and were more often female. In addition, the most affected site was the upper limb/shoulder, which differs from what has been reported in previous studies.

Those are key findings from a retrospective study of national cancer data that was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“Merkel cell carcinoma is an infrequent and aggressive form of neuroendocrine skin cancer that mainly impacts individuals of White ethnicity, with a general occurrence rate of 0.7 instances per 100,000 person-years,” one of the study authors, Luis J. Borda, MD, chief dermatology resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, told this news organization. The incidence of MCC is increasing among all racial groups, especially in the Hispanic population, he added.

To determine how age, sex, and primary site of MCC differ in White vs non-White Hispanic patients, the researchers evaluated the 22 population-based cancer registries of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program from 2000 through 2020. They reported categorical variables as counts and percentages and used chi-square test with Yates’s correction to assess the association between categorical variables.

Of the 17,920 MCCs identified by the researchers, 40 (0.22%) were in non-White Hispanic patients. Compared with the White patients with MCC, significantly fewer non-White Hispanic patients were age 70 years or older (50% vs 72.1%, respectively; P < .001), and MCC was more common in female non-White Hispanic patients (23, or 57.5%), while White patients with MCC were predominantly male (11,309, or 63.2%; P < .05). “This suggests that MCC in non-White Hispanic patients may involve different risk factors related to age beyond just cumulative UV exposure and aging-related immunosenescence, which may additionally account for the higher prevalence of females in this cohort, as historically male outdoor occupation has resulted in increased lifetime cumulative UV exposure,” Dr. Borda said.

The head and neck were the most common sites of disease involvement in White patients (41.9% vs 27.5% in non-White Hispanic patients; P = .09), while the upper limb and shoulder were the most common sites of disease involvement in non-White Hispanic patients (37.5% vs 23.8% in White patients; P = .06). This finding “differs from previous studies showing head/neck being the most common site in Hispanics,” Dr. Borda said, adding that this could be a result of White patients not being included in the Hispanic cohort in this study. “Because non-White Hispanic patients have darker skin, they may have proportionally more cases on sun-protected skin, as is described by the present data, suggesting that they are less likely to have UV-driven MCC.”

The study “highlights distinct demographic and clinical characteristics of MCC among non-White Hispanic patients compared to their White counterparts, emphasizing the importance of considering race/ethnicity in understanding the epidemiology of this rare but increasingly prevalent cancer,” Dr. Borda said. He and his co-authors are planning to do further research on the increasing incidence of MCC in non-White Hispanic patients and on staging at diagnosis compared to White patients.

Dr. Borda acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the small sample size in the non-White Hispanic group, the retrospective nature of SEER data, selection bias, and the potential for underreporting. He and his co-authors reported having no financial disclosures.

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

Practice Gap

The Wood lamp commonly is used as a diagnostic tool for pigmentary skin conditions (eg, vitiligo) or skin conditions that exhibit fluorescence (eg, erythrasma).¹ Recently, its diagnostic efficacy has extended to scabies, in which it unveils a distinctive wavy, bluish-white, linear fluorescence upon illumination.²

Functionally, the Wood lamp operates by subjecting phosphors to UV light within the wavelength range of 320 to 400 nm, inducing fluorescence in substances such as collagen and elastin. In the context of vitiligo, this process manifests as a preferential chalk white fluorescence in areas lacking melanin.¹

Despite its demonstrated effectiveness, the Wood lamp is not without limitations. It comes with a notable financial investment ranging from $70 to $500, requires periodic maintenance such as light bulb replacements, and can be unwieldy.³ Furthermore, its reliance on a power source poses a challenge in settings where immediate access to convenient power outlets is limited, such as inpatient and rural dermatology clinics. These limitations underscore the need for alternative solutions and innovations to address challenges and ensure accessibility in diverse health care environments.

The Tools

Free smartphone applications (apps), such as Ultraviolet Light-UV Lamp by AppBrain or Blacklight UV Light Simulator by That Smile, can simulate UV light and functionally serve as a Wood lamp.

The Technique

UV light apps use LED or organic LED screen pixels to emit a blue light equivalent at 467 nm.⁴ Although these apps are not designed specifically for dermatologic uses, they are mostly free, widely available for Android and iPhone users, and portable. Importantly, they can demonstrate good performance in visualizing vitiligo, as shown in Figure 1—albeit perhaps not reaching the same level as the Wood lamp (Figure 2).

Because these UV light apps are not regulated and their efficacy for medical use has not been firmly established, the Wood lamp remains the gold standard. Therefore, we propose the use of UV light apps in situations when a Wood lamp is not available or convenient, such as in rural, inpatient, or international health care settings.

Practice Implications

Exploring and adopting these free alternatives can contribute to improved accessibility and diagnostic capabilities in diverse health care environments, particularly for communities facing financial constraints. Continued research and validation of these apps in clinical settings will be essential to establish their reliability and effectiveness in enhancing diagnostic practices.

Practice Gap

The Wood lamp commonly is used as a diagnostic tool for pigmentary skin conditions (eg, vitiligo) or skin conditions that exhibit fluorescence (eg, erythrasma).¹ Recently, its diagnostic efficacy has extended to scabies, in which it unveils a distinctive wavy, bluish-white, linear fluorescence upon illumination.²

Functionally, the Wood lamp operates by subjecting phosphors to UV light within the wavelength range of 320 to 400 nm, inducing fluorescence in substances such as collagen and elastin. In the context of vitiligo, this process manifests as a preferential chalk white fluorescence in areas lacking melanin.¹

Despite its demonstrated effectiveness, the Wood lamp is not without limitations. It comes with a notable financial investment ranging from $70 to $500, requires periodic maintenance such as light bulb replacements, and can be unwieldy.³ Furthermore, its reliance on a power source poses a challenge in settings where immediate access to convenient power outlets is limited, such as inpatient and rural dermatology clinics. These limitations underscore the need for alternative solutions and innovations to address challenges and ensure accessibility in diverse health care environments.

The Tools

Free smartphone applications (apps), such as Ultraviolet Light-UV Lamp by AppBrain or Blacklight UV Light Simulator by That Smile, can simulate UV light and functionally serve as a Wood lamp.

The Technique

UV light apps use LED or organic LED screen pixels to emit a blue light equivalent at 467 nm.⁴ Although these apps are not designed specifically for dermatologic uses, they are mostly free, widely available for Android and iPhone users, and portable. Importantly, they can demonstrate good performance in visualizing vitiligo, as shown in Figure 1—albeit perhaps not reaching the same level as the Wood lamp (Figure 2).

Because these UV light apps are not regulated and their efficacy for medical use has not been firmly established, the Wood lamp remains the gold standard. Therefore, we propose the use of UV light apps in situations when a Wood lamp is not available or convenient, such as in rural, inpatient, or international health care settings.

Practice Implications

Exploring and adopting these free alternatives can contribute to improved accessibility and diagnostic capabilities in diverse health care environments, particularly for communities facing financial constraints. Continued research and validation of these apps in clinical settings will be essential to establish their reliability and effectiveness in enhancing diagnostic practices.

Practice Gap

The Wood lamp commonly is used as a diagnostic tool for pigmentary skin conditions (eg, vitiligo) or skin conditions that exhibit fluorescence (eg, erythrasma).¹ Recently, its diagnostic efficacy has extended to scabies, in which it unveils a distinctive wavy, bluish-white, linear fluorescence upon illumination.²

Functionally, the Wood lamp operates by subjecting phosphors to UV light within the wavelength range of 320 to 400 nm, inducing fluorescence in substances such as collagen and elastin. In the context of vitiligo, this process manifests as a preferential chalk white fluorescence in areas lacking melanin.¹

Despite its demonstrated effectiveness, the Wood lamp is not without limitations. It comes with a notable financial investment ranging from $70 to $500, requires periodic maintenance such as light bulb replacements, and can be unwieldy.³ Furthermore, its reliance on a power source poses a challenge in settings where immediate access to convenient power outlets is limited, such as inpatient and rural dermatology clinics. These limitations underscore the need for alternative solutions and innovations to address challenges and ensure accessibility in diverse health care environments.

The Tools

Free smartphone applications (apps), such as Ultraviolet Light-UV Lamp by AppBrain or Blacklight UV Light Simulator by That Smile, can simulate UV light and functionally serve as a Wood lamp.

The Technique

UV light apps use LED or organic LED screen pixels to emit a blue light equivalent at 467 nm.⁴ Although these apps are not designed specifically for dermatologic uses, they are mostly free, widely available for Android and iPhone users, and portable. Importantly, they can demonstrate good performance in visualizing vitiligo, as shown in Figure 1—albeit perhaps not reaching the same level as the Wood lamp (Figure 2).

Because these UV light apps are not regulated and their efficacy for medical use has not been firmly established, the Wood lamp remains the gold standard. Therefore, we propose the use of UV light apps in situations when a Wood lamp is not available or convenient, such as in rural, inpatient, or international health care settings.

Practice Implications

Exploring and adopting these free alternatives can contribute to improved accessibility and diagnostic capabilities in diverse health care environments, particularly for communities facing financial constraints. Continued research and validation of these apps in clinical settings will be essential to establish their reliability and effectiveness in enhancing diagnostic practices.

Early education is right up there with motherhood and apple pie as unarguable positive concepts. How could exposing young children to a school-like atmosphere not be a benefit, particularly in communities dominated by socioeconomic challenges? While there are some questions about the value of playing Mozart to infants, early education in the traditional sense continues to be viewed as a key strategy for providing young children a preschool foundation on which a successful academic career can be built. Several oft-cited randomized controlled trials have fueled both private and public interest and funding.

However, a recent commentary published in Science suggests that all programs are “not unequivocally positive and much more research is needed.” “Worrisome results in Tennessee,” “Success in Boston,” and “Largely null results for Headstart” are just a few of the article’s section titles and convey a sense of the inconsistency the investigators found as they reviewed early education systems around the country.

While there may be some politicians who may attempt to use the results of this investigation as a reason to cancel public funding of underperforming early education programs, the authors avoid this baby-and-the-bathwater conclusion. Instead, they urge more rigorous research “to understand how effective programs can be designed and implemented.”

The kind of re-thinking and brainstorming these investigators suggest takes time. While we’re waiting for this process to gain traction, this might be a good time to consider some of the benefits of early education that we don’t usually consider when our focus is on academic metrics.

A recent paper in Children’s Health Care by investigators at the Boston University Medical Center and School of Medicine considered the diet of children attending preschool. Looking at the dietary records of more than 300 children attending 30 childcare centers, the researchers found that the children’s diets before arrival at daycare was less healthy than while they were in daycare. “The hour after pickup appeared to be the least healthful” of any of the time periods surveyed. Of course, we will all conjure up images of what this chaotic post-daycare pickup may look like and cut the harried parents and grandparents some slack when it comes to nutritional choices. However, the bottom line is that for the group of children surveyed being in preschool or daycare protected them from a less healthy diet they were being provided outside of school hours.

Our recent experience with pandemic-related school closures provides more evidence that being in school was superior to any remote experience academically. School-age children and adolescents gained weight when school closures were the norm. Play patterns for children shifted from outdoor play to indoor play — often dominated by more sedentary video games. Both fatal and non-fatal gun-related injuries surged during the pandemic and, by far, the majority of these occur in the home and not at school.

Stepping back to look at this broader picture that includes diet, physical activity, and safety — not to mention the benefits of socialization — leads one to arrive at the unfortunate conclusion that for many children in this country, being at home is considerably less healthy than being in school. Of course there will be those who point to the belief that schools are petri dishes putting children at greater risk for respiratory infections. On the other hand, we must accept that schools haven’t proved to be a major factor in the spread of COVID that many had feared.

The authors of the study in Science are certainly correct in recommending a more thorough investigation into the academic benefits of preschool education. However, we must keep in mind that preschool offers an environment that can be a positive influence on young children.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Early education is right up there with motherhood and apple pie as unarguable positive concepts. How could exposing young children to a school-like atmosphere not be a benefit, particularly in communities dominated by socioeconomic challenges? While there are some questions about the value of playing Mozart to infants, early education in the traditional sense continues to be viewed as a key strategy for providing young children a preschool foundation on which a successful academic career can be built. Several oft-cited randomized controlled trials have fueled both private and public interest and funding.

However, a recent commentary published in Science suggests that all programs are “not unequivocally positive and much more research is needed.” “Worrisome results in Tennessee,” “Success in Boston,” and “Largely null results for Headstart” are just a few of the article’s section titles and convey a sense of the inconsistency the investigators found as they reviewed early education systems around the country.

While there may be some politicians who may attempt to use the results of this investigation as a reason to cancel public funding of underperforming early education programs, the authors avoid this baby-and-the-bathwater conclusion. Instead, they urge more rigorous research “to understand how effective programs can be designed and implemented.”

The kind of re-thinking and brainstorming these investigators suggest takes time. While we’re waiting for this process to gain traction, this might be a good time to consider some of the benefits of early education that we don’t usually consider when our focus is on academic metrics.

A recent paper in Children’s Health Care by investigators at the Boston University Medical Center and School of Medicine considered the diet of children attending preschool. Looking at the dietary records of more than 300 children attending 30 childcare centers, the researchers found that the children’s diets before arrival at daycare was less healthy than while they were in daycare. “The hour after pickup appeared to be the least healthful” of any of the time periods surveyed. Of course, we will all conjure up images of what this chaotic post-daycare pickup may look like and cut the harried parents and grandparents some slack when it comes to nutritional choices. However, the bottom line is that for the group of children surveyed being in preschool or daycare protected them from a less healthy diet they were being provided outside of school hours.

Our recent experience with pandemic-related school closures provides more evidence that being in school was superior to any remote experience academically. School-age children and adolescents gained weight when school closures were the norm. Play patterns for children shifted from outdoor play to indoor play — often dominated by more sedentary video games. Both fatal and non-fatal gun-related injuries surged during the pandemic and, by far, the majority of these occur in the home and not at school.

Stepping back to look at this broader picture that includes diet, physical activity, and safety — not to mention the benefits of socialization — leads one to arrive at the unfortunate conclusion that for many children in this country, being at home is considerably less healthy than being in school. Of course there will be those who point to the belief that schools are petri dishes putting children at greater risk for respiratory infections. On the other hand, we must accept that schools haven’t proved to be a major factor in the spread of COVID that many had feared.

The authors of the study in Science are certainly correct in recommending a more thorough investigation into the academic benefits of preschool education. However, we must keep in mind that preschool offers an environment that can be a positive influence on young children.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Early education is right up there with motherhood and apple pie as unarguable positive concepts. How could exposing young children to a school-like atmosphere not be a benefit, particularly in communities dominated by socioeconomic challenges? While there are some questions about the value of playing Mozart to infants, early education in the traditional sense continues to be viewed as a key strategy for providing young children a preschool foundation on which a successful academic career can be built. Several oft-cited randomized controlled trials have fueled both private and public interest and funding.

However, a recent commentary published in Science suggests that all programs are “not unequivocally positive and much more research is needed.” “Worrisome results in Tennessee,” “Success in Boston,” and “Largely null results for Headstart” are just a few of the article’s section titles and convey a sense of the inconsistency the investigators found as they reviewed early education systems around the country.

While there may be some politicians who may attempt to use the results of this investigation as a reason to cancel public funding of underperforming early education programs, the authors avoid this baby-and-the-bathwater conclusion. Instead, they urge more rigorous research “to understand how effective programs can be designed and implemented.”

The kind of re-thinking and brainstorming these investigators suggest takes time. While we’re waiting for this process to gain traction, this might be a good time to consider some of the benefits of early education that we don’t usually consider when our focus is on academic metrics.

A recent paper in Children’s Health Care by investigators at the Boston University Medical Center and School of Medicine considered the diet of children attending preschool. Looking at the dietary records of more than 300 children attending 30 childcare centers, the researchers found that the children’s diets before arrival at daycare was less healthy than while they were in daycare. “The hour after pickup appeared to be the least healthful” of any of the time periods surveyed. Of course, we will all conjure up images of what this chaotic post-daycare pickup may look like and cut the harried parents and grandparents some slack when it comes to nutritional choices. However, the bottom line is that for the group of children surveyed being in preschool or daycare protected them from a less healthy diet they were being provided outside of school hours.

Our recent experience with pandemic-related school closures provides more evidence that being in school was superior to any remote experience academically. School-age children and adolescents gained weight when school closures were the norm. Play patterns for children shifted from outdoor play to indoor play — often dominated by more sedentary video games. Both fatal and non-fatal gun-related injuries surged during the pandemic and, by far, the majority of these occur in the home and not at school.

Stepping back to look at this broader picture that includes diet, physical activity, and safety — not to mention the benefits of socialization — leads one to arrive at the unfortunate conclusion that for many children in this country, being at home is considerably less healthy than being in school. Of course there will be those who point to the belief that schools are petri dishes putting children at greater risk for respiratory infections. On the other hand, we must accept that schools haven’t proved to be a major factor in the spread of COVID that many had feared.

The authors of the study in Science are certainly correct in recommending a more thorough investigation into the academic benefits of preschool education. However, we must keep in mind that preschool offers an environment that can be a positive influence on young children.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

WASHINGTON ­— Mailing outreach notices for colonoscopies or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits may be a great way to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in younger adults, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In a comparison of four outreach approaches, sending a FIT kit to people between the ages of 45 and 49 via mail garnered better response rates than opt-in strategies to participate in FIT, inviting them to undergo colonoscopy, or asking them to choose between FIT or colonoscopy. At the same time, when given a choice between colonoscopy and FIT, colonoscopy was preferred across all racial and ethnic groups.

“It is well known that colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The good news is that for the past several decades, we’ve seen a decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in ages 50 and above. However, there has been a recent rise in incidence and mortality in people younger than 50,” said lead author Rebecca Ekeanyanwu, a third-year medical student at Meharry Medical College School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee. She was awarded the 2024 AGA Institute Council Healthcare Disparities Research Award for the top oral presentation for research in racial and ethnic health care disparities.

WASHINGTON ­— Mailing outreach notices for colonoscopies or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits may be a great way to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in younger adults, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In a comparison of four outreach approaches, sending a FIT kit to people between the ages of 45 and 49 via mail garnered better response rates than opt-in strategies to participate in FIT, inviting them to undergo colonoscopy, or asking them to choose between FIT or colonoscopy. At the same time, when given a choice between colonoscopy and FIT, colonoscopy was preferred across all racial and ethnic groups.

“It is well known that colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The good news is that for the past several decades, we’ve seen a decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in ages 50 and above. However, there has been a recent rise in incidence and mortality in people younger than 50,” said lead author Rebecca Ekeanyanwu, a third-year medical student at Meharry Medical College School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee. She was awarded the 2024 AGA Institute Council Healthcare Disparities Research Award for the top oral presentation for research in racial and ethnic health care disparities.

WASHINGTON ­— Mailing outreach notices for colonoscopies or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits may be a great way to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in younger adults, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In a comparison of four outreach approaches, sending a FIT kit to people between the ages of 45 and 49 via mail garnered better response rates than opt-in strategies to participate in FIT, inviting them to undergo colonoscopy, or asking them to choose between FIT or colonoscopy. At the same time, when given a choice between colonoscopy and FIT, colonoscopy was preferred across all racial and ethnic groups.

“It is well known that colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The good news is that for the past several decades, we’ve seen a decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in ages 50 and above. However, there has been a recent rise in incidence and mortality in people younger than 50,” said lead author Rebecca Ekeanyanwu, a third-year medical student at Meharry Medical College School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee. She was awarded the 2024 AGA Institute Council Healthcare Disparities Research Award for the top oral presentation for research in racial and ethnic health care disparities.

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

Thank you.

Phyllis, It’s great to see you today.

It’s great to see you as well.

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

At least.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you hope to accomplish with this book?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Phyllis, It’s great to see you today.

It’s great to see you as well.

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

At least.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you hope to accomplish with this book?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Phyllis, It’s great to see you today.

It’s great to see you as well.

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

At least.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you hope to accomplish with this book?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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