Practice Management

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

In the not-too-distant future, immunotherapy might be administered to cancer patients in their homes.

The possibility is being driven by the development of subcutaneous formulations of commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other indications, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and amivantamab.

Instead of waiting anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours for infusions into their veins, patients would spend just a few minutes being injected under the loose skin of their abdomens or thighs. Clinicians would save time and money, and patients would leave the clinic much sooner than normal. The ease of subcutaneous injections also opens up an opportunity for home treatment, a potential boon for people who don’t want to spend their remaining time on hospital visits.

“In the future, I hope we can deliver these medicines at home,” said Hazel O’Sullivan, MBBCh, a medical lung cancer oncologist at Cork University, Ireland, who explained the issues during a session at the 2024 European Lung Cancer Congress.

She was the discussant on two studies at the meeting that highlighted the latest developments in the field, the IMscin002 study of subcutaneous atezolizumab and the PALOMA study of subcutaneous amivantamab, both mostly in NSCLC patients.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab was approved recently in Europe after its maker, Genentech/Roche, made a convincing case that its pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety are comparable to the intravenous (IV) version. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering approval; Genentech/Roche anticipates a decision in 2024.

IMscin002 randomized 179 stage 2-4 NSCLC patients evenly to IV or subcutaneous atezolizumab for the first three cycles, then switched them for three more cycles.

Participants were then asked what version they preferred and what they wanted to continue with.

Seventy-one percent said they liked the subcutaneous version better and 80% opted to continue with it. Their main reasons were because they spent less time in the clinic and it was more comfortable.

When asked about the potential for home administration, presenter Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, a medical lung cancer oncologist in Rome, said that it could be “an important option in the future,” particularly in isolated areas far away from hospitals.

The authors of new research are currently evaluating whether home administration is possible. Nurses are administering atezolizumab to patients in their homes with telemedicine monitoring.

The other subcutaneous study presented at the meeting, the PALOMA trial with amivantamab, had only 19 subjects. Administration took no more than 10 minutes, versus potentially hours, especially for the first dose. Subcutaneous amivantamab was given once a month, versus every 2 weeks for the IV formulation, during the maintenance phase of treatment.

The take-home from PALOMA is that the risk of infusion reactions is lower with subcutaneous administration (16% versus 67%) but the risk of mostly mild skin rashes is higher (79% versus 36%).

Investigation is ongoing to confirm safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy equivalence with the IV formulation, including in combination with other medications.

When asked about home administration of amivantamab, PALOMA lead investigator Natasha Leighl, MD, a lung, and breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Toronto, stated that patients probably need to be watched in the clinic for the first 4 months.

The atezolizumab study was funded by maker Genentech/Roche. The amivantamab study was funded by its maker, Janssen. The amivantamab investigator, Dr. Leighl, reported grants, honoraria, and travel payments from Janssen. Dr. Cappuzzo, the investigator on the atezolizumab study, reported speaker and adviser payments from Genentech/Roche. The discussant, Dr. O’Sullivan, wasn’t involved with either company but reported payments from Amgen and AstraZeneca and travel costs covered by Takeda.

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Informing patients of a dire diagnosis — or even one that will require significant lifestyle changes — is never easy. But what’s even more challenging is when patients don’t accept their medical condition or a future that might include a difficult treatment protocol or even new medications or surgery.

“This is a challenging space to be in because this isn’t an exact science,” said Jack Jacoub, MD, medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Memorial in Fountain Valley, California. “There’s no formal training to deal with this — experience is your best teacher.”

Ultimately, helping a person reconceptualize what their future looks like is at the heart of every one of these conversations, said Sourav Sengupta, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. “As physicians, we’re charged with helping our patients navigate a difficult and challenging time in their life,” he told this news organization.

“It’s not infrequent that patients are struggling to rethink what it will be like to be a person with an illness that might be chronic and how this will change their life,” he said.

And because denial is commonly the initial way a patient might cope with absorbing news that’s hard to hear, you’ll need to be extremely patient and empathetic.

“The goal is to build trust with this person, including trust in you, the hospital itself, and the entire team treating the patient,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“A diagnosis, especially in my field of oncology, can be scary. Spending time explaining their prognosis is very important. This can’t be a rushed scenario.”

More advice on helping patients who are in denial about their medical condition:
 

Make Sure They Understand What’s Going on

In cardiology, it’s common for patients to be hospitalized when they first learn that they have a disease they must manage for the rest of their life, said Stephanie Saucier, MD, a noninvasive cardiologist and codirector of the Women’s Heart Wellness Program at Hartford Healthcare’s Heart and Vascular Institute.

“Especially after someone has had a heart attack, a stroke, or they had bypass or stents placed, I like to see what their understanding of the disease is,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them, ‘What do you understand about what happened to you’. It can get confusing when you’re in the hospital and are told a lot of information in a short period of time.”
 

Share the Data

If a patient remains resistant to the news of a diagnosis, sharing test results can be beneficial. “I’ll often say, ‘here are the scans; this is the path report; this is the bloodwork; this is your biopsy report; these are the things we have’,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“Yes, this is clinical, but it helps to communicate the information you have and do it with data. For example, I might add, ‘Would you like to see some of the things [results, scans, tests] we’re talking about today?’ This also helps establish trust.”
 

Help Them Wrap Their Mind Around a Lifelong Condition

It’s often challenging for patients to accept that what they think is a one-time health issue will affect them for a lifetime. “I use juvenile diabetes as a way to explain this,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them what they would do if, say, their child was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes.”

Of course, patients agree that they wouldn’t give a child insulin for only a brief period. They understand that the condition must be treated in the long term. This kind of analogy can help patients understand that they, too, have a disorder requiring lifelong treatment.
 

Be Ready to Respond

Dr. Sengupta says that it’s important to be prepared with an answer if your patient is challenging or suggests that the diagnosis is fake or that you don’t have their best interests in mind.

“It’s understandable that patients might feel frustrated and upset,” he said. “It’s challenging when somehow a patient doesn’t assume my best intent.”

They might say something like, “You’re trying to make more money” or “you’re a shill for a pharma company.” In that case, you must listen. Patiently explain, “I’m your doctor; I work for you; I’m most interested in you feeling healthy and well.”

Occasionally, you’ll need a thick skin when it comes to inaccurate, controversial, or conspiratorial conversations with patients.
 

Acknowledge Differences

News of an illness may clash with a person’s take on the world. “A cancer diagnosis, for example, may clash with religious beliefs or faith-based ideology about the healthcare system,” said Aaron Fletcher, MD, a board-certified otolaryngologist specializing in head and neck surgery at the Georgia Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Facial Plastic Surgery in Atlanta, Georgia.

“If you have a patient who is coming to you with these beliefs, you need to have a lot of empathy, patience, and good communication skills. It’s up to you to break through the initial doubt and do your best to explain things in layman’s terms.”
 

Find Mutual Ground

If your patient still denies their health issues, try to find one thing you can agree on regarding a long-term game plan. “I’ll say, ‘Can we at least agree to discuss this with other family members or people who care about you’?” Dr. Jacoub said.

“I always tell patients that loved ones are welcome to call me so long as they [the patient] give permission. Sometimes, this is all that it takes to get them to accept their health situation.”
 

Seven Ways to Cope With Diagnosis  Denial

This news organization asked David Cutler, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician at Providence Saint John›s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, for tips in helping patients who are having a challenging time accepting their condition:

• Listen Actively. Allow the patient to express their feelings and concerns without judgment. Active listening can help them feel heard and understood, which may open the door to discussing their condition more openly.
• Provide Information. Offer factual information about their medical condition, treatment options, and the potential consequences of denial. Provide resources such as pamphlets, websites, or books that they can review at their own pace.
• Encourage Professional Help. You may want to suggest that your patient seek professional help from a therapist, counselor, or support group. A mental health professional can assist patients in processing their emotions and addressing their denial constructively.
• Involve Trusted Individuals. Enlist the support of trusted friends, family members, or healthcare professionals who can help reinforce the importance of facing their medical condition.
• Respect Autonomy. While it’s essential to encourage the person to accept their diagnosis, ultimately, the decision to get treatment lies with them. Respect their autonomy and avoid pushing them too hard, which could lead to resistance or further denial.
• Be Patient and Persistent. Overcoming denial is often a gradual process. Be patient and persistent in supporting the person, even if progress seems slow.
• Set Boundaries. It’s essential to set boundaries to protect your well-being. While you can offer support and encouragement, you cannot force someone to accept their medical condition. Recognize when your efforts are not being productive and take care of yourself in the process.

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

Informing patients of a dire diagnosis — or even one that will require significant lifestyle changes — is never easy. But what’s even more challenging is when patients don’t accept their medical condition or a future that might include a difficult treatment protocol or even new medications or surgery.

“This is a challenging space to be in because this isn’t an exact science,” said Jack Jacoub, MD, medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Memorial in Fountain Valley, California. “There’s no formal training to deal with this — experience is your best teacher.”

Ultimately, helping a person reconceptualize what their future looks like is at the heart of every one of these conversations, said Sourav Sengupta, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. “As physicians, we’re charged with helping our patients navigate a difficult and challenging time in their life,” he told this news organization.

“It’s not infrequent that patients are struggling to rethink what it will be like to be a person with an illness that might be chronic and how this will change their life,” he said.

And because denial is commonly the initial way a patient might cope with absorbing news that’s hard to hear, you’ll need to be extremely patient and empathetic.

“The goal is to build trust with this person, including trust in you, the hospital itself, and the entire team treating the patient,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“A diagnosis, especially in my field of oncology, can be scary. Spending time explaining their prognosis is very important. This can’t be a rushed scenario.”

More advice on helping patients who are in denial about their medical condition:
 

Make Sure They Understand What’s Going on

In cardiology, it’s common for patients to be hospitalized when they first learn that they have a disease they must manage for the rest of their life, said Stephanie Saucier, MD, a noninvasive cardiologist and codirector of the Women’s Heart Wellness Program at Hartford Healthcare’s Heart and Vascular Institute.

“Especially after someone has had a heart attack, a stroke, or they had bypass or stents placed, I like to see what their understanding of the disease is,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them, ‘What do you understand about what happened to you’. It can get confusing when you’re in the hospital and are told a lot of information in a short period of time.”
 

Share the Data

If a patient remains resistant to the news of a diagnosis, sharing test results can be beneficial. “I’ll often say, ‘here are the scans; this is the path report; this is the bloodwork; this is your biopsy report; these are the things we have’,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“Yes, this is clinical, but it helps to communicate the information you have and do it with data. For example, I might add, ‘Would you like to see some of the things [results, scans, tests] we’re talking about today?’ This also helps establish trust.”
 

Help Them Wrap Their Mind Around a Lifelong Condition

It’s often challenging for patients to accept that what they think is a one-time health issue will affect them for a lifetime. “I use juvenile diabetes as a way to explain this,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them what they would do if, say, their child was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes.”

Of course, patients agree that they wouldn’t give a child insulin for only a brief period. They understand that the condition must be treated in the long term. This kind of analogy can help patients understand that they, too, have a disorder requiring lifelong treatment.
 

Be Ready to Respond

Dr. Sengupta says that it’s important to be prepared with an answer if your patient is challenging or suggests that the diagnosis is fake or that you don’t have their best interests in mind.

“It’s understandable that patients might feel frustrated and upset,” he said. “It’s challenging when somehow a patient doesn’t assume my best intent.”

They might say something like, “You’re trying to make more money” or “you’re a shill for a pharma company.” In that case, you must listen. Patiently explain, “I’m your doctor; I work for you; I’m most interested in you feeling healthy and well.”

Occasionally, you’ll need a thick skin when it comes to inaccurate, controversial, or conspiratorial conversations with patients.
 

Acknowledge Differences

News of an illness may clash with a person’s take on the world. “A cancer diagnosis, for example, may clash with religious beliefs or faith-based ideology about the healthcare system,” said Aaron Fletcher, MD, a board-certified otolaryngologist specializing in head and neck surgery at the Georgia Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Facial Plastic Surgery in Atlanta, Georgia.

“If you have a patient who is coming to you with these beliefs, you need to have a lot of empathy, patience, and good communication skills. It’s up to you to break through the initial doubt and do your best to explain things in layman’s terms.”
 

Find Mutual Ground

If your patient still denies their health issues, try to find one thing you can agree on regarding a long-term game plan. “I’ll say, ‘Can we at least agree to discuss this with other family members or people who care about you’?” Dr. Jacoub said.

“I always tell patients that loved ones are welcome to call me so long as they [the patient] give permission. Sometimes, this is all that it takes to get them to accept their health situation.”
 

Seven Ways to Cope With Diagnosis  Denial

This news organization asked David Cutler, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician at Providence Saint John›s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, for tips in helping patients who are having a challenging time accepting their condition:

• Listen Actively. Allow the patient to express their feelings and concerns without judgment. Active listening can help them feel heard and understood, which may open the door to discussing their condition more openly.
• Provide Information. Offer factual information about their medical condition, treatment options, and the potential consequences of denial. Provide resources such as pamphlets, websites, or books that they can review at their own pace.
• Encourage Professional Help. You may want to suggest that your patient seek professional help from a therapist, counselor, or support group. A mental health professional can assist patients in processing their emotions and addressing their denial constructively.
• Involve Trusted Individuals. Enlist the support of trusted friends, family members, or healthcare professionals who can help reinforce the importance of facing their medical condition.
• Respect Autonomy. While it’s essential to encourage the person to accept their diagnosis, ultimately, the decision to get treatment lies with them. Respect their autonomy and avoid pushing them too hard, which could lead to resistance or further denial.
• Be Patient and Persistent. Overcoming denial is often a gradual process. Be patient and persistent in supporting the person, even if progress seems slow.
• Set Boundaries. It’s essential to set boundaries to protect your well-being. While you can offer support and encouragement, you cannot force someone to accept their medical condition. Recognize when your efforts are not being productive and take care of yourself in the process.

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

Informing patients of a dire diagnosis — or even one that will require significant lifestyle changes — is never easy. But what’s even more challenging is when patients don’t accept their medical condition or a future that might include a difficult treatment protocol or even new medications or surgery.

“This is a challenging space to be in because this isn’t an exact science,” said Jack Jacoub, MD, medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Memorial in Fountain Valley, California. “There’s no formal training to deal with this — experience is your best teacher.”

Ultimately, helping a person reconceptualize what their future looks like is at the heart of every one of these conversations, said Sourav Sengupta, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. “As physicians, we’re charged with helping our patients navigate a difficult and challenging time in their life,” he told this news organization.

“It’s not infrequent that patients are struggling to rethink what it will be like to be a person with an illness that might be chronic and how this will change their life,” he said.

And because denial is commonly the initial way a patient might cope with absorbing news that’s hard to hear, you’ll need to be extremely patient and empathetic.

“The goal is to build trust with this person, including trust in you, the hospital itself, and the entire team treating the patient,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“A diagnosis, especially in my field of oncology, can be scary. Spending time explaining their prognosis is very important. This can’t be a rushed scenario.”

More advice on helping patients who are in denial about their medical condition:
 

Make Sure They Understand What’s Going on

In cardiology, it’s common for patients to be hospitalized when they first learn that they have a disease they must manage for the rest of their life, said Stephanie Saucier, MD, a noninvasive cardiologist and codirector of the Women’s Heart Wellness Program at Hartford Healthcare’s Heart and Vascular Institute.

“Especially after someone has had a heart attack, a stroke, or they had bypass or stents placed, I like to see what their understanding of the disease is,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them, ‘What do you understand about what happened to you’. It can get confusing when you’re in the hospital and are told a lot of information in a short period of time.”
 

Share the Data

If a patient remains resistant to the news of a diagnosis, sharing test results can be beneficial. “I’ll often say, ‘here are the scans; this is the path report; this is the bloodwork; this is your biopsy report; these are the things we have’,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“Yes, this is clinical, but it helps to communicate the information you have and do it with data. For example, I might add, ‘Would you like to see some of the things [results, scans, tests] we’re talking about today?’ This also helps establish trust.”
 

Help Them Wrap Their Mind Around a Lifelong Condition

It’s often challenging for patients to accept that what they think is a one-time health issue will affect them for a lifetime. “I use juvenile diabetes as a way to explain this,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them what they would do if, say, their child was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes.”

Of course, patients agree that they wouldn’t give a child insulin for only a brief period. They understand that the condition must be treated in the long term. This kind of analogy can help patients understand that they, too, have a disorder requiring lifelong treatment.
 

Be Ready to Respond

Dr. Sengupta says that it’s important to be prepared with an answer if your patient is challenging or suggests that the diagnosis is fake or that you don’t have their best interests in mind.

“It’s understandable that patients might feel frustrated and upset,” he said. “It’s challenging when somehow a patient doesn’t assume my best intent.”

They might say something like, “You’re trying to make more money” or “you’re a shill for a pharma company.” In that case, you must listen. Patiently explain, “I’m your doctor; I work for you; I’m most interested in you feeling healthy and well.”

Occasionally, you’ll need a thick skin when it comes to inaccurate, controversial, or conspiratorial conversations with patients.
 

Acknowledge Differences

News of an illness may clash with a person’s take on the world. “A cancer diagnosis, for example, may clash with religious beliefs or faith-based ideology about the healthcare system,” said Aaron Fletcher, MD, a board-certified otolaryngologist specializing in head and neck surgery at the Georgia Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Facial Plastic Surgery in Atlanta, Georgia.

“If you have a patient who is coming to you with these beliefs, you need to have a lot of empathy, patience, and good communication skills. It’s up to you to break through the initial doubt and do your best to explain things in layman’s terms.”
 

Find Mutual Ground

If your patient still denies their health issues, try to find one thing you can agree on regarding a long-term game plan. “I’ll say, ‘Can we at least agree to discuss this with other family members or people who care about you’?” Dr. Jacoub said.

“I always tell patients that loved ones are welcome to call me so long as they [the patient] give permission. Sometimes, this is all that it takes to get them to accept their health situation.”
 

Seven Ways to Cope With Diagnosis  Denial

This news organization asked David Cutler, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician at Providence Saint John›s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, for tips in helping patients who are having a challenging time accepting their condition:

• Listen Actively. Allow the patient to express their feelings and concerns without judgment. Active listening can help them feel heard and understood, which may open the door to discussing their condition more openly.
• Provide Information. Offer factual information about their medical condition, treatment options, and the potential consequences of denial. Provide resources such as pamphlets, websites, or books that they can review at their own pace.
• Encourage Professional Help. You may want to suggest that your patient seek professional help from a therapist, counselor, or support group. A mental health professional can assist patients in processing their emotions and addressing their denial constructively.
• Involve Trusted Individuals. Enlist the support of trusted friends, family members, or healthcare professionals who can help reinforce the importance of facing their medical condition.
• Respect Autonomy. While it’s essential to encourage the person to accept their diagnosis, ultimately, the decision to get treatment lies with them. Respect their autonomy and avoid pushing them too hard, which could lead to resistance or further denial.
• Be Patient and Persistent. Overcoming denial is often a gradual process. Be patient and persistent in supporting the person, even if progress seems slow.
• Set Boundaries. It’s essential to set boundaries to protect your well-being. While you can offer support and encouragement, you cannot force someone to accept their medical condition. Recognize when your efforts are not being productive and take care of yourself in the process.

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

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

TOPLINE:

When considering a job offer at an academic radiation oncology practice, the prospective employee should focus on three key factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — and accept an offer if the practice is “great” in at least two of those areas and “good” in the third, experts say in a recent editorial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many physicians choose to go into academic medicine because they want to stay involved in research and education while still treating patients.
• However, graduating radiation oncology residents often lack or have limited guidance on what to look for in a prospective job and how to assess their contract.
• This recent editorial provides guidance to radiation oncologists seeking academic positions. The authors advise prospective employees to evaluate three main factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — as well as provide tips for identifying red flags in each category.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compensation: Prospective faculty should assess both direct compensation, that is, salary, and indirect compensation, which typically includes retirement contributions and other perks. For direct compensation, what is the base salary? Is extra work compensated? How does the salary offer measure up to salary data reported by national agencies? Also: Don’t overlook uncompensated duties, such as time in tumor boards or in meetings, which may be time-consuming, and make sure compensation terms are clearly delineated in a contract and equitable among physicians in a specific rank.
• Daily duties: When it comes to daily life on the job, a prospective employee should consider many factors, including the cancer center’s excitement to hire you, the reputation of the faculty and leaders at the organization, employee turnover rates, diversity among faculty, and the time line of career advancement.
• Location: The location of the job encompasses the geography — such as distance from home to work, the number of practices covered, cost of living, and the area itself — as well as the atmosphere for conducting research and publishing.
• Finally, carefully review the job contract. All the key aspects of the job, including compensation and benefits, should be clearly stated in the contract to “improve communication of expectations.”

IN PRACTICE:

“A prospective faculty member can ask 100 questions, but they can’t make 100 demands; consideration of the three domains can help to focus negotiation efforts where the efforts are needed,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This editorial, led by Nicholas G. Zaorsky from the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, was published online in Practical Radiation Oncology

DISCLOSURES:

The lead author declared being supported by the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health. He also reported having ties with many other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

When considering a job offer at an academic radiation oncology practice, the prospective employee should focus on three key factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — and accept an offer if the practice is “great” in at least two of those areas and “good” in the third, experts say in a recent editorial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many physicians choose to go into academic medicine because they want to stay involved in research and education while still treating patients.
• However, graduating radiation oncology residents often lack or have limited guidance on what to look for in a prospective job and how to assess their contract.
• This recent editorial provides guidance to radiation oncologists seeking academic positions. The authors advise prospective employees to evaluate three main factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — as well as provide tips for identifying red flags in each category.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compensation: Prospective faculty should assess both direct compensation, that is, salary, and indirect compensation, which typically includes retirement contributions and other perks. For direct compensation, what is the base salary? Is extra work compensated? How does the salary offer measure up to salary data reported by national agencies? Also: Don’t overlook uncompensated duties, such as time in tumor boards or in meetings, which may be time-consuming, and make sure compensation terms are clearly delineated in a contract and equitable among physicians in a specific rank.
• Daily duties: When it comes to daily life on the job, a prospective employee should consider many factors, including the cancer center’s excitement to hire you, the reputation of the faculty and leaders at the organization, employee turnover rates, diversity among faculty, and the time line of career advancement.
• Location: The location of the job encompasses the geography — such as distance from home to work, the number of practices covered, cost of living, and the area itself — as well as the atmosphere for conducting research and publishing.
• Finally, carefully review the job contract. All the key aspects of the job, including compensation and benefits, should be clearly stated in the contract to “improve communication of expectations.”

IN PRACTICE:

“A prospective faculty member can ask 100 questions, but they can’t make 100 demands; consideration of the three domains can help to focus negotiation efforts where the efforts are needed,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This editorial, led by Nicholas G. Zaorsky from the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, was published online in Practical Radiation Oncology

DISCLOSURES:

The lead author declared being supported by the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health. He also reported having ties with many other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

When considering a job offer at an academic radiation oncology practice, the prospective employee should focus on three key factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — and accept an offer if the practice is “great” in at least two of those areas and “good” in the third, experts say in a recent editorial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many physicians choose to go into academic medicine because they want to stay involved in research and education while still treating patients.
• However, graduating radiation oncology residents often lack or have limited guidance on what to look for in a prospective job and how to assess their contract.
• This recent editorial provides guidance to radiation oncologists seeking academic positions. The authors advise prospective employees to evaluate three main factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — as well as provide tips for identifying red flags in each category.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compensation: Prospective faculty should assess both direct compensation, that is, salary, and indirect compensation, which typically includes retirement contributions and other perks. For direct compensation, what is the base salary? Is extra work compensated? How does the salary offer measure up to salary data reported by national agencies? Also: Don’t overlook uncompensated duties, such as time in tumor boards or in meetings, which may be time-consuming, and make sure compensation terms are clearly delineated in a contract and equitable among physicians in a specific rank.
• Daily duties: When it comes to daily life on the job, a prospective employee should consider many factors, including the cancer center’s excitement to hire you, the reputation of the faculty and leaders at the organization, employee turnover rates, diversity among faculty, and the time line of career advancement.
• Location: The location of the job encompasses the geography — such as distance from home to work, the number of practices covered, cost of living, and the area itself — as well as the atmosphere for conducting research and publishing.
• Finally, carefully review the job contract. All the key aspects of the job, including compensation and benefits, should be clearly stated in the contract to “improve communication of expectations.”

IN PRACTICE:

“A prospective faculty member can ask 100 questions, but they can’t make 100 demands; consideration of the three domains can help to focus negotiation efforts where the efforts are needed,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This editorial, led by Nicholas G. Zaorsky from the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, was published online in Practical Radiation Oncology

DISCLOSURES:

The lead author declared being supported by the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health. He also reported having ties with many other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.