Opinion

Physician stress – indeed, the stress level for all medical personnel – has reached new heights.

As if it weren’t enough that doctors work in a profession where it’s almost more a question of when they’ll be sued than if they’ll be sued – where COVID, staff shortages, long hours, and patients frustrated over canceled procedures have caused unrelenting fatigue and stress – they now have to worry that an unhappy patient is going to buy a gun, walk into their office, and kill them.

That’s exactly what happened in Tulsa, Okla., where a patient complaining of pain after back surgery murdered his doctor and several others who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The temptation in the aftermath of such tragedies is to think about preventive measures: Make medical facilities “hardened” targets, like schools have become, with armed guards, metal detectors, automatically locking doors, physical barriers within, security cameras, and buzzers for entry – although hardening a large medical center where members of the community routinely come and go would be challenging.

What about the enormous stress on doctors, nurses, and others in the medical workplace? Physicians who have been sued for malpractice often describe how it changes the way they interact with patients: They now size patients up and make judgments about their potential litigiousness. Will the physicians now look over their patients’ shoulders at the video feed from a security camera when they’re taking a history? Will medical professionals be forced to make snap judgments about patients’ psychological state before deciding whether to treat them?

Remember, there was a time when school shootings were unimaginable. Once one person crosses that line, others inevitably follow.

It could be a drug-seeking patient complaining of ongoing pain, angry because he can’t get a new prescription. It could be a patient whose unpaid bill was turned over to a collection agency, angry because he’s now getting calls from collectors. It could be someone who blames a physician for the loss of a loved one. It could be someone who would otherwise have filed a lawsuit, who now thinks he has a more effective option for exacting retribution.

Most of us would find it unbearable to live and work under the kind of stress faced by medical professionals today. And unfortunately, there is no short-term, systemic relief on the horizon. But there are methods of relieving at least some of the psychological burden being carried by these dedicated individuals.

For starters, the government should provide funds to improve safety and security at medical facilities. It’s sad but it’s a fact of life. The physical structure of schools, along with emergency procedures, have been changed since Columbine and Sandy Hook, and our children and their teachers undergo active shooter drills. Health care facilities will need to adopt similar strategies.

But if we don’t also support the individuals who work in health care, we’ll no longer have even partially staffed health care facilities. Hospitals and medical groups need to be conscious of the effects stress may have on them. Medical staff and administrators need to recognize changes in their colleagues’ behavior and refer those cohorts to professional stress coaches who can get them back on track.

Medical personnel should be picking up on warning signs, like irritability, depression, sudden weight gain or loss, lack of motivation and job satisfaction, obsessiveness, unusual levels of fatigue, alcohol or drug use, and, of course, avoidable medical errors.

In addition, colleagues in the medical workplace need to know each other well. They are usually the first ones to notice if something is off and may be in the best position to refer coworkers for help. Also, medical malpractice insurance carriers should consider encouraging and covering coaching sessions, because helping physicians cope with this heightened stress will prevent medical errors and the lawsuits that inevitably accompany mistakes.

This needn’t be a long-term process like ongoing psychotherapy; a few sessions with a well-trained coach may help psychologically challenged peers restore their focus and perspective. It won’t eliminate the threat any more than litigation stress coaching eliminates the threat of being sued, but it can prevent that stress from leading to avoidable errors. It also can prevent physicians’ personal lives and relationships from going off the rails and driving them out of the medical profession.

None of us can afford to ignore the impacts that these new stressors are having and simply act as if it’s business as usual. The people in the trenches need our help.

Ms. Fiore is President of Winning Focus in Murrysville, Pa. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physician stress – indeed, the stress level for all medical personnel – has reached new heights.

As if it weren’t enough that doctors work in a profession where it’s almost more a question of when they’ll be sued than if they’ll be sued – where COVID, staff shortages, long hours, and patients frustrated over canceled procedures have caused unrelenting fatigue and stress – they now have to worry that an unhappy patient is going to buy a gun, walk into their office, and kill them.

That’s exactly what happened in Tulsa, Okla., where a patient complaining of pain after back surgery murdered his doctor and several others who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The temptation in the aftermath of such tragedies is to think about preventive measures: Make medical facilities “hardened” targets, like schools have become, with armed guards, metal detectors, automatically locking doors, physical barriers within, security cameras, and buzzers for entry – although hardening a large medical center where members of the community routinely come and go would be challenging.

What about the enormous stress on doctors, nurses, and others in the medical workplace? Physicians who have been sued for malpractice often describe how it changes the way they interact with patients: They now size patients up and make judgments about their potential litigiousness. Will the physicians now look over their patients’ shoulders at the video feed from a security camera when they’re taking a history? Will medical professionals be forced to make snap judgments about patients’ psychological state before deciding whether to treat them?

Remember, there was a time when school shootings were unimaginable. Once one person crosses that line, others inevitably follow.

It could be a drug-seeking patient complaining of ongoing pain, angry because he can’t get a new prescription. It could be a patient whose unpaid bill was turned over to a collection agency, angry because he’s now getting calls from collectors. It could be someone who blames a physician for the loss of a loved one. It could be someone who would otherwise have filed a lawsuit, who now thinks he has a more effective option for exacting retribution.

Most of us would find it unbearable to live and work under the kind of stress faced by medical professionals today. And unfortunately, there is no short-term, systemic relief on the horizon. But there are methods of relieving at least some of the psychological burden being carried by these dedicated individuals.

For starters, the government should provide funds to improve safety and security at medical facilities. It’s sad but it’s a fact of life. The physical structure of schools, along with emergency procedures, have been changed since Columbine and Sandy Hook, and our children and their teachers undergo active shooter drills. Health care facilities will need to adopt similar strategies.

But if we don’t also support the individuals who work in health care, we’ll no longer have even partially staffed health care facilities. Hospitals and medical groups need to be conscious of the effects stress may have on them. Medical staff and administrators need to recognize changes in their colleagues’ behavior and refer those cohorts to professional stress coaches who can get them back on track.

Medical personnel should be picking up on warning signs, like irritability, depression, sudden weight gain or loss, lack of motivation and job satisfaction, obsessiveness, unusual levels of fatigue, alcohol or drug use, and, of course, avoidable medical errors.

In addition, colleagues in the medical workplace need to know each other well. They are usually the first ones to notice if something is off and may be in the best position to refer coworkers for help. Also, medical malpractice insurance carriers should consider encouraging and covering coaching sessions, because helping physicians cope with this heightened stress will prevent medical errors and the lawsuits that inevitably accompany mistakes.

This needn’t be a long-term process like ongoing psychotherapy; a few sessions with a well-trained coach may help psychologically challenged peers restore their focus and perspective. It won’t eliminate the threat any more than litigation stress coaching eliminates the threat of being sued, but it can prevent that stress from leading to avoidable errors. It also can prevent physicians’ personal lives and relationships from going off the rails and driving them out of the medical profession.

None of us can afford to ignore the impacts that these new stressors are having and simply act as if it’s business as usual. The people in the trenches need our help.

Ms. Fiore is President of Winning Focus in Murrysville, Pa. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physician stress – indeed, the stress level for all medical personnel – has reached new heights.

As if it weren’t enough that doctors work in a profession where it’s almost more a question of when they’ll be sued than if they’ll be sued – where COVID, staff shortages, long hours, and patients frustrated over canceled procedures have caused unrelenting fatigue and stress – they now have to worry that an unhappy patient is going to buy a gun, walk into their office, and kill them.

That’s exactly what happened in Tulsa, Okla., where a patient complaining of pain after back surgery murdered his doctor and several others who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The temptation in the aftermath of such tragedies is to think about preventive measures: Make medical facilities “hardened” targets, like schools have become, with armed guards, metal detectors, automatically locking doors, physical barriers within, security cameras, and buzzers for entry – although hardening a large medical center where members of the community routinely come and go would be challenging.

What about the enormous stress on doctors, nurses, and others in the medical workplace? Physicians who have been sued for malpractice often describe how it changes the way they interact with patients: They now size patients up and make judgments about their potential litigiousness. Will the physicians now look over their patients’ shoulders at the video feed from a security camera when they’re taking a history? Will medical professionals be forced to make snap judgments about patients’ psychological state before deciding whether to treat them?

Remember, there was a time when school shootings were unimaginable. Once one person crosses that line, others inevitably follow.

It could be a drug-seeking patient complaining of ongoing pain, angry because he can’t get a new prescription. It could be a patient whose unpaid bill was turned over to a collection agency, angry because he’s now getting calls from collectors. It could be someone who blames a physician for the loss of a loved one. It could be someone who would otherwise have filed a lawsuit, who now thinks he has a more effective option for exacting retribution.

Most of us would find it unbearable to live and work under the kind of stress faced by medical professionals today. And unfortunately, there is no short-term, systemic relief on the horizon. But there are methods of relieving at least some of the psychological burden being carried by these dedicated individuals.

For starters, the government should provide funds to improve safety and security at medical facilities. It’s sad but it’s a fact of life. The physical structure of schools, along with emergency procedures, have been changed since Columbine and Sandy Hook, and our children and their teachers undergo active shooter drills. Health care facilities will need to adopt similar strategies.

But if we don’t also support the individuals who work in health care, we’ll no longer have even partially staffed health care facilities. Hospitals and medical groups need to be conscious of the effects stress may have on them. Medical staff and administrators need to recognize changes in their colleagues’ behavior and refer those cohorts to professional stress coaches who can get them back on track.

Medical personnel should be picking up on warning signs, like irritability, depression, sudden weight gain or loss, lack of motivation and job satisfaction, obsessiveness, unusual levels of fatigue, alcohol or drug use, and, of course, avoidable medical errors.

In addition, colleagues in the medical workplace need to know each other well. They are usually the first ones to notice if something is off and may be in the best position to refer coworkers for help. Also, medical malpractice insurance carriers should consider encouraging and covering coaching sessions, because helping physicians cope with this heightened stress will prevent medical errors and the lawsuits that inevitably accompany mistakes.

This needn’t be a long-term process like ongoing psychotherapy; a few sessions with a well-trained coach may help psychologically challenged peers restore their focus and perspective. It won’t eliminate the threat any more than litigation stress coaching eliminates the threat of being sued, but it can prevent that stress from leading to avoidable errors. It also can prevent physicians’ personal lives and relationships from going off the rails and driving them out of the medical profession.

None of us can afford to ignore the impacts that these new stressors are having and simply act as if it’s business as usual. The people in the trenches need our help.

Ms. Fiore is President of Winning Focus in Murrysville, Pa. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

I can dimly recall watching Queen Elizabeth’s coronation on a very small black and white television screen. Even in monochrome it was a riveting event. Recently, the Queen celebrated her Platinum Jubilee, marking her 70-year reign. Apparently it was a multiday event with all the trappings, floating above an undercurrent of scandal and intrigue. I had better things to do than I did as a 7-year-old entranced by the novelty of a neighbor’s television set.

But, it turns out that I had missed the opportunity to see live and in color a royal meltdown starring the Queen’s great-grandson, 4-year-old Prince Louis. Not to worry. It remains on video archives for our education and pleasure ad infinitum. His performance was no more dramatic than what you have seen numerous times in the checkout line of the grocery store. However, this meltdown was on the world stage in the front row of the royal box and performed in various venues on each day of a 4-day event.

As long as you weren’t his parents, Kate Middleton and Prince William, the meltdown had its moments of hilarity. Louis made full use of his youthful and plastic face, creating a wide variety of taunts and responses to his mother’s praiseworthy and understated attempts at regaining control. Of course, the British press and every armchair parent with a Twitter account had a field day contributing their explanations and advice.

For example, here’s the headline on an international news website that caught my eye: “Royal reveals why Prince Louis was so ‘mischievous’ during the Jubilee”. In the article, a fellow royal and former rugby star who was sitting directly behind the little Prince during one of his performances chalked up the 4-year-old’s behavior to a “sugar high” resulting from the ample supply of sweets available behind the royal box.

Nowhere in the article is there a question of whether the “sugar high” is a science-based phenomenon. In fact, the reporter assumes we all know it exists and writes that “parents across the globe can probably [read: definitely] relate.”

I’m curious: How do you respond when a parent in the office explains the child’s behavior as the result of a “sugar high”? Or when you’re at a cookout and someone makes a comment that makes it obvious that they believe that “sugar highs” are real? Do you immediately pause the conversation and launch into a short but tasteful observation that you know of no scientific studies that sugar can cause a high? Or, figuring that in the face of an overwhelming burden of old wives’ tales it’s not worth mounting a rebuttal, do you pretend you didn’t hear the comment?

Or am I completely off base because your experience has left you convinced that despite the lack of supporting studies the “sugar high” phenomenon exists? Maybe you even include it on your list of explanations and remedies for pediatric misbehaviors. I am ready to listen, but it will take some heavy lifting to convince me.

I suspect your response to offhand comments about “sugar highs” is similar to mine. It depends on the situation. If I think there are obvious and correctable causes for the child’s misbehavior such as sleep deprivation or a mismatch between parental expectation and the child’s tolerance for a stimulating environment I will include in my parenting advice the comment, “Sugar highs probably don’t exist.”

On the other hand, if I’m tired and think my observation will fall on deaf ears I let the conversation drift. I worry that my silence will be interpreted as a confirmation of an old wives’ tale. What I really don’t want to do is perpetuate a myth that may prevent some children from getting the care they need.

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

I can dimly recall watching Queen Elizabeth’s coronation on a very small black and white television screen. Even in monochrome it was a riveting event. Recently, the Queen celebrated her Platinum Jubilee, marking her 70-year reign. Apparently it was a multiday event with all the trappings, floating above an undercurrent of scandal and intrigue. I had better things to do than I did as a 7-year-old entranced by the novelty of a neighbor’s television set.

But, it turns out that I had missed the opportunity to see live and in color a royal meltdown starring the Queen’s great-grandson, 4-year-old Prince Louis. Not to worry. It remains on video archives for our education and pleasure ad infinitum. His performance was no more dramatic than what you have seen numerous times in the checkout line of the grocery store. However, this meltdown was on the world stage in the front row of the royal box and performed in various venues on each day of a 4-day event.

As long as you weren’t his parents, Kate Middleton and Prince William, the meltdown had its moments of hilarity. Louis made full use of his youthful and plastic face, creating a wide variety of taunts and responses to his mother’s praiseworthy and understated attempts at regaining control. Of course, the British press and every armchair parent with a Twitter account had a field day contributing their explanations and advice.

For example, here’s the headline on an international news website that caught my eye: “Royal reveals why Prince Louis was so ‘mischievous’ during the Jubilee”. In the article, a fellow royal and former rugby star who was sitting directly behind the little Prince during one of his performances chalked up the 4-year-old’s behavior to a “sugar high” resulting from the ample supply of sweets available behind the royal box.

Nowhere in the article is there a question of whether the “sugar high” is a science-based phenomenon. In fact, the reporter assumes we all know it exists and writes that “parents across the globe can probably [read: definitely] relate.”

I’m curious: How do you respond when a parent in the office explains the child’s behavior as the result of a “sugar high”? Or when you’re at a cookout and someone makes a comment that makes it obvious that they believe that “sugar highs” are real? Do you immediately pause the conversation and launch into a short but tasteful observation that you know of no scientific studies that sugar can cause a high? Or, figuring that in the face of an overwhelming burden of old wives’ tales it’s not worth mounting a rebuttal, do you pretend you didn’t hear the comment?

Or am I completely off base because your experience has left you convinced that despite the lack of supporting studies the “sugar high” phenomenon exists? Maybe you even include it on your list of explanations and remedies for pediatric misbehaviors. I am ready to listen, but it will take some heavy lifting to convince me.

I suspect your response to offhand comments about “sugar highs” is similar to mine. It depends on the situation. If I think there are obvious and correctable causes for the child’s misbehavior such as sleep deprivation or a mismatch between parental expectation and the child’s tolerance for a stimulating environment I will include in my parenting advice the comment, “Sugar highs probably don’t exist.”

On the other hand, if I’m tired and think my observation will fall on deaf ears I let the conversation drift. I worry that my silence will be interpreted as a confirmation of an old wives’ tale. What I really don’t want to do is perpetuate a myth that may prevent some children from getting the care they need.

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

I can dimly recall watching Queen Elizabeth’s coronation on a very small black and white television screen. Even in monochrome it was a riveting event. Recently, the Queen celebrated her Platinum Jubilee, marking her 70-year reign. Apparently it was a multiday event with all the trappings, floating above an undercurrent of scandal and intrigue. I had better things to do than I did as a 7-year-old entranced by the novelty of a neighbor’s television set.

But, it turns out that I had missed the opportunity to see live and in color a royal meltdown starring the Queen’s great-grandson, 4-year-old Prince Louis. Not to worry. It remains on video archives for our education and pleasure ad infinitum. His performance was no more dramatic than what you have seen numerous times in the checkout line of the grocery store. However, this meltdown was on the world stage in the front row of the royal box and performed in various venues on each day of a 4-day event.

As long as you weren’t his parents, Kate Middleton and Prince William, the meltdown had its moments of hilarity. Louis made full use of his youthful and plastic face, creating a wide variety of taunts and responses to his mother’s praiseworthy and understated attempts at regaining control. Of course, the British press and every armchair parent with a Twitter account had a field day contributing their explanations and advice.

For example, here’s the headline on an international news website that caught my eye: “Royal reveals why Prince Louis was so ‘mischievous’ during the Jubilee”. In the article, a fellow royal and former rugby star who was sitting directly behind the little Prince during one of his performances chalked up the 4-year-old’s behavior to a “sugar high” resulting from the ample supply of sweets available behind the royal box.

Nowhere in the article is there a question of whether the “sugar high” is a science-based phenomenon. In fact, the reporter assumes we all know it exists and writes that “parents across the globe can probably [read: definitely] relate.”

I’m curious: How do you respond when a parent in the office explains the child’s behavior as the result of a “sugar high”? Or when you’re at a cookout and someone makes a comment that makes it obvious that they believe that “sugar highs” are real? Do you immediately pause the conversation and launch into a short but tasteful observation that you know of no scientific studies that sugar can cause a high? Or, figuring that in the face of an overwhelming burden of old wives’ tales it’s not worth mounting a rebuttal, do you pretend you didn’t hear the comment?

Or am I completely off base because your experience has left you convinced that despite the lack of supporting studies the “sugar high” phenomenon exists? Maybe you even include it on your list of explanations and remedies for pediatric misbehaviors. I am ready to listen, but it will take some heavy lifting to convince me.

I suspect your response to offhand comments about “sugar highs” is similar to mine. It depends on the situation. If I think there are obvious and correctable causes for the child’s misbehavior such as sleep deprivation or a mismatch between parental expectation and the child’s tolerance for a stimulating environment I will include in my parenting advice the comment, “Sugar highs probably don’t exist.”

On the other hand, if I’m tired and think my observation will fall on deaf ears I let the conversation drift. I worry that my silence will be interpreted as a confirmation of an old wives’ tale. What I really don’t want to do is perpetuate a myth that may prevent some children from getting the care they need.

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

“I’m happy to contribute, but can you keep it anonymous? It’s a safety concern for me.”

On the day that the Supreme Court of the United States voted to strike down Roe v. Wade, I reached out to ob.gyn.s across the country, wanting to hear their reactions. My own response, like that of many doctors and women, was a visceral mix of anger, fear, and grief. I could only begin to imagine what the real experts on reproductive health care were going through.

When the first ob.gyn. responded to my request by expressing concerns around anonymity and personal safety, I was shocked – but I shouldn’t have been. For starters, there is already a storied history in this country of deadly attacks on abortion providers. David Gunn, MD; Barnett Slepian, MD; and George Tiller, MD, were all tragically murdered by antiabortion extremists. Then, there’s the existence of websites that keep logs of abortion providers and sometimes include photos, office contact information, or even home addresses.

The idea that any reproductive health care provider should have to think twice before offering their uniquely qualified opinion is profoundly disturbing, nearly as disturbing as the Supreme Court’s decision itself. But it’s more critical than ever for ob.gyn. voices to be amplified. This is the time for the healthcare community to rally around women’s health providers, to learn from them, to support them.

I asked ob.gyns. around the country to tell me what they were thinking and feeling on the day that Roe v. Wade was overturned. We agreed to keep the responses anonymous, given that several people expressed very understandable safety concerns.

Here’s what they had to say.
 

Tennessee ob.gyn.

“Today is an emotionally charged day for many people in this country, yet as I type this, with my ob.gyn. practice continuing around me, with my own almost 10-week pregnancy growing inside me, I feel quite blunted. I feel powerless to answer questions that are variations on ‘what next?’ or ‘how do we fight back?’ All I can think of is, I am so glad I do not have anyone on my schedule right now who does not want to be pregnant. But what will happen when that eventually changes? What about my colleagues who do have these patients on their schedules today? On a personal level, what if my prenatal genetic testing comes back abnormal? How can we so blatantly disregard a separation of church and state in this country? What ways will our government interfere with my practice next? My head is spinning, but I have to go see my next patient. She is a 25-year-old who is here to have an IUD placed, and that seems like the most important thing I can do today.”

South Carolina ob.gyn.

“I’m really scared. For my patients and for myself. I don’t know how to be a good ob.gyn. if my ability to offer safe and accessible abortion care is being threatened.”

Massachusetts ob.gyn.

“Livid and devastated and sad and terrified.” 

California family planning specialist

“The fact is that about one in four people with uteruses have had an abortion. I can’t tell you how many abortions I’ve provided for people who say that they don’t ‘believe’ in them or that they thought they’d never be in this situation. ... The fact is that pregnancy is a life-threatening condition in and of itself. I am an ob.gyn., a medical doctor, and an abortion provider. I will not stop providing abortions or helping people access them. I will dedicate my life to ensuring this right to bodily autonomy. Today I am devastated by the Supreme Court’s decision to force parenthood that will result in increased maternal mortality. I am broken, but I have never been more proud to be an abortion provider.”

New York ob.gyn.

“Grateful to live in a state and work for a hospital where I can provide abortions but feel terrible for so many people less fortunate and underserved.”

Illinois maternal-fetal medicine specialist

“As a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, I fear for my patients who are at the highest risk of pregnancy complications having their freedom taken away. For the tragic ultrasound findings that make a pregnant person carry a baby who will never live. For the patients who cannot use most forms of contraception because of their medical comorbidities. For the patients who are victims of intimate partner violence or under the influence of their culture, to continue having children regardless of their desires or their health. ... The freedom to prevent or end a pregnancy has enabled women to become independent and productive members of society on their own terms, with or without children. My heart breaks for the children and adolescents and adults who are being told they are second-class citizens, not worthy of making their own decisions. Politicians and Supreme Court justices are not in the clinic room, ultrasound suite, operating room, or delivery room when we have these intense conversations and pregnancy outcomes. They have no idea that of which they speak, and it’s unconscionable that they can determine what healthcare decisions my patients can make for their own lives. Nobody knows a body better than the patient themselves.”

Texas ob.gyn.

“In the area where I live and practice, it feels like guns and the people who use them have more legal rights than people with uteruses in desperate or life-threatening situations. I’m afraid for my personal safety as a women’s health practitioner in this political climate. I feel helpless, but I’m supposed to be able to help my patients.”

Missouri family planning specialist

“Abortion is an essential part of healthcare, and the only people that should get a say in it are the patient and their doctor. Period. The fact that some far-off court without any medical expertise can insert itself into individual medical decisions is oppressive and unethical.”

Georgia ob.gyn.

“I can’t even think straight right now. I feel sick. Honestly, I’ve been thinking about moving for a long time now. Somewhere where I would actually be able to offer good, comprehensive care.”

New York ob.gyn.

“I graduated from my ob.gyn. residency hours after the Roe v. Wade news broke. It was so emotional for me. I’ve dedicated my life to caring for people with uteruses and I will not let this heartbreaking news change that. I feel more committed than ever to women’s health. I fully plan to continue delivering babies, providing contraception, and performing abortions. I will be there to help women with desired pregnancies who received unspeakably bad news about fetal anomalies. I will be there to help women with life-threatening pregnancy complications before fetal viability. I will be there to help women with ectopic pregnancies. I will be there to help women who were raped or otherwise forced into pregnancy. I will always be there to help women.”

Dr. Croll is a neurovascular fellow at New York University Langone Health. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“I’m happy to contribute, but can you keep it anonymous? It’s a safety concern for me.”

On the day that the Supreme Court of the United States voted to strike down Roe v. Wade, I reached out to ob.gyn.s across the country, wanting to hear their reactions. My own response, like that of many doctors and women, was a visceral mix of anger, fear, and grief. I could only begin to imagine what the real experts on reproductive health care were going through.

When the first ob.gyn. responded to my request by expressing concerns around anonymity and personal safety, I was shocked – but I shouldn’t have been. For starters, there is already a storied history in this country of deadly attacks on abortion providers. David Gunn, MD; Barnett Slepian, MD; and George Tiller, MD, were all tragically murdered by antiabortion extremists. Then, there’s the existence of websites that keep logs of abortion providers and sometimes include photos, office contact information, or even home addresses.

The idea that any reproductive health care provider should have to think twice before offering their uniquely qualified opinion is profoundly disturbing, nearly as disturbing as the Supreme Court’s decision itself. But it’s more critical than ever for ob.gyn. voices to be amplified. This is the time for the healthcare community to rally around women’s health providers, to learn from them, to support them.

I asked ob.gyns. around the country to tell me what they were thinking and feeling on the day that Roe v. Wade was overturned. We agreed to keep the responses anonymous, given that several people expressed very understandable safety concerns.

Here’s what they had to say.
 

Tennessee ob.gyn.

“Today is an emotionally charged day for many people in this country, yet as I type this, with my ob.gyn. practice continuing around me, with my own almost 10-week pregnancy growing inside me, I feel quite blunted. I feel powerless to answer questions that are variations on ‘what next?’ or ‘how do we fight back?’ All I can think of is, I am so glad I do not have anyone on my schedule right now who does not want to be pregnant. But what will happen when that eventually changes? What about my colleagues who do have these patients on their schedules today? On a personal level, what if my prenatal genetic testing comes back abnormal? How can we so blatantly disregard a separation of church and state in this country? What ways will our government interfere with my practice next? My head is spinning, but I have to go see my next patient. She is a 25-year-old who is here to have an IUD placed, and that seems like the most important thing I can do today.”

South Carolina ob.gyn.

“I’m really scared. For my patients and for myself. I don’t know how to be a good ob.gyn. if my ability to offer safe and accessible abortion care is being threatened.”

Massachusetts ob.gyn.

“Livid and devastated and sad and terrified.” 

California family planning specialist

“The fact is that about one in four people with uteruses have had an abortion. I can’t tell you how many abortions I’ve provided for people who say that they don’t ‘believe’ in them or that they thought they’d never be in this situation. ... The fact is that pregnancy is a life-threatening condition in and of itself. I am an ob.gyn., a medical doctor, and an abortion provider. I will not stop providing abortions or helping people access them. I will dedicate my life to ensuring this right to bodily autonomy. Today I am devastated by the Supreme Court’s decision to force parenthood that will result in increased maternal mortality. I am broken, but I have never been more proud to be an abortion provider.”

New York ob.gyn.

“Grateful to live in a state and work for a hospital where I can provide abortions but feel terrible for so many people less fortunate and underserved.”

Illinois maternal-fetal medicine specialist

“As a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, I fear for my patients who are at the highest risk of pregnancy complications having their freedom taken away. For the tragic ultrasound findings that make a pregnant person carry a baby who will never live. For the patients who cannot use most forms of contraception because of their medical comorbidities. For the patients who are victims of intimate partner violence or under the influence of their culture, to continue having children regardless of their desires or their health. ... The freedom to prevent or end a pregnancy has enabled women to become independent and productive members of society on their own terms, with or without children. My heart breaks for the children and adolescents and adults who are being told they are second-class citizens, not worthy of making their own decisions. Politicians and Supreme Court justices are not in the clinic room, ultrasound suite, operating room, or delivery room when we have these intense conversations and pregnancy outcomes. They have no idea that of which they speak, and it’s unconscionable that they can determine what healthcare decisions my patients can make for their own lives. Nobody knows a body better than the patient themselves.”

Texas ob.gyn.

“In the area where I live and practice, it feels like guns and the people who use them have more legal rights than people with uteruses in desperate or life-threatening situations. I’m afraid for my personal safety as a women’s health practitioner in this political climate. I feel helpless, but I’m supposed to be able to help my patients.”

Missouri family planning specialist

“Abortion is an essential part of healthcare, and the only people that should get a say in it are the patient and their doctor. Period. The fact that some far-off court without any medical expertise can insert itself into individual medical decisions is oppressive and unethical.”

Georgia ob.gyn.

“I can’t even think straight right now. I feel sick. Honestly, I’ve been thinking about moving for a long time now. Somewhere where I would actually be able to offer good, comprehensive care.”

New York ob.gyn.

“I graduated from my ob.gyn. residency hours after the Roe v. Wade news broke. It was so emotional for me. I’ve dedicated my life to caring for people with uteruses and I will not let this heartbreaking news change that. I feel more committed than ever to women’s health. I fully plan to continue delivering babies, providing contraception, and performing abortions. I will be there to help women with desired pregnancies who received unspeakably bad news about fetal anomalies. I will be there to help women with life-threatening pregnancy complications before fetal viability. I will be there to help women with ectopic pregnancies. I will be there to help women who were raped or otherwise forced into pregnancy. I will always be there to help women.”

Dr. Croll is a neurovascular fellow at New York University Langone Health. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“I’m happy to contribute, but can you keep it anonymous? It’s a safety concern for me.”

On the day that the Supreme Court of the United States voted to strike down Roe v. Wade, I reached out to ob.gyn.s across the country, wanting to hear their reactions. My own response, like that of many doctors and women, was a visceral mix of anger, fear, and grief. I could only begin to imagine what the real experts on reproductive health care were going through.

When the first ob.gyn. responded to my request by expressing concerns around anonymity and personal safety, I was shocked – but I shouldn’t have been. For starters, there is already a storied history in this country of deadly attacks on abortion providers. David Gunn, MD; Barnett Slepian, MD; and George Tiller, MD, were all tragically murdered by antiabortion extremists. Then, there’s the existence of websites that keep logs of abortion providers and sometimes include photos, office contact information, or even home addresses.

The idea that any reproductive health care provider should have to think twice before offering their uniquely qualified opinion is profoundly disturbing, nearly as disturbing as the Supreme Court’s decision itself. But it’s more critical than ever for ob.gyn. voices to be amplified. This is the time for the healthcare community to rally around women’s health providers, to learn from them, to support them.

I asked ob.gyns. around the country to tell me what they were thinking and feeling on the day that Roe v. Wade was overturned. We agreed to keep the responses anonymous, given that several people expressed very understandable safety concerns.

Here’s what they had to say.
 

Tennessee ob.gyn.

“Today is an emotionally charged day for many people in this country, yet as I type this, with my ob.gyn. practice continuing around me, with my own almost 10-week pregnancy growing inside me, I feel quite blunted. I feel powerless to answer questions that are variations on ‘what next?’ or ‘how do we fight back?’ All I can think of is, I am so glad I do not have anyone on my schedule right now who does not want to be pregnant. But what will happen when that eventually changes? What about my colleagues who do have these patients on their schedules today? On a personal level, what if my prenatal genetic testing comes back abnormal? How can we so blatantly disregard a separation of church and state in this country? What ways will our government interfere with my practice next? My head is spinning, but I have to go see my next patient. She is a 25-year-old who is here to have an IUD placed, and that seems like the most important thing I can do today.”

South Carolina ob.gyn.

“I’m really scared. For my patients and for myself. I don’t know how to be a good ob.gyn. if my ability to offer safe and accessible abortion care is being threatened.”

Massachusetts ob.gyn.

“Livid and devastated and sad and terrified.” 

California family planning specialist

“The fact is that about one in four people with uteruses have had an abortion. I can’t tell you how many abortions I’ve provided for people who say that they don’t ‘believe’ in them or that they thought they’d never be in this situation. ... The fact is that pregnancy is a life-threatening condition in and of itself. I am an ob.gyn., a medical doctor, and an abortion provider. I will not stop providing abortions or helping people access them. I will dedicate my life to ensuring this right to bodily autonomy. Today I am devastated by the Supreme Court’s decision to force parenthood that will result in increased maternal mortality. I am broken, but I have never been more proud to be an abortion provider.”

New York ob.gyn.

“Grateful to live in a state and work for a hospital where I can provide abortions but feel terrible for so many people less fortunate and underserved.”

Illinois maternal-fetal medicine specialist

“As a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, I fear for my patients who are at the highest risk of pregnancy complications having their freedom taken away. For the tragic ultrasound findings that make a pregnant person carry a baby who will never live. For the patients who cannot use most forms of contraception because of their medical comorbidities. For the patients who are victims of intimate partner violence or under the influence of their culture, to continue having children regardless of their desires or their health. ... The freedom to prevent or end a pregnancy has enabled women to become independent and productive members of society on their own terms, with or without children. My heart breaks for the children and adolescents and adults who are being told they are second-class citizens, not worthy of making their own decisions. Politicians and Supreme Court justices are not in the clinic room, ultrasound suite, operating room, or delivery room when we have these intense conversations and pregnancy outcomes. They have no idea that of which they speak, and it’s unconscionable that they can determine what healthcare decisions my patients can make for their own lives. Nobody knows a body better than the patient themselves.”

Texas ob.gyn.

“In the area where I live and practice, it feels like guns and the people who use them have more legal rights than people with uteruses in desperate or life-threatening situations. I’m afraid for my personal safety as a women’s health practitioner in this political climate. I feel helpless, but I’m supposed to be able to help my patients.”

Missouri family planning specialist

“Abortion is an essential part of healthcare, and the only people that should get a say in it are the patient and their doctor. Period. The fact that some far-off court without any medical expertise can insert itself into individual medical decisions is oppressive and unethical.”

Georgia ob.gyn.

“I can’t even think straight right now. I feel sick. Honestly, I’ve been thinking about moving for a long time now. Somewhere where I would actually be able to offer good, comprehensive care.”

New York ob.gyn.

“I graduated from my ob.gyn. residency hours after the Roe v. Wade news broke. It was so emotional for me. I’ve dedicated my life to caring for people with uteruses and I will not let this heartbreaking news change that. I feel more committed than ever to women’s health. I fully plan to continue delivering babies, providing contraception, and performing abortions. I will be there to help women with desired pregnancies who received unspeakably bad news about fetal anomalies. I will be there to help women with life-threatening pregnancy complications before fetal viability. I will be there to help women with ectopic pregnancies. I will be there to help women who were raped or otherwise forced into pregnancy. I will always be there to help women.”

Dr. Croll is a neurovascular fellow at New York University Langone Health. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

I’m not hiding anything.

Occasionally I deal with patients and families who seem to think I have some miracle cure for a condition that I’m not telling them about.

I promise, I don’t work that way. Besides the obvious ethical issues, why would I? What could I possibly gain from doing that?

The trouble is that people are blanketed by news headlines, some reputable and some not, about a research study suggesting a new direction in treatment, or that a new drug in development has promise. Often these stories are forwarded to them by well-meaning relatives and friends, or just show up in their social media feed.

While some of these findings may actually lead somewhere, the vast majority don’t. In my career I’ve seen statins touted as potential treatments for MS and Alzheimer’s disease, and vilified as causes of dementia and peripheral neuropathy, all disproved or (to date) still up in the air.

But nonmedical people don’t understand that. It made the news, so it must mean something. I have no problem trying to explain this to them, but it’s never easy.

It’s even harder to explain to the ones who’ve already purchased a costly over-the-counter placebo for such a condition that they wasted their money.

We live in a world of amazing technological achievements, but that doesn’t mean all diseases have been cured and problems fixed. Far from it.

New discoveries are made, but a lot of times it’s a very slow journey to find the solution. One discovery may not lead to THE answer, but hopefully will get you closer to it.

That generally doesn’t happen overnight. The mathematical problem of Goldbach’s Conjecture has been around since 1742 and still hasn’t been definitively answered.

Medicine isn’t math, either. The people and families dealing with these conditions want answers. I don’t blame them. So do I. Believe me, there would be nothing that would bring me more joy as a doctor than to be able to give someone with a serious diagnosis the comfort that comes with saying it’s also curable.

I never have, and never would, withhold such a thing from a patient. Ever. I just wish some of them would believe me when I say that.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’m not hiding anything.

Occasionally I deal with patients and families who seem to think I have some miracle cure for a condition that I’m not telling them about.

I promise, I don’t work that way. Besides the obvious ethical issues, why would I? What could I possibly gain from doing that?

The trouble is that people are blanketed by news headlines, some reputable and some not, about a research study suggesting a new direction in treatment, or that a new drug in development has promise. Often these stories are forwarded to them by well-meaning relatives and friends, or just show up in their social media feed.

While some of these findings may actually lead somewhere, the vast majority don’t. In my career I’ve seen statins touted as potential treatments for MS and Alzheimer’s disease, and vilified as causes of dementia and peripheral neuropathy, all disproved or (to date) still up in the air.

But nonmedical people don’t understand that. It made the news, so it must mean something. I have no problem trying to explain this to them, but it’s never easy.

It’s even harder to explain to the ones who’ve already purchased a costly over-the-counter placebo for such a condition that they wasted their money.

We live in a world of amazing technological achievements, but that doesn’t mean all diseases have been cured and problems fixed. Far from it.

New discoveries are made, but a lot of times it’s a very slow journey to find the solution. One discovery may not lead to THE answer, but hopefully will get you closer to it.

That generally doesn’t happen overnight. The mathematical problem of Goldbach’s Conjecture has been around since 1742 and still hasn’t been definitively answered.

Medicine isn’t math, either. The people and families dealing with these conditions want answers. I don’t blame them. So do I. Believe me, there would be nothing that would bring me more joy as a doctor than to be able to give someone with a serious diagnosis the comfort that comes with saying it’s also curable.

I never have, and never would, withhold such a thing from a patient. Ever. I just wish some of them would believe me when I say that.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’m not hiding anything.

Occasionally I deal with patients and families who seem to think I have some miracle cure for a condition that I’m not telling them about.

I promise, I don’t work that way. Besides the obvious ethical issues, why would I? What could I possibly gain from doing that?

The trouble is that people are blanketed by news headlines, some reputable and some not, about a research study suggesting a new direction in treatment, or that a new drug in development has promise. Often these stories are forwarded to them by well-meaning relatives and friends, or just show up in their social media feed.

While some of these findings may actually lead somewhere, the vast majority don’t. In my career I’ve seen statins touted as potential treatments for MS and Alzheimer’s disease, and vilified as causes of dementia and peripheral neuropathy, all disproved or (to date) still up in the air.

But nonmedical people don’t understand that. It made the news, so it must mean something. I have no problem trying to explain this to them, but it’s never easy.

It’s even harder to explain to the ones who’ve already purchased a costly over-the-counter placebo for such a condition that they wasted their money.

We live in a world of amazing technological achievements, but that doesn’t mean all diseases have been cured and problems fixed. Far from it.

New discoveries are made, but a lot of times it’s a very slow journey to find the solution. One discovery may not lead to THE answer, but hopefully will get you closer to it.

That generally doesn’t happen overnight. The mathematical problem of Goldbach’s Conjecture has been around since 1742 and still hasn’t been definitively answered.

Medicine isn’t math, either. The people and families dealing with these conditions want answers. I don’t blame them. So do I. Believe me, there would be nothing that would bring me more joy as a doctor than to be able to give someone with a serious diagnosis the comfort that comes with saying it’s also curable.

I never have, and never would, withhold such a thing from a patient. Ever. I just wish some of them would believe me when I say that.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

We’ve still got some work to do before we can say with authority whether concurrent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy is better than concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there has been some notable progress in this area, we need phase 3 trials that compare the two therapeutic approaches.

Investigators reporting at the 2022 annual meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology focused primarily on neoadjuvant treatment, which I’ll address here.

In the randomized, phase 2 NADIM II clinical trial reported at the meeting, researchers expanded on the results of NADIM published in 2020 in the Lancet Oncology and in May 2022 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology along with CheckMate 816 results published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In each of these three studies, researchers compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (abstract 8501) as a neoadjuvant treatment for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. In the study reported at ASCO 2022, patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA-B (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition) NSCLC and no known EGFR/ALK alterations, were randomized to receive preoperative nivolumab plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin; n = 57) or chemotherapy (n = 29) alone followed by surgery.

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR); secondary endpoints included major pathological response, safety and tolerability, impact on surgical issues such as delayed or canceled surgeries or length of hospital stay, overall survival and progression free survival. The pCR rate was 36.8% in the neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm and 6.9% in the chemotherapy alone arm. (P = .0068). 25% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 10.3% in the control arm. 93% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm underwent definitive surgery whereas 69.0% of the patients on the chemo alone arm had definitive surgery. (P = .008)
 

What else did we learn about neoadjuvant treatment at the meeting?

Investigators looking at the optimal number of neoadjuvant cycles (abstract 8500) found that three cycles of sintilimab (an investigational PD-1 inhibitor) produced a numerically higher major pathological response rate, compared with two cycles (when given in concert with platinum-doublet chemotherapy). And, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not result in significant survival benefits when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (abstract 8503).

Of course, when it comes to resectable NSCLC, the goal of treatment is to increase the cure rate and improve survival. No randomized studies have reported yet on overall survival, probably because they are too immature. Instead, disease-free survival (DFS) or event-free survival (EFS) are often used as surrogate endpoints. Since none of the studies reported at ASCO reported on DFS or EFS, we need to look elsewhere. CheckMate 816 was a phase 3 study which randomized patients with stages IB-IIIA NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The median EFS was 31.6 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months with chemotherapy alone (P = .005). The percentage of patients with a pCR was 24.0% and 2.2%, respectively (P < .001).

We all know one has to be careful when doing cross-trial comparisons as these studies differ by the percentage of patients with various stages of disease, the type of immunotherapy and chemotherapy used, etc. However, I think we can agree that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy results in better outcomes than chemotherapy alone.

Of course, resectable NSCLC is, by definition, resectable. And traditionally, resection is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to eradicate micrometastases. Unfortunately, the current standard of care for completely resected early-stage NSCLC (stage I [tumor ≥ 4 cm] to IIIA) involves adjuvant platinum-based combination chemotherapy which results in only a modest 4%-5% improvement in survival versus observation.

Given these modest results, as in the neoadjuvant space, investigators have looked at the benefit of adding immunotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy. One such study has been reported. IMpower 010 randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC, whose tumor cells expressed at least 1% PD-L1, to receive adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In the stage II-IIIA population whose tumors expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumor cells, 3-year DFS rates were 60% and 48% in the atezolizumab and best supportive care arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0·66 P =·.0039). In all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, the 3-year DFS rates were 56% in the atezolizumab group and 49% in the best supportive care group, (HR, 0.79; P = .020).

KEYNOTE-091, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, randomized early-stage NSCLC patients following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy to pembrolizumab or placebo. Median DFS for the overall population was 53.6 months for patients in the pembro arm versus 42 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.76; P = .0014). Interestingly, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 with at least 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .14). Although the contradictory results of PD-L1 as a biomarker is puzzling, I think we can agree that the addition of immunotherapy following adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone.
 

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

Cross-trial comparisons are fraught with danger. Until we have a phase 3 study comparing concurrent neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy with concurrent adjuvant chemo/immunotherapy, I do not think we can answer the question “which is better?” However, there are some caveats to keep in mind when deciding on which approach to recommend to our patients: First, neoadjuvant treatment requires biomarker testing to ensure the patient does not have EGFR or ALK mutations. This will necessitate a delay in the operation. Will patients be willing to wait? Will the surgeon? Or, would patients prefer to proceed with surgery while the results are pending? Yes, neoadjuvant therapy gives you information regarding the pCR rate, but does that help you in subsequent management of the patient? We do not know.

Secondly, the two adjuvant studies used adjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, as contrasted to the neoadjuvant study which used concurrent chemo/immunotherapy. Given the longer duration of treatment in postoperative sequential adjuvant studies, there tends to be more drop off because of patients being unwilling or unfit postoperatively to receive long courses of therapy. In IMpower 010, 1,269 patients completed adjuvant chemotherapy; 1,005 were randomized, and of the 507 assigned to the atezolizumab/chemo group, only 323 completed treatment.

Finally, we must beware of using neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy to “down-stage” a patient. KEYNOTE-091 included patients with IIIA disease and no benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy was found in this subgroup of patients, which leads me to wonder if these patients were appropriately selected as surgical candidates. In the NADIM II trials, 9 of 29 patients on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not resected.

So, many questions remain. In addition to the ones we’ve raised, there is a clear and immediate need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. In the NADIM II trial, PD-L1 expression was a predictive biomarker of response. The pCR rate for patients with a PD-L1 tumor expression of less than 1%, 1%-49%, and 50% or higher was 15%, 41.7%, and 61.1%, respectively. However, in KEYNOTE-091, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 of at least than 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm.

Another possible biomarker: circulating tumor DNA. In the first NADIM study, three low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.20 and HR, 0.07, respectively). Although clinical response did not predict survival outcomes, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.26 and HR0.04, respectively). Similarly, in CheckMate 816, clearance of ctDNA was associated with longer EFS in patients with ctDNA clearance than in those without ctDNA clearance in both the nivolumab/chemotherapy group (HR, 0.60) and the chemotherapy-alone group (HR, 0.63).

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

We’ve still got some work to do before we can say with authority whether concurrent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy is better than concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there has been some notable progress in this area, we need phase 3 trials that compare the two therapeutic approaches.

Investigators reporting at the 2022 annual meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology focused primarily on neoadjuvant treatment, which I’ll address here.

In the randomized, phase 2 NADIM II clinical trial reported at the meeting, researchers expanded on the results of NADIM published in 2020 in the Lancet Oncology and in May 2022 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology along with CheckMate 816 results published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In each of these three studies, researchers compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (abstract 8501) as a neoadjuvant treatment for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. In the study reported at ASCO 2022, patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA-B (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition) NSCLC and no known EGFR/ALK alterations, were randomized to receive preoperative nivolumab plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin; n = 57) or chemotherapy (n = 29) alone followed by surgery.

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR); secondary endpoints included major pathological response, safety and tolerability, impact on surgical issues such as delayed or canceled surgeries or length of hospital stay, overall survival and progression free survival. The pCR rate was 36.8% in the neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm and 6.9% in the chemotherapy alone arm. (P = .0068). 25% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 10.3% in the control arm. 93% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm underwent definitive surgery whereas 69.0% of the patients on the chemo alone arm had definitive surgery. (P = .008)
 

What else did we learn about neoadjuvant treatment at the meeting?

Investigators looking at the optimal number of neoadjuvant cycles (abstract 8500) found that three cycles of sintilimab (an investigational PD-1 inhibitor) produced a numerically higher major pathological response rate, compared with two cycles (when given in concert with platinum-doublet chemotherapy). And, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not result in significant survival benefits when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (abstract 8503).

Of course, when it comes to resectable NSCLC, the goal of treatment is to increase the cure rate and improve survival. No randomized studies have reported yet on overall survival, probably because they are too immature. Instead, disease-free survival (DFS) or event-free survival (EFS) are often used as surrogate endpoints. Since none of the studies reported at ASCO reported on DFS or EFS, we need to look elsewhere. CheckMate 816 was a phase 3 study which randomized patients with stages IB-IIIA NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The median EFS was 31.6 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months with chemotherapy alone (P = .005). The percentage of patients with a pCR was 24.0% and 2.2%, respectively (P < .001).

We all know one has to be careful when doing cross-trial comparisons as these studies differ by the percentage of patients with various stages of disease, the type of immunotherapy and chemotherapy used, etc. However, I think we can agree that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy results in better outcomes than chemotherapy alone.

Of course, resectable NSCLC is, by definition, resectable. And traditionally, resection is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to eradicate micrometastases. Unfortunately, the current standard of care for completely resected early-stage NSCLC (stage I [tumor ≥ 4 cm] to IIIA) involves adjuvant platinum-based combination chemotherapy which results in only a modest 4%-5% improvement in survival versus observation.

Given these modest results, as in the neoadjuvant space, investigators have looked at the benefit of adding immunotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy. One such study has been reported. IMpower 010 randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC, whose tumor cells expressed at least 1% PD-L1, to receive adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In the stage II-IIIA population whose tumors expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumor cells, 3-year DFS rates were 60% and 48% in the atezolizumab and best supportive care arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0·66 P =·.0039). In all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, the 3-year DFS rates were 56% in the atezolizumab group and 49% in the best supportive care group, (HR, 0.79; P = .020).

KEYNOTE-091, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, randomized early-stage NSCLC patients following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy to pembrolizumab or placebo. Median DFS for the overall population was 53.6 months for patients in the pembro arm versus 42 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.76; P = .0014). Interestingly, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 with at least 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .14). Although the contradictory results of PD-L1 as a biomarker is puzzling, I think we can agree that the addition of immunotherapy following adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone.
 

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

Cross-trial comparisons are fraught with danger. Until we have a phase 3 study comparing concurrent neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy with concurrent adjuvant chemo/immunotherapy, I do not think we can answer the question “which is better?” However, there are some caveats to keep in mind when deciding on which approach to recommend to our patients: First, neoadjuvant treatment requires biomarker testing to ensure the patient does not have EGFR or ALK mutations. This will necessitate a delay in the operation. Will patients be willing to wait? Will the surgeon? Or, would patients prefer to proceed with surgery while the results are pending? Yes, neoadjuvant therapy gives you information regarding the pCR rate, but does that help you in subsequent management of the patient? We do not know.

Secondly, the two adjuvant studies used adjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, as contrasted to the neoadjuvant study which used concurrent chemo/immunotherapy. Given the longer duration of treatment in postoperative sequential adjuvant studies, there tends to be more drop off because of patients being unwilling or unfit postoperatively to receive long courses of therapy. In IMpower 010, 1,269 patients completed adjuvant chemotherapy; 1,005 were randomized, and of the 507 assigned to the atezolizumab/chemo group, only 323 completed treatment.

Finally, we must beware of using neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy to “down-stage” a patient. KEYNOTE-091 included patients with IIIA disease and no benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy was found in this subgroup of patients, which leads me to wonder if these patients were appropriately selected as surgical candidates. In the NADIM II trials, 9 of 29 patients on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not resected.

So, many questions remain. In addition to the ones we’ve raised, there is a clear and immediate need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. In the NADIM II trial, PD-L1 expression was a predictive biomarker of response. The pCR rate for patients with a PD-L1 tumor expression of less than 1%, 1%-49%, and 50% or higher was 15%, 41.7%, and 61.1%, respectively. However, in KEYNOTE-091, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 of at least than 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm.

Another possible biomarker: circulating tumor DNA. In the first NADIM study, three low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.20 and HR, 0.07, respectively). Although clinical response did not predict survival outcomes, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.26 and HR0.04, respectively). Similarly, in CheckMate 816, clearance of ctDNA was associated with longer EFS in patients with ctDNA clearance than in those without ctDNA clearance in both the nivolumab/chemotherapy group (HR, 0.60) and the chemotherapy-alone group (HR, 0.63).

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

We’ve still got some work to do before we can say with authority whether concurrent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy is better than concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there has been some notable progress in this area, we need phase 3 trials that compare the two therapeutic approaches.

Investigators reporting at the 2022 annual meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology focused primarily on neoadjuvant treatment, which I’ll address here.

In the randomized, phase 2 NADIM II clinical trial reported at the meeting, researchers expanded on the results of NADIM published in 2020 in the Lancet Oncology and in May 2022 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology along with CheckMate 816 results published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In each of these three studies, researchers compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (abstract 8501) as a neoadjuvant treatment for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. In the study reported at ASCO 2022, patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA-B (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition) NSCLC and no known EGFR/ALK alterations, were randomized to receive preoperative nivolumab plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin; n = 57) or chemotherapy (n = 29) alone followed by surgery.

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR); secondary endpoints included major pathological response, safety and tolerability, impact on surgical issues such as delayed or canceled surgeries or length of hospital stay, overall survival and progression free survival. The pCR rate was 36.8% in the neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm and 6.9% in the chemotherapy alone arm. (P = .0068). 25% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 10.3% in the control arm. 93% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm underwent definitive surgery whereas 69.0% of the patients on the chemo alone arm had definitive surgery. (P = .008)
 

What else did we learn about neoadjuvant treatment at the meeting?

Investigators looking at the optimal number of neoadjuvant cycles (abstract 8500) found that three cycles of sintilimab (an investigational PD-1 inhibitor) produced a numerically higher major pathological response rate, compared with two cycles (when given in concert with platinum-doublet chemotherapy). And, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not result in significant survival benefits when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (abstract 8503).

Of course, when it comes to resectable NSCLC, the goal of treatment is to increase the cure rate and improve survival. No randomized studies have reported yet on overall survival, probably because they are too immature. Instead, disease-free survival (DFS) or event-free survival (EFS) are often used as surrogate endpoints. Since none of the studies reported at ASCO reported on DFS or EFS, we need to look elsewhere. CheckMate 816 was a phase 3 study which randomized patients with stages IB-IIIA NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The median EFS was 31.6 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months with chemotherapy alone (P = .005). The percentage of patients with a pCR was 24.0% and 2.2%, respectively (P < .001).

We all know one has to be careful when doing cross-trial comparisons as these studies differ by the percentage of patients with various stages of disease, the type of immunotherapy and chemotherapy used, etc. However, I think we can agree that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy results in better outcomes than chemotherapy alone.

Of course, resectable NSCLC is, by definition, resectable. And traditionally, resection is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to eradicate micrometastases. Unfortunately, the current standard of care for completely resected early-stage NSCLC (stage I [tumor ≥ 4 cm] to IIIA) involves adjuvant platinum-based combination chemotherapy which results in only a modest 4%-5% improvement in survival versus observation.

Given these modest results, as in the neoadjuvant space, investigators have looked at the benefit of adding immunotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy. One such study has been reported. IMpower 010 randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC, whose tumor cells expressed at least 1% PD-L1, to receive adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In the stage II-IIIA population whose tumors expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumor cells, 3-year DFS rates were 60% and 48% in the atezolizumab and best supportive care arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0·66 P =·.0039). In all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, the 3-year DFS rates were 56% in the atezolizumab group and 49% in the best supportive care group, (HR, 0.79; P = .020).

KEYNOTE-091, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, randomized early-stage NSCLC patients following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy to pembrolizumab or placebo. Median DFS for the overall population was 53.6 months for patients in the pembro arm versus 42 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.76; P = .0014). Interestingly, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 with at least 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .14). Although the contradictory results of PD-L1 as a biomarker is puzzling, I think we can agree that the addition of immunotherapy following adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone.
 

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

Cross-trial comparisons are fraught with danger. Until we have a phase 3 study comparing concurrent neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy with concurrent adjuvant chemo/immunotherapy, I do not think we can answer the question “which is better?” However, there are some caveats to keep in mind when deciding on which approach to recommend to our patients: First, neoadjuvant treatment requires biomarker testing to ensure the patient does not have EGFR or ALK mutations. This will necessitate a delay in the operation. Will patients be willing to wait? Will the surgeon? Or, would patients prefer to proceed with surgery while the results are pending? Yes, neoadjuvant therapy gives you information regarding the pCR rate, but does that help you in subsequent management of the patient? We do not know.

Secondly, the two adjuvant studies used adjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, as contrasted to the neoadjuvant study which used concurrent chemo/immunotherapy. Given the longer duration of treatment in postoperative sequential adjuvant studies, there tends to be more drop off because of patients being unwilling or unfit postoperatively to receive long courses of therapy. In IMpower 010, 1,269 patients completed adjuvant chemotherapy; 1,005 were randomized, and of the 507 assigned to the atezolizumab/chemo group, only 323 completed treatment.

Finally, we must beware of using neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy to “down-stage” a patient. KEYNOTE-091 included patients with IIIA disease and no benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy was found in this subgroup of patients, which leads me to wonder if these patients were appropriately selected as surgical candidates. In the NADIM II trials, 9 of 29 patients on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not resected.

So, many questions remain. In addition to the ones we’ve raised, there is a clear and immediate need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. In the NADIM II trial, PD-L1 expression was a predictive biomarker of response. The pCR rate for patients with a PD-L1 tumor expression of less than 1%, 1%-49%, and 50% or higher was 15%, 41.7%, and 61.1%, respectively. However, in KEYNOTE-091, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 of at least than 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm.

Another possible biomarker: circulating tumor DNA. In the first NADIM study, three low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.20 and HR, 0.07, respectively). Although clinical response did not predict survival outcomes, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.26 and HR0.04, respectively). Similarly, in CheckMate 816, clearance of ctDNA was associated with longer EFS in patients with ctDNA clearance than in those without ctDNA clearance in both the nivolumab/chemotherapy group (HR, 0.60) and the chemotherapy-alone group (HR, 0.63).

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy and is the fourth most common cancer seen in U.S. women. It is the only major cancer that has continued to see a rise in incidence and mortality for the past 2 decades, and it is anticipated that nearly 66,000 new cases of EC will be diagnosed this year with 12,550 deaths.¹ Given that the well-established risk factors for developing EC including obesity, diabetes, and insulin resistance, the obesity epidemic is indisputably playing a significant role in the increasing incidence.

Historically, White women were thought to have the highest incidence of EC; however, this incidence rate did not account for hysterectomy prevalence, which can vary widely by numerous factors including age, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. When correcting EC incidence rates for prevalence of hysterectomy, Black women have had the highest incidence of EC since 2007, and rates continue to climb.² In fact, the average annual percent change (APC) in EC incidence from 2000 to 2015 was stable for White women at 0.2% while Black women had a near order of magnitude greater APC at 2.1%.²

Differing incidence rates of EC can also be seen by histologic subtype. Endometrioid EC is the more common and less lethal histology of EC that often coincides with the type I classification of EC. These tumors are estrogen driven; therefore, they are associated with conditions resulting in excess estrogen (for example, anovulation, obesity, and hyperlipidemia). Nonendometrioid histologies, primarily composed of serous tumors, are more rare, are typically more aggressive, are not estrogen driven, and are commonly classified as type II tumors. Racial differences between type I and type II tumors are seen with White women more commonly being diagnosed with type I tumors while Black women more typically have type II tumors. White women have the greatest incidence rate of endometrioid EC with an APC that remained relatively unchanged from 2000 to 2015. Black women’s APC in incidence rate of endometrioid EC has increased during this same period at 1.3%. For nonendometrioid tumors, an increasing incidence is seen in all races and ethnicities; however, Black women have a much higher incidence of these tumors, with a rate that continues to increase at an APC of 3.2%.²

EC incidence is increasing with a particularly concerning rise in those who report Black race, but are these same disparities being seen in EC mortality? Unfortunately, drastic disparities are seen in survival data for Black women afflicted with EC. Black patients are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced or metastatic EC and less likely to be diagnosed with localized tumors. While being diagnosed with a more advanced stage of disease does affect survival in EC, Black patients have worse survival regardless of stage of disease at the time of diagnosis.¹ As discussed earlier, the more aggressive type II tumors are composed of nonendometrioid histologies and are more common in Black women. This could lead to the false assumption that these higher-risk tumors are why Black women are disproportionately dying from EC; however, when examining survival by histologic subtype, Black women are more frequently dying from the lower-risk endometrioid EC regardless of stage of disease. The same disparate survival outcomes are also seen in nonendometrioid histologies.² Thus, Black patients have the lowest survival rates irrespective of stage at diagnosis or histologic subtype.

The disparities seen in EC mortality are not new. They can be seen in data for over 30 years and are only widening. While there has been an increase in mortality rates from EC across all races and ethnicities from 2015 to 2019 compared with 1990 to 1994, the mortality rate ratio for Black women compared with White women has increased from 1.83 in 1990-1994 to 1.98 in 2015-2019.³ In the early 1990s, the risk of death from ovarian cancer was twice that of EC. The mortality of EC is now similar to that of ovarian cancer. This threshold in mortality ratio of EC to ovarian cancer has already been seen in Black women, who have experienced greater mortality in EC compared with ovarian cancer since 2005. In fact, the EC mortality of Black women in 2019 was similar to the mortality of White women with ovarian cancer nearly 30 years ago.³

Decades of data have demonstrated the glaring racial disparities seen in EC, and yet, no significant progress has been made in addressing this inequity. Oncology research is now beginning to move beyond describing these differences to a strategy of achieving equitable cancer care. While the study frameworks and novel investigations aimed at addressing the disparities in EC is outside the scope of this article, disparities in clinical trial enrollment continue to exist.

A recent example can be seen in the practice-changing KEYNOTE-775 trial, which led to the Food and Drug Administration approval of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in EC treatment.⁴ A total of 827 patients with EC that progressed or recurred following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled in this multinational, multicenter trial. Thirty-one (3.7%) of the patients enrolled were Black. Of those who were enrolled in the United States, 14% were Black. The authors report that this proportion of Black patients in the United States is consistent with 2020 census data, which reported 13.4% of people identified as Black. However, using census data as a benchmark for equitable enrollment is inappropriate. Certain demographic groups are historically more difficult to count, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the challenge in obtaining an accurate count through job loss, government distrust, and access restrictions resulting in an estimated net undercount of 2.45% in those who report Black race.⁵ Composition of trial enrollment should mirror the population that will be affected by the study results. As advanced EC disproportionately affects Black patients, their enrollment must be higher in these pivotal trials. How else are we to know if these novel therapeutics will work in the population that is most afflicted by EC?

Future studies must account for socioeconomic factors while acknowledging the role of social determinants of health. It is imperative that we use the knowledge that race is a social construct created to control access to power and that there are biologic responses to environmental stresses, including that of racism, affecting health and disease. Changes at every level, from individual practitioners up to federal policies, will need to be enacted or else the unacceptable status quo will continue.
 

Dr. Burkett is a clinical fellow in the division of gynecologic oncology, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:7-33.

2. Clarke MA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1895-908.

3. Giaquinto AN et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:440-2.

4. Makker V et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:437-48.

5. Elliott D et al. Simulating the 2020 Census: Miscounts and the fairness of outcomes. Urban Institute; 2021.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy and is the fourth most common cancer seen in U.S. women. It is the only major cancer that has continued to see a rise in incidence and mortality for the past 2 decades, and it is anticipated that nearly 66,000 new cases of EC will be diagnosed this year with 12,550 deaths.¹ Given that the well-established risk factors for developing EC including obesity, diabetes, and insulin resistance, the obesity epidemic is indisputably playing a significant role in the increasing incidence.

Historically, White women were thought to have the highest incidence of EC; however, this incidence rate did not account for hysterectomy prevalence, which can vary widely by numerous factors including age, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. When correcting EC incidence rates for prevalence of hysterectomy, Black women have had the highest incidence of EC since 2007, and rates continue to climb.² In fact, the average annual percent change (APC) in EC incidence from 2000 to 2015 was stable for White women at 0.2% while Black women had a near order of magnitude greater APC at 2.1%.²

Differing incidence rates of EC can also be seen by histologic subtype. Endometrioid EC is the more common and less lethal histology of EC that often coincides with the type I classification of EC. These tumors are estrogen driven; therefore, they are associated with conditions resulting in excess estrogen (for example, anovulation, obesity, and hyperlipidemia). Nonendometrioid histologies, primarily composed of serous tumors, are more rare, are typically more aggressive, are not estrogen driven, and are commonly classified as type II tumors. Racial differences between type I and type II tumors are seen with White women more commonly being diagnosed with type I tumors while Black women more typically have type II tumors. White women have the greatest incidence rate of endometrioid EC with an APC that remained relatively unchanged from 2000 to 2015. Black women’s APC in incidence rate of endometrioid EC has increased during this same period at 1.3%. For nonendometrioid tumors, an increasing incidence is seen in all races and ethnicities; however, Black women have a much higher incidence of these tumors, with a rate that continues to increase at an APC of 3.2%.²

EC incidence is increasing with a particularly concerning rise in those who report Black race, but are these same disparities being seen in EC mortality? Unfortunately, drastic disparities are seen in survival data for Black women afflicted with EC. Black patients are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced or metastatic EC and less likely to be diagnosed with localized tumors. While being diagnosed with a more advanced stage of disease does affect survival in EC, Black patients have worse survival regardless of stage of disease at the time of diagnosis.¹ As discussed earlier, the more aggressive type II tumors are composed of nonendometrioid histologies and are more common in Black women. This could lead to the false assumption that these higher-risk tumors are why Black women are disproportionately dying from EC; however, when examining survival by histologic subtype, Black women are more frequently dying from the lower-risk endometrioid EC regardless of stage of disease. The same disparate survival outcomes are also seen in nonendometrioid histologies.² Thus, Black patients have the lowest survival rates irrespective of stage at diagnosis or histologic subtype.

The disparities seen in EC mortality are not new. They can be seen in data for over 30 years and are only widening. While there has been an increase in mortality rates from EC across all races and ethnicities from 2015 to 2019 compared with 1990 to 1994, the mortality rate ratio for Black women compared with White women has increased from 1.83 in 1990-1994 to 1.98 in 2015-2019.³ In the early 1990s, the risk of death from ovarian cancer was twice that of EC. The mortality of EC is now similar to that of ovarian cancer. This threshold in mortality ratio of EC to ovarian cancer has already been seen in Black women, who have experienced greater mortality in EC compared with ovarian cancer since 2005. In fact, the EC mortality of Black women in 2019 was similar to the mortality of White women with ovarian cancer nearly 30 years ago.³

Decades of data have demonstrated the glaring racial disparities seen in EC, and yet, no significant progress has been made in addressing this inequity. Oncology research is now beginning to move beyond describing these differences to a strategy of achieving equitable cancer care. While the study frameworks and novel investigations aimed at addressing the disparities in EC is outside the scope of this article, disparities in clinical trial enrollment continue to exist.

A recent example can be seen in the practice-changing KEYNOTE-775 trial, which led to the Food and Drug Administration approval of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in EC treatment.⁴ A total of 827 patients with EC that progressed or recurred following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled in this multinational, multicenter trial. Thirty-one (3.7%) of the patients enrolled were Black. Of those who were enrolled in the United States, 14% were Black. The authors report that this proportion of Black patients in the United States is consistent with 2020 census data, which reported 13.4% of people identified as Black. However, using census data as a benchmark for equitable enrollment is inappropriate. Certain demographic groups are historically more difficult to count, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the challenge in obtaining an accurate count through job loss, government distrust, and access restrictions resulting in an estimated net undercount of 2.45% in those who report Black race.⁵ Composition of trial enrollment should mirror the population that will be affected by the study results. As advanced EC disproportionately affects Black patients, their enrollment must be higher in these pivotal trials. How else are we to know if these novel therapeutics will work in the population that is most afflicted by EC?

Future studies must account for socioeconomic factors while acknowledging the role of social determinants of health. It is imperative that we use the knowledge that race is a social construct created to control access to power and that there are biologic responses to environmental stresses, including that of racism, affecting health and disease. Changes at every level, from individual practitioners up to federal policies, will need to be enacted or else the unacceptable status quo will continue.
 

Dr. Burkett is a clinical fellow in the division of gynecologic oncology, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:7-33.

2. Clarke MA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1895-908.

3. Giaquinto AN et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:440-2.

4. Makker V et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:437-48.

5. Elliott D et al. Simulating the 2020 Census: Miscounts and the fairness of outcomes. Urban Institute; 2021.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy and is the fourth most common cancer seen in U.S. women. It is the only major cancer that has continued to see a rise in incidence and mortality for the past 2 decades, and it is anticipated that nearly 66,000 new cases of EC will be diagnosed this year with 12,550 deaths.¹ Given that the well-established risk factors for developing EC including obesity, diabetes, and insulin resistance, the obesity epidemic is indisputably playing a significant role in the increasing incidence.

Historically, White women were thought to have the highest incidence of EC; however, this incidence rate did not account for hysterectomy prevalence, which can vary widely by numerous factors including age, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. When correcting EC incidence rates for prevalence of hysterectomy, Black women have had the highest incidence of EC since 2007, and rates continue to climb.² In fact, the average annual percent change (APC) in EC incidence from 2000 to 2015 was stable for White women at 0.2% while Black women had a near order of magnitude greater APC at 2.1%.²

Differing incidence rates of EC can also be seen by histologic subtype. Endometrioid EC is the more common and less lethal histology of EC that often coincides with the type I classification of EC. These tumors are estrogen driven; therefore, they are associated with conditions resulting in excess estrogen (for example, anovulation, obesity, and hyperlipidemia). Nonendometrioid histologies, primarily composed of serous tumors, are more rare, are typically more aggressive, are not estrogen driven, and are commonly classified as type II tumors. Racial differences between type I and type II tumors are seen with White women more commonly being diagnosed with type I tumors while Black women more typically have type II tumors. White women have the greatest incidence rate of endometrioid EC with an APC that remained relatively unchanged from 2000 to 2015. Black women’s APC in incidence rate of endometrioid EC has increased during this same period at 1.3%. For nonendometrioid tumors, an increasing incidence is seen in all races and ethnicities; however, Black women have a much higher incidence of these tumors, with a rate that continues to increase at an APC of 3.2%.²

EC incidence is increasing with a particularly concerning rise in those who report Black race, but are these same disparities being seen in EC mortality? Unfortunately, drastic disparities are seen in survival data for Black women afflicted with EC. Black patients are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced or metastatic EC and less likely to be diagnosed with localized tumors. While being diagnosed with a more advanced stage of disease does affect survival in EC, Black patients have worse survival regardless of stage of disease at the time of diagnosis.¹ As discussed earlier, the more aggressive type II tumors are composed of nonendometrioid histologies and are more common in Black women. This could lead to the false assumption that these higher-risk tumors are why Black women are disproportionately dying from EC; however, when examining survival by histologic subtype, Black women are more frequently dying from the lower-risk endometrioid EC regardless of stage of disease. The same disparate survival outcomes are also seen in nonendometrioid histologies.² Thus, Black patients have the lowest survival rates irrespective of stage at diagnosis or histologic subtype.

The disparities seen in EC mortality are not new. They can be seen in data for over 30 years and are only widening. While there has been an increase in mortality rates from EC across all races and ethnicities from 2015 to 2019 compared with 1990 to 1994, the mortality rate ratio for Black women compared with White women has increased from 1.83 in 1990-1994 to 1.98 in 2015-2019.³ In the early 1990s, the risk of death from ovarian cancer was twice that of EC. The mortality of EC is now similar to that of ovarian cancer. This threshold in mortality ratio of EC to ovarian cancer has already been seen in Black women, who have experienced greater mortality in EC compared with ovarian cancer since 2005. In fact, the EC mortality of Black women in 2019 was similar to the mortality of White women with ovarian cancer nearly 30 years ago.³

Decades of data have demonstrated the glaring racial disparities seen in EC, and yet, no significant progress has been made in addressing this inequity. Oncology research is now beginning to move beyond describing these differences to a strategy of achieving equitable cancer care. While the study frameworks and novel investigations aimed at addressing the disparities in EC is outside the scope of this article, disparities in clinical trial enrollment continue to exist.

A recent example can be seen in the practice-changing KEYNOTE-775 trial, which led to the Food and Drug Administration approval of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in EC treatment.⁴ A total of 827 patients with EC that progressed or recurred following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled in this multinational, multicenter trial. Thirty-one (3.7%) of the patients enrolled were Black. Of those who were enrolled in the United States, 14% were Black. The authors report that this proportion of Black patients in the United States is consistent with 2020 census data, which reported 13.4% of people identified as Black. However, using census data as a benchmark for equitable enrollment is inappropriate. Certain demographic groups are historically more difficult to count, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the challenge in obtaining an accurate count through job loss, government distrust, and access restrictions resulting in an estimated net undercount of 2.45% in those who report Black race.⁵ Composition of trial enrollment should mirror the population that will be affected by the study results. As advanced EC disproportionately affects Black patients, their enrollment must be higher in these pivotal trials. How else are we to know if these novel therapeutics will work in the population that is most afflicted by EC?

Future studies must account for socioeconomic factors while acknowledging the role of social determinants of health. It is imperative that we use the knowledge that race is a social construct created to control access to power and that there are biologic responses to environmental stresses, including that of racism, affecting health and disease. Changes at every level, from individual practitioners up to federal policies, will need to be enacted or else the unacceptable status quo will continue.
 

Dr. Burkett is a clinical fellow in the division of gynecologic oncology, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:7-33.

2. Clarke MA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1895-908.

3. Giaquinto AN et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:440-2.

4. Makker V et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:437-48.

5. Elliott D et al. Simulating the 2020 Census: Miscounts and the fairness of outcomes. Urban Institute; 2021.

I used to attend the Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium every year, but to my dismay, the American Society for Clinical Oncology stopped hosting the symposium a few years ago. Instead, ASCO now incorporates palliative care research fully into its annual meeting which was held in early June in Chicago. Being integrated into the annual meeting means greater exposure to a broader audience that may not otherwise see this work. In this column, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.
 

Palliative care studies for patients with hematologic malignancies

There continues to be low uptake of outpatient palliative care services among patients with hematologic malignancies. Fortunately, there are efforts underway to study the impact of integrating early palliative care into the routine care of hematology patients. In a study presented by Mazie Tsang, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, researchers embedded a palliative care nurse practitioner in a hematology clinic and studied the impact this single NP had over 4 years of integration. They found that patients were less likely to be hospitalized or visit the emergency department after integrating the NP. They also found that advance directives were more likely to be completed following NP integration. The results were limited by small sample size and lack of a true control group, but generally trended toward significance when compared with historical controls.

Other studies highlighted the relatively high symptom burden among patients with hematologic malignancies, such as myeloma, leukemia, and lymphoma. In a study presented by Sarah E. Monick, MD, of the University of Chicago, researchers found that, among adolescents and young adults with hematologic malignancies seen in a clinic where a palliative care provider was embedded, symptom burden was high across the board regardless of where patients were in their disease trajectory or their demographic characteristics. Due to the presence of high symptom burden among adolescents and young adults, the authors suggest that patients undergo screening at every visit and that supportive care be incorporated throughout the patient’s journey.

Kyle Fitzgibbon of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto shared details of an ongoing multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the effect of a novel psychosocial/palliative care intervention for patients with acute leukemia hospitalized for induction chemotherapy. The intervention will consist of 8 weeks of psychological support as well as access to palliative care for physical symptoms. Participants will be randomized to receive either intervention or standard of care at the beginning of their hospitalization. Researchers plan to study the impact of the intervention on physical and psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. It will be exciting to see the results of this study given that there are very few research clinical trials examining early palliative care with patients who have hematologic malignancies.

Trends in palliative care integration with oncology care

One key trend that I am elated to see is the integration of palliative care throughout the entire patient journey. A secondary analysis of oncology practice data from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program found that more than three-quarters of outpatient oncology practices surveyed in 2015 have integrated palliative care inpatient and outpatient services. 36% said they had an outpatient palliative care clinic. More availability of services typically translates to better access to care and improved outcomes for patients, so it is always nice to see these quality metrics continue to move in a positive direction. The analysis was presented by Tiffany M. Statler, PA, of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, N.C.

It turns out that patients are also advocating for integrated palliative care. A unique qualitative project brought together patient advocates from several countries to hold a moderated discussion about quality of life and treatment side effects. The advocates focused on the importance of maintaining independence with activities of daily living as a significant quality of life goal, particularly as treatments tend to cause cumulative mental and physical fatigue. They highlighted the importance of palliative care for helping achieve quality of life goals, especially in latter part of the disease trajectory. The project was presented by Paul Wheatley-Price, MD, of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa.

In 2010, a study by Temel and colleagues was published, finding that patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received palliative care early had significant improvements in quality of life and mood as compared with patients who received standard care. It was a landmark study and is frequently cited. The Temel group reports on the planning process for a new randomized controlled trial of palliative care with metastatic lung cancer patients who have targetable mutations. With next generation sequencing of tumor tissue, many patients with metastatic lung cancer are identified at diagnosis as having a targetable mutation. As such, they may receive a targeted therapy as first-line treatment instead of traditional chemotherapy. This has lengthened survival considerably, but the disease remains incurable and ultimately fatal, and the trajectory can resemble a roller-coaster ride.

In this new randomized controlled trial, patients in the experimental arm will receive four monthly visits with a palliative care clinician who is specially trained to help patients manage the uncertainties of prolonged illness. The researchers plan to evaluate patients’ distress levels and prognostic awareness, as well as evidence of advance care planning in the chart.

And, a study presented by Roberto Enrique Ochoa Planchart, MD, of Chen Medical Centers, Miami, found that when primary care providers used declines in functional status as a trigger for referring advanced cancer patients to palliative care, those patients were less likely to be admitted to the hospital near the end of life, translating to an 86% cost savings. This study reiterated the importance of partnering with a patient’s nononcologic providers, that is, primary care and palliative care clinicians to improve outcomes at the end of life.

Use of technology in palliative care

Numerous studies were reported on innovative uses of technology for various functions relevant to palliative care. They included everything from capturing patient-reported outcomes through patient-facing smartphone apps, to using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to build prognostication tools and to generate earlier referrals to palliative care. There were presentations on the use of online tools to assist with and document goals of care conversations.

As a clinician who is always looking for new ways to capture patient symptom information and motivate patients to engage in advance care planning, I am excited about the prospect of using some of these tools in real time.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I used to attend the Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium every year, but to my dismay, the American Society for Clinical Oncology stopped hosting the symposium a few years ago. Instead, ASCO now incorporates palliative care research fully into its annual meeting which was held in early June in Chicago. Being integrated into the annual meeting means greater exposure to a broader audience that may not otherwise see this work. In this column, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.
 

Palliative care studies for patients with hematologic malignancies

There continues to be low uptake of outpatient palliative care services among patients with hematologic malignancies. Fortunately, there are efforts underway to study the impact of integrating early palliative care into the routine care of hematology patients. In a study presented by Mazie Tsang, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, researchers embedded a palliative care nurse practitioner in a hematology clinic and studied the impact this single NP had over 4 years of integration. They found that patients were less likely to be hospitalized or visit the emergency department after integrating the NP. They also found that advance directives were more likely to be completed following NP integration. The results were limited by small sample size and lack of a true control group, but generally trended toward significance when compared with historical controls.

Other studies highlighted the relatively high symptom burden among patients with hematologic malignancies, such as myeloma, leukemia, and lymphoma. In a study presented by Sarah E. Monick, MD, of the University of Chicago, researchers found that, among adolescents and young adults with hematologic malignancies seen in a clinic where a palliative care provider was embedded, symptom burden was high across the board regardless of where patients were in their disease trajectory or their demographic characteristics. Due to the presence of high symptom burden among adolescents and young adults, the authors suggest that patients undergo screening at every visit and that supportive care be incorporated throughout the patient’s journey.

Kyle Fitzgibbon of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto shared details of an ongoing multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the effect of a novel psychosocial/palliative care intervention for patients with acute leukemia hospitalized for induction chemotherapy. The intervention will consist of 8 weeks of psychological support as well as access to palliative care for physical symptoms. Participants will be randomized to receive either intervention or standard of care at the beginning of their hospitalization. Researchers plan to study the impact of the intervention on physical and psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. It will be exciting to see the results of this study given that there are very few research clinical trials examining early palliative care with patients who have hematologic malignancies.

Trends in palliative care integration with oncology care

One key trend that I am elated to see is the integration of palliative care throughout the entire patient journey. A secondary analysis of oncology practice data from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program found that more than three-quarters of outpatient oncology practices surveyed in 2015 have integrated palliative care inpatient and outpatient services. 36% said they had an outpatient palliative care clinic. More availability of services typically translates to better access to care and improved outcomes for patients, so it is always nice to see these quality metrics continue to move in a positive direction. The analysis was presented by Tiffany M. Statler, PA, of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, N.C.

It turns out that patients are also advocating for integrated palliative care. A unique qualitative project brought together patient advocates from several countries to hold a moderated discussion about quality of life and treatment side effects. The advocates focused on the importance of maintaining independence with activities of daily living as a significant quality of life goal, particularly as treatments tend to cause cumulative mental and physical fatigue. They highlighted the importance of palliative care for helping achieve quality of life goals, especially in latter part of the disease trajectory. The project was presented by Paul Wheatley-Price, MD, of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa.

In 2010, a study by Temel and colleagues was published, finding that patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received palliative care early had significant improvements in quality of life and mood as compared with patients who received standard care. It was a landmark study and is frequently cited. The Temel group reports on the planning process for a new randomized controlled trial of palliative care with metastatic lung cancer patients who have targetable mutations. With next generation sequencing of tumor tissue, many patients with metastatic lung cancer are identified at diagnosis as having a targetable mutation. As such, they may receive a targeted therapy as first-line treatment instead of traditional chemotherapy. This has lengthened survival considerably, but the disease remains incurable and ultimately fatal, and the trajectory can resemble a roller-coaster ride.

In this new randomized controlled trial, patients in the experimental arm will receive four monthly visits with a palliative care clinician who is specially trained to help patients manage the uncertainties of prolonged illness. The researchers plan to evaluate patients’ distress levels and prognostic awareness, as well as evidence of advance care planning in the chart.

And, a study presented by Roberto Enrique Ochoa Planchart, MD, of Chen Medical Centers, Miami, found that when primary care providers used declines in functional status as a trigger for referring advanced cancer patients to palliative care, those patients were less likely to be admitted to the hospital near the end of life, translating to an 86% cost savings. This study reiterated the importance of partnering with a patient’s nononcologic providers, that is, primary care and palliative care clinicians to improve outcomes at the end of life.

Use of technology in palliative care

Numerous studies were reported on innovative uses of technology for various functions relevant to palliative care. They included everything from capturing patient-reported outcomes through patient-facing smartphone apps, to using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to build prognostication tools and to generate earlier referrals to palliative care. There were presentations on the use of online tools to assist with and document goals of care conversations.

As a clinician who is always looking for new ways to capture patient symptom information and motivate patients to engage in advance care planning, I am excited about the prospect of using some of these tools in real time.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I used to attend the Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium every year, but to my dismay, the American Society for Clinical Oncology stopped hosting the symposium a few years ago. Instead, ASCO now incorporates palliative care research fully into its annual meeting which was held in early June in Chicago. Being integrated into the annual meeting means greater exposure to a broader audience that may not otherwise see this work. In this column, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.
 

Palliative care studies for patients with hematologic malignancies

There continues to be low uptake of outpatient palliative care services among patients with hematologic malignancies. Fortunately, there are efforts underway to study the impact of integrating early palliative care into the routine care of hematology patients. In a study presented by Mazie Tsang, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, researchers embedded a palliative care nurse practitioner in a hematology clinic and studied the impact this single NP had over 4 years of integration. They found that patients were less likely to be hospitalized or visit the emergency department after integrating the NP. They also found that advance directives were more likely to be completed following NP integration. The results were limited by small sample size and lack of a true control group, but generally trended toward significance when compared with historical controls.

Other studies highlighted the relatively high symptom burden among patients with hematologic malignancies, such as myeloma, leukemia, and lymphoma. In a study presented by Sarah E. Monick, MD, of the University of Chicago, researchers found that, among adolescents and young adults with hematologic malignancies seen in a clinic where a palliative care provider was embedded, symptom burden was high across the board regardless of where patients were in their disease trajectory or their demographic characteristics. Due to the presence of high symptom burden among adolescents and young adults, the authors suggest that patients undergo screening at every visit and that supportive care be incorporated throughout the patient’s journey.

Kyle Fitzgibbon of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto shared details of an ongoing multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the effect of a novel psychosocial/palliative care intervention for patients with acute leukemia hospitalized for induction chemotherapy. The intervention will consist of 8 weeks of psychological support as well as access to palliative care for physical symptoms. Participants will be randomized to receive either intervention or standard of care at the beginning of their hospitalization. Researchers plan to study the impact of the intervention on physical and psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. It will be exciting to see the results of this study given that there are very few research clinical trials examining early palliative care with patients who have hematologic malignancies.

Trends in palliative care integration with oncology care

One key trend that I am elated to see is the integration of palliative care throughout the entire patient journey. A secondary analysis of oncology practice data from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program found that more than three-quarters of outpatient oncology practices surveyed in 2015 have integrated palliative care inpatient and outpatient services. 36% said they had an outpatient palliative care clinic. More availability of services typically translates to better access to care and improved outcomes for patients, so it is always nice to see these quality metrics continue to move in a positive direction. The analysis was presented by Tiffany M. Statler, PA, of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, N.C.

It turns out that patients are also advocating for integrated palliative care. A unique qualitative project brought together patient advocates from several countries to hold a moderated discussion about quality of life and treatment side effects. The advocates focused on the importance of maintaining independence with activities of daily living as a significant quality of life goal, particularly as treatments tend to cause cumulative mental and physical fatigue. They highlighted the importance of palliative care for helping achieve quality of life goals, especially in latter part of the disease trajectory. The project was presented by Paul Wheatley-Price, MD, of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa.

In 2010, a study by Temel and colleagues was published, finding that patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received palliative care early had significant improvements in quality of life and mood as compared with patients who received standard care. It was a landmark study and is frequently cited. The Temel group reports on the planning process for a new randomized controlled trial of palliative care with metastatic lung cancer patients who have targetable mutations. With next generation sequencing of tumor tissue, many patients with metastatic lung cancer are identified at diagnosis as having a targetable mutation. As such, they may receive a targeted therapy as first-line treatment instead of traditional chemotherapy. This has lengthened survival considerably, but the disease remains incurable and ultimately fatal, and the trajectory can resemble a roller-coaster ride.

In this new randomized controlled trial, patients in the experimental arm will receive four monthly visits with a palliative care clinician who is specially trained to help patients manage the uncertainties of prolonged illness. The researchers plan to evaluate patients’ distress levels and prognostic awareness, as well as evidence of advance care planning in the chart.

And, a study presented by Roberto Enrique Ochoa Planchart, MD, of Chen Medical Centers, Miami, found that when primary care providers used declines in functional status as a trigger for referring advanced cancer patients to palliative care, those patients were less likely to be admitted to the hospital near the end of life, translating to an 86% cost savings. This study reiterated the importance of partnering with a patient’s nononcologic providers, that is, primary care and palliative care clinicians to improve outcomes at the end of life.

Use of technology in palliative care

Numerous studies were reported on innovative uses of technology for various functions relevant to palliative care. They included everything from capturing patient-reported outcomes through patient-facing smartphone apps, to using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to build prognostication tools and to generate earlier referrals to palliative care. There were presentations on the use of online tools to assist with and document goals of care conversations.

As a clinician who is always looking for new ways to capture patient symptom information and motivate patients to engage in advance care planning, I am excited about the prospect of using some of these tools in real time.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

If you already have disability insurance, keep reading as well. I have a great tip for you from personal experience that made a difference in the job I selected.

Let’s start with an important rebrand for “disability insurance.” What does it protect? Income! Car insurance is not called crash insurance. House insurance is not called burnt house insurance. And unlike a car or a house, it protects an asset with 10-20 times as much value as a million-dollar house.

So, let’s call it what it is: “income protection insurance.” 

It’s always a bit nerdy when I talk about how much I appreciate insurance that protects lifelong income. I often make an argument that it is simply one of the best products that exists, especially for high-income earners with lots of debt. Many of us doctors are in that category and are not even slightly jealous of our friends whose parents paid for school (I’m looking at you not-her-real-name-Mary).

Disability is not the catchiest name for a product, but it is more pronounceable than “ophthalmology” and way easier to spell. This is my specialty, and I can’t believe we still haven’t gone with “eye surgeon,” but I digress.

So, let’s rebrand “disability insurance” for the sake of clarity:

I personally like to think of it as a monthly subscription for a soft landing in a worst-case scenario. Call me a millennial, but it just goes down smoother in my mind as a subscription a la Netflix ... and the four other streaming services that someone gave me a password to – if you’re a 55-year-old GI specialist, I know you’re on the Spotify family plan, too. No judgment from me. 

So, for $15, you get a bunch of movies with Netflix, and, for $150-$300, you cover a lifetime of income. That’s a pretty decent service even without “The Office.” 

Disability insurance often covers at least $15-$20 million dollars over a lifetime of earnings for only 1%-2% of your salary per year.

But I’ll pause here. The numbers are irrelevant if you never get the insurance. 

I have one goal for this article, and it is simply to try to help you break down that procrastination habit we all have. I will have added immense value to at least one family’s life if you go and get a policy this week that saves your family from substantial loss of income. This is why I love insurance.

Doctors sacrifice essential life steps to get through training. But we are not alone in that. 

Tim Kasser, PhD, puts it well when he said: “We live in a machine that is designed to get us to neglect what is important about life.” Here he is talking about relationships, but securing financial protection is loving to those closest to us.

So, what holds us back from taking a seemingly easy step like locking in disability insurance early in training?

Is it the stress of residency? Studying for Step 1? Moving cities and finding a home during a housing crisis? Job change during COVID? Is it because we have already put it off so long that we don’t want to think about it?

Totally fair.

The reason to not put off the important things in life

I will give you a few reasons of “the why of” how we can all benefit from disability insurance and the reason there is no benefit in waiting to get a policy.

But, most importantly, I want to talk to you about your life and why you are putting off a lot of important things.
 
That diet you’ve been wanting to start? Yep.

That ring you haven’t purchased? Maybe that!

That article you’ve been meaning to write for the GI journal? Yes, especially that.

Remember: Take a deep breath in and exhaaaaale. 

So, why do we put off the important?

First, even though the “why” of purchasing income protection is a bit basic, I do find it helpful to have discrete reasons for accomplishing an important task. 

Why get disability insurance at all?

Let’s look at the value we get out of covering our income. 

Reason No. 1. It softens the landing in the event you have an illness. The stats on disability claims are heavily on the side of illness over accidents or trauma. As you know, many autoimmune conditions show up in the 20’s and 30’s, so those are the things your friends will have first. 

Unfortunately, if you have a medical issue before you have a disability policy, you will either not have coverage for that specific condition or you will not be approved for insurance. Unlike health insurance, the company can afford to pay out policies because it is picky on who it is willing to cover. It tries to select healthy people, so apply when you are most healthy, if possible. 

Reason No. 2. It’s cheap. When you compare with a $2 million policy for life insurance, it might cost $1,000-$2,000 or so per year for a term policy covering about 25 years. With disability insurance, you can cover about 10x as much for the same annual payment. One could easily make a case that if you do not have dependents, disability insurance should be your first stop even before life insurance. You are more likely to be disabled than to die when you’re in your thirties. Act accordingly.

(Please note for obvious reasons they don’t call life insurance “death insurance.” Disability insurance needs that same rebrand – I’m telling you!)

Reason No. 3. Unless you are independently wealthy, it will be nearly impossible to replace your income and live a similar lifestyle. Lock in the benefits of the work you have already accomplished, and lock in the coverage of ALL of your health while you are healthy.

Time to take action

As Elvis famously sang: “A little less conversation, a little more action please.”

Alright, so how do we get ourselves to ACT and get a policy to protect our income?

Tip No. 1. As doctors we often shoot for perfection. It’s no surprise, therefore, that we have an illusion that we need to find the “perfect policy.” 

One of my friends is a great financial adviser, and he often tells me about first meetings with clients to create a long-lasting plan. Often, somewhere along the way when discussing risks of stocks going down and up, someone will ask, “Why don’t we pick one that is low risk but tends to go up in value?” Of course, the reality is that if it were that easy ... everyone would do it!

Fortunately, with disability insurance, the policies are fairly straight forward. You can skip the analysis paralysis with disability insurance by talking with an agent who consistently works with physicians. I enjoy talking policies and helping doctors protect their financial health, so I started selling policies shortly after residency because so many of my co-residents were making me nervous putting it off. Some I helped, and some put it off and are unable to get policies after health issues even just 3 years after residency. 

Tip No. 2. Having a policy is better than not having one, and if you’re worried about getting the wrong one, just get two! Seriously, some companies let you split coverage between two and this can even increase the maximum coverage you can get later in life, too. Does it add cost? Surprisingly, it typically does not, and it does not make the agent more money either. In most cases it’s actually more work for them for the same amount of commission. Don’t be afraid to ask about this.

Tip No. 3. This is my hot tip for current policy owners: ask for the full version of your policy, and read the entire policy. I recently asked for my policy because I was doing some international work abroad and wanted to know if I could reside abroad if I made a disability claim. My policy stated that I would need to reside in the United States within 12 months of disability. I likely would do this in the event of disability, but it is quite important to know these aspects. 

While reading the fine print, I found that a minimum number of work-hours per week (35 for my policy) was required to qualify for my physician-specific coverage. This was an important part of my job criteria when looking for a new position and is worth investigating for anyone considering part-time employment.

Tip No. 4. The obvious tip: The fear of failure gets a lot of perfectionists from even starting a task unless they know everything about it.

Just start. 

That’s my go-to for overcoming fear of failure. You won’t fail. You just won’t. You will learn!

Pretend you are curious about it and try with any of these actionable steps:

• Google disability insurance. 
• Email me at trevorsmithmd@gmail.com. 
• Read an article on a doctor-based blog.

I personally geeked out on insurance so much in residency that I became an insurance agent. I am an independent broker, so I have no bias toward any particular policies (email me anytime even if just with questions). Personally, I believe in this product and the value of this type of insurance, and I would hate for anyone to not have coverage of their most valuable asset: lifelong income!

The steps of applying for disability insurance

Now you know all the great reasons to get going! What are the next steps?

No matter where you get your policy, you can expect the process to be fairly simple. If it’s not then shoot me an email and I’m happy to help chat and discuss further. 

The general process is:

Step 1. Initial phone call or email: Chat with an agent to discuss your needs and situation. Immediately after, you can sign initial application documents with DocuSign. (20 minutes). 

Step 2. Complete health questionnaire on the phone with the insurance company. (20-40 minutes).

Step 3. Sign the final documents and confirm physician-specific language in their policies. (20 minutes).

The whole application period typically lasts only 2-4 weeks from start to finish and, if you pay up front, you are covered from the moment you send in the check. If you don’t accept the policy, you even get the money back. 

I genuinely enjoy talking with my colleagues from all over the world and learning about their lives and plans, so, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to email me at trevorsmithmd@gmail.com. Also, feel free to check out my mini-blog at curiousmd.com or listen to me chat with Jon Solitro, CFP, on his FinancialMD.com podcast. Similar to this article, it is fairly informal and covers real life, tough career decisions, and actionable financial planning tips. 

If you made it to the end of this article, you are a perfectionist and should go back and read Tip No. 1. 

Reference

The Context of Things. “We live in a machine that is designed to get us to neglect what’s important about life,” 2021 Aug 24. 

Dr. Smith is an ophthalmologist and consultant with Advanced Eyecare Professionals, Grand Rapids, Mich., and founder of DigitalGlaucoma.com. He is cohost of The FinancialMD Show podcast. He is an insurance producer and assists clients with advising and decision-making related to disability insurance at FinancialMD. 

If you already have disability insurance, keep reading as well. I have a great tip for you from personal experience that made a difference in the job I selected.

Let’s start with an important rebrand for “disability insurance.” What does it protect? Income! Car insurance is not called crash insurance. House insurance is not called burnt house insurance. And unlike a car or a house, it protects an asset with 10-20 times as much value as a million-dollar house.

So, let’s call it what it is: “income protection insurance.” 

It’s always a bit nerdy when I talk about how much I appreciate insurance that protects lifelong income. I often make an argument that it is simply one of the best products that exists, especially for high-income earners with lots of debt. Many of us doctors are in that category and are not even slightly jealous of our friends whose parents paid for school (I’m looking at you not-her-real-name-Mary).

Disability is not the catchiest name for a product, but it is more pronounceable than “ophthalmology” and way easier to spell. This is my specialty, and I can’t believe we still haven’t gone with “eye surgeon,” but I digress.

So, let’s rebrand “disability insurance” for the sake of clarity:

I personally like to think of it as a monthly subscription for a soft landing in a worst-case scenario. Call me a millennial, but it just goes down smoother in my mind as a subscription a la Netflix ... and the four other streaming services that someone gave me a password to – if you’re a 55-year-old GI specialist, I know you’re on the Spotify family plan, too. No judgment from me. 

So, for $15, you get a bunch of movies with Netflix, and, for $150-$300, you cover a lifetime of income. That’s a pretty decent service even without “The Office.” 

Disability insurance often covers at least $15-$20 million dollars over a lifetime of earnings for only 1%-2% of your salary per year.

But I’ll pause here. The numbers are irrelevant if you never get the insurance. 

I have one goal for this article, and it is simply to try to help you break down that procrastination habit we all have. I will have added immense value to at least one family’s life if you go and get a policy this week that saves your family from substantial loss of income. This is why I love insurance.

Doctors sacrifice essential life steps to get through training. But we are not alone in that. 

Tim Kasser, PhD, puts it well when he said: “We live in a machine that is designed to get us to neglect what is important about life.” Here he is talking about relationships, but securing financial protection is loving to those closest to us.

So, what holds us back from taking a seemingly easy step like locking in disability insurance early in training?

Is it the stress of residency? Studying for Step 1? Moving cities and finding a home during a housing crisis? Job change during COVID? Is it because we have already put it off so long that we don’t want to think about it?

Totally fair.

The reason to not put off the important things in life

I will give you a few reasons of “the why of” how we can all benefit from disability insurance and the reason there is no benefit in waiting to get a policy.

But, most importantly, I want to talk to you about your life and why you are putting off a lot of important things.
 
That diet you’ve been wanting to start? Yep.

That ring you haven’t purchased? Maybe that!

That article you’ve been meaning to write for the GI journal? Yes, especially that.

Remember: Take a deep breath in and exhaaaaale. 

So, why do we put off the important?

First, even though the “why” of purchasing income protection is a bit basic, I do find it helpful to have discrete reasons for accomplishing an important task. 

Why get disability insurance at all?

Let’s look at the value we get out of covering our income. 

Reason No. 1. It softens the landing in the event you have an illness. The stats on disability claims are heavily on the side of illness over accidents or trauma. As you know, many autoimmune conditions show up in the 20’s and 30’s, so those are the things your friends will have first. 

Unfortunately, if you have a medical issue before you have a disability policy, you will either not have coverage for that specific condition or you will not be approved for insurance. Unlike health insurance, the company can afford to pay out policies because it is picky on who it is willing to cover. It tries to select healthy people, so apply when you are most healthy, if possible. 

Reason No. 2. It’s cheap. When you compare with a $2 million policy for life insurance, it might cost $1,000-$2,000 or so per year for a term policy covering about 25 years. With disability insurance, you can cover about 10x as much for the same annual payment. One could easily make a case that if you do not have dependents, disability insurance should be your first stop even before life insurance. You are more likely to be disabled than to die when you’re in your thirties. Act accordingly.

(Please note for obvious reasons they don’t call life insurance “death insurance.” Disability insurance needs that same rebrand – I’m telling you!)

Reason No. 3. Unless you are independently wealthy, it will be nearly impossible to replace your income and live a similar lifestyle. Lock in the benefits of the work you have already accomplished, and lock in the coverage of ALL of your health while you are healthy.

Time to take action

As Elvis famously sang: “A little less conversation, a little more action please.”

Alright, so how do we get ourselves to ACT and get a policy to protect our income?

Tip No. 1. As doctors we often shoot for perfection. It’s no surprise, therefore, that we have an illusion that we need to find the “perfect policy.” 

One of my friends is a great financial adviser, and he often tells me about first meetings with clients to create a long-lasting plan. Often, somewhere along the way when discussing risks of stocks going down and up, someone will ask, “Why don’t we pick one that is low risk but tends to go up in value?” Of course, the reality is that if it were that easy ... everyone would do it!

Fortunately, with disability insurance, the policies are fairly straight forward. You can skip the analysis paralysis with disability insurance by talking with an agent who consistently works with physicians. I enjoy talking policies and helping doctors protect their financial health, so I started selling policies shortly after residency because so many of my co-residents were making me nervous putting it off. Some I helped, and some put it off and are unable to get policies after health issues even just 3 years after residency. 

Tip No. 2. Having a policy is better than not having one, and if you’re worried about getting the wrong one, just get two! Seriously, some companies let you split coverage between two and this can even increase the maximum coverage you can get later in life, too. Does it add cost? Surprisingly, it typically does not, and it does not make the agent more money either. In most cases it’s actually more work for them for the same amount of commission. Don’t be afraid to ask about this.

Tip No. 3. This is my hot tip for current policy owners: ask for the full version of your policy, and read the entire policy. I recently asked for my policy because I was doing some international work abroad and wanted to know if I could reside abroad if I made a disability claim. My policy stated that I would need to reside in the United States within 12 months of disability. I likely would do this in the event of disability, but it is quite important to know these aspects. 

While reading the fine print, I found that a minimum number of work-hours per week (35 for my policy) was required to qualify for my physician-specific coverage. This was an important part of my job criteria when looking for a new position and is worth investigating for anyone considering part-time employment.

Tip No. 4. The obvious tip: The fear of failure gets a lot of perfectionists from even starting a task unless they know everything about it.

Just start. 

That’s my go-to for overcoming fear of failure. You won’t fail. You just won’t. You will learn!

Pretend you are curious about it and try with any of these actionable steps:

• Google disability insurance. 
• Email me at trevorsmithmd@gmail.com. 
• Read an article on a doctor-based blog.

I personally geeked out on insurance so much in residency that I became an insurance agent. I am an independent broker, so I have no bias toward any particular policies (email me anytime even if just with questions). Personally, I believe in this product and the value of this type of insurance, and I would hate for anyone to not have coverage of their most valuable asset: lifelong income!

The steps of applying for disability insurance

Now you know all the great reasons to get going! What are the next steps?

No matter where you get your policy, you can expect the process to be fairly simple. If it’s not then shoot me an email and I’m happy to help chat and discuss further. 

The general process is:

Step 1. Initial phone call or email: Chat with an agent to discuss your needs and situation. Immediately after, you can sign initial application documents with DocuSign. (20 minutes). 

Step 2. Complete health questionnaire on the phone with the insurance company. (20-40 minutes).

Step 3. Sign the final documents and confirm physician-specific language in their policies. (20 minutes).

The whole application period typically lasts only 2-4 weeks from start to finish and, if you pay up front, you are covered from the moment you send in the check. If you don’t accept the policy, you even get the money back. 

I genuinely enjoy talking with my colleagues from all over the world and learning about their lives and plans, so, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to email me at trevorsmithmd@gmail.com. Also, feel free to check out my mini-blog at curiousmd.com or listen to me chat with Jon Solitro, CFP, on his FinancialMD.com podcast. Similar to this article, it is fairly informal and covers real life, tough career decisions, and actionable financial planning tips. 

If you made it to the end of this article, you are a perfectionist and should go back and read Tip No. 1. 

Reference

The Context of Things. “We live in a machine that is designed to get us to neglect what’s important about life,” 2021 Aug 24. 

Dr. Smith is an ophthalmologist and consultant with Advanced Eyecare Professionals, Grand Rapids, Mich., and founder of DigitalGlaucoma.com. He is cohost of The FinancialMD Show podcast. He is an insurance producer and assists clients with advising and decision-making related to disability insurance at FinancialMD. 

If you already have disability insurance, keep reading as well. I have a great tip for you from personal experience that made a difference in the job I selected.

Let’s start with an important rebrand for “disability insurance.” What does it protect? Income! Car insurance is not called crash insurance. House insurance is not called burnt house insurance. And unlike a car or a house, it protects an asset with 10-20 times as much value as a million-dollar house.

So, let’s call it what it is: “income protection insurance.” 

It’s always a bit nerdy when I talk about how much I appreciate insurance that protects lifelong income. I often make an argument that it is simply one of the best products that exists, especially for high-income earners with lots of debt. Many of us doctors are in that category and are not even slightly jealous of our friends whose parents paid for school (I’m looking at you not-her-real-name-Mary).

Disability is not the catchiest name for a product, but it is more pronounceable than “ophthalmology” and way easier to spell. This is my specialty, and I can’t believe we still haven’t gone with “eye surgeon,” but I digress.

So, let’s rebrand “disability insurance” for the sake of clarity:

I personally like to think of it as a monthly subscription for a soft landing in a worst-case scenario. Call me a millennial, but it just goes down smoother in my mind as a subscription a la Netflix ... and the four other streaming services that someone gave me a password to – if you’re a 55-year-old GI specialist, I know you’re on the Spotify family plan, too. No judgment from me. 

So, for $15, you get a bunch of movies with Netflix, and, for $150-$300, you cover a lifetime of income. That’s a pretty decent service even without “The Office.” 

Disability insurance often covers at least $15-$20 million dollars over a lifetime of earnings for only 1%-2% of your salary per year.

But I’ll pause here. The numbers are irrelevant if you never get the insurance. 

I have one goal for this article, and it is simply to try to help you break down that procrastination habit we all have. I will have added immense value to at least one family’s life if you go and get a policy this week that saves your family from substantial loss of income. This is why I love insurance.

Doctors sacrifice essential life steps to get through training. But we are not alone in that. 

Tim Kasser, PhD, puts it well when he said: “We live in a machine that is designed to get us to neglect what is important about life.” Here he is talking about relationships, but securing financial protection is loving to those closest to us.

So, what holds us back from taking a seemingly easy step like locking in disability insurance early in training?

Is it the stress of residency? Studying for Step 1? Moving cities and finding a home during a housing crisis? Job change during COVID? Is it because we have already put it off so long that we don’t want to think about it?

Totally fair.

The reason to not put off the important things in life

I will give you a few reasons of “the why of” how we can all benefit from disability insurance and the reason there is no benefit in waiting to get a policy.

But, most importantly, I want to talk to you about your life and why you are putting off a lot of important things.
 
That diet you’ve been wanting to start? Yep.

That ring you haven’t purchased? Maybe that!

That article you’ve been meaning to write for the GI journal? Yes, especially that.

Remember: Take a deep breath in and exhaaaaale. 

So, why do we put off the important?

First, even though the “why” of purchasing income protection is a bit basic, I do find it helpful to have discrete reasons for accomplishing an important task. 

Why get disability insurance at all?

Let’s look at the value we get out of covering our income. 

Reason No. 1. It softens the landing in the event you have an illness. The stats on disability claims are heavily on the side of illness over accidents or trauma. As you know, many autoimmune conditions show up in the 20’s and 30’s, so those are the things your friends will have first. 

Unfortunately, if you have a medical issue before you have a disability policy, you will either not have coverage for that specific condition or you will not be approved for insurance. Unlike health insurance, the company can afford to pay out policies because it is picky on who it is willing to cover. It tries to select healthy people, so apply when you are most healthy, if possible. 

Reason No. 2. It’s cheap. When you compare with a $2 million policy for life insurance, it might cost $1,000-$2,000 or so per year for a term policy covering about 25 years. With disability insurance, you can cover about 10x as much for the same annual payment. One could easily make a case that if you do not have dependents, disability insurance should be your first stop even before life insurance. You are more likely to be disabled than to die when you’re in your thirties. Act accordingly.

(Please note for obvious reasons they don’t call life insurance “death insurance.” Disability insurance needs that same rebrand – I’m telling you!)

Reason No. 3. Unless you are independently wealthy, it will be nearly impossible to replace your income and live a similar lifestyle. Lock in the benefits of the work you have already accomplished, and lock in the coverage of ALL of your health while you are healthy.

Time to take action

As Elvis famously sang: “A little less conversation, a little more action please.”

Alright, so how do we get ourselves to ACT and get a policy to protect our income?

Tip No. 1. As doctors we often shoot for perfection. It’s no surprise, therefore, that we have an illusion that we need to find the “perfect policy.” 

One of my friends is a great financial adviser, and he often tells me about first meetings with clients to create a long-lasting plan. Often, somewhere along the way when discussing risks of stocks going down and up, someone will ask, “Why don’t we pick one that is low risk but tends to go up in value?” Of course, the reality is that if it were that easy ... everyone would do it!

Fortunately, with disability insurance, the policies are fairly straight forward. You can skip the analysis paralysis with disability insurance by talking with an agent who consistently works with physicians. I enjoy talking policies and helping doctors protect their financial health, so I started selling policies shortly after residency because so many of my co-residents were making me nervous putting it off. Some I helped, and some put it off and are unable to get policies after health issues even just 3 years after residency. 

Tip No. 2. Having a policy is better than not having one, and if you’re worried about getting the wrong one, just get two! Seriously, some companies let you split coverage between two and this can even increase the maximum coverage you can get later in life, too. Does it add cost? Surprisingly, it typically does not, and it does not make the agent more money either. In most cases it’s actually more work for them for the same amount of commission. Don’t be afraid to ask about this.

Tip No. 3. This is my hot tip for current policy owners: ask for the full version of your policy, and read the entire policy. I recently asked for my policy because I was doing some international work abroad and wanted to know if I could reside abroad if I made a disability claim. My policy stated that I would need to reside in the United States within 12 months of disability. I likely would do this in the event of disability, but it is quite important to know these aspects. 

While reading the fine print, I found that a minimum number of work-hours per week (35 for my policy) was required to qualify for my physician-specific coverage. This was an important part of my job criteria when looking for a new position and is worth investigating for anyone considering part-time employment.

Tip No. 4. The obvious tip: The fear of failure gets a lot of perfectionists from even starting a task unless they know everything about it.

Just start. 

That’s my go-to for overcoming fear of failure. You won’t fail. You just won’t. You will learn!

Pretend you are curious about it and try with any of these actionable steps:

• Google disability insurance. 
• Email me at trevorsmithmd@gmail.com. 
• Read an article on a doctor-based blog.

I personally geeked out on insurance so much in residency that I became an insurance agent. I am an independent broker, so I have no bias toward any particular policies (email me anytime even if just with questions). Personally, I believe in this product and the value of this type of insurance, and I would hate for anyone to not have coverage of their most valuable asset: lifelong income!

The steps of applying for disability insurance

Now you know all the great reasons to get going! What are the next steps?

No matter where you get your policy, you can expect the process to be fairly simple. If it’s not then shoot me an email and I’m happy to help chat and discuss further. 

The general process is:

Step 1. Initial phone call or email: Chat with an agent to discuss your needs and situation. Immediately after, you can sign initial application documents with DocuSign. (20 minutes). 

Step 2. Complete health questionnaire on the phone with the insurance company. (20-40 minutes).

Step 3. Sign the final documents and confirm physician-specific language in their policies. (20 minutes).

The whole application period typically lasts only 2-4 weeks from start to finish and, if you pay up front, you are covered from the moment you send in the check. If you don’t accept the policy, you even get the money back. 

I genuinely enjoy talking with my colleagues from all over the world and learning about their lives and plans, so, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to email me at trevorsmithmd@gmail.com. Also, feel free to check out my mini-blog at curiousmd.com or listen to me chat with Jon Solitro, CFP, on his FinancialMD.com podcast. Similar to this article, it is fairly informal and covers real life, tough career decisions, and actionable financial planning tips. 

If you made it to the end of this article, you are a perfectionist and should go back and read Tip No. 1. 

Reference

The Context of Things. “We live in a machine that is designed to get us to neglect what’s important about life,” 2021 Aug 24. 

Dr. Smith is an ophthalmologist and consultant with Advanced Eyecare Professionals, Grand Rapids, Mich., and founder of DigitalGlaucoma.com. He is cohost of The FinancialMD Show podcast. He is an insurance producer and assists clients with advising and decision-making related to disability insurance at FinancialMD. 

It’s no secret that the fitness level of all age groups in our country is poor. A recent study in Pediatrics sharpens the focus on the question of how we might address the problem in the teenage population. Based in England, the investigators placed wrist accelerometers on their 13- and 14-year-old subjects who were then assessed using shuttle runs at progressively faster speeds.

The researchers found that the participants’ cardiorespiratory fitness improved as the subjects’ time doing vigorous activity increased up to 20 minutes and then plateaued. The study authors could not prove that the vigorous activity caused the increased in fitness. However, they were impressed by the plateau phenomenon and suggest that this might suggest a change in the recommendations by the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health & Human Services which currently call for 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day for adolescents

At first blush a shift down to 20 minutes of vigorous activity would appear to be workable and achievable. This would be particularly true for public school systems that are already struggling to get any kind of activity shoehorned into their schedules that are already crammed in an attempt to address mandated academic achievement goals. Freeing up an additional 40 minutes of the school day and yielding improved cardiorespiratory fitness sounds like a win-win.

But, let’s take a deep breath and for a few moments return to the world of reality. First, how many school systems are providing that 60 minutes of moderate activity (let’s forget the vigorous piece for the moment) included in the current WHO/HHS recommendations? Next, let’s take a look at what “vigorous” activity means. There are variety of definitions but in general they include sweating, flushing, and dyspnea to the point of having difficulty speaking.

Let’s just focus on the “sweating” part. To me that sounds like an activity that would require some wardrobe alteration at a minimum and very likely a locker room and a shower. Those can be fightin’ words for many teenagers. Even if a school can provide adequate locker room and shower infrastructure change-ups and showers are time-gobbling activities. And, more realistically, what are the chances of getting body image–challenged adolescents to willingly take advantage of them? You don’t have to talk to very many adults before you will hear stories of discomfort and embarrassment resulting from forced locker room and shower experiences. When I was a teenager the only way you could flunk physical education was to refuse to go in the locker room and “change up.” I think or at least hope that physical educators are more sensitive to the fragility of their adolescents students. But, the bottom line is that creating a curriculum that will improve cardiorespiratory fitness is fraught with challenges most school systems can’t address. It’s sad but true.

So, where does that leave us? This new study from England may be helpful for families who are caught in a time crunch and looking improve their fitness or for the physical educator who would like to help his/her motivated students get on a healthier track. But, this study should not prompt us to throw up our hands and toss out the current recommendations of an hour of moderate activity. As unrealistic as it may be for most school systems it allows for the injection of physical activity into academic settings where creative educators can offer things like walking lectures and field trips. It all boils down to the fact that some activity is better than none at all with or without the sweat equity.

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

It’s no secret that the fitness level of all age groups in our country is poor. A recent study in Pediatrics sharpens the focus on the question of how we might address the problem in the teenage population. Based in England, the investigators placed wrist accelerometers on their 13- and 14-year-old subjects who were then assessed using shuttle runs at progressively faster speeds.

The researchers found that the participants’ cardiorespiratory fitness improved as the subjects’ time doing vigorous activity increased up to 20 minutes and then plateaued. The study authors could not prove that the vigorous activity caused the increased in fitness. However, they were impressed by the plateau phenomenon and suggest that this might suggest a change in the recommendations by the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health & Human Services which currently call for 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day for adolescents

At first blush a shift down to 20 minutes of vigorous activity would appear to be workable and achievable. This would be particularly true for public school systems that are already struggling to get any kind of activity shoehorned into their schedules that are already crammed in an attempt to address mandated academic achievement goals. Freeing up an additional 40 minutes of the school day and yielding improved cardiorespiratory fitness sounds like a win-win.

But, let’s take a deep breath and for a few moments return to the world of reality. First, how many school systems are providing that 60 minutes of moderate activity (let’s forget the vigorous piece for the moment) included in the current WHO/HHS recommendations? Next, let’s take a look at what “vigorous” activity means. There are variety of definitions but in general they include sweating, flushing, and dyspnea to the point of having difficulty speaking.

Let’s just focus on the “sweating” part. To me that sounds like an activity that would require some wardrobe alteration at a minimum and very likely a locker room and a shower. Those can be fightin’ words for many teenagers. Even if a school can provide adequate locker room and shower infrastructure change-ups and showers are time-gobbling activities. And, more realistically, what are the chances of getting body image–challenged adolescents to willingly take advantage of them? You don’t have to talk to very many adults before you will hear stories of discomfort and embarrassment resulting from forced locker room and shower experiences. When I was a teenager the only way you could flunk physical education was to refuse to go in the locker room and “change up.” I think or at least hope that physical educators are more sensitive to the fragility of their adolescents students. But, the bottom line is that creating a curriculum that will improve cardiorespiratory fitness is fraught with challenges most school systems can’t address. It’s sad but true.

So, where does that leave us? This new study from England may be helpful for families who are caught in a time crunch and looking improve their fitness or for the physical educator who would like to help his/her motivated students get on a healthier track. But, this study should not prompt us to throw up our hands and toss out the current recommendations of an hour of moderate activity. As unrealistic as it may be for most school systems it allows for the injection of physical activity into academic settings where creative educators can offer things like walking lectures and field trips. It all boils down to the fact that some activity is better than none at all with or without the sweat equity.

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

It’s no secret that the fitness level of all age groups in our country is poor. A recent study in Pediatrics sharpens the focus on the question of how we might address the problem in the teenage population. Based in England, the investigators placed wrist accelerometers on their 13- and 14-year-old subjects who were then assessed using shuttle runs at progressively faster speeds.

The researchers found that the participants’ cardiorespiratory fitness improved as the subjects’ time doing vigorous activity increased up to 20 minutes and then plateaued. The study authors could not prove that the vigorous activity caused the increased in fitness. However, they were impressed by the plateau phenomenon and suggest that this might suggest a change in the recommendations by the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health & Human Services which currently call for 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day for adolescents

At first blush a shift down to 20 minutes of vigorous activity would appear to be workable and achievable. This would be particularly true for public school systems that are already struggling to get any kind of activity shoehorned into their schedules that are already crammed in an attempt to address mandated academic achievement goals. Freeing up an additional 40 minutes of the school day and yielding improved cardiorespiratory fitness sounds like a win-win.

But, let’s take a deep breath and for a few moments return to the world of reality. First, how many school systems are providing that 60 minutes of moderate activity (let’s forget the vigorous piece for the moment) included in the current WHO/HHS recommendations? Next, let’s take a look at what “vigorous” activity means. There are variety of definitions but in general they include sweating, flushing, and dyspnea to the point of having difficulty speaking.

Let’s just focus on the “sweating” part. To me that sounds like an activity that would require some wardrobe alteration at a minimum and very likely a locker room and a shower. Those can be fightin’ words for many teenagers. Even if a school can provide adequate locker room and shower infrastructure change-ups and showers are time-gobbling activities. And, more realistically, what are the chances of getting body image–challenged adolescents to willingly take advantage of them? You don’t have to talk to very many adults before you will hear stories of discomfort and embarrassment resulting from forced locker room and shower experiences. When I was a teenager the only way you could flunk physical education was to refuse to go in the locker room and “change up.” I think or at least hope that physical educators are more sensitive to the fragility of their adolescents students. But, the bottom line is that creating a curriculum that will improve cardiorespiratory fitness is fraught with challenges most school systems can’t address. It’s sad but true.

So, where does that leave us? This new study from England may be helpful for families who are caught in a time crunch and looking improve their fitness or for the physical educator who would like to help his/her motivated students get on a healthier track. But, this study should not prompt us to throw up our hands and toss out the current recommendations of an hour of moderate activity. As unrealistic as it may be for most school systems it allows for the injection of physical activity into academic settings where creative educators can offer things like walking lectures and field trips. It all boils down to the fact that some activity is better than none at all with or without the sweat equity.

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