Federal Practitioner

Millions of Americans who were infected with COVID-19 still have not fully recovered their sense of taste or smell, a new report says.

Almost 36 million people were diagnosed in 2021, and 60% of them reported accompanying losses in smell or taste, according to the study by Mass Eye and Ear, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School, Boston. The study was published in The Laryngoscope.

Most people fully regained the senses, but about 24% didn’t get smell back completely, and more than 3% had no recovery, the researchers reported. The numbers were similar among those who lost the sense of taste, they added.

“Many people never fully recovered,” Neil Bhattacharyya, MD, professor of otolaryngology and one of the study’s authors, told Fortune, estimating that up to 6 million people still have lingering symptoms. “If you lost your sense of smell, did you get it back? There’s about a one in four chance you didn’t. That’s terrible.”

Researchers looked at the records of 30,000 adults who had COVID-19 in 2021. They reported that patients who suffered more severe cases were less likely to regain some or all their senses.

Some patients said they lost appetite because they couldn’t smell food. There’s concern, too, about losing the ability to smell gas and smoke, spoiled food, and dirty diapers.

People with symptoms should see their doctors, Dr. Bhattacharyya said. The symptoms might be caused by something other than lingering COVID-19 effects and might be treatable.
 

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

Millions of Americans who were infected with COVID-19 still have not fully recovered their sense of taste or smell, a new report says.

Almost 36 million people were diagnosed in 2021, and 60% of them reported accompanying losses in smell or taste, according to the study by Mass Eye and Ear, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School, Boston. The study was published in The Laryngoscope.

Most people fully regained the senses, but about 24% didn’t get smell back completely, and more than 3% had no recovery, the researchers reported. The numbers were similar among those who lost the sense of taste, they added.

“Many people never fully recovered,” Neil Bhattacharyya, MD, professor of otolaryngology and one of the study’s authors, told Fortune, estimating that up to 6 million people still have lingering symptoms. “If you lost your sense of smell, did you get it back? There’s about a one in four chance you didn’t. That’s terrible.”

Researchers looked at the records of 30,000 adults who had COVID-19 in 2021. They reported that patients who suffered more severe cases were less likely to regain some or all their senses.

Some patients said they lost appetite because they couldn’t smell food. There’s concern, too, about losing the ability to smell gas and smoke, spoiled food, and dirty diapers.

People with symptoms should see their doctors, Dr. Bhattacharyya said. The symptoms might be caused by something other than lingering COVID-19 effects and might be treatable.
 

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

Millions of Americans who were infected with COVID-19 still have not fully recovered their sense of taste or smell, a new report says.

Almost 36 million people were diagnosed in 2021, and 60% of them reported accompanying losses in smell or taste, according to the study by Mass Eye and Ear, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School, Boston. The study was published in The Laryngoscope.

Most people fully regained the senses, but about 24% didn’t get smell back completely, and more than 3% had no recovery, the researchers reported. The numbers were similar among those who lost the sense of taste, they added.

“Many people never fully recovered,” Neil Bhattacharyya, MD, professor of otolaryngology and one of the study’s authors, told Fortune, estimating that up to 6 million people still have lingering symptoms. “If you lost your sense of smell, did you get it back? There’s about a one in four chance you didn’t. That’s terrible.”

Researchers looked at the records of 30,000 adults who had COVID-19 in 2021. They reported that patients who suffered more severe cases were less likely to regain some or all their senses.

Some patients said they lost appetite because they couldn’t smell food. There’s concern, too, about losing the ability to smell gas and smoke, spoiled food, and dirty diapers.

People with symptoms should see their doctors, Dr. Bhattacharyya said. The symptoms might be caused by something other than lingering COVID-19 effects and might be treatable.
 

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

On Thanksgiving Day 2022, Kathy Stark watched as her husband of 35 years, Bobby Ray Stark, caught fire at a Nashville hospital. According to Clint Kelly, Kathy Stark’s attorney, the hospital staff was performing cardioversion to restore Bobby Ray’s heart rhythm when a spark ignited the oxygen and set the patient aflame.

Mr. Stark, 64, died of “a combination of cardiovascular disease and thermal burns,” according to a local news report. In May, Kathy Stark filed a malpractice lawsuit in U.S. District Court. Mr. Kelly hopes that the lawsuit will help improve patient safety. Meanwhile, Kathy Stark “goes to bed at night and sees her husband on fire,” Mr. Kelly says. A similar incident occurred last December in the operating room at Oregon Health & Science University, resulting in minor injuries to a patient.

Surgical fires happen rarely, but they can pose serious threats to patients and result in litigation against physicians and hospitals.
 

Underreported, but likely dropping

Reliable data on the incidence of surgical fires is lacking because incidents may go unreported over litigation fears, says Jeffrey Feldman, MD, MSE, anesthesiologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and chair of the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation’s Committee on Technology.

The Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority has been tracking surgical fires for decades, however, and experts have used the agency’s data to extrapolate how often they occur in the United States.

In 2005, nationwide incidence was estimated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 550-600 fires annually, says Barbara G. Malanga, acting director of health care incident investigation and technology consulting at ECRI (formerly the Emergency Care Research Institute). By 2011, that number appeared to have dropped to 200-240 incidents per year.

A similar analysis in 2018 found the incidence may now be as low as 88-105 a year. The drop is likely a result of increased awareness because of educational efforts on the part of the ECRI and the APSF, including a widely disseminated video on fire safety.

The decline of surgical fires “sounds great,” says Dr. Feldman, “except that it’s a 100% preventable complication, and they’re still happening.”
 

Accidents waiting to happen

How do these fires happen? It comes down to the ‘fire triangle’ often taught in grade school. Fire requires three things: an ignition source, fuel, and oxygen or an oxidizing agent. Ignition sources are plentiful in a surgical suite, including any of a variety of electrical devices commonly used in surgical procedures, including defibrillators. Gowns, gauze, drapes, sponges, oxygen masks, nasal cannulae, a patient’s hair or their clothing – all provide the necessary fuel.

But the key factor for surgical fire risk is the presence of high concentrations of oxygen.
 

Safety protocols

The best and most obvious way to mitigate risk is to reduce the amount of supplemental oxygen, explains Dr. Feldman.

“Many patients do not require a high concentration of oxygen during sedation,” he says.

When a patient does require a higher concentration for their safety, the APSF and ECRI recommend placing an endotracheal tube or supraglottic airway rather than using an oxygen mask or a nasal cannula. “You want to deliver the oxygen in such a way that high concentration doesn’t exist in the surgical field,” Dr. Feldman says. In cases where supplemental oxygen is necessary, ECRI and APSF recommend reducing the oxygen concentration to less than 30%.

In addition, safety protocols include giving flammable prep solutions time to dry before applying towels or drapes and beginning the procedure. These precautions to ensure the safety of patients take just a moment, says Chester H. Lake Jr, MD, MS, of the department of anesthesiology at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.
 

Making fire safety part of the preop routine

These safety protocols are straightforward but not always observed, experts say. Part of the reason is a matter of culture. Both anesthesiologists and surgeons have absorbed the attitude that placing an airway escalates the procedure beyond what the patient needs, says Dr. Feldman. And indeed, according to a 2013 analysis of the American Society of Anesthesiologists closed claims database, 85% of surgical fires occur in outpatient settings where airways are less likely to be placed, and 81% of those claims were for procedures that used monitored anesthesia care.

In an article on prevention of surgical fires, Dr. Lake and colleagues recommend in-house education on preventing and responding to fires at least once a year. But it shouldn’t stop there. Because these fires – horrific as they are – are fairly rare, it’s important to maintain awareness. Making fire safety a regular part of the surgical “time-out” can help further reduce incidents, he says. ECRI and the APSF have teamed up to create a poster that can help surgical teams make fire safety a regular part of their routines.

Although the national decline in surgical fires is encouraging, the problem remains serious. “You can classify these incidents as low, but it’s not low if it happens to you or a family member,” says Dr. Lake. “One is too many.”

ECRI’s Ms. Malanga agrees. “I do like to emphasize that it’s rare,” she says. “But I’d like to see us reduce this until it’s zero.”

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

On Thanksgiving Day 2022, Kathy Stark watched as her husband of 35 years, Bobby Ray Stark, caught fire at a Nashville hospital. According to Clint Kelly, Kathy Stark’s attorney, the hospital staff was performing cardioversion to restore Bobby Ray’s heart rhythm when a spark ignited the oxygen and set the patient aflame.

Mr. Stark, 64, died of “a combination of cardiovascular disease and thermal burns,” according to a local news report. In May, Kathy Stark filed a malpractice lawsuit in U.S. District Court. Mr. Kelly hopes that the lawsuit will help improve patient safety. Meanwhile, Kathy Stark “goes to bed at night and sees her husband on fire,” Mr. Kelly says. A similar incident occurred last December in the operating room at Oregon Health & Science University, resulting in minor injuries to a patient.

Surgical fires happen rarely, but they can pose serious threats to patients and result in litigation against physicians and hospitals.
 

Underreported, but likely dropping

Reliable data on the incidence of surgical fires is lacking because incidents may go unreported over litigation fears, says Jeffrey Feldman, MD, MSE, anesthesiologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and chair of the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation’s Committee on Technology.

The Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority has been tracking surgical fires for decades, however, and experts have used the agency’s data to extrapolate how often they occur in the United States.

In 2005, nationwide incidence was estimated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 550-600 fires annually, says Barbara G. Malanga, acting director of health care incident investigation and technology consulting at ECRI (formerly the Emergency Care Research Institute). By 2011, that number appeared to have dropped to 200-240 incidents per year.

A similar analysis in 2018 found the incidence may now be as low as 88-105 a year. The drop is likely a result of increased awareness because of educational efforts on the part of the ECRI and the APSF, including a widely disseminated video on fire safety.

The decline of surgical fires “sounds great,” says Dr. Feldman, “except that it’s a 100% preventable complication, and they’re still happening.”
 

Accidents waiting to happen

How do these fires happen? It comes down to the ‘fire triangle’ often taught in grade school. Fire requires three things: an ignition source, fuel, and oxygen or an oxidizing agent. Ignition sources are plentiful in a surgical suite, including any of a variety of electrical devices commonly used in surgical procedures, including defibrillators. Gowns, gauze, drapes, sponges, oxygen masks, nasal cannulae, a patient’s hair or their clothing – all provide the necessary fuel.

But the key factor for surgical fire risk is the presence of high concentrations of oxygen.
 

Safety protocols

The best and most obvious way to mitigate risk is to reduce the amount of supplemental oxygen, explains Dr. Feldman.

“Many patients do not require a high concentration of oxygen during sedation,” he says.

When a patient does require a higher concentration for their safety, the APSF and ECRI recommend placing an endotracheal tube or supraglottic airway rather than using an oxygen mask or a nasal cannula. “You want to deliver the oxygen in such a way that high concentration doesn’t exist in the surgical field,” Dr. Feldman says. In cases where supplemental oxygen is necessary, ECRI and APSF recommend reducing the oxygen concentration to less than 30%.

In addition, safety protocols include giving flammable prep solutions time to dry before applying towels or drapes and beginning the procedure. These precautions to ensure the safety of patients take just a moment, says Chester H. Lake Jr, MD, MS, of the department of anesthesiology at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.
 

Making fire safety part of the preop routine

These safety protocols are straightforward but not always observed, experts say. Part of the reason is a matter of culture. Both anesthesiologists and surgeons have absorbed the attitude that placing an airway escalates the procedure beyond what the patient needs, says Dr. Feldman. And indeed, according to a 2013 analysis of the American Society of Anesthesiologists closed claims database, 85% of surgical fires occur in outpatient settings where airways are less likely to be placed, and 81% of those claims were for procedures that used monitored anesthesia care.

In an article on prevention of surgical fires, Dr. Lake and colleagues recommend in-house education on preventing and responding to fires at least once a year. But it shouldn’t stop there. Because these fires – horrific as they are – are fairly rare, it’s important to maintain awareness. Making fire safety a regular part of the surgical “time-out” can help further reduce incidents, he says. ECRI and the APSF have teamed up to create a poster that can help surgical teams make fire safety a regular part of their routines.

Although the national decline in surgical fires is encouraging, the problem remains serious. “You can classify these incidents as low, but it’s not low if it happens to you or a family member,” says Dr. Lake. “One is too many.”

ECRI’s Ms. Malanga agrees. “I do like to emphasize that it’s rare,” she says. “But I’d like to see us reduce this until it’s zero.”

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

On Thanksgiving Day 2022, Kathy Stark watched as her husband of 35 years, Bobby Ray Stark, caught fire at a Nashville hospital. According to Clint Kelly, Kathy Stark’s attorney, the hospital staff was performing cardioversion to restore Bobby Ray’s heart rhythm when a spark ignited the oxygen and set the patient aflame.

Mr. Stark, 64, died of “a combination of cardiovascular disease and thermal burns,” according to a local news report. In May, Kathy Stark filed a malpractice lawsuit in U.S. District Court. Mr. Kelly hopes that the lawsuit will help improve patient safety. Meanwhile, Kathy Stark “goes to bed at night and sees her husband on fire,” Mr. Kelly says. A similar incident occurred last December in the operating room at Oregon Health & Science University, resulting in minor injuries to a patient.

Surgical fires happen rarely, but they can pose serious threats to patients and result in litigation against physicians and hospitals.
 

Underreported, but likely dropping

Reliable data on the incidence of surgical fires is lacking because incidents may go unreported over litigation fears, says Jeffrey Feldman, MD, MSE, anesthesiologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and chair of the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation’s Committee on Technology.

The Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority has been tracking surgical fires for decades, however, and experts have used the agency’s data to extrapolate how often they occur in the United States.

In 2005, nationwide incidence was estimated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 550-600 fires annually, says Barbara G. Malanga, acting director of health care incident investigation and technology consulting at ECRI (formerly the Emergency Care Research Institute). By 2011, that number appeared to have dropped to 200-240 incidents per year.

A similar analysis in 2018 found the incidence may now be as low as 88-105 a year. The drop is likely a result of increased awareness because of educational efforts on the part of the ECRI and the APSF, including a widely disseminated video on fire safety.

The decline of surgical fires “sounds great,” says Dr. Feldman, “except that it’s a 100% preventable complication, and they’re still happening.”
 

Accidents waiting to happen

How do these fires happen? It comes down to the ‘fire triangle’ often taught in grade school. Fire requires three things: an ignition source, fuel, and oxygen or an oxidizing agent. Ignition sources are plentiful in a surgical suite, including any of a variety of electrical devices commonly used in surgical procedures, including defibrillators. Gowns, gauze, drapes, sponges, oxygen masks, nasal cannulae, a patient’s hair or their clothing – all provide the necessary fuel.

But the key factor for surgical fire risk is the presence of high concentrations of oxygen.
 

Safety protocols

The best and most obvious way to mitigate risk is to reduce the amount of supplemental oxygen, explains Dr. Feldman.

“Many patients do not require a high concentration of oxygen during sedation,” he says.

When a patient does require a higher concentration for their safety, the APSF and ECRI recommend placing an endotracheal tube or supraglottic airway rather than using an oxygen mask or a nasal cannula. “You want to deliver the oxygen in such a way that high concentration doesn’t exist in the surgical field,” Dr. Feldman says. In cases where supplemental oxygen is necessary, ECRI and APSF recommend reducing the oxygen concentration to less than 30%.

In addition, safety protocols include giving flammable prep solutions time to dry before applying towels or drapes and beginning the procedure. These precautions to ensure the safety of patients take just a moment, says Chester H. Lake Jr, MD, MS, of the department of anesthesiology at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.
 

Making fire safety part of the preop routine

These safety protocols are straightforward but not always observed, experts say. Part of the reason is a matter of culture. Both anesthesiologists and surgeons have absorbed the attitude that placing an airway escalates the procedure beyond what the patient needs, says Dr. Feldman. And indeed, according to a 2013 analysis of the American Society of Anesthesiologists closed claims database, 85% of surgical fires occur in outpatient settings where airways are less likely to be placed, and 81% of those claims were for procedures that used monitored anesthesia care.

In an article on prevention of surgical fires, Dr. Lake and colleagues recommend in-house education on preventing and responding to fires at least once a year. But it shouldn’t stop there. Because these fires – horrific as they are – are fairly rare, it’s important to maintain awareness. Making fire safety a regular part of the surgical “time-out” can help further reduce incidents, he says. ECRI and the APSF have teamed up to create a poster that can help surgical teams make fire safety a regular part of their routines.

Although the national decline in surgical fires is encouraging, the problem remains serious. “You can classify these incidents as low, but it’s not low if it happens to you or a family member,” says Dr. Lake. “One is too many.”

ECRI’s Ms. Malanga agrees. “I do like to emphasize that it’s rare,” she says. “But I’d like to see us reduce this until it’s zero.”

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

Intranasal (IN) ketamine may be a feasible treatment alternative for people with chronic, refractory migraine who don’t respond to other medications, new research shows.

Half of the study participants who used IN ketamine for chronic, treatment-refractory migraine in a new retrospective cohort study reported it as “very effective” and over one-third said it boosted their quality of life.

“In our study, we showed that with even a few uses per day, intranasal ketamine can still improve patients’ quality of life,” lead investigator Hsiangkuo Yuan, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Yuan is associate professor of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and director of clinical research at the Jefferson Headache Center.

He added that “multiple medications failed these patients, and the majority of patients were having daily headaches. So, if anything works, even partially and shortly, it may still give patients some relief to get through the day.”

The findings were published online in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.  
 

Daily migraine, failed medications

Use of IN ketamine has not been studied for the treatment of chronic, treatment-refractory migraine – although it has been studied in patients with cluster headache and migraine, the investigators note.

Ketamine is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat migraine.

To further explore ketamine’s effect in those with chronic, treatment-refractory migraine, the investigators retrospectively analyzed electronic health records of patients at the Jefferson Headache Center who had received IN ketamine for the treatment of migraine between January 2019 and February 2020.

Of 242 patients who had received IN ketamine, Dr. Yuan’s team followed up with 169 who agreed to be part of the study.

The majority (67%) had daily migraine, and 85% had tried more than three classes of preventive medications for migraine. They currently used a median of two medications, the most common of which was a CGRP monoclonal antibody.

On average, patients used six sprays per day for a median 10 days per month. Median pain relief onset was 52 minutes after dosage.

Almost three-quarters of patients reported at least one side effect from the ketamine, most commonly fatigue (22%), double/blurred vision (21%), and confusion/dissociation (21%). These effects were mostly temporary, the researchers report.

The most common reasons for initiating IN ketamine included an incomplete response to prior acute medications (59%), incomplete response to prior preventive medications (31%), and prior benefit from IV ketamine (23%).

Study investigators noted that ketamine has the potential to become addictive and indicated that “clinicians should only consider the use of a potentially addictive medication such as ketamine for significantly disabled patients with migraine.”

About half of the participants who used IN ketamine found it “very effective,” and 40% found it “somewhat effective.” Within the same group, 36% and 43% found the overall impact of IN ketamine on their quality of life was much better and somewhat better, respectively.

Among those still using ketamine during study follow-up, 82% reported that ketamine was very effective.

Compared with other acute headache medications, IN ketamine was considered much better (43%) or somewhat better (30%).

Nearly 75% of participants reported using fewer pain relievers when using IN ketamine.

Dr. Yuan said that future research might focus on finding predictors for IN ketamine response or determining the optimal effective and safe dose for the drug in those with chronic, treatment-refractory migraine.  

“We still need a prospective, randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal ketamine,” he added.
 

‘Impressive result’

Commenting on the findings for this article, Richard Lipton, MD, professor of neurology, psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Montefiore Headache Center at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said that “in this refractory population with multiple treatment failures, this is a very impressive, open-label result.”

“This real-world data suggests that ketamine is an effective option for people with medically intractable chronic migraine,” said Dr. Lipton, who was not part of the study. “In these very difficult to treat patients, 65% of those who started on ketamine persisted. Of those who remained on ketamine, 82% found it very effective.”

“This study makes me more confident that intranasal ketamine is a helpful treatment option, and I plan to use it more often in the future,” he added.

Like Dr. Yuan, Dr. Lipton highlighted the need for “well-designed placebo-controlled trials” and “rigorous comparative effectiveness studies.”

The study was funded by Miles for Migraine. Dr. Yuan has received institutional support for serving as an investigator from Teva and AbbVie, and royalties from Cambridge University Press and MedLink. Dr. Lipton has received compensation for consultation from Alder/Lumbeck, Axsome, Supernus, Theranica, Upsher-Smith, and Satsuma. He has participated in speaker bureaus for Eli Lilly and Amgen/Novartis and has received institutional support for serving as principal investigator from Teva, GammaCore, and Allergan/AbbVie. He has received payments for authorship or royalties from Demos Medical, Cambridge University Press, and MedLink.

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

Intranasal (IN) ketamine may be a feasible treatment alternative for people with chronic, refractory migraine who don’t respond to other medications, new research shows.

Half of the study participants who used IN ketamine for chronic, treatment-refractory migraine in a new retrospective cohort study reported it as “very effective” and over one-third said it boosted their quality of life.

“In our study, we showed that with even a few uses per day, intranasal ketamine can still improve patients’ quality of life,” lead investigator Hsiangkuo Yuan, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Yuan is associate professor of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and director of clinical research at the Jefferson Headache Center.

He added that “multiple medications failed these patients, and the majority of patients were having daily headaches. So, if anything works, even partially and shortly, it may still give patients some relief to get through the day.”

The findings were published online in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.  
 

Daily migraine, failed medications

Use of IN ketamine has not been studied for the treatment of chronic, treatment-refractory migraine – although it has been studied in patients with cluster headache and migraine, the investigators note.

Ketamine is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat migraine.

To further explore ketamine’s effect in those with chronic, treatment-refractory migraine, the investigators retrospectively analyzed electronic health records of patients at the Jefferson Headache Center who had received IN ketamine for the treatment of migraine between January 2019 and February 2020.

Of 242 patients who had received IN ketamine, Dr. Yuan’s team followed up with 169 who agreed to be part of the study.

The majority (67%) had daily migraine, and 85% had tried more than three classes of preventive medications for migraine. They currently used a median of two medications, the most common of which was a CGRP monoclonal antibody.

On average, patients used six sprays per day for a median 10 days per month. Median pain relief onset was 52 minutes after dosage.

Almost three-quarters of patients reported at least one side effect from the ketamine, most commonly fatigue (22%), double/blurred vision (21%), and confusion/dissociation (21%). These effects were mostly temporary, the researchers report.

The most common reasons for initiating IN ketamine included an incomplete response to prior acute medications (59%), incomplete response to prior preventive medications (31%), and prior benefit from IV ketamine (23%).

Study investigators noted that ketamine has the potential to become addictive and indicated that “clinicians should only consider the use of a potentially addictive medication such as ketamine for significantly disabled patients with migraine.”

About half of the participants who used IN ketamine found it “very effective,” and 40% found it “somewhat effective.” Within the same group, 36% and 43% found the overall impact of IN ketamine on their quality of life was much better and somewhat better, respectively.

Among those still using ketamine during study follow-up, 82% reported that ketamine was very effective.

Compared with other acute headache medications, IN ketamine was considered much better (43%) or somewhat better (30%).

Nearly 75% of participants reported using fewer pain relievers when using IN ketamine.

Dr. Yuan said that future research might focus on finding predictors for IN ketamine response or determining the optimal effective and safe dose for the drug in those with chronic, treatment-refractory migraine.  

“We still need a prospective, randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal ketamine,” he added.
 

‘Impressive result’

Commenting on the findings for this article, Richard Lipton, MD, professor of neurology, psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Montefiore Headache Center at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said that “in this refractory population with multiple treatment failures, this is a very impressive, open-label result.”

“This real-world data suggests that ketamine is an effective option for people with medically intractable chronic migraine,” said Dr. Lipton, who was not part of the study. “In these very difficult to treat patients, 65% of those who started on ketamine persisted. Of those who remained on ketamine, 82% found it very effective.”

“This study makes me more confident that intranasal ketamine is a helpful treatment option, and I plan to use it more often in the future,” he added.

Like Dr. Yuan, Dr. Lipton highlighted the need for “well-designed placebo-controlled trials” and “rigorous comparative effectiveness studies.”

The study was funded by Miles for Migraine. Dr. Yuan has received institutional support for serving as an investigator from Teva and AbbVie, and royalties from Cambridge University Press and MedLink. Dr. Lipton has received compensation for consultation from Alder/Lumbeck, Axsome, Supernus, Theranica, Upsher-Smith, and Satsuma. He has participated in speaker bureaus for Eli Lilly and Amgen/Novartis and has received institutional support for serving as principal investigator from Teva, GammaCore, and Allergan/AbbVie. He has received payments for authorship or royalties from Demos Medical, Cambridge University Press, and MedLink.

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

Intranasal (IN) ketamine may be a feasible treatment alternative for people with chronic, refractory migraine who don’t respond to other medications, new research shows.

Half of the study participants who used IN ketamine for chronic, treatment-refractory migraine in a new retrospective cohort study reported it as “very effective” and over one-third said it boosted their quality of life.

“In our study, we showed that with even a few uses per day, intranasal ketamine can still improve patients’ quality of life,” lead investigator Hsiangkuo Yuan, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Yuan is associate professor of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and director of clinical research at the Jefferson Headache Center.

He added that “multiple medications failed these patients, and the majority of patients were having daily headaches. So, if anything works, even partially and shortly, it may still give patients some relief to get through the day.”

The findings were published online in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.  
 

Daily migraine, failed medications

Use of IN ketamine has not been studied for the treatment of chronic, treatment-refractory migraine – although it has been studied in patients with cluster headache and migraine, the investigators note.

Ketamine is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat migraine.

To further explore ketamine’s effect in those with chronic, treatment-refractory migraine, the investigators retrospectively analyzed electronic health records of patients at the Jefferson Headache Center who had received IN ketamine for the treatment of migraine between January 2019 and February 2020.

Of 242 patients who had received IN ketamine, Dr. Yuan’s team followed up with 169 who agreed to be part of the study.

The majority (67%) had daily migraine, and 85% had tried more than three classes of preventive medications for migraine. They currently used a median of two medications, the most common of which was a CGRP monoclonal antibody.

On average, patients used six sprays per day for a median 10 days per month. Median pain relief onset was 52 minutes after dosage.

Almost three-quarters of patients reported at least one side effect from the ketamine, most commonly fatigue (22%), double/blurred vision (21%), and confusion/dissociation (21%). These effects were mostly temporary, the researchers report.

The most common reasons for initiating IN ketamine included an incomplete response to prior acute medications (59%), incomplete response to prior preventive medications (31%), and prior benefit from IV ketamine (23%).

Study investigators noted that ketamine has the potential to become addictive and indicated that “clinicians should only consider the use of a potentially addictive medication such as ketamine for significantly disabled patients with migraine.”

About half of the participants who used IN ketamine found it “very effective,” and 40% found it “somewhat effective.” Within the same group, 36% and 43% found the overall impact of IN ketamine on their quality of life was much better and somewhat better, respectively.

Among those still using ketamine during study follow-up, 82% reported that ketamine was very effective.

Compared with other acute headache medications, IN ketamine was considered much better (43%) or somewhat better (30%).

Nearly 75% of participants reported using fewer pain relievers when using IN ketamine.

Dr. Yuan said that future research might focus on finding predictors for IN ketamine response or determining the optimal effective and safe dose for the drug in those with chronic, treatment-refractory migraine.  

“We still need a prospective, randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal ketamine,” he added.
 

‘Impressive result’

Commenting on the findings for this article, Richard Lipton, MD, professor of neurology, psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Montefiore Headache Center at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said that “in this refractory population with multiple treatment failures, this is a very impressive, open-label result.”

“This real-world data suggests that ketamine is an effective option for people with medically intractable chronic migraine,” said Dr. Lipton, who was not part of the study. “In these very difficult to treat patients, 65% of those who started on ketamine persisted. Of those who remained on ketamine, 82% found it very effective.”

“This study makes me more confident that intranasal ketamine is a helpful treatment option, and I plan to use it more often in the future,” he added.

Like Dr. Yuan, Dr. Lipton highlighted the need for “well-designed placebo-controlled trials” and “rigorous comparative effectiveness studies.”

The study was funded by Miles for Migraine. Dr. Yuan has received institutional support for serving as an investigator from Teva and AbbVie, and royalties from Cambridge University Press and MedLink. Dr. Lipton has received compensation for consultation from Alder/Lumbeck, Axsome, Supernus, Theranica, Upsher-Smith, and Satsuma. He has participated in speaker bureaus for Eli Lilly and Amgen/Novartis and has received institutional support for serving as principal investigator from Teva, GammaCore, and Allergan/AbbVie. He has received payments for authorship or royalties from Demos Medical, Cambridge University Press, and MedLink.

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

CHICAGO – Oncologists need to learn how to set boundaries in their professional lives and how to address their fear of saying “no” to sometimes illusory career opportunities in order to protect their well-being and reduce their risk of burnout.

This was the message from speakers at a special session on “Setting Boundaries” during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Monica Sheila Chatwal, MD, a medical oncologist at Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla., suggested that, like a painting in a museum, physicians should have “some level of guardrail” to protect their knowledge and expertise, and also their ability to be able to continue to care for patients.

Having set boundaries “provides more emotional and cognitive flexibility, and less uncertainty, in the relationships that we have with our colleagues, with our patients, with everyone around us,” she argued.

“More importantly, boundaries acknowledge that, as humans, we are multifaceted, multidimensional people,” and that “we have lives outside of medicine, much as we may or may not want to admit that.

“It’s great to be devoted to what we do, but there are so many other aspects of ourselves that make us who we are, and that is wonderful,” she said.
 

A calling, not a job

However, the idea of demarcating one’s professional and personal life can go against the still-persistent idea that being a doctor is a calling rather than a job.

“I don’t think it matters whether you call it a job or a calling,” commented another speaker at the session, Jonathan M. Marron, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer.

But even if it is a calling, which implies that “you are supposed to devote all of yourself to the work and not to anything else,” there is still a need for setting boundaries, he argued. Saying “no” and allowing “yourself to be yourself” are important measures, Dr. Marron emphasized, as taking time out can make you a better clinician.

Crucial to that is being able to communicate with colleagues and share a degree of “vulnerability,” added Dr. Chatwal. “Showing that you’re vulnerable not only to your trainees, but also to your staff and to your patients really normalizes everything.”

“I have nurses who are feeling like they have to work 24/7 and manage their inbox to answer all of their messages, because they feel like they have to keep up.

“But it’s nice for me to be able to model that and say: ‘Listen, I want you to know it’s not urgent, please take 24 hours and we’ll come back to it.’ ”
 

Communicating with patients

Dr. Chatwal noted that, while there are clear boundaries related to sexual or physical relationships between doctors and patients and around not treating family members or friends, the boundaries pertaining to communication, and “how frequently [patients] have access to us ... are not so clearly defined.”

The advent of telemedicine has added to that, she believes, as it offers a “patient portal that can allow access 24/7.”

“Does that mean we as physicians or providers also give that level of access? Are we supposed to check messages at all periods of time?”

“More and more people are becoming more cognizant of this,” she commented, noting that the issue has taken on greater import with the rise of social media and the “ability for our patients to request us as friends.”

She pointed out that former president of the American College of Physicians Wayne J. Riley, MD, MPH, MBA, suggested doctors should maintain an air of detachment with their patients, as “it allows us to protect ourselves and continue to provide that great level of care.”

On the other hand, she noted that there has been a sea change in how patients see doctors. Whereas in the past, medicine “was very paternalistic” with doctors seen as the “be all and end all,” now patients tend to be more knowledgeable and Dr. Google “makes them much more engaged in their care.”

But this can also cause problems when patients become “demanding for certain treatments,” she said.
 

Limits to ethical care?

Dr. Marron posed the question: “Is there a limit to my ethical obligations to ethical care?”

He described a hypothetical scenario where a patient has found their doctor’s email address online and they now sends “frequent emails, despite very clear instructions to use the on-call paging system for something that’s urgent, and the electronic health record messaging system otherwise.”

This patient’s behavior is “causing a huge amount of stress” for the doctor, and this is affecting their care of other patients, as well as their academic work and home life.

Dr. Marron asked the audience: Would it be ethically acceptable to stop seeing such a patient?

Taking a quick straw poll of the audience, Dr. Marron noted that there were “not a lot of hands” raised in favor.

He suggested this is because the notion of nonabandonment comes into play, in which there is an obligation to not let patients go without providing adequate time for them to find an alternative clinician.

In this scenario, for example, the doctor could find “several local oncologists who are willing to accept the patient,” as well as talk the situation through with a trusted colleagues, and only then “compassionately but resolutely” tell the patient that they will be transferred.

Dr. Marron acknowledged that this may seem at odds with the theme of this year’s ASCO annual meeting, which emphasizes “partnering with patients.” But he argued that “it doesn’t have to be.”

When thoughtfully done, setting boundaries “can ethically allow us to give more to, and partner more with, our patients, while supporting our well-being, sense of purpose, and job satisfaction,” he argued.
 

Goldilocks situation

Speaking more broadly, Dr. Marron said that boundaries might be considered on a spectrum.

Too few boundaries can lead to conflicts of interest, loss of balance in the patient-physician relationship, and overengagement, while too many boundaries may result in insufficient connection with patients, thus reducing the “human element” and increasing a sense of disengagement.

Either way, “we run the risk of having decreased satisfaction what with what we’re doing, and decreasing the quality of patient care.”

“It’s a little bit of a Goldilocks situation: You want to find just the right balance, somewhere in the middle,” he said.

In the past, issues around having too few boundaries related to conflicts of interest. This reduced trust in the medical profession, he commented, which may have affected patient outcomes, and certainly increased the risk of reduced well-being and burnout.

“Today, we probably still lie on the end of the spectrum with too few boundaries,” Dr. Marron said, “but in a very different way, as we worry about limited work-life balance, and always being connected.”

“I don’t think there’s anybody in the room who doesn’t have some kind of electronic device, either in their hand or not too far from their hand,” he continued.

Moreover, “the patients that we’re taking care of have a greater amount of complexity than they’ve ever had before ... [with] greater numbers of needs than ever before,” and as a result, they require “a greater amount of our time as clinicians.”

Just as with the lack of boundaries in the past, this “runs the risk of us having decreased well-being and an increased risk of burnout,” he suggested.
 

Wearing several hats

The third speaker, Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, associate professor of medicine and population health, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society, said that every oncologist wears several “hats” in addition to being a clinician.

These may include, in his case, being “a father, a husband, and a brother, and a soccer coach, and a lot of different things.”

Dr. Kamal underlined that recognizing these various roles is “really important,” especially when it comes to the “moment of comparison with others,” as there is a temptation to see one’s own complexity but not that of a colleague.

“The question is: What are all the other competing priorities that a person faces?”

For example, a person’s tally of publications is “just one of many metrics” when it comes to measuring the “success of a career, and, frankly, I’m not sure that’s one of the good ones,” Dr. Kamal said.

He recalled how a mentor of his when he was at the Mayo Clinic had a “remarkable dip” in the number of publications at a certain point in his career, and he explained to Dr. Kamal that this was the time “when my kids needed me the most.”

“That was really important,” Dr. Kamal said, “because it taught me a lesson about having mentors in your life that are not only focused on your career and academic success, but also those who are very interested in the other hats that you wear.”
 

Fear of saying no

One way of setting boundaries is saying no to certain requests, Dr. Kamal commented.

He gave an example from his own life – when he was at a soccer game and received  a call on his cell from a patient who has seen test results before he has had a chance to review them.

Dr. Kamal also painted a hypothetical scenario, where a doctor on junior faculty, staffing a GI oncology clinic 4 days a week, is also volunteering to collect and organize new cases for the tumor board, and is writing several letters of intent for pharmaceutical trials. They are saying “yes” to 90% of the requests for their time, he said, and the result is they go home “most days feeling like their tank is on empty.”

“Then this person gets asked by the division chief to serve on the hospital’s pain committee,” he said, “regardless of the fact that this is not necessarily in their clinical or research interests.”

“So this is really a bit of an [out of] left field request, and how does this person address this?”

Dr. Kamal said that a useful concept to consider is something commonly ascribed to teenagers, that of the fear of missing out, or FOMO.

The problem is that, “due to this concept of FOMO, when opportunities come your way, saying ‘no’ to them gives rise to the question: What if the opportunity never comes back?”

But Dr. Kamal also reminded the audience that “without being able to say no to things ... your capacity will go down.”

“That’s really important to recognize, because for a long time, healing professions have been thought of as [having] people that can continue to expand and expand and expand, without calling out this concept of inflation.”

This is really about “being true to yourself,” and acknowledging that “no one is going to set boundaries for you.”

“That was a tough lesson I learned in my career,” Dr. Kamal commented, and when he looked for guidance, he found that “everyone is struggling with this.”

Setting boundaries, he emphasized, requires “a certain amount of looking inward ... and it requires some bravery.”

“You just have to ask yourself: Is the only reason you’re going to do something because of FOMO?” Dr. Kamal commented. “Maybe that’s okay, but you have to acknowledge that’s the case.”

Dr. Chatwal reported a relationship with Merck. Dr. Marron reported relationships with Genzyme, Partner Therapeutics, ROM Technologies, Arnett, Draper, & Hagood, and Trentalange & Kelley. Dr. Kamal reported relationships with Acclivity Health, Prepped Health, Private Diagnostic Clinic, AstraZeneca, Care4ward, Compassus, HERON, Janssen Oncology, Medtronic, New Century Health, UnitedHealth Group, and Janssen Oncology.

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

CHICAGO – Oncologists need to learn how to set boundaries in their professional lives and how to address their fear of saying “no” to sometimes illusory career opportunities in order to protect their well-being and reduce their risk of burnout.

This was the message from speakers at a special session on “Setting Boundaries” during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Monica Sheila Chatwal, MD, a medical oncologist at Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla., suggested that, like a painting in a museum, physicians should have “some level of guardrail” to protect their knowledge and expertise, and also their ability to be able to continue to care for patients.

Having set boundaries “provides more emotional and cognitive flexibility, and less uncertainty, in the relationships that we have with our colleagues, with our patients, with everyone around us,” she argued.

“More importantly, boundaries acknowledge that, as humans, we are multifaceted, multidimensional people,” and that “we have lives outside of medicine, much as we may or may not want to admit that.

“It’s great to be devoted to what we do, but there are so many other aspects of ourselves that make us who we are, and that is wonderful,” she said.
 

A calling, not a job

However, the idea of demarcating one’s professional and personal life can go against the still-persistent idea that being a doctor is a calling rather than a job.

“I don’t think it matters whether you call it a job or a calling,” commented another speaker at the session, Jonathan M. Marron, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer.

But even if it is a calling, which implies that “you are supposed to devote all of yourself to the work and not to anything else,” there is still a need for setting boundaries, he argued. Saying “no” and allowing “yourself to be yourself” are important measures, Dr. Marron emphasized, as taking time out can make you a better clinician.

Crucial to that is being able to communicate with colleagues and share a degree of “vulnerability,” added Dr. Chatwal. “Showing that you’re vulnerable not only to your trainees, but also to your staff and to your patients really normalizes everything.”

“I have nurses who are feeling like they have to work 24/7 and manage their inbox to answer all of their messages, because they feel like they have to keep up.

“But it’s nice for me to be able to model that and say: ‘Listen, I want you to know it’s not urgent, please take 24 hours and we’ll come back to it.’ ”
 

Communicating with patients

Dr. Chatwal noted that, while there are clear boundaries related to sexual or physical relationships between doctors and patients and around not treating family members or friends, the boundaries pertaining to communication, and “how frequently [patients] have access to us ... are not so clearly defined.”

The advent of telemedicine has added to that, she believes, as it offers a “patient portal that can allow access 24/7.”

“Does that mean we as physicians or providers also give that level of access? Are we supposed to check messages at all periods of time?”

“More and more people are becoming more cognizant of this,” she commented, noting that the issue has taken on greater import with the rise of social media and the “ability for our patients to request us as friends.”

She pointed out that former president of the American College of Physicians Wayne J. Riley, MD, MPH, MBA, suggested doctors should maintain an air of detachment with their patients, as “it allows us to protect ourselves and continue to provide that great level of care.”

On the other hand, she noted that there has been a sea change in how patients see doctors. Whereas in the past, medicine “was very paternalistic” with doctors seen as the “be all and end all,” now patients tend to be more knowledgeable and Dr. Google “makes them much more engaged in their care.”

But this can also cause problems when patients become “demanding for certain treatments,” she said.
 

Limits to ethical care?

Dr. Marron posed the question: “Is there a limit to my ethical obligations to ethical care?”

He described a hypothetical scenario where a patient has found their doctor’s email address online and they now sends “frequent emails, despite very clear instructions to use the on-call paging system for something that’s urgent, and the electronic health record messaging system otherwise.”

This patient’s behavior is “causing a huge amount of stress” for the doctor, and this is affecting their care of other patients, as well as their academic work and home life.

Dr. Marron asked the audience: Would it be ethically acceptable to stop seeing such a patient?

Taking a quick straw poll of the audience, Dr. Marron noted that there were “not a lot of hands” raised in favor.

He suggested this is because the notion of nonabandonment comes into play, in which there is an obligation to not let patients go without providing adequate time for them to find an alternative clinician.

In this scenario, for example, the doctor could find “several local oncologists who are willing to accept the patient,” as well as talk the situation through with a trusted colleagues, and only then “compassionately but resolutely” tell the patient that they will be transferred.

Dr. Marron acknowledged that this may seem at odds with the theme of this year’s ASCO annual meeting, which emphasizes “partnering with patients.” But he argued that “it doesn’t have to be.”

When thoughtfully done, setting boundaries “can ethically allow us to give more to, and partner more with, our patients, while supporting our well-being, sense of purpose, and job satisfaction,” he argued.
 

Goldilocks situation

Speaking more broadly, Dr. Marron said that boundaries might be considered on a spectrum.

Too few boundaries can lead to conflicts of interest, loss of balance in the patient-physician relationship, and overengagement, while too many boundaries may result in insufficient connection with patients, thus reducing the “human element” and increasing a sense of disengagement.

Either way, “we run the risk of having decreased satisfaction what with what we’re doing, and decreasing the quality of patient care.”

“It’s a little bit of a Goldilocks situation: You want to find just the right balance, somewhere in the middle,” he said.

In the past, issues around having too few boundaries related to conflicts of interest. This reduced trust in the medical profession, he commented, which may have affected patient outcomes, and certainly increased the risk of reduced well-being and burnout.

“Today, we probably still lie on the end of the spectrum with too few boundaries,” Dr. Marron said, “but in a very different way, as we worry about limited work-life balance, and always being connected.”

“I don’t think there’s anybody in the room who doesn’t have some kind of electronic device, either in their hand or not too far from their hand,” he continued.

Moreover, “the patients that we’re taking care of have a greater amount of complexity than they’ve ever had before ... [with] greater numbers of needs than ever before,” and as a result, they require “a greater amount of our time as clinicians.”

Just as with the lack of boundaries in the past, this “runs the risk of us having decreased well-being and an increased risk of burnout,” he suggested.
 

Wearing several hats

The third speaker, Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, associate professor of medicine and population health, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society, said that every oncologist wears several “hats” in addition to being a clinician.

These may include, in his case, being “a father, a husband, and a brother, and a soccer coach, and a lot of different things.”

Dr. Kamal underlined that recognizing these various roles is “really important,” especially when it comes to the “moment of comparison with others,” as there is a temptation to see one’s own complexity but not that of a colleague.

“The question is: What are all the other competing priorities that a person faces?”

For example, a person’s tally of publications is “just one of many metrics” when it comes to measuring the “success of a career, and, frankly, I’m not sure that’s one of the good ones,” Dr. Kamal said.

He recalled how a mentor of his when he was at the Mayo Clinic had a “remarkable dip” in the number of publications at a certain point in his career, and he explained to Dr. Kamal that this was the time “when my kids needed me the most.”

“That was really important,” Dr. Kamal said, “because it taught me a lesson about having mentors in your life that are not only focused on your career and academic success, but also those who are very interested in the other hats that you wear.”
 

Fear of saying no

One way of setting boundaries is saying no to certain requests, Dr. Kamal commented.

He gave an example from his own life – when he was at a soccer game and received  a call on his cell from a patient who has seen test results before he has had a chance to review them.

Dr. Kamal also painted a hypothetical scenario, where a doctor on junior faculty, staffing a GI oncology clinic 4 days a week, is also volunteering to collect and organize new cases for the tumor board, and is writing several letters of intent for pharmaceutical trials. They are saying “yes” to 90% of the requests for their time, he said, and the result is they go home “most days feeling like their tank is on empty.”

“Then this person gets asked by the division chief to serve on the hospital’s pain committee,” he said, “regardless of the fact that this is not necessarily in their clinical or research interests.”

“So this is really a bit of an [out of] left field request, and how does this person address this?”

Dr. Kamal said that a useful concept to consider is something commonly ascribed to teenagers, that of the fear of missing out, or FOMO.

The problem is that, “due to this concept of FOMO, when opportunities come your way, saying ‘no’ to them gives rise to the question: What if the opportunity never comes back?”

But Dr. Kamal also reminded the audience that “without being able to say no to things ... your capacity will go down.”

“That’s really important to recognize, because for a long time, healing professions have been thought of as [having] people that can continue to expand and expand and expand, without calling out this concept of inflation.”

This is really about “being true to yourself,” and acknowledging that “no one is going to set boundaries for you.”

“That was a tough lesson I learned in my career,” Dr. Kamal commented, and when he looked for guidance, he found that “everyone is struggling with this.”

Setting boundaries, he emphasized, requires “a certain amount of looking inward ... and it requires some bravery.”

“You just have to ask yourself: Is the only reason you’re going to do something because of FOMO?” Dr. Kamal commented. “Maybe that’s okay, but you have to acknowledge that’s the case.”

Dr. Chatwal reported a relationship with Merck. Dr. Marron reported relationships with Genzyme, Partner Therapeutics, ROM Technologies, Arnett, Draper, & Hagood, and Trentalange & Kelley. Dr. Kamal reported relationships with Acclivity Health, Prepped Health, Private Diagnostic Clinic, AstraZeneca, Care4ward, Compassus, HERON, Janssen Oncology, Medtronic, New Century Health, UnitedHealth Group, and Janssen Oncology.

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

CHICAGO – Oncologists need to learn how to set boundaries in their professional lives and how to address their fear of saying “no” to sometimes illusory career opportunities in order to protect their well-being and reduce their risk of burnout.

This was the message from speakers at a special session on “Setting Boundaries” during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Monica Sheila Chatwal, MD, a medical oncologist at Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla., suggested that, like a painting in a museum, physicians should have “some level of guardrail” to protect their knowledge and expertise, and also their ability to be able to continue to care for patients.

Having set boundaries “provides more emotional and cognitive flexibility, and less uncertainty, in the relationships that we have with our colleagues, with our patients, with everyone around us,” she argued.

“More importantly, boundaries acknowledge that, as humans, we are multifaceted, multidimensional people,” and that “we have lives outside of medicine, much as we may or may not want to admit that.

“It’s great to be devoted to what we do, but there are so many other aspects of ourselves that make us who we are, and that is wonderful,” she said.
 

A calling, not a job

However, the idea of demarcating one’s professional and personal life can go against the still-persistent idea that being a doctor is a calling rather than a job.

“I don’t think it matters whether you call it a job or a calling,” commented another speaker at the session, Jonathan M. Marron, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer.

But even if it is a calling, which implies that “you are supposed to devote all of yourself to the work and not to anything else,” there is still a need for setting boundaries, he argued. Saying “no” and allowing “yourself to be yourself” are important measures, Dr. Marron emphasized, as taking time out can make you a better clinician.

Crucial to that is being able to communicate with colleagues and share a degree of “vulnerability,” added Dr. Chatwal. “Showing that you’re vulnerable not only to your trainees, but also to your staff and to your patients really normalizes everything.”

“I have nurses who are feeling like they have to work 24/7 and manage their inbox to answer all of their messages, because they feel like they have to keep up.

“But it’s nice for me to be able to model that and say: ‘Listen, I want you to know it’s not urgent, please take 24 hours and we’ll come back to it.’ ”
 

Communicating with patients

Dr. Chatwal noted that, while there are clear boundaries related to sexual or physical relationships between doctors and patients and around not treating family members or friends, the boundaries pertaining to communication, and “how frequently [patients] have access to us ... are not so clearly defined.”

The advent of telemedicine has added to that, she believes, as it offers a “patient portal that can allow access 24/7.”

“Does that mean we as physicians or providers also give that level of access? Are we supposed to check messages at all periods of time?”

“More and more people are becoming more cognizant of this,” she commented, noting that the issue has taken on greater import with the rise of social media and the “ability for our patients to request us as friends.”

She pointed out that former president of the American College of Physicians Wayne J. Riley, MD, MPH, MBA, suggested doctors should maintain an air of detachment with their patients, as “it allows us to protect ourselves and continue to provide that great level of care.”

On the other hand, she noted that there has been a sea change in how patients see doctors. Whereas in the past, medicine “was very paternalistic” with doctors seen as the “be all and end all,” now patients tend to be more knowledgeable and Dr. Google “makes them much more engaged in their care.”

But this can also cause problems when patients become “demanding for certain treatments,” she said.
 

Limits to ethical care?

Dr. Marron posed the question: “Is there a limit to my ethical obligations to ethical care?”

He described a hypothetical scenario where a patient has found their doctor’s email address online and they now sends “frequent emails, despite very clear instructions to use the on-call paging system for something that’s urgent, and the electronic health record messaging system otherwise.”

This patient’s behavior is “causing a huge amount of stress” for the doctor, and this is affecting their care of other patients, as well as their academic work and home life.

Dr. Marron asked the audience: Would it be ethically acceptable to stop seeing such a patient?

Taking a quick straw poll of the audience, Dr. Marron noted that there were “not a lot of hands” raised in favor.

He suggested this is because the notion of nonabandonment comes into play, in which there is an obligation to not let patients go without providing adequate time for them to find an alternative clinician.

In this scenario, for example, the doctor could find “several local oncologists who are willing to accept the patient,” as well as talk the situation through with a trusted colleagues, and only then “compassionately but resolutely” tell the patient that they will be transferred.

Dr. Marron acknowledged that this may seem at odds with the theme of this year’s ASCO annual meeting, which emphasizes “partnering with patients.” But he argued that “it doesn’t have to be.”

When thoughtfully done, setting boundaries “can ethically allow us to give more to, and partner more with, our patients, while supporting our well-being, sense of purpose, and job satisfaction,” he argued.
 

Goldilocks situation

Speaking more broadly, Dr. Marron said that boundaries might be considered on a spectrum.

Too few boundaries can lead to conflicts of interest, loss of balance in the patient-physician relationship, and overengagement, while too many boundaries may result in insufficient connection with patients, thus reducing the “human element” and increasing a sense of disengagement.

Either way, “we run the risk of having decreased satisfaction what with what we’re doing, and decreasing the quality of patient care.”

“It’s a little bit of a Goldilocks situation: You want to find just the right balance, somewhere in the middle,” he said.

In the past, issues around having too few boundaries related to conflicts of interest. This reduced trust in the medical profession, he commented, which may have affected patient outcomes, and certainly increased the risk of reduced well-being and burnout.

“Today, we probably still lie on the end of the spectrum with too few boundaries,” Dr. Marron said, “but in a very different way, as we worry about limited work-life balance, and always being connected.”

“I don’t think there’s anybody in the room who doesn’t have some kind of electronic device, either in their hand or not too far from their hand,” he continued.

Moreover, “the patients that we’re taking care of have a greater amount of complexity than they’ve ever had before ... [with] greater numbers of needs than ever before,” and as a result, they require “a greater amount of our time as clinicians.”

Just as with the lack of boundaries in the past, this “runs the risk of us having decreased well-being and an increased risk of burnout,” he suggested.
 

Wearing several hats

The third speaker, Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, associate professor of medicine and population health, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society, said that every oncologist wears several “hats” in addition to being a clinician.

These may include, in his case, being “a father, a husband, and a brother, and a soccer coach, and a lot of different things.”

Dr. Kamal underlined that recognizing these various roles is “really important,” especially when it comes to the “moment of comparison with others,” as there is a temptation to see one’s own complexity but not that of a colleague.

“The question is: What are all the other competing priorities that a person faces?”

For example, a person’s tally of publications is “just one of many metrics” when it comes to measuring the “success of a career, and, frankly, I’m not sure that’s one of the good ones,” Dr. Kamal said.

He recalled how a mentor of his when he was at the Mayo Clinic had a “remarkable dip” in the number of publications at a certain point in his career, and he explained to Dr. Kamal that this was the time “when my kids needed me the most.”

“That was really important,” Dr. Kamal said, “because it taught me a lesson about having mentors in your life that are not only focused on your career and academic success, but also those who are very interested in the other hats that you wear.”
 

Fear of saying no

One way of setting boundaries is saying no to certain requests, Dr. Kamal commented.

He gave an example from his own life – when he was at a soccer game and received  a call on his cell from a patient who has seen test results before he has had a chance to review them.

Dr. Kamal also painted a hypothetical scenario, where a doctor on junior faculty, staffing a GI oncology clinic 4 days a week, is also volunteering to collect and organize new cases for the tumor board, and is writing several letters of intent for pharmaceutical trials. They are saying “yes” to 90% of the requests for their time, he said, and the result is they go home “most days feeling like their tank is on empty.”

“Then this person gets asked by the division chief to serve on the hospital’s pain committee,” he said, “regardless of the fact that this is not necessarily in their clinical or research interests.”

“So this is really a bit of an [out of] left field request, and how does this person address this?”

Dr. Kamal said that a useful concept to consider is something commonly ascribed to teenagers, that of the fear of missing out, or FOMO.

The problem is that, “due to this concept of FOMO, when opportunities come your way, saying ‘no’ to them gives rise to the question: What if the opportunity never comes back?”

But Dr. Kamal also reminded the audience that “without being able to say no to things ... your capacity will go down.”

“That’s really important to recognize, because for a long time, healing professions have been thought of as [having] people that can continue to expand and expand and expand, without calling out this concept of inflation.”

This is really about “being true to yourself,” and acknowledging that “no one is going to set boundaries for you.”

“That was a tough lesson I learned in my career,” Dr. Kamal commented, and when he looked for guidance, he found that “everyone is struggling with this.”

Setting boundaries, he emphasized, requires “a certain amount of looking inward ... and it requires some bravery.”

“You just have to ask yourself: Is the only reason you’re going to do something because of FOMO?” Dr. Kamal commented. “Maybe that’s okay, but you have to acknowledge that’s the case.”

Dr. Chatwal reported a relationship with Merck. Dr. Marron reported relationships with Genzyme, Partner Therapeutics, ROM Technologies, Arnett, Draper, & Hagood, and Trentalange & Kelley. Dr. Kamal reported relationships with Acclivity Health, Prepped Health, Private Diagnostic Clinic, AstraZeneca, Care4ward, Compassus, HERON, Janssen Oncology, Medtronic, New Century Health, UnitedHealth Group, and Janssen Oncology.

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

With the exception of lysergic acid diethylamide, use of hallucinogens surged between 2018 and 2021 among adults younger than 30 years in the United States, new research shows.

In 2018, the prevalence of young adults’ past-year use of non-LSD hallucinogens was 3.4%. By 2021, it had jumped to 6.6%.

The increase in non-LSD hallucinogen use occurred while LSD use remained stable at around 4% in 2018 and 2021.

“While non-LSD hallucinogen use remains substantially less prevalent than use of substances such as alcohol and cannabis, a doubling of prevalence in just three years is a dramatic increase and raises possible public health concerns,” co-author Megan Patrick, PhD, with the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, said in a news release.

The results were published online in the journal Addiction.
 

Health concerns

The estimates are derived from the Monitoring the Future study, which includes annual assessments of adolescent and adult health in the United States.

The analysis focused on 11,304 persons (52% female) aged 9-30 years from the U.S. general population who were interviewed between 2018 and 2021.

Participants were asked about past 12-month use of LSD, as well as use of non-LSD hallucinogens, such as psilocybin.

From 2018 to 2021, past 12-month use of LSD remained relatively stable; it was 3.7% in 2018 and 4.2% in 2021.

However, non-LSD hallucinogen use increased in prevalence from 3.4% to 6.6% from 2018 to 2021.

Across years, the odds of non-LSD use were higher among males, White people, and individuals from households with higher parental education – a proxy for higher socioeconomic status.

The most commonly used non-LSD hallucinogen was psilocybin.

The survey did not ask whether young adults used non-LSD hallucinogens for therapeutic or medical reasons.

“The use of psychedelic and hallucinogenic drugs for a range of therapeutic uses is increasing, given accumulating yet still preliminary data from randomized trials on clinical effectiveness,” lead author Katherine Keyes, PhD, with Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, said in the release.

“With increased visibility for medical and therapeutic use, however, potentially comes diversion and unregulated product availability, as well as a lack of understanding among the public of potential risks,” Dr. Keyes added.

“However, approved therapeutic use of psychedelics under a trained health professional’s care remains uncommon in the United States, thus the trends we observe here are undoubtedly in nonmedical and nontherapeutic use,” Dr. Keyes noted.

Dr. Patrick said the increased use of hallucinogens raises “concern for young adult health” and is not without risk. While hallucinogen dependence has historically been rare in the U.S. population, it could become more common as use increases, she noted.

The researchers will continue to track these trends to see whether the increases continue.

“We need additional research, including about the motives for hallucinogen use and how young adults are using these substances, in order to be able to mitigate the associated negative consequences,” Dr. Patrick said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Keyes and Dr. Patrick have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

With the exception of lysergic acid diethylamide, use of hallucinogens surged between 2018 and 2021 among adults younger than 30 years in the United States, new research shows.

In 2018, the prevalence of young adults’ past-year use of non-LSD hallucinogens was 3.4%. By 2021, it had jumped to 6.6%.

The increase in non-LSD hallucinogen use occurred while LSD use remained stable at around 4% in 2018 and 2021.

“While non-LSD hallucinogen use remains substantially less prevalent than use of substances such as alcohol and cannabis, a doubling of prevalence in just three years is a dramatic increase and raises possible public health concerns,” co-author Megan Patrick, PhD, with the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, said in a news release.

The results were published online in the journal Addiction.
 

Health concerns

The estimates are derived from the Monitoring the Future study, which includes annual assessments of adolescent and adult health in the United States.

The analysis focused on 11,304 persons (52% female) aged 9-30 years from the U.S. general population who were interviewed between 2018 and 2021.

Participants were asked about past 12-month use of LSD, as well as use of non-LSD hallucinogens, such as psilocybin.

From 2018 to 2021, past 12-month use of LSD remained relatively stable; it was 3.7% in 2018 and 4.2% in 2021.

However, non-LSD hallucinogen use increased in prevalence from 3.4% to 6.6% from 2018 to 2021.

Across years, the odds of non-LSD use were higher among males, White people, and individuals from households with higher parental education – a proxy for higher socioeconomic status.

The most commonly used non-LSD hallucinogen was psilocybin.

The survey did not ask whether young adults used non-LSD hallucinogens for therapeutic or medical reasons.

“The use of psychedelic and hallucinogenic drugs for a range of therapeutic uses is increasing, given accumulating yet still preliminary data from randomized trials on clinical effectiveness,” lead author Katherine Keyes, PhD, with Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, said in the release.

“With increased visibility for medical and therapeutic use, however, potentially comes diversion and unregulated product availability, as well as a lack of understanding among the public of potential risks,” Dr. Keyes added.

“However, approved therapeutic use of psychedelics under a trained health professional’s care remains uncommon in the United States, thus the trends we observe here are undoubtedly in nonmedical and nontherapeutic use,” Dr. Keyes noted.

Dr. Patrick said the increased use of hallucinogens raises “concern for young adult health” and is not without risk. While hallucinogen dependence has historically been rare in the U.S. population, it could become more common as use increases, she noted.

The researchers will continue to track these trends to see whether the increases continue.

“We need additional research, including about the motives for hallucinogen use and how young adults are using these substances, in order to be able to mitigate the associated negative consequences,” Dr. Patrick said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Keyes and Dr. Patrick have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

With the exception of lysergic acid diethylamide, use of hallucinogens surged between 2018 and 2021 among adults younger than 30 years in the United States, new research shows.

In 2018, the prevalence of young adults’ past-year use of non-LSD hallucinogens was 3.4%. By 2021, it had jumped to 6.6%.

The increase in non-LSD hallucinogen use occurred while LSD use remained stable at around 4% in 2018 and 2021.

“While non-LSD hallucinogen use remains substantially less prevalent than use of substances such as alcohol and cannabis, a doubling of prevalence in just three years is a dramatic increase and raises possible public health concerns,” co-author Megan Patrick, PhD, with the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, said in a news release.

The results were published online in the journal Addiction.
 

Health concerns

The estimates are derived from the Monitoring the Future study, which includes annual assessments of adolescent and adult health in the United States.

The analysis focused on 11,304 persons (52% female) aged 9-30 years from the U.S. general population who were interviewed between 2018 and 2021.

Participants were asked about past 12-month use of LSD, as well as use of non-LSD hallucinogens, such as psilocybin.

From 2018 to 2021, past 12-month use of LSD remained relatively stable; it was 3.7% in 2018 and 4.2% in 2021.

However, non-LSD hallucinogen use increased in prevalence from 3.4% to 6.6% from 2018 to 2021.

Across years, the odds of non-LSD use were higher among males, White people, and individuals from households with higher parental education – a proxy for higher socioeconomic status.

The most commonly used non-LSD hallucinogen was psilocybin.

The survey did not ask whether young adults used non-LSD hallucinogens for therapeutic or medical reasons.

“The use of psychedelic and hallucinogenic drugs for a range of therapeutic uses is increasing, given accumulating yet still preliminary data from randomized trials on clinical effectiveness,” lead author Katherine Keyes, PhD, with Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, said in the release.

“With increased visibility for medical and therapeutic use, however, potentially comes diversion and unregulated product availability, as well as a lack of understanding among the public of potential risks,” Dr. Keyes added.

“However, approved therapeutic use of psychedelics under a trained health professional’s care remains uncommon in the United States, thus the trends we observe here are undoubtedly in nonmedical and nontherapeutic use,” Dr. Keyes noted.

Dr. Patrick said the increased use of hallucinogens raises “concern for young adult health” and is not without risk. While hallucinogen dependence has historically been rare in the U.S. population, it could become more common as use increases, she noted.

The researchers will continue to track these trends to see whether the increases continue.

“We need additional research, including about the motives for hallucinogen use and how young adults are using these substances, in order to be able to mitigate the associated negative consequences,” Dr. Patrick said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Keyes and Dr. Patrick have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – By definition, all clinical care is – or should be – patient-centered care, and that is especially true for older women with early stage breast cancer.

“Older women need to be informed of the benefits and risks of their treatment options, including the option of omitting a treatment,” said Mara Schonberg, MD, MPH, of the division of general medicine and primary care at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

“High quality shared decision-making considers a woman’s risk of recurrence, her tumor characteristics, her overall prognosis based on her general health, the lag-time to benefit from the treatment – how long will it take for this treatment to likely have an effect or a real chance of having any benefit for her – and her values and preferences,” she explained. Dr. Schonberg was speaking at a session on the management of care for older women with breast cancer held during the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting.

Care for older women with a new diagnosis of early stage breast cancer is not one-size-fits all, and patients are faced with many decisions that may depend as much on personal preference as on clinical necessity, Dr. Schonberg said.

For example, patients may need to choose between mastectomy or breast conserving surgery (BCS), whether to have radiotherapy after BCS, what type of radiotherapy (e.g., whole breast, partial breast, accelerated partial breast irradiation, boost dose) to have, whether to undergo a lymph node biopsy, and whether to opt for primary endocrine therapy instead of surgery or radiation.

“It is really important that we think about all these decisions that older women face in their preference-sensitive decisions and that we include them in the decision-making, probably even starting at the time of mammography,” Dr. Schonberg said.
 

Decision-making partnership

Doctor–patient shared decision making improves patient care by helping the patients understand the best available evidence on the risks and benefits of specific choices and their alternatives, Dr. Schonberg said. Discussing and considering all the available options allows the doctor and patient to arrive together at an informed decision based on the individual patient’s needs and preferences, she emphasized.

“It’s particularly useful when there are multiple treatment options, when there’s uncertainty regarding the evidence or uncertainty regarding which patients may benefit or on the outcome, when there are both treatment advantages and disadvantages that patients must weigh, and when the decision is high impact, like for breast cancer treatment,” she said.

Shared decision-making can be complicated by barriers of time, how care is organized, lack of clinician training in patient-centered communication, and mistaken assumptions on the part of clinicians about a particular patient’s preferences or willingness to participate in the process.

Dr. Schonberg and colleagues created the website ePrognosis to consolidate prognostic indices designed to aid clinical decision-making for older adults who do not have a dominant terminal diagnosis. The site contains links to prognostic calculators, information about time to benefit for various cancer screening programs based on life expectancy, and helpful information about communicating information about prognosis, risks, and benefits to patients.
 

De-escalating surgery

Also at the session, Jennifer Tseng, MD, medical director of breast surgery at City of Hope Orange County Cancer Center, Irvine, Calif., discussed de-escalation of locoregional therapy. For some patients, this may mean skipping surgery or radiation.

“How do we de-escalate the extent of surgery, the extent of morbidity that we are imparting on our patients with surgery but still maximizing and preserving oncological outcomes?” she asked.

Currently more than 30% of new breast cancer diagnoses are in women age 70 and older, and estrogen receptor positive, HER2-negative disease is the majority biomarker profile.

At present, more than 70% of women with breast cancer in this older population will receive axillary surgery and/or radiation.

But for many patients with early, node-negative breast cancers with favorable tumor characteristics, less extensive surgery may be an appropriate option, especially for patients who have other significant comorbidities, Dr. Tseng said.

“Just at baseline, we know that mastectomy is a harder operation, it’s a harder recovery. You may be incorporating additional surgery such as reconstructive surgery, so breast-conserving surgery is always considered less invasive, less morbid,” she said.

“Do we absolutely have to do a mastectomy for a patient who has a second episode of cancer in the same breast? The answer is no,” she said, adding that omitting axillary surgery in early-stage disease may also be safe for some older patients.
 

De-escalating radiotherapy

Options for de-escalating radiation therapy include shortening the course of treatment with hypofractionation or ultra hypofractionation, reduction of treatment volumes with partial breast radiation, reducing radiation dose to normal tissues, or even in appropriate cases eliminating radiation entirely, Dr. Tseng said.

“My radiation oncologist turned to me and said, ‘This patient is now eligible for 3 days [or radiation] based on the latest trial we have open at City of Hope.’ I was like, wow, we went from 6 weeks to 3 days of radiation, but that is in the appropriate patient population with those early stage, really more favorable tumor characteristics,” she said.

Moving forward, the debate in radiation oncology is likely to focus on the option of ultra hypofractionation vs no radiation, she added.

Regarding reducing radiation volume, Dr. Tseng noted that most in-breast tumor recurrences happen within 1 cm of the original tumor bed, and partial breast irradiation targets the tumor bed with a 1- to 2-cm margin and provides excellent clinical outcomes with minimal adverse events, allowing for rapid recovery.

Deep inspiration breath holds and prone-positioning of patients with left-side tumors during beam delivery can also significantly decrease the dose to normal tissues, an especially important consideration for patients with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, she said.

Radiation may also be deferred in many older patients who may benefit from endocrine therapy alone and in those who have a very early stage and less aggressive tumor type.
 

Systemic therapy in the older patient

Etienne GC Brain, PhD, of the department of medical oncology at the Curie Institute in Paris and Saint-Cloud, France, reviewed evidence regarding systemic therapy in older patients with high-risk breast cancers.

For patients with triple-negative breast cancer pathologic stage T1b or greater he usually advises adjuvant chemotherapy with the option of neoadjuvant chemotherapy if breast-conserving surgery is a goal; for patients with HER2-positive disease, he advises 1 year of therapy with an anti-HER2 agent.

Shorter HER2 regimens may be possible for older patients, and frail older adults may have good outcomes with HER2 therapy alone, as shown recently by Japanese investigators, Dr. Brain noted.

“For lumimal disease, endocrine therapy remains the standard of treatment for me, and chemo, of course can be considered in higher risk, but the problem is we don’t know how to define this high risk, given the poor guidance provided by gene expression profiles,” he said.

For older patients, longer follow-up is needed to assess treatment benefit vs. life expectancy, Dr. Brain said, warning that the standard of care established in younger patients cannot be easily extrapolated to the care of older patients.

Dr. Schonberg disclosed authorship of review pages on preventive health for older adults for UpToDate. Dr. Tseng disclosed that she is a breast surgeon and that her discussion of radiation therapy may reflect personal bias. Dr. Brain disclosed honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, and Seagen, consulting/advising for Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Sandoz-Novartis, and travel expenses from Pfizer.

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

CHICAGO – By definition, all clinical care is – or should be – patient-centered care, and that is especially true for older women with early stage breast cancer.

“Older women need to be informed of the benefits and risks of their treatment options, including the option of omitting a treatment,” said Mara Schonberg, MD, MPH, of the division of general medicine and primary care at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

“High quality shared decision-making considers a woman’s risk of recurrence, her tumor characteristics, her overall prognosis based on her general health, the lag-time to benefit from the treatment – how long will it take for this treatment to likely have an effect or a real chance of having any benefit for her – and her values and preferences,” she explained. Dr. Schonberg was speaking at a session on the management of care for older women with breast cancer held during the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting.

Care for older women with a new diagnosis of early stage breast cancer is not one-size-fits all, and patients are faced with many decisions that may depend as much on personal preference as on clinical necessity, Dr. Schonberg said.

For example, patients may need to choose between mastectomy or breast conserving surgery (BCS), whether to have radiotherapy after BCS, what type of radiotherapy (e.g., whole breast, partial breast, accelerated partial breast irradiation, boost dose) to have, whether to undergo a lymph node biopsy, and whether to opt for primary endocrine therapy instead of surgery or radiation.

“It is really important that we think about all these decisions that older women face in their preference-sensitive decisions and that we include them in the decision-making, probably even starting at the time of mammography,” Dr. Schonberg said.
 

Decision-making partnership

Doctor–patient shared decision making improves patient care by helping the patients understand the best available evidence on the risks and benefits of specific choices and their alternatives, Dr. Schonberg said. Discussing and considering all the available options allows the doctor and patient to arrive together at an informed decision based on the individual patient’s needs and preferences, she emphasized.

“It’s particularly useful when there are multiple treatment options, when there’s uncertainty regarding the evidence or uncertainty regarding which patients may benefit or on the outcome, when there are both treatment advantages and disadvantages that patients must weigh, and when the decision is high impact, like for breast cancer treatment,” she said.

Shared decision-making can be complicated by barriers of time, how care is organized, lack of clinician training in patient-centered communication, and mistaken assumptions on the part of clinicians about a particular patient’s preferences or willingness to participate in the process.

Dr. Schonberg and colleagues created the website ePrognosis to consolidate prognostic indices designed to aid clinical decision-making for older adults who do not have a dominant terminal diagnosis. The site contains links to prognostic calculators, information about time to benefit for various cancer screening programs based on life expectancy, and helpful information about communicating information about prognosis, risks, and benefits to patients.
 

De-escalating surgery

Also at the session, Jennifer Tseng, MD, medical director of breast surgery at City of Hope Orange County Cancer Center, Irvine, Calif., discussed de-escalation of locoregional therapy. For some patients, this may mean skipping surgery or radiation.

“How do we de-escalate the extent of surgery, the extent of morbidity that we are imparting on our patients with surgery but still maximizing and preserving oncological outcomes?” she asked.

Currently more than 30% of new breast cancer diagnoses are in women age 70 and older, and estrogen receptor positive, HER2-negative disease is the majority biomarker profile.

At present, more than 70% of women with breast cancer in this older population will receive axillary surgery and/or radiation.

But for many patients with early, node-negative breast cancers with favorable tumor characteristics, less extensive surgery may be an appropriate option, especially for patients who have other significant comorbidities, Dr. Tseng said.

“Just at baseline, we know that mastectomy is a harder operation, it’s a harder recovery. You may be incorporating additional surgery such as reconstructive surgery, so breast-conserving surgery is always considered less invasive, less morbid,” she said.

“Do we absolutely have to do a mastectomy for a patient who has a second episode of cancer in the same breast? The answer is no,” she said, adding that omitting axillary surgery in early-stage disease may also be safe for some older patients.
 

De-escalating radiotherapy

Options for de-escalating radiation therapy include shortening the course of treatment with hypofractionation or ultra hypofractionation, reduction of treatment volumes with partial breast radiation, reducing radiation dose to normal tissues, or even in appropriate cases eliminating radiation entirely, Dr. Tseng said.

“My radiation oncologist turned to me and said, ‘This patient is now eligible for 3 days [or radiation] based on the latest trial we have open at City of Hope.’ I was like, wow, we went from 6 weeks to 3 days of radiation, but that is in the appropriate patient population with those early stage, really more favorable tumor characteristics,” she said.

Moving forward, the debate in radiation oncology is likely to focus on the option of ultra hypofractionation vs no radiation, she added.

Regarding reducing radiation volume, Dr. Tseng noted that most in-breast tumor recurrences happen within 1 cm of the original tumor bed, and partial breast irradiation targets the tumor bed with a 1- to 2-cm margin and provides excellent clinical outcomes with minimal adverse events, allowing for rapid recovery.

Deep inspiration breath holds and prone-positioning of patients with left-side tumors during beam delivery can also significantly decrease the dose to normal tissues, an especially important consideration for patients with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, she said.

Radiation may also be deferred in many older patients who may benefit from endocrine therapy alone and in those who have a very early stage and less aggressive tumor type.
 

Systemic therapy in the older patient

Etienne GC Brain, PhD, of the department of medical oncology at the Curie Institute in Paris and Saint-Cloud, France, reviewed evidence regarding systemic therapy in older patients with high-risk breast cancers.

For patients with triple-negative breast cancer pathologic stage T1b or greater he usually advises adjuvant chemotherapy with the option of neoadjuvant chemotherapy if breast-conserving surgery is a goal; for patients with HER2-positive disease, he advises 1 year of therapy with an anti-HER2 agent.

Shorter HER2 regimens may be possible for older patients, and frail older adults may have good outcomes with HER2 therapy alone, as shown recently by Japanese investigators, Dr. Brain noted.

“For lumimal disease, endocrine therapy remains the standard of treatment for me, and chemo, of course can be considered in higher risk, but the problem is we don’t know how to define this high risk, given the poor guidance provided by gene expression profiles,” he said.

For older patients, longer follow-up is needed to assess treatment benefit vs. life expectancy, Dr. Brain said, warning that the standard of care established in younger patients cannot be easily extrapolated to the care of older patients.

Dr. Schonberg disclosed authorship of review pages on preventive health for older adults for UpToDate. Dr. Tseng disclosed that she is a breast surgeon and that her discussion of radiation therapy may reflect personal bias. Dr. Brain disclosed honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, and Seagen, consulting/advising for Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Sandoz-Novartis, and travel expenses from Pfizer.

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

CHICAGO – By definition, all clinical care is – or should be – patient-centered care, and that is especially true for older women with early stage breast cancer.

“Older women need to be informed of the benefits and risks of their treatment options, including the option of omitting a treatment,” said Mara Schonberg, MD, MPH, of the division of general medicine and primary care at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

“High quality shared decision-making considers a woman’s risk of recurrence, her tumor characteristics, her overall prognosis based on her general health, the lag-time to benefit from the treatment – how long will it take for this treatment to likely have an effect or a real chance of having any benefit for her – and her values and preferences,” she explained. Dr. Schonberg was speaking at a session on the management of care for older women with breast cancer held during the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting.

Care for older women with a new diagnosis of early stage breast cancer is not one-size-fits all, and patients are faced with many decisions that may depend as much on personal preference as on clinical necessity, Dr. Schonberg said.

For example, patients may need to choose between mastectomy or breast conserving surgery (BCS), whether to have radiotherapy after BCS, what type of radiotherapy (e.g., whole breast, partial breast, accelerated partial breast irradiation, boost dose) to have, whether to undergo a lymph node biopsy, and whether to opt for primary endocrine therapy instead of surgery or radiation.

“It is really important that we think about all these decisions that older women face in their preference-sensitive decisions and that we include them in the decision-making, probably even starting at the time of mammography,” Dr. Schonberg said.
 

Decision-making partnership

Doctor–patient shared decision making improves patient care by helping the patients understand the best available evidence on the risks and benefits of specific choices and their alternatives, Dr. Schonberg said. Discussing and considering all the available options allows the doctor and patient to arrive together at an informed decision based on the individual patient’s needs and preferences, she emphasized.

“It’s particularly useful when there are multiple treatment options, when there’s uncertainty regarding the evidence or uncertainty regarding which patients may benefit or on the outcome, when there are both treatment advantages and disadvantages that patients must weigh, and when the decision is high impact, like for breast cancer treatment,” she said.

Shared decision-making can be complicated by barriers of time, how care is organized, lack of clinician training in patient-centered communication, and mistaken assumptions on the part of clinicians about a particular patient’s preferences or willingness to participate in the process.

Dr. Schonberg and colleagues created the website ePrognosis to consolidate prognostic indices designed to aid clinical decision-making for older adults who do not have a dominant terminal diagnosis. The site contains links to prognostic calculators, information about time to benefit for various cancer screening programs based on life expectancy, and helpful information about communicating information about prognosis, risks, and benefits to patients.
 

De-escalating surgery

Also at the session, Jennifer Tseng, MD, medical director of breast surgery at City of Hope Orange County Cancer Center, Irvine, Calif., discussed de-escalation of locoregional therapy. For some patients, this may mean skipping surgery or radiation.

“How do we de-escalate the extent of surgery, the extent of morbidity that we are imparting on our patients with surgery but still maximizing and preserving oncological outcomes?” she asked.

Currently more than 30% of new breast cancer diagnoses are in women age 70 and older, and estrogen receptor positive, HER2-negative disease is the majority biomarker profile.

At present, more than 70% of women with breast cancer in this older population will receive axillary surgery and/or radiation.

But for many patients with early, node-negative breast cancers with favorable tumor characteristics, less extensive surgery may be an appropriate option, especially for patients who have other significant comorbidities, Dr. Tseng said.

“Just at baseline, we know that mastectomy is a harder operation, it’s a harder recovery. You may be incorporating additional surgery such as reconstructive surgery, so breast-conserving surgery is always considered less invasive, less morbid,” she said.

“Do we absolutely have to do a mastectomy for a patient who has a second episode of cancer in the same breast? The answer is no,” she said, adding that omitting axillary surgery in early-stage disease may also be safe for some older patients.
 

De-escalating radiotherapy

Options for de-escalating radiation therapy include shortening the course of treatment with hypofractionation or ultra hypofractionation, reduction of treatment volumes with partial breast radiation, reducing radiation dose to normal tissues, or even in appropriate cases eliminating radiation entirely, Dr. Tseng said.

“My radiation oncologist turned to me and said, ‘This patient is now eligible for 3 days [or radiation] based on the latest trial we have open at City of Hope.’ I was like, wow, we went from 6 weeks to 3 days of radiation, but that is in the appropriate patient population with those early stage, really more favorable tumor characteristics,” she said.

Moving forward, the debate in radiation oncology is likely to focus on the option of ultra hypofractionation vs no radiation, she added.

Regarding reducing radiation volume, Dr. Tseng noted that most in-breast tumor recurrences happen within 1 cm of the original tumor bed, and partial breast irradiation targets the tumor bed with a 1- to 2-cm margin and provides excellent clinical outcomes with minimal adverse events, allowing for rapid recovery.

Deep inspiration breath holds and prone-positioning of patients with left-side tumors during beam delivery can also significantly decrease the dose to normal tissues, an especially important consideration for patients with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, she said.

Radiation may also be deferred in many older patients who may benefit from endocrine therapy alone and in those who have a very early stage and less aggressive tumor type.
 

Systemic therapy in the older patient

Etienne GC Brain, PhD, of the department of medical oncology at the Curie Institute in Paris and Saint-Cloud, France, reviewed evidence regarding systemic therapy in older patients with high-risk breast cancers.

For patients with triple-negative breast cancer pathologic stage T1b or greater he usually advises adjuvant chemotherapy with the option of neoadjuvant chemotherapy if breast-conserving surgery is a goal; for patients with HER2-positive disease, he advises 1 year of therapy with an anti-HER2 agent.

Shorter HER2 regimens may be possible for older patients, and frail older adults may have good outcomes with HER2 therapy alone, as shown recently by Japanese investigators, Dr. Brain noted.

“For lumimal disease, endocrine therapy remains the standard of treatment for me, and chemo, of course can be considered in higher risk, but the problem is we don’t know how to define this high risk, given the poor guidance provided by gene expression profiles,” he said.

For older patients, longer follow-up is needed to assess treatment benefit vs. life expectancy, Dr. Brain said, warning that the standard of care established in younger patients cannot be easily extrapolated to the care of older patients.

Dr. Schonberg disclosed authorship of review pages on preventive health for older adults for UpToDate. Dr. Tseng disclosed that she is a breast surgeon and that her discussion of radiation therapy may reflect personal bias. Dr. Brain disclosed honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, and Seagen, consulting/advising for Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Sandoz-Novartis, and travel expenses from Pfizer.

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

TOPLINE:

Prepandemic cortisol response to stress and amygdala emotion-evoked activation predicted persistent teen engagement in nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) among teensduring the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODOLOGY:

The analysis included 64 mostly White and middle class or upper middle class female patients in Minneapolis, Minnesota (mean age, 16.2 years) who were part of a larger study of the neurobiology of NSSI.

Before the pandemic, researchers assessed the presence of NSSI and measured cortisol levels in saliva while the participant was experiencing stress, such as when giving a speech (less cortisol in response to stress is a sign of HPA axis hyporeactivity); adolescents were assessed for depression and underwent neuroimaging.

In the early stages of the pandemic, adolescents were assessed for recent engagement in NSSI.

Researchers classified adolescents into three NSSI groups: never (n = 17), desist (a history of NSSI but did not report it during the pandemic; n = 26), or persist (a history of NSSI and reported it during the pandemic; n = 21).
 

TAKEAWAY:

Lower prepandemic levels of under the curve ground (AUCg), an index of overall activation of cortisol levels (B = −0.250; standard error, 0.109; P = .022) and lower prepandemic amygdala activation (B = −0.789; SE = 0.352; P = .025) predicted desistance of NSSI, compared to persistence of NSSI, during the pandemic.

This remained significant after controlling for pandemic-related stressors that could exacerbate underlying risk factors

When depression was included as a covariate, decreased cortisol AUCg and amygdala activation remained significantly predictive of desistance. Decreased medial prefrontal cortex resting state functional connectivity and decreased depressive symptoms were also predictive of desistance of NSSI.
 

IN PRACTICE:

The results “may give insight into predictors of maladaptive patterns of coping with negative emotions” for those with a history of NSSI, the authors noted.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Katherine A. Carosella, department of psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues. It was published online in Psychoneuroendocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was relatively small, and the investigators could not make causal inferences or rule out the possibility that different stages of development affected the data. Measures employed during COVID were not identical to those used in the prepandemic assessment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institute of Mental Health and the University of Minnesota. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Prepandemic cortisol response to stress and amygdala emotion-evoked activation predicted persistent teen engagement in nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) among teensduring the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODOLOGY:

The analysis included 64 mostly White and middle class or upper middle class female patients in Minneapolis, Minnesota (mean age, 16.2 years) who were part of a larger study of the neurobiology of NSSI.

Before the pandemic, researchers assessed the presence of NSSI and measured cortisol levels in saliva while the participant was experiencing stress, such as when giving a speech (less cortisol in response to stress is a sign of HPA axis hyporeactivity); adolescents were assessed for depression and underwent neuroimaging.

In the early stages of the pandemic, adolescents were assessed for recent engagement in NSSI.

Researchers classified adolescents into three NSSI groups: never (n = 17), desist (a history of NSSI but did not report it during the pandemic; n = 26), or persist (a history of NSSI and reported it during the pandemic; n = 21).
 

TAKEAWAY:

Lower prepandemic levels of under the curve ground (AUCg), an index of overall activation of cortisol levels (B = −0.250; standard error, 0.109; P = .022) and lower prepandemic amygdala activation (B = −0.789; SE = 0.352; P = .025) predicted desistance of NSSI, compared to persistence of NSSI, during the pandemic.

This remained significant after controlling for pandemic-related stressors that could exacerbate underlying risk factors

When depression was included as a covariate, decreased cortisol AUCg and amygdala activation remained significantly predictive of desistance. Decreased medial prefrontal cortex resting state functional connectivity and decreased depressive symptoms were also predictive of desistance of NSSI.
 

IN PRACTICE:

The results “may give insight into predictors of maladaptive patterns of coping with negative emotions” for those with a history of NSSI, the authors noted.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Katherine A. Carosella, department of psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues. It was published online in Psychoneuroendocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was relatively small, and the investigators could not make causal inferences or rule out the possibility that different stages of development affected the data. Measures employed during COVID were not identical to those used in the prepandemic assessment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institute of Mental Health and the University of Minnesota. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Prepandemic cortisol response to stress and amygdala emotion-evoked activation predicted persistent teen engagement in nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) among teensduring the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODOLOGY:

The analysis included 64 mostly White and middle class or upper middle class female patients in Minneapolis, Minnesota (mean age, 16.2 years) who were part of a larger study of the neurobiology of NSSI.

Before the pandemic, researchers assessed the presence of NSSI and measured cortisol levels in saliva while the participant was experiencing stress, such as when giving a speech (less cortisol in response to stress is a sign of HPA axis hyporeactivity); adolescents were assessed for depression and underwent neuroimaging.

In the early stages of the pandemic, adolescents were assessed for recent engagement in NSSI.

Researchers classified adolescents into three NSSI groups: never (n = 17), desist (a history of NSSI but did not report it during the pandemic; n = 26), or persist (a history of NSSI and reported it during the pandemic; n = 21).
 

TAKEAWAY:

Lower prepandemic levels of under the curve ground (AUCg), an index of overall activation of cortisol levels (B = −0.250; standard error, 0.109; P = .022) and lower prepandemic amygdala activation (B = −0.789; SE = 0.352; P = .025) predicted desistance of NSSI, compared to persistence of NSSI, during the pandemic.

This remained significant after controlling for pandemic-related stressors that could exacerbate underlying risk factors

When depression was included as a covariate, decreased cortisol AUCg and amygdala activation remained significantly predictive of desistance. Decreased medial prefrontal cortex resting state functional connectivity and decreased depressive symptoms were also predictive of desistance of NSSI.
 

IN PRACTICE:

The results “may give insight into predictors of maladaptive patterns of coping with negative emotions” for those with a history of NSSI, the authors noted.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Katherine A. Carosella, department of psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues. It was published online in Psychoneuroendocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was relatively small, and the investigators could not make causal inferences or rule out the possibility that different stages of development affected the data. Measures employed during COVID were not identical to those used in the prepandemic assessment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institute of Mental Health and the University of Minnesota. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Growing up in south India, Deepu Madduri, MD, chose her career path to emulate an ear-nose-throat doctor who kept helping her recover. Today she belongs to a pioneering team of women hematologic oncologists who research innovative multiple myeloma treatments while mentoring the next generation of women in their field.

Inspired in childhood to study medicine, Dr. Madduri chose to specialize in oncology after losing a grandparent to cancer. After moving to the United States as a fifth grader, she went back to India every summer. While visiting as a college student, Dr. Madduri found her grandmother pale, with symptoms such as blood in the stool. Diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer, the grandmother died 6 months later.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

“I realized I really wanted to be an oncologist because I wanted to see what I could have done to help my grandma,” Dr. Madduri said in an interview.

Today, as a senior medical director at Janssen Oncology, Dr. Madduri joins her colleague Lisa Kallenbach, MD, and others on a team of hematologist oncologists who are working to advance the treatment of multiple myeloma with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. She and Dr. Kallenbach also mentor other blood cancer specialists through a company-sponsored Women in Hematology program.

Dr. Kallenbach, group medical director at the firm, had also long wanted to become a doctor. Unlike Dr. Madduri, however, Dr. Kallenbach took a “long and winding road” and didn’t start med school until age 30.

Put off by college premed requirements, Dr. Kallenbach majored in anthropology and suppressed her desire to study medicine while she got a master’s degree in public administration, worked in public health, and volunteered with the Peace Corps. Ultimately, she decided to do a postbaccalaureate program, entered Brown University in Providence, R.I., and loved it.

“No one in my family was a doctor, so it was all very mystical to me,” she said. “It wasn’t until I worked for a doctor where it was demystified, and I thought, ‘Ah, they’re not any smarter. They just work really hard, and I can work hard. I always do.’”
 

Time for a change

Hard work brought both Dr. Kallenbach and Dr. Madduri to Janssen at roughly the same time, for similar reasons.

Dr. Madduri had been a junior faculty member at Mount Sinai, where she followed her mentor’s advice and fought hard to become principal investigator of the CARTITUDE-1 trial, which she presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology in 2019 and 2020. This research led to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the CAR T therapy Carvykti for multiple myeloma. Dr. Madduri also launched the CAR T program at Mount Sinai and quickly gained prominence in her field, despite being the hospital’s youngest faculty member for myeloma. But when the pandemic hit, she decided to try something different.

“I was helping one person at a time as a physician, but [Janssen] gave me the opportunity to help people in a much broader sense,” said Dr. Madduri, who joined the firm in April 2021. “I’m now the one designing the trials and looking at what the needs are in myeloma.”

“Janssen’s CAR T product [Carvykti] revolutionized the space because after a one-time treatment, patients are in a deep and durable remission and living much longer,” she said. Furthermore, Janssen offered Dr. Madduri the chance to design the trials toward that long-held goal.

“I want to be part of the team where they’re really dedicated to curing myeloma,” Dr. Madduri said. And she continues to see patients as an adjunct assistant professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, where she did a blood & marrow transplantation fellowship.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

Dr. Kallenbach was also drawn to Janssen because of her pandemic experiences – and the promise of broader opportunities, including a better work-life balance. One patient at a time, she was treating a variety of hematologic disorders and malignancies. Although she enjoyed it, she just needed a change.

“It had been 9 months of COVID, and it was just a really busy time and stressful,” Dr. Kallenbach said. When a friend shared the Janssen job posting, she took it as a sign. “I thought, I could really make an impact here. Now I’ve gone from treating one patient at a time to treating tons of patients and helping to get this drug [Carvykti] to patients who can really use it.”
 

A cancer field with potential

While it was Dr. Madduri’s grandmother’s illness that drew her to study oncology, she chose not to work on the colon cancer that killed her grandmother. It felt too personal, and she didn’t foresee being able to help patients in the ways she wanted. Instead of sending them to hospice when treatment options ran out, Dr. Madduri saw the myeloma landscape advancing rapidly, with more drugs becoming available.

“What really interests me is that this field is going somewhere, and we can potentially find something to cure these patients,” Dr. Madduri said. “There’s great need, but there’s rapid advancement happening as well. I wanted to go into something where I could really make a difference and help these patients that I couldn’t help before.”

She’s currently managing CARTITUDE-6, a head-to-head frontline trial testing CAR T-cell therapy (Carvykti) in patients eligible for transplant. “Right now the standard of care is transplant, so there’s a lot of excitement” with the idea of replacing transplant with CAR T in newly diagnosed patients, something that’s never been done. Dr. Madduri hopes this will move patients into deeper remission and eventually help pave the path to a cure. “We have to change the landscape. We have to push the boundaries, right?”

Similarly, Dr. Kallenbach was drawn to myeloma because of the rush of new therapies.

“From the time I was training to the time I was practicing, the treatments completely changed,” she said. “That’s always exciting when you’re making that much progress on a disease, to see these enormous changes. Now you’re actually seeing people who’ve had tons of prior therapies have responses that I’ve just never seen before.”

Dr. Kallenbach also found fulfillment through patient care. “People really connect with their oncologist, and that relationship is really special,” she said. “The other thing is that you really learn from cancer patients how to live your life, like what’s important. People’s priorities become very clear.”
 

Importance of mentorship

Both women credit part of their success to finding excellent mentors early on, and both are paying it forward by mentoring other women in their field.

Dr. Madduri met her mentor, Sundar Jagannath, MBBS, when he interviewed her at Icahn School of Medicine’s Tisch Cancer Institute in New York, where he’s director of the multiple myeloma program and the Myeloma Center of Excellence. Noting her enthusiasm and excellent training, Dr. Jagannath recruited Dr. Madduri and quickly discovered her organizational skills. When she expressed interest in running the CAR T program, he let her run with it, while advising her on how to ensure that she got respect and credit for her work.

“You have to do your part, but if you don’t have the right mentor telling you, it’d be really hard for someone who’s just starting out to know what to do,” Dr. Madduri said.

Dr. Jagannath’s guidance paid off. “When she made the ASH presentation, everybody was impressed,” he said. “She captured the attention of my peers who have been in the field for a long time, so she immediately made a national splash.”

Just a few years out of her own fellowship, Dr. Madduri had already begun mentoring other fellows. Through Women in Hematology, she helps gather data about the roles women play in her field and how to further their advancement. “The myeloma field is slowly starting to shift” toward more gender balance, she said – progress she feels happy to support.

Dr. Kallenbach’s mentoring is less formal, yet it makes a deep impact on those she takes under her wing. Her mentees are mostly the students she’s met on the Bryn Mawr College campus where she walks her two Labradors. That’s how she met Louise Breen, who, after a postbaccalaureate there, just graduated from University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and is headed for residency at Mass General Hospital, Boston.

Dr. Breen said her mentor’s greatest gift has been “showing many of us that it’s possible to do it and what life could look like.” While fostering students’ self-confidence as they wrangle with imposter syndrome, Dr. Kallenbach has also demonstrated what a work-life balance in medicine can look like. She learned that from her own mentor, Hedy Smith, MD, PhD, now clinical director of inpatient hematology/oncology at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, and previously an associate professor at Tufts Medical Center.

Dr. Kallenbach quickly made an impression on Dr. Smith by coming to her door in tears one day.

“She was so devastated at the additions I made in her notes,” recalled Dr. Smith. “She felt that she had presented me with this less-than-adequate document. ... I told her, ‘this really says the world about who you are, who you’re going to become in oncology.’ I was struck by her character, a dedication to her work, and her desire to perfect it.”

Three years later, Dr. Smith remembers Dr. Kallenbach coming to her office with a big smile and saying: “Look at this. You didn’t make any changes.” Then Dr. Smith knew that her mentee was ready for the next chapter of her career.

They have kept in touch, with Dr. Kallenbach periodically calling to discuss a difficult case or to plan to meet up at conferences. “It always puts a smile on my face because this person who was once my student has now undergone this metamorphosis, and here we are, now truly equals and colleagues attending the meetings together,” Dr. Smith remarked.

Dr. Kallenbach feels grateful about finding a strong female mentor early in her medical career, especially given some of the everyday sexism she has encountered. A male colleague at a conference once expressed shock that she was practicing medicine full time while also being a mother. Dr. Kallenbach hasn’t encountered such attitudes while working in the pharmaceutical industry.

“I feel more valued as a doctor now than I ever did in practice,” she said. While before, she felt respected, “here, I feel like your expertise is valued, and you can actually help shape programs and inform how doctors practice.”

Dr. Madduri, too, feels like she’s where she’s supposed to be. “I went into the field because I really wanted to help people and make a difference,” she said. “I’m doing everything that I wanted to do.”

Growing up in south India, Deepu Madduri, MD, chose her career path to emulate an ear-nose-throat doctor who kept helping her recover. Today she belongs to a pioneering team of women hematologic oncologists who research innovative multiple myeloma treatments while mentoring the next generation of women in their field.

Inspired in childhood to study medicine, Dr. Madduri chose to specialize in oncology after losing a grandparent to cancer. After moving to the United States as a fifth grader, she went back to India every summer. While visiting as a college student, Dr. Madduri found her grandmother pale, with symptoms such as blood in the stool. Diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer, the grandmother died 6 months later.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

“I realized I really wanted to be an oncologist because I wanted to see what I could have done to help my grandma,” Dr. Madduri said in an interview.

Today, as a senior medical director at Janssen Oncology, Dr. Madduri joins her colleague Lisa Kallenbach, MD, and others on a team of hematologist oncologists who are working to advance the treatment of multiple myeloma with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. She and Dr. Kallenbach also mentor other blood cancer specialists through a company-sponsored Women in Hematology program.

Dr. Kallenbach, group medical director at the firm, had also long wanted to become a doctor. Unlike Dr. Madduri, however, Dr. Kallenbach took a “long and winding road” and didn’t start med school until age 30.

Put off by college premed requirements, Dr. Kallenbach majored in anthropology and suppressed her desire to study medicine while she got a master’s degree in public administration, worked in public health, and volunteered with the Peace Corps. Ultimately, she decided to do a postbaccalaureate program, entered Brown University in Providence, R.I., and loved it.

“No one in my family was a doctor, so it was all very mystical to me,” she said. “It wasn’t until I worked for a doctor where it was demystified, and I thought, ‘Ah, they’re not any smarter. They just work really hard, and I can work hard. I always do.’”
 

Time for a change

Hard work brought both Dr. Kallenbach and Dr. Madduri to Janssen at roughly the same time, for similar reasons.

Dr. Madduri had been a junior faculty member at Mount Sinai, where she followed her mentor’s advice and fought hard to become principal investigator of the CARTITUDE-1 trial, which she presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology in 2019 and 2020. This research led to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the CAR T therapy Carvykti for multiple myeloma. Dr. Madduri also launched the CAR T program at Mount Sinai and quickly gained prominence in her field, despite being the hospital’s youngest faculty member for myeloma. But when the pandemic hit, she decided to try something different.

“I was helping one person at a time as a physician, but [Janssen] gave me the opportunity to help people in a much broader sense,” said Dr. Madduri, who joined the firm in April 2021. “I’m now the one designing the trials and looking at what the needs are in myeloma.”

“Janssen’s CAR T product [Carvykti] revolutionized the space because after a one-time treatment, patients are in a deep and durable remission and living much longer,” she said. Furthermore, Janssen offered Dr. Madduri the chance to design the trials toward that long-held goal.

“I want to be part of the team where they’re really dedicated to curing myeloma,” Dr. Madduri said. And she continues to see patients as an adjunct assistant professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, where she did a blood & marrow transplantation fellowship.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

Dr. Kallenbach was also drawn to Janssen because of her pandemic experiences – and the promise of broader opportunities, including a better work-life balance. One patient at a time, she was treating a variety of hematologic disorders and malignancies. Although she enjoyed it, she just needed a change.

“It had been 9 months of COVID, and it was just a really busy time and stressful,” Dr. Kallenbach said. When a friend shared the Janssen job posting, she took it as a sign. “I thought, I could really make an impact here. Now I’ve gone from treating one patient at a time to treating tons of patients and helping to get this drug [Carvykti] to patients who can really use it.”
 

A cancer field with potential

While it was Dr. Madduri’s grandmother’s illness that drew her to study oncology, she chose not to work on the colon cancer that killed her grandmother. It felt too personal, and she didn’t foresee being able to help patients in the ways she wanted. Instead of sending them to hospice when treatment options ran out, Dr. Madduri saw the myeloma landscape advancing rapidly, with more drugs becoming available.

“What really interests me is that this field is going somewhere, and we can potentially find something to cure these patients,” Dr. Madduri said. “There’s great need, but there’s rapid advancement happening as well. I wanted to go into something where I could really make a difference and help these patients that I couldn’t help before.”

She’s currently managing CARTITUDE-6, a head-to-head frontline trial testing CAR T-cell therapy (Carvykti) in patients eligible for transplant. “Right now the standard of care is transplant, so there’s a lot of excitement” with the idea of replacing transplant with CAR T in newly diagnosed patients, something that’s never been done. Dr. Madduri hopes this will move patients into deeper remission and eventually help pave the path to a cure. “We have to change the landscape. We have to push the boundaries, right?”

Similarly, Dr. Kallenbach was drawn to myeloma because of the rush of new therapies.

“From the time I was training to the time I was practicing, the treatments completely changed,” she said. “That’s always exciting when you’re making that much progress on a disease, to see these enormous changes. Now you’re actually seeing people who’ve had tons of prior therapies have responses that I’ve just never seen before.”

Dr. Kallenbach also found fulfillment through patient care. “People really connect with their oncologist, and that relationship is really special,” she said. “The other thing is that you really learn from cancer patients how to live your life, like what’s important. People’s priorities become very clear.”
 

Importance of mentorship

Both women credit part of their success to finding excellent mentors early on, and both are paying it forward by mentoring other women in their field.

Dr. Madduri met her mentor, Sundar Jagannath, MBBS, when he interviewed her at Icahn School of Medicine’s Tisch Cancer Institute in New York, where he’s director of the multiple myeloma program and the Myeloma Center of Excellence. Noting her enthusiasm and excellent training, Dr. Jagannath recruited Dr. Madduri and quickly discovered her organizational skills. When she expressed interest in running the CAR T program, he let her run with it, while advising her on how to ensure that she got respect and credit for her work.

“You have to do your part, but if you don’t have the right mentor telling you, it’d be really hard for someone who’s just starting out to know what to do,” Dr. Madduri said.

Dr. Jagannath’s guidance paid off. “When she made the ASH presentation, everybody was impressed,” he said. “She captured the attention of my peers who have been in the field for a long time, so she immediately made a national splash.”

Just a few years out of her own fellowship, Dr. Madduri had already begun mentoring other fellows. Through Women in Hematology, she helps gather data about the roles women play in her field and how to further their advancement. “The myeloma field is slowly starting to shift” toward more gender balance, she said – progress she feels happy to support.

Dr. Kallenbach’s mentoring is less formal, yet it makes a deep impact on those she takes under her wing. Her mentees are mostly the students she’s met on the Bryn Mawr College campus where she walks her two Labradors. That’s how she met Louise Breen, who, after a postbaccalaureate there, just graduated from University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and is headed for residency at Mass General Hospital, Boston.

Dr. Breen said her mentor’s greatest gift has been “showing many of us that it’s possible to do it and what life could look like.” While fostering students’ self-confidence as they wrangle with imposter syndrome, Dr. Kallenbach has also demonstrated what a work-life balance in medicine can look like. She learned that from her own mentor, Hedy Smith, MD, PhD, now clinical director of inpatient hematology/oncology at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, and previously an associate professor at Tufts Medical Center.

Dr. Kallenbach quickly made an impression on Dr. Smith by coming to her door in tears one day.

“She was so devastated at the additions I made in her notes,” recalled Dr. Smith. “She felt that she had presented me with this less-than-adequate document. ... I told her, ‘this really says the world about who you are, who you’re going to become in oncology.’ I was struck by her character, a dedication to her work, and her desire to perfect it.”

Three years later, Dr. Smith remembers Dr. Kallenbach coming to her office with a big smile and saying: “Look at this. You didn’t make any changes.” Then Dr. Smith knew that her mentee was ready for the next chapter of her career.

They have kept in touch, with Dr. Kallenbach periodically calling to discuss a difficult case or to plan to meet up at conferences. “It always puts a smile on my face because this person who was once my student has now undergone this metamorphosis, and here we are, now truly equals and colleagues attending the meetings together,” Dr. Smith remarked.

Dr. Kallenbach feels grateful about finding a strong female mentor early in her medical career, especially given some of the everyday sexism she has encountered. A male colleague at a conference once expressed shock that she was practicing medicine full time while also being a mother. Dr. Kallenbach hasn’t encountered such attitudes while working in the pharmaceutical industry.

“I feel more valued as a doctor now than I ever did in practice,” she said. While before, she felt respected, “here, I feel like your expertise is valued, and you can actually help shape programs and inform how doctors practice.”

Dr. Madduri, too, feels like she’s where she’s supposed to be. “I went into the field because I really wanted to help people and make a difference,” she said. “I’m doing everything that I wanted to do.”

Growing up in south India, Deepu Madduri, MD, chose her career path to emulate an ear-nose-throat doctor who kept helping her recover. Today she belongs to a pioneering team of women hematologic oncologists who research innovative multiple myeloma treatments while mentoring the next generation of women in their field.

Inspired in childhood to study medicine, Dr. Madduri chose to specialize in oncology after losing a grandparent to cancer. After moving to the United States as a fifth grader, she went back to India every summer. While visiting as a college student, Dr. Madduri found her grandmother pale, with symptoms such as blood in the stool. Diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer, the grandmother died 6 months later.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

“I realized I really wanted to be an oncologist because I wanted to see what I could have done to help my grandma,” Dr. Madduri said in an interview.

Today, as a senior medical director at Janssen Oncology, Dr. Madduri joins her colleague Lisa Kallenbach, MD, and others on a team of hematologist oncologists who are working to advance the treatment of multiple myeloma with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. She and Dr. Kallenbach also mentor other blood cancer specialists through a company-sponsored Women in Hematology program.

Dr. Kallenbach, group medical director at the firm, had also long wanted to become a doctor. Unlike Dr. Madduri, however, Dr. Kallenbach took a “long and winding road” and didn’t start med school until age 30.

Put off by college premed requirements, Dr. Kallenbach majored in anthropology and suppressed her desire to study medicine while she got a master’s degree in public administration, worked in public health, and volunteered with the Peace Corps. Ultimately, she decided to do a postbaccalaureate program, entered Brown University in Providence, R.I., and loved it.

“No one in my family was a doctor, so it was all very mystical to me,” she said. “It wasn’t until I worked for a doctor where it was demystified, and I thought, ‘Ah, they’re not any smarter. They just work really hard, and I can work hard. I always do.’”
 

Time for a change

Hard work brought both Dr. Kallenbach and Dr. Madduri to Janssen at roughly the same time, for similar reasons.

Dr. Madduri had been a junior faculty member at Mount Sinai, where she followed her mentor’s advice and fought hard to become principal investigator of the CARTITUDE-1 trial, which she presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology in 2019 and 2020. This research led to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the CAR T therapy Carvykti for multiple myeloma. Dr. Madduri also launched the CAR T program at Mount Sinai and quickly gained prominence in her field, despite being the hospital’s youngest faculty member for myeloma. But when the pandemic hit, she decided to try something different.

“I was helping one person at a time as a physician, but [Janssen] gave me the opportunity to help people in a much broader sense,” said Dr. Madduri, who joined the firm in April 2021. “I’m now the one designing the trials and looking at what the needs are in myeloma.”

“Janssen’s CAR T product [Carvykti] revolutionized the space because after a one-time treatment, patients are in a deep and durable remission and living much longer,” she said. Furthermore, Janssen offered Dr. Madduri the chance to design the trials toward that long-held goal.

“I want to be part of the team where they’re really dedicated to curing myeloma,” Dr. Madduri said. And she continues to see patients as an adjunct assistant professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, where she did a blood & marrow transplantation fellowship.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

Dr. Kallenbach was also drawn to Janssen because of her pandemic experiences – and the promise of broader opportunities, including a better work-life balance. One patient at a time, she was treating a variety of hematologic disorders and malignancies. Although she enjoyed it, she just needed a change.

“It had been 9 months of COVID, and it was just a really busy time and stressful,” Dr. Kallenbach said. When a friend shared the Janssen job posting, she took it as a sign. “I thought, I could really make an impact here. Now I’ve gone from treating one patient at a time to treating tons of patients and helping to get this drug [Carvykti] to patients who can really use it.”
 

A cancer field with potential

While it was Dr. Madduri’s grandmother’s illness that drew her to study oncology, she chose not to work on the colon cancer that killed her grandmother. It felt too personal, and she didn’t foresee being able to help patients in the ways she wanted. Instead of sending them to hospice when treatment options ran out, Dr. Madduri saw the myeloma landscape advancing rapidly, with more drugs becoming available.

“What really interests me is that this field is going somewhere, and we can potentially find something to cure these patients,” Dr. Madduri said. “There’s great need, but there’s rapid advancement happening as well. I wanted to go into something where I could really make a difference and help these patients that I couldn’t help before.”

She’s currently managing CARTITUDE-6, a head-to-head frontline trial testing CAR T-cell therapy (Carvykti) in patients eligible for transplant. “Right now the standard of care is transplant, so there’s a lot of excitement” with the idea of replacing transplant with CAR T in newly diagnosed patients, something that’s never been done. Dr. Madduri hopes this will move patients into deeper remission and eventually help pave the path to a cure. “We have to change the landscape. We have to push the boundaries, right?”

Similarly, Dr. Kallenbach was drawn to myeloma because of the rush of new therapies.

“From the time I was training to the time I was practicing, the treatments completely changed,” she said. “That’s always exciting when you’re making that much progress on a disease, to see these enormous changes. Now you’re actually seeing people who’ve had tons of prior therapies have responses that I’ve just never seen before.”

Dr. Kallenbach also found fulfillment through patient care. “People really connect with their oncologist, and that relationship is really special,” she said. “The other thing is that you really learn from cancer patients how to live your life, like what’s important. People’s priorities become very clear.”
 

Importance of mentorship

Both women credit part of their success to finding excellent mentors early on, and both are paying it forward by mentoring other women in their field.

Dr. Madduri met her mentor, Sundar Jagannath, MBBS, when he interviewed her at Icahn School of Medicine’s Tisch Cancer Institute in New York, where he’s director of the multiple myeloma program and the Myeloma Center of Excellence. Noting her enthusiasm and excellent training, Dr. Jagannath recruited Dr. Madduri and quickly discovered her organizational skills. When she expressed interest in running the CAR T program, he let her run with it, while advising her on how to ensure that she got respect and credit for her work.

“You have to do your part, but if you don’t have the right mentor telling you, it’d be really hard for someone who’s just starting out to know what to do,” Dr. Madduri said.

Dr. Jagannath’s guidance paid off. “When she made the ASH presentation, everybody was impressed,” he said. “She captured the attention of my peers who have been in the field for a long time, so she immediately made a national splash.”

Just a few years out of her own fellowship, Dr. Madduri had already begun mentoring other fellows. Through Women in Hematology, she helps gather data about the roles women play in her field and how to further their advancement. “The myeloma field is slowly starting to shift” toward more gender balance, she said – progress she feels happy to support.

Dr. Kallenbach’s mentoring is less formal, yet it makes a deep impact on those she takes under her wing. Her mentees are mostly the students she’s met on the Bryn Mawr College campus where she walks her two Labradors. That’s how she met Louise Breen, who, after a postbaccalaureate there, just graduated from University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and is headed for residency at Mass General Hospital, Boston.

Dr. Breen said her mentor’s greatest gift has been “showing many of us that it’s possible to do it and what life could look like.” While fostering students’ self-confidence as they wrangle with imposter syndrome, Dr. Kallenbach has also demonstrated what a work-life balance in medicine can look like. She learned that from her own mentor, Hedy Smith, MD, PhD, now clinical director of inpatient hematology/oncology at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, and previously an associate professor at Tufts Medical Center.

Dr. Kallenbach quickly made an impression on Dr. Smith by coming to her door in tears one day.

“She was so devastated at the additions I made in her notes,” recalled Dr. Smith. “She felt that she had presented me with this less-than-adequate document. ... I told her, ‘this really says the world about who you are, who you’re going to become in oncology.’ I was struck by her character, a dedication to her work, and her desire to perfect it.”

Three years later, Dr. Smith remembers Dr. Kallenbach coming to her office with a big smile and saying: “Look at this. You didn’t make any changes.” Then Dr. Smith knew that her mentee was ready for the next chapter of her career.

They have kept in touch, with Dr. Kallenbach periodically calling to discuss a difficult case or to plan to meet up at conferences. “It always puts a smile on my face because this person who was once my student has now undergone this metamorphosis, and here we are, now truly equals and colleagues attending the meetings together,” Dr. Smith remarked.

Dr. Kallenbach feels grateful about finding a strong female mentor early in her medical career, especially given some of the everyday sexism she has encountered. A male colleague at a conference once expressed shock that she was practicing medicine full time while also being a mother. Dr. Kallenbach hasn’t encountered such attitudes while working in the pharmaceutical industry.

“I feel more valued as a doctor now than I ever did in practice,” she said. While before, she felt respected, “here, I feel like your expertise is valued, and you can actually help shape programs and inform how doctors practice.”

Dr. Madduri, too, feels like she’s where she’s supposed to be. “I went into the field because I really wanted to help people and make a difference,” she said. “I’m doing everything that I wanted to do.”

High-risk genetic features do not diminish the response to first-line, fixed-dose ibrutinib (Imbruvica) plus venetoclax (Venclexta) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to the latest report from AbbVie’s CAPTIVATE trial.

In the new analysis, published in Clinical Cancer Research, investigators compared outcomes in 66 adults without genetic risk factors to 129 with deletion of 17p, mutated TP53, and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain, all of which are associated with poor outcomes and poor responses to chemoimmunotherapy.

Over 95% of patients responded regardless of risk factors, with complete response in 61% of patients with and 53% of subjects without high-risk features. Progression free-survival (PFS) lasted at least 3 years in 88% of the high-risk group and 92% of low-risk patients, with over 95% of patients in both groups alive at 3 years

“Since high-risk genetic features inform treatment selection, understanding the efficacy of fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax in patients with high-risk CLL is important to determine how this regimen fits in the first-line treatment algorithm for the disease,” hematologic oncologist John Allan, MD, a CLL specialist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York and the lead investigator, said in a press release from American Association for Cancer Research, publisher of CCR.

Although the analysis was not powered to perform statistical comparisons between the two groups, Dr. Allan said the results “support fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax as a treatment approach for this patient population.”

The press release also noted that the outcomes “compare favorably” to other upfront targeted therapy approaches for CLL.
 

Experts respond

Asked for comment, Thomas LeBlanc, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said “the advent of some fixed duration regimens with novel therapies has been an exciting thing for patients especially, recognizing that at the start of treatment one already knows the completion date, and one can also thus forgo much of the potentially cumulative physical, psychological, and financial toxicity of an indefinite oral therapy.”

As for the new findings, he said they show “that even in this high-risk population ... we can achieve remarkable remission rates and levels of [minimal residual disease] negativity by combining the two best drug classes to date in CLL: BTK inhibitors and venetoclax.”

Another expert, hematologic oncologist John Byrd, MD, a leukemia specialist at the University of Cincinnati, was more cautious.

“These findings confirm the results of many other prior studies of targeted therapies where high complete response rates with absence of detectable disease is observed,” he said.

However, while “such therapeutic combinations for sure enable treatment discontinuation,” Dr. Byrd noted, they “lack long-term follow-up. Given the added toxicities associated with these combinations and lack of long-term follow up, use of treatments such as those brought forth in the CAPTIVATE trial should be considered only in the context of a well-designed clinical trial.”
 

Study details

The new findings follow previous reports of CAPTIVATE, which found strong first-line response across CLL patients but did not focus as specifically on patients with high-risk genetic features.

Subjects received three 28-day cycles of ibrutinib 420 mg/day followed by twelve 28-day cycles of ibrutinib plus venetoclax, with a 5-week venetoclax ramp-up to 400 mg/day.

Side effects were similar regardless of high-risk features and included, most commonly, diarrhea, neutropenia, nausea, and arthralgia. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia in 36% of patients in both groups and hypertension in 9% of patients with and 3% of patients without high-risk features.

The study was funded by Pharmacyclics/AbbVie, maker/marketer of both ibrutinib and venetoclax. Investigators had numerous ties to the companies, including Dr. Allan, who reported grants and/or personal fees. Dr. LeBlanc reported speaker/consulting honoraria from AbbVie as well as institutional research funding. Dr. Byrd did not have any connections to the companies.

High-risk genetic features do not diminish the response to first-line, fixed-dose ibrutinib (Imbruvica) plus venetoclax (Venclexta) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to the latest report from AbbVie’s CAPTIVATE trial.

In the new analysis, published in Clinical Cancer Research, investigators compared outcomes in 66 adults without genetic risk factors to 129 with deletion of 17p, mutated TP53, and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain, all of which are associated with poor outcomes and poor responses to chemoimmunotherapy.

Over 95% of patients responded regardless of risk factors, with complete response in 61% of patients with and 53% of subjects without high-risk features. Progression free-survival (PFS) lasted at least 3 years in 88% of the high-risk group and 92% of low-risk patients, with over 95% of patients in both groups alive at 3 years

“Since high-risk genetic features inform treatment selection, understanding the efficacy of fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax in patients with high-risk CLL is important to determine how this regimen fits in the first-line treatment algorithm for the disease,” hematologic oncologist John Allan, MD, a CLL specialist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York and the lead investigator, said in a press release from American Association for Cancer Research, publisher of CCR.

Although the analysis was not powered to perform statistical comparisons between the two groups, Dr. Allan said the results “support fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax as a treatment approach for this patient population.”

The press release also noted that the outcomes “compare favorably” to other upfront targeted therapy approaches for CLL.
 

Experts respond

Asked for comment, Thomas LeBlanc, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said “the advent of some fixed duration regimens with novel therapies has been an exciting thing for patients especially, recognizing that at the start of treatment one already knows the completion date, and one can also thus forgo much of the potentially cumulative physical, psychological, and financial toxicity of an indefinite oral therapy.”

As for the new findings, he said they show “that even in this high-risk population ... we can achieve remarkable remission rates and levels of [minimal residual disease] negativity by combining the two best drug classes to date in CLL: BTK inhibitors and venetoclax.”

Another expert, hematologic oncologist John Byrd, MD, a leukemia specialist at the University of Cincinnati, was more cautious.

“These findings confirm the results of many other prior studies of targeted therapies where high complete response rates with absence of detectable disease is observed,” he said.

However, while “such therapeutic combinations for sure enable treatment discontinuation,” Dr. Byrd noted, they “lack long-term follow-up. Given the added toxicities associated with these combinations and lack of long-term follow up, use of treatments such as those brought forth in the CAPTIVATE trial should be considered only in the context of a well-designed clinical trial.”
 

Study details

The new findings follow previous reports of CAPTIVATE, which found strong first-line response across CLL patients but did not focus as specifically on patients with high-risk genetic features.

Subjects received three 28-day cycles of ibrutinib 420 mg/day followed by twelve 28-day cycles of ibrutinib plus venetoclax, with a 5-week venetoclax ramp-up to 400 mg/day.

Side effects were similar regardless of high-risk features and included, most commonly, diarrhea, neutropenia, nausea, and arthralgia. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia in 36% of patients in both groups and hypertension in 9% of patients with and 3% of patients without high-risk features.

The study was funded by Pharmacyclics/AbbVie, maker/marketer of both ibrutinib and venetoclax. Investigators had numerous ties to the companies, including Dr. Allan, who reported grants and/or personal fees. Dr. LeBlanc reported speaker/consulting honoraria from AbbVie as well as institutional research funding. Dr. Byrd did not have any connections to the companies.

High-risk genetic features do not diminish the response to first-line, fixed-dose ibrutinib (Imbruvica) plus venetoclax (Venclexta) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to the latest report from AbbVie’s CAPTIVATE trial.

In the new analysis, published in Clinical Cancer Research, investigators compared outcomes in 66 adults without genetic risk factors to 129 with deletion of 17p, mutated TP53, and/or unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain, all of which are associated with poor outcomes and poor responses to chemoimmunotherapy.

Over 95% of patients responded regardless of risk factors, with complete response in 61% of patients with and 53% of subjects without high-risk features. Progression free-survival (PFS) lasted at least 3 years in 88% of the high-risk group and 92% of low-risk patients, with over 95% of patients in both groups alive at 3 years

“Since high-risk genetic features inform treatment selection, understanding the efficacy of fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax in patients with high-risk CLL is important to determine how this regimen fits in the first-line treatment algorithm for the disease,” hematologic oncologist John Allan, MD, a CLL specialist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York and the lead investigator, said in a press release from American Association for Cancer Research, publisher of CCR.

Although the analysis was not powered to perform statistical comparisons between the two groups, Dr. Allan said the results “support fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax as a treatment approach for this patient population.”

The press release also noted that the outcomes “compare favorably” to other upfront targeted therapy approaches for CLL.
 

Experts respond

Asked for comment, Thomas LeBlanc, MD, a hematologic oncologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said “the advent of some fixed duration regimens with novel therapies has been an exciting thing for patients especially, recognizing that at the start of treatment one already knows the completion date, and one can also thus forgo much of the potentially cumulative physical, psychological, and financial toxicity of an indefinite oral therapy.”

As for the new findings, he said they show “that even in this high-risk population ... we can achieve remarkable remission rates and levels of [minimal residual disease] negativity by combining the two best drug classes to date in CLL: BTK inhibitors and venetoclax.”

Another expert, hematologic oncologist John Byrd, MD, a leukemia specialist at the University of Cincinnati, was more cautious.

“These findings confirm the results of many other prior studies of targeted therapies where high complete response rates with absence of detectable disease is observed,” he said.

However, while “such therapeutic combinations for sure enable treatment discontinuation,” Dr. Byrd noted, they “lack long-term follow-up. Given the added toxicities associated with these combinations and lack of long-term follow up, use of treatments such as those brought forth in the CAPTIVATE trial should be considered only in the context of a well-designed clinical trial.”
 

Study details

The new findings follow previous reports of CAPTIVATE, which found strong first-line response across CLL patients but did not focus as specifically on patients with high-risk genetic features.

Subjects received three 28-day cycles of ibrutinib 420 mg/day followed by twelve 28-day cycles of ibrutinib plus venetoclax, with a 5-week venetoclax ramp-up to 400 mg/day.

Side effects were similar regardless of high-risk features and included, most commonly, diarrhea, neutropenia, nausea, and arthralgia. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia in 36% of patients in both groups and hypertension in 9% of patients with and 3% of patients without high-risk features.

The study was funded by Pharmacyclics/AbbVie, maker/marketer of both ibrutinib and venetoclax. Investigators had numerous ties to the companies, including Dr. Allan, who reported grants and/or personal fees. Dr. LeBlanc reported speaker/consulting honoraria from AbbVie as well as institutional research funding. Dr. Byrd did not have any connections to the companies.