User login
MDedge latest news is breaking news from medical conferences, journals, guidelines, the FDA and CDC.
Searching for the Optimal CRC Surveillance Test
About a third of the US population are eligible for colorectal cancer screening but aren’t up to date on screening.
Many patients are reluctant to test for colon cancer for a variety of reasons, said Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, a research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research and an attending gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center.
“As a gastroenterologist, I strongly believe we should emphasize the importance of colorectal cancer screening. And there’s many tests available, not just a colonoscopy, to help reduce your chances of developing colorectal cancer and even dying from colorectal cancer,” said Dr. Lee.
Many patients prefer a test that’s more convenient, that doesn’t require them to take time out of their busy schedules. “We must educate our patients that there are some noninvasive screening options that are helpful, and to be able to share with them some of the benefits, but also some of the drawbacks compared to colonoscopy and allow them to have a choice,” he advised.
He is a recipient of the AGA Research Scholar Award, and has in turn supported other researchers by contributing to the AGA Research Foundation. In 2012, Dr. Lee received a grant from the Sylvia Allison Kaplan Clinical Research Fund to fund a study on long-term colorectal cancer risk in patients with normal colonoscopy results.
The findings, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, determined that 10 years after a negative colonoscopy, Kaiser Permanente members had a 46% lower risk of being diagnosed with CRC and were 88% less likely to die from disease compared with patients who didn’t undergo screening.
“Furthermore, the reduced risk of developing colorectal cancer, even dying from it, persisted for more than 12 years after the examination compared with an unscreened population,” said Dr. Lee. “I firmly believe our study really supports the ten-year screening interval after a normal colonoscopy, as currently recommended by our guidelines.”
In an interview, he discussed his research efforts to find the best detection regimens for CRC, and the mentors who guided his career path as a GI scientist.
Q: Why did you choose GI?
During medical school I was fortunate to work in the lab of Dr. John M. Carethers at UC San Diego. He introduced me to GI and inspired me to choose GI as a career. His mentorship was invaluable because he not only solidified my interest in GI, but also inspired me to become a physician scientist, focusing on colorectal cancer prevention and control. His amazing mentorship drew me to this field.
Q: One of your clinical focus areas is hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. How did you become interested in this area of GI medicine?
My interest in hereditary GI cancer syndromes stemmed from my work as a medical student in Dr. Carethers’ lab. One of my research projects was looking at certain gene mutations among patients with hereditary GI cancer syndromes, specifically, familial hamartomatous polyposis syndrome. It was through these research projects and seeing how these genetic mutations impacted their risk of developing colorectal cancer, inspired me to care for patients with hereditary GI cancer syndromes.
Q: Have you been doing any research on the reasons why more young people are getting colon cancer?
We recently published work looking at the potential factors that may be driving the rising rates of early onset colorectal cancer. One hypothesis that’s been floating around is antibiotic exposure in early adulthood or childhood because of its effect on the microbiome. Using our large database at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, we did not find an association between oral antibiotic use during early adulthood and the risk of early-onset colorectal cancer.
You have the usual suspects like obesity and diabetes, but it’s not explaining all that risk. While familial colorectal cancer syndromes contribute to a small proportion of early-onset colorectal, these syndromes are not increasing across generations. I really do feel it’s something in the diet or how foods are processed and environmental factors that’s driving some of the risk of early onset colorectal cancer and this should be explored further.
Q: In 2018, you issued a landmark study which found an association between a 10-year follow-up after negative colonoscopy and reduced risk of disease and mortality. Has there been any updates to these findings over the last 6 years?
We recently saw a study in JAMA Oncology of a Swedish cohort that showed a negative colonoscopy result was associated with a reduced risk of developing and even dying from colorectal cancer 15 years from that examination, compared to the general population of Sweden. I think there’s some things that we need to be cautious about regarding that study. We have to think about the comparison group that they used and the lack of information regarding the indication of the colonoscopy and the quality of the examination. So, it remains uncertain whether future guidelines are going to stretch out that 10-year interval to 15 years.
Q: What other CRC studies are you working on now?
We have several studies that we are working on right now. One is called the PREVENT CRC study, which is looking at whether a polygenic risk score can improve risk stratification following adenoma removal for colorectal cancer prevention and tailoring post-polypectomy surveillance. This is a large observational cohort study that we have teamed up with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Erasmus University, and Kaiser Permanente Northwest to answer this important question that may have implications for personalized medicine.
Then there’s the COOP study, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. This is looking at the best surveillance test to use among older adults 65 years and older with a history of polyps. The trial is randomizing them to either getting a colonoscopy for surveillance or annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for surveillance. This is to see which test is best for detecting colorectal cancer among older adults with a history of polyps.
Q: Do you think FIT tests could eventually replace colonoscopy, given that it’s less invasive?
Although FIT and other stool-based tests are less invasive and have been shown to have high accuracy for detecting colorectal cancer, I personally do not think they are going to replace colonoscopy as the most popular screening modality in the United States. Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for detecting and removing precancerous polyps and has the highest accuracy for detecting colorectal cancer.
Q: Besides Dr. Carethers, what teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?
Clinically it’s been Dr. Jonathan Terdiman from UCSF, who taught me everything I know about clinical GI, and the art of colonoscopy. In addition, Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, the Permanente Medical Group’s chief research officer, has made the greatest impact on my research career. He’s really taught me how to rigorously design a research study to answer important clinically relevant questions, and has given me the skill set to write NIH grants. I would not be here without these mentors who are truly giants in the field of GI.
Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons? Are you still a “Cal Bears” fan at your alma mater, UC Berkeley?
I spend a lot of time taking my kids to their activities on the weekends. I just took my son to a Cal Bears Game Day, which was hosted by ESPN at Berkeley.
It was an incredible experience hearing sports analyst Pat McAfee lead all the Cal chants, seeing Nick Saban from the University of Alabama take off his red tie and replace it with a Cal Bears tie, and watching a Cal student win a hundred thousand dollars by kicking a football through the goal posts wearing checkered vans.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Text
Favorite breakfast?
Taiwanese breakfast
Place you most want to travel to?
Japan
Favorite junk food?
Trader Joe’s chili lime chips
Favorite season?
Springtime, baseball season
Favorite ice cream flavor?
Mint chocolate chip
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
2-3
Last movie you watched?
Oppenheimer
Best place you ever went on vacation?
Hawaii
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?
Barber
Best Halloween costume you ever wore?
SpongeBob SquarePants
Favorite sport?
Tennis
What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?
Any classic 80s song
Introvert or extrovert?
Introvert
About a third of the US population are eligible for colorectal cancer screening but aren’t up to date on screening.
Many patients are reluctant to test for colon cancer for a variety of reasons, said Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, a research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research and an attending gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center.
“As a gastroenterologist, I strongly believe we should emphasize the importance of colorectal cancer screening. And there’s many tests available, not just a colonoscopy, to help reduce your chances of developing colorectal cancer and even dying from colorectal cancer,” said Dr. Lee.
Many patients prefer a test that’s more convenient, that doesn’t require them to take time out of their busy schedules. “We must educate our patients that there are some noninvasive screening options that are helpful, and to be able to share with them some of the benefits, but also some of the drawbacks compared to colonoscopy and allow them to have a choice,” he advised.
He is a recipient of the AGA Research Scholar Award, and has in turn supported other researchers by contributing to the AGA Research Foundation. In 2012, Dr. Lee received a grant from the Sylvia Allison Kaplan Clinical Research Fund to fund a study on long-term colorectal cancer risk in patients with normal colonoscopy results.
The findings, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, determined that 10 years after a negative colonoscopy, Kaiser Permanente members had a 46% lower risk of being diagnosed with CRC and were 88% less likely to die from disease compared with patients who didn’t undergo screening.
“Furthermore, the reduced risk of developing colorectal cancer, even dying from it, persisted for more than 12 years after the examination compared with an unscreened population,” said Dr. Lee. “I firmly believe our study really supports the ten-year screening interval after a normal colonoscopy, as currently recommended by our guidelines.”
In an interview, he discussed his research efforts to find the best detection regimens for CRC, and the mentors who guided his career path as a GI scientist.
Q: Why did you choose GI?
During medical school I was fortunate to work in the lab of Dr. John M. Carethers at UC San Diego. He introduced me to GI and inspired me to choose GI as a career. His mentorship was invaluable because he not only solidified my interest in GI, but also inspired me to become a physician scientist, focusing on colorectal cancer prevention and control. His amazing mentorship drew me to this field.
Q: One of your clinical focus areas is hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. How did you become interested in this area of GI medicine?
My interest in hereditary GI cancer syndromes stemmed from my work as a medical student in Dr. Carethers’ lab. One of my research projects was looking at certain gene mutations among patients with hereditary GI cancer syndromes, specifically, familial hamartomatous polyposis syndrome. It was through these research projects and seeing how these genetic mutations impacted their risk of developing colorectal cancer, inspired me to care for patients with hereditary GI cancer syndromes.
Q: Have you been doing any research on the reasons why more young people are getting colon cancer?
We recently published work looking at the potential factors that may be driving the rising rates of early onset colorectal cancer. One hypothesis that’s been floating around is antibiotic exposure in early adulthood or childhood because of its effect on the microbiome. Using our large database at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, we did not find an association between oral antibiotic use during early adulthood and the risk of early-onset colorectal cancer.
You have the usual suspects like obesity and diabetes, but it’s not explaining all that risk. While familial colorectal cancer syndromes contribute to a small proportion of early-onset colorectal, these syndromes are not increasing across generations. I really do feel it’s something in the diet or how foods are processed and environmental factors that’s driving some of the risk of early onset colorectal cancer and this should be explored further.
Q: In 2018, you issued a landmark study which found an association between a 10-year follow-up after negative colonoscopy and reduced risk of disease and mortality. Has there been any updates to these findings over the last 6 years?
We recently saw a study in JAMA Oncology of a Swedish cohort that showed a negative colonoscopy result was associated with a reduced risk of developing and even dying from colorectal cancer 15 years from that examination, compared to the general population of Sweden. I think there’s some things that we need to be cautious about regarding that study. We have to think about the comparison group that they used and the lack of information regarding the indication of the colonoscopy and the quality of the examination. So, it remains uncertain whether future guidelines are going to stretch out that 10-year interval to 15 years.
Q: What other CRC studies are you working on now?
We have several studies that we are working on right now. One is called the PREVENT CRC study, which is looking at whether a polygenic risk score can improve risk stratification following adenoma removal for colorectal cancer prevention and tailoring post-polypectomy surveillance. This is a large observational cohort study that we have teamed up with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Erasmus University, and Kaiser Permanente Northwest to answer this important question that may have implications for personalized medicine.
Then there’s the COOP study, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. This is looking at the best surveillance test to use among older adults 65 years and older with a history of polyps. The trial is randomizing them to either getting a colonoscopy for surveillance or annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for surveillance. This is to see which test is best for detecting colorectal cancer among older adults with a history of polyps.
Q: Do you think FIT tests could eventually replace colonoscopy, given that it’s less invasive?
Although FIT and other stool-based tests are less invasive and have been shown to have high accuracy for detecting colorectal cancer, I personally do not think they are going to replace colonoscopy as the most popular screening modality in the United States. Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for detecting and removing precancerous polyps and has the highest accuracy for detecting colorectal cancer.
Q: Besides Dr. Carethers, what teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?
Clinically it’s been Dr. Jonathan Terdiman from UCSF, who taught me everything I know about clinical GI, and the art of colonoscopy. In addition, Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, the Permanente Medical Group’s chief research officer, has made the greatest impact on my research career. He’s really taught me how to rigorously design a research study to answer important clinically relevant questions, and has given me the skill set to write NIH grants. I would not be here without these mentors who are truly giants in the field of GI.
Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons? Are you still a “Cal Bears” fan at your alma mater, UC Berkeley?
I spend a lot of time taking my kids to their activities on the weekends. I just took my son to a Cal Bears Game Day, which was hosted by ESPN at Berkeley.
It was an incredible experience hearing sports analyst Pat McAfee lead all the Cal chants, seeing Nick Saban from the University of Alabama take off his red tie and replace it with a Cal Bears tie, and watching a Cal student win a hundred thousand dollars by kicking a football through the goal posts wearing checkered vans.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Text
Favorite breakfast?
Taiwanese breakfast
Place you most want to travel to?
Japan
Favorite junk food?
Trader Joe’s chili lime chips
Favorite season?
Springtime, baseball season
Favorite ice cream flavor?
Mint chocolate chip
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
2-3
Last movie you watched?
Oppenheimer
Best place you ever went on vacation?
Hawaii
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?
Barber
Best Halloween costume you ever wore?
SpongeBob SquarePants
Favorite sport?
Tennis
What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?
Any classic 80s song
Introvert or extrovert?
Introvert
About a third of the US population are eligible for colorectal cancer screening but aren’t up to date on screening.
Many patients are reluctant to test for colon cancer for a variety of reasons, said Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, a research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research and an attending gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center.
“As a gastroenterologist, I strongly believe we should emphasize the importance of colorectal cancer screening. And there’s many tests available, not just a colonoscopy, to help reduce your chances of developing colorectal cancer and even dying from colorectal cancer,” said Dr. Lee.
Many patients prefer a test that’s more convenient, that doesn’t require them to take time out of their busy schedules. “We must educate our patients that there are some noninvasive screening options that are helpful, and to be able to share with them some of the benefits, but also some of the drawbacks compared to colonoscopy and allow them to have a choice,” he advised.
He is a recipient of the AGA Research Scholar Award, and has in turn supported other researchers by contributing to the AGA Research Foundation. In 2012, Dr. Lee received a grant from the Sylvia Allison Kaplan Clinical Research Fund to fund a study on long-term colorectal cancer risk in patients with normal colonoscopy results.
The findings, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, determined that 10 years after a negative colonoscopy, Kaiser Permanente members had a 46% lower risk of being diagnosed with CRC and were 88% less likely to die from disease compared with patients who didn’t undergo screening.
“Furthermore, the reduced risk of developing colorectal cancer, even dying from it, persisted for more than 12 years after the examination compared with an unscreened population,” said Dr. Lee. “I firmly believe our study really supports the ten-year screening interval after a normal colonoscopy, as currently recommended by our guidelines.”
In an interview, he discussed his research efforts to find the best detection regimens for CRC, and the mentors who guided his career path as a GI scientist.
Q: Why did you choose GI?
During medical school I was fortunate to work in the lab of Dr. John M. Carethers at UC San Diego. He introduced me to GI and inspired me to choose GI as a career. His mentorship was invaluable because he not only solidified my interest in GI, but also inspired me to become a physician scientist, focusing on colorectal cancer prevention and control. His amazing mentorship drew me to this field.
Q: One of your clinical focus areas is hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. How did you become interested in this area of GI medicine?
My interest in hereditary GI cancer syndromes stemmed from my work as a medical student in Dr. Carethers’ lab. One of my research projects was looking at certain gene mutations among patients with hereditary GI cancer syndromes, specifically, familial hamartomatous polyposis syndrome. It was through these research projects and seeing how these genetic mutations impacted their risk of developing colorectal cancer, inspired me to care for patients with hereditary GI cancer syndromes.
Q: Have you been doing any research on the reasons why more young people are getting colon cancer?
We recently published work looking at the potential factors that may be driving the rising rates of early onset colorectal cancer. One hypothesis that’s been floating around is antibiotic exposure in early adulthood or childhood because of its effect on the microbiome. Using our large database at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, we did not find an association between oral antibiotic use during early adulthood and the risk of early-onset colorectal cancer.
You have the usual suspects like obesity and diabetes, but it’s not explaining all that risk. While familial colorectal cancer syndromes contribute to a small proportion of early-onset colorectal, these syndromes are not increasing across generations. I really do feel it’s something in the diet or how foods are processed and environmental factors that’s driving some of the risk of early onset colorectal cancer and this should be explored further.
Q: In 2018, you issued a landmark study which found an association between a 10-year follow-up after negative colonoscopy and reduced risk of disease and mortality. Has there been any updates to these findings over the last 6 years?
We recently saw a study in JAMA Oncology of a Swedish cohort that showed a negative colonoscopy result was associated with a reduced risk of developing and even dying from colorectal cancer 15 years from that examination, compared to the general population of Sweden. I think there’s some things that we need to be cautious about regarding that study. We have to think about the comparison group that they used and the lack of information regarding the indication of the colonoscopy and the quality of the examination. So, it remains uncertain whether future guidelines are going to stretch out that 10-year interval to 15 years.
Q: What other CRC studies are you working on now?
We have several studies that we are working on right now. One is called the PREVENT CRC study, which is looking at whether a polygenic risk score can improve risk stratification following adenoma removal for colorectal cancer prevention and tailoring post-polypectomy surveillance. This is a large observational cohort study that we have teamed up with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Erasmus University, and Kaiser Permanente Northwest to answer this important question that may have implications for personalized medicine.
Then there’s the COOP study, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. This is looking at the best surveillance test to use among older adults 65 years and older with a history of polyps. The trial is randomizing them to either getting a colonoscopy for surveillance or annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for surveillance. This is to see which test is best for detecting colorectal cancer among older adults with a history of polyps.
Q: Do you think FIT tests could eventually replace colonoscopy, given that it’s less invasive?
Although FIT and other stool-based tests are less invasive and have been shown to have high accuracy for detecting colorectal cancer, I personally do not think they are going to replace colonoscopy as the most popular screening modality in the United States. Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for detecting and removing precancerous polyps and has the highest accuracy for detecting colorectal cancer.
Q: Besides Dr. Carethers, what teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?
Clinically it’s been Dr. Jonathan Terdiman from UCSF, who taught me everything I know about clinical GI, and the art of colonoscopy. In addition, Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, the Permanente Medical Group’s chief research officer, has made the greatest impact on my research career. He’s really taught me how to rigorously design a research study to answer important clinically relevant questions, and has given me the skill set to write NIH grants. I would not be here without these mentors who are truly giants in the field of GI.
Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons? Are you still a “Cal Bears” fan at your alma mater, UC Berkeley?
I spend a lot of time taking my kids to their activities on the weekends. I just took my son to a Cal Bears Game Day, which was hosted by ESPN at Berkeley.
It was an incredible experience hearing sports analyst Pat McAfee lead all the Cal chants, seeing Nick Saban from the University of Alabama take off his red tie and replace it with a Cal Bears tie, and watching a Cal student win a hundred thousand dollars by kicking a football through the goal posts wearing checkered vans.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Text
Favorite breakfast?
Taiwanese breakfast
Place you most want to travel to?
Japan
Favorite junk food?
Trader Joe’s chili lime chips
Favorite season?
Springtime, baseball season
Favorite ice cream flavor?
Mint chocolate chip
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
2-3
Last movie you watched?
Oppenheimer
Best place you ever went on vacation?
Hawaii
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?
Barber
Best Halloween costume you ever wore?
SpongeBob SquarePants
Favorite sport?
Tennis
What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?
Any classic 80s song
Introvert or extrovert?
Introvert
Giving the Smallest GI Transplant Patients a New Lease On Life
The best part about working with kids is that “I get to laugh every day,” said Ke-You (Yoyo) Zhang, MD, clinical assistant professor for pediatrics–gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford Medicine in California.
Everyday life for them is a challenge.
Dealing with sick children is difficult. “But I think the difference between pediatrics and adults is despite how hard things get, children are the single most resilient people you’re ever going to meet,” she said.
Kids don’t always know they’re sick and they don’t act sick, even when they are. “Every day, I literally get on the floor, I get to play, I get to run around. And truly, I have fun every single day. I get excited to go to work. And I think that’s what makes work not feel like work,” said Dr. Zhang.
In an interview, she discussed the satisfaction of following patients throughout their care continuum and her research to reduce the likelihood of transplant rejection.
She also shared an inspirational story of one young patient who spent his life tied to an IV, and how a transplant exposed him to the normal joys of life, like swimming, going to camp and getting on a plane for the first time.
Q: Why did you choose this subspecialty of pediatric GI?
I think it’s the best subspecialty because I think it combines a lot of the things that I enjoy, which is long-term continuity of care. It’s about growing up with your patients and seeing them through all the various stages of their life, often meeting patients when they’re babies. I get pictures of high school graduations and life milestones and even see some of my patients have families of their own. Becoming a part of their family is very meaningful to me. I also like complexity and acuity, and gastroenterology and hepatology provide those things.
And then lastly, it’s great to be able to exercise procedural skills and constantly learn new procedural skills.
Q: How did you become interested in the field of pediatric intestinal and liver transplantation?
I did all my training here at Stanford. We have one of the largest pediatric transplant centers and we also have a very large intestinal rehabilitation population.
Coming through residency and fellowship, I had a lot of exposure to transplant and intestinal failure, intestinal rehabilitation. I really liked the longitudinal relationship I got to form with my patients. Sometimes they’re in the neonatal ICU, where you’re meeting them in their very first days of life. You follow them through their chronic illness, through transplant and after transplant for many years. You become not just their GI, but the center of their care.
Q: What challenges are unique to this type of transplant work?
Pediatric intestinal failure and intestinal transplant represents an incredibly small subset of children. Oftentimes, they do not get the resources and recognition on a national policy level or even at the hospital level that other gastrointestinal diseases receive. What’s difficult is they are such a small subset but their complexity and their needs are probably in the highest percentile. So that’s a really challenging combination to start with. And there’s only a few centers that specialize in doing intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation for children in the country.
Developing expertise has been slow. But I think in the last decade or so, our understanding and success with intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation has really improved, especially at large centers like Stanford. We’ve had a lot of success stories and have not had any graft loss since 2014.
Q: Are these transplants hard to acquire?
Yes, especially when you’re transplanting not just the intestines but the liver as well. You’re waiting for two organs, not just one organ. And on top of that, you’re waiting for an appropriately sized donor; usually a child who’s around the same size or same age who’s passed away. Those organs would have to be a good match. Children can wait multiple years for a transplant.
Q: Is there a success story you’d like to share?
One patient I met in the neonatal ICU had congenital short bowel syndrome. He was born with hardly any intestines. He developed complications of being on long-term intravenous nutrition, which included recurrent central line infections and liver disease. He was never able to eat because he really didn’t have a digestive system that could adequately absorb anything. He had a central line in one of his large veins, so he couldn’t go swimming.
He had to have special adaptive wear to even shower or bathe and couldn’t travel. It’s these types of patients that benefit so much from transplant. Putting any kid through transplant is a massive undertaking and it certainly has risks. But he underwent a successful transplant at the age of 8—not just an intestinal transplant, but a multi-visceral transplant of the liver, intestine, and pancreas. He’s 9 years old now, and no longer needs intravenous nutrition. He ate by mouth for the very first time after transplant. He’s trying all sorts of new foods and he was able to go to a special transplant camp for children. Getting on a plane to Los Angeles, which is where our transplant camp is, was a huge deal.
He was able to swim in the lake. He’s never been able to do that. And he wants to start doing sports this fall. This was really a life-changing story for him.
Q: What advancements lie ahead for this field of work? Have you work on any notable research?
I think our understanding of transplant immunology has really progressed, especially recently. That’s what part of my research is about—using novel therapies to modulate the immune system of pediatric transplant recipients. The No. 1 complication that occurs after intestinal transplant is rejection because obviously you’re implanting somebody else’s organs into a patient.
I am involved in a clinical trial that’s looking at the use of extracellular vesicles that are isolated from hematopoietic stem cells. These vesicles contain various growth factors, anti-inflammatory proteins and tissue repair factors that we are infusing into intestinal transplant patients with the aim to repair the intestinal tissue patients are rejecting.
Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?
My husband and I have an almost 2-year-old little girl. She keeps us busy and I spend my afternoons chasing after a crazy toddler.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Huge texter
Favorite junk food?
French fries
Cat or dog person?
Dog
Favorite ice cream?
Strawberry
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?Florist
Best place you’ve traveled to?
Thailand
Number of cups of coffee you drink per day?
Too many
Favorite city in the US besides the one you live in?
New York City
Favorite sport?
Tennis
Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist
The best part about working with kids is that “I get to laugh every day,” said Ke-You (Yoyo) Zhang, MD, clinical assistant professor for pediatrics–gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford Medicine in California.
Everyday life for them is a challenge.
Dealing with sick children is difficult. “But I think the difference between pediatrics and adults is despite how hard things get, children are the single most resilient people you’re ever going to meet,” she said.
Kids don’t always know they’re sick and they don’t act sick, even when they are. “Every day, I literally get on the floor, I get to play, I get to run around. And truly, I have fun every single day. I get excited to go to work. And I think that’s what makes work not feel like work,” said Dr. Zhang.
In an interview, she discussed the satisfaction of following patients throughout their care continuum and her research to reduce the likelihood of transplant rejection.
She also shared an inspirational story of one young patient who spent his life tied to an IV, and how a transplant exposed him to the normal joys of life, like swimming, going to camp and getting on a plane for the first time.
Q: Why did you choose this subspecialty of pediatric GI?
I think it’s the best subspecialty because I think it combines a lot of the things that I enjoy, which is long-term continuity of care. It’s about growing up with your patients and seeing them through all the various stages of their life, often meeting patients when they’re babies. I get pictures of high school graduations and life milestones and even see some of my patients have families of their own. Becoming a part of their family is very meaningful to me. I also like complexity and acuity, and gastroenterology and hepatology provide those things.
And then lastly, it’s great to be able to exercise procedural skills and constantly learn new procedural skills.
Q: How did you become interested in the field of pediatric intestinal and liver transplantation?
I did all my training here at Stanford. We have one of the largest pediatric transplant centers and we also have a very large intestinal rehabilitation population.
Coming through residency and fellowship, I had a lot of exposure to transplant and intestinal failure, intestinal rehabilitation. I really liked the longitudinal relationship I got to form with my patients. Sometimes they’re in the neonatal ICU, where you’re meeting them in their very first days of life. You follow them through their chronic illness, through transplant and after transplant for many years. You become not just their GI, but the center of their care.
Q: What challenges are unique to this type of transplant work?
Pediatric intestinal failure and intestinal transplant represents an incredibly small subset of children. Oftentimes, they do not get the resources and recognition on a national policy level or even at the hospital level that other gastrointestinal diseases receive. What’s difficult is they are such a small subset but their complexity and their needs are probably in the highest percentile. So that’s a really challenging combination to start with. And there’s only a few centers that specialize in doing intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation for children in the country.
Developing expertise has been slow. But I think in the last decade or so, our understanding and success with intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation has really improved, especially at large centers like Stanford. We’ve had a lot of success stories and have not had any graft loss since 2014.
Q: Are these transplants hard to acquire?
Yes, especially when you’re transplanting not just the intestines but the liver as well. You’re waiting for two organs, not just one organ. And on top of that, you’re waiting for an appropriately sized donor; usually a child who’s around the same size or same age who’s passed away. Those organs would have to be a good match. Children can wait multiple years for a transplant.
Q: Is there a success story you’d like to share?
One patient I met in the neonatal ICU had congenital short bowel syndrome. He was born with hardly any intestines. He developed complications of being on long-term intravenous nutrition, which included recurrent central line infections and liver disease. He was never able to eat because he really didn’t have a digestive system that could adequately absorb anything. He had a central line in one of his large veins, so he couldn’t go swimming.
He had to have special adaptive wear to even shower or bathe and couldn’t travel. It’s these types of patients that benefit so much from transplant. Putting any kid through transplant is a massive undertaking and it certainly has risks. But he underwent a successful transplant at the age of 8—not just an intestinal transplant, but a multi-visceral transplant of the liver, intestine, and pancreas. He’s 9 years old now, and no longer needs intravenous nutrition. He ate by mouth for the very first time after transplant. He’s trying all sorts of new foods and he was able to go to a special transplant camp for children. Getting on a plane to Los Angeles, which is where our transplant camp is, was a huge deal.
He was able to swim in the lake. He’s never been able to do that. And he wants to start doing sports this fall. This was really a life-changing story for him.
Q: What advancements lie ahead for this field of work? Have you work on any notable research?
I think our understanding of transplant immunology has really progressed, especially recently. That’s what part of my research is about—using novel therapies to modulate the immune system of pediatric transplant recipients. The No. 1 complication that occurs after intestinal transplant is rejection because obviously you’re implanting somebody else’s organs into a patient.
I am involved in a clinical trial that’s looking at the use of extracellular vesicles that are isolated from hematopoietic stem cells. These vesicles contain various growth factors, anti-inflammatory proteins and tissue repair factors that we are infusing into intestinal transplant patients with the aim to repair the intestinal tissue patients are rejecting.
Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?
My husband and I have an almost 2-year-old little girl. She keeps us busy and I spend my afternoons chasing after a crazy toddler.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Huge texter
Favorite junk food?
French fries
Cat or dog person?
Dog
Favorite ice cream?
Strawberry
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?Florist
Best place you’ve traveled to?
Thailand
Number of cups of coffee you drink per day?
Too many
Favorite city in the US besides the one you live in?
New York City
Favorite sport?
Tennis
Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist
The best part about working with kids is that “I get to laugh every day,” said Ke-You (Yoyo) Zhang, MD, clinical assistant professor for pediatrics–gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford Medicine in California.
Everyday life for them is a challenge.
Dealing with sick children is difficult. “But I think the difference between pediatrics and adults is despite how hard things get, children are the single most resilient people you’re ever going to meet,” she said.
Kids don’t always know they’re sick and they don’t act sick, even when they are. “Every day, I literally get on the floor, I get to play, I get to run around. And truly, I have fun every single day. I get excited to go to work. And I think that’s what makes work not feel like work,” said Dr. Zhang.
In an interview, she discussed the satisfaction of following patients throughout their care continuum and her research to reduce the likelihood of transplant rejection.
She also shared an inspirational story of one young patient who spent his life tied to an IV, and how a transplant exposed him to the normal joys of life, like swimming, going to camp and getting on a plane for the first time.
Q: Why did you choose this subspecialty of pediatric GI?
I think it’s the best subspecialty because I think it combines a lot of the things that I enjoy, which is long-term continuity of care. It’s about growing up with your patients and seeing them through all the various stages of their life, often meeting patients when they’re babies. I get pictures of high school graduations and life milestones and even see some of my patients have families of their own. Becoming a part of their family is very meaningful to me. I also like complexity and acuity, and gastroenterology and hepatology provide those things.
And then lastly, it’s great to be able to exercise procedural skills and constantly learn new procedural skills.
Q: How did you become interested in the field of pediatric intestinal and liver transplantation?
I did all my training here at Stanford. We have one of the largest pediatric transplant centers and we also have a very large intestinal rehabilitation population.
Coming through residency and fellowship, I had a lot of exposure to transplant and intestinal failure, intestinal rehabilitation. I really liked the longitudinal relationship I got to form with my patients. Sometimes they’re in the neonatal ICU, where you’re meeting them in their very first days of life. You follow them through their chronic illness, through transplant and after transplant for many years. You become not just their GI, but the center of their care.
Q: What challenges are unique to this type of transplant work?
Pediatric intestinal failure and intestinal transplant represents an incredibly small subset of children. Oftentimes, they do not get the resources and recognition on a national policy level or even at the hospital level that other gastrointestinal diseases receive. What’s difficult is they are such a small subset but their complexity and their needs are probably in the highest percentile. So that’s a really challenging combination to start with. And there’s only a few centers that specialize in doing intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation for children in the country.
Developing expertise has been slow. But I think in the last decade or so, our understanding and success with intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation has really improved, especially at large centers like Stanford. We’ve had a lot of success stories and have not had any graft loss since 2014.
Q: Are these transplants hard to acquire?
Yes, especially when you’re transplanting not just the intestines but the liver as well. You’re waiting for two organs, not just one organ. And on top of that, you’re waiting for an appropriately sized donor; usually a child who’s around the same size or same age who’s passed away. Those organs would have to be a good match. Children can wait multiple years for a transplant.
Q: Is there a success story you’d like to share?
One patient I met in the neonatal ICU had congenital short bowel syndrome. He was born with hardly any intestines. He developed complications of being on long-term intravenous nutrition, which included recurrent central line infections and liver disease. He was never able to eat because he really didn’t have a digestive system that could adequately absorb anything. He had a central line in one of his large veins, so he couldn’t go swimming.
He had to have special adaptive wear to even shower or bathe and couldn’t travel. It’s these types of patients that benefit so much from transplant. Putting any kid through transplant is a massive undertaking and it certainly has risks. But he underwent a successful transplant at the age of 8—not just an intestinal transplant, but a multi-visceral transplant of the liver, intestine, and pancreas. He’s 9 years old now, and no longer needs intravenous nutrition. He ate by mouth for the very first time after transplant. He’s trying all sorts of new foods and he was able to go to a special transplant camp for children. Getting on a plane to Los Angeles, which is where our transplant camp is, was a huge deal.
He was able to swim in the lake. He’s never been able to do that. And he wants to start doing sports this fall. This was really a life-changing story for him.
Q: What advancements lie ahead for this field of work? Have you work on any notable research?
I think our understanding of transplant immunology has really progressed, especially recently. That’s what part of my research is about—using novel therapies to modulate the immune system of pediatric transplant recipients. The No. 1 complication that occurs after intestinal transplant is rejection because obviously you’re implanting somebody else’s organs into a patient.
I am involved in a clinical trial that’s looking at the use of extracellular vesicles that are isolated from hematopoietic stem cells. These vesicles contain various growth factors, anti-inflammatory proteins and tissue repair factors that we are infusing into intestinal transplant patients with the aim to repair the intestinal tissue patients are rejecting.
Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?
My husband and I have an almost 2-year-old little girl. She keeps us busy and I spend my afternoons chasing after a crazy toddler.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Huge texter
Favorite junk food?
French fries
Cat or dog person?
Dog
Favorite ice cream?
Strawberry
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?Florist
Best place you’ve traveled to?
Thailand
Number of cups of coffee you drink per day?
Too many
Favorite city in the US besides the one you live in?
New York City
Favorite sport?
Tennis
Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist
In a Parallel Universe, “I’d Be a Concert Pianist” Says Tennessee GI
She also relishes opportunities to think, to analyze, and solve problems for her patients.
One of her chief interests is inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It’s reassuring to focus on a field of work “where I know exactly what’s causing the issue, and I can select a therapeutic approach (medication and lifestyle changes) that help a patient achieve remission,” said Dr. Pointer, co-owner and managing partner of Digestive and Liver Health Specialists in Hendersonville, Tenn. She’s also the medical director and a principal investigator of Quality Medical Research in Nashville, and currently serves as chair of the AGA Trainee and Early Career Committee.
Starting her own practice has been just as challenging and rewarding as going through medical school. Medical training does not prepare you for starting your own practice, Dr. Pointer said, so she and her business partner have had to learn as they go. “But I think we’ve done very well. We’ve taken the ups and downs in stride.”
In an interview, Dr. Pointer spoke more about her work in IBD and the ways in which she’s given back to the community through music and mentoring.
Q: Why did you choose GI?
I knew from a very young age that I was going to be a physician. I had always been interested in science. When I got into medical school and became exposed to the different areas, I really liked the cognitive skills where you had to think through a problem or an issue. But I also liked the procedural things as well.
During my internal medicine residency training, I felt that I had a knack for it. As I was looking at different options, I decided on gastroenterology because it combined both cognitive thinking through issues, but also taking it to the next step and intervening through procedures.
Q: During fellowship, your focus was inflammatory bowel disease. What drew your interest to this condition?
There are a lot of different areas within gastroenterology that one can subspecialize in, as we see the full gamut of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. But treating some conditions, like functional disorders, means taking more of a ‘trial and error’ approach, and you may not always get the patient a hundred percent better. That’s not to say that we can’t improve a patient’s quality of life, but it’s not always a guarantee.
But inflammatory bowel disease is a little bit different. Because I can point to an exact spot in the intestines that’s causing the problem, it’s very fulfilling for me as a physician to take a patient who is having 10-12 bloody bowel movements a day, to normal form stools and no abdominal pain. They’re able to gain weight and go on about their lives and about their day. So that was why I picked inflammatory bowel disease as my subspecialty.
Q: Tell me about the gastroenterology elective you developed for family medicine residents and undergraduate students. What’s the status of the program now?
I’ve always been interested in teaching and giving back to the next generations. I feel like I had great mentor opportunities and people who helped me along the way. In my previous hospital position, I was able to work with the family medicine department and create an elective through which residents and even undergraduate students could come and shadow and work with me in the clinic and see me performing procedures.
That elective ended once I left that position, at least as far as I’m aware. But in the private practice that I co-own now, we have numerous shadowing opportunities. I was able to give a lecture at Middle Tennessee State University for some students. And through that lecture, many students have reached out to me to shadow. I have allowed them to come shadow and do clinic work as a medical assistant and watch me perform procedures. I have multiple students working with me weekly.
Q: Years ago, you founded the non-profit Enchanted Fingers Piano Lessons, which gave free piano lessons to underserved youth. What was that experience like?
Piano was one of my first loves. In some parallel universe, there’s a Dr. Pointer who is a classical, concert pianist. I started taking piano lessons when I was in early middle school, and I took to it very quickly. I was able to excel. I just loved it. I enjoyed practicing and I still play.
The impetus for starting Enchanted Fingers Piano lessons was because I wanted to give back again to the community. I came from an underserved community. Oftentimes children and young adults in those communities don’t get exposed to extracurricular activities and they don’t even know what they could potentially have a passion for. And I definitely had a passion for piano. I partnered with a church organization and they allowed me to use their church to host these piano lessons, and it was a phenomenal and rewarding experience. I would definitely like to start it up again one day in the future. It was an amazing experience.
It’s actually how I met my husband. He was one of the young adult students who signed up to take lessons. We both still enjoy playing the piano together.
Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?
I’m a creative at heart. I really enjoy sewing and I’m working on a few sewing projects. I just got a serger. It is a machine that helps you finish a seam. It can also be used to sew entire garments. That has been fun, learning how to thread that machine. When I’m not doing that or just relaxing with my family, I do enjoy curling up with a good book. Stephen King is one of my favorite authors.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Talking
Favorite junk food?
Chocolate chip cookies
Cat or dog person?
Cat
Favorite vacation?
Hawaii
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
I don’t drink coffee
Favorite ice cream?
Butter pecan
Favorite sport?
I don’t watch sports
Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist
She also relishes opportunities to think, to analyze, and solve problems for her patients.
One of her chief interests is inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It’s reassuring to focus on a field of work “where I know exactly what’s causing the issue, and I can select a therapeutic approach (medication and lifestyle changes) that help a patient achieve remission,” said Dr. Pointer, co-owner and managing partner of Digestive and Liver Health Specialists in Hendersonville, Tenn. She’s also the medical director and a principal investigator of Quality Medical Research in Nashville, and currently serves as chair of the AGA Trainee and Early Career Committee.
Starting her own practice has been just as challenging and rewarding as going through medical school. Medical training does not prepare you for starting your own practice, Dr. Pointer said, so she and her business partner have had to learn as they go. “But I think we’ve done very well. We’ve taken the ups and downs in stride.”
In an interview, Dr. Pointer spoke more about her work in IBD and the ways in which she’s given back to the community through music and mentoring.
Q: Why did you choose GI?
I knew from a very young age that I was going to be a physician. I had always been interested in science. When I got into medical school and became exposed to the different areas, I really liked the cognitive skills where you had to think through a problem or an issue. But I also liked the procedural things as well.
During my internal medicine residency training, I felt that I had a knack for it. As I was looking at different options, I decided on gastroenterology because it combined both cognitive thinking through issues, but also taking it to the next step and intervening through procedures.
Q: During fellowship, your focus was inflammatory bowel disease. What drew your interest to this condition?
There are a lot of different areas within gastroenterology that one can subspecialize in, as we see the full gamut of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. But treating some conditions, like functional disorders, means taking more of a ‘trial and error’ approach, and you may not always get the patient a hundred percent better. That’s not to say that we can’t improve a patient’s quality of life, but it’s not always a guarantee.
But inflammatory bowel disease is a little bit different. Because I can point to an exact spot in the intestines that’s causing the problem, it’s very fulfilling for me as a physician to take a patient who is having 10-12 bloody bowel movements a day, to normal form stools and no abdominal pain. They’re able to gain weight and go on about their lives and about their day. So that was why I picked inflammatory bowel disease as my subspecialty.
Q: Tell me about the gastroenterology elective you developed for family medicine residents and undergraduate students. What’s the status of the program now?
I’ve always been interested in teaching and giving back to the next generations. I feel like I had great mentor opportunities and people who helped me along the way. In my previous hospital position, I was able to work with the family medicine department and create an elective through which residents and even undergraduate students could come and shadow and work with me in the clinic and see me performing procedures.
That elective ended once I left that position, at least as far as I’m aware. But in the private practice that I co-own now, we have numerous shadowing opportunities. I was able to give a lecture at Middle Tennessee State University for some students. And through that lecture, many students have reached out to me to shadow. I have allowed them to come shadow and do clinic work as a medical assistant and watch me perform procedures. I have multiple students working with me weekly.
Q: Years ago, you founded the non-profit Enchanted Fingers Piano Lessons, which gave free piano lessons to underserved youth. What was that experience like?
Piano was one of my first loves. In some parallel universe, there’s a Dr. Pointer who is a classical, concert pianist. I started taking piano lessons when I was in early middle school, and I took to it very quickly. I was able to excel. I just loved it. I enjoyed practicing and I still play.
The impetus for starting Enchanted Fingers Piano lessons was because I wanted to give back again to the community. I came from an underserved community. Oftentimes children and young adults in those communities don’t get exposed to extracurricular activities and they don’t even know what they could potentially have a passion for. And I definitely had a passion for piano. I partnered with a church organization and they allowed me to use their church to host these piano lessons, and it was a phenomenal and rewarding experience. I would definitely like to start it up again one day in the future. It was an amazing experience.
It’s actually how I met my husband. He was one of the young adult students who signed up to take lessons. We both still enjoy playing the piano together.
Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?
I’m a creative at heart. I really enjoy sewing and I’m working on a few sewing projects. I just got a serger. It is a machine that helps you finish a seam. It can also be used to sew entire garments. That has been fun, learning how to thread that machine. When I’m not doing that or just relaxing with my family, I do enjoy curling up with a good book. Stephen King is one of my favorite authors.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Talking
Favorite junk food?
Chocolate chip cookies
Cat or dog person?
Cat
Favorite vacation?
Hawaii
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
I don’t drink coffee
Favorite ice cream?
Butter pecan
Favorite sport?
I don’t watch sports
Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist
She also relishes opportunities to think, to analyze, and solve problems for her patients.
One of her chief interests is inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It’s reassuring to focus on a field of work “where I know exactly what’s causing the issue, and I can select a therapeutic approach (medication and lifestyle changes) that help a patient achieve remission,” said Dr. Pointer, co-owner and managing partner of Digestive and Liver Health Specialists in Hendersonville, Tenn. She’s also the medical director and a principal investigator of Quality Medical Research in Nashville, and currently serves as chair of the AGA Trainee and Early Career Committee.
Starting her own practice has been just as challenging and rewarding as going through medical school. Medical training does not prepare you for starting your own practice, Dr. Pointer said, so she and her business partner have had to learn as they go. “But I think we’ve done very well. We’ve taken the ups and downs in stride.”
In an interview, Dr. Pointer spoke more about her work in IBD and the ways in which she’s given back to the community through music and mentoring.
Q: Why did you choose GI?
I knew from a very young age that I was going to be a physician. I had always been interested in science. When I got into medical school and became exposed to the different areas, I really liked the cognitive skills where you had to think through a problem or an issue. But I also liked the procedural things as well.
During my internal medicine residency training, I felt that I had a knack for it. As I was looking at different options, I decided on gastroenterology because it combined both cognitive thinking through issues, but also taking it to the next step and intervening through procedures.
Q: During fellowship, your focus was inflammatory bowel disease. What drew your interest to this condition?
There are a lot of different areas within gastroenterology that one can subspecialize in, as we see the full gamut of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. But treating some conditions, like functional disorders, means taking more of a ‘trial and error’ approach, and you may not always get the patient a hundred percent better. That’s not to say that we can’t improve a patient’s quality of life, but it’s not always a guarantee.
But inflammatory bowel disease is a little bit different. Because I can point to an exact spot in the intestines that’s causing the problem, it’s very fulfilling for me as a physician to take a patient who is having 10-12 bloody bowel movements a day, to normal form stools and no abdominal pain. They’re able to gain weight and go on about their lives and about their day. So that was why I picked inflammatory bowel disease as my subspecialty.
Q: Tell me about the gastroenterology elective you developed for family medicine residents and undergraduate students. What’s the status of the program now?
I’ve always been interested in teaching and giving back to the next generations. I feel like I had great mentor opportunities and people who helped me along the way. In my previous hospital position, I was able to work with the family medicine department and create an elective through which residents and even undergraduate students could come and shadow and work with me in the clinic and see me performing procedures.
That elective ended once I left that position, at least as far as I’m aware. But in the private practice that I co-own now, we have numerous shadowing opportunities. I was able to give a lecture at Middle Tennessee State University for some students. And through that lecture, many students have reached out to me to shadow. I have allowed them to come shadow and do clinic work as a medical assistant and watch me perform procedures. I have multiple students working with me weekly.
Q: Years ago, you founded the non-profit Enchanted Fingers Piano Lessons, which gave free piano lessons to underserved youth. What was that experience like?
Piano was one of my first loves. In some parallel universe, there’s a Dr. Pointer who is a classical, concert pianist. I started taking piano lessons when I was in early middle school, and I took to it very quickly. I was able to excel. I just loved it. I enjoyed practicing and I still play.
The impetus for starting Enchanted Fingers Piano lessons was because I wanted to give back again to the community. I came from an underserved community. Oftentimes children and young adults in those communities don’t get exposed to extracurricular activities and they don’t even know what they could potentially have a passion for. And I definitely had a passion for piano. I partnered with a church organization and they allowed me to use their church to host these piano lessons, and it was a phenomenal and rewarding experience. I would definitely like to start it up again one day in the future. It was an amazing experience.
It’s actually how I met my husband. He was one of the young adult students who signed up to take lessons. We both still enjoy playing the piano together.
Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?
I’m a creative at heart. I really enjoy sewing and I’m working on a few sewing projects. I just got a serger. It is a machine that helps you finish a seam. It can also be used to sew entire garments. That has been fun, learning how to thread that machine. When I’m not doing that or just relaxing with my family, I do enjoy curling up with a good book. Stephen King is one of my favorite authors.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Talking
Favorite junk food?
Chocolate chip cookies
Cat or dog person?
Cat
Favorite vacation?
Hawaii
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
I don’t drink coffee
Favorite ice cream?
Butter pecan
Favorite sport?
I don’t watch sports
Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist
Patient Navigators for Serious Illnesses Can Now Bill Under New Medicare Codes
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Does Marital Status Affect Cancer Risk?
VA Restarts EHR Rollout After Addressing Issues
After a nearly 3-year pause, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is again ramping up the rollout of its new federal electronic health records (EHR) system from Oracle-Cerner, which previously experienced various issues and led to numerous setbacks. On April 11, 2026, the federal EHR went live at 4 Michigan sites: VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, VA Battle Creek Medical Center, VA Detroit Healthcare System, and VA Saginaw Healthcare System.
VA officials have promised that things will be different this time, claiming it has fixed “hundreds of problems related to the initial rollout of the EHR system at the [6] original VA sites” and eliminated “the bureaucracy that was holding the project back.” At a press conference announcing the relaunch of the EHR rollout, VA Secretary Doug Collins said the old system cost the department hundreds of millions of dollars each year. He also said the VA has been too resistant to change at the expense of proper veteran health care.
“We’re all going to stay close to ensure that this is a smooth transition,” Collins said. “This needs to be a win for the VA patients.”
A VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigation found 360 major performance incidents—outages, performance degradations, and incomplete functionality—that occurred between October 24, 2020, and August 31, 2022. Additionally, an investigation by The Spokesman-Review and The Washington Post found that the EHR “played a role” in > 4400 cases of patient harm and 6 deaths.
VA Deputy Secretary Paul Lawrence said that the VA plans to stagger the release of the system, unlike in previous deployments. The agency intends to implement the EHR at 13 sites in 2026 and 26 in 2027, anticipating a pace of about 28 to 30 sites each year after that.
The VA said it is also boosting staffing to ensure the transition goes smoothly and is in the process of hiring 400 employees. Other problems may arise, though. At the end of March laid off between 20,000 and 30,000. This prompted concerns that resources could be redirected from the VA EHR at a critical stage.
After a nearly 3-year pause, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is again ramping up the rollout of its new federal electronic health records (EHR) system from Oracle-Cerner, which previously experienced various issues and led to numerous setbacks. On April 11, 2026, the federal EHR went live at 4 Michigan sites: VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, VA Battle Creek Medical Center, VA Detroit Healthcare System, and VA Saginaw Healthcare System.
VA officials have promised that things will be different this time, claiming it has fixed “hundreds of problems related to the initial rollout of the EHR system at the [6] original VA sites” and eliminated “the bureaucracy that was holding the project back.” At a press conference announcing the relaunch of the EHR rollout, VA Secretary Doug Collins said the old system cost the department hundreds of millions of dollars each year. He also said the VA has been too resistant to change at the expense of proper veteran health care.
“We’re all going to stay close to ensure that this is a smooth transition,” Collins said. “This needs to be a win for the VA patients.”
A VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigation found 360 major performance incidents—outages, performance degradations, and incomplete functionality—that occurred between October 24, 2020, and August 31, 2022. Additionally, an investigation by The Spokesman-Review and The Washington Post found that the EHR “played a role” in > 4400 cases of patient harm and 6 deaths.
VA Deputy Secretary Paul Lawrence said that the VA plans to stagger the release of the system, unlike in previous deployments. The agency intends to implement the EHR at 13 sites in 2026 and 26 in 2027, anticipating a pace of about 28 to 30 sites each year after that.
The VA said it is also boosting staffing to ensure the transition goes smoothly and is in the process of hiring 400 employees. Other problems may arise, though. At the end of March laid off between 20,000 and 30,000. This prompted concerns that resources could be redirected from the VA EHR at a critical stage.
After a nearly 3-year pause, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is again ramping up the rollout of its new federal electronic health records (EHR) system from Oracle-Cerner, which previously experienced various issues and led to numerous setbacks. On April 11, 2026, the federal EHR went live at 4 Michigan sites: VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, VA Battle Creek Medical Center, VA Detroit Healthcare System, and VA Saginaw Healthcare System.
VA officials have promised that things will be different this time, claiming it has fixed “hundreds of problems related to the initial rollout of the EHR system at the [6] original VA sites” and eliminated “the bureaucracy that was holding the project back.” At a press conference announcing the relaunch of the EHR rollout, VA Secretary Doug Collins said the old system cost the department hundreds of millions of dollars each year. He also said the VA has been too resistant to change at the expense of proper veteran health care.
“We’re all going to stay close to ensure that this is a smooth transition,” Collins said. “This needs to be a win for the VA patients.”
A VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigation found 360 major performance incidents—outages, performance degradations, and incomplete functionality—that occurred between October 24, 2020, and August 31, 2022. Additionally, an investigation by The Spokesman-Review and The Washington Post found that the EHR “played a role” in > 4400 cases of patient harm and 6 deaths.
VA Deputy Secretary Paul Lawrence said that the VA plans to stagger the release of the system, unlike in previous deployments. The agency intends to implement the EHR at 13 sites in 2026 and 26 in 2027, anticipating a pace of about 28 to 30 sites each year after that.
The VA said it is also boosting staffing to ensure the transition goes smoothly and is in the process of hiring 400 employees. Other problems may arise, though. At the end of March laid off between 20,000 and 30,000. This prompted concerns that resources could be redirected from the VA EHR at a critical stage.
High VA Telehealth Use Linked to Reduced Vaccination Rates
Quality measures for primary care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) remained stable when telehealth was mixed with in-person visits, but influenza vaccination fell among patients who relied on online visits the most, a retrospective cohort study finds.
Analysis of the medical records for 744,599 veterans from federal fiscal years 2022 and 2023 revealed that patients aged 19-65 years who relied on telehealth for at least half of their primary care visits were less likely to receive an influenza vaccine (37.9%) compared with those seen only in person (50.0%, P < .001). The study was lead by researchers at VA Puget Sound and published in JAMA Network Open.
There was also an influenza vaccination gap in patients aged ≥ 66 years: 62.8% in patients who received some care via telehealth telehealth vs 71.5% seen only in person, respectively (P < .001).
“Our study showed that primary care quality at the VA is quite high,” Jonathan Staloff, MD, MSc, a family medicine physician with VA Puget Sound told Federal Practitioner. “And we found that for almost all quality measures, having a low proportion of care via telehealth was associated with the same quality as in-person care.”
As Staloff explained, “telehealth in primary care, as well as in general, has emerged as an additional means of preserving access to care for veterans. Evidence suggests that veterans have a high degree of satisfaction with telehealth but it’s mixed as it relates to quality outcome differences between those who receive any via telehealth vs none.”
For the study, Staloff said, “we wanted to see if there was a dose-response relationship between telehealth utilization and care quality and if certain hybrid models could help optimize quality of care. To our knowledge, this study was the first national evaluation to investigate primary care telehealth and care quality in this way.”
Reassuring Findings About Low Telehealth Use
For the study, researchers tracked a national sample of patient data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Support Service Center Capital Assets Databases, Primary Care Management Module, and VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (mean age, 65 years; 86% male; 63% White, 22% Black, 10% Hispanic).
The study defined categories of primary-care telehealth use as no telehealth, low telehealth (> 0.0% to < 28.6%), intermediate telehealth (28.6% to < 50.0%), and high telehealth (> 50.0%).
Highest Telehealth Use Raises Red Flags
The differences in influenza vaccine rates between the no-telehealth and high-telehealth groups held up in an adjusted analysis.
The study found small but statistically significant worsening of several quality measures in the high-telehealth use vs no-telehealth use cohorts: hypertension control, statin therapy and adherence, and annual screening for depression, alcohol use, and tobacco use.
The study cites limitations such as reliance on patients with ≥ 3 or more evaluation-and- management visits and lack of information about influenza vaccines delivered outside the VA.
In a statement, VA Telehealth Services said it is “encouraged” the study demonstrates “equivalence in many clinical measures among veterans using telehealth. This study reinforces the potential of telehealth to provide high-quality health care to veterans.”
The organization added that it’s “committed to better understanding potential gaps highlighted in this study,” and “it is critical that research databases capture care rendered outside VA … and whether care was offered during a telehealth visit.”
Batching In-Person Services May Be Helpful
As for messages from the study for clinicians, Staloff said there are some preventive care measures that may be more difficult to deliver through telehealth.
“Clinicians should consider batching these in-person services for patients that have a high reliance on telehealth when they have an opportunity to see these patients in-person,” Staloff said. “Health systems may need new workflows to optimize hybrid care, particularly for those that receive most of their care via telehealth.”
Outside Perspective: ‘Access is Not the Same as Quality’
After reviewing the study findings, Ilana Graetz, PhD, a professor who studies health policy at the Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, praised the research design and said the results overall are “more reassuring than alarming.” However, she did caution that there could potentially be ways these patients differ that could not be categorized by the data.
“Patients with higher telehealth use may differ from those with lower telehealth use in important ways not fully captured in the data — barriers to in-person care, the complexity of the visit, patient preferences, or care received outside the system,” Graetz said.
As for the influenza vaccine, Graetz said patients need to be physically present: “Patients seen mostly by telehealth will have fewer opportunities to receive any preventive care that can only be delivered in person.”
Graetz said the study is timely given ongoing debates over COVID-19 pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities.
“The findings suggest that telehealth can function well as part of a hybrid primary care model,” she said, “but health systems still need to ensure that preventive services, chronic disease management, and follow-up care are not lost in the shift to virtual care.”
VHA Primary Care Analytics Team supported the study with funding from the VHA Office of Primary Care. Staloff has no disclosures. One coauthor disclosed a relationship with the US Department of Veterans Affairs.
Graetz disclosed relationships the Donaghue Foundation, Pfizer, PRIME Education, and the National Institutes of Health.
Quality measures for primary care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) remained stable when telehealth was mixed with in-person visits, but influenza vaccination fell among patients who relied on online visits the most, a retrospective cohort study finds.
Analysis of the medical records for 744,599 veterans from federal fiscal years 2022 and 2023 revealed that patients aged 19-65 years who relied on telehealth for at least half of their primary care visits were less likely to receive an influenza vaccine (37.9%) compared with those seen only in person (50.0%, P < .001). The study was lead by researchers at VA Puget Sound and published in JAMA Network Open.
There was also an influenza vaccination gap in patients aged ≥ 66 years: 62.8% in patients who received some care via telehealth telehealth vs 71.5% seen only in person, respectively (P < .001).
“Our study showed that primary care quality at the VA is quite high,” Jonathan Staloff, MD, MSc, a family medicine physician with VA Puget Sound told Federal Practitioner. “And we found that for almost all quality measures, having a low proportion of care via telehealth was associated with the same quality as in-person care.”
As Staloff explained, “telehealth in primary care, as well as in general, has emerged as an additional means of preserving access to care for veterans. Evidence suggests that veterans have a high degree of satisfaction with telehealth but it’s mixed as it relates to quality outcome differences between those who receive any via telehealth vs none.”
For the study, Staloff said, “we wanted to see if there was a dose-response relationship between telehealth utilization and care quality and if certain hybrid models could help optimize quality of care. To our knowledge, this study was the first national evaluation to investigate primary care telehealth and care quality in this way.”
Reassuring Findings About Low Telehealth Use
For the study, researchers tracked a national sample of patient data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Support Service Center Capital Assets Databases, Primary Care Management Module, and VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (mean age, 65 years; 86% male; 63% White, 22% Black, 10% Hispanic).
The study defined categories of primary-care telehealth use as no telehealth, low telehealth (> 0.0% to < 28.6%), intermediate telehealth (28.6% to < 50.0%), and high telehealth (> 50.0%).
Highest Telehealth Use Raises Red Flags
The differences in influenza vaccine rates between the no-telehealth and high-telehealth groups held up in an adjusted analysis.
The study found small but statistically significant worsening of several quality measures in the high-telehealth use vs no-telehealth use cohorts: hypertension control, statin therapy and adherence, and annual screening for depression, alcohol use, and tobacco use.
The study cites limitations such as reliance on patients with ≥ 3 or more evaluation-and- management visits and lack of information about influenza vaccines delivered outside the VA.
In a statement, VA Telehealth Services said it is “encouraged” the study demonstrates “equivalence in many clinical measures among veterans using telehealth. This study reinforces the potential of telehealth to provide high-quality health care to veterans.”
The organization added that it’s “committed to better understanding potential gaps highlighted in this study,” and “it is critical that research databases capture care rendered outside VA … and whether care was offered during a telehealth visit.”
Batching In-Person Services May Be Helpful
As for messages from the study for clinicians, Staloff said there are some preventive care measures that may be more difficult to deliver through telehealth.
“Clinicians should consider batching these in-person services for patients that have a high reliance on telehealth when they have an opportunity to see these patients in-person,” Staloff said. “Health systems may need new workflows to optimize hybrid care, particularly for those that receive most of their care via telehealth.”
Outside Perspective: ‘Access is Not the Same as Quality’
After reviewing the study findings, Ilana Graetz, PhD, a professor who studies health policy at the Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, praised the research design and said the results overall are “more reassuring than alarming.” However, she did caution that there could potentially be ways these patients differ that could not be categorized by the data.
“Patients with higher telehealth use may differ from those with lower telehealth use in important ways not fully captured in the data — barriers to in-person care, the complexity of the visit, patient preferences, or care received outside the system,” Graetz said.
As for the influenza vaccine, Graetz said patients need to be physically present: “Patients seen mostly by telehealth will have fewer opportunities to receive any preventive care that can only be delivered in person.”
Graetz said the study is timely given ongoing debates over COVID-19 pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities.
“The findings suggest that telehealth can function well as part of a hybrid primary care model,” she said, “but health systems still need to ensure that preventive services, chronic disease management, and follow-up care are not lost in the shift to virtual care.”
VHA Primary Care Analytics Team supported the study with funding from the VHA Office of Primary Care. Staloff has no disclosures. One coauthor disclosed a relationship with the US Department of Veterans Affairs.
Graetz disclosed relationships the Donaghue Foundation, Pfizer, PRIME Education, and the National Institutes of Health.
Quality measures for primary care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) remained stable when telehealth was mixed with in-person visits, but influenza vaccination fell among patients who relied on online visits the most, a retrospective cohort study finds.
Analysis of the medical records for 744,599 veterans from federal fiscal years 2022 and 2023 revealed that patients aged 19-65 years who relied on telehealth for at least half of their primary care visits were less likely to receive an influenza vaccine (37.9%) compared with those seen only in person (50.0%, P < .001). The study was lead by researchers at VA Puget Sound and published in JAMA Network Open.
There was also an influenza vaccination gap in patients aged ≥ 66 years: 62.8% in patients who received some care via telehealth telehealth vs 71.5% seen only in person, respectively (P < .001).
“Our study showed that primary care quality at the VA is quite high,” Jonathan Staloff, MD, MSc, a family medicine physician with VA Puget Sound told Federal Practitioner. “And we found that for almost all quality measures, having a low proportion of care via telehealth was associated with the same quality as in-person care.”
As Staloff explained, “telehealth in primary care, as well as in general, has emerged as an additional means of preserving access to care for veterans. Evidence suggests that veterans have a high degree of satisfaction with telehealth but it’s mixed as it relates to quality outcome differences between those who receive any via telehealth vs none.”
For the study, Staloff said, “we wanted to see if there was a dose-response relationship between telehealth utilization and care quality and if certain hybrid models could help optimize quality of care. To our knowledge, this study was the first national evaluation to investigate primary care telehealth and care quality in this way.”
Reassuring Findings About Low Telehealth Use
For the study, researchers tracked a national sample of patient data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Support Service Center Capital Assets Databases, Primary Care Management Module, and VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (mean age, 65 years; 86% male; 63% White, 22% Black, 10% Hispanic).
The study defined categories of primary-care telehealth use as no telehealth, low telehealth (> 0.0% to < 28.6%), intermediate telehealth (28.6% to < 50.0%), and high telehealth (> 50.0%).
Highest Telehealth Use Raises Red Flags
The differences in influenza vaccine rates between the no-telehealth and high-telehealth groups held up in an adjusted analysis.
The study found small but statistically significant worsening of several quality measures in the high-telehealth use vs no-telehealth use cohorts: hypertension control, statin therapy and adherence, and annual screening for depression, alcohol use, and tobacco use.
The study cites limitations such as reliance on patients with ≥ 3 or more evaluation-and- management visits and lack of information about influenza vaccines delivered outside the VA.
In a statement, VA Telehealth Services said it is “encouraged” the study demonstrates “equivalence in many clinical measures among veterans using telehealth. This study reinforces the potential of telehealth to provide high-quality health care to veterans.”
The organization added that it’s “committed to better understanding potential gaps highlighted in this study,” and “it is critical that research databases capture care rendered outside VA … and whether care was offered during a telehealth visit.”
Batching In-Person Services May Be Helpful
As for messages from the study for clinicians, Staloff said there are some preventive care measures that may be more difficult to deliver through telehealth.
“Clinicians should consider batching these in-person services for patients that have a high reliance on telehealth when they have an opportunity to see these patients in-person,” Staloff said. “Health systems may need new workflows to optimize hybrid care, particularly for those that receive most of their care via telehealth.”
Outside Perspective: ‘Access is Not the Same as Quality’
After reviewing the study findings, Ilana Graetz, PhD, a professor who studies health policy at the Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, praised the research design and said the results overall are “more reassuring than alarming.” However, she did caution that there could potentially be ways these patients differ that could not be categorized by the data.
“Patients with higher telehealth use may differ from those with lower telehealth use in important ways not fully captured in the data — barriers to in-person care, the complexity of the visit, patient preferences, or care received outside the system,” Graetz said.
As for the influenza vaccine, Graetz said patients need to be physically present: “Patients seen mostly by telehealth will have fewer opportunities to receive any preventive care that can only be delivered in person.”
Graetz said the study is timely given ongoing debates over COVID-19 pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities.
“The findings suggest that telehealth can function well as part of a hybrid primary care model,” she said, “but health systems still need to ensure that preventive services, chronic disease management, and follow-up care are not lost in the shift to virtual care.”
VHA Primary Care Analytics Team supported the study with funding from the VHA Office of Primary Care. Staloff has no disclosures. One coauthor disclosed a relationship with the US Department of Veterans Affairs.
Graetz disclosed relationships the Donaghue Foundation, Pfizer, PRIME Education, and the National Institutes of Health.
Evolving and Future Treatments for Follicular Lymphoma
Evolving and Future Treatments for Follicular Lymphoma
SAN FRANCISCO – Treatment for follicular lymphoma (FL) continues to evolve, according to a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hematologist-oncologist, as second-line regimens emerge but the withdrawal of a recently approved agent complicates the picture.
“The future for our understanding and treatment of follicular lymphoma remains bright,” said Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, of the University of California at San Francisco and the San Francisco VA Health Care System, during a presentation at the March Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) regional meeting on lymphoma.
By the Numbers
About 16,500 people in the US are diagnosed with FL each year. The median age of diagnosis is 64 years, and the 5-year survival rate from 2015-2021 was 89.0%, according to the National Cancer Institute.
FL is slow-growing and indolent, Hsu said.
“[That] means that we tend to see patients who are older when they are diagnosed,” he added. “They tend to live a long time, and they’re not usually curable.”
A better understanding of the biology of FL has allowed for the development of new markers and ways of measuring residual disease, Hsu said. Additional insight may allow clinicians to identify which patients could benefit most from specific therapies.
Frontline Options
Hsu highlighted the VA Oncology Clinical Pathway for FL, which offers step-by-step guidance regarding therapy and was updated in March 2026. “It walks you through the pathway, but it’s not something that you are beholden to,” he said.
If the patient has classic FL grades 1-3A, is not at risk of transformation to aggressive lymphoma, is not in stage 1 or continuous stage lymphoma, and is indicated for therapy, the guideline recommends lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2 or R-Len) or rituximab-bendamustine (R-Benda).
“There’s a lot of data to support R-Benda,” Hsu said, pointing to a pair of studies with large numbers of patients with FL. The 2013 StiL trial tracked > 500 patients with indolent or mantle cell lymphoma (46% high risk). Those on R-Benda displayed better progression-free survival (PFS) than those taking the combination rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP; hazard ratio [HR], 0.61).
In a 5-year update of the BRIGHT trial, which enrolled > 500 patients with indolent or mantle cell lymphoma (9% high risk), the R-Benda group had better PFS than patients on R-CHOP or rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (HR, 0.61).
R2 is a somewhat newer regimen, Hsu said. Data from the 2018 RELEVANCE study (> 1000 patients) found R2 to be nonsuperior to 3 rituximab-plus-chemotherapy regimens but with a lower rate of grade 3-4 neutropenia (32% vs 50% for the other regimens).
However, R2 is “not an FDA-approved regimen in the frontline because it did not demonstrate superiority” over other treatments, Hsu said.
Selecting the Right Therapy
Which therapy is best? It’s a bit of a wash, Hsu said.
He noted that R2, R-Benda, and another therapy that’s not yet in the VA pathway (R-CHOP) appear to be noninferior to one another, although R-Benda has the edge. R2 is better regarding neutropenia risk, although it lacks FDA approval.
“I think about these 3 regimens as appropriate and good,” Hsu said. “It’s nice having 3 wonderful regimens.”
Hsu highlighted the importance of complete remission (CR) as a goal. He pointed to a 2022 analysis of > 5,200 patients that showed progression within 24 months greatly boosted the risk of death vs no-progression (HR, 3.03). Progression within 24 months also lowered estimated 5-year overall survival to 71%.
“Timing really does matter,” Hsu said. “We often worry about transformation to diffuse large B-cell in patients who relapse, particularly this early.”
Second-Line Therapy Options
Two regimens have recently achieved National Comprehensive Cancer Network Category 1 preferred status in the second-line setting, Hsu said, although neither appears in the VA pathway.
One is tafasitamab plus R2, which was shown to extend median PFS to 22.4 months vs 13.9 months for R2 alone in the 2026 inMIND study (HR, 0.43), but without an overall survival benefit.
The other therapy is epcoritamab plus R2: Data from the 2026 EPCORE FL-1 study showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 95% for the combination vs 79% for R2 alone and an estimated 16-month PFS of 85.5% for the combination vs 40.2% for R2.
Hsu cautioned about the adverse event profile for community infusion centers. The combination carried higher rates of grade ≥ 3 infections (33% vs 16%) and neutropenia (69% vs 42%) compared with R2 alone. However, grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome was absent.
“Stay alert to higher risk for infections and neutropenia here,” Hsu said.
Beyond Second Line: Biospecifics and CAR-T
The biospecifics mosunetuzumab and epcoritamab are now FDA-approved for patients who have relapsed ≥ 2 times. Mosunetuzumab showed ORR of 78% and CR rate of 60% in a 2025 study, while epcoritamab monotherapy showed ORR of 82% and CR of 63% in a 2024 study.
Mosunetuzumab had a 2.2% rate of cytokine release syndrome and a 4.4% rate of immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome; epcoritamab had 0% rates of both.
“Think of these 2 options as getting you to the same place, potentially, but maybe with slightly different rates of toxicity,” Hsu said.
Meanwhile, CAR-T therapy has shown “impressive results for the right patient,” Hsu said.
Tazemetostat Withdrawn
Hsu noted that tazemetostat, an EZH2 inhibitor that was FDA-approved for relapsed/refractory FL with EZH2 mutations and patients with FL and no satisfactory alternative options, was withdrawn from the market by Eisai in March 2026. The cause of withdrawal was increased rates of secondary hematologic malignancies.
Meanwhile, patients enrolled in the ongoing SYMPHONY-1 trial will be switched to R2.
The withdrawal was “unfortunate,” Hsu said, “but the concept is important. Identifying new targets for therapy and developing those is how we make progress.”
SAN FRANCISCO – Treatment for follicular lymphoma (FL) continues to evolve, according to a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hematologist-oncologist, as second-line regimens emerge but the withdrawal of a recently approved agent complicates the picture.
“The future for our understanding and treatment of follicular lymphoma remains bright,” said Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, of the University of California at San Francisco and the San Francisco VA Health Care System, during a presentation at the March Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) regional meeting on lymphoma.
By the Numbers
About 16,500 people in the US are diagnosed with FL each year. The median age of diagnosis is 64 years, and the 5-year survival rate from 2015-2021 was 89.0%, according to the National Cancer Institute.
FL is slow-growing and indolent, Hsu said.
“[That] means that we tend to see patients who are older when they are diagnosed,” he added. “They tend to live a long time, and they’re not usually curable.”
A better understanding of the biology of FL has allowed for the development of new markers and ways of measuring residual disease, Hsu said. Additional insight may allow clinicians to identify which patients could benefit most from specific therapies.
Frontline Options
Hsu highlighted the VA Oncology Clinical Pathway for FL, which offers step-by-step guidance regarding therapy and was updated in March 2026. “It walks you through the pathway, but it’s not something that you are beholden to,” he said.
If the patient has classic FL grades 1-3A, is not at risk of transformation to aggressive lymphoma, is not in stage 1 or continuous stage lymphoma, and is indicated for therapy, the guideline recommends lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2 or R-Len) or rituximab-bendamustine (R-Benda).
“There’s a lot of data to support R-Benda,” Hsu said, pointing to a pair of studies with large numbers of patients with FL. The 2013 StiL trial tracked > 500 patients with indolent or mantle cell lymphoma (46% high risk). Those on R-Benda displayed better progression-free survival (PFS) than those taking the combination rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP; hazard ratio [HR], 0.61).
In a 5-year update of the BRIGHT trial, which enrolled > 500 patients with indolent or mantle cell lymphoma (9% high risk), the R-Benda group had better PFS than patients on R-CHOP or rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (HR, 0.61).
R2 is a somewhat newer regimen, Hsu said. Data from the 2018 RELEVANCE study (> 1000 patients) found R2 to be nonsuperior to 3 rituximab-plus-chemotherapy regimens but with a lower rate of grade 3-4 neutropenia (32% vs 50% for the other regimens).
However, R2 is “not an FDA-approved regimen in the frontline because it did not demonstrate superiority” over other treatments, Hsu said.
Selecting the Right Therapy
Which therapy is best? It’s a bit of a wash, Hsu said.
He noted that R2, R-Benda, and another therapy that’s not yet in the VA pathway (R-CHOP) appear to be noninferior to one another, although R-Benda has the edge. R2 is better regarding neutropenia risk, although it lacks FDA approval.
“I think about these 3 regimens as appropriate and good,” Hsu said. “It’s nice having 3 wonderful regimens.”
Hsu highlighted the importance of complete remission (CR) as a goal. He pointed to a 2022 analysis of > 5,200 patients that showed progression within 24 months greatly boosted the risk of death vs no-progression (HR, 3.03). Progression within 24 months also lowered estimated 5-year overall survival to 71%.
“Timing really does matter,” Hsu said. “We often worry about transformation to diffuse large B-cell in patients who relapse, particularly this early.”
Second-Line Therapy Options
Two regimens have recently achieved National Comprehensive Cancer Network Category 1 preferred status in the second-line setting, Hsu said, although neither appears in the VA pathway.
One is tafasitamab plus R2, which was shown to extend median PFS to 22.4 months vs 13.9 months for R2 alone in the 2026 inMIND study (HR, 0.43), but without an overall survival benefit.
The other therapy is epcoritamab plus R2: Data from the 2026 EPCORE FL-1 study showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 95% for the combination vs 79% for R2 alone and an estimated 16-month PFS of 85.5% for the combination vs 40.2% for R2.
Hsu cautioned about the adverse event profile for community infusion centers. The combination carried higher rates of grade ≥ 3 infections (33% vs 16%) and neutropenia (69% vs 42%) compared with R2 alone. However, grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome was absent.
“Stay alert to higher risk for infections and neutropenia here,” Hsu said.
Beyond Second Line: Biospecifics and CAR-T
The biospecifics mosunetuzumab and epcoritamab are now FDA-approved for patients who have relapsed ≥ 2 times. Mosunetuzumab showed ORR of 78% and CR rate of 60% in a 2025 study, while epcoritamab monotherapy showed ORR of 82% and CR of 63% in a 2024 study.
Mosunetuzumab had a 2.2% rate of cytokine release syndrome and a 4.4% rate of immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome; epcoritamab had 0% rates of both.
“Think of these 2 options as getting you to the same place, potentially, but maybe with slightly different rates of toxicity,” Hsu said.
Meanwhile, CAR-T therapy has shown “impressive results for the right patient,” Hsu said.
Tazemetostat Withdrawn
Hsu noted that tazemetostat, an EZH2 inhibitor that was FDA-approved for relapsed/refractory FL with EZH2 mutations and patients with FL and no satisfactory alternative options, was withdrawn from the market by Eisai in March 2026. The cause of withdrawal was increased rates of secondary hematologic malignancies.
Meanwhile, patients enrolled in the ongoing SYMPHONY-1 trial will be switched to R2.
The withdrawal was “unfortunate,” Hsu said, “but the concept is important. Identifying new targets for therapy and developing those is how we make progress.”
SAN FRANCISCO – Treatment for follicular lymphoma (FL) continues to evolve, according to a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hematologist-oncologist, as second-line regimens emerge but the withdrawal of a recently approved agent complicates the picture.
“The future for our understanding and treatment of follicular lymphoma remains bright,” said Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, of the University of California at San Francisco and the San Francisco VA Health Care System, during a presentation at the March Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) regional meeting on lymphoma.
By the Numbers
About 16,500 people in the US are diagnosed with FL each year. The median age of diagnosis is 64 years, and the 5-year survival rate from 2015-2021 was 89.0%, according to the National Cancer Institute.
FL is slow-growing and indolent, Hsu said.
“[That] means that we tend to see patients who are older when they are diagnosed,” he added. “They tend to live a long time, and they’re not usually curable.”
A better understanding of the biology of FL has allowed for the development of new markers and ways of measuring residual disease, Hsu said. Additional insight may allow clinicians to identify which patients could benefit most from specific therapies.
Frontline Options
Hsu highlighted the VA Oncology Clinical Pathway for FL, which offers step-by-step guidance regarding therapy and was updated in March 2026. “It walks you through the pathway, but it’s not something that you are beholden to,” he said.
If the patient has classic FL grades 1-3A, is not at risk of transformation to aggressive lymphoma, is not in stage 1 or continuous stage lymphoma, and is indicated for therapy, the guideline recommends lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2 or R-Len) or rituximab-bendamustine (R-Benda).
“There’s a lot of data to support R-Benda,” Hsu said, pointing to a pair of studies with large numbers of patients with FL. The 2013 StiL trial tracked > 500 patients with indolent or mantle cell lymphoma (46% high risk). Those on R-Benda displayed better progression-free survival (PFS) than those taking the combination rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP; hazard ratio [HR], 0.61).
In a 5-year update of the BRIGHT trial, which enrolled > 500 patients with indolent or mantle cell lymphoma (9% high risk), the R-Benda group had better PFS than patients on R-CHOP or rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (HR, 0.61).
R2 is a somewhat newer regimen, Hsu said. Data from the 2018 RELEVANCE study (> 1000 patients) found R2 to be nonsuperior to 3 rituximab-plus-chemotherapy regimens but with a lower rate of grade 3-4 neutropenia (32% vs 50% for the other regimens).
However, R2 is “not an FDA-approved regimen in the frontline because it did not demonstrate superiority” over other treatments, Hsu said.
Selecting the Right Therapy
Which therapy is best? It’s a bit of a wash, Hsu said.
He noted that R2, R-Benda, and another therapy that’s not yet in the VA pathway (R-CHOP) appear to be noninferior to one another, although R-Benda has the edge. R2 is better regarding neutropenia risk, although it lacks FDA approval.
“I think about these 3 regimens as appropriate and good,” Hsu said. “It’s nice having 3 wonderful regimens.”
Hsu highlighted the importance of complete remission (CR) as a goal. He pointed to a 2022 analysis of > 5,200 patients that showed progression within 24 months greatly boosted the risk of death vs no-progression (HR, 3.03). Progression within 24 months also lowered estimated 5-year overall survival to 71%.
“Timing really does matter,” Hsu said. “We often worry about transformation to diffuse large B-cell in patients who relapse, particularly this early.”
Second-Line Therapy Options
Two regimens have recently achieved National Comprehensive Cancer Network Category 1 preferred status in the second-line setting, Hsu said, although neither appears in the VA pathway.
One is tafasitamab plus R2, which was shown to extend median PFS to 22.4 months vs 13.9 months for R2 alone in the 2026 inMIND study (HR, 0.43), but without an overall survival benefit.
The other therapy is epcoritamab plus R2: Data from the 2026 EPCORE FL-1 study showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 95% for the combination vs 79% for R2 alone and an estimated 16-month PFS of 85.5% for the combination vs 40.2% for R2.
Hsu cautioned about the adverse event profile for community infusion centers. The combination carried higher rates of grade ≥ 3 infections (33% vs 16%) and neutropenia (69% vs 42%) compared with R2 alone. However, grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome was absent.
“Stay alert to higher risk for infections and neutropenia here,” Hsu said.
Beyond Second Line: Biospecifics and CAR-T
The biospecifics mosunetuzumab and epcoritamab are now FDA-approved for patients who have relapsed ≥ 2 times. Mosunetuzumab showed ORR of 78% and CR rate of 60% in a 2025 study, while epcoritamab monotherapy showed ORR of 82% and CR of 63% in a 2024 study.
Mosunetuzumab had a 2.2% rate of cytokine release syndrome and a 4.4% rate of immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome; epcoritamab had 0% rates of both.
“Think of these 2 options as getting you to the same place, potentially, but maybe with slightly different rates of toxicity,” Hsu said.
Meanwhile, CAR-T therapy has shown “impressive results for the right patient,” Hsu said.
Tazemetostat Withdrawn
Hsu noted that tazemetostat, an EZH2 inhibitor that was FDA-approved for relapsed/refractory FL with EZH2 mutations and patients with FL and no satisfactory alternative options, was withdrawn from the market by Eisai in March 2026. The cause of withdrawal was increased rates of secondary hematologic malignancies.
Meanwhile, patients enrolled in the ongoing SYMPHONY-1 trial will be switched to R2.
The withdrawal was “unfortunate,” Hsu said, “but the concept is important. Identifying new targets for therapy and developing those is how we make progress.”
Evolving and Future Treatments for Follicular Lymphoma
Evolving and Future Treatments for Follicular Lymphoma
Male Vets Less Likely to Undergo Intimate Partner Violence Screening
Male veterans are less likely than their female counterparts to be referred for follow-up questions when initial screening suggests they may be at risk of intimate partner violence (IPV), a recent large cross-sectional study finds.
Among 67,379 patients from 131 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers who screened positive for risk of IPV from October 2022 through September 2023, 17.7% failed to receive a mandated secondary screen to determine whether they were in danger of lethal violence, reported Galina A. Portnoy, PhD, of VA Connecticut Healthcare System and Yale School of Medicine, et al in JAMA Network Open. The rate was higher for men with initial positive screens than women (19.3% vs 12.1%, respectively, adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.42, P < .001).
Overall, women who underwent secondary screening were more likely to be considered in lethal danger from IPV than men (27.9% vs 13.3%, respectively, AOR 2.29, P < .001).
“While women face higher lethality risk, men’s IPV experiences are often overlooked, underscoring the need for consistent and reliable screening practices to identify all high-risk patients and connect them to life-saving services,” Portnoy told Federal Practitioner.
“IPV is one of the strongest predictors of homicide with risk escalating over time and especially high during periods of separation.”
“IPV among men is often underreported, unrecognized, and inadequately addressed in clinical settings,” Portnoy noted. “Men who experience IPV often face barriers to reporting—stigma, shame, and concerns about not being taken seriously.”
The VA has implemented annual screening of IPV in women of reproductive age using a modified version of the 5-question Hurt, Insult, Threaten, Scream (HITS) tool. HITS asks how often a woman’s partner had screamed, cursed, insulted, or talked down to them; threatened to harm or physically hurt them, or forced or pressured them to “have sexual contact against your will, or when you were unable to say no” in the last year.
If a patient answers yes to any of these questions, clinicians should follow up with a secondary lethality screen with 3 questions:
Has the IPV behavior increased in frequency/severity in the past 6 months?
Has your partner ever choked or strangled you? and
Do you believe your partner may kill you?
The test is considered positive if a patient answers yes to any question.
The study focused on 67,379 patients out of 1,265,115 at the VA who scored positive on HITS (mean age, 52.3 years; 23% women; 62.9% White; 8.2% Hispanic/Latino). More than two-thirds (69.0%) had a service-connected disability rating > 50%.
Portnoy said there are several possible reasons for the gender disparity in misclassification such as time constraints, discomfort, limited resources, and lack of training. Clinician bias can be a factor, too, “with IPV still widely seen as primarily a women’s issue.”
“We don’t know whether IPV screening tools work the same for men as they do for women,” Portnoy added. “The HITS tool was developed and validated using samples of women who experienced IPV, and research is needed to test whether it performs as effectively in men.”
Bethany L. Backes, PhD, associate professor and lead, Violence Against Women Faculty Cluster, University of Central Florida, Orlando, is familiar with the study findings and said in an interview that discomfort among clinicians is a significant factor in preventing follow-up IPV screening.
“When you’re asking about this and someone says ‘yes,’ how do you respond? You just go to the next thing, the next question: ‘How many drinks have you had in the last week?’” Backes told Federal Practitioner. “We’ve talked about creating some scripts for our student health clinicians on campus about how to talk to someone when they disclose, how to then engage or provide resources.”
This is especially important because “it’s hard for people to admit that they’re experiencing this, and then when they do and it’s brushed over, they’re less likely to tell someone again,” Backes added.
C. Nadine Wathen, PhD, a professor who studies IPV at Western University in London, is also familiar with the study findings, but critiqued the HITS, calling it a “terrible name.” The tool, she said, asks about very different behaviors–being screamed or cursed, for example, and forced sexual contact,” she explained to Federal Practitioner.
“If you’re a physician and you’re asking a man, ‘Does she scream or curse at you?’ and he says ‘Yeah, she screams all the time,’ a provider might say, ‘I’m not actually thinking that he’s experiencing intimate partner violence,” Wathen said. “He might be experiencing a bad relationship.’”
That could be true, Wathen said. Couples may scream and throw things at each other, and “you probably could benefit with some couples counseling on how to have a better relationship and manage stress and anger in your relationship. But that is different than ‘intimate partner terrorism,’ where there‘s a pattern of control.”
Wathen prefers a screening tool she helped develop called the Composite Abuse Scale, which she considers more sensitive and specific than HITS. It differentiates the types of abuse that people experience, and “it also recognizes that men in relationships with other men can experience those forms of intimate terrorism, and women can also be the perpetrator of those forms.”
Recognizing that VA clinicians may not have a choice of screening tool, Wathen suggested they follow up the question about screaming and cursing question this query: “Does that make you afraid?”
The study was funded by US Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative and the Veterans Health Administration’s Care Management and Social Work Service via the Intimate Partner Violence Center for Implementation, Research, and Evaluation.
Portnoy has no disclosures. One author discloses relationships with the National Council on Family Relations and Military Family Research Institute. Backes and Wathen have no disclosures.
Male veterans are less likely than their female counterparts to be referred for follow-up questions when initial screening suggests they may be at risk of intimate partner violence (IPV), a recent large cross-sectional study finds.
Among 67,379 patients from 131 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers who screened positive for risk of IPV from October 2022 through September 2023, 17.7% failed to receive a mandated secondary screen to determine whether they were in danger of lethal violence, reported Galina A. Portnoy, PhD, of VA Connecticut Healthcare System and Yale School of Medicine, et al in JAMA Network Open. The rate was higher for men with initial positive screens than women (19.3% vs 12.1%, respectively, adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.42, P < .001).
Overall, women who underwent secondary screening were more likely to be considered in lethal danger from IPV than men (27.9% vs 13.3%, respectively, AOR 2.29, P < .001).
“While women face higher lethality risk, men’s IPV experiences are often overlooked, underscoring the need for consistent and reliable screening practices to identify all high-risk patients and connect them to life-saving services,” Portnoy told Federal Practitioner.
“IPV is one of the strongest predictors of homicide with risk escalating over time and especially high during periods of separation.”
“IPV among men is often underreported, unrecognized, and inadequately addressed in clinical settings,” Portnoy noted. “Men who experience IPV often face barriers to reporting—stigma, shame, and concerns about not being taken seriously.”
The VA has implemented annual screening of IPV in women of reproductive age using a modified version of the 5-question Hurt, Insult, Threaten, Scream (HITS) tool. HITS asks how often a woman’s partner had screamed, cursed, insulted, or talked down to them; threatened to harm or physically hurt them, or forced or pressured them to “have sexual contact against your will, or when you were unable to say no” in the last year.
If a patient answers yes to any of these questions, clinicians should follow up with a secondary lethality screen with 3 questions:
Has the IPV behavior increased in frequency/severity in the past 6 months?
Has your partner ever choked or strangled you? and
Do you believe your partner may kill you?
The test is considered positive if a patient answers yes to any question.
The study focused on 67,379 patients out of 1,265,115 at the VA who scored positive on HITS (mean age, 52.3 years; 23% women; 62.9% White; 8.2% Hispanic/Latino). More than two-thirds (69.0%) had a service-connected disability rating > 50%.
Portnoy said there are several possible reasons for the gender disparity in misclassification such as time constraints, discomfort, limited resources, and lack of training. Clinician bias can be a factor, too, “with IPV still widely seen as primarily a women’s issue.”
“We don’t know whether IPV screening tools work the same for men as they do for women,” Portnoy added. “The HITS tool was developed and validated using samples of women who experienced IPV, and research is needed to test whether it performs as effectively in men.”
Bethany L. Backes, PhD, associate professor and lead, Violence Against Women Faculty Cluster, University of Central Florida, Orlando, is familiar with the study findings and said in an interview that discomfort among clinicians is a significant factor in preventing follow-up IPV screening.
“When you’re asking about this and someone says ‘yes,’ how do you respond? You just go to the next thing, the next question: ‘How many drinks have you had in the last week?’” Backes told Federal Practitioner. “We’ve talked about creating some scripts for our student health clinicians on campus about how to talk to someone when they disclose, how to then engage or provide resources.”
This is especially important because “it’s hard for people to admit that they’re experiencing this, and then when they do and it’s brushed over, they’re less likely to tell someone again,” Backes added.
C. Nadine Wathen, PhD, a professor who studies IPV at Western University in London, is also familiar with the study findings, but critiqued the HITS, calling it a “terrible name.” The tool, she said, asks about very different behaviors–being screamed or cursed, for example, and forced sexual contact,” she explained to Federal Practitioner.
“If you’re a physician and you’re asking a man, ‘Does she scream or curse at you?’ and he says ‘Yeah, she screams all the time,’ a provider might say, ‘I’m not actually thinking that he’s experiencing intimate partner violence,” Wathen said. “He might be experiencing a bad relationship.’”
That could be true, Wathen said. Couples may scream and throw things at each other, and “you probably could benefit with some couples counseling on how to have a better relationship and manage stress and anger in your relationship. But that is different than ‘intimate partner terrorism,’ where there‘s a pattern of control.”
Wathen prefers a screening tool she helped develop called the Composite Abuse Scale, which she considers more sensitive and specific than HITS. It differentiates the types of abuse that people experience, and “it also recognizes that men in relationships with other men can experience those forms of intimate terrorism, and women can also be the perpetrator of those forms.”
Recognizing that VA clinicians may not have a choice of screening tool, Wathen suggested they follow up the question about screaming and cursing question this query: “Does that make you afraid?”
The study was funded by US Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative and the Veterans Health Administration’s Care Management and Social Work Service via the Intimate Partner Violence Center for Implementation, Research, and Evaluation.
Portnoy has no disclosures. One author discloses relationships with the National Council on Family Relations and Military Family Research Institute. Backes and Wathen have no disclosures.
Male veterans are less likely than their female counterparts to be referred for follow-up questions when initial screening suggests they may be at risk of intimate partner violence (IPV), a recent large cross-sectional study finds.
Among 67,379 patients from 131 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers who screened positive for risk of IPV from October 2022 through September 2023, 17.7% failed to receive a mandated secondary screen to determine whether they were in danger of lethal violence, reported Galina A. Portnoy, PhD, of VA Connecticut Healthcare System and Yale School of Medicine, et al in JAMA Network Open. The rate was higher for men with initial positive screens than women (19.3% vs 12.1%, respectively, adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.42, P < .001).
Overall, women who underwent secondary screening were more likely to be considered in lethal danger from IPV than men (27.9% vs 13.3%, respectively, AOR 2.29, P < .001).
“While women face higher lethality risk, men’s IPV experiences are often overlooked, underscoring the need for consistent and reliable screening practices to identify all high-risk patients and connect them to life-saving services,” Portnoy told Federal Practitioner.
“IPV is one of the strongest predictors of homicide with risk escalating over time and especially high during periods of separation.”
“IPV among men is often underreported, unrecognized, and inadequately addressed in clinical settings,” Portnoy noted. “Men who experience IPV often face barriers to reporting—stigma, shame, and concerns about not being taken seriously.”
The VA has implemented annual screening of IPV in women of reproductive age using a modified version of the 5-question Hurt, Insult, Threaten, Scream (HITS) tool. HITS asks how often a woman’s partner had screamed, cursed, insulted, or talked down to them; threatened to harm or physically hurt them, or forced or pressured them to “have sexual contact against your will, or when you were unable to say no” in the last year.
If a patient answers yes to any of these questions, clinicians should follow up with a secondary lethality screen with 3 questions:
Has the IPV behavior increased in frequency/severity in the past 6 months?
Has your partner ever choked or strangled you? and
Do you believe your partner may kill you?
The test is considered positive if a patient answers yes to any question.
The study focused on 67,379 patients out of 1,265,115 at the VA who scored positive on HITS (mean age, 52.3 years; 23% women; 62.9% White; 8.2% Hispanic/Latino). More than two-thirds (69.0%) had a service-connected disability rating > 50%.
Portnoy said there are several possible reasons for the gender disparity in misclassification such as time constraints, discomfort, limited resources, and lack of training. Clinician bias can be a factor, too, “with IPV still widely seen as primarily a women’s issue.”
“We don’t know whether IPV screening tools work the same for men as they do for women,” Portnoy added. “The HITS tool was developed and validated using samples of women who experienced IPV, and research is needed to test whether it performs as effectively in men.”
Bethany L. Backes, PhD, associate professor and lead, Violence Against Women Faculty Cluster, University of Central Florida, Orlando, is familiar with the study findings and said in an interview that discomfort among clinicians is a significant factor in preventing follow-up IPV screening.
“When you’re asking about this and someone says ‘yes,’ how do you respond? You just go to the next thing, the next question: ‘How many drinks have you had in the last week?’” Backes told Federal Practitioner. “We’ve talked about creating some scripts for our student health clinicians on campus about how to talk to someone when they disclose, how to then engage or provide resources.”
This is especially important because “it’s hard for people to admit that they’re experiencing this, and then when they do and it’s brushed over, they’re less likely to tell someone again,” Backes added.
C. Nadine Wathen, PhD, a professor who studies IPV at Western University in London, is also familiar with the study findings, but critiqued the HITS, calling it a “terrible name.” The tool, she said, asks about very different behaviors–being screamed or cursed, for example, and forced sexual contact,” she explained to Federal Practitioner.
“If you’re a physician and you’re asking a man, ‘Does she scream or curse at you?’ and he says ‘Yeah, she screams all the time,’ a provider might say, ‘I’m not actually thinking that he’s experiencing intimate partner violence,” Wathen said. “He might be experiencing a bad relationship.’”
That could be true, Wathen said. Couples may scream and throw things at each other, and “you probably could benefit with some couples counseling on how to have a better relationship and manage stress and anger in your relationship. But that is different than ‘intimate partner terrorism,’ where there‘s a pattern of control.”
Wathen prefers a screening tool she helped develop called the Composite Abuse Scale, which she considers more sensitive and specific than HITS. It differentiates the types of abuse that people experience, and “it also recognizes that men in relationships with other men can experience those forms of intimate terrorism, and women can also be the perpetrator of those forms.”
Recognizing that VA clinicians may not have a choice of screening tool, Wathen suggested they follow up the question about screaming and cursing question this query: “Does that make you afraid?”
The study was funded by US Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative and the Veterans Health Administration’s Care Management and Social Work Service via the Intimate Partner Violence Center for Implementation, Research, and Evaluation.
Portnoy has no disclosures. One author discloses relationships with the National Council on Family Relations and Military Family Research Institute. Backes and Wathen have no disclosures.
End-of-Life Palliative Care Rare for VA Patients With COPD
End-of-Life Palliative Care Rare for VA Patients With COPD
Though end-of-life care for veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has become more prevalent in recent years, a recent retrospective cohort study found that most patients do not receive palliative care or inpatient VA hospice over the past year of life, with rates lower than for other terminal illnesses.
Among 332,770 decedents traced from 2010 through 2020, only 16.8% received either palliative or inpatient hospice care in the year before their death. The median time between their first palliative care appointment and death was 46 days, reported pulmonologist Natalia Smirnova, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, et al in CHEST Pulmonary.
A total of 15.9% of the decedents received inpatient hospice care from the VA.
“These findings point to an opportunity to improve access to palliative care and hospice services for veterans with COPD, including earlier identification of need and stronger access pathways across care settings,” Smirnova told Federal Practitioner.
COPD Common Among Vets
An estimated 8%-19% of US veterans have COPD, higher than the estimated rate of 6% in adults from the general population. The condition is believed to be underdiagnosed in veterans.
“Palliative care should be integrated early into routine care, when symptoms start,” Kathleen Lindell, PhD, RN, associate professor and chair, Palliative Care Health, School of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, explained in a Federal Practitioner interview. “COPD is a serious respiratory illness, and patients experience progressively debilitating dyspnea or shortness of breath, frequent hospitalizations. And they frequently experience high rates of anxiety and depression,”
Lindell is familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research.
“Early palliative care,” she said, “addresses symptom management and advance care planning to reduce suffering and ensure what matters most to the patient as the disease progresses.”
Smirnova noted that “hospice is a related but distinct service for veterans with a terminal condition, generally when life expectancy is < 6 months and the veteran is no longer seeking treatment other than palliative care.”
The study analyzed electronic health records and patterns of palliative and hospice care in the year before death. The 332,770 patients were mostly male (98.1%) and White (81.0%). Many had comorbidities such as congestive heart failure (30.0%), depression (26.0%), coronary artery disease (25.5%), anxiety (13.4%), and lung cancer (12.1%).
Researchers found that palliative care was mostly (61.6% of encounters) delivered in the inpatient setting, where it occurred a median 30 days before death. In the outpatient setting, it began a median of 71 days before death.
From 2010 through 2020, the prevalence of palliative care increased from 10.4% to 16.0%, and the prevalence of VA inpatient hospice care increased from 15.0% to 18.0%. Some veterans may have received hospice services in other settings; in-home hospice is common.
Who is More Likely to Receive Palliative Care?
Black patients (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.21), Latino/Hispanic ethnicity (AOR, 1.22), patients with housing instability (AOR, 1.38) and who were underweight (AOR, 1.75) were linked to more palliative care use. Black patients were especially likely to get inpatient palliative care, a fact that “may, in part, be driven by increased care intensity at the end of life, as has been demonstrated in prior studies,” the authors noted.
Marriage (AOR, 0.88) was linked to less palliative care use, while patients with lung cancer were especially likely to receive it (AOR, 2.48). There were similar differences in use of hospice care apart from higher use for Black patients.
Smirnova said the study was not designed to determine the causes of patterns in palliative care use. However, important factors appear to include hospitalization, comorbidities, and access to care at health care sites. (Usage rates were lower at rural centers and higher at more complex centers.)
COPD vs Other Terminal Diseases
“The modest increases in utilization of palliative care and VA inpatient hospice from 2010 to 2020 align with previous work [research] in inpatients with COPD and heart failure,” the researchers wrote, “possibly reflecting the effect of international professional society guidelines, increased acceptance of palliative care, improvements related to VA end-of-life care and life-sustaining treatment decisions initiatives, and increases in the specialist palliative care workforce.”
Still, there appears to be a major discrepancy regarding the use of palliative care for COPD within the VA compared with other diseases. A study of data from 2014 through 2017 found that for patients with several comorbidities—including COPD, heart failure, cancer, and dementia—inpatient palliative care was introduced a median of 58 days before death and outpatient care 160 days before death.
“This suggests that veterans with COPD receive palliative care later than those with other serious illnesses,” the authors argued.
Don’t Wait for the ‘Right Time’
Sarah Miller, PhD, RN, associate professor, and assistant dean, PhD Nursing Science Program, School of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, praised the study in an interview and noted that uncertainty about the “right time” to refer patients to palliative care could play a role in the findings. Miller is familiar with the study but did not participate in the research.
Lindell, the chair of Palliative Care Health, agreed.
“With COPD—a chronic, progressive disease—decline can be gradual, which makes it difficult to identify a clear transition point,” Lindell told Federal Practitioner. “This has contributed to many palliative referrals happening only when patients are clearly deteriorating or nearing the end of life. But palliative care should not be introduced reactively; it should be integrated early, alongside disease-directed treatment.”
For her part, Miller noted that “many veterans with COPD are navigating complex comorbidities and fragmented care across settings. Diseases like COPD don’t follow a predictable path, so referrals don’t always happen like they should.”
Moving forward, “if symptoms are present, early palliative care is appropriate,” Lindell said. These conversations should happen early and over time.
“The VA should prioritize early referral and access to palliative care for patients with COPD to provide the best care for these individuals.”
No study funding was reported. Smirnova discloses relationships with the CHEST Foundation and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Other authors disclose relationships with various grantors.
Miller discloses a relationship with AstraZeneca. Lindell discloses relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care.
Though end-of-life care for veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has become more prevalent in recent years, a recent retrospective cohort study found that most patients do not receive palliative care or inpatient VA hospice over the past year of life, with rates lower than for other terminal illnesses.
Among 332,770 decedents traced from 2010 through 2020, only 16.8% received either palliative or inpatient hospice care in the year before their death. The median time between their first palliative care appointment and death was 46 days, reported pulmonologist Natalia Smirnova, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, et al in CHEST Pulmonary.
A total of 15.9% of the decedents received inpatient hospice care from the VA.
“These findings point to an opportunity to improve access to palliative care and hospice services for veterans with COPD, including earlier identification of need and stronger access pathways across care settings,” Smirnova told Federal Practitioner.
COPD Common Among Vets
An estimated 8%-19% of US veterans have COPD, higher than the estimated rate of 6% in adults from the general population. The condition is believed to be underdiagnosed in veterans.
“Palliative care should be integrated early into routine care, when symptoms start,” Kathleen Lindell, PhD, RN, associate professor and chair, Palliative Care Health, School of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, explained in a Federal Practitioner interview. “COPD is a serious respiratory illness, and patients experience progressively debilitating dyspnea or shortness of breath, frequent hospitalizations. And they frequently experience high rates of anxiety and depression,”
Lindell is familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research.
“Early palliative care,” she said, “addresses symptom management and advance care planning to reduce suffering and ensure what matters most to the patient as the disease progresses.”
Smirnova noted that “hospice is a related but distinct service for veterans with a terminal condition, generally when life expectancy is < 6 months and the veteran is no longer seeking treatment other than palliative care.”
The study analyzed electronic health records and patterns of palliative and hospice care in the year before death. The 332,770 patients were mostly male (98.1%) and White (81.0%). Many had comorbidities such as congestive heart failure (30.0%), depression (26.0%), coronary artery disease (25.5%), anxiety (13.4%), and lung cancer (12.1%).
Researchers found that palliative care was mostly (61.6% of encounters) delivered in the inpatient setting, where it occurred a median 30 days before death. In the outpatient setting, it began a median of 71 days before death.
From 2010 through 2020, the prevalence of palliative care increased from 10.4% to 16.0%, and the prevalence of VA inpatient hospice care increased from 15.0% to 18.0%. Some veterans may have received hospice services in other settings; in-home hospice is common.
Who is More Likely to Receive Palliative Care?
Black patients (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.21), Latino/Hispanic ethnicity (AOR, 1.22), patients with housing instability (AOR, 1.38) and who were underweight (AOR, 1.75) were linked to more palliative care use. Black patients were especially likely to get inpatient palliative care, a fact that “may, in part, be driven by increased care intensity at the end of life, as has been demonstrated in prior studies,” the authors noted.
Marriage (AOR, 0.88) was linked to less palliative care use, while patients with lung cancer were especially likely to receive it (AOR, 2.48). There were similar differences in use of hospice care apart from higher use for Black patients.
Smirnova said the study was not designed to determine the causes of patterns in palliative care use. However, important factors appear to include hospitalization, comorbidities, and access to care at health care sites. (Usage rates were lower at rural centers and higher at more complex centers.)
COPD vs Other Terminal Diseases
“The modest increases in utilization of palliative care and VA inpatient hospice from 2010 to 2020 align with previous work [research] in inpatients with COPD and heart failure,” the researchers wrote, “possibly reflecting the effect of international professional society guidelines, increased acceptance of palliative care, improvements related to VA end-of-life care and life-sustaining treatment decisions initiatives, and increases in the specialist palliative care workforce.”
Still, there appears to be a major discrepancy regarding the use of palliative care for COPD within the VA compared with other diseases. A study of data from 2014 through 2017 found that for patients with several comorbidities—including COPD, heart failure, cancer, and dementia—inpatient palliative care was introduced a median of 58 days before death and outpatient care 160 days before death.
“This suggests that veterans with COPD receive palliative care later than those with other serious illnesses,” the authors argued.
Don’t Wait for the ‘Right Time’
Sarah Miller, PhD, RN, associate professor, and assistant dean, PhD Nursing Science Program, School of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, praised the study in an interview and noted that uncertainty about the “right time” to refer patients to palliative care could play a role in the findings. Miller is familiar with the study but did not participate in the research.
Lindell, the chair of Palliative Care Health, agreed.
“With COPD—a chronic, progressive disease—decline can be gradual, which makes it difficult to identify a clear transition point,” Lindell told Federal Practitioner. “This has contributed to many palliative referrals happening only when patients are clearly deteriorating or nearing the end of life. But palliative care should not be introduced reactively; it should be integrated early, alongside disease-directed treatment.”
For her part, Miller noted that “many veterans with COPD are navigating complex comorbidities and fragmented care across settings. Diseases like COPD don’t follow a predictable path, so referrals don’t always happen like they should.”
Moving forward, “if symptoms are present, early palliative care is appropriate,” Lindell said. These conversations should happen early and over time.
“The VA should prioritize early referral and access to palliative care for patients with COPD to provide the best care for these individuals.”
No study funding was reported. Smirnova discloses relationships with the CHEST Foundation and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Other authors disclose relationships with various grantors.
Miller discloses a relationship with AstraZeneca. Lindell discloses relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care.
Though end-of-life care for veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has become more prevalent in recent years, a recent retrospective cohort study found that most patients do not receive palliative care or inpatient VA hospice over the past year of life, with rates lower than for other terminal illnesses.
Among 332,770 decedents traced from 2010 through 2020, only 16.8% received either palliative or inpatient hospice care in the year before their death. The median time between their first palliative care appointment and death was 46 days, reported pulmonologist Natalia Smirnova, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, et al in CHEST Pulmonary.
A total of 15.9% of the decedents received inpatient hospice care from the VA.
“These findings point to an opportunity to improve access to palliative care and hospice services for veterans with COPD, including earlier identification of need and stronger access pathways across care settings,” Smirnova told Federal Practitioner.
COPD Common Among Vets
An estimated 8%-19% of US veterans have COPD, higher than the estimated rate of 6% in adults from the general population. The condition is believed to be underdiagnosed in veterans.
“Palliative care should be integrated early into routine care, when symptoms start,” Kathleen Lindell, PhD, RN, associate professor and chair, Palliative Care Health, School of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, explained in a Federal Practitioner interview. “COPD is a serious respiratory illness, and patients experience progressively debilitating dyspnea or shortness of breath, frequent hospitalizations. And they frequently experience high rates of anxiety and depression,”
Lindell is familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research.
“Early palliative care,” she said, “addresses symptom management and advance care planning to reduce suffering and ensure what matters most to the patient as the disease progresses.”
Smirnova noted that “hospice is a related but distinct service for veterans with a terminal condition, generally when life expectancy is < 6 months and the veteran is no longer seeking treatment other than palliative care.”
The study analyzed electronic health records and patterns of palliative and hospice care in the year before death. The 332,770 patients were mostly male (98.1%) and White (81.0%). Many had comorbidities such as congestive heart failure (30.0%), depression (26.0%), coronary artery disease (25.5%), anxiety (13.4%), and lung cancer (12.1%).
Researchers found that palliative care was mostly (61.6% of encounters) delivered in the inpatient setting, where it occurred a median 30 days before death. In the outpatient setting, it began a median of 71 days before death.
From 2010 through 2020, the prevalence of palliative care increased from 10.4% to 16.0%, and the prevalence of VA inpatient hospice care increased from 15.0% to 18.0%. Some veterans may have received hospice services in other settings; in-home hospice is common.
Who is More Likely to Receive Palliative Care?
Black patients (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.21), Latino/Hispanic ethnicity (AOR, 1.22), patients with housing instability (AOR, 1.38) and who were underweight (AOR, 1.75) were linked to more palliative care use. Black patients were especially likely to get inpatient palliative care, a fact that “may, in part, be driven by increased care intensity at the end of life, as has been demonstrated in prior studies,” the authors noted.
Marriage (AOR, 0.88) was linked to less palliative care use, while patients with lung cancer were especially likely to receive it (AOR, 2.48). There were similar differences in use of hospice care apart from higher use for Black patients.
Smirnova said the study was not designed to determine the causes of patterns in palliative care use. However, important factors appear to include hospitalization, comorbidities, and access to care at health care sites. (Usage rates were lower at rural centers and higher at more complex centers.)
COPD vs Other Terminal Diseases
“The modest increases in utilization of palliative care and VA inpatient hospice from 2010 to 2020 align with previous work [research] in inpatients with COPD and heart failure,” the researchers wrote, “possibly reflecting the effect of international professional society guidelines, increased acceptance of palliative care, improvements related to VA end-of-life care and life-sustaining treatment decisions initiatives, and increases in the specialist palliative care workforce.”
Still, there appears to be a major discrepancy regarding the use of palliative care for COPD within the VA compared with other diseases. A study of data from 2014 through 2017 found that for patients with several comorbidities—including COPD, heart failure, cancer, and dementia—inpatient palliative care was introduced a median of 58 days before death and outpatient care 160 days before death.
“This suggests that veterans with COPD receive palliative care later than those with other serious illnesses,” the authors argued.
Don’t Wait for the ‘Right Time’
Sarah Miller, PhD, RN, associate professor, and assistant dean, PhD Nursing Science Program, School of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, praised the study in an interview and noted that uncertainty about the “right time” to refer patients to palliative care could play a role in the findings. Miller is familiar with the study but did not participate in the research.
Lindell, the chair of Palliative Care Health, agreed.
“With COPD—a chronic, progressive disease—decline can be gradual, which makes it difficult to identify a clear transition point,” Lindell told Federal Practitioner. “This has contributed to many palliative referrals happening only when patients are clearly deteriorating or nearing the end of life. But palliative care should not be introduced reactively; it should be integrated early, alongside disease-directed treatment.”
For her part, Miller noted that “many veterans with COPD are navigating complex comorbidities and fragmented care across settings. Diseases like COPD don’t follow a predictable path, so referrals don’t always happen like they should.”
Moving forward, “if symptoms are present, early palliative care is appropriate,” Lindell said. These conversations should happen early and over time.
“The VA should prioritize early referral and access to palliative care for patients with COPD to provide the best care for these individuals.”
No study funding was reported. Smirnova discloses relationships with the CHEST Foundation and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Other authors disclose relationships with various grantors.
Miller discloses a relationship with AstraZeneca. Lindell discloses relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care.
End-of-Life Palliative Care Rare for VA Patients With COPD
End-of-Life Palliative Care Rare for VA Patients With COPD