Neurology Reviews

A long-term brain imaging study in aging adults showed faster rates of atrophy in certain brain structures to be associated with the risk of developing mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

While some brain atrophy is expected in aging, high levels of atrophy in the white matter and high enlargement in the ventricles are associated with earlier progression from normal cognition to MCI, the study found. The researchers also identified diabetes and atypical levels of amyloid beta protein in the cerebrospinal fluid as risk factors for brain atrophy and MCI.

For their research, published online on JAMA Network Open, Yuto Uchida, MD, PhD, and his colleagues at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, looked at data for 185 individuals (mean age, 55.4 years; 63% women) who were cognitively normal at baseline and followed for a median of 20 years.

All had been enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study on biomarkers of cognitive decline conducted at Johns Hopkins. Each participant underwent a median of five structural MRI studies during the follow-up period as well as annual cognitive testing. Altogether 60 individuals developed MCI, with eight of them progressing to dementia.

“We hypothesized that annual rates of change of segmental brain volumes would be associated with vascular risk factors among middle-aged and older adults and that these trends would be associated with the progression from normal cognition to MCI,” Uchida and colleagues wrote.
 

Uniquely Long Follow-Up

Most longitudinal studies using structural MRI count a decade or less of follow-up, the study authors noted. This makes it difficult to discern whether the annual rates of change of brain volumes are affected by vascular risk factors or are useful in predicting MCI, they said. Individual differences in brain aging make population-based studies less informative.

This study’s long timeframe allowed for tracking of brain changes “on an individual basis, which facilitates the differentiation between interindividual and intraindividual variations and leads to more accurate estimations of rates of brain atrophy,” Uchida and colleagues wrote.

People with high levels of atrophy in the white matter and enlargement in the ventricles saw earlier progression to MCI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.24-2.49; P = .001). Diabetes mellitus was associated with progression to MCI (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06-1.76; P = .04), as was a low CSF Abeta42:Abeta40 ratio (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-1.88; P = .04).

People with both diabetes and an abnormal amyloid profile were even more vulnerable to developing MCI (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-1.98; P = .03). This indicated “a synergic association of diabetes and amyloid pathology with MCI progression,” Uchida and colleagues wrote, noting that insulin resistance has been shown to promote the formation of amyloid plaques, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease.

The findings also underscore that “white matter volume changes are closely associated with cognitive function in aging, suggesting that white matter degeneration may play a crucial role in cognitive decline,” the authors noted.

Uchida and colleagues acknowledged the modest size and imbalanced sex ratio of their study cohort as potential weaknesses, as well as the fact that the imaging technologies had changed over the course of the study. Most of the participants were White with family histories of dementia.
 

Findings May Lead to Targeted Interventions

In an editorial comment accompanying Uchida and colleagues’ study, Shohei Fujita, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that, while a more diverse population sample would be desirable and should be sought for future studies, the results nonetheless highlight “the potential of long-term longitudinal brain MRI datasets in elucidating the interplay of risk factors underlying cognitive decline and the potential benefits of controlling diabetes to reduce the risk of progression” along the Alzheimer’s disease continuum.

The findings may prove informative, Fujita said, in developing “targeted interventions for those most susceptible to progressive brain changes, potentially combining lifestyle modifications and pharmacological treatments.”

Uchida and colleagues’ study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association, the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center, and the National Institutes of Health. The study’s corresponding author, Kenichi Oishi, disclosed funding from the Richman Family Foundation, Richman, the Sharp Family Foundation, and others. Uchida and Fujita reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

A long-term brain imaging study in aging adults showed faster rates of atrophy in certain brain structures to be associated with the risk of developing mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

While some brain atrophy is expected in aging, high levels of atrophy in the white matter and high enlargement in the ventricles are associated with earlier progression from normal cognition to MCI, the study found. The researchers also identified diabetes and atypical levels of amyloid beta protein in the cerebrospinal fluid as risk factors for brain atrophy and MCI.

For their research, published online on JAMA Network Open, Yuto Uchida, MD, PhD, and his colleagues at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, looked at data for 185 individuals (mean age, 55.4 years; 63% women) who were cognitively normal at baseline and followed for a median of 20 years.

All had been enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study on biomarkers of cognitive decline conducted at Johns Hopkins. Each participant underwent a median of five structural MRI studies during the follow-up period as well as annual cognitive testing. Altogether 60 individuals developed MCI, with eight of them progressing to dementia.

“We hypothesized that annual rates of change of segmental brain volumes would be associated with vascular risk factors among middle-aged and older adults and that these trends would be associated with the progression from normal cognition to MCI,” Uchida and colleagues wrote.
 

Uniquely Long Follow-Up

Most longitudinal studies using structural MRI count a decade or less of follow-up, the study authors noted. This makes it difficult to discern whether the annual rates of change of brain volumes are affected by vascular risk factors or are useful in predicting MCI, they said. Individual differences in brain aging make population-based studies less informative.

This study’s long timeframe allowed for tracking of brain changes “on an individual basis, which facilitates the differentiation between interindividual and intraindividual variations and leads to more accurate estimations of rates of brain atrophy,” Uchida and colleagues wrote.

People with high levels of atrophy in the white matter and enlargement in the ventricles saw earlier progression to MCI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.24-2.49; P = .001). Diabetes mellitus was associated with progression to MCI (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06-1.76; P = .04), as was a low CSF Abeta42:Abeta40 ratio (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-1.88; P = .04).

People with both diabetes and an abnormal amyloid profile were even more vulnerable to developing MCI (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-1.98; P = .03). This indicated “a synergic association of diabetes and amyloid pathology with MCI progression,” Uchida and colleagues wrote, noting that insulin resistance has been shown to promote the formation of amyloid plaques, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease.

The findings also underscore that “white matter volume changes are closely associated with cognitive function in aging, suggesting that white matter degeneration may play a crucial role in cognitive decline,” the authors noted.

Uchida and colleagues acknowledged the modest size and imbalanced sex ratio of their study cohort as potential weaknesses, as well as the fact that the imaging technologies had changed over the course of the study. Most of the participants were White with family histories of dementia.
 

Findings May Lead to Targeted Interventions

In an editorial comment accompanying Uchida and colleagues’ study, Shohei Fujita, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that, while a more diverse population sample would be desirable and should be sought for future studies, the results nonetheless highlight “the potential of long-term longitudinal brain MRI datasets in elucidating the interplay of risk factors underlying cognitive decline and the potential benefits of controlling diabetes to reduce the risk of progression” along the Alzheimer’s disease continuum.

The findings may prove informative, Fujita said, in developing “targeted interventions for those most susceptible to progressive brain changes, potentially combining lifestyle modifications and pharmacological treatments.”

Uchida and colleagues’ study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association, the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center, and the National Institutes of Health. The study’s corresponding author, Kenichi Oishi, disclosed funding from the Richman Family Foundation, Richman, the Sharp Family Foundation, and others. Uchida and Fujita reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

A long-term brain imaging study in aging adults showed faster rates of atrophy in certain brain structures to be associated with the risk of developing mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

While some brain atrophy is expected in aging, high levels of atrophy in the white matter and high enlargement in the ventricles are associated with earlier progression from normal cognition to MCI, the study found. The researchers also identified diabetes and atypical levels of amyloid beta protein in the cerebrospinal fluid as risk factors for brain atrophy and MCI.

For their research, published online on JAMA Network Open, Yuto Uchida, MD, PhD, and his colleagues at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, looked at data for 185 individuals (mean age, 55.4 years; 63% women) who were cognitively normal at baseline and followed for a median of 20 years.

All had been enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study on biomarkers of cognitive decline conducted at Johns Hopkins. Each participant underwent a median of five structural MRI studies during the follow-up period as well as annual cognitive testing. Altogether 60 individuals developed MCI, with eight of them progressing to dementia.

“We hypothesized that annual rates of change of segmental brain volumes would be associated with vascular risk factors among middle-aged and older adults and that these trends would be associated with the progression from normal cognition to MCI,” Uchida and colleagues wrote.
 

Uniquely Long Follow-Up

Most longitudinal studies using structural MRI count a decade or less of follow-up, the study authors noted. This makes it difficult to discern whether the annual rates of change of brain volumes are affected by vascular risk factors or are useful in predicting MCI, they said. Individual differences in brain aging make population-based studies less informative.

This study’s long timeframe allowed for tracking of brain changes “on an individual basis, which facilitates the differentiation between interindividual and intraindividual variations and leads to more accurate estimations of rates of brain atrophy,” Uchida and colleagues wrote.

People with high levels of atrophy in the white matter and enlargement in the ventricles saw earlier progression to MCI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.24-2.49; P = .001). Diabetes mellitus was associated with progression to MCI (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06-1.76; P = .04), as was a low CSF Abeta42:Abeta40 ratio (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-1.88; P = .04).

People with both diabetes and an abnormal amyloid profile were even more vulnerable to developing MCI (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-1.98; P = .03). This indicated “a synergic association of diabetes and amyloid pathology with MCI progression,” Uchida and colleagues wrote, noting that insulin resistance has been shown to promote the formation of amyloid plaques, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease.

The findings also underscore that “white matter volume changes are closely associated with cognitive function in aging, suggesting that white matter degeneration may play a crucial role in cognitive decline,” the authors noted.

Uchida and colleagues acknowledged the modest size and imbalanced sex ratio of their study cohort as potential weaknesses, as well as the fact that the imaging technologies had changed over the course of the study. Most of the participants were White with family histories of dementia.
 

Findings May Lead to Targeted Interventions

In an editorial comment accompanying Uchida and colleagues’ study, Shohei Fujita, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that, while a more diverse population sample would be desirable and should be sought for future studies, the results nonetheless highlight “the potential of long-term longitudinal brain MRI datasets in elucidating the interplay of risk factors underlying cognitive decline and the potential benefits of controlling diabetes to reduce the risk of progression” along the Alzheimer’s disease continuum.

The findings may prove informative, Fujita said, in developing “targeted interventions for those most susceptible to progressive brain changes, potentially combining lifestyle modifications and pharmacological treatments.”

Uchida and colleagues’ study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association, the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center, and the National Institutes of Health. The study’s corresponding author, Kenichi Oishi, disclosed funding from the Richman Family Foundation, Richman, the Sharp Family Foundation, and others. Uchida and Fujita reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

STAT News recently ran a series on UnitedHealthcare (UHC) and its growing physician empire. This includes the corporation pressuring its employed physicians to see more patients, work weekends, upcode visits, add in diagnoses that will increase reimbursement, yadda, yadda, yadda.

For legal disclaimer purposes, I’m not saying UHC did any of this, nor am I saying they didn’t. But the series on STAT is worth reading.

Reading the articles brings back memories of the last time I was an employed physician, 24 years ago. I didn’t have people telling me to upcode visits, but I do remember hearing terms such as “dollars per physician per square foot” bandied about concerning my performance. At least back then no one was going to yell at me about a 1-star online review from a disgruntled patient.

After a little over 2 years I’d had enough and went solo.

I have no desire at this point to go back to that. I certainly make a lot less money than my employed counterparts, but I also have time and a degree of peace, which are worth something.

I’m not paying for anyone else’s overhead. I don’t slack off, but at least I know what I’m working for, and where the money is going when I write out a check. I can work my schedule around having to take my dog to the vet, or pick a kid up at the airport, or whatever.

I can spend more time with the patients who need it. Isn’t that part of why I’m here?

Wearing Hawaiian shirts and shorts to the office everyday is also a plus (at least I think so).

It surprises me that more physicians aren’t willing to go into solo or small group practice. The big advantage is freedom, only needing to pay the overhead and your salary, and cover for others when needed.

The downside is financial. Like our hunting and gathering ancestors, you eat what you kill. If there’s a shortfall in cash flow, I’m the one who doesn’t get paid. It’s always good to have a line of credit available to fall back on in a pinch.

I can see why it’s daunting. Coming out of training you have loans to pay off. You may have a young family, and your first mortgage. You sure don’t want to take out another loan to start a private practice. The security of a guaranteed paycheck and no start-up costs is attractive. I was there, too, and I also took the first job I was offered back then.

There’s also the fear of suddenly working without a net for the first time in your career. It’s reassuring to get some added experience while being able to bounce a challenging case off another doctor. (I still do that, too, and always will.)

But no one tells me to upcode visits or add diagnostic codes just to get more money. Patients don’t call in panicked that they have an ICD-10 code for a condition no one told them they had.

At the end of the day I can tell the guy in the mirror that I’m doing my best.

Medicine has changed a lot over time ... but being a doctor hasn’t. The spark that led us all here is still there, somewhere, I hope. Go back and read Neighbor Rosicky by Willa Cather, and The Doctor Stories by William Carlos Williams.

In an age when technology is moving us forward, I think the practice of medicine should move backward, away from McDoctors Inc. A small, even solo, medical practice isn’t incompatible with the shiny toys of 2024 medicine. You can make good patient care happen with both.

Small practice isn’t for the faint of heart. I freely admit that it’s not for everyone.

But I wish more people would see it as a realistic option, and take the road less traveled.

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

STAT News recently ran a series on UnitedHealthcare (UHC) and its growing physician empire. This includes the corporation pressuring its employed physicians to see more patients, work weekends, upcode visits, add in diagnoses that will increase reimbursement, yadda, yadda, yadda.

For legal disclaimer purposes, I’m not saying UHC did any of this, nor am I saying they didn’t. But the series on STAT is worth reading.

Reading the articles brings back memories of the last time I was an employed physician, 24 years ago. I didn’t have people telling me to upcode visits, but I do remember hearing terms such as “dollars per physician per square foot” bandied about concerning my performance. At least back then no one was going to yell at me about a 1-star online review from a disgruntled patient.

After a little over 2 years I’d had enough and went solo.

I have no desire at this point to go back to that. I certainly make a lot less money than my employed counterparts, but I also have time and a degree of peace, which are worth something.

I’m not paying for anyone else’s overhead. I don’t slack off, but at least I know what I’m working for, and where the money is going when I write out a check. I can work my schedule around having to take my dog to the vet, or pick a kid up at the airport, or whatever.

I can spend more time with the patients who need it. Isn’t that part of why I’m here?

Wearing Hawaiian shirts and shorts to the office everyday is also a plus (at least I think so).

It surprises me that more physicians aren’t willing to go into solo or small group practice. The big advantage is freedom, only needing to pay the overhead and your salary, and cover for others when needed.

The downside is financial. Like our hunting and gathering ancestors, you eat what you kill. If there’s a shortfall in cash flow, I’m the one who doesn’t get paid. It’s always good to have a line of credit available to fall back on in a pinch.

I can see why it’s daunting. Coming out of training you have loans to pay off. You may have a young family, and your first mortgage. You sure don’t want to take out another loan to start a private practice. The security of a guaranteed paycheck and no start-up costs is attractive. I was there, too, and I also took the first job I was offered back then.

There’s also the fear of suddenly working without a net for the first time in your career. It’s reassuring to get some added experience while being able to bounce a challenging case off another doctor. (I still do that, too, and always will.)

But no one tells me to upcode visits or add diagnostic codes just to get more money. Patients don’t call in panicked that they have an ICD-10 code for a condition no one told them they had.

At the end of the day I can tell the guy in the mirror that I’m doing my best.

Medicine has changed a lot over time ... but being a doctor hasn’t. The spark that led us all here is still there, somewhere, I hope. Go back and read Neighbor Rosicky by Willa Cather, and The Doctor Stories by William Carlos Williams.

In an age when technology is moving us forward, I think the practice of medicine should move backward, away from McDoctors Inc. A small, even solo, medical practice isn’t incompatible with the shiny toys of 2024 medicine. You can make good patient care happen with both.

Small practice isn’t for the faint of heart. I freely admit that it’s not for everyone.

But I wish more people would see it as a realistic option, and take the road less traveled.

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

STAT News recently ran a series on UnitedHealthcare (UHC) and its growing physician empire. This includes the corporation pressuring its employed physicians to see more patients, work weekends, upcode visits, add in diagnoses that will increase reimbursement, yadda, yadda, yadda.

For legal disclaimer purposes, I’m not saying UHC did any of this, nor am I saying they didn’t. But the series on STAT is worth reading.

Reading the articles brings back memories of the last time I was an employed physician, 24 years ago. I didn’t have people telling me to upcode visits, but I do remember hearing terms such as “dollars per physician per square foot” bandied about concerning my performance. At least back then no one was going to yell at me about a 1-star online review from a disgruntled patient.

After a little over 2 years I’d had enough and went solo.

I have no desire at this point to go back to that. I certainly make a lot less money than my employed counterparts, but I also have time and a degree of peace, which are worth something.

I’m not paying for anyone else’s overhead. I don’t slack off, but at least I know what I’m working for, and where the money is going when I write out a check. I can work my schedule around having to take my dog to the vet, or pick a kid up at the airport, or whatever.

I can spend more time with the patients who need it. Isn’t that part of why I’m here?

Wearing Hawaiian shirts and shorts to the office everyday is also a plus (at least I think so).

It surprises me that more physicians aren’t willing to go into solo or small group practice. The big advantage is freedom, only needing to pay the overhead and your salary, and cover for others when needed.

The downside is financial. Like our hunting and gathering ancestors, you eat what you kill. If there’s a shortfall in cash flow, I’m the one who doesn’t get paid. It’s always good to have a line of credit available to fall back on in a pinch.

I can see why it’s daunting. Coming out of training you have loans to pay off. You may have a young family, and your first mortgage. You sure don’t want to take out another loan to start a private practice. The security of a guaranteed paycheck and no start-up costs is attractive. I was there, too, and I also took the first job I was offered back then.

There’s also the fear of suddenly working without a net for the first time in your career. It’s reassuring to get some added experience while being able to bounce a challenging case off another doctor. (I still do that, too, and always will.)

But no one tells me to upcode visits or add diagnostic codes just to get more money. Patients don’t call in panicked that they have an ICD-10 code for a condition no one told them they had.

At the end of the day I can tell the guy in the mirror that I’m doing my best.

Medicine has changed a lot over time ... but being a doctor hasn’t. The spark that led us all here is still there, somewhere, I hope. Go back and read Neighbor Rosicky by Willa Cather, and The Doctor Stories by William Carlos Williams.

In an age when technology is moving us forward, I think the practice of medicine should move backward, away from McDoctors Inc. A small, even solo, medical practice isn’t incompatible with the shiny toys of 2024 medicine. You can make good patient care happen with both.

Small practice isn’t for the faint of heart. I freely admit that it’s not for everyone.

But I wish more people would see it as a realistic option, and take the road less traveled.

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

More than one third of patients with cancer visited an emergency department (ED) in the 90 days before their diagnosis, according to a study of medical records from Ontario, Canada.

Researchers examined Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) data that had been gathered from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021. The study focused on patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary cancer diagnoses.

Factors associated with an increased likelihood of an ED visit ahead of diagnosis included having certain cancers, living in rural areas, and having less access to primary care, according to study author Keerat Grewal, MD, an emergency physician and clinician scientist at the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute at Sinai Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.

“The ED is a distressing environment for patients to receive a possible cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, it is frequently ill equipped to provide ongoing continuity of care, which can lead patients down a poorly defined diagnostic pathway before receiving a confirmed diagnosis based on tissue and a subsequent treatment plan.”

The findings were published online on November 4 in CMAJ).
 

Neurologic Cancers Prominent

In an interview, Grewal said in an interview that the study reflects her desire as an emergency room physician to understand why so many patients with cancer get the initial reports about their disease from clinicians whom they often have just met for the first time.

Among patients with an ED visit before cancer diagnosis, 51.4% were admitted to hospital from the most recent visit.

Compared with patients with a family physician on whom they could rely for routine care, those who had no outpatient visits (odds ratio [OR], 2.09) or fewer than three outpatient visits (OR, 1.41) in the 6-30 months before cancer diagnosis were more likely to have an ED visit before their cancer diagnosis.

Other factors associated with increased odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis included rurality (OR, 1.15), residence in northern Ontario (northeast region: OR, 1.14 and northwest region: OR, 1.27 vs Toronto region), and living in the most marginalized areas (material resource deprivation: OR, 1.37 and housing stability: OR, 1.09 vs least marginalized area).

The researchers also found that patients with certain cancers were more likely to have sought care in the ED. They compared these cancers with breast cancer, which is often detected through screening.

“Patients with neurologic cancers had extremely high odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “This is likely because of the emergent nature of presentation, with acute neurologic symptoms such as weakness, confusion, or seizures, which require urgent assessment.” On the other hand, pancreatic, liver, or thoracic cancer can trigger nonspecific symptoms that may be ignored until they reach a crisis level that prompts an ED visit.

The limitations of the study included its inability to identify cancer-related ED visits and its narrow focus on patients in Ontario, according to the researchers. But the use of the ICES databases also allowed researchers access to a broader pool of data than are available in many other cases.

The findings in the new paper echo those of previous research, the authors noted. Research in the United Kingdom found that 24%-31% of cancer diagnoses involved the ED. In addition, a study of people enrolled in the US Medicare program, which serves patients aged 65 years or older, found that 23% were seen in the ED in the 30 days before diagnosis.
 

‘Unpacking the Data’

The current findings also are consistent with those of an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study that was published in 2022 in The Lancet Oncology, said Erika Nicholson, MHS, vice president of cancer systems and innovation at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The latter study analyzed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

“We see similar trends in terms of people visiting EDs and being diagnosed through EDs internationally,” Nicholson said. “We’re working with partners to put in place different strategies to address the challenges” that this phenomenon presents in terms of improving screening and follow-up care.

“Cancer is not one disease, but many diseases,” she said. “They present differently. We’re focused on really unpacking the data and understanding them.”

All this research highlights the need for more services and personnel to address cancer, including people who are trained to help patients cope after getting concerning news through emergency care, she said.

“That means having a system that fully supports you and helps you navigate through that diagnostic process,” Nicholson said. Addressing the added challenges for patients who don’t have secure housing is a special need, she added.

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Grewal reported receiving grants from CIHR and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Nicholson reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than one third of patients with cancer visited an emergency department (ED) in the 90 days before their diagnosis, according to a study of medical records from Ontario, Canada.

Researchers examined Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) data that had been gathered from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021. The study focused on patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary cancer diagnoses.

Factors associated with an increased likelihood of an ED visit ahead of diagnosis included having certain cancers, living in rural areas, and having less access to primary care, according to study author Keerat Grewal, MD, an emergency physician and clinician scientist at the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute at Sinai Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.

“The ED is a distressing environment for patients to receive a possible cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, it is frequently ill equipped to provide ongoing continuity of care, which can lead patients down a poorly defined diagnostic pathway before receiving a confirmed diagnosis based on tissue and a subsequent treatment plan.”

The findings were published online on November 4 in CMAJ).
 

Neurologic Cancers Prominent

In an interview, Grewal said in an interview that the study reflects her desire as an emergency room physician to understand why so many patients with cancer get the initial reports about their disease from clinicians whom they often have just met for the first time.

Among patients with an ED visit before cancer diagnosis, 51.4% were admitted to hospital from the most recent visit.

Compared with patients with a family physician on whom they could rely for routine care, those who had no outpatient visits (odds ratio [OR], 2.09) or fewer than three outpatient visits (OR, 1.41) in the 6-30 months before cancer diagnosis were more likely to have an ED visit before their cancer diagnosis.

Other factors associated with increased odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis included rurality (OR, 1.15), residence in northern Ontario (northeast region: OR, 1.14 and northwest region: OR, 1.27 vs Toronto region), and living in the most marginalized areas (material resource deprivation: OR, 1.37 and housing stability: OR, 1.09 vs least marginalized area).

The researchers also found that patients with certain cancers were more likely to have sought care in the ED. They compared these cancers with breast cancer, which is often detected through screening.

“Patients with neurologic cancers had extremely high odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “This is likely because of the emergent nature of presentation, with acute neurologic symptoms such as weakness, confusion, or seizures, which require urgent assessment.” On the other hand, pancreatic, liver, or thoracic cancer can trigger nonspecific symptoms that may be ignored until they reach a crisis level that prompts an ED visit.

The limitations of the study included its inability to identify cancer-related ED visits and its narrow focus on patients in Ontario, according to the researchers. But the use of the ICES databases also allowed researchers access to a broader pool of data than are available in many other cases.

The findings in the new paper echo those of previous research, the authors noted. Research in the United Kingdom found that 24%-31% of cancer diagnoses involved the ED. In addition, a study of people enrolled in the US Medicare program, which serves patients aged 65 years or older, found that 23% were seen in the ED in the 30 days before diagnosis.
 

‘Unpacking the Data’

The current findings also are consistent with those of an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study that was published in 2022 in The Lancet Oncology, said Erika Nicholson, MHS, vice president of cancer systems and innovation at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The latter study analyzed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

“We see similar trends in terms of people visiting EDs and being diagnosed through EDs internationally,” Nicholson said. “We’re working with partners to put in place different strategies to address the challenges” that this phenomenon presents in terms of improving screening and follow-up care.

“Cancer is not one disease, but many diseases,” she said. “They present differently. We’re focused on really unpacking the data and understanding them.”

All this research highlights the need for more services and personnel to address cancer, including people who are trained to help patients cope after getting concerning news through emergency care, she said.

“That means having a system that fully supports you and helps you navigate through that diagnostic process,” Nicholson said. Addressing the added challenges for patients who don’t have secure housing is a special need, she added.

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Grewal reported receiving grants from CIHR and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Nicholson reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than one third of patients with cancer visited an emergency department (ED) in the 90 days before their diagnosis, according to a study of medical records from Ontario, Canada.

Researchers examined Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) data that had been gathered from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021. The study focused on patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary cancer diagnoses.

Factors associated with an increased likelihood of an ED visit ahead of diagnosis included having certain cancers, living in rural areas, and having less access to primary care, according to study author Keerat Grewal, MD, an emergency physician and clinician scientist at the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute at Sinai Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.

“The ED is a distressing environment for patients to receive a possible cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Moreover, it is frequently ill equipped to provide ongoing continuity of care, which can lead patients down a poorly defined diagnostic pathway before receiving a confirmed diagnosis based on tissue and a subsequent treatment plan.”

The findings were published online on November 4 in CMAJ).
 

Neurologic Cancers Prominent

In an interview, Grewal said in an interview that the study reflects her desire as an emergency room physician to understand why so many patients with cancer get the initial reports about their disease from clinicians whom they often have just met for the first time.

Among patients with an ED visit before cancer diagnosis, 51.4% were admitted to hospital from the most recent visit.

Compared with patients with a family physician on whom they could rely for routine care, those who had no outpatient visits (odds ratio [OR], 2.09) or fewer than three outpatient visits (OR, 1.41) in the 6-30 months before cancer diagnosis were more likely to have an ED visit before their cancer diagnosis.

Other factors associated with increased odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis included rurality (OR, 1.15), residence in northern Ontario (northeast region: OR, 1.14 and northwest region: OR, 1.27 vs Toronto region), and living in the most marginalized areas (material resource deprivation: OR, 1.37 and housing stability: OR, 1.09 vs least marginalized area).

The researchers also found that patients with certain cancers were more likely to have sought care in the ED. They compared these cancers with breast cancer, which is often detected through screening.

“Patients with neurologic cancers had extremely high odds of ED use before cancer diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “This is likely because of the emergent nature of presentation, with acute neurologic symptoms such as weakness, confusion, or seizures, which require urgent assessment.” On the other hand, pancreatic, liver, or thoracic cancer can trigger nonspecific symptoms that may be ignored until they reach a crisis level that prompts an ED visit.

The limitations of the study included its inability to identify cancer-related ED visits and its narrow focus on patients in Ontario, according to the researchers. But the use of the ICES databases also allowed researchers access to a broader pool of data than are available in many other cases.

The findings in the new paper echo those of previous research, the authors noted. Research in the United Kingdom found that 24%-31% of cancer diagnoses involved the ED. In addition, a study of people enrolled in the US Medicare program, which serves patients aged 65 years or older, found that 23% were seen in the ED in the 30 days before diagnosis.
 

‘Unpacking the Data’

The current findings also are consistent with those of an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study that was published in 2022 in The Lancet Oncology, said Erika Nicholson, MHS, vice president of cancer systems and innovation at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The latter study analyzed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

“We see similar trends in terms of people visiting EDs and being diagnosed through EDs internationally,” Nicholson said. “We’re working with partners to put in place different strategies to address the challenges” that this phenomenon presents in terms of improving screening and follow-up care.

“Cancer is not one disease, but many diseases,” she said. “They present differently. We’re focused on really unpacking the data and understanding them.”

All this research highlights the need for more services and personnel to address cancer, including people who are trained to help patients cope after getting concerning news through emergency care, she said.

“That means having a system that fully supports you and helps you navigate through that diagnostic process,” Nicholson said. Addressing the added challenges for patients who don’t have secure housing is a special need, she added.

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Grewal reported receiving grants from CIHR and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Nicholson reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Petechial rash often prompts further investigation into hematological, dermatological, or vasculitis causes. However, if the above investigations are negative and skin biopsy has not revealed a cause, there is a Renaissance-era diagnosis that is often overlooked but is easily investigated and treated,” wrote Andrew Dermawan, MD, and colleagues from Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in Nedlands, Australia, in BMJ Case Reports. The diagnosis they highlight is scurvy, a disease that has faded from common medical concern but is reemerging, partly because of the rise in bariatric surgery.

Diagnosing Scurvy in the 2020s

In their article, Dermawan and colleagues present the case of a 50-year-old man with a bilateral petechial rash on his lower limbs, without any history of trauma. The patient, who exhibited no infectious symptoms, also had gross hematuria, microcytic anemia, mild neutropenia, and lymphopenia. Tests for autoimmune and hematological diseases were negative, as were abdominal and leg CT scans, ruling out abdominal hemorrhage and vasculitis. Additionally, a skin biopsy showed no causative findings.

The doctors noted that the patient had undergone sleeve gastrectomy, prompting them to inquire about his diet. They discovered that, because of financial difficulties, his diet primarily consisted of processed foods with little to no fruits or vegetables, and he had stopped taking supplements recommended by his gastroenterologist. Further tests revealed a vitamin D deficiency and a severe deficiency in vitamin C. With the diagnosis of scurvy confirmed, the doctors treated the patient with 1000 mg of ascorbic acid daily, along with cholecalciferol, folic acid, and a multivitamin complex, leading to a complete resolution of his symptoms.
 

Risk Factors Then and Now

Scurvy can present with a range of symptoms, including petechiae, perifollicular hemorrhage, ecchymosis, gingivitis, edema, anemia, delayed wound healing, malaise, weakness, joint swelling, arthralgia, anorexia, neuropathy, and vasomotor instability. It can cause mucosal and gastric hemorrhages, and if left untreated, it can lead to fatal bleeding.

Historically known as “sailors’ disease,” scurvy plagued men on long voyages who lacked access to fresh fruits or vegetables and thus did not get enough vitamin C. In 1747, James Lind, a British physician in the Royal Navy, demonstrated that the consumption of oranges and lemons could combat scurvy.

Today’s risk factors for scurvy include malnutrition, gastrointestinal disorders (eg, chronic inflammatory bowel diseases), alcohol and tobacco use, eating disorders, psychiatric illnesses, dialysis, and the use of medications that reduce the absorption of ascorbic acid (such as corticosteroids and proton pump inhibitors).

Scurvy remains more common among individuals with unfavorable socioeconomic conditions. The authors of the study emphasize how the rising cost of living — specifically in Australia but applicable elsewhere — is changing eating habits, leading to a high consumption of low-cost, nutritionally poor foods.

Poverty has always been a risk factor for scurvy, but today there may be an additional cause: bariatric surgery. Patients undergoing these procedures are at a risk for deficiencies in fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K, and if their diet is inadequate, they may also experience a vitamin C deficiency. Awareness of this can facilitate the timely diagnosis of scurvy in these patients.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Petechial rash often prompts further investigation into hematological, dermatological, or vasculitis causes. However, if the above investigations are negative and skin biopsy has not revealed a cause, there is a Renaissance-era diagnosis that is often overlooked but is easily investigated and treated,” wrote Andrew Dermawan, MD, and colleagues from Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in Nedlands, Australia, in BMJ Case Reports. The diagnosis they highlight is scurvy, a disease that has faded from common medical concern but is reemerging, partly because of the rise in bariatric surgery.

Diagnosing Scurvy in the 2020s

In their article, Dermawan and colleagues present the case of a 50-year-old man with a bilateral petechial rash on his lower limbs, without any history of trauma. The patient, who exhibited no infectious symptoms, also had gross hematuria, microcytic anemia, mild neutropenia, and lymphopenia. Tests for autoimmune and hematological diseases were negative, as were abdominal and leg CT scans, ruling out abdominal hemorrhage and vasculitis. Additionally, a skin biopsy showed no causative findings.

The doctors noted that the patient had undergone sleeve gastrectomy, prompting them to inquire about his diet. They discovered that, because of financial difficulties, his diet primarily consisted of processed foods with little to no fruits or vegetables, and he had stopped taking supplements recommended by his gastroenterologist. Further tests revealed a vitamin D deficiency and a severe deficiency in vitamin C. With the diagnosis of scurvy confirmed, the doctors treated the patient with 1000 mg of ascorbic acid daily, along with cholecalciferol, folic acid, and a multivitamin complex, leading to a complete resolution of his symptoms.
 

Risk Factors Then and Now

Scurvy can present with a range of symptoms, including petechiae, perifollicular hemorrhage, ecchymosis, gingivitis, edema, anemia, delayed wound healing, malaise, weakness, joint swelling, arthralgia, anorexia, neuropathy, and vasomotor instability. It can cause mucosal and gastric hemorrhages, and if left untreated, it can lead to fatal bleeding.

Historically known as “sailors’ disease,” scurvy plagued men on long voyages who lacked access to fresh fruits or vegetables and thus did not get enough vitamin C. In 1747, James Lind, a British physician in the Royal Navy, demonstrated that the consumption of oranges and lemons could combat scurvy.

Today’s risk factors for scurvy include malnutrition, gastrointestinal disorders (eg, chronic inflammatory bowel diseases), alcohol and tobacco use, eating disorders, psychiatric illnesses, dialysis, and the use of medications that reduce the absorption of ascorbic acid (such as corticosteroids and proton pump inhibitors).

Scurvy remains more common among individuals with unfavorable socioeconomic conditions. The authors of the study emphasize how the rising cost of living — specifically in Australia but applicable elsewhere — is changing eating habits, leading to a high consumption of low-cost, nutritionally poor foods.

Poverty has always been a risk factor for scurvy, but today there may be an additional cause: bariatric surgery. Patients undergoing these procedures are at a risk for deficiencies in fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K, and if their diet is inadequate, they may also experience a vitamin C deficiency. Awareness of this can facilitate the timely diagnosis of scurvy in these patients.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Petechial rash often prompts further investigation into hematological, dermatological, or vasculitis causes. However, if the above investigations are negative and skin biopsy has not revealed a cause, there is a Renaissance-era diagnosis that is often overlooked but is easily investigated and treated,” wrote Andrew Dermawan, MD, and colleagues from Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in Nedlands, Australia, in BMJ Case Reports. The diagnosis they highlight is scurvy, a disease that has faded from common medical concern but is reemerging, partly because of the rise in bariatric surgery.

Diagnosing Scurvy in the 2020s

In their article, Dermawan and colleagues present the case of a 50-year-old man with a bilateral petechial rash on his lower limbs, without any history of trauma. The patient, who exhibited no infectious symptoms, also had gross hematuria, microcytic anemia, mild neutropenia, and lymphopenia. Tests for autoimmune and hematological diseases were negative, as were abdominal and leg CT scans, ruling out abdominal hemorrhage and vasculitis. Additionally, a skin biopsy showed no causative findings.

The doctors noted that the patient had undergone sleeve gastrectomy, prompting them to inquire about his diet. They discovered that, because of financial difficulties, his diet primarily consisted of processed foods with little to no fruits or vegetables, and he had stopped taking supplements recommended by his gastroenterologist. Further tests revealed a vitamin D deficiency and a severe deficiency in vitamin C. With the diagnosis of scurvy confirmed, the doctors treated the patient with 1000 mg of ascorbic acid daily, along with cholecalciferol, folic acid, and a multivitamin complex, leading to a complete resolution of his symptoms.
 

Risk Factors Then and Now

Scurvy can present with a range of symptoms, including petechiae, perifollicular hemorrhage, ecchymosis, gingivitis, edema, anemia, delayed wound healing, malaise, weakness, joint swelling, arthralgia, anorexia, neuropathy, and vasomotor instability. It can cause mucosal and gastric hemorrhages, and if left untreated, it can lead to fatal bleeding.

Historically known as “sailors’ disease,” scurvy plagued men on long voyages who lacked access to fresh fruits or vegetables and thus did not get enough vitamin C. In 1747, James Lind, a British physician in the Royal Navy, demonstrated that the consumption of oranges and lemons could combat scurvy.

Today’s risk factors for scurvy include malnutrition, gastrointestinal disorders (eg, chronic inflammatory bowel diseases), alcohol and tobacco use, eating disorders, psychiatric illnesses, dialysis, and the use of medications that reduce the absorption of ascorbic acid (such as corticosteroids and proton pump inhibitors).

Scurvy remains more common among individuals with unfavorable socioeconomic conditions. The authors of the study emphasize how the rising cost of living — specifically in Australia but applicable elsewhere — is changing eating habits, leading to a high consumption of low-cost, nutritionally poor foods.

Poverty has always been a risk factor for scurvy, but today there may be an additional cause: bariatric surgery. Patients undergoing these procedures are at a risk for deficiencies in fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K, and if their diet is inadequate, they may also experience a vitamin C deficiency. Awareness of this can facilitate the timely diagnosis of scurvy in these patients.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are associated with a lower incidence of cancer. However, omega-3 fatty acids are linked to an increased risk for prostate cancer, specifically.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers looked for associations of plasma omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) with the incidence of cancer overall and 19 site-specific cancers in the large population-based prospective UK Biobank cohort.
• They included 253,138 participants aged 37-73 years who were followed for an average of 12.9 years, with 29,838 diagnosed with cancer.
• Plasma levels of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids were measured using nuclear magnetic resonance and expressed as percentages of total fatty acids.
• Participants with cancer diagnoses at baseline, those who withdrew from the study, and those with missing data on plasma PUFAs were excluded.
• The study adjusted for multiple covariates, including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, lifestyle behaviors, and family history of diseases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids were associated with a 2% and 1% reduction in overall cancer risk per SD increase, respectively (P = .001 and P = .03).
• Omega-6 fatty acids were inversely associated with 14 site-specific cancers, whereas omega-3 fatty acids were inversely associated with five site-specific cancers.
• Prostate cancer was positively associated with omega-3 fatty acids, with a 3% increased risk per SD increase (P = .049).
• A higher omega-6/omega-3 ratio was associated with an increased risk for overall cancer, and three site-specific cancers showed positive associations with the ratio. “Each standard deviation increase, corresponding to a 13.13 increase in the omega ratio, was associated with a 2% increase in the risk of rectum cancer,” for example, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, our findings provide support for possible small net protective roles of omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs in the development of new cancer incidence. Our study also suggests that the usage of circulating blood biomarkers captures different aspects of dietary intake, reduces measurement errors, and thus enhances statistical power. The differential effects of omega-6% and omega-3% in age and sex subgroups warrant future investigation,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yuchen Zhang of the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. It was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s potential for selective bias persists due to the participant sample skewing heavily toward European ancestry and White ethnicity. The number of events was small for some specific cancer sites, which may have limited the statistical power. The study focused on total omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs, with only two individual fatty acids measured. Future studies are needed to examine the roles of other individual PUFAs and specific genetic variants. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are associated with a lower incidence of cancer. However, omega-3 fatty acids are linked to an increased risk for prostate cancer, specifically.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers looked for associations of plasma omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) with the incidence of cancer overall and 19 site-specific cancers in the large population-based prospective UK Biobank cohort.
• They included 253,138 participants aged 37-73 years who were followed for an average of 12.9 years, with 29,838 diagnosed with cancer.
• Plasma levels of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids were measured using nuclear magnetic resonance and expressed as percentages of total fatty acids.
• Participants with cancer diagnoses at baseline, those who withdrew from the study, and those with missing data on plasma PUFAs were excluded.
• The study adjusted for multiple covariates, including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, lifestyle behaviors, and family history of diseases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids were associated with a 2% and 1% reduction in overall cancer risk per SD increase, respectively (P = .001 and P = .03).
• Omega-6 fatty acids were inversely associated with 14 site-specific cancers, whereas omega-3 fatty acids were inversely associated with five site-specific cancers.
• Prostate cancer was positively associated with omega-3 fatty acids, with a 3% increased risk per SD increase (P = .049).
• A higher omega-6/omega-3 ratio was associated with an increased risk for overall cancer, and three site-specific cancers showed positive associations with the ratio. “Each standard deviation increase, corresponding to a 13.13 increase in the omega ratio, was associated with a 2% increase in the risk of rectum cancer,” for example, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, our findings provide support for possible small net protective roles of omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs in the development of new cancer incidence. Our study also suggests that the usage of circulating blood biomarkers captures different aspects of dietary intake, reduces measurement errors, and thus enhances statistical power. The differential effects of omega-6% and omega-3% in age and sex subgroups warrant future investigation,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yuchen Zhang of the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. It was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s potential for selective bias persists due to the participant sample skewing heavily toward European ancestry and White ethnicity. The number of events was small for some specific cancer sites, which may have limited the statistical power. The study focused on total omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs, with only two individual fatty acids measured. Future studies are needed to examine the roles of other individual PUFAs and specific genetic variants. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are associated with a lower incidence of cancer. However, omega-3 fatty acids are linked to an increased risk for prostate cancer, specifically.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers looked for associations of plasma omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) with the incidence of cancer overall and 19 site-specific cancers in the large population-based prospective UK Biobank cohort.
• They included 253,138 participants aged 37-73 years who were followed for an average of 12.9 years, with 29,838 diagnosed with cancer.
• Plasma levels of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids were measured using nuclear magnetic resonance and expressed as percentages of total fatty acids.
• Participants with cancer diagnoses at baseline, those who withdrew from the study, and those with missing data on plasma PUFAs were excluded.
• The study adjusted for multiple covariates, including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, lifestyle behaviors, and family history of diseases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher plasma levels of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids were associated with a 2% and 1% reduction in overall cancer risk per SD increase, respectively (P = .001 and P = .03).
• Omega-6 fatty acids were inversely associated with 14 site-specific cancers, whereas omega-3 fatty acids were inversely associated with five site-specific cancers.
• Prostate cancer was positively associated with omega-3 fatty acids, with a 3% increased risk per SD increase (P = .049).
• A higher omega-6/omega-3 ratio was associated with an increased risk for overall cancer, and three site-specific cancers showed positive associations with the ratio. “Each standard deviation increase, corresponding to a 13.13 increase in the omega ratio, was associated with a 2% increase in the risk of rectum cancer,” for example, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, our findings provide support for possible small net protective roles of omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs in the development of new cancer incidence. Our study also suggests that the usage of circulating blood biomarkers captures different aspects of dietary intake, reduces measurement errors, and thus enhances statistical power. The differential effects of omega-6% and omega-3% in age and sex subgroups warrant future investigation,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yuchen Zhang of the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. It was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s potential for selective bias persists due to the participant sample skewing heavily toward European ancestry and White ethnicity. The number of events was small for some specific cancer sites, which may have limited the statistical power. The study focused on total omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs, with only two individual fatty acids measured. Future studies are needed to examine the roles of other individual PUFAs and specific genetic variants. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

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

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

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

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

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