Practice Management

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive. 

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

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive. 

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

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive. 

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

Durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) is now approved for adults with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) whose disease has not progressed after treatment with concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.

“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”

Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.

Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.

Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.

“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.

The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.

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

Durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) is now approved for adults with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) whose disease has not progressed after treatment with concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.

“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”

Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.

Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.

Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.

“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.

The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.

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

Durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) is now approved for adults with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) whose disease has not progressed after treatment with concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration approval makes the monoclonal antibody — which is already approved for multiple tumor types — the first immunotherapy regimen approved in this setting, AstraZeneca noted in a press release.

“Durvalumab is the first and only systemic treatment following curative-intent, platinum-based chemoradiotherapy to show improved survival for patients with this aggressive form of lung cancer,” international coordinating investigator on the trial, Suresh Senan, PhD, stated in the press release. “This finding represents the first advance for this disease in 4 decades.”

Approval, which followed Priority Review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation, was based on findings from the phase 3 ADRIATIC trial showing a 27% reduction in the risk for death with durvalumab vs placebo.

Findings from the trial were reported during a plenary session at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, and subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In 730 patients with LS-SCLC who were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent durvalumab, durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab, or placebo, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly improved with durvalumab alone vs placebo (hazard ratio, 0.73 and 0.76, for OS and PFS, respectively). Median OS was 55.9 months vs 33.4 months with durvalumab vs placebo, and PFS was 16.6 vs 9.2 months, respectively.

Senan, a professor of clinical experimental radiotherapy at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, noted in the press release that 57% of patients were still alive at 3 years after being treated with durvalumab, which underscores the practice-changing potential of this medicine in this setting.

“This new treatment option is a game changer for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease known for its high rate of recurrence,” Dusty Donaldson, founder and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization LiveLung, stated in the release. “Historically, more often than not, clinical trials to identify new treatment options for this type of cancer have failed to show benefit. We are therefore so excited that many more people will now have the opportunity to access this immunotherapy treatment that holds the potential to significantly improve outcomes.”

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients in the ADRIATIC trial included pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis and fatigue.

The recommended durvalumab dose, according to prescribing information, is 1500 mg every 4 weeks for patients weighing at least 30 kg and 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks for those weighing less than 30 kg, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 24 months.

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

Even before the presidential election, the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) national ban on noncompete clauses faced a tough battle for survival in the courts. 

Now, legal specialists forecast a grim prognosis for the ban under Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

In April 2024, a divided FTC board approved a rule that would ban most noncompete agreements, which are the bane of many physicians in the states where they’re allowed. 

But a federal district’s court ruling put the ban on hold, and the Trump administration isn’t expected to support lifting the ban. 

“It is likely that the Trump administration will decline to defend the rule and may not even appeal the district court’s ruling, which means that the ban on noncompetes will not go into effect,” Steven Lubet, JD, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview.

 

What’s in a Noncompete Clause?

Noncompete clauses in employee contracts typically restrict when and where workers can take future jobs. In medicine, supporters argue that the clauses are fair. Hospitals and practices provide a base of patients to physicians, they say, in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor. 

But those opposed to these clauses argue that the restrictions harm careers and hurt patients by unfairly preventing physicians from moving to new jobs where they’re needed. 

At an April meeting, the FTC board voted 3 to 2 to ban noncompete clauses; some nonprofit organizations and senior executives were expected to be exempt. The FTC estimated that the move would save the healthcare system alone as much as $194 billion over 10 years. 

“A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” declared FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya. 

Hospitals protested the move. In a statement, the general counsel for the American Hospital Association called it “bad law, bad policy, and a clear sign of an agency run amok” and said the FTC ignored “mountains of contrary legal precedent and evidence about its adverse impacts on the health care markets.”

Although the American Medical Association does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies in 2023 to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit and nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies. 

 

Texas Federal Judge Intervenes to Halt Ban

The ban was supposed to take effect on Sept. 4, 2024. But Texas federal judge Ada E. Brown struck down the ban in an Aug. 20 decision. She ruled that the FTC went beyond its authority.

“The district court based its ruling on a very dubious distinction between ‘unfair practices,’ which the FTC may prohibit, and ‘unfair competition,’ which, according to the court, it may not,” said Lubet. 

In fact, the ban should stand, he said. “This is a classic case of the government intervening on behalf of consumers/patients by prohibiting an unfair and harmful employment practice,” Lubet said. 

Amanda Hill, an attorney in Austin, Texas, who trains physicians about how to negotiate contracts, has a different take. “The Federal Trade Commission came down hard, and honestly, it really overstepped,” she said in an interview. “Congress needs to write laws, not regulatory bodies. I think all the lawyers went: ‘Good try, but you’re not going to get anywhere with that.’ ”

She noted that physicians themselves are divided over the value of noncompete clauses. “I would say 80% of my clients can’t stand noncompetes.” But another 20% own their own practices and hate the idea of losing their physicians to competitors, she said. 

 

Trump Isn’t Seen as Likely to Support Ban

While the Biden administration firmly supported a ban on noncompete clauses, there isn’t a strict Democratic-Republican divide over whether the agreements are a good idea. Some red states have embraced bans, and Hill said this can make sense from a Republican point of view: “We don’t want to run doctors out of town and out of the state because they think they’re going to be bound by big hospitals and corporate interests.”

In fact, former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, a Republican briefly tapped as President-elect Trump’s nominee for attorney general, supports noncompete clauses. He filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Texas judge that supported the FTC’s ruling, saying it is a “vindication of economic freedom and free enterprise.” 

But Republicans generally “believe that federal agencies are going too far and beyond the power granted to them by Congress,” Atlanta, Georgia, attorney Benjamin Fink, Esq., said in an interview.

And Trump is no fan of the FTC and its chair, Lina Khan, who may step down. Observers don’t expect that the Trump administration or a newly constituted FTC board will support an appeal of the Texas judge’s ruling.

“I don’t think anybody else — another agency or a private party — could step in place of the FTC if the FTC declines to defend the ban,” Atlanta attorney Neal F. Weinrich, Esq., said in an interview. In that case, “I think it ends.”

Attorneys Weinrich and Fink work at the same firm, which handles noncompete agreements for physicians. 

 

Noncompete Ban Advocates Turn to States 

Even if Kamala Harris had won the presidency, a national ban on noncompete clauses would have faced an uphill battle at the Supreme Court. 

“The Supreme Court majority has been unsympathetic to administrative agencies, interpreting their authority very narrowly,” said Lubet.

So what happens to noncompete clauses now? While bipartisan bills in Congress have tried to ban them, legislation is unlikely to pass now that Republicans will control both the House and Senate, Fink said. 

According to a recent article, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. 

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually. 

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause. 

“I definitely think states are going to continue to restrict the use of noncompetes,” Fink said. 

Lubet has no disclosures. Hill, Fink, and Weinrich represent physicians in contract negotiations.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before the presidential election, the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) national ban on noncompete clauses faced a tough battle for survival in the courts. 

Now, legal specialists forecast a grim prognosis for the ban under Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

In April 2024, a divided FTC board approved a rule that would ban most noncompete agreements, which are the bane of many physicians in the states where they’re allowed. 

But a federal district’s court ruling put the ban on hold, and the Trump administration isn’t expected to support lifting the ban. 

“It is likely that the Trump administration will decline to defend the rule and may not even appeal the district court’s ruling, which means that the ban on noncompetes will not go into effect,” Steven Lubet, JD, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview.

 

What’s in a Noncompete Clause?

Noncompete clauses in employee contracts typically restrict when and where workers can take future jobs. In medicine, supporters argue that the clauses are fair. Hospitals and practices provide a base of patients to physicians, they say, in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor. 

But those opposed to these clauses argue that the restrictions harm careers and hurt patients by unfairly preventing physicians from moving to new jobs where they’re needed. 

At an April meeting, the FTC board voted 3 to 2 to ban noncompete clauses; some nonprofit organizations and senior executives were expected to be exempt. The FTC estimated that the move would save the healthcare system alone as much as $194 billion over 10 years. 

“A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” declared FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya. 

Hospitals protested the move. In a statement, the general counsel for the American Hospital Association called it “bad law, bad policy, and a clear sign of an agency run amok” and said the FTC ignored “mountains of contrary legal precedent and evidence about its adverse impacts on the health care markets.”

Although the American Medical Association does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies in 2023 to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit and nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies. 

 

Texas Federal Judge Intervenes to Halt Ban

The ban was supposed to take effect on Sept. 4, 2024. But Texas federal judge Ada E. Brown struck down the ban in an Aug. 20 decision. She ruled that the FTC went beyond its authority.

“The district court based its ruling on a very dubious distinction between ‘unfair practices,’ which the FTC may prohibit, and ‘unfair competition,’ which, according to the court, it may not,” said Lubet. 

In fact, the ban should stand, he said. “This is a classic case of the government intervening on behalf of consumers/patients by prohibiting an unfair and harmful employment practice,” Lubet said. 

Amanda Hill, an attorney in Austin, Texas, who trains physicians about how to negotiate contracts, has a different take. “The Federal Trade Commission came down hard, and honestly, it really overstepped,” she said in an interview. “Congress needs to write laws, not regulatory bodies. I think all the lawyers went: ‘Good try, but you’re not going to get anywhere with that.’ ”

She noted that physicians themselves are divided over the value of noncompete clauses. “I would say 80% of my clients can’t stand noncompetes.” But another 20% own their own practices and hate the idea of losing their physicians to competitors, she said. 

 

Trump Isn’t Seen as Likely to Support Ban

While the Biden administration firmly supported a ban on noncompete clauses, there isn’t a strict Democratic-Republican divide over whether the agreements are a good idea. Some red states have embraced bans, and Hill said this can make sense from a Republican point of view: “We don’t want to run doctors out of town and out of the state because they think they’re going to be bound by big hospitals and corporate interests.”

In fact, former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, a Republican briefly tapped as President-elect Trump’s nominee for attorney general, supports noncompete clauses. He filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Texas judge that supported the FTC’s ruling, saying it is a “vindication of economic freedom and free enterprise.” 

But Republicans generally “believe that federal agencies are going too far and beyond the power granted to them by Congress,” Atlanta, Georgia, attorney Benjamin Fink, Esq., said in an interview.

And Trump is no fan of the FTC and its chair, Lina Khan, who may step down. Observers don’t expect that the Trump administration or a newly constituted FTC board will support an appeal of the Texas judge’s ruling.

“I don’t think anybody else — another agency or a private party — could step in place of the FTC if the FTC declines to defend the ban,” Atlanta attorney Neal F. Weinrich, Esq., said in an interview. In that case, “I think it ends.”

Attorneys Weinrich and Fink work at the same firm, which handles noncompete agreements for physicians. 

 

Noncompete Ban Advocates Turn to States 

Even if Kamala Harris had won the presidency, a national ban on noncompete clauses would have faced an uphill battle at the Supreme Court. 

“The Supreme Court majority has been unsympathetic to administrative agencies, interpreting their authority very narrowly,” said Lubet.

So what happens to noncompete clauses now? While bipartisan bills in Congress have tried to ban them, legislation is unlikely to pass now that Republicans will control both the House and Senate, Fink said. 

According to a recent article, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. 

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually. 

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause. 

“I definitely think states are going to continue to restrict the use of noncompetes,” Fink said. 

Lubet has no disclosures. Hill, Fink, and Weinrich represent physicians in contract negotiations.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before the presidential election, the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) national ban on noncompete clauses faced a tough battle for survival in the courts. 

Now, legal specialists forecast a grim prognosis for the ban under Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

In April 2024, a divided FTC board approved a rule that would ban most noncompete agreements, which are the bane of many physicians in the states where they’re allowed. 

But a federal district’s court ruling put the ban on hold, and the Trump administration isn’t expected to support lifting the ban. 

“It is likely that the Trump administration will decline to defend the rule and may not even appeal the district court’s ruling, which means that the ban on noncompetes will not go into effect,” Steven Lubet, JD, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview.

 

What’s in a Noncompete Clause?

Noncompete clauses in employee contracts typically restrict when and where workers can take future jobs. In medicine, supporters argue that the clauses are fair. Hospitals and practices provide a base of patients to physicians, they say, in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor. 

But those opposed to these clauses argue that the restrictions harm careers and hurt patients by unfairly preventing physicians from moving to new jobs where they’re needed. 

At an April meeting, the FTC board voted 3 to 2 to ban noncompete clauses; some nonprofit organizations and senior executives were expected to be exempt. The FTC estimated that the move would save the healthcare system alone as much as $194 billion over 10 years. 

“A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” declared FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya. 

Hospitals protested the move. In a statement, the general counsel for the American Hospital Association called it “bad law, bad policy, and a clear sign of an agency run amok” and said the FTC ignored “mountains of contrary legal precedent and evidence about its adverse impacts on the health care markets.”

Although the American Medical Association does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies in 2023 to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit and nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies. 

 

Texas Federal Judge Intervenes to Halt Ban

The ban was supposed to take effect on Sept. 4, 2024. But Texas federal judge Ada E. Brown struck down the ban in an Aug. 20 decision. She ruled that the FTC went beyond its authority.

“The district court based its ruling on a very dubious distinction between ‘unfair practices,’ which the FTC may prohibit, and ‘unfair competition,’ which, according to the court, it may not,” said Lubet. 

In fact, the ban should stand, he said. “This is a classic case of the government intervening on behalf of consumers/patients by prohibiting an unfair and harmful employment practice,” Lubet said. 

Amanda Hill, an attorney in Austin, Texas, who trains physicians about how to negotiate contracts, has a different take. “The Federal Trade Commission came down hard, and honestly, it really overstepped,” she said in an interview. “Congress needs to write laws, not regulatory bodies. I think all the lawyers went: ‘Good try, but you’re not going to get anywhere with that.’ ”

She noted that physicians themselves are divided over the value of noncompete clauses. “I would say 80% of my clients can’t stand noncompetes.” But another 20% own their own practices and hate the idea of losing their physicians to competitors, she said. 

 

Trump Isn’t Seen as Likely to Support Ban

While the Biden administration firmly supported a ban on noncompete clauses, there isn’t a strict Democratic-Republican divide over whether the agreements are a good idea. Some red states have embraced bans, and Hill said this can make sense from a Republican point of view: “We don’t want to run doctors out of town and out of the state because they think they’re going to be bound by big hospitals and corporate interests.”

In fact, former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, a Republican briefly tapped as President-elect Trump’s nominee for attorney general, supports noncompete clauses. He filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Texas judge that supported the FTC’s ruling, saying it is a “vindication of economic freedom and free enterprise.” 

But Republicans generally “believe that federal agencies are going too far and beyond the power granted to them by Congress,” Atlanta, Georgia, attorney Benjamin Fink, Esq., said in an interview.

And Trump is no fan of the FTC and its chair, Lina Khan, who may step down. Observers don’t expect that the Trump administration or a newly constituted FTC board will support an appeal of the Texas judge’s ruling.

“I don’t think anybody else — another agency or a private party — could step in place of the FTC if the FTC declines to defend the ban,” Atlanta attorney Neal F. Weinrich, Esq., said in an interview. In that case, “I think it ends.”

Attorneys Weinrich and Fink work at the same firm, which handles noncompete agreements for physicians. 

 

Noncompete Ban Advocates Turn to States 

Even if Kamala Harris had won the presidency, a national ban on noncompete clauses would have faced an uphill battle at the Supreme Court. 

“The Supreme Court majority has been unsympathetic to administrative agencies, interpreting their authority very narrowly,” said Lubet.

So what happens to noncompete clauses now? While bipartisan bills in Congress have tried to ban them, legislation is unlikely to pass now that Republicans will control both the House and Senate, Fink said. 

According to a recent article, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. 

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually. 

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause. 

“I definitely think states are going to continue to restrict the use of noncompetes,” Fink said. 

Lubet has no disclosures. Hill, Fink, and Weinrich represent physicians in contract negotiations.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People are living longer in Europe. Life expectancy increased on the continent by around 12 years between 1960 and 2022. And despite slower progress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend appears to be continuing.

Not only are Europeans living longer, their fertility rates are declining. This means that the number of people aged 75-84 years is projected to grow in Europe a full 56.1% by 2050, while the population younger than 55 years is expected to fall by 13.5%.

This means that attitudes toward age need to change, and fast — even among healthcare professionals.

 

Healthcare Is Not Exempt From Ageist Attitudes

A systematic review published in the journal PLOS ONE in 2020 found that age was a determinant factor in dictating who received certain medical procedures or treatments. For example, a study of 9105 hospitalized patients found that healthcare providers were significantly more likely to withhold life-sustaining treatments from older patients. Another study found evidence that older people are excluded from clinical trials, even when the trials are for diseases that appear later in life, like Parkinson’s.

“In healthcare, there are different levels of ageism,” explained Hannah Swift, PhD, reader in social and organizational psychology at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom. 

Ageism is embedded in the laws, rules, and practices of institutions, she explained. This became especially obvious during the pandemic, when health professionals had to decide who to treat, possibly using age as a proxy for making some of these decisions, she said. 

“When you categorize people, you might be using stereotypes, assumptions, and expectations about age and that age group to make those decisions, and that’s where errors can occur.”

She added that ageist attitudes also become apparent at the interpersonal level by using patronizing language or offering unnecessary help to older people based on assumptions about their cognitive and physical abilities.

“Older age is often wrongly associated with declining levels of health and activity,” said Ittay Mannheim, PhD, guest postdoctoral researcher on aging and ageism at the Open University of the Netherlands. “However, older adults are a very diverse group, varying widely in many aspects, including health conditions. This stereotype can influence how healthcare professionals interact with them, assuming frailty or memory issues simply based on age. It’s important to recognize that being older doesn’t necessarily mean being ill.” 

Mannheim’s research found that healthcare professionals often stand in the way of older people using technology-based treatments due to negative attitudes towards age. “So, actually, a barrier to using these technologies could be that healthcare professionals don’t think that someone can use it or won’t even offer it because someone looks old or is old,” he said.

 

The Impacts

Discrimination impacts the physical, mental, and social well-being of its victims. This includes attitudes towards age.

The PLOS ONE review of research on the global reach of ageism found that experienced or self-determined ageism was associated with significantly worse health outcomes across all countries examined. The same research team calculated that an estimated 6.3 million cases of depression worldwide are linked to ageism.

Other research has found that exposure to negative age stereotyping impacts willingness to adopt a healthy lifestyle in addition to increasing the risk for cardiovascular events.

 

What Can Be Done?

“Healthcare professionals frequently interact with older adults at their most vulnerable, which can reinforce negative stereotypes of older people being vulnerable or ill,” said Swift. “However, not all older adults fit these stereotypes. Many can live well and independently. Perhaps healthcare education should include reminders of the diverse experiences of older individuals rather than solely focusing on the moments when they require help.”

Research indicates that although progress has been made in geriatric training and the care of older individuals by healthcare education institutions, improved education and training are still needed at all levels of geriatric healthcare, including hospital administrators, physicians, nurses, personal caregivers, and associated health professions.

“Generally speaking, what healthcare professionals learn about aging tends to focus more on the biological aspects,” said Mannheim. “However, they may not fully understand what it means to be old or how to interact with older individuals, especially regarding technology. It is important to raise awareness about ageism because, in my experience working with healthcare professionals, even a single workshop on ageism can have a profound impact. Participants often respond with surprise, saying something like, ‘Wow, I never thought about this before.’”

Mannheim said that training healthcare providers to understand the aging process better could help to reduce any biases they might have and better prepare them to respond more adequately to the needs of older patients.

“We cannot devalue the lives of older people simply because they are older. It is crucial for all of us, especially governments, to acknowledge our responsibility to protect and promote human rights for individuals of all ages. If we fail to do this, the strategies we’ve witnessed during this pandemic will be repeated in the future,” said Nena Georgantzi, PhD, Barcelona-based human rights manager at AGE Platform Europe, an EU network of organizations of and for older people.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People are living longer in Europe. Life expectancy increased on the continent by around 12 years between 1960 and 2022. And despite slower progress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend appears to be continuing.

Not only are Europeans living longer, their fertility rates are declining. This means that the number of people aged 75-84 years is projected to grow in Europe a full 56.1% by 2050, while the population younger than 55 years is expected to fall by 13.5%.

This means that attitudes toward age need to change, and fast — even among healthcare professionals.

 

Healthcare Is Not Exempt From Ageist Attitudes

A systematic review published in the journal PLOS ONE in 2020 found that age was a determinant factor in dictating who received certain medical procedures or treatments. For example, a study of 9105 hospitalized patients found that healthcare providers were significantly more likely to withhold life-sustaining treatments from older patients. Another study found evidence that older people are excluded from clinical trials, even when the trials are for diseases that appear later in life, like Parkinson’s.

“In healthcare, there are different levels of ageism,” explained Hannah Swift, PhD, reader in social and organizational psychology at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom. 

Ageism is embedded in the laws, rules, and practices of institutions, she explained. This became especially obvious during the pandemic, when health professionals had to decide who to treat, possibly using age as a proxy for making some of these decisions, she said. 

“When you categorize people, you might be using stereotypes, assumptions, and expectations about age and that age group to make those decisions, and that’s where errors can occur.”

She added that ageist attitudes also become apparent at the interpersonal level by using patronizing language or offering unnecessary help to older people based on assumptions about their cognitive and physical abilities.

“Older age is often wrongly associated with declining levels of health and activity,” said Ittay Mannheim, PhD, guest postdoctoral researcher on aging and ageism at the Open University of the Netherlands. “However, older adults are a very diverse group, varying widely in many aspects, including health conditions. This stereotype can influence how healthcare professionals interact with them, assuming frailty or memory issues simply based on age. It’s important to recognize that being older doesn’t necessarily mean being ill.” 

Mannheim’s research found that healthcare professionals often stand in the way of older people using technology-based treatments due to negative attitudes towards age. “So, actually, a barrier to using these technologies could be that healthcare professionals don’t think that someone can use it or won’t even offer it because someone looks old or is old,” he said.

 

The Impacts

Discrimination impacts the physical, mental, and social well-being of its victims. This includes attitudes towards age.

The PLOS ONE review of research on the global reach of ageism found that experienced or self-determined ageism was associated with significantly worse health outcomes across all countries examined. The same research team calculated that an estimated 6.3 million cases of depression worldwide are linked to ageism.

Other research has found that exposure to negative age stereotyping impacts willingness to adopt a healthy lifestyle in addition to increasing the risk for cardiovascular events.

 

What Can Be Done?

“Healthcare professionals frequently interact with older adults at their most vulnerable, which can reinforce negative stereotypes of older people being vulnerable or ill,” said Swift. “However, not all older adults fit these stereotypes. Many can live well and independently. Perhaps healthcare education should include reminders of the diverse experiences of older individuals rather than solely focusing on the moments when they require help.”

Research indicates that although progress has been made in geriatric training and the care of older individuals by healthcare education institutions, improved education and training are still needed at all levels of geriatric healthcare, including hospital administrators, physicians, nurses, personal caregivers, and associated health professions.

“Generally speaking, what healthcare professionals learn about aging tends to focus more on the biological aspects,” said Mannheim. “However, they may not fully understand what it means to be old or how to interact with older individuals, especially regarding technology. It is important to raise awareness about ageism because, in my experience working with healthcare professionals, even a single workshop on ageism can have a profound impact. Participants often respond with surprise, saying something like, ‘Wow, I never thought about this before.’”

Mannheim said that training healthcare providers to understand the aging process better could help to reduce any biases they might have and better prepare them to respond more adequately to the needs of older patients.

“We cannot devalue the lives of older people simply because they are older. It is crucial for all of us, especially governments, to acknowledge our responsibility to protect and promote human rights for individuals of all ages. If we fail to do this, the strategies we’ve witnessed during this pandemic will be repeated in the future,” said Nena Georgantzi, PhD, Barcelona-based human rights manager at AGE Platform Europe, an EU network of organizations of and for older people.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People are living longer in Europe. Life expectancy increased on the continent by around 12 years between 1960 and 2022. And despite slower progress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend appears to be continuing.

Not only are Europeans living longer, their fertility rates are declining. This means that the number of people aged 75-84 years is projected to grow in Europe a full 56.1% by 2050, while the population younger than 55 years is expected to fall by 13.5%.

This means that attitudes toward age need to change, and fast — even among healthcare professionals.

 

Healthcare Is Not Exempt From Ageist Attitudes

A systematic review published in the journal PLOS ONE in 2020 found that age was a determinant factor in dictating who received certain medical procedures or treatments. For example, a study of 9105 hospitalized patients found that healthcare providers were significantly more likely to withhold life-sustaining treatments from older patients. Another study found evidence that older people are excluded from clinical trials, even when the trials are for diseases that appear later in life, like Parkinson’s.

“In healthcare, there are different levels of ageism,” explained Hannah Swift, PhD, reader in social and organizational psychology at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom. 

Ageism is embedded in the laws, rules, and practices of institutions, she explained. This became especially obvious during the pandemic, when health professionals had to decide who to treat, possibly using age as a proxy for making some of these decisions, she said. 

“When you categorize people, you might be using stereotypes, assumptions, and expectations about age and that age group to make those decisions, and that’s where errors can occur.”

She added that ageist attitudes also become apparent at the interpersonal level by using patronizing language or offering unnecessary help to older people based on assumptions about their cognitive and physical abilities.

“Older age is often wrongly associated with declining levels of health and activity,” said Ittay Mannheim, PhD, guest postdoctoral researcher on aging and ageism at the Open University of the Netherlands. “However, older adults are a very diverse group, varying widely in many aspects, including health conditions. This stereotype can influence how healthcare professionals interact with them, assuming frailty or memory issues simply based on age. It’s important to recognize that being older doesn’t necessarily mean being ill.” 

Mannheim’s research found that healthcare professionals often stand in the way of older people using technology-based treatments due to negative attitudes towards age. “So, actually, a barrier to using these technologies could be that healthcare professionals don’t think that someone can use it or won’t even offer it because someone looks old or is old,” he said.

 

The Impacts

Discrimination impacts the physical, mental, and social well-being of its victims. This includes attitudes towards age.

The PLOS ONE review of research on the global reach of ageism found that experienced or self-determined ageism was associated with significantly worse health outcomes across all countries examined. The same research team calculated that an estimated 6.3 million cases of depression worldwide are linked to ageism.

Other research has found that exposure to negative age stereotyping impacts willingness to adopt a healthy lifestyle in addition to increasing the risk for cardiovascular events.

 

What Can Be Done?

“Healthcare professionals frequently interact with older adults at their most vulnerable, which can reinforce negative stereotypes of older people being vulnerable or ill,” said Swift. “However, not all older adults fit these stereotypes. Many can live well and independently. Perhaps healthcare education should include reminders of the diverse experiences of older individuals rather than solely focusing on the moments when they require help.”

Research indicates that although progress has been made in geriatric training and the care of older individuals by healthcare education institutions, improved education and training are still needed at all levels of geriatric healthcare, including hospital administrators, physicians, nurses, personal caregivers, and associated health professions.

“Generally speaking, what healthcare professionals learn about aging tends to focus more on the biological aspects,” said Mannheim. “However, they may not fully understand what it means to be old or how to interact with older individuals, especially regarding technology. It is important to raise awareness about ageism because, in my experience working with healthcare professionals, even a single workshop on ageism can have a profound impact. Participants often respond with surprise, saying something like, ‘Wow, I never thought about this before.’”

Mannheim said that training healthcare providers to understand the aging process better could help to reduce any biases they might have and better prepare them to respond more adequately to the needs of older patients.

“We cannot devalue the lives of older people simply because they are older. It is crucial for all of us, especially governments, to acknowledge our responsibility to protect and promote human rights for individuals of all ages. If we fail to do this, the strategies we’ve witnessed during this pandemic will be repeated in the future,” said Nena Georgantzi, PhD, Barcelona-based human rights manager at AGE Platform Europe, an EU network of organizations of and for older people.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Canadian women aged 40-49 years at no or moderate risk for breast cancer who participated in organized mammography screening programs had a significantly greater breast cancer 10-year net survival than that of similar women who did not participate in such programs, according to data presented here at the Family Medicine Forum 2024. 

The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.

 

Overdiagnosis Challenged

Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.

“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization. 

To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them. 

“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.

Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths). 

Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%). 

The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).

Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.

Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”

 

Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit

The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.

Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.

The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.

Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.

It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.

Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years. 

The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine. 

Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Canadian women aged 40-49 years at no or moderate risk for breast cancer who participated in organized mammography screening programs had a significantly greater breast cancer 10-year net survival than that of similar women who did not participate in such programs, according to data presented here at the Family Medicine Forum 2024. 

The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.

 

Overdiagnosis Challenged

Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.

“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization. 

To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them. 

“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.

Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths). 

Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%). 

The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).

Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.

Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”

 

Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit

The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.

Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.

The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.

Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.

It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.

Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years. 

The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine. 

Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Canadian women aged 40-49 years at no or moderate risk for breast cancer who participated in organized mammography screening programs had a significantly greater breast cancer 10-year net survival than that of similar women who did not participate in such programs, according to data presented here at the Family Medicine Forum 2024. 

The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.

 

Overdiagnosis Challenged

Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.

“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization. 

To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them. 

“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.

Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths). 

Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%). 

The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).

Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.

Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”

 

Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit

The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.

Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.

The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.

Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.

It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.

Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years. 

The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine. 

Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Heather K. Schopper, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Penn State Health, Hershey, Pennsylvania, wasn’t long into her career when she began feeling its physical demands. Standing for 12 hours at a time, holding awkward positions for long periods, and working with surgical tables and instruments made for doctors much taller and larger meant severe back, shoulder, and neck pain at the end of every shift.

“You just want to lie down on the floor at the end of the day,” Schopper explained. “The wear and tear of our profession is really challenging.”

Here’s the thing: At the time Schopper wasn’t particularly out of shape. She only knew she needed to build up her body for long days and a long career. What, physically, would that look like?

This was the catalyst for what she calls a “health and fitness journey” that transformed the way she practices.

“Medicine is unique in its physical demands,” said Meghan Wieser, PT, DPT, a doctor of physical therapy at Recharge Health and Fitness in Ellicott City, Maryland. Wieser frequently works with physicians and others in high-stress career environments, and she’s observed the serious toll that physically demanding medical practice can take on the body.

It’s not just about preventing acute or chronic injury, she said. It’s about performing better for longer periods. And every doctor knows the only way to build a more functional body is training.

 

The Fantasy of Physical Perfection vs the Reality of, Well, Reality

Jordan D. Metzl, MD, is a sports medicine physician at Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) in New York City. He’s also a lifelong triathlete and marathon runner and has parlayed that passion into an online fitness community of more than 10,000 people called Ironstrength. Through that, Metzl has led free exercise classes in Central Park for years. He doesn’t dabble. Three times a year he leads a boot camp class of more than 1000 people on the flight deck of the USS Intrepid on the Hudson River.

“I get it, being a doctor is all about the hours,” he said. “The time sacrifices get brutal and you have to cut something out, sometimes every day. For a lot of us, that’s exercise.”

Metzl understands it so well that he recently began leading twice-monthly boot camp classes just for his HSS physician colleagues on Wednesday mornings. He says those doctors both want and need that extra boost and will be aggressive about making time for it.

“The better shape you’re in, the better job you’ll do as a physician,” he said. “You’ll feel better when the hours get long. In my own career, I have always been a better doctor when I’m active and in shape.”

Knowledge isn’t really the issue for physicians. Reality is. And reality dictates that doctors have just as much issue with achieving consistency as any patient they prescribe exercise to.

Metzl suggests total body functional training to mimic real-world movement, particularly core and lower body to keep you upright for hours at a time. How do you schedule that? He uses early mornings and weekends to train for his races and run his fitness classes, which is why his primary advice is to focus not on the activity, but on time.

“Schedule full workouts when you can and steal the rest,” he said.

Schopper agrees. “You may not be able to fit in 60 minutes of exercise every day, but 20-30 minutes of intentional movement is key,” she explained. “When you have a day off, prioritize a longer session of something you can’t fit in on workdays.”

Those shorter bouts of exercise might include “bookending” the day with 10 minutes of burpees in the morning and then 10 minutes of bodyweight strength moves like planks, push-ups, and air squats in the evening.

“Bodyweight exercises are low-hanging fruit,” said Wieser. “If you’ve got a short window, aim for something that can shoot your heart rate up quickly.”

You can also throw in “movement snacks” throughout the day — skip the elevator and run up a flight of stairs, walk around during a quick lunch break, or throw in a set of jumping jacks between patients. (Don’t worry — you won’t be dripping sweat when they walk in.)

Remember, the rehab room in the orthopedic wing may have a few dumbbells and exercise bands you can utilize when you have 5 extra minutes in your day. “Any way you can squeeze in extra movement counts,” said Wieser.

 

Feats of Strength? Neighborhood Sprints? It All Matters

Kissinger Goldman, DO, a Florida-based ER physician, began his dedication to exercise 17 years ago, after a high-cholesterol diagnosis. “Did I have time to exercise in medical school and residency? Yes,” Goldman admitted. “But I didn’t have the same commitment to my health until I received that number. I set about to change everything.”

Goldman follows the approach of dividing up his exercise routine into short or long sessions, depending on his schedule. “If I’m off, I’ll aim for 30 minutes of cardio and 30 minutes of strength and core work,” he explained. “When I have to work, I’ll do a compressed version of that routine as soon as I wake up, and make sure the cardio is very intense — I’ll sprint in my neighborhood, for instance.”

Matt Klein, a doctor of physical therapy and professor at George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon, who has treated many doctors, says that, when pushed for time, just 20 minutes of “heavy” strength training can deliver good results. “The definition of heavy will vary, but aim for a weight that is challenging, whether a beginner or a more experienced exerciser,” he said. “Most doctors won’t have time to go to the gym, so a simple set of dumbbells or kettlebells will work just fine. The easier it is to access, the more likely you are to do it consistently.”

Klein is a fan of strength training with good reason: “Strength is a predictor of chronic disease, so doing some high-level strength training or power training can go a long way,” he said.

The endorphin high and overall sense of improved well-being are an extra bonus. Goldman credits it with ensuring he rarely misses a workout.

 

Get Hardcore About Sleep

Consider the following passage: “There are clear negative effects of sleep deprivation on performance, including reaction time, accuracy, vigor, submaximal strength, and endurance. Cognitive functions such as judgment and decision-making also suffer.”

Does that sound like how you feel on suboptimal sleep? That’s from an International Journal of Sports Medicine study on the effects of sleep deprivation on athletes.

Athletes aren’t doctors — but when you consider “reaction time, accuracy, endurance, judgment, and decision-making” — doctors could certainly benefit by thinking like athletes.

Schopper is serious about sleep and sets firm boundaries.

“It’s hard,” she admitted. “We want to work, see our families, have fun. But I work hard to say, ‘I’m done,’ and go to bed.”

“Rest is crucial for this job,” agreed Goldman. “If you don’t have adequate sleep, your cortisone levels are going to go up. When you’re exhausted and you’re working, you’re likely to miss something.” Goldman is consistent with early bedtimes around 9:00 or 9:30 PM, and he allows for a bit of “wind-down” time by reading for about 20 minutes before nodding off.

Goldman also sees a link between rest and improved interactions with patients. “There’s a direct correlation between number of hours worked in a row with respect to ‘customer service’ with patients,” he said.

But don’t aim for perfection. Allow some wiggle room for the time you spend asleep, Klein recommends. “We’ve always aimed for 8 hours, but there’s evidence that even 6 or 7 hours can be enough to allow you to recover as needed,” he said. “Optimally, you want that to be uninterrupted, but if not, a 10-minute power nap can help with mental clarity.”

 

Keep Searching, Keep Trying, Keep Training

Schopper was never, nor has she become, a gym rat. Still, “I knew I needed to build upper body strength,” she said. That meant expanding her fitness possibilities beyond the obvious. She discovered aerial arts — intense workouts using straps and other suspension tools to work every muscle in her body while hanging from the ceiling. Increased strength was a given, but she also seriously increased her range of motion.

For Schopper, the improvements to her lifestyle have been game changers. “I still have long days, but I’m no longer sore and tired after them,” she said. “I sleep better and have more energy. I’m proud of myself for putting the effort into this.”

A journey toward health and fitness may look different for everyone, but (as doctors frequently tell their patients) it’s a path anyone can follow.

“Being a doctor is not necessarily good for your health,” said Klein. “The body can handle the job, however, if you train for it.”

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

Heather K. Schopper, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Penn State Health, Hershey, Pennsylvania, wasn’t long into her career when she began feeling its physical demands. Standing for 12 hours at a time, holding awkward positions for long periods, and working with surgical tables and instruments made for doctors much taller and larger meant severe back, shoulder, and neck pain at the end of every shift.

“You just want to lie down on the floor at the end of the day,” Schopper explained. “The wear and tear of our profession is really challenging.”

Here’s the thing: At the time Schopper wasn’t particularly out of shape. She only knew she needed to build up her body for long days and a long career. What, physically, would that look like?

This was the catalyst for what she calls a “health and fitness journey” that transformed the way she practices.

“Medicine is unique in its physical demands,” said Meghan Wieser, PT, DPT, a doctor of physical therapy at Recharge Health and Fitness in Ellicott City, Maryland. Wieser frequently works with physicians and others in high-stress career environments, and she’s observed the serious toll that physically demanding medical practice can take on the body.

It’s not just about preventing acute or chronic injury, she said. It’s about performing better for longer periods. And every doctor knows the only way to build a more functional body is training.

 

The Fantasy of Physical Perfection vs the Reality of, Well, Reality

Jordan D. Metzl, MD, is a sports medicine physician at Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) in New York City. He’s also a lifelong triathlete and marathon runner and has parlayed that passion into an online fitness community of more than 10,000 people called Ironstrength. Through that, Metzl has led free exercise classes in Central Park for years. He doesn’t dabble. Three times a year he leads a boot camp class of more than 1000 people on the flight deck of the USS Intrepid on the Hudson River.

“I get it, being a doctor is all about the hours,” he said. “The time sacrifices get brutal and you have to cut something out, sometimes every day. For a lot of us, that’s exercise.”

Metzl understands it so well that he recently began leading twice-monthly boot camp classes just for his HSS physician colleagues on Wednesday mornings. He says those doctors both want and need that extra boost and will be aggressive about making time for it.

“The better shape you’re in, the better job you’ll do as a physician,” he said. “You’ll feel better when the hours get long. In my own career, I have always been a better doctor when I’m active and in shape.”

Knowledge isn’t really the issue for physicians. Reality is. And reality dictates that doctors have just as much issue with achieving consistency as any patient they prescribe exercise to.

Metzl suggests total body functional training to mimic real-world movement, particularly core and lower body to keep you upright for hours at a time. How do you schedule that? He uses early mornings and weekends to train for his races and run his fitness classes, which is why his primary advice is to focus not on the activity, but on time.

“Schedule full workouts when you can and steal the rest,” he said.

Schopper agrees. “You may not be able to fit in 60 minutes of exercise every day, but 20-30 minutes of intentional movement is key,” she explained. “When you have a day off, prioritize a longer session of something you can’t fit in on workdays.”

Those shorter bouts of exercise might include “bookending” the day with 10 minutes of burpees in the morning and then 10 minutes of bodyweight strength moves like planks, push-ups, and air squats in the evening.

“Bodyweight exercises are low-hanging fruit,” said Wieser. “If you’ve got a short window, aim for something that can shoot your heart rate up quickly.”

You can also throw in “movement snacks” throughout the day — skip the elevator and run up a flight of stairs, walk around during a quick lunch break, or throw in a set of jumping jacks between patients. (Don’t worry — you won’t be dripping sweat when they walk in.)

Remember, the rehab room in the orthopedic wing may have a few dumbbells and exercise bands you can utilize when you have 5 extra minutes in your day. “Any way you can squeeze in extra movement counts,” said Wieser.

 

Feats of Strength? Neighborhood Sprints? It All Matters

Kissinger Goldman, DO, a Florida-based ER physician, began his dedication to exercise 17 years ago, after a high-cholesterol diagnosis. “Did I have time to exercise in medical school and residency? Yes,” Goldman admitted. “But I didn’t have the same commitment to my health until I received that number. I set about to change everything.”

Goldman follows the approach of dividing up his exercise routine into short or long sessions, depending on his schedule. “If I’m off, I’ll aim for 30 minutes of cardio and 30 minutes of strength and core work,” he explained. “When I have to work, I’ll do a compressed version of that routine as soon as I wake up, and make sure the cardio is very intense — I’ll sprint in my neighborhood, for instance.”

Matt Klein, a doctor of physical therapy and professor at George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon, who has treated many doctors, says that, when pushed for time, just 20 minutes of “heavy” strength training can deliver good results. “The definition of heavy will vary, but aim for a weight that is challenging, whether a beginner or a more experienced exerciser,” he said. “Most doctors won’t have time to go to the gym, so a simple set of dumbbells or kettlebells will work just fine. The easier it is to access, the more likely you are to do it consistently.”

Klein is a fan of strength training with good reason: “Strength is a predictor of chronic disease, so doing some high-level strength training or power training can go a long way,” he said.

The endorphin high and overall sense of improved well-being are an extra bonus. Goldman credits it with ensuring he rarely misses a workout.

 

Get Hardcore About Sleep

Consider the following passage: “There are clear negative effects of sleep deprivation on performance, including reaction time, accuracy, vigor, submaximal strength, and endurance. Cognitive functions such as judgment and decision-making also suffer.”

Does that sound like how you feel on suboptimal sleep? That’s from an International Journal of Sports Medicine study on the effects of sleep deprivation on athletes.

Athletes aren’t doctors — but when you consider “reaction time, accuracy, endurance, judgment, and decision-making” — doctors could certainly benefit by thinking like athletes.

Schopper is serious about sleep and sets firm boundaries.

“It’s hard,” she admitted. “We want to work, see our families, have fun. But I work hard to say, ‘I’m done,’ and go to bed.”

“Rest is crucial for this job,” agreed Goldman. “If you don’t have adequate sleep, your cortisone levels are going to go up. When you’re exhausted and you’re working, you’re likely to miss something.” Goldman is consistent with early bedtimes around 9:00 or 9:30 PM, and he allows for a bit of “wind-down” time by reading for about 20 minutes before nodding off.

Goldman also sees a link between rest and improved interactions with patients. “There’s a direct correlation between number of hours worked in a row with respect to ‘customer service’ with patients,” he said.

But don’t aim for perfection. Allow some wiggle room for the time you spend asleep, Klein recommends. “We’ve always aimed for 8 hours, but there’s evidence that even 6 or 7 hours can be enough to allow you to recover as needed,” he said. “Optimally, you want that to be uninterrupted, but if not, a 10-minute power nap can help with mental clarity.”

 

Keep Searching, Keep Trying, Keep Training

Schopper was never, nor has she become, a gym rat. Still, “I knew I needed to build upper body strength,” she said. That meant expanding her fitness possibilities beyond the obvious. She discovered aerial arts — intense workouts using straps and other suspension tools to work every muscle in her body while hanging from the ceiling. Increased strength was a given, but she also seriously increased her range of motion.

For Schopper, the improvements to her lifestyle have been game changers. “I still have long days, but I’m no longer sore and tired after them,” she said. “I sleep better and have more energy. I’m proud of myself for putting the effort into this.”

A journey toward health and fitness may look different for everyone, but (as doctors frequently tell their patients) it’s a path anyone can follow.

“Being a doctor is not necessarily good for your health,” said Klein. “The body can handle the job, however, if you train for it.”

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

Heather K. Schopper, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Penn State Health, Hershey, Pennsylvania, wasn’t long into her career when she began feeling its physical demands. Standing for 12 hours at a time, holding awkward positions for long periods, and working with surgical tables and instruments made for doctors much taller and larger meant severe back, shoulder, and neck pain at the end of every shift.

“You just want to lie down on the floor at the end of the day,” Schopper explained. “The wear and tear of our profession is really challenging.”

Here’s the thing: At the time Schopper wasn’t particularly out of shape. She only knew she needed to build up her body for long days and a long career. What, physically, would that look like?

This was the catalyst for what she calls a “health and fitness journey” that transformed the way she practices.

“Medicine is unique in its physical demands,” said Meghan Wieser, PT, DPT, a doctor of physical therapy at Recharge Health and Fitness in Ellicott City, Maryland. Wieser frequently works with physicians and others in high-stress career environments, and she’s observed the serious toll that physically demanding medical practice can take on the body.

It’s not just about preventing acute or chronic injury, she said. It’s about performing better for longer periods. And every doctor knows the only way to build a more functional body is training.

 

The Fantasy of Physical Perfection vs the Reality of, Well, Reality

Jordan D. Metzl, MD, is a sports medicine physician at Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) in New York City. He’s also a lifelong triathlete and marathon runner and has parlayed that passion into an online fitness community of more than 10,000 people called Ironstrength. Through that, Metzl has led free exercise classes in Central Park for years. He doesn’t dabble. Three times a year he leads a boot camp class of more than 1000 people on the flight deck of the USS Intrepid on the Hudson River.

“I get it, being a doctor is all about the hours,” he said. “The time sacrifices get brutal and you have to cut something out, sometimes every day. For a lot of us, that’s exercise.”

Metzl understands it so well that he recently began leading twice-monthly boot camp classes just for his HSS physician colleagues on Wednesday mornings. He says those doctors both want and need that extra boost and will be aggressive about making time for it.

“The better shape you’re in, the better job you’ll do as a physician,” he said. “You’ll feel better when the hours get long. In my own career, I have always been a better doctor when I’m active and in shape.”

Knowledge isn’t really the issue for physicians. Reality is. And reality dictates that doctors have just as much issue with achieving consistency as any patient they prescribe exercise to.

Metzl suggests total body functional training to mimic real-world movement, particularly core and lower body to keep you upright for hours at a time. How do you schedule that? He uses early mornings and weekends to train for his races and run his fitness classes, which is why his primary advice is to focus not on the activity, but on time.

“Schedule full workouts when you can and steal the rest,” he said.

Schopper agrees. “You may not be able to fit in 60 minutes of exercise every day, but 20-30 minutes of intentional movement is key,” she explained. “When you have a day off, prioritize a longer session of something you can’t fit in on workdays.”

Those shorter bouts of exercise might include “bookending” the day with 10 minutes of burpees in the morning and then 10 minutes of bodyweight strength moves like planks, push-ups, and air squats in the evening.

“Bodyweight exercises are low-hanging fruit,” said Wieser. “If you’ve got a short window, aim for something that can shoot your heart rate up quickly.”

You can also throw in “movement snacks” throughout the day — skip the elevator and run up a flight of stairs, walk around during a quick lunch break, or throw in a set of jumping jacks between patients. (Don’t worry — you won’t be dripping sweat when they walk in.)

Remember, the rehab room in the orthopedic wing may have a few dumbbells and exercise bands you can utilize when you have 5 extra minutes in your day. “Any way you can squeeze in extra movement counts,” said Wieser.

 

Feats of Strength? Neighborhood Sprints? It All Matters

Kissinger Goldman, DO, a Florida-based ER physician, began his dedication to exercise 17 years ago, after a high-cholesterol diagnosis. “Did I have time to exercise in medical school and residency? Yes,” Goldman admitted. “But I didn’t have the same commitment to my health until I received that number. I set about to change everything.”

Goldman follows the approach of dividing up his exercise routine into short or long sessions, depending on his schedule. “If I’m off, I’ll aim for 30 minutes of cardio and 30 minutes of strength and core work,” he explained. “When I have to work, I’ll do a compressed version of that routine as soon as I wake up, and make sure the cardio is very intense — I’ll sprint in my neighborhood, for instance.”

Matt Klein, a doctor of physical therapy and professor at George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon, who has treated many doctors, says that, when pushed for time, just 20 minutes of “heavy” strength training can deliver good results. “The definition of heavy will vary, but aim for a weight that is challenging, whether a beginner or a more experienced exerciser,” he said. “Most doctors won’t have time to go to the gym, so a simple set of dumbbells or kettlebells will work just fine. The easier it is to access, the more likely you are to do it consistently.”

Klein is a fan of strength training with good reason: “Strength is a predictor of chronic disease, so doing some high-level strength training or power training can go a long way,” he said.

The endorphin high and overall sense of improved well-being are an extra bonus. Goldman credits it with ensuring he rarely misses a workout.

 

Get Hardcore About Sleep

Consider the following passage: “There are clear negative effects of sleep deprivation on performance, including reaction time, accuracy, vigor, submaximal strength, and endurance. Cognitive functions such as judgment and decision-making also suffer.”

Does that sound like how you feel on suboptimal sleep? That’s from an International Journal of Sports Medicine study on the effects of sleep deprivation on athletes.

Athletes aren’t doctors — but when you consider “reaction time, accuracy, endurance, judgment, and decision-making” — doctors could certainly benefit by thinking like athletes.

Schopper is serious about sleep and sets firm boundaries.

“It’s hard,” she admitted. “We want to work, see our families, have fun. But I work hard to say, ‘I’m done,’ and go to bed.”

“Rest is crucial for this job,” agreed Goldman. “If you don’t have adequate sleep, your cortisone levels are going to go up. When you’re exhausted and you’re working, you’re likely to miss something.” Goldman is consistent with early bedtimes around 9:00 or 9:30 PM, and he allows for a bit of “wind-down” time by reading for about 20 minutes before nodding off.

Goldman also sees a link between rest and improved interactions with patients. “There’s a direct correlation between number of hours worked in a row with respect to ‘customer service’ with patients,” he said.

But don’t aim for perfection. Allow some wiggle room for the time you spend asleep, Klein recommends. “We’ve always aimed for 8 hours, but there’s evidence that even 6 or 7 hours can be enough to allow you to recover as needed,” he said. “Optimally, you want that to be uninterrupted, but if not, a 10-minute power nap can help with mental clarity.”

 

Keep Searching, Keep Trying, Keep Training

Schopper was never, nor has she become, a gym rat. Still, “I knew I needed to build upper body strength,” she said. That meant expanding her fitness possibilities beyond the obvious. She discovered aerial arts — intense workouts using straps and other suspension tools to work every muscle in her body while hanging from the ceiling. Increased strength was a given, but she also seriously increased her range of motion.

For Schopper, the improvements to her lifestyle have been game changers. “I still have long days, but I’m no longer sore and tired after them,” she said. “I sleep better and have more energy. I’m proud of myself for putting the effort into this.”

A journey toward health and fitness may look different for everyone, but (as doctors frequently tell their patients) it’s a path anyone can follow.

“Being a doctor is not necessarily good for your health,” said Klein. “The body can handle the job, however, if you train for it.”

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

For some medical students and trainees who go on to become hematologists, attraction to the field happens the first time they’re engrossed in figuring out what a blood smear is telling them. Others get drawn to hematology during a rotation in residency, when they encounter patients with hemophilia or sickle cell disease.

But when it comes to turning people on to the idea of a career in classical hematology (CH), there may be no more powerful influence than a mentor who loves their job. That’s why the field is focusing so much on supporting mentors and mentees amid a stark shortage of classical hematologists.

“Mentorship is key for maintaining trainee interest in the field and for providing role models for career growth,” said Rakhi P. Naik, MD, MHS, associate professor of medicine and director of the Hematology Fellowship Track at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, in an interview. “This collaboration is especially critical because there are so few trainees and so few mentors currently in the field.”

Now there’s new research backing up the power of mentorship, even when it’s only provided virtually, and a brand-new program aims to unite more mentors and mentees.

Here’s a closer look at mentor-focused efforts to attract medical students to CH.

 

How Severe Is the Shortage in CH?

Patients with conditions treated by classical hematologists are waiting months for appointments at many outpatient centers, with some being forced to wait 6 months or more, said Srikanth Nagalla, MD, chief of benign hematology at Miami Cancer Institute, Florida, in an interview.

The shortage is creating dire problems in the inpatient setting too, Nagalla said. “Serious blood disorders like heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, acute chest syndrome [a complication of sickle cell disease], and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura have to be diagnosed and treated in a timely manner. If not, the morbidity and mortality are really high.”

If classical hematologists aren’t available, he said, oncologists and others not trained in hematology will need to cover these patients. 

Hematologist Ariela Marshall, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted in an interview that the CH shortage comes at a time when medical advances and an aging population are boosting the number of patients with noncancerous blood disorders. Older people are at greater risk for blood clots, she said. And lifespans for patients with bleeding and clotting disorders are rising thanks to effective new treatments.

“Because of our larger patient population in CH, we are going to need more classical hematologists to follow them for longer and longer periods of time,” she said. 

There’s no sign yet that newly minted physicians will take up the slack in CH. A 2019 study found that just 4.6% of 626 of hematology/oncology fellows said they planned to go into CH, also known as benign hematology, vs 67.1% who expected to treat patients with solid tumors, blood cancer, or both. The rest, 24.6%, planned to work in CH plus the two oncology fields.

 

Why Does a Shortage Exist?

“The reasons are complex, but one of the most important factors was the combining of the adult hematology and medical oncology training programs by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 1995,” Naik said. “After that time, the majority of fellowship training programs went from having separate programs for hematology and medical oncology to combining the training for the two specialties into one. Because most of these combined training programs resided within Cancer Centers, classical hematology training slowly became de-emphasized.”

As a result, fewer fellows ended up specializing in CH, she said. 

The field of CH also appears to suffer from a less than enticing reputation. According to a 2019 study coauthored by Marshall, surveys of thousands of hematology/oncology fellows found that “hematology, particularly benign hematology, was viewed as having poorer income potential, research funding, job availability, and job security than oncology.”

Regarding pay, Marshall said the good news is that many classical hematologists work in academia, where it’s common for pay to be “equitable across hematology/oncology divisions and based more on academic rank and other factors rather than subspecialty within hematology oncology.”

However, she noted, “this may differ at institutions where hematology and oncology are different departments. For example, centers where oncology is its own department, and hematology is part of the department of medicine.” 

As for job availability, Naik said that there’s plenty of demand. “In academics, it is clear that there are jobs available everywhere, but trainees are often worried about job prospects in private practice. While classical hematology jobs in private practice are not widely advertised, I can attest that there is no shortage of need,” she said. “Many private practices do not specifically advertise for classical hematologists because they assume that classical hematology experts are not available. But I assure you that every private practice my trainees have ever approached is always ecstatic to hire a classical hematologist.”

 

Why Are Mentors Important?

Mentorship is crucial to promoting the value of CH as a great career choice in a competitive environment, classical hematologists say. “We can motivate trainees by showing how the disease states themselves are so fascinating and how the treatments are showing great outcomes,” Nagalla said. “We can show positive results, how patient lives can be changed, and how well-respected across the system [we] are.”

As a selling point, classical hematologists like to emphasize that their field requires intensive detective work. “Let’s say a patient comes with anemia, which might have 15 different causes. You get some labs, and then you systemically rule in or rule out most of these on the differential diagnosis,” Nagalla said. “Then once you narrow it down, you get more labs. You keep going to the next step and next step, and so finally you come to a conclusion.”

As for therapy, Marshall said that “while for many cancers there are specific treatment recommendations for patients with a specific cancer type at a specific stage, there is not always a specific treatment recommendation (or a ‘right answer’) for our CH patients. Treatment planning depends strongly on a patient’s preferences, other medical conditions, and a discussion about risks [and] benefits of different treatment options such that two patients with the same condition may choose two different treatment options.”

Marshall also emphasizes to trainees that “CH is a broad field. Physicians and trainees are able to interact and collaborate with physicians in other specialties such as gastroenterology, cardiology, ob/gyn, and surgical specialties.” 

 

Does Research Support Mentorship in CH?

The 2019 study that revealed just 4.6% of fellows planned to go into CH found that “fellows who planned to enter hematology-only careers were significantly more likely to report having clinical training and mentorship experiences in hematology throughout their training relative to fellows with oncology-only or combined hematology/oncology career plans.”

Now there are more data to support mentorships. For a study published in Blood Advances in September 2024, Zoya Qureshy, MD, an internal medicine chief resident at the University of California at San Diego, and colleagues evaluated a year-long external membership program implemented by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Medical Educators Institute. 

The program linked 35 US hematology/oncology fellows (80% female, 46% White, 35% Asian) who were interested in CH to 34 North American faculty members. The pairs were told to meet virtually once a month. 

Of 30 mentees and 23 mentors surveyed, 94% and 85%, respectively, said their pairings were good matches. Two thirds of the mentees accepted faculty positions in CH after their mentorships.

“Our study showed that external mentorship in a virtual format is feasible,” Qureshy said in an interview. “Additionally, external mentorship provided benefits such as different perspectives and the opportunity for mentorship for those who may not have it in their field of interest at their home institution.”

Qureshy added that “one strength of our mentorship program was that mentoring pairs were meticulously assigned based on shared interests and background. Many participants cited this common ground as a reason why they thought their mentoring pair was a good match.” 

There’s an important caveat: Most of the mentees weren’t new to CH. About 70% had previously worked with a mentor in the CH field, and 86% had previously conducted research in the field. 

 

What’s Next for Mentorship in CH?

The ASH Hematology-Focused Fellowship Training Program Consortium aims to mint 50 new academic hematologists by 2030 through programs at 12 institutions. “Mentorship is an exciting aspect of the program since it allows classical hematology trainees to form a network of peers nationally and also provides access to mentors across institutions,” Naik said. “And as the workforce grows, there will be more and more role models for future trainees to look up to.”

Moving forward, she said, “we hope to inspire even more institutions to adopt hematology training tracks throughout the country.”

Meanwhile, ASH’s new Classical Hematology Advancement Mentorship is taking applications for its debut 2025 program through January 9, 2025. Trainees will meet monthly with mentors both virtually and in person. Applicants must have been in their first or second year of hematology/oncology fellowship training at accredited programs in the United States as of July 15, 2024.

Naik, Marshall, Nagalla, and Qureshy have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For some medical students and trainees who go on to become hematologists, attraction to the field happens the first time they’re engrossed in figuring out what a blood smear is telling them. Others get drawn to hematology during a rotation in residency, when they encounter patients with hemophilia or sickle cell disease.

But when it comes to turning people on to the idea of a career in classical hematology (CH), there may be no more powerful influence than a mentor who loves their job. That’s why the field is focusing so much on supporting mentors and mentees amid a stark shortage of classical hematologists.

“Mentorship is key for maintaining trainee interest in the field and for providing role models for career growth,” said Rakhi P. Naik, MD, MHS, associate professor of medicine and director of the Hematology Fellowship Track at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, in an interview. “This collaboration is especially critical because there are so few trainees and so few mentors currently in the field.”

Now there’s new research backing up the power of mentorship, even when it’s only provided virtually, and a brand-new program aims to unite more mentors and mentees.

Here’s a closer look at mentor-focused efforts to attract medical students to CH.

 

How Severe Is the Shortage in CH?

Patients with conditions treated by classical hematologists are waiting months for appointments at many outpatient centers, with some being forced to wait 6 months or more, said Srikanth Nagalla, MD, chief of benign hematology at Miami Cancer Institute, Florida, in an interview.

The shortage is creating dire problems in the inpatient setting too, Nagalla said. “Serious blood disorders like heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, acute chest syndrome [a complication of sickle cell disease], and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura have to be diagnosed and treated in a timely manner. If not, the morbidity and mortality are really high.”

If classical hematologists aren’t available, he said, oncologists and others not trained in hematology will need to cover these patients. 

Hematologist Ariela Marshall, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted in an interview that the CH shortage comes at a time when medical advances and an aging population are boosting the number of patients with noncancerous blood disorders. Older people are at greater risk for blood clots, she said. And lifespans for patients with bleeding and clotting disorders are rising thanks to effective new treatments.

“Because of our larger patient population in CH, we are going to need more classical hematologists to follow them for longer and longer periods of time,” she said. 

There’s no sign yet that newly minted physicians will take up the slack in CH. A 2019 study found that just 4.6% of 626 of hematology/oncology fellows said they planned to go into CH, also known as benign hematology, vs 67.1% who expected to treat patients with solid tumors, blood cancer, or both. The rest, 24.6%, planned to work in CH plus the two oncology fields.

 

Why Does a Shortage Exist?

“The reasons are complex, but one of the most important factors was the combining of the adult hematology and medical oncology training programs by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 1995,” Naik said. “After that time, the majority of fellowship training programs went from having separate programs for hematology and medical oncology to combining the training for the two specialties into one. Because most of these combined training programs resided within Cancer Centers, classical hematology training slowly became de-emphasized.”

As a result, fewer fellows ended up specializing in CH, she said. 

The field of CH also appears to suffer from a less than enticing reputation. According to a 2019 study coauthored by Marshall, surveys of thousands of hematology/oncology fellows found that “hematology, particularly benign hematology, was viewed as having poorer income potential, research funding, job availability, and job security than oncology.”

Regarding pay, Marshall said the good news is that many classical hematologists work in academia, where it’s common for pay to be “equitable across hematology/oncology divisions and based more on academic rank and other factors rather than subspecialty within hematology oncology.”

However, she noted, “this may differ at institutions where hematology and oncology are different departments. For example, centers where oncology is its own department, and hematology is part of the department of medicine.” 

As for job availability, Naik said that there’s plenty of demand. “In academics, it is clear that there are jobs available everywhere, but trainees are often worried about job prospects in private practice. While classical hematology jobs in private practice are not widely advertised, I can attest that there is no shortage of need,” she said. “Many private practices do not specifically advertise for classical hematologists because they assume that classical hematology experts are not available. But I assure you that every private practice my trainees have ever approached is always ecstatic to hire a classical hematologist.”

 

Why Are Mentors Important?

Mentorship is crucial to promoting the value of CH as a great career choice in a competitive environment, classical hematologists say. “We can motivate trainees by showing how the disease states themselves are so fascinating and how the treatments are showing great outcomes,” Nagalla said. “We can show positive results, how patient lives can be changed, and how well-respected across the system [we] are.”

As a selling point, classical hematologists like to emphasize that their field requires intensive detective work. “Let’s say a patient comes with anemia, which might have 15 different causes. You get some labs, and then you systemically rule in or rule out most of these on the differential diagnosis,” Nagalla said. “Then once you narrow it down, you get more labs. You keep going to the next step and next step, and so finally you come to a conclusion.”

As for therapy, Marshall said that “while for many cancers there are specific treatment recommendations for patients with a specific cancer type at a specific stage, there is not always a specific treatment recommendation (or a ‘right answer’) for our CH patients. Treatment planning depends strongly on a patient’s preferences, other medical conditions, and a discussion about risks [and] benefits of different treatment options such that two patients with the same condition may choose two different treatment options.”

Marshall also emphasizes to trainees that “CH is a broad field. Physicians and trainees are able to interact and collaborate with physicians in other specialties such as gastroenterology, cardiology, ob/gyn, and surgical specialties.” 

 

Does Research Support Mentorship in CH?

The 2019 study that revealed just 4.6% of fellows planned to go into CH found that “fellows who planned to enter hematology-only careers were significantly more likely to report having clinical training and mentorship experiences in hematology throughout their training relative to fellows with oncology-only or combined hematology/oncology career plans.”

Now there are more data to support mentorships. For a study published in Blood Advances in September 2024, Zoya Qureshy, MD, an internal medicine chief resident at the University of California at San Diego, and colleagues evaluated a year-long external membership program implemented by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Medical Educators Institute. 

The program linked 35 US hematology/oncology fellows (80% female, 46% White, 35% Asian) who were interested in CH to 34 North American faculty members. The pairs were told to meet virtually once a month. 

Of 30 mentees and 23 mentors surveyed, 94% and 85%, respectively, said their pairings were good matches. Two thirds of the mentees accepted faculty positions in CH after their mentorships.

“Our study showed that external mentorship in a virtual format is feasible,” Qureshy said in an interview. “Additionally, external mentorship provided benefits such as different perspectives and the opportunity for mentorship for those who may not have it in their field of interest at their home institution.”

Qureshy added that “one strength of our mentorship program was that mentoring pairs were meticulously assigned based on shared interests and background. Many participants cited this common ground as a reason why they thought their mentoring pair was a good match.” 

There’s an important caveat: Most of the mentees weren’t new to CH. About 70% had previously worked with a mentor in the CH field, and 86% had previously conducted research in the field. 

 

What’s Next for Mentorship in CH?

The ASH Hematology-Focused Fellowship Training Program Consortium aims to mint 50 new academic hematologists by 2030 through programs at 12 institutions. “Mentorship is an exciting aspect of the program since it allows classical hematology trainees to form a network of peers nationally and also provides access to mentors across institutions,” Naik said. “And as the workforce grows, there will be more and more role models for future trainees to look up to.”

Moving forward, she said, “we hope to inspire even more institutions to adopt hematology training tracks throughout the country.”

Meanwhile, ASH’s new Classical Hematology Advancement Mentorship is taking applications for its debut 2025 program through January 9, 2025. Trainees will meet monthly with mentors both virtually and in person. Applicants must have been in their first or second year of hematology/oncology fellowship training at accredited programs in the United States as of July 15, 2024.

Naik, Marshall, Nagalla, and Qureshy have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For some medical students and trainees who go on to become hematologists, attraction to the field happens the first time they’re engrossed in figuring out what a blood smear is telling them. Others get drawn to hematology during a rotation in residency, when they encounter patients with hemophilia or sickle cell disease.

But when it comes to turning people on to the idea of a career in classical hematology (CH), there may be no more powerful influence than a mentor who loves their job. That’s why the field is focusing so much on supporting mentors and mentees amid a stark shortage of classical hematologists.

“Mentorship is key for maintaining trainee interest in the field and for providing role models for career growth,” said Rakhi P. Naik, MD, MHS, associate professor of medicine and director of the Hematology Fellowship Track at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, in an interview. “This collaboration is especially critical because there are so few trainees and so few mentors currently in the field.”

Now there’s new research backing up the power of mentorship, even when it’s only provided virtually, and a brand-new program aims to unite more mentors and mentees.

Here’s a closer look at mentor-focused efforts to attract medical students to CH.

 

How Severe Is the Shortage in CH?

Patients with conditions treated by classical hematologists are waiting months for appointments at many outpatient centers, with some being forced to wait 6 months or more, said Srikanth Nagalla, MD, chief of benign hematology at Miami Cancer Institute, Florida, in an interview.

The shortage is creating dire problems in the inpatient setting too, Nagalla said. “Serious blood disorders like heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, acute chest syndrome [a complication of sickle cell disease], and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura have to be diagnosed and treated in a timely manner. If not, the morbidity and mortality are really high.”

If classical hematologists aren’t available, he said, oncologists and others not trained in hematology will need to cover these patients. 

Hematologist Ariela Marshall, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted in an interview that the CH shortage comes at a time when medical advances and an aging population are boosting the number of patients with noncancerous blood disorders. Older people are at greater risk for blood clots, she said. And lifespans for patients with bleeding and clotting disorders are rising thanks to effective new treatments.

“Because of our larger patient population in CH, we are going to need more classical hematologists to follow them for longer and longer periods of time,” she said. 

There’s no sign yet that newly minted physicians will take up the slack in CH. A 2019 study found that just 4.6% of 626 of hematology/oncology fellows said they planned to go into CH, also known as benign hematology, vs 67.1% who expected to treat patients with solid tumors, blood cancer, or both. The rest, 24.6%, planned to work in CH plus the two oncology fields.

 

Why Does a Shortage Exist?

“The reasons are complex, but one of the most important factors was the combining of the adult hematology and medical oncology training programs by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 1995,” Naik said. “After that time, the majority of fellowship training programs went from having separate programs for hematology and medical oncology to combining the training for the two specialties into one. Because most of these combined training programs resided within Cancer Centers, classical hematology training slowly became de-emphasized.”

As a result, fewer fellows ended up specializing in CH, she said. 

The field of CH also appears to suffer from a less than enticing reputation. According to a 2019 study coauthored by Marshall, surveys of thousands of hematology/oncology fellows found that “hematology, particularly benign hematology, was viewed as having poorer income potential, research funding, job availability, and job security than oncology.”

Regarding pay, Marshall said the good news is that many classical hematologists work in academia, where it’s common for pay to be “equitable across hematology/oncology divisions and based more on academic rank and other factors rather than subspecialty within hematology oncology.”

However, she noted, “this may differ at institutions where hematology and oncology are different departments. For example, centers where oncology is its own department, and hematology is part of the department of medicine.” 

As for job availability, Naik said that there’s plenty of demand. “In academics, it is clear that there are jobs available everywhere, but trainees are often worried about job prospects in private practice. While classical hematology jobs in private practice are not widely advertised, I can attest that there is no shortage of need,” she said. “Many private practices do not specifically advertise for classical hematologists because they assume that classical hematology experts are not available. But I assure you that every private practice my trainees have ever approached is always ecstatic to hire a classical hematologist.”

 

Why Are Mentors Important?

Mentorship is crucial to promoting the value of CH as a great career choice in a competitive environment, classical hematologists say. “We can motivate trainees by showing how the disease states themselves are so fascinating and how the treatments are showing great outcomes,” Nagalla said. “We can show positive results, how patient lives can be changed, and how well-respected across the system [we] are.”

As a selling point, classical hematologists like to emphasize that their field requires intensive detective work. “Let’s say a patient comes with anemia, which might have 15 different causes. You get some labs, and then you systemically rule in or rule out most of these on the differential diagnosis,” Nagalla said. “Then once you narrow it down, you get more labs. You keep going to the next step and next step, and so finally you come to a conclusion.”

As for therapy, Marshall said that “while for many cancers there are specific treatment recommendations for patients with a specific cancer type at a specific stage, there is not always a specific treatment recommendation (or a ‘right answer’) for our CH patients. Treatment planning depends strongly on a patient’s preferences, other medical conditions, and a discussion about risks [and] benefits of different treatment options such that two patients with the same condition may choose two different treatment options.”

Marshall also emphasizes to trainees that “CH is a broad field. Physicians and trainees are able to interact and collaborate with physicians in other specialties such as gastroenterology, cardiology, ob/gyn, and surgical specialties.” 

 

Does Research Support Mentorship in CH?

The 2019 study that revealed just 4.6% of fellows planned to go into CH found that “fellows who planned to enter hematology-only careers were significantly more likely to report having clinical training and mentorship experiences in hematology throughout their training relative to fellows with oncology-only or combined hematology/oncology career plans.”

Now there are more data to support mentorships. For a study published in Blood Advances in September 2024, Zoya Qureshy, MD, an internal medicine chief resident at the University of California at San Diego, and colleagues evaluated a year-long external membership program implemented by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Medical Educators Institute. 

The program linked 35 US hematology/oncology fellows (80% female, 46% White, 35% Asian) who were interested in CH to 34 North American faculty members. The pairs were told to meet virtually once a month. 

Of 30 mentees and 23 mentors surveyed, 94% and 85%, respectively, said their pairings were good matches. Two thirds of the mentees accepted faculty positions in CH after their mentorships.

“Our study showed that external mentorship in a virtual format is feasible,” Qureshy said in an interview. “Additionally, external mentorship provided benefits such as different perspectives and the opportunity for mentorship for those who may not have it in their field of interest at their home institution.”

Qureshy added that “one strength of our mentorship program was that mentoring pairs were meticulously assigned based on shared interests and background. Many participants cited this common ground as a reason why they thought their mentoring pair was a good match.” 

There’s an important caveat: Most of the mentees weren’t new to CH. About 70% had previously worked with a mentor in the CH field, and 86% had previously conducted research in the field. 

 

What’s Next for Mentorship in CH?

The ASH Hematology-Focused Fellowship Training Program Consortium aims to mint 50 new academic hematologists by 2030 through programs at 12 institutions. “Mentorship is an exciting aspect of the program since it allows classical hematology trainees to form a network of peers nationally and also provides access to mentors across institutions,” Naik said. “And as the workforce grows, there will be more and more role models for future trainees to look up to.”

Moving forward, she said, “we hope to inspire even more institutions to adopt hematology training tracks throughout the country.”

Meanwhile, ASH’s new Classical Hematology Advancement Mentorship is taking applications for its debut 2025 program through January 9, 2025. Trainees will meet monthly with mentors both virtually and in person. Applicants must have been in their first or second year of hematology/oncology fellowship training at accredited programs in the United States as of July 15, 2024.

Naik, Marshall, Nagalla, and Qureshy have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President-elect Donald Trump’s vision for the nation’s top health agencies is coming into focus with three nominations announced Nov. 22 that drew both criticism and praise:

• Surgeon and health researcher Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, to lead the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
• Former Republican congressman and physician David J. Weldon, MD, for director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
• Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat, MD, for surgeon general.

Earlier in November, Trump nominated vaccine skeptic and former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Here’s what to know about the latest nominees, who, like Kennedy, must be confirmed by the US Senate.

 

Martin A. Makary

Currently a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and chief of islet transplant surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Makary co-invented in 2006 a surgery checklist that became a widely-used patient safety tool. 

As a US FDA commissioner, Makary would preside over a $6.5 billion agency with more than 18,000 employees. The agency, part of HHS, oversees human and animal drugs and vaccines, medical devices, food, tobacco and other products. Some of Makary’s views align closely with those of HHS nominee Kennedy. 

Makary is also chief medical officer of telehealth platform Sesame.

Makary was primarily known as a health researcher and author of books about price transparency and the cost of health care until the COVID-19 pandemic, when he became an outspoken critic of the federal response, lambasting restrictions and mandates advocated by the CDC and other public health officials. 

In 2023, Makary told the House Select Subcommittee on the COVID Pandemic that federal officials had ignored what he called “natural immunity.” Studies have shown that natural immunity is “at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, and probably better,” testified Makary.

Makary called for an overhaul of the US FDA in a 2021 Fox News opinion, saying that its culture was “defined by counterproductive rigidity and a refusal to adapt.”

Blind Spots, his most recent book, takes on what he calls “medical dogma” and challenges conventional views on subjects ranging from the microbiome to marijuana to cancer prevention, hormone replacement therapy, antibiotics and peanut allergies.

In an interview he posted to X, Makary blames inappropriate use of antibiotics for a variety of childhood illnesses. He cites increases in obesity, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, asthma, celiac disease, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease as all potentially causally related to antibiotics given in childhood.

Makary is an advisor to two conservative think tanks, the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, and to Paragon Health Institute, begun in 2021 by two former top officials in the previous Trump administration.

Makary would “cut the bureaucratic red tape at the agency to make sure Americans get the medical cures and treatments they deserve,” Trump said on his social media platform, Truth Social, and in a press release.

While Los Angeles Times owner and physician-entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, MBBCh, MSc, praised the nomination of Makary (and the two other nominees) as “inspired,” other physicians criticized Makary for his anti-COVID mandate views and “fear-mongering” over COVID vaccine side effects.

 

Janette Nesheiwat

As surgeon general, Nesheiwat would serve as the top “health communicator in chief” and oversee the 6000 member US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

She is a frequent medical contributor to Fox News and serves as a medical director for a group of urgent care clinics in New York. She received her medical degree from the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine and completed a family medicine residency at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. She is board-certified in family medicine.

Nesheiwat sells vitamin supplements on her website and in December will publish a book on “miracles in medicine” and her Christian faith. 

Trump said in a statement that Nesheiwat “is a fierce advocate and strong communicator for preventive medicine and public health. She is committed to ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, quality healthcare, and believes in empowering individuals to take charge of their health to live longer, healthier lives.”

While Nesheiwat was critical of COVID mandates, she voiced more support for COVID vaccines and mask-wearing during the pandemic than her fellow nominees, leading some Trump supporters to criticize her nomination. 

“A good appointment, happy about this: I got to know @DoctorJanette during the pandemic, exchanging information. She is very smart, thoughtful, interested in learning, and a compassionate doctor, and…a truly nice person,” noted vaccine researcher Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said on X.

 

David J. Weldon

If confirmed, former congressman Weldon would oversee the sprawling CDC, an agency with a roughly $17 billion budget, 15,000 employees or contractors, and numerous centers covering everything from health statistics to vaccines to epidemiology.

After earning his medical degree from the University at Buffalo School of Medicine, Weldon served in the US Army and US Army reserve. The Republican later served for 14 years in Congress representing Florida’s 15th district, which covers the Tampa region.

He now practices as an internist in Brevard County, Florida.

In Congress, Weldon raised concerns about the safety of some vaccines and promoted the false narrative that a former vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, caused autism, the Washington Post reported. Thimerosal has not been used in child vaccines for more than two decades. He also introduced a bill to move vaccine safety oversight from the CDC to an independent agency within HHS.

Trump said in a statement that Weldon “will proudly restore the CDC to its true purpose, and will work to end the Chronic Disease Epidemic.” 

But some physicians criticized Weldon for what they called his anti-vaccine views.

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

President-elect Donald Trump’s vision for the nation’s top health agencies is coming into focus with three nominations announced Nov. 22 that drew both criticism and praise:

• Surgeon and health researcher Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, to lead the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
• Former Republican congressman and physician David J. Weldon, MD, for director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
• Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat, MD, for surgeon general.

Earlier in November, Trump nominated vaccine skeptic and former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Here’s what to know about the latest nominees, who, like Kennedy, must be confirmed by the US Senate.

 

Martin A. Makary

Currently a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and chief of islet transplant surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Makary co-invented in 2006 a surgery checklist that became a widely-used patient safety tool. 

As a US FDA commissioner, Makary would preside over a $6.5 billion agency with more than 18,000 employees. The agency, part of HHS, oversees human and animal drugs and vaccines, medical devices, food, tobacco and other products. Some of Makary’s views align closely with those of HHS nominee Kennedy. 

Makary is also chief medical officer of telehealth platform Sesame.

Makary was primarily known as a health researcher and author of books about price transparency and the cost of health care until the COVID-19 pandemic, when he became an outspoken critic of the federal response, lambasting restrictions and mandates advocated by the CDC and other public health officials. 

In 2023, Makary told the House Select Subcommittee on the COVID Pandemic that federal officials had ignored what he called “natural immunity.” Studies have shown that natural immunity is “at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, and probably better,” testified Makary.

Makary called for an overhaul of the US FDA in a 2021 Fox News opinion, saying that its culture was “defined by counterproductive rigidity and a refusal to adapt.”

Blind Spots, his most recent book, takes on what he calls “medical dogma” and challenges conventional views on subjects ranging from the microbiome to marijuana to cancer prevention, hormone replacement therapy, antibiotics and peanut allergies.

In an interview he posted to X, Makary blames inappropriate use of antibiotics for a variety of childhood illnesses. He cites increases in obesity, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, asthma, celiac disease, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease as all potentially causally related to antibiotics given in childhood.

Makary is an advisor to two conservative think tanks, the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, and to Paragon Health Institute, begun in 2021 by two former top officials in the previous Trump administration.

Makary would “cut the bureaucratic red tape at the agency to make sure Americans get the medical cures and treatments they deserve,” Trump said on his social media platform, Truth Social, and in a press release.

While Los Angeles Times owner and physician-entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, MBBCh, MSc, praised the nomination of Makary (and the two other nominees) as “inspired,” other physicians criticized Makary for his anti-COVID mandate views and “fear-mongering” over COVID vaccine side effects.

 

Janette Nesheiwat

As surgeon general, Nesheiwat would serve as the top “health communicator in chief” and oversee the 6000 member US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

She is a frequent medical contributor to Fox News and serves as a medical director for a group of urgent care clinics in New York. She received her medical degree from the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine and completed a family medicine residency at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. She is board-certified in family medicine.

Nesheiwat sells vitamin supplements on her website and in December will publish a book on “miracles in medicine” and her Christian faith. 

Trump said in a statement that Nesheiwat “is a fierce advocate and strong communicator for preventive medicine and public health. She is committed to ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, quality healthcare, and believes in empowering individuals to take charge of their health to live longer, healthier lives.”

While Nesheiwat was critical of COVID mandates, she voiced more support for COVID vaccines and mask-wearing during the pandemic than her fellow nominees, leading some Trump supporters to criticize her nomination. 

“A good appointment, happy about this: I got to know @DoctorJanette during the pandemic, exchanging information. She is very smart, thoughtful, interested in learning, and a compassionate doctor, and…a truly nice person,” noted vaccine researcher Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said on X.

 

David J. Weldon

If confirmed, former congressman Weldon would oversee the sprawling CDC, an agency with a roughly $17 billion budget, 15,000 employees or contractors, and numerous centers covering everything from health statistics to vaccines to epidemiology.

After earning his medical degree from the University at Buffalo School of Medicine, Weldon served in the US Army and US Army reserve. The Republican later served for 14 years in Congress representing Florida’s 15th district, which covers the Tampa region.

He now practices as an internist in Brevard County, Florida.

In Congress, Weldon raised concerns about the safety of some vaccines and promoted the false narrative that a former vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, caused autism, the Washington Post reported. Thimerosal has not been used in child vaccines for more than two decades. He also introduced a bill to move vaccine safety oversight from the CDC to an independent agency within HHS.

Trump said in a statement that Weldon “will proudly restore the CDC to its true purpose, and will work to end the Chronic Disease Epidemic.” 

But some physicians criticized Weldon for what they called his anti-vaccine views.

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

President-elect Donald Trump’s vision for the nation’s top health agencies is coming into focus with three nominations announced Nov. 22 that drew both criticism and praise:

• Surgeon and health researcher Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, to lead the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
• Former Republican congressman and physician David J. Weldon, MD, for director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
• Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat, MD, for surgeon general.

Earlier in November, Trump nominated vaccine skeptic and former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Here’s what to know about the latest nominees, who, like Kennedy, must be confirmed by the US Senate.

 

Martin A. Makary

Currently a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and chief of islet transplant surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Makary co-invented in 2006 a surgery checklist that became a widely-used patient safety tool. 

As a US FDA commissioner, Makary would preside over a $6.5 billion agency with more than 18,000 employees. The agency, part of HHS, oversees human and animal drugs and vaccines, medical devices, food, tobacco and other products. Some of Makary’s views align closely with those of HHS nominee Kennedy. 

Makary is also chief medical officer of telehealth platform Sesame.

Makary was primarily known as a health researcher and author of books about price transparency and the cost of health care until the COVID-19 pandemic, when he became an outspoken critic of the federal response, lambasting restrictions and mandates advocated by the CDC and other public health officials. 

In 2023, Makary told the House Select Subcommittee on the COVID Pandemic that federal officials had ignored what he called “natural immunity.” Studies have shown that natural immunity is “at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, and probably better,” testified Makary.

Makary called for an overhaul of the US FDA in a 2021 Fox News opinion, saying that its culture was “defined by counterproductive rigidity and a refusal to adapt.”

Blind Spots, his most recent book, takes on what he calls “medical dogma” and challenges conventional views on subjects ranging from the microbiome to marijuana to cancer prevention, hormone replacement therapy, antibiotics and peanut allergies.

In an interview he posted to X, Makary blames inappropriate use of antibiotics for a variety of childhood illnesses. He cites increases in obesity, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, asthma, celiac disease, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease as all potentially causally related to antibiotics given in childhood.

Makary is an advisor to two conservative think tanks, the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, and to Paragon Health Institute, begun in 2021 by two former top officials in the previous Trump administration.

Makary would “cut the bureaucratic red tape at the agency to make sure Americans get the medical cures and treatments they deserve,” Trump said on his social media platform, Truth Social, and in a press release.

While Los Angeles Times owner and physician-entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, MBBCh, MSc, praised the nomination of Makary (and the two other nominees) as “inspired,” other physicians criticized Makary for his anti-COVID mandate views and “fear-mongering” over COVID vaccine side effects.

 

Janette Nesheiwat

As surgeon general, Nesheiwat would serve as the top “health communicator in chief” and oversee the 6000 member US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

She is a frequent medical contributor to Fox News and serves as a medical director for a group of urgent care clinics in New York. She received her medical degree from the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine and completed a family medicine residency at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. She is board-certified in family medicine.

Nesheiwat sells vitamin supplements on her website and in December will publish a book on “miracles in medicine” and her Christian faith. 

Trump said in a statement that Nesheiwat “is a fierce advocate and strong communicator for preventive medicine and public health. She is committed to ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, quality healthcare, and believes in empowering individuals to take charge of their health to live longer, healthier lives.”

While Nesheiwat was critical of COVID mandates, she voiced more support for COVID vaccines and mask-wearing during the pandemic than her fellow nominees, leading some Trump supporters to criticize her nomination. 

“A good appointment, happy about this: I got to know @DoctorJanette during the pandemic, exchanging information. She is very smart, thoughtful, interested in learning, and a compassionate doctor, and…a truly nice person,” noted vaccine researcher Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said on X.

 

David J. Weldon

If confirmed, former congressman Weldon would oversee the sprawling CDC, an agency with a roughly $17 billion budget, 15,000 employees or contractors, and numerous centers covering everything from health statistics to vaccines to epidemiology.

After earning his medical degree from the University at Buffalo School of Medicine, Weldon served in the US Army and US Army reserve. The Republican later served for 14 years in Congress representing Florida’s 15th district, which covers the Tampa region.

He now practices as an internist in Brevard County, Florida.

In Congress, Weldon raised concerns about the safety of some vaccines and promoted the false narrative that a former vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, caused autism, the Washington Post reported. Thimerosal has not been used in child vaccines for more than two decades. He also introduced a bill to move vaccine safety oversight from the CDC to an independent agency within HHS.

Trump said in a statement that Weldon “will proudly restore the CDC to its true purpose, and will work to end the Chronic Disease Epidemic.” 

But some physicians criticized Weldon for what they called his anti-vaccine views.

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

TOPLINE:

Death rates for patients aged < 50 years with early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) are higher in native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander individuals and non-Hispanic Black individuals than in non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] of 1.34 and 1.18, respectively). The largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.

METHODOLOGY:

• US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
• A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
• Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
• Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.

TAKEAWAY:

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
• Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
• Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
• Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.

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:

Death rates for patients aged < 50 years with early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) are higher in native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander individuals and non-Hispanic Black individuals than in non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] of 1.34 and 1.18, respectively). The largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.

METHODOLOGY:

• US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
• A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
• Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
• Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.

TAKEAWAY:

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
• Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
• Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
• Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.

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:

Death rates for patients aged < 50 years with early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) are higher in native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander individuals and non-Hispanic Black individuals than in non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] of 1.34 and 1.18, respectively). The largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.

METHODOLOGY:

• US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
• A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
• Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
• Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.

TAKEAWAY:

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
• Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
• Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
• Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.

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.