Federal Practitioner

TOPLINE:

An intensive weight loss program is safe for individuals with gout and obesity but does not ease gout symptoms compared with a “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

METHODOLOGY:

• Weight loss is recommended as a gout management strategy, despite little clinical evidence.
• Researchers recruited 61 patients with gout and obesity to participate in a 16-week, randomized, nonblinded, parallel-group trial in Denmark.
• A total of 29 participants were assigned to an intensive, low-calorie diet with provided meal replacements.
• Another 32 participants were assigned to the “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the intensive group lost more weight (−15.4 kg/34 lbs) than those the control group (−7.7 kg/17 lbs).
• There were no differences in pain, fatigue, or gout flares between the two groups.
• Weight loss was associated with reduction in serum urate (SU).
• Patients in the intervention group had a numerically larger mean SU change (−0.6 mg/dL) than the control group (−0.3 mg/dL), but this difference was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

Weight loss can lower SU levels, but this did not translate to improved gout symptoms.

SOURCE:

Robin Christensen, PhD, and Kristian Zobbe, MD, PhD, of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark, were co-first authors of the study, published on January 2, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a relatively small sample size and short-term intervention period, which may have made it difficult to detect differences between the intervention and control groups. Patients in the control group lost a significant amount of weight, which also affected comparisons between the two groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Several of the authors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The Parker Institute, which funded the study, is supported by grants from the Oak Foundation and the Danish Rheumatism Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An intensive weight loss program is safe for individuals with gout and obesity but does not ease gout symptoms compared with a “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

METHODOLOGY:

• Weight loss is recommended as a gout management strategy, despite little clinical evidence.
• Researchers recruited 61 patients with gout and obesity to participate in a 16-week, randomized, nonblinded, parallel-group trial in Denmark.
• A total of 29 participants were assigned to an intensive, low-calorie diet with provided meal replacements.
• Another 32 participants were assigned to the “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the intensive group lost more weight (−15.4 kg/34 lbs) than those the control group (−7.7 kg/17 lbs).
• There were no differences in pain, fatigue, or gout flares between the two groups.
• Weight loss was associated with reduction in serum urate (SU).
• Patients in the intervention group had a numerically larger mean SU change (−0.6 mg/dL) than the control group (−0.3 mg/dL), but this difference was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

Weight loss can lower SU levels, but this did not translate to improved gout symptoms.

SOURCE:

Robin Christensen, PhD, and Kristian Zobbe, MD, PhD, of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark, were co-first authors of the study, published on January 2, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a relatively small sample size and short-term intervention period, which may have made it difficult to detect differences between the intervention and control groups. Patients in the control group lost a significant amount of weight, which also affected comparisons between the two groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Several of the authors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The Parker Institute, which funded the study, is supported by grants from the Oak Foundation and the Danish Rheumatism Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An intensive weight loss program is safe for individuals with gout and obesity but does not ease gout symptoms compared with a “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

METHODOLOGY:

• Weight loss is recommended as a gout management strategy, despite little clinical evidence.
• Researchers recruited 61 patients with gout and obesity to participate in a 16-week, randomized, nonblinded, parallel-group trial in Denmark.
• A total of 29 participants were assigned to an intensive, low-calorie diet with provided meal replacements.
• Another 32 participants were assigned to the “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the intensive group lost more weight (−15.4 kg/34 lbs) than those the control group (−7.7 kg/17 lbs).
• There were no differences in pain, fatigue, or gout flares between the two groups.
• Weight loss was associated with reduction in serum urate (SU).
• Patients in the intervention group had a numerically larger mean SU change (−0.6 mg/dL) than the control group (−0.3 mg/dL), but this difference was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

Weight loss can lower SU levels, but this did not translate to improved gout symptoms.

SOURCE:

Robin Christensen, PhD, and Kristian Zobbe, MD, PhD, of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark, were co-first authors of the study, published on January 2, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a relatively small sample size and short-term intervention period, which may have made it difficult to detect differences between the intervention and control groups. Patients in the control group lost a significant amount of weight, which also affected comparisons between the two groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Several of the authors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The Parker Institute, which funded the study, is supported by grants from the Oak Foundation and the Danish Rheumatism Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The frequency of follow-up after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer can be tailored based on high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) tests and cytology.

METHODOLOGY:

• Among patients with early-stage cervical cancer, the optimal follow-up strategy to detect recurrence after fertility-sparing surgery remains unclear. The authors wanted to find out if follow-up could be tailored to the patient’s risk for recurrence instead of using the current inefficient one-size-fits-all approach.
• The retrospective cohort study, which used data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank, included 1462 patients aged 18-40 years with early-stage cervical cancer who received fertility-sparing surgery (large loop excision of the transformation zone, conization, or trachelectomy) between 2000 and 2020.
• The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), including recurrent cervical cancer.
• The authors stratified the likelihood of recurrence by cytology and high-risk HPV results at the first follow-up visit within 12 months of fertility-sparing surgery; they also compared the cumulative incidence of recurrence — the number of new cases divided by all at-risk individuals over a specific interval — at four timepoints in 2 years (6, 12, 18, and 24 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ was 89.3%. Patients with high-grade cytology at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ (43.1%) than those who had normal (92.1%) and low-grade cytology (84.6%). Similarly for HPV status, patients positive for high-risk HPV at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival rates for CIN2+ (73.6%) than those negative for high-risk HPV (91.1%).
• Patients negative for both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-0.7% within 6 months of follow-up compared with 0.0%-33.3% among patients negative for high-risk HPV but who had high-grade cytology.
• By contrast, patients positive for high-risk HPV but not high-grade cytology had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-15.4% within 6 months of any follow-up visit compared with 50.0%-100.0% among those with both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology.
• Patients who remained free of high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology at their 6-month and 12-month follow-ups had no disease recurrence over the next 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients who are negative for high-risk HPV with normal or low-grade cytology at 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery could be offered a prolonged follow-up interval of 6 months,” the authors concluded, adding that this “group comprises 80% of all patients receiving fertility-sparing surgery.”

“Reducing the number of follow-up visits, and subsequently the number of follow-up tests, in patients with low risk for recurrence on the basis of co-testing has the potential to substantially reduce healthcare costs,” the authors explained.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Teska N. Schuurman, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published in the December 2023 issue of The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of the study meant that analysis was limited to available records, so data on patients’ symptoms, physical examinations, or colposcopic findings were not available. Follow-up biopsies, considered the gold standard for diagnosing recurrence, are not routine in the Netherlands, so recurrence could have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no competing interests.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The frequency of follow-up after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer can be tailored based on high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) tests and cytology.

METHODOLOGY:

• Among patients with early-stage cervical cancer, the optimal follow-up strategy to detect recurrence after fertility-sparing surgery remains unclear. The authors wanted to find out if follow-up could be tailored to the patient’s risk for recurrence instead of using the current inefficient one-size-fits-all approach.
• The retrospective cohort study, which used data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank, included 1462 patients aged 18-40 years with early-stage cervical cancer who received fertility-sparing surgery (large loop excision of the transformation zone, conization, or trachelectomy) between 2000 and 2020.
• The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), including recurrent cervical cancer.
• The authors stratified the likelihood of recurrence by cytology and high-risk HPV results at the first follow-up visit within 12 months of fertility-sparing surgery; they also compared the cumulative incidence of recurrence — the number of new cases divided by all at-risk individuals over a specific interval — at four timepoints in 2 years (6, 12, 18, and 24 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ was 89.3%. Patients with high-grade cytology at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ (43.1%) than those who had normal (92.1%) and low-grade cytology (84.6%). Similarly for HPV status, patients positive for high-risk HPV at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival rates for CIN2+ (73.6%) than those negative for high-risk HPV (91.1%).
• Patients negative for both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-0.7% within 6 months of follow-up compared with 0.0%-33.3% among patients negative for high-risk HPV but who had high-grade cytology.
• By contrast, patients positive for high-risk HPV but not high-grade cytology had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-15.4% within 6 months of any follow-up visit compared with 50.0%-100.0% among those with both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology.
• Patients who remained free of high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology at their 6-month and 12-month follow-ups had no disease recurrence over the next 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients who are negative for high-risk HPV with normal or low-grade cytology at 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery could be offered a prolonged follow-up interval of 6 months,” the authors concluded, adding that this “group comprises 80% of all patients receiving fertility-sparing surgery.”

“Reducing the number of follow-up visits, and subsequently the number of follow-up tests, in patients with low risk for recurrence on the basis of co-testing has the potential to substantially reduce healthcare costs,” the authors explained.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Teska N. Schuurman, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published in the December 2023 issue of The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of the study meant that analysis was limited to available records, so data on patients’ symptoms, physical examinations, or colposcopic findings were not available. Follow-up biopsies, considered the gold standard for diagnosing recurrence, are not routine in the Netherlands, so recurrence could have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no competing interests.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The frequency of follow-up after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer can be tailored based on high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) tests and cytology.

METHODOLOGY:

• Among patients with early-stage cervical cancer, the optimal follow-up strategy to detect recurrence after fertility-sparing surgery remains unclear. The authors wanted to find out if follow-up could be tailored to the patient’s risk for recurrence instead of using the current inefficient one-size-fits-all approach.
• The retrospective cohort study, which used data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank, included 1462 patients aged 18-40 years with early-stage cervical cancer who received fertility-sparing surgery (large loop excision of the transformation zone, conization, or trachelectomy) between 2000 and 2020.
• The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), including recurrent cervical cancer.
• The authors stratified the likelihood of recurrence by cytology and high-risk HPV results at the first follow-up visit within 12 months of fertility-sparing surgery; they also compared the cumulative incidence of recurrence — the number of new cases divided by all at-risk individuals over a specific interval — at four timepoints in 2 years (6, 12, 18, and 24 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ was 89.3%. Patients with high-grade cytology at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ (43.1%) than those who had normal (92.1%) and low-grade cytology (84.6%). Similarly for HPV status, patients positive for high-risk HPV at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival rates for CIN2+ (73.6%) than those negative for high-risk HPV (91.1%).
• Patients negative for both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-0.7% within 6 months of follow-up compared with 0.0%-33.3% among patients negative for high-risk HPV but who had high-grade cytology.
• By contrast, patients positive for high-risk HPV but not high-grade cytology had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-15.4% within 6 months of any follow-up visit compared with 50.0%-100.0% among those with both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology.
• Patients who remained free of high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology at their 6-month and 12-month follow-ups had no disease recurrence over the next 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients who are negative for high-risk HPV with normal or low-grade cytology at 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery could be offered a prolonged follow-up interval of 6 months,” the authors concluded, adding that this “group comprises 80% of all patients receiving fertility-sparing surgery.”

“Reducing the number of follow-up visits, and subsequently the number of follow-up tests, in patients with low risk for recurrence on the basis of co-testing has the potential to substantially reduce healthcare costs,” the authors explained.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Teska N. Schuurman, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published in the December 2023 issue of The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of the study meant that analysis was limited to available records, so data on patients’ symptoms, physical examinations, or colposcopic findings were not available. Follow-up biopsies, considered the gold standard for diagnosing recurrence, are not routine in the Netherlands, so recurrence could have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no competing interests.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall survival among US patients with resected stage II or III gastric cancer differs by race and ethnicity, with Asian and Hispanic patients demonstrating better overall survival than White and Black patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have revealed disparities in gastric cancer outcomes among different racial and ethnic groups in the United States, but the reasons are unclear.
• To better understand the disparities, researchers analyzed survival outcomes by race and ethnicity, treatment type, and a range of other factors.
• The retrospective analysis included 6938 patients with clinical stages IIA-IIIC gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent partial or total gastrectomy between 2006 and 2019, excluding those with a history of cancer. Patient data came from the National Cancer Database, which covers about 70% of all new cancer diagnoses.
• The researchers compared factors, including race and ethnicity, surgical margins, and lymph nodes, as well as treatment modality (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy only, neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiation only, or perioperative chemotherapy with radiation or surgical care only).
• Just over half of the patients (53.6%) were White, 24.3% were Black, 17.8% were Hispanic, 15.8% were Asian, and 2.6% were other race or ethnicity (information was missing for 4.8%). White patients were more likely to be older and insured; Black and White patients had more comorbidities than Asian and Hispanic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79), while surgical resection alone (HR, 1.79), more positive lymph nodes (HR, 2.95 for 10 or more), and positive surgical margins were associated with the biggest decreases in overall survival.
• Asian and Hispanic patients had significantly better overall survival (HR, 0.64 and 0.77, respectively) than White patients.
• In general, Black and White patients had similar overall survival (HR, 0.96), except among Black patients who received neoadjuvant therapy — these patients had better overall survival than White patients (HR, 0.78).
• Black and Asian patients were more likely to be downstaged or achieve a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy (34.4% and 35.3%, respectively) than White (28.4%) and Hispanic patients (30.8%).

IN PRACTICE:

The authors found that “Asian and Hispanic race and ethnicity were independently associated with improved [overall survival] compared with Black and White race,” even after adjusting for variables including multimodality treatment regimen and response to neoadjuvant therapy.

The authors explained that overall Asian and Black patients responded more favorably to neoadjuvant therapy, demonstrating significantly higher rates of downstaging or pathologic complete response, which may help explain why Black patients demonstrated better overall survival than White patients who received neoadjuvant therapy.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Steve Kwon, MD, MPH, of Roger Williams Medical Center and Boston University, Providence, Rhode Island, was published online on December 21 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis is constrained by the database, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The authors determined the response to neoadjuvant therapy by comparing clinical stage with postoperative pathologic stage.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall survival among US patients with resected stage II or III gastric cancer differs by race and ethnicity, with Asian and Hispanic patients demonstrating better overall survival than White and Black patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have revealed disparities in gastric cancer outcomes among different racial and ethnic groups in the United States, but the reasons are unclear.
• To better understand the disparities, researchers analyzed survival outcomes by race and ethnicity, treatment type, and a range of other factors.
• The retrospective analysis included 6938 patients with clinical stages IIA-IIIC gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent partial or total gastrectomy between 2006 and 2019, excluding those with a history of cancer. Patient data came from the National Cancer Database, which covers about 70% of all new cancer diagnoses.
• The researchers compared factors, including race and ethnicity, surgical margins, and lymph nodes, as well as treatment modality (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy only, neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiation only, or perioperative chemotherapy with radiation or surgical care only).
• Just over half of the patients (53.6%) were White, 24.3% were Black, 17.8% were Hispanic, 15.8% were Asian, and 2.6% were other race or ethnicity (information was missing for 4.8%). White patients were more likely to be older and insured; Black and White patients had more comorbidities than Asian and Hispanic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79), while surgical resection alone (HR, 1.79), more positive lymph nodes (HR, 2.95 for 10 or more), and positive surgical margins were associated with the biggest decreases in overall survival.
• Asian and Hispanic patients had significantly better overall survival (HR, 0.64 and 0.77, respectively) than White patients.
• In general, Black and White patients had similar overall survival (HR, 0.96), except among Black patients who received neoadjuvant therapy — these patients had better overall survival than White patients (HR, 0.78).
• Black and Asian patients were more likely to be downstaged or achieve a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy (34.4% and 35.3%, respectively) than White (28.4%) and Hispanic patients (30.8%).

IN PRACTICE:

The authors found that “Asian and Hispanic race and ethnicity were independently associated with improved [overall survival] compared with Black and White race,” even after adjusting for variables including multimodality treatment regimen and response to neoadjuvant therapy.

The authors explained that overall Asian and Black patients responded more favorably to neoadjuvant therapy, demonstrating significantly higher rates of downstaging or pathologic complete response, which may help explain why Black patients demonstrated better overall survival than White patients who received neoadjuvant therapy.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Steve Kwon, MD, MPH, of Roger Williams Medical Center and Boston University, Providence, Rhode Island, was published online on December 21 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis is constrained by the database, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The authors determined the response to neoadjuvant therapy by comparing clinical stage with postoperative pathologic stage.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall survival among US patients with resected stage II or III gastric cancer differs by race and ethnicity, with Asian and Hispanic patients demonstrating better overall survival than White and Black patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have revealed disparities in gastric cancer outcomes among different racial and ethnic groups in the United States, but the reasons are unclear.
• To better understand the disparities, researchers analyzed survival outcomes by race and ethnicity, treatment type, and a range of other factors.
• The retrospective analysis included 6938 patients with clinical stages IIA-IIIC gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent partial or total gastrectomy between 2006 and 2019, excluding those with a history of cancer. Patient data came from the National Cancer Database, which covers about 70% of all new cancer diagnoses.
• The researchers compared factors, including race and ethnicity, surgical margins, and lymph nodes, as well as treatment modality (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy only, neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiation only, or perioperative chemotherapy with radiation or surgical care only).
• Just over half of the patients (53.6%) were White, 24.3% were Black, 17.8% were Hispanic, 15.8% were Asian, and 2.6% were other race or ethnicity (information was missing for 4.8%). White patients were more likely to be older and insured; Black and White patients had more comorbidities than Asian and Hispanic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79), while surgical resection alone (HR, 1.79), more positive lymph nodes (HR, 2.95 for 10 or more), and positive surgical margins were associated with the biggest decreases in overall survival.
• Asian and Hispanic patients had significantly better overall survival (HR, 0.64 and 0.77, respectively) than White patients.
• In general, Black and White patients had similar overall survival (HR, 0.96), except among Black patients who received neoadjuvant therapy — these patients had better overall survival than White patients (HR, 0.78).
• Black and Asian patients were more likely to be downstaged or achieve a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy (34.4% and 35.3%, respectively) than White (28.4%) and Hispanic patients (30.8%).

IN PRACTICE:

The authors found that “Asian and Hispanic race and ethnicity were independently associated with improved [overall survival] compared with Black and White race,” even after adjusting for variables including multimodality treatment regimen and response to neoadjuvant therapy.

The authors explained that overall Asian and Black patients responded more favorably to neoadjuvant therapy, demonstrating significantly higher rates of downstaging or pathologic complete response, which may help explain why Black patients demonstrated better overall survival than White patients who received neoadjuvant therapy.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Steve Kwon, MD, MPH, of Roger Williams Medical Center and Boston University, Providence, Rhode Island, was published online on December 21 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis is constrained by the database, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The authors determined the response to neoadjuvant therapy by comparing clinical stage with postoperative pathologic stage.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On January 5, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved berdazimer gel 10.3% for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum (MC) in adults and children aged 1 year or older.

Approval of berdazimer, a topical nitric oxide–releasing agent, was based largely on a 12-week pivotal phase 3 trial known as B-SIMPLE4, in which 891 patients with a mean age of 6.6 years (range, 0.9-47.5 years) were randomly assigned to treatment with berdazimer gel 10.3% or a vehicle gel applied in a thin layer to all lesions once daily. At 12 weeks, 32.4% of patients in the berdazimer group achieved complete clearance of MC lesions compared with 19.7% of those in the vehicle group (P < .001).

Only 4.1% of patients on berdazimer and 0.7% of those on the vehicle experienced adverse events that led to discontinuation of treatment. The most common adverse events in both groups were application-site pain and erythema, and most of these were mild or moderate.

According to a press release announcing the approval from Ligand Pharmaceuticals, which acquired berdazimer topical gel from Novan in September 2023, the development makes berdazimer topical gel 10.3% the first and only topical prescription medication that can be applied by patients, parents, or caregivers at home; outside of a physician›s office; or outside of other medical settings to treat MC. Nitric oxide has been shown to have antiviral effects, although the mechanism of action of berdazimer for treating molluscum “is unknown,” the company said in the release. 

The drug will be marketed under the name Zelsuvmi and is expected to be available in the second half of 2024.

On July 21, 2023, topical cantharidin became the first approved treatment of MC for adults and pediatric patients aged 2 years or older, with the FDA approval of a drug-device combination (Ycanth) that contains a formulation of cantharidin solution 0.7% and is administered by healthcare professionals. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On January 5, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved berdazimer gel 10.3% for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum (MC) in adults and children aged 1 year or older.

Approval of berdazimer, a topical nitric oxide–releasing agent, was based largely on a 12-week pivotal phase 3 trial known as B-SIMPLE4, in which 891 patients with a mean age of 6.6 years (range, 0.9-47.5 years) were randomly assigned to treatment with berdazimer gel 10.3% or a vehicle gel applied in a thin layer to all lesions once daily. At 12 weeks, 32.4% of patients in the berdazimer group achieved complete clearance of MC lesions compared with 19.7% of those in the vehicle group (P < .001).

Only 4.1% of patients on berdazimer and 0.7% of those on the vehicle experienced adverse events that led to discontinuation of treatment. The most common adverse events in both groups were application-site pain and erythema, and most of these were mild or moderate.

According to a press release announcing the approval from Ligand Pharmaceuticals, which acquired berdazimer topical gel from Novan in September 2023, the development makes berdazimer topical gel 10.3% the first and only topical prescription medication that can be applied by patients, parents, or caregivers at home; outside of a physician›s office; or outside of other medical settings to treat MC. Nitric oxide has been shown to have antiviral effects, although the mechanism of action of berdazimer for treating molluscum “is unknown,” the company said in the release. 

The drug will be marketed under the name Zelsuvmi and is expected to be available in the second half of 2024.

On July 21, 2023, topical cantharidin became the first approved treatment of MC for adults and pediatric patients aged 2 years or older, with the FDA approval of a drug-device combination (Ycanth) that contains a formulation of cantharidin solution 0.7% and is administered by healthcare professionals. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On January 5, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved berdazimer gel 10.3% for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum (MC) in adults and children aged 1 year or older.

Approval of berdazimer, a topical nitric oxide–releasing agent, was based largely on a 12-week pivotal phase 3 trial known as B-SIMPLE4, in which 891 patients with a mean age of 6.6 years (range, 0.9-47.5 years) were randomly assigned to treatment with berdazimer gel 10.3% or a vehicle gel applied in a thin layer to all lesions once daily. At 12 weeks, 32.4% of patients in the berdazimer group achieved complete clearance of MC lesions compared with 19.7% of those in the vehicle group (P < .001).

Only 4.1% of patients on berdazimer and 0.7% of those on the vehicle experienced adverse events that led to discontinuation of treatment. The most common adverse events in both groups were application-site pain and erythema, and most of these were mild or moderate.

According to a press release announcing the approval from Ligand Pharmaceuticals, which acquired berdazimer topical gel from Novan in September 2023, the development makes berdazimer topical gel 10.3% the first and only topical prescription medication that can be applied by patients, parents, or caregivers at home; outside of a physician›s office; or outside of other medical settings to treat MC. Nitric oxide has been shown to have antiviral effects, although the mechanism of action of berdazimer for treating molluscum “is unknown,” the company said in the release. 

The drug will be marketed under the name Zelsuvmi and is expected to be available in the second half of 2024.

On July 21, 2023, topical cantharidin became the first approved treatment of MC for adults and pediatric patients aged 2 years or older, with the FDA approval of a drug-device combination (Ycanth) that contains a formulation of cantharidin solution 0.7% and is administered by healthcare professionals. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Evidence-based guidelines for managing atopic dermatitis (AD) issued by The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters (JTFPP) incorporate a decade of new treatments and new methodological standards for making recommendations. The new guidelines update 2012 recommendations.

The JTFPP AD guidelines represent “an evolution” in trustworthy allergy guidelines and provide systematic reviews of the evidence with multidisciplinary panelist engagement, adherence to a rigorous guideline development process, the involvement of the patient and caregiver voice from start to finish, clear translation of evidence to clinically actionable and contextual recommendations, and novel approaches to facilitate knowledge translation, task force cochair Derek K. Chu, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Chu, director of the Evidence in Allergy research group at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, cochaired the task force with Lynda Schneider, MD, section chief of the allergy and asthma program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

The new guidelines were published online on December 17, 2023, in Annals of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology. They include 25 recommendations and address optimal use of topical treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical JAK inhibitors, topical crisaborole, and topical antimicrobials; dilute bleach baths; dietary elimination; allergen immunotherapy by subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) routes; and systemic treatments with dupilumab and tralokinumab, cyclosporine, azathioprine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, oral JAK inhibitors, systemic corticosteroids; and phototherapy.

“There’s something in here for all clinicians — from primary care to AD experts— and patients may benefit as well, so the key individual recommendations will vary,” Dr. Chu told this news organization.

“Throughout the guideline, we emphasize shared decision-making, key factors to consider for each recommendation, and the specific evidence behind each recommendation,” he said. “There is a major focus on addressing equity, diversity, inclusiveness; and addressing health disparities, and key gaps to address in future research.”

Among the changes to the 2012 JTFPP guidelines, the 2023 update suggests using dilute bleach baths for patients with AD with moderate to severe disease as an additive therapy and suggests using allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for moderate to severe AD.

In other changes, the 2023 update suggests against using elimination diets for AD; recommends against very low dose baricitinib (1 mg); suggests against azathioprine, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil; and suggests against adding topical JAK inhibitors, such as ruxolitinib, for patients with mild to moderate AD refractory to moisturization alone.

The 38-page guidelines include an infographic that summarizes comparative effects of systemic treatments on patient-important outcomes for AD that are important to patients, and includes other key summary tables that can be used at the point of care.

In addition to addressing evidence underlying each recommendation, the guideline’s eAppendix contains 1- to 2-page handouts that address practical issues for each treatment and can be used to facilitate shared decision making.

Dr. Chu said that the updated guidelines “provide important changes to almost all aspects of AD care — my own and my colleagues’ — and I strongly recommend all clinicians treating AD to read the full guidelines and use them in clinical practice. We’re grateful to all our contributors, especially our patient and caregiver partners, for helping make these guidelines. We will continue to periodically update the guidelines as part of maintaining them as living guidelines.”

The guidelines incorporate the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence.

The work was funded by the AAAAI/ACAAI JTFPP. Dr. Chu disclosed that he has received a faculty development award from the AAAAI Foundation and research grants to McMaster from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ontario Ministry of Health, and the Ontario Medical Association.

Evidence-based guidelines for managing atopic dermatitis (AD) issued by The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters (JTFPP) incorporate a decade of new treatments and new methodological standards for making recommendations. The new guidelines update 2012 recommendations.

The JTFPP AD guidelines represent “an evolution” in trustworthy allergy guidelines and provide systematic reviews of the evidence with multidisciplinary panelist engagement, adherence to a rigorous guideline development process, the involvement of the patient and caregiver voice from start to finish, clear translation of evidence to clinically actionable and contextual recommendations, and novel approaches to facilitate knowledge translation, task force cochair Derek K. Chu, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Chu, director of the Evidence in Allergy research group at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, cochaired the task force with Lynda Schneider, MD, section chief of the allergy and asthma program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

The new guidelines were published online on December 17, 2023, in Annals of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology. They include 25 recommendations and address optimal use of topical treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical JAK inhibitors, topical crisaborole, and topical antimicrobials; dilute bleach baths; dietary elimination; allergen immunotherapy by subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) routes; and systemic treatments with dupilumab and tralokinumab, cyclosporine, azathioprine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, oral JAK inhibitors, systemic corticosteroids; and phototherapy.

“There’s something in here for all clinicians — from primary care to AD experts— and patients may benefit as well, so the key individual recommendations will vary,” Dr. Chu told this news organization.

“Throughout the guideline, we emphasize shared decision-making, key factors to consider for each recommendation, and the specific evidence behind each recommendation,” he said. “There is a major focus on addressing equity, diversity, inclusiveness; and addressing health disparities, and key gaps to address in future research.”

Among the changes to the 2012 JTFPP guidelines, the 2023 update suggests using dilute bleach baths for patients with AD with moderate to severe disease as an additive therapy and suggests using allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for moderate to severe AD.

In other changes, the 2023 update suggests against using elimination diets for AD; recommends against very low dose baricitinib (1 mg); suggests against azathioprine, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil; and suggests against adding topical JAK inhibitors, such as ruxolitinib, for patients with mild to moderate AD refractory to moisturization alone.

The 38-page guidelines include an infographic that summarizes comparative effects of systemic treatments on patient-important outcomes for AD that are important to patients, and includes other key summary tables that can be used at the point of care.

In addition to addressing evidence underlying each recommendation, the guideline’s eAppendix contains 1- to 2-page handouts that address practical issues for each treatment and can be used to facilitate shared decision making.

Dr. Chu said that the updated guidelines “provide important changes to almost all aspects of AD care — my own and my colleagues’ — and I strongly recommend all clinicians treating AD to read the full guidelines and use them in clinical practice. We’re grateful to all our contributors, especially our patient and caregiver partners, for helping make these guidelines. We will continue to periodically update the guidelines as part of maintaining them as living guidelines.”

The guidelines incorporate the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence.

The work was funded by the AAAAI/ACAAI JTFPP. Dr. Chu disclosed that he has received a faculty development award from the AAAAI Foundation and research grants to McMaster from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ontario Ministry of Health, and the Ontario Medical Association.

Evidence-based guidelines for managing atopic dermatitis (AD) issued by The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters (JTFPP) incorporate a decade of new treatments and new methodological standards for making recommendations. The new guidelines update 2012 recommendations.

The JTFPP AD guidelines represent “an evolution” in trustworthy allergy guidelines and provide systematic reviews of the evidence with multidisciplinary panelist engagement, adherence to a rigorous guideline development process, the involvement of the patient and caregiver voice from start to finish, clear translation of evidence to clinically actionable and contextual recommendations, and novel approaches to facilitate knowledge translation, task force cochair Derek K. Chu, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Chu, director of the Evidence in Allergy research group at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, cochaired the task force with Lynda Schneider, MD, section chief of the allergy and asthma program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

The new guidelines were published online on December 17, 2023, in Annals of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology. They include 25 recommendations and address optimal use of topical treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical JAK inhibitors, topical crisaborole, and topical antimicrobials; dilute bleach baths; dietary elimination; allergen immunotherapy by subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) routes; and systemic treatments with dupilumab and tralokinumab, cyclosporine, azathioprine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, oral JAK inhibitors, systemic corticosteroids; and phototherapy.

“There’s something in here for all clinicians — from primary care to AD experts— and patients may benefit as well, so the key individual recommendations will vary,” Dr. Chu told this news organization.

“Throughout the guideline, we emphasize shared decision-making, key factors to consider for each recommendation, and the specific evidence behind each recommendation,” he said. “There is a major focus on addressing equity, diversity, inclusiveness; and addressing health disparities, and key gaps to address in future research.”

Among the changes to the 2012 JTFPP guidelines, the 2023 update suggests using dilute bleach baths for patients with AD with moderate to severe disease as an additive therapy and suggests using allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for moderate to severe AD.

In other changes, the 2023 update suggests against using elimination diets for AD; recommends against very low dose baricitinib (1 mg); suggests against azathioprine, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil; and suggests against adding topical JAK inhibitors, such as ruxolitinib, for patients with mild to moderate AD refractory to moisturization alone.

The 38-page guidelines include an infographic that summarizes comparative effects of systemic treatments on patient-important outcomes for AD that are important to patients, and includes other key summary tables that can be used at the point of care.

In addition to addressing evidence underlying each recommendation, the guideline’s eAppendix contains 1- to 2-page handouts that address practical issues for each treatment and can be used to facilitate shared decision making.

Dr. Chu said that the updated guidelines “provide important changes to almost all aspects of AD care — my own and my colleagues’ — and I strongly recommend all clinicians treating AD to read the full guidelines and use them in clinical practice. We’re grateful to all our contributors, especially our patient and caregiver partners, for helping make these guidelines. We will continue to periodically update the guidelines as part of maintaining them as living guidelines.”

The guidelines incorporate the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence.

The work was funded by the AAAAI/ACAAI JTFPP. Dr. Chu disclosed that he has received a faculty development award from the AAAAI Foundation and research grants to McMaster from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ontario Ministry of Health, and the Ontario Medical Association.

America was already facing a critical health care workforce shortage before the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the problem. The American Medical Association (AMA) projects that there will be a national shortage of up to 48,000 primary care physicians and 77,100 non-primary care physicians by 2034.

The dearth is particularly striking among physicians who practice in rural areas and those who are Native American. As of 2021, fewer than 3000 physicians—of 841,322—identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, according to the latest statistics from the Physician Specialty Data Report, published by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

The lack of Native American physicians is “nothing new, it’s been going on for decades,” says Mary Owen (Tlingit), MD, director of the Center of American Indian and Minority Health and associate dean of Native American Health at the University of Minnesota Medical School, speaking in a Native America Calling podcast in October.

“These numbers are… actually lessening—and we had paltry numbers to begin with,” said Owen. “It doesn’t take a genius to look back and figure out where it’s from. We don’t have enough students coming through the pathways in the first place. For instance, our high school graduation rate in this country is easily 10 points below that of non-Natives. In Duluth, Minnesota, the high school graduation rate is only 43%… We have to recognize that this is an area we have to work on.”

Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Alex Padilla (D-CA) have introduced the Expanding Medical Education Act, legislation to get more students from underrepresented groups into the physician pipeline. The bill would provide grants through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for colleges and universities to establish or expand allopathic (MD-granting) or osteopathic (DO-granting) medical schools in underserved areas or at institutions for underrepresented populations, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

Addressing Rural Needs

However, projections on the growth of health care professions show that supply will not meet demand over the next 10 years. The shortage is more dire in rural areas. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), since 2010, more than 150 rural hospitals have either closed their doors entirely or stopped providing inpatient hospital services. Often, rural communities have fewer local HCPs available.

More than half (54%) of American Indian or Alaska Native people live in rural and small-town areas, and 68% live on or near their tribal homelands, according to the nonprofit First Nations Development Institute. Many live far—even hours—away from the nearest health care facility. But according to Population Health in Rural America in 2020: Proceedings of a Workshop, only 10% of primary care practitioners and < 7% of specialty care practitioners live in rural areas. About 5% of rural counties do not have any family physicians. What’s more, language and culture differ among the nearly 600 tribes across the country. The Indian Health Council, for instance, counts 9 individual reservations and tribes within a 5-mile radius in San Diego County, “all of which have their own unique customs,” which contribute to the “level of care they deem appropriate.”

“If you’re a rural impoverished community, it’s hard to recruit doctors. We’re more likely to return to our communities,” said Donald K. Warne (Oglala Lakota), MD, MPH, Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, during the 2019 American Indian or Alaska Native Physicians Summit, which was cosponsored by the AMA, Association of American Indian Physicians (AAIP), and the AAMC.

“Communities of color and those living in rural and underserved areas have long faced significant barriers to health care, including a lack of providers that look like them or practice close by,” said Senator Kaine in a statement. “Since research shows that physicians are more likely to practice in the areas they’re from, supporting medical schools at minority-serving institutions and HBCUs in underserved areas can help improve care in those communities.”

Where Are the Native Medical Students?

Only 9% of medical schools have more than 4 American Indian or Alaska Native students; 43% have none, says Siobhan M. Wescott, MD, MPH, chair of the AMA Minority Affairs Section (MAS), and an assistant professor at the University of North Dakota. Dr. Wescott, who hosted the AMA co-sponsored summit on behalf of the AMA-MAS, is an Alaska Native and 1 of only 3 physicians from her tribe. The AAMC has also found that less than half of MD-granting medical schools in the US have enrolled more than 5 Native students.

Among other things, the Expanding Medical Education Act would prioritize grants to institutions of higher education that propose to use the funds to establish a medical school or branch campus in an area in which no other such school is based and is a medically underserved community or “health professional shortage” area. Eligible uses for the grants include hiring diverse faculty and other staff, and recruiting students from underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities, students from rural and underserved areas, low-income students, and first-generation college students.

The legislation has been endorsed by the AAMC, American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, Association of American Indian Physicians, Association of Clinicians for the Underserved, National Hispanic Medical Association, Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science, and Ochsner Health.

Funding Is Key

Federal agencies are investing in funding and training. Medicare is allocating 1000 new training slots for medical residents, prioritizing rural and underserved areas. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is offering another 200 slots, at least 100 of which are specifically for psychiatry residencies in 2026. HHS awarded more than $11 million through the Rural Residency Planning and Development Program (RRPD) to help establish new rural residency programs. Accredited RRPD-funded programs are already training more than 300 resident physicians in family medicine, internal medicine, psychiatry, and general surgery. HRSA published an opportunity for $5 million in FY 2024 to develop and implement clinical rotations for physician assistant students in rural areas that will integrate behavioral health with primary care services.

The Biden-Harris Administration has already taken several steps to improve access to health care for the more than 60 million people who live in rural areas, including: building on the Affordable Care Act and Inflation Reduction Act to increase access to affordable health coverage and care for those living in rural communities; keeping more rural hospitals open to provide critical services in their communities; and bolstering the rural health workforce, including for primary care and behavioral HCPs.

The administration also has funded small rural hospitals and Medicare-certified Rural Health Clinics. Critical access hospitals and small hospitals in rural areas have a new option: to convert to a Rural Emergency Hospital (REH), a new Medicare provider type. CMS has changed the payment method for Tribal and Indian Health Services–operated REHs, to address certain barriers that may have discouraged Tribal and Indian Health Service (IHS)–operated hospitals from converting to REHs. Beginning in FY 2022, HHS, through HRSA, dedicated $5 million to provide technical assistance to rural hospitals that are considering converting to the REH designation.

HHS also has several grant opportunities to support rural communities, including $28 million to provide direct health services and expand infrastructure and $16 million to provide technical assistance to rural hospitals facing financial distress. This year, 60 rural hospitals will receive technical assistance to maintain financial viability and ensure continued access to care.

The HRSA National Health Service Corps Rural Community Loan Repayment Program has invested $80 million to support substance use disorder treatment, assist in recovery, and prevent overdose deaths. Medicare will also cover opioid use disorder treatment services delivered by mobile units of registered opioid treatment programs, which can now be accessed via telehealth or audio-only communications.

Curricula Also Lack Native Diversity

As of 2017, only 11% of MD-granting schools in the US say they have included Native American health content in their curricula. Dr. Owen notes some of the challenges indigenous students face: They are in a crowd that is primarily non-Native, far from their own family and community; unlike White students, they usually do not have mentors; they may not have the wherewithal to continue school and graduate.

A 2022 study of the association of sociodemographic characteristics with US medical student attrition, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander students were more than 4 times as likely to drop out compared with White students. More than 10% of Indigenous medical students don’t graduate—the highest of any group the researchers examined.

In 1973 the University of North Dakota, for instance, launched Indians Into Medicine (INMED), a program that has since recruited, supported, and trained 250 American Indian doctors, and, in 2019, the country’s first PhD program in indigenous health. Dr. Warne, the director of INMED, calls it “by far, the most successful indigenous medical training program in the world,” having helped 228 American Indians and Alaska Natives graduate since its inception. A new cohort of 6 students has just enrolled.

Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) received $800,000 in federal funding for its Future Leaders in Indigenous Health (FLIGHT) project, managed through OHSU’s Northwest Native American Center of Excellence (NNACoE). In 2012, just 8 Native students were enrolled in the OHSU School of Medicine; a decade later, there were 29. In 2022, the newest medical class included 12 American Indian or Alaska Native students. According to the school, it is believed to be the largest group of Natives in any single US medical school MD class in history. The number of Native faculty in the OHSU School of Medicine grew from 7 in 2014 to 13 in 2022.

America was already facing a critical health care workforce shortage before the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the problem. The American Medical Association (AMA) projects that there will be a national shortage of up to 48,000 primary care physicians and 77,100 non-primary care physicians by 2034.

The dearth is particularly striking among physicians who practice in rural areas and those who are Native American. As of 2021, fewer than 3000 physicians—of 841,322—identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, according to the latest statistics from the Physician Specialty Data Report, published by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

The lack of Native American physicians is “nothing new, it’s been going on for decades,” says Mary Owen (Tlingit), MD, director of the Center of American Indian and Minority Health and associate dean of Native American Health at the University of Minnesota Medical School, speaking in a Native America Calling podcast in October.

“These numbers are… actually lessening—and we had paltry numbers to begin with,” said Owen. “It doesn’t take a genius to look back and figure out where it’s from. We don’t have enough students coming through the pathways in the first place. For instance, our high school graduation rate in this country is easily 10 points below that of non-Natives. In Duluth, Minnesota, the high school graduation rate is only 43%… We have to recognize that this is an area we have to work on.”

Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Alex Padilla (D-CA) have introduced the Expanding Medical Education Act, legislation to get more students from underrepresented groups into the physician pipeline. The bill would provide grants through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for colleges and universities to establish or expand allopathic (MD-granting) or osteopathic (DO-granting) medical schools in underserved areas or at institutions for underrepresented populations, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

Addressing Rural Needs

However, projections on the growth of health care professions show that supply will not meet demand over the next 10 years. The shortage is more dire in rural areas. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), since 2010, more than 150 rural hospitals have either closed their doors entirely or stopped providing inpatient hospital services. Often, rural communities have fewer local HCPs available.

More than half (54%) of American Indian or Alaska Native people live in rural and small-town areas, and 68% live on or near their tribal homelands, according to the nonprofit First Nations Development Institute. Many live far—even hours—away from the nearest health care facility. But according to Population Health in Rural America in 2020: Proceedings of a Workshop, only 10% of primary care practitioners and < 7% of specialty care practitioners live in rural areas. About 5% of rural counties do not have any family physicians. What’s more, language and culture differ among the nearly 600 tribes across the country. The Indian Health Council, for instance, counts 9 individual reservations and tribes within a 5-mile radius in San Diego County, “all of which have their own unique customs,” which contribute to the “level of care they deem appropriate.”

“If you’re a rural impoverished community, it’s hard to recruit doctors. We’re more likely to return to our communities,” said Donald K. Warne (Oglala Lakota), MD, MPH, Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, during the 2019 American Indian or Alaska Native Physicians Summit, which was cosponsored by the AMA, Association of American Indian Physicians (AAIP), and the AAMC.

“Communities of color and those living in rural and underserved areas have long faced significant barriers to health care, including a lack of providers that look like them or practice close by,” said Senator Kaine in a statement. “Since research shows that physicians are more likely to practice in the areas they’re from, supporting medical schools at minority-serving institutions and HBCUs in underserved areas can help improve care in those communities.”

Where Are the Native Medical Students?

Only 9% of medical schools have more than 4 American Indian or Alaska Native students; 43% have none, says Siobhan M. Wescott, MD, MPH, chair of the AMA Minority Affairs Section (MAS), and an assistant professor at the University of North Dakota. Dr. Wescott, who hosted the AMA co-sponsored summit on behalf of the AMA-MAS, is an Alaska Native and 1 of only 3 physicians from her tribe. The AAMC has also found that less than half of MD-granting medical schools in the US have enrolled more than 5 Native students.

Among other things, the Expanding Medical Education Act would prioritize grants to institutions of higher education that propose to use the funds to establish a medical school or branch campus in an area in which no other such school is based and is a medically underserved community or “health professional shortage” area. Eligible uses for the grants include hiring diverse faculty and other staff, and recruiting students from underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities, students from rural and underserved areas, low-income students, and first-generation college students.

The legislation has been endorsed by the AAMC, American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, Association of American Indian Physicians, Association of Clinicians for the Underserved, National Hispanic Medical Association, Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science, and Ochsner Health.

Funding Is Key

Federal agencies are investing in funding and training. Medicare is allocating 1000 new training slots for medical residents, prioritizing rural and underserved areas. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is offering another 200 slots, at least 100 of which are specifically for psychiatry residencies in 2026. HHS awarded more than $11 million through the Rural Residency Planning and Development Program (RRPD) to help establish new rural residency programs. Accredited RRPD-funded programs are already training more than 300 resident physicians in family medicine, internal medicine, psychiatry, and general surgery. HRSA published an opportunity for $5 million in FY 2024 to develop and implement clinical rotations for physician assistant students in rural areas that will integrate behavioral health with primary care services.

The Biden-Harris Administration has already taken several steps to improve access to health care for the more than 60 million people who live in rural areas, including: building on the Affordable Care Act and Inflation Reduction Act to increase access to affordable health coverage and care for those living in rural communities; keeping more rural hospitals open to provide critical services in their communities; and bolstering the rural health workforce, including for primary care and behavioral HCPs.

The administration also has funded small rural hospitals and Medicare-certified Rural Health Clinics. Critical access hospitals and small hospitals in rural areas have a new option: to convert to a Rural Emergency Hospital (REH), a new Medicare provider type. CMS has changed the payment method for Tribal and Indian Health Services–operated REHs, to address certain barriers that may have discouraged Tribal and Indian Health Service (IHS)–operated hospitals from converting to REHs. Beginning in FY 2022, HHS, through HRSA, dedicated $5 million to provide technical assistance to rural hospitals that are considering converting to the REH designation.

HHS also has several grant opportunities to support rural communities, including $28 million to provide direct health services and expand infrastructure and $16 million to provide technical assistance to rural hospitals facing financial distress. This year, 60 rural hospitals will receive technical assistance to maintain financial viability and ensure continued access to care.

The HRSA National Health Service Corps Rural Community Loan Repayment Program has invested $80 million to support substance use disorder treatment, assist in recovery, and prevent overdose deaths. Medicare will also cover opioid use disorder treatment services delivered by mobile units of registered opioid treatment programs, which can now be accessed via telehealth or audio-only communications.

Curricula Also Lack Native Diversity

As of 2017, only 11% of MD-granting schools in the US say they have included Native American health content in their curricula. Dr. Owen notes some of the challenges indigenous students face: They are in a crowd that is primarily non-Native, far from their own family and community; unlike White students, they usually do not have mentors; they may not have the wherewithal to continue school and graduate.

A 2022 study of the association of sociodemographic characteristics with US medical student attrition, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander students were more than 4 times as likely to drop out compared with White students. More than 10% of Indigenous medical students don’t graduate—the highest of any group the researchers examined.

In 1973 the University of North Dakota, for instance, launched Indians Into Medicine (INMED), a program that has since recruited, supported, and trained 250 American Indian doctors, and, in 2019, the country’s first PhD program in indigenous health. Dr. Warne, the director of INMED, calls it “by far, the most successful indigenous medical training program in the world,” having helped 228 American Indians and Alaska Natives graduate since its inception. A new cohort of 6 students has just enrolled.

Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) received $800,000 in federal funding for its Future Leaders in Indigenous Health (FLIGHT) project, managed through OHSU’s Northwest Native American Center of Excellence (NNACoE). In 2012, just 8 Native students were enrolled in the OHSU School of Medicine; a decade later, there were 29. In 2022, the newest medical class included 12 American Indian or Alaska Native students. According to the school, it is believed to be the largest group of Natives in any single US medical school MD class in history. The number of Native faculty in the OHSU School of Medicine grew from 7 in 2014 to 13 in 2022.

America was already facing a critical health care workforce shortage before the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the problem. The American Medical Association (AMA) projects that there will be a national shortage of up to 48,000 primary care physicians and 77,100 non-primary care physicians by 2034.

The dearth is particularly striking among physicians who practice in rural areas and those who are Native American. As of 2021, fewer than 3000 physicians—of 841,322—identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, according to the latest statistics from the Physician Specialty Data Report, published by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

The lack of Native American physicians is “nothing new, it’s been going on for decades,” says Mary Owen (Tlingit), MD, director of the Center of American Indian and Minority Health and associate dean of Native American Health at the University of Minnesota Medical School, speaking in a Native America Calling podcast in October.

“These numbers are… actually lessening—and we had paltry numbers to begin with,” said Owen. “It doesn’t take a genius to look back and figure out where it’s from. We don’t have enough students coming through the pathways in the first place. For instance, our high school graduation rate in this country is easily 10 points below that of non-Natives. In Duluth, Minnesota, the high school graduation rate is only 43%… We have to recognize that this is an area we have to work on.”

Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Alex Padilla (D-CA) have introduced the Expanding Medical Education Act, legislation to get more students from underrepresented groups into the physician pipeline. The bill would provide grants through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for colleges and universities to establish or expand allopathic (MD-granting) or osteopathic (DO-granting) medical schools in underserved areas or at institutions for underrepresented populations, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

Addressing Rural Needs

However, projections on the growth of health care professions show that supply will not meet demand over the next 10 years. The shortage is more dire in rural areas. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), since 2010, more than 150 rural hospitals have either closed their doors entirely or stopped providing inpatient hospital services. Often, rural communities have fewer local HCPs available.

More than half (54%) of American Indian or Alaska Native people live in rural and small-town areas, and 68% live on or near their tribal homelands, according to the nonprofit First Nations Development Institute. Many live far—even hours—away from the nearest health care facility. But according to Population Health in Rural America in 2020: Proceedings of a Workshop, only 10% of primary care practitioners and < 7% of specialty care practitioners live in rural areas. About 5% of rural counties do not have any family physicians. What’s more, language and culture differ among the nearly 600 tribes across the country. The Indian Health Council, for instance, counts 9 individual reservations and tribes within a 5-mile radius in San Diego County, “all of which have their own unique customs,” which contribute to the “level of care they deem appropriate.”

“If you’re a rural impoverished community, it’s hard to recruit doctors. We’re more likely to return to our communities,” said Donald K. Warne (Oglala Lakota), MD, MPH, Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, during the 2019 American Indian or Alaska Native Physicians Summit, which was cosponsored by the AMA, Association of American Indian Physicians (AAIP), and the AAMC.

“Communities of color and those living in rural and underserved areas have long faced significant barriers to health care, including a lack of providers that look like them or practice close by,” said Senator Kaine in a statement. “Since research shows that physicians are more likely to practice in the areas they’re from, supporting medical schools at minority-serving institutions and HBCUs in underserved areas can help improve care in those communities.”

Where Are the Native Medical Students?

Only 9% of medical schools have more than 4 American Indian or Alaska Native students; 43% have none, says Siobhan M. Wescott, MD, MPH, chair of the AMA Minority Affairs Section (MAS), and an assistant professor at the University of North Dakota. Dr. Wescott, who hosted the AMA co-sponsored summit on behalf of the AMA-MAS, is an Alaska Native and 1 of only 3 physicians from her tribe. The AAMC has also found that less than half of MD-granting medical schools in the US have enrolled more than 5 Native students.

Among other things, the Expanding Medical Education Act would prioritize grants to institutions of higher education that propose to use the funds to establish a medical school or branch campus in an area in which no other such school is based and is a medically underserved community or “health professional shortage” area. Eligible uses for the grants include hiring diverse faculty and other staff, and recruiting students from underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities, students from rural and underserved areas, low-income students, and first-generation college students.

The legislation has been endorsed by the AAMC, American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, Association of American Indian Physicians, Association of Clinicians for the Underserved, National Hispanic Medical Association, Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science, and Ochsner Health.

Funding Is Key

Federal agencies are investing in funding and training. Medicare is allocating 1000 new training slots for medical residents, prioritizing rural and underserved areas. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is offering another 200 slots, at least 100 of which are specifically for psychiatry residencies in 2026. HHS awarded more than $11 million through the Rural Residency Planning and Development Program (RRPD) to help establish new rural residency programs. Accredited RRPD-funded programs are already training more than 300 resident physicians in family medicine, internal medicine, psychiatry, and general surgery. HRSA published an opportunity for $5 million in FY 2024 to develop and implement clinical rotations for physician assistant students in rural areas that will integrate behavioral health with primary care services.

The Biden-Harris Administration has already taken several steps to improve access to health care for the more than 60 million people who live in rural areas, including: building on the Affordable Care Act and Inflation Reduction Act to increase access to affordable health coverage and care for those living in rural communities; keeping more rural hospitals open to provide critical services in their communities; and bolstering the rural health workforce, including for primary care and behavioral HCPs.

The administration also has funded small rural hospitals and Medicare-certified Rural Health Clinics. Critical access hospitals and small hospitals in rural areas have a new option: to convert to a Rural Emergency Hospital (REH), a new Medicare provider type. CMS has changed the payment method for Tribal and Indian Health Services–operated REHs, to address certain barriers that may have discouraged Tribal and Indian Health Service (IHS)–operated hospitals from converting to REHs. Beginning in FY 2022, HHS, through HRSA, dedicated $5 million to provide technical assistance to rural hospitals that are considering converting to the REH designation.

HHS also has several grant opportunities to support rural communities, including $28 million to provide direct health services and expand infrastructure and $16 million to provide technical assistance to rural hospitals facing financial distress. This year, 60 rural hospitals will receive technical assistance to maintain financial viability and ensure continued access to care.

The HRSA National Health Service Corps Rural Community Loan Repayment Program has invested $80 million to support substance use disorder treatment, assist in recovery, and prevent overdose deaths. Medicare will also cover opioid use disorder treatment services delivered by mobile units of registered opioid treatment programs, which can now be accessed via telehealth or audio-only communications.

Curricula Also Lack Native Diversity

As of 2017, only 11% of MD-granting schools in the US say they have included Native American health content in their curricula. Dr. Owen notes some of the challenges indigenous students face: They are in a crowd that is primarily non-Native, far from their own family and community; unlike White students, they usually do not have mentors; they may not have the wherewithal to continue school and graduate.

A 2022 study of the association of sociodemographic characteristics with US medical student attrition, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander students were more than 4 times as likely to drop out compared with White students. More than 10% of Indigenous medical students don’t graduate—the highest of any group the researchers examined.

In 1973 the University of North Dakota, for instance, launched Indians Into Medicine (INMED), a program that has since recruited, supported, and trained 250 American Indian doctors, and, in 2019, the country’s first PhD program in indigenous health. Dr. Warne, the director of INMED, calls it “by far, the most successful indigenous medical training program in the world,” having helped 228 American Indians and Alaska Natives graduate since its inception. A new cohort of 6 students has just enrolled.

Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) received $800,000 in federal funding for its Future Leaders in Indigenous Health (FLIGHT) project, managed through OHSU’s Northwest Native American Center of Excellence (NNACoE). In 2012, just 8 Native students were enrolled in the OHSU School of Medicine; a decade later, there were 29. In 2022, the newest medical class included 12 American Indian or Alaska Native students. According to the school, it is believed to be the largest group of Natives in any single US medical school MD class in history. The number of Native faculty in the OHSU School of Medicine grew from 7 in 2014 to 13 in 2022.

TOPLINE:

Paramagnetic seeds work just as well as standard guidewires for breast tumor localization and are easier for surgeons, radiologists, and operating room planners to use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Paramagnetic seeds have shown promise over standard guidewire localization, but the two methods of tagging breast lesions for surgical removal have never been compared head-to-head in a randomized trial.
• Paramagnetic seeds are magnetic markers smaller than a grain of rice that are injected into the lesion under ultrasound or x-ray guidance. While traditional guidewires are placed on the day of surgery, seeds can be placed up to 4 weeks ahead of time.
• In the current study, investigators at three hospitals in Sweden randomized 426 women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer to either paramagnetic seed (Magseed, Endomag, Cambridge, UK) or guidewire localization.
• Sentinel lymph nodes were also marked magnetically for removal by superparamagnetic iron oxide (Magtrace, Endomag, Cambridge, UK ) injected into the breast before surgery. This approach — an alternative to traditional radioisotopes and blue dye — can be done days before surgery.

TAKEAWAY:

• The investigators found no significant difference in re-excision rates (2.84% vs 2.87%), sentinel lymph node detection (98.1% vs 99.0%), or resection ratios — a metric of surgical precision — between the guidewire and seed approaches.
• The rate of failed localizations was significantly higher in the guidewire group (10.1% vs 1.9%; P < .001).
• Median operative time was significantly shorter in the seed localization group (69 min vs 75.5 min; P = .03).
• Surgery coordinators reported greater ease of planning with the seeds, radiologists reported easier preoperative localization, and surgeons reported easier detection of marked tumors during surgery.

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, the randomized trial found that “a paramagnetic marker was equivalent to the guidewire in re-excisions and excised specimen volumes, with advantages of shorter operative time, safer localization, and preferable logistics,” the authors concluded.

Another advantage of paramagnetic seeds: Surgical staff and patients were not confined to the same-day “restrictions posed by guidewire localization or radioisotope-based methods, making it an attractive alternative for numerous and diverse clinical settings,” the authors added.

SOURCE:

The work, led by Eirini Pantiora, MD, of Uppsala University, Sweden, was published in JAMA Surgery .

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators don’t yet know whether the benefits of implementing seed localization outweigh the costs.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by Uppsala University, the Swedish Breast Cancer Association, and others. The senior investigator reported receiving grants from Endomag, the maker of the technology tested in the trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Paramagnetic seeds work just as well as standard guidewires for breast tumor localization and are easier for surgeons, radiologists, and operating room planners to use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Paramagnetic seeds have shown promise over standard guidewire localization, but the two methods of tagging breast lesions for surgical removal have never been compared head-to-head in a randomized trial.
• Paramagnetic seeds are magnetic markers smaller than a grain of rice that are injected into the lesion under ultrasound or x-ray guidance. While traditional guidewires are placed on the day of surgery, seeds can be placed up to 4 weeks ahead of time.
• In the current study, investigators at three hospitals in Sweden randomized 426 women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer to either paramagnetic seed (Magseed, Endomag, Cambridge, UK) or guidewire localization.
• Sentinel lymph nodes were also marked magnetically for removal by superparamagnetic iron oxide (Magtrace, Endomag, Cambridge, UK ) injected into the breast before surgery. This approach — an alternative to traditional radioisotopes and blue dye — can be done days before surgery.

TAKEAWAY:

• The investigators found no significant difference in re-excision rates (2.84% vs 2.87%), sentinel lymph node detection (98.1% vs 99.0%), or resection ratios — a metric of surgical precision — between the guidewire and seed approaches.
• The rate of failed localizations was significantly higher in the guidewire group (10.1% vs 1.9%; P < .001).
• Median operative time was significantly shorter in the seed localization group (69 min vs 75.5 min; P = .03).
• Surgery coordinators reported greater ease of planning with the seeds, radiologists reported easier preoperative localization, and surgeons reported easier detection of marked tumors during surgery.

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, the randomized trial found that “a paramagnetic marker was equivalent to the guidewire in re-excisions and excised specimen volumes, with advantages of shorter operative time, safer localization, and preferable logistics,” the authors concluded.

Another advantage of paramagnetic seeds: Surgical staff and patients were not confined to the same-day “restrictions posed by guidewire localization or radioisotope-based methods, making it an attractive alternative for numerous and diverse clinical settings,” the authors added.

SOURCE:

The work, led by Eirini Pantiora, MD, of Uppsala University, Sweden, was published in JAMA Surgery .

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators don’t yet know whether the benefits of implementing seed localization outweigh the costs.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by Uppsala University, the Swedish Breast Cancer Association, and others. The senior investigator reported receiving grants from Endomag, the maker of the technology tested in the trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Paramagnetic seeds work just as well as standard guidewires for breast tumor localization and are easier for surgeons, radiologists, and operating room planners to use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Paramagnetic seeds have shown promise over standard guidewire localization, but the two methods of tagging breast lesions for surgical removal have never been compared head-to-head in a randomized trial.
• Paramagnetic seeds are magnetic markers smaller than a grain of rice that are injected into the lesion under ultrasound or x-ray guidance. While traditional guidewires are placed on the day of surgery, seeds can be placed up to 4 weeks ahead of time.
• In the current study, investigators at three hospitals in Sweden randomized 426 women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer to either paramagnetic seed (Magseed, Endomag, Cambridge, UK) or guidewire localization.
• Sentinel lymph nodes were also marked magnetically for removal by superparamagnetic iron oxide (Magtrace, Endomag, Cambridge, UK ) injected into the breast before surgery. This approach — an alternative to traditional radioisotopes and blue dye — can be done days before surgery.

TAKEAWAY:

• The investigators found no significant difference in re-excision rates (2.84% vs 2.87%), sentinel lymph node detection (98.1% vs 99.0%), or resection ratios — a metric of surgical precision — between the guidewire and seed approaches.
• The rate of failed localizations was significantly higher in the guidewire group (10.1% vs 1.9%; P < .001).
• Median operative time was significantly shorter in the seed localization group (69 min vs 75.5 min; P = .03).
• Surgery coordinators reported greater ease of planning with the seeds, radiologists reported easier preoperative localization, and surgeons reported easier detection of marked tumors during surgery.

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, the randomized trial found that “a paramagnetic marker was equivalent to the guidewire in re-excisions and excised specimen volumes, with advantages of shorter operative time, safer localization, and preferable logistics,” the authors concluded.

Another advantage of paramagnetic seeds: Surgical staff and patients were not confined to the same-day “restrictions posed by guidewire localization or radioisotope-based methods, making it an attractive alternative for numerous and diverse clinical settings,” the authors added.

SOURCE:

The work, led by Eirini Pantiora, MD, of Uppsala University, Sweden, was published in JAMA Surgery .

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators don’t yet know whether the benefits of implementing seed localization outweigh the costs.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by Uppsala University, the Swedish Breast Cancer Association, and others. The senior investigator reported receiving grants from Endomag, the maker of the technology tested in the trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Seventeen years ago, Philip Segal, a retired accountant from suburban Toronto, Canada, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in a private clinic. After rejecting brachytherapy recommended by an oncologist, he went on active surveillance to watch, but not treat, the Gleason 6 (grade group 1) tumor. As he approaches his 80th birthday later this year, Mr. Segal said he plans to maintain the status quo. “It definitely brings me some peace of mind. I’d rather do that than not follow it and kick myself if there was a serious change,” he said.

Meanwhile, 2 years ago and 200 miles away in suburban Detroit, Bruno Barrey, a robotics engineer, was diagnosed with three cores of Gleason 6 and went on active surveillance.

Six months after the original diagnosis, however, Mr. Barrey, 57, underwent a follow-up biopsy. This time, all 16 cores were positive, with a mix of low-risk Gleason 6 and more advanced Gleason 3 + 4 lesions. His tumor was so large he underwent radiation therapy in 2023, ending his brief stint on the monitoring approach.

The two cases illustrate the complicated truth of active surveillance. For some men, the strategy can prove to be short-lived, perhaps 5 years or less, or a life-long approach lasting until the man dies from another cause.

Which kind of race a man will run depends on a wide range of factors: His comfort level living with a cancer, or at least a tumor that might well evolve into an aggressive malignancy, changes in his prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and results of a magnetic resonance imaging test, the volume of his cancer, results of genetic testing of the patient himself and his lesion, and his urologist’s philosophy about surveillance. Where a patient lives matters, too, because variations in surveillance levels exist in different geographic areas, domestically and internationally.

“Active surveillance is a strategy of monitoring until it is necessary to be treated. For some people, it is very short, and for others, essentially indefinite,” said Michael Leapman, MD, clinical lead at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut. “While there are differences, I think they are mainly about who is the ideal patient.”

Most studies show that roughly half of men in the United States who go on active surveillance abandon it within 5 years of diagnosis. Rashid Sayyid, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, Canada, found in a paper presented to the American Urological Association in 2022 that the number leaving active surveillance increased to nearly two thirds at 10 years.

Peter Carroll, MD, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and a pioneer in the active surveillance in the late 1990s, said the major reason men abandon the strategy is because monitoring reveals the presence of a more aggressive cancer, typically a grade group 2 (Gleason 3 + 4) lesion. But other reasons include anxiety and other emotional distress and upgrades in blood levels of PSA and increases in the rating scale for MRI for the likelihood of the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, who coined the term active surveillance strategy in 1997 and published the first studies in the early 2000s, said it is important to consider when the data on surveillance were collected.

Since 2013, when MRI began to be adopted as a surveillance modality for men with prostate cancer, the dropout rate began declining. The reason? According to Dr. Klotz, MRIs and targeted biopsies result in greater accuracy in staging the disease, determining which patients need to be biopsied, which helps some men avoid being diagnosed to begin with.

Dr. Klotz cited as an example of the emerging change a 2020 study in the Journal of Urology, which found a 24% dropout rate for surveillance at 5 years, 36% at 10 years, and 42% at 15 years in a series of 2664 grade group 1 patients on active surveillance at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City from 2000 to 2017.

Dr. Leapman cited a 2023 study in JNCI Cancer Spectrum using the National Cancer Database that found a decline in the percentage of patients who had grade group 1 in biopsies from 45% in 2010 to 25% in 2019.

“There is more judicious use of PSA testing and biopsy in individuals who are more likely to have significant prostate cancer,” Dr. Leapman told this news organization. “And MRI could also play a role by finding more high-grade cancers that would have otherwise been hidden.”

The changing statistics of prostate cancer also may reflect decreases in screening in response to a 2012 statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force advising against PSA testing. The American Cancer Society in January 2023 said that statement could be driving more diagnoses of late-stage disease, which has been surging for the first time in two decades, especially among Black men.

Dr. Sayyid said patients must be selected carefully for active surveillance. And he said urologists should not promise their active surveillance patients that they will avoid treatment. “There are numerous factors at stake that influence the ultimate outcome,” he said.

Progression of Gleason scores is estimated at 1%-2% per year, Dr. Sayyid added. When active surveillance fails in the short to medium term — 5-10 years — the reason usually is that higher-grade cancers with Gleason 3 + 4 or above were initially missed.

Dr. Sayyid said he counsels patients aged 70 years and older differently than those in their 50s, telling younger patients they are more likely to need treatment eventually than the older patients.

Factors that can affect the longevity of active surveillance include the presence or absence of germline mutations and the overall health and life expectancy and comorbidities such as heart disease and diabetes in a given patient, he said.

Urologists hold varying philosophies here, especially involving younger patients and the presence of any level of Gleason 4 cancer.

William Catalona, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, who developed the concept of mass screening with PSA testing, originally opposed active surveillance. In recent years, he has modified his views but still takes a more conservative approach.

“I consider active surveillance a foolish strategy or, at best, a short-term strategy for young, otherwise healthy men, especially those having any Gleason pattern 4 disease.”

“More than half will ultimately convert to active treatment, some too late, and will require multiple treatments with multiple side effects. Some will develop metastases, and some will die of prostate cancer.”

Dr. Sayyid takes a more liberal approach. “I would counsel an eligible patient considering active surveillance that at the current time, I see no strong reason why you should be subjected to treatment and the associated side effects,” he said. “And as long as your overall disease ‘state’ [the combination of grade, volume, PSA, and imaging tests] remains relatively stable, there should be no reason for us to ‘jump ship’. In my practice, another term for active surveillance is ‘active partnership’ — working together to decide if this is a sprint or a lifelong marathon.”

Dr. Carroll reported research funding from the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Seventeen years ago, Philip Segal, a retired accountant from suburban Toronto, Canada, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in a private clinic. After rejecting brachytherapy recommended by an oncologist, he went on active surveillance to watch, but not treat, the Gleason 6 (grade group 1) tumor. As he approaches his 80th birthday later this year, Mr. Segal said he plans to maintain the status quo. “It definitely brings me some peace of mind. I’d rather do that than not follow it and kick myself if there was a serious change,” he said.

Meanwhile, 2 years ago and 200 miles away in suburban Detroit, Bruno Barrey, a robotics engineer, was diagnosed with three cores of Gleason 6 and went on active surveillance.

Six months after the original diagnosis, however, Mr. Barrey, 57, underwent a follow-up biopsy. This time, all 16 cores were positive, with a mix of low-risk Gleason 6 and more advanced Gleason 3 + 4 lesions. His tumor was so large he underwent radiation therapy in 2023, ending his brief stint on the monitoring approach.

The two cases illustrate the complicated truth of active surveillance. For some men, the strategy can prove to be short-lived, perhaps 5 years or less, or a life-long approach lasting until the man dies from another cause.

Which kind of race a man will run depends on a wide range of factors: His comfort level living with a cancer, or at least a tumor that might well evolve into an aggressive malignancy, changes in his prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and results of a magnetic resonance imaging test, the volume of his cancer, results of genetic testing of the patient himself and his lesion, and his urologist’s philosophy about surveillance. Where a patient lives matters, too, because variations in surveillance levels exist in different geographic areas, domestically and internationally.

“Active surveillance is a strategy of monitoring until it is necessary to be treated. For some people, it is very short, and for others, essentially indefinite,” said Michael Leapman, MD, clinical lead at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut. “While there are differences, I think they are mainly about who is the ideal patient.”

Most studies show that roughly half of men in the United States who go on active surveillance abandon it within 5 years of diagnosis. Rashid Sayyid, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, Canada, found in a paper presented to the American Urological Association in 2022 that the number leaving active surveillance increased to nearly two thirds at 10 years.

Peter Carroll, MD, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and a pioneer in the active surveillance in the late 1990s, said the major reason men abandon the strategy is because monitoring reveals the presence of a more aggressive cancer, typically a grade group 2 (Gleason 3 + 4) lesion. But other reasons include anxiety and other emotional distress and upgrades in blood levels of PSA and increases in the rating scale for MRI for the likelihood of the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, who coined the term active surveillance strategy in 1997 and published the first studies in the early 2000s, said it is important to consider when the data on surveillance were collected.

Since 2013, when MRI began to be adopted as a surveillance modality for men with prostate cancer, the dropout rate began declining. The reason? According to Dr. Klotz, MRIs and targeted biopsies result in greater accuracy in staging the disease, determining which patients need to be biopsied, which helps some men avoid being diagnosed to begin with.

Dr. Klotz cited as an example of the emerging change a 2020 study in the Journal of Urology, which found a 24% dropout rate for surveillance at 5 years, 36% at 10 years, and 42% at 15 years in a series of 2664 grade group 1 patients on active surveillance at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City from 2000 to 2017.

Dr. Leapman cited a 2023 study in JNCI Cancer Spectrum using the National Cancer Database that found a decline in the percentage of patients who had grade group 1 in biopsies from 45% in 2010 to 25% in 2019.

“There is more judicious use of PSA testing and biopsy in individuals who are more likely to have significant prostate cancer,” Dr. Leapman told this news organization. “And MRI could also play a role by finding more high-grade cancers that would have otherwise been hidden.”

The changing statistics of prostate cancer also may reflect decreases in screening in response to a 2012 statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force advising against PSA testing. The American Cancer Society in January 2023 said that statement could be driving more diagnoses of late-stage disease, which has been surging for the first time in two decades, especially among Black men.

Dr. Sayyid said patients must be selected carefully for active surveillance. And he said urologists should not promise their active surveillance patients that they will avoid treatment. “There are numerous factors at stake that influence the ultimate outcome,” he said.

Progression of Gleason scores is estimated at 1%-2% per year, Dr. Sayyid added. When active surveillance fails in the short to medium term — 5-10 years — the reason usually is that higher-grade cancers with Gleason 3 + 4 or above were initially missed.

Dr. Sayyid said he counsels patients aged 70 years and older differently than those in their 50s, telling younger patients they are more likely to need treatment eventually than the older patients.

Factors that can affect the longevity of active surveillance include the presence or absence of germline mutations and the overall health and life expectancy and comorbidities such as heart disease and diabetes in a given patient, he said.

Urologists hold varying philosophies here, especially involving younger patients and the presence of any level of Gleason 4 cancer.

William Catalona, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, who developed the concept of mass screening with PSA testing, originally opposed active surveillance. In recent years, he has modified his views but still takes a more conservative approach.

“I consider active surveillance a foolish strategy or, at best, a short-term strategy for young, otherwise healthy men, especially those having any Gleason pattern 4 disease.”

“More than half will ultimately convert to active treatment, some too late, and will require multiple treatments with multiple side effects. Some will develop metastases, and some will die of prostate cancer.”

Dr. Sayyid takes a more liberal approach. “I would counsel an eligible patient considering active surveillance that at the current time, I see no strong reason why you should be subjected to treatment and the associated side effects,” he said. “And as long as your overall disease ‘state’ [the combination of grade, volume, PSA, and imaging tests] remains relatively stable, there should be no reason for us to ‘jump ship’. In my practice, another term for active surveillance is ‘active partnership’ — working together to decide if this is a sprint or a lifelong marathon.”

Dr. Carroll reported research funding from the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Seventeen years ago, Philip Segal, a retired accountant from suburban Toronto, Canada, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in a private clinic. After rejecting brachytherapy recommended by an oncologist, he went on active surveillance to watch, but not treat, the Gleason 6 (grade group 1) tumor. As he approaches his 80th birthday later this year, Mr. Segal said he plans to maintain the status quo. “It definitely brings me some peace of mind. I’d rather do that than not follow it and kick myself if there was a serious change,” he said.

Meanwhile, 2 years ago and 200 miles away in suburban Detroit, Bruno Barrey, a robotics engineer, was diagnosed with three cores of Gleason 6 and went on active surveillance.

Six months after the original diagnosis, however, Mr. Barrey, 57, underwent a follow-up biopsy. This time, all 16 cores were positive, with a mix of low-risk Gleason 6 and more advanced Gleason 3 + 4 lesions. His tumor was so large he underwent radiation therapy in 2023, ending his brief stint on the monitoring approach.

The two cases illustrate the complicated truth of active surveillance. For some men, the strategy can prove to be short-lived, perhaps 5 years or less, or a life-long approach lasting until the man dies from another cause.

Which kind of race a man will run depends on a wide range of factors: His comfort level living with a cancer, or at least a tumor that might well evolve into an aggressive malignancy, changes in his prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and results of a magnetic resonance imaging test, the volume of his cancer, results of genetic testing of the patient himself and his lesion, and his urologist’s philosophy about surveillance. Where a patient lives matters, too, because variations in surveillance levels exist in different geographic areas, domestically and internationally.

“Active surveillance is a strategy of monitoring until it is necessary to be treated. For some people, it is very short, and for others, essentially indefinite,” said Michael Leapman, MD, clinical lead at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut. “While there are differences, I think they are mainly about who is the ideal patient.”

Most studies show that roughly half of men in the United States who go on active surveillance abandon it within 5 years of diagnosis. Rashid Sayyid, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, Canada, found in a paper presented to the American Urological Association in 2022 that the number leaving active surveillance increased to nearly two thirds at 10 years.

Peter Carroll, MD, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and a pioneer in the active surveillance in the late 1990s, said the major reason men abandon the strategy is because monitoring reveals the presence of a more aggressive cancer, typically a grade group 2 (Gleason 3 + 4) lesion. But other reasons include anxiety and other emotional distress and upgrades in blood levels of PSA and increases in the rating scale for MRI for the likelihood of the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, who coined the term active surveillance strategy in 1997 and published the first studies in the early 2000s, said it is important to consider when the data on surveillance were collected.

Since 2013, when MRI began to be adopted as a surveillance modality for men with prostate cancer, the dropout rate began declining. The reason? According to Dr. Klotz, MRIs and targeted biopsies result in greater accuracy in staging the disease, determining which patients need to be biopsied, which helps some men avoid being diagnosed to begin with.

Dr. Klotz cited as an example of the emerging change a 2020 study in the Journal of Urology, which found a 24% dropout rate for surveillance at 5 years, 36% at 10 years, and 42% at 15 years in a series of 2664 grade group 1 patients on active surveillance at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City from 2000 to 2017.

Dr. Leapman cited a 2023 study in JNCI Cancer Spectrum using the National Cancer Database that found a decline in the percentage of patients who had grade group 1 in biopsies from 45% in 2010 to 25% in 2019.

“There is more judicious use of PSA testing and biopsy in individuals who are more likely to have significant prostate cancer,” Dr. Leapman told this news organization. “And MRI could also play a role by finding more high-grade cancers that would have otherwise been hidden.”

The changing statistics of prostate cancer also may reflect decreases in screening in response to a 2012 statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force advising against PSA testing. The American Cancer Society in January 2023 said that statement could be driving more diagnoses of late-stage disease, which has been surging for the first time in two decades, especially among Black men.

Dr. Sayyid said patients must be selected carefully for active surveillance. And he said urologists should not promise their active surveillance patients that they will avoid treatment. “There are numerous factors at stake that influence the ultimate outcome,” he said.

Progression of Gleason scores is estimated at 1%-2% per year, Dr. Sayyid added. When active surveillance fails in the short to medium term — 5-10 years — the reason usually is that higher-grade cancers with Gleason 3 + 4 or above were initially missed.

Dr. Sayyid said he counsels patients aged 70 years and older differently than those in their 50s, telling younger patients they are more likely to need treatment eventually than the older patients.

Factors that can affect the longevity of active surveillance include the presence or absence of germline mutations and the overall health and life expectancy and comorbidities such as heart disease and diabetes in a given patient, he said.

Urologists hold varying philosophies here, especially involving younger patients and the presence of any level of Gleason 4 cancer.

William Catalona, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, who developed the concept of mass screening with PSA testing, originally opposed active surveillance. In recent years, he has modified his views but still takes a more conservative approach.

“I consider active surveillance a foolish strategy or, at best, a short-term strategy for young, otherwise healthy men, especially those having any Gleason pattern 4 disease.”

“More than half will ultimately convert to active treatment, some too late, and will require multiple treatments with multiple side effects. Some will develop metastases, and some will die of prostate cancer.”

Dr. Sayyid takes a more liberal approach. “I would counsel an eligible patient considering active surveillance that at the current time, I see no strong reason why you should be subjected to treatment and the associated side effects,” he said. “And as long as your overall disease ‘state’ [the combination of grade, volume, PSA, and imaging tests] remains relatively stable, there should be no reason for us to ‘jump ship’. In my practice, another term for active surveillance is ‘active partnership’ — working together to decide if this is a sprint or a lifelong marathon.”

Dr. Carroll reported research funding from the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Imposing a new prior authorization requirement increased the likelihood that older patients with cancer will delay or stop filling their prescription for oral anticancer drugs, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior authorization requirements, especially in oncology, continue to increase, but how these policies affect patients’ access to care remains less clear.
• Researchers analyzed Medicare Part D claims from 2010 to 2020 to assess the effects of prior authorization changes on prescriptions fills for 1 of 11 oral anticancer drugs.
• The study included 2495 patients filling a prescription for these medications prior to their health plan imposing a new prior authorization policy and 22,641 patients filling prescriptions for the same drugs with no change in prior authorization policy (control).
• Beneficiaries had at least three 30-day fills in the 120 days before the new prior authorization policy was established on January 1 and continued to be enrolled in the same plan 120 days after the policy change.
• The researchers focused on how often patients discontinued their therapy within 120 days following a prior authorization policy change, as well as the time to fill a prescription after this change.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients subjected to a new prior authorization policy on an established drug had a sevenfold higher likelihood of stopping the drug within 120 days than those who had no change in prior authorization requirements (adjusted odds ratio, 7.1).
• The adjusted probability of discontinuing an oral cancer regimen within 120 days after an index date of January 1 (when most health plan policy changes occur) was 5.8% for those with a new prior authorization policy vs 1.4% for the control group.
• A new prior authorization requirement was also associated with an average 10-day delay to refill the first prescription following the policy change (P < .001).
• The probability of a delay of more than 30 days was 22% after a policy change vs 7% after no policy change.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest concerns about delayed and foregone care related to prior authorization are warranted,” the authors said. Overall, this study found that “prior authorization wasted time and undermined the policy priorities of access to care and oral anticancer drug adherence for patients who were regular users of a particular medication.”

SOURCE:

The study by Michael Anna Kyle, PhD, RN, and Nancy Keating, MD, MPH, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not look at patients starting new oral anticancer drugs, which may come with more complex prior authorization processes and create more significant access issues. The results are also limited to patients taking 1 of 11 oral anticancer agents in Medicare Part D.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Imposing a new prior authorization requirement increased the likelihood that older patients with cancer will delay or stop filling their prescription for oral anticancer drugs, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior authorization requirements, especially in oncology, continue to increase, but how these policies affect patients’ access to care remains less clear.
• Researchers analyzed Medicare Part D claims from 2010 to 2020 to assess the effects of prior authorization changes on prescriptions fills for 1 of 11 oral anticancer drugs.
• The study included 2495 patients filling a prescription for these medications prior to their health plan imposing a new prior authorization policy and 22,641 patients filling prescriptions for the same drugs with no change in prior authorization policy (control).
• Beneficiaries had at least three 30-day fills in the 120 days before the new prior authorization policy was established on January 1 and continued to be enrolled in the same plan 120 days after the policy change.
• The researchers focused on how often patients discontinued their therapy within 120 days following a prior authorization policy change, as well as the time to fill a prescription after this change.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients subjected to a new prior authorization policy on an established drug had a sevenfold higher likelihood of stopping the drug within 120 days than those who had no change in prior authorization requirements (adjusted odds ratio, 7.1).
• The adjusted probability of discontinuing an oral cancer regimen within 120 days after an index date of January 1 (when most health plan policy changes occur) was 5.8% for those with a new prior authorization policy vs 1.4% for the control group.
• A new prior authorization requirement was also associated with an average 10-day delay to refill the first prescription following the policy change (P < .001).
• The probability of a delay of more than 30 days was 22% after a policy change vs 7% after no policy change.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest concerns about delayed and foregone care related to prior authorization are warranted,” the authors said. Overall, this study found that “prior authorization wasted time and undermined the policy priorities of access to care and oral anticancer drug adherence for patients who were regular users of a particular medication.”

SOURCE:

The study by Michael Anna Kyle, PhD, RN, and Nancy Keating, MD, MPH, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not look at patients starting new oral anticancer drugs, which may come with more complex prior authorization processes and create more significant access issues. The results are also limited to patients taking 1 of 11 oral anticancer agents in Medicare Part D.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Imposing a new prior authorization requirement increased the likelihood that older patients with cancer will delay or stop filling their prescription for oral anticancer drugs, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior authorization requirements, especially in oncology, continue to increase, but how these policies affect patients’ access to care remains less clear.
• Researchers analyzed Medicare Part D claims from 2010 to 2020 to assess the effects of prior authorization changes on prescriptions fills for 1 of 11 oral anticancer drugs.
• The study included 2495 patients filling a prescription for these medications prior to their health plan imposing a new prior authorization policy and 22,641 patients filling prescriptions for the same drugs with no change in prior authorization policy (control).
• Beneficiaries had at least three 30-day fills in the 120 days before the new prior authorization policy was established on January 1 and continued to be enrolled in the same plan 120 days after the policy change.
• The researchers focused on how often patients discontinued their therapy within 120 days following a prior authorization policy change, as well as the time to fill a prescription after this change.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients subjected to a new prior authorization policy on an established drug had a sevenfold higher likelihood of stopping the drug within 120 days than those who had no change in prior authorization requirements (adjusted odds ratio, 7.1).
• The adjusted probability of discontinuing an oral cancer regimen within 120 days after an index date of January 1 (when most health plan policy changes occur) was 5.8% for those with a new prior authorization policy vs 1.4% for the control group.
• A new prior authorization requirement was also associated with an average 10-day delay to refill the first prescription following the policy change (P < .001).
• The probability of a delay of more than 30 days was 22% after a policy change vs 7% after no policy change.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest concerns about delayed and foregone care related to prior authorization are warranted,” the authors said. Overall, this study found that “prior authorization wasted time and undermined the policy priorities of access to care and oral anticancer drug adherence for patients who were regular users of a particular medication.”

SOURCE:

The study by Michael Anna Kyle, PhD, RN, and Nancy Keating, MD, MPH, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not look at patients starting new oral anticancer drugs, which may come with more complex prior authorization processes and create more significant access issues. The results are also limited to patients taking 1 of 11 oral anticancer agents in Medicare Part D.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.

It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.

When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”

Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.

Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.

Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”

The events of the weekend soon unfolded.

Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.

The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.

Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.

“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”

Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.

Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”

Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.

“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.

A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.

Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.

In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.

The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.

“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”

“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email [email protected] to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.