Federal Practitioner

Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.

One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction. In the age of Healthgrades, Yelp reviews, and patients sharing their visit high points on multiple social media platforms, how can you keep patients happy and satisfied when you have to say no?

Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.

“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”

Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
 

Hear Patients Out

When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”

“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
 

Help Patients Rethink Requests

The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”

For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
 

Use Safety Concerns as an Out

Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.

“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”

Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
 

Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly

It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
 

You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review

No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”

“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.

Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”

Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.

One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction. In the age of Healthgrades, Yelp reviews, and patients sharing their visit high points on multiple social media platforms, how can you keep patients happy and satisfied when you have to say no?

Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.

“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”

Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
 

Hear Patients Out

When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”

“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
 

Help Patients Rethink Requests

The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”

For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
 

Use Safety Concerns as an Out

Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.

“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”

Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
 

Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly

It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
 

You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review

No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”

“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.

Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”

Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.

One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction. In the age of Healthgrades, Yelp reviews, and patients sharing their visit high points on multiple social media platforms, how can you keep patients happy and satisfied when you have to say no?

Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.

“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”

Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
 

Hear Patients Out

When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”

“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
 

Help Patients Rethink Requests

The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”

For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
 

Use Safety Concerns as an Out

Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.

“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”

Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
 

Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly

It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
 

You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review

No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”

“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.

Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”

Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Eating more than three meals daily, eating earlier, and eating lunch as the largest meal are linked to lower body mass index (BMI) and reduced obesity risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• According to recent research in the field of “chrononutrition,” which refers to the circadian pattern of eating behaviors, the timing of eating can affect an individual’s health and obesity.
• This exploratory, population-based study looked at the association between the timing of the largest meal of the day and the number of meals per day with BMI and obesity in 2050 nonpregnant adults in Brazil (ages 18-65 years; 15% with BMI ≥ 30; 73% women).
• In an online survey, participants reported their weight and height for BMI calculation and filled in questionnaires related to meal timing and frequency as well as diet quality and lifestyle traits.
• The 24-hour clock time (hh:mm) averages for the first eating event, lunch, and evening eating event were 8:27, 12:47, and 20:57, respectively, among all the participants.
• The median time of the largest meal was 12:38 and was the dividing line to classify people as early-eaters or late-eaters. Overall, lunch was the largest meal for 75% of people, and 75% ate more than three meals a day.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with participants who had up to three meals a day, those who reported more than three meals a day had a 0.48 lower BMI (P = .04) and lower odds of obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; P = .005).
• Eating the largest meal later was associated with higher BMI values (0.07 for each additional hour; P = .03) and higher odds of obesity (OR, 1.04; P = .01).
• The group that reported dinner as the largest meal of the day had a 0.85 higher BMI (P = .02) and greater odds of obesity (OR, 1.67; P = .004) than the group that did not have dinner as the largest meal.
• On the other hand, having lunch as the main meal appeared to serve as a protective factor with lower odds of obesity (OR, 0.71; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“Late-eaters (individuals who ate their largest meal after 12:38) exhibited several obesogenic and unhealthy behaviors (such as lower diet quality, shorter sleep duration, sedentary lifestyle, and prolonged screen time) that could potentially contribute to long-term weight gain and obesity,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Giovana Longo-Silva, Faculty of Nutrition, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil, led this study, which was published online in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN.

LIMITATIONS:

The study used self-reported questionnaires, which are susceptible to underreporting. The participants included a greater number of highly educated women. The study used food scoring to evaluate the overall quality of each person’s dietary intake and may have missed variations in the distribution of nutrients in meals and in the total amount of energy and nutrients consumed, which could affect the BMI of participants. Despite adjustments for sociodemographic, diet-related, and lifestyle traits, a cross-sectional study cannot distinguish between cause and effect.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Alagoas. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Eating more than three meals daily, eating earlier, and eating lunch as the largest meal are linked to lower body mass index (BMI) and reduced obesity risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• According to recent research in the field of “chrononutrition,” which refers to the circadian pattern of eating behaviors, the timing of eating can affect an individual’s health and obesity.
• This exploratory, population-based study looked at the association between the timing of the largest meal of the day and the number of meals per day with BMI and obesity in 2050 nonpregnant adults in Brazil (ages 18-65 years; 15% with BMI ≥ 30; 73% women).
• In an online survey, participants reported their weight and height for BMI calculation and filled in questionnaires related to meal timing and frequency as well as diet quality and lifestyle traits.
• The 24-hour clock time (hh:mm) averages for the first eating event, lunch, and evening eating event were 8:27, 12:47, and 20:57, respectively, among all the participants.
• The median time of the largest meal was 12:38 and was the dividing line to classify people as early-eaters or late-eaters. Overall, lunch was the largest meal for 75% of people, and 75% ate more than three meals a day.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with participants who had up to three meals a day, those who reported more than three meals a day had a 0.48 lower BMI (P = .04) and lower odds of obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; P = .005).
• Eating the largest meal later was associated with higher BMI values (0.07 for each additional hour; P = .03) and higher odds of obesity (OR, 1.04; P = .01).
• The group that reported dinner as the largest meal of the day had a 0.85 higher BMI (P = .02) and greater odds of obesity (OR, 1.67; P = .004) than the group that did not have dinner as the largest meal.
• On the other hand, having lunch as the main meal appeared to serve as a protective factor with lower odds of obesity (OR, 0.71; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“Late-eaters (individuals who ate their largest meal after 12:38) exhibited several obesogenic and unhealthy behaviors (such as lower diet quality, shorter sleep duration, sedentary lifestyle, and prolonged screen time) that could potentially contribute to long-term weight gain and obesity,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Giovana Longo-Silva, Faculty of Nutrition, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil, led this study, which was published online in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN.

LIMITATIONS:

The study used self-reported questionnaires, which are susceptible to underreporting. The participants included a greater number of highly educated women. The study used food scoring to evaluate the overall quality of each person’s dietary intake and may have missed variations in the distribution of nutrients in meals and in the total amount of energy and nutrients consumed, which could affect the BMI of participants. Despite adjustments for sociodemographic, diet-related, and lifestyle traits, a cross-sectional study cannot distinguish between cause and effect.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Alagoas. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Eating more than three meals daily, eating earlier, and eating lunch as the largest meal are linked to lower body mass index (BMI) and reduced obesity risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• According to recent research in the field of “chrononutrition,” which refers to the circadian pattern of eating behaviors, the timing of eating can affect an individual’s health and obesity.
• This exploratory, population-based study looked at the association between the timing of the largest meal of the day and the number of meals per day with BMI and obesity in 2050 nonpregnant adults in Brazil (ages 18-65 years; 15% with BMI ≥ 30; 73% women).
• In an online survey, participants reported their weight and height for BMI calculation and filled in questionnaires related to meal timing and frequency as well as diet quality and lifestyle traits.
• The 24-hour clock time (hh:mm) averages for the first eating event, lunch, and evening eating event were 8:27, 12:47, and 20:57, respectively, among all the participants.
• The median time of the largest meal was 12:38 and was the dividing line to classify people as early-eaters or late-eaters. Overall, lunch was the largest meal for 75% of people, and 75% ate more than three meals a day.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with participants who had up to three meals a day, those who reported more than three meals a day had a 0.48 lower BMI (P = .04) and lower odds of obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; P = .005).
• Eating the largest meal later was associated with higher BMI values (0.07 for each additional hour; P = .03) and higher odds of obesity (OR, 1.04; P = .01).
• The group that reported dinner as the largest meal of the day had a 0.85 higher BMI (P = .02) and greater odds of obesity (OR, 1.67; P = .004) than the group that did not have dinner as the largest meal.
• On the other hand, having lunch as the main meal appeared to serve as a protective factor with lower odds of obesity (OR, 0.71; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“Late-eaters (individuals who ate their largest meal after 12:38) exhibited several obesogenic and unhealthy behaviors (such as lower diet quality, shorter sleep duration, sedentary lifestyle, and prolonged screen time) that could potentially contribute to long-term weight gain and obesity,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Giovana Longo-Silva, Faculty of Nutrition, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil, led this study, which was published online in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN.

LIMITATIONS:

The study used self-reported questionnaires, which are susceptible to underreporting. The participants included a greater number of highly educated women. The study used food scoring to evaluate the overall quality of each person’s dietary intake and may have missed variations in the distribution of nutrients in meals and in the total amount of energy and nutrients consumed, which could affect the BMI of participants. Despite adjustments for sociodemographic, diet-related, and lifestyle traits, a cross-sectional study cannot distinguish between cause and effect.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Alagoas. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new position statement from the Endocrine Society aims to help clinicians prioritize patient experiences in the management of diabetes to optimize outcomes.

The statement reflects consensus from two virtual roundtables held in 2022, with participation from representatives of the American Diabetes Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others.

“Although we’ve had many new classes of medications and many new technologies introduced into the care of people with diabetes over the past decade, there continues to be significant gaps between what our clinical guidelines recommend needs to be done in order to attain optimal health outcomes and what is actually able to be implemented in practice,” writing panel chair Rita R. Kalyani, MD, told this news organization.

The roundtable discussions addressed existing gaps in diabetes care and available tools to support patient-centered care in practice, focusing on the importance of acknowledging the experience of the person living with diabetes, said Dr. Kalyani, professor of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, & Metabolism, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “What is most important to them? What are the challenges they have in their day-to-day life, and what is being communicated or understood?”

The statement is targeted at all individuals involved in the care of people with diabetes, including endocrinologists, primary care providers, other specialists such as cardiologists and nephrologists, as well as pharmacists, educators, and nutritionists, she noted.

Asked to comment, David T. Ahn, MD, chief of diabetes services at Mary & Dick Allen Diabetes Center at Hoag, Newport Beach, California, said “the statement importantly emphasizes that optimally supporting a person with diabetes is about the entire patient experience and not simply their glycemic performance. People with diabetes are truly the biggest stakeholders in diabetes management, and their perspectives should matter.”

Published on February 21, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, the statement covers the following topics in separate sections:

• The importance of effective patient-provider communication at the time of diagnosis and at every clinic visit
• Addressing emotional and psychosocial needs, including helping people through diabetes distress or “burnout”
• Referring patients for diabetes self-management education and support
• Navigating available therapeutic options and explaining complex regimens to patients
• Minimizing therapeutic and clinical inertia
• Reducing cardiovascular, kidney, and other complication risks, including with the use of newer medications
• Discussing strategies to minimize hypoglycemia when relevant
• Using telehealth when appropriate
• Integrating diabetes technologies into routine diabetes management

Each section begins with an illustrative clinical patient vignette. For example, one describes a 42-year-old man with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin who experienced hyperglycemia during illness. His provider advises him to dramatically increase his insulin dose, but he doesn’t because he remembers his father had a severe hypoglycemia episode when he did that. The man ends up hospitalized with dehydration and renal failure.

In another, a doctor hesitates to share test results with a patient during a telehealth visit because family members are in the room. During the same visit, the patient is unable to show the doctor her swollen foot because “If I move from this spot, the Internet connection will be lost.”

Dr. Ahn said, “I like the structure of the statement because the case-based format should help clinicians better identify potential blind spots in their own practice, as sometimes it can be easy to assume that we are immune to these potential pitfalls. I found the vignettes to be very realistic, and the discussions around them were extremely detailed, with many practical suggestions for improvement.”

Also scattered through the document are graphics to help visualize the content. Tables include a list of common psychosocial conditions in diabetes, a list of questions to ask people to help determine if they need additional psychosocial screening or resources, and questionnaires to assess an individual’s risk for hypoglycemia and the appropriateness of telehealth.

However, Dr. Ahn also noted, “I agree with all the major recommendations from the statement. Unfortunately, as the authors point out, practically implementing all the recommendations in this article may not be feasible in a traditional busy clinic, especially for primary care providers managing juggling multiple acute and chronic conditions ... The biggest challenge is being able to have the time and resources to actually implement these suggestions.”

Kalyani said, “tools to support patient-centered care cannot be burdensome for people with diabetes or the healthcare provider who already has limited time in order to be effective. They have to meet the ever-changing demands of new medications, new recommendations, and new technologies. New tools and resources will continue to need to be developed in the future.”

The position statement is a summary of discussions that occurred during two consensus roundtables in 2022 that were supported by educational grants to the Endocrine Society from Abbott, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Vertex. However, this position statement was developed by the authors independently. Dr. Kalyani had no disclosures. Dr. Ahn consults for Lilly Diabetes and Ascensia Diabetes Care and is on the speakers bureau for Abbott, Ascensia, Insulet, Lilly, Mannkind, Novo, and Xeris.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new position statement from the Endocrine Society aims to help clinicians prioritize patient experiences in the management of diabetes to optimize outcomes.

The statement reflects consensus from two virtual roundtables held in 2022, with participation from representatives of the American Diabetes Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others.

“Although we’ve had many new classes of medications and many new technologies introduced into the care of people with diabetes over the past decade, there continues to be significant gaps between what our clinical guidelines recommend needs to be done in order to attain optimal health outcomes and what is actually able to be implemented in practice,” writing panel chair Rita R. Kalyani, MD, told this news organization.

The roundtable discussions addressed existing gaps in diabetes care and available tools to support patient-centered care in practice, focusing on the importance of acknowledging the experience of the person living with diabetes, said Dr. Kalyani, professor of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, & Metabolism, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “What is most important to them? What are the challenges they have in their day-to-day life, and what is being communicated or understood?”

The statement is targeted at all individuals involved in the care of people with diabetes, including endocrinologists, primary care providers, other specialists such as cardiologists and nephrologists, as well as pharmacists, educators, and nutritionists, she noted.

Asked to comment, David T. Ahn, MD, chief of diabetes services at Mary & Dick Allen Diabetes Center at Hoag, Newport Beach, California, said “the statement importantly emphasizes that optimally supporting a person with diabetes is about the entire patient experience and not simply their glycemic performance. People with diabetes are truly the biggest stakeholders in diabetes management, and their perspectives should matter.”

Published on February 21, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, the statement covers the following topics in separate sections:

• The importance of effective patient-provider communication at the time of diagnosis and at every clinic visit
• Addressing emotional and psychosocial needs, including helping people through diabetes distress or “burnout”
• Referring patients for diabetes self-management education and support
• Navigating available therapeutic options and explaining complex regimens to patients
• Minimizing therapeutic and clinical inertia
• Reducing cardiovascular, kidney, and other complication risks, including with the use of newer medications
• Discussing strategies to minimize hypoglycemia when relevant
• Using telehealth when appropriate
• Integrating diabetes technologies into routine diabetes management

Each section begins with an illustrative clinical patient vignette. For example, one describes a 42-year-old man with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin who experienced hyperglycemia during illness. His provider advises him to dramatically increase his insulin dose, but he doesn’t because he remembers his father had a severe hypoglycemia episode when he did that. The man ends up hospitalized with dehydration and renal failure.

In another, a doctor hesitates to share test results with a patient during a telehealth visit because family members are in the room. During the same visit, the patient is unable to show the doctor her swollen foot because “If I move from this spot, the Internet connection will be lost.”

Dr. Ahn said, “I like the structure of the statement because the case-based format should help clinicians better identify potential blind spots in their own practice, as sometimes it can be easy to assume that we are immune to these potential pitfalls. I found the vignettes to be very realistic, and the discussions around them were extremely detailed, with many practical suggestions for improvement.”

Also scattered through the document are graphics to help visualize the content. Tables include a list of common psychosocial conditions in diabetes, a list of questions to ask people to help determine if they need additional psychosocial screening or resources, and questionnaires to assess an individual’s risk for hypoglycemia and the appropriateness of telehealth.

However, Dr. Ahn also noted, “I agree with all the major recommendations from the statement. Unfortunately, as the authors point out, practically implementing all the recommendations in this article may not be feasible in a traditional busy clinic, especially for primary care providers managing juggling multiple acute and chronic conditions ... The biggest challenge is being able to have the time and resources to actually implement these suggestions.”

Kalyani said, “tools to support patient-centered care cannot be burdensome for people with diabetes or the healthcare provider who already has limited time in order to be effective. They have to meet the ever-changing demands of new medications, new recommendations, and new technologies. New tools and resources will continue to need to be developed in the future.”

The position statement is a summary of discussions that occurred during two consensus roundtables in 2022 that were supported by educational grants to the Endocrine Society from Abbott, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Vertex. However, this position statement was developed by the authors independently. Dr. Kalyani had no disclosures. Dr. Ahn consults for Lilly Diabetes and Ascensia Diabetes Care and is on the speakers bureau for Abbott, Ascensia, Insulet, Lilly, Mannkind, Novo, and Xeris.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new position statement from the Endocrine Society aims to help clinicians prioritize patient experiences in the management of diabetes to optimize outcomes.

The statement reflects consensus from two virtual roundtables held in 2022, with participation from representatives of the American Diabetes Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others.

“Although we’ve had many new classes of medications and many new technologies introduced into the care of people with diabetes over the past decade, there continues to be significant gaps between what our clinical guidelines recommend needs to be done in order to attain optimal health outcomes and what is actually able to be implemented in practice,” writing panel chair Rita R. Kalyani, MD, told this news organization.

The roundtable discussions addressed existing gaps in diabetes care and available tools to support patient-centered care in practice, focusing on the importance of acknowledging the experience of the person living with diabetes, said Dr. Kalyani, professor of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, & Metabolism, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “What is most important to them? What are the challenges they have in their day-to-day life, and what is being communicated or understood?”

The statement is targeted at all individuals involved in the care of people with diabetes, including endocrinologists, primary care providers, other specialists such as cardiologists and nephrologists, as well as pharmacists, educators, and nutritionists, she noted.

Asked to comment, David T. Ahn, MD, chief of diabetes services at Mary & Dick Allen Diabetes Center at Hoag, Newport Beach, California, said “the statement importantly emphasizes that optimally supporting a person with diabetes is about the entire patient experience and not simply their glycemic performance. People with diabetes are truly the biggest stakeholders in diabetes management, and their perspectives should matter.”

Published on February 21, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, the statement covers the following topics in separate sections:

• The importance of effective patient-provider communication at the time of diagnosis and at every clinic visit
• Addressing emotional and psychosocial needs, including helping people through diabetes distress or “burnout”
• Referring patients for diabetes self-management education and support
• Navigating available therapeutic options and explaining complex regimens to patients
• Minimizing therapeutic and clinical inertia
• Reducing cardiovascular, kidney, and other complication risks, including with the use of newer medications
• Discussing strategies to minimize hypoglycemia when relevant
• Using telehealth when appropriate
• Integrating diabetes technologies into routine diabetes management

Each section begins with an illustrative clinical patient vignette. For example, one describes a 42-year-old man with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin who experienced hyperglycemia during illness. His provider advises him to dramatically increase his insulin dose, but he doesn’t because he remembers his father had a severe hypoglycemia episode when he did that. The man ends up hospitalized with dehydration and renal failure.

In another, a doctor hesitates to share test results with a patient during a telehealth visit because family members are in the room. During the same visit, the patient is unable to show the doctor her swollen foot because “If I move from this spot, the Internet connection will be lost.”

Dr. Ahn said, “I like the structure of the statement because the case-based format should help clinicians better identify potential blind spots in their own practice, as sometimes it can be easy to assume that we are immune to these potential pitfalls. I found the vignettes to be very realistic, and the discussions around them were extremely detailed, with many practical suggestions for improvement.”

Also scattered through the document are graphics to help visualize the content. Tables include a list of common psychosocial conditions in diabetes, a list of questions to ask people to help determine if they need additional psychosocial screening or resources, and questionnaires to assess an individual’s risk for hypoglycemia and the appropriateness of telehealth.

However, Dr. Ahn also noted, “I agree with all the major recommendations from the statement. Unfortunately, as the authors point out, practically implementing all the recommendations in this article may not be feasible in a traditional busy clinic, especially for primary care providers managing juggling multiple acute and chronic conditions ... The biggest challenge is being able to have the time and resources to actually implement these suggestions.”

Kalyani said, “tools to support patient-centered care cannot be burdensome for people with diabetes or the healthcare provider who already has limited time in order to be effective. They have to meet the ever-changing demands of new medications, new recommendations, and new technologies. New tools and resources will continue to need to be developed in the future.”

The position statement is a summary of discussions that occurred during two consensus roundtables in 2022 that were supported by educational grants to the Endocrine Society from Abbott, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Vertex. However, this position statement was developed by the authors independently. Dr. Kalyani had no disclosures. Dr. Ahn consults for Lilly Diabetes and Ascensia Diabetes Care and is on the speakers bureau for Abbott, Ascensia, Insulet, Lilly, Mannkind, Novo, and Xeris.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Upon reviewing repeated prostate cancer screenings, researchers observed the absence of suspicious MRI findings in over 86% of men who had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 3 ng/mL or higher during their second screening.

METHODOLOGY:

• New initiatives are focusing on organizing prostate cancer screening using MRI to reduce overdiagnosis, as current evidence does not support the effectiveness of a single PSA test, with guidelines now recommending repeated testing every 1-4 years.
• In the STHLM3-MRI trial, men, aged 50-74 years, living in Stockholm County, Sweden, were invited to participate in prostate cancer screening and randomly assigned to traditional screening with systematic  or an MRI-based strategy.
• Blood samples were analyzed for PSA levels and Stockholm3 risk score; men with elevated risk underwent targeted MRI and biopsy procedures.
• In this follow-up analysis, 2,078 men with PSA levels of 1.5 ng/mL or higher and a Stockholm3 risk score less than 0.11 were re-invited for screening 2-3 years after their initial screening.
• The primary outcome was clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score of 3 + 4 or greater). A Gleason score of 6 was detected in 0.7% of patients, and a score of 4 + 3 or greater was detected in 19 (1.3%) men.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 1,500 men (median age of 67 years) who underwent a blood test, the median PSA level was 2.8 ng/mL and 26.0% changed risk classification groups (PSA levels < 3 vs 3 ng/mL).
• Out of 667 men with PSA levels of 3 ng/mL or higher, 617 (92.5%) had an MRI. Of the 617, 51 (7.6%) had equivocal lesions (a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 3) and 33 (4.9%) had suspicious lesions.
• Of the 1,500 rescreened men, clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 48 men (3.2%); this corresponds to 59.2% of the biopsied men.
• Out of 383 men who had previously received a negative MRI result, only 10 (2.6%) exhibited a lesion with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 4 or higher.

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Ola Bratt, MD, PhD, noted that the “most important finding was the very high proportion of nonsuspicious repeat MRI scans,” but also emphasizes the necessity of observing a decrease in overall prostate cancer incidence before asserting that the current cancer diagnostics effectively reduce overdiagnosis.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Tobias Nordström, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, was published on February 7, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Long-term outcomes like prostate cancer mortality were not evaluated. Information on cancer detection in men with a negative MRI result at rescreening was not available. Authors noted that a subset of individuals may still be at risk despite lower PSA levels.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Karolinska Institute, Prostatacancerförbundet, Region Stockholm, and Åke Wibergs Stiftelse. The authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Upon reviewing repeated prostate cancer screenings, researchers observed the absence of suspicious MRI findings in over 86% of men who had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 3 ng/mL or higher during their second screening.

METHODOLOGY:

• New initiatives are focusing on organizing prostate cancer screening using MRI to reduce overdiagnosis, as current evidence does not support the effectiveness of a single PSA test, with guidelines now recommending repeated testing every 1-4 years.
• In the STHLM3-MRI trial, men, aged 50-74 years, living in Stockholm County, Sweden, were invited to participate in prostate cancer screening and randomly assigned to traditional screening with systematic  or an MRI-based strategy.
• Blood samples were analyzed for PSA levels and Stockholm3 risk score; men with elevated risk underwent targeted MRI and biopsy procedures.
• In this follow-up analysis, 2,078 men with PSA levels of 1.5 ng/mL or higher and a Stockholm3 risk score less than 0.11 were re-invited for screening 2-3 years after their initial screening.
• The primary outcome was clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score of 3 + 4 or greater). A Gleason score of 6 was detected in 0.7% of patients, and a score of 4 + 3 or greater was detected in 19 (1.3%) men.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 1,500 men (median age of 67 years) who underwent a blood test, the median PSA level was 2.8 ng/mL and 26.0% changed risk classification groups (PSA levels < 3 vs 3 ng/mL).
• Out of 667 men with PSA levels of 3 ng/mL or higher, 617 (92.5%) had an MRI. Of the 617, 51 (7.6%) had equivocal lesions (a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 3) and 33 (4.9%) had suspicious lesions.
• Of the 1,500 rescreened men, clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 48 men (3.2%); this corresponds to 59.2% of the biopsied men.
• Out of 383 men who had previously received a negative MRI result, only 10 (2.6%) exhibited a lesion with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 4 or higher.

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Ola Bratt, MD, PhD, noted that the “most important finding was the very high proportion of nonsuspicious repeat MRI scans,” but also emphasizes the necessity of observing a decrease in overall prostate cancer incidence before asserting that the current cancer diagnostics effectively reduce overdiagnosis.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Tobias Nordström, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, was published on February 7, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Long-term outcomes like prostate cancer mortality were not evaluated. Information on cancer detection in men with a negative MRI result at rescreening was not available. Authors noted that a subset of individuals may still be at risk despite lower PSA levels.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Karolinska Institute, Prostatacancerförbundet, Region Stockholm, and Åke Wibergs Stiftelse. The authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Upon reviewing repeated prostate cancer screenings, researchers observed the absence of suspicious MRI findings in over 86% of men who had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 3 ng/mL or higher during their second screening.

METHODOLOGY:

• New initiatives are focusing on organizing prostate cancer screening using MRI to reduce overdiagnosis, as current evidence does not support the effectiveness of a single PSA test, with guidelines now recommending repeated testing every 1-4 years.
• In the STHLM3-MRI trial, men, aged 50-74 years, living in Stockholm County, Sweden, were invited to participate in prostate cancer screening and randomly assigned to traditional screening with systematic  or an MRI-based strategy.
• Blood samples were analyzed for PSA levels and Stockholm3 risk score; men with elevated risk underwent targeted MRI and biopsy procedures.
• In this follow-up analysis, 2,078 men with PSA levels of 1.5 ng/mL or higher and a Stockholm3 risk score less than 0.11 were re-invited for screening 2-3 years after their initial screening.
• The primary outcome was clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score of 3 + 4 or greater). A Gleason score of 6 was detected in 0.7% of patients, and a score of 4 + 3 or greater was detected in 19 (1.3%) men.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 1,500 men (median age of 67 years) who underwent a blood test, the median PSA level was 2.8 ng/mL and 26.0% changed risk classification groups (PSA levels < 3 vs 3 ng/mL).
• Out of 667 men with PSA levels of 3 ng/mL or higher, 617 (92.5%) had an MRI. Of the 617, 51 (7.6%) had equivocal lesions (a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 3) and 33 (4.9%) had suspicious lesions.
• Of the 1,500 rescreened men, clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 48 men (3.2%); this corresponds to 59.2% of the biopsied men.
• Out of 383 men who had previously received a negative MRI result, only 10 (2.6%) exhibited a lesion with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 4 or higher.

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Ola Bratt, MD, PhD, noted that the “most important finding was the very high proportion of nonsuspicious repeat MRI scans,” but also emphasizes the necessity of observing a decrease in overall prostate cancer incidence before asserting that the current cancer diagnostics effectively reduce overdiagnosis.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Tobias Nordström, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, was published on February 7, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Long-term outcomes like prostate cancer mortality were not evaluated. Information on cancer detection in men with a negative MRI result at rescreening was not available. Authors noted that a subset of individuals may still be at risk despite lower PSA levels.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Karolinska Institute, Prostatacancerförbundet, Region Stockholm, and Åke Wibergs Stiftelse. The authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery is associated with long-term improvements in cognition and brain structure in addition to general health benefits and expected weight loss, a large study found.

Among 133 adults with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery, roughly two in five showed > 20% improvement in global cognitive function at 24 months following the surgery. 

“Notably, the temporal cortex exhibited not only higher cortical thickness but also higher vascular efficiency after surgery,” reported Amanda Kiliaan, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

“These results highlight beneficial vascular responses occurring in conjunction with bariatric surgery,” the researchers wrote. 

They also suggested that weight-loss surgery may represent a treatment option for patients with obesity and dementia. 

The study was published online on February 9, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of developing dementia. Bariatric surgery-induced weight loss has been associated with improvements in brain function and structure in some small cohort studies with short follow-up periods. However, long-term neurological outcomes associated with bariatric surgery are unclear. 

To investigate, Dr. Kiliaan and colleagues studied 133 adults with severe obesity (mean age, 46 years; 84% women) who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The researchers collected relevant data from laboratory tests, cognitive tests, and MRI brain scans before surgery and at 6 and 24 months after surgery.

Overall, mean body weight, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure were significantly lower at 6 and 24 months after surgery. At 24 months, significantly fewer patients were taking antihypertensive medication (17% vs 36% before surgery). 

Improvements in inflammatory markers, depressive symptoms, and physical activity were also evident after surgery. 
 

Cognitive Improvements 

Several cognitive domains showed significant improvement at 6 and 24 months after bariatric surgery. Based on the 20% change index, improvements in working memory, episodic memory, and verbal fluency were seen in 11%, 32%, and 24% of participants, respectively. 

Forty percent of patients showed improvement in their able to shift their attention, and 43% showed improvements in global cognition after surgery. 

Several changes in brain parameters were also noted. Despite lower cerebral blood flow (CBF) in several regions, volumes of hippocampus, nucleus accumbens, frontal cortex, white matter, and white matter hyperintensity remained stable after surgery. 

The temporal cortex showed a greater thickness (mean, 2.724 mm vs 2.761 mm; P = .007) and lower spatial coefficient of variation (sCOV; median, 4.41% vs 3.97%; P = .02) after surgery. 

Overall, the results suggest that cognitive improvements “begin shortly after bariatric surgery and are long lasting,” the authors wrote. 

Various factors may be involved including remission of comorbidities, higher physical activity, lower depressive symptoms, and lower inflammatory factors, they suggest. Stabilization of volume, CBF, and sCOV in brain regions, coupled with gains in cortical thickness and vascular efficiency in the temporal cortex could also play a role.
 

‘Remarkable’ Results

“Taken together, the research intimates bariatric surgery’s potential protective effects against dementia manifest through both weight-related brain changes and reducing cardiovascular risk factors,” Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“These remarkable neurological transformations intimate this surgery represents a pivotal opportunity to combat the parallel public health crises of obesity and dementia threatening society,” he said. 

“In demonstrating a durable cognitive and brain boost out years beyond surgery, patients now have an emphatic answer — these aren’t short-lived benefits but rather profound improvements propelling them positively for the rest of life,” he added. 

This opens up questions on whether the new class of obesity medications targeting glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide pathways, that can achieve weight loss approaching that of bariatric surgery, could have similar benefits. 

The use of GLP-1 drugs have also shown neuroprotective effects such as improvement in motor and cognitive deficits, reduction of neuroinflammation, prevention of neuronal loss, and possibly slowing of neurodegeneration across animal models of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and stroke, said Dr. Lakhan. However, the exact mechanisms and ability to cross the blood-brain barrier require further confirmation, especially in humans.

Large, long-term, randomized controlled trials looking into potential effects of semaglutide on early Alzheimer›s disease, including the EVOKE Plus trial, are currently underway, he noted. 

“These game-changing obesity drugs may hand us medicine’s holy grail — a pill to rival surgery’s brain benefits without the scalpel, allowing patients a more accessible path to protecting their brain,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The study had no funding from industry. Dr. Kiliaan and Dr. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

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

Bariatric surgery is associated with long-term improvements in cognition and brain structure in addition to general health benefits and expected weight loss, a large study found.

Among 133 adults with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery, roughly two in five showed > 20% improvement in global cognitive function at 24 months following the surgery. 

“Notably, the temporal cortex exhibited not only higher cortical thickness but also higher vascular efficiency after surgery,” reported Amanda Kiliaan, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

“These results highlight beneficial vascular responses occurring in conjunction with bariatric surgery,” the researchers wrote. 

They also suggested that weight-loss surgery may represent a treatment option for patients with obesity and dementia. 

The study was published online on February 9, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of developing dementia. Bariatric surgery-induced weight loss has been associated with improvements in brain function and structure in some small cohort studies with short follow-up periods. However, long-term neurological outcomes associated with bariatric surgery are unclear. 

To investigate, Dr. Kiliaan and colleagues studied 133 adults with severe obesity (mean age, 46 years; 84% women) who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The researchers collected relevant data from laboratory tests, cognitive tests, and MRI brain scans before surgery and at 6 and 24 months after surgery.

Overall, mean body weight, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure were significantly lower at 6 and 24 months after surgery. At 24 months, significantly fewer patients were taking antihypertensive medication (17% vs 36% before surgery). 

Improvements in inflammatory markers, depressive symptoms, and physical activity were also evident after surgery. 
 

Cognitive Improvements 

Several cognitive domains showed significant improvement at 6 and 24 months after bariatric surgery. Based on the 20% change index, improvements in working memory, episodic memory, and verbal fluency were seen in 11%, 32%, and 24% of participants, respectively. 

Forty percent of patients showed improvement in their able to shift their attention, and 43% showed improvements in global cognition after surgery. 

Several changes in brain parameters were also noted. Despite lower cerebral blood flow (CBF) in several regions, volumes of hippocampus, nucleus accumbens, frontal cortex, white matter, and white matter hyperintensity remained stable after surgery. 

The temporal cortex showed a greater thickness (mean, 2.724 mm vs 2.761 mm; P = .007) and lower spatial coefficient of variation (sCOV; median, 4.41% vs 3.97%; P = .02) after surgery. 

Overall, the results suggest that cognitive improvements “begin shortly after bariatric surgery and are long lasting,” the authors wrote. 

Various factors may be involved including remission of comorbidities, higher physical activity, lower depressive symptoms, and lower inflammatory factors, they suggest. Stabilization of volume, CBF, and sCOV in brain regions, coupled with gains in cortical thickness and vascular efficiency in the temporal cortex could also play a role.
 

‘Remarkable’ Results

“Taken together, the research intimates bariatric surgery’s potential protective effects against dementia manifest through both weight-related brain changes and reducing cardiovascular risk factors,” Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“These remarkable neurological transformations intimate this surgery represents a pivotal opportunity to combat the parallel public health crises of obesity and dementia threatening society,” he said. 

“In demonstrating a durable cognitive and brain boost out years beyond surgery, patients now have an emphatic answer — these aren’t short-lived benefits but rather profound improvements propelling them positively for the rest of life,” he added. 

This opens up questions on whether the new class of obesity medications targeting glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide pathways, that can achieve weight loss approaching that of bariatric surgery, could have similar benefits. 

The use of GLP-1 drugs have also shown neuroprotective effects such as improvement in motor and cognitive deficits, reduction of neuroinflammation, prevention of neuronal loss, and possibly slowing of neurodegeneration across animal models of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and stroke, said Dr. Lakhan. However, the exact mechanisms and ability to cross the blood-brain barrier require further confirmation, especially in humans.

Large, long-term, randomized controlled trials looking into potential effects of semaglutide on early Alzheimer›s disease, including the EVOKE Plus trial, are currently underway, he noted. 

“These game-changing obesity drugs may hand us medicine’s holy grail — a pill to rival surgery’s brain benefits without the scalpel, allowing patients a more accessible path to protecting their brain,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The study had no funding from industry. Dr. Kiliaan and Dr. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

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

Bariatric surgery is associated with long-term improvements in cognition and brain structure in addition to general health benefits and expected weight loss, a large study found.

Among 133 adults with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery, roughly two in five showed > 20% improvement in global cognitive function at 24 months following the surgery. 

“Notably, the temporal cortex exhibited not only higher cortical thickness but also higher vascular efficiency after surgery,” reported Amanda Kiliaan, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

“These results highlight beneficial vascular responses occurring in conjunction with bariatric surgery,” the researchers wrote. 

They also suggested that weight-loss surgery may represent a treatment option for patients with obesity and dementia. 

The study was published online on February 9, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of developing dementia. Bariatric surgery-induced weight loss has been associated with improvements in brain function and structure in some small cohort studies with short follow-up periods. However, long-term neurological outcomes associated with bariatric surgery are unclear. 

To investigate, Dr. Kiliaan and colleagues studied 133 adults with severe obesity (mean age, 46 years; 84% women) who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The researchers collected relevant data from laboratory tests, cognitive tests, and MRI brain scans before surgery and at 6 and 24 months after surgery.

Overall, mean body weight, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure were significantly lower at 6 and 24 months after surgery. At 24 months, significantly fewer patients were taking antihypertensive medication (17% vs 36% before surgery). 

Improvements in inflammatory markers, depressive symptoms, and physical activity were also evident after surgery. 
 

Cognitive Improvements 

Several cognitive domains showed significant improvement at 6 and 24 months after bariatric surgery. Based on the 20% change index, improvements in working memory, episodic memory, and verbal fluency were seen in 11%, 32%, and 24% of participants, respectively. 

Forty percent of patients showed improvement in their able to shift their attention, and 43% showed improvements in global cognition after surgery. 

Several changes in brain parameters were also noted. Despite lower cerebral blood flow (CBF) in several regions, volumes of hippocampus, nucleus accumbens, frontal cortex, white matter, and white matter hyperintensity remained stable after surgery. 

The temporal cortex showed a greater thickness (mean, 2.724 mm vs 2.761 mm; P = .007) and lower spatial coefficient of variation (sCOV; median, 4.41% vs 3.97%; P = .02) after surgery. 

Overall, the results suggest that cognitive improvements “begin shortly after bariatric surgery and are long lasting,” the authors wrote. 

Various factors may be involved including remission of comorbidities, higher physical activity, lower depressive symptoms, and lower inflammatory factors, they suggest. Stabilization of volume, CBF, and sCOV in brain regions, coupled with gains in cortical thickness and vascular efficiency in the temporal cortex could also play a role.
 

‘Remarkable’ Results

“Taken together, the research intimates bariatric surgery’s potential protective effects against dementia manifest through both weight-related brain changes and reducing cardiovascular risk factors,” Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“These remarkable neurological transformations intimate this surgery represents a pivotal opportunity to combat the parallel public health crises of obesity and dementia threatening society,” he said. 

“In demonstrating a durable cognitive and brain boost out years beyond surgery, patients now have an emphatic answer — these aren’t short-lived benefits but rather profound improvements propelling them positively for the rest of life,” he added. 

This opens up questions on whether the new class of obesity medications targeting glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide pathways, that can achieve weight loss approaching that of bariatric surgery, could have similar benefits. 

The use of GLP-1 drugs have also shown neuroprotective effects such as improvement in motor and cognitive deficits, reduction of neuroinflammation, prevention of neuronal loss, and possibly slowing of neurodegeneration across animal models of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and stroke, said Dr. Lakhan. However, the exact mechanisms and ability to cross the blood-brain barrier require further confirmation, especially in humans.

Large, long-term, randomized controlled trials looking into potential effects of semaglutide on early Alzheimer›s disease, including the EVOKE Plus trial, are currently underway, he noted. 

“These game-changing obesity drugs may hand us medicine’s holy grail — a pill to rival surgery’s brain benefits without the scalpel, allowing patients a more accessible path to protecting their brain,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The study had no funding from industry. Dr. Kiliaan and Dr. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

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

PHOENIX — Black women who develop high blood pressure before age 35 have a threefold increased risk of having a midlife stroke, new observational data suggest. The Black Women’s Health Study, which has followed 59,000 participants in the United States since 1990s, also showed that those who develop hypertension before age 45 have twice the risk of suffering a stroke.

“The really concerning thing about this data is the high proportion of young Black women who had high blood pressure and are suffering strokes relatively early in life,” said the study’s lead author, Hugo J. Aparicio, MD, associate professor of neurology at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston. “This can lead to a burden of disability in relatively young women who may be at the prime of their life, pursuing careers, and looking after family.”

Dr. Aparicio presented the data at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

He explained that while there has been good progress in reducing stroke rates in older people over the past decades, there is a concerning observation from multiple datasets showing that stroke rates in midlife have been plateauing or even increasing in recent years.

“For Black women specifically, there is a concern, as we know this group has higher rates of raised blood pressure and stroke overall,” said Dr. Aparicio. “We were interested in looking at whether the onset of hypertension at an earlier age in this group is one of the reasons for the increased stroke risk in midlife.”
 

A Large Study Cohort

The researchers analyzed data from the Black Women’s Health Study; the baseline year for this analysis, which included 46,754 stroke-free participants younger than age 65 (mean age, 42 years), was the 1999 questionnaire.

Both history of hypertension — defined as physician-diagnosed hypertension with the use of an antihypertensive medication — and stroke occurrence were determined by self-report. It has been shown in previous studies that these self-reported data on incidence of hypertension in this dataset are highly reliable, Dr. Aparicio noted.

At baseline, 10.5% of participants aged 45-64 years had hypertension. Stroke occurred in 3.2% of individuals over a mean follow-up of 17 years.

Black women with hypertension before age 45 had a higher risk for midlife stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-2.78), after adjustment for age, neighborhood socioeconomic status, residence in the Stroke Belt, smoking, body mass index, and diabetes than women with no history of hypertension.

The risk was also increased with hypertension at midlife ages 45-64 years (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.47-1.95) and was highest among those with hypertension at ages 24-34 years (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.92-5.16).

“Our results show that among young Black women, those with hypertension have a much higher stroke risk than those without hypertension, even if they are taking antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Aparicio said. “This underscores how potent hypertension is as a risk factor for stroke.”

He concluded that both individuals and doctors need to realize that hypertension and stroke are not problems of the elderly exclusively.

“These are conditions that need to be addressed very early in life. This is even more important for Black women, as they are a high-risk group. They need to pay attention to blood pressure numbers early in life — ideally from adolescence — to catch levels before they become too elevated,” Dr. Aparicio said.

“We also need to address lifestyle changes including diet, physical activity, sleep habits, and address other cardiovascular risk factors such as cholesterol and body mass index, so we can prevent strokes from occurring,” he added. “At the policy level, we need to advocate, provide and fund primary prevention measures, and enable earlier screening and better treatment.”
 

The Role of Psychosocial Stressors

Commenting on the study, the American Heart Association immediate past president, Michelle A. Albert, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized the importance of regular primary care appointments to screen for high blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors.

She pointed out that one of the contributing factors that may increase the risk for Black women is their disproportionate experience of psychosocial stressors and chronic cumulative stress.

This could include stress related to financial issues, racism and other forms of bias, the neighborhood environment, and having to take care of multiple generations of family with limited resources.

“These are some of the things that are less talked about as going into the heightened risk for many cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension, very early in life for Black women that we need to bring to the forefront of conversations,” Dr. Albert said.

“These stressors not only impact hypertension onset but also they impact one’s ability to be able to seek help, and once the help is sought, to be able to sustain the therapies recommended and the interventions recommended,” she added.

The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Black women who develop high blood pressure before age 35 have a threefold increased risk of having a midlife stroke, new observational data suggest. The Black Women’s Health Study, which has followed 59,000 participants in the United States since 1990s, also showed that those who develop hypertension before age 45 have twice the risk of suffering a stroke.

“The really concerning thing about this data is the high proportion of young Black women who had high blood pressure and are suffering strokes relatively early in life,” said the study’s lead author, Hugo J. Aparicio, MD, associate professor of neurology at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston. “This can lead to a burden of disability in relatively young women who may be at the prime of their life, pursuing careers, and looking after family.”

Dr. Aparicio presented the data at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

He explained that while there has been good progress in reducing stroke rates in older people over the past decades, there is a concerning observation from multiple datasets showing that stroke rates in midlife have been plateauing or even increasing in recent years.

“For Black women specifically, there is a concern, as we know this group has higher rates of raised blood pressure and stroke overall,” said Dr. Aparicio. “We were interested in looking at whether the onset of hypertension at an earlier age in this group is one of the reasons for the increased stroke risk in midlife.”
 

A Large Study Cohort

The researchers analyzed data from the Black Women’s Health Study; the baseline year for this analysis, which included 46,754 stroke-free participants younger than age 65 (mean age, 42 years), was the 1999 questionnaire.

Both history of hypertension — defined as physician-diagnosed hypertension with the use of an antihypertensive medication — and stroke occurrence were determined by self-report. It has been shown in previous studies that these self-reported data on incidence of hypertension in this dataset are highly reliable, Dr. Aparicio noted.

At baseline, 10.5% of participants aged 45-64 years had hypertension. Stroke occurred in 3.2% of individuals over a mean follow-up of 17 years.

Black women with hypertension before age 45 had a higher risk for midlife stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-2.78), after adjustment for age, neighborhood socioeconomic status, residence in the Stroke Belt, smoking, body mass index, and diabetes than women with no history of hypertension.

The risk was also increased with hypertension at midlife ages 45-64 years (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.47-1.95) and was highest among those with hypertension at ages 24-34 years (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.92-5.16).

“Our results show that among young Black women, those with hypertension have a much higher stroke risk than those without hypertension, even if they are taking antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Aparicio said. “This underscores how potent hypertension is as a risk factor for stroke.”

He concluded that both individuals and doctors need to realize that hypertension and stroke are not problems of the elderly exclusively.

“These are conditions that need to be addressed very early in life. This is even more important for Black women, as they are a high-risk group. They need to pay attention to blood pressure numbers early in life — ideally from adolescence — to catch levels before they become too elevated,” Dr. Aparicio said.

“We also need to address lifestyle changes including diet, physical activity, sleep habits, and address other cardiovascular risk factors such as cholesterol and body mass index, so we can prevent strokes from occurring,” he added. “At the policy level, we need to advocate, provide and fund primary prevention measures, and enable earlier screening and better treatment.”
 

The Role of Psychosocial Stressors

Commenting on the study, the American Heart Association immediate past president, Michelle A. Albert, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized the importance of regular primary care appointments to screen for high blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors.

She pointed out that one of the contributing factors that may increase the risk for Black women is their disproportionate experience of psychosocial stressors and chronic cumulative stress.

This could include stress related to financial issues, racism and other forms of bias, the neighborhood environment, and having to take care of multiple generations of family with limited resources.

“These are some of the things that are less talked about as going into the heightened risk for many cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension, very early in life for Black women that we need to bring to the forefront of conversations,” Dr. Albert said.

“These stressors not only impact hypertension onset but also they impact one’s ability to be able to seek help, and once the help is sought, to be able to sustain the therapies recommended and the interventions recommended,” she added.

The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Black women who develop high blood pressure before age 35 have a threefold increased risk of having a midlife stroke, new observational data suggest. The Black Women’s Health Study, which has followed 59,000 participants in the United States since 1990s, also showed that those who develop hypertension before age 45 have twice the risk of suffering a stroke.

“The really concerning thing about this data is the high proportion of young Black women who had high blood pressure and are suffering strokes relatively early in life,” said the study’s lead author, Hugo J. Aparicio, MD, associate professor of neurology at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston. “This can lead to a burden of disability in relatively young women who may be at the prime of their life, pursuing careers, and looking after family.”

Dr. Aparicio presented the data at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

He explained that while there has been good progress in reducing stroke rates in older people over the past decades, there is a concerning observation from multiple datasets showing that stroke rates in midlife have been plateauing or even increasing in recent years.

“For Black women specifically, there is a concern, as we know this group has higher rates of raised blood pressure and stroke overall,” said Dr. Aparicio. “We were interested in looking at whether the onset of hypertension at an earlier age in this group is one of the reasons for the increased stroke risk in midlife.”
 

A Large Study Cohort

The researchers analyzed data from the Black Women’s Health Study; the baseline year for this analysis, which included 46,754 stroke-free participants younger than age 65 (mean age, 42 years), was the 1999 questionnaire.

Both history of hypertension — defined as physician-diagnosed hypertension with the use of an antihypertensive medication — and stroke occurrence were determined by self-report. It has been shown in previous studies that these self-reported data on incidence of hypertension in this dataset are highly reliable, Dr. Aparicio noted.

At baseline, 10.5% of participants aged 45-64 years had hypertension. Stroke occurred in 3.2% of individuals over a mean follow-up of 17 years.

Black women with hypertension before age 45 had a higher risk for midlife stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-2.78), after adjustment for age, neighborhood socioeconomic status, residence in the Stroke Belt, smoking, body mass index, and diabetes than women with no history of hypertension.

The risk was also increased with hypertension at midlife ages 45-64 years (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.47-1.95) and was highest among those with hypertension at ages 24-34 years (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.92-5.16).

“Our results show that among young Black women, those with hypertension have a much higher stroke risk than those without hypertension, even if they are taking antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Aparicio said. “This underscores how potent hypertension is as a risk factor for stroke.”

He concluded that both individuals and doctors need to realize that hypertension and stroke are not problems of the elderly exclusively.

“These are conditions that need to be addressed very early in life. This is even more important for Black women, as they are a high-risk group. They need to pay attention to blood pressure numbers early in life — ideally from adolescence — to catch levels before they become too elevated,” Dr. Aparicio said.

“We also need to address lifestyle changes including diet, physical activity, sleep habits, and address other cardiovascular risk factors such as cholesterol and body mass index, so we can prevent strokes from occurring,” he added. “At the policy level, we need to advocate, provide and fund primary prevention measures, and enable earlier screening and better treatment.”
 

The Role of Psychosocial Stressors

Commenting on the study, the American Heart Association immediate past president, Michelle A. Albert, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized the importance of regular primary care appointments to screen for high blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors.

She pointed out that one of the contributing factors that may increase the risk for Black women is their disproportionate experience of psychosocial stressors and chronic cumulative stress.

This could include stress related to financial issues, racism and other forms of bias, the neighborhood environment, and having to take care of multiple generations of family with limited resources.

“These are some of the things that are less talked about as going into the heightened risk for many cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension, very early in life for Black women that we need to bring to the forefront of conversations,” Dr. Albert said.

“These stressors not only impact hypertension onset but also they impact one’s ability to be able to seek help, and once the help is sought, to be able to sustain the therapies recommended and the interventions recommended,” she added.

The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2013, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test revealed that Richard LaFrate’s levels had jumped. 

Previously in a normal range, his PSA was now above 6 ng/mL, indicating an elevated likelihood for prostate cancer. The jazz guitarist from Leesburg, Florida, then 70 years old, underwent a biopsy, which found two Gleason 6 lesions. 

Mr. LaFrate had low-risk prostate cancer.

Guidelines now recommend active surveillance for patients like Mr. LaFrate, who have low-risk disease. This strategy would mean monitoring the cancer until LaFrate required treatment, with the upside being he might never need therapy.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist, however, was pushing whole gland surgery — an invasive and unnecessary procedure given his diagnosis and age. 

Mr. LaFrate decided to look for another doctor. He filled out a form online that pointed him to a new urologist who offered him one option: An investigational procedure known as high-intensity focused ultrasound.

At the time, high-intensity focused ultrasound — a form of focal therapy — was being studied in the United States to treat men with low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, but it was still relatively early days.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist asked him to pay $25,000 out of pocket to undergo the focal procedure at a clinic in the Bahamas. He refused and, ultimately, landed on active surveillance as the best strategy to manage for his low-risk disease.

That urologist was “a shyster in my opinion,” Mr. LaFrate said. 

Over the past 10 years, the popularity of focal therapy has grown among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer — Gleason 3+4 (grade group 2) tumors — as an alternative to invasive surgery and active surveillance. Prestigious medical centers, such as Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, UCLA, and the University of Chicago, routinely offer focal therapy. 

But use of the techniques remains controversial and costly.

As the Cleveland Clinic’s website acknowledges, although “the use of focal therapy for localized prostate cancer appears to be a promising development in a number of ways, it is still considered investigational and not yet part of standard therapy.” Major caveats to focal therapy include unknown long-term effectiveness, the possibility of leaving behind untreated cancer, and higher overall costs. 

No major national guidelines endorse the use of focal therapy, unless offered in a research or clinical trial setting. Insurance companies, such as Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and United, also consider focal therapy for prostate cancer investigational and don’t cover it.

Without a stamp of approval from guideline bodies and insurance companies, patients, like Mr. LaFrate, remain vulnerable to the high out-of-pocket costs for these focal techniques. 

“Almost every place charges $15,000-$30,000 in cash,” said Daniel Spratt, MD, radiation oncology chair at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. 

Dr. Spratt has seen hundreds of patients after focal therapy, some from prominent centers, who have emptied their bank accounts to undergo treatment with the promise of great results and ultimately felt misled when the cancer has recurred.

“It pains me that there are doctors willing to ignore the Hippocratic oath of ‘Do No Harm’ simply to jump on this fad to bring in revenue,” Dr. Spratt said. 
 

Evidence-Based or Oversold?

Focal therapy gained a foothold in the United Kingdom well before the United States.

Hashim Ahmed, FRCS, urology chair at Imperial College London, has used focal therapy for 15 years, treated over 1000 patients, and taught dozens of surgeons how to use the leading focal therapies — focal cryoablation, in which surgeons use a needle-thin probe to target, freeze, and kill prostate tumors, as well as high-intensity focused ultrasound, which uses sound wave energy to superheat and kill tumors.

“Certainly, in the United Kingdom, focal therapy has been prime time in a number of centers for a number of years,” Dr. Ahmed said. 

In the United States, focal therapy has become an attractive option for men with prostate cancer who want to avoid radiation or radical prostatectomy but don’t feel comfortable simply monitoring their disease with active surveillance. Experts from specialized focal therapy centers touting the promise of this “innovative technique” predict its routine use in the next few years.

But the excitement surrounding the use of focal therapy in prostate cancer has outpaced broader acceptance.

In 2015, the FDA approved high-intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostatic disease, but not prostate cancer specifically. Although the approval language “means that companies cannot advertise that their devices can be used for prostate cancer,” physicians can still determine how to use the technology, which includes treating prostate cancer, Dr. Ahmed said. 

The evidence is starting to catch up to the demand. The latest research suggests that the partial-gland techniques may stand up well to radical prostatectomy.

A 2022 prospective database study comparing radical prostatectomies to focal therapy — mostly high-intensity focused ultrasound — in more than 800 men found similar rates of failure-free survival in the two groups at the 8-year follow-up. A 2019 registry study found that failure-free survival at 3 years was just over 90% in high and intermediate-risk patients receiving focal cryotherapy, with the rate rising to about 93% for the intermediate-risk group. And a 2018 prospective study of 625 patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer who underwent high-intensity focused ultrasound had 5-year metastasis-free survival of 98% and overall survival rates of 100%.

One of the biggest draws of focal therapy vs more aggressive treatments is the “massive differences in side-effect profiles,” said Dr. Ahmed.

In a 2021 meta-analysis, researchers found that 6 months after high-intensity focused ultrasound, 98% of patients remained continent and 80% retained erectile function, while erectile dysfunction can occur in 30% to as many as 85% of patients following prostatectomy or radiotherapy and urinary incontinence can occur in as many as 40% of patients.

Despite these potential advantages of focal therapy, the long-term efficacy of the techniques remains uncertain.

A recent study from a team at MSK, for instance, reported that 40% of men with intermediate (grade 2) or high-risk (grade 3) disease had residual cancer following MRI-guided focused ultrasound. A 2020 prospective registry study found that almost 20% of patients undergoing high-intensity focal ultrasound required a second round following a recurrence. 

Dr. Spratt worries that patients who recur after focal therapy may go on to receive a second round — often offered at half price — and will still ultimately need surgery or radiation therapy later. By that point, however, patients may have spent as much as $45,000 — ie, $30,000 on the initial and another $15,000 on the follow-up procedure.

When patients see Dr. Spratt after a recurrence, he informs them that their side effects will be worse if he gives them radiation or surgery now vs if he had given them curative therapy upfront. “But this is what we’re left with,” he tells them.

Another big concern in the field is “the quality of data for focal therapy is overwhelmingly poor,” said Jonathan Shoag, MD, a urologic oncologist at University Hospitals and an associate professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland. “Essentially, the bulk of the data is from single-institution retrospective series without defined follow-up protocols or endpoints.”

The American Urological Association (AUA) has even cautioned experts and patients about the lack of high-quality data comparing focal therapy techniques to radiation therapy, surgery, and active surveillance. According to the AUA, focal options should only be considered in intermediate-risk prostate cancer in a clinical trial setting.

“The lack of randomized clinical trials poses a major stumbling block for the field,” said Dr. Ahmed.

Although randomized trials would be ideal, the results would take many years to mature, and growing patient demand for these less invasive focal procedures has made randomized trials difficult to complete, explained Arvin George, MD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Several randomized trials attempted in Norway and the United Kingdom, for instance, fell apart when patients refused to be randomized between focal and radical therapy, Dr. George said.

Focal therapy is now in the same position that active surveillance was a few years ago, according to Dr. George.

“We are hearing the same concerns about focal therapy now as we did about active surveillance,” he said. The initial evidence supporting active surveillance largely came from real-world experience and retrospective studies. The randomized data came later, and skeptics of active surveillance “were proven wrong,” he added.

But Dr. Shoag has a different take on the trajectory of focal therapy research and care in the United States. 

“I think there’s this emerging kind of tragedy happening in our field now, where you have even academic institutions offering focal therapy to patients off-trial with essentially no data to suggest it is oncologically effective,” Dr. Shoag said.

William Catalona, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, agreed, noting that too many low-risk patients are undergoing focal treatment who should be on active surveillance. “Many men are attracted to focal because they just are uncomfortable having a cancer in their body that’s not treated,” Dr. Catalona said. But “giving these patients focal therapy is really overtreatment.”

Patients with higher-risk disease who want to avoid aggressive treatment are also being lured into focal without guidelines or clear evidence to back up that option, Dr. Catalona explained.

Although it’s not clear how many men in the United States are receiving focal therapy who shouldn’t, even proponents of focal therapy, like George, have expressed concern.

Dr. George agreed that focal therapy marketing geared towards patients is drawing in some men who are not good candidates for these techniques, and feels there’s not enough objective material from medical societies or academic centers giving patients a realistic picture of focal therapy. 

“There is concern that patients may be receiving biased information,” Dr. George said, adding that it’s ultimately up to the physician to reconcile the best available evidence, understand the outcomes, and discuss these options with the patient to guide them to what’s best.

At the end of the day, Dr. Spratt said, physicians giving focal therapy off a clinical trial need to pause and ask themselves “why are they giving a treatment that remains investigational by payers, not recommended by any major guideline, and that lacks any randomized evidence?” 

Mr. LaFrate does not regret his decision to forgo focal therapy in 2013. He has been on active surveillance for about a decade now.

Following an MRI in 2022, Mr. LaFrate’s radiology report found that “clinically significant cancer is very unlikely to be present.”

Still, his PSA has risen two points in the past year to 14. His current urologist feels that the PSA is going up because there’s cancer present and is suggesting focal therapy for Mr. LaFrate.

Mr. LaFrate, who has prostate enlargement issues, remains skeptical of focal therapy and is still resisting the sales pitch.

“My doctor is not aggressively pushing it. He’s just giving me that as one of my options,” he said. “I just have a hunch I don’t need it at this point.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2013, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test revealed that Richard LaFrate’s levels had jumped. 

Previously in a normal range, his PSA was now above 6 ng/mL, indicating an elevated likelihood for prostate cancer. The jazz guitarist from Leesburg, Florida, then 70 years old, underwent a biopsy, which found two Gleason 6 lesions. 

Mr. LaFrate had low-risk prostate cancer.

Guidelines now recommend active surveillance for patients like Mr. LaFrate, who have low-risk disease. This strategy would mean monitoring the cancer until LaFrate required treatment, with the upside being he might never need therapy.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist, however, was pushing whole gland surgery — an invasive and unnecessary procedure given his diagnosis and age. 

Mr. LaFrate decided to look for another doctor. He filled out a form online that pointed him to a new urologist who offered him one option: An investigational procedure known as high-intensity focused ultrasound.

At the time, high-intensity focused ultrasound — a form of focal therapy — was being studied in the United States to treat men with low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, but it was still relatively early days.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist asked him to pay $25,000 out of pocket to undergo the focal procedure at a clinic in the Bahamas. He refused and, ultimately, landed on active surveillance as the best strategy to manage for his low-risk disease.

That urologist was “a shyster in my opinion,” Mr. LaFrate said. 

Over the past 10 years, the popularity of focal therapy has grown among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer — Gleason 3+4 (grade group 2) tumors — as an alternative to invasive surgery and active surveillance. Prestigious medical centers, such as Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, UCLA, and the University of Chicago, routinely offer focal therapy. 

But use of the techniques remains controversial and costly.

As the Cleveland Clinic’s website acknowledges, although “the use of focal therapy for localized prostate cancer appears to be a promising development in a number of ways, it is still considered investigational and not yet part of standard therapy.” Major caveats to focal therapy include unknown long-term effectiveness, the possibility of leaving behind untreated cancer, and higher overall costs. 

No major national guidelines endorse the use of focal therapy, unless offered in a research or clinical trial setting. Insurance companies, such as Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and United, also consider focal therapy for prostate cancer investigational and don’t cover it.

Without a stamp of approval from guideline bodies and insurance companies, patients, like Mr. LaFrate, remain vulnerable to the high out-of-pocket costs for these focal techniques. 

“Almost every place charges $15,000-$30,000 in cash,” said Daniel Spratt, MD, radiation oncology chair at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. 

Dr. Spratt has seen hundreds of patients after focal therapy, some from prominent centers, who have emptied their bank accounts to undergo treatment with the promise of great results and ultimately felt misled when the cancer has recurred.

“It pains me that there are doctors willing to ignore the Hippocratic oath of ‘Do No Harm’ simply to jump on this fad to bring in revenue,” Dr. Spratt said. 
 

Evidence-Based or Oversold?

Focal therapy gained a foothold in the United Kingdom well before the United States.

Hashim Ahmed, FRCS, urology chair at Imperial College London, has used focal therapy for 15 years, treated over 1000 patients, and taught dozens of surgeons how to use the leading focal therapies — focal cryoablation, in which surgeons use a needle-thin probe to target, freeze, and kill prostate tumors, as well as high-intensity focused ultrasound, which uses sound wave energy to superheat and kill tumors.

“Certainly, in the United Kingdom, focal therapy has been prime time in a number of centers for a number of years,” Dr. Ahmed said. 

In the United States, focal therapy has become an attractive option for men with prostate cancer who want to avoid radiation or radical prostatectomy but don’t feel comfortable simply monitoring their disease with active surveillance. Experts from specialized focal therapy centers touting the promise of this “innovative technique” predict its routine use in the next few years.

But the excitement surrounding the use of focal therapy in prostate cancer has outpaced broader acceptance.

In 2015, the FDA approved high-intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostatic disease, but not prostate cancer specifically. Although the approval language “means that companies cannot advertise that their devices can be used for prostate cancer,” physicians can still determine how to use the technology, which includes treating prostate cancer, Dr. Ahmed said. 

The evidence is starting to catch up to the demand. The latest research suggests that the partial-gland techniques may stand up well to radical prostatectomy.

A 2022 prospective database study comparing radical prostatectomies to focal therapy — mostly high-intensity focused ultrasound — in more than 800 men found similar rates of failure-free survival in the two groups at the 8-year follow-up. A 2019 registry study found that failure-free survival at 3 years was just over 90% in high and intermediate-risk patients receiving focal cryotherapy, with the rate rising to about 93% for the intermediate-risk group. And a 2018 prospective study of 625 patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer who underwent high-intensity focused ultrasound had 5-year metastasis-free survival of 98% and overall survival rates of 100%.

One of the biggest draws of focal therapy vs more aggressive treatments is the “massive differences in side-effect profiles,” said Dr. Ahmed.

In a 2021 meta-analysis, researchers found that 6 months after high-intensity focused ultrasound, 98% of patients remained continent and 80% retained erectile function, while erectile dysfunction can occur in 30% to as many as 85% of patients following prostatectomy or radiotherapy and urinary incontinence can occur in as many as 40% of patients.

Despite these potential advantages of focal therapy, the long-term efficacy of the techniques remains uncertain.

A recent study from a team at MSK, for instance, reported that 40% of men with intermediate (grade 2) or high-risk (grade 3) disease had residual cancer following MRI-guided focused ultrasound. A 2020 prospective registry study found that almost 20% of patients undergoing high-intensity focal ultrasound required a second round following a recurrence. 

Dr. Spratt worries that patients who recur after focal therapy may go on to receive a second round — often offered at half price — and will still ultimately need surgery or radiation therapy later. By that point, however, patients may have spent as much as $45,000 — ie, $30,000 on the initial and another $15,000 on the follow-up procedure.

When patients see Dr. Spratt after a recurrence, he informs them that their side effects will be worse if he gives them radiation or surgery now vs if he had given them curative therapy upfront. “But this is what we’re left with,” he tells them.

Another big concern in the field is “the quality of data for focal therapy is overwhelmingly poor,” said Jonathan Shoag, MD, a urologic oncologist at University Hospitals and an associate professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland. “Essentially, the bulk of the data is from single-institution retrospective series without defined follow-up protocols or endpoints.”

The American Urological Association (AUA) has even cautioned experts and patients about the lack of high-quality data comparing focal therapy techniques to radiation therapy, surgery, and active surveillance. According to the AUA, focal options should only be considered in intermediate-risk prostate cancer in a clinical trial setting.

“The lack of randomized clinical trials poses a major stumbling block for the field,” said Dr. Ahmed.

Although randomized trials would be ideal, the results would take many years to mature, and growing patient demand for these less invasive focal procedures has made randomized trials difficult to complete, explained Arvin George, MD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Several randomized trials attempted in Norway and the United Kingdom, for instance, fell apart when patients refused to be randomized between focal and radical therapy, Dr. George said.

Focal therapy is now in the same position that active surveillance was a few years ago, according to Dr. George.

“We are hearing the same concerns about focal therapy now as we did about active surveillance,” he said. The initial evidence supporting active surveillance largely came from real-world experience and retrospective studies. The randomized data came later, and skeptics of active surveillance “were proven wrong,” he added.

But Dr. Shoag has a different take on the trajectory of focal therapy research and care in the United States. 

“I think there’s this emerging kind of tragedy happening in our field now, where you have even academic institutions offering focal therapy to patients off-trial with essentially no data to suggest it is oncologically effective,” Dr. Shoag said.

William Catalona, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, agreed, noting that too many low-risk patients are undergoing focal treatment who should be on active surveillance. “Many men are attracted to focal because they just are uncomfortable having a cancer in their body that’s not treated,” Dr. Catalona said. But “giving these patients focal therapy is really overtreatment.”

Patients with higher-risk disease who want to avoid aggressive treatment are also being lured into focal without guidelines or clear evidence to back up that option, Dr. Catalona explained.

Although it’s not clear how many men in the United States are receiving focal therapy who shouldn’t, even proponents of focal therapy, like George, have expressed concern.

Dr. George agreed that focal therapy marketing geared towards patients is drawing in some men who are not good candidates for these techniques, and feels there’s not enough objective material from medical societies or academic centers giving patients a realistic picture of focal therapy. 

“There is concern that patients may be receiving biased information,” Dr. George said, adding that it’s ultimately up to the physician to reconcile the best available evidence, understand the outcomes, and discuss these options with the patient to guide them to what’s best.

At the end of the day, Dr. Spratt said, physicians giving focal therapy off a clinical trial need to pause and ask themselves “why are they giving a treatment that remains investigational by payers, not recommended by any major guideline, and that lacks any randomized evidence?” 

Mr. LaFrate does not regret his decision to forgo focal therapy in 2013. He has been on active surveillance for about a decade now.

Following an MRI in 2022, Mr. LaFrate’s radiology report found that “clinically significant cancer is very unlikely to be present.”

Still, his PSA has risen two points in the past year to 14. His current urologist feels that the PSA is going up because there’s cancer present and is suggesting focal therapy for Mr. LaFrate.

Mr. LaFrate, who has prostate enlargement issues, remains skeptical of focal therapy and is still resisting the sales pitch.

“My doctor is not aggressively pushing it. He’s just giving me that as one of my options,” he said. “I just have a hunch I don’t need it at this point.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2013, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test revealed that Richard LaFrate’s levels had jumped. 

Previously in a normal range, his PSA was now above 6 ng/mL, indicating an elevated likelihood for prostate cancer. The jazz guitarist from Leesburg, Florida, then 70 years old, underwent a biopsy, which found two Gleason 6 lesions. 

Mr. LaFrate had low-risk prostate cancer.

Guidelines now recommend active surveillance for patients like Mr. LaFrate, who have low-risk disease. This strategy would mean monitoring the cancer until LaFrate required treatment, with the upside being he might never need therapy.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist, however, was pushing whole gland surgery — an invasive and unnecessary procedure given his diagnosis and age. 

Mr. LaFrate decided to look for another doctor. He filled out a form online that pointed him to a new urologist who offered him one option: An investigational procedure known as high-intensity focused ultrasound.

At the time, high-intensity focused ultrasound — a form of focal therapy — was being studied in the United States to treat men with low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, but it was still relatively early days.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist asked him to pay $25,000 out of pocket to undergo the focal procedure at a clinic in the Bahamas. He refused and, ultimately, landed on active surveillance as the best strategy to manage for his low-risk disease.

That urologist was “a shyster in my opinion,” Mr. LaFrate said. 

Over the past 10 years, the popularity of focal therapy has grown among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer — Gleason 3+4 (grade group 2) tumors — as an alternative to invasive surgery and active surveillance. Prestigious medical centers, such as Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, UCLA, and the University of Chicago, routinely offer focal therapy. 

But use of the techniques remains controversial and costly.

As the Cleveland Clinic’s website acknowledges, although “the use of focal therapy for localized prostate cancer appears to be a promising development in a number of ways, it is still considered investigational and not yet part of standard therapy.” Major caveats to focal therapy include unknown long-term effectiveness, the possibility of leaving behind untreated cancer, and higher overall costs. 

No major national guidelines endorse the use of focal therapy, unless offered in a research or clinical trial setting. Insurance companies, such as Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and United, also consider focal therapy for prostate cancer investigational and don’t cover it.

Without a stamp of approval from guideline bodies and insurance companies, patients, like Mr. LaFrate, remain vulnerable to the high out-of-pocket costs for these focal techniques. 

“Almost every place charges $15,000-$30,000 in cash,” said Daniel Spratt, MD, radiation oncology chair at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. 

Dr. Spratt has seen hundreds of patients after focal therapy, some from prominent centers, who have emptied their bank accounts to undergo treatment with the promise of great results and ultimately felt misled when the cancer has recurred.

“It pains me that there are doctors willing to ignore the Hippocratic oath of ‘Do No Harm’ simply to jump on this fad to bring in revenue,” Dr. Spratt said. 
 

Evidence-Based or Oversold?

Focal therapy gained a foothold in the United Kingdom well before the United States.

Hashim Ahmed, FRCS, urology chair at Imperial College London, has used focal therapy for 15 years, treated over 1000 patients, and taught dozens of surgeons how to use the leading focal therapies — focal cryoablation, in which surgeons use a needle-thin probe to target, freeze, and kill prostate tumors, as well as high-intensity focused ultrasound, which uses sound wave energy to superheat and kill tumors.

“Certainly, in the United Kingdom, focal therapy has been prime time in a number of centers for a number of years,” Dr. Ahmed said. 

In the United States, focal therapy has become an attractive option for men with prostate cancer who want to avoid radiation or radical prostatectomy but don’t feel comfortable simply monitoring their disease with active surveillance. Experts from specialized focal therapy centers touting the promise of this “innovative technique” predict its routine use in the next few years.

But the excitement surrounding the use of focal therapy in prostate cancer has outpaced broader acceptance.

In 2015, the FDA approved high-intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostatic disease, but not prostate cancer specifically. Although the approval language “means that companies cannot advertise that their devices can be used for prostate cancer,” physicians can still determine how to use the technology, which includes treating prostate cancer, Dr. Ahmed said. 

The evidence is starting to catch up to the demand. The latest research suggests that the partial-gland techniques may stand up well to radical prostatectomy.

A 2022 prospective database study comparing radical prostatectomies to focal therapy — mostly high-intensity focused ultrasound — in more than 800 men found similar rates of failure-free survival in the two groups at the 8-year follow-up. A 2019 registry study found that failure-free survival at 3 years was just over 90% in high and intermediate-risk patients receiving focal cryotherapy, with the rate rising to about 93% for the intermediate-risk group. And a 2018 prospective study of 625 patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer who underwent high-intensity focused ultrasound had 5-year metastasis-free survival of 98% and overall survival rates of 100%.

One of the biggest draws of focal therapy vs more aggressive treatments is the “massive differences in side-effect profiles,” said Dr. Ahmed.

In a 2021 meta-analysis, researchers found that 6 months after high-intensity focused ultrasound, 98% of patients remained continent and 80% retained erectile function, while erectile dysfunction can occur in 30% to as many as 85% of patients following prostatectomy or radiotherapy and urinary incontinence can occur in as many as 40% of patients.

Despite these potential advantages of focal therapy, the long-term efficacy of the techniques remains uncertain.

A recent study from a team at MSK, for instance, reported that 40% of men with intermediate (grade 2) or high-risk (grade 3) disease had residual cancer following MRI-guided focused ultrasound. A 2020 prospective registry study found that almost 20% of patients undergoing high-intensity focal ultrasound required a second round following a recurrence. 

Dr. Spratt worries that patients who recur after focal therapy may go on to receive a second round — often offered at half price — and will still ultimately need surgery or radiation therapy later. By that point, however, patients may have spent as much as $45,000 — ie, $30,000 on the initial and another $15,000 on the follow-up procedure.

When patients see Dr. Spratt after a recurrence, he informs them that their side effects will be worse if he gives them radiation or surgery now vs if he had given them curative therapy upfront. “But this is what we’re left with,” he tells them.

Another big concern in the field is “the quality of data for focal therapy is overwhelmingly poor,” said Jonathan Shoag, MD, a urologic oncologist at University Hospitals and an associate professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland. “Essentially, the bulk of the data is from single-institution retrospective series without defined follow-up protocols or endpoints.”

The American Urological Association (AUA) has even cautioned experts and patients about the lack of high-quality data comparing focal therapy techniques to radiation therapy, surgery, and active surveillance. According to the AUA, focal options should only be considered in intermediate-risk prostate cancer in a clinical trial setting.

“The lack of randomized clinical trials poses a major stumbling block for the field,” said Dr. Ahmed.

Although randomized trials would be ideal, the results would take many years to mature, and growing patient demand for these less invasive focal procedures has made randomized trials difficult to complete, explained Arvin George, MD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Several randomized trials attempted in Norway and the United Kingdom, for instance, fell apart when patients refused to be randomized between focal and radical therapy, Dr. George said.

Focal therapy is now in the same position that active surveillance was a few years ago, according to Dr. George.

“We are hearing the same concerns about focal therapy now as we did about active surveillance,” he said. The initial evidence supporting active surveillance largely came from real-world experience and retrospective studies. The randomized data came later, and skeptics of active surveillance “were proven wrong,” he added.

But Dr. Shoag has a different take on the trajectory of focal therapy research and care in the United States. 

“I think there’s this emerging kind of tragedy happening in our field now, where you have even academic institutions offering focal therapy to patients off-trial with essentially no data to suggest it is oncologically effective,” Dr. Shoag said.

William Catalona, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, agreed, noting that too many low-risk patients are undergoing focal treatment who should be on active surveillance. “Many men are attracted to focal because they just are uncomfortable having a cancer in their body that’s not treated,” Dr. Catalona said. But “giving these patients focal therapy is really overtreatment.”

Patients with higher-risk disease who want to avoid aggressive treatment are also being lured into focal without guidelines or clear evidence to back up that option, Dr. Catalona explained.

Although it’s not clear how many men in the United States are receiving focal therapy who shouldn’t, even proponents of focal therapy, like George, have expressed concern.

Dr. George agreed that focal therapy marketing geared towards patients is drawing in some men who are not good candidates for these techniques, and feels there’s not enough objective material from medical societies or academic centers giving patients a realistic picture of focal therapy. 

“There is concern that patients may be receiving biased information,” Dr. George said, adding that it’s ultimately up to the physician to reconcile the best available evidence, understand the outcomes, and discuss these options with the patient to guide them to what’s best.

At the end of the day, Dr. Spratt said, physicians giving focal therapy off a clinical trial need to pause and ask themselves “why are they giving a treatment that remains investigational by payers, not recommended by any major guideline, and that lacks any randomized evidence?” 

Mr. LaFrate does not regret his decision to forgo focal therapy in 2013. He has been on active surveillance for about a decade now.

Following an MRI in 2022, Mr. LaFrate’s radiology report found that “clinically significant cancer is very unlikely to be present.”

Still, his PSA has risen two points in the past year to 14. His current urologist feels that the PSA is going up because there’s cancer present and is suggesting focal therapy for Mr. LaFrate.

Mr. LaFrate, who has prostate enlargement issues, remains skeptical of focal therapy and is still resisting the sales pitch.

“My doctor is not aggressively pushing it. He’s just giving me that as one of my options,” he said. “I just have a hunch I don’t need it at this point.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), a standard treatment for liver metastases from colorectal cancer, shows promise for treating locally advanced rectal tumors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The combination of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, total mesorectal excision, and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy is the current standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. But with pathological complete response rates of only 10%-15% and more than 30% of patients developing distant metastases within 3 years, outcomes remain suboptimal.
• Chinese investigators took a step to improve the situation, applying TACE — a standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases — to rectal tumors, dubbing the approach transcatheter rectal arterial chemoembolization (TRACE).
• As in TACE, TRACE uses precisely injected chemotherapeutic and vaso-occlusive agents to shut down blood flow to tumors, starving them of oxygen and nutrients.
• The research team tried the approach in 111 patients with stage II or III rectal tumors and performance status scores of 0-1.
• TRACE was delivered with oxaliplatin and followed by radiotherapy and S1 chemotherapy (tegafur, gimeracil, and potassium oteracil). Total mesorectal excisions were performed 4-8 weeks later, followed by mFOLFOX6 (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (oxaliplatin and capecitabine) chemotherapy for 4-6 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 20.7% of patients undergoing TRACE had a pathological complete response, and almost half (48.65%) had a major pathological response.
• Nearly 62% of patients were disease-free at 5 years, and almost 75% were alive at 5 years.
• No serious surgical complications occurred, but 21.6% of patients had postoperative complications. Overall, about 26% of patients (29 of 111) had grade 3/4 toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The addition of transcatheter rectal arterial chemoembolisation to the neoadjuvant therapy can improve the pathological remission rate and prognosis in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, without increasing the incidence of preoperative adverse events and postoperative complications,” the researchers concluded. “Given its promising effectiveness and safe profile, incorporating TRACE into the standard treatment strategy for patients with [locally advanced rectal cancer] should be considered.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by W. Yang of the Army Medical University in Chongqing, China, was published in Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was performed at a single center with no control arm in a Chinese population.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by the Third Military Medical University in China. The investigators had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), a standard treatment for liver metastases from colorectal cancer, shows promise for treating locally advanced rectal tumors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The combination of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, total mesorectal excision, and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy is the current standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. But with pathological complete response rates of only 10%-15% and more than 30% of patients developing distant metastases within 3 years, outcomes remain suboptimal.
• Chinese investigators took a step to improve the situation, applying TACE — a standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases — to rectal tumors, dubbing the approach transcatheter rectal arterial chemoembolization (TRACE).
• As in TACE, TRACE uses precisely injected chemotherapeutic and vaso-occlusive agents to shut down blood flow to tumors, starving them of oxygen and nutrients.
• The research team tried the approach in 111 patients with stage II or III rectal tumors and performance status scores of 0-1.
• TRACE was delivered with oxaliplatin and followed by radiotherapy and S1 chemotherapy (tegafur, gimeracil, and potassium oteracil). Total mesorectal excisions were performed 4-8 weeks later, followed by mFOLFOX6 (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (oxaliplatin and capecitabine) chemotherapy for 4-6 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 20.7% of patients undergoing TRACE had a pathological complete response, and almost half (48.65%) had a major pathological response.
• Nearly 62% of patients were disease-free at 5 years, and almost 75% were alive at 5 years.
• No serious surgical complications occurred, but 21.6% of patients had postoperative complications. Overall, about 26% of patients (29 of 111) had grade 3/4 toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The addition of transcatheter rectal arterial chemoembolisation to the neoadjuvant therapy can improve the pathological remission rate and prognosis in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, without increasing the incidence of preoperative adverse events and postoperative complications,” the researchers concluded. “Given its promising effectiveness and safe profile, incorporating TRACE into the standard treatment strategy for patients with [locally advanced rectal cancer] should be considered.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by W. Yang of the Army Medical University in Chongqing, China, was published in Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was performed at a single center with no control arm in a Chinese population.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by the Third Military Medical University in China. The investigators had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), a standard treatment for liver metastases from colorectal cancer, shows promise for treating locally advanced rectal tumors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The combination of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, total mesorectal excision, and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy is the current standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. But with pathological complete response rates of only 10%-15% and more than 30% of patients developing distant metastases within 3 years, outcomes remain suboptimal.
• Chinese investigators took a step to improve the situation, applying TACE — a standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases — to rectal tumors, dubbing the approach transcatheter rectal arterial chemoembolization (TRACE).
• As in TACE, TRACE uses precisely injected chemotherapeutic and vaso-occlusive agents to shut down blood flow to tumors, starving them of oxygen and nutrients.
• The research team tried the approach in 111 patients with stage II or III rectal tumors and performance status scores of 0-1.
• TRACE was delivered with oxaliplatin and followed by radiotherapy and S1 chemotherapy (tegafur, gimeracil, and potassium oteracil). Total mesorectal excisions were performed 4-8 weeks later, followed by mFOLFOX6 (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (oxaliplatin and capecitabine) chemotherapy for 4-6 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 20.7% of patients undergoing TRACE had a pathological complete response, and almost half (48.65%) had a major pathological response.
• Nearly 62% of patients were disease-free at 5 years, and almost 75% were alive at 5 years.
• No serious surgical complications occurred, but 21.6% of patients had postoperative complications. Overall, about 26% of patients (29 of 111) had grade 3/4 toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The addition of transcatheter rectal arterial chemoembolisation to the neoadjuvant therapy can improve the pathological remission rate and prognosis in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, without increasing the incidence of preoperative adverse events and postoperative complications,” the researchers concluded. “Given its promising effectiveness and safe profile, incorporating TRACE into the standard treatment strategy for patients with [locally advanced rectal cancer] should be considered.”

SOURCE:

The work, led by W. Yang of the Army Medical University in Chongqing, China, was published in Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was performed at a single center with no control arm in a Chinese population.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by the Third Military Medical University in China. The investigators had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

ChatGPT (version 3.5) provides relatively poor and inconsistent responses when asked about appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Three board-certified gastroenterologists with 10+ years of clinical experience developed five CRC screening and five CRC surveillance clinical vignettes (with multiple choice answers), which were fed to ChatGPT version 3.5.
• ChatGPT’s responses were recorded over four separate sessions and screened for accuracy to determine reliability of the tool.
• The average number of correct answers was compared to that of 238 gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons answering the same questions with and without the help of a previously validated CRC screening mobile app.

TAKEAWAY:

• ChatGPT’s average overall performance was 45%; the average number of correct answers was 2.75 for screening and 1.75 for surveillance.
• ChatGPT’s responses were inconsistent in a large proportion of questions; the tool gave a different answer in four questions among the different sessions.
• The average number of total correct answers of ChatGPT was significantly lower (P < .001) than that of physicians with and without the mobile app (7.71 and 5.62 correct answers, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“The use of validated mobile apps with decision-making algorithms could serve as more reliable assistants until large language models developed with AI are further refined,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Lisandro Pereyra, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was published online on February 7, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The 10 clinical vignettes represented a relatively small sample size to assess accuracy. The study did not use the latest version of ChatGPT. No “fine-tuning” attempts with inputs of diverse prompts, instructions, or relevant data were performed, which could potentially improve the performance of the chatbot.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

ChatGPT (version 3.5) provides relatively poor and inconsistent responses when asked about appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Three board-certified gastroenterologists with 10+ years of clinical experience developed five CRC screening and five CRC surveillance clinical vignettes (with multiple choice answers), which were fed to ChatGPT version 3.5.
• ChatGPT’s responses were recorded over four separate sessions and screened for accuracy to determine reliability of the tool.
• The average number of correct answers was compared to that of 238 gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons answering the same questions with and without the help of a previously validated CRC screening mobile app.

TAKEAWAY:

• ChatGPT’s average overall performance was 45%; the average number of correct answers was 2.75 for screening and 1.75 for surveillance.
• ChatGPT’s responses were inconsistent in a large proportion of questions; the tool gave a different answer in four questions among the different sessions.
• The average number of total correct answers of ChatGPT was significantly lower (P < .001) than that of physicians with and without the mobile app (7.71 and 5.62 correct answers, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“The use of validated mobile apps with decision-making algorithms could serve as more reliable assistants until large language models developed with AI are further refined,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Lisandro Pereyra, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was published online on February 7, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The 10 clinical vignettes represented a relatively small sample size to assess accuracy. The study did not use the latest version of ChatGPT. No “fine-tuning” attempts with inputs of diverse prompts, instructions, or relevant data were performed, which could potentially improve the performance of the chatbot.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

ChatGPT (version 3.5) provides relatively poor and inconsistent responses when asked about appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Three board-certified gastroenterologists with 10+ years of clinical experience developed five CRC screening and five CRC surveillance clinical vignettes (with multiple choice answers), which were fed to ChatGPT version 3.5.
• ChatGPT’s responses were recorded over four separate sessions and screened for accuracy to determine reliability of the tool.
• The average number of correct answers was compared to that of 238 gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons answering the same questions with and without the help of a previously validated CRC screening mobile app.

TAKEAWAY:

• ChatGPT’s average overall performance was 45%; the average number of correct answers was 2.75 for screening and 1.75 for surveillance.
• ChatGPT’s responses were inconsistent in a large proportion of questions; the tool gave a different answer in four questions among the different sessions.
• The average number of total correct answers of ChatGPT was significantly lower (P < .001) than that of physicians with and without the mobile app (7.71 and 5.62 correct answers, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“The use of validated mobile apps with decision-making algorithms could serve as more reliable assistants until large language models developed with AI are further refined,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Lisandro Pereyra, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was published online on February 7, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The 10 clinical vignettes represented a relatively small sample size to assess accuracy. The study did not use the latest version of ChatGPT. No “fine-tuning” attempts with inputs of diverse prompts, instructions, or relevant data were performed, which could potentially improve the performance of the chatbot.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Habitual consumption of caffeine is not associated with frequency, duration, or intensity of episodic migraines, a new study showed. Investigators said the findings suggest caffeine restrictions in migraineurs may not be necessary.

METHODOLOGY:

• The secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study on sleep in adults with episodic migraine (with or without aura) included a group of 97 people (median age, 31 years; 82% White) with an average of 5.0 ± 3.6  days per month at baseline.
• Participants provided sociodemographic information, medical history, habitual caffeinated beverage consumption, alcohol intake, and lifestyle and psychosocial factors and completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies- scale, the Perceived Stress Scale, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.
• Additionally, they completed twice-daily electronic diaries for the subsequent 6 weeks, reporting headache activity and the use of medications to treat the headache.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 67% of participants reported one to two servings of caffeinated beverages per day, 12% reported three to four servings per day, and 21% reported no habitual caffeine consumption.
• After adjusting for age, sex, oral  use, and other confounders, mean headache frequency was similar among groups (7.1 days for no caffeine, 7.4 days for one to two servings, and 5.9 days for three to four servings).
• Similarly, adjusted mean headache duration did not differ across levels of caffeinated beverage intake (8.6 hours for no caffeine, 8.5 hours for one to two servings, and 8.8 hours for three to four servings).
• Adjusted mean headache intensity also did not differ among groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings do not support a recommendation for people with episodic migraine to avoid habitual caffeinated beverage intake,” the authors wrote. However, they noted that habitual caffeine intake may affect systems involved in pain modulation via adenosine signaling. «Therefore, it is possible that habitual caffeine use in those with migraine does not significantly alter adenosine signaling, but significant changes above or below usual consumption may serve as a trigger or contribute to lowering the threshold for an attack to occur along with other triggers,» they added.

SOURCE:

Suzanne M. Bertisch, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Division of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Headache.

LIMITATIONS:

Serving size was not standardized, and there was no information on the type of caffeinated beverage consumed or about other sources of caffeine. Moreover, the population consisted of relatively healthy participants with episodic migraine and generally low levels of habitual caffeinated beverage intake, which limited the statistical power to detect an association between migraine frequency, duration, and intensity with higher levels of caffeine intake.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, and the Harvard Catalyst/Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center. Dr. Bertisch has done consulting work with Idorsia and ResMed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Habitual consumption of caffeine is not associated with frequency, duration, or intensity of episodic migraines, a new study showed. Investigators said the findings suggest caffeine restrictions in migraineurs may not be necessary.

METHODOLOGY:

• The secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study on sleep in adults with episodic migraine (with or without aura) included a group of 97 people (median age, 31 years; 82% White) with an average of 5.0 ± 3.6  days per month at baseline.
• Participants provided sociodemographic information, medical history, habitual caffeinated beverage consumption, alcohol intake, and lifestyle and psychosocial factors and completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies- scale, the Perceived Stress Scale, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.
• Additionally, they completed twice-daily electronic diaries for the subsequent 6 weeks, reporting headache activity and the use of medications to treat the headache.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 67% of participants reported one to two servings of caffeinated beverages per day, 12% reported three to four servings per day, and 21% reported no habitual caffeine consumption.
• After adjusting for age, sex, oral  use, and other confounders, mean headache frequency was similar among groups (7.1 days for no caffeine, 7.4 days for one to two servings, and 5.9 days for three to four servings).
• Similarly, adjusted mean headache duration did not differ across levels of caffeinated beverage intake (8.6 hours for no caffeine, 8.5 hours for one to two servings, and 8.8 hours for three to four servings).
• Adjusted mean headache intensity also did not differ among groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings do not support a recommendation for people with episodic migraine to avoid habitual caffeinated beverage intake,” the authors wrote. However, they noted that habitual caffeine intake may affect systems involved in pain modulation via adenosine signaling. «Therefore, it is possible that habitual caffeine use in those with migraine does not significantly alter adenosine signaling, but significant changes above or below usual consumption may serve as a trigger or contribute to lowering the threshold for an attack to occur along with other triggers,» they added.

SOURCE:

Suzanne M. Bertisch, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Division of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Headache.

LIMITATIONS:

Serving size was not standardized, and there was no information on the type of caffeinated beverage consumed or about other sources of caffeine. Moreover, the population consisted of relatively healthy participants with episodic migraine and generally low levels of habitual caffeinated beverage intake, which limited the statistical power to detect an association between migraine frequency, duration, and intensity with higher levels of caffeine intake.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, and the Harvard Catalyst/Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center. Dr. Bertisch has done consulting work with Idorsia and ResMed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Habitual consumption of caffeine is not associated with frequency, duration, or intensity of episodic migraines, a new study showed. Investigators said the findings suggest caffeine restrictions in migraineurs may not be necessary.

METHODOLOGY:

• The secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study on sleep in adults with episodic migraine (with or without aura) included a group of 97 people (median age, 31 years; 82% White) with an average of 5.0 ± 3.6  days per month at baseline.
• Participants provided sociodemographic information, medical history, habitual caffeinated beverage consumption, alcohol intake, and lifestyle and psychosocial factors and completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies- scale, the Perceived Stress Scale, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.
• Additionally, they completed twice-daily electronic diaries for the subsequent 6 weeks, reporting headache activity and the use of medications to treat the headache.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 67% of participants reported one to two servings of caffeinated beverages per day, 12% reported three to four servings per day, and 21% reported no habitual caffeine consumption.
• After adjusting for age, sex, oral  use, and other confounders, mean headache frequency was similar among groups (7.1 days for no caffeine, 7.4 days for one to two servings, and 5.9 days for three to four servings).
• Similarly, adjusted mean headache duration did not differ across levels of caffeinated beverage intake (8.6 hours for no caffeine, 8.5 hours for one to two servings, and 8.8 hours for three to four servings).
• Adjusted mean headache intensity also did not differ among groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings do not support a recommendation for people with episodic migraine to avoid habitual caffeinated beverage intake,” the authors wrote. However, they noted that habitual caffeine intake may affect systems involved in pain modulation via adenosine signaling. «Therefore, it is possible that habitual caffeine use in those with migraine does not significantly alter adenosine signaling, but significant changes above or below usual consumption may serve as a trigger or contribute to lowering the threshold for an attack to occur along with other triggers,» they added.

SOURCE:

Suzanne M. Bertisch, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Division of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Headache.

LIMITATIONS:

Serving size was not standardized, and there was no information on the type of caffeinated beverage consumed or about other sources of caffeine. Moreover, the population consisted of relatively healthy participants with episodic migraine and generally low levels of habitual caffeinated beverage intake, which limited the statistical power to detect an association between migraine frequency, duration, and intensity with higher levels of caffeine intake.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, and the Harvard Catalyst/Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center. Dr. Bertisch has done consulting work with Idorsia and ResMed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.