User login
-
The New Cancer Stats Might Look Like a Death Sentence. They Aren’t.
Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials.
These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be.
In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk.
For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test.
This proactive approach is the right one. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening
A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps.
This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access.
Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives.
These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health.
Fighting Fear With Routine
Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support.
Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do.
Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials.
These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be.
In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk.
For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test.
This proactive approach is the right one. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening
A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps.
This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access.
Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives.
These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health.
Fighting Fear With Routine
Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support.
Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do.
Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials.
These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be.
In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk.
For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test.
This proactive approach is the right one. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening
A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps.
This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access.
Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives.
These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health.
Fighting Fear With Routine
Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support.
Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do.
Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
70% of Doctors Would Discharge Noncompliant Patients, Medscape Survey Finds
Physicians shared their views on frequently discussed (and sometimes controversial) topics ranging from romances with patients to age-related competency tests in the latest report from Medscape Medical News.
The report captured data from over 1000 full- or part-time US physicians across more than 29 specialties who were surveyed over a 3-month period in 2024.
Responsibility toward their patients was a clear priority among the doctors surveyed.
While around 6 in 10 physicians said they would immediately discharge a patient who refused to follow their treatment recommendations, 8% said they would wait, and 31% indicated they would keep the patient.
Most doctors (91%) said they would not accept a gift of substantial monetary or sentimental value from a patient, adhering to the AMA Code of Medical Ethics.
Big gifts “may signal psychological issues, and it is not fair to patients who can’t afford big gifts, since they may encourage better care,” said Jason Doctor, PhD, a senior scholar at the USC Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics in Los Angeles, California. “It also taints the doctor-patient relationship, which should not involve large gifts of expectations of reciprocity.”
The vast majority of doctors said a romantic relationship with a patient still in their care was unacceptable, although 1% felt it would be OK, and 9% said, “it depends.”
When asked if they might withhold information about a patient’s condition if disclosure could do more harm than good, the majority of doctors said no. But 38% said it depended on the situation.
“This is how the profession and public expectations are evolving from the old paternalistic approach,” said Peter Angood, MD, president and CEO of the American Association for Physician Leadership.
Meanwhile, most doctors (62%) said that an annual flu shot should be mandatory for physicians who see patients. And a substantial majority of doctors surveyed agreed that taking care of their physical and mental health amounts to an ethical duty.
Around three in four physicians surveyed said felt periodic bias training was necessary for doctors.
“We all need refreshers about our own bias and how to manage it,” one respondent said. But another physician said, “I think we all know what appropriate behavior is and don’t need to add yet another CME course, ugh.”
Roughly equal shares of doctors surveyed felt some obligation to take at least some Medicaid patients or felt no societal obligation. The remaining 18% were willing to treat Medicaid patients once states streamlined the rules and improved reimbursements.
And finally, nearly all the survey respondents said physicians should advise patients on the risks of marijuana, notwithstanding the number of states and localities that recently have legalized pot or cannabis products.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians shared their views on frequently discussed (and sometimes controversial) topics ranging from romances with patients to age-related competency tests in the latest report from Medscape Medical News.
The report captured data from over 1000 full- or part-time US physicians across more than 29 specialties who were surveyed over a 3-month period in 2024.
Responsibility toward their patients was a clear priority among the doctors surveyed.
While around 6 in 10 physicians said they would immediately discharge a patient who refused to follow their treatment recommendations, 8% said they would wait, and 31% indicated they would keep the patient.
Most doctors (91%) said they would not accept a gift of substantial monetary or sentimental value from a patient, adhering to the AMA Code of Medical Ethics.
Big gifts “may signal psychological issues, and it is not fair to patients who can’t afford big gifts, since they may encourage better care,” said Jason Doctor, PhD, a senior scholar at the USC Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics in Los Angeles, California. “It also taints the doctor-patient relationship, which should not involve large gifts of expectations of reciprocity.”
The vast majority of doctors said a romantic relationship with a patient still in their care was unacceptable, although 1% felt it would be OK, and 9% said, “it depends.”
When asked if they might withhold information about a patient’s condition if disclosure could do more harm than good, the majority of doctors said no. But 38% said it depended on the situation.
“This is how the profession and public expectations are evolving from the old paternalistic approach,” said Peter Angood, MD, president and CEO of the American Association for Physician Leadership.
Meanwhile, most doctors (62%) said that an annual flu shot should be mandatory for physicians who see patients. And a substantial majority of doctors surveyed agreed that taking care of their physical and mental health amounts to an ethical duty.
Around three in four physicians surveyed said felt periodic bias training was necessary for doctors.
“We all need refreshers about our own bias and how to manage it,” one respondent said. But another physician said, “I think we all know what appropriate behavior is and don’t need to add yet another CME course, ugh.”
Roughly equal shares of doctors surveyed felt some obligation to take at least some Medicaid patients or felt no societal obligation. The remaining 18% were willing to treat Medicaid patients once states streamlined the rules and improved reimbursements.
And finally, nearly all the survey respondents said physicians should advise patients on the risks of marijuana, notwithstanding the number of states and localities that recently have legalized pot or cannabis products.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians shared their views on frequently discussed (and sometimes controversial) topics ranging from romances with patients to age-related competency tests in the latest report from Medscape Medical News.
The report captured data from over 1000 full- or part-time US physicians across more than 29 specialties who were surveyed over a 3-month period in 2024.
Responsibility toward their patients was a clear priority among the doctors surveyed.
While around 6 in 10 physicians said they would immediately discharge a patient who refused to follow their treatment recommendations, 8% said they would wait, and 31% indicated they would keep the patient.
Most doctors (91%) said they would not accept a gift of substantial monetary or sentimental value from a patient, adhering to the AMA Code of Medical Ethics.
Big gifts “may signal psychological issues, and it is not fair to patients who can’t afford big gifts, since they may encourage better care,” said Jason Doctor, PhD, a senior scholar at the USC Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics in Los Angeles, California. “It also taints the doctor-patient relationship, which should not involve large gifts of expectations of reciprocity.”
The vast majority of doctors said a romantic relationship with a patient still in their care was unacceptable, although 1% felt it would be OK, and 9% said, “it depends.”
When asked if they might withhold information about a patient’s condition if disclosure could do more harm than good, the majority of doctors said no. But 38% said it depended on the situation.
“This is how the profession and public expectations are evolving from the old paternalistic approach,” said Peter Angood, MD, president and CEO of the American Association for Physician Leadership.
Meanwhile, most doctors (62%) said that an annual flu shot should be mandatory for physicians who see patients. And a substantial majority of doctors surveyed agreed that taking care of their physical and mental health amounts to an ethical duty.
Around three in four physicians surveyed said felt periodic bias training was necessary for doctors.
“We all need refreshers about our own bias and how to manage it,” one respondent said. But another physician said, “I think we all know what appropriate behavior is and don’t need to add yet another CME course, ugh.”
Roughly equal shares of doctors surveyed felt some obligation to take at least some Medicaid patients or felt no societal obligation. The remaining 18% were willing to treat Medicaid patients once states streamlined the rules and improved reimbursements.
And finally, nearly all the survey respondents said physicians should advise patients on the risks of marijuana, notwithstanding the number of states and localities that recently have legalized pot or cannabis products.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves Pfizer’s Hympavzi for Hemophilia A, B
The once-weekly subcutaneous injection targets an anticoagulation protein called tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI). Reducing TFPI’s amount and activity in the blood subsequently increases the amount of thrombin, a pro-clotting enzyme, in circulation.
“Today’s approval of Hympavzi provides patients with hemophilia a new treatment option that is the first of its kind to work by targeting a protein in the blood clotting process,” Ann Farrell, MD, director of FDA’s Division of Non-Malignant Hematology, said in an agency press release.
Hympavzi is the first non-factor, once-weekly treatment for hemophilia B in the United States. The subcutaneous injection emicizumab (Hemlibra, Genentech), which works by a different mechanism, is already on the market for hemophilia A.
The current approval was based on the open-label BASIS trial in 116 men and boys with either severe hemophilia A or B without factor inhibitors.
During the trial’s first 6 months, patients received standard treatment with clotting factor replacement either on-demand (33 patients) or prophylactically (83 patients). Patients were then switched to Hympavzi prophylaxis for a year.
Among patients receiving on-demand standard treatment during the first 6 months, the annualized bleeding rate was 38 episodes. That rate fell to 3.2 episodes during treatment with Hympavzi.
Among patients receiving prophylactic standard treatment during the first 6 months, the estimated annualized bleeding rate was 7.85 episodes, which then fell to 5.08 during the year of Hympavzi prophylaxis, FDA said.
Injection-site reactions, headaches, and itching were the most common side effects with marstacimab, occurring in 3% or more of patients. Labeling warns of the potential for circulating blood clots, hypersensitivity, and embryofetal toxicity. Marstacimab is supplied in prefilled syringes.
Marstacimab is Pfizer’s second hemophilia approval in 2024. FDA approved the company’s hemophilia B gene therapy fidanacogene elaparvovec (Beqvez) in April.
Pfizer noted in a press release that results for another arm of the BASIS trial in patients with clotting factor inhibitors are expected in 2025.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The once-weekly subcutaneous injection targets an anticoagulation protein called tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI). Reducing TFPI’s amount and activity in the blood subsequently increases the amount of thrombin, a pro-clotting enzyme, in circulation.
“Today’s approval of Hympavzi provides patients with hemophilia a new treatment option that is the first of its kind to work by targeting a protein in the blood clotting process,” Ann Farrell, MD, director of FDA’s Division of Non-Malignant Hematology, said in an agency press release.
Hympavzi is the first non-factor, once-weekly treatment for hemophilia B in the United States. The subcutaneous injection emicizumab (Hemlibra, Genentech), which works by a different mechanism, is already on the market for hemophilia A.
The current approval was based on the open-label BASIS trial in 116 men and boys with either severe hemophilia A or B without factor inhibitors.
During the trial’s first 6 months, patients received standard treatment with clotting factor replacement either on-demand (33 patients) or prophylactically (83 patients). Patients were then switched to Hympavzi prophylaxis for a year.
Among patients receiving on-demand standard treatment during the first 6 months, the annualized bleeding rate was 38 episodes. That rate fell to 3.2 episodes during treatment with Hympavzi.
Among patients receiving prophylactic standard treatment during the first 6 months, the estimated annualized bleeding rate was 7.85 episodes, which then fell to 5.08 during the year of Hympavzi prophylaxis, FDA said.
Injection-site reactions, headaches, and itching were the most common side effects with marstacimab, occurring in 3% or more of patients. Labeling warns of the potential for circulating blood clots, hypersensitivity, and embryofetal toxicity. Marstacimab is supplied in prefilled syringes.
Marstacimab is Pfizer’s second hemophilia approval in 2024. FDA approved the company’s hemophilia B gene therapy fidanacogene elaparvovec (Beqvez) in April.
Pfizer noted in a press release that results for another arm of the BASIS trial in patients with clotting factor inhibitors are expected in 2025.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The once-weekly subcutaneous injection targets an anticoagulation protein called tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI). Reducing TFPI’s amount and activity in the blood subsequently increases the amount of thrombin, a pro-clotting enzyme, in circulation.
“Today’s approval of Hympavzi provides patients with hemophilia a new treatment option that is the first of its kind to work by targeting a protein in the blood clotting process,” Ann Farrell, MD, director of FDA’s Division of Non-Malignant Hematology, said in an agency press release.
Hympavzi is the first non-factor, once-weekly treatment for hemophilia B in the United States. The subcutaneous injection emicizumab (Hemlibra, Genentech), which works by a different mechanism, is already on the market for hemophilia A.
The current approval was based on the open-label BASIS trial in 116 men and boys with either severe hemophilia A or B without factor inhibitors.
During the trial’s first 6 months, patients received standard treatment with clotting factor replacement either on-demand (33 patients) or prophylactically (83 patients). Patients were then switched to Hympavzi prophylaxis for a year.
Among patients receiving on-demand standard treatment during the first 6 months, the annualized bleeding rate was 38 episodes. That rate fell to 3.2 episodes during treatment with Hympavzi.
Among patients receiving prophylactic standard treatment during the first 6 months, the estimated annualized bleeding rate was 7.85 episodes, which then fell to 5.08 during the year of Hympavzi prophylaxis, FDA said.
Injection-site reactions, headaches, and itching were the most common side effects with marstacimab, occurring in 3% or more of patients. Labeling warns of the potential for circulating blood clots, hypersensitivity, and embryofetal toxicity. Marstacimab is supplied in prefilled syringes.
Marstacimab is Pfizer’s second hemophilia approval in 2024. FDA approved the company’s hemophilia B gene therapy fidanacogene elaparvovec (Beqvez) in April.
Pfizer noted in a press release that results for another arm of the BASIS trial in patients with clotting factor inhibitors are expected in 2025.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A Hard Look at Toxic Workplace Culture in Medicine
While Kellie Lease Stecher, MD, was working as an ob.gyn. in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a patient confided in her a sexual assault allegation about one of Stecher’s male colleagues. Stecher shared the allegation with her supervisor, who told Stecher not to file a report and chose not to address the issue with the patient. Stecher weighed how to do the right thing: Should she speak up? What were the ethical and legal implications of speaking up vs staying silent?
After seeking advice from her mentors, Stecher felt it was her moral and legal duty to report the allegation to the Minnesota Medical Board. Once she did, her supervisor chastised her repeatedly for reporting the allegation. Stecher soon found herself in a hostile work environment where she was regularly singled out and silenced by her supervisor and colleagues.
“I got to a point where I felt like I couldn’t say anything at any meetings without somehow being targeted after the meeting. There was an individual who was even allowed to fat-shame me with no consequences,” Stecher said. “[Being bullied at work is] a struggle because you have no voice, you have no opportunities, and there’s someone who is intentionally making your life uncomfortable.”
Stecher’s experience is not unusual. Mistreatment is a common issue among healthcare workers, ranging from rudeness to bullying and harassment and permeating every level and specialty of the medical profession. A 2019 research review estimated that 26.3% of healthcare workers had experienced bullying and found bullying in healthcare to be associated with mental health problems such as burnout and depression, physical health problems such as insomnia and headaches, and physicians taking more sick leave.
The Medscape Physician Workplace Culture Report 2024 found similarly bleak results:
- 38% said workplace culture is declining.
- 70% don’t see a big commitment from employers for positive culture.
- 48% said staff isn’t committed to positive culture.
The irony, of course, is that most physicians enter the field to care for people. As individuals go from medical school to residency and on with the rest of their careers, they often experience a rude awakening.
It’s Everywhere
Noticing the prevalence of workplace bullying in the medical field, endocrinologist Farah Khan, MD, at UW Medicine in Seattle, Washington, decided to conduct a survey on the issue.
Khan collected 122 responses from colleagues, friends, and acquaintances in the field. When asked if they had ever been bullied in medicine, 68% of respondents said yes. But here’s the fascinating part: She tried to pinpoint one particular area or source of toxicity in the progression of a physician’s career — and couldn’t because it existed at all levels.
More than one third of respondents said their worst bullying experiences occurred in residency, while 30% said mistreatment was worst in medical school, and 24% indicated their worst experience had occurred once they became an attending.
The litany of experiences included being belittled, excluded, yelled at, criticized, shamed, unfairly blamed, threatened, sexually harassed, subjected to bigotry and slurs, and humiliated.
“What surprised me the most was how widespread this problem is and the many different layers of healthcare it permeates through, from operating room staff to medical students to hospital HR to residents and attendings,” Khan said of her findings.
Who Cares for the Caregivers?
When hematologist Mikkael Sekeres, MD, was in medical school, he seriously considered a career as a surgeon. Following success in his surgical rotations, he scrubbed in with a cardiothoracic surgeon who was well known for both his status as a surgeon and his fiery temper. Sekeres witnessed the surgeon yelling at whoever was nearby: Medical students, fellows, residents, operating room nurses.
“At the end of that experience, any passing thoughts I had of going into cardiothoracic surgery were gone,” Sekeres said. “Some of the people I met in surgery were truly wonderful. Some were unhappy people.”
He has clear ideas why. Mental health struggles that are all too common among physicians can be caused or exacerbated by mistreatment and can also lead a physician to mistreat others.
“People bully when they themselves are hurting,” Sekeres said. “It begs the question, why are people hurting? What’s driving them to be bullies? I think part of the reason is that they’re working really hard and they’re tired, and nobody’s caring for them. It’s hard to care for others when you feel as if you’re hurting more than they are.”
Gail Gazelle, MD, experienced something like this. In her case, the pressure to please and to be a perfect professional and mother affected how she interacted with those around her. While working as a hospice medical director and an academician and clinician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, she found herself feeling exhausted and burnt out but simultaneously guilty for not doing enough at work or at home.
Guess what happened? She became irritable, lashing out at her son and not putting her best foot forward with coworkers or patients.
After trying traditional therapy and self-help through books and podcasts, Gazelle found her solution in life coaching. “I realized just how harsh I was being on myself and found ways to reverse that pattern,” she said. “I learned ways of regulating myself emotionally that I definitely didn’t learn in my training.”
Today, Gazelle works as a life coach herself, guiding physicians through common challenges of the profession — particularly bullying, which she sees often. She remembers one client, an oncologist, who was being targeted by a nurse practitioner she was training. The nurse practitioner began talking back to the oncologist, as well as gossiping and bad-mouthing her to the nurses in the practice. The nurses then began excluding the oncologist from their cafeteria table at lunchtime, which felt blatant in such a small practice.
A core component of Gazelle’s coaching strategy was helping the client reclaim her self-esteem by focusing on her strengths. She instructed the client to write down what went well that day each night rather than lying in bed ruminating. Such self-care strategies can not only help bullied physicians but also prevent some of the challenges that might cause a physician to bully or lash out at another in the first place.
Such strategies, along with the recent influx of wellness programs available in healthcare facilities, can help physicians cope with the mental health impacts of bullying and the job in general. But even life coaches like Gazelle acknowledge that they are often band-aids on the system’s deeper wounds. Bullying in healthcare is not an individual issue; at its core, it’s an institutional one.
Negative Hierarchies in Healthcare
When Stecher’s contract expired, she was fired by the supervisor who had been bullying her. Stecher has since filed a lawsuit, claiming sexual discrimination, defamation, and wrongful termination.
The medical field has a long history of hierarchy, and while this rigidity has softened over time, negative hierarchical dynamics are often perpetuated by leaders. Phenomena like cronyism and cliques and behaviors like petty gossip, lunchroom exclusion (which in the worst cases can mimic high school dynamics), and targeting can be at play in the healthcare workplace.
The classic examples, Stecher said, can usually be spotted: “If you threaten the status quo or offer different ideas, you are seen as a threat. Cronyism ... strict hierarchies ... people who elevate individuals in their social arena into leadership positions. Physicians don’t get the leadership training that they really need; they are often just dumped into roles with no previous experience because they’re someone’s golfing buddy.”
The question is how to get workplace culture momentum moving in a positive direction. When Gazelle’s clients are hesitant to voice concerns, she emphasizes doing so can and should benefit leadership, as well as patients and the wider healthcare system.
“The win-win is that you have a healthy culture of respect and dignity and civility rather than the opposite,” she said. “The leader will actually have more staff retention, which everybody’s concerned about, given the shortage of healthcare workers.”
And that’s a key incentive that may not be discussed as much: Talent drain from toxicity. The Medscape Workplace Culture Report asked about culture as it applies to physicians looking to join up. Notably, 93% of doctors say culture is important when mulling a job offer, 70% said culture is equal to money, and 18% ranked it as more important than money, and 46% say a positive atmosphere is the top priority.
Ultimately, it comes down to who is willing to step in and stand up. Respondents to Khan’s survey counted anonymous reporting systems, more supportive administration teams, and zero-tolerance policies as potential remedies. Gazelle, Sekeres, and Stecher all emphasize the need for zero-tolerance policies for bullying and mistreatment.
“We can’t afford to have things going on like this that just destroy the fabric of the healthcare endeavor,” Gazelle said. “They come out sideways eventually. They come out in terms of poor patient care because there are greater errors. There’s a lack of respect for patients. There’s anger and irritability and so much spillover. We have to have zero-tolerance policies from the top down.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
While Kellie Lease Stecher, MD, was working as an ob.gyn. in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a patient confided in her a sexual assault allegation about one of Stecher’s male colleagues. Stecher shared the allegation with her supervisor, who told Stecher not to file a report and chose not to address the issue with the patient. Stecher weighed how to do the right thing: Should she speak up? What were the ethical and legal implications of speaking up vs staying silent?
After seeking advice from her mentors, Stecher felt it was her moral and legal duty to report the allegation to the Minnesota Medical Board. Once she did, her supervisor chastised her repeatedly for reporting the allegation. Stecher soon found herself in a hostile work environment where she was regularly singled out and silenced by her supervisor and colleagues.
“I got to a point where I felt like I couldn’t say anything at any meetings without somehow being targeted after the meeting. There was an individual who was even allowed to fat-shame me with no consequences,” Stecher said. “[Being bullied at work is] a struggle because you have no voice, you have no opportunities, and there’s someone who is intentionally making your life uncomfortable.”
Stecher’s experience is not unusual. Mistreatment is a common issue among healthcare workers, ranging from rudeness to bullying and harassment and permeating every level and specialty of the medical profession. A 2019 research review estimated that 26.3% of healthcare workers had experienced bullying and found bullying in healthcare to be associated with mental health problems such as burnout and depression, physical health problems such as insomnia and headaches, and physicians taking more sick leave.
The Medscape Physician Workplace Culture Report 2024 found similarly bleak results:
- 38% said workplace culture is declining.
- 70% don’t see a big commitment from employers for positive culture.
- 48% said staff isn’t committed to positive culture.
The irony, of course, is that most physicians enter the field to care for people. As individuals go from medical school to residency and on with the rest of their careers, they often experience a rude awakening.
It’s Everywhere
Noticing the prevalence of workplace bullying in the medical field, endocrinologist Farah Khan, MD, at UW Medicine in Seattle, Washington, decided to conduct a survey on the issue.
Khan collected 122 responses from colleagues, friends, and acquaintances in the field. When asked if they had ever been bullied in medicine, 68% of respondents said yes. But here’s the fascinating part: She tried to pinpoint one particular area or source of toxicity in the progression of a physician’s career — and couldn’t because it existed at all levels.
More than one third of respondents said their worst bullying experiences occurred in residency, while 30% said mistreatment was worst in medical school, and 24% indicated their worst experience had occurred once they became an attending.
The litany of experiences included being belittled, excluded, yelled at, criticized, shamed, unfairly blamed, threatened, sexually harassed, subjected to bigotry and slurs, and humiliated.
“What surprised me the most was how widespread this problem is and the many different layers of healthcare it permeates through, from operating room staff to medical students to hospital HR to residents and attendings,” Khan said of her findings.
Who Cares for the Caregivers?
When hematologist Mikkael Sekeres, MD, was in medical school, he seriously considered a career as a surgeon. Following success in his surgical rotations, he scrubbed in with a cardiothoracic surgeon who was well known for both his status as a surgeon and his fiery temper. Sekeres witnessed the surgeon yelling at whoever was nearby: Medical students, fellows, residents, operating room nurses.
“At the end of that experience, any passing thoughts I had of going into cardiothoracic surgery were gone,” Sekeres said. “Some of the people I met in surgery were truly wonderful. Some were unhappy people.”
He has clear ideas why. Mental health struggles that are all too common among physicians can be caused or exacerbated by mistreatment and can also lead a physician to mistreat others.
“People bully when they themselves are hurting,” Sekeres said. “It begs the question, why are people hurting? What’s driving them to be bullies? I think part of the reason is that they’re working really hard and they’re tired, and nobody’s caring for them. It’s hard to care for others when you feel as if you’re hurting more than they are.”
Gail Gazelle, MD, experienced something like this. In her case, the pressure to please and to be a perfect professional and mother affected how she interacted with those around her. While working as a hospice medical director and an academician and clinician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, she found herself feeling exhausted and burnt out but simultaneously guilty for not doing enough at work or at home.
Guess what happened? She became irritable, lashing out at her son and not putting her best foot forward with coworkers or patients.
After trying traditional therapy and self-help through books and podcasts, Gazelle found her solution in life coaching. “I realized just how harsh I was being on myself and found ways to reverse that pattern,” she said. “I learned ways of regulating myself emotionally that I definitely didn’t learn in my training.”
Today, Gazelle works as a life coach herself, guiding physicians through common challenges of the profession — particularly bullying, which she sees often. She remembers one client, an oncologist, who was being targeted by a nurse practitioner she was training. The nurse practitioner began talking back to the oncologist, as well as gossiping and bad-mouthing her to the nurses in the practice. The nurses then began excluding the oncologist from their cafeteria table at lunchtime, which felt blatant in such a small practice.
A core component of Gazelle’s coaching strategy was helping the client reclaim her self-esteem by focusing on her strengths. She instructed the client to write down what went well that day each night rather than lying in bed ruminating. Such self-care strategies can not only help bullied physicians but also prevent some of the challenges that might cause a physician to bully or lash out at another in the first place.
Such strategies, along with the recent influx of wellness programs available in healthcare facilities, can help physicians cope with the mental health impacts of bullying and the job in general. But even life coaches like Gazelle acknowledge that they are often band-aids on the system’s deeper wounds. Bullying in healthcare is not an individual issue; at its core, it’s an institutional one.
Negative Hierarchies in Healthcare
When Stecher’s contract expired, she was fired by the supervisor who had been bullying her. Stecher has since filed a lawsuit, claiming sexual discrimination, defamation, and wrongful termination.
The medical field has a long history of hierarchy, and while this rigidity has softened over time, negative hierarchical dynamics are often perpetuated by leaders. Phenomena like cronyism and cliques and behaviors like petty gossip, lunchroom exclusion (which in the worst cases can mimic high school dynamics), and targeting can be at play in the healthcare workplace.
The classic examples, Stecher said, can usually be spotted: “If you threaten the status quo or offer different ideas, you are seen as a threat. Cronyism ... strict hierarchies ... people who elevate individuals in their social arena into leadership positions. Physicians don’t get the leadership training that they really need; they are often just dumped into roles with no previous experience because they’re someone’s golfing buddy.”
The question is how to get workplace culture momentum moving in a positive direction. When Gazelle’s clients are hesitant to voice concerns, she emphasizes doing so can and should benefit leadership, as well as patients and the wider healthcare system.
“The win-win is that you have a healthy culture of respect and dignity and civility rather than the opposite,” she said. “The leader will actually have more staff retention, which everybody’s concerned about, given the shortage of healthcare workers.”
And that’s a key incentive that may not be discussed as much: Talent drain from toxicity. The Medscape Workplace Culture Report asked about culture as it applies to physicians looking to join up. Notably, 93% of doctors say culture is important when mulling a job offer, 70% said culture is equal to money, and 18% ranked it as more important than money, and 46% say a positive atmosphere is the top priority.
Ultimately, it comes down to who is willing to step in and stand up. Respondents to Khan’s survey counted anonymous reporting systems, more supportive administration teams, and zero-tolerance policies as potential remedies. Gazelle, Sekeres, and Stecher all emphasize the need for zero-tolerance policies for bullying and mistreatment.
“We can’t afford to have things going on like this that just destroy the fabric of the healthcare endeavor,” Gazelle said. “They come out sideways eventually. They come out in terms of poor patient care because there are greater errors. There’s a lack of respect for patients. There’s anger and irritability and so much spillover. We have to have zero-tolerance policies from the top down.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
While Kellie Lease Stecher, MD, was working as an ob.gyn. in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a patient confided in her a sexual assault allegation about one of Stecher’s male colleagues. Stecher shared the allegation with her supervisor, who told Stecher not to file a report and chose not to address the issue with the patient. Stecher weighed how to do the right thing: Should she speak up? What were the ethical and legal implications of speaking up vs staying silent?
After seeking advice from her mentors, Stecher felt it was her moral and legal duty to report the allegation to the Minnesota Medical Board. Once she did, her supervisor chastised her repeatedly for reporting the allegation. Stecher soon found herself in a hostile work environment where she was regularly singled out and silenced by her supervisor and colleagues.
“I got to a point where I felt like I couldn’t say anything at any meetings without somehow being targeted after the meeting. There was an individual who was even allowed to fat-shame me with no consequences,” Stecher said. “[Being bullied at work is] a struggle because you have no voice, you have no opportunities, and there’s someone who is intentionally making your life uncomfortable.”
Stecher’s experience is not unusual. Mistreatment is a common issue among healthcare workers, ranging from rudeness to bullying and harassment and permeating every level and specialty of the medical profession. A 2019 research review estimated that 26.3% of healthcare workers had experienced bullying and found bullying in healthcare to be associated with mental health problems such as burnout and depression, physical health problems such as insomnia and headaches, and physicians taking more sick leave.
The Medscape Physician Workplace Culture Report 2024 found similarly bleak results:
- 38% said workplace culture is declining.
- 70% don’t see a big commitment from employers for positive culture.
- 48% said staff isn’t committed to positive culture.
The irony, of course, is that most physicians enter the field to care for people. As individuals go from medical school to residency and on with the rest of their careers, they often experience a rude awakening.
It’s Everywhere
Noticing the prevalence of workplace bullying in the medical field, endocrinologist Farah Khan, MD, at UW Medicine in Seattle, Washington, decided to conduct a survey on the issue.
Khan collected 122 responses from colleagues, friends, and acquaintances in the field. When asked if they had ever been bullied in medicine, 68% of respondents said yes. But here’s the fascinating part: She tried to pinpoint one particular area or source of toxicity in the progression of a physician’s career — and couldn’t because it existed at all levels.
More than one third of respondents said their worst bullying experiences occurred in residency, while 30% said mistreatment was worst in medical school, and 24% indicated their worst experience had occurred once they became an attending.
The litany of experiences included being belittled, excluded, yelled at, criticized, shamed, unfairly blamed, threatened, sexually harassed, subjected to bigotry and slurs, and humiliated.
“What surprised me the most was how widespread this problem is and the many different layers of healthcare it permeates through, from operating room staff to medical students to hospital HR to residents and attendings,” Khan said of her findings.
Who Cares for the Caregivers?
When hematologist Mikkael Sekeres, MD, was in medical school, he seriously considered a career as a surgeon. Following success in his surgical rotations, he scrubbed in with a cardiothoracic surgeon who was well known for both his status as a surgeon and his fiery temper. Sekeres witnessed the surgeon yelling at whoever was nearby: Medical students, fellows, residents, operating room nurses.
“At the end of that experience, any passing thoughts I had of going into cardiothoracic surgery were gone,” Sekeres said. “Some of the people I met in surgery were truly wonderful. Some were unhappy people.”
He has clear ideas why. Mental health struggles that are all too common among physicians can be caused or exacerbated by mistreatment and can also lead a physician to mistreat others.
“People bully when they themselves are hurting,” Sekeres said. “It begs the question, why are people hurting? What’s driving them to be bullies? I think part of the reason is that they’re working really hard and they’re tired, and nobody’s caring for them. It’s hard to care for others when you feel as if you’re hurting more than they are.”
Gail Gazelle, MD, experienced something like this. In her case, the pressure to please and to be a perfect professional and mother affected how she interacted with those around her. While working as a hospice medical director and an academician and clinician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, she found herself feeling exhausted and burnt out but simultaneously guilty for not doing enough at work or at home.
Guess what happened? She became irritable, lashing out at her son and not putting her best foot forward with coworkers or patients.
After trying traditional therapy and self-help through books and podcasts, Gazelle found her solution in life coaching. “I realized just how harsh I was being on myself and found ways to reverse that pattern,” she said. “I learned ways of regulating myself emotionally that I definitely didn’t learn in my training.”
Today, Gazelle works as a life coach herself, guiding physicians through common challenges of the profession — particularly bullying, which she sees often. She remembers one client, an oncologist, who was being targeted by a nurse practitioner she was training. The nurse practitioner began talking back to the oncologist, as well as gossiping and bad-mouthing her to the nurses in the practice. The nurses then began excluding the oncologist from their cafeteria table at lunchtime, which felt blatant in such a small practice.
A core component of Gazelle’s coaching strategy was helping the client reclaim her self-esteem by focusing on her strengths. She instructed the client to write down what went well that day each night rather than lying in bed ruminating. Such self-care strategies can not only help bullied physicians but also prevent some of the challenges that might cause a physician to bully or lash out at another in the first place.
Such strategies, along with the recent influx of wellness programs available in healthcare facilities, can help physicians cope with the mental health impacts of bullying and the job in general. But even life coaches like Gazelle acknowledge that they are often band-aids on the system’s deeper wounds. Bullying in healthcare is not an individual issue; at its core, it’s an institutional one.
Negative Hierarchies in Healthcare
When Stecher’s contract expired, she was fired by the supervisor who had been bullying her. Stecher has since filed a lawsuit, claiming sexual discrimination, defamation, and wrongful termination.
The medical field has a long history of hierarchy, and while this rigidity has softened over time, negative hierarchical dynamics are often perpetuated by leaders. Phenomena like cronyism and cliques and behaviors like petty gossip, lunchroom exclusion (which in the worst cases can mimic high school dynamics), and targeting can be at play in the healthcare workplace.
The classic examples, Stecher said, can usually be spotted: “If you threaten the status quo or offer different ideas, you are seen as a threat. Cronyism ... strict hierarchies ... people who elevate individuals in their social arena into leadership positions. Physicians don’t get the leadership training that they really need; they are often just dumped into roles with no previous experience because they’re someone’s golfing buddy.”
The question is how to get workplace culture momentum moving in a positive direction. When Gazelle’s clients are hesitant to voice concerns, she emphasizes doing so can and should benefit leadership, as well as patients and the wider healthcare system.
“The win-win is that you have a healthy culture of respect and dignity and civility rather than the opposite,” she said. “The leader will actually have more staff retention, which everybody’s concerned about, given the shortage of healthcare workers.”
And that’s a key incentive that may not be discussed as much: Talent drain from toxicity. The Medscape Workplace Culture Report asked about culture as it applies to physicians looking to join up. Notably, 93% of doctors say culture is important when mulling a job offer, 70% said culture is equal to money, and 18% ranked it as more important than money, and 46% say a positive atmosphere is the top priority.
Ultimately, it comes down to who is willing to step in and stand up. Respondents to Khan’s survey counted anonymous reporting systems, more supportive administration teams, and zero-tolerance policies as potential remedies. Gazelle, Sekeres, and Stecher all emphasize the need for zero-tolerance policies for bullying and mistreatment.
“We can’t afford to have things going on like this that just destroy the fabric of the healthcare endeavor,” Gazelle said. “They come out sideways eventually. They come out in terms of poor patient care because there are greater errors. There’s a lack of respect for patients. There’s anger and irritability and so much spillover. We have to have zero-tolerance policies from the top down.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
NY Nurse Practitioners Sue State Over Pay Equity, Alleged Gender Inequality
A
The New York State Civil Service Commission understates the job function of NPs, overstates their dependence on physicians, and inadequately pays them for their work, according to the complaint filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of New York.
The nurses claim the mistreatment is a consequence of the fact that “at least 80% of the state’s employed NPs are women.”
Michael H. Sussman, a Goshen, New York–based attorney for the nurses, said in an interview that New York NPs are increasingly being used essentially as doctors at state-run facilities, including prisons, yet the state has failed to adequately pay them.
The lawsuit comes after a decade-long attempt by NPs to attain equitable pay and the ability to advance their civil service careers, he said.
“New York state has not addressed the heart of the issue, which is that the classification of this position is much lower than other positions in the state which are not so female-dominated and which engage in very similar activities,” Sussman said.
The lawsuit claims that “the work of NPs is complex, equaling that of a medical specialist, psychiatrist, or clinical physician.”
A spokesman for the New York State Civil Service Commission declined comment, saying the department does not comment on pending litigation.
Novel Gender Discrimination Argument
Gender discrimination is a relatively new argument avenue in the larger equal work, equal pay debate, said Joanne Spetz, PhD, director of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California, San Francisco.
“This is the first time I’ve heard of [such] a case being really gender discrimination focused,” she said in an interview. “On one level, I think it’s groundbreaking as a legal approach, but it’s also limited because it’s focused on public, state employees.”
Spetz noted that New York has significantly expanded NPs’ scope of practice, enacting in 2022 legislation that granted NPs full practice authority. The law means NPs can evaluate, order, diagnose, manage treatments, and prescribe medications for patients without physician supervision.
“They are in a role where they are stepping back and saying, ‘Wait, why are [we] not receiving equal pay for equal work?’ ” Spetz said. “It’s a totally fair area for debate, especially because they are now authorized to do essentially equal work with a high degree of autonomy.”
Debate Over Pay Grade
The nurses’ complaint centers on the New York State Civil Service Commission’s classification for NPs, which hasn’t changed since 2006. NPs are classified at grade 24, and they have no possibility of internal advancement associated with their title, according to the legal complaint filed on September 17.
To comply with a state legislative directive, the commission in 2018 conducted a study of the NP classification but recommended against reclassification or implementing a career ladder. The study noted the subordinate role of NPs to physicians and the substantial difference between physician classification (entry at grade 34) and that of NPs, psychologists (grade 25), and pharmacists (grade 25).
The study concluded that higher classified positions have higher levels of educational attainment and licensure requirements and no supervision or collaboration requirements, according to the complaint.
At the time, groups such as the Nurse Practitioner Association and the Public Employees Federation (PEF) criticized the findings, but the commission stuck to its classification.
Following the NP Modernization Act that allowed NPs to practice independently, PEF sought an increase for NPs to grade 28 with a progression to grade 34 depending on experience.
“But to this date, despite altering the starting salaries of NPs, defendants have failed and refused to alter the compensation offered to the substantial majority of NPs, and each plaintiff remains cabined in a grade 24 with a discriminatorily low salary when compared with males in other job classifications doing highly similar functions,” the lawsuit contended.
Six plaintiffs are named in the lawsuit, all of whom are women and work for state agencies. Plaintiff Rachel Burns, for instance, works as a psychiatric mental health NP in West Seneca and is responsible for performing psychiatric evaluations for patients, diagnosis, prescribing medication, ordering labs, and determining risks. The evaluations are identical for a psychiatrist and require her to complete the same forms, according to the suit.
Another plaintiff, Amber Hawthorne Lashway, works at a correctional facility in Altona, where for many years she was the sole medical provider, according to the lawsuit. Lashway’s duties, which include diagnoses and treatment of inmates’ medical conditions, mirror those performed by clinical physicians, the suit stated.
The plaintiffs are requesting the court accept jurisdiction of the matter and certify the class they seek to represent. They are also demanding prospective pay equity and compensatory damages for the distress caused by “the long-standing discriminatory” treatment by the state.
The Civil Service Commission and state of New York have not yet responded to the complaint. Their responses are due on November 12.
Attorney: Case Impact Limited
Benjamin McMichael, PhD, JD, said the New York case is not surprising as more states across the country are granting nurses more practice autonomy. The current landscape tends to favor the nurses, he said, with about half of states now allowing NPs full practice authority.
“I think the [New York] NPs are correct that they are underpaid,” said McMichael, an associate professor of law and director of the Interdisciplinary Legal Studies Initiative at The University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. “With that said, the nature of the case does not clearly lend itself to national change.”
The fact that the NP plaintiffs are employed by the state means they are using a specific set of laws to advance their cause, he said. Other NPs in other employment situations may not have access to the same laws.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A
The New York State Civil Service Commission understates the job function of NPs, overstates their dependence on physicians, and inadequately pays them for their work, according to the complaint filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of New York.
The nurses claim the mistreatment is a consequence of the fact that “at least 80% of the state’s employed NPs are women.”
Michael H. Sussman, a Goshen, New York–based attorney for the nurses, said in an interview that New York NPs are increasingly being used essentially as doctors at state-run facilities, including prisons, yet the state has failed to adequately pay them.
The lawsuit comes after a decade-long attempt by NPs to attain equitable pay and the ability to advance their civil service careers, he said.
“New York state has not addressed the heart of the issue, which is that the classification of this position is much lower than other positions in the state which are not so female-dominated and which engage in very similar activities,” Sussman said.
The lawsuit claims that “the work of NPs is complex, equaling that of a medical specialist, psychiatrist, or clinical physician.”
A spokesman for the New York State Civil Service Commission declined comment, saying the department does not comment on pending litigation.
Novel Gender Discrimination Argument
Gender discrimination is a relatively new argument avenue in the larger equal work, equal pay debate, said Joanne Spetz, PhD, director of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California, San Francisco.
“This is the first time I’ve heard of [such] a case being really gender discrimination focused,” she said in an interview. “On one level, I think it’s groundbreaking as a legal approach, but it’s also limited because it’s focused on public, state employees.”
Spetz noted that New York has significantly expanded NPs’ scope of practice, enacting in 2022 legislation that granted NPs full practice authority. The law means NPs can evaluate, order, diagnose, manage treatments, and prescribe medications for patients without physician supervision.
“They are in a role where they are stepping back and saying, ‘Wait, why are [we] not receiving equal pay for equal work?’ ” Spetz said. “It’s a totally fair area for debate, especially because they are now authorized to do essentially equal work with a high degree of autonomy.”
Debate Over Pay Grade
The nurses’ complaint centers on the New York State Civil Service Commission’s classification for NPs, which hasn’t changed since 2006. NPs are classified at grade 24, and they have no possibility of internal advancement associated with their title, according to the legal complaint filed on September 17.
To comply with a state legislative directive, the commission in 2018 conducted a study of the NP classification but recommended against reclassification or implementing a career ladder. The study noted the subordinate role of NPs to physicians and the substantial difference between physician classification (entry at grade 34) and that of NPs, psychologists (grade 25), and pharmacists (grade 25).
The study concluded that higher classified positions have higher levels of educational attainment and licensure requirements and no supervision or collaboration requirements, according to the complaint.
At the time, groups such as the Nurse Practitioner Association and the Public Employees Federation (PEF) criticized the findings, but the commission stuck to its classification.
Following the NP Modernization Act that allowed NPs to practice independently, PEF sought an increase for NPs to grade 28 with a progression to grade 34 depending on experience.
“But to this date, despite altering the starting salaries of NPs, defendants have failed and refused to alter the compensation offered to the substantial majority of NPs, and each plaintiff remains cabined in a grade 24 with a discriminatorily low salary when compared with males in other job classifications doing highly similar functions,” the lawsuit contended.
Six plaintiffs are named in the lawsuit, all of whom are women and work for state agencies. Plaintiff Rachel Burns, for instance, works as a psychiatric mental health NP in West Seneca and is responsible for performing psychiatric evaluations for patients, diagnosis, prescribing medication, ordering labs, and determining risks. The evaluations are identical for a psychiatrist and require her to complete the same forms, according to the suit.
Another plaintiff, Amber Hawthorne Lashway, works at a correctional facility in Altona, where for many years she was the sole medical provider, according to the lawsuit. Lashway’s duties, which include diagnoses and treatment of inmates’ medical conditions, mirror those performed by clinical physicians, the suit stated.
The plaintiffs are requesting the court accept jurisdiction of the matter and certify the class they seek to represent. They are also demanding prospective pay equity and compensatory damages for the distress caused by “the long-standing discriminatory” treatment by the state.
The Civil Service Commission and state of New York have not yet responded to the complaint. Their responses are due on November 12.
Attorney: Case Impact Limited
Benjamin McMichael, PhD, JD, said the New York case is not surprising as more states across the country are granting nurses more practice autonomy. The current landscape tends to favor the nurses, he said, with about half of states now allowing NPs full practice authority.
“I think the [New York] NPs are correct that they are underpaid,” said McMichael, an associate professor of law and director of the Interdisciplinary Legal Studies Initiative at The University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. “With that said, the nature of the case does not clearly lend itself to national change.”
The fact that the NP plaintiffs are employed by the state means they are using a specific set of laws to advance their cause, he said. Other NPs in other employment situations may not have access to the same laws.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A
The New York State Civil Service Commission understates the job function of NPs, overstates their dependence on physicians, and inadequately pays them for their work, according to the complaint filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of New York.
The nurses claim the mistreatment is a consequence of the fact that “at least 80% of the state’s employed NPs are women.”
Michael H. Sussman, a Goshen, New York–based attorney for the nurses, said in an interview that New York NPs are increasingly being used essentially as doctors at state-run facilities, including prisons, yet the state has failed to adequately pay them.
The lawsuit comes after a decade-long attempt by NPs to attain equitable pay and the ability to advance their civil service careers, he said.
“New York state has not addressed the heart of the issue, which is that the classification of this position is much lower than other positions in the state which are not so female-dominated and which engage in very similar activities,” Sussman said.
The lawsuit claims that “the work of NPs is complex, equaling that of a medical specialist, psychiatrist, or clinical physician.”
A spokesman for the New York State Civil Service Commission declined comment, saying the department does not comment on pending litigation.
Novel Gender Discrimination Argument
Gender discrimination is a relatively new argument avenue in the larger equal work, equal pay debate, said Joanne Spetz, PhD, director of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California, San Francisco.
“This is the first time I’ve heard of [such] a case being really gender discrimination focused,” she said in an interview. “On one level, I think it’s groundbreaking as a legal approach, but it’s also limited because it’s focused on public, state employees.”
Spetz noted that New York has significantly expanded NPs’ scope of practice, enacting in 2022 legislation that granted NPs full practice authority. The law means NPs can evaluate, order, diagnose, manage treatments, and prescribe medications for patients without physician supervision.
“They are in a role where they are stepping back and saying, ‘Wait, why are [we] not receiving equal pay for equal work?’ ” Spetz said. “It’s a totally fair area for debate, especially because they are now authorized to do essentially equal work with a high degree of autonomy.”
Debate Over Pay Grade
The nurses’ complaint centers on the New York State Civil Service Commission’s classification for NPs, which hasn’t changed since 2006. NPs are classified at grade 24, and they have no possibility of internal advancement associated with their title, according to the legal complaint filed on September 17.
To comply with a state legislative directive, the commission in 2018 conducted a study of the NP classification but recommended against reclassification or implementing a career ladder. The study noted the subordinate role of NPs to physicians and the substantial difference between physician classification (entry at grade 34) and that of NPs, psychologists (grade 25), and pharmacists (grade 25).
The study concluded that higher classified positions have higher levels of educational attainment and licensure requirements and no supervision or collaboration requirements, according to the complaint.
At the time, groups such as the Nurse Practitioner Association and the Public Employees Federation (PEF) criticized the findings, but the commission stuck to its classification.
Following the NP Modernization Act that allowed NPs to practice independently, PEF sought an increase for NPs to grade 28 with a progression to grade 34 depending on experience.
“But to this date, despite altering the starting salaries of NPs, defendants have failed and refused to alter the compensation offered to the substantial majority of NPs, and each plaintiff remains cabined in a grade 24 with a discriminatorily low salary when compared with males in other job classifications doing highly similar functions,” the lawsuit contended.
Six plaintiffs are named in the lawsuit, all of whom are women and work for state agencies. Plaintiff Rachel Burns, for instance, works as a psychiatric mental health NP in West Seneca and is responsible for performing psychiatric evaluations for patients, diagnosis, prescribing medication, ordering labs, and determining risks. The evaluations are identical for a psychiatrist and require her to complete the same forms, according to the suit.
Another plaintiff, Amber Hawthorne Lashway, works at a correctional facility in Altona, where for many years she was the sole medical provider, according to the lawsuit. Lashway’s duties, which include diagnoses and treatment of inmates’ medical conditions, mirror those performed by clinical physicians, the suit stated.
The plaintiffs are requesting the court accept jurisdiction of the matter and certify the class they seek to represent. They are also demanding prospective pay equity and compensatory damages for the distress caused by “the long-standing discriminatory” treatment by the state.
The Civil Service Commission and state of New York have not yet responded to the complaint. Their responses are due on November 12.
Attorney: Case Impact Limited
Benjamin McMichael, PhD, JD, said the New York case is not surprising as more states across the country are granting nurses more practice autonomy. The current landscape tends to favor the nurses, he said, with about half of states now allowing NPs full practice authority.
“I think the [New York] NPs are correct that they are underpaid,” said McMichael, an associate professor of law and director of the Interdisciplinary Legal Studies Initiative at The University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. “With that said, the nature of the case does not clearly lend itself to national change.”
The fact that the NP plaintiffs are employed by the state means they are using a specific set of laws to advance their cause, he said. Other NPs in other employment situations may not have access to the same laws.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Myeloma: Isa-KRd Induction Shows High MRD Responses
“We found that this induction induced exceptionally high response and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rates,” said first author Aurore Perrot, MD, PhD, an associate professor of hematology at the University of Toulouse in France, in presenting the findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society (IMS).
“These rates are the highest reported to date regarding MRD negativity,” she said.
The results from a first interim analysis offer encouraging groundwork in the trial that is investigating the tailoring of subsequent therapeutic choices in patients with newly diagnosed MM based on MRD status after six cycles of induction therapy.
In the standard treatment regimen of induction therapy followed by up-front autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), the use of ever-improving quadruplet regimens is bolstering prognoses, while the role of up-front ASCT continues to be debated, Perrot explained. She noted that no prospective trials have compared up-front transplant vs no transplant following a quadruplet regimen.
In reporting on the initial findings from the induction phase of the phase 3 IFM 2020-02 MIDAS study, Perrot described results among 791 transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed MM and a median age of 59 who were enrolled at 72 centers between December 2021 and July 2023.
The patients were treated with six cycles of 28 days of the Isa-KRd regimen, consisting of isatuximab 10 mg/kg (weekly for 4 weeks then biweekly), carfilzomib 20 mg/m2 on day 1 cycle 1, then 56 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15), lenalidomide 25 mg/d (from day 1 to day 21), and dexamethasone at 40 mg/wk.
Overall, MM was classified as International Staging System (ISS) III in 120 patients (15%) and revised-ISS III in 76 (10%) patients.
Of 757 patients undergoing cytogenetics, 8% were considered high risk on the basis of a linear predictor score > 1, while the t(11;14) translocation, a chromosomal abnormality, was present in 26% of patients.
Extramedullary disease was present in five patients, while 53 (7%) had circulating plasma cells.
All 791 patients initiated Isa-KRd induction, and most (766, 97%) had at least one peripheral stem cell mobilization course, with 761 having at least one apheresis. The median number of CD34+ cells collected was 7.106/kg.
The peripheral stem cells collected allowed for potential tandem transplants in 719 patients. In total, 757 patients completed six cycles of Isa-KRd, with an overall response rate of 95%.
In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, a very good partial response or better was achieved in 92% of patients following induction, with a rate of 99% in the per-protocol [PP] population.
Of 751 patients in the post-induction ITT population, the MRD negativity rates were 63% at the threshold of 10−5 and 47% at the threshold of 10−6, with corresponding rates of 66% and 50%, respectively, in the PP population.
The rates of near-complete response and complete response were 64% and 66% in the ITT population, and 69% and 71% in the PP population.
Of note, no significant differences were observed in prognostic subgroups, with a trend for a higher MRD negative rate among poorer prognostic groups, Perrot said.
However, notable variability was observed in terms of MRD negativity at 10−5 after induction among some cytogenic groups, with an MRD negativity rate as high as 81% among patients with the t(4;14) translocation vs 62% among those without the abnormality (P = .002), while it was only 40% among patients with the t(11;14) translocation vs 64% without (P < .0001).
“This is the first time we have observed this correlation between the MRD negativity and these cytogenetic subgroups,” Perrot noted.
“For the moment, we are not saying that patients with the t(11;14) translocation have a poor prognosis,” she added. “But just that the early assessment of MRD shows the lower negativity rates.”
Safety
Seven patients experienced disease progression and five died during induction, with one dying from disease progression, two deaths related to cardiac adverse events (AEs), and two related to other AEs.
In terms of safety, the most common grade 3-4 AEs were neutropenia (25%), thrombocytopenia (5%), and infections (7%).
Peripheral neuropathy was reported among 13% of patients at any grade, and less than 1% grade 3-4.
“Our findings confirm that six cycles of Isa-KRd induce exceptionally high response and MRD negativity rates, not only at a sensitivity of 10−5 but also at 10−6,” Perrot said.
She noted that, in comparison, the MRD negativity rate at 10−5 in the related CASSIOPEIA, GRIFFIN, and IsKia trials were 35%, 22%, and 45%, respectively.
“A longer follow-up is needed to better interpret the significance of achieving MRD negativity in patients with different cytogenetic abnormalities,” Perrot added.
“Importantly, the Isa-KRd induction ensures successful stem cell collection, with no new safety signals,” she said.
The Isa-KRd regimen is not yet approved, hence only used in clinical trials, but Perrot told this publication the current evidence should help change that.
“The IsKia trial is comparing KRd and Isa-KRd, and Sanofi should try to approve the combo,” she said. “We hope the Midas data will support this approval.”
Questions Aplenty Moving Ahead
While the results are just the first from the ongoing trial, interest in the study and its design is high, Joseph Mikhael, MD, chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, told this publication.
“To have a large trial algorithm that is based on response and in particular MRD is novel and reflects the power of MRD in myeloma,” said Mikhael, a professor of applied cancer research and drug discovery at the Translational Genomics Research Institute, City of Hope Cancer Center, Phoenix, Arizona.
“Although the results are preliminary, these kinds of trials can inform our approach to MRD testing and may result in more personalized and effective treatments for patients,” he said. “This may include the potential to de-escalate or even stop therapies that have historically been given for longer or provide more intense therapies for patients with inadequate response.”
“We know the biology of myeloma is ‘one size fits all’, so the design of our trials should reflect that heterogeneity.”
Further commenting on the research, the meeting discussant Sagar Lonial, MD, professor and chair of the Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology and the Anne and Bernard Gray Professor in Cancer at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, offered cautious optimism.
Referencing the tale of Midas in Greek mythology as having a “be careful what you wish for” lesson, Lonial pondered that, likewise, a question that may be considered regarding MRD is “whether this is in fact a gift — or could this be a curse that’s going to get us into trouble at some point down the road. I don’t know the answer.”
Some cautionary lessons include prior research indicating that patients with high-risk disease may achieve a complete remission early — but they lose remission earlier down the road, he noted.
Other considerations as the research moves forward: “Recognizing that MRD may in fact be more important than genetics — which is a premise of the current trial,” Lonial pondered. “Does MRD override genetics, or do they travel together?”
The study is ongoing, with future results expected in terms of ASCT vs no ASCT for patients with high and low risk, as well as single vs tandem ASCT.
The trial received financial support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Perrot reported ties with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Mikhael disclosed ties with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Lonial reported relationships with Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“We found that this induction induced exceptionally high response and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rates,” said first author Aurore Perrot, MD, PhD, an associate professor of hematology at the University of Toulouse in France, in presenting the findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society (IMS).
“These rates are the highest reported to date regarding MRD negativity,” she said.
The results from a first interim analysis offer encouraging groundwork in the trial that is investigating the tailoring of subsequent therapeutic choices in patients with newly diagnosed MM based on MRD status after six cycles of induction therapy.
In the standard treatment regimen of induction therapy followed by up-front autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), the use of ever-improving quadruplet regimens is bolstering prognoses, while the role of up-front ASCT continues to be debated, Perrot explained. She noted that no prospective trials have compared up-front transplant vs no transplant following a quadruplet regimen.
In reporting on the initial findings from the induction phase of the phase 3 IFM 2020-02 MIDAS study, Perrot described results among 791 transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed MM and a median age of 59 who were enrolled at 72 centers between December 2021 and July 2023.
The patients were treated with six cycles of 28 days of the Isa-KRd regimen, consisting of isatuximab 10 mg/kg (weekly for 4 weeks then biweekly), carfilzomib 20 mg/m2 on day 1 cycle 1, then 56 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15), lenalidomide 25 mg/d (from day 1 to day 21), and dexamethasone at 40 mg/wk.
Overall, MM was classified as International Staging System (ISS) III in 120 patients (15%) and revised-ISS III in 76 (10%) patients.
Of 757 patients undergoing cytogenetics, 8% were considered high risk on the basis of a linear predictor score > 1, while the t(11;14) translocation, a chromosomal abnormality, was present in 26% of patients.
Extramedullary disease was present in five patients, while 53 (7%) had circulating plasma cells.
All 791 patients initiated Isa-KRd induction, and most (766, 97%) had at least one peripheral stem cell mobilization course, with 761 having at least one apheresis. The median number of CD34+ cells collected was 7.106/kg.
The peripheral stem cells collected allowed for potential tandem transplants in 719 patients. In total, 757 patients completed six cycles of Isa-KRd, with an overall response rate of 95%.
In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, a very good partial response or better was achieved in 92% of patients following induction, with a rate of 99% in the per-protocol [PP] population.
Of 751 patients in the post-induction ITT population, the MRD negativity rates were 63% at the threshold of 10−5 and 47% at the threshold of 10−6, with corresponding rates of 66% and 50%, respectively, in the PP population.
The rates of near-complete response and complete response were 64% and 66% in the ITT population, and 69% and 71% in the PP population.
Of note, no significant differences were observed in prognostic subgroups, with a trend for a higher MRD negative rate among poorer prognostic groups, Perrot said.
However, notable variability was observed in terms of MRD negativity at 10−5 after induction among some cytogenic groups, with an MRD negativity rate as high as 81% among patients with the t(4;14) translocation vs 62% among those without the abnormality (P = .002), while it was only 40% among patients with the t(11;14) translocation vs 64% without (P < .0001).
“This is the first time we have observed this correlation between the MRD negativity and these cytogenetic subgroups,” Perrot noted.
“For the moment, we are not saying that patients with the t(11;14) translocation have a poor prognosis,” she added. “But just that the early assessment of MRD shows the lower negativity rates.”
Safety
Seven patients experienced disease progression and five died during induction, with one dying from disease progression, two deaths related to cardiac adverse events (AEs), and two related to other AEs.
In terms of safety, the most common grade 3-4 AEs were neutropenia (25%), thrombocytopenia (5%), and infections (7%).
Peripheral neuropathy was reported among 13% of patients at any grade, and less than 1% grade 3-4.
“Our findings confirm that six cycles of Isa-KRd induce exceptionally high response and MRD negativity rates, not only at a sensitivity of 10−5 but also at 10−6,” Perrot said.
She noted that, in comparison, the MRD negativity rate at 10−5 in the related CASSIOPEIA, GRIFFIN, and IsKia trials were 35%, 22%, and 45%, respectively.
“A longer follow-up is needed to better interpret the significance of achieving MRD negativity in patients with different cytogenetic abnormalities,” Perrot added.
“Importantly, the Isa-KRd induction ensures successful stem cell collection, with no new safety signals,” she said.
The Isa-KRd regimen is not yet approved, hence only used in clinical trials, but Perrot told this publication the current evidence should help change that.
“The IsKia trial is comparing KRd and Isa-KRd, and Sanofi should try to approve the combo,” she said. “We hope the Midas data will support this approval.”
Questions Aplenty Moving Ahead
While the results are just the first from the ongoing trial, interest in the study and its design is high, Joseph Mikhael, MD, chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, told this publication.
“To have a large trial algorithm that is based on response and in particular MRD is novel and reflects the power of MRD in myeloma,” said Mikhael, a professor of applied cancer research and drug discovery at the Translational Genomics Research Institute, City of Hope Cancer Center, Phoenix, Arizona.
“Although the results are preliminary, these kinds of trials can inform our approach to MRD testing and may result in more personalized and effective treatments for patients,” he said. “This may include the potential to de-escalate or even stop therapies that have historically been given for longer or provide more intense therapies for patients with inadequate response.”
“We know the biology of myeloma is ‘one size fits all’, so the design of our trials should reflect that heterogeneity.”
Further commenting on the research, the meeting discussant Sagar Lonial, MD, professor and chair of the Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology and the Anne and Bernard Gray Professor in Cancer at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, offered cautious optimism.
Referencing the tale of Midas in Greek mythology as having a “be careful what you wish for” lesson, Lonial pondered that, likewise, a question that may be considered regarding MRD is “whether this is in fact a gift — or could this be a curse that’s going to get us into trouble at some point down the road. I don’t know the answer.”
Some cautionary lessons include prior research indicating that patients with high-risk disease may achieve a complete remission early — but they lose remission earlier down the road, he noted.
Other considerations as the research moves forward: “Recognizing that MRD may in fact be more important than genetics — which is a premise of the current trial,” Lonial pondered. “Does MRD override genetics, or do they travel together?”
The study is ongoing, with future results expected in terms of ASCT vs no ASCT for patients with high and low risk, as well as single vs tandem ASCT.
The trial received financial support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Perrot reported ties with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Mikhael disclosed ties with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Lonial reported relationships with Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“We found that this induction induced exceptionally high response and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rates,” said first author Aurore Perrot, MD, PhD, an associate professor of hematology at the University of Toulouse in France, in presenting the findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society (IMS).
“These rates are the highest reported to date regarding MRD negativity,” she said.
The results from a first interim analysis offer encouraging groundwork in the trial that is investigating the tailoring of subsequent therapeutic choices in patients with newly diagnosed MM based on MRD status after six cycles of induction therapy.
In the standard treatment regimen of induction therapy followed by up-front autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), the use of ever-improving quadruplet regimens is bolstering prognoses, while the role of up-front ASCT continues to be debated, Perrot explained. She noted that no prospective trials have compared up-front transplant vs no transplant following a quadruplet regimen.
In reporting on the initial findings from the induction phase of the phase 3 IFM 2020-02 MIDAS study, Perrot described results among 791 transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed MM and a median age of 59 who were enrolled at 72 centers between December 2021 and July 2023.
The patients were treated with six cycles of 28 days of the Isa-KRd regimen, consisting of isatuximab 10 mg/kg (weekly for 4 weeks then biweekly), carfilzomib 20 mg/m2 on day 1 cycle 1, then 56 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15), lenalidomide 25 mg/d (from day 1 to day 21), and dexamethasone at 40 mg/wk.
Overall, MM was classified as International Staging System (ISS) III in 120 patients (15%) and revised-ISS III in 76 (10%) patients.
Of 757 patients undergoing cytogenetics, 8% were considered high risk on the basis of a linear predictor score > 1, while the t(11;14) translocation, a chromosomal abnormality, was present in 26% of patients.
Extramedullary disease was present in five patients, while 53 (7%) had circulating plasma cells.
All 791 patients initiated Isa-KRd induction, and most (766, 97%) had at least one peripheral stem cell mobilization course, with 761 having at least one apheresis. The median number of CD34+ cells collected was 7.106/kg.
The peripheral stem cells collected allowed for potential tandem transplants in 719 patients. In total, 757 patients completed six cycles of Isa-KRd, with an overall response rate of 95%.
In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, a very good partial response or better was achieved in 92% of patients following induction, with a rate of 99% in the per-protocol [PP] population.
Of 751 patients in the post-induction ITT population, the MRD negativity rates were 63% at the threshold of 10−5 and 47% at the threshold of 10−6, with corresponding rates of 66% and 50%, respectively, in the PP population.
The rates of near-complete response and complete response were 64% and 66% in the ITT population, and 69% and 71% in the PP population.
Of note, no significant differences were observed in prognostic subgroups, with a trend for a higher MRD negative rate among poorer prognostic groups, Perrot said.
However, notable variability was observed in terms of MRD negativity at 10−5 after induction among some cytogenic groups, with an MRD negativity rate as high as 81% among patients with the t(4;14) translocation vs 62% among those without the abnormality (P = .002), while it was only 40% among patients with the t(11;14) translocation vs 64% without (P < .0001).
“This is the first time we have observed this correlation between the MRD negativity and these cytogenetic subgroups,” Perrot noted.
“For the moment, we are not saying that patients with the t(11;14) translocation have a poor prognosis,” she added. “But just that the early assessment of MRD shows the lower negativity rates.”
Safety
Seven patients experienced disease progression and five died during induction, with one dying from disease progression, two deaths related to cardiac adverse events (AEs), and two related to other AEs.
In terms of safety, the most common grade 3-4 AEs were neutropenia (25%), thrombocytopenia (5%), and infections (7%).
Peripheral neuropathy was reported among 13% of patients at any grade, and less than 1% grade 3-4.
“Our findings confirm that six cycles of Isa-KRd induce exceptionally high response and MRD negativity rates, not only at a sensitivity of 10−5 but also at 10−6,” Perrot said.
She noted that, in comparison, the MRD negativity rate at 10−5 in the related CASSIOPEIA, GRIFFIN, and IsKia trials were 35%, 22%, and 45%, respectively.
“A longer follow-up is needed to better interpret the significance of achieving MRD negativity in patients with different cytogenetic abnormalities,” Perrot added.
“Importantly, the Isa-KRd induction ensures successful stem cell collection, with no new safety signals,” she said.
The Isa-KRd regimen is not yet approved, hence only used in clinical trials, but Perrot told this publication the current evidence should help change that.
“The IsKia trial is comparing KRd and Isa-KRd, and Sanofi should try to approve the combo,” she said. “We hope the Midas data will support this approval.”
Questions Aplenty Moving Ahead
While the results are just the first from the ongoing trial, interest in the study and its design is high, Joseph Mikhael, MD, chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, told this publication.
“To have a large trial algorithm that is based on response and in particular MRD is novel and reflects the power of MRD in myeloma,” said Mikhael, a professor of applied cancer research and drug discovery at the Translational Genomics Research Institute, City of Hope Cancer Center, Phoenix, Arizona.
“Although the results are preliminary, these kinds of trials can inform our approach to MRD testing and may result in more personalized and effective treatments for patients,” he said. “This may include the potential to de-escalate or even stop therapies that have historically been given for longer or provide more intense therapies for patients with inadequate response.”
“We know the biology of myeloma is ‘one size fits all’, so the design of our trials should reflect that heterogeneity.”
Further commenting on the research, the meeting discussant Sagar Lonial, MD, professor and chair of the Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology and the Anne and Bernard Gray Professor in Cancer at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, offered cautious optimism.
Referencing the tale of Midas in Greek mythology as having a “be careful what you wish for” lesson, Lonial pondered that, likewise, a question that may be considered regarding MRD is “whether this is in fact a gift — or could this be a curse that’s going to get us into trouble at some point down the road. I don’t know the answer.”
Some cautionary lessons include prior research indicating that patients with high-risk disease may achieve a complete remission early — but they lose remission earlier down the road, he noted.
Other considerations as the research moves forward: “Recognizing that MRD may in fact be more important than genetics — which is a premise of the current trial,” Lonial pondered. “Does MRD override genetics, or do they travel together?”
The study is ongoing, with future results expected in terms of ASCT vs no ASCT for patients with high and low risk, as well as single vs tandem ASCT.
The trial received financial support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Perrot reported ties with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Mikhael disclosed ties with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Lonial reported relationships with Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM IMS 2024
How to Treat Cancer While Preserving Fertility
Thanks to the continuously improving treatment options for cancer, the number of cancer survivors is increasing, and a large proportion of survivors is confronted with the long-term effects of cancer treatment. Especially for young patients, the question of the impact of therapy on fertility arises.
Dose adjustment or modification of the treatment regimen can achieve a lot. But experts at the congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2024 noted that knowledge about newer treatment options like immunotherapies is still insufficient.
Therapy Selection
The question of preserving fertility must be considered when deciding on the appropriate treatment, said Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, medical oncology consultant at the University of Genoa in Genoa, Italy. “Preserving fertility is also an aim of cancer therapy,” he said.
Lambertini, who is also a member of the ESMO Guideline Group on fertility preservation in cancer patients, referred to the 2020 ESMO guidelines, which list the gonadotoxicity of a substance depending on the treatment regimen and the patient’s age.
Isabelle Demeestere, MD, PhD, director of the research lab for human reproduction at the Erasmus Hospital of the Free University of Brussels in Brussels, Belgium, pointed out the limitations of general guidelines. “Therapies change over time, and a classification must be updated regularly.”
Knowledge gaps related to well-known therapies and many novel options persist. “For many FDA-approved medications, there are either no fertility data or only preclinical data available,” she added.
Chemotherapies and Immunotherapies
Chemotherapies with alkylating or platinum-containing substances are known for their effects on oocytes, follicle maturation, and spermatogenesis, said Demeestere.
Chemotherapy is gonadotoxic and leads to a temporary decrease in sperm quality or temporary azoospermia in men.
These effects, however, can lead to permanent azoospermia and endocrine disorders, depending on the dose, duration, or combination with radiation, said Demeestere.
Cryopreservation of sperm should always be performed before starting treatment. For high-risk patients who are prepubertal, samples of testicular tissue are taken.
In women, chemotherapy affects primordial follicles and follicle maturation through DNA damage. This process results in severe or temporary amenorrhea, a temporary or permanent decrease in egg reserve, and ultimately premature egg insufficiency.
Novel immunotherapies also influence fertility, presumably through interactions of the immune system with the reproductive organs. But insufficient data are available, according to Lambertini, who emphasized that “these data are urgently needed, especially for young patients with cancer.”
In a mouse model, immune checkpoint inhibitors affected ovarian function, and the inflammatory reaction in humans can affect fertility. No long-term data are available for women yet, however, explained Demeestere. The effects of other therapeutics such as PARP, CDK4/6, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as monoclonal antibodies like trastuzumab, are only seen sporadically.
In the PENELOPE-B phase 3 study, the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib did not affect ovarian function, even though the cyclin-dependent kinases play an important role in mitotic arrest, said Demeestere.
Adjusting the Regimen
In a PET-guided approach, Demeestere’s research team investigated the effects of dose reduction or adjustment of the treatment regimen of procarbazine and cyclophosphamide on the fertility of patients younger than 45 years with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma.
By regularly controlling tumor growth with PET, the treatment could be adjusted so that the effect on egg reserve or spermatogenesis was significantly reduced and loss of fertility could be prevented.
During the 5-year follow-up period, the ovarian function of participating women was assessed by the serum concentration of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), estradiol, and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) to evaluate egg reserve. In men, testicular function was assessed at the beginning of the study. At the end of treatment, sperm analysis and FSH and testosterone levels were checked.
Demeestere and colleagues demonstrated that dose reduction or altering the treatment regimen for patients who responded early to treatment (determined by PET-guided monitoring) reduced the risk for gonadotoxicity from 46% to 14.5%. That is, the risk was reduced by more than half.
FSH and AMH correlated with the patient’s age and the dose of the alkylating agent. In men, sperm parameters recovered after dose or agent adjustment compared with the unchanged treatment regimen.
Newer results from the PHERGain study in women with early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive breast cancer also provided hope, according to Demeestere. Under PET-guided control, chemotherapy could be reduced.
More Data Needed
The new treatment options pose a challenge to preserving fertility during cancer treatment, said Demeestere.
For new targeted therapies, uniform recommendations cannot be issued because of the lack of data and varying treatment durations. Still, the new therapies are safer than chemotherapy.
The need to collect data on fertility and long-term effects in cancer survivors in clinical studies is also reflected in the literature, according to Demeestere. “There are more review articles on this topic than clinical studies.”
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Thanks to the continuously improving treatment options for cancer, the number of cancer survivors is increasing, and a large proportion of survivors is confronted with the long-term effects of cancer treatment. Especially for young patients, the question of the impact of therapy on fertility arises.
Dose adjustment or modification of the treatment regimen can achieve a lot. But experts at the congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2024 noted that knowledge about newer treatment options like immunotherapies is still insufficient.
Therapy Selection
The question of preserving fertility must be considered when deciding on the appropriate treatment, said Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, medical oncology consultant at the University of Genoa in Genoa, Italy. “Preserving fertility is also an aim of cancer therapy,” he said.
Lambertini, who is also a member of the ESMO Guideline Group on fertility preservation in cancer patients, referred to the 2020 ESMO guidelines, which list the gonadotoxicity of a substance depending on the treatment regimen and the patient’s age.
Isabelle Demeestere, MD, PhD, director of the research lab for human reproduction at the Erasmus Hospital of the Free University of Brussels in Brussels, Belgium, pointed out the limitations of general guidelines. “Therapies change over time, and a classification must be updated regularly.”
Knowledge gaps related to well-known therapies and many novel options persist. “For many FDA-approved medications, there are either no fertility data or only preclinical data available,” she added.
Chemotherapies and Immunotherapies
Chemotherapies with alkylating or platinum-containing substances are known for their effects on oocytes, follicle maturation, and spermatogenesis, said Demeestere.
Chemotherapy is gonadotoxic and leads to a temporary decrease in sperm quality or temporary azoospermia in men.
These effects, however, can lead to permanent azoospermia and endocrine disorders, depending on the dose, duration, or combination with radiation, said Demeestere.
Cryopreservation of sperm should always be performed before starting treatment. For high-risk patients who are prepubertal, samples of testicular tissue are taken.
In women, chemotherapy affects primordial follicles and follicle maturation through DNA damage. This process results in severe or temporary amenorrhea, a temporary or permanent decrease in egg reserve, and ultimately premature egg insufficiency.
Novel immunotherapies also influence fertility, presumably through interactions of the immune system with the reproductive organs. But insufficient data are available, according to Lambertini, who emphasized that “these data are urgently needed, especially for young patients with cancer.”
In a mouse model, immune checkpoint inhibitors affected ovarian function, and the inflammatory reaction in humans can affect fertility. No long-term data are available for women yet, however, explained Demeestere. The effects of other therapeutics such as PARP, CDK4/6, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as monoclonal antibodies like trastuzumab, are only seen sporadically.
In the PENELOPE-B phase 3 study, the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib did not affect ovarian function, even though the cyclin-dependent kinases play an important role in mitotic arrest, said Demeestere.
Adjusting the Regimen
In a PET-guided approach, Demeestere’s research team investigated the effects of dose reduction or adjustment of the treatment regimen of procarbazine and cyclophosphamide on the fertility of patients younger than 45 years with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma.
By regularly controlling tumor growth with PET, the treatment could be adjusted so that the effect on egg reserve or spermatogenesis was significantly reduced and loss of fertility could be prevented.
During the 5-year follow-up period, the ovarian function of participating women was assessed by the serum concentration of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), estradiol, and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) to evaluate egg reserve. In men, testicular function was assessed at the beginning of the study. At the end of treatment, sperm analysis and FSH and testosterone levels were checked.
Demeestere and colleagues demonstrated that dose reduction or altering the treatment regimen for patients who responded early to treatment (determined by PET-guided monitoring) reduced the risk for gonadotoxicity from 46% to 14.5%. That is, the risk was reduced by more than half.
FSH and AMH correlated with the patient’s age and the dose of the alkylating agent. In men, sperm parameters recovered after dose or agent adjustment compared with the unchanged treatment regimen.
Newer results from the PHERGain study in women with early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive breast cancer also provided hope, according to Demeestere. Under PET-guided control, chemotherapy could be reduced.
More Data Needed
The new treatment options pose a challenge to preserving fertility during cancer treatment, said Demeestere.
For new targeted therapies, uniform recommendations cannot be issued because of the lack of data and varying treatment durations. Still, the new therapies are safer than chemotherapy.
The need to collect data on fertility and long-term effects in cancer survivors in clinical studies is also reflected in the literature, according to Demeestere. “There are more review articles on this topic than clinical studies.”
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Thanks to the continuously improving treatment options for cancer, the number of cancer survivors is increasing, and a large proportion of survivors is confronted with the long-term effects of cancer treatment. Especially for young patients, the question of the impact of therapy on fertility arises.
Dose adjustment or modification of the treatment regimen can achieve a lot. But experts at the congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2024 noted that knowledge about newer treatment options like immunotherapies is still insufficient.
Therapy Selection
The question of preserving fertility must be considered when deciding on the appropriate treatment, said Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, medical oncology consultant at the University of Genoa in Genoa, Italy. “Preserving fertility is also an aim of cancer therapy,” he said.
Lambertini, who is also a member of the ESMO Guideline Group on fertility preservation in cancer patients, referred to the 2020 ESMO guidelines, which list the gonadotoxicity of a substance depending on the treatment regimen and the patient’s age.
Isabelle Demeestere, MD, PhD, director of the research lab for human reproduction at the Erasmus Hospital of the Free University of Brussels in Brussels, Belgium, pointed out the limitations of general guidelines. “Therapies change over time, and a classification must be updated regularly.”
Knowledge gaps related to well-known therapies and many novel options persist. “For many FDA-approved medications, there are either no fertility data or only preclinical data available,” she added.
Chemotherapies and Immunotherapies
Chemotherapies with alkylating or platinum-containing substances are known for their effects on oocytes, follicle maturation, and spermatogenesis, said Demeestere.
Chemotherapy is gonadotoxic and leads to a temporary decrease in sperm quality or temporary azoospermia in men.
These effects, however, can lead to permanent azoospermia and endocrine disorders, depending on the dose, duration, or combination with radiation, said Demeestere.
Cryopreservation of sperm should always be performed before starting treatment. For high-risk patients who are prepubertal, samples of testicular tissue are taken.
In women, chemotherapy affects primordial follicles and follicle maturation through DNA damage. This process results in severe or temporary amenorrhea, a temporary or permanent decrease in egg reserve, and ultimately premature egg insufficiency.
Novel immunotherapies also influence fertility, presumably through interactions of the immune system with the reproductive organs. But insufficient data are available, according to Lambertini, who emphasized that “these data are urgently needed, especially for young patients with cancer.”
In a mouse model, immune checkpoint inhibitors affected ovarian function, and the inflammatory reaction in humans can affect fertility. No long-term data are available for women yet, however, explained Demeestere. The effects of other therapeutics such as PARP, CDK4/6, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as monoclonal antibodies like trastuzumab, are only seen sporadically.
In the PENELOPE-B phase 3 study, the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib did not affect ovarian function, even though the cyclin-dependent kinases play an important role in mitotic arrest, said Demeestere.
Adjusting the Regimen
In a PET-guided approach, Demeestere’s research team investigated the effects of dose reduction or adjustment of the treatment regimen of procarbazine and cyclophosphamide on the fertility of patients younger than 45 years with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma.
By regularly controlling tumor growth with PET, the treatment could be adjusted so that the effect on egg reserve or spermatogenesis was significantly reduced and loss of fertility could be prevented.
During the 5-year follow-up period, the ovarian function of participating women was assessed by the serum concentration of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), estradiol, and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) to evaluate egg reserve. In men, testicular function was assessed at the beginning of the study. At the end of treatment, sperm analysis and FSH and testosterone levels were checked.
Demeestere and colleagues demonstrated that dose reduction or altering the treatment regimen for patients who responded early to treatment (determined by PET-guided monitoring) reduced the risk for gonadotoxicity from 46% to 14.5%. That is, the risk was reduced by more than half.
FSH and AMH correlated with the patient’s age and the dose of the alkylating agent. In men, sperm parameters recovered after dose or agent adjustment compared with the unchanged treatment regimen.
Newer results from the PHERGain study in women with early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive breast cancer also provided hope, according to Demeestere. Under PET-guided control, chemotherapy could be reduced.
More Data Needed
The new treatment options pose a challenge to preserving fertility during cancer treatment, said Demeestere.
For new targeted therapies, uniform recommendations cannot be issued because of the lack of data and varying treatment durations. Still, the new therapies are safer than chemotherapy.
The need to collect data on fertility and long-term effects in cancer survivors in clinical studies is also reflected in the literature, according to Demeestere. “There are more review articles on this topic than clinical studies.”
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Lawsuit Targets Publishers: Is Peer Review Flawed?
The peer-review process, which is used by scientific journals to validate legitimate research, is now under legal scrutiny. The US District Court for the Southern District of New York will soon rule on whether scientific publishers have compromised this system for profit. In mid-September, University of California, Los Angeles neuroscientist Lucina Uddin filed a class action lawsuit against six leading academic publishers — Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, Wiley, Sage Publications, Taylor & Francis, and Springer Nature — accusing them of violating antitrust laws and obstructing academic research.
The lawsuit targets several long-standing practices in scientific publishing, including the lack of compensation for peer reviewers, restrictions that require submitting to only one journal at a time, and bans on sharing manuscripts under review. Uddin’s complaint argues that these practices contribute to inefficiencies in the review process, thus delaying the publication of critical discoveries, which could hinder research, clinical advancements, and the development of new medical treatments.
The suit also noted that these publishers generated $10 billion in revenue in 2023 in peer-reviewed journals. However, the complaint seemingly overlooks the widespread practice of preprint repositories, where many manuscripts are shared while awaiting peer review.
Flawed Reviews
A growing number of studies have highlighted subpar or unethical behaviors among reviewers, who are supposed to adhere to the highest standards of methodological rigor, both in conducting research and reviewing work for journals. One recent study published in Scientometrics in August examined 263 reviews from 37 journals across various disciplines and found alarming patterns of duplication. Many of the reviews contained identical or highly similar language. Some reviewers were found to be suggesting that the authors expand their bibliographies to include the reviewers’ own work, thus inflating their citation counts.
As María Ángeles Oviedo-García from the University of Seville in Spain, pointed out: “The analysis of 263 review reports shows a pattern of vague, repetitive statements — often identical or very similar — along with coercive citations, ultimately resulting in misleading reviews.”
Experts in research integrity and ethics argue that while issues persist, the integrity of scientific research is improving. Increasing research and public disclosure reflect a heightened awareness of problems long overlooked.
Speaking to this news organization, Fanelli, who has been studying scientific misconduct for about 20 years, noted that while his early work left him disillusioned, further research has replaced his cynicism with what he describes as healthy skepticism and a more optimistic outlook. Fanelli also collaborates with the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity and the Advisory Committee on Research Ethics and Bioethics at the Italian National Research Council (CNR), where he helped develop the first research integrity guidelines.
Lack of Awareness
A recurring challenge is the difficulty in distinguishing between honest mistakes and intentional misconduct. “This is why greater investment in education is essential,” said Daniel Pizzolato, European Network of Research Ethics Committees, Bonn, Germany, and the Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven in Belgium.
While Pizzolato acknowledged that institutions such as the CNR in Italy provide a positive example, awareness of research integrity is generally still lacking across much of Europe, and there are few offices dedicated to promoting research integrity. However, he pointed to promising developments in other countries. “In France and Denmark, researchers are required to be familiar with integrity norms because codes of conduct have legal standing. Some major international funding bodies like the European Molecular Biology Organization are making participation in research integrity courses a condition for receiving grants.”
Pizzolato remains optimistic. “There is a growing willingness to move past this impasse,” he said.
A recent study published in The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology reveals troubling gaps in how retracted biomedical articles are flagged and cited. Led by Caitlin Bakkera, Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, the research sought to determine whether articles retracted because of errors or fraud were properly flagged across various databases.
The results were concerning: Less than 5% of retracted articles had consistent retraction notices across all databases that hosted them, and less than 50% of citations referenced the retraction. None of the 414 retraction notices analyzed met best-practice guidelines for completeness. Bakkera and colleagues warned that these shortcomings threaten the integrity of public health research.
Fanelli’s Perspective
Despite the concerns, Fanelli remains calm. “Science is based on debate and a perspective called organized skepticism, which helps reveal the truth,” he explained. “While there is often excessive skepticism today, the overall quality of clinical trials is improving.
“It’s important to remember that reliable results take time and shouldn’t depend on the outcome of a single study. It’s essential to consider the broader context, the history of the research field, and potential conflicts of interest, both financial and otherwise. Biomedical research requires constant updates,” he concluded.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The peer-review process, which is used by scientific journals to validate legitimate research, is now under legal scrutiny. The US District Court for the Southern District of New York will soon rule on whether scientific publishers have compromised this system for profit. In mid-September, University of California, Los Angeles neuroscientist Lucina Uddin filed a class action lawsuit against six leading academic publishers — Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, Wiley, Sage Publications, Taylor & Francis, and Springer Nature — accusing them of violating antitrust laws and obstructing academic research.
The lawsuit targets several long-standing practices in scientific publishing, including the lack of compensation for peer reviewers, restrictions that require submitting to only one journal at a time, and bans on sharing manuscripts under review. Uddin’s complaint argues that these practices contribute to inefficiencies in the review process, thus delaying the publication of critical discoveries, which could hinder research, clinical advancements, and the development of new medical treatments.
The suit also noted that these publishers generated $10 billion in revenue in 2023 in peer-reviewed journals. However, the complaint seemingly overlooks the widespread practice of preprint repositories, where many manuscripts are shared while awaiting peer review.
Flawed Reviews
A growing number of studies have highlighted subpar or unethical behaviors among reviewers, who are supposed to adhere to the highest standards of methodological rigor, both in conducting research and reviewing work for journals. One recent study published in Scientometrics in August examined 263 reviews from 37 journals across various disciplines and found alarming patterns of duplication. Many of the reviews contained identical or highly similar language. Some reviewers were found to be suggesting that the authors expand their bibliographies to include the reviewers’ own work, thus inflating their citation counts.
As María Ángeles Oviedo-García from the University of Seville in Spain, pointed out: “The analysis of 263 review reports shows a pattern of vague, repetitive statements — often identical or very similar — along with coercive citations, ultimately resulting in misleading reviews.”
Experts in research integrity and ethics argue that while issues persist, the integrity of scientific research is improving. Increasing research and public disclosure reflect a heightened awareness of problems long overlooked.
Speaking to this news organization, Fanelli, who has been studying scientific misconduct for about 20 years, noted that while his early work left him disillusioned, further research has replaced his cynicism with what he describes as healthy skepticism and a more optimistic outlook. Fanelli also collaborates with the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity and the Advisory Committee on Research Ethics and Bioethics at the Italian National Research Council (CNR), where he helped develop the first research integrity guidelines.
Lack of Awareness
A recurring challenge is the difficulty in distinguishing between honest mistakes and intentional misconduct. “This is why greater investment in education is essential,” said Daniel Pizzolato, European Network of Research Ethics Committees, Bonn, Germany, and the Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven in Belgium.
While Pizzolato acknowledged that institutions such as the CNR in Italy provide a positive example, awareness of research integrity is generally still lacking across much of Europe, and there are few offices dedicated to promoting research integrity. However, he pointed to promising developments in other countries. “In France and Denmark, researchers are required to be familiar with integrity norms because codes of conduct have legal standing. Some major international funding bodies like the European Molecular Biology Organization are making participation in research integrity courses a condition for receiving grants.”
Pizzolato remains optimistic. “There is a growing willingness to move past this impasse,” he said.
A recent study published in The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology reveals troubling gaps in how retracted biomedical articles are flagged and cited. Led by Caitlin Bakkera, Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, the research sought to determine whether articles retracted because of errors or fraud were properly flagged across various databases.
The results were concerning: Less than 5% of retracted articles had consistent retraction notices across all databases that hosted them, and less than 50% of citations referenced the retraction. None of the 414 retraction notices analyzed met best-practice guidelines for completeness. Bakkera and colleagues warned that these shortcomings threaten the integrity of public health research.
Fanelli’s Perspective
Despite the concerns, Fanelli remains calm. “Science is based on debate and a perspective called organized skepticism, which helps reveal the truth,” he explained. “While there is often excessive skepticism today, the overall quality of clinical trials is improving.
“It’s important to remember that reliable results take time and shouldn’t depend on the outcome of a single study. It’s essential to consider the broader context, the history of the research field, and potential conflicts of interest, both financial and otherwise. Biomedical research requires constant updates,” he concluded.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The peer-review process, which is used by scientific journals to validate legitimate research, is now under legal scrutiny. The US District Court for the Southern District of New York will soon rule on whether scientific publishers have compromised this system for profit. In mid-September, University of California, Los Angeles neuroscientist Lucina Uddin filed a class action lawsuit against six leading academic publishers — Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, Wiley, Sage Publications, Taylor & Francis, and Springer Nature — accusing them of violating antitrust laws and obstructing academic research.
The lawsuit targets several long-standing practices in scientific publishing, including the lack of compensation for peer reviewers, restrictions that require submitting to only one journal at a time, and bans on sharing manuscripts under review. Uddin’s complaint argues that these practices contribute to inefficiencies in the review process, thus delaying the publication of critical discoveries, which could hinder research, clinical advancements, and the development of new medical treatments.
The suit also noted that these publishers generated $10 billion in revenue in 2023 in peer-reviewed journals. However, the complaint seemingly overlooks the widespread practice of preprint repositories, where many manuscripts are shared while awaiting peer review.
Flawed Reviews
A growing number of studies have highlighted subpar or unethical behaviors among reviewers, who are supposed to adhere to the highest standards of methodological rigor, both in conducting research and reviewing work for journals. One recent study published in Scientometrics in August examined 263 reviews from 37 journals across various disciplines and found alarming patterns of duplication. Many of the reviews contained identical or highly similar language. Some reviewers were found to be suggesting that the authors expand their bibliographies to include the reviewers’ own work, thus inflating their citation counts.
As María Ángeles Oviedo-García from the University of Seville in Spain, pointed out: “The analysis of 263 review reports shows a pattern of vague, repetitive statements — often identical or very similar — along with coercive citations, ultimately resulting in misleading reviews.”
Experts in research integrity and ethics argue that while issues persist, the integrity of scientific research is improving. Increasing research and public disclosure reflect a heightened awareness of problems long overlooked.
Speaking to this news organization, Fanelli, who has been studying scientific misconduct for about 20 years, noted that while his early work left him disillusioned, further research has replaced his cynicism with what he describes as healthy skepticism and a more optimistic outlook. Fanelli also collaborates with the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity and the Advisory Committee on Research Ethics and Bioethics at the Italian National Research Council (CNR), where he helped develop the first research integrity guidelines.
Lack of Awareness
A recurring challenge is the difficulty in distinguishing between honest mistakes and intentional misconduct. “This is why greater investment in education is essential,” said Daniel Pizzolato, European Network of Research Ethics Committees, Bonn, Germany, and the Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven in Belgium.
While Pizzolato acknowledged that institutions such as the CNR in Italy provide a positive example, awareness of research integrity is generally still lacking across much of Europe, and there are few offices dedicated to promoting research integrity. However, he pointed to promising developments in other countries. “In France and Denmark, researchers are required to be familiar with integrity norms because codes of conduct have legal standing. Some major international funding bodies like the European Molecular Biology Organization are making participation in research integrity courses a condition for receiving grants.”
Pizzolato remains optimistic. “There is a growing willingness to move past this impasse,” he said.
A recent study published in The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology reveals troubling gaps in how retracted biomedical articles are flagged and cited. Led by Caitlin Bakkera, Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, the research sought to determine whether articles retracted because of errors or fraud were properly flagged across various databases.
The results were concerning: Less than 5% of retracted articles had consistent retraction notices across all databases that hosted them, and less than 50% of citations referenced the retraction. None of the 414 retraction notices analyzed met best-practice guidelines for completeness. Bakkera and colleagues warned that these shortcomings threaten the integrity of public health research.
Fanelli’s Perspective
Despite the concerns, Fanelli remains calm. “Science is based on debate and a perspective called organized skepticism, which helps reveal the truth,” he explained. “While there is often excessive skepticism today, the overall quality of clinical trials is improving.
“It’s important to remember that reliable results take time and shouldn’t depend on the outcome of a single study. It’s essential to consider the broader context, the history of the research field, and potential conflicts of interest, both financial and otherwise. Biomedical research requires constant updates,” he concluded.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Mycosis Fungoides: Measured Approach Key to Treatment
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA — When patients of Aaron Mangold, MD, first learn they have mycosis fungoides (MF), the most common form of primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), some are concerned about whether the diagnosis means a shortened life expectancy.
Dr. Mangold, codirector of the multidisciplinary cutaneous lymphoma clinic at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “For early-stage disease, I think of it more like diabetes; this is really a chronic disease” that unlikely will be fatal but may be associated with increased morbidity as the disease progresses, and “the overall goal of therapy should be disease control to increase quality of life.”
Patient- and lymphoma-specific factors drive the choice of therapy. The focus for patients with early-stage disease, Dr. Mangold said, is to treat comorbidities and symptoms, such as itch or skin pain, maximize their quality of life, and consider the potential for associated toxicities of therapy as the disease progresses. Start with the least toxic, targeted, nonimmunosuppressive therapy, “then work toward more toxic immunosuppressive therapies,” he advised. “Use toxic agents just long enough to control the disease, then transition to a maintenance regimen with less toxic immunosuppressive agents.”
When Close Follow-Up Is Advised
According to unpublished data from PROCLIPI (the Prospective Cutaneous Lymphoma International Prognostic Index) study presented at the fifth World Congress of Cutaneous Lymphomas earlier in 2024, the following factors warrant consideration for close follow-up and more aggressive treatment: Nodal enlargement greater than 15 mm, age over 60 years, presence of plaques, and large-cell transformation in skin. “These are some of the stigmata in early disease that might guide you toward referring” a patient to a CTCL expert, Dr. Mangold said. (Consensus-based recommendations on the management of MF in children were published in August of 2024.)
According to Dr. Mangold, topical/skin-directed therapies are best for early-stage disease or in combination with systemic therapies in advanced disease. For early-stage disease, one of his preferred options is daily application of a skin moisturizer plus a topical corticosteroid such as clobetasol, halobetasol, or augmented betamethasone, then evaluating the response at 3 months. “This is a cheap option, and we see response rates as high as 90%,” he said. “I don’t often see steroid atrophy when treating patients with active MF. There’s a tendency to think, ‘I don’t want to overtreat.’ I think you can be aggressive. If you look in the literature, people typically pulse twice daily for a couple of weeks with a 1-week break.”
Mechlorethamine, a topical alkylating gel approved in 2013 for the treatment of early-stage MF, is an option when patients fail to respond to topical steroids, prefer to avoid steroids, or have thick, plaque-like disease. With mechlorethamine, it is important to “start slow and be patient,” Dr. Mangold said. “Real-world data shows that it takes 12-18 months to get a good response. Counsel patients that they are likely to get a rash, and that the risk of rash is dose dependent.”
Other treatment options to consider include imiquimod, which can be used for single refractory spots. He typically recommends application 5 days per week with titration up to daily if tolerated for up to 3 months. “Treat until you get a brisk immune response,” he said. “We’ve seen patients with durable, long-term responses.”
UVB Phototherapy Effective
For patients with stage IB disease, topical therapies are less practical and may be focused on refractory areas of disease. Narrow-band UVB phototherapy is the most practical and cost-effective treatment, Dr. Mangold said. Earlier-stage patch disease responds to phototherapy in up to 80% of cases, while plaque-stage disease responds in up to half of cases. “More frequent use of phototherapy may decrease time to clearance, but overall response is similar.”
Dr. Mangold recommends phototherapy 2-3 days per week, titrating up to a maximal response dose, and maintaining that dose for about 3 months. Maintenance involves tapering the phototherapy dose to a minimal dose with continued response. “The goal is to prevent relapse,” he said.
For patients with MF of stage IIB and higher, he considers total skin electron beam therapy, an oral retinoid with phototherapy, systemic agents, and focal radiation with systemic treatment. One of his go-to systemic options is bexarotene, which he uses for early-stage disease refractory to treatment or for less aggressive advanced disease. “We typically use a low dose ... and about half of patients respond,” Dr. Mangold said. The time to response is about 6 months. Bexarotene causes elevated lipids and low thyroid function, so he initiates patients on fenofibrate and levothyroxine at baseline.
Another systemic option is brentuximab vedotin, a monoclonal antibody that targets cells with CD30 expression, which is typically administered in a specialty center every 3 weeks for up to 16 cycles. “In practice, we often use six to eight cycles to avoid neuropathy,” he said. “It’s a good debulking agent, the time to response is 6-9 weeks, and it has a sustained response of 60%.” Neuropathy can occur with treatment, but improves over time.
Other systemic options for MF include romidepsin, mogamulizumab, and extracorporeal photopheresis used in erythrodermic disease.
Radiation An Option in Some Cases
Dr. Mangold noted that low doses of radiation therapy can effectively treat MF lesions in as little as one dose. “We can use it as a cure for a single spot or to temporarily treat the disease while other therapies are being started,” he said. Long-term side effects need to be considered when using radiation. “The more radiation, the more side effects.”
Dr. Mangold disclosed that he is an investigator for Sun Pharmaceutical, Solagenix, Elorac, miRagen, Kyowa Kirin, the National Clinical Trials Network, and CRISPR Therapeutics. He has also received consulting fees/honoraria from Kirin and Solagenix.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA — When patients of Aaron Mangold, MD, first learn they have mycosis fungoides (MF), the most common form of primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), some are concerned about whether the diagnosis means a shortened life expectancy.
Dr. Mangold, codirector of the multidisciplinary cutaneous lymphoma clinic at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “For early-stage disease, I think of it more like diabetes; this is really a chronic disease” that unlikely will be fatal but may be associated with increased morbidity as the disease progresses, and “the overall goal of therapy should be disease control to increase quality of life.”
Patient- and lymphoma-specific factors drive the choice of therapy. The focus for patients with early-stage disease, Dr. Mangold said, is to treat comorbidities and symptoms, such as itch or skin pain, maximize their quality of life, and consider the potential for associated toxicities of therapy as the disease progresses. Start with the least toxic, targeted, nonimmunosuppressive therapy, “then work toward more toxic immunosuppressive therapies,” he advised. “Use toxic agents just long enough to control the disease, then transition to a maintenance regimen with less toxic immunosuppressive agents.”
When Close Follow-Up Is Advised
According to unpublished data from PROCLIPI (the Prospective Cutaneous Lymphoma International Prognostic Index) study presented at the fifth World Congress of Cutaneous Lymphomas earlier in 2024, the following factors warrant consideration for close follow-up and more aggressive treatment: Nodal enlargement greater than 15 mm, age over 60 years, presence of plaques, and large-cell transformation in skin. “These are some of the stigmata in early disease that might guide you toward referring” a patient to a CTCL expert, Dr. Mangold said. (Consensus-based recommendations on the management of MF in children were published in August of 2024.)
According to Dr. Mangold, topical/skin-directed therapies are best for early-stage disease or in combination with systemic therapies in advanced disease. For early-stage disease, one of his preferred options is daily application of a skin moisturizer plus a topical corticosteroid such as clobetasol, halobetasol, or augmented betamethasone, then evaluating the response at 3 months. “This is a cheap option, and we see response rates as high as 90%,” he said. “I don’t often see steroid atrophy when treating patients with active MF. There’s a tendency to think, ‘I don’t want to overtreat.’ I think you can be aggressive. If you look in the literature, people typically pulse twice daily for a couple of weeks with a 1-week break.”
Mechlorethamine, a topical alkylating gel approved in 2013 for the treatment of early-stage MF, is an option when patients fail to respond to topical steroids, prefer to avoid steroids, or have thick, plaque-like disease. With mechlorethamine, it is important to “start slow and be patient,” Dr. Mangold said. “Real-world data shows that it takes 12-18 months to get a good response. Counsel patients that they are likely to get a rash, and that the risk of rash is dose dependent.”
Other treatment options to consider include imiquimod, which can be used for single refractory spots. He typically recommends application 5 days per week with titration up to daily if tolerated for up to 3 months. “Treat until you get a brisk immune response,” he said. “We’ve seen patients with durable, long-term responses.”
UVB Phototherapy Effective
For patients with stage IB disease, topical therapies are less practical and may be focused on refractory areas of disease. Narrow-band UVB phototherapy is the most practical and cost-effective treatment, Dr. Mangold said. Earlier-stage patch disease responds to phototherapy in up to 80% of cases, while plaque-stage disease responds in up to half of cases. “More frequent use of phototherapy may decrease time to clearance, but overall response is similar.”
Dr. Mangold recommends phototherapy 2-3 days per week, titrating up to a maximal response dose, and maintaining that dose for about 3 months. Maintenance involves tapering the phototherapy dose to a minimal dose with continued response. “The goal is to prevent relapse,” he said.
For patients with MF of stage IIB and higher, he considers total skin electron beam therapy, an oral retinoid with phototherapy, systemic agents, and focal radiation with systemic treatment. One of his go-to systemic options is bexarotene, which he uses for early-stage disease refractory to treatment or for less aggressive advanced disease. “We typically use a low dose ... and about half of patients respond,” Dr. Mangold said. The time to response is about 6 months. Bexarotene causes elevated lipids and low thyroid function, so he initiates patients on fenofibrate and levothyroxine at baseline.
Another systemic option is brentuximab vedotin, a monoclonal antibody that targets cells with CD30 expression, which is typically administered in a specialty center every 3 weeks for up to 16 cycles. “In practice, we often use six to eight cycles to avoid neuropathy,” he said. “It’s a good debulking agent, the time to response is 6-9 weeks, and it has a sustained response of 60%.” Neuropathy can occur with treatment, but improves over time.
Other systemic options for MF include romidepsin, mogamulizumab, and extracorporeal photopheresis used in erythrodermic disease.
Radiation An Option in Some Cases
Dr. Mangold noted that low doses of radiation therapy can effectively treat MF lesions in as little as one dose. “We can use it as a cure for a single spot or to temporarily treat the disease while other therapies are being started,” he said. Long-term side effects need to be considered when using radiation. “The more radiation, the more side effects.”
Dr. Mangold disclosed that he is an investigator for Sun Pharmaceutical, Solagenix, Elorac, miRagen, Kyowa Kirin, the National Clinical Trials Network, and CRISPR Therapeutics. He has also received consulting fees/honoraria from Kirin and Solagenix.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA — When patients of Aaron Mangold, MD, first learn they have mycosis fungoides (MF), the most common form of primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), some are concerned about whether the diagnosis means a shortened life expectancy.
Dr. Mangold, codirector of the multidisciplinary cutaneous lymphoma clinic at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “For early-stage disease, I think of it more like diabetes; this is really a chronic disease” that unlikely will be fatal but may be associated with increased morbidity as the disease progresses, and “the overall goal of therapy should be disease control to increase quality of life.”
Patient- and lymphoma-specific factors drive the choice of therapy. The focus for patients with early-stage disease, Dr. Mangold said, is to treat comorbidities and symptoms, such as itch or skin pain, maximize their quality of life, and consider the potential for associated toxicities of therapy as the disease progresses. Start with the least toxic, targeted, nonimmunosuppressive therapy, “then work toward more toxic immunosuppressive therapies,” he advised. “Use toxic agents just long enough to control the disease, then transition to a maintenance regimen with less toxic immunosuppressive agents.”
When Close Follow-Up Is Advised
According to unpublished data from PROCLIPI (the Prospective Cutaneous Lymphoma International Prognostic Index) study presented at the fifth World Congress of Cutaneous Lymphomas earlier in 2024, the following factors warrant consideration for close follow-up and more aggressive treatment: Nodal enlargement greater than 15 mm, age over 60 years, presence of plaques, and large-cell transformation in skin. “These are some of the stigmata in early disease that might guide you toward referring” a patient to a CTCL expert, Dr. Mangold said. (Consensus-based recommendations on the management of MF in children were published in August of 2024.)
According to Dr. Mangold, topical/skin-directed therapies are best for early-stage disease or in combination with systemic therapies in advanced disease. For early-stage disease, one of his preferred options is daily application of a skin moisturizer plus a topical corticosteroid such as clobetasol, halobetasol, or augmented betamethasone, then evaluating the response at 3 months. “This is a cheap option, and we see response rates as high as 90%,” he said. “I don’t often see steroid atrophy when treating patients with active MF. There’s a tendency to think, ‘I don’t want to overtreat.’ I think you can be aggressive. If you look in the literature, people typically pulse twice daily for a couple of weeks with a 1-week break.”
Mechlorethamine, a topical alkylating gel approved in 2013 for the treatment of early-stage MF, is an option when patients fail to respond to topical steroids, prefer to avoid steroids, or have thick, plaque-like disease. With mechlorethamine, it is important to “start slow and be patient,” Dr. Mangold said. “Real-world data shows that it takes 12-18 months to get a good response. Counsel patients that they are likely to get a rash, and that the risk of rash is dose dependent.”
Other treatment options to consider include imiquimod, which can be used for single refractory spots. He typically recommends application 5 days per week with titration up to daily if tolerated for up to 3 months. “Treat until you get a brisk immune response,” he said. “We’ve seen patients with durable, long-term responses.”
UVB Phototherapy Effective
For patients with stage IB disease, topical therapies are less practical and may be focused on refractory areas of disease. Narrow-band UVB phototherapy is the most practical and cost-effective treatment, Dr. Mangold said. Earlier-stage patch disease responds to phototherapy in up to 80% of cases, while plaque-stage disease responds in up to half of cases. “More frequent use of phototherapy may decrease time to clearance, but overall response is similar.”
Dr. Mangold recommends phototherapy 2-3 days per week, titrating up to a maximal response dose, and maintaining that dose for about 3 months. Maintenance involves tapering the phototherapy dose to a minimal dose with continued response. “The goal is to prevent relapse,” he said.
For patients with MF of stage IIB and higher, he considers total skin electron beam therapy, an oral retinoid with phototherapy, systemic agents, and focal radiation with systemic treatment. One of his go-to systemic options is bexarotene, which he uses for early-stage disease refractory to treatment or for less aggressive advanced disease. “We typically use a low dose ... and about half of patients respond,” Dr. Mangold said. The time to response is about 6 months. Bexarotene causes elevated lipids and low thyroid function, so he initiates patients on fenofibrate and levothyroxine at baseline.
Another systemic option is brentuximab vedotin, a monoclonal antibody that targets cells with CD30 expression, which is typically administered in a specialty center every 3 weeks for up to 16 cycles. “In practice, we often use six to eight cycles to avoid neuropathy,” he said. “It’s a good debulking agent, the time to response is 6-9 weeks, and it has a sustained response of 60%.” Neuropathy can occur with treatment, but improves over time.
Other systemic options for MF include romidepsin, mogamulizumab, and extracorporeal photopheresis used in erythrodermic disease.
Radiation An Option in Some Cases
Dr. Mangold noted that low doses of radiation therapy can effectively treat MF lesions in as little as one dose. “We can use it as a cure for a single spot or to temporarily treat the disease while other therapies are being started,” he said. Long-term side effects need to be considered when using radiation. “The more radiation, the more side effects.”
Dr. Mangold disclosed that he is an investigator for Sun Pharmaceutical, Solagenix, Elorac, miRagen, Kyowa Kirin, the National Clinical Trials Network, and CRISPR Therapeutics. He has also received consulting fees/honoraria from Kirin and Solagenix.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM PDA 2024
MM: First CAR T-Cell Therapy to Exhibit OS Benefit
“Cilta-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in multiple myeloma,” María-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, said during a presentation of the updated CARTITUDE-4 data at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in late September.
A prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis at a median follow-up of 34 months showed that median OS was not reached in either the cilta-cel or SoC therapy arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55). The 30-month OS rates were 76% and 64% in the arms, respectively, said Dr. Mateos, a professor at the University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain.
The significant OS benefit was sustained across all prespecified subgroups, she noted.
The US Food and Drug Administration first approved cilta-cel in 2022 for use after at least four prior lines of therapy in patients with lenalidomide-resistant multiple myeloma based on findings from the CARTITUDE-1 trial. In April 2024, based on progression-free survival (PFS) findings at median follow-up of 16 months in CARTITUDE-4 (HR for progression/death vs SoC, 0.26), that approval was expanded to include patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma after one or more prior lines of therapy.
“CARVYKTI demonstrated remarkable efficacy as a personalized, one-time infusion in the earlier treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma as shown through the CARTITUDE-4 study results,” study coauthor Binod Dhakal, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, stated in a press release announcing that expansion. “With this approval, I’m excited for patients who may have the opportunity for a treatment-free period for their multiple myeloma as early as first relapse, with the hope of eliminating the burden of having to be on continuous treatment while living with this challenging disease.”
At the latest analysis, PFS was not reached in the cilta-cel arm and was 11.79 months with SoC, Dr. Mateos said.
The 30-month PFS rates were 59% and 26%, respectively (HR, 0.29), and the PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups.
Patients in the cilta-cel arm also had better complete response rates (77% vs 24%), overall response rates (85% vs 67%), and minimal residual disease-negativity rates (62% vs 18%).
Median duration of response was not reached with cilta-cel and was 18.69 months with SoC, and median time to symptom worsening was not reached vs 34.33 months, respectively.
Safety at the latest update was consistent with prior analyses.
The CARTITUDE findings continue to support the overall benefit-risk profile of cilta-cel vs SoC in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma as early as after the first relapse, Dr. Mateos concluded.
Despite the “compelling efficacy” of cilta-cel, there remains a need for “a safer and equally (if not more) effective CAR-T product” in this setting, Manni Mohyuddin, MD, told this news organization.
“The trial does not change my practice,” said Dr. Mohyuddin, an assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
“We must recognize that the control arm [in CARTITUDE-4] isn’t the best available standard of care,” he explained, noting that carfilzomib-containing triplets were not allowed. “Furthermore, overall survival is dependent on access to good therapies upon relapse, and patients in the control arm did not cross over to get cilta-cel at the time of relapse.
“We do not know if overall survival benefit would have been present if the control arm was better and if there was access to better post-protocol therapy.”
Toxicity is also a concern, he said.
“I think of it as high risk-high reward. There was a sevenfold increased incidence of secondary hematological malignancies in the cilta-cel arm compared to standard of care — this is a very concerning signal that dampens my enthusiasm to use this drug early for everyone,” he added.
For example, although Parkinsonism was rare, it generally did not resolve and lasted years, resolving in only 13% of affected patients, with a median time to resolution of 523 days.
“These are horrible odds, and for many patients there may be safer options,” he noted, adding that “cilta-cel is an option I would consider for some relapses (very early relapse while still on multi-agent therapy, high-risk disease), but otherwise I think personally it’s too toxic for most first relapses.”
Dr. Mateos reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Kite, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline Therapeutics, and Takeda. Dr. Mohyuddin had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Cilta-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in multiple myeloma,” María-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, said during a presentation of the updated CARTITUDE-4 data at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in late September.
A prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis at a median follow-up of 34 months showed that median OS was not reached in either the cilta-cel or SoC therapy arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55). The 30-month OS rates were 76% and 64% in the arms, respectively, said Dr. Mateos, a professor at the University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain.
The significant OS benefit was sustained across all prespecified subgroups, she noted.
The US Food and Drug Administration first approved cilta-cel in 2022 for use after at least four prior lines of therapy in patients with lenalidomide-resistant multiple myeloma based on findings from the CARTITUDE-1 trial. In April 2024, based on progression-free survival (PFS) findings at median follow-up of 16 months in CARTITUDE-4 (HR for progression/death vs SoC, 0.26), that approval was expanded to include patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma after one or more prior lines of therapy.
“CARVYKTI demonstrated remarkable efficacy as a personalized, one-time infusion in the earlier treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma as shown through the CARTITUDE-4 study results,” study coauthor Binod Dhakal, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, stated in a press release announcing that expansion. “With this approval, I’m excited for patients who may have the opportunity for a treatment-free period for their multiple myeloma as early as first relapse, with the hope of eliminating the burden of having to be on continuous treatment while living with this challenging disease.”
At the latest analysis, PFS was not reached in the cilta-cel arm and was 11.79 months with SoC, Dr. Mateos said.
The 30-month PFS rates were 59% and 26%, respectively (HR, 0.29), and the PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups.
Patients in the cilta-cel arm also had better complete response rates (77% vs 24%), overall response rates (85% vs 67%), and minimal residual disease-negativity rates (62% vs 18%).
Median duration of response was not reached with cilta-cel and was 18.69 months with SoC, and median time to symptom worsening was not reached vs 34.33 months, respectively.
Safety at the latest update was consistent with prior analyses.
The CARTITUDE findings continue to support the overall benefit-risk profile of cilta-cel vs SoC in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma as early as after the first relapse, Dr. Mateos concluded.
Despite the “compelling efficacy” of cilta-cel, there remains a need for “a safer and equally (if not more) effective CAR-T product” in this setting, Manni Mohyuddin, MD, told this news organization.
“The trial does not change my practice,” said Dr. Mohyuddin, an assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
“We must recognize that the control arm [in CARTITUDE-4] isn’t the best available standard of care,” he explained, noting that carfilzomib-containing triplets were not allowed. “Furthermore, overall survival is dependent on access to good therapies upon relapse, and patients in the control arm did not cross over to get cilta-cel at the time of relapse.
“We do not know if overall survival benefit would have been present if the control arm was better and if there was access to better post-protocol therapy.”
Toxicity is also a concern, he said.
“I think of it as high risk-high reward. There was a sevenfold increased incidence of secondary hematological malignancies in the cilta-cel arm compared to standard of care — this is a very concerning signal that dampens my enthusiasm to use this drug early for everyone,” he added.
For example, although Parkinsonism was rare, it generally did not resolve and lasted years, resolving in only 13% of affected patients, with a median time to resolution of 523 days.
“These are horrible odds, and for many patients there may be safer options,” he noted, adding that “cilta-cel is an option I would consider for some relapses (very early relapse while still on multi-agent therapy, high-risk disease), but otherwise I think personally it’s too toxic for most first relapses.”
Dr. Mateos reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Kite, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline Therapeutics, and Takeda. Dr. Mohyuddin had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Cilta-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in multiple myeloma,” María-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, said during a presentation of the updated CARTITUDE-4 data at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society in late September.
A prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis at a median follow-up of 34 months showed that median OS was not reached in either the cilta-cel or SoC therapy arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55). The 30-month OS rates were 76% and 64% in the arms, respectively, said Dr. Mateos, a professor at the University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain.
The significant OS benefit was sustained across all prespecified subgroups, she noted.
The US Food and Drug Administration first approved cilta-cel in 2022 for use after at least four prior lines of therapy in patients with lenalidomide-resistant multiple myeloma based on findings from the CARTITUDE-1 trial. In April 2024, based on progression-free survival (PFS) findings at median follow-up of 16 months in CARTITUDE-4 (HR for progression/death vs SoC, 0.26), that approval was expanded to include patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma after one or more prior lines of therapy.
“CARVYKTI demonstrated remarkable efficacy as a personalized, one-time infusion in the earlier treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma as shown through the CARTITUDE-4 study results,” study coauthor Binod Dhakal, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, stated in a press release announcing that expansion. “With this approval, I’m excited for patients who may have the opportunity for a treatment-free period for their multiple myeloma as early as first relapse, with the hope of eliminating the burden of having to be on continuous treatment while living with this challenging disease.”
At the latest analysis, PFS was not reached in the cilta-cel arm and was 11.79 months with SoC, Dr. Mateos said.
The 30-month PFS rates were 59% and 26%, respectively (HR, 0.29), and the PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups.
Patients in the cilta-cel arm also had better complete response rates (77% vs 24%), overall response rates (85% vs 67%), and minimal residual disease-negativity rates (62% vs 18%).
Median duration of response was not reached with cilta-cel and was 18.69 months with SoC, and median time to symptom worsening was not reached vs 34.33 months, respectively.
Safety at the latest update was consistent with prior analyses.
The CARTITUDE findings continue to support the overall benefit-risk profile of cilta-cel vs SoC in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma as early as after the first relapse, Dr. Mateos concluded.
Despite the “compelling efficacy” of cilta-cel, there remains a need for “a safer and equally (if not more) effective CAR-T product” in this setting, Manni Mohyuddin, MD, told this news organization.
“The trial does not change my practice,” said Dr. Mohyuddin, an assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
“We must recognize that the control arm [in CARTITUDE-4] isn’t the best available standard of care,” he explained, noting that carfilzomib-containing triplets were not allowed. “Furthermore, overall survival is dependent on access to good therapies upon relapse, and patients in the control arm did not cross over to get cilta-cel at the time of relapse.
“We do not know if overall survival benefit would have been present if the control arm was better and if there was access to better post-protocol therapy.”
Toxicity is also a concern, he said.
“I think of it as high risk-high reward. There was a sevenfold increased incidence of secondary hematological malignancies in the cilta-cel arm compared to standard of care — this is a very concerning signal that dampens my enthusiasm to use this drug early for everyone,” he added.
For example, although Parkinsonism was rare, it generally did not resolve and lasted years, resolving in only 13% of affected patients, with a median time to resolution of 523 days.
“These are horrible odds, and for many patients there may be safer options,” he noted, adding that “cilta-cel is an option I would consider for some relapses (very early relapse while still on multi-agent therapy, high-risk disease), but otherwise I think personally it’s too toxic for most first relapses.”
Dr. Mateos reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Kite, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline Therapeutics, and Takeda. Dr. Mohyuddin had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM IMS 2024