MDedge Surgery

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do I deserve to be here? Am I doing what I’m supposed to be doing? Is anyone going to tell me if I’m terrible?

Kerri Palamara McGrath, MD, remembered worrying over these questions as chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009. Having graduated from New York Medical College, she felt out of step with her peers from Ivy League medical schools and considered herself lucky to be there. In order to measure up, she felt she had to work twice as hard as everybody else.

But as Dr. McGrath moved through residency and spoke with other trainees, she had a realization. Her constant fears, the nagging voice in her head saying she wasn’t good enough, these issues weren’t exclusive to her; they were pervasive.

Today, Dr. McGrath is the director of the Center for Physician Well-Being at Massachusetts General Hospital. The facility aims to address physician stress and equip doctors with the tools to navigate personal and professional issues. Dr. McGrath is also a physician coach, a growing nonclinical field, helping doctors identify their own stressors, values, and measures of success. This type of internal work, Dr. McGrath feels, can help alleviate imposter syndrome, that inner refrain saying: I’ll never be good enough.

What Is Imposter Syndrome?

While not a formal medical diagnosis, imposter syndrome has been defined as «an internal experience of intellectual phoniness.» It›s considered an inability to internalize success and a tendency to attribute gains to external factors — for example, being in the right place at the right time.

“Many people describe imposter phenomena in medicine as fearing that others are going to realize that they don’t belong somewhere or question why they’re there,” said Dr. McGrath.

It’s a “fear of being found out,” added Jessi Gold, MD, a psychiatrist who treats physicians. “In many ways, imposter syndrome shows up as a conflict between the outer self — the metaphorical mask you’re ‘putting on’ [in order] to achieve, and the inner self — how you feel like you’re not measuring up.”

Dr. McGrath said she experienced imposter syndrome before her medical career even began. She applied to 26 medical schools. Only one accepted her. “The whole time, I was like, ‘This is the only school you got into, so you’re obviously not good enough,’” she recalled. Later, having been chosen by a “coveted” institution like Mass General, “you assume that, at some point, someone will realize that the gig is up, that everybody’s better than you.”

Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?

Dr. McGrath felt that in medicine, high expectations are often coupled with low self-compassion. “We are so hard on ourselves, and when we set our expectations so high, we’re constantly disappointed in ourselves,” she said. External markers of success — papers published, promotions, or even social media — can further fuel this.

It can feel like “striving for excellence in a sea of excellence,” Dr. McGrath added, and this can invite comparison.

Ravi Parikh, MD, a medical oncologist and physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remembered struggling with imposter syndrome early in his career. As a new doctor, he had a ton of questions, and yet those above him seemed able to make weighty decisions on their own. The comparison shook his confidence. “I remember thinking that when I became an attending, I would just magically not have to run decisions by people,” said Dr. Parikh. But even then, the “magical” self-assurance didn’t materialize.

Research found that imposter syndrome is more likely to affect women and groups that are underrepresented in medicine. But overall, the incidence is remarkably high.

A 2023 survey published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons found that 90% of female surgeons and more than two-thirds of male ones experienced imposter syndrome. In a 2023 study on medical students in JAMA, it was nearly universal; 97% reported feelings of imposter syndrome with women 1.7 times more likely to report it than men and underrepresented groups often three times more likely.

‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’

The term “imposter” also suggests a lack of belonging. If medicine doesn’t “look like you,” this can create feelings of pressure, like you’re “representing a whole group with your mere existence,” said Dr. Gold, “and you have to keep proving yourself.”

Chloe Slocum, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, remembered that feeling of conspicuous “otherness.” As a resident, Dr. Slocum began presenting at national meetings and later pursued physician leadership training. Many of her counterparts at these events were older males. “At some programs early on, I’d wonder, ‘I’m clearly in the minority here; did they really make the right decision including me in this?’”

Reactions from those around you can also have an impact. Dr. McGrath — who is 5’ 2” and describes herself as looking “very young” — noted that when she started out, neither patients nor other providers thought she was a doctor.

“I have tried everything in the book to be seen, in somebody else’s eyes, as more consistent with a doctor,” she said. “I’ve dressed down. I’ve dressed up. I’ve worn heels. I’ve worn flats. I’ve worn glasses. I’ve done all the things. When you’re constantly being told you don’t look like a doctor, you start questioning yourself.”

The Emotional Toll

If that sounds mentally exhausting, it is. Research found that imposter syndrome is often linked with burnout, depression, and anxiety.

The need to prove yourself and prevent being “found out” can push some doctors toward traditional measurements of success — promotions or published work, said Dr. Gold. But “if you’re trying to achieve in ways that you don’t value,” she warned, “you’re going to burn out.”

On the other hand, intense self-doubt can also limit advancement. After all, if you don’t think you’re good enough, you may not apply for job opportunities or leadership positions.

This mental burden can persist over years and even decades. A 2020 review of studies on imposter syndrome noted that “it would be reassuring to believe that imposter symptoms decline with age.” Unfortunately, several studies indicated that they do not.

How to Manage Imposter Syndrome

While it can be difficult to overcome imposter syndrome, there are ways to work through it and make it less pervasive or intense. Here are some tips from our experts:

• Prioritize your mental health. This can be difficult for some physicians, but don’t ignore symptoms of depression, anxiety, or burnout. Untreated mental health conditions cloud the ability to reflect on some of the existential questions that will help you navigate imposter syndrome, said Dr. Gold.
• Assess how often you need validation and why. Try to identify what you›re feeling, what needs aren›t being met, and how you can meet those needs. You can then consider where to get that validation either internally or by connecting with a colleague. Dr. McGrath encourages physicians to ask, “What does success look like for me?” and can you make success more personal and meaningful. It might sound shocking, but rather than an unattainable ideal, success should be something that feels good.
• Know the power of teamwork. As Dr. Parikh eventually realized, collaborative care is a common and beneficial part of medicine — not something that makes you a less-than physician. “There’s a lot of opportunity to crowdsource the medical decision-making process in ways that increase your own confidence as a doctor,” he said.
• Practice self-compassion. Critical voices in your head add to an already hard and stressful world. This is where self-compassion comes in. “We don’t have much control over medicine, but we have control over how medicine makes us feel,” Dr. Gold said. Imagine treating yourself how you would treat a friend.
• Consider a physician coach.  suggests that physician coaches can help lower rates of burnout and improve well-being, resilience, professional fulfillment, and self-worth. “Coaching looks into the future to help you envision what things would look like if you were feeling differently. It helps you explore what’s in your control and how you want to shape that,” said Dr. McGrath.
• Amplify the good. Apps and web-based tools can remind you to celebrate your own achievements. The “” exercise created by J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, at the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety & Quality for example, was documented in a . When healthcare workers reflected on three good things that happened each day for 2 weeks, they reported significant improvements in depression, burnout, and work-life balance.
• Do a values check. Dr. Gold often suggested that physicians with imposter syndrome ask themselves what they value, what medicine values, and how the two line up. Pausing to consider this can guide you toward useful strategies. If you value family life but feel like medicine doesn’t, for example, you might talk with a colleague who has navigated this conflict.

Dr. Gold added that reminding yourself of the range of options can be freeing. “There’s no ‘one career’ in medicine,” she said. “There are multiple ways to be happy in medicine; there are multiple ways to be happy outside of medicine. And you’re not a failure for the path you choose.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do I deserve to be here? Am I doing what I’m supposed to be doing? Is anyone going to tell me if I’m terrible?

Kerri Palamara McGrath, MD, remembered worrying over these questions as chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009. Having graduated from New York Medical College, she felt out of step with her peers from Ivy League medical schools and considered herself lucky to be there. In order to measure up, she felt she had to work twice as hard as everybody else.

But as Dr. McGrath moved through residency and spoke with other trainees, she had a realization. Her constant fears, the nagging voice in her head saying she wasn’t good enough, these issues weren’t exclusive to her; they were pervasive.

Today, Dr. McGrath is the director of the Center for Physician Well-Being at Massachusetts General Hospital. The facility aims to address physician stress and equip doctors with the tools to navigate personal and professional issues. Dr. McGrath is also a physician coach, a growing nonclinical field, helping doctors identify their own stressors, values, and measures of success. This type of internal work, Dr. McGrath feels, can help alleviate imposter syndrome, that inner refrain saying: I’ll never be good enough.

What Is Imposter Syndrome?

While not a formal medical diagnosis, imposter syndrome has been defined as «an internal experience of intellectual phoniness.» It›s considered an inability to internalize success and a tendency to attribute gains to external factors — for example, being in the right place at the right time.

“Many people describe imposter phenomena in medicine as fearing that others are going to realize that they don’t belong somewhere or question why they’re there,” said Dr. McGrath.

It’s a “fear of being found out,” added Jessi Gold, MD, a psychiatrist who treats physicians. “In many ways, imposter syndrome shows up as a conflict between the outer self — the metaphorical mask you’re ‘putting on’ [in order] to achieve, and the inner self — how you feel like you’re not measuring up.”

Dr. McGrath said she experienced imposter syndrome before her medical career even began. She applied to 26 medical schools. Only one accepted her. “The whole time, I was like, ‘This is the only school you got into, so you’re obviously not good enough,’” she recalled. Later, having been chosen by a “coveted” institution like Mass General, “you assume that, at some point, someone will realize that the gig is up, that everybody’s better than you.”

Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?

Dr. McGrath felt that in medicine, high expectations are often coupled with low self-compassion. “We are so hard on ourselves, and when we set our expectations so high, we’re constantly disappointed in ourselves,” she said. External markers of success — papers published, promotions, or even social media — can further fuel this.

It can feel like “striving for excellence in a sea of excellence,” Dr. McGrath added, and this can invite comparison.

Ravi Parikh, MD, a medical oncologist and physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remembered struggling with imposter syndrome early in his career. As a new doctor, he had a ton of questions, and yet those above him seemed able to make weighty decisions on their own. The comparison shook his confidence. “I remember thinking that when I became an attending, I would just magically not have to run decisions by people,” said Dr. Parikh. But even then, the “magical” self-assurance didn’t materialize.

Research found that imposter syndrome is more likely to affect women and groups that are underrepresented in medicine. But overall, the incidence is remarkably high.

A 2023 survey published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons found that 90% of female surgeons and more than two-thirds of male ones experienced imposter syndrome. In a 2023 study on medical students in JAMA, it was nearly universal; 97% reported feelings of imposter syndrome with women 1.7 times more likely to report it than men and underrepresented groups often three times more likely.

‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’

The term “imposter” also suggests a lack of belonging. If medicine doesn’t “look like you,” this can create feelings of pressure, like you’re “representing a whole group with your mere existence,” said Dr. Gold, “and you have to keep proving yourself.”

Chloe Slocum, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, remembered that feeling of conspicuous “otherness.” As a resident, Dr. Slocum began presenting at national meetings and later pursued physician leadership training. Many of her counterparts at these events were older males. “At some programs early on, I’d wonder, ‘I’m clearly in the minority here; did they really make the right decision including me in this?’”

Reactions from those around you can also have an impact. Dr. McGrath — who is 5’ 2” and describes herself as looking “very young” — noted that when she started out, neither patients nor other providers thought she was a doctor.

“I have tried everything in the book to be seen, in somebody else’s eyes, as more consistent with a doctor,” she said. “I’ve dressed down. I’ve dressed up. I’ve worn heels. I’ve worn flats. I’ve worn glasses. I’ve done all the things. When you’re constantly being told you don’t look like a doctor, you start questioning yourself.”

The Emotional Toll

If that sounds mentally exhausting, it is. Research found that imposter syndrome is often linked with burnout, depression, and anxiety.

The need to prove yourself and prevent being “found out” can push some doctors toward traditional measurements of success — promotions or published work, said Dr. Gold. But “if you’re trying to achieve in ways that you don’t value,” she warned, “you’re going to burn out.”

On the other hand, intense self-doubt can also limit advancement. After all, if you don’t think you’re good enough, you may not apply for job opportunities or leadership positions.

This mental burden can persist over years and even decades. A 2020 review of studies on imposter syndrome noted that “it would be reassuring to believe that imposter symptoms decline with age.” Unfortunately, several studies indicated that they do not.

How to Manage Imposter Syndrome

While it can be difficult to overcome imposter syndrome, there are ways to work through it and make it less pervasive or intense. Here are some tips from our experts:

• Prioritize your mental health. This can be difficult for some physicians, but don’t ignore symptoms of depression, anxiety, or burnout. Untreated mental health conditions cloud the ability to reflect on some of the existential questions that will help you navigate imposter syndrome, said Dr. Gold.
• Assess how often you need validation and why. Try to identify what you›re feeling, what needs aren›t being met, and how you can meet those needs. You can then consider where to get that validation either internally or by connecting with a colleague. Dr. McGrath encourages physicians to ask, “What does success look like for me?” and can you make success more personal and meaningful. It might sound shocking, but rather than an unattainable ideal, success should be something that feels good.
• Know the power of teamwork. As Dr. Parikh eventually realized, collaborative care is a common and beneficial part of medicine — not something that makes you a less-than physician. “There’s a lot of opportunity to crowdsource the medical decision-making process in ways that increase your own confidence as a doctor,” he said.
• Practice self-compassion. Critical voices in your head add to an already hard and stressful world. This is where self-compassion comes in. “We don’t have much control over medicine, but we have control over how medicine makes us feel,” Dr. Gold said. Imagine treating yourself how you would treat a friend.
• Consider a physician coach.  suggests that physician coaches can help lower rates of burnout and improve well-being, resilience, professional fulfillment, and self-worth. “Coaching looks into the future to help you envision what things would look like if you were feeling differently. It helps you explore what’s in your control and how you want to shape that,” said Dr. McGrath.
• Amplify the good. Apps and web-based tools can remind you to celebrate your own achievements. The “” exercise created by J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, at the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety & Quality for example, was documented in a . When healthcare workers reflected on three good things that happened each day for 2 weeks, they reported significant improvements in depression, burnout, and work-life balance.
• Do a values check. Dr. Gold often suggested that physicians with imposter syndrome ask themselves what they value, what medicine values, and how the two line up. Pausing to consider this can guide you toward useful strategies. If you value family life but feel like medicine doesn’t, for example, you might talk with a colleague who has navigated this conflict.

Dr. Gold added that reminding yourself of the range of options can be freeing. “There’s no ‘one career’ in medicine,” she said. “There are multiple ways to be happy in medicine; there are multiple ways to be happy outside of medicine. And you’re not a failure for the path you choose.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do I deserve to be here? Am I doing what I’m supposed to be doing? Is anyone going to tell me if I’m terrible?

Kerri Palamara McGrath, MD, remembered worrying over these questions as chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009. Having graduated from New York Medical College, she felt out of step with her peers from Ivy League medical schools and considered herself lucky to be there. In order to measure up, she felt she had to work twice as hard as everybody else.

But as Dr. McGrath moved through residency and spoke with other trainees, she had a realization. Her constant fears, the nagging voice in her head saying she wasn’t good enough, these issues weren’t exclusive to her; they were pervasive.

Today, Dr. McGrath is the director of the Center for Physician Well-Being at Massachusetts General Hospital. The facility aims to address physician stress and equip doctors with the tools to navigate personal and professional issues. Dr. McGrath is also a physician coach, a growing nonclinical field, helping doctors identify their own stressors, values, and measures of success. This type of internal work, Dr. McGrath feels, can help alleviate imposter syndrome, that inner refrain saying: I’ll never be good enough.

What Is Imposter Syndrome?

While not a formal medical diagnosis, imposter syndrome has been defined as «an internal experience of intellectual phoniness.» It›s considered an inability to internalize success and a tendency to attribute gains to external factors — for example, being in the right place at the right time.

“Many people describe imposter phenomena in medicine as fearing that others are going to realize that they don’t belong somewhere or question why they’re there,” said Dr. McGrath.

It’s a “fear of being found out,” added Jessi Gold, MD, a psychiatrist who treats physicians. “In many ways, imposter syndrome shows up as a conflict between the outer self — the metaphorical mask you’re ‘putting on’ [in order] to achieve, and the inner self — how you feel like you’re not measuring up.”

Dr. McGrath said she experienced imposter syndrome before her medical career even began. She applied to 26 medical schools. Only one accepted her. “The whole time, I was like, ‘This is the only school you got into, so you’re obviously not good enough,’” she recalled. Later, having been chosen by a “coveted” institution like Mass General, “you assume that, at some point, someone will realize that the gig is up, that everybody’s better than you.”

Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?

Dr. McGrath felt that in medicine, high expectations are often coupled with low self-compassion. “We are so hard on ourselves, and when we set our expectations so high, we’re constantly disappointed in ourselves,” she said. External markers of success — papers published, promotions, or even social media — can further fuel this.

It can feel like “striving for excellence in a sea of excellence,” Dr. McGrath added, and this can invite comparison.

Ravi Parikh, MD, a medical oncologist and physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remembered struggling with imposter syndrome early in his career. As a new doctor, he had a ton of questions, and yet those above him seemed able to make weighty decisions on their own. The comparison shook his confidence. “I remember thinking that when I became an attending, I would just magically not have to run decisions by people,” said Dr. Parikh. But even then, the “magical” self-assurance didn’t materialize.

Research found that imposter syndrome is more likely to affect women and groups that are underrepresented in medicine. But overall, the incidence is remarkably high.

A 2023 survey published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons found that 90% of female surgeons and more than two-thirds of male ones experienced imposter syndrome. In a 2023 study on medical students in JAMA, it was nearly universal; 97% reported feelings of imposter syndrome with women 1.7 times more likely to report it than men and underrepresented groups often three times more likely.

‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’

The term “imposter” also suggests a lack of belonging. If medicine doesn’t “look like you,” this can create feelings of pressure, like you’re “representing a whole group with your mere existence,” said Dr. Gold, “and you have to keep proving yourself.”

Chloe Slocum, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, remembered that feeling of conspicuous “otherness.” As a resident, Dr. Slocum began presenting at national meetings and later pursued physician leadership training. Many of her counterparts at these events were older males. “At some programs early on, I’d wonder, ‘I’m clearly in the minority here; did they really make the right decision including me in this?’”

Reactions from those around you can also have an impact. Dr. McGrath — who is 5’ 2” and describes herself as looking “very young” — noted that when she started out, neither patients nor other providers thought she was a doctor.

“I have tried everything in the book to be seen, in somebody else’s eyes, as more consistent with a doctor,” she said. “I’ve dressed down. I’ve dressed up. I’ve worn heels. I’ve worn flats. I’ve worn glasses. I’ve done all the things. When you’re constantly being told you don’t look like a doctor, you start questioning yourself.”

The Emotional Toll

If that sounds mentally exhausting, it is. Research found that imposter syndrome is often linked with burnout, depression, and anxiety.

The need to prove yourself and prevent being “found out” can push some doctors toward traditional measurements of success — promotions or published work, said Dr. Gold. But “if you’re trying to achieve in ways that you don’t value,” she warned, “you’re going to burn out.”

On the other hand, intense self-doubt can also limit advancement. After all, if you don’t think you’re good enough, you may not apply for job opportunities or leadership positions.

This mental burden can persist over years and even decades. A 2020 review of studies on imposter syndrome noted that “it would be reassuring to believe that imposter symptoms decline with age.” Unfortunately, several studies indicated that they do not.

How to Manage Imposter Syndrome

While it can be difficult to overcome imposter syndrome, there are ways to work through it and make it less pervasive or intense. Here are some tips from our experts:

• Prioritize your mental health. This can be difficult for some physicians, but don’t ignore symptoms of depression, anxiety, or burnout. Untreated mental health conditions cloud the ability to reflect on some of the existential questions that will help you navigate imposter syndrome, said Dr. Gold.
• Assess how often you need validation and why. Try to identify what you›re feeling, what needs aren›t being met, and how you can meet those needs. You can then consider where to get that validation either internally or by connecting with a colleague. Dr. McGrath encourages physicians to ask, “What does success look like for me?” and can you make success more personal and meaningful. It might sound shocking, but rather than an unattainable ideal, success should be something that feels good.
• Know the power of teamwork. As Dr. Parikh eventually realized, collaborative care is a common and beneficial part of medicine — not something that makes you a less-than physician. “There’s a lot of opportunity to crowdsource the medical decision-making process in ways that increase your own confidence as a doctor,” he said.
• Practice self-compassion. Critical voices in your head add to an already hard and stressful world. This is where self-compassion comes in. “We don’t have much control over medicine, but we have control over how medicine makes us feel,” Dr. Gold said. Imagine treating yourself how you would treat a friend.
• Consider a physician coach.  suggests that physician coaches can help lower rates of burnout and improve well-being, resilience, professional fulfillment, and self-worth. “Coaching looks into the future to help you envision what things would look like if you were feeling differently. It helps you explore what’s in your control and how you want to shape that,” said Dr. McGrath.
• Amplify the good. Apps and web-based tools can remind you to celebrate your own achievements. The “” exercise created by J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, at the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety & Quality for example, was documented in a . When healthcare workers reflected on three good things that happened each day for 2 weeks, they reported significant improvements in depression, burnout, and work-life balance.
• Do a values check. Dr. Gold often suggested that physicians with imposter syndrome ask themselves what they value, what medicine values, and how the two line up. Pausing to consider this can guide you toward useful strategies. If you value family life but feel like medicine doesn’t, for example, you might talk with a colleague who has navigated this conflict.

Dr. Gold added that reminding yourself of the range of options can be freeing. “There’s no ‘one career’ in medicine,” she said. “There are multiple ways to be happy in medicine; there are multiple ways to be happy outside of medicine. And you’re not a failure for the path you choose.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Resecting the primary colon tumor before chemotherapy does not improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in patients with stage IV  (CRC) and unresectable metastases. It’s unclear whether primary tumor resection before chemotherapy prolongs survival.
• Among 393 patients with stage IV colon cancer and unresectable metastases enrolled in the  and  trials, 187 were randomly allocated to undergo primary tumor resection and 206 to upfront chemotherapy.
• The chemotherapy regimen was left up to the treating physician. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Median follow-up time was 36.7 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 16.7 months with primary tumor resection and 18.6 months with upfront chemotherapy (P = .191).
• Comparable overall survival between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944; P = .65) and across all subgroups.
• Serious adverse events were more common with upfront chemo than surgery (18% vs 10%; P = .027), due mainly to a significantly higher incidence of GI-related events (11% vs 5%; P = .031).
• Overall, 24% of the primary tumor resection group did not receive any chemotherapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study provide compelling data that upfront primary tumor resection in treatment-naive stage IV CRC not amenable for curative treatment does not prolong [overall survival]. A relatively low incidence of serious adverse events in patients with an intact primary tumor together with a considerable number of patients who did not receive any chemotherapy in the primary tumor resection group provides further arguments against resection of the primary tumor in this group of patients,” the authors of the combined analysis concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Neither study completed their planned patient accrual. Although both trials are nearly identical, differences in the individual study cohorts and trial implementation could have introduced bias. Tumor molecular profiling was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Resecting the primary colon tumor before chemotherapy does not improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in patients with stage IV  (CRC) and unresectable metastases. It’s unclear whether primary tumor resection before chemotherapy prolongs survival.
• Among 393 patients with stage IV colon cancer and unresectable metastases enrolled in the  and  trials, 187 were randomly allocated to undergo primary tumor resection and 206 to upfront chemotherapy.
• The chemotherapy regimen was left up to the treating physician. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Median follow-up time was 36.7 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 16.7 months with primary tumor resection and 18.6 months with upfront chemotherapy (P = .191).
• Comparable overall survival between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944; P = .65) and across all subgroups.
• Serious adverse events were more common with upfront chemo than surgery (18% vs 10%; P = .027), due mainly to a significantly higher incidence of GI-related events (11% vs 5%; P = .031).
• Overall, 24% of the primary tumor resection group did not receive any chemotherapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study provide compelling data that upfront primary tumor resection in treatment-naive stage IV CRC not amenable for curative treatment does not prolong [overall survival]. A relatively low incidence of serious adverse events in patients with an intact primary tumor together with a considerable number of patients who did not receive any chemotherapy in the primary tumor resection group provides further arguments against resection of the primary tumor in this group of patients,” the authors of the combined analysis concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Neither study completed their planned patient accrual. Although both trials are nearly identical, differences in the individual study cohorts and trial implementation could have introduced bias. Tumor molecular profiling was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Resecting the primary colon tumor before chemotherapy does not improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in patients with stage IV  (CRC) and unresectable metastases. It’s unclear whether primary tumor resection before chemotherapy prolongs survival.
• Among 393 patients with stage IV colon cancer and unresectable metastases enrolled in the  and  trials, 187 were randomly allocated to undergo primary tumor resection and 206 to upfront chemotherapy.
• The chemotherapy regimen was left up to the treating physician. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Median follow-up time was 36.7 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 16.7 months with primary tumor resection and 18.6 months with upfront chemotherapy (P = .191).
• Comparable overall survival between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944; P = .65) and across all subgroups.
• Serious adverse events were more common with upfront chemo than surgery (18% vs 10%; P = .027), due mainly to a significantly higher incidence of GI-related events (11% vs 5%; P = .031).
• Overall, 24% of the primary tumor resection group did not receive any chemotherapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study provide compelling data that upfront primary tumor resection in treatment-naive stage IV CRC not amenable for curative treatment does not prolong [overall survival]. A relatively low incidence of serious adverse events in patients with an intact primary tumor together with a considerable number of patients who did not receive any chemotherapy in the primary tumor resection group provides further arguments against resection of the primary tumor in this group of patients,” the authors of the combined analysis concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Neither study completed their planned patient accrual. Although both trials are nearly identical, differences in the individual study cohorts and trial implementation could have introduced bias. Tumor molecular profiling was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Fingers, toes, ears, and nose are places where epinephrine never goes,” Thomas Ehlers, DPM, wrote in Podiatry Today. “That is an adage I heard during podiatry school, my clerkships, and from various attendings throughout my training.”

But as Dr. Ehlers added, epinephrine gets a bad rap. The catchy admonition “has been proven a myth time and time again.”

So why do many clinicians believe the combination of epinephrine and lidocaine to be off-limits in surgical interventions involving the digits and other regions with low blood flow? Although medical trainees across multiple disciplines are taught to fear the practice, citing the potential for gangrene, its reputation for harm is not supported by the evidence.
 

Lack of Feeling Doesn’t Care About Your Facts

The debate surfaced anew in response to a recent column by Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, about the rather pedestrian topic of why he no longer performs surgery to correct ingrown toenails. Dr. Lin’s admission that he used to do the procedure with a combination of epinephrine and lidocaine turned into a major focus of the comments — many of them harshly critical of the practice:

“Epinephrine is not an appropriate drug to use for podiatry or use in any peripheral area. Gangrene?” one commenter posted.

“Leave epi out of lidocaine to fingers, toes, nose, and ear lobes,” another wrote.

“No lido with epi, whether or not it is contraindicated, because: If there’s any adverse outcome, a lawyer will find plenty of references saying it was contraindicated,” a reader chimed in.

Other commenters disagreed, with one saying, “Please, folks, don’t show that you trained 50 years ago and haven’t changed practice since…”

For Dr. Lin, the response was surprising given what he believes to be the lack of evidence supporting the purported dangers.

“When I think about this, it’s something that was taught to me during residency — that they should not be used on certain areas,” Dr. Lin said. “But since then, studies have been published looking at thousands of cases of people using epinephrine with lidocaine and haven’t found any cases of necrosis.”

Many doctors, like Dr. Lin, say they were cautioned against this in their training. Others don’t remember exactly where they’ve heard it but recognize the idea has a nebulous hold on practice.

Combining epinephrine with lidocaine helps make the numbing last longer, stops bleeding, and reduces the use of lidocaine required, all of which improve the chances of an effective and comfortable intervention for the patient, Dr. Lin said. The approach also reduces the use of tourniquets, which come with their own risks including nerve injury.

However, in areas with limited circulation, this vasoconstrictive effect may be more pronounced, potentially leading to complications for patients with complicating factors.

Clinicians who regularly use the combination of epinephrine and lidocaine for surgery do concede that it can pose certain hazards and considerations in areas without robust blood flow.

But the literature largely points to its safety.

In 2001, California-based plastic and reconstructive surgeon Keith Denkler, MD, published a deep dive on the topic starting in the 19th century, including a review of Index Medicus from 1880 to 1966, a computer review of the National Library of Medicine database from 1966 to 2000, and major textbooks from 1900 to 2000.

He found a total of 48 cases of digital gangrene — but most involved the use of cocaine or procaine. Of the 48 cases, 21 involved the use of epinephrine, and 17 used an unknown concentration based on manual dilution.

“Multiple other concurrent conditions (hot soaks, tight tourniquets, and infection) existed in these case reports, making it difficult to determine the exact cause of the tissue insult,” Dr. Denkler wrote.

In a 2010 retrospective review in the Journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, authors examined 1111 cases involving digital and hand surgery. Of the 611 patients who received injections of 1% lidocaine with epinephrine, none experienced digital necrosis.

Another review from 2003 touted the combination’s safety, in hopes to “help dispel the myth that epinephrine has no place in podiatric anesthesia.” But authors noted limitations of use, including “known sensitivity, thyrotoxicosis, and use of either tricyclic antidepressants or monoamine oxidase inhibitors.”

James Christina, DPM, executive director and CEO of the American Podiatric Medical Association, echoed that sentiment. He said he regularly used the combination to correct bunions, hammer toes, and ingrown toenails over his 20 years of practicing but acknowledged the technique is not appropriate for all such patients.

“There’s always been caution when using epinephrine with local anesthetic,” Dr. Christina told this news organization. “You need a healthy patient with normal circulation and no other complications; someone without vascular compromise.”

Marie Hanna, MD, MEHP, chief of regional anesthesia and acute pain management at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, counts herself among the cautious. Citing Principles of Office Anesthesia: Part I. Infiltrative Anesthesia, Dr. Hanna said epinephrine should never be used in digital and penile blocks or in skin flaps with marginal viability.

“It is perfectly fine in certain areas, like the wrist or the arm,” Dr. Hanna said. “But specifically for use in end organs like nose, fingers, ears, toes — all of these with tenuous blood supply — it is not good practice.”

The divide among doctors comes down to theoretical concern, rather than empirical basis, said Rebecca Johnson, MD, chair of the American Society of Anesthesiologists committee on Regional Anesthesia and Acute Pain Medicine and a faculty member at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota.

“It’s just one of those myths we have in practice,” she said.

And legally, Dr. Johnson noted, the mere existence of a myth can be enough of a deterrent for medical practitioners: “Like anything, when you’re trying to do the right thing, if a complication would occur for another reason, you’d want to make sure a jury of your peers didn’t bring up that myth.”

The sources in this story reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Fingers, toes, ears, and nose are places where epinephrine never goes,” Thomas Ehlers, DPM, wrote in Podiatry Today. “That is an adage I heard during podiatry school, my clerkships, and from various attendings throughout my training.”

But as Dr. Ehlers added, epinephrine gets a bad rap. The catchy admonition “has been proven a myth time and time again.”

So why do many clinicians believe the combination of epinephrine and lidocaine to be off-limits in surgical interventions involving the digits and other regions with low blood flow? Although medical trainees across multiple disciplines are taught to fear the practice, citing the potential for gangrene, its reputation for harm is not supported by the evidence.
 

Lack of Feeling Doesn’t Care About Your Facts

The debate surfaced anew in response to a recent column by Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, about the rather pedestrian topic of why he no longer performs surgery to correct ingrown toenails. Dr. Lin’s admission that he used to do the procedure with a combination of epinephrine and lidocaine turned into a major focus of the comments — many of them harshly critical of the practice:

“Epinephrine is not an appropriate drug to use for podiatry or use in any peripheral area. Gangrene?” one commenter posted.

“Leave epi out of lidocaine to fingers, toes, nose, and ear lobes,” another wrote.

“No lido with epi, whether or not it is contraindicated, because: If there’s any adverse outcome, a lawyer will find plenty of references saying it was contraindicated,” a reader chimed in.

Other commenters disagreed, with one saying, “Please, folks, don’t show that you trained 50 years ago and haven’t changed practice since…”

For Dr. Lin, the response was surprising given what he believes to be the lack of evidence supporting the purported dangers.

“When I think about this, it’s something that was taught to me during residency — that they should not be used on certain areas,” Dr. Lin said. “But since then, studies have been published looking at thousands of cases of people using epinephrine with lidocaine and haven’t found any cases of necrosis.”

Many doctors, like Dr. Lin, say they were cautioned against this in their training. Others don’t remember exactly where they’ve heard it but recognize the idea has a nebulous hold on practice.

Combining epinephrine with lidocaine helps make the numbing last longer, stops bleeding, and reduces the use of lidocaine required, all of which improve the chances of an effective and comfortable intervention for the patient, Dr. Lin said. The approach also reduces the use of tourniquets, which come with their own risks including nerve injury.

However, in areas with limited circulation, this vasoconstrictive effect may be more pronounced, potentially leading to complications for patients with complicating factors.

Clinicians who regularly use the combination of epinephrine and lidocaine for surgery do concede that it can pose certain hazards and considerations in areas without robust blood flow.

But the literature largely points to its safety.

In 2001, California-based plastic and reconstructive surgeon Keith Denkler, MD, published a deep dive on the topic starting in the 19th century, including a review of Index Medicus from 1880 to 1966, a computer review of the National Library of Medicine database from 1966 to 2000, and major textbooks from 1900 to 2000.

He found a total of 48 cases of digital gangrene — but most involved the use of cocaine or procaine. Of the 48 cases, 21 involved the use of epinephrine, and 17 used an unknown concentration based on manual dilution.

“Multiple other concurrent conditions (hot soaks, tight tourniquets, and infection) existed in these case reports, making it difficult to determine the exact cause of the tissue insult,” Dr. Denkler wrote.

In a 2010 retrospective review in the Journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, authors examined 1111 cases involving digital and hand surgery. Of the 611 patients who received injections of 1% lidocaine with epinephrine, none experienced digital necrosis.

Another review from 2003 touted the combination’s safety, in hopes to “help dispel the myth that epinephrine has no place in podiatric anesthesia.” But authors noted limitations of use, including “known sensitivity, thyrotoxicosis, and use of either tricyclic antidepressants or monoamine oxidase inhibitors.”

James Christina, DPM, executive director and CEO of the American Podiatric Medical Association, echoed that sentiment. He said he regularly used the combination to correct bunions, hammer toes, and ingrown toenails over his 20 years of practicing but acknowledged the technique is not appropriate for all such patients.

“There’s always been caution when using epinephrine with local anesthetic,” Dr. Christina told this news organization. “You need a healthy patient with normal circulation and no other complications; someone without vascular compromise.”

Marie Hanna, MD, MEHP, chief of regional anesthesia and acute pain management at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, counts herself among the cautious. Citing Principles of Office Anesthesia: Part I. Infiltrative Anesthesia, Dr. Hanna said epinephrine should never be used in digital and penile blocks or in skin flaps with marginal viability.

“It is perfectly fine in certain areas, like the wrist or the arm,” Dr. Hanna said. “But specifically for use in end organs like nose, fingers, ears, toes — all of these with tenuous blood supply — it is not good practice.”

The divide among doctors comes down to theoretical concern, rather than empirical basis, said Rebecca Johnson, MD, chair of the American Society of Anesthesiologists committee on Regional Anesthesia and Acute Pain Medicine and a faculty member at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota.

“It’s just one of those myths we have in practice,” she said.

And legally, Dr. Johnson noted, the mere existence of a myth can be enough of a deterrent for medical practitioners: “Like anything, when you’re trying to do the right thing, if a complication would occur for another reason, you’d want to make sure a jury of your peers didn’t bring up that myth.”

The sources in this story reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Fingers, toes, ears, and nose are places where epinephrine never goes,” Thomas Ehlers, DPM, wrote in Podiatry Today. “That is an adage I heard during podiatry school, my clerkships, and from various attendings throughout my training.”

But as Dr. Ehlers added, epinephrine gets a bad rap. The catchy admonition “has been proven a myth time and time again.”

So why do many clinicians believe the combination of epinephrine and lidocaine to be off-limits in surgical interventions involving the digits and other regions with low blood flow? Although medical trainees across multiple disciplines are taught to fear the practice, citing the potential for gangrene, its reputation for harm is not supported by the evidence.
 

Lack of Feeling Doesn’t Care About Your Facts

The debate surfaced anew in response to a recent column by Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, about the rather pedestrian topic of why he no longer performs surgery to correct ingrown toenails. Dr. Lin’s admission that he used to do the procedure with a combination of epinephrine and lidocaine turned into a major focus of the comments — many of them harshly critical of the practice:

“Epinephrine is not an appropriate drug to use for podiatry or use in any peripheral area. Gangrene?” one commenter posted.

“Leave epi out of lidocaine to fingers, toes, nose, and ear lobes,” another wrote.

“No lido with epi, whether or not it is contraindicated, because: If there’s any adverse outcome, a lawyer will find plenty of references saying it was contraindicated,” a reader chimed in.

Other commenters disagreed, with one saying, “Please, folks, don’t show that you trained 50 years ago and haven’t changed practice since…”

For Dr. Lin, the response was surprising given what he believes to be the lack of evidence supporting the purported dangers.

“When I think about this, it’s something that was taught to me during residency — that they should not be used on certain areas,” Dr. Lin said. “But since then, studies have been published looking at thousands of cases of people using epinephrine with lidocaine and haven’t found any cases of necrosis.”

Many doctors, like Dr. Lin, say they were cautioned against this in their training. Others don’t remember exactly where they’ve heard it but recognize the idea has a nebulous hold on practice.

Combining epinephrine with lidocaine helps make the numbing last longer, stops bleeding, and reduces the use of lidocaine required, all of which improve the chances of an effective and comfortable intervention for the patient, Dr. Lin said. The approach also reduces the use of tourniquets, which come with their own risks including nerve injury.

However, in areas with limited circulation, this vasoconstrictive effect may be more pronounced, potentially leading to complications for patients with complicating factors.

Clinicians who regularly use the combination of epinephrine and lidocaine for surgery do concede that it can pose certain hazards and considerations in areas without robust blood flow.

But the literature largely points to its safety.

In 2001, California-based plastic and reconstructive surgeon Keith Denkler, MD, published a deep dive on the topic starting in the 19th century, including a review of Index Medicus from 1880 to 1966, a computer review of the National Library of Medicine database from 1966 to 2000, and major textbooks from 1900 to 2000.

He found a total of 48 cases of digital gangrene — but most involved the use of cocaine or procaine. Of the 48 cases, 21 involved the use of epinephrine, and 17 used an unknown concentration based on manual dilution.

“Multiple other concurrent conditions (hot soaks, tight tourniquets, and infection) existed in these case reports, making it difficult to determine the exact cause of the tissue insult,” Dr. Denkler wrote.

In a 2010 retrospective review in the Journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, authors examined 1111 cases involving digital and hand surgery. Of the 611 patients who received injections of 1% lidocaine with epinephrine, none experienced digital necrosis.

Another review from 2003 touted the combination’s safety, in hopes to “help dispel the myth that epinephrine has no place in podiatric anesthesia.” But authors noted limitations of use, including “known sensitivity, thyrotoxicosis, and use of either tricyclic antidepressants or monoamine oxidase inhibitors.”

James Christina, DPM, executive director and CEO of the American Podiatric Medical Association, echoed that sentiment. He said he regularly used the combination to correct bunions, hammer toes, and ingrown toenails over his 20 years of practicing but acknowledged the technique is not appropriate for all such patients.

“There’s always been caution when using epinephrine with local anesthetic,” Dr. Christina told this news organization. “You need a healthy patient with normal circulation and no other complications; someone without vascular compromise.”

Marie Hanna, MD, MEHP, chief of regional anesthesia and acute pain management at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, counts herself among the cautious. Citing Principles of Office Anesthesia: Part I. Infiltrative Anesthesia, Dr. Hanna said epinephrine should never be used in digital and penile blocks or in skin flaps with marginal viability.

“It is perfectly fine in certain areas, like the wrist or the arm,” Dr. Hanna said. “But specifically for use in end organs like nose, fingers, ears, toes — all of these with tenuous blood supply — it is not good practice.”

The divide among doctors comes down to theoretical concern, rather than empirical basis, said Rebecca Johnson, MD, chair of the American Society of Anesthesiologists committee on Regional Anesthesia and Acute Pain Medicine and a faculty member at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota.

“It’s just one of those myths we have in practice,” she said.

And legally, Dr. Johnson noted, the mere existence of a myth can be enough of a deterrent for medical practitioners: “Like anything, when you’re trying to do the right thing, if a complication would occur for another reason, you’d want to make sure a jury of your peers didn’t bring up that myth.”

The sources in this story reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Bariatric surgery appears to decrease the risk for some cancers, but it may increase the risk for others, particularly colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a synthesis of current evidence.

“There has been a recent burst of studies examining the association between bariatric surgery and the longitudinal risks of developing cancer,” corresponding author Zhi Ven Fong, MD, MPH, DrPH, surgical oncologist, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview. “However, there has not been a rigorous and critical analysis of the data published to date.”

In evaluating research showing an association between bariatric surgery and longitudinal cancer risk, the investigators found that the quality of the studies and their findings are “heterogeneous and might be susceptible to bias,” Dr. Fong said.

Bariatric surgery appears to have the strongest and most consistent association with the reduction of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer risk, first author Pei-Wen Lim, MD, MS, bariatric surgeon at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization. “However, there have been concerning signals from preclinical and epidemiological studies that bariatric surgery may be associated with a higher risk of developing colorectal cancers,” she added.

The authors cautioned against certain changes in clinical management.

“First, cancer surveillance frequency should not be altered after bariatric surgery because of any assumed reduction in longitudinal cancer risk, and surveillance strategy should mirror that of an average-risk individual,” they wrote. “Secondly, the indications for bariatric surgery should not be expanded for the purpose of cancer-risk mitigation.”

The review was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protection Against Hormone-Related Cancers

The authors pointed to several studies that appear to support the association between bariatric surgery and decreased risk for hormone-related cancers.

Among them is an observational study of 6781 patients in Canada that showed a significant reduction in breast cancer risk at a median follow-up of 5 years in those who had bariatric surgery vs those who did not (P = .01).

The largest study to date on risk for hormone-related cancer after bariatric surgery was conducted using New York State data for 302,883 women.

It showed a lower rate of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers after bariatric surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P < .001), with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conferring the greatest benefit compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (HR, 0.66; P = .006) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (HR, 0.83; P = .006).

Beyond the shared mechanisms explaining obesity and cancer risk, a proposed explanation for the strong, consistent association between bariatric surgery and hormone-sensitive cancers is the role obesity-related changes in estrogen stimulation play in development of such cancers, the authors noted.
 

Association With GI Cancers

The association between bariatric surgery and development of esophageal, gastric, liver, and pancreas cancers is less clear. The data are heterogeneous, with studies showing either no association or decreased longitudinal incidence, the authors reported.

The data are also mixed when it comes to CRC. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated decreased longitudinal incidence of colon and rectal cancer after bariatric surgery; however, two studies have suggested an increased CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors noted.

A 15-year study from England that matched 8794 patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with 8794 patients with obesity who did not have the surgery showed that gastric bypass (but not gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy) was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing colon and rectal cancer (odds ratio, 2.63).

These findings were corroborated in a Swedish cohort study with more than 10 years of follow-up data.

One potential explanation for the heterogeneous findings is that “present studies do not discriminate the sub-types of colon and rectal cancer, with bariatric surgery possibly increasing the incidence of colitis-associated cancers but not hereditary cancers,” the authors wrote.

“The mechanism by which gastric bypass may increase the risk of colorectal cancer is through changes in the gut’s microbiome. These changes in gut flora may triumph the protective effect of weight loss on the development of colorectal cancers,” Dr. Fong said.

Prospective studies are necessary to better delineate CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors wrote.
 

Benefits Outweigh Risk

“Ultimately, it has been proven that bariatric surgery saves lives by improving the metabolic profile of patients with obesity through reduction in cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Lim said.

“If patients qualify for bariatric surgery on the basis of their BMI or comorbidities, they should pursue it for its metabolic benefits, but perhaps consider timely or closer-interval screening colonoscopies to monitor for potential colorectal cancer development,” Dr. Lim added.

When asked to comment on the review, Marina Kurian, MD, president, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, also pointed to the advantages of bariatric surgery in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events and improving hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes.

Bariatric surgery reduces many types of cancers, although the data specific to CRC risk with bariatric surgery are mixed, she added.

“The jury is still out,” said Dr. Kurian, clinical professor of surgery at NYU Langone Health in New York, who was not involved in the review. “There are papers and meta-analyses that show benefit even in colorectal cancer, but then there are a couple of papers out there that suggest a risk that seems to be specific to men.

“It could just be a numbers game, where we may not have enough data. We need more granular data that will help address these nuances and really determine what is the actual risk,” Dr. Kurian said. “But overall, for cancer, bariatric surgery is a win.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Fong and Dr. Lim had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kurian disclosed relationships with Allergan, Allurion, CineMed, CSATS, Ezisurg Medical, Hernon, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Novo, Stryker, and Vivus.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery appears to decrease the risk for some cancers, but it may increase the risk for others, particularly colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a synthesis of current evidence.

“There has been a recent burst of studies examining the association between bariatric surgery and the longitudinal risks of developing cancer,” corresponding author Zhi Ven Fong, MD, MPH, DrPH, surgical oncologist, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview. “However, there has not been a rigorous and critical analysis of the data published to date.”

In evaluating research showing an association between bariatric surgery and longitudinal cancer risk, the investigators found that the quality of the studies and their findings are “heterogeneous and might be susceptible to bias,” Dr. Fong said.

Bariatric surgery appears to have the strongest and most consistent association with the reduction of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer risk, first author Pei-Wen Lim, MD, MS, bariatric surgeon at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization. “However, there have been concerning signals from preclinical and epidemiological studies that bariatric surgery may be associated with a higher risk of developing colorectal cancers,” she added.

The authors cautioned against certain changes in clinical management.

“First, cancer surveillance frequency should not be altered after bariatric surgery because of any assumed reduction in longitudinal cancer risk, and surveillance strategy should mirror that of an average-risk individual,” they wrote. “Secondly, the indications for bariatric surgery should not be expanded for the purpose of cancer-risk mitigation.”

The review was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protection Against Hormone-Related Cancers

The authors pointed to several studies that appear to support the association between bariatric surgery and decreased risk for hormone-related cancers.

Among them is an observational study of 6781 patients in Canada that showed a significant reduction in breast cancer risk at a median follow-up of 5 years in those who had bariatric surgery vs those who did not (P = .01).

The largest study to date on risk for hormone-related cancer after bariatric surgery was conducted using New York State data for 302,883 women.

It showed a lower rate of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers after bariatric surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P < .001), with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conferring the greatest benefit compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (HR, 0.66; P = .006) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (HR, 0.83; P = .006).

Beyond the shared mechanisms explaining obesity and cancer risk, a proposed explanation for the strong, consistent association between bariatric surgery and hormone-sensitive cancers is the role obesity-related changes in estrogen stimulation play in development of such cancers, the authors noted.
 

Association With GI Cancers

The association between bariatric surgery and development of esophageal, gastric, liver, and pancreas cancers is less clear. The data are heterogeneous, with studies showing either no association or decreased longitudinal incidence, the authors reported.

The data are also mixed when it comes to CRC. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated decreased longitudinal incidence of colon and rectal cancer after bariatric surgery; however, two studies have suggested an increased CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors noted.

A 15-year study from England that matched 8794 patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with 8794 patients with obesity who did not have the surgery showed that gastric bypass (but not gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy) was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing colon and rectal cancer (odds ratio, 2.63).

These findings were corroborated in a Swedish cohort study with more than 10 years of follow-up data.

One potential explanation for the heterogeneous findings is that “present studies do not discriminate the sub-types of colon and rectal cancer, with bariatric surgery possibly increasing the incidence of colitis-associated cancers but not hereditary cancers,” the authors wrote.

“The mechanism by which gastric bypass may increase the risk of colorectal cancer is through changes in the gut’s microbiome. These changes in gut flora may triumph the protective effect of weight loss on the development of colorectal cancers,” Dr. Fong said.

Prospective studies are necessary to better delineate CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors wrote.
 

Benefits Outweigh Risk

“Ultimately, it has been proven that bariatric surgery saves lives by improving the metabolic profile of patients with obesity through reduction in cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Lim said.

“If patients qualify for bariatric surgery on the basis of their BMI or comorbidities, they should pursue it for its metabolic benefits, but perhaps consider timely or closer-interval screening colonoscopies to monitor for potential colorectal cancer development,” Dr. Lim added.

When asked to comment on the review, Marina Kurian, MD, president, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, also pointed to the advantages of bariatric surgery in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events and improving hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes.

Bariatric surgery reduces many types of cancers, although the data specific to CRC risk with bariatric surgery are mixed, she added.

“The jury is still out,” said Dr. Kurian, clinical professor of surgery at NYU Langone Health in New York, who was not involved in the review. “There are papers and meta-analyses that show benefit even in colorectal cancer, but then there are a couple of papers out there that suggest a risk that seems to be specific to men.

“It could just be a numbers game, where we may not have enough data. We need more granular data that will help address these nuances and really determine what is the actual risk,” Dr. Kurian said. “But overall, for cancer, bariatric surgery is a win.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Fong and Dr. Lim had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kurian disclosed relationships with Allergan, Allurion, CineMed, CSATS, Ezisurg Medical, Hernon, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Novo, Stryker, and Vivus.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery appears to decrease the risk for some cancers, but it may increase the risk for others, particularly colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a synthesis of current evidence.

“There has been a recent burst of studies examining the association between bariatric surgery and the longitudinal risks of developing cancer,” corresponding author Zhi Ven Fong, MD, MPH, DrPH, surgical oncologist, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview. “However, there has not been a rigorous and critical analysis of the data published to date.”

In evaluating research showing an association between bariatric surgery and longitudinal cancer risk, the investigators found that the quality of the studies and their findings are “heterogeneous and might be susceptible to bias,” Dr. Fong said.

Bariatric surgery appears to have the strongest and most consistent association with the reduction of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer risk, first author Pei-Wen Lim, MD, MS, bariatric surgeon at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization. “However, there have been concerning signals from preclinical and epidemiological studies that bariatric surgery may be associated with a higher risk of developing colorectal cancers,” she added.

The authors cautioned against certain changes in clinical management.

“First, cancer surveillance frequency should not be altered after bariatric surgery because of any assumed reduction in longitudinal cancer risk, and surveillance strategy should mirror that of an average-risk individual,” they wrote. “Secondly, the indications for bariatric surgery should not be expanded for the purpose of cancer-risk mitigation.”

The review was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protection Against Hormone-Related Cancers

The authors pointed to several studies that appear to support the association between bariatric surgery and decreased risk for hormone-related cancers.

Among them is an observational study of 6781 patients in Canada that showed a significant reduction in breast cancer risk at a median follow-up of 5 years in those who had bariatric surgery vs those who did not (P = .01).

The largest study to date on risk for hormone-related cancer after bariatric surgery was conducted using New York State data for 302,883 women.

It showed a lower rate of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers after bariatric surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P < .001), with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conferring the greatest benefit compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (HR, 0.66; P = .006) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (HR, 0.83; P = .006).

Beyond the shared mechanisms explaining obesity and cancer risk, a proposed explanation for the strong, consistent association between bariatric surgery and hormone-sensitive cancers is the role obesity-related changes in estrogen stimulation play in development of such cancers, the authors noted.
 

Association With GI Cancers

The association between bariatric surgery and development of esophageal, gastric, liver, and pancreas cancers is less clear. The data are heterogeneous, with studies showing either no association or decreased longitudinal incidence, the authors reported.

The data are also mixed when it comes to CRC. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated decreased longitudinal incidence of colon and rectal cancer after bariatric surgery; however, two studies have suggested an increased CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors noted.

A 15-year study from England that matched 8794 patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with 8794 patients with obesity who did not have the surgery showed that gastric bypass (but not gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy) was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing colon and rectal cancer (odds ratio, 2.63).

These findings were corroborated in a Swedish cohort study with more than 10 years of follow-up data.

One potential explanation for the heterogeneous findings is that “present studies do not discriminate the sub-types of colon and rectal cancer, with bariatric surgery possibly increasing the incidence of colitis-associated cancers but not hereditary cancers,” the authors wrote.

“The mechanism by which gastric bypass may increase the risk of colorectal cancer is through changes in the gut’s microbiome. These changes in gut flora may triumph the protective effect of weight loss on the development of colorectal cancers,” Dr. Fong said.

Prospective studies are necessary to better delineate CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors wrote.
 

Benefits Outweigh Risk

“Ultimately, it has been proven that bariatric surgery saves lives by improving the metabolic profile of patients with obesity through reduction in cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Lim said.

“If patients qualify for bariatric surgery on the basis of their BMI or comorbidities, they should pursue it for its metabolic benefits, but perhaps consider timely or closer-interval screening colonoscopies to monitor for potential colorectal cancer development,” Dr. Lim added.

When asked to comment on the review, Marina Kurian, MD, president, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, also pointed to the advantages of bariatric surgery in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events and improving hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes.

Bariatric surgery reduces many types of cancers, although the data specific to CRC risk with bariatric surgery are mixed, she added.

“The jury is still out,” said Dr. Kurian, clinical professor of surgery at NYU Langone Health in New York, who was not involved in the review. “There are papers and meta-analyses that show benefit even in colorectal cancer, but then there are a couple of papers out there that suggest a risk that seems to be specific to men.

“It could just be a numbers game, where we may not have enough data. We need more granular data that will help address these nuances and really determine what is the actual risk,” Dr. Kurian said. “But overall, for cancer, bariatric surgery is a win.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Fong and Dr. Lim had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kurian disclosed relationships with Allergan, Allurion, CineMed, CSATS, Ezisurg Medical, Hernon, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Novo, Stryker, and Vivus.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with Cushing disease have an increased risk for new-onset autoimmune disease in the 3 years after surgical remission, according to a new retrospective study published on February 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Outcomes for patients with Cushing disease were compared against those with nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs). New-onset autoimmune disease occurred in 10.4% with Cushing disease and 1.6% among patients with NFPA (hazard ratio, 7.80; 95% CI, 2.88-21.10).

“Understanding and recognizing new and recurrent autoimmune disease in this setting is important to avoid misclassifying such patients with glucocorticoid withdrawal syndrome, which could result in failure to treat underlying autoimmune disease, as well as erroneous diagnosis of steroid withdrawal cases,” wrote Dennis Delasi Nyanyo of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

Given the general population’s annual incidence of major autoimmune diseases, estimated at about 100 cases per 100,000 people, and the 3-year incidence of 10.4% found in this study’s cohort, “our findings suggest that Cushing disease remission may trigger development of autoimmune disease,” the authors wrote.
 

Monitor Patients With Family History of Autoimmune Disease?

The study results were not necessarily surprising to Anthony P. Heaney, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, because past research has raised similar questions. The authors’ suggestion that the rapid postsurgical drop in cortisol that occurs as a result of treating Cushing disease becomes some sort of autoimmune trigger is interesting but remains speculative, Dr. Heaney pointed out.

If future evidence supports that possibility, “it would suggest, in terms of managing those patients in the postoperative setting, that there may be some merit to giving them higher concentrations of glucocorticoids for a short period of time,” Dr. Heaney said, thereby bringing their levels down more gradually rather than taking them off a cliff, in a sense. Or, if more evidence bears out the authors’ hypothesis, another approach might be treating patients with medicine to bring down the cortisol before surgery, though there are challenges to that approach, Dr. Heaney said.

At the same time, those who developed new autoimmune disease remain a small subset of patients with Cushing disease, so such approaches may become only potentially appropriate to consider in patients with risk factors, such as a family history of autoimmune disease.

The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients who underwent transsphenoidal surgery for either Cushing disease or NFPA at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2005 and 2019.

The study involved 194 patients with Cushing disease who had postsurgical remission and at least one follow-up visit with a pituitary expert and 92 patients with NFPA who were matched to patients with Cushing disease based on age and sex. The authors regarded autoimmune disease diagnosed within 36 months of the surgery to be temporally associated with Cushing disease remission. Among the autoimmune diseases considered were “rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, autoimmune thyroiditis, celiac disease, psoriasis, vitiligo, autoimmune neuropathy, multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, and ulcerative colitis.”

Patients differed in average body mass index and tumor size, but family history of autoimmune disease was similar in both groups. Average BMI was 34.5 in the Cushing group and 29.5 in the NFPA group. Average tumor size was 5.7 mm in the Cushing group and 21.3 mm in the NFPA group.

Before surgery, 2.9% of patients with Cushing disease and 15.4% of patients with NFPA had central hypothyroidism, and 8% in the Cushing group and 56.8% in the NFPA group had hyperprolactinemia. Central adrenal insufficiency occurred in 11% with NFPA and in all with Cushing disease, by definition.

After surgery, 93.8% in the Cushing group and 16.5% in the NFPA group had adrenal insufficiency. In addition, patients with Cushing disease had lower postsurgical nadir serum cortisol levels (63.8 nmol/L) than those with NFPA (282.3 nmol/L).

Of the 17 patients with Cushing disease — all women — who developed autoimmune disease within 3 years, 6 had a personal history of autoimmune disease and 7 had a family history of it. In addition, 41.2% of them had adrenal insufficiency when they developed the new autoimmune disease. Among the diseases were six autoimmune thyroiditis cases, three Sjögren syndrome cases, and two autoimmune seronegative spondyloarthropathy.

Dr. Heaney said he found it interesting that more than half of the new autoimmune diseases in patients with Cushing disease were related to the thyroid. “In this kind of setting, where you have a patient who has been producing too much steroid over a period of time and then you take that away, it’s almost like you release a brake on the TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone],” Dr. Heaney said. “So, there’s probably some rebound in TSH that occurs, and that could be driving the thyroiditis, to some extent, that we see in these patients.”

Only one patient with NFPA developed new-onset autoimmune disease, a woman who developed Graves disease 22 months after surgery. When the researchers excluded patients in both groups with central hypothyroidism, new-onset autoimmune disease was still significantly higher (11.4%) in the Cushing group than in the NFPA group (1.9%; HR, 7.02; 95% CI, 2.54-19.39).
 

Could Postoperative Adrenal Insufficiency Contribute to Risk?

Within the Cushing cohort, those who developed autoimmune disease had a lower BMI (31.8 vs 34.8) and larger tumor size (7.2 vs 5.6 mm) than those who didn’t develop new autoimmune disease. Patients who developed autoimmune disease also had a lower baseline urine free cortisol ratio (2.7 vs 6.3) before surgery and more family history of autoimmune disease (41.2% vs 20.9%) than those who didn’t develop one.

“The higher prevalence of adrenal insufficiency and the lower nadir serum cortisol levels in the Cushing disease group suggest that the postoperative adrenal insufficiency in the Cushing disease group might have contributed to autoimmune disease pathogenesis,” the authors wrote. “This finding is clinically significant because cortisol plays a pivotal role in modulating the immune system.”

Most postoperative management among patients with Cushing disease was similar, with all but one patient receiving 0.5 or 1 mg daily dexamethasone within the first week after surgery. (The one outlier received 5 mg daily prednisone.) However, fewer patients who developed autoimmune disease (17.6%) received supraphysiologic doses of glucocorticoid — equivalent to at least 25 mg hydrocortisone — compared with patients who didn’t develop autoimmune disease (41.8%).

“Although the daily average hydrocortisone equivalent replacement doses within the first month and during long-term follow-up were within the physiologic range in both subgroups, patients with Cushing disease who had autoimmune disease received slightly lower doses of glucocorticoid replacement within the first month after surgery,” the authors reported. “The immediate postoperative period might be a critical window where supraphysiologic glucocorticoids seem to be protective with regard to development of autoimmune disease,” they wrote, though they acknowledged the study’s retrospective design as a limitation in drawing that conclusion.

At the least, they suggested that new symptoms in patients with Cushing disease, particularly those with a family history of autoimmune disease, should prompt investigation of potential autoimmune disease.

Recordati Rare Diseases funded the study. The research was also conducted with support from Harvard Catalyst (the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center) as well as financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers. One author reported holding stocks in Pfizer and Amgen, and another reported receiving consulting fees from Corcept. Dr. Heaney reported receiving institutional grants for trials from Corcept, Ascendis, Crinetics, and Sparrow Pharm; serving on the advisory board for Xeris, Recordati, Corcept, Novo Nordisk, Lundbeck, and Crinetics; and serving as a speaker for Chiesi, Novo Nordisk, and Corcept.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with Cushing disease have an increased risk for new-onset autoimmune disease in the 3 years after surgical remission, according to a new retrospective study published on February 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Outcomes for patients with Cushing disease were compared against those with nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs). New-onset autoimmune disease occurred in 10.4% with Cushing disease and 1.6% among patients with NFPA (hazard ratio, 7.80; 95% CI, 2.88-21.10).

“Understanding and recognizing new and recurrent autoimmune disease in this setting is important to avoid misclassifying such patients with glucocorticoid withdrawal syndrome, which could result in failure to treat underlying autoimmune disease, as well as erroneous diagnosis of steroid withdrawal cases,” wrote Dennis Delasi Nyanyo of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

Given the general population’s annual incidence of major autoimmune diseases, estimated at about 100 cases per 100,000 people, and the 3-year incidence of 10.4% found in this study’s cohort, “our findings suggest that Cushing disease remission may trigger development of autoimmune disease,” the authors wrote.
 

Monitor Patients With Family History of Autoimmune Disease?

The study results were not necessarily surprising to Anthony P. Heaney, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, because past research has raised similar questions. The authors’ suggestion that the rapid postsurgical drop in cortisol that occurs as a result of treating Cushing disease becomes some sort of autoimmune trigger is interesting but remains speculative, Dr. Heaney pointed out.

If future evidence supports that possibility, “it would suggest, in terms of managing those patients in the postoperative setting, that there may be some merit to giving them higher concentrations of glucocorticoids for a short period of time,” Dr. Heaney said, thereby bringing their levels down more gradually rather than taking them off a cliff, in a sense. Or, if more evidence bears out the authors’ hypothesis, another approach might be treating patients with medicine to bring down the cortisol before surgery, though there are challenges to that approach, Dr. Heaney said.

At the same time, those who developed new autoimmune disease remain a small subset of patients with Cushing disease, so such approaches may become only potentially appropriate to consider in patients with risk factors, such as a family history of autoimmune disease.

The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients who underwent transsphenoidal surgery for either Cushing disease or NFPA at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2005 and 2019.

The study involved 194 patients with Cushing disease who had postsurgical remission and at least one follow-up visit with a pituitary expert and 92 patients with NFPA who were matched to patients with Cushing disease based on age and sex. The authors regarded autoimmune disease diagnosed within 36 months of the surgery to be temporally associated with Cushing disease remission. Among the autoimmune diseases considered were “rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, autoimmune thyroiditis, celiac disease, psoriasis, vitiligo, autoimmune neuropathy, multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, and ulcerative colitis.”

Patients differed in average body mass index and tumor size, but family history of autoimmune disease was similar in both groups. Average BMI was 34.5 in the Cushing group and 29.5 in the NFPA group. Average tumor size was 5.7 mm in the Cushing group and 21.3 mm in the NFPA group.

Before surgery, 2.9% of patients with Cushing disease and 15.4% of patients with NFPA had central hypothyroidism, and 8% in the Cushing group and 56.8% in the NFPA group had hyperprolactinemia. Central adrenal insufficiency occurred in 11% with NFPA and in all with Cushing disease, by definition.

After surgery, 93.8% in the Cushing group and 16.5% in the NFPA group had adrenal insufficiency. In addition, patients with Cushing disease had lower postsurgical nadir serum cortisol levels (63.8 nmol/L) than those with NFPA (282.3 nmol/L).

Of the 17 patients with Cushing disease — all women — who developed autoimmune disease within 3 years, 6 had a personal history of autoimmune disease and 7 had a family history of it. In addition, 41.2% of them had adrenal insufficiency when they developed the new autoimmune disease. Among the diseases were six autoimmune thyroiditis cases, three Sjögren syndrome cases, and two autoimmune seronegative spondyloarthropathy.

Dr. Heaney said he found it interesting that more than half of the new autoimmune diseases in patients with Cushing disease were related to the thyroid. “In this kind of setting, where you have a patient who has been producing too much steroid over a period of time and then you take that away, it’s almost like you release a brake on the TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone],” Dr. Heaney said. “So, there’s probably some rebound in TSH that occurs, and that could be driving the thyroiditis, to some extent, that we see in these patients.”

Only one patient with NFPA developed new-onset autoimmune disease, a woman who developed Graves disease 22 months after surgery. When the researchers excluded patients in both groups with central hypothyroidism, new-onset autoimmune disease was still significantly higher (11.4%) in the Cushing group than in the NFPA group (1.9%; HR, 7.02; 95% CI, 2.54-19.39).
 

Could Postoperative Adrenal Insufficiency Contribute to Risk?

Within the Cushing cohort, those who developed autoimmune disease had a lower BMI (31.8 vs 34.8) and larger tumor size (7.2 vs 5.6 mm) than those who didn’t develop new autoimmune disease. Patients who developed autoimmune disease also had a lower baseline urine free cortisol ratio (2.7 vs 6.3) before surgery and more family history of autoimmune disease (41.2% vs 20.9%) than those who didn’t develop one.

“The higher prevalence of adrenal insufficiency and the lower nadir serum cortisol levels in the Cushing disease group suggest that the postoperative adrenal insufficiency in the Cushing disease group might have contributed to autoimmune disease pathogenesis,” the authors wrote. “This finding is clinically significant because cortisol plays a pivotal role in modulating the immune system.”

Most postoperative management among patients with Cushing disease was similar, with all but one patient receiving 0.5 or 1 mg daily dexamethasone within the first week after surgery. (The one outlier received 5 mg daily prednisone.) However, fewer patients who developed autoimmune disease (17.6%) received supraphysiologic doses of glucocorticoid — equivalent to at least 25 mg hydrocortisone — compared with patients who didn’t develop autoimmune disease (41.8%).

“Although the daily average hydrocortisone equivalent replacement doses within the first month and during long-term follow-up were within the physiologic range in both subgroups, patients with Cushing disease who had autoimmune disease received slightly lower doses of glucocorticoid replacement within the first month after surgery,” the authors reported. “The immediate postoperative period might be a critical window where supraphysiologic glucocorticoids seem to be protective with regard to development of autoimmune disease,” they wrote, though they acknowledged the study’s retrospective design as a limitation in drawing that conclusion.

At the least, they suggested that new symptoms in patients with Cushing disease, particularly those with a family history of autoimmune disease, should prompt investigation of potential autoimmune disease.

Recordati Rare Diseases funded the study. The research was also conducted with support from Harvard Catalyst (the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center) as well as financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers. One author reported holding stocks in Pfizer and Amgen, and another reported receiving consulting fees from Corcept. Dr. Heaney reported receiving institutional grants for trials from Corcept, Ascendis, Crinetics, and Sparrow Pharm; serving on the advisory board for Xeris, Recordati, Corcept, Novo Nordisk, Lundbeck, and Crinetics; and serving as a speaker for Chiesi, Novo Nordisk, and Corcept.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with Cushing disease have an increased risk for new-onset autoimmune disease in the 3 years after surgical remission, according to a new retrospective study published on February 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Outcomes for patients with Cushing disease were compared against those with nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs). New-onset autoimmune disease occurred in 10.4% with Cushing disease and 1.6% among patients with NFPA (hazard ratio, 7.80; 95% CI, 2.88-21.10).

“Understanding and recognizing new and recurrent autoimmune disease in this setting is important to avoid misclassifying such patients with glucocorticoid withdrawal syndrome, which could result in failure to treat underlying autoimmune disease, as well as erroneous diagnosis of steroid withdrawal cases,” wrote Dennis Delasi Nyanyo of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

Given the general population’s annual incidence of major autoimmune diseases, estimated at about 100 cases per 100,000 people, and the 3-year incidence of 10.4% found in this study’s cohort, “our findings suggest that Cushing disease remission may trigger development of autoimmune disease,” the authors wrote.
 

Monitor Patients With Family History of Autoimmune Disease?

The study results were not necessarily surprising to Anthony P. Heaney, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, because past research has raised similar questions. The authors’ suggestion that the rapid postsurgical drop in cortisol that occurs as a result of treating Cushing disease becomes some sort of autoimmune trigger is interesting but remains speculative, Dr. Heaney pointed out.

If future evidence supports that possibility, “it would suggest, in terms of managing those patients in the postoperative setting, that there may be some merit to giving them higher concentrations of glucocorticoids for a short period of time,” Dr. Heaney said, thereby bringing their levels down more gradually rather than taking them off a cliff, in a sense. Or, if more evidence bears out the authors’ hypothesis, another approach might be treating patients with medicine to bring down the cortisol before surgery, though there are challenges to that approach, Dr. Heaney said.

At the same time, those who developed new autoimmune disease remain a small subset of patients with Cushing disease, so such approaches may become only potentially appropriate to consider in patients with risk factors, such as a family history of autoimmune disease.

The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients who underwent transsphenoidal surgery for either Cushing disease or NFPA at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2005 and 2019.

The study involved 194 patients with Cushing disease who had postsurgical remission and at least one follow-up visit with a pituitary expert and 92 patients with NFPA who were matched to patients with Cushing disease based on age and sex. The authors regarded autoimmune disease diagnosed within 36 months of the surgery to be temporally associated with Cushing disease remission. Among the autoimmune diseases considered were “rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, autoimmune thyroiditis, celiac disease, psoriasis, vitiligo, autoimmune neuropathy, multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, and ulcerative colitis.”

Patients differed in average body mass index and tumor size, but family history of autoimmune disease was similar in both groups. Average BMI was 34.5 in the Cushing group and 29.5 in the NFPA group. Average tumor size was 5.7 mm in the Cushing group and 21.3 mm in the NFPA group.

Before surgery, 2.9% of patients with Cushing disease and 15.4% of patients with NFPA had central hypothyroidism, and 8% in the Cushing group and 56.8% in the NFPA group had hyperprolactinemia. Central adrenal insufficiency occurred in 11% with NFPA and in all with Cushing disease, by definition.

After surgery, 93.8% in the Cushing group and 16.5% in the NFPA group had adrenal insufficiency. In addition, patients with Cushing disease had lower postsurgical nadir serum cortisol levels (63.8 nmol/L) than those with NFPA (282.3 nmol/L).

Of the 17 patients with Cushing disease — all women — who developed autoimmune disease within 3 years, 6 had a personal history of autoimmune disease and 7 had a family history of it. In addition, 41.2% of them had adrenal insufficiency when they developed the new autoimmune disease. Among the diseases were six autoimmune thyroiditis cases, three Sjögren syndrome cases, and two autoimmune seronegative spondyloarthropathy.

Dr. Heaney said he found it interesting that more than half of the new autoimmune diseases in patients with Cushing disease were related to the thyroid. “In this kind of setting, where you have a patient who has been producing too much steroid over a period of time and then you take that away, it’s almost like you release a brake on the TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone],” Dr. Heaney said. “So, there’s probably some rebound in TSH that occurs, and that could be driving the thyroiditis, to some extent, that we see in these patients.”

Only one patient with NFPA developed new-onset autoimmune disease, a woman who developed Graves disease 22 months after surgery. When the researchers excluded patients in both groups with central hypothyroidism, new-onset autoimmune disease was still significantly higher (11.4%) in the Cushing group than in the NFPA group (1.9%; HR, 7.02; 95% CI, 2.54-19.39).
 

Could Postoperative Adrenal Insufficiency Contribute to Risk?

Within the Cushing cohort, those who developed autoimmune disease had a lower BMI (31.8 vs 34.8) and larger tumor size (7.2 vs 5.6 mm) than those who didn’t develop new autoimmune disease. Patients who developed autoimmune disease also had a lower baseline urine free cortisol ratio (2.7 vs 6.3) before surgery and more family history of autoimmune disease (41.2% vs 20.9%) than those who didn’t develop one.

“The higher prevalence of adrenal insufficiency and the lower nadir serum cortisol levels in the Cushing disease group suggest that the postoperative adrenal insufficiency in the Cushing disease group might have contributed to autoimmune disease pathogenesis,” the authors wrote. “This finding is clinically significant because cortisol plays a pivotal role in modulating the immune system.”

Most postoperative management among patients with Cushing disease was similar, with all but one patient receiving 0.5 or 1 mg daily dexamethasone within the first week after surgery. (The one outlier received 5 mg daily prednisone.) However, fewer patients who developed autoimmune disease (17.6%) received supraphysiologic doses of glucocorticoid — equivalent to at least 25 mg hydrocortisone — compared with patients who didn’t develop autoimmune disease (41.8%).

“Although the daily average hydrocortisone equivalent replacement doses within the first month and during long-term follow-up were within the physiologic range in both subgroups, patients with Cushing disease who had autoimmune disease received slightly lower doses of glucocorticoid replacement within the first month after surgery,” the authors reported. “The immediate postoperative period might be a critical window where supraphysiologic glucocorticoids seem to be protective with regard to development of autoimmune disease,” they wrote, though they acknowledged the study’s retrospective design as a limitation in drawing that conclusion.

At the least, they suggested that new symptoms in patients with Cushing disease, particularly those with a family history of autoimmune disease, should prompt investigation of potential autoimmune disease.

Recordati Rare Diseases funded the study. The research was also conducted with support from Harvard Catalyst (the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center) as well as financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers. One author reported holding stocks in Pfizer and Amgen, and another reported receiving consulting fees from Corcept. Dr. Heaney reported receiving institutional grants for trials from Corcept, Ascendis, Crinetics, and Sparrow Pharm; serving on the advisory board for Xeris, Recordati, Corcept, Novo Nordisk, Lundbeck, and Crinetics; and serving as a speaker for Chiesi, Novo Nordisk, and Corcept.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Hear Patients Out

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

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

Help Patients Rethink Requests

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

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

Use Safety Concerns as an Out

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

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

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

Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly

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

You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Hear Patients Out

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

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

Help Patients Rethink Requests

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

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

Use Safety Concerns as an Out

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

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

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

Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly

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

You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Hear Patients Out

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

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

Help Patients Rethink Requests

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

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

Use Safety Concerns as an Out

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

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

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

Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly

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

You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.