MDedge Surgery

The same dye that gives Twinkies their yellowish hue could be the key to invisibility. 

Applying the dye to lab mice made their skin temporarily transparent, allowing Stanford University researchers to observe the rodents’ digestive system, muscle fibers, and blood vessels, according to a study published in Science.

“It’s a stunning result,” said senior author Guosong Hong, PhD, who is assistant professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford University in California. “If the same technique could be applied to humans, it could offer a variety of benefits in biology, diagnostics, and even cosmetics.” 

The work drew upon optical concepts first described in the early 20th century to form a surprising theory: Applying a light-absorbing substance could render skin transparent by reducing the chaotic scattering of light as it strikes proteins, fats, and water in tissue. 

A search for a suitable light absorber led to FD&C Yellow 5, also called tartrazine, a synthetic color additive certified by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in foods, cosmetics, and medications. 

Rubbed on live mice (after areas of fur were removed using a drugstore depilatory cream), tartrazine rendered skin on their bellies, hind legs, and heads transparent within 5 minutes. With the naked eye, the researchers watched a mouse’s intestines, bladder, and liver at work. Using a microscope, they observed muscle fibers and saw blood vessels in a living mouse’s brain — all without making incisions. Transparency faded quickly when the dye was washed off.

Someday, the concept could be used in doctors’ offices and hospitals, Dr. Hong said. 

“Instead of relying on invasive biopsies, doctors might be able to diagnose deep-seated tumors by simply examining a person’s tissue without the need for invasive surgical removal,” he said. “This technique could potentially make blood draws less painful by helping phlebotomists easily locate veins under the skin. It could also enhance procedures like laser tattoo removal by allowing more precise targeting of the pigment beneath the skin.”
 

From Cake Frosting to Groundbreaking Research

Yellow 5 food dye can be found in everything from cereal, soda, spices, and cake frosting to lipstick, mouthwash, shampoo, dietary supplements, and house paint. Although it’s in some topical medications, more research is needed before it could be used in human diagnostics, said Christopher J. Rowlands, PhD, a senior lecturer in the Department of Bioengineering at Imperial College London, England, where he studies biophotonic instrumentation — ways to image structures inside the body more quickly and clearly. 

But the finding could prove useful in research. In a commentary published in Science, Dr. Rowlands and his colleague Jon Gorecki, PhD, an experimental optical physicist also at Imperial College London, noted that the dye could be an alternative to other optical clearing agents currently used in lab studies, such as glycerol, fructose, or acetic acid. Advantages are the effect is reversible and works at lower concentrations with fewer side effects. This could broaden the types of studies possible in lab animals, so researchers don’t have to rely on naturally transparent creatures like nematodes and zebrafish. 

The dye could also be paired with imaging techniques such as MRI or electron microscopy. 

“Imaging techniques all have pros and cons,” Dr. Rowlands said. “MRI can see all the way through the body albeit with limited resolution and contrast. Electron microscopy has excellent resolution but limited compatibility with live tissue and penetration depth. Optical microscopy has subcellular resolution, the ability to label things, excellent biocompatibility but less than 1 millimeter of penetration depth. This clearing method will give a substantial boost to optical imaging for medicine and biology.”

The discovery could improve the depth imaging equipment can achieve by tenfold, according to the commentary. 

Brain research especially stands to benefit. “Neurobiology in particular will have great use for combinations of multiphoton, optogenetics, and tissue clearing to record and control neural activity over (potentially) the whole mouse brain,” he said.
 

Refraction, Absorption, and The Invisible Man

The dye discovery has distant echoes in H.G. Wells’ 1897 novel The Invisible Man, Dr. Rowlands noted. In the book, a serum makes the main character invisible by changing the light scattering — or refractive index (RI) — of his cells to match the air around him.

The Stanford engineers looked to the past for inspiration, but not to fiction. They turned to a concept first described in the 1920s called the Kramers-Kronig relations, a mathematical principle that can be applied to relationships between the way light is refracted and absorbed in different materials. They also read up on Lorentz oscillation, which describes how electrons and atoms inside molecules react to light. 

They reasoned that light-absorbing compounds could equalize the differences between the light-scattering properties of proteins, lipids, and water that make skin opaque. 

With that, the search was on. The study’s first author, postdoctoral researcher Zihao Ou, PhD, began testing strong dyes to find a candidate. Tartrazine was a front-runner. 

“We found that dye molecules are more efficient in raising the refractive index of water than conventional RI-matching agents, thus resulting in transparency at a much lower concentration,” Dr. Hong said. “The underlying physics, explained by the Lorentz oscillator model and Kramers-Kronig relations, reveals that conventional RI matching agents like fructose are not as efficient because they are not ‘colored’ enough.”
 

What’s Next

Though the dye is already in products that people consume and apply to their skin, medical use is years away. In some people, tartrazine can cause skin or respiratory reactions. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF), which helped fund the research, posted a home or classroom activity related to the work on its website. It involves painting a tartrazine solution on a thin slice of raw chicken breast, making it transparent. The experiment should only be done while wearing a mask, eye protection, lab coat, and lab-quality nitrile gloves for protection, according to the NSF.

Meanwhile, Dr. Hong said his lab is looking for new compounds that will improve visibility through transparent skin, removing a red tone seen in the current experiments. And they’re looking for ways to induce cells to make their own “see-through” compounds. 

“We are exploring methods for cells to express intensely absorbing molecules endogenously, enabling genetically encoded tissue transparency in live animals,” he said.

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

The same dye that gives Twinkies their yellowish hue could be the key to invisibility. 

Applying the dye to lab mice made their skin temporarily transparent, allowing Stanford University researchers to observe the rodents’ digestive system, muscle fibers, and blood vessels, according to a study published in Science.

“It’s a stunning result,” said senior author Guosong Hong, PhD, who is assistant professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford University in California. “If the same technique could be applied to humans, it could offer a variety of benefits in biology, diagnostics, and even cosmetics.” 

The work drew upon optical concepts first described in the early 20th century to form a surprising theory: Applying a light-absorbing substance could render skin transparent by reducing the chaotic scattering of light as it strikes proteins, fats, and water in tissue. 

A search for a suitable light absorber led to FD&C Yellow 5, also called tartrazine, a synthetic color additive certified by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in foods, cosmetics, and medications. 

Rubbed on live mice (after areas of fur were removed using a drugstore depilatory cream), tartrazine rendered skin on their bellies, hind legs, and heads transparent within 5 minutes. With the naked eye, the researchers watched a mouse’s intestines, bladder, and liver at work. Using a microscope, they observed muscle fibers and saw blood vessels in a living mouse’s brain — all without making incisions. Transparency faded quickly when the dye was washed off.

Someday, the concept could be used in doctors’ offices and hospitals, Dr. Hong said. 

“Instead of relying on invasive biopsies, doctors might be able to diagnose deep-seated tumors by simply examining a person’s tissue without the need for invasive surgical removal,” he said. “This technique could potentially make blood draws less painful by helping phlebotomists easily locate veins under the skin. It could also enhance procedures like laser tattoo removal by allowing more precise targeting of the pigment beneath the skin.”
 

From Cake Frosting to Groundbreaking Research

Yellow 5 food dye can be found in everything from cereal, soda, spices, and cake frosting to lipstick, mouthwash, shampoo, dietary supplements, and house paint. Although it’s in some topical medications, more research is needed before it could be used in human diagnostics, said Christopher J. Rowlands, PhD, a senior lecturer in the Department of Bioengineering at Imperial College London, England, where he studies biophotonic instrumentation — ways to image structures inside the body more quickly and clearly. 

But the finding could prove useful in research. In a commentary published in Science, Dr. Rowlands and his colleague Jon Gorecki, PhD, an experimental optical physicist also at Imperial College London, noted that the dye could be an alternative to other optical clearing agents currently used in lab studies, such as glycerol, fructose, or acetic acid. Advantages are the effect is reversible and works at lower concentrations with fewer side effects. This could broaden the types of studies possible in lab animals, so researchers don’t have to rely on naturally transparent creatures like nematodes and zebrafish. 

The dye could also be paired with imaging techniques such as MRI or electron microscopy. 

“Imaging techniques all have pros and cons,” Dr. Rowlands said. “MRI can see all the way through the body albeit with limited resolution and contrast. Electron microscopy has excellent resolution but limited compatibility with live tissue and penetration depth. Optical microscopy has subcellular resolution, the ability to label things, excellent biocompatibility but less than 1 millimeter of penetration depth. This clearing method will give a substantial boost to optical imaging for medicine and biology.”

The discovery could improve the depth imaging equipment can achieve by tenfold, according to the commentary. 

Brain research especially stands to benefit. “Neurobiology in particular will have great use for combinations of multiphoton, optogenetics, and tissue clearing to record and control neural activity over (potentially) the whole mouse brain,” he said.
 

Refraction, Absorption, and The Invisible Man

The dye discovery has distant echoes in H.G. Wells’ 1897 novel The Invisible Man, Dr. Rowlands noted. In the book, a serum makes the main character invisible by changing the light scattering — or refractive index (RI) — of his cells to match the air around him.

The Stanford engineers looked to the past for inspiration, but not to fiction. They turned to a concept first described in the 1920s called the Kramers-Kronig relations, a mathematical principle that can be applied to relationships between the way light is refracted and absorbed in different materials. They also read up on Lorentz oscillation, which describes how electrons and atoms inside molecules react to light. 

They reasoned that light-absorbing compounds could equalize the differences between the light-scattering properties of proteins, lipids, and water that make skin opaque. 

With that, the search was on. The study’s first author, postdoctoral researcher Zihao Ou, PhD, began testing strong dyes to find a candidate. Tartrazine was a front-runner. 

“We found that dye molecules are more efficient in raising the refractive index of water than conventional RI-matching agents, thus resulting in transparency at a much lower concentration,” Dr. Hong said. “The underlying physics, explained by the Lorentz oscillator model and Kramers-Kronig relations, reveals that conventional RI matching agents like fructose are not as efficient because they are not ‘colored’ enough.”
 

What’s Next

Though the dye is already in products that people consume and apply to their skin, medical use is years away. In some people, tartrazine can cause skin or respiratory reactions. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF), which helped fund the research, posted a home or classroom activity related to the work on its website. It involves painting a tartrazine solution on a thin slice of raw chicken breast, making it transparent. The experiment should only be done while wearing a mask, eye protection, lab coat, and lab-quality nitrile gloves for protection, according to the NSF.

Meanwhile, Dr. Hong said his lab is looking for new compounds that will improve visibility through transparent skin, removing a red tone seen in the current experiments. And they’re looking for ways to induce cells to make their own “see-through” compounds. 

“We are exploring methods for cells to express intensely absorbing molecules endogenously, enabling genetically encoded tissue transparency in live animals,” he said.

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

The same dye that gives Twinkies their yellowish hue could be the key to invisibility. 

Applying the dye to lab mice made their skin temporarily transparent, allowing Stanford University researchers to observe the rodents’ digestive system, muscle fibers, and blood vessels, according to a study published in Science.

“It’s a stunning result,” said senior author Guosong Hong, PhD, who is assistant professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford University in California. “If the same technique could be applied to humans, it could offer a variety of benefits in biology, diagnostics, and even cosmetics.” 

The work drew upon optical concepts first described in the early 20th century to form a surprising theory: Applying a light-absorbing substance could render skin transparent by reducing the chaotic scattering of light as it strikes proteins, fats, and water in tissue. 

A search for a suitable light absorber led to FD&C Yellow 5, also called tartrazine, a synthetic color additive certified by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in foods, cosmetics, and medications. 

Rubbed on live mice (after areas of fur were removed using a drugstore depilatory cream), tartrazine rendered skin on their bellies, hind legs, and heads transparent within 5 minutes. With the naked eye, the researchers watched a mouse’s intestines, bladder, and liver at work. Using a microscope, they observed muscle fibers and saw blood vessels in a living mouse’s brain — all without making incisions. Transparency faded quickly when the dye was washed off.

Someday, the concept could be used in doctors’ offices and hospitals, Dr. Hong said. 

“Instead of relying on invasive biopsies, doctors might be able to diagnose deep-seated tumors by simply examining a person’s tissue without the need for invasive surgical removal,” he said. “This technique could potentially make blood draws less painful by helping phlebotomists easily locate veins under the skin. It could also enhance procedures like laser tattoo removal by allowing more precise targeting of the pigment beneath the skin.”
 

From Cake Frosting to Groundbreaking Research

Yellow 5 food dye can be found in everything from cereal, soda, spices, and cake frosting to lipstick, mouthwash, shampoo, dietary supplements, and house paint. Although it’s in some topical medications, more research is needed before it could be used in human diagnostics, said Christopher J. Rowlands, PhD, a senior lecturer in the Department of Bioengineering at Imperial College London, England, where he studies biophotonic instrumentation — ways to image structures inside the body more quickly and clearly. 

But the finding could prove useful in research. In a commentary published in Science, Dr. Rowlands and his colleague Jon Gorecki, PhD, an experimental optical physicist also at Imperial College London, noted that the dye could be an alternative to other optical clearing agents currently used in lab studies, such as glycerol, fructose, or acetic acid. Advantages are the effect is reversible and works at lower concentrations with fewer side effects. This could broaden the types of studies possible in lab animals, so researchers don’t have to rely on naturally transparent creatures like nematodes and zebrafish. 

The dye could also be paired with imaging techniques such as MRI or electron microscopy. 

“Imaging techniques all have pros and cons,” Dr. Rowlands said. “MRI can see all the way through the body albeit with limited resolution and contrast. Electron microscopy has excellent resolution but limited compatibility with live tissue and penetration depth. Optical microscopy has subcellular resolution, the ability to label things, excellent biocompatibility but less than 1 millimeter of penetration depth. This clearing method will give a substantial boost to optical imaging for medicine and biology.”

The discovery could improve the depth imaging equipment can achieve by tenfold, according to the commentary. 

Brain research especially stands to benefit. “Neurobiology in particular will have great use for combinations of multiphoton, optogenetics, and tissue clearing to record and control neural activity over (potentially) the whole mouse brain,” he said.
 

Refraction, Absorption, and The Invisible Man

The dye discovery has distant echoes in H.G. Wells’ 1897 novel The Invisible Man, Dr. Rowlands noted. In the book, a serum makes the main character invisible by changing the light scattering — or refractive index (RI) — of his cells to match the air around him.

The Stanford engineers looked to the past for inspiration, but not to fiction. They turned to a concept first described in the 1920s called the Kramers-Kronig relations, a mathematical principle that can be applied to relationships between the way light is refracted and absorbed in different materials. They also read up on Lorentz oscillation, which describes how electrons and atoms inside molecules react to light. 

They reasoned that light-absorbing compounds could equalize the differences between the light-scattering properties of proteins, lipids, and water that make skin opaque. 

With that, the search was on. The study’s first author, postdoctoral researcher Zihao Ou, PhD, began testing strong dyes to find a candidate. Tartrazine was a front-runner. 

“We found that dye molecules are more efficient in raising the refractive index of water than conventional RI-matching agents, thus resulting in transparency at a much lower concentration,” Dr. Hong said. “The underlying physics, explained by the Lorentz oscillator model and Kramers-Kronig relations, reveals that conventional RI matching agents like fructose are not as efficient because they are not ‘colored’ enough.”
 

What’s Next

Though the dye is already in products that people consume and apply to their skin, medical use is years away. In some people, tartrazine can cause skin or respiratory reactions. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF), which helped fund the research, posted a home or classroom activity related to the work on its website. It involves painting a tartrazine solution on a thin slice of raw chicken breast, making it transparent. The experiment should only be done while wearing a mask, eye protection, lab coat, and lab-quality nitrile gloves for protection, according to the NSF.

Meanwhile, Dr. Hong said his lab is looking for new compounds that will improve visibility through transparent skin, removing a red tone seen in the current experiments. And they’re looking for ways to induce cells to make their own “see-through” compounds. 

“We are exploring methods for cells to express intensely absorbing molecules endogenously, enabling genetically encoded tissue transparency in live animals,” he said.

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

With huge shifts over the past decade in the way doctors are employed — half of all doctors now work for a health system or large medical group — the idea of unionizing is not only being explored but gaining traction within the profession. In fact, 8% of the physician workforce (or 70,000 physicians) belong to a union, according to statistics gathered in 2022.

Exact numbers are hard to come by, and, interestingly, although the American Medical Association (AMA) “ supports the right of physicians to engage in collective bargaining,” the organization doesn’t track union membership among physicians, according to an AMA spokesperson. 
 

Forming a Union

One challenge is that forming a union is not only time-consuming but also difficult, owing to several barriers. For starters, the laws dictating unionization differ by state, and the rules governing unionization vary if a hospital is public or private. If there’s enough momentum from doctors leading unionization efforts, approval from hospital leaders is required before an official election can be requested from the National Labor Relations Board.

That said, for doctors who are in a union — the two most popular are the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the Doctors Council branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—the benefits are immense, especially because union members can focus on what matters, such as providing the best patient care possible.

For a profession that historically has not been unionized, this year alone, nine medical residency programs at hospitals such as Stanford Health, Montefiore Medical Center, and the University of Pennsylvania, formed unions, reported WBUR in Boston.
 

Belonging Matters 

“When you build a relationship with your patients, it’s special, and that connection isn’t replaceable,” said Nicholas VenOsdel, MD, a pediatrician at Allina Health Primary Care in Hastings, Minnesota, and a union member of the Doctors Council. “However, a lot of us have felt like that hasn’t been respected as the climate of healthcare has changed so fast.”

In fact, autonomy over how much time doctors spend with patients is driving a lot of interest in unionization.

“We don’t necessarily have that autonomy now,” said Amber Higgins, MD, an emergency physician and an obstetrician at ChristianaCare, a hospital network in Newark, Delaware, and a member of the Doctors Council. “There are so many other demands, whether it’s billing, patient documentation, or other demands from the employer, and all of that takes time away from patient care.”

Another primary driver of physician unionization is the physician burnout epidemic. Physicians collectively complain that they spend more time on electronic health record documentation and bureaucratic administration. Yet if unions can improve these working conditions, the benefit to physicians and their patients would be a welcome change.

Union members are bullish and believe that having a cohesive voice will make a difference.

“We need to use our collective voices to get back to focusing on patient care instead of staring at a computer screen for 80% of the day,” Dr. Higgins told this news organization. “So much of medicine involves getting to the correct diagnosis, listening to patients, observing them, and building a relationship with them. We need time to build that.”

With corporate consolidation and a profit-driven mandate by healthcare systems, doctors are increasingly frustrated and feel that their voices haven’t been heard enough when it comes to issues like workplace safety, working hours, and benefits, said Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, a family practice physician and president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in Sacramento, California. 

However, he adds that urging doctors to join together to fight for a better working environment hasn’t been easy.

“Doctors are individualists, and they don’t know how to work in packs like hospital administrators do,” said Dr. Bussey. “They’re hard to organize, but I want them to understand that unless they join hands, sign petitions, and speak as one voice, they’re going to lose out on an amazing opportunity.”
 

Overcoming Misperceptions About Unions

One barrier to doctors getting involved is the sentiment that unions might do the opposite of what’s intended — that is, they might further reduce a doctor’s autonomy and work flexibility. Or there may be a perception that the drive to join a union is predicated on making more money. 

Though he’s now in a union, Dr. VenOsdel, who has been in a hospital-based practice for 7 years, admits that he initially felt very differently about unions than he does today.

“Even though I have family members in healthcare unions, I had a neutral to even slightly negative view of unions,” said Dr. VenOsdel. “It took me working directly with the Minnesota Nurses Association and the Doctors Council to learn the other side of the story.”

Armed with more information, he began lobbying for stricter rules about how his state’s large healthcare systems were closing hospitals and ending much-needed community services.

“I remember standing at the Capitol in Minnesota and telling one of the members that I once felt negatively about unions,” he added. “I realized then that I only knew what employers were telling me via such things as emails about strikes — that information was all being shared from the employers’ perspective.”

The other misperception is that unions only exist to argue against management, including against colleagues who are also part of the management structure, said Dr. Higgins.

“Some doctors perceive being in a union as ‘how can those same leaders also be in a union,’” she said. She feels that they currently don’t have leadership representing them that can help with such things as restructuring their support teams or getting them help with certain tasks. “That’s another way unions can help.” 
 

Social Justice Plays a Role

For Dr. VenOsdel, being part of a union has helped him return to what he calls the “art” of medicine.

“Philosophically, the union gave me an option for change in what felt like a hopeless situation,” he said. “It wasn’t just that I was tossing the keys to someone else and saying, ‘I can’t fix this.’ Instead, we’re taking the reins back and fixing things ourselves.”

Bussey argues that as the uneven balance between administrators and providers in many healthcare organizations grows, the time to consider forming a union is now.

“We’re in a $4 trillion medical industrial revolution,” he said. “Administrators and bureaucrats are multiplying 30-fold times vs providers, and most of that $4 trillion supports things that don’t contribute to the doctor-patient relationship.”

Furthermore, union proponents say that where a one-on-one relationship between doctor and patient once existed, that has now been “triangulated” to include administrators.

“We’ve lost power in every way,” Dr. Bussey said. “We have the degrees, the liability, and the knowledge — we should have more power to make our workplaces safer and better.”

Ultimately, for some unionized doctors, the very holding of a union card is rooted in supporting social justice issues.

“When doctors realize how powerful a tool a union can be for social justice and change, this will alter perceptions of unions within our profession,” Dr. VenOsdel said. “Our union helps give us a voice to stand up for other staff who aren’t unionized and, most importantly, to stand up for the patients who need us.”
 

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

With huge shifts over the past decade in the way doctors are employed — half of all doctors now work for a health system or large medical group — the idea of unionizing is not only being explored but gaining traction within the profession. In fact, 8% of the physician workforce (or 70,000 physicians) belong to a union, according to statistics gathered in 2022.

Exact numbers are hard to come by, and, interestingly, although the American Medical Association (AMA) “ supports the right of physicians to engage in collective bargaining,” the organization doesn’t track union membership among physicians, according to an AMA spokesperson. 
 

Forming a Union

One challenge is that forming a union is not only time-consuming but also difficult, owing to several barriers. For starters, the laws dictating unionization differ by state, and the rules governing unionization vary if a hospital is public or private. If there’s enough momentum from doctors leading unionization efforts, approval from hospital leaders is required before an official election can be requested from the National Labor Relations Board.

That said, for doctors who are in a union — the two most popular are the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the Doctors Council branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—the benefits are immense, especially because union members can focus on what matters, such as providing the best patient care possible.

For a profession that historically has not been unionized, this year alone, nine medical residency programs at hospitals such as Stanford Health, Montefiore Medical Center, and the University of Pennsylvania, formed unions, reported WBUR in Boston.
 

Belonging Matters 

“When you build a relationship with your patients, it’s special, and that connection isn’t replaceable,” said Nicholas VenOsdel, MD, a pediatrician at Allina Health Primary Care in Hastings, Minnesota, and a union member of the Doctors Council. “However, a lot of us have felt like that hasn’t been respected as the climate of healthcare has changed so fast.”

In fact, autonomy over how much time doctors spend with patients is driving a lot of interest in unionization.

“We don’t necessarily have that autonomy now,” said Amber Higgins, MD, an emergency physician and an obstetrician at ChristianaCare, a hospital network in Newark, Delaware, and a member of the Doctors Council. “There are so many other demands, whether it’s billing, patient documentation, or other demands from the employer, and all of that takes time away from patient care.”

Another primary driver of physician unionization is the physician burnout epidemic. Physicians collectively complain that they spend more time on electronic health record documentation and bureaucratic administration. Yet if unions can improve these working conditions, the benefit to physicians and their patients would be a welcome change.

Union members are bullish and believe that having a cohesive voice will make a difference.

“We need to use our collective voices to get back to focusing on patient care instead of staring at a computer screen for 80% of the day,” Dr. Higgins told this news organization. “So much of medicine involves getting to the correct diagnosis, listening to patients, observing them, and building a relationship with them. We need time to build that.”

With corporate consolidation and a profit-driven mandate by healthcare systems, doctors are increasingly frustrated and feel that their voices haven’t been heard enough when it comes to issues like workplace safety, working hours, and benefits, said Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, a family practice physician and president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in Sacramento, California. 

However, he adds that urging doctors to join together to fight for a better working environment hasn’t been easy.

“Doctors are individualists, and they don’t know how to work in packs like hospital administrators do,” said Dr. Bussey. “They’re hard to organize, but I want them to understand that unless they join hands, sign petitions, and speak as one voice, they’re going to lose out on an amazing opportunity.”
 

Overcoming Misperceptions About Unions

One barrier to doctors getting involved is the sentiment that unions might do the opposite of what’s intended — that is, they might further reduce a doctor’s autonomy and work flexibility. Or there may be a perception that the drive to join a union is predicated on making more money. 

Though he’s now in a union, Dr. VenOsdel, who has been in a hospital-based practice for 7 years, admits that he initially felt very differently about unions than he does today.

“Even though I have family members in healthcare unions, I had a neutral to even slightly negative view of unions,” said Dr. VenOsdel. “It took me working directly with the Minnesota Nurses Association and the Doctors Council to learn the other side of the story.”

Armed with more information, he began lobbying for stricter rules about how his state’s large healthcare systems were closing hospitals and ending much-needed community services.

“I remember standing at the Capitol in Minnesota and telling one of the members that I once felt negatively about unions,” he added. “I realized then that I only knew what employers were telling me via such things as emails about strikes — that information was all being shared from the employers’ perspective.”

The other misperception is that unions only exist to argue against management, including against colleagues who are also part of the management structure, said Dr. Higgins.

“Some doctors perceive being in a union as ‘how can those same leaders also be in a union,’” she said. She feels that they currently don’t have leadership representing them that can help with such things as restructuring their support teams or getting them help with certain tasks. “That’s another way unions can help.” 
 

Social Justice Plays a Role

For Dr. VenOsdel, being part of a union has helped him return to what he calls the “art” of medicine.

“Philosophically, the union gave me an option for change in what felt like a hopeless situation,” he said. “It wasn’t just that I was tossing the keys to someone else and saying, ‘I can’t fix this.’ Instead, we’re taking the reins back and fixing things ourselves.”

Bussey argues that as the uneven balance between administrators and providers in many healthcare organizations grows, the time to consider forming a union is now.

“We’re in a $4 trillion medical industrial revolution,” he said. “Administrators and bureaucrats are multiplying 30-fold times vs providers, and most of that $4 trillion supports things that don’t contribute to the doctor-patient relationship.”

Furthermore, union proponents say that where a one-on-one relationship between doctor and patient once existed, that has now been “triangulated” to include administrators.

“We’ve lost power in every way,” Dr. Bussey said. “We have the degrees, the liability, and the knowledge — we should have more power to make our workplaces safer and better.”

Ultimately, for some unionized doctors, the very holding of a union card is rooted in supporting social justice issues.

“When doctors realize how powerful a tool a union can be for social justice and change, this will alter perceptions of unions within our profession,” Dr. VenOsdel said. “Our union helps give us a voice to stand up for other staff who aren’t unionized and, most importantly, to stand up for the patients who need us.”
 

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

With huge shifts over the past decade in the way doctors are employed — half of all doctors now work for a health system or large medical group — the idea of unionizing is not only being explored but gaining traction within the profession. In fact, 8% of the physician workforce (or 70,000 physicians) belong to a union, according to statistics gathered in 2022.

Exact numbers are hard to come by, and, interestingly, although the American Medical Association (AMA) “ supports the right of physicians to engage in collective bargaining,” the organization doesn’t track union membership among physicians, according to an AMA spokesperson. 
 

Forming a Union

One challenge is that forming a union is not only time-consuming but also difficult, owing to several barriers. For starters, the laws dictating unionization differ by state, and the rules governing unionization vary if a hospital is public or private. If there’s enough momentum from doctors leading unionization efforts, approval from hospital leaders is required before an official election can be requested from the National Labor Relations Board.

That said, for doctors who are in a union — the two most popular are the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the Doctors Council branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—the benefits are immense, especially because union members can focus on what matters, such as providing the best patient care possible.

For a profession that historically has not been unionized, this year alone, nine medical residency programs at hospitals such as Stanford Health, Montefiore Medical Center, and the University of Pennsylvania, formed unions, reported WBUR in Boston.
 

Belonging Matters 

“When you build a relationship with your patients, it’s special, and that connection isn’t replaceable,” said Nicholas VenOsdel, MD, a pediatrician at Allina Health Primary Care in Hastings, Minnesota, and a union member of the Doctors Council. “However, a lot of us have felt like that hasn’t been respected as the climate of healthcare has changed so fast.”

In fact, autonomy over how much time doctors spend with patients is driving a lot of interest in unionization.

“We don’t necessarily have that autonomy now,” said Amber Higgins, MD, an emergency physician and an obstetrician at ChristianaCare, a hospital network in Newark, Delaware, and a member of the Doctors Council. “There are so many other demands, whether it’s billing, patient documentation, or other demands from the employer, and all of that takes time away from patient care.”

Another primary driver of physician unionization is the physician burnout epidemic. Physicians collectively complain that they spend more time on electronic health record documentation and bureaucratic administration. Yet if unions can improve these working conditions, the benefit to physicians and their patients would be a welcome change.

Union members are bullish and believe that having a cohesive voice will make a difference.

“We need to use our collective voices to get back to focusing on patient care instead of staring at a computer screen for 80% of the day,” Dr. Higgins told this news organization. “So much of medicine involves getting to the correct diagnosis, listening to patients, observing them, and building a relationship with them. We need time to build that.”

With corporate consolidation and a profit-driven mandate by healthcare systems, doctors are increasingly frustrated and feel that their voices haven’t been heard enough when it comes to issues like workplace safety, working hours, and benefits, said Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, a family practice physician and president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in Sacramento, California. 

However, he adds that urging doctors to join together to fight for a better working environment hasn’t been easy.

“Doctors are individualists, and they don’t know how to work in packs like hospital administrators do,” said Dr. Bussey. “They’re hard to organize, but I want them to understand that unless they join hands, sign petitions, and speak as one voice, they’re going to lose out on an amazing opportunity.”
 

Overcoming Misperceptions About Unions

One barrier to doctors getting involved is the sentiment that unions might do the opposite of what’s intended — that is, they might further reduce a doctor’s autonomy and work flexibility. Or there may be a perception that the drive to join a union is predicated on making more money. 

Though he’s now in a union, Dr. VenOsdel, who has been in a hospital-based practice for 7 years, admits that he initially felt very differently about unions than he does today.

“Even though I have family members in healthcare unions, I had a neutral to even slightly negative view of unions,” said Dr. VenOsdel. “It took me working directly with the Minnesota Nurses Association and the Doctors Council to learn the other side of the story.”

Armed with more information, he began lobbying for stricter rules about how his state’s large healthcare systems were closing hospitals and ending much-needed community services.

“I remember standing at the Capitol in Minnesota and telling one of the members that I once felt negatively about unions,” he added. “I realized then that I only knew what employers were telling me via such things as emails about strikes — that information was all being shared from the employers’ perspective.”

The other misperception is that unions only exist to argue against management, including against colleagues who are also part of the management structure, said Dr. Higgins.

“Some doctors perceive being in a union as ‘how can those same leaders also be in a union,’” she said. She feels that they currently don’t have leadership representing them that can help with such things as restructuring their support teams or getting them help with certain tasks. “That’s another way unions can help.” 
 

Social Justice Plays a Role

For Dr. VenOsdel, being part of a union has helped him return to what he calls the “art” of medicine.

“Philosophically, the union gave me an option for change in what felt like a hopeless situation,” he said. “It wasn’t just that I was tossing the keys to someone else and saying, ‘I can’t fix this.’ Instead, we’re taking the reins back and fixing things ourselves.”

Bussey argues that as the uneven balance between administrators and providers in many healthcare organizations grows, the time to consider forming a union is now.

“We’re in a $4 trillion medical industrial revolution,” he said. “Administrators and bureaucrats are multiplying 30-fold times vs providers, and most of that $4 trillion supports things that don’t contribute to the doctor-patient relationship.”

Furthermore, union proponents say that where a one-on-one relationship between doctor and patient once existed, that has now been “triangulated” to include administrators.

“We’ve lost power in every way,” Dr. Bussey said. “We have the degrees, the liability, and the knowledge — we should have more power to make our workplaces safer and better.”

Ultimately, for some unionized doctors, the very holding of a union card is rooted in supporting social justice issues.

“When doctors realize how powerful a tool a union can be for social justice and change, this will alter perceptions of unions within our profession,” Dr. VenOsdel said. “Our union helps give us a voice to stand up for other staff who aren’t unionized and, most importantly, to stand up for the patients who need us.”
 

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

TOPLINE:

Older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who were operated on within 1 day of admission were less likely to die in the hospital compared with those who were treated with nonsurgical management or who had a delayed surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 24,320 older adults (median age, 72 years; 50.9% women; 75.6% White) with uncomplicated appendicitis over a 2-year period starting in 2016; of these, 7290 patients were frail.
• Patients received nonsurgical treatment, immediate appendectomy within 1 day of admission, or delayed surgery after more than 1 day of admission.
• The clinical outcomes included infectious complications using a composite, cardiopulmonary complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and total hospital costs.
• Frailty of patients was assessed using a claims-based index producing a score ranging from 0 to 1 on the basis of 93 variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with frailty had higher rates of infections (1.3% vs 0.4%), cardiopulmonary complications (24.1% vs 6.3%), overall complications (57.1% vs 28.8%), in-hospital deaths (3.9% vs 0.3%), longer hospital stays (6 vs 4 days), and higher hospital costs ($67,000 vs $42,000) than those without frailty (P < .001).
• Patients with frailty who had immediate surgery had lower risk for death than those who received nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.89; P = .004) and delayed surgery (OR, 3.80; P = .001).
• In patients without frailty, immediate surgery was linked to a higher risk for hospital complications than nonsurgical treatment (OR, 0.77; P = .009), but it was linked to a lower risk than delayed appendectomy (OR, 2.05; P < .001).
• Black patients were less likely to receive immediate appendectomy compared with White patients (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that treatment of older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis may benefit from risk stratification based on patient frailty status,” the authors wrote. “Routine frailty assessments should be incorporated in the care of older adult patients to guide discussions for shared decision-making,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Ashbrook, MD, MPH, of the Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Modification of the frailty index and reliance on discharge diagnosis could have resulted in misclassification bias. The timing of presentation of symptoms was not assessed. Also, lack of long-term data prevented tracking of readmissions and related complications.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who were operated on within 1 day of admission were less likely to die in the hospital compared with those who were treated with nonsurgical management or who had a delayed surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 24,320 older adults (median age, 72 years; 50.9% women; 75.6% White) with uncomplicated appendicitis over a 2-year period starting in 2016; of these, 7290 patients were frail.
• Patients received nonsurgical treatment, immediate appendectomy within 1 day of admission, or delayed surgery after more than 1 day of admission.
• The clinical outcomes included infectious complications using a composite, cardiopulmonary complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and total hospital costs.
• Frailty of patients was assessed using a claims-based index producing a score ranging from 0 to 1 on the basis of 93 variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with frailty had higher rates of infections (1.3% vs 0.4%), cardiopulmonary complications (24.1% vs 6.3%), overall complications (57.1% vs 28.8%), in-hospital deaths (3.9% vs 0.3%), longer hospital stays (6 vs 4 days), and higher hospital costs ($67,000 vs $42,000) than those without frailty (P < .001).
• Patients with frailty who had immediate surgery had lower risk for death than those who received nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.89; P = .004) and delayed surgery (OR, 3.80; P = .001).
• In patients without frailty, immediate surgery was linked to a higher risk for hospital complications than nonsurgical treatment (OR, 0.77; P = .009), but it was linked to a lower risk than delayed appendectomy (OR, 2.05; P < .001).
• Black patients were less likely to receive immediate appendectomy compared with White patients (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that treatment of older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis may benefit from risk stratification based on patient frailty status,” the authors wrote. “Routine frailty assessments should be incorporated in the care of older adult patients to guide discussions for shared decision-making,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Ashbrook, MD, MPH, of the Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Modification of the frailty index and reliance on discharge diagnosis could have resulted in misclassification bias. The timing of presentation of symptoms was not assessed. Also, lack of long-term data prevented tracking of readmissions and related complications.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who were operated on within 1 day of admission were less likely to die in the hospital compared with those who were treated with nonsurgical management or who had a delayed surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 24,320 older adults (median age, 72 years; 50.9% women; 75.6% White) with uncomplicated appendicitis over a 2-year period starting in 2016; of these, 7290 patients were frail.
• Patients received nonsurgical treatment, immediate appendectomy within 1 day of admission, or delayed surgery after more than 1 day of admission.
• The clinical outcomes included infectious complications using a composite, cardiopulmonary complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and total hospital costs.
• Frailty of patients was assessed using a claims-based index producing a score ranging from 0 to 1 on the basis of 93 variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with frailty had higher rates of infections (1.3% vs 0.4%), cardiopulmonary complications (24.1% vs 6.3%), overall complications (57.1% vs 28.8%), in-hospital deaths (3.9% vs 0.3%), longer hospital stays (6 vs 4 days), and higher hospital costs ($67,000 vs $42,000) than those without frailty (P < .001).
• Patients with frailty who had immediate surgery had lower risk for death than those who received nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.89; P = .004) and delayed surgery (OR, 3.80; P = .001).
• In patients without frailty, immediate surgery was linked to a higher risk for hospital complications than nonsurgical treatment (OR, 0.77; P = .009), but it was linked to a lower risk than delayed appendectomy (OR, 2.05; P < .001).
• Black patients were less likely to receive immediate appendectomy compared with White patients (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that treatment of older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis may benefit from risk stratification based on patient frailty status,” the authors wrote. “Routine frailty assessments should be incorporated in the care of older adult patients to guide discussions for shared decision-making,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Ashbrook, MD, MPH, of the Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Modification of the frailty index and reliance on discharge diagnosis could have resulted in misclassification bias. The timing of presentation of symptoms was not assessed. Also, lack of long-term data prevented tracking of readmissions and related complications.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A surprising new report by the Mercer consulting firm projects that the American healthcare workforce will face a small shortfall in 2028 — a shortage of less than 1% of all employees. The report even projects a surplus of tens of thousands of registered nurses and home health aides — and even a small surplus of physicians in some states.

Mercer’s projections are rosier than federal workforce projections, which paint a grimmer picture of impending shortages.

“The labor market is a little more stabilized right now, and most healthcare systems are seeing less turnover,” Dan Lezotte, PhD, a partner with Mercer, said in an interview. But he noted “critical shortages” are still expected in some areas.

Mercer last projected workforce numbers in a 2020-2021 report released during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, “the labor market is drastically different,” Dr. Lezotte said. Health workforce shortages and surpluses have long varied significantly by region across the country.

The report forecasts a small surplus of physicians in 2028 but not in states such as California, New York, and Texas. The upper Midwest states will largely see doctor surpluses while Southern states face shortages. Some states with general physician surpluses may still experience shortages of specialists.

A surplus of nearly 30,000 registered nurses is expected, but New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are projected to have a combined shortage of 16,000 nurses.

Overall, the report projects a shortage of more than 100,000 healthcare workers nationally by 2028. That’s less than 1% of the entire healthcare workforce of 18.6 million expected by then.

The report also predicts a shortage of nurse practitioners, especially in California and New York, and a shortage of 73,000 nursing assistants, especially in California, New York, and Texas.

“Healthcare systems are having the most difficulty hiring and hanging on to those workers who are supposed to take up the load off physicians and nurses,” Dr. Lezotte said. “They’re competing not only with other healthcare systems but with other industries like Amazon warehouses or McDonald’s in California paying $20 an hour. Healthcare was a little slow to keep up with that. In a lot of healthcare systems, that’s their biggest headache right now.”

On the other hand, the report projects a national surplus of 48,000 home health/personal care aides.

That surprised Bianca K. Frogner, PhD, director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“We are seeing increasing movement of investments toward moving patients out of skilled nursing facilities and keeping them in the home and community, which requires many more home health aides,” Dr. Frogner said. “Given such high turnover in this occupation, it’s hard to know if the surplus is really a surplus or if they will quickly be employed.”

Dr. Frogner receives grants and contracts from not-for-profit entities to investigate issues related to the health workforce.

Dr. Lezotte said the report’s findings are based on data from sources such as public and private databases and job postings. According to the report, “projections were made up to 2028 based on historical data up to 2023,” and “supply projections were derived using a linear autoregressive model based on historical supply within each occupation and geography.”

It’s not clear why some states like New York are expected to have huge shortages, but migration might be a factor, along with a lack of nearby nursing schools, Dr. Lezotte said.

As for shortages, Dr. Lezotte said healthcare systems will have to understand their local workforce situation and adapt. “They’ll need to be more proactive about their employee value proposition” via competitive pay and benefits Flexibility regarding scheduling is also important.

“They’re going to have to figure out how to up their game,” he said.

What about states with surpluses? They might be target-rich environments for states facing shortages, he said.
 

Positive Outlook Not Shared by Other Researchers

Other workforce projections conflict with Mercer’s, according to Jean Moore, DrPH, and Gaetano Forte, MS, director and assistant director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York.

The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects a 10% shortage of registered nurses and a 13% shortage of physicians in 2031. The agency didn’t make projections for home health aides because that workforce is in flux.

Why are Mercer’s projections so different? Dr. Lezotte said other projections assume that equity efforts will bring healthcare to everyone who needs it. The report assumes this won’t happen, he said. As a result, it expects there will be fewer patients who need to be served by workers.

Other projections expect a shortage of 300,000 registered nurses by 2035, Mr. Forte said. But the number of nurse practitioners in New York is growing quickly, Dr. Moore said.

Dr. Moore said it’s difficult to interpret Mercer’s findings because the company doesn’t provide enough information about its methodology.

“At some level, it’s not particularly useful regarding what the next steps are,” she said. “Projections should make you think about what you should do to change and improve, to create more of what you need.”

The Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Albany has provided consulting services to multiple companies that provide healthcare workforce projections. It has no relationship with Mercer.

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

A surprising new report by the Mercer consulting firm projects that the American healthcare workforce will face a small shortfall in 2028 — a shortage of less than 1% of all employees. The report even projects a surplus of tens of thousands of registered nurses and home health aides — and even a small surplus of physicians in some states.

Mercer’s projections are rosier than federal workforce projections, which paint a grimmer picture of impending shortages.

“The labor market is a little more stabilized right now, and most healthcare systems are seeing less turnover,” Dan Lezotte, PhD, a partner with Mercer, said in an interview. But he noted “critical shortages” are still expected in some areas.

Mercer last projected workforce numbers in a 2020-2021 report released during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, “the labor market is drastically different,” Dr. Lezotte said. Health workforce shortages and surpluses have long varied significantly by region across the country.

The report forecasts a small surplus of physicians in 2028 but not in states such as California, New York, and Texas. The upper Midwest states will largely see doctor surpluses while Southern states face shortages. Some states with general physician surpluses may still experience shortages of specialists.

A surplus of nearly 30,000 registered nurses is expected, but New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are projected to have a combined shortage of 16,000 nurses.

Overall, the report projects a shortage of more than 100,000 healthcare workers nationally by 2028. That’s less than 1% of the entire healthcare workforce of 18.6 million expected by then.

The report also predicts a shortage of nurse practitioners, especially in California and New York, and a shortage of 73,000 nursing assistants, especially in California, New York, and Texas.

“Healthcare systems are having the most difficulty hiring and hanging on to those workers who are supposed to take up the load off physicians and nurses,” Dr. Lezotte said. “They’re competing not only with other healthcare systems but with other industries like Amazon warehouses or McDonald’s in California paying $20 an hour. Healthcare was a little slow to keep up with that. In a lot of healthcare systems, that’s their biggest headache right now.”

On the other hand, the report projects a national surplus of 48,000 home health/personal care aides.

That surprised Bianca K. Frogner, PhD, director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“We are seeing increasing movement of investments toward moving patients out of skilled nursing facilities and keeping them in the home and community, which requires many more home health aides,” Dr. Frogner said. “Given such high turnover in this occupation, it’s hard to know if the surplus is really a surplus or if they will quickly be employed.”

Dr. Frogner receives grants and contracts from not-for-profit entities to investigate issues related to the health workforce.

Dr. Lezotte said the report’s findings are based on data from sources such as public and private databases and job postings. According to the report, “projections were made up to 2028 based on historical data up to 2023,” and “supply projections were derived using a linear autoregressive model based on historical supply within each occupation and geography.”

It’s not clear why some states like New York are expected to have huge shortages, but migration might be a factor, along with a lack of nearby nursing schools, Dr. Lezotte said.

As for shortages, Dr. Lezotte said healthcare systems will have to understand their local workforce situation and adapt. “They’ll need to be more proactive about their employee value proposition” via competitive pay and benefits Flexibility regarding scheduling is also important.

“They’re going to have to figure out how to up their game,” he said.

What about states with surpluses? They might be target-rich environments for states facing shortages, he said.
 

Positive Outlook Not Shared by Other Researchers

Other workforce projections conflict with Mercer’s, according to Jean Moore, DrPH, and Gaetano Forte, MS, director and assistant director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York.

The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects a 10% shortage of registered nurses and a 13% shortage of physicians in 2031. The agency didn’t make projections for home health aides because that workforce is in flux.

Why are Mercer’s projections so different? Dr. Lezotte said other projections assume that equity efforts will bring healthcare to everyone who needs it. The report assumes this won’t happen, he said. As a result, it expects there will be fewer patients who need to be served by workers.

Other projections expect a shortage of 300,000 registered nurses by 2035, Mr. Forte said. But the number of nurse practitioners in New York is growing quickly, Dr. Moore said.

Dr. Moore said it’s difficult to interpret Mercer’s findings because the company doesn’t provide enough information about its methodology.

“At some level, it’s not particularly useful regarding what the next steps are,” she said. “Projections should make you think about what you should do to change and improve, to create more of what you need.”

The Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Albany has provided consulting services to multiple companies that provide healthcare workforce projections. It has no relationship with Mercer.

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

A surprising new report by the Mercer consulting firm projects that the American healthcare workforce will face a small shortfall in 2028 — a shortage of less than 1% of all employees. The report even projects a surplus of tens of thousands of registered nurses and home health aides — and even a small surplus of physicians in some states.

Mercer’s projections are rosier than federal workforce projections, which paint a grimmer picture of impending shortages.

“The labor market is a little more stabilized right now, and most healthcare systems are seeing less turnover,” Dan Lezotte, PhD, a partner with Mercer, said in an interview. But he noted “critical shortages” are still expected in some areas.

Mercer last projected workforce numbers in a 2020-2021 report released during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, “the labor market is drastically different,” Dr. Lezotte said. Health workforce shortages and surpluses have long varied significantly by region across the country.

The report forecasts a small surplus of physicians in 2028 but not in states such as California, New York, and Texas. The upper Midwest states will largely see doctor surpluses while Southern states face shortages. Some states with general physician surpluses may still experience shortages of specialists.

A surplus of nearly 30,000 registered nurses is expected, but New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are projected to have a combined shortage of 16,000 nurses.

Overall, the report projects a shortage of more than 100,000 healthcare workers nationally by 2028. That’s less than 1% of the entire healthcare workforce of 18.6 million expected by then.

The report also predicts a shortage of nurse practitioners, especially in California and New York, and a shortage of 73,000 nursing assistants, especially in California, New York, and Texas.

“Healthcare systems are having the most difficulty hiring and hanging on to those workers who are supposed to take up the load off physicians and nurses,” Dr. Lezotte said. “They’re competing not only with other healthcare systems but with other industries like Amazon warehouses or McDonald’s in California paying $20 an hour. Healthcare was a little slow to keep up with that. In a lot of healthcare systems, that’s their biggest headache right now.”

On the other hand, the report projects a national surplus of 48,000 home health/personal care aides.

That surprised Bianca K. Frogner, PhD, director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“We are seeing increasing movement of investments toward moving patients out of skilled nursing facilities and keeping them in the home and community, which requires many more home health aides,” Dr. Frogner said. “Given such high turnover in this occupation, it’s hard to know if the surplus is really a surplus or if they will quickly be employed.”

Dr. Frogner receives grants and contracts from not-for-profit entities to investigate issues related to the health workforce.

Dr. Lezotte said the report’s findings are based on data from sources such as public and private databases and job postings. According to the report, “projections were made up to 2028 based on historical data up to 2023,” and “supply projections were derived using a linear autoregressive model based on historical supply within each occupation and geography.”

It’s not clear why some states like New York are expected to have huge shortages, but migration might be a factor, along with a lack of nearby nursing schools, Dr. Lezotte said.

As for shortages, Dr. Lezotte said healthcare systems will have to understand their local workforce situation and adapt. “They’ll need to be more proactive about their employee value proposition” via competitive pay and benefits Flexibility regarding scheduling is also important.

“They’re going to have to figure out how to up their game,” he said.

What about states with surpluses? They might be target-rich environments for states facing shortages, he said.
 

Positive Outlook Not Shared by Other Researchers

Other workforce projections conflict with Mercer’s, according to Jean Moore, DrPH, and Gaetano Forte, MS, director and assistant director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York.

The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects a 10% shortage of registered nurses and a 13% shortage of physicians in 2031. The agency didn’t make projections for home health aides because that workforce is in flux.

Why are Mercer’s projections so different? Dr. Lezotte said other projections assume that equity efforts will bring healthcare to everyone who needs it. The report assumes this won’t happen, he said. As a result, it expects there will be fewer patients who need to be served by workers.

Other projections expect a shortage of 300,000 registered nurses by 2035, Mr. Forte said. But the number of nurse practitioners in New York is growing quickly, Dr. Moore said.

Dr. Moore said it’s difficult to interpret Mercer’s findings because the company doesn’t provide enough information about its methodology.

“At some level, it’s not particularly useful regarding what the next steps are,” she said. “Projections should make you think about what you should do to change and improve, to create more of what you need.”

The Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Albany has provided consulting services to multiple companies that provide healthcare workforce projections. It has no relationship with Mercer.

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

LONDON — Potassium supplementation does not alter the risk for postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients who have undergone cardiac surgery, contrary to expectations and popular clinical practice, new trial results demonstrate.

“The widespread practice of giving patients potassium after bypass heart surgery even though their blood levels are within the normal range can be abandoned,” said Benjamin O’Brien, MD, PhD, director of the Clinic for Cardioanesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine at Charité Hospital in Berlin, Germany.

Results from the randomized TIGHT-K trial that assessed two levels of potassium supplementation were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the tight-control group, supplementation was provided to maintain high-normal levels of potassium (> 4.5 mEq/L). In the relaxed-control group, supplementation was provided only when potassium levels fell below the low-normal threshold (< 3.6 mEq/L). 
 

Trial Upending Popular Practice

The multinational trial involved 23 centers in Germany and the United Kingdom. All 1690 participants enrolled were scheduled to undergo a coronary artery bypass graft procedure, but Dr. O’Brien said he considers the results of TIGHT-K to be broadly applicable.

“There is no physiological basis to expect a different result in patients undergoing different types of cardiac surgery,” he said.

The primary endpoint was clinically and electrocardiography confirmed new-onset atrial fibrillation that occurred in the 5 days after the bypass procedure.

For the primary atrial fibrillation endpoint, event rates were similar in the tight-control and the relaxed-control groups (26.2% vs 27.8%); the 1.7% difference did not approach statistical significance (P = .44). The difference in dysrhythmias other than atrial fibrillation, although numerically lower in the tight-control group, was also not significant (19.1% vs 21.1%; P = .26).

There were no significant differences in several secondary endpoints, including length of hospital stay and in-patient mortality, but cost, a prespecified secondary endpoint, was approximately $120 lower per patient in the relaxed-control group than in the tight-control group (P < .001).
 

Lowering Cost Across Cardiac Surgeries

During the 5-day follow-up, median potassium levels were higher in the tight-control group. Levels in both groups fell gradually, but essentially in parallel, over the study period, so median potassium levels were always higher in the tight-control group than in the relaxed-control group. At the end of the observation period, mean potassium levels were 4.34 mEq/L in the tight-control group and 4.08 mEq/L in the relaxed-control group.

Prior to the development of atrial fibrillation, participants in the tight-control group received a medium of seven potassium administrations (range, 4-12), whereas those in the relaxed-control group received a medium of zero.

There were no significant differences in episodes in any subgroup evaluated, including those divided by age, sex, baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, and the absence or presence of beta blockers or loop diuretics. A per-protocol analysis also failed to show any advantage for tight potassium control.

Atrial fibrillation occurs in about one third of patients after bypass surgery, as it does after many types of cardiac surgery. Institutions often have strategies in place to reduce the risk after cardiac surgery, and potassium supplementation is one of the most common, despite the lack of supportive evidence, Dr. O’Brien said.
 

Narrow Window for Optimal Potassium Levels

The difference in potassium levels between the tight-control group and the relaxed-control group were modest in this study, said Subodh Verma, MD, a cardiac surgeon at St Michael’s Hospital and professor at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

However, this is unavoidable and central to the question being posed, Dr. O’Brien pointed out. Because of the risks for both hypokalemia and hyperkalemia, the window for safe supplementation is short. Current practice is to achieve high-normal levels to reduce atrial fibrillation, but TIGHT-K demonstrates this has no benefit.

The conclusion of TIGHT-K is appropriate, said Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, professor of therapeutics in the Division of Cardiology at the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France, who praised the design and conduct of the study.

He acknowledged an unmet need for effective methods to reduce the risk for atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery, but the ESC invited discussant said it is now necessary to look at other strategies. Several are under current evaluation, such as supplementary magnesium and the use of sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitors.

Although Dr. Zannad encouraged more studies of methods to reduce atrial fibrillation risk after cardiac surgery, he said that TIGHT-K has answered the question of whether potassium supplementation is beneficial.

Potassium supplementation should no longer be offered, he said, which will “reduce healthcare costs and decrease patient risk from an unnecessary intervention.”

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

LONDON — Potassium supplementation does not alter the risk for postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients who have undergone cardiac surgery, contrary to expectations and popular clinical practice, new trial results demonstrate.

“The widespread practice of giving patients potassium after bypass heart surgery even though their blood levels are within the normal range can be abandoned,” said Benjamin O’Brien, MD, PhD, director of the Clinic for Cardioanesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine at Charité Hospital in Berlin, Germany.

Results from the randomized TIGHT-K trial that assessed two levels of potassium supplementation were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the tight-control group, supplementation was provided to maintain high-normal levels of potassium (> 4.5 mEq/L). In the relaxed-control group, supplementation was provided only when potassium levels fell below the low-normal threshold (< 3.6 mEq/L). 
 

Trial Upending Popular Practice

The multinational trial involved 23 centers in Germany and the United Kingdom. All 1690 participants enrolled were scheduled to undergo a coronary artery bypass graft procedure, but Dr. O’Brien said he considers the results of TIGHT-K to be broadly applicable.

“There is no physiological basis to expect a different result in patients undergoing different types of cardiac surgery,” he said.

The primary endpoint was clinically and electrocardiography confirmed new-onset atrial fibrillation that occurred in the 5 days after the bypass procedure.

For the primary atrial fibrillation endpoint, event rates were similar in the tight-control and the relaxed-control groups (26.2% vs 27.8%); the 1.7% difference did not approach statistical significance (P = .44). The difference in dysrhythmias other than atrial fibrillation, although numerically lower in the tight-control group, was also not significant (19.1% vs 21.1%; P = .26).

There were no significant differences in several secondary endpoints, including length of hospital stay and in-patient mortality, but cost, a prespecified secondary endpoint, was approximately $120 lower per patient in the relaxed-control group than in the tight-control group (P < .001).
 

Lowering Cost Across Cardiac Surgeries

During the 5-day follow-up, median potassium levels were higher in the tight-control group. Levels in both groups fell gradually, but essentially in parallel, over the study period, so median potassium levels were always higher in the tight-control group than in the relaxed-control group. At the end of the observation period, mean potassium levels were 4.34 mEq/L in the tight-control group and 4.08 mEq/L in the relaxed-control group.

Prior to the development of atrial fibrillation, participants in the tight-control group received a medium of seven potassium administrations (range, 4-12), whereas those in the relaxed-control group received a medium of zero.

There were no significant differences in episodes in any subgroup evaluated, including those divided by age, sex, baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, and the absence or presence of beta blockers or loop diuretics. A per-protocol analysis also failed to show any advantage for tight potassium control.

Atrial fibrillation occurs in about one third of patients after bypass surgery, as it does after many types of cardiac surgery. Institutions often have strategies in place to reduce the risk after cardiac surgery, and potassium supplementation is one of the most common, despite the lack of supportive evidence, Dr. O’Brien said.
 

Narrow Window for Optimal Potassium Levels

The difference in potassium levels between the tight-control group and the relaxed-control group were modest in this study, said Subodh Verma, MD, a cardiac surgeon at St Michael’s Hospital and professor at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

However, this is unavoidable and central to the question being posed, Dr. O’Brien pointed out. Because of the risks for both hypokalemia and hyperkalemia, the window for safe supplementation is short. Current practice is to achieve high-normal levels to reduce atrial fibrillation, but TIGHT-K demonstrates this has no benefit.

The conclusion of TIGHT-K is appropriate, said Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, professor of therapeutics in the Division of Cardiology at the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France, who praised the design and conduct of the study.

He acknowledged an unmet need for effective methods to reduce the risk for atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery, but the ESC invited discussant said it is now necessary to look at other strategies. Several are under current evaluation, such as supplementary magnesium and the use of sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitors.

Although Dr. Zannad encouraged more studies of methods to reduce atrial fibrillation risk after cardiac surgery, he said that TIGHT-K has answered the question of whether potassium supplementation is beneficial.

Potassium supplementation should no longer be offered, he said, which will “reduce healthcare costs and decrease patient risk from an unnecessary intervention.”

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

LONDON — Potassium supplementation does not alter the risk for postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients who have undergone cardiac surgery, contrary to expectations and popular clinical practice, new trial results demonstrate.

“The widespread practice of giving patients potassium after bypass heart surgery even though their blood levels are within the normal range can be abandoned,” said Benjamin O’Brien, MD, PhD, director of the Clinic for Cardioanesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine at Charité Hospital in Berlin, Germany.

Results from the randomized TIGHT-K trial that assessed two levels of potassium supplementation were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the tight-control group, supplementation was provided to maintain high-normal levels of potassium (> 4.5 mEq/L). In the relaxed-control group, supplementation was provided only when potassium levels fell below the low-normal threshold (< 3.6 mEq/L). 
 

Trial Upending Popular Practice

The multinational trial involved 23 centers in Germany and the United Kingdom. All 1690 participants enrolled were scheduled to undergo a coronary artery bypass graft procedure, but Dr. O’Brien said he considers the results of TIGHT-K to be broadly applicable.

“There is no physiological basis to expect a different result in patients undergoing different types of cardiac surgery,” he said.

The primary endpoint was clinically and electrocardiography confirmed new-onset atrial fibrillation that occurred in the 5 days after the bypass procedure.

For the primary atrial fibrillation endpoint, event rates were similar in the tight-control and the relaxed-control groups (26.2% vs 27.8%); the 1.7% difference did not approach statistical significance (P = .44). The difference in dysrhythmias other than atrial fibrillation, although numerically lower in the tight-control group, was also not significant (19.1% vs 21.1%; P = .26).

There were no significant differences in several secondary endpoints, including length of hospital stay and in-patient mortality, but cost, a prespecified secondary endpoint, was approximately $120 lower per patient in the relaxed-control group than in the tight-control group (P < .001).
 

Lowering Cost Across Cardiac Surgeries

During the 5-day follow-up, median potassium levels were higher in the tight-control group. Levels in both groups fell gradually, but essentially in parallel, over the study period, so median potassium levels were always higher in the tight-control group than in the relaxed-control group. At the end of the observation period, mean potassium levels were 4.34 mEq/L in the tight-control group and 4.08 mEq/L in the relaxed-control group.

Prior to the development of atrial fibrillation, participants in the tight-control group received a medium of seven potassium administrations (range, 4-12), whereas those in the relaxed-control group received a medium of zero.

There were no significant differences in episodes in any subgroup evaluated, including those divided by age, sex, baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, and the absence or presence of beta blockers or loop diuretics. A per-protocol analysis also failed to show any advantage for tight potassium control.

Atrial fibrillation occurs in about one third of patients after bypass surgery, as it does after many types of cardiac surgery. Institutions often have strategies in place to reduce the risk after cardiac surgery, and potassium supplementation is one of the most common, despite the lack of supportive evidence, Dr. O’Brien said.
 

Narrow Window for Optimal Potassium Levels

The difference in potassium levels between the tight-control group and the relaxed-control group were modest in this study, said Subodh Verma, MD, a cardiac surgeon at St Michael’s Hospital and professor at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

However, this is unavoidable and central to the question being posed, Dr. O’Brien pointed out. Because of the risks for both hypokalemia and hyperkalemia, the window for safe supplementation is short. Current practice is to achieve high-normal levels to reduce atrial fibrillation, but TIGHT-K demonstrates this has no benefit.

The conclusion of TIGHT-K is appropriate, said Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, professor of therapeutics in the Division of Cardiology at the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France, who praised the design and conduct of the study.

He acknowledged an unmet need for effective methods to reduce the risk for atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery, but the ESC invited discussant said it is now necessary to look at other strategies. Several are under current evaluation, such as supplementary magnesium and the use of sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitors.

Although Dr. Zannad encouraged more studies of methods to reduce atrial fibrillation risk after cardiac surgery, he said that TIGHT-K has answered the question of whether potassium supplementation is beneficial.

Potassium supplementation should no longer be offered, he said, which will “reduce healthcare costs and decrease patient risk from an unnecessary intervention.”

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Today we’re discussing liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer with our guest, Dr. Martin Dib. Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.

He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?

Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.

This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.

I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.

Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.

First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?

Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.

It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.

Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.

In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.

They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.

It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.

First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.

And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.

It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.

The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?

What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?

Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.

These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.

Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?

Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.

That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.

So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.

And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.

Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?

Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.

In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.

I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.

But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?

Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.

At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.

In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.

But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.

Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?

What is that like? How do you identify them?

Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.

We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.

Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.

Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.

That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.

But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.

Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?

Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.

If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?

Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.

This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.

It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.

Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?

How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?

Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.

And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.

I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.

Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.

It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.

We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.

There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.

And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.


 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Today we’re discussing liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer with our guest, Dr. Martin Dib. Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.

He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?

Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.

This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.

I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.

Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.

First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?

Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.

It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.

Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.

In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.

They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.

It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.

First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.

And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.

It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.

The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?

What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?

Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.

These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.

Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?

Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.

That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.

So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.

And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.

Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?

Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.

In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.

I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.

But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?

Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.

At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.

In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.

But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.

Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?

What is that like? How do you identify them?

Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.

We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.

Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.

Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.

That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.

But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.

Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?

Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.

If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?

Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.

This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.

It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.

Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?

How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?

Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.

And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.

I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.

Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.

It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.

We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.

There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.

And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.


 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Today we’re discussing liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer with our guest, Dr. Martin Dib. Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.

He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?

Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.

This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.

I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.

Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.

First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?

Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.

It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.

Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.

In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.

They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.

It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.

First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.

And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.

It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.

The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?

What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?

Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.

These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.

Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?

Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.

That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.

So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.

And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.

Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?

Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.

In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.

I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.

But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?

Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.

At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.

In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.

But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.

Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?

What is that like? How do you identify them?

Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.

We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.

Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.

Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.

That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.

But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.

Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?

Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.

If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?

Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.

This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.

It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.

Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?

How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?

Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.

And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.

I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.

Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.

It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.

We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.

There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.

And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.


 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.

Holly Wyatt, MD, had spent 20 years in UCHealth with no plans to leave. Her home, support system, and lifestyle were all rooted in Denver. But in 2020, The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) made the endocrinologist an offer she couldn’t resist.

The pay increase and a bump to full professorship weren’t enough to lure her across the country. But then UAB sweetened the deal with fewer clinic hours and paid time to create. “I didn’t have to fit into the typical ‘see patients 5 days a week, bill this many dollars,’ ” she said.

With no minimum billable hours, she could spend her time on clinical trials, designing programs, and recording podcasts. “When they offered that, I said, ‘Ooh, that’s enticing.’ ”

After a couple of visits to the campus, she began the job transition.

Doctors are looking for more than base pay. For many physicians, like Dr. Wyatt, non-salary incentives carry a lot of weight in the recruitment and job-hunting process.

“Some of the usual suspects are CME [continuing medical education] budget, signing bonuses, relocation assistance, loan repayment programs, and housing allowances,” said Jake Jorgovan, partner at Alpha Apex Group, a physician recruiting firm in Denver.

Post pandemic, doctors are vying for other benefits, perks that support their interests, work-life balance, and financial stability. “We’ve come across offers like sabbatical opportunities, paid time for research or personal projects, and even concierge services that handle things like grocery shopping or pet care,” said Mr. Jorgovan.

Amid physician shortages, doctors have more bargaining power than ever.
 

Money Still Talks

Financial perks are still the premiere portion of a benefits package, according to Marc Adam, physician recruiter at MASC Medical, a medical recruitment firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

New data from the medical staffing company AMN Healthcare reported that the average signing bonus for physicians is $31,103. The average relocation allowance is $11,000, and the average CME allowance is $4000.

“CME budget and loan repayment programs are big because they directly impact career advancement and financial well-being,” Mr. Jorgovan said. He said that given the high cost of medical training, loan repayment help, especially, has become a huge deciding factor for clinicians. Employers have historically been hesitant to offer these kinds of long-term benefits because of the financial commitment and planning involved, but that’s changing.

Mr. Adam said that short-term financial perks, like relocation assistance and signing bonuses, tend to be more important for younger doctors. They’re not yet financially established, so the relocation support and bonus funds have more impact as they take on a new role, he said.

Mid- and late-career doctors, on the other hand, are less beholden to these types of bonuses. Mr. Adam has recruited established doctors from across the country to Florida, and he said that the relocation allowance and singing bonus didn’t even rank in their top five priorities. Similarly, in Birmingham, Dr. Wyatt recently reread her offer letter from UAB and was surprised to find a relocation stipend that she never used. “I had no idea,” she said.
 

Vying for Time

Mid- and late-career doctors who have a better financial safety net tend to seek benefits that boost their quality of life.

One of Mr. Adam’s recent job-searching clients was unwilling to compromise on priorities like specific location and a 4-day workweek.

Four-day workweeks, flexible scheduling, and options for remote work are increasingly popular, especially since the pandemic. Some physicians, like those in primary care, are looking for dedicated charting hours — paid days or half-days set aside for updating the electronic medical records. Other doctors are negotiating multistate telehealth licensing paid by their employer and work-from-home telehealth hours.

“Work life has been slowly increasing over the 14 years I’ve been doing this. And post COVID, the employer’s willingness to be flexible with those types of accommodations increased,” said Mr. Adam.

Priya Jaisinghani, MD, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist in her second year of practice, NYU Langone Health, New York City, said work-life balance can be a priority for young doctors, too. After training in New York during the pandemic, Dr. Jaisinghani was all too aware of the risk for burnout. So she negotiated a 4-day workweek when she took her first job out of fellowship in 2022. “I was able to prioritize work-life balance from the start,” she said.
 

Support for the Career You Want

When Dr. Jaisinghani signed her first contract in 2022 with NYU, her move from New Jersey to New York wasn’t far enough to warrant a relocation allowance. “There was a signing bonus, sure,” she said. But what really grabbed her attention were perks like mentorship, access to trainees, and autonomy.

Perks that support long-term growth — like CME allowance, teaching opportunities, or access to leadership tracks — are especially important to young doctors. “After dedicating so many years to medical training, you want to look for some degree of autonomy in building your practice,” she said. NYU offered her that kind of freedom and support.

On top of personal growth, young physicians are looking for perks that will allow them to build the practice they want for their patients,Dr. Jaisinghani told this news organization. A lot of young doctors don’t know that they can negotiate for schedule preferences, office space, their own exam room, and dedicated support staff. However, they can and should because these factors influence their daily work life and patient experience.

Experienced doctors are also looking for perks that support the career they want. Recruitment experts say that doctors tend to look for opportunities that accommodate their interests. One of Mr. Jorgovan’s recent clients took a position because it offered a generous CME budget and dedicated research hours. Similarly, Dr. Wyatt at UAB moved because her contract included paid time to create.

“It really comes down to the need for balance — being able to keep learning while also having time for personal life and family,” Mr. Jorgovan said.
 

Making and Meeting Demand

Thanks to the rising demand, doctors have more power than ever to negotiate the perks they want and need.

The existing physician shortage — driven by retiring doctors and an aging patient population — was only exacerbated by the pandemic. Now, a number of new market entries are further increasing competition for talent, according to AMN Healthcare’s report. Retail clinics, urgent care, telehealth companies, and private equity firms compete for the same doctors, driving up salaries and doctor bargaining power.

“Physicians were always in the driver’s seat, and their bargaining power has only increased,” Mr. Adam said. Healthcare systems, once reticent about flexible working arrangements or loan repayment, are reconsidering.

Even young doctors have more negotiating power than they realize, but they might need help. “It’s underrated to get a contracts lawyer as a young doctor, but I think it’s smart,” Dr. Jaisinghani said. They’re often more familiar with salaries in the area, flexibility options, and potential benefits, none of which doctors are taught in training, she said.

Mr. Adam said that the pandemic opened employers’ eyes to the fact that doctors have the bargaining power. There’s a stark need for their talent and a lot of public support for their service. So hiring managers are listening and are ready to offer “creative benefits to accommodate the market demand,” he said.

In her new position at UAB, Dr. Wyatt said that money will always matter. “When your salary is low, bumping that salary will make you happier.” But after a certain point, she said, other things become more important — like your time, the work you do, and the people you work with. Her perks at UAB offer more than money can. “I get up in the morning, and I’m excited — [the work] excites me,” she said.

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

Holly Wyatt, MD, had spent 20 years in UCHealth with no plans to leave. Her home, support system, and lifestyle were all rooted in Denver. But in 2020, The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) made the endocrinologist an offer she couldn’t resist.

The pay increase and a bump to full professorship weren’t enough to lure her across the country. But then UAB sweetened the deal with fewer clinic hours and paid time to create. “I didn’t have to fit into the typical ‘see patients 5 days a week, bill this many dollars,’ ” she said.

With no minimum billable hours, she could spend her time on clinical trials, designing programs, and recording podcasts. “When they offered that, I said, ‘Ooh, that’s enticing.’ ”

After a couple of visits to the campus, she began the job transition.

Doctors are looking for more than base pay. For many physicians, like Dr. Wyatt, non-salary incentives carry a lot of weight in the recruitment and job-hunting process.

“Some of the usual suspects are CME [continuing medical education] budget, signing bonuses, relocation assistance, loan repayment programs, and housing allowances,” said Jake Jorgovan, partner at Alpha Apex Group, a physician recruiting firm in Denver.

Post pandemic, doctors are vying for other benefits, perks that support their interests, work-life balance, and financial stability. “We’ve come across offers like sabbatical opportunities, paid time for research or personal projects, and even concierge services that handle things like grocery shopping or pet care,” said Mr. Jorgovan.

Amid physician shortages, doctors have more bargaining power than ever.
 

Money Still Talks

Financial perks are still the premiere portion of a benefits package, according to Marc Adam, physician recruiter at MASC Medical, a medical recruitment firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

New data from the medical staffing company AMN Healthcare reported that the average signing bonus for physicians is $31,103. The average relocation allowance is $11,000, and the average CME allowance is $4000.

“CME budget and loan repayment programs are big because they directly impact career advancement and financial well-being,” Mr. Jorgovan said. He said that given the high cost of medical training, loan repayment help, especially, has become a huge deciding factor for clinicians. Employers have historically been hesitant to offer these kinds of long-term benefits because of the financial commitment and planning involved, but that’s changing.

Mr. Adam said that short-term financial perks, like relocation assistance and signing bonuses, tend to be more important for younger doctors. They’re not yet financially established, so the relocation support and bonus funds have more impact as they take on a new role, he said.

Mid- and late-career doctors, on the other hand, are less beholden to these types of bonuses. Mr. Adam has recruited established doctors from across the country to Florida, and he said that the relocation allowance and singing bonus didn’t even rank in their top five priorities. Similarly, in Birmingham, Dr. Wyatt recently reread her offer letter from UAB and was surprised to find a relocation stipend that she never used. “I had no idea,” she said.
 

Vying for Time

Mid- and late-career doctors who have a better financial safety net tend to seek benefits that boost their quality of life.

One of Mr. Adam’s recent job-searching clients was unwilling to compromise on priorities like specific location and a 4-day workweek.

Four-day workweeks, flexible scheduling, and options for remote work are increasingly popular, especially since the pandemic. Some physicians, like those in primary care, are looking for dedicated charting hours — paid days or half-days set aside for updating the electronic medical records. Other doctors are negotiating multistate telehealth licensing paid by their employer and work-from-home telehealth hours.

“Work life has been slowly increasing over the 14 years I’ve been doing this. And post COVID, the employer’s willingness to be flexible with those types of accommodations increased,” said Mr. Adam.

Priya Jaisinghani, MD, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist in her second year of practice, NYU Langone Health, New York City, said work-life balance can be a priority for young doctors, too. After training in New York during the pandemic, Dr. Jaisinghani was all too aware of the risk for burnout. So she negotiated a 4-day workweek when she took her first job out of fellowship in 2022. “I was able to prioritize work-life balance from the start,” she said.
 

Support for the Career You Want

When Dr. Jaisinghani signed her first contract in 2022 with NYU, her move from New Jersey to New York wasn’t far enough to warrant a relocation allowance. “There was a signing bonus, sure,” she said. But what really grabbed her attention were perks like mentorship, access to trainees, and autonomy.

Perks that support long-term growth — like CME allowance, teaching opportunities, or access to leadership tracks — are especially important to young doctors. “After dedicating so many years to medical training, you want to look for some degree of autonomy in building your practice,” she said. NYU offered her that kind of freedom and support.

On top of personal growth, young physicians are looking for perks that will allow them to build the practice they want for their patients,Dr. Jaisinghani told this news organization. A lot of young doctors don’t know that they can negotiate for schedule preferences, office space, their own exam room, and dedicated support staff. However, they can and should because these factors influence their daily work life and patient experience.

Experienced doctors are also looking for perks that support the career they want. Recruitment experts say that doctors tend to look for opportunities that accommodate their interests. One of Mr. Jorgovan’s recent clients took a position because it offered a generous CME budget and dedicated research hours. Similarly, Dr. Wyatt at UAB moved because her contract included paid time to create.

“It really comes down to the need for balance — being able to keep learning while also having time for personal life and family,” Mr. Jorgovan said.
 

Making and Meeting Demand

Thanks to the rising demand, doctors have more power than ever to negotiate the perks they want and need.

The existing physician shortage — driven by retiring doctors and an aging patient population — was only exacerbated by the pandemic. Now, a number of new market entries are further increasing competition for talent, according to AMN Healthcare’s report. Retail clinics, urgent care, telehealth companies, and private equity firms compete for the same doctors, driving up salaries and doctor bargaining power.

“Physicians were always in the driver’s seat, and their bargaining power has only increased,” Mr. Adam said. Healthcare systems, once reticent about flexible working arrangements or loan repayment, are reconsidering.

Even young doctors have more negotiating power than they realize, but they might need help. “It’s underrated to get a contracts lawyer as a young doctor, but I think it’s smart,” Dr. Jaisinghani said. They’re often more familiar with salaries in the area, flexibility options, and potential benefits, none of which doctors are taught in training, she said.

Mr. Adam said that the pandemic opened employers’ eyes to the fact that doctors have the bargaining power. There’s a stark need for their talent and a lot of public support for their service. So hiring managers are listening and are ready to offer “creative benefits to accommodate the market demand,” he said.

In her new position at UAB, Dr. Wyatt said that money will always matter. “When your salary is low, bumping that salary will make you happier.” But after a certain point, she said, other things become more important — like your time, the work you do, and the people you work with. Her perks at UAB offer more than money can. “I get up in the morning, and I’m excited — [the work] excites me,” she said.

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

Holly Wyatt, MD, had spent 20 years in UCHealth with no plans to leave. Her home, support system, and lifestyle were all rooted in Denver. But in 2020, The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) made the endocrinologist an offer she couldn’t resist.

The pay increase and a bump to full professorship weren’t enough to lure her across the country. But then UAB sweetened the deal with fewer clinic hours and paid time to create. “I didn’t have to fit into the typical ‘see patients 5 days a week, bill this many dollars,’ ” she said.

With no minimum billable hours, she could spend her time on clinical trials, designing programs, and recording podcasts. “When they offered that, I said, ‘Ooh, that’s enticing.’ ”

After a couple of visits to the campus, she began the job transition.

Doctors are looking for more than base pay. For many physicians, like Dr. Wyatt, non-salary incentives carry a lot of weight in the recruitment and job-hunting process.

“Some of the usual suspects are CME [continuing medical education] budget, signing bonuses, relocation assistance, loan repayment programs, and housing allowances,” said Jake Jorgovan, partner at Alpha Apex Group, a physician recruiting firm in Denver.

Post pandemic, doctors are vying for other benefits, perks that support their interests, work-life balance, and financial stability. “We’ve come across offers like sabbatical opportunities, paid time for research or personal projects, and even concierge services that handle things like grocery shopping or pet care,” said Mr. Jorgovan.

Amid physician shortages, doctors have more bargaining power than ever.
 

Money Still Talks

Financial perks are still the premiere portion of a benefits package, according to Marc Adam, physician recruiter at MASC Medical, a medical recruitment firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

New data from the medical staffing company AMN Healthcare reported that the average signing bonus for physicians is $31,103. The average relocation allowance is $11,000, and the average CME allowance is $4000.

“CME budget and loan repayment programs are big because they directly impact career advancement and financial well-being,” Mr. Jorgovan said. He said that given the high cost of medical training, loan repayment help, especially, has become a huge deciding factor for clinicians. Employers have historically been hesitant to offer these kinds of long-term benefits because of the financial commitment and planning involved, but that’s changing.

Mr. Adam said that short-term financial perks, like relocation assistance and signing bonuses, tend to be more important for younger doctors. They’re not yet financially established, so the relocation support and bonus funds have more impact as they take on a new role, he said.

Mid- and late-career doctors, on the other hand, are less beholden to these types of bonuses. Mr. Adam has recruited established doctors from across the country to Florida, and he said that the relocation allowance and singing bonus didn’t even rank in their top five priorities. Similarly, in Birmingham, Dr. Wyatt recently reread her offer letter from UAB and was surprised to find a relocation stipend that she never used. “I had no idea,” she said.
 

Vying for Time

Mid- and late-career doctors who have a better financial safety net tend to seek benefits that boost their quality of life.

One of Mr. Adam’s recent job-searching clients was unwilling to compromise on priorities like specific location and a 4-day workweek.

Four-day workweeks, flexible scheduling, and options for remote work are increasingly popular, especially since the pandemic. Some physicians, like those in primary care, are looking for dedicated charting hours — paid days or half-days set aside for updating the electronic medical records. Other doctors are negotiating multistate telehealth licensing paid by their employer and work-from-home telehealth hours.

“Work life has been slowly increasing over the 14 years I’ve been doing this. And post COVID, the employer’s willingness to be flexible with those types of accommodations increased,” said Mr. Adam.

Priya Jaisinghani, MD, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist in her second year of practice, NYU Langone Health, New York City, said work-life balance can be a priority for young doctors, too. After training in New York during the pandemic, Dr. Jaisinghani was all too aware of the risk for burnout. So she negotiated a 4-day workweek when she took her first job out of fellowship in 2022. “I was able to prioritize work-life balance from the start,” she said.
 

Support for the Career You Want

When Dr. Jaisinghani signed her first contract in 2022 with NYU, her move from New Jersey to New York wasn’t far enough to warrant a relocation allowance. “There was a signing bonus, sure,” she said. But what really grabbed her attention were perks like mentorship, access to trainees, and autonomy.

Perks that support long-term growth — like CME allowance, teaching opportunities, or access to leadership tracks — are especially important to young doctors. “After dedicating so many years to medical training, you want to look for some degree of autonomy in building your practice,” she said. NYU offered her that kind of freedom and support.

On top of personal growth, young physicians are looking for perks that will allow them to build the practice they want for their patients,Dr. Jaisinghani told this news organization. A lot of young doctors don’t know that they can negotiate for schedule preferences, office space, their own exam room, and dedicated support staff. However, they can and should because these factors influence their daily work life and patient experience.

Experienced doctors are also looking for perks that support the career they want. Recruitment experts say that doctors tend to look for opportunities that accommodate their interests. One of Mr. Jorgovan’s recent clients took a position because it offered a generous CME budget and dedicated research hours. Similarly, Dr. Wyatt at UAB moved because her contract included paid time to create.

“It really comes down to the need for balance — being able to keep learning while also having time for personal life and family,” Mr. Jorgovan said.
 

Making and Meeting Demand

Thanks to the rising demand, doctors have more power than ever to negotiate the perks they want and need.

The existing physician shortage — driven by retiring doctors and an aging patient population — was only exacerbated by the pandemic. Now, a number of new market entries are further increasing competition for talent, according to AMN Healthcare’s report. Retail clinics, urgent care, telehealth companies, and private equity firms compete for the same doctors, driving up salaries and doctor bargaining power.

“Physicians were always in the driver’s seat, and their bargaining power has only increased,” Mr. Adam said. Healthcare systems, once reticent about flexible working arrangements or loan repayment, are reconsidering.

Even young doctors have more negotiating power than they realize, but they might need help. “It’s underrated to get a contracts lawyer as a young doctor, but I think it’s smart,” Dr. Jaisinghani said. They’re often more familiar with salaries in the area, flexibility options, and potential benefits, none of which doctors are taught in training, she said.

Mr. Adam said that the pandemic opened employers’ eyes to the fact that doctors have the bargaining power. There’s a stark need for their talent and a lot of public support for their service. So hiring managers are listening and are ready to offer “creative benefits to accommodate the market demand,” he said.

In her new position at UAB, Dr. Wyatt said that money will always matter. “When your salary is low, bumping that salary will make you happier.” But after a certain point, she said, other things become more important — like your time, the work you do, and the people you work with. Her perks at UAB offer more than money can. “I get up in the morning, and I’m excited — [the work] excites me,” she said.

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

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with pulmonary oligometastases from colorectal cancer (CRC), both stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and surgery led to similar overall survival rates at 5 years. However, those who received surgery had significantly better progression-free and disease-free survival rates, as well as a longer time to intrathoracic progression.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• SBRT has been shown to provide effective local control and improve short-term survival for patients with pulmonary oligometastases from CRC and has become an alternative for these patients who are ineligible or reluctant to undergo surgery. It’s unclear, however, whether SBRT should be prioritized over surgery in patients with CRC pulmonary metastases, largely because of a lack of prospective data.
• In the current analysis, researchers compared outcomes among 335 patients (median age, 61 years) with lung metastases from CRC who underwent surgery or SBRT, using data from the Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute between March 2011 and September 2022.
• A total of 251 patients were included in the final analysis after propensity score matching, 173 (68.9%) underwent surgery and 78 (31.1%) received SBRT. The median follow-up was 61.6 months in the surgery group and 54.4 months in the SBRT group.
• The study outcomes were freedom from intrathoracic progression, progression-free survival, and overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years, rates of freedom from intrathoracic progression were more than twofold higher in the surgery group than in the SBRT group (53% vs 23.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; P < .001). Progression-free survival rates were also more than twofold higher in the surgery group vs the SBRT group (43.8% vs 18.5%; HR, 0.47; P < .001), respectively. In the SBRT group, a higher percentage of patients had a disease-free interval of less than 12 months compared with the surgery group, with rates of 48.7% and 32.9%, respectively (P = 0.025). 
• Overall survival, however, was not significantly different between the two groups at 5 years (72.5% in the surgery group vs 63.7% in the SBRT group; P = .260). The number of pulmonary metastases (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.11-3.14, P = .019 and tumor size (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05, P = .023) were significant prognostic factors for overall survival.
• Local recurrence was more prevalent after SBRT (33.3%) than surgery (16.9%), while new intrathoracic tumors occurred more frequently after surgery than SBRT (71.8% vs 43.1%). Repeated local treatments were common among patients with intrathoracic progression, which might have contributed to favorable survival outcomes in both groups.
• Both treatments were well-tolerated with no treatment-related mortality or grade ≥ 3 toxicities. In the surgery group, 14 patients experienced complications, including atrial fibrillation (n = 4) and prolonged air leaks (n = 7). In the SBRT group, radiation pneumonitis was the most common adverse event (n = 21).

IN PRACTICE:

SBRT yielded overall survival benefits similar to surgery despite a “higher likelihood of prior extrapulmonary metastases, a shorter disease-free interval, and a greater number of metastatic lesions,” the authors wrote. Still, SBRT should be regarded as an “effective alternative in cases in which surgical intervention is either unviable or declined by the patient,” the authors concluded.
 

SOURCE:

The study was co-led by Yaqi Wang and Xin Dong, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China, and was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.
 

LIMITATIONS:

This single-center retrospective study had an inherent selection bias. The lack of balanced sample sizes of the surgery and SBRT groups might have affected the robustness of the statistical analyses. Detailed data on adverse events were not available.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Beijing Natural Science Foundation, and Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospital’s Ascent Plan. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with pulmonary oligometastases from colorectal cancer (CRC), both stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and surgery led to similar overall survival rates at 5 years. However, those who received surgery had significantly better progression-free and disease-free survival rates, as well as a longer time to intrathoracic progression.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• SBRT has been shown to provide effective local control and improve short-term survival for patients with pulmonary oligometastases from CRC and has become an alternative for these patients who are ineligible or reluctant to undergo surgery. It’s unclear, however, whether SBRT should be prioritized over surgery in patients with CRC pulmonary metastases, largely because of a lack of prospective data.
• In the current analysis, researchers compared outcomes among 335 patients (median age, 61 years) with lung metastases from CRC who underwent surgery or SBRT, using data from the Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute between March 2011 and September 2022.
• A total of 251 patients were included in the final analysis after propensity score matching, 173 (68.9%) underwent surgery and 78 (31.1%) received SBRT. The median follow-up was 61.6 months in the surgery group and 54.4 months in the SBRT group.
• The study outcomes were freedom from intrathoracic progression, progression-free survival, and overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years, rates of freedom from intrathoracic progression were more than twofold higher in the surgery group than in the SBRT group (53% vs 23.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; P < .001). Progression-free survival rates were also more than twofold higher in the surgery group vs the SBRT group (43.8% vs 18.5%; HR, 0.47; P < .001), respectively. In the SBRT group, a higher percentage of patients had a disease-free interval of less than 12 months compared with the surgery group, with rates of 48.7% and 32.9%, respectively (P = 0.025). 
• Overall survival, however, was not significantly different between the two groups at 5 years (72.5% in the surgery group vs 63.7% in the SBRT group; P = .260). The number of pulmonary metastases (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.11-3.14, P = .019 and tumor size (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05, P = .023) were significant prognostic factors for overall survival.
• Local recurrence was more prevalent after SBRT (33.3%) than surgery (16.9%), while new intrathoracic tumors occurred more frequently after surgery than SBRT (71.8% vs 43.1%). Repeated local treatments were common among patients with intrathoracic progression, which might have contributed to favorable survival outcomes in both groups.
• Both treatments were well-tolerated with no treatment-related mortality or grade ≥ 3 toxicities. In the surgery group, 14 patients experienced complications, including atrial fibrillation (n = 4) and prolonged air leaks (n = 7). In the SBRT group, radiation pneumonitis was the most common adverse event (n = 21).

IN PRACTICE:

SBRT yielded overall survival benefits similar to surgery despite a “higher likelihood of prior extrapulmonary metastases, a shorter disease-free interval, and a greater number of metastatic lesions,” the authors wrote. Still, SBRT should be regarded as an “effective alternative in cases in which surgical intervention is either unviable or declined by the patient,” the authors concluded.
 

SOURCE:

The study was co-led by Yaqi Wang and Xin Dong, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China, and was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.
 

LIMITATIONS:

This single-center retrospective study had an inherent selection bias. The lack of balanced sample sizes of the surgery and SBRT groups might have affected the robustness of the statistical analyses. Detailed data on adverse events were not available.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Beijing Natural Science Foundation, and Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospital’s Ascent Plan. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with pulmonary oligometastases from colorectal cancer (CRC), both stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and surgery led to similar overall survival rates at 5 years. However, those who received surgery had significantly better progression-free and disease-free survival rates, as well as a longer time to intrathoracic progression.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• SBRT has been shown to provide effective local control and improve short-term survival for patients with pulmonary oligometastases from CRC and has become an alternative for these patients who are ineligible or reluctant to undergo surgery. It’s unclear, however, whether SBRT should be prioritized over surgery in patients with CRC pulmonary metastases, largely because of a lack of prospective data.
• In the current analysis, researchers compared outcomes among 335 patients (median age, 61 years) with lung metastases from CRC who underwent surgery or SBRT, using data from the Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute between March 2011 and September 2022.
• A total of 251 patients were included in the final analysis after propensity score matching, 173 (68.9%) underwent surgery and 78 (31.1%) received SBRT. The median follow-up was 61.6 months in the surgery group and 54.4 months in the SBRT group.
• The study outcomes were freedom from intrathoracic progression, progression-free survival, and overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years, rates of freedom from intrathoracic progression were more than twofold higher in the surgery group than in the SBRT group (53% vs 23.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; P < .001). Progression-free survival rates were also more than twofold higher in the surgery group vs the SBRT group (43.8% vs 18.5%; HR, 0.47; P < .001), respectively. In the SBRT group, a higher percentage of patients had a disease-free interval of less than 12 months compared with the surgery group, with rates of 48.7% and 32.9%, respectively (P = 0.025). 
• Overall survival, however, was not significantly different between the two groups at 5 years (72.5% in the surgery group vs 63.7% in the SBRT group; P = .260). The number of pulmonary metastases (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.11-3.14, P = .019 and tumor size (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05, P = .023) were significant prognostic factors for overall survival.
• Local recurrence was more prevalent after SBRT (33.3%) than surgery (16.9%), while new intrathoracic tumors occurred more frequently after surgery than SBRT (71.8% vs 43.1%). Repeated local treatments were common among patients with intrathoracic progression, which might have contributed to favorable survival outcomes in both groups.
• Both treatments were well-tolerated with no treatment-related mortality or grade ≥ 3 toxicities. In the surgery group, 14 patients experienced complications, including atrial fibrillation (n = 4) and prolonged air leaks (n = 7). In the SBRT group, radiation pneumonitis was the most common adverse event (n = 21).

IN PRACTICE:

SBRT yielded overall survival benefits similar to surgery despite a “higher likelihood of prior extrapulmonary metastases, a shorter disease-free interval, and a greater number of metastatic lesions,” the authors wrote. Still, SBRT should be regarded as an “effective alternative in cases in which surgical intervention is either unviable or declined by the patient,” the authors concluded.
 

SOURCE:

The study was co-led by Yaqi Wang and Xin Dong, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China, and was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.
 

LIMITATIONS:

This single-center retrospective study had an inherent selection bias. The lack of balanced sample sizes of the surgery and SBRT groups might have affected the robustness of the statistical analyses. Detailed data on adverse events were not available.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Beijing Natural Science Foundation, and Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospital’s Ascent Plan. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In my job, I spend 99% of my time thinking about ethical issues that arise in the care of human beings. That is the focus of our medical school, and that’s what we do. 

However, there are behaviors that are emerging with respect to pets that bear on human health and require the attention of doctors and nurses who deal with people who are pet owners.

Recently, there has been a great increase in the number of pet owners who are saying, “I’m not going to vaccinate my pets.” As horrible as this sounds, what’s happening is vaccine hesitancy about vaccines used in humans is extending through some people to their pets. 

The number of people who say they don’t trust things like rabies vaccine to be effective or safe for their pet animals is 40%, at least in surveys, and the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that 15%-18% of pet owners are not, in fact, vaccinating their pets against rabies.

Rabies, as I hope everybody knows, is one horrible disease. Even the treatment of it, should you get bitten by a rabid animal, is no fun, expensive, and hopefully something that can be administered quickly. It’s not always the case. Worldwide, at least 70,000 people die from rabies every year.

Obviously, there are many countries that are so terrified of rabies, they won’t let you bring pets in without quarantining them, say, England, for at least 6 months to a year, I believe, because they don’t want rabies getting into their country. They’re very strict about the movement of pets.

It is inexcusable for people, first, not to give their pets vaccines that prevent them getting distemper, parvovirus, or many other diseases that harm the pet. It’s also inexcusable to shorten your pet’s life or ask your patients to care for pets who get sick from many of these diseases that are vaccine preventable.

Worst of all, it’s inexcusable for any pet owner not to give a rabies vaccine to their pets. Were it up to me, I’d say you have to license your pet, and as part of that, you must mandate rabies vaccines for your dogs, cats, and other pets. 

We know what happens when people encounter wild animals like raccoons and rabbits. It is not a good situation. Your pets can easily encounter a rabid animal and then put themselves in a position where they can harm their human owners. 

We have an efficacious, safe treatment. If you’re dealing with someone, it might make sense to ask them, “Do you own a pet? Are you vaccinating?” It may not be something you’d ever thought about, but what we don’t need is rabies back in a bigger way in the United States than it’s been in the past.

I think, as a matter of prudence and public health, maybe firing up that question, “Got a pet in the house and are you vaccinating,” could be part of taking a good history.

 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In my job, I spend 99% of my time thinking about ethical issues that arise in the care of human beings. That is the focus of our medical school, and that’s what we do. 

However, there are behaviors that are emerging with respect to pets that bear on human health and require the attention of doctors and nurses who deal with people who are pet owners.

Recently, there has been a great increase in the number of pet owners who are saying, “I’m not going to vaccinate my pets.” As horrible as this sounds, what’s happening is vaccine hesitancy about vaccines used in humans is extending through some people to their pets. 

The number of people who say they don’t trust things like rabies vaccine to be effective or safe for their pet animals is 40%, at least in surveys, and the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that 15%-18% of pet owners are not, in fact, vaccinating their pets against rabies.

Rabies, as I hope everybody knows, is one horrible disease. Even the treatment of it, should you get bitten by a rabid animal, is no fun, expensive, and hopefully something that can be administered quickly. It’s not always the case. Worldwide, at least 70,000 people die from rabies every year.

Obviously, there are many countries that are so terrified of rabies, they won’t let you bring pets in without quarantining them, say, England, for at least 6 months to a year, I believe, because they don’t want rabies getting into their country. They’re very strict about the movement of pets.

It is inexcusable for people, first, not to give their pets vaccines that prevent them getting distemper, parvovirus, or many other diseases that harm the pet. It’s also inexcusable to shorten your pet’s life or ask your patients to care for pets who get sick from many of these diseases that are vaccine preventable.

Worst of all, it’s inexcusable for any pet owner not to give a rabies vaccine to their pets. Were it up to me, I’d say you have to license your pet, and as part of that, you must mandate rabies vaccines for your dogs, cats, and other pets. 

We know what happens when people encounter wild animals like raccoons and rabbits. It is not a good situation. Your pets can easily encounter a rabid animal and then put themselves in a position where they can harm their human owners. 

We have an efficacious, safe treatment. If you’re dealing with someone, it might make sense to ask them, “Do you own a pet? Are you vaccinating?” It may not be something you’d ever thought about, but what we don’t need is rabies back in a bigger way in the United States than it’s been in the past.

I think, as a matter of prudence and public health, maybe firing up that question, “Got a pet in the house and are you vaccinating,” could be part of taking a good history.

 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In my job, I spend 99% of my time thinking about ethical issues that arise in the care of human beings. That is the focus of our medical school, and that’s what we do. 

However, there are behaviors that are emerging with respect to pets that bear on human health and require the attention of doctors and nurses who deal with people who are pet owners.

Recently, there has been a great increase in the number of pet owners who are saying, “I’m not going to vaccinate my pets.” As horrible as this sounds, what’s happening is vaccine hesitancy about vaccines used in humans is extending through some people to their pets. 

The number of people who say they don’t trust things like rabies vaccine to be effective or safe for their pet animals is 40%, at least in surveys, and the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that 15%-18% of pet owners are not, in fact, vaccinating their pets against rabies.

Rabies, as I hope everybody knows, is one horrible disease. Even the treatment of it, should you get bitten by a rabid animal, is no fun, expensive, and hopefully something that can be administered quickly. It’s not always the case. Worldwide, at least 70,000 people die from rabies every year.

Obviously, there are many countries that are so terrified of rabies, they won’t let you bring pets in without quarantining them, say, England, for at least 6 months to a year, I believe, because they don’t want rabies getting into their country. They’re very strict about the movement of pets.

It is inexcusable for people, first, not to give their pets vaccines that prevent them getting distemper, parvovirus, or many other diseases that harm the pet. It’s also inexcusable to shorten your pet’s life or ask your patients to care for pets who get sick from many of these diseases that are vaccine preventable.

Worst of all, it’s inexcusable for any pet owner not to give a rabies vaccine to their pets. Were it up to me, I’d say you have to license your pet, and as part of that, you must mandate rabies vaccines for your dogs, cats, and other pets. 

We know what happens when people encounter wild animals like raccoons and rabbits. It is not a good situation. Your pets can easily encounter a rabid animal and then put themselves in a position where they can harm their human owners. 

We have an efficacious, safe treatment. If you’re dealing with someone, it might make sense to ask them, “Do you own a pet? Are you vaccinating?” It may not be something you’d ever thought about, but what we don’t need is rabies back in a bigger way in the United States than it’s been in the past.

I think, as a matter of prudence and public health, maybe firing up that question, “Got a pet in the house and are you vaccinating,” could be part of taking a good history.

 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson and Medscape.

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