The correct diagnosis is posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The patient's anxiety, irritability, sleep difficulties, and other symptoms are directly related to the recent traumatic event (car crash), and he has no significant physical injuries or neurologic abnormalities. 

Generalized anxiety disorder is incorrect because it involves chronic worry about various life aspects for at least 6 months, unrelated to a specific trauma. 

Postconcussion syndrome is not applicable because of the lack of concussion evidence and other symptoms, such as headaches or dizziness. 

Acute stress disorder is similar to PTSD but is diagnosed when symptoms occur within 3 days to 1 month after a trauma. Because this patient's symptoms have persisted beyond 1 month, PTSD is the most likely diagnosis.

Patients with PTSD exhibit pronounced cognitive, affective, or behavioral responses to trauma reminders; these responses may include severe anxiety, dissociative episodes, flashbacks, and hyperreactive behaviors. The intensity of these symptoms and the resulting psychosocial impairment are more severe in individuals with PTSD compared with people who experience trauma without developing the disorder. To manage such heightened arousal, individuals with PTSD often engage in avoidance behaviors, leading to emotional numbing; reduced interest in daily activities; and, in severe cases, detachment from others. 

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) outlines specific criteria for diagnosing PTSD in individuals older than 6 years. These criteria include: (A) exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence; (B) the presence of one or more intrusion symptoms related to the traumatic event; (C) persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma; (D) negative alterations in cognitions and mood related to the trauma; and (E) marked alterations in arousal and reactivity, evidenced by two or more specific symptoms.

Early intervention is key in the treatment of PTSD to prevent the condition from becoming chronic. Although more empirical data are needed, especially regarding pharmacotherapy, early supportive interventions such as psychoeducation and case management have shown promise in acutely traumatized individuals. 

Trauma-focused psychotherapy is recommended as the first-line treatment for most adults with PTSD. This approach, which includes exposure-based therapies, is generally preferred over other therapies or pharmacologic treatments, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. However, in patients with comorbid conditions (eg, depression, psychosis) that impair their ability to engage in trauma-focused therapy, initial pharmacologic management is advised until symptoms stabilize, after which psychotherapy can be introduced.

Clinical trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of various trauma-focused therapies, including trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy, prolonged exposure therapy, and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. The treatment choice should be collaborative, based on patient presentation, preference, and therapist expertise.

For individuals with PTSD experiencing significant sleep disturbances, particularly nightmares, prazosin is suggested. Clinical studies demonstrate that prazosin effectively reduces overall PTSD symptoms, nightmares, and sleep disturbances in approximately half of the patients treated.

Medication regimens effective for PTSD should be continued for at least 6 months to 1 year to prevent relapse or recurrence. Multiple clinical trials in patients with PTSD who completed acute treatment with SSRIs have demonstrated that those who continued with SSRIs were less likely to have relapse compared with those receiving placebo.

Jasvinder Chawla, MD, Professor of Neurology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood; Director, Clinical Neurophysiology Lab, Department of Neurology, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL.
Jasvinder Chawla, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

The correct diagnosis is posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The patient's anxiety, irritability, sleep difficulties, and other symptoms are directly related to the recent traumatic event (car crash), and he has no significant physical injuries or neurologic abnormalities. 

Generalized anxiety disorder is incorrect because it involves chronic worry about various life aspects for at least 6 months, unrelated to a specific trauma. 

Postconcussion syndrome is not applicable because of the lack of concussion evidence and other symptoms, such as headaches or dizziness. 

Acute stress disorder is similar to PTSD but is diagnosed when symptoms occur within 3 days to 1 month after a trauma. Because this patient's symptoms have persisted beyond 1 month, PTSD is the most likely diagnosis.

Patients with PTSD exhibit pronounced cognitive, affective, or behavioral responses to trauma reminders; these responses may include severe anxiety, dissociative episodes, flashbacks, and hyperreactive behaviors. The intensity of these symptoms and the resulting psychosocial impairment are more severe in individuals with PTSD compared with people who experience trauma without developing the disorder. To manage such heightened arousal, individuals with PTSD often engage in avoidance behaviors, leading to emotional numbing; reduced interest in daily activities; and, in severe cases, detachment from others. 

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) outlines specific criteria for diagnosing PTSD in individuals older than 6 years. These criteria include: (A) exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence; (B) the presence of one or more intrusion symptoms related to the traumatic event; (C) persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma; (D) negative alterations in cognitions and mood related to the trauma; and (E) marked alterations in arousal and reactivity, evidenced by two or more specific symptoms.

Early intervention is key in the treatment of PTSD to prevent the condition from becoming chronic. Although more empirical data are needed, especially regarding pharmacotherapy, early supportive interventions such as psychoeducation and case management have shown promise in acutely traumatized individuals. 

Trauma-focused psychotherapy is recommended as the first-line treatment for most adults with PTSD. This approach, which includes exposure-based therapies, is generally preferred over other therapies or pharmacologic treatments, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. However, in patients with comorbid conditions (eg, depression, psychosis) that impair their ability to engage in trauma-focused therapy, initial pharmacologic management is advised until symptoms stabilize, after which psychotherapy can be introduced.

Clinical trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of various trauma-focused therapies, including trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy, prolonged exposure therapy, and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. The treatment choice should be collaborative, based on patient presentation, preference, and therapist expertise.

For individuals with PTSD experiencing significant sleep disturbances, particularly nightmares, prazosin is suggested. Clinical studies demonstrate that prazosin effectively reduces overall PTSD symptoms, nightmares, and sleep disturbances in approximately half of the patients treated.

Medication regimens effective for PTSD should be continued for at least 6 months to 1 year to prevent relapse or recurrence. Multiple clinical trials in patients with PTSD who completed acute treatment with SSRIs have demonstrated that those who continued with SSRIs were less likely to have relapse compared with those receiving placebo.

Jasvinder Chawla, MD, Professor of Neurology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood; Director, Clinical Neurophysiology Lab, Department of Neurology, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL.
Jasvinder Chawla, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

The correct diagnosis is posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The patient's anxiety, irritability, sleep difficulties, and other symptoms are directly related to the recent traumatic event (car crash), and he has no significant physical injuries or neurologic abnormalities. 

Generalized anxiety disorder is incorrect because it involves chronic worry about various life aspects for at least 6 months, unrelated to a specific trauma. 

Postconcussion syndrome is not applicable because of the lack of concussion evidence and other symptoms, such as headaches or dizziness. 

Acute stress disorder is similar to PTSD but is diagnosed when symptoms occur within 3 days to 1 month after a trauma. Because this patient's symptoms have persisted beyond 1 month, PTSD is the most likely diagnosis.

Patients with PTSD exhibit pronounced cognitive, affective, or behavioral responses to trauma reminders; these responses may include severe anxiety, dissociative episodes, flashbacks, and hyperreactive behaviors. The intensity of these symptoms and the resulting psychosocial impairment are more severe in individuals with PTSD compared with people who experience trauma without developing the disorder. To manage such heightened arousal, individuals with PTSD often engage in avoidance behaviors, leading to emotional numbing; reduced interest in daily activities; and, in severe cases, detachment from others. 

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) outlines specific criteria for diagnosing PTSD in individuals older than 6 years. These criteria include: (A) exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence; (B) the presence of one or more intrusion symptoms related to the traumatic event; (C) persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma; (D) negative alterations in cognitions and mood related to the trauma; and (E) marked alterations in arousal and reactivity, evidenced by two or more specific symptoms.

Early intervention is key in the treatment of PTSD to prevent the condition from becoming chronic. Although more empirical data are needed, especially regarding pharmacotherapy, early supportive interventions such as psychoeducation and case management have shown promise in acutely traumatized individuals. 

Trauma-focused psychotherapy is recommended as the first-line treatment for most adults with PTSD. This approach, which includes exposure-based therapies, is generally preferred over other therapies or pharmacologic treatments, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. However, in patients with comorbid conditions (eg, depression, psychosis) that impair their ability to engage in trauma-focused therapy, initial pharmacologic management is advised until symptoms stabilize, after which psychotherapy can be introduced.

Clinical trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of various trauma-focused therapies, including trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy, prolonged exposure therapy, and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. The treatment choice should be collaborative, based on patient presentation, preference, and therapist expertise.

For individuals with PTSD experiencing significant sleep disturbances, particularly nightmares, prazosin is suggested. Clinical studies demonstrate that prazosin effectively reduces overall PTSD symptoms, nightmares, and sleep disturbances in approximately half of the patients treated.

Medication regimens effective for PTSD should be continued for at least 6 months to 1 year to prevent relapse or recurrence. Multiple clinical trials in patients with PTSD who completed acute treatment with SSRIs have demonstrated that those who continued with SSRIs were less likely to have relapse compared with those receiving placebo.

Jasvinder Chawla, MD, Professor of Neurology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood; Director, Clinical Neurophysiology Lab, Department of Neurology, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL.
Jasvinder Chawla, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

You see it all the time. It’s the family at the table next to you in the restaurant where the two teenage children are texting away on their phones. Or the playground, where a 3-year-old is playing with his toy truck and bulldozer in the sand and his father, immersed in his laptop, hasn’t said a word to his child.

It may trouble you when you witness social situations like that in which an electronic device is preventing or certainly interfering with interpersonal interactions. Or at least I hope it troubles you. Maybe it is so ubiquitous that you have come to accept it as the norm. It’s likely you may even be a participant. But, do you have a name for it?

It’s called “technoference,” a word coined by a doctoral student in human development and family studies at Penn State a decade ago “to describe the everyday intrusions and interruptions in couple interactions that take place due to technology devices and their always-on, ever-present nature.” Although, the original research that triggered the coinage was about couples, obviously the phenomenon occurs whenever people of any age are together in social situations.

While the word may not have crept into common parlance, we all know it when we see it. Technoference may not appear in the paper’s title, but it is a subject being investigated across a broad array of disciplines. One phone tracking study found that parents of young infants spend more than 5 hours each day on their smartphones. More than a quarter of that time the infant is engaged with the parent’s digital device. Technoference has been associated with decreased parent-child interaction during early childhood. It has been associated with more negative responses to children’s behavior, as well as an increased risk of child injury.

There are numerous studies suggesting an association between parental technoference and mental health difficulties in children. I have recently reviewed one of these studies that looks at the relationship of perceived parental technoference and the mental health of children entering adolescents. The authors collected longitudinal data of more than 1300 emerging adolescents, hoping to determine if the relationship between parental distraction and mental health was bidirectional. In other words, could a child’s mental health be contributing to his parents’ perceived distraction? Or was it primarily the parents’ technoference that was playing a role in the child’s mental health problems?

What investigators found was that higher levels of parental distraction were associated with higher levels of inattention and hyperactivity in the emerging adolescents, but not vice versa. On the other hand, higher levels of adolescent anxiety was associated with higher levels of perceived parental technoference, but not vice versa.

I know this sounds a bit confusing and a bit chicken-egg-chicken-eggish. The study was not designed to determine causation in these associations. However, the authors offer some possible scenarios that may provide a bit of clarity. It could be that parents who are concerned about their anxious child respond by retreating into the cyberspace to avoid tense situations or for support or information.

On the other hand, emerging adolescents who are exhibiting hyperactivity and inattention may be responding to an environment infused with their parents’ higher level of technoference. This explanation meshes with other studies demonstrating an association between parental distraction and aggression and attention problems in early childhood.

While one could spend more time imagining other factors that could be driving these bidirectional relationships, I’m not sure that it makes a heckuva lot of difference. Whether the child’s mental illness is the primary driver or the parent’s device-associated distraction is the dominant force isn’t the point. These are bidirectional relationships. If we are interested in pointing fingers, the common denominator is the device and our failure as a society to keep it in proper perspective. We all know that smartphones, tablets, and computers create an unhealthy distraction in personal relationships. The parents know and most of the children know. It’s time for us all to demonstrate some self-discipline. And that can begin for us as health care providers as we sit behind our computers spending more time looking at the screen than we do engaging the patient with our eyes.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

You see it all the time. It’s the family at the table next to you in the restaurant where the two teenage children are texting away on their phones. Or the playground, where a 3-year-old is playing with his toy truck and bulldozer in the sand and his father, immersed in his laptop, hasn’t said a word to his child.

It may trouble you when you witness social situations like that in which an electronic device is preventing or certainly interfering with interpersonal interactions. Or at least I hope it troubles you. Maybe it is so ubiquitous that you have come to accept it as the norm. It’s likely you may even be a participant. But, do you have a name for it?

It’s called “technoference,” a word coined by a doctoral student in human development and family studies at Penn State a decade ago “to describe the everyday intrusions and interruptions in couple interactions that take place due to technology devices and their always-on, ever-present nature.” Although, the original research that triggered the coinage was about couples, obviously the phenomenon occurs whenever people of any age are together in social situations.

While the word may not have crept into common parlance, we all know it when we see it. Technoference may not appear in the paper’s title, but it is a subject being investigated across a broad array of disciplines. One phone tracking study found that parents of young infants spend more than 5 hours each day on their smartphones. More than a quarter of that time the infant is engaged with the parent’s digital device. Technoference has been associated with decreased parent-child interaction during early childhood. It has been associated with more negative responses to children’s behavior, as well as an increased risk of child injury.

There are numerous studies suggesting an association between parental technoference and mental health difficulties in children. I have recently reviewed one of these studies that looks at the relationship of perceived parental technoference and the mental health of children entering adolescents. The authors collected longitudinal data of more than 1300 emerging adolescents, hoping to determine if the relationship between parental distraction and mental health was bidirectional. In other words, could a child’s mental health be contributing to his parents’ perceived distraction? Or was it primarily the parents’ technoference that was playing a role in the child’s mental health problems?

What investigators found was that higher levels of parental distraction were associated with higher levels of inattention and hyperactivity in the emerging adolescents, but not vice versa. On the other hand, higher levels of adolescent anxiety was associated with higher levels of perceived parental technoference, but not vice versa.

I know this sounds a bit confusing and a bit chicken-egg-chicken-eggish. The study was not designed to determine causation in these associations. However, the authors offer some possible scenarios that may provide a bit of clarity. It could be that parents who are concerned about their anxious child respond by retreating into the cyberspace to avoid tense situations or for support or information.

On the other hand, emerging adolescents who are exhibiting hyperactivity and inattention may be responding to an environment infused with their parents’ higher level of technoference. This explanation meshes with other studies demonstrating an association between parental distraction and aggression and attention problems in early childhood.

While one could spend more time imagining other factors that could be driving these bidirectional relationships, I’m not sure that it makes a heckuva lot of difference. Whether the child’s mental illness is the primary driver or the parent’s device-associated distraction is the dominant force isn’t the point. These are bidirectional relationships. If we are interested in pointing fingers, the common denominator is the device and our failure as a society to keep it in proper perspective. We all know that smartphones, tablets, and computers create an unhealthy distraction in personal relationships. The parents know and most of the children know. It’s time for us all to demonstrate some self-discipline. And that can begin for us as health care providers as we sit behind our computers spending more time looking at the screen than we do engaging the patient with our eyes.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

You see it all the time. It’s the family at the table next to you in the restaurant where the two teenage children are texting away on their phones. Or the playground, where a 3-year-old is playing with his toy truck and bulldozer in the sand and his father, immersed in his laptop, hasn’t said a word to his child.

It may trouble you when you witness social situations like that in which an electronic device is preventing or certainly interfering with interpersonal interactions. Or at least I hope it troubles you. Maybe it is so ubiquitous that you have come to accept it as the norm. It’s likely you may even be a participant. But, do you have a name for it?

It’s called “technoference,” a word coined by a doctoral student in human development and family studies at Penn State a decade ago “to describe the everyday intrusions and interruptions in couple interactions that take place due to technology devices and their always-on, ever-present nature.” Although, the original research that triggered the coinage was about couples, obviously the phenomenon occurs whenever people of any age are together in social situations.

While the word may not have crept into common parlance, we all know it when we see it. Technoference may not appear in the paper’s title, but it is a subject being investigated across a broad array of disciplines. One phone tracking study found that parents of young infants spend more than 5 hours each day on their smartphones. More than a quarter of that time the infant is engaged with the parent’s digital device. Technoference has been associated with decreased parent-child interaction during early childhood. It has been associated with more negative responses to children’s behavior, as well as an increased risk of child injury.

There are numerous studies suggesting an association between parental technoference and mental health difficulties in children. I have recently reviewed one of these studies that looks at the relationship of perceived parental technoference and the mental health of children entering adolescents. The authors collected longitudinal data of more than 1300 emerging adolescents, hoping to determine if the relationship between parental distraction and mental health was bidirectional. In other words, could a child’s mental health be contributing to his parents’ perceived distraction? Or was it primarily the parents’ technoference that was playing a role in the child’s mental health problems?

What investigators found was that higher levels of parental distraction were associated with higher levels of inattention and hyperactivity in the emerging adolescents, but not vice versa. On the other hand, higher levels of adolescent anxiety was associated with higher levels of perceived parental technoference, but not vice versa.

I know this sounds a bit confusing and a bit chicken-egg-chicken-eggish. The study was not designed to determine causation in these associations. However, the authors offer some possible scenarios that may provide a bit of clarity. It could be that parents who are concerned about their anxious child respond by retreating into the cyberspace to avoid tense situations or for support or information.

On the other hand, emerging adolescents who are exhibiting hyperactivity and inattention may be responding to an environment infused with their parents’ higher level of technoference. This explanation meshes with other studies demonstrating an association between parental distraction and aggression and attention problems in early childhood.

While one could spend more time imagining other factors that could be driving these bidirectional relationships, I’m not sure that it makes a heckuva lot of difference. Whether the child’s mental illness is the primary driver or the parent’s device-associated distraction is the dominant force isn’t the point. These are bidirectional relationships. If we are interested in pointing fingers, the common denominator is the device and our failure as a society to keep it in proper perspective. We all know that smartphones, tablets, and computers create an unhealthy distraction in personal relationships. The parents know and most of the children know. It’s time for us all to demonstrate some self-discipline. And that can begin for us as health care providers as we sit behind our computers spending more time looking at the screen than we do engaging the patient with our eyes.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Click to view more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2024. 

Click to view more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2024. 

Click to view more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2024. 

Pulmonology Data Trends 2024 is a supplement to CHEST Physician highlighting the latest breakthroughs in pulmonology research and treatments through a series of infographics.

Read more: 

Artificial Intelligence in Sleep Apnea
Ritwick Agrawal, MD, MS, FCCP

RSV Updates: Prophylaxis Approval and Hospitalization for Severe RSV
Riddhi Upadhyay, MD

Biologics in Asthma: Changing the Severe Asthma Paradigm
Shyam Subramanian, MD, FCCP

Updates in COPD Guidelines and Treatment
Dharani K. Narendra, MD, FCCP

Targeted Therapies and Surgical Resection for Lung Cancer: Evolving Treatment Options
Saadia A. Faiz, MD, FCCP

Closing the GAP in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Humayun Anjum, MD, FCCP

Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia: Diagnostic Criteria, Treatment, and COVID-19
Sujith V. Cherian, MD, FCCP

Pulmonary Hypertension: Comorbidities and Novel Therapies
Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP

The Genetic Side of Interstitial Lung Disease
Priya Balakrishnan, MD, MS, FCCP

Noninvasive Ventilation in Neuromuscular Disease
Sreelatha Naik, MD, FCCP, and Kelly Lobrutto, CRNP

Pulmonology Data Trends 2024 is a supplement to CHEST Physician highlighting the latest breakthroughs in pulmonology research and treatments through a series of infographics.

Read more: 

Artificial Intelligence in Sleep Apnea
Ritwick Agrawal, MD, MS, FCCP

RSV Updates: Prophylaxis Approval and Hospitalization for Severe RSV
Riddhi Upadhyay, MD

Biologics in Asthma: Changing the Severe Asthma Paradigm
Shyam Subramanian, MD, FCCP

Updates in COPD Guidelines and Treatment
Dharani K. Narendra, MD, FCCP

Targeted Therapies and Surgical Resection for Lung Cancer: Evolving Treatment Options
Saadia A. Faiz, MD, FCCP

Closing the GAP in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Humayun Anjum, MD, FCCP

Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia: Diagnostic Criteria, Treatment, and COVID-19
Sujith V. Cherian, MD, FCCP

Pulmonary Hypertension: Comorbidities and Novel Therapies
Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP

The Genetic Side of Interstitial Lung Disease
Priya Balakrishnan, MD, MS, FCCP

Noninvasive Ventilation in Neuromuscular Disease
Sreelatha Naik, MD, FCCP, and Kelly Lobrutto, CRNP

Pulmonology Data Trends 2024 is a supplement to CHEST Physician highlighting the latest breakthroughs in pulmonology research and treatments through a series of infographics.

Read more: 

Artificial Intelligence in Sleep Apnea
Ritwick Agrawal, MD, MS, FCCP

RSV Updates: Prophylaxis Approval and Hospitalization for Severe RSV
Riddhi Upadhyay, MD

Biologics in Asthma: Changing the Severe Asthma Paradigm
Shyam Subramanian, MD, FCCP

Updates in COPD Guidelines and Treatment
Dharani K. Narendra, MD, FCCP

Targeted Therapies and Surgical Resection for Lung Cancer: Evolving Treatment Options
Saadia A. Faiz, MD, FCCP

Closing the GAP in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Humayun Anjum, MD, FCCP

Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia: Diagnostic Criteria, Treatment, and COVID-19
Sujith V. Cherian, MD, FCCP

Pulmonary Hypertension: Comorbidities and Novel Therapies
Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP

The Genetic Side of Interstitial Lung Disease
Priya Balakrishnan, MD, MS, FCCP

Noninvasive Ventilation in Neuromuscular Disease
Sreelatha Naik, MD, FCCP, and Kelly Lobrutto, CRNP

One of California’s two programs for training nurse-midwives has stopped admitting students while it revamps its curriculum to offer only doctoral degrees, a move that’s drawn howls of protest from alumni, health policy experts, and faculty who accuse the University of California of putting profits above public health needs.

The University of California San Francisco’s (UCSF) renowned nursing school will graduate its final class of certified nurse-midwives in the spring of 2025. Then the university will cancel its 2-year master’s program in nurse-midwifery, along with other nursing disciplines, in favor of a 3-year doctor of nursing practice, or DNP, degree. The change will pause UCSF’s nearly 5 decades–long training of nurse-midwives until at least 2025 and will more than double the cost to students.

State Assembly member Mia Bonta, who chairs the health committee, said she was “disheartened” to learn that UCSF was eliminating its master’s nurse-midwifery program and feared the additional time and costs to get a doctorate would deter potential applicants. “Instead of adding hurdles, we need to be building and expanding a pipeline of culturally and racially concordant providers to support improved birth outcomes, especially for Black and Latina birthing people,” she said in an email.

The switch to doctoral education is part of a national movement to require all advanced-practice registered nurses, including nurse-midwives and nurse practitioners, to earn doctoral degrees, Kristen Bole, a UCSF spokesperson, said in response to written questions. The doctoral training will feature additional classes in leadership and quality improvement.

But the movement, which dates to 2004, has not caught on the way the American Association of Colleges of Nursing envisioned when it called for doctorate-level education to be required for entry-level advanced nursing practice by 2015. That deadline came and went. Now, an acute need for maternal health practitioners has some universities moving in the other direction.

This year, Rutgers University reinstated the nurse-midwifery master’s training it had eliminated in 2016. The University of Alabama at Birmingham also restarted its master’s in nurse-midwifery program in 2022 after a 25-year hiatus. In addition, George Washington University in Washington, DC, Loyola University in New Orleans, and the University of Nevada in Las Vagas added master’s training in nurse-midwifery.

UCSF estimates tuition and fees will cost $152,000 for a 3-year doctoral degree in midwifery, compared with $65,000 for a 2-year master’s. Studies show that 71% of nursing master’s students and 74% of nursing doctoral students rely on student loans, and nurses with doctorates earn negligibly or no more than nurses with master’s degrees.

Kim Q. Dau, who ran UCSF’s nurse-midwifery program for a decade, resigned in June because she was uncomfortable with the elimination of the master’s in favor of a doctoral requirement, she said, which is at odds with the state’s workforce needs and unnecessary for clinical practice.

“They’ll be equally prepared clinically but at more expense to the student and with a greater time investment,” she said.

Nurse-midwives are registered nurses with graduate degrees in nurse-midwifery. Licensed in all 50 states, they work mostly in hospitals and can perform abortions and prescribe medications, though they are also trained in managing labor pain with showers, massage, and other natural means. Certified midwives, by contrast, study midwifery at the graduate level outside of nursing schools and are licensed only in some states. Certified professional midwives attend births outside of hospitals.

The California Nurse-Midwives Association also criticized UCSF’s program change, which comes amid a national maternal mortality crisis, a serious shortage of obstetric providers, and a growing reliance on midwives. According to the 2022 “White House Blueprint for Addressing the Maternal Health Crisis” report, the United States has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed nation and needs thousands more midwives and other women’s health providers to bridge the swelling gap.

Ginger Breedlove, founder and CEO of Grow Midwives, a national consulting firm, likened UCSF’s switch from master’s to doctoral training to “an earthquake.”

“Why are we delaying the entry of essential care providers by making them go to an additional year of school, which adds nothing to their clinical preparedness or safety to serve the community?” asked Ms. Breedlove, a past president of the American College of Nurse-Midwives. “Why they have chosen this during one of the worst workforce shortages combined with the worst maternal health crisis we have had in 50 years is beyond my imagination.”

A 2020 report published in Nursing Outlook failed to find that advanced-practice registered nurses with doctorates were more clinically proficient than those with master’s degrees. “Unfortunately, to date, the data are sparse,” it concluded.

The American College of Nurse-Midwives also denounced the doctoral requirement, as have trade associations for neonatal nurse practitioners and neonatal nurses, citing “the lack of scientific evidence that ... doctoral-level education is beneficial to patients, practitioners, or society.”

There is no evidence that doctoral-level nurse-midwives will provide better care, Ms. Breedlove said.

“This is profit over purpose,” she added.

Ms. Bole disputed Ms. Breedlove’s accusation of a profit motive. Asked for reasons for the change, she offered broad statements: “The decision to upgrade our program was made to ensure that our graduates are prepared for the challenges they will face in the evolving health care landscape.”

Like Ms. Breedlove, Liz Donnelly, vice chair of the health policy committee for the California Nurse-Midwives Association, worries that UCSF’s switch to a doctoral degree will exacerbate the twin crises of maternal mortality and a shrinking obstetrics workforce across California and the nation.

On average, 10-12 nurse-midwives graduated from the UCSF master’s program each year over the past decade, Ms. Bole said. California’s remaining master’s program in nurse-midwifery is at California State University in Fullerton, south of Los Angeles, and it graduated 8 nurse-midwives in 2023 and 11 in 2024.

More than half of rural counties in the United States lacked obstetric care in 2018, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

In some parts of California, expectant mothers must drive 2 hours for care, said Bethany Sasaki, who runs Midtown Nurse Midwives, a Sacramento birth center. It has had to stop accepting new clients because it cannot find midwives.

Ms. Donnelly predicted the closure of UCSF’s midwifery program will significantly reduce the number of nurse-midwives entering the workforce and will inhibit people with fewer resources from attending the program. “Specifically, I think it’s going to reduce folks of color, people from rural communities, people from poor communities,” she said.

UCSF’s change will also likely undercut efforts to train providers from diverse backgrounds.

Natasha, a 37-year-old Afro-Puerto Rican mother of two, has spent a decade preparing to train as a nurse-midwife so she could help women like herself through pregnancy and childbirth. She asked to be identified only by her first name out of fear of reducing her chances of graduate school admission.

The UCSF program’s pause, plus the added time and expense to get a doctoral degree, has muddied her career path.

“The master’s was just the perfect program,” said Natasha, who lives in the Bay Area and cannot travel to the other end of the state to attend California State University-Fullerton. “I’m frustrated, and I feel deflated. I now have to find another career path.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

One of California’s two programs for training nurse-midwives has stopped admitting students while it revamps its curriculum to offer only doctoral degrees, a move that’s drawn howls of protest from alumni, health policy experts, and faculty who accuse the University of California of putting profits above public health needs.

The University of California San Francisco’s (UCSF) renowned nursing school will graduate its final class of certified nurse-midwives in the spring of 2025. Then the university will cancel its 2-year master’s program in nurse-midwifery, along with other nursing disciplines, in favor of a 3-year doctor of nursing practice, or DNP, degree. The change will pause UCSF’s nearly 5 decades–long training of nurse-midwives until at least 2025 and will more than double the cost to students.

State Assembly member Mia Bonta, who chairs the health committee, said she was “disheartened” to learn that UCSF was eliminating its master’s nurse-midwifery program and feared the additional time and costs to get a doctorate would deter potential applicants. “Instead of adding hurdles, we need to be building and expanding a pipeline of culturally and racially concordant providers to support improved birth outcomes, especially for Black and Latina birthing people,” she said in an email.

The switch to doctoral education is part of a national movement to require all advanced-practice registered nurses, including nurse-midwives and nurse practitioners, to earn doctoral degrees, Kristen Bole, a UCSF spokesperson, said in response to written questions. The doctoral training will feature additional classes in leadership and quality improvement.

But the movement, which dates to 2004, has not caught on the way the American Association of Colleges of Nursing envisioned when it called for doctorate-level education to be required for entry-level advanced nursing practice by 2015. That deadline came and went. Now, an acute need for maternal health practitioners has some universities moving in the other direction.

This year, Rutgers University reinstated the nurse-midwifery master’s training it had eliminated in 2016. The University of Alabama at Birmingham also restarted its master’s in nurse-midwifery program in 2022 after a 25-year hiatus. In addition, George Washington University in Washington, DC, Loyola University in New Orleans, and the University of Nevada in Las Vagas added master’s training in nurse-midwifery.

UCSF estimates tuition and fees will cost $152,000 for a 3-year doctoral degree in midwifery, compared with $65,000 for a 2-year master’s. Studies show that 71% of nursing master’s students and 74% of nursing doctoral students rely on student loans, and nurses with doctorates earn negligibly or no more than nurses with master’s degrees.

Kim Q. Dau, who ran UCSF’s nurse-midwifery program for a decade, resigned in June because she was uncomfortable with the elimination of the master’s in favor of a doctoral requirement, she said, which is at odds with the state’s workforce needs and unnecessary for clinical practice.

“They’ll be equally prepared clinically but at more expense to the student and with a greater time investment,” she said.

Nurse-midwives are registered nurses with graduate degrees in nurse-midwifery. Licensed in all 50 states, they work mostly in hospitals and can perform abortions and prescribe medications, though they are also trained in managing labor pain with showers, massage, and other natural means. Certified midwives, by contrast, study midwifery at the graduate level outside of nursing schools and are licensed only in some states. Certified professional midwives attend births outside of hospitals.

The California Nurse-Midwives Association also criticized UCSF’s program change, which comes amid a national maternal mortality crisis, a serious shortage of obstetric providers, and a growing reliance on midwives. According to the 2022 “White House Blueprint for Addressing the Maternal Health Crisis” report, the United States has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed nation and needs thousands more midwives and other women’s health providers to bridge the swelling gap.

Ginger Breedlove, founder and CEO of Grow Midwives, a national consulting firm, likened UCSF’s switch from master’s to doctoral training to “an earthquake.”

“Why are we delaying the entry of essential care providers by making them go to an additional year of school, which adds nothing to their clinical preparedness or safety to serve the community?” asked Ms. Breedlove, a past president of the American College of Nurse-Midwives. “Why they have chosen this during one of the worst workforce shortages combined with the worst maternal health crisis we have had in 50 years is beyond my imagination.”

A 2020 report published in Nursing Outlook failed to find that advanced-practice registered nurses with doctorates were more clinically proficient than those with master’s degrees. “Unfortunately, to date, the data are sparse,” it concluded.

The American College of Nurse-Midwives also denounced the doctoral requirement, as have trade associations for neonatal nurse practitioners and neonatal nurses, citing “the lack of scientific evidence that ... doctoral-level education is beneficial to patients, practitioners, or society.”

There is no evidence that doctoral-level nurse-midwives will provide better care, Ms. Breedlove said.

“This is profit over purpose,” she added.

Ms. Bole disputed Ms. Breedlove’s accusation of a profit motive. Asked for reasons for the change, she offered broad statements: “The decision to upgrade our program was made to ensure that our graduates are prepared for the challenges they will face in the evolving health care landscape.”

Like Ms. Breedlove, Liz Donnelly, vice chair of the health policy committee for the California Nurse-Midwives Association, worries that UCSF’s switch to a doctoral degree will exacerbate the twin crises of maternal mortality and a shrinking obstetrics workforce across California and the nation.

On average, 10-12 nurse-midwives graduated from the UCSF master’s program each year over the past decade, Ms. Bole said. California’s remaining master’s program in nurse-midwifery is at California State University in Fullerton, south of Los Angeles, and it graduated 8 nurse-midwives in 2023 and 11 in 2024.

More than half of rural counties in the United States lacked obstetric care in 2018, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

In some parts of California, expectant mothers must drive 2 hours for care, said Bethany Sasaki, who runs Midtown Nurse Midwives, a Sacramento birth center. It has had to stop accepting new clients because it cannot find midwives.

Ms. Donnelly predicted the closure of UCSF’s midwifery program will significantly reduce the number of nurse-midwives entering the workforce and will inhibit people with fewer resources from attending the program. “Specifically, I think it’s going to reduce folks of color, people from rural communities, people from poor communities,” she said.

UCSF’s change will also likely undercut efforts to train providers from diverse backgrounds.

Natasha, a 37-year-old Afro-Puerto Rican mother of two, has spent a decade preparing to train as a nurse-midwife so she could help women like herself through pregnancy and childbirth. She asked to be identified only by her first name out of fear of reducing her chances of graduate school admission.

The UCSF program’s pause, plus the added time and expense to get a doctoral degree, has muddied her career path.

“The master’s was just the perfect program,” said Natasha, who lives in the Bay Area and cannot travel to the other end of the state to attend California State University-Fullerton. “I’m frustrated, and I feel deflated. I now have to find another career path.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

One of California’s two programs for training nurse-midwives has stopped admitting students while it revamps its curriculum to offer only doctoral degrees, a move that’s drawn howls of protest from alumni, health policy experts, and faculty who accuse the University of California of putting profits above public health needs.

The University of California San Francisco’s (UCSF) renowned nursing school will graduate its final class of certified nurse-midwives in the spring of 2025. Then the university will cancel its 2-year master’s program in nurse-midwifery, along with other nursing disciplines, in favor of a 3-year doctor of nursing practice, or DNP, degree. The change will pause UCSF’s nearly 5 decades–long training of nurse-midwives until at least 2025 and will more than double the cost to students.

State Assembly member Mia Bonta, who chairs the health committee, said she was “disheartened” to learn that UCSF was eliminating its master’s nurse-midwifery program and feared the additional time and costs to get a doctorate would deter potential applicants. “Instead of adding hurdles, we need to be building and expanding a pipeline of culturally and racially concordant providers to support improved birth outcomes, especially for Black and Latina birthing people,” she said in an email.

The switch to doctoral education is part of a national movement to require all advanced-practice registered nurses, including nurse-midwives and nurse practitioners, to earn doctoral degrees, Kristen Bole, a UCSF spokesperson, said in response to written questions. The doctoral training will feature additional classes in leadership and quality improvement.

But the movement, which dates to 2004, has not caught on the way the American Association of Colleges of Nursing envisioned when it called for doctorate-level education to be required for entry-level advanced nursing practice by 2015. That deadline came and went. Now, an acute need for maternal health practitioners has some universities moving in the other direction.

This year, Rutgers University reinstated the nurse-midwifery master’s training it had eliminated in 2016. The University of Alabama at Birmingham also restarted its master’s in nurse-midwifery program in 2022 after a 25-year hiatus. In addition, George Washington University in Washington, DC, Loyola University in New Orleans, and the University of Nevada in Las Vagas added master’s training in nurse-midwifery.

UCSF estimates tuition and fees will cost $152,000 for a 3-year doctoral degree in midwifery, compared with $65,000 for a 2-year master’s. Studies show that 71% of nursing master’s students and 74% of nursing doctoral students rely on student loans, and nurses with doctorates earn negligibly or no more than nurses with master’s degrees.

Kim Q. Dau, who ran UCSF’s nurse-midwifery program for a decade, resigned in June because she was uncomfortable with the elimination of the master’s in favor of a doctoral requirement, she said, which is at odds with the state’s workforce needs and unnecessary for clinical practice.

“They’ll be equally prepared clinically but at more expense to the student and with a greater time investment,” she said.

Nurse-midwives are registered nurses with graduate degrees in nurse-midwifery. Licensed in all 50 states, they work mostly in hospitals and can perform abortions and prescribe medications, though they are also trained in managing labor pain with showers, massage, and other natural means. Certified midwives, by contrast, study midwifery at the graduate level outside of nursing schools and are licensed only in some states. Certified professional midwives attend births outside of hospitals.

The California Nurse-Midwives Association also criticized UCSF’s program change, which comes amid a national maternal mortality crisis, a serious shortage of obstetric providers, and a growing reliance on midwives. According to the 2022 “White House Blueprint for Addressing the Maternal Health Crisis” report, the United States has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed nation and needs thousands more midwives and other women’s health providers to bridge the swelling gap.

Ginger Breedlove, founder and CEO of Grow Midwives, a national consulting firm, likened UCSF’s switch from master’s to doctoral training to “an earthquake.”

“Why are we delaying the entry of essential care providers by making them go to an additional year of school, which adds nothing to their clinical preparedness or safety to serve the community?” asked Ms. Breedlove, a past president of the American College of Nurse-Midwives. “Why they have chosen this during one of the worst workforce shortages combined with the worst maternal health crisis we have had in 50 years is beyond my imagination.”

A 2020 report published in Nursing Outlook failed to find that advanced-practice registered nurses with doctorates were more clinically proficient than those with master’s degrees. “Unfortunately, to date, the data are sparse,” it concluded.

The American College of Nurse-Midwives also denounced the doctoral requirement, as have trade associations for neonatal nurse practitioners and neonatal nurses, citing “the lack of scientific evidence that ... doctoral-level education is beneficial to patients, practitioners, or society.”

There is no evidence that doctoral-level nurse-midwives will provide better care, Ms. Breedlove said.

“This is profit over purpose,” she added.

Ms. Bole disputed Ms. Breedlove’s accusation of a profit motive. Asked for reasons for the change, she offered broad statements: “The decision to upgrade our program was made to ensure that our graduates are prepared for the challenges they will face in the evolving health care landscape.”

Like Ms. Breedlove, Liz Donnelly, vice chair of the health policy committee for the California Nurse-Midwives Association, worries that UCSF’s switch to a doctoral degree will exacerbate the twin crises of maternal mortality and a shrinking obstetrics workforce across California and the nation.

On average, 10-12 nurse-midwives graduated from the UCSF master’s program each year over the past decade, Ms. Bole said. California’s remaining master’s program in nurse-midwifery is at California State University in Fullerton, south of Los Angeles, and it graduated 8 nurse-midwives in 2023 and 11 in 2024.

More than half of rural counties in the United States lacked obstetric care in 2018, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

In some parts of California, expectant mothers must drive 2 hours for care, said Bethany Sasaki, who runs Midtown Nurse Midwives, a Sacramento birth center. It has had to stop accepting new clients because it cannot find midwives.

Ms. Donnelly predicted the closure of UCSF’s midwifery program will significantly reduce the number of nurse-midwives entering the workforce and will inhibit people with fewer resources from attending the program. “Specifically, I think it’s going to reduce folks of color, people from rural communities, people from poor communities,” she said.

UCSF’s change will also likely undercut efforts to train providers from diverse backgrounds.

Natasha, a 37-year-old Afro-Puerto Rican mother of two, has spent a decade preparing to train as a nurse-midwife so she could help women like herself through pregnancy and childbirth. She asked to be identified only by her first name out of fear of reducing her chances of graduate school admission.

The UCSF program’s pause, plus the added time and expense to get a doctoral degree, has muddied her career path.

“The master’s was just the perfect program,” said Natasha, who lives in the Bay Area and cannot travel to the other end of the state to attend California State University-Fullerton. “I’m frustrated, and I feel deflated. I now have to find another career path.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Click to view more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2024. 

Click to view more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2024. 

Click to view more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2024. 

TOPLINE: 

Compared with other urine analysis methods, urine Gram stain has a moderate predictive value for detecting gram-negative bacteria in urine culture but does not significantly improve urinary tract infection (UTI) diagnosis in the emergency department (ED).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an observational cohort study at the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, encompassing 1358 episodes across 1136 patients suspected of having a UTI.
• The study included the following predefined subgroups: patients using urinary catheters and patients with leukopenia (< 4.0×10⁹ leucocytes/L). Urine dipstick nitrite, automated urinalysis, Gram stain, and urine cultures were performed on urine samples collected from patients presenting at the ED.
• The sensitivity and specificity of Gram stain for “many” bacteria (quantified as > 15/high power field) were compared with those of urine dipstick nitrite and automated bacterial counting in urinalysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The sensitivity and specificity of Gram stain for “many” bacteria were 51.3% and 91.0%, respectively, with an accuracy of 76.8%.
• Gram stain showed a positive predictive value (PPV) of 84.7% for gram-negative rods in urine culture; however, the PPV was only 38.4% for gram-positive cocci.
• In the catheter subgroup, the presence of monomorphic bacteria quantified as “many” had a higher PPV for diagnosing a UTI than the presence of polymorphic bacteria with the same quantification.
• The overall performance of Gram stain in diagnosing a UTI in the ED was comparable to that of automated bacterial counting in urinalysis but better than that of urine dipstick nitrite.

IN PRACTICE:

“With the exception of a moderate prediction of gram-negative bacteria in the UC [urine culture], urine GS [Gram stain] does not improve UTI diagnosis at the ED compared to other urine parameters,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Stephanie J.M. Middelkoop, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. It was published online on August 16, 2024, in Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included a small sample size within the leukopenia subgroup, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the potential influence of refrigeration of urine samples on bacterial growth could have affected the results. In this study, indwelling catheters were not replaced before urine sample collection, which may have affected the accuracy of UTI diagnosis in patients using catheters.
 

DISCLOSURES:

No conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Compared with other urine analysis methods, urine Gram stain has a moderate predictive value for detecting gram-negative bacteria in urine culture but does not significantly improve urinary tract infection (UTI) diagnosis in the emergency department (ED).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an observational cohort study at the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, encompassing 1358 episodes across 1136 patients suspected of having a UTI.
• The study included the following predefined subgroups: patients using urinary catheters and patients with leukopenia (< 4.0×10⁹ leucocytes/L). Urine dipstick nitrite, automated urinalysis, Gram stain, and urine cultures were performed on urine samples collected from patients presenting at the ED.
• The sensitivity and specificity of Gram stain for “many” bacteria (quantified as > 15/high power field) were compared with those of urine dipstick nitrite and automated bacterial counting in urinalysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The sensitivity and specificity of Gram stain for “many” bacteria were 51.3% and 91.0%, respectively, with an accuracy of 76.8%.
• Gram stain showed a positive predictive value (PPV) of 84.7% for gram-negative rods in urine culture; however, the PPV was only 38.4% for gram-positive cocci.
• In the catheter subgroup, the presence of monomorphic bacteria quantified as “many” had a higher PPV for diagnosing a UTI than the presence of polymorphic bacteria with the same quantification.
• The overall performance of Gram stain in diagnosing a UTI in the ED was comparable to that of automated bacterial counting in urinalysis but better than that of urine dipstick nitrite.

IN PRACTICE:

“With the exception of a moderate prediction of gram-negative bacteria in the UC [urine culture], urine GS [Gram stain] does not improve UTI diagnosis at the ED compared to other urine parameters,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Stephanie J.M. Middelkoop, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. It was published online on August 16, 2024, in Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included a small sample size within the leukopenia subgroup, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the potential influence of refrigeration of urine samples on bacterial growth could have affected the results. In this study, indwelling catheters were not replaced before urine sample collection, which may have affected the accuracy of UTI diagnosis in patients using catheters.
 

DISCLOSURES:

No conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Compared with other urine analysis methods, urine Gram stain has a moderate predictive value for detecting gram-negative bacteria in urine culture but does not significantly improve urinary tract infection (UTI) diagnosis in the emergency department (ED).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an observational cohort study at the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, encompassing 1358 episodes across 1136 patients suspected of having a UTI.
• The study included the following predefined subgroups: patients using urinary catheters and patients with leukopenia (< 4.0×10⁹ leucocytes/L). Urine dipstick nitrite, automated urinalysis, Gram stain, and urine cultures were performed on urine samples collected from patients presenting at the ED.
• The sensitivity and specificity of Gram stain for “many” bacteria (quantified as > 15/high power field) were compared with those of urine dipstick nitrite and automated bacterial counting in urinalysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The sensitivity and specificity of Gram stain for “many” bacteria were 51.3% and 91.0%, respectively, with an accuracy of 76.8%.
• Gram stain showed a positive predictive value (PPV) of 84.7% for gram-negative rods in urine culture; however, the PPV was only 38.4% for gram-positive cocci.
• In the catheter subgroup, the presence of monomorphic bacteria quantified as “many” had a higher PPV for diagnosing a UTI than the presence of polymorphic bacteria with the same quantification.
• The overall performance of Gram stain in diagnosing a UTI in the ED was comparable to that of automated bacterial counting in urinalysis but better than that of urine dipstick nitrite.

IN PRACTICE:

“With the exception of a moderate prediction of gram-negative bacteria in the UC [urine culture], urine GS [Gram stain] does not improve UTI diagnosis at the ED compared to other urine parameters,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Stephanie J.M. Middelkoop, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. It was published online on August 16, 2024, in Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included a small sample size within the leukopenia subgroup, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the potential influence of refrigeration of urine samples on bacterial growth could have affected the results. In this study, indwelling catheters were not replaced before urine sample collection, which may have affected the accuracy of UTI diagnosis in patients using catheters.
 

DISCLOSURES:

No conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

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 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.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Listeriosis during pregnancy, when invasive, can be fatal for the fetus, with a rate of fetal loss or neonatal death of 29%, investigators reported in an article alerting clinicians to this condition.

The article was prompted when the Reproductive Infectious Diseases team at The University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, “received many phone calls from concerned doctors and patients after the plant-based milk recall in early July,” Jeffrey Man Hay Wong, MD, told this news organization. “With such concerns, we updated our British Columbia guidelines for our patients but quickly realized that our recommendations would be useful across the country.”

The article was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Five Key Points

Dr. Wong and colleagues provided the following five points and recommendations:

First, invasive listeriosis (bacteremia or meningitis) in pregnancy can have major fetal consequences, including fetal loss or neonatal death in 29% of cases. Affected patients can be asymptomatic or experience gastrointestinal symptoms, myalgias, fevers, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or sepsis.

Second, pregnant people should avoid foods at a high risk for Listeria monocytogenes contamination, including unpasteurized dairy products, luncheon meats, refrigerated meat spreads, and prepared salads. They also should stay aware of Health Canada recalls.

Third, it is not necessary to investigate or treat patients who may have ingested contaminated food but are asymptomatic. Listeriosis can present at 2-3 months after exposure because the incubation period can be as long as 70 days.

Fourth, for patients with mild gastroenteritis or flu-like symptoms who may have ingested contaminated food, obtaining blood cultures or starting a 2-week course of oral amoxicillin (500 mg, three times daily) could be considered.

Fifth, for patients with fever and possible exposure to L monocytogenes, blood cultures should be drawn immediately, and high-dose ampicillin should be initiated, along with electronic fetal heart rate monitoring.

“While choosing safer foods in pregnancy is recommended, it is most important to be aware of Health Canada food recalls and pay attention to symptoms if you’ve ingested these foods,” said Dr. Wong. “Working with the BC Centre for Disease Control, our teams are actively monitoring for cases of listeriosis in pregnancy here in British Columbia.

“Thankfully,” he said, “there haven’t been any confirmed cases in British Columbia related to the plant-based milk recall, though the bacteria’s incubation period can be up to 70 days in pregnancy.”
 

No Increase Suspected

Commenting on the article, Khady Diouf, MD, director of global obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said, “It summarizes the main management, which is based mostly on expert opinion.”

US clinicians also should be reminded about listeriosis in pregnancy, she noted, pointing to “helpful guidance” from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Although the United States similarly experienced a recent listeriosis outbreak resulting from contaminated deli meats, both Dr. Wong and Dr. Diouf said that these outbreaks do not seem to signal an increase in listeriosis cases overall.

“Food-borne listeriosis seems to come in waves,” said Dr. Wong. “At a public health level, we certainly have better surveillance programs for Listeria infections. In 2023, Health Canada updated its Policy on L monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods, which emphasizes the good manufacturing practices recommended for food processing environments to identify outbreaks earlier.”

“I think we get these recalls yearly, and this has been the case for as long as I can remember,” Dr. Diouf agreed.

No funding was declared, and the authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Listeriosis during pregnancy, when invasive, can be fatal for the fetus, with a rate of fetal loss or neonatal death of 29%, investigators reported in an article alerting clinicians to this condition.

The article was prompted when the Reproductive Infectious Diseases team at The University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, “received many phone calls from concerned doctors and patients after the plant-based milk recall in early July,” Jeffrey Man Hay Wong, MD, told this news organization. “With such concerns, we updated our British Columbia guidelines for our patients but quickly realized that our recommendations would be useful across the country.”

The article was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Five Key Points

Dr. Wong and colleagues provided the following five points and recommendations:

First, invasive listeriosis (bacteremia or meningitis) in pregnancy can have major fetal consequences, including fetal loss or neonatal death in 29% of cases. Affected patients can be asymptomatic or experience gastrointestinal symptoms, myalgias, fevers, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or sepsis.

Second, pregnant people should avoid foods at a high risk for Listeria monocytogenes contamination, including unpasteurized dairy products, luncheon meats, refrigerated meat spreads, and prepared salads. They also should stay aware of Health Canada recalls.

Third, it is not necessary to investigate or treat patients who may have ingested contaminated food but are asymptomatic. Listeriosis can present at 2-3 months after exposure because the incubation period can be as long as 70 days.

Fourth, for patients with mild gastroenteritis or flu-like symptoms who may have ingested contaminated food, obtaining blood cultures or starting a 2-week course of oral amoxicillin (500 mg, three times daily) could be considered.

Fifth, for patients with fever and possible exposure to L monocytogenes, blood cultures should be drawn immediately, and high-dose ampicillin should be initiated, along with electronic fetal heart rate monitoring.

“While choosing safer foods in pregnancy is recommended, it is most important to be aware of Health Canada food recalls and pay attention to symptoms if you’ve ingested these foods,” said Dr. Wong. “Working with the BC Centre for Disease Control, our teams are actively monitoring for cases of listeriosis in pregnancy here in British Columbia.

“Thankfully,” he said, “there haven’t been any confirmed cases in British Columbia related to the plant-based milk recall, though the bacteria’s incubation period can be up to 70 days in pregnancy.”
 

No Increase Suspected

Commenting on the article, Khady Diouf, MD, director of global obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said, “It summarizes the main management, which is based mostly on expert opinion.”

US clinicians also should be reminded about listeriosis in pregnancy, she noted, pointing to “helpful guidance” from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Although the United States similarly experienced a recent listeriosis outbreak resulting from contaminated deli meats, both Dr. Wong and Dr. Diouf said that these outbreaks do not seem to signal an increase in listeriosis cases overall.

“Food-borne listeriosis seems to come in waves,” said Dr. Wong. “At a public health level, we certainly have better surveillance programs for Listeria infections. In 2023, Health Canada updated its Policy on L monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods, which emphasizes the good manufacturing practices recommended for food processing environments to identify outbreaks earlier.”

“I think we get these recalls yearly, and this has been the case for as long as I can remember,” Dr. Diouf agreed.

No funding was declared, and the authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Listeriosis during pregnancy, when invasive, can be fatal for the fetus, with a rate of fetal loss or neonatal death of 29%, investigators reported in an article alerting clinicians to this condition.

The article was prompted when the Reproductive Infectious Diseases team at The University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, “received many phone calls from concerned doctors and patients after the plant-based milk recall in early July,” Jeffrey Man Hay Wong, MD, told this news organization. “With such concerns, we updated our British Columbia guidelines for our patients but quickly realized that our recommendations would be useful across the country.”

The article was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Five Key Points

Dr. Wong and colleagues provided the following five points and recommendations:

First, invasive listeriosis (bacteremia or meningitis) in pregnancy can have major fetal consequences, including fetal loss or neonatal death in 29% of cases. Affected patients can be asymptomatic or experience gastrointestinal symptoms, myalgias, fevers, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or sepsis.

Second, pregnant people should avoid foods at a high risk for Listeria monocytogenes contamination, including unpasteurized dairy products, luncheon meats, refrigerated meat spreads, and prepared salads. They also should stay aware of Health Canada recalls.

Third, it is not necessary to investigate or treat patients who may have ingested contaminated food but are asymptomatic. Listeriosis can present at 2-3 months after exposure because the incubation period can be as long as 70 days.

Fourth, for patients with mild gastroenteritis or flu-like symptoms who may have ingested contaminated food, obtaining blood cultures or starting a 2-week course of oral amoxicillin (500 mg, three times daily) could be considered.

Fifth, for patients with fever and possible exposure to L monocytogenes, blood cultures should be drawn immediately, and high-dose ampicillin should be initiated, along with electronic fetal heart rate monitoring.

“While choosing safer foods in pregnancy is recommended, it is most important to be aware of Health Canada food recalls and pay attention to symptoms if you’ve ingested these foods,” said Dr. Wong. “Working with the BC Centre for Disease Control, our teams are actively monitoring for cases of listeriosis in pregnancy here in British Columbia.

“Thankfully,” he said, “there haven’t been any confirmed cases in British Columbia related to the plant-based milk recall, though the bacteria’s incubation period can be up to 70 days in pregnancy.”
 

No Increase Suspected

Commenting on the article, Khady Diouf, MD, director of global obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said, “It summarizes the main management, which is based mostly on expert opinion.”

US clinicians also should be reminded about listeriosis in pregnancy, she noted, pointing to “helpful guidance” from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Although the United States similarly experienced a recent listeriosis outbreak resulting from contaminated deli meats, both Dr. Wong and Dr. Diouf said that these outbreaks do not seem to signal an increase in listeriosis cases overall.

“Food-borne listeriosis seems to come in waves,” said Dr. Wong. “At a public health level, we certainly have better surveillance programs for Listeria infections. In 2023, Health Canada updated its Policy on L monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods, which emphasizes the good manufacturing practices recommended for food processing environments to identify outbreaks earlier.”

“I think we get these recalls yearly, and this has been the case for as long as I can remember,” Dr. Diouf agreed.

No funding was declared, and the authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

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