MDedge ObGyn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the Technology Safe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Committee Expresses Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the Technology Safe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Committee Expresses Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the Technology Safe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Committee Expresses Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hospital administrators and some department heads have been vocal about the potential for unions to affect both the attending-resident relationship and the ability for residents to directly discuss concerns and educational plans.

Critics feel that having a third party at the table, such as a union representative who isn’t as knowledgeable about the nuances of medical education, could complicate the decision-making process.

Sometimes, there are institution-specific issues as well. One example was at Loma Linda. They argued that unionization would go against their religious principles. They filed a lawsuit. That didn’t go through, and the residents won a few months later.

I know there’s always that one senior, older doctor who says, “Back in our day, we just worked, and we never complained.”

Look at the current situation that residents are facing now, with housing and rent prices and increasing costs of childcare. Sprinkle in some inflation, poor hospital staffing, increasing workload, and add in the fact that the average first-year resident salary in 2023 was around $64,000.

Now, if you look back to 2012, the average salary was around $55,000. If you adjust that for inflation, it would be around $75,000 today, which is more than what the average resident is getting paid.

Then, there are hospital administrators who say that the hospital does not have the money to meet these demands; meanwhile, hospital graduate medical education (GME) offices receive about $150,000 of Medicare funds per resident.

Obviously, there are additional costs when it comes to training and supporting residents. In general, unionizing freaks out the people handling all the cash.

There’s also the threat of a strike, which no hospital wants on their public record. A recent highly publicized event happened at New York’s Elmhurst Hospital, when 160 residents went on strike for 3 days until a deal was made.

Critics of unionizing also cite a particular study in JAMA, which included a survey of 5700 general surgery residents at 285 programs. It found that while unions helped with vacation time and housing stipends, the unions were not associated with improved burnout rates, suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, or salary.

Now, granted, this isn’t the strongest study. It only sampled one group of residents, so I wouldn’t generalize these findings, but it’s still commonly cited by anti-union advocates.

Another potential downside, which is purely anecdotal because I can’t find any data to support this, is potential retaliation against residents or harm to the attending-resident relationship.

I’m an attending. I don’t really understand this one. I don’t exactly own stock in my hospital, nor am I making millions of dollars by siphoning GME money. I’m just trying to focus on educating and supporting my residents the best I can.

Dr. Patel is Clinical Instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; Pediatric Hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork–Presbyterian, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hospital administrators and some department heads have been vocal about the potential for unions to affect both the attending-resident relationship and the ability for residents to directly discuss concerns and educational plans.

Critics feel that having a third party at the table, such as a union representative who isn’t as knowledgeable about the nuances of medical education, could complicate the decision-making process.

Sometimes, there are institution-specific issues as well. One example was at Loma Linda. They argued that unionization would go against their religious principles. They filed a lawsuit. That didn’t go through, and the residents won a few months later.

I know there’s always that one senior, older doctor who says, “Back in our day, we just worked, and we never complained.”

Look at the current situation that residents are facing now, with housing and rent prices and increasing costs of childcare. Sprinkle in some inflation, poor hospital staffing, increasing workload, and add in the fact that the average first-year resident salary in 2023 was around $64,000.

Now, if you look back to 2012, the average salary was around $55,000. If you adjust that for inflation, it would be around $75,000 today, which is more than what the average resident is getting paid.

Then, there are hospital administrators who say that the hospital does not have the money to meet these demands; meanwhile, hospital graduate medical education (GME) offices receive about $150,000 of Medicare funds per resident.

Obviously, there are additional costs when it comes to training and supporting residents. In general, unionizing freaks out the people handling all the cash.

There’s also the threat of a strike, which no hospital wants on their public record. A recent highly publicized event happened at New York’s Elmhurst Hospital, when 160 residents went on strike for 3 days until a deal was made.

Critics of unionizing also cite a particular study in JAMA, which included a survey of 5700 general surgery residents at 285 programs. It found that while unions helped with vacation time and housing stipends, the unions were not associated with improved burnout rates, suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, or salary.

Now, granted, this isn’t the strongest study. It only sampled one group of residents, so I wouldn’t generalize these findings, but it’s still commonly cited by anti-union advocates.

Another potential downside, which is purely anecdotal because I can’t find any data to support this, is potential retaliation against residents or harm to the attending-resident relationship.

I’m an attending. I don’t really understand this one. I don’t exactly own stock in my hospital, nor am I making millions of dollars by siphoning GME money. I’m just trying to focus on educating and supporting my residents the best I can.

Dr. Patel is Clinical Instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; Pediatric Hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork–Presbyterian, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hospital administrators and some department heads have been vocal about the potential for unions to affect both the attending-resident relationship and the ability for residents to directly discuss concerns and educational plans.

Critics feel that having a third party at the table, such as a union representative who isn’t as knowledgeable about the nuances of medical education, could complicate the decision-making process.

Sometimes, there are institution-specific issues as well. One example was at Loma Linda. They argued that unionization would go against their religious principles. They filed a lawsuit. That didn’t go through, and the residents won a few months later.

I know there’s always that one senior, older doctor who says, “Back in our day, we just worked, and we never complained.”

Look at the current situation that residents are facing now, with housing and rent prices and increasing costs of childcare. Sprinkle in some inflation, poor hospital staffing, increasing workload, and add in the fact that the average first-year resident salary in 2023 was around $64,000.

Now, if you look back to 2012, the average salary was around $55,000. If you adjust that for inflation, it would be around $75,000 today, which is more than what the average resident is getting paid.

Then, there are hospital administrators who say that the hospital does not have the money to meet these demands; meanwhile, hospital graduate medical education (GME) offices receive about $150,000 of Medicare funds per resident.

Obviously, there are additional costs when it comes to training and supporting residents. In general, unionizing freaks out the people handling all the cash.

There’s also the threat of a strike, which no hospital wants on their public record. A recent highly publicized event happened at New York’s Elmhurst Hospital, when 160 residents went on strike for 3 days until a deal was made.

Critics of unionizing also cite a particular study in JAMA, which included a survey of 5700 general surgery residents at 285 programs. It found that while unions helped with vacation time and housing stipends, the unions were not associated with improved burnout rates, suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, or salary.

Now, granted, this isn’t the strongest study. It only sampled one group of residents, so I wouldn’t generalize these findings, but it’s still commonly cited by anti-union advocates.

Another potential downside, which is purely anecdotal because I can’t find any data to support this, is potential retaliation against residents or harm to the attending-resident relationship.

I’m an attending. I don’t really understand this one. I don’t exactly own stock in my hospital, nor am I making millions of dollars by siphoning GME money. I’m just trying to focus on educating and supporting my residents the best I can.

Dr. Patel is Clinical Instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; Pediatric Hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork–Presbyterian, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

TOPLINE:

The anti-inflammatory shift in mid-pregnancy may be linked to changes in gut microbiota, which, in turn, may wield their influence through fecal and plasma metabolites.

METHODOLOGY:

• Midway through a normal pregnancy, the maternal immune system shifts to a more anti-inflammatory state, which may be linked to changes in the gut microbial community by unknown mechanisms.
• The study explored the associations between the gut microbiota, fecal and plasma metabolites, and cytokine levels of pregnant women and compared them with those of nonpregnant women.
• The study recruited 30 pregnant women (ages 18-34 years; prepregnancy body mass index [BMI], 18.5-21.9) who conceived naturally with a singleton pregnancy and 15 nonpregnant women of similar age and BMI from the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China, between February 2019 and August 2020.
• All participants had not used probiotics or antibiotics in the 6 months prior to participating in the study.
• Fecal and blood samples were collected during or after the 37th week of pregnancy in pregnant women until their labor and on the 14th day of the menstrual cycle in nonpregnant women.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pregnant women had more Actinobacteriota than nonpregnant women (9.15% vs 2.98%, respectively; P = .002) in their gut microbiomes, and the most enriched other microbes showed a negative correlation with pro-inflammatory cytokines.
• Pregnant women had differences in 44 fecal and 53 plasma metabolites, with certain enriched metabolites negatively correlated with pro-inflammatory cytokines and certain depleted ones positively correlated.
• Levels of pro-inflammatory plasma cytokines such as interleukins (IL)-1β, IL-2, IL-6, IL-12, interferon gamma, and tumor necrosis factor alpha were reduced, while levels of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-4 were elevated in pregnant vs nonpregnant women.
• Researchers identified a total of 46 connections between gut microbes, metabolites, and cytokines, with details suggesting that gut microbes may alter plasma cytokine levels by interacting with host metabolites.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study revealed complicated associations among gut microbiota, metabolites, and immune system during pregnancy and identified some specific metabolites which may act as mediators between symbiotic microorganisms and immune homeostasis,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ting Huang, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China, was published online on February 7, 2024, in mSystems.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size of the study may have limited capacity to address errors resulting from individual differences. No causal relationships between gut microbiota, metabolites, and immune system response could be confirmed. Researchers were unable to account for the possible effects of confounding variables, such as diet, because of the cross-sectional nature of this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The anti-inflammatory shift in mid-pregnancy may be linked to changes in gut microbiota, which, in turn, may wield their influence through fecal and plasma metabolites.

METHODOLOGY:

• Midway through a normal pregnancy, the maternal immune system shifts to a more anti-inflammatory state, which may be linked to changes in the gut microbial community by unknown mechanisms.
• The study explored the associations between the gut microbiota, fecal and plasma metabolites, and cytokine levels of pregnant women and compared them with those of nonpregnant women.
• The study recruited 30 pregnant women (ages 18-34 years; prepregnancy body mass index [BMI], 18.5-21.9) who conceived naturally with a singleton pregnancy and 15 nonpregnant women of similar age and BMI from the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China, between February 2019 and August 2020.
• All participants had not used probiotics or antibiotics in the 6 months prior to participating in the study.
• Fecal and blood samples were collected during or after the 37th week of pregnancy in pregnant women until their labor and on the 14th day of the menstrual cycle in nonpregnant women.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pregnant women had more Actinobacteriota than nonpregnant women (9.15% vs 2.98%, respectively; P = .002) in their gut microbiomes, and the most enriched other microbes showed a negative correlation with pro-inflammatory cytokines.
• Pregnant women had differences in 44 fecal and 53 plasma metabolites, with certain enriched metabolites negatively correlated with pro-inflammatory cytokines and certain depleted ones positively correlated.
• Levels of pro-inflammatory plasma cytokines such as interleukins (IL)-1β, IL-2, IL-6, IL-12, interferon gamma, and tumor necrosis factor alpha were reduced, while levels of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-4 were elevated in pregnant vs nonpregnant women.
• Researchers identified a total of 46 connections between gut microbes, metabolites, and cytokines, with details suggesting that gut microbes may alter plasma cytokine levels by interacting with host metabolites.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study revealed complicated associations among gut microbiota, metabolites, and immune system during pregnancy and identified some specific metabolites which may act as mediators between symbiotic microorganisms and immune homeostasis,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ting Huang, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China, was published online on February 7, 2024, in mSystems.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size of the study may have limited capacity to address errors resulting from individual differences. No causal relationships between gut microbiota, metabolites, and immune system response could be confirmed. Researchers were unable to account for the possible effects of confounding variables, such as diet, because of the cross-sectional nature of this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The anti-inflammatory shift in mid-pregnancy may be linked to changes in gut microbiota, which, in turn, may wield their influence through fecal and plasma metabolites.

METHODOLOGY:

• Midway through a normal pregnancy, the maternal immune system shifts to a more anti-inflammatory state, which may be linked to changes in the gut microbial community by unknown mechanisms.
• The study explored the associations between the gut microbiota, fecal and plasma metabolites, and cytokine levels of pregnant women and compared them with those of nonpregnant women.
• The study recruited 30 pregnant women (ages 18-34 years; prepregnancy body mass index [BMI], 18.5-21.9) who conceived naturally with a singleton pregnancy and 15 nonpregnant women of similar age and BMI from the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China, between February 2019 and August 2020.
• All participants had not used probiotics or antibiotics in the 6 months prior to participating in the study.
• Fecal and blood samples were collected during or after the 37th week of pregnancy in pregnant women until their labor and on the 14th day of the menstrual cycle in nonpregnant women.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pregnant women had more Actinobacteriota than nonpregnant women (9.15% vs 2.98%, respectively; P = .002) in their gut microbiomes, and the most enriched other microbes showed a negative correlation with pro-inflammatory cytokines.
• Pregnant women had differences in 44 fecal and 53 plasma metabolites, with certain enriched metabolites negatively correlated with pro-inflammatory cytokines and certain depleted ones positively correlated.
• Levels of pro-inflammatory plasma cytokines such as interleukins (IL)-1β, IL-2, IL-6, IL-12, interferon gamma, and tumor necrosis factor alpha were reduced, while levels of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-4 were elevated in pregnant vs nonpregnant women.
• Researchers identified a total of 46 connections between gut microbes, metabolites, and cytokines, with details suggesting that gut microbes may alter plasma cytokine levels by interacting with host metabolites.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study revealed complicated associations among gut microbiota, metabolites, and immune system during pregnancy and identified some specific metabolites which may act as mediators between symbiotic microorganisms and immune homeostasis,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ting Huang, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China, was published online on February 7, 2024, in mSystems.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size of the study may have limited capacity to address errors resulting from individual differences. No causal relationships between gut microbiota, metabolites, and immune system response could be confirmed. Researchers were unable to account for the possible effects of confounding variables, such as diet, because of the cross-sectional nature of this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Women with daily exposure to spironolactone for dermatologic conditions showed no higher risk of developing breast or gynecologic cancer than that of unexposed women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Spironolactone, used off-label for several skin conditions in women, carries a warning about an increased tumor risk associated with high doses in rat models, and its antiandrogen properties have prompted hypotheses about a possible increased risk for breast or gynecologic cancers.
• The researchers reviewed data on 420 women with a history of spironolactone use for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and 3272 women with no spironolactone use at the authors› institution. Their mean age ranged from 42 to 63 years; the majority were White, and 38% were non-White.
• Median spironolactone doses ranged from 25 mg to 225 mg; chart reviews included 5-year follow-up data from the first spironolactone exposure to allow time for tumor development.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 37 of the 420 women exposed to spironolactone developed any tumors, as did 546 of the 3272 with no spironolactone exposure.
• After the researchers controlled for age and race, women exposed to spironolactone were no more likely to develop a malignant tumor than a benign tumor, compared with unexposed women (odds ratio [OR], 0.48, P = .2).
• The risk for breast or uterine cancer was not significantly different in the spironolactone and non-spironolactone groups (OR, 0.95, P > .9).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women taking spironolactone for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and who are at low risk of breast or gynecologic cancers may be counseled to have regular gynecology follow-up, but no more frequently than the general population,” but more studies are needed to evaluate risk over longer periods of time, the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Rachel C. Hill, BS, a student at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College, was the corresponding author. The study was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings were limited by the retrospective design, as well as the small number of spironolactone patients analyzed, the short follow-up period, the lack of information about spironolactone courses, and the inability to control for family history of malignancy.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and a grant from the Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College awarded to Ms. Hill. None of the authors had relevant disclosures; Dr. Lipner disclosed serving as a consultant for Ortho-Dermatologics, Eli Lilly, Moberg Pharmaceuticals, and BelleTorus Corporation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with daily exposure to spironolactone for dermatologic conditions showed no higher risk of developing breast or gynecologic cancer than that of unexposed women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Spironolactone, used off-label for several skin conditions in women, carries a warning about an increased tumor risk associated with high doses in rat models, and its antiandrogen properties have prompted hypotheses about a possible increased risk for breast or gynecologic cancers.
• The researchers reviewed data on 420 women with a history of spironolactone use for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and 3272 women with no spironolactone use at the authors› institution. Their mean age ranged from 42 to 63 years; the majority were White, and 38% were non-White.
• Median spironolactone doses ranged from 25 mg to 225 mg; chart reviews included 5-year follow-up data from the first spironolactone exposure to allow time for tumor development.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 37 of the 420 women exposed to spironolactone developed any tumors, as did 546 of the 3272 with no spironolactone exposure.
• After the researchers controlled for age and race, women exposed to spironolactone were no more likely to develop a malignant tumor than a benign tumor, compared with unexposed women (odds ratio [OR], 0.48, P = .2).
• The risk for breast or uterine cancer was not significantly different in the spironolactone and non-spironolactone groups (OR, 0.95, P > .9).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women taking spironolactone for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and who are at low risk of breast or gynecologic cancers may be counseled to have regular gynecology follow-up, but no more frequently than the general population,” but more studies are needed to evaluate risk over longer periods of time, the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Rachel C. Hill, BS, a student at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College, was the corresponding author. The study was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings were limited by the retrospective design, as well as the small number of spironolactone patients analyzed, the short follow-up period, the lack of information about spironolactone courses, and the inability to control for family history of malignancy.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and a grant from the Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College awarded to Ms. Hill. None of the authors had relevant disclosures; Dr. Lipner disclosed serving as a consultant for Ortho-Dermatologics, Eli Lilly, Moberg Pharmaceuticals, and BelleTorus Corporation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with daily exposure to spironolactone for dermatologic conditions showed no higher risk of developing breast or gynecologic cancer than that of unexposed women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Spironolactone, used off-label for several skin conditions in women, carries a warning about an increased tumor risk associated with high doses in rat models, and its antiandrogen properties have prompted hypotheses about a possible increased risk for breast or gynecologic cancers.
• The researchers reviewed data on 420 women with a history of spironolactone use for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and 3272 women with no spironolactone use at the authors› institution. Their mean age ranged from 42 to 63 years; the majority were White, and 38% were non-White.
• Median spironolactone doses ranged from 25 mg to 225 mg; chart reviews included 5-year follow-up data from the first spironolactone exposure to allow time for tumor development.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 37 of the 420 women exposed to spironolactone developed any tumors, as did 546 of the 3272 with no spironolactone exposure.
• After the researchers controlled for age and race, women exposed to spironolactone were no more likely to develop a malignant tumor than a benign tumor, compared with unexposed women (odds ratio [OR], 0.48, P = .2).
• The risk for breast or uterine cancer was not significantly different in the spironolactone and non-spironolactone groups (OR, 0.95, P > .9).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women taking spironolactone for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and who are at low risk of breast or gynecologic cancers may be counseled to have regular gynecology follow-up, but no more frequently than the general population,” but more studies are needed to evaluate risk over longer periods of time, the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Rachel C. Hill, BS, a student at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College, was the corresponding author. The study was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings were limited by the retrospective design, as well as the small number of spironolactone patients analyzed, the short follow-up period, the lack of information about spironolactone courses, and the inability to control for family history of malignancy.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and a grant from the Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College awarded to Ms. Hill. None of the authors had relevant disclosures; Dr. Lipner disclosed serving as a consultant for Ortho-Dermatologics, Eli Lilly, Moberg Pharmaceuticals, and BelleTorus Corporation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first biosimilar to denosumab, denosumab-bddz (Wyost/Jubbonti).

The biosimilar was also granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Sandoz announced the approval on March 5, 2024. The lower dosage of denosumab-bddz, marketed as Jubbonti, was also approved by Health Canada in February. 

The FDA approval “is based on robust clinical studies and accompanied by labeling with safety warnings,” according to the press release. Like the reference products Prolia and Xgeva, denosumab-bddz is approved for two indications at separate doses.

Wyost (120-mg/1.7-mL injection) is approved to:

• Prevent skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma and in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors
• Treat adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity
• Treat hypercalcemia of cancer that is refractory to bisphosphonate therapy

Jubbonti (60-mg/1-mL injection) is approved to:

• Treat postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer
• Increase bone mass in women who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

Both doses are contraindicated for hypocalcemia and known clinically significant hypersensitivity to denosumab products. Exposure to denosumab products during pregnancy can cause fetal harm, so women of reproductive potential should be advised to use effective contraception during therapy and for at least 5 months after the last dose of denosumab-bddz.

Sandoz did not provide information on US launch details, citing “ongoing patent litigation around these products.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first biosimilar to denosumab, denosumab-bddz (Wyost/Jubbonti).

The biosimilar was also granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Sandoz announced the approval on March 5, 2024. The lower dosage of denosumab-bddz, marketed as Jubbonti, was also approved by Health Canada in February. 

The FDA approval “is based on robust clinical studies and accompanied by labeling with safety warnings,” according to the press release. Like the reference products Prolia and Xgeva, denosumab-bddz is approved for two indications at separate doses.

Wyost (120-mg/1.7-mL injection) is approved to:

• Prevent skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma and in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors
• Treat adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity
• Treat hypercalcemia of cancer that is refractory to bisphosphonate therapy

Jubbonti (60-mg/1-mL injection) is approved to:

• Treat postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer
• Increase bone mass in women who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

Both doses are contraindicated for hypocalcemia and known clinically significant hypersensitivity to denosumab products. Exposure to denosumab products during pregnancy can cause fetal harm, so women of reproductive potential should be advised to use effective contraception during therapy and for at least 5 months after the last dose of denosumab-bddz.

Sandoz did not provide information on US launch details, citing “ongoing patent litigation around these products.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first biosimilar to denosumab, denosumab-bddz (Wyost/Jubbonti).

The biosimilar was also granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Sandoz announced the approval on March 5, 2024. The lower dosage of denosumab-bddz, marketed as Jubbonti, was also approved by Health Canada in February. 

The FDA approval “is based on robust clinical studies and accompanied by labeling with safety warnings,” according to the press release. Like the reference products Prolia and Xgeva, denosumab-bddz is approved for two indications at separate doses.

Wyost (120-mg/1.7-mL injection) is approved to:

• Prevent skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma and in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors
• Treat adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity
• Treat hypercalcemia of cancer that is refractory to bisphosphonate therapy

Jubbonti (60-mg/1-mL injection) is approved to:

• Treat postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer
• Increase bone mass in women who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

Both doses are contraindicated for hypocalcemia and known clinically significant hypersensitivity to denosumab products. Exposure to denosumab products during pregnancy can cause fetal harm, so women of reproductive potential should be advised to use effective contraception during therapy and for at least 5 months after the last dose of denosumab-bddz.

Sandoz did not provide information on US launch details, citing “ongoing patent litigation around these products.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

What Is Imposter Syndrome?

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

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

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

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

Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?

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

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

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

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

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

‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’

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

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

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

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

The Emotional Toll

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

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

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

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

How to Manage Imposter Syndrome

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

What Is Imposter Syndrome?

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

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

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

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

Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?

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

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

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

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

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

‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’

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

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

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

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

The Emotional Toll

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

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

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

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

How to Manage Imposter Syndrome

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

What Is Imposter Syndrome?

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

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

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

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

Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?

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

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

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

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

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

‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’

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

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

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

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

The Emotional Toll

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

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

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

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

How to Manage Imposter Syndrome

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

California’s efforts to expand access to abortion care are enabling more types of medical practitioners to perform certain abortion procedures — potentially a boon for patients in rural areas especially, but a source of concern for doctors’ groups that have long fought efforts to expand the role of non-physicians.

The latest move is a law that enables trained physician assistants, also known as physician associates, to perform first-trimester abortions without a supervising physician present. The measure, which passed last year and took effect Jan. 1, also lets PAs who have been disciplined or convicted solely for performing an abortion in a state where the practice is restricted apply for a license in California.

Physician assistants are now on par with nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives trained in abortion care, who in 2022 won the ability to perform abortions without a doctor present.

The need for more abortion care practitioners is being driven by efforts in many states to gut abortion rights following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision ending constitutional protection for the procedure. Thirty-one states have implemented abortion restrictions that range from cutting federal funding for abortion coverage to outright bans, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization concerned with reproductive health.

With the new law, “there will be fewer barriers, and shorter wait times for this essential service,” said Jeremy Meis, president-elect of the California Academy of Physician Associates. While it is unclear how many of California’s 16,000 PAs will be trained in performing abortions, research shows that PAs are more likely than physicians to practice in rural areas where access to abortion is limited. More than 40% of counties in California lack clinics that provide abortion.

Comparing data from the first six months of 2020 with the same period in 2023, the number of abortions jumped from 77,030 to 92,600 a 20% increase as the state became a refuge for women seeking abortions. California has passed a suite of reproductive health laws to build in protections and increase access, and a dozen other states, including Oregon, Minnesota, and New York, have mounted similar efforts. Seventeen states, including California, now allow PAs to perform first-trimester abortions, according to the American Academy of Physician Associates.

There was little opposition to the new California law, with two physicians’ groups supporting it. But the American Medical Association, the country’s most powerful doctors’ lobby, has fought vigorously against what it calls “scope creep” — that is, changes that allow clinicians like PAs to do medical procedures independent of physicians.

“Our policy stance is the same on scope of practice expansion regardless of procedure,” noted Kelly Jakubek, the AMA’s media relations manager. The AMA’s website points to legislative victories in 2023, including striking down “legislation allowing physician assistants to practice independently without physician oversight,” in states including Arizona and New York. The AMA did not take a formal position on the California legislation. Its local chapter, the California Medical Association, took a neutral position on the legislation.

In preparation for the new law, one physician assistant at Planned Parenthood Pasadena & San Gabriel Valley began learning how to perform aspiration abortions — a procedure also known as dilation and curettage that uses gentle suction to end a pregnancy — at the end of last year. The PA, who requested anonymity due to concerns about safety, said that with abortion restrictions in place around the country, “I just think it’s really important to be able to provide a comfortable, safe, and very effective way to terminate a pregnancy for patients.”

She is now one of six PAs and midwives at her clinic who can offer aspiration abortions. To reach competency, she participated in 50 procedures and learned how to administer medication that eases pain and anxiety. Such conscious sedation, as it is known, is frequently used for first-trimester abortions. Now she, like any other advanced practice clinician who has obtained skills in performing abortions, can train her peers — another feature of the new law.

The length of time for training and the number of procedures to reach competency varies based on a practitioner’s previous experience.

“It’s encouraging this cross-profession training and collaborations, which is really important when we’re looking at increasing access to essential services,” said Jessica Dieseldorff, senior program manager of abortion services at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte in Santa Cruz.

In December, California committed $18 million to help accelerate training in abortion and reproductive care for practitioners, including PAs, through the Reproductive Health Care Access Initiative.

Dieseldorff, a nurse practitioner who trains other advanced-practice clinicians in abortion care, said that rural communities, in particular, will reap the benefits since many rely solely on physician assistants and other allied clinicians.

Reflecting on her career, she said much has changed since she became a nurse 25 years ago. At that time, she worked only as support staff to doctors providing abortions.

“When I began, medication abortions did not exist in this country,” she said, referring to the practice of using two drugs often prescribed to induce abortions. “It’s been gratifying to be able to progress and become a provider myself, provide non-stigmatizing and compassionate and safe care to patients; and now, at this stage in my career to be training others to do the same.”

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.

California’s efforts to expand access to abortion care are enabling more types of medical practitioners to perform certain abortion procedures — potentially a boon for patients in rural areas especially, but a source of concern for doctors’ groups that have long fought efforts to expand the role of non-physicians.

The latest move is a law that enables trained physician assistants, also known as physician associates, to perform first-trimester abortions without a supervising physician present. The measure, which passed last year and took effect Jan. 1, also lets PAs who have been disciplined or convicted solely for performing an abortion in a state where the practice is restricted apply for a license in California.

Physician assistants are now on par with nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives trained in abortion care, who in 2022 won the ability to perform abortions without a doctor present.

The need for more abortion care practitioners is being driven by efforts in many states to gut abortion rights following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision ending constitutional protection for the procedure. Thirty-one states have implemented abortion restrictions that range from cutting federal funding for abortion coverage to outright bans, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization concerned with reproductive health.

With the new law, “there will be fewer barriers, and shorter wait times for this essential service,” said Jeremy Meis, president-elect of the California Academy of Physician Associates. While it is unclear how many of California’s 16,000 PAs will be trained in performing abortions, research shows that PAs are more likely than physicians to practice in rural areas where access to abortion is limited. More than 40% of counties in California lack clinics that provide abortion.

Comparing data from the first six months of 2020 with the same period in 2023, the number of abortions jumped from 77,030 to 92,600 a 20% increase as the state became a refuge for women seeking abortions. California has passed a suite of reproductive health laws to build in protections and increase access, and a dozen other states, including Oregon, Minnesota, and New York, have mounted similar efforts. Seventeen states, including California, now allow PAs to perform first-trimester abortions, according to the American Academy of Physician Associates.

There was little opposition to the new California law, with two physicians’ groups supporting it. But the American Medical Association, the country’s most powerful doctors’ lobby, has fought vigorously against what it calls “scope creep” — that is, changes that allow clinicians like PAs to do medical procedures independent of physicians.

“Our policy stance is the same on scope of practice expansion regardless of procedure,” noted Kelly Jakubek, the AMA’s media relations manager. The AMA’s website points to legislative victories in 2023, including striking down “legislation allowing physician assistants to practice independently without physician oversight,” in states including Arizona and New York. The AMA did not take a formal position on the California legislation. Its local chapter, the California Medical Association, took a neutral position on the legislation.

In preparation for the new law, one physician assistant at Planned Parenthood Pasadena & San Gabriel Valley began learning how to perform aspiration abortions — a procedure also known as dilation and curettage that uses gentle suction to end a pregnancy — at the end of last year. The PA, who requested anonymity due to concerns about safety, said that with abortion restrictions in place around the country, “I just think it’s really important to be able to provide a comfortable, safe, and very effective way to terminate a pregnancy for patients.”

She is now one of six PAs and midwives at her clinic who can offer aspiration abortions. To reach competency, she participated in 50 procedures and learned how to administer medication that eases pain and anxiety. Such conscious sedation, as it is known, is frequently used for first-trimester abortions. Now she, like any other advanced practice clinician who has obtained skills in performing abortions, can train her peers — another feature of the new law.

The length of time for training and the number of procedures to reach competency varies based on a practitioner’s previous experience.

“It’s encouraging this cross-profession training and collaborations, which is really important when we’re looking at increasing access to essential services,” said Jessica Dieseldorff, senior program manager of abortion services at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte in Santa Cruz.

In December, California committed $18 million to help accelerate training in abortion and reproductive care for practitioners, including PAs, through the Reproductive Health Care Access Initiative.

Dieseldorff, a nurse practitioner who trains other advanced-practice clinicians in abortion care, said that rural communities, in particular, will reap the benefits since many rely solely on physician assistants and other allied clinicians.

Reflecting on her career, she said much has changed since she became a nurse 25 years ago. At that time, she worked only as support staff to doctors providing abortions.

“When I began, medication abortions did not exist in this country,” she said, referring to the practice of using two drugs often prescribed to induce abortions. “It’s been gratifying to be able to progress and become a provider myself, provide non-stigmatizing and compassionate and safe care to patients; and now, at this stage in my career to be training others to do the same.”

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.

California’s efforts to expand access to abortion care are enabling more types of medical practitioners to perform certain abortion procedures — potentially a boon for patients in rural areas especially, but a source of concern for doctors’ groups that have long fought efforts to expand the role of non-physicians.

The latest move is a law that enables trained physician assistants, also known as physician associates, to perform first-trimester abortions without a supervising physician present. The measure, which passed last year and took effect Jan. 1, also lets PAs who have been disciplined or convicted solely for performing an abortion in a state where the practice is restricted apply for a license in California.

Physician assistants are now on par with nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives trained in abortion care, who in 2022 won the ability to perform abortions without a doctor present.

The need for more abortion care practitioners is being driven by efforts in many states to gut abortion rights following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision ending constitutional protection for the procedure. Thirty-one states have implemented abortion restrictions that range from cutting federal funding for abortion coverage to outright bans, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization concerned with reproductive health.

With the new law, “there will be fewer barriers, and shorter wait times for this essential service,” said Jeremy Meis, president-elect of the California Academy of Physician Associates. While it is unclear how many of California’s 16,000 PAs will be trained in performing abortions, research shows that PAs are more likely than physicians to practice in rural areas where access to abortion is limited. More than 40% of counties in California lack clinics that provide abortion.

Comparing data from the first six months of 2020 with the same period in 2023, the number of abortions jumped from 77,030 to 92,600 a 20% increase as the state became a refuge for women seeking abortions. California has passed a suite of reproductive health laws to build in protections and increase access, and a dozen other states, including Oregon, Minnesota, and New York, have mounted similar efforts. Seventeen states, including California, now allow PAs to perform first-trimester abortions, according to the American Academy of Physician Associates.

There was little opposition to the new California law, with two physicians’ groups supporting it. But the American Medical Association, the country’s most powerful doctors’ lobby, has fought vigorously against what it calls “scope creep” — that is, changes that allow clinicians like PAs to do medical procedures independent of physicians.

“Our policy stance is the same on scope of practice expansion regardless of procedure,” noted Kelly Jakubek, the AMA’s media relations manager. The AMA’s website points to legislative victories in 2023, including striking down “legislation allowing physician assistants to practice independently without physician oversight,” in states including Arizona and New York. The AMA did not take a formal position on the California legislation. Its local chapter, the California Medical Association, took a neutral position on the legislation.

In preparation for the new law, one physician assistant at Planned Parenthood Pasadena & San Gabriel Valley began learning how to perform aspiration abortions — a procedure also known as dilation and curettage that uses gentle suction to end a pregnancy — at the end of last year. The PA, who requested anonymity due to concerns about safety, said that with abortion restrictions in place around the country, “I just think it’s really important to be able to provide a comfortable, safe, and very effective way to terminate a pregnancy for patients.”

She is now one of six PAs and midwives at her clinic who can offer aspiration abortions. To reach competency, she participated in 50 procedures and learned how to administer medication that eases pain and anxiety. Such conscious sedation, as it is known, is frequently used for first-trimester abortions. Now she, like any other advanced practice clinician who has obtained skills in performing abortions, can train her peers — another feature of the new law.

The length of time for training and the number of procedures to reach competency varies based on a practitioner’s previous experience.

“It’s encouraging this cross-profession training and collaborations, which is really important when we’re looking at increasing access to essential services,” said Jessica Dieseldorff, senior program manager of abortion services at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte in Santa Cruz.

In December, California committed $18 million to help accelerate training in abortion and reproductive care for practitioners, including PAs, through the Reproductive Health Care Access Initiative.

Dieseldorff, a nurse practitioner who trains other advanced-practice clinicians in abortion care, said that rural communities, in particular, will reap the benefits since many rely solely on physician assistants and other allied clinicians.

Reflecting on her career, she said much has changed since she became a nurse 25 years ago. At that time, she worked only as support staff to doctors providing abortions.

“When I began, medication abortions did not exist in this country,” she said, referring to the practice of using two drugs often prescribed to induce abortions. “It’s been gratifying to be able to progress and become a provider myself, provide non-stigmatizing and compassionate and safe care to patients; and now, at this stage in my career to be training others to do the same.”

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.

Syphilis and chlamydia infections were reduced by half among men who have sex with men and transgender women 1 year after San Francisco rolled out doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (doxy-PEP), according to data presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) this week.

After a clinical trial showed that doxy-PEP taken after sex reduced the chance of acquiring syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia by about two-thirds, the San Francisco Department of Public Health released the first guidelines in the country in October 2022. 

The guidelines recommend that a person take two 100-mg pills of doxycycline ideally in the 24 hours after but no more than 72 hours after condomless sex. So far, more than 3700 people in San Francisco have been prescribed doxy-PEP, reports Stephanie Cohen, MD, director of HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention in the Disease Prevention and Control Branch of Public Health.

Dr. Cohen and her colleagues spent a year monitoring the uptake of doxy-PEP and used a computer model to predict what the rates of sexually transmitted infection would have been without doxy-PEP. 

In November 2023, 13 months after the guidelines were introduced, they found that monthly chlamydia and early syphilis infections were 50% and 51% lower, respectively, than what was predicted by the model.
 

Fewer Infections

The drop in infections is having a tangible effect on patients in San Francisco, and many clinicians are noting that they are seeing far fewer positive tests. “The results that we’re seeing on a city-wide level are absolutely being experienced by individual providers and patients,” Dr. Cohen said.

However, the analysis showed no effect on rates of gonorrhea. It’s not clear why, although Dr. Cohen points out that doxy-PEP was less effective against gonorrhea in the clinical trial. And “there could be other factors in play,” she added. “Adherence might matter more, or it could be affected by the prevalence of tetracycline resistance in the community.”

With rates of STIs, particularly syphilis, quickly rising in recent years, healthcare providers have been scrambling to find effective interventions. So far, doxy-PEP has shown the most promise. “We’ve known for a while that all of the strategies we’ve been employing don’t seem to be working,” noted Chase Cannon, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Washington in Seattle. “That’s why doxy-PEP is important. We haven’t had anything that can deflect the curve in a long time.”
 

What About the Side Effects?

Some concerns remain, however, about the widespread prophylactic use of antibiotics. There are no long-term safety data on the potential side effects of doxy-PEP, and there is still a lot of stigma around interventions that allow people to have sex the way they want, said Dr. Cannon.

But perhaps, the biggest concern is that doxy-PEP could contribute to antibiotic resistance. Those fears are not misplaced, Dr. Cannon added. The results of one study, presented in a poster at CROI, showed that stool samples from people prescribed doxy-PEP had elevated levels of bacterial genes that can confer resistance to tetracyclines, the class of antibiotics to which doxycycline belongs. There was no change in resistance to other classes of antibiotics and no difference in bacterial diversity over the 6 months of the study.

Dr. Cannon cautioned, however, that we can’t extrapolate these results to clinical outcomes. “We can look for signals [of resistance], but we don’t know if this means someone will fail therapy for chlamydia or syphilis,” he said.

There are still many challenges to overcome before doxy-PEP can be rolled out widely, Dr. Cohen explained. There is a lack of consensus among healthcare professionals about who should be offered doxy-PEP. The clinical trial results and the San Fransisco guidelines only apply to men who have sex with men and to transgender women.

Some clinicians argue that the intervention should be provided to a broader population, whereas others want to see more research to ensure that unnecessary antibiotic use is minimized.

So far just one study has tested doxy-PEP in another population — in women in Kenya — and it was found to not be effective. But the data suggest that adherence to the protocol was poor in that study, so the results may not be reliable, Dr. Cohen said.

“We need effective prevention tools for all genders, especially cis women who bear most of the morbidity,” she said. “It stands to reason that this should work for them, but without high-quality evidence, there is insufficient information to make a recommendation for cis women.”

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is currently reviewing public and expert comments and refining final guidelines for release in the coming months, which should alleviate some of the uncertainty. “Many providers are waiting for that guidance before they will feel confident moving forward,” Dr. Cohen noted.

But despite the risks and uncertainty, doxy-PEP looks set to be a major part of the fight against STIs going forward. “Doxy-PEP is essential for us as a nation to be dealing with the syphilis epidemic,” Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, said in a video introduction to CROI.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Syphilis and chlamydia infections were reduced by half among men who have sex with men and transgender women 1 year after San Francisco rolled out doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (doxy-PEP), according to data presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) this week.

After a clinical trial showed that doxy-PEP taken after sex reduced the chance of acquiring syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia by about two-thirds, the San Francisco Department of Public Health released the first guidelines in the country in October 2022. 

The guidelines recommend that a person take two 100-mg pills of doxycycline ideally in the 24 hours after but no more than 72 hours after condomless sex. So far, more than 3700 people in San Francisco have been prescribed doxy-PEP, reports Stephanie Cohen, MD, director of HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention in the Disease Prevention and Control Branch of Public Health.

Dr. Cohen and her colleagues spent a year monitoring the uptake of doxy-PEP and used a computer model to predict what the rates of sexually transmitted infection would have been without doxy-PEP. 

In November 2023, 13 months after the guidelines were introduced, they found that monthly chlamydia and early syphilis infections were 50% and 51% lower, respectively, than what was predicted by the model.
 

Fewer Infections

The drop in infections is having a tangible effect on patients in San Francisco, and many clinicians are noting that they are seeing far fewer positive tests. “The results that we’re seeing on a city-wide level are absolutely being experienced by individual providers and patients,” Dr. Cohen said.

However, the analysis showed no effect on rates of gonorrhea. It’s not clear why, although Dr. Cohen points out that doxy-PEP was less effective against gonorrhea in the clinical trial. And “there could be other factors in play,” she added. “Adherence might matter more, or it could be affected by the prevalence of tetracycline resistance in the community.”

With rates of STIs, particularly syphilis, quickly rising in recent years, healthcare providers have been scrambling to find effective interventions. So far, doxy-PEP has shown the most promise. “We’ve known for a while that all of the strategies we’ve been employing don’t seem to be working,” noted Chase Cannon, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Washington in Seattle. “That’s why doxy-PEP is important. We haven’t had anything that can deflect the curve in a long time.”
 

What About the Side Effects?

Some concerns remain, however, about the widespread prophylactic use of antibiotics. There are no long-term safety data on the potential side effects of doxy-PEP, and there is still a lot of stigma around interventions that allow people to have sex the way they want, said Dr. Cannon.

But perhaps, the biggest concern is that doxy-PEP could contribute to antibiotic resistance. Those fears are not misplaced, Dr. Cannon added. The results of one study, presented in a poster at CROI, showed that stool samples from people prescribed doxy-PEP had elevated levels of bacterial genes that can confer resistance to tetracyclines, the class of antibiotics to which doxycycline belongs. There was no change in resistance to other classes of antibiotics and no difference in bacterial diversity over the 6 months of the study.

Dr. Cannon cautioned, however, that we can’t extrapolate these results to clinical outcomes. “We can look for signals [of resistance], but we don’t know if this means someone will fail therapy for chlamydia or syphilis,” he said.

There are still many challenges to overcome before doxy-PEP can be rolled out widely, Dr. Cohen explained. There is a lack of consensus among healthcare professionals about who should be offered doxy-PEP. The clinical trial results and the San Fransisco guidelines only apply to men who have sex with men and to transgender women.

Some clinicians argue that the intervention should be provided to a broader population, whereas others want to see more research to ensure that unnecessary antibiotic use is minimized.

So far just one study has tested doxy-PEP in another population — in women in Kenya — and it was found to not be effective. But the data suggest that adherence to the protocol was poor in that study, so the results may not be reliable, Dr. Cohen said.

“We need effective prevention tools for all genders, especially cis women who bear most of the morbidity,” she said. “It stands to reason that this should work for them, but without high-quality evidence, there is insufficient information to make a recommendation for cis women.”

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is currently reviewing public and expert comments and refining final guidelines for release in the coming months, which should alleviate some of the uncertainty. “Many providers are waiting for that guidance before they will feel confident moving forward,” Dr. Cohen noted.

But despite the risks and uncertainty, doxy-PEP looks set to be a major part of the fight against STIs going forward. “Doxy-PEP is essential for us as a nation to be dealing with the syphilis epidemic,” Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, said in a video introduction to CROI.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Syphilis and chlamydia infections were reduced by half among men who have sex with men and transgender women 1 year after San Francisco rolled out doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (doxy-PEP), according to data presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) this week.

After a clinical trial showed that doxy-PEP taken after sex reduced the chance of acquiring syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia by about two-thirds, the San Francisco Department of Public Health released the first guidelines in the country in October 2022. 

The guidelines recommend that a person take two 100-mg pills of doxycycline ideally in the 24 hours after but no more than 72 hours after condomless sex. So far, more than 3700 people in San Francisco have been prescribed doxy-PEP, reports Stephanie Cohen, MD, director of HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention in the Disease Prevention and Control Branch of Public Health.

Dr. Cohen and her colleagues spent a year monitoring the uptake of doxy-PEP and used a computer model to predict what the rates of sexually transmitted infection would have been without doxy-PEP. 

In November 2023, 13 months after the guidelines were introduced, they found that monthly chlamydia and early syphilis infections were 50% and 51% lower, respectively, than what was predicted by the model.
 

Fewer Infections

The drop in infections is having a tangible effect on patients in San Francisco, and many clinicians are noting that they are seeing far fewer positive tests. “The results that we’re seeing on a city-wide level are absolutely being experienced by individual providers and patients,” Dr. Cohen said.

However, the analysis showed no effect on rates of gonorrhea. It’s not clear why, although Dr. Cohen points out that doxy-PEP was less effective against gonorrhea in the clinical trial. And “there could be other factors in play,” she added. “Adherence might matter more, or it could be affected by the prevalence of tetracycline resistance in the community.”

With rates of STIs, particularly syphilis, quickly rising in recent years, healthcare providers have been scrambling to find effective interventions. So far, doxy-PEP has shown the most promise. “We’ve known for a while that all of the strategies we’ve been employing don’t seem to be working,” noted Chase Cannon, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Washington in Seattle. “That’s why doxy-PEP is important. We haven’t had anything that can deflect the curve in a long time.”
 

What About the Side Effects?

Some concerns remain, however, about the widespread prophylactic use of antibiotics. There are no long-term safety data on the potential side effects of doxy-PEP, and there is still a lot of stigma around interventions that allow people to have sex the way they want, said Dr. Cannon.

But perhaps, the biggest concern is that doxy-PEP could contribute to antibiotic resistance. Those fears are not misplaced, Dr. Cannon added. The results of one study, presented in a poster at CROI, showed that stool samples from people prescribed doxy-PEP had elevated levels of bacterial genes that can confer resistance to tetracyclines, the class of antibiotics to which doxycycline belongs. There was no change in resistance to other classes of antibiotics and no difference in bacterial diversity over the 6 months of the study.

Dr. Cannon cautioned, however, that we can’t extrapolate these results to clinical outcomes. “We can look for signals [of resistance], but we don’t know if this means someone will fail therapy for chlamydia or syphilis,” he said.

There are still many challenges to overcome before doxy-PEP can be rolled out widely, Dr. Cohen explained. There is a lack of consensus among healthcare professionals about who should be offered doxy-PEP. The clinical trial results and the San Fransisco guidelines only apply to men who have sex with men and to transgender women.

Some clinicians argue that the intervention should be provided to a broader population, whereas others want to see more research to ensure that unnecessary antibiotic use is minimized.

So far just one study has tested doxy-PEP in another population — in women in Kenya — and it was found to not be effective. But the data suggest that adherence to the protocol was poor in that study, so the results may not be reliable, Dr. Cohen said.

“We need effective prevention tools for all genders, especially cis women who bear most of the morbidity,” she said. “It stands to reason that this should work for them, but without high-quality evidence, there is insufficient information to make a recommendation for cis women.”

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is currently reviewing public and expert comments and refining final guidelines for release in the coming months, which should alleviate some of the uncertainty. “Many providers are waiting for that guidance before they will feel confident moving forward,” Dr. Cohen noted.

But despite the risks and uncertainty, doxy-PEP looks set to be a major part of the fight against STIs going forward. “Doxy-PEP is essential for us as a nation to be dealing with the syphilis epidemic,” Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, said in a video introduction to CROI.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.