MDedge ObGyn

TOPLINE: 

Accelerometer-measured physical activity (PA), whether light, moderate, or vigorous, is associated with lower risk for heart failure (HF) in older women while more sedentary time is associated with higher HF risk in these women, results of a new study suggest. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5951 women aged 63-99 years (mean age, 78.6 years), including 33.7% Black, 17.2% Hispanic, and 49.2% White individuals without HF from the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health (OPACH) study, an ancillary to the Women’s Health Initiative Long-Life Study.
• Participants wore an accelerometer on their hip 24 hours a day for up to 7 consecutive days except when in water, kept nightly sleep logs, completed questionnaires to provide information on medical history and sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, and self-rated their general health status.
• Researchers recorded their use of assistive walking devices; determined body mass index as well as blood pressure; obtained fasting serum glucose, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations; and scored participants’ multimorbidity.
• They determined intensity-specific PA using vector magnitude acceleration cut points (light PA, 19-518 counts/15 s; moderate to vigorous PA [MVPA], > 518) and steps per day using dedicated software, and they quantified sedentary time (total and mean bout duration).
• The primary outcome was overall self-reported HF later adjudicated by physicians using medical record reviews; secondary endpoints were heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF), classified by an EF of < 45% or 45% or > 45%, respectively, after cardiac imaging.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 407 HF cases (including 257 HFpEF and 110 HFrEF) were identified during a mean of 7.5 years of follow-up.
• HFrEF was not associated with PA measures in the fully adjusted model (which controlled extensively for health and physical functioning status), but overall HF and HFpEF were inversely associated with total PA (per 1-standard deviation [SD] increment: hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95 and HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91, respectively), light PA (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98 and HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93, respectively) and MVPA (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.01, respectively).
• With regard to daily steps, each 1-SD increment was associated with a significant 26% lower risk for overall HF (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and 29% lower risk for HFpEF (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88), with these inverse risks becoming significant at about 2000 steps/d, “far less than the often touted 10,000 steps/d for promoting health benefits,” noted the authors.
• Total sedentary time was positively associated (per 1 SD in the fully adjusted model) with risks of overall HF (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33) and HFpEF (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.10-1.51) but not HFrEF; mean sedentary bout duration was significantly inversely associated with HFrEF (per 1 SD: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97), although the relatively small number of cases at the extremes of bout duration may contribute to this unexpected inverse association, said the authors.

IN PRACTICE:

The implications of promoting PA, regardless of intensity, for primary HFpEF prevention in later life, “has profound public health and clinical relevance,” the authors concluded. They noted that HFpEF is a “burgeoning epidemic” that disproportionately affects women and minorities with limited available therapies.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study, led by Michael J. LaMonte, PhD, MPH, University at Buffalo-SUNY, Buffalo, New York, was published online on February 21, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was only a single accelerometer assessment of PA and sedentary exposures and relatively small numbers of HFrEF cases, which restricted analytic precision. Although researchers controlled for several established vascular biomarkers, they did not have HF-specific measures such as cardiac troponin or N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide. It’s unknown if the findings can be generalized to men and populations dissimilar to women in OPACH.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, and US Department of Health and Human Services. LaMonte reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; see paper for disclosures of the other authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Accelerometer-measured physical activity (PA), whether light, moderate, or vigorous, is associated with lower risk for heart failure (HF) in older women while more sedentary time is associated with higher HF risk in these women, results of a new study suggest. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5951 women aged 63-99 years (mean age, 78.6 years), including 33.7% Black, 17.2% Hispanic, and 49.2% White individuals without HF from the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health (OPACH) study, an ancillary to the Women’s Health Initiative Long-Life Study.
• Participants wore an accelerometer on their hip 24 hours a day for up to 7 consecutive days except when in water, kept nightly sleep logs, completed questionnaires to provide information on medical history and sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, and self-rated their general health status.
• Researchers recorded their use of assistive walking devices; determined body mass index as well as blood pressure; obtained fasting serum glucose, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations; and scored participants’ multimorbidity.
• They determined intensity-specific PA using vector magnitude acceleration cut points (light PA, 19-518 counts/15 s; moderate to vigorous PA [MVPA], > 518) and steps per day using dedicated software, and they quantified sedentary time (total and mean bout duration).
• The primary outcome was overall self-reported HF later adjudicated by physicians using medical record reviews; secondary endpoints were heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF), classified by an EF of < 45% or 45% or > 45%, respectively, after cardiac imaging.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 407 HF cases (including 257 HFpEF and 110 HFrEF) were identified during a mean of 7.5 years of follow-up.
• HFrEF was not associated with PA measures in the fully adjusted model (which controlled extensively for health and physical functioning status), but overall HF and HFpEF were inversely associated with total PA (per 1-standard deviation [SD] increment: hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95 and HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91, respectively), light PA (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98 and HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93, respectively) and MVPA (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.01, respectively).
• With regard to daily steps, each 1-SD increment was associated with a significant 26% lower risk for overall HF (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and 29% lower risk for HFpEF (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88), with these inverse risks becoming significant at about 2000 steps/d, “far less than the often touted 10,000 steps/d for promoting health benefits,” noted the authors.
• Total sedentary time was positively associated (per 1 SD in the fully adjusted model) with risks of overall HF (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33) and HFpEF (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.10-1.51) but not HFrEF; mean sedentary bout duration was significantly inversely associated with HFrEF (per 1 SD: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97), although the relatively small number of cases at the extremes of bout duration may contribute to this unexpected inverse association, said the authors.

IN PRACTICE:

The implications of promoting PA, regardless of intensity, for primary HFpEF prevention in later life, “has profound public health and clinical relevance,” the authors concluded. They noted that HFpEF is a “burgeoning epidemic” that disproportionately affects women and minorities with limited available therapies.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study, led by Michael J. LaMonte, PhD, MPH, University at Buffalo-SUNY, Buffalo, New York, was published online on February 21, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was only a single accelerometer assessment of PA and sedentary exposures and relatively small numbers of HFrEF cases, which restricted analytic precision. Although researchers controlled for several established vascular biomarkers, they did not have HF-specific measures such as cardiac troponin or N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide. It’s unknown if the findings can be generalized to men and populations dissimilar to women in OPACH.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, and US Department of Health and Human Services. LaMonte reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; see paper for disclosures of the other authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Accelerometer-measured physical activity (PA), whether light, moderate, or vigorous, is associated with lower risk for heart failure (HF) in older women while more sedentary time is associated with higher HF risk in these women, results of a new study suggest. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5951 women aged 63-99 years (mean age, 78.6 years), including 33.7% Black, 17.2% Hispanic, and 49.2% White individuals without HF from the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health (OPACH) study, an ancillary to the Women’s Health Initiative Long-Life Study.
• Participants wore an accelerometer on their hip 24 hours a day for up to 7 consecutive days except when in water, kept nightly sleep logs, completed questionnaires to provide information on medical history and sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, and self-rated their general health status.
• Researchers recorded their use of assistive walking devices; determined body mass index as well as blood pressure; obtained fasting serum glucose, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations; and scored participants’ multimorbidity.
• They determined intensity-specific PA using vector magnitude acceleration cut points (light PA, 19-518 counts/15 s; moderate to vigorous PA [MVPA], > 518) and steps per day using dedicated software, and they quantified sedentary time (total and mean bout duration).
• The primary outcome was overall self-reported HF later adjudicated by physicians using medical record reviews; secondary endpoints were heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF), classified by an EF of < 45% or 45% or > 45%, respectively, after cardiac imaging.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 407 HF cases (including 257 HFpEF and 110 HFrEF) were identified during a mean of 7.5 years of follow-up.
• HFrEF was not associated with PA measures in the fully adjusted model (which controlled extensively for health and physical functioning status), but overall HF and HFpEF were inversely associated with total PA (per 1-standard deviation [SD] increment: hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95 and HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91, respectively), light PA (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98 and HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93, respectively) and MVPA (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.01, respectively).
• With regard to daily steps, each 1-SD increment was associated with a significant 26% lower risk for overall HF (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88) and 29% lower risk for HFpEF (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88), with these inverse risks becoming significant at about 2000 steps/d, “far less than the often touted 10,000 steps/d for promoting health benefits,” noted the authors.
• Total sedentary time was positively associated (per 1 SD in the fully adjusted model) with risks of overall HF (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33) and HFpEF (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.10-1.51) but not HFrEF; mean sedentary bout duration was significantly inversely associated with HFrEF (per 1 SD: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97), although the relatively small number of cases at the extremes of bout duration may contribute to this unexpected inverse association, said the authors.

IN PRACTICE:

The implications of promoting PA, regardless of intensity, for primary HFpEF prevention in later life, “has profound public health and clinical relevance,” the authors concluded. They noted that HFpEF is a “burgeoning epidemic” that disproportionately affects women and minorities with limited available therapies.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study, led by Michael J. LaMonte, PhD, MPH, University at Buffalo-SUNY, Buffalo, New York, was published online on February 21, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was only a single accelerometer assessment of PA and sedentary exposures and relatively small numbers of HFrEF cases, which restricted analytic precision. Although researchers controlled for several established vascular biomarkers, they did not have HF-specific measures such as cardiac troponin or N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide. It’s unknown if the findings can be generalized to men and populations dissimilar to women in OPACH.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, and US Department of Health and Human Services. LaMonte reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; see paper for disclosures of the other authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Food emulsifiers are among the most widespread food additives. A large cohort study highlighted an association between the consumption of certain emulsifiers and an increased risk for certain cancers, particularly breast and prostate cancer.

Ultraprocessed foods constitute a significant part of our diet, representing approximately 30% of energy intake in France.

Large epidemiologic studies have already linked diets rich in ultraprocessed products to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, and mortality. Possible explanations for this association include the presence of additives, particularly emulsifiers. These additives are intended to improve the texture and shelf life of foods.

Recent experimental studies have shown that emulsifiers alter the gut microbiota and may lead to low-grade inflammation. Dysbiosis and chronic inflammation not only increase the risk for inflammatory bowel diseases but are also implicated in the etiology of several other chronic pathologies and certain extraintestinal cancers.

The NutriNet-Santé study provided extensive information on the dietary habits of > 100,000 French participants. A new analysis was conducted, examining the possible link between the presence of emulsifiers in the diet and cancer occurrence. Data from 92,000 participants (78.8% women) were utilized. They covered an average follow-up of 6.7 years, during which 2604 cancer cases were diagnosed, including 750 breast cancers, 322 prostate cancers, and 207 colorectal cancers.

In this cohort, the risk for cancer increased with a higher presence in the diet of products containing certain emulsifiers widely used in industrial food in Europe: Carrageenans (E407), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471), pectins (E440), and sodium carbonate (E500).

Notably, the highest consumption of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471) was associated with a 15% increase in the risk for all types of cancer, a 24% increase in breast cancer risk, and a 46% increase in prostate cancer risk. The highest consumption of carrageenans (E407) was associated with a 28% increase in breast cancer risk.

In an analysis by menopausal status, the risk for breast cancer before menopause was associated with high consumption of diphosphates (E450; 45% increase), pectins (E440; 55% increase), and sodium bicarbonate (E500; 48% increase). No link was found between emulsifier consumption and colorectal cancer risk. While some associations were observed for other emulsifiers, they did not persist in sensitivity analyses.

The European Food Safety Agency recently evaluated the risks of emulsifiers, however, and found no safety issues or need to limit daily consumption of several of them, notably E471.

It is certain that cancer is multifactorial, and a single factor (here, exposure to emulsifiers) will not significantly increase the risk. However, while not essential to human health, emulsifiers are widely prevalent in the global market. Therefore, if causality is established, the increased risk could translate into a significant number of preventable cancers at the population level. Confirmation of this causal link will need to be obtained through experimental and epidemiological studies.

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

Food emulsifiers are among the most widespread food additives. A large cohort study highlighted an association between the consumption of certain emulsifiers and an increased risk for certain cancers, particularly breast and prostate cancer.

Ultraprocessed foods constitute a significant part of our diet, representing approximately 30% of energy intake in France.

Large epidemiologic studies have already linked diets rich in ultraprocessed products to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, and mortality. Possible explanations for this association include the presence of additives, particularly emulsifiers. These additives are intended to improve the texture and shelf life of foods.

Recent experimental studies have shown that emulsifiers alter the gut microbiota and may lead to low-grade inflammation. Dysbiosis and chronic inflammation not only increase the risk for inflammatory bowel diseases but are also implicated in the etiology of several other chronic pathologies and certain extraintestinal cancers.

The NutriNet-Santé study provided extensive information on the dietary habits of > 100,000 French participants. A new analysis was conducted, examining the possible link between the presence of emulsifiers in the diet and cancer occurrence. Data from 92,000 participants (78.8% women) were utilized. They covered an average follow-up of 6.7 years, during which 2604 cancer cases were diagnosed, including 750 breast cancers, 322 prostate cancers, and 207 colorectal cancers.

In this cohort, the risk for cancer increased with a higher presence in the diet of products containing certain emulsifiers widely used in industrial food in Europe: Carrageenans (E407), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471), pectins (E440), and sodium carbonate (E500).

Notably, the highest consumption of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471) was associated with a 15% increase in the risk for all types of cancer, a 24% increase in breast cancer risk, and a 46% increase in prostate cancer risk. The highest consumption of carrageenans (E407) was associated with a 28% increase in breast cancer risk.

In an analysis by menopausal status, the risk for breast cancer before menopause was associated with high consumption of diphosphates (E450; 45% increase), pectins (E440; 55% increase), and sodium bicarbonate (E500; 48% increase). No link was found between emulsifier consumption and colorectal cancer risk. While some associations were observed for other emulsifiers, they did not persist in sensitivity analyses.

The European Food Safety Agency recently evaluated the risks of emulsifiers, however, and found no safety issues or need to limit daily consumption of several of them, notably E471.

It is certain that cancer is multifactorial, and a single factor (here, exposure to emulsifiers) will not significantly increase the risk. However, while not essential to human health, emulsifiers are widely prevalent in the global market. Therefore, if causality is established, the increased risk could translate into a significant number of preventable cancers at the population level. Confirmation of this causal link will need to be obtained through experimental and epidemiological studies.

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

Food emulsifiers are among the most widespread food additives. A large cohort study highlighted an association between the consumption of certain emulsifiers and an increased risk for certain cancers, particularly breast and prostate cancer.

Ultraprocessed foods constitute a significant part of our diet, representing approximately 30% of energy intake in France.

Large epidemiologic studies have already linked diets rich in ultraprocessed products to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, and mortality. Possible explanations for this association include the presence of additives, particularly emulsifiers. These additives are intended to improve the texture and shelf life of foods.

Recent experimental studies have shown that emulsifiers alter the gut microbiota and may lead to low-grade inflammation. Dysbiosis and chronic inflammation not only increase the risk for inflammatory bowel diseases but are also implicated in the etiology of several other chronic pathologies and certain extraintestinal cancers.

The NutriNet-Santé study provided extensive information on the dietary habits of > 100,000 French participants. A new analysis was conducted, examining the possible link between the presence of emulsifiers in the diet and cancer occurrence. Data from 92,000 participants (78.8% women) were utilized. They covered an average follow-up of 6.7 years, during which 2604 cancer cases were diagnosed, including 750 breast cancers, 322 prostate cancers, and 207 colorectal cancers.

In this cohort, the risk for cancer increased with a higher presence in the diet of products containing certain emulsifiers widely used in industrial food in Europe: Carrageenans (E407), mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471), pectins (E440), and sodium carbonate (E500).

Notably, the highest consumption of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E471) was associated with a 15% increase in the risk for all types of cancer, a 24% increase in breast cancer risk, and a 46% increase in prostate cancer risk. The highest consumption of carrageenans (E407) was associated with a 28% increase in breast cancer risk.

In an analysis by menopausal status, the risk for breast cancer before menopause was associated with high consumption of diphosphates (E450; 45% increase), pectins (E440; 55% increase), and sodium bicarbonate (E500; 48% increase). No link was found between emulsifier consumption and colorectal cancer risk. While some associations were observed for other emulsifiers, they did not persist in sensitivity analyses.

The European Food Safety Agency recently evaluated the risks of emulsifiers, however, and found no safety issues or need to limit daily consumption of several of them, notably E471.

It is certain that cancer is multifactorial, and a single factor (here, exposure to emulsifiers) will not significantly increase the risk. However, while not essential to human health, emulsifiers are widely prevalent in the global market. Therefore, if causality is established, the increased risk could translate into a significant number of preventable cancers at the population level. Confirmation of this causal link will need to be obtained through experimental and epidemiological studies.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m delighted to talk about a very interesting topic in this commentary. This is an area that we generally don’t discuss, but it’s one that’s obviously very topical, which includes the question of social media.

The paper I’m referring to is entitled, “More Than a Song and Dance”: Exploration of Patient Perspectives and Educational Quality of Gynecologic Cancer Content on TikTok. The paper was published in Gynecologic Oncology in 2023.

The investigators, very interestingly, looked at the most common hashtags for the five most common gynecologic cancers on TikTok. They had a total of 466.7 million views. They looked at 430 of the 500 top posts that were eligible, looked at 11 central themes, did an objective analysis of educational content based on published strategy for looking at this.

What they found, unfortunately but not surprisingly, overall was that the educational quality and reliability were quite poor. They also noticed considerable differences in disparities based on racial background and really emphasized in their analysis not only how common it is for individuals to look at this content on TikTok but also concerns about what it is that the public, patients, and their families are actually seeing.

This, of course, specifically relates to gynecologic cancers, but almost certainly relates to other cancers as well. Clearly, this is a topic that needs to be discussed widely. It’s very complex and very controversial, but when you think about the information that might be provided to our patients and their families going to social media, it’s important that we understand what they’re seeing, what they’re hearing, what they’re viewing, and the impact this might have on their care and outcomes.

I encourage you to read this very interesting paper if you have an interest in this topic. Again, it was recently published in Gynecologic Oncology. I thank you for your attention.

Dr. Markman is professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California; president of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m delighted to talk about a very interesting topic in this commentary. This is an area that we generally don’t discuss, but it’s one that’s obviously very topical, which includes the question of social media.

The paper I’m referring to is entitled, “More Than a Song and Dance”: Exploration of Patient Perspectives and Educational Quality of Gynecologic Cancer Content on TikTok. The paper was published in Gynecologic Oncology in 2023.

The investigators, very interestingly, looked at the most common hashtags for the five most common gynecologic cancers on TikTok. They had a total of 466.7 million views. They looked at 430 of the 500 top posts that were eligible, looked at 11 central themes, did an objective analysis of educational content based on published strategy for looking at this.

What they found, unfortunately but not surprisingly, overall was that the educational quality and reliability were quite poor. They also noticed considerable differences in disparities based on racial background and really emphasized in their analysis not only how common it is for individuals to look at this content on TikTok but also concerns about what it is that the public, patients, and their families are actually seeing.

This, of course, specifically relates to gynecologic cancers, but almost certainly relates to other cancers as well. Clearly, this is a topic that needs to be discussed widely. It’s very complex and very controversial, but when you think about the information that might be provided to our patients and their families going to social media, it’s important that we understand what they’re seeing, what they’re hearing, what they’re viewing, and the impact this might have on their care and outcomes.

I encourage you to read this very interesting paper if you have an interest in this topic. Again, it was recently published in Gynecologic Oncology. I thank you for your attention.

Dr. Markman is professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California; president of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m delighted to talk about a very interesting topic in this commentary. This is an area that we generally don’t discuss, but it’s one that’s obviously very topical, which includes the question of social media.

The paper I’m referring to is entitled, “More Than a Song and Dance”: Exploration of Patient Perspectives and Educational Quality of Gynecologic Cancer Content on TikTok. The paper was published in Gynecologic Oncology in 2023.

The investigators, very interestingly, looked at the most common hashtags for the five most common gynecologic cancers on TikTok. They had a total of 466.7 million views. They looked at 430 of the 500 top posts that were eligible, looked at 11 central themes, did an objective analysis of educational content based on published strategy for looking at this.

What they found, unfortunately but not surprisingly, overall was that the educational quality and reliability were quite poor. They also noticed considerable differences in disparities based on racial background and really emphasized in their analysis not only how common it is for individuals to look at this content on TikTok but also concerns about what it is that the public, patients, and their families are actually seeing.

This, of course, specifically relates to gynecologic cancers, but almost certainly relates to other cancers as well. Clearly, this is a topic that needs to be discussed widely. It’s very complex and very controversial, but when you think about the information that might be provided to our patients and their families going to social media, it’s important that we understand what they’re seeing, what they’re hearing, what they’re viewing, and the impact this might have on their care and outcomes.

I encourage you to read this very interesting paper if you have an interest in this topic. Again, it was recently published in Gynecologic Oncology. I thank you for your attention.

Dr. Markman is professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California; president of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

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

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

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

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

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

“She’s, like, 90 years old. I’m not going to ask her about sex!” says the cringing resident. “She’s older than my grandmother!”

Well, my young friend, our 80- and 90-year-old patients were in their 20s and 30s in the 1960s. You can bet some of them were pretty groovy! A Swedish study of septuagenarians revealed a shift in sexual attitudes: from 5% of 70-year-old women in the 1970s citing sex as a positive aspect of life, to 78% in 2000. Those of us in practice who came of age during the AIDS era and alongside the purity movement of the 1990s can be more sexually reserved than our grandparents. We might need to catch up. In fact, in another study, 82% of 97-year-old female participants felt that being asked about their sexuality in healthcare settings was positive.

While changes do occur in sexual physiology and behavior with age, satisfying sexual engagement may be an important factor in the general well-being and overall health of older women. Given the high prevalence of dementia among this population, it may be useful to know that positive sexual expression may delay cognitive decline. We also have evidence that sexual satisfaction is important for relational health, which in turn helps predict physical health.

Shed the Dysfunction Mindset

Our medical bias has been that a fulfilling sexual life requires a hard penis and a lubricated vagina. This view of the range of healthy and satisfying sexual expression is lamentably limited. Older adults may have more problems with physiologic arousal in the form of more erectile dysfunction and decreased vaginal lubrication, but these issues may lead to partnerships in which there is less insertive/receiving sexual play and more oral sex, cuddling, kissing, and other forms of partnered sexual play. Older adults may focus less on performance and more on intimacy. In fact, as heterosexual couples encounter these physiologic changes, their sexual behavior may begin to focus more attention to female pleasure. Good news for older women!

As described by Dutch sexuality and aging expert Woet Gianotten, MD, older adults have a lot going for them in their sex lives. Many are retired with more time available, less work stress, greater comfort and familiarity with their partners, and less insecurity about their bodies.

Common Concerns

Many older adults are having satisfying sexual play and are less bothered by changes in their sexual physiology. Still, for those who aren’t happy with their sex lives, clinicians must be ready to address these concerns.

Nancy, an 87-year-old patient whose husband died 5 years ago after 59 years of marriage, has just met someone new. When they are intimate physically, she’s not feeling aroused in the way she recalls, and wonders, Where have my orgasms gone?

A host of physical changes among older women can affect the sexual experience, including the vulvovaginal changes of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), incontinence, uterine prolapse, diminished sensation, and reduced overall mobility. Although aging is responsible for some of these changes, chronic diseases and medical treatments can play an even larger role.

GSM is a major contributor to sexual pain, genital irritation, and reduced arousal and orgasm. It’s crazy that we don’t ask about and treat GSM. Beyond the sexual impact, the vaginal dryness of GSM can contribute to urinary tract infections, which can lead to sepsis and even death! Vaginal estrogens and other GSM treatments are safe and effective in the vast majority of women. Vaginal moisturizers, vaginal dilators, and increasing genital blood flow also help improve GSM.

Vaginal dilators are used in the management of vaginal stenosis, when the vaginal skin has contracted as a result of GSM or pelvic radiation to treat cancer. Dilators are also used to treat some forms of high-tone pelvic floor dysfunction. For expert guidance and coaching on the use of dilators, seek out sexual medicine specialists and pelvic floor physical therapists. Pelvic floor physical therapy is important in the management of a wide range of sexual concerns, from reduced arousal and orgasm to almost any kind of sexual pain.

For postmenopausal women who are distressed by hypoactive sexual desire disorder, transdermal low-dose testosterone may be considered when other causes of low libido have been ruled out.

Due to changes in nerve fiber sensitivity over time, older age is an ideal phase of life to incorporate higher-intensity vibration and other sexual devices into solo and partner sex. Mobility limitations and joint pain can be addressed with devices designed specifically for this purpose or with the use of pillows and other supports.

As Betty Dodson, a staunch advocate for women’s pleasure until her death in 2020 at 91, wisely said, “Masturbation will get you through childhood, puberty, romance, marriage, and divorce, and it will see you through old age.” We can encourage women to see sexual play and pleasure flexibly, as a lifelong process of self-knowledge and discovery.

Basic Tips for Patients

• More “fiction and friction,” as coined by sex therapist Barry McCarthy, is necessary. As bodies age, more stimulation, both mental and physical, is necessary and often requires more direct physical stimulation of genitals.
• More time: Everything seems to take more time as we age; sex is no different.
• Incontinence concerns can be addressed by open communication and collaboration with partners, and being prepared with waterproof pads for the bed and towels.
• Ask about medical intervention–related sexual side effects. A wide range of medications can decrease desire and arousal and delay orgasm. If a change in sexual function occurred with starting a medication, it may be worthwhile investigating alternatives or, if possible, discontinuing a medication. Surgical and procedural changes to the anatomy also can affect sexual function. While correction may be impossible once certain changes have occurred, clinicians can provide patients with both validation about the problem and hope that, for the most part, with creativity and flexibility, pleasurable sexual experience is possible in all bodies.

Pebble M. Kranz, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“She’s, like, 90 years old. I’m not going to ask her about sex!” says the cringing resident. “She’s older than my grandmother!”

Well, my young friend, our 80- and 90-year-old patients were in their 20s and 30s in the 1960s. You can bet some of them were pretty groovy! A Swedish study of septuagenarians revealed a shift in sexual attitudes: from 5% of 70-year-old women in the 1970s citing sex as a positive aspect of life, to 78% in 2000. Those of us in practice who came of age during the AIDS era and alongside the purity movement of the 1990s can be more sexually reserved than our grandparents. We might need to catch up. In fact, in another study, 82% of 97-year-old female participants felt that being asked about their sexuality in healthcare settings was positive.

While changes do occur in sexual physiology and behavior with age, satisfying sexual engagement may be an important factor in the general well-being and overall health of older women. Given the high prevalence of dementia among this population, it may be useful to know that positive sexual expression may delay cognitive decline. We also have evidence that sexual satisfaction is important for relational health, which in turn helps predict physical health.

Shed the Dysfunction Mindset

Our medical bias has been that a fulfilling sexual life requires a hard penis and a lubricated vagina. This view of the range of healthy and satisfying sexual expression is lamentably limited. Older adults may have more problems with physiologic arousal in the form of more erectile dysfunction and decreased vaginal lubrication, but these issues may lead to partnerships in which there is less insertive/receiving sexual play and more oral sex, cuddling, kissing, and other forms of partnered sexual play. Older adults may focus less on performance and more on intimacy. In fact, as heterosexual couples encounter these physiologic changes, their sexual behavior may begin to focus more attention to female pleasure. Good news for older women!

As described by Dutch sexuality and aging expert Woet Gianotten, MD, older adults have a lot going for them in their sex lives. Many are retired with more time available, less work stress, greater comfort and familiarity with their partners, and less insecurity about their bodies.

Common Concerns

Many older adults are having satisfying sexual play and are less bothered by changes in their sexual physiology. Still, for those who aren’t happy with their sex lives, clinicians must be ready to address these concerns.

Nancy, an 87-year-old patient whose husband died 5 years ago after 59 years of marriage, has just met someone new. When they are intimate physically, she’s not feeling aroused in the way she recalls, and wonders, Where have my orgasms gone?

A host of physical changes among older women can affect the sexual experience, including the vulvovaginal changes of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), incontinence, uterine prolapse, diminished sensation, and reduced overall mobility. Although aging is responsible for some of these changes, chronic diseases and medical treatments can play an even larger role.

GSM is a major contributor to sexual pain, genital irritation, and reduced arousal and orgasm. It’s crazy that we don’t ask about and treat GSM. Beyond the sexual impact, the vaginal dryness of GSM can contribute to urinary tract infections, which can lead to sepsis and even death! Vaginal estrogens and other GSM treatments are safe and effective in the vast majority of women. Vaginal moisturizers, vaginal dilators, and increasing genital blood flow also help improve GSM.

Vaginal dilators are used in the management of vaginal stenosis, when the vaginal skin has contracted as a result of GSM or pelvic radiation to treat cancer. Dilators are also used to treat some forms of high-tone pelvic floor dysfunction. For expert guidance and coaching on the use of dilators, seek out sexual medicine specialists and pelvic floor physical therapists. Pelvic floor physical therapy is important in the management of a wide range of sexual concerns, from reduced arousal and orgasm to almost any kind of sexual pain.

For postmenopausal women who are distressed by hypoactive sexual desire disorder, transdermal low-dose testosterone may be considered when other causes of low libido have been ruled out.

Due to changes in nerve fiber sensitivity over time, older age is an ideal phase of life to incorporate higher-intensity vibration and other sexual devices into solo and partner sex. Mobility limitations and joint pain can be addressed with devices designed specifically for this purpose or with the use of pillows and other supports.

As Betty Dodson, a staunch advocate for women’s pleasure until her death in 2020 at 91, wisely said, “Masturbation will get you through childhood, puberty, romance, marriage, and divorce, and it will see you through old age.” We can encourage women to see sexual play and pleasure flexibly, as a lifelong process of self-knowledge and discovery.

Basic Tips for Patients

• More “fiction and friction,” as coined by sex therapist Barry McCarthy, is necessary. As bodies age, more stimulation, both mental and physical, is necessary and often requires more direct physical stimulation of genitals.
• More time: Everything seems to take more time as we age; sex is no different.
• Incontinence concerns can be addressed by open communication and collaboration with partners, and being prepared with waterproof pads for the bed and towels.
• Ask about medical intervention–related sexual side effects. A wide range of medications can decrease desire and arousal and delay orgasm. If a change in sexual function occurred with starting a medication, it may be worthwhile investigating alternatives or, if possible, discontinuing a medication. Surgical and procedural changes to the anatomy also can affect sexual function. While correction may be impossible once certain changes have occurred, clinicians can provide patients with both validation about the problem and hope that, for the most part, with creativity and flexibility, pleasurable sexual experience is possible in all bodies.

Pebble M. Kranz, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“She’s, like, 90 years old. I’m not going to ask her about sex!” says the cringing resident. “She’s older than my grandmother!”

Well, my young friend, our 80- and 90-year-old patients were in their 20s and 30s in the 1960s. You can bet some of them were pretty groovy! A Swedish study of septuagenarians revealed a shift in sexual attitudes: from 5% of 70-year-old women in the 1970s citing sex as a positive aspect of life, to 78% in 2000. Those of us in practice who came of age during the AIDS era and alongside the purity movement of the 1990s can be more sexually reserved than our grandparents. We might need to catch up. In fact, in another study, 82% of 97-year-old female participants felt that being asked about their sexuality in healthcare settings was positive.

While changes do occur in sexual physiology and behavior with age, satisfying sexual engagement may be an important factor in the general well-being and overall health of older women. Given the high prevalence of dementia among this population, it may be useful to know that positive sexual expression may delay cognitive decline. We also have evidence that sexual satisfaction is important for relational health, which in turn helps predict physical health.

Shed the Dysfunction Mindset

Our medical bias has been that a fulfilling sexual life requires a hard penis and a lubricated vagina. This view of the range of healthy and satisfying sexual expression is lamentably limited. Older adults may have more problems with physiologic arousal in the form of more erectile dysfunction and decreased vaginal lubrication, but these issues may lead to partnerships in which there is less insertive/receiving sexual play and more oral sex, cuddling, kissing, and other forms of partnered sexual play. Older adults may focus less on performance and more on intimacy. In fact, as heterosexual couples encounter these physiologic changes, their sexual behavior may begin to focus more attention to female pleasure. Good news for older women!

As described by Dutch sexuality and aging expert Woet Gianotten, MD, older adults have a lot going for them in their sex lives. Many are retired with more time available, less work stress, greater comfort and familiarity with their partners, and less insecurity about their bodies.

Common Concerns

Many older adults are having satisfying sexual play and are less bothered by changes in their sexual physiology. Still, for those who aren’t happy with their sex lives, clinicians must be ready to address these concerns.

Nancy, an 87-year-old patient whose husband died 5 years ago after 59 years of marriage, has just met someone new. When they are intimate physically, she’s not feeling aroused in the way she recalls, and wonders, Where have my orgasms gone?

A host of physical changes among older women can affect the sexual experience, including the vulvovaginal changes of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), incontinence, uterine prolapse, diminished sensation, and reduced overall mobility. Although aging is responsible for some of these changes, chronic diseases and medical treatments can play an even larger role.

GSM is a major contributor to sexual pain, genital irritation, and reduced arousal and orgasm. It’s crazy that we don’t ask about and treat GSM. Beyond the sexual impact, the vaginal dryness of GSM can contribute to urinary tract infections, which can lead to sepsis and even death! Vaginal estrogens and other GSM treatments are safe and effective in the vast majority of women. Vaginal moisturizers, vaginal dilators, and increasing genital blood flow also help improve GSM.

Vaginal dilators are used in the management of vaginal stenosis, when the vaginal skin has contracted as a result of GSM or pelvic radiation to treat cancer. Dilators are also used to treat some forms of high-tone pelvic floor dysfunction. For expert guidance and coaching on the use of dilators, seek out sexual medicine specialists and pelvic floor physical therapists. Pelvic floor physical therapy is important in the management of a wide range of sexual concerns, from reduced arousal and orgasm to almost any kind of sexual pain.

For postmenopausal women who are distressed by hypoactive sexual desire disorder, transdermal low-dose testosterone may be considered when other causes of low libido have been ruled out.

Due to changes in nerve fiber sensitivity over time, older age is an ideal phase of life to incorporate higher-intensity vibration and other sexual devices into solo and partner sex. Mobility limitations and joint pain can be addressed with devices designed specifically for this purpose or with the use of pillows and other supports.

As Betty Dodson, a staunch advocate for women’s pleasure until her death in 2020 at 91, wisely said, “Masturbation will get you through childhood, puberty, romance, marriage, and divorce, and it will see you through old age.” We can encourage women to see sexual play and pleasure flexibly, as a lifelong process of self-knowledge and discovery.

Basic Tips for Patients

• More “fiction and friction,” as coined by sex therapist Barry McCarthy, is necessary. As bodies age, more stimulation, both mental and physical, is necessary and often requires more direct physical stimulation of genitals.
• More time: Everything seems to take more time as we age; sex is no different.
• Incontinence concerns can be addressed by open communication and collaboration with partners, and being prepared with waterproof pads for the bed and towels.
• Ask about medical intervention–related sexual side effects. A wide range of medications can decrease desire and arousal and delay orgasm. If a change in sexual function occurred with starting a medication, it may be worthwhile investigating alternatives or, if possible, discontinuing a medication. Surgical and procedural changes to the anatomy also can affect sexual function. While correction may be impossible once certain changes have occurred, clinicians can provide patients with both validation about the problem and hope that, for the most part, with creativity and flexibility, pleasurable sexual experience is possible in all bodies.

Pebble M. Kranz, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Campaigners for greater transparency in medical science have reiterated calls for more to be done to avoid “medical research waste” after an investigation found that results from more than a fifth of clinical trials across five Nordic countries have never been made public.

A study found that results from 475 clinical trials in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — involving almost 84,000 participants — were never made public in any form.

Nonpublication of clinical trial results wastes public money, harms patients, and undermines public health, the researchers said. 

There is already a well-defined ethical responsibility to publish trial results. Article 36 of the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects states that “researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects,” and World Health Organization best practice protocols call for results to be uploaded onto trial registries within 12 months of trial completion.
 

Research Waste Is a ‘Pervasive Problem’

So, how and why do so many trials end up gathering dust in a drawer? The latest study, published February 5 as a preprint, evaluated the reporting outcomes of 2113 clinical trials at medical universities and university hospitals in Nordic countries between 2016 and 2019. It found that across the five countries, 22% of all clinical trial results had not been shared. Furthermore, only 27% of all trial results were made public, either on registries or in journals, within 12 months. Even 2 years after trials ended, only around half of results (51.7%) had been put into the public domain.

The authors concluded that missing and delayed results from academically-led clinical trials was a “pervasive problem” in Nordic countries and that institutions, funding bodies, and policymakers needed to ensure that regulations around reporting results were adhered to so that important findings are not lost.

Study first author, Gustav Nilsonne, MD, PHD, from the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, told this news organization: “Most people I talk to — most colleagues who are clinical scientists — tend to think that the main reason is that negative results are not as interesting to publish and therefore they get lower priority, and they get published later and sometimes not at all.”

Experts stressed that the problem is not confined to Nordic countries and that wasted medical research persists elsewhere in Europe and remains a global problem. For instance, a report published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology found that 30% of German trials completed between 2014 and 2017 remained unpublished 5 years after completion.
 

The Case for Laws, Monitoring, and Fines

Till Bruckner, PHD, from TranspariMED, which campaigns to end evidence distortion in medicine, told this news organization: “What is needed to comprehensively fix the problem is a national legal requirement to make all trial results public, coupled with effective monitoring, and followed by sanctions in the rare cases where institutions refuse to comply.” 

Dr. Nilsonne added: “We have argued that the sponsors need to take greater responsibility, but also that there needs to be somebody whose job it is to monitor clinical trials reporting. It shouldn’t have to be that we do this as researchers on a shoestring with no dedicated resources. It should be somebody’s job.”

Since January 31, 2023, all initial clinical trial applications in the European Union must be submitted through the EU Clinical Trials Information System. Dr. Bruckner said that “the picture is not yet clear” in Europe, as the first trial results under the system are not expected until later this year. Even then, enforcement lies with regulators in individual countries. And while Denmark has already indicated it will enforce the regulations, he warned that other countries “might turn a blind eye.”

He pointed out that existing laws don’t apply to all types of trials. “That means that for many trials, nobody is legally responsible for ensuring that results are made public, and no government agency has any oversight or mandate,” he said.

Outside the EU, the United Kingdom has helped lead the way through the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which registers trials run in the country. One year after a trial has been completed, the HRA checks to see if the results have been uploaded to the registry and issues reminders if they haven’t.

In an update of its work in January, the authority said that compliance had hovered at just below 90% between 2018 and 2021 but that it was working to increase this to 100% by working with stakeholders across the research sector.

Dr. Nilsonne considers the UK system of central registration and follow-up an attractive option. “I would love to see something along those lines in other countries too,” he said.
 

‘Rampant Noncompliance’ in the United States

In the United States, a requirement to make trial results public is backed by law. Despite this, there’s evidence of “rampant noncompliance” and minimal government action, according to Megan Curtin from Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), which has been tracking the issue in the United States and working to push universities and others to make their findings available.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares responsibility with the National Institutes of Health for enforcement of clinical trial results reporting, but the UAEM says nearly 4000 trials are currently out of compliance with reporting requirements. In January last year, the UAEM copublished a report with the National Center for Health Research and TranspariMED, which found that 3627 American children participated in clinical trials whose results remain unreported.

The FDA can levy a fine of up to $10,000 USD for a violation of the law, but UAEM said that, as of January 2023, the FDA had sent only 92 preliminary notices of noncompliance and four notices of noncompliance. “A clear difference between the EU field of clinical trial operation and US clinical trials is that there are clear laws for reporting within 12 months, which can be enforced, but they’re not being enforced by the FDA,” Ms. Curtin told this news organization.

The UAEM is pushing the FDA to issue a minimum of 250 preliminary notices of noncompliance each year to noncompliant trial sponsors.

Dr. Nilsonne said: “I do believe we have a great responsibility to the patients that do contribute. We need to make sure that the harms and risks that a clinical trial entails are really balanced by knowledge gain, and if the results are never reported, then we can’t have a knowledge gain.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Rates of maternal morbidity in individuals with placenta accreta were similar with alternative strategies to cesarean hysterectomy regardless of the severity of the condition, based on data from 60 individuals.

Currently, the recommended management strategy for placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) is a cesarean hysterectomy, but data are lacking on alternative strategies, especially for individuals wishing to keep their uterus and potentially preserve fertility, Farah H. Amro, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston McGovern Medical School said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting (abstract 70).

Alternative options are being studied worldwide, including delayed hysterectomy (typically performed at 4-6 weeks postpartum), Dr. Amro said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

At UT Houston, delayed hysterectomy is performed for more aggressive PAS that involves parametrial invasion, and the placenta left in situ until resorption/passage for those wishing to keep their uterus, Dr. Amro said in an interview.

In a cohort study at UT Houston, a level IV academic center, Dr. Amro and colleagues evaluated outcomes in 60 individuals with suspected PAS who were given three management options after extensive counseling. Of these, 29 opted for a cesarean hysterectomy (CH); 16 opted for delayed interval hysterectomy (IH) performed 4-6 weeks after delivery; and 15 individuals with a preference for uterine preservation were assigned to conservative management.

The study occurred between January 2020 and July 2023. The primary outcome was composite maternal morbidity, which was further divided into composite acute morbidity (within 24 hours from cesarean delivery or hysterectomy) and composite delayed morbidity (24 hours or more postoperatively). Secondary outcomes included total estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusion, unplanned hospital readmission, and pathology diagnosis.

Overall maternal morbidity rates were 55%, 56%, and 53% in the CH, IH, and CM groups, respectively, although those who were planned for IH and CM had more severe PAS.

The planned procedure was performed in 90% of the CH patients. Approximately 20% of patients in the IH and CM groups underwent unplanned procedures. No cases of sepsis or maternal death occurred, and uterine infection rates were 0%, 6%, and 13% in the CH, IH, and CM groups, respectively.

Patients in the CM and IH groups were significantly less likely to require blood transfusions than those in the CH group. In addition, composite delayed morbidity (24 hours or more after surgery) was similar among the groups, with rates of 31%, 38%, and 33% for CH, IH, and CM, respectively (P = .94). These results are important, given the concerns regarding leaving a placenta in situ after cesarean delivery, said Dr. Amro.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single site, the lack of randomization, patient compliance, and cost effectiveness. However, the results were strengthened by the diverse population and comparison of novel approaches that aren’t frequently utilized In the United States, as well as the large volume of PAS cases treated in a relatively short time frame, Dr. Amro said.
 

More Options Empower Mothers

Overall, the results support the use of delayed hysterectomy and conservative management as safe alternatives to cesarean hysterectomy, especially in those with severe PAS (opting for IH Instead of CH) and those seeking to preserve the uterus (CM), Dr. Amro said. However, these alternative options can be offered only to patients who can engage in frequent postpartum follow-up and live close to the hospital; with the CM group, resorption/passage of the placenta may take as long as 6 months in some cases, she explained.

The greatest concerns with leaving the placenta in place in PAS patients are the risk of infection or subsequent hemorrhage, Dr. Amro said in an interview. However, the current study showed that the infection rate was not as high as anticipated, and the frequency of unplanned procedures occurred in only 20%, which should alleviate some of these concerns, she said.

“We have completed 28 cases of conservative management since 2015, four have gone on to successful pregnancy with no cases of PAS in the subsequent pregnancies,” Dr. Amro said. Conservative management gives mothers another option, she added. “Moms feel empowered by being given a choice, especially for those that want to keep their uterus for fertility or religious/cultural considerations, and many opt for CM.”

The next step is to take the conservative management strategy to larger groups at other centers to replicate the results in other locations, said Dr. Amro. “Also, we are looking at the utility of other interventions such as uterine artery embolization and performing delayed dilation and curettage to help with passage of the placenta in those opting for CM.”
 

Study Supports Safety of Conservative Management

“There are patients that may want to preserve their reproductive organs in the face of an accreta (such as for religious, cultural, and personal reasons), and this study helps address some of the safety considerations with conservative approaches,” Corrina M. Oxford-Horrey, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in an interview.

“I was surprised that there was not a lot of infectious morbidity (such as sepsis) in the cohorts; that was helpful to see,” said Dr. Oxford-Horrey, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

Based on the study findings, “nontraditional approaches to placenta accreta spectrum management may be reasonable, given similar overall postoperative composite morbidity between the groups,” she said.

As for additional research, replicating the study in a multicenter fashion would add to the generalizability of the findings, Dr. Oxford-Horrey said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Oxford-Horrey had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Rates of maternal morbidity in individuals with placenta accreta were similar with alternative strategies to cesarean hysterectomy regardless of the severity of the condition, based on data from 60 individuals.

Currently, the recommended management strategy for placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) is a cesarean hysterectomy, but data are lacking on alternative strategies, especially for individuals wishing to keep their uterus and potentially preserve fertility, Farah H. Amro, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston McGovern Medical School said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting (abstract 70).

Alternative options are being studied worldwide, including delayed hysterectomy (typically performed at 4-6 weeks postpartum), Dr. Amro said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

At UT Houston, delayed hysterectomy is performed for more aggressive PAS that involves parametrial invasion, and the placenta left in situ until resorption/passage for those wishing to keep their uterus, Dr. Amro said in an interview.

In a cohort study at UT Houston, a level IV academic center, Dr. Amro and colleagues evaluated outcomes in 60 individuals with suspected PAS who were given three management options after extensive counseling. Of these, 29 opted for a cesarean hysterectomy (CH); 16 opted for delayed interval hysterectomy (IH) performed 4-6 weeks after delivery; and 15 individuals with a preference for uterine preservation were assigned to conservative management.

The study occurred between January 2020 and July 2023. The primary outcome was composite maternal morbidity, which was further divided into composite acute morbidity (within 24 hours from cesarean delivery or hysterectomy) and composite delayed morbidity (24 hours or more postoperatively). Secondary outcomes included total estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusion, unplanned hospital readmission, and pathology diagnosis.

Overall maternal morbidity rates were 55%, 56%, and 53% in the CH, IH, and CM groups, respectively, although those who were planned for IH and CM had more severe PAS.

The planned procedure was performed in 90% of the CH patients. Approximately 20% of patients in the IH and CM groups underwent unplanned procedures. No cases of sepsis or maternal death occurred, and uterine infection rates were 0%, 6%, and 13% in the CH, IH, and CM groups, respectively.

Patients in the CM and IH groups were significantly less likely to require blood transfusions than those in the CH group. In addition, composite delayed morbidity (24 hours or more after surgery) was similar among the groups, with rates of 31%, 38%, and 33% for CH, IH, and CM, respectively (P = .94). These results are important, given the concerns regarding leaving a placenta in situ after cesarean delivery, said Dr. Amro.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single site, the lack of randomization, patient compliance, and cost effectiveness. However, the results were strengthened by the diverse population and comparison of novel approaches that aren’t frequently utilized In the United States, as well as the large volume of PAS cases treated in a relatively short time frame, Dr. Amro said.
 

More Options Empower Mothers

Overall, the results support the use of delayed hysterectomy and conservative management as safe alternatives to cesarean hysterectomy, especially in those with severe PAS (opting for IH Instead of CH) and those seeking to preserve the uterus (CM), Dr. Amro said. However, these alternative options can be offered only to patients who can engage in frequent postpartum follow-up and live close to the hospital; with the CM group, resorption/passage of the placenta may take as long as 6 months in some cases, she explained.

The greatest concerns with leaving the placenta in place in PAS patients are the risk of infection or subsequent hemorrhage, Dr. Amro said in an interview. However, the current study showed that the infection rate was not as high as anticipated, and the frequency of unplanned procedures occurred in only 20%, which should alleviate some of these concerns, she said.

“We have completed 28 cases of conservative management since 2015, four have gone on to successful pregnancy with no cases of PAS in the subsequent pregnancies,” Dr. Amro said. Conservative management gives mothers another option, she added. “Moms feel empowered by being given a choice, especially for those that want to keep their uterus for fertility or religious/cultural considerations, and many opt for CM.”

The next step is to take the conservative management strategy to larger groups at other centers to replicate the results in other locations, said Dr. Amro. “Also, we are looking at the utility of other interventions such as uterine artery embolization and performing delayed dilation and curettage to help with passage of the placenta in those opting for CM.”
 

Study Supports Safety of Conservative Management

“There are patients that may want to preserve their reproductive organs in the face of an accreta (such as for religious, cultural, and personal reasons), and this study helps address some of the safety considerations with conservative approaches,” Corrina M. Oxford-Horrey, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in an interview.

“I was surprised that there was not a lot of infectious morbidity (such as sepsis) in the cohorts; that was helpful to see,” said Dr. Oxford-Horrey, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

Based on the study findings, “nontraditional approaches to placenta accreta spectrum management may be reasonable, given similar overall postoperative composite morbidity between the groups,” she said.

As for additional research, replicating the study in a multicenter fashion would add to the generalizability of the findings, Dr. Oxford-Horrey said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Oxford-Horrey had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Rates of maternal morbidity in individuals with placenta accreta were similar with alternative strategies to cesarean hysterectomy regardless of the severity of the condition, based on data from 60 individuals.

Currently, the recommended management strategy for placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) is a cesarean hysterectomy, but data are lacking on alternative strategies, especially for individuals wishing to keep their uterus and potentially preserve fertility, Farah H. Amro, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston McGovern Medical School said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting (abstract 70).

Alternative options are being studied worldwide, including delayed hysterectomy (typically performed at 4-6 weeks postpartum), Dr. Amro said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

At UT Houston, delayed hysterectomy is performed for more aggressive PAS that involves parametrial invasion, and the placenta left in situ until resorption/passage for those wishing to keep their uterus, Dr. Amro said in an interview.

In a cohort study at UT Houston, a level IV academic center, Dr. Amro and colleagues evaluated outcomes in 60 individuals with suspected PAS who were given three management options after extensive counseling. Of these, 29 opted for a cesarean hysterectomy (CH); 16 opted for delayed interval hysterectomy (IH) performed 4-6 weeks after delivery; and 15 individuals with a preference for uterine preservation were assigned to conservative management.

The study occurred between January 2020 and July 2023. The primary outcome was composite maternal morbidity, which was further divided into composite acute morbidity (within 24 hours from cesarean delivery or hysterectomy) and composite delayed morbidity (24 hours or more postoperatively). Secondary outcomes included total estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusion, unplanned hospital readmission, and pathology diagnosis.

Overall maternal morbidity rates were 55%, 56%, and 53% in the CH, IH, and CM groups, respectively, although those who were planned for IH and CM had more severe PAS.

The planned procedure was performed in 90% of the CH patients. Approximately 20% of patients in the IH and CM groups underwent unplanned procedures. No cases of sepsis or maternal death occurred, and uterine infection rates were 0%, 6%, and 13% in the CH, IH, and CM groups, respectively.

Patients in the CM and IH groups were significantly less likely to require blood transfusions than those in the CH group. In addition, composite delayed morbidity (24 hours or more after surgery) was similar among the groups, with rates of 31%, 38%, and 33% for CH, IH, and CM, respectively (P = .94). These results are important, given the concerns regarding leaving a placenta in situ after cesarean delivery, said Dr. Amro.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single site, the lack of randomization, patient compliance, and cost effectiveness. However, the results were strengthened by the diverse population and comparison of novel approaches that aren’t frequently utilized In the United States, as well as the large volume of PAS cases treated in a relatively short time frame, Dr. Amro said.
 

More Options Empower Mothers

Overall, the results support the use of delayed hysterectomy and conservative management as safe alternatives to cesarean hysterectomy, especially in those with severe PAS (opting for IH Instead of CH) and those seeking to preserve the uterus (CM), Dr. Amro said. However, these alternative options can be offered only to patients who can engage in frequent postpartum follow-up and live close to the hospital; with the CM group, resorption/passage of the placenta may take as long as 6 months in some cases, she explained.

The greatest concerns with leaving the placenta in place in PAS patients are the risk of infection or subsequent hemorrhage, Dr. Amro said in an interview. However, the current study showed that the infection rate was not as high as anticipated, and the frequency of unplanned procedures occurred in only 20%, which should alleviate some of these concerns, she said.

“We have completed 28 cases of conservative management since 2015, four have gone on to successful pregnancy with no cases of PAS in the subsequent pregnancies,” Dr. Amro said. Conservative management gives mothers another option, she added. “Moms feel empowered by being given a choice, especially for those that want to keep their uterus for fertility or religious/cultural considerations, and many opt for CM.”

The next step is to take the conservative management strategy to larger groups at other centers to replicate the results in other locations, said Dr. Amro. “Also, we are looking at the utility of other interventions such as uterine artery embolization and performing delayed dilation and curettage to help with passage of the placenta in those opting for CM.”
 

Study Supports Safety of Conservative Management

“There are patients that may want to preserve their reproductive organs in the face of an accreta (such as for religious, cultural, and personal reasons), and this study helps address some of the safety considerations with conservative approaches,” Corrina M. Oxford-Horrey, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in an interview.

“I was surprised that there was not a lot of infectious morbidity (such as sepsis) in the cohorts; that was helpful to see,” said Dr. Oxford-Horrey, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

Based on the study findings, “nontraditional approaches to placenta accreta spectrum management may be reasonable, given similar overall postoperative composite morbidity between the groups,” she said.

As for additional research, replicating the study in a multicenter fashion would add to the generalizability of the findings, Dr. Oxford-Horrey said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Oxford-Horrey had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

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

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

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

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

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