Ob.Gyn. News

Augmentation mammaplasty, otherwise known as a breast augmentation, is one of the most common cosmetic procedures performed in cisgender females. Gynecologists routinely perform annual breast examinations and order screening mammography in cisgender women with breast implants. Similarly, there is an increasing number of transgender women seeking breast augmentation – with approximately 60%-70% of patients having desired or undergone the procedure.¹ Consequently, these patients are instructed by their surgeons to follow up with gynecologists for annual examinations and screening. While there are many similarities in technique and procedure, there are nuances in patient demographics, anatomy, and surgical technique that obstetricians/gynecologists should be aware of when examining these patients or prior to referring them to a surgeon for augmentation.²

Many patients who are dissatisfied with breast size from hormone therapy alone will seek out augmentation mammaplasty. In patients taking estrogen for hormone therapy, breast growth will commence around 2-3 months and peak over 1-2 years.³ Unlike chest surgery for transmasculine individuals, it is recommended that transfeminine patients seeking breast augmentation wait a minimum of 12 months before to surgery to allow for maximum breast enlargement. As with breast growth in cisgender females, the extent of breast development is multifactorial and varies from individual to individual. Current literature does not suggest that estrogen type or dose affects the ultimate breast size; however, younger age, tissue sensitivity, and body weight may affect breast volume.³ Referral to a genetic counselor and preoperative imaging may be necessary if a patient has a history concerning for a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer.

Implant selection and placement is determined by a variety of factors. While the overall principles of augmentation mammaplasty are essentially the same, there are anatomic differences in transfeminine patients that surgeons must take into consideration at the time of the consultation and during the surgery itself. For example, the pectoralis major muscle is more defined, there is a longer sternal notch-to-nipple distance, the chest wall is broader and more barrel-shaped, and there is a shorter distance between the nipple and the inframammary crease.^2-4 As a result of the broader chest wall, it is extremely difficult to achieve central cleavage even with larger implant selection. The surgeon must also ensure that the nipple and areola overlie the implant centrally. Medial placement of the implant will result in lateral displacement of the nipples, which can have an unsatisfactory cosmetic appearance.

Incision location can be axillary, inframammary, or even transareolar, although the latter is less common due to the smaller areolar size and larger implant choice.³ If the inframammary incision is used, it should be placed lower than the natural inframammary fold because the distance between the inferior areolar margin and inframammary fold is shorter and will expand after the implant is placed.⁴ While both saline and silicone implants are available, many surgeons (myself included), favor more form-stable silicone implants. Given the association between anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and textured implants, many surgeons also use nontextured, or smooth, cohesive gel silicone implants.⁵

Pocket selection of the implant itself can be subglandular – directly under the breast mound – or subpectoral – behind the pectoralis muscle. For patients with a pinch test of greater than 1.5 cm (outside of the area of the breast bud), good skin softening, and marked pectoralis hypertrophy, subglandular placement is reasonable.⁶ In thin patients with minimal breast development, subglandular placement can result in a “double-mound” appearance and can lead to visible implant edges on the periphery.⁶ Use of the subpectoral plane is more common and is associated with less implant visibility due to an increased amount of soft-tissue coverage and has lower rates of capsular contracture.⁴ However, due to the more robust pectoralis muscle in transfeminine patients, implant displacement can occur more frequently compared to subglandular placement. The surgeon and patient must have a thorough discussion about the location of the incision, implant material, and pocket placement along with the benefits and complications of the surgical plan.

Complications of augmentation mammaplasty are rare. However, when they occur it can include capsular contracture, breast asymmetry, hematoma formation, loss of nipple sensation, implant malposition, implant displacement below the inframammary crease, implant rupture, and need for revisional surgery.⁷ If an obstetrician/gynecologist observes any of the aforementioned findings in a postoperative patient, consultation and referral to a plastic surgeon is imperative.

Postoperative assessment and screening are mandatory in all patients who undergo breast augmentation. It is important for the gynecologist to note the incision placement, know the type of implant used (saline or silicone), and delineate where the implant was placed. If silicone implants are used, breast MRI is more sensitive in detecting implant rupture compared to mammography alone. Given the relatively poor epidemiologic data on breast cancer in transgender women, the Endocrine Society recommends that these patients follow the same screening guidelines as cisgender women.^4,6

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Wierckx K et al. J Sex Med. 2014;11(5):1240-7.

2. Mehra G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021 Jan 21;9(1):e3362. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003362.

3. Schecter LS, Schechter RB. Breast and chest surgery for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2020:73-81.

4. Colebunders B et al. Top surgery. In: Salgado CJ et al. ed. Gender Affirmation: Medical and Surgical Perspectives. New York, NY: Thieme, 2017:51-66.

5. De Boer M et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:NP83-NP87.

6. Coon D et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Jun;145(6):1343-53.

7. Kanhai RC et al. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:209-11.

Augmentation mammaplasty, otherwise known as a breast augmentation, is one of the most common cosmetic procedures performed in cisgender females. Gynecologists routinely perform annual breast examinations and order screening mammography in cisgender women with breast implants. Similarly, there is an increasing number of transgender women seeking breast augmentation – with approximately 60%-70% of patients having desired or undergone the procedure.¹ Consequently, these patients are instructed by their surgeons to follow up with gynecologists for annual examinations and screening. While there are many similarities in technique and procedure, there are nuances in patient demographics, anatomy, and surgical technique that obstetricians/gynecologists should be aware of when examining these patients or prior to referring them to a surgeon for augmentation.²

Many patients who are dissatisfied with breast size from hormone therapy alone will seek out augmentation mammaplasty. In patients taking estrogen for hormone therapy, breast growth will commence around 2-3 months and peak over 1-2 years.³ Unlike chest surgery for transmasculine individuals, it is recommended that transfeminine patients seeking breast augmentation wait a minimum of 12 months before to surgery to allow for maximum breast enlargement. As with breast growth in cisgender females, the extent of breast development is multifactorial and varies from individual to individual. Current literature does not suggest that estrogen type or dose affects the ultimate breast size; however, younger age, tissue sensitivity, and body weight may affect breast volume.³ Referral to a genetic counselor and preoperative imaging may be necessary if a patient has a history concerning for a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer.

Implant selection and placement is determined by a variety of factors. While the overall principles of augmentation mammaplasty are essentially the same, there are anatomic differences in transfeminine patients that surgeons must take into consideration at the time of the consultation and during the surgery itself. For example, the pectoralis major muscle is more defined, there is a longer sternal notch-to-nipple distance, the chest wall is broader and more barrel-shaped, and there is a shorter distance between the nipple and the inframammary crease.^2-4 As a result of the broader chest wall, it is extremely difficult to achieve central cleavage even with larger implant selection. The surgeon must also ensure that the nipple and areola overlie the implant centrally. Medial placement of the implant will result in lateral displacement of the nipples, which can have an unsatisfactory cosmetic appearance.

Incision location can be axillary, inframammary, or even transareolar, although the latter is less common due to the smaller areolar size and larger implant choice.³ If the inframammary incision is used, it should be placed lower than the natural inframammary fold because the distance between the inferior areolar margin and inframammary fold is shorter and will expand after the implant is placed.⁴ While both saline and silicone implants are available, many surgeons (myself included), favor more form-stable silicone implants. Given the association between anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and textured implants, many surgeons also use nontextured, or smooth, cohesive gel silicone implants.⁵

Pocket selection of the implant itself can be subglandular – directly under the breast mound – or subpectoral – behind the pectoralis muscle. For patients with a pinch test of greater than 1.5 cm (outside of the area of the breast bud), good skin softening, and marked pectoralis hypertrophy, subglandular placement is reasonable.⁶ In thin patients with minimal breast development, subglandular placement can result in a “double-mound” appearance and can lead to visible implant edges on the periphery.⁶ Use of the subpectoral plane is more common and is associated with less implant visibility due to an increased amount of soft-tissue coverage and has lower rates of capsular contracture.⁴ However, due to the more robust pectoralis muscle in transfeminine patients, implant displacement can occur more frequently compared to subglandular placement. The surgeon and patient must have a thorough discussion about the location of the incision, implant material, and pocket placement along with the benefits and complications of the surgical plan.

Complications of augmentation mammaplasty are rare. However, when they occur it can include capsular contracture, breast asymmetry, hematoma formation, loss of nipple sensation, implant malposition, implant displacement below the inframammary crease, implant rupture, and need for revisional surgery.⁷ If an obstetrician/gynecologist observes any of the aforementioned findings in a postoperative patient, consultation and referral to a plastic surgeon is imperative.

Postoperative assessment and screening are mandatory in all patients who undergo breast augmentation. It is important for the gynecologist to note the incision placement, know the type of implant used (saline or silicone), and delineate where the implant was placed. If silicone implants are used, breast MRI is more sensitive in detecting implant rupture compared to mammography alone. Given the relatively poor epidemiologic data on breast cancer in transgender women, the Endocrine Society recommends that these patients follow the same screening guidelines as cisgender women.^4,6

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Wierckx K et al. J Sex Med. 2014;11(5):1240-7.

2. Mehra G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021 Jan 21;9(1):e3362. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003362.

3. Schecter LS, Schechter RB. Breast and chest surgery for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2020:73-81.

4. Colebunders B et al. Top surgery. In: Salgado CJ et al. ed. Gender Affirmation: Medical and Surgical Perspectives. New York, NY: Thieme, 2017:51-66.

5. De Boer M et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:NP83-NP87.

6. Coon D et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Jun;145(6):1343-53.

7. Kanhai RC et al. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:209-11.

Augmentation mammaplasty, otherwise known as a breast augmentation, is one of the most common cosmetic procedures performed in cisgender females. Gynecologists routinely perform annual breast examinations and order screening mammography in cisgender women with breast implants. Similarly, there is an increasing number of transgender women seeking breast augmentation – with approximately 60%-70% of patients having desired or undergone the procedure.¹ Consequently, these patients are instructed by their surgeons to follow up with gynecologists for annual examinations and screening. While there are many similarities in technique and procedure, there are nuances in patient demographics, anatomy, and surgical technique that obstetricians/gynecologists should be aware of when examining these patients or prior to referring them to a surgeon for augmentation.²

Many patients who are dissatisfied with breast size from hormone therapy alone will seek out augmentation mammaplasty. In patients taking estrogen for hormone therapy, breast growth will commence around 2-3 months and peak over 1-2 years.³ Unlike chest surgery for transmasculine individuals, it is recommended that transfeminine patients seeking breast augmentation wait a minimum of 12 months before to surgery to allow for maximum breast enlargement. As with breast growth in cisgender females, the extent of breast development is multifactorial and varies from individual to individual. Current literature does not suggest that estrogen type or dose affects the ultimate breast size; however, younger age, tissue sensitivity, and body weight may affect breast volume.³ Referral to a genetic counselor and preoperative imaging may be necessary if a patient has a history concerning for a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer.

Implant selection and placement is determined by a variety of factors. While the overall principles of augmentation mammaplasty are essentially the same, there are anatomic differences in transfeminine patients that surgeons must take into consideration at the time of the consultation and during the surgery itself. For example, the pectoralis major muscle is more defined, there is a longer sternal notch-to-nipple distance, the chest wall is broader and more barrel-shaped, and there is a shorter distance between the nipple and the inframammary crease.^2-4 As a result of the broader chest wall, it is extremely difficult to achieve central cleavage even with larger implant selection. The surgeon must also ensure that the nipple and areola overlie the implant centrally. Medial placement of the implant will result in lateral displacement of the nipples, which can have an unsatisfactory cosmetic appearance.

Incision location can be axillary, inframammary, or even transareolar, although the latter is less common due to the smaller areolar size and larger implant choice.³ If the inframammary incision is used, it should be placed lower than the natural inframammary fold because the distance between the inferior areolar margin and inframammary fold is shorter and will expand after the implant is placed.⁴ While both saline and silicone implants are available, many surgeons (myself included), favor more form-stable silicone implants. Given the association between anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and textured implants, many surgeons also use nontextured, or smooth, cohesive gel silicone implants.⁵

Pocket selection of the implant itself can be subglandular – directly under the breast mound – or subpectoral – behind the pectoralis muscle. For patients with a pinch test of greater than 1.5 cm (outside of the area of the breast bud), good skin softening, and marked pectoralis hypertrophy, subglandular placement is reasonable.⁶ In thin patients with minimal breast development, subglandular placement can result in a “double-mound” appearance and can lead to visible implant edges on the periphery.⁶ Use of the subpectoral plane is more common and is associated with less implant visibility due to an increased amount of soft-tissue coverage and has lower rates of capsular contracture.⁴ However, due to the more robust pectoralis muscle in transfeminine patients, implant displacement can occur more frequently compared to subglandular placement. The surgeon and patient must have a thorough discussion about the location of the incision, implant material, and pocket placement along with the benefits and complications of the surgical plan.

Complications of augmentation mammaplasty are rare. However, when they occur it can include capsular contracture, breast asymmetry, hematoma formation, loss of nipple sensation, implant malposition, implant displacement below the inframammary crease, implant rupture, and need for revisional surgery.⁷ If an obstetrician/gynecologist observes any of the aforementioned findings in a postoperative patient, consultation and referral to a plastic surgeon is imperative.

Postoperative assessment and screening are mandatory in all patients who undergo breast augmentation. It is important for the gynecologist to note the incision placement, know the type of implant used (saline or silicone), and delineate where the implant was placed. If silicone implants are used, breast MRI is more sensitive in detecting implant rupture compared to mammography alone. Given the relatively poor epidemiologic data on breast cancer in transgender women, the Endocrine Society recommends that these patients follow the same screening guidelines as cisgender women.^4,6

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Wierckx K et al. J Sex Med. 2014;11(5):1240-7.

2. Mehra G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021 Jan 21;9(1):e3362. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003362.

3. Schecter LS, Schechter RB. Breast and chest surgery for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2020:73-81.

4. Colebunders B et al. Top surgery. In: Salgado CJ et al. ed. Gender Affirmation: Medical and Surgical Perspectives. New York, NY: Thieme, 2017:51-66.

5. De Boer M et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:NP83-NP87.

6. Coon D et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Jun;145(6):1343-53.

7. Kanhai RC et al. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:209-11.

Women diagnosed with early breast cancer facing surgery often have a choice of having all of their breast or only a part of the breast removed.

A new study shows that a patient’s satisfaction with their breasts at 10 years after surgery is similar for both groups of women.

However, superior psychosocial and sexual well-being at 10 years after surgery was reported by women who underwent breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT), compared with those who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction.

“These findings may inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer,” write the authors, led by Benjamin D. Smith, MD, department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

These findings have important implications for patient decision-making, given that more women eligible for breast-conserving surgery are opting for a mastectomy, say Sudheer Vemuru, MD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues, writing in an accompanying editorial.

“Overall, the preponderance of evidence suggests superior short-term and long-term patient-reported outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy,” they comment.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a comparative effectiveness research study using data from the Texas Cancer Registry and identified women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008.

A total of 647 patients were included in their analysis (40%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery; 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236).

The median age of the cohort was 53 years and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years. Mastectomy and reconstruction were more common among women who were White, younger, node positive, had larger tumors, had bilateral breast cancer, received chemotherapy, and had higher income.

The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with their breasts, as measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being. The EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level gaged health utility, and local therapy decisional regret was measured via the Decisional Regret Scale.

Using breast-conserving surgery plus RT as the referent, the authors did not find any significant differences in breast satisfaction, physical well-being, health utility, or decisional regret among the study cohorts: breast satisfaction: effect size, 2.71 (P = .30); physical well-being: effect size, –1.80 (P = .36); health utility: effect size, –0.003 (P = .83); and decisional regret: effect size, 1.32 (P = .61).

However, psychosocial well-being (effect size, –8.61; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, –10.68; P < .001) were significantly worse among women who had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction without RT.

They noted that interactions of race and ethnicity and age by treatment group were not significant for reported satisfaction with breast outcomes. But the findings “indicated that the burden of poor long-term QOL outcomes was greater among younger individuals, those with lower educational attainment and income, and certain racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. “These findings suggest that opportunities exist to enhance equity in the long-term QOL of individuals with breast cancer.”

The editorialists note that previous studies have also found diminished quality of life following mastectomy compared with breast-conserving surgery. However, most of these prior studies included patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery without RT, patients undergoing mastectomy without reconstruction, and patients undergoing mastectomy with RT.

In contrast, this latest study “directly compared breast-conserving surgery with RT vs. mastectomy and reconstruction without RT to avoid those potential confounders,” they point out.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and other bodies. Several of the study authors disclosed relationships with industry and/or with nonprofit organizations. The full list can be found with the original article. Editorialist Clara Lee, MD, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the conduct of the study.

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

Women diagnosed with early breast cancer facing surgery often have a choice of having all of their breast or only a part of the breast removed.

A new study shows that a patient’s satisfaction with their breasts at 10 years after surgery is similar for both groups of women.

However, superior psychosocial and sexual well-being at 10 years after surgery was reported by women who underwent breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT), compared with those who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction.

“These findings may inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer,” write the authors, led by Benjamin D. Smith, MD, department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

These findings have important implications for patient decision-making, given that more women eligible for breast-conserving surgery are opting for a mastectomy, say Sudheer Vemuru, MD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues, writing in an accompanying editorial.

“Overall, the preponderance of evidence suggests superior short-term and long-term patient-reported outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy,” they comment.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a comparative effectiveness research study using data from the Texas Cancer Registry and identified women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008.

A total of 647 patients were included in their analysis (40%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery; 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236).

The median age of the cohort was 53 years and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years. Mastectomy and reconstruction were more common among women who were White, younger, node positive, had larger tumors, had bilateral breast cancer, received chemotherapy, and had higher income.

The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with their breasts, as measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being. The EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level gaged health utility, and local therapy decisional regret was measured via the Decisional Regret Scale.

Using breast-conserving surgery plus RT as the referent, the authors did not find any significant differences in breast satisfaction, physical well-being, health utility, or decisional regret among the study cohorts: breast satisfaction: effect size, 2.71 (P = .30); physical well-being: effect size, –1.80 (P = .36); health utility: effect size, –0.003 (P = .83); and decisional regret: effect size, 1.32 (P = .61).

However, psychosocial well-being (effect size, –8.61; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, –10.68; P < .001) were significantly worse among women who had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction without RT.

They noted that interactions of race and ethnicity and age by treatment group were not significant for reported satisfaction with breast outcomes. But the findings “indicated that the burden of poor long-term QOL outcomes was greater among younger individuals, those with lower educational attainment and income, and certain racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. “These findings suggest that opportunities exist to enhance equity in the long-term QOL of individuals with breast cancer.”

The editorialists note that previous studies have also found diminished quality of life following mastectomy compared with breast-conserving surgery. However, most of these prior studies included patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery without RT, patients undergoing mastectomy without reconstruction, and patients undergoing mastectomy with RT.

In contrast, this latest study “directly compared breast-conserving surgery with RT vs. mastectomy and reconstruction without RT to avoid those potential confounders,” they point out.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and other bodies. Several of the study authors disclosed relationships with industry and/or with nonprofit organizations. The full list can be found with the original article. Editorialist Clara Lee, MD, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the conduct of the study.

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

Women diagnosed with early breast cancer facing surgery often have a choice of having all of their breast or only a part of the breast removed.

A new study shows that a patient’s satisfaction with their breasts at 10 years after surgery is similar for both groups of women.

However, superior psychosocial and sexual well-being at 10 years after surgery was reported by women who underwent breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT), compared with those who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction.

“These findings may inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer,” write the authors, led by Benjamin D. Smith, MD, department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

These findings have important implications for patient decision-making, given that more women eligible for breast-conserving surgery are opting for a mastectomy, say Sudheer Vemuru, MD, from the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues, writing in an accompanying editorial.

“Overall, the preponderance of evidence suggests superior short-term and long-term patient-reported outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy,” they comment.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a comparative effectiveness research study using data from the Texas Cancer Registry and identified women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008.

A total of 647 patients were included in their analysis (40%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery; 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236).

The median age of the cohort was 53 years and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years. Mastectomy and reconstruction were more common among women who were White, younger, node positive, had larger tumors, had bilateral breast cancer, received chemotherapy, and had higher income.

The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with their breasts, as measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being. The EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level gaged health utility, and local therapy decisional regret was measured via the Decisional Regret Scale.

Using breast-conserving surgery plus RT as the referent, the authors did not find any significant differences in breast satisfaction, physical well-being, health utility, or decisional regret among the study cohorts: breast satisfaction: effect size, 2.71 (P = .30); physical well-being: effect size, –1.80 (P = .36); health utility: effect size, –0.003 (P = .83); and decisional regret: effect size, 1.32 (P = .61).

However, psychosocial well-being (effect size, –8.61; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, –10.68; P < .001) were significantly worse among women who had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction without RT.

They noted that interactions of race and ethnicity and age by treatment group were not significant for reported satisfaction with breast outcomes. But the findings “indicated that the burden of poor long-term QOL outcomes was greater among younger individuals, those with lower educational attainment and income, and certain racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. “These findings suggest that opportunities exist to enhance equity in the long-term QOL of individuals with breast cancer.”

The editorialists note that previous studies have also found diminished quality of life following mastectomy compared with breast-conserving surgery. However, most of these prior studies included patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery without RT, patients undergoing mastectomy without reconstruction, and patients undergoing mastectomy with RT.

In contrast, this latest study “directly compared breast-conserving surgery with RT vs. mastectomy and reconstruction without RT to avoid those potential confounders,” they point out.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and other bodies. Several of the study authors disclosed relationships with industry and/or with nonprofit organizations. The full list can be found with the original article. Editorialist Clara Lee, MD, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the conduct of the study.

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

In their heyday, drug reps had big expense budgets and would wine and dine physicians, golf with them, and give gifts to their potential physician clients.

But in 2002, pressure from Congress and increased scrutiny from the American Medical Association prompted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to adopt a set of voluntary ethical codes to regulate the gifts given to physicians. Now, physicians must report even small gifts or meals to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Before the restrictions, physician/pharmaceutical rep relationships relied on face-to-face meetings. These included lunches with a limited budget or sharing a cup of coffee during a morning visit to a practice. The parties got to know each other, which led to trust and long-term relationships.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, everything changed. “It was culture shock for us,” admitted Craig F, a career pharmaceutical rep. “We didn’t know what we were going to do.”

The pharmaceutical industry pivoted and quickly got up to speed with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like. “We began by reaching out to doctors via email and cell phones to set up virtual meetings,” Craig said. “Most of the doctors were working from home, doing telehealth whenever possible. For new sales reps, this was particularly difficult, because they couldn’t visit offices and get to know doctors.”

Many physicians didn’t want to devote time to Zoom meetings with pharma reps. “We worked around their schedules, and sometimes this even looked like Sunday calls,” he said.

As vaccination levels increased and medical offices began to reopen, so too did some of the old-school, face-to-face pharma rep/doctor meetings. But most proceeded with caution. “Some pharmaceutical companies didn’t put reps back into the field until the fall of 2020,” said Craig. “If we weren’t welcome in an office, we didn’t push it.”

Once much of the population was vaccinated, the thaw began in earnest, although the drug reps continued to tread cautiously, mask up, and respect the wishes of physicians. Today, Craig estimated that about two-thirds of his appointments are in person.

Still, it’s unlikely that the drug rep–supplied “free staff lunch” will ever regain its former popularity. Medical office staff are still keeping distance, owing to COVID; office schedules may be more crowded and may not allow the time; and many physicians are still nervous about having to report “gifts” or “paid lunches” from pharma. A new paradigm has emerged in the physician/pharma rep relationship, and it’s unlikely things will ever be the same.
 

The post-COVID paradigm shift

The pandemic put a dent in the pharma rep/doctor relationship, said Suzy Jackson, managing director of life sciences at Accenture and an author of The “New” Rules of Healthcare Provider Engagement . “COVID started moving power away from reps because they lost the ability to simply wander into a building and have a conversation with a health care provider. We’re seeing the pandemic evolve the meeting model into a hybrid in-person and virtual.”

“Many doctors are operating in a slower fashion because they’re balancing a hybrid model with patients, as well,” said Craig. “Some of my visits now involve talking to nurses or front-office staff, not getting in to see the doctors.”

The push from some doctors to see reps virtually as opposed to in person is a challenge for the pharma companies. “We get more done in person, so virtual is not our favorite way to do business,” said Craig. “But we’re thankful for any time we can get with doctors, so when they ask to do virtual, we agree.”

Still, the Accenture survey offered good news for pharma reps: Only 4% of respondents didn’t want to continue with in-person meetings at all. “I think of this as a positive,” Ms. Jackson said. “It shows that physicians value these relationships, if they’re done in the right way.”

But a survey by Boston Consulting Group confirms that virtual visits are likely to continue. BCG’s Doctors’ Changing Expectations of Pharma Are Here to Stay revealed that three-quarters of respondent physicians prefer to maintain or increase the amount of virtual engagements with pharma reps after becoming accustomed to the practice during the pandemic.

Under these changing scenarios, said Ms. Jackson, pharma reps have to think about more meaningful ways to engage with doctors.

“I feel that doctors are more crunched for time now, managing hybrid environments,” Craig said. “They have less time and want more patient-specific information that leads to fewer calls back to their offices.”

More physicians now value webinars, virtual training, and speaker programs. Virtual channels, the survey found, “give physicians access to the information they need in an easy and convenient manner.”

Still, physicians have noted that the survey indicated that email communications from pharma reps had increased. Often, physicians found the useful information buried in irrelevant “clutter.”
 

Restrictions on drug reps became tighter

In the 20 years since the guidelines came into existence, PhRMA has continued to strengthen the codes. In 2009, PhRMA issued new recommendations surrounding noneducational gifts and placed a cap of $100 for meals, drug samples, and other items. In 2022, they added layers to the code that focus on speaker programs. For instance, while companies can provide “modest” meals to attendees as an incidental courtesy, pharma reps can no longer pay for or provide alcohol in conjunction with these programs.

The rules vary from state to state. In Minnesota, for instance, gifts from pharma companies cannot exceed $50 per year. Some institutions – such as the Cleveland Clinic – have even stricter rules. “When we have conventions, we put up signage reminding doctors from the strictest states that they can’t even accept a cup of coffee from a rep,” said Craig.

However, COVID hasn’t completely changed doctor/pharma relationships. In Ms. Jackson’s words, “In spite of the shift to a more hybrid model, this is a very human relationship yielding real human results.”

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

In their heyday, drug reps had big expense budgets and would wine and dine physicians, golf with them, and give gifts to their potential physician clients.

But in 2002, pressure from Congress and increased scrutiny from the American Medical Association prompted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to adopt a set of voluntary ethical codes to regulate the gifts given to physicians. Now, physicians must report even small gifts or meals to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Before the restrictions, physician/pharmaceutical rep relationships relied on face-to-face meetings. These included lunches with a limited budget or sharing a cup of coffee during a morning visit to a practice. The parties got to know each other, which led to trust and long-term relationships.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, everything changed. “It was culture shock for us,” admitted Craig F, a career pharmaceutical rep. “We didn’t know what we were going to do.”

The pharmaceutical industry pivoted and quickly got up to speed with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like. “We began by reaching out to doctors via email and cell phones to set up virtual meetings,” Craig said. “Most of the doctors were working from home, doing telehealth whenever possible. For new sales reps, this was particularly difficult, because they couldn’t visit offices and get to know doctors.”

Many physicians didn’t want to devote time to Zoom meetings with pharma reps. “We worked around their schedules, and sometimes this even looked like Sunday calls,” he said.

As vaccination levels increased and medical offices began to reopen, so too did some of the old-school, face-to-face pharma rep/doctor meetings. But most proceeded with caution. “Some pharmaceutical companies didn’t put reps back into the field until the fall of 2020,” said Craig. “If we weren’t welcome in an office, we didn’t push it.”

Once much of the population was vaccinated, the thaw began in earnest, although the drug reps continued to tread cautiously, mask up, and respect the wishes of physicians. Today, Craig estimated that about two-thirds of his appointments are in person.

Still, it’s unlikely that the drug rep–supplied “free staff lunch” will ever regain its former popularity. Medical office staff are still keeping distance, owing to COVID; office schedules may be more crowded and may not allow the time; and many physicians are still nervous about having to report “gifts” or “paid lunches” from pharma. A new paradigm has emerged in the physician/pharma rep relationship, and it’s unlikely things will ever be the same.
 

The post-COVID paradigm shift

The pandemic put a dent in the pharma rep/doctor relationship, said Suzy Jackson, managing director of life sciences at Accenture and an author of The “New” Rules of Healthcare Provider Engagement . “COVID started moving power away from reps because they lost the ability to simply wander into a building and have a conversation with a health care provider. We’re seeing the pandemic evolve the meeting model into a hybrid in-person and virtual.”

“Many doctors are operating in a slower fashion because they’re balancing a hybrid model with patients, as well,” said Craig. “Some of my visits now involve talking to nurses or front-office staff, not getting in to see the doctors.”

The push from some doctors to see reps virtually as opposed to in person is a challenge for the pharma companies. “We get more done in person, so virtual is not our favorite way to do business,” said Craig. “But we’re thankful for any time we can get with doctors, so when they ask to do virtual, we agree.”

Still, the Accenture survey offered good news for pharma reps: Only 4% of respondents didn’t want to continue with in-person meetings at all. “I think of this as a positive,” Ms. Jackson said. “It shows that physicians value these relationships, if they’re done in the right way.”

But a survey by Boston Consulting Group confirms that virtual visits are likely to continue. BCG’s Doctors’ Changing Expectations of Pharma Are Here to Stay revealed that three-quarters of respondent physicians prefer to maintain or increase the amount of virtual engagements with pharma reps after becoming accustomed to the practice during the pandemic.

Under these changing scenarios, said Ms. Jackson, pharma reps have to think about more meaningful ways to engage with doctors.

“I feel that doctors are more crunched for time now, managing hybrid environments,” Craig said. “They have less time and want more patient-specific information that leads to fewer calls back to their offices.”

More physicians now value webinars, virtual training, and speaker programs. Virtual channels, the survey found, “give physicians access to the information they need in an easy and convenient manner.”

Still, physicians have noted that the survey indicated that email communications from pharma reps had increased. Often, physicians found the useful information buried in irrelevant “clutter.”
 

Restrictions on drug reps became tighter

In the 20 years since the guidelines came into existence, PhRMA has continued to strengthen the codes. In 2009, PhRMA issued new recommendations surrounding noneducational gifts and placed a cap of $100 for meals, drug samples, and other items. In 2022, they added layers to the code that focus on speaker programs. For instance, while companies can provide “modest” meals to attendees as an incidental courtesy, pharma reps can no longer pay for or provide alcohol in conjunction with these programs.

The rules vary from state to state. In Minnesota, for instance, gifts from pharma companies cannot exceed $50 per year. Some institutions – such as the Cleveland Clinic – have even stricter rules. “When we have conventions, we put up signage reminding doctors from the strictest states that they can’t even accept a cup of coffee from a rep,” said Craig.

However, COVID hasn’t completely changed doctor/pharma relationships. In Ms. Jackson’s words, “In spite of the shift to a more hybrid model, this is a very human relationship yielding real human results.”

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

In their heyday, drug reps had big expense budgets and would wine and dine physicians, golf with them, and give gifts to their potential physician clients.

But in 2002, pressure from Congress and increased scrutiny from the American Medical Association prompted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to adopt a set of voluntary ethical codes to regulate the gifts given to physicians. Now, physicians must report even small gifts or meals to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Before the restrictions, physician/pharmaceutical rep relationships relied on face-to-face meetings. These included lunches with a limited budget or sharing a cup of coffee during a morning visit to a practice. The parties got to know each other, which led to trust and long-term relationships.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, everything changed. “It was culture shock for us,” admitted Craig F, a career pharmaceutical rep. “We didn’t know what we were going to do.”

The pharmaceutical industry pivoted and quickly got up to speed with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like. “We began by reaching out to doctors via email and cell phones to set up virtual meetings,” Craig said. “Most of the doctors were working from home, doing telehealth whenever possible. For new sales reps, this was particularly difficult, because they couldn’t visit offices and get to know doctors.”

Many physicians didn’t want to devote time to Zoom meetings with pharma reps. “We worked around their schedules, and sometimes this even looked like Sunday calls,” he said.

As vaccination levels increased and medical offices began to reopen, so too did some of the old-school, face-to-face pharma rep/doctor meetings. But most proceeded with caution. “Some pharmaceutical companies didn’t put reps back into the field until the fall of 2020,” said Craig. “If we weren’t welcome in an office, we didn’t push it.”

Once much of the population was vaccinated, the thaw began in earnest, although the drug reps continued to tread cautiously, mask up, and respect the wishes of physicians. Today, Craig estimated that about two-thirds of his appointments are in person.

Still, it’s unlikely that the drug rep–supplied “free staff lunch” will ever regain its former popularity. Medical office staff are still keeping distance, owing to COVID; office schedules may be more crowded and may not allow the time; and many physicians are still nervous about having to report “gifts” or “paid lunches” from pharma. A new paradigm has emerged in the physician/pharma rep relationship, and it’s unlikely things will ever be the same.
 

The post-COVID paradigm shift

The pandemic put a dent in the pharma rep/doctor relationship, said Suzy Jackson, managing director of life sciences at Accenture and an author of The “New” Rules of Healthcare Provider Engagement . “COVID started moving power away from reps because they lost the ability to simply wander into a building and have a conversation with a health care provider. We’re seeing the pandemic evolve the meeting model into a hybrid in-person and virtual.”

“Many doctors are operating in a slower fashion because they’re balancing a hybrid model with patients, as well,” said Craig. “Some of my visits now involve talking to nurses or front-office staff, not getting in to see the doctors.”

The push from some doctors to see reps virtually as opposed to in person is a challenge for the pharma companies. “We get more done in person, so virtual is not our favorite way to do business,” said Craig. “But we’re thankful for any time we can get with doctors, so when they ask to do virtual, we agree.”

Still, the Accenture survey offered good news for pharma reps: Only 4% of respondents didn’t want to continue with in-person meetings at all. “I think of this as a positive,” Ms. Jackson said. “It shows that physicians value these relationships, if they’re done in the right way.”

But a survey by Boston Consulting Group confirms that virtual visits are likely to continue. BCG’s Doctors’ Changing Expectations of Pharma Are Here to Stay revealed that three-quarters of respondent physicians prefer to maintain or increase the amount of virtual engagements with pharma reps after becoming accustomed to the practice during the pandemic.

Under these changing scenarios, said Ms. Jackson, pharma reps have to think about more meaningful ways to engage with doctors.

“I feel that doctors are more crunched for time now, managing hybrid environments,” Craig said. “They have less time and want more patient-specific information that leads to fewer calls back to their offices.”

More physicians now value webinars, virtual training, and speaker programs. Virtual channels, the survey found, “give physicians access to the information they need in an easy and convenient manner.”

Still, physicians have noted that the survey indicated that email communications from pharma reps had increased. Often, physicians found the useful information buried in irrelevant “clutter.”
 

Restrictions on drug reps became tighter

In the 20 years since the guidelines came into existence, PhRMA has continued to strengthen the codes. In 2009, PhRMA issued new recommendations surrounding noneducational gifts and placed a cap of $100 for meals, drug samples, and other items. In 2022, they added layers to the code that focus on speaker programs. For instance, while companies can provide “modest” meals to attendees as an incidental courtesy, pharma reps can no longer pay for or provide alcohol in conjunction with these programs.

The rules vary from state to state. In Minnesota, for instance, gifts from pharma companies cannot exceed $50 per year. Some institutions – such as the Cleveland Clinic – have even stricter rules. “When we have conventions, we put up signage reminding doctors from the strictest states that they can’t even accept a cup of coffee from a rep,” said Craig.

However, COVID hasn’t completely changed doctor/pharma relationships. In Ms. Jackson’s words, “In spite of the shift to a more hybrid model, this is a very human relationship yielding real human results.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering what to tell the public about second booster shots with mRNA vaccinations for COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March authorized a second booster dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 50 and older and certain immunocompromised adults, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

In a meeting April 20, the CDC asked its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss second booster shots, but did not ask the group of experts to vote on formal recommendations.

Instead, the experts talked about the potential timing of additional COVID-19 vaccines for those who already have had three shots, and challenges for vaccination efforts that likely will arise as the pandemic persists.

ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said she’s concerned about the potential for “booster fatigue.”

“A vaccination program that’s going to require boosting large proportions of the population every 4-6 months is really not sustainable and probably not something that most people want to participate in,” she said.

The benefit of additional COVID-19 shots for now appears to be smaller than what people get from the initial doses, Dr. Bell said.

Earlier in the meeting, CDC staff presented estimates about how well the COVID-19 vaccines work to prevent one case of hospitalization from the disease over 4 months among people aged 50 and older.

The major gain in preventing hospitalizations occurs with the first vaccination series and then wanes, the CDC said.

It appears that one hospitalization is prevented for every 135 people who get the first round of COVID-19 vaccinations. But it takes 674 people getting a first booster dose to prevent one hospitalization. A second booster prevents one hospitalization for every 1,205 people vaccinated.

Dr. Bell said she’s concerned about considering additional doses for “smaller and smaller return and creating an impression that we don’t have a very effective vaccination program,” even though the CDC’s data show a clear benefit.
 

Reasons to get a second booster

Elisha Hall, PhD, RD, of the CDC presented slides with some factors to help determine the urgency for a person to get a second booster:

• Having certain underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 illness.
• Being moderately or severely immunocompromised.
• Living with someone who is immunocompromised, at increased risk for severe disease, or who cannot be vaccinated because of age or contraindication.
• Being at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, such as through occupational, institutional, or other activities (e.g., travel or large gatherings).
• Living or working in an area where there is a medium or high level of COVID-19 in the community.

In contrast, people might want to wait if they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 within the past 3 months, Dr. Hall said in her presentation. Another reason for delay might be a concern that a booster dose may be more important later in the year.

The experts also addressed public confusion over boosters. For the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, a second booster is a fourth dose, but for those who received the one-shot J&J vaccine, the second booster is a third dose.

Going forward, it may be easier to refer to subsequent doses as “annual boosters,” the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, MSPH, told the panel. It will be important to keep language about subsequent vaccinations clear and easy for the public to follow, she said.

Dr. Oliver also said there’s already been a drop-off in the acceptance of second rounds of COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC data show that 77% of people in the United States have had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but only 66% of the population is fully vaccinated, and only 45% have had a first booster dose.

In her presentation, Dr. Oliver said the top priority in COVID-19 vaccination efforts remains initial vaccinations for people who haven’t gotten them.
 

Kids younger than 5

During the public comment session of the CDC meeting, several people called on the FDA to move quickly to expand authorization of COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5 years and younger.

“We know that many parents and caregivers and health care providers are anxious to have COVID vaccines available” for young children, said Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a deputy director of the FDA’s vaccines division.

He said the agency is working to be ready to authorize the shots for young children while it awaits research results from the manufacturers.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering what to tell the public about second booster shots with mRNA vaccinations for COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March authorized a second booster dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 50 and older and certain immunocompromised adults, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

In a meeting April 20, the CDC asked its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss second booster shots, but did not ask the group of experts to vote on formal recommendations.

Instead, the experts talked about the potential timing of additional COVID-19 vaccines for those who already have had three shots, and challenges for vaccination efforts that likely will arise as the pandemic persists.

ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said she’s concerned about the potential for “booster fatigue.”

“A vaccination program that’s going to require boosting large proportions of the population every 4-6 months is really not sustainable and probably not something that most people want to participate in,” she said.

The benefit of additional COVID-19 shots for now appears to be smaller than what people get from the initial doses, Dr. Bell said.

Earlier in the meeting, CDC staff presented estimates about how well the COVID-19 vaccines work to prevent one case of hospitalization from the disease over 4 months among people aged 50 and older.

The major gain in preventing hospitalizations occurs with the first vaccination series and then wanes, the CDC said.

It appears that one hospitalization is prevented for every 135 people who get the first round of COVID-19 vaccinations. But it takes 674 people getting a first booster dose to prevent one hospitalization. A second booster prevents one hospitalization for every 1,205 people vaccinated.

Dr. Bell said she’s concerned about considering additional doses for “smaller and smaller return and creating an impression that we don’t have a very effective vaccination program,” even though the CDC’s data show a clear benefit.
 

Reasons to get a second booster

Elisha Hall, PhD, RD, of the CDC presented slides with some factors to help determine the urgency for a person to get a second booster:

• Having certain underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 illness.
• Being moderately or severely immunocompromised.
• Living with someone who is immunocompromised, at increased risk for severe disease, or who cannot be vaccinated because of age or contraindication.
• Being at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, such as through occupational, institutional, or other activities (e.g., travel or large gatherings).
• Living or working in an area where there is a medium or high level of COVID-19 in the community.

In contrast, people might want to wait if they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 within the past 3 months, Dr. Hall said in her presentation. Another reason for delay might be a concern that a booster dose may be more important later in the year.

The experts also addressed public confusion over boosters. For the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, a second booster is a fourth dose, but for those who received the one-shot J&J vaccine, the second booster is a third dose.

Going forward, it may be easier to refer to subsequent doses as “annual boosters,” the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, MSPH, told the panel. It will be important to keep language about subsequent vaccinations clear and easy for the public to follow, she said.

Dr. Oliver also said there’s already been a drop-off in the acceptance of second rounds of COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC data show that 77% of people in the United States have had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but only 66% of the population is fully vaccinated, and only 45% have had a first booster dose.

In her presentation, Dr. Oliver said the top priority in COVID-19 vaccination efforts remains initial vaccinations for people who haven’t gotten them.
 

Kids younger than 5

During the public comment session of the CDC meeting, several people called on the FDA to move quickly to expand authorization of COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5 years and younger.

“We know that many parents and caregivers and health care providers are anxious to have COVID vaccines available” for young children, said Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a deputy director of the FDA’s vaccines division.

He said the agency is working to be ready to authorize the shots for young children while it awaits research results from the manufacturers.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering what to tell the public about second booster shots with mRNA vaccinations for COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March authorized a second booster dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 50 and older and certain immunocompromised adults, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

In a meeting April 20, the CDC asked its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss second booster shots, but did not ask the group of experts to vote on formal recommendations.

Instead, the experts talked about the potential timing of additional COVID-19 vaccines for those who already have had three shots, and challenges for vaccination efforts that likely will arise as the pandemic persists.

ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said she’s concerned about the potential for “booster fatigue.”

“A vaccination program that’s going to require boosting large proportions of the population every 4-6 months is really not sustainable and probably not something that most people want to participate in,” she said.

The benefit of additional COVID-19 shots for now appears to be smaller than what people get from the initial doses, Dr. Bell said.

Earlier in the meeting, CDC staff presented estimates about how well the COVID-19 vaccines work to prevent one case of hospitalization from the disease over 4 months among people aged 50 and older.

The major gain in preventing hospitalizations occurs with the first vaccination series and then wanes, the CDC said.

It appears that one hospitalization is prevented for every 135 people who get the first round of COVID-19 vaccinations. But it takes 674 people getting a first booster dose to prevent one hospitalization. A second booster prevents one hospitalization for every 1,205 people vaccinated.

Dr. Bell said she’s concerned about considering additional doses for “smaller and smaller return and creating an impression that we don’t have a very effective vaccination program,” even though the CDC’s data show a clear benefit.
 

Reasons to get a second booster

Elisha Hall, PhD, RD, of the CDC presented slides with some factors to help determine the urgency for a person to get a second booster:

• Having certain underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 illness.
• Being moderately or severely immunocompromised.
• Living with someone who is immunocompromised, at increased risk for severe disease, or who cannot be vaccinated because of age or contraindication.
• Being at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, such as through occupational, institutional, or other activities (e.g., travel or large gatherings).
• Living or working in an area where there is a medium or high level of COVID-19 in the community.

In contrast, people might want to wait if they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 within the past 3 months, Dr. Hall said in her presentation. Another reason for delay might be a concern that a booster dose may be more important later in the year.

The experts also addressed public confusion over boosters. For the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, a second booster is a fourth dose, but for those who received the one-shot J&J vaccine, the second booster is a third dose.

Going forward, it may be easier to refer to subsequent doses as “annual boosters,” the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, MSPH, told the panel. It will be important to keep language about subsequent vaccinations clear and easy for the public to follow, she said.

Dr. Oliver also said there’s already been a drop-off in the acceptance of second rounds of COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC data show that 77% of people in the United States have had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but only 66% of the population is fully vaccinated, and only 45% have had a first booster dose.

In her presentation, Dr. Oliver said the top priority in COVID-19 vaccination efforts remains initial vaccinations for people who haven’t gotten them.
 

Kids younger than 5

During the public comment session of the CDC meeting, several people called on the FDA to move quickly to expand authorization of COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5 years and younger.

“We know that many parents and caregivers and health care providers are anxious to have COVID vaccines available” for young children, said Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a deputy director of the FDA’s vaccines division.

He said the agency is working to be ready to authorize the shots for young children while it awaits research results from the manufacturers.

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

For 4 and a half years, I have followed the RaDonda Vaught medication error that led to the unfortunate death of a human being. I am not alone. Nurses across the country have followed the case with anxiety and fear, knowing a guilty verdict might have the potential to challenge basic tenets of care.

According to Kaiser Health News, nurses are “raging and quitting” following the announcement of a guilty verdict for two felonies: criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult.

Thousands of nurses have claimed they could arrive in Nashville, Tenn., on May 13, the day Ms. Vaught is to be sentenced, to protest the conviction. Others have stated they believe justice is being conducted, as their sympathies lie with the victim, Charlene Murphey, who died 12 hours after being unable to draw breath, paralyzed from the inadvertent dose of vecuronium given intravenously by her nurse.

How should we feel as clinicians? What does this guilty verdict mean for nurses across the country as Ms. Vaught waits to receive a sentence that could imprison her for up to 8 years, according to sentencing guidelines?

My belief is that it is understandable to feel passionately about this case, including what it could mean to an era of “just culture” that nursing organizations have promoted. The concept of just culture looks at medication/nursing errors as opportunities for growth to avoid future errors, not as scenarios for punitive action. With the guilty verdict in Ms. Vaught’s case, nurses (and facilities) fear that nurses will avoid coming forward after mistakes, leading to cover-ups and a culture perspective.

Will nurses be hesitant to report errors (especially significant errors) that lead to patient harm? Will we fear retribution and reprisal for being truthful?

I believe that Ms. Vaught’s criminal case has changed little in the political landscape of caregiving. Before you let loose with a loud expletive (or two), hear me out.

When a patient dies from unintentional harm, someone must be held accountable. Society needs a scapegoat, and unfortunately, excrement slides downhill to the lowest common denominator, which may be the nurse. Initially, Ms. Vaught was contacted by her state licensing board (Tennessee) and informed there would be no professional repercussions for her mistake. That decision did not hold. She was later indicted criminally for the death of her patient. She also had her nursing license revoked.

Why? The hospital where she worked was threatened with Medicare reprisal if systemic issues were not addressed following the incident; for example, a bar-coding device was not available for Ms. Vaught to use prior to administering the vecuronium, and paralytic agents were stored unsafely in a Pyxis MedStation, readily available for any nurse to obtain via override.

In fact, the number of overrides performed by all nurses caring for Ms. Murphey in the days leading to her death was alarming, leading reviewers to assume that time to acquire medication for inpatients was a problem.

Ms. Vaught herself, stating the obvious on talk shows, said she should not have performed an override, that the situation was “not an emergency” and she should have taken time to check that Versed (midazolam) was available by the generic name and not the “VE” she entered as a search mechanism into the machine. She also stated she was “distracted” by a trainee assigned to her at the time.

We have all been there, feeling rushed to perform a task under stressful situations, skipping safety guidelines to sedate a patient while radiology is waiting. Someone is always on our a**, waiting to get to the next task, the next patient, the next admission, the next pseudo-emergency called nursing workload.

It never ends.

Which is why I wish to emphasize what the Ms. Vaught guilty verdict really means for nurses.

It means we must never forget that our actions have the potential to harm, even kill, our patients.

We must never forget that repercussions and reprisal may occur, whether personal guilt that may prove more damaging than the prison sentence Ms. Vaught might receive, or problems that could result if nurses attempt to hide or subvert medication issues.

In Ms. Vaught’s case, she did not document the medication that had been given to Ms. Murphey, facts the prosecution seized on to proclaim her guilt. Why? We can only guess at this point. But her claims of truthfulness need to be balanced by what occurred, and the facts are that she did not document the error after administering vecuronium that night.

When reflecting on this verdict, we need to remember a patient died, and she did so horribly, being unable to draw breath. This should never happen during our watch, ever, and as clinicians, we need to be vigilant.

In summary, protest if you believe justice has been too harsh or unfair, and that nurses may be fearful as a result. But please spare a moment to realize that someone should protest for Ms. Murphey as well. We cannot bring her back, nor can we right the system issues that may have led to her death.

But we should protest for safer systems, for improved staffing, for a need to catch our collective breaths, and a day to work and nurture patients when someone is not constantly on our a**. Only then will nurses be protected from unjust reprisal, from needing to be the lowest common denominator of guilt.

Ms. Goodman is a researcher and consultant in Libertyville, Ill. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

For 4 and a half years, I have followed the RaDonda Vaught medication error that led to the unfortunate death of a human being. I am not alone. Nurses across the country have followed the case with anxiety and fear, knowing a guilty verdict might have the potential to challenge basic tenets of care.

According to Kaiser Health News, nurses are “raging and quitting” following the announcement of a guilty verdict for two felonies: criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult.

Thousands of nurses have claimed they could arrive in Nashville, Tenn., on May 13, the day Ms. Vaught is to be sentenced, to protest the conviction. Others have stated they believe justice is being conducted, as their sympathies lie with the victim, Charlene Murphey, who died 12 hours after being unable to draw breath, paralyzed from the inadvertent dose of vecuronium given intravenously by her nurse.

How should we feel as clinicians? What does this guilty verdict mean for nurses across the country as Ms. Vaught waits to receive a sentence that could imprison her for up to 8 years, according to sentencing guidelines?

My belief is that it is understandable to feel passionately about this case, including what it could mean to an era of “just culture” that nursing organizations have promoted. The concept of just culture looks at medication/nursing errors as opportunities for growth to avoid future errors, not as scenarios for punitive action. With the guilty verdict in Ms. Vaught’s case, nurses (and facilities) fear that nurses will avoid coming forward after mistakes, leading to cover-ups and a culture perspective.

Will nurses be hesitant to report errors (especially significant errors) that lead to patient harm? Will we fear retribution and reprisal for being truthful?

I believe that Ms. Vaught’s criminal case has changed little in the political landscape of caregiving. Before you let loose with a loud expletive (or two), hear me out.

When a patient dies from unintentional harm, someone must be held accountable. Society needs a scapegoat, and unfortunately, excrement slides downhill to the lowest common denominator, which may be the nurse. Initially, Ms. Vaught was contacted by her state licensing board (Tennessee) and informed there would be no professional repercussions for her mistake. That decision did not hold. She was later indicted criminally for the death of her patient. She also had her nursing license revoked.

Why? The hospital where she worked was threatened with Medicare reprisal if systemic issues were not addressed following the incident; for example, a bar-coding device was not available for Ms. Vaught to use prior to administering the vecuronium, and paralytic agents were stored unsafely in a Pyxis MedStation, readily available for any nurse to obtain via override.

In fact, the number of overrides performed by all nurses caring for Ms. Murphey in the days leading to her death was alarming, leading reviewers to assume that time to acquire medication for inpatients was a problem.

Ms. Vaught herself, stating the obvious on talk shows, said she should not have performed an override, that the situation was “not an emergency” and she should have taken time to check that Versed (midazolam) was available by the generic name and not the “VE” she entered as a search mechanism into the machine. She also stated she was “distracted” by a trainee assigned to her at the time.

We have all been there, feeling rushed to perform a task under stressful situations, skipping safety guidelines to sedate a patient while radiology is waiting. Someone is always on our a**, waiting to get to the next task, the next patient, the next admission, the next pseudo-emergency called nursing workload.

It never ends.

Which is why I wish to emphasize what the Ms. Vaught guilty verdict really means for nurses.

It means we must never forget that our actions have the potential to harm, even kill, our patients.

We must never forget that repercussions and reprisal may occur, whether personal guilt that may prove more damaging than the prison sentence Ms. Vaught might receive, or problems that could result if nurses attempt to hide or subvert medication issues.

In Ms. Vaught’s case, she did not document the medication that had been given to Ms. Murphey, facts the prosecution seized on to proclaim her guilt. Why? We can only guess at this point. But her claims of truthfulness need to be balanced by what occurred, and the facts are that she did not document the error after administering vecuronium that night.

When reflecting on this verdict, we need to remember a patient died, and she did so horribly, being unable to draw breath. This should never happen during our watch, ever, and as clinicians, we need to be vigilant.

In summary, protest if you believe justice has been too harsh or unfair, and that nurses may be fearful as a result. But please spare a moment to realize that someone should protest for Ms. Murphey as well. We cannot bring her back, nor can we right the system issues that may have led to her death.

But we should protest for safer systems, for improved staffing, for a need to catch our collective breaths, and a day to work and nurture patients when someone is not constantly on our a**. Only then will nurses be protected from unjust reprisal, from needing to be the lowest common denominator of guilt.

Ms. Goodman is a researcher and consultant in Libertyville, Ill. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

For 4 and a half years, I have followed the RaDonda Vaught medication error that led to the unfortunate death of a human being. I am not alone. Nurses across the country have followed the case with anxiety and fear, knowing a guilty verdict might have the potential to challenge basic tenets of care.

According to Kaiser Health News, nurses are “raging and quitting” following the announcement of a guilty verdict for two felonies: criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult.

Thousands of nurses have claimed they could arrive in Nashville, Tenn., on May 13, the day Ms. Vaught is to be sentenced, to protest the conviction. Others have stated they believe justice is being conducted, as their sympathies lie with the victim, Charlene Murphey, who died 12 hours after being unable to draw breath, paralyzed from the inadvertent dose of vecuronium given intravenously by her nurse.

How should we feel as clinicians? What does this guilty verdict mean for nurses across the country as Ms. Vaught waits to receive a sentence that could imprison her for up to 8 years, according to sentencing guidelines?

My belief is that it is understandable to feel passionately about this case, including what it could mean to an era of “just culture” that nursing organizations have promoted. The concept of just culture looks at medication/nursing errors as opportunities for growth to avoid future errors, not as scenarios for punitive action. With the guilty verdict in Ms. Vaught’s case, nurses (and facilities) fear that nurses will avoid coming forward after mistakes, leading to cover-ups and a culture perspective.

Will nurses be hesitant to report errors (especially significant errors) that lead to patient harm? Will we fear retribution and reprisal for being truthful?

I believe that Ms. Vaught’s criminal case has changed little in the political landscape of caregiving. Before you let loose with a loud expletive (or two), hear me out.

When a patient dies from unintentional harm, someone must be held accountable. Society needs a scapegoat, and unfortunately, excrement slides downhill to the lowest common denominator, which may be the nurse. Initially, Ms. Vaught was contacted by her state licensing board (Tennessee) and informed there would be no professional repercussions for her mistake. That decision did not hold. She was later indicted criminally for the death of her patient. She also had her nursing license revoked.

Why? The hospital where she worked was threatened with Medicare reprisal if systemic issues were not addressed following the incident; for example, a bar-coding device was not available for Ms. Vaught to use prior to administering the vecuronium, and paralytic agents were stored unsafely in a Pyxis MedStation, readily available for any nurse to obtain via override.

In fact, the number of overrides performed by all nurses caring for Ms. Murphey in the days leading to her death was alarming, leading reviewers to assume that time to acquire medication for inpatients was a problem.

Ms. Vaught herself, stating the obvious on talk shows, said she should not have performed an override, that the situation was “not an emergency” and she should have taken time to check that Versed (midazolam) was available by the generic name and not the “VE” she entered as a search mechanism into the machine. She also stated she was “distracted” by a trainee assigned to her at the time.

We have all been there, feeling rushed to perform a task under stressful situations, skipping safety guidelines to sedate a patient while radiology is waiting. Someone is always on our a**, waiting to get to the next task, the next patient, the next admission, the next pseudo-emergency called nursing workload.

It never ends.

Which is why I wish to emphasize what the Ms. Vaught guilty verdict really means for nurses.

It means we must never forget that our actions have the potential to harm, even kill, our patients.

We must never forget that repercussions and reprisal may occur, whether personal guilt that may prove more damaging than the prison sentence Ms. Vaught might receive, or problems that could result if nurses attempt to hide or subvert medication issues.

In Ms. Vaught’s case, she did not document the medication that had been given to Ms. Murphey, facts the prosecution seized on to proclaim her guilt. Why? We can only guess at this point. But her claims of truthfulness need to be balanced by what occurred, and the facts are that she did not document the error after administering vecuronium that night.

When reflecting on this verdict, we need to remember a patient died, and she did so horribly, being unable to draw breath. This should never happen during our watch, ever, and as clinicians, we need to be vigilant.

In summary, protest if you believe justice has been too harsh or unfair, and that nurses may be fearful as a result. But please spare a moment to realize that someone should protest for Ms. Murphey as well. We cannot bring her back, nor can we right the system issues that may have led to her death.

But we should protest for safer systems, for improved staffing, for a need to catch our collective breaths, and a day to work and nurture patients when someone is not constantly on our a**. Only then will nurses be protected from unjust reprisal, from needing to be the lowest common denominator of guilt.

Ms. Goodman is a researcher and consultant in Libertyville, Ill. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

About 30% of COVID-19 patients developed the condition known as long COVID, University of California, Los Angeles, researchers said in a study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The UCLA researchers studied 1,038 people enrolled in the UCLA COVID Ambulatory Program between April 2020 and February 2021 and found that 309 developed long COVID.

A long-COVID diagnosis came if a patient answering a questionnaire reported persistent symptoms 60-90 days after they were infected or hospitalized. The most persistent symptoms were fatigue (31%) and shortness of breath (15%) in hospitalized participants. Among outpatients, 16% reported losing sense of smell.

The study’s findings differ from earlier research. The University of California, Davis, for example, estimated that 10% of COVID-19 patients develop long-haul symptoms. A 2021 study from Penn State University found that more than half of worldwide COVID-19 patients would develop long COVID.

Part of the discrepancy can blamed on the fact there is no official, widely accepted definition of long COVID. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said it means patients who experience “new, returning, or ongoing health problems 4 or more weeks after an initial infection” the coronavirus. The UCLA study, meanwhile, included patients still having symptoms 60-90 days after infection.

Still, the UCLA research team looked at demographics and clinical characteristics in an attempt to develop effective treatments.

People with a history of hospitalization, diabetes, and higher body mass index were most likely to develop long COVID, the researchers said. The kind of insurance the patients had also seemed to be a factor, though the researchers didn’t offer a reason why.

“Surprisingly, patients with commercial insurance had double the likelihood of developing [long COVID] compared to patients with Medicaid,” they wrote. “This association will be important to explore further to understand if insurance status in this group is representing unmeasured demographic factors or exposures.”

Older age and socioeconomic status were not associated with long COVID in the study – a surprise because those characteristics are often linked with severe illness and higher risk of death from COVID-19.

Weaknesses in the study included the subjective nature of how patients rated their symptoms and the limited number of symptoms evaluated.

“This study illustrates the need to follow diverse patient populations ... to understand the long COVID disease trajectory and evaluate how individual factors such as preexisting comorbidities, sociodemographic factors, vaccination status and virus variant type affect type and persistence of long COVID symptoms,” said Sun Yoo, MD, health sciences assistant clinical professor at UCLA.

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

About 30% of COVID-19 patients developed the condition known as long COVID, University of California, Los Angeles, researchers said in a study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The UCLA researchers studied 1,038 people enrolled in the UCLA COVID Ambulatory Program between April 2020 and February 2021 and found that 309 developed long COVID.

A long-COVID diagnosis came if a patient answering a questionnaire reported persistent symptoms 60-90 days after they were infected or hospitalized. The most persistent symptoms were fatigue (31%) and shortness of breath (15%) in hospitalized participants. Among outpatients, 16% reported losing sense of smell.

The study’s findings differ from earlier research. The University of California, Davis, for example, estimated that 10% of COVID-19 patients develop long-haul symptoms. A 2021 study from Penn State University found that more than half of worldwide COVID-19 patients would develop long COVID.

Part of the discrepancy can blamed on the fact there is no official, widely accepted definition of long COVID. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said it means patients who experience “new, returning, or ongoing health problems 4 or more weeks after an initial infection” the coronavirus. The UCLA study, meanwhile, included patients still having symptoms 60-90 days after infection.

Still, the UCLA research team looked at demographics and clinical characteristics in an attempt to develop effective treatments.

People with a history of hospitalization, diabetes, and higher body mass index were most likely to develop long COVID, the researchers said. The kind of insurance the patients had also seemed to be a factor, though the researchers didn’t offer a reason why.

“Surprisingly, patients with commercial insurance had double the likelihood of developing [long COVID] compared to patients with Medicaid,” they wrote. “This association will be important to explore further to understand if insurance status in this group is representing unmeasured demographic factors or exposures.”

Older age and socioeconomic status were not associated with long COVID in the study – a surprise because those characteristics are often linked with severe illness and higher risk of death from COVID-19.

Weaknesses in the study included the subjective nature of how patients rated their symptoms and the limited number of symptoms evaluated.

“This study illustrates the need to follow diverse patient populations ... to understand the long COVID disease trajectory and evaluate how individual factors such as preexisting comorbidities, sociodemographic factors, vaccination status and virus variant type affect type and persistence of long COVID symptoms,” said Sun Yoo, MD, health sciences assistant clinical professor at UCLA.

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

About 30% of COVID-19 patients developed the condition known as long COVID, University of California, Los Angeles, researchers said in a study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The UCLA researchers studied 1,038 people enrolled in the UCLA COVID Ambulatory Program between April 2020 and February 2021 and found that 309 developed long COVID.

A long-COVID diagnosis came if a patient answering a questionnaire reported persistent symptoms 60-90 days after they were infected or hospitalized. The most persistent symptoms were fatigue (31%) and shortness of breath (15%) in hospitalized participants. Among outpatients, 16% reported losing sense of smell.

The study’s findings differ from earlier research. The University of California, Davis, for example, estimated that 10% of COVID-19 patients develop long-haul symptoms. A 2021 study from Penn State University found that more than half of worldwide COVID-19 patients would develop long COVID.

Part of the discrepancy can blamed on the fact there is no official, widely accepted definition of long COVID. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said it means patients who experience “new, returning, or ongoing health problems 4 or more weeks after an initial infection” the coronavirus. The UCLA study, meanwhile, included patients still having symptoms 60-90 days after infection.

Still, the UCLA research team looked at demographics and clinical characteristics in an attempt to develop effective treatments.

People with a history of hospitalization, diabetes, and higher body mass index were most likely to develop long COVID, the researchers said. The kind of insurance the patients had also seemed to be a factor, though the researchers didn’t offer a reason why.

“Surprisingly, patients with commercial insurance had double the likelihood of developing [long COVID] compared to patients with Medicaid,” they wrote. “This association will be important to explore further to understand if insurance status in this group is representing unmeasured demographic factors or exposures.”

Older age and socioeconomic status were not associated with long COVID in the study – a surprise because those characteristics are often linked with severe illness and higher risk of death from COVID-19.

Weaknesses in the study included the subjective nature of how patients rated their symptoms and the limited number of symptoms evaluated.

“This study illustrates the need to follow diverse patient populations ... to understand the long COVID disease trajectory and evaluate how individual factors such as preexisting comorbidities, sociodemographic factors, vaccination status and virus variant type affect type and persistence of long COVID symptoms,” said Sun Yoo, MD, health sciences assistant clinical professor at UCLA.

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

The force is with Ukraine, always

Of all the things we could want from Star Wars, a lightsaber is at the top of the list. And someone is working on that. But second is probably the iconic X-wing. It was used to blow up the Death Star after all: Who wouldn’t want one?

A real-life star fighter may be outside our technological capabilities, but Dr. Akaki Lekiachvili of Atlanta has done the next best thing and constructed a two-thirds scale model to encourage kids to enter the sciences and, with the advent of the war in Ukraine, raise money for medical supplies to assist doctors in the embattled country. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dr. Lekiachvili, originally from Georgia (the country, former Soviet republic, and previous target of Russian aggression in 2008), takes a dim view toward the invasion of Ukraine: “Russia is like the Evil Empire and Ukraine the Rebel Alliance.”

Richard Franki/MDedge

It’s been a long road finishing the X-Wing, as Dr. Lekiachvili started the project in 2016 and spent $60,000 on it, posting numerous updates on social media over that time, even attracting the attention of Luke Skywalker himself, actor Mark Hamill. Now that he’s done, he’s brought his model out to the public multiple times, delighting kids and adults alike. It can’t fly, but it has an engine and wheels so it can move, the wings can lock into attack position, the thrusters light up, and the voices of Obi-Wan Kenobi and R2-D2 guide children along as they sit in the cockpit.

Dr. Lekiachvili hopes to auction off his creation to a collector and donate the proceeds to Ukrainian charities, and we’re sure he’ll receive far more than the $60,000 he spent building his masterpiece. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to raid our bank accounts. We have a Death Star to destroy.
 

I’m a doctor, not a hologram

Telemedicine got a big boost during the early phase of the pandemic when hospitals and medical offices were off limits to anyone without COVID-19, but things have cooled off, telemedically speaking, since then. Well, NASA may have heated them up again. Or maybe it was Starfleet. Hmm, wait a second while we check. … No, it was NASA.

Thomas Pesquet/ESA

The space agency used the Microsoft Hololens Kinect camera and a personal computer with custom software from Aexa Aerospace to “holoport” NASA flight surgeon Josef Schmid up to the International Space Station, where he had a conversation with European Space Agency astronaut Thomas Pesquet, who wore an augmented reality headset that allowed him to see, hear, and interact with a 3D representation of the earthbound medical provider.

“Holoportation has been in use since at least 2016 by Microsoft, but this is the first use in such an extreme and remote environment such as space,” NASA said in a recent written statement, noting that the extreme house call took place on Oct. 8, 2021.

They seem to be forgetting about Star Trek, but we’ll let them slide on that one. Anyway, NASA didn’t share any details of the medical holoconversation – which may have strained the limits of HIPAA’s portability provisions – but Dr. Schmid described it as “a brand-new way of human exploration, where our human entity is able to travel off the planet. Our physical body is not there, but our human entity absolutely is there.”

Boldly doctoring where no doctor has gone before, you might say. You also might notice from the photo that Dr. Schmid went full Trekkie with a genuine Vulcan salute. Live long and prosper, Dr. Schmid. Live long and prosper.
 

Add electricity for umami

Salt makes everything taste better. Unfortunately, excess salt can cause problems for our bodies down the line, starting with high blood pressure and continuing on to heart disease and strokes. So how do we enjoy our deliciously salty foods without putting ourselves at risk? One answer may be electricity.

OpenClipart-Vectors/Pixabay

Researchers at Meiji University in Tokyo partnered with food and beverage maker Kirin to develop a set of electric chopsticks to boost the taste of salt in foods without the extra sodium. According to codeveloper and Meiji University professor Homei Miyashita, the device, worn like a watch with a wire attached to one of the chopsticks, “uses a weak electrical current to transmit sodium ions from food, through the chopsticks, to the mouth where they create a sense of saltines,” Reuters said.

In a country like Japan, where a lot of food is made with heavily sodium-based ingredients like miso and soy sauce, the average adult consumes 10 g of salt a day. That’s twice the recommended amount proposed by the World Health Organization. To not sacrifice bland food for better health, this device, which enhances the saltiness of the food consumed by 1.5 times, offers a fairly easy solution to a big public health crisis.

The chopsticks were tested by giving participants reduced-sodium miso soup. They told the researchers that the food was improved in “richness, sweetness, and overall tastiness,” the Guardian said.

Worried about having something electric in your mouth? Don’t worry. Kirin said in a statement that the electricity is very weak and not enough to affect the body.

The chopsticks are still in a prototype stage, but you may be able to get your pair as soon as next year. Until then, maybe be a little mindful of the salt.
 

Pet poop works in mysterious ways

We usually see it as a burden when our pets poop and pee in the house, but those bodily excretions may be able to tell us something about cancer-causing toxins running rampant in our homes.

PxHere

Those toxins, known as aromatic amines, can be found in tobacco smoke and dyes used in make-up, textiles, and plastics. “Our findings suggest that pets are coming into contact with aromatic amines that leach from products in their household environment,” lead author Sridhar Chinthakindi, PhD, of NYU Langone Health, said in a statement from the university. “As these substances have been tied to bladder, colorectal, and other forms of cancer, our results may help explain why so many dogs and cats develop such diseases.”

Tobacco smoke was not the main source of the aromatic amines found in the poop and urine, but 70% of dogs and 80% of cats had these chemicals in their waste. The researchers looked for 30 types of aromatic amines plus nicotine in the sample and found 8. The chemical concentrations were much higher in cats than in dogs, possibly because of differences in exposure and metabolism between the two species, they suggested.

“If [pets] are getting exposed to toxins in our homes, then we had better take a closer look at our own exposure,” said senior author Kurunthachalam Kannan, PhD, of NYU Langone.

So the next time your pet poops or pees in the house, don’t get mad. Maybe they’re just trying to help you out by supplying some easy-to-collect samples.

The force is with Ukraine, always

Of all the things we could want from Star Wars, a lightsaber is at the top of the list. And someone is working on that. But second is probably the iconic X-wing. It was used to blow up the Death Star after all: Who wouldn’t want one?

A real-life star fighter may be outside our technological capabilities, but Dr. Akaki Lekiachvili of Atlanta has done the next best thing and constructed a two-thirds scale model to encourage kids to enter the sciences and, with the advent of the war in Ukraine, raise money for medical supplies to assist doctors in the embattled country. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dr. Lekiachvili, originally from Georgia (the country, former Soviet republic, and previous target of Russian aggression in 2008), takes a dim view toward the invasion of Ukraine: “Russia is like the Evil Empire and Ukraine the Rebel Alliance.”

Richard Franki/MDedge

It’s been a long road finishing the X-Wing, as Dr. Lekiachvili started the project in 2016 and spent $60,000 on it, posting numerous updates on social media over that time, even attracting the attention of Luke Skywalker himself, actor Mark Hamill. Now that he’s done, he’s brought his model out to the public multiple times, delighting kids and adults alike. It can’t fly, but it has an engine and wheels so it can move, the wings can lock into attack position, the thrusters light up, and the voices of Obi-Wan Kenobi and R2-D2 guide children along as they sit in the cockpit.

Dr. Lekiachvili hopes to auction off his creation to a collector and donate the proceeds to Ukrainian charities, and we’re sure he’ll receive far more than the $60,000 he spent building his masterpiece. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to raid our bank accounts. We have a Death Star to destroy.
 

I’m a doctor, not a hologram

Telemedicine got a big boost during the early phase of the pandemic when hospitals and medical offices were off limits to anyone without COVID-19, but things have cooled off, telemedically speaking, since then. Well, NASA may have heated them up again. Or maybe it was Starfleet. Hmm, wait a second while we check. … No, it was NASA.

Thomas Pesquet/ESA

The space agency used the Microsoft Hololens Kinect camera and a personal computer with custom software from Aexa Aerospace to “holoport” NASA flight surgeon Josef Schmid up to the International Space Station, where he had a conversation with European Space Agency astronaut Thomas Pesquet, who wore an augmented reality headset that allowed him to see, hear, and interact with a 3D representation of the earthbound medical provider.

“Holoportation has been in use since at least 2016 by Microsoft, but this is the first use in such an extreme and remote environment such as space,” NASA said in a recent written statement, noting that the extreme house call took place on Oct. 8, 2021.

They seem to be forgetting about Star Trek, but we’ll let them slide on that one. Anyway, NASA didn’t share any details of the medical holoconversation – which may have strained the limits of HIPAA’s portability provisions – but Dr. Schmid described it as “a brand-new way of human exploration, where our human entity is able to travel off the planet. Our physical body is not there, but our human entity absolutely is there.”

Boldly doctoring where no doctor has gone before, you might say. You also might notice from the photo that Dr. Schmid went full Trekkie with a genuine Vulcan salute. Live long and prosper, Dr. Schmid. Live long and prosper.
 

Add electricity for umami

Salt makes everything taste better. Unfortunately, excess salt can cause problems for our bodies down the line, starting with high blood pressure and continuing on to heart disease and strokes. So how do we enjoy our deliciously salty foods without putting ourselves at risk? One answer may be electricity.

OpenClipart-Vectors/Pixabay

Researchers at Meiji University in Tokyo partnered with food and beverage maker Kirin to develop a set of electric chopsticks to boost the taste of salt in foods without the extra sodium. According to codeveloper and Meiji University professor Homei Miyashita, the device, worn like a watch with a wire attached to one of the chopsticks, “uses a weak electrical current to transmit sodium ions from food, through the chopsticks, to the mouth where they create a sense of saltines,” Reuters said.

In a country like Japan, where a lot of food is made with heavily sodium-based ingredients like miso and soy sauce, the average adult consumes 10 g of salt a day. That’s twice the recommended amount proposed by the World Health Organization. To not sacrifice bland food for better health, this device, which enhances the saltiness of the food consumed by 1.5 times, offers a fairly easy solution to a big public health crisis.

The chopsticks were tested by giving participants reduced-sodium miso soup. They told the researchers that the food was improved in “richness, sweetness, and overall tastiness,” the Guardian said.

Worried about having something electric in your mouth? Don’t worry. Kirin said in a statement that the electricity is very weak and not enough to affect the body.

The chopsticks are still in a prototype stage, but you may be able to get your pair as soon as next year. Until then, maybe be a little mindful of the salt.
 

Pet poop works in mysterious ways

We usually see it as a burden when our pets poop and pee in the house, but those bodily excretions may be able to tell us something about cancer-causing toxins running rampant in our homes.

PxHere

Those toxins, known as aromatic amines, can be found in tobacco smoke and dyes used in make-up, textiles, and plastics. “Our findings suggest that pets are coming into contact with aromatic amines that leach from products in their household environment,” lead author Sridhar Chinthakindi, PhD, of NYU Langone Health, said in a statement from the university. “As these substances have been tied to bladder, colorectal, and other forms of cancer, our results may help explain why so many dogs and cats develop such diseases.”

Tobacco smoke was not the main source of the aromatic amines found in the poop and urine, but 70% of dogs and 80% of cats had these chemicals in their waste. The researchers looked for 30 types of aromatic amines plus nicotine in the sample and found 8. The chemical concentrations were much higher in cats than in dogs, possibly because of differences in exposure and metabolism between the two species, they suggested.

“If [pets] are getting exposed to toxins in our homes, then we had better take a closer look at our own exposure,” said senior author Kurunthachalam Kannan, PhD, of NYU Langone.

So the next time your pet poops or pees in the house, don’t get mad. Maybe they’re just trying to help you out by supplying some easy-to-collect samples.

The force is with Ukraine, always

Of all the things we could want from Star Wars, a lightsaber is at the top of the list. And someone is working on that. But second is probably the iconic X-wing. It was used to blow up the Death Star after all: Who wouldn’t want one?

A real-life star fighter may be outside our technological capabilities, but Dr. Akaki Lekiachvili of Atlanta has done the next best thing and constructed a two-thirds scale model to encourage kids to enter the sciences and, with the advent of the war in Ukraine, raise money for medical supplies to assist doctors in the embattled country. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dr. Lekiachvili, originally from Georgia (the country, former Soviet republic, and previous target of Russian aggression in 2008), takes a dim view toward the invasion of Ukraine: “Russia is like the Evil Empire and Ukraine the Rebel Alliance.”

Richard Franki/MDedge

It’s been a long road finishing the X-Wing, as Dr. Lekiachvili started the project in 2016 and spent $60,000 on it, posting numerous updates on social media over that time, even attracting the attention of Luke Skywalker himself, actor Mark Hamill. Now that he’s done, he’s brought his model out to the public multiple times, delighting kids and adults alike. It can’t fly, but it has an engine and wheels so it can move, the wings can lock into attack position, the thrusters light up, and the voices of Obi-Wan Kenobi and R2-D2 guide children along as they sit in the cockpit.

Dr. Lekiachvili hopes to auction off his creation to a collector and donate the proceeds to Ukrainian charities, and we’re sure he’ll receive far more than the $60,000 he spent building his masterpiece. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to raid our bank accounts. We have a Death Star to destroy.
 

I’m a doctor, not a hologram

Telemedicine got a big boost during the early phase of the pandemic when hospitals and medical offices were off limits to anyone without COVID-19, but things have cooled off, telemedically speaking, since then. Well, NASA may have heated them up again. Or maybe it was Starfleet. Hmm, wait a second while we check. … No, it was NASA.

Thomas Pesquet/ESA

The space agency used the Microsoft Hololens Kinect camera and a personal computer with custom software from Aexa Aerospace to “holoport” NASA flight surgeon Josef Schmid up to the International Space Station, where he had a conversation with European Space Agency astronaut Thomas Pesquet, who wore an augmented reality headset that allowed him to see, hear, and interact with a 3D representation of the earthbound medical provider.

“Holoportation has been in use since at least 2016 by Microsoft, but this is the first use in such an extreme and remote environment such as space,” NASA said in a recent written statement, noting that the extreme house call took place on Oct. 8, 2021.

They seem to be forgetting about Star Trek, but we’ll let them slide on that one. Anyway, NASA didn’t share any details of the medical holoconversation – which may have strained the limits of HIPAA’s portability provisions – but Dr. Schmid described it as “a brand-new way of human exploration, where our human entity is able to travel off the planet. Our physical body is not there, but our human entity absolutely is there.”

Boldly doctoring where no doctor has gone before, you might say. You also might notice from the photo that Dr. Schmid went full Trekkie with a genuine Vulcan salute. Live long and prosper, Dr. Schmid. Live long and prosper.
 

Add electricity for umami

Salt makes everything taste better. Unfortunately, excess salt can cause problems for our bodies down the line, starting with high blood pressure and continuing on to heart disease and strokes. So how do we enjoy our deliciously salty foods without putting ourselves at risk? One answer may be electricity.

OpenClipart-Vectors/Pixabay

Researchers at Meiji University in Tokyo partnered with food and beverage maker Kirin to develop a set of electric chopsticks to boost the taste of salt in foods without the extra sodium. According to codeveloper and Meiji University professor Homei Miyashita, the device, worn like a watch with a wire attached to one of the chopsticks, “uses a weak electrical current to transmit sodium ions from food, through the chopsticks, to the mouth where they create a sense of saltines,” Reuters said.

In a country like Japan, where a lot of food is made with heavily sodium-based ingredients like miso and soy sauce, the average adult consumes 10 g of salt a day. That’s twice the recommended amount proposed by the World Health Organization. To not sacrifice bland food for better health, this device, which enhances the saltiness of the food consumed by 1.5 times, offers a fairly easy solution to a big public health crisis.

The chopsticks were tested by giving participants reduced-sodium miso soup. They told the researchers that the food was improved in “richness, sweetness, and overall tastiness,” the Guardian said.

Worried about having something electric in your mouth? Don’t worry. Kirin said in a statement that the electricity is very weak and not enough to affect the body.

The chopsticks are still in a prototype stage, but you may be able to get your pair as soon as next year. Until then, maybe be a little mindful of the salt.
 

Pet poop works in mysterious ways

We usually see it as a burden when our pets poop and pee in the house, but those bodily excretions may be able to tell us something about cancer-causing toxins running rampant in our homes.

PxHere

Those toxins, known as aromatic amines, can be found in tobacco smoke and dyes used in make-up, textiles, and plastics. “Our findings suggest that pets are coming into contact with aromatic amines that leach from products in their household environment,” lead author Sridhar Chinthakindi, PhD, of NYU Langone Health, said in a statement from the university. “As these substances have been tied to bladder, colorectal, and other forms of cancer, our results may help explain why so many dogs and cats develop such diseases.”

Tobacco smoke was not the main source of the aromatic amines found in the poop and urine, but 70% of dogs and 80% of cats had these chemicals in their waste. The researchers looked for 30 types of aromatic amines plus nicotine in the sample and found 8. The chemical concentrations were much higher in cats than in dogs, possibly because of differences in exposure and metabolism between the two species, they suggested.

“If [pets] are getting exposed to toxins in our homes, then we had better take a closer look at our own exposure,” said senior author Kurunthachalam Kannan, PhD, of NYU Langone.

So the next time your pet poops or pees in the house, don’t get mad. Maybe they’re just trying to help you out by supplying some easy-to-collect samples.

The Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to 12 companies selling over-the-counter (OTC) skin lightening products, the agency announced on April 19. All the products contain hydroquinone as the active ingredient, and don’t meet the requirements to be sold legally over the counter. The letters were dated April 13.

The 12 products with hydroquinone are “unapproved drugs and are not generally recognized as safe and effective” (abbreviated as GRASE), the FDA said.

Among the side effects associated with hydroquinone products reported to the FDA are skin rashes, facial swelling, and skin discoloration or ochronosis. The discoloration can be permanent, the FDA said. The lighteners are marketed for use on age or dark spots on the skin associated with melasma.

Tri-Luma, a prescription product for the treatment of moderate to severe melasma of the face, is the only FDA-approved drug containing hydroquinone, according to the FDA. It contains 4% hydroquinone and two other ingredients. It is meant to be used under the supervision of a health care professional. Tri-Luma is indicated for up to 8 weeks of treatment for moderate to severe melasma of the face. The OTC products contain up to 2%. (Generic versions of 4% hydroquinone are available by prescription, dermatologists said.)

“Hydroquinone is a very effective medication, and that’s exactly what it is, a medication,” said Lily Talakoub, MD, a dermatologist in McLean, Va., who supports the FDA action. “It’s very effective and very safe to use in the right hands, but when it is overused or used in the wrong situation, it can cause problems.” Those problems often occur, she said, when there is no health care professional overseeing the use of the OTC products, and when people use them over the long term.

The FDA action to ban the OTC products is “very appropriate,” said dermatologist Pooja Sodha, MD, assistant professor and director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “We know patients pick this up [an OTC product] and use it without physician oversight.” When patients use the products longer than is appropriate, which is also common, it can worsen the initial skin issue, she said.

The action follows reforms finalized under the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act), which included not only COVID-19 response efforts but also updated the method in which certain OTC drugs are regulated. Manufacturers of the skin lightening products that don’t have FDA approval had been told to remove the products from the market by September 2020.

The recent letters were sent to a dozen companies still marketing their products without an FDA new drug approval. The agency asked the companies to take prompt action and respond with 15 days, stating what they have done to correct the violations.

The 12 companies are AMBI Enterprises, Clinical Formula, Elements Brands Inc., Genomma Lab USA, Intilight/Dr Thomas Balshi, M&M Beauty and Wellness, Neoteric Cosmetics/Scott’s Liquid Gold, Skin Authority, Skin Pro, Skin PS Brands, True Earth Health Products, and Ultimark Products.

Health care professionals and consumers can report adverse reactions associated with these products to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to 12 companies selling over-the-counter (OTC) skin lightening products, the agency announced on April 19. All the products contain hydroquinone as the active ingredient, and don’t meet the requirements to be sold legally over the counter. The letters were dated April 13.

The 12 products with hydroquinone are “unapproved drugs and are not generally recognized as safe and effective” (abbreviated as GRASE), the FDA said.

Among the side effects associated with hydroquinone products reported to the FDA are skin rashes, facial swelling, and skin discoloration or ochronosis. The discoloration can be permanent, the FDA said. The lighteners are marketed for use on age or dark spots on the skin associated with melasma.

Tri-Luma, a prescription product for the treatment of moderate to severe melasma of the face, is the only FDA-approved drug containing hydroquinone, according to the FDA. It contains 4% hydroquinone and two other ingredients. It is meant to be used under the supervision of a health care professional. Tri-Luma is indicated for up to 8 weeks of treatment for moderate to severe melasma of the face. The OTC products contain up to 2%. (Generic versions of 4% hydroquinone are available by prescription, dermatologists said.)

“Hydroquinone is a very effective medication, and that’s exactly what it is, a medication,” said Lily Talakoub, MD, a dermatologist in McLean, Va., who supports the FDA action. “It’s very effective and very safe to use in the right hands, but when it is overused or used in the wrong situation, it can cause problems.” Those problems often occur, she said, when there is no health care professional overseeing the use of the OTC products, and when people use them over the long term.

The FDA action to ban the OTC products is “very appropriate,” said dermatologist Pooja Sodha, MD, assistant professor and director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “We know patients pick this up [an OTC product] and use it without physician oversight.” When patients use the products longer than is appropriate, which is also common, it can worsen the initial skin issue, she said.

The action follows reforms finalized under the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act), which included not only COVID-19 response efforts but also updated the method in which certain OTC drugs are regulated. Manufacturers of the skin lightening products that don’t have FDA approval had been told to remove the products from the market by September 2020.

The recent letters were sent to a dozen companies still marketing their products without an FDA new drug approval. The agency asked the companies to take prompt action and respond with 15 days, stating what they have done to correct the violations.

The 12 companies are AMBI Enterprises, Clinical Formula, Elements Brands Inc., Genomma Lab USA, Intilight/Dr Thomas Balshi, M&M Beauty and Wellness, Neoteric Cosmetics/Scott’s Liquid Gold, Skin Authority, Skin Pro, Skin PS Brands, True Earth Health Products, and Ultimark Products.

Health care professionals and consumers can report adverse reactions associated with these products to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to 12 companies selling over-the-counter (OTC) skin lightening products, the agency announced on April 19. All the products contain hydroquinone as the active ingredient, and don’t meet the requirements to be sold legally over the counter. The letters were dated April 13.

The 12 products with hydroquinone are “unapproved drugs and are not generally recognized as safe and effective” (abbreviated as GRASE), the FDA said.

Among the side effects associated with hydroquinone products reported to the FDA are skin rashes, facial swelling, and skin discoloration or ochronosis. The discoloration can be permanent, the FDA said. The lighteners are marketed for use on age or dark spots on the skin associated with melasma.

Tri-Luma, a prescription product for the treatment of moderate to severe melasma of the face, is the only FDA-approved drug containing hydroquinone, according to the FDA. It contains 4% hydroquinone and two other ingredients. It is meant to be used under the supervision of a health care professional. Tri-Luma is indicated for up to 8 weeks of treatment for moderate to severe melasma of the face. The OTC products contain up to 2%. (Generic versions of 4% hydroquinone are available by prescription, dermatologists said.)

“Hydroquinone is a very effective medication, and that’s exactly what it is, a medication,” said Lily Talakoub, MD, a dermatologist in McLean, Va., who supports the FDA action. “It’s very effective and very safe to use in the right hands, but when it is overused or used in the wrong situation, it can cause problems.” Those problems often occur, she said, when there is no health care professional overseeing the use of the OTC products, and when people use them over the long term.

The FDA action to ban the OTC products is “very appropriate,” said dermatologist Pooja Sodha, MD, assistant professor and director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “We know patients pick this up [an OTC product] and use it without physician oversight.” When patients use the products longer than is appropriate, which is also common, it can worsen the initial skin issue, she said.

The action follows reforms finalized under the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act), which included not only COVID-19 response efforts but also updated the method in which certain OTC drugs are regulated. Manufacturers of the skin lightening products that don’t have FDA approval had been told to remove the products from the market by September 2020.

The recent letters were sent to a dozen companies still marketing their products without an FDA new drug approval. The agency asked the companies to take prompt action and respond with 15 days, stating what they have done to correct the violations.

The 12 companies are AMBI Enterprises, Clinical Formula, Elements Brands Inc., Genomma Lab USA, Intilight/Dr Thomas Balshi, M&M Beauty and Wellness, Neoteric Cosmetics/Scott’s Liquid Gold, Skin Authority, Skin Pro, Skin PS Brands, True Earth Health Products, and Ultimark Products.

Health care professionals and consumers can report adverse reactions associated with these products to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.

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

The impact of a gynecologic cancer diagnosis reaches beyond the obvious side effects of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Many of our patients experience the quality-of-life–limiting side effects of abrupt hormone withdrawal as a consequence of our treatments. Assumptions are common, by both patients and providers, that hormonal therapy is unsafe after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and that it is associated with an increased risk for recurrence. This sentiment likely originates from the fallout of the Womens’ Health Initiative (WHI) studies which showed an increased risk of breast cancer among users of combined estrogen and progesterone therapy.¹ While this may be true for breast cancer risk, when initiated early, hormonal therapy is safe, even beneficial, for many patients with a history of gynecologic cancer, and can significantly improve their quality of life in addition to reducing all-cause mortality and incidence of osteoporosis, dementia, and cardiovascular disease.²

Premenopausal women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer or preinvasive hyperplasia should be considered for ovarian preservation at the time of surgery. This strategy has been shown to be safe and not associated with an increased risk of recurrence. If oophorectomy is performed, hormonal therapy has been shown to be a safe remedy to the side effects of surgical menopause and the deleterious acceleration of bone loss and cardiovascular aging. The safety of hormone therapy for early-stage endometrial cancer has been thoroughly studied, including in a randomized controlled trial of more than 1,200 patients.³ This study showed no difference in the recurrence rate in users when compared with nonusers.

While hormone therapy is safe, from an oncologic standpoint, for women with a history of early-stage endometrial cancer other risks must also be considered. Given the association between endometrial cancer and obesity, these patients are at higher risk for venous thromboembolic (VTE) events, more so with the addition of exogenous hormone therapy. While not an overt contraindication to hormone prescription, obese patients who are prescribed these agents should be counseled regarding their risks for VTE.

The subgroup of patients with endometrial cancer in whom hormones should not be prescribed are those with advanced or recurrent disease. It is common for these tumors to express estrogen receptors, as evidenced by the responsiveness of these tumors to progesterone and antiestrogen treatments. Therefore, there is a theoretical risk for progression while using estrogen. In addition, as stated above, the risk of VTE is particularly elevated for women with metastatic malignancy receiving systemic therapies.

Cervical cancer commonly affects women of premenopausal age; therefore, early ovarian failure is particularly deleterious for this group of patients. Early-stage cervical cancer is most commonly treated with radical or extrafascial hysterectomy. Oophorectomy is not obligatory for the majority of these cases, and can be omitted in pre-, or perimenopausal patients to prevent surgical menopause. Ovarian metastases have been reported in cases of cervical adenocarcinoma, which led to the concern that ovarian preservation was not safe for this histology. However, recent data dispute this concern. A contemporary retrospective series of 105 patients with cervical adenocarcinoma identified no significant difference in overall survival when comparing those who had undergone ovarian preservation versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.⁴

Ovarian preservation during cervical cancer surgery may not be enough to prevent early menopause. Approximately 20% of cervical cancer patients may require postoperative radiation for high- or intermediate-risk disease (such as positive lymph nodes, or adverse features in the tumor). For these women, ovarian ablation results, even if the ovaries were preserved at the time of surgery. Transposition of the ovaries to a location outside of the potential radiation fields is a strategy to mitigate this risk. To achieve this, the preserved ovaries and their vascular pedicles are skeletonized. The ovaries are then sutured to the paracolic gutter peritoneum or similar location above the pelvic brim, taking care to ensure that the vascular pedicle is not compromised or twisted. Placement of radio-opaque surgical clips on the caudad aspect of the transposed ovary aids in their identification by radiation oncologists when planning their treatment fields.

Ovarian transposition is most commonly used for women who are undergoing definitive surgery for cervical cancer. However, this strategy can also be used as a lead-in procedure for young women with advanced cervical cancer in whom definitive chemoradiation is planned. If the ovaries cannot be spared or moved out of “harm’s way” for premenopausal women undergoing treatment with definitive radiation, hormone therapy may be necessary and is safe for patients with cervical cancer, including those with adenocarcinoma. If the patient has not undergone hysterectomy, a regimen that includes a combination of estrogen and progesterone is necessary to avoid carcinogenic effects of unopposed estrogen on an intact endometrium, even after radiation has ablated those tissues.

When ovarian and fallopian cancers arise in premenopausal patients and appear confined to a single adnexa, contralateral ovarian preservation can be considered. However, for advanced disease, this is usually not possible or appropriate. Given that most ovarian cancers arise in a postmenopausal population, these patients may be preexisting users of hormone therapy. The data, including a randomized controlled trial, would suggest that it is safe to continue to use hormone therapy during or following a diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and that it is not associated with worse outcomes from their cancer.⁵

Once again, patients should be carefully counseled about the additive risks for VTE that come from metastatic ovarian cancer, surgery via laparotomy, and exogenous hormonal therapy. However, these patients need not be subjected to an abrupt transition to menopause, because level I evidence suggests that these therapies are not associated with worse oncologic outcomes. All patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer should receive genetic testing, and if deleterious mutations are found in BRCA 1 or 2 genes indicating an elevated risk for breast cancer, decision making regarding continued exogenous hormonal therapy is complicated. The most contemporary data, including long-term follow-up from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, do not suggest an increased risk for breast cancer with estrogen-only preparations of hormone therapy.⁶ Given that most women with gynecologic cancers have undergone hysterectomy as part of their treatment, these estrogen-only preparations are appropriate for most.

For patients with rare tumors, such as endometrial stromal tumors or uterine leiomyosarcoma, the safety of exogenous hormone therapy should be dictated by the receptor profile of their particular cancer. Many of these cancers express estrogen receptors; therefore, current guidelines recommend against the use of hormones after these diagnoses when estrogen receptors are expressed.

Gynecologic cancer treatments induce many toxicities with long-term deleterious effects on quality of life. Use of hormones to mitigate the symptoms of menopause is an important tool in the toolkit for gynecologists. Assumptions should not be made that hormonal therapies are always unsafe for all of these patients. It is important to closely evaluate the patient’s tumor and other risk factors before withholding potentially valuable therapies.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA. 2010 Oct 20;304(15):1684-92.

2. Sinno AK et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(2):303-6.

3. Barakat et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

4. Hu Jun et al. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Nov;37(8):1065-9.

5. Eeles R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;33(35):4138-44.

6. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA Jul 28 2020;324(4):369-80.

The impact of a gynecologic cancer diagnosis reaches beyond the obvious side effects of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Many of our patients experience the quality-of-life–limiting side effects of abrupt hormone withdrawal as a consequence of our treatments. Assumptions are common, by both patients and providers, that hormonal therapy is unsafe after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and that it is associated with an increased risk for recurrence. This sentiment likely originates from the fallout of the Womens’ Health Initiative (WHI) studies which showed an increased risk of breast cancer among users of combined estrogen and progesterone therapy.¹ While this may be true for breast cancer risk, when initiated early, hormonal therapy is safe, even beneficial, for many patients with a history of gynecologic cancer, and can significantly improve their quality of life in addition to reducing all-cause mortality and incidence of osteoporosis, dementia, and cardiovascular disease.²