Commentary

In 1986, the United States and Canada mandated the adoption of a center brake light on all new cars. Studies had shown that this was better at getting attention than the two side lights alone, and reduced collisions.

Of course, as the years went by the safety benefit gradually faded. It never returned to the previous level, but clearly, as people got used to it, the new light faded into the background of their attention.

Today, we have electronic health record (EHR) systems that use all kinds of pop-up warnings to check INRs, to give flu shots, to consider COPD in the differential ... a million things. I’m sure the attorneys love them. (“Doctor, since the computer clearly warned you about this, why did you click ‘ignore’ and move on?”)

I don’t use one of those systems, but I talk to plenty of doctors who do. Initially, it was interesting and got their attention, then became annoying. Each pop-up window interrupted the chain of thought, distracting them from the task at hand: patient care. As time went on, they just began ignoring them. It’s easier to click “cancel” than it is have to think through something you’ve probably already considered.

So, like the center brake light, the well-intentioned pop-up window is ignored and pushed to the far side of your attention span.

Do these things improve quality of care? Probably no more than the center brake light reduces car accidents these days. They’re likely useful in training, to remind medical students and residents of things that are important, but beyond that would be a tough case to make.

I’m not saying attending physicians are infallible. We all make our share of mistakes in this world. But medicine is not a one-size-fits-all field. The EHRs, at least at present, can’t take into account as we do all the variables of each patient’s personality, social situation, compliance history, medication tolerance issues, and other factors.

Not only that, but the pop-up window saying, “Have you considered this?” is no less distracting than having to take a phone call during a visit. It’s intrusive, throws your train of thought temporarily onto another track, and requires a minute to refocus on the task at hand. In that time, you may have forgotten something equally, if not more important. Or missed some critical piece of information the patient mentioned.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In 1986, the United States and Canada mandated the adoption of a center brake light on all new cars. Studies had shown that this was better at getting attention than the two side lights alone, and reduced collisions.

Of course, as the years went by the safety benefit gradually faded. It never returned to the previous level, but clearly, as people got used to it, the new light faded into the background of their attention.

Today, we have electronic health record (EHR) systems that use all kinds of pop-up warnings to check INRs, to give flu shots, to consider COPD in the differential ... a million things. I’m sure the attorneys love them. (“Doctor, since the computer clearly warned you about this, why did you click ‘ignore’ and move on?”)

I don’t use one of those systems, but I talk to plenty of doctors who do. Initially, it was interesting and got their attention, then became annoying. Each pop-up window interrupted the chain of thought, distracting them from the task at hand: patient care. As time went on, they just began ignoring them. It’s easier to click “cancel” than it is have to think through something you’ve probably already considered.

So, like the center brake light, the well-intentioned pop-up window is ignored and pushed to the far side of your attention span.

Do these things improve quality of care? Probably no more than the center brake light reduces car accidents these days. They’re likely useful in training, to remind medical students and residents of things that are important, but beyond that would be a tough case to make.

I’m not saying attending physicians are infallible. We all make our share of mistakes in this world. But medicine is not a one-size-fits-all field. The EHRs, at least at present, can’t take into account as we do all the variables of each patient’s personality, social situation, compliance history, medication tolerance issues, and other factors.

Not only that, but the pop-up window saying, “Have you considered this?” is no less distracting than having to take a phone call during a visit. It’s intrusive, throws your train of thought temporarily onto another track, and requires a minute to refocus on the task at hand. In that time, you may have forgotten something equally, if not more important. Or missed some critical piece of information the patient mentioned.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In 1986, the United States and Canada mandated the adoption of a center brake light on all new cars. Studies had shown that this was better at getting attention than the two side lights alone, and reduced collisions.

Of course, as the years went by the safety benefit gradually faded. It never returned to the previous level, but clearly, as people got used to it, the new light faded into the background of their attention.

Today, we have electronic health record (EHR) systems that use all kinds of pop-up warnings to check INRs, to give flu shots, to consider COPD in the differential ... a million things. I’m sure the attorneys love them. (“Doctor, since the computer clearly warned you about this, why did you click ‘ignore’ and move on?”)

I don’t use one of those systems, but I talk to plenty of doctors who do. Initially, it was interesting and got their attention, then became annoying. Each pop-up window interrupted the chain of thought, distracting them from the task at hand: patient care. As time went on, they just began ignoring them. It’s easier to click “cancel” than it is have to think through something you’ve probably already considered.

So, like the center brake light, the well-intentioned pop-up window is ignored and pushed to the far side of your attention span.

Do these things improve quality of care? Probably no more than the center brake light reduces car accidents these days. They’re likely useful in training, to remind medical students and residents of things that are important, but beyond that would be a tough case to make.

I’m not saying attending physicians are infallible. We all make our share of mistakes in this world. But medicine is not a one-size-fits-all field. The EHRs, at least at present, can’t take into account as we do all the variables of each patient’s personality, social situation, compliance history, medication tolerance issues, and other factors.

Not only that, but the pop-up window saying, “Have you considered this?” is no less distracting than having to take a phone call during a visit. It’s intrusive, throws your train of thought temporarily onto another track, and requires a minute to refocus on the task at hand. In that time, you may have forgotten something equally, if not more important. Or missed some critical piece of information the patient mentioned.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The obsession with longer, fuller, darker eyelashes has become a mainstay in our culture – initially with the ever growing options of mascaras and glue on eyelashes, and now with options that are longer lasting, including eyelash extensions (semipermanent eyelashes) and topical eyelash growth enhancers (such as bimatoprost).

Eyelash extensions are not the same as glue-on strip or individual lashes bought at the drug store or makeup counter that last 1-2 days. These are silk, mink, or poly nylon synthetic lashes that typically last for approximately four weeks, with refills often required at 2-4 week intervals as the natural eyelash sheds. They are adhered to the person’s natural eyelash via an adhesive bonding process that can take 1-2 hours for initial application. Generally, a single lash is applied to each natural lash.

When applied properly, neither the extension eyelash nor the glue should touch the eyelid. The bond is designed to last until the lashes naturally fall out, although the extensions may fall out faster if one uses oil-based eye makeup remover or rubs the eyes regularly, as oil weakens the bond between the glue and the lash. Eyelash extensions are waterproof and give the appearance of having mascara on without wearing it. In the United States, eyelash extension services can range from $100 to $500 for the initial application, with decreased cost for refills. Lash extensions are waterproof and popular for special occasions and vacations, and even more so now for every day.

Potential adverse effects of eyelash extensions include ocular hyperemia, keratoconjunctivitis, allergic blepharitis, and allergic contact dermatitis in the patient. Keratoconjunctivitis is thought to be due to formaldehyde contained in some of the glues used for application.¹ Eyelash extensions have also been associated with occupational allergic contact dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, and occupational asthma in the practitioner applying the eyelash extensions, particularly with the cyanoacrylate-based glues.^2,3

In a national survey of eyelash extensions and their health-related problems in Japan, 10% (205) of the respondents had experience with eyelash extensions. Of those women, 27% (55) experienced problems that included ocular hyperemia, pain, and itchy swollen eyelids.⁴ Conjunctival erosion from the eyelid fixing tape used during application and subconjunctival hemorrhage from compression during removal of the extensions has been also reported.¹ Hair breakage and even traction alopecia may occur, especially in patients who accidentally or intentionally pull the extensions off.

If permanent eyelash damage occurs, eyelash transplantation may be required to replace the eyelash, as eyelash growth medications such as bimatoprost may not be effective if the follicle is missing or severely damaged. Eyelash transplants often grow long enough where they require trimming, especially if donor sites are taken from the scalp.⁵

Eyelash extensions offer a nice alternative to daily use of mascara, temporary glue-on eyelashes, and daily application of topical eyelash growth products. As this procedure has increased in number, the dermatologist may be consulted for recommendations and treatment of any potential adverse events associated with it.

References

1. Cornea. 2012 Feb;31(2):121-5.

2. Contact Dermatitis. 2012 Nov;67(5):307-8.

3. Occup Med (Lond). 2013 Jun;63(4):294-7.

4. Nihon Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2013;68(3):168-74.

5. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015 Apr 7;3(3):e324.

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are co-contributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley.

The obsession with longer, fuller, darker eyelashes has become a mainstay in our culture – initially with the ever growing options of mascaras and glue on eyelashes, and now with options that are longer lasting, including eyelash extensions (semipermanent eyelashes) and topical eyelash growth enhancers (such as bimatoprost).

Eyelash extensions are not the same as glue-on strip or individual lashes bought at the drug store or makeup counter that last 1-2 days. These are silk, mink, or poly nylon synthetic lashes that typically last for approximately four weeks, with refills often required at 2-4 week intervals as the natural eyelash sheds. They are adhered to the person’s natural eyelash via an adhesive bonding process that can take 1-2 hours for initial application. Generally, a single lash is applied to each natural lash.

When applied properly, neither the extension eyelash nor the glue should touch the eyelid. The bond is designed to last until the lashes naturally fall out, although the extensions may fall out faster if one uses oil-based eye makeup remover or rubs the eyes regularly, as oil weakens the bond between the glue and the lash. Eyelash extensions are waterproof and give the appearance of having mascara on without wearing it. In the United States, eyelash extension services can range from $100 to $500 for the initial application, with decreased cost for refills. Lash extensions are waterproof and popular for special occasions and vacations, and even more so now for every day.

Potential adverse effects of eyelash extensions include ocular hyperemia, keratoconjunctivitis, allergic blepharitis, and allergic contact dermatitis in the patient. Keratoconjunctivitis is thought to be due to formaldehyde contained in some of the glues used for application.¹ Eyelash extensions have also been associated with occupational allergic contact dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, and occupational asthma in the practitioner applying the eyelash extensions, particularly with the cyanoacrylate-based glues.^2,3

In a national survey of eyelash extensions and their health-related problems in Japan, 10% (205) of the respondents had experience with eyelash extensions. Of those women, 27% (55) experienced problems that included ocular hyperemia, pain, and itchy swollen eyelids.⁴ Conjunctival erosion from the eyelid fixing tape used during application and subconjunctival hemorrhage from compression during removal of the extensions has been also reported.¹ Hair breakage and even traction alopecia may occur, especially in patients who accidentally or intentionally pull the extensions off.

If permanent eyelash damage occurs, eyelash transplantation may be required to replace the eyelash, as eyelash growth medications such as bimatoprost may not be effective if the follicle is missing or severely damaged. Eyelash transplants often grow long enough where they require trimming, especially if donor sites are taken from the scalp.⁵

Eyelash extensions offer a nice alternative to daily use of mascara, temporary glue-on eyelashes, and daily application of topical eyelash growth products. As this procedure has increased in number, the dermatologist may be consulted for recommendations and treatment of any potential adverse events associated with it.

References

1. Cornea. 2012 Feb;31(2):121-5.

2. Contact Dermatitis. 2012 Nov;67(5):307-8.

3. Occup Med (Lond). 2013 Jun;63(4):294-7.

4. Nihon Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2013;68(3):168-74.

5. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015 Apr 7;3(3):e324.

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are co-contributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley.

The obsession with longer, fuller, darker eyelashes has become a mainstay in our culture – initially with the ever growing options of mascaras and glue on eyelashes, and now with options that are longer lasting, including eyelash extensions (semipermanent eyelashes) and topical eyelash growth enhancers (such as bimatoprost).

Eyelash extensions are not the same as glue-on strip or individual lashes bought at the drug store or makeup counter that last 1-2 days. These are silk, mink, or poly nylon synthetic lashes that typically last for approximately four weeks, with refills often required at 2-4 week intervals as the natural eyelash sheds. They are adhered to the person’s natural eyelash via an adhesive bonding process that can take 1-2 hours for initial application. Generally, a single lash is applied to each natural lash.

When applied properly, neither the extension eyelash nor the glue should touch the eyelid. The bond is designed to last until the lashes naturally fall out, although the extensions may fall out faster if one uses oil-based eye makeup remover or rubs the eyes regularly, as oil weakens the bond between the glue and the lash. Eyelash extensions are waterproof and give the appearance of having mascara on without wearing it. In the United States, eyelash extension services can range from $100 to $500 for the initial application, with decreased cost for refills. Lash extensions are waterproof and popular for special occasions and vacations, and even more so now for every day.

Potential adverse effects of eyelash extensions include ocular hyperemia, keratoconjunctivitis, allergic blepharitis, and allergic contact dermatitis in the patient. Keratoconjunctivitis is thought to be due to formaldehyde contained in some of the glues used for application.¹ Eyelash extensions have also been associated with occupational allergic contact dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, and occupational asthma in the practitioner applying the eyelash extensions, particularly with the cyanoacrylate-based glues.^2,3

In a national survey of eyelash extensions and their health-related problems in Japan, 10% (205) of the respondents had experience with eyelash extensions. Of those women, 27% (55) experienced problems that included ocular hyperemia, pain, and itchy swollen eyelids.⁴ Conjunctival erosion from the eyelid fixing tape used during application and subconjunctival hemorrhage from compression during removal of the extensions has been also reported.¹ Hair breakage and even traction alopecia may occur, especially in patients who accidentally or intentionally pull the extensions off.

If permanent eyelash damage occurs, eyelash transplantation may be required to replace the eyelash, as eyelash growth medications such as bimatoprost may not be effective if the follicle is missing or severely damaged. Eyelash transplants often grow long enough where they require trimming, especially if donor sites are taken from the scalp.⁵

Eyelash extensions offer a nice alternative to daily use of mascara, temporary glue-on eyelashes, and daily application of topical eyelash growth products. As this procedure has increased in number, the dermatologist may be consulted for recommendations and treatment of any potential adverse events associated with it.

References

1. Cornea. 2012 Feb;31(2):121-5.

2. Contact Dermatitis. 2012 Nov;67(5):307-8.

3. Occup Med (Lond). 2013 Jun;63(4):294-7.

4. Nihon Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2013;68(3):168-74.

5. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015 Apr 7;3(3):e324.

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are co-contributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley.

I hear it at least 6 times a month: “How can I get involved? How do I get on an AAD committee?” The quick answer is to pick a committee where you have some expertise, and get others (including other organizations where you have done committee work) to write supporting letters to the American Academy of Dermatology president-elect (this year Henry Lim). In October, the president-elect fills the empty committee spots, and whoever has the most expertise and support usually gets the spot. The support of the existing committee chair is most helpful as well.

The focus of the question above, however, is too limited. AAD committee work is important, but there are many other venues in which you can develop your skills and make an impact. The best spot to start is probably your local and state dermatology or county and state medical societies. They are always looking for new enthusiastic members. You will learn about parliamentary order and how to write and defend a resolution, and you may advance quickly – perhaps right up to a state leadership position or the state American Medical Association delegation. In the state and local societies, you will also learn about challenges practitioners face outside of dermatology. The skills you will develop are useful in any physician organization, including the AAD. The state medical societies are always interested in members who will travel to testify at the state legislature. This can be a valuable experience as well.

There are many state dermatology societies that need you for advocacy, service, and leadership. These are superb places to learn leadership skills and state advocacy.

The AAD “sister” societies – including the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS), the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), the American Society for Mohs Surgery ASMS, and the Women’s Dermatologic Society (WDS) – also have multiple committees, boards, and officer positions, which do advocacy and develop policy, and are arenas in which you can learn and contribute.

You should attend a meeting of the advisory board to the AAD. This is full-throttle democracy. State and local dermatology organizations are allowed to send delegates and alternate delegates to the advisory board, and these spots often go empty. The advisory board’s resolutions go directly to the AAD board of directors to be acted on. In addition, the advisory board also appoints one of the directors to the AAD board of directors. This opportunity is underappreciated.

Involvement in SkinPAC would be most welcome (and earns you an asterisk by your name on the committee nomination roster!). The importance of legislative efforts cannot be overemphasized. Attending the legislative conference should be high on your list of things to do when you ask how to get involved.

You should also consider community involvement, regardless of your other activities. This will help your larger community in ways you could never imagine. I have served on the local health department for many years and find it rewarding and interesting. They are always keen to have more medical doctors on the board.

You can get appointed by writing the local officials (the county judge executive or mayor of the city) and expressing an interest, or to the medical director of the health department.

State medical boards are a large time commitment and a lot of work, but can be most important. We need more dermatologists on state medical boards since we are a unique specialty, and other physicians have no idea what you do in your office. Medical boards often make policy, and can have a huge impact. These positions are competitive in larger states and may require some political support from the governor in order for you to be appointed.

Charitable work is also important. Most of us volunteer to do skin cancer screenings, but there are also opportunities to provide dermatology services overseas. Dermatologists are rare in most of the world, and you will find the service most gratifying. There are opportunities closer to home in the free clinics almost anywhere.

Engagement and service by as many as possible is crucial for a specialty as small as ours, and your efforts will be noted and appreciated. There are thousands of ways to get involved, and I encourage you to get in there and do it.

Dr. Coldiron is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. He is currently in private practice, but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics.

I hear it at least 6 times a month: “How can I get involved? How do I get on an AAD committee?” The quick answer is to pick a committee where you have some expertise, and get others (including other organizations where you have done committee work) to write supporting letters to the American Academy of Dermatology president-elect (this year Henry Lim). In October, the president-elect fills the empty committee spots, and whoever has the most expertise and support usually gets the spot. The support of the existing committee chair is most helpful as well.

The focus of the question above, however, is too limited. AAD committee work is important, but there are many other venues in which you can develop your skills and make an impact. The best spot to start is probably your local and state dermatology or county and state medical societies. They are always looking for new enthusiastic members. You will learn about parliamentary order and how to write and defend a resolution, and you may advance quickly – perhaps right up to a state leadership position or the state American Medical Association delegation. In the state and local societies, you will also learn about challenges practitioners face outside of dermatology. The skills you will develop are useful in any physician organization, including the AAD. The state medical societies are always interested in members who will travel to testify at the state legislature. This can be a valuable experience as well.

There are many state dermatology societies that need you for advocacy, service, and leadership. These are superb places to learn leadership skills and state advocacy.

The AAD “sister” societies – including the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS), the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), the American Society for Mohs Surgery ASMS, and the Women’s Dermatologic Society (WDS) – also have multiple committees, boards, and officer positions, which do advocacy and develop policy, and are arenas in which you can learn and contribute.

You should attend a meeting of the advisory board to the AAD. This is full-throttle democracy. State and local dermatology organizations are allowed to send delegates and alternate delegates to the advisory board, and these spots often go empty. The advisory board’s resolutions go directly to the AAD board of directors to be acted on. In addition, the advisory board also appoints one of the directors to the AAD board of directors. This opportunity is underappreciated.

Involvement in SkinPAC would be most welcome (and earns you an asterisk by your name on the committee nomination roster!). The importance of legislative efforts cannot be overemphasized. Attending the legislative conference should be high on your list of things to do when you ask how to get involved.

You should also consider community involvement, regardless of your other activities. This will help your larger community in ways you could never imagine. I have served on the local health department for many years and find it rewarding and interesting. They are always keen to have more medical doctors on the board.

You can get appointed by writing the local officials (the county judge executive or mayor of the city) and expressing an interest, or to the medical director of the health department.

State medical boards are a large time commitment and a lot of work, but can be most important. We need more dermatologists on state medical boards since we are a unique specialty, and other physicians have no idea what you do in your office. Medical boards often make policy, and can have a huge impact. These positions are competitive in larger states and may require some political support from the governor in order for you to be appointed.

Charitable work is also important. Most of us volunteer to do skin cancer screenings, but there are also opportunities to provide dermatology services overseas. Dermatologists are rare in most of the world, and you will find the service most gratifying. There are opportunities closer to home in the free clinics almost anywhere.

Engagement and service by as many as possible is crucial for a specialty as small as ours, and your efforts will be noted and appreciated. There are thousands of ways to get involved, and I encourage you to get in there and do it.

Dr. Coldiron is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. He is currently in private practice, but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics.

I hear it at least 6 times a month: “How can I get involved? How do I get on an AAD committee?” The quick answer is to pick a committee where you have some expertise, and get others (including other organizations where you have done committee work) to write supporting letters to the American Academy of Dermatology president-elect (this year Henry Lim). In October, the president-elect fills the empty committee spots, and whoever has the most expertise and support usually gets the spot. The support of the existing committee chair is most helpful as well.

The focus of the question above, however, is too limited. AAD committee work is important, but there are many other venues in which you can develop your skills and make an impact. The best spot to start is probably your local and state dermatology or county and state medical societies. They are always looking for new enthusiastic members. You will learn about parliamentary order and how to write and defend a resolution, and you may advance quickly – perhaps right up to a state leadership position or the state American Medical Association delegation. In the state and local societies, you will also learn about challenges practitioners face outside of dermatology. The skills you will develop are useful in any physician organization, including the AAD. The state medical societies are always interested in members who will travel to testify at the state legislature. This can be a valuable experience as well.

There are many state dermatology societies that need you for advocacy, service, and leadership. These are superb places to learn leadership skills and state advocacy.

The AAD “sister” societies – including the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS), the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), the American Society for Mohs Surgery ASMS, and the Women’s Dermatologic Society (WDS) – also have multiple committees, boards, and officer positions, which do advocacy and develop policy, and are arenas in which you can learn and contribute.

You should attend a meeting of the advisory board to the AAD. This is full-throttle democracy. State and local dermatology organizations are allowed to send delegates and alternate delegates to the advisory board, and these spots often go empty. The advisory board’s resolutions go directly to the AAD board of directors to be acted on. In addition, the advisory board also appoints one of the directors to the AAD board of directors. This opportunity is underappreciated.

Involvement in SkinPAC would be most welcome (and earns you an asterisk by your name on the committee nomination roster!). The importance of legislative efforts cannot be overemphasized. Attending the legislative conference should be high on your list of things to do when you ask how to get involved.

You should also consider community involvement, regardless of your other activities. This will help your larger community in ways you could never imagine. I have served on the local health department for many years and find it rewarding and interesting. They are always keen to have more medical doctors on the board.

You can get appointed by writing the local officials (the county judge executive or mayor of the city) and expressing an interest, or to the medical director of the health department.

State medical boards are a large time commitment and a lot of work, but can be most important. We need more dermatologists on state medical boards since we are a unique specialty, and other physicians have no idea what you do in your office. Medical boards often make policy, and can have a huge impact. These positions are competitive in larger states and may require some political support from the governor in order for you to be appointed.

Charitable work is also important. Most of us volunteer to do skin cancer screenings, but there are also opportunities to provide dermatology services overseas. Dermatologists are rare in most of the world, and you will find the service most gratifying. There are opportunities closer to home in the free clinics almost anywhere.

Engagement and service by as many as possible is crucial for a specialty as small as ours, and your efforts will be noted and appreciated. There are thousands of ways to get involved, and I encourage you to get in there and do it.

Dr. Coldiron is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. He is currently in private practice, but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics.

I’m happier doing patient messages these days. That’s because of a little feature that we turned on in EPIC, our electronic medical record. The change doesn’t make me any faster or smarter. It doesn’t make me any more money. It merely adds a sprinkle of meaning to the work I do, and that has made all the difference.

In contrast to the usually glamorous portrayal of physicians’ work, most of our days are mundane. On a typical clinic day I’ll get up to a dozen requests from patients asking for something. Usually it’s just a refill, but several are from patients asking for a earlier appointment, when there are none. Or asking for a stronger treatment, when there aren’t any. Most of these requests are from patients who do not have interesting diagnoses or require sophisticated treatments. They are the itchy, and they remain itchy despite my advice. After a long day of seeing patients, the long list of messages that requires action feels endless, burdensome. Optimizing extenders has made me more efficient, but the work that remains isn’t fulfilling. A subtle change in our EMR has helped, though.

What is different? Our EPIC now includes a photo of each patient. That’s it. Ostensibly, having a photo is a security feature: it allows us to positively identify a patient, thereby reducing the risk that we treat an imposter posing as that patient (a small but real problem with drug seekers).

Why might this matter for physician satisfaction? Because seeing a patient photo brings an actual person to the top of mind. This changes our emotional connection to the work: how we interpret work is all that matters when it comes to job satisfaction. This is why volunteer work is so rewarding, despite having no monetary incentive, and why highly compensated professions, like those of many Wall Street traders, can ultimately fail to be fulfilling.

Tonight, long after the sun has set, I’m still working through messages. The next one, however, is not from any patient with nummular eczema. I see it’s from Mrs. Morales (not her real name), a sweet older woman with a warm smile and rich accent. She teaches water aerobics and she spent 5 minutes describing a typical Puerto Rican dinner (lots of stews) during her last appointment with me. Seeing her smiling face in the top left corner of the chart reminds me that the work I’m doing is for someone I know, someone I care for.

Radiologists have actually studied this phenomenon. Like much of medicine, radiology can be tedious. Researchers devised a simple test to see if making radiology work more human could improve not only the experience for, but also the effectiveness of, doctors. With patients’ consent, they took photos of 300 participants before their films were sent for reading. Radiologists who saw a patient’s photo along with their radiographic studies reported feeling more empathy for their patients. They also reported reading cases with photos more meticulously than those cases without photos. But that’s not all. When the radiologists were later shown the same films but without the patient photos, the doctors were less likely to notice incidental findings in the radiographs. The authors concluded that seeing patient photos made radiologists both more effective and more empathic (ScienceDaily 2008 Dec 14).

So consider adding photos of your patients to your EMR. Then remember to take a second or two to look at them before engaging in the task to be done. You, and your patients, will be better off because of it.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is @dermdoc on Twitter. He has no conflicts related to the topic of this column.

I’m happier doing patient messages these days. That’s because of a little feature that we turned on in EPIC, our electronic medical record. The change doesn’t make me any faster or smarter. It doesn’t make me any more money. It merely adds a sprinkle of meaning to the work I do, and that has made all the difference.

In contrast to the usually glamorous portrayal of physicians’ work, most of our days are mundane. On a typical clinic day I’ll get up to a dozen requests from patients asking for something. Usually it’s just a refill, but several are from patients asking for a earlier appointment, when there are none. Or asking for a stronger treatment, when there aren’t any. Most of these requests are from patients who do not have interesting diagnoses or require sophisticated treatments. They are the itchy, and they remain itchy despite my advice. After a long day of seeing patients, the long list of messages that requires action feels endless, burdensome. Optimizing extenders has made me more efficient, but the work that remains isn’t fulfilling. A subtle change in our EMR has helped, though.

What is different? Our EPIC now includes a photo of each patient. That’s it. Ostensibly, having a photo is a security feature: it allows us to positively identify a patient, thereby reducing the risk that we treat an imposter posing as that patient (a small but real problem with drug seekers).

Why might this matter for physician satisfaction? Because seeing a patient photo brings an actual person to the top of mind. This changes our emotional connection to the work: how we interpret work is all that matters when it comes to job satisfaction. This is why volunteer work is so rewarding, despite having no monetary incentive, and why highly compensated professions, like those of many Wall Street traders, can ultimately fail to be fulfilling.

Tonight, long after the sun has set, I’m still working through messages. The next one, however, is not from any patient with nummular eczema. I see it’s from Mrs. Morales (not her real name), a sweet older woman with a warm smile and rich accent. She teaches water aerobics and she spent 5 minutes describing a typical Puerto Rican dinner (lots of stews) during her last appointment with me. Seeing her smiling face in the top left corner of the chart reminds me that the work I’m doing is for someone I know, someone I care for.

Radiologists have actually studied this phenomenon. Like much of medicine, radiology can be tedious. Researchers devised a simple test to see if making radiology work more human could improve not only the experience for, but also the effectiveness of, doctors. With patients’ consent, they took photos of 300 participants before their films were sent for reading. Radiologists who saw a patient’s photo along with their radiographic studies reported feeling more empathy for their patients. They also reported reading cases with photos more meticulously than those cases without photos. But that’s not all. When the radiologists were later shown the same films but without the patient photos, the doctors were less likely to notice incidental findings in the radiographs. The authors concluded that seeing patient photos made radiologists both more effective and more empathic (ScienceDaily 2008 Dec 14).

So consider adding photos of your patients to your EMR. Then remember to take a second or two to look at them before engaging in the task to be done. You, and your patients, will be better off because of it.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is @dermdoc on Twitter. He has no conflicts related to the topic of this column.

I’m happier doing patient messages these days. That’s because of a little feature that we turned on in EPIC, our electronic medical record. The change doesn’t make me any faster or smarter. It doesn’t make me any more money. It merely adds a sprinkle of meaning to the work I do, and that has made all the difference.

In contrast to the usually glamorous portrayal of physicians’ work, most of our days are mundane. On a typical clinic day I’ll get up to a dozen requests from patients asking for something. Usually it’s just a refill, but several are from patients asking for a earlier appointment, when there are none. Or asking for a stronger treatment, when there aren’t any. Most of these requests are from patients who do not have interesting diagnoses or require sophisticated treatments. They are the itchy, and they remain itchy despite my advice. After a long day of seeing patients, the long list of messages that requires action feels endless, burdensome. Optimizing extenders has made me more efficient, but the work that remains isn’t fulfilling. A subtle change in our EMR has helped, though.

What is different? Our EPIC now includes a photo of each patient. That’s it. Ostensibly, having a photo is a security feature: it allows us to positively identify a patient, thereby reducing the risk that we treat an imposter posing as that patient (a small but real problem with drug seekers).

Why might this matter for physician satisfaction? Because seeing a patient photo brings an actual person to the top of mind. This changes our emotional connection to the work: how we interpret work is all that matters when it comes to job satisfaction. This is why volunteer work is so rewarding, despite having no monetary incentive, and why highly compensated professions, like those of many Wall Street traders, can ultimately fail to be fulfilling.

Tonight, long after the sun has set, I’m still working through messages. The next one, however, is not from any patient with nummular eczema. I see it’s from Mrs. Morales (not her real name), a sweet older woman with a warm smile and rich accent. She teaches water aerobics and she spent 5 minutes describing a typical Puerto Rican dinner (lots of stews) during her last appointment with me. Seeing her smiling face in the top left corner of the chart reminds me that the work I’m doing is for someone I know, someone I care for.

Radiologists have actually studied this phenomenon. Like much of medicine, radiology can be tedious. Researchers devised a simple test to see if making radiology work more human could improve not only the experience for, but also the effectiveness of, doctors. With patients’ consent, they took photos of 300 participants before their films were sent for reading. Radiologists who saw a patient’s photo along with their radiographic studies reported feeling more empathy for their patients. They also reported reading cases with photos more meticulously than those cases without photos. But that’s not all. When the radiologists were later shown the same films but without the patient photos, the doctors were less likely to notice incidental findings in the radiographs. The authors concluded that seeing patient photos made radiologists both more effective and more empathic (ScienceDaily 2008 Dec 14).

So consider adding photos of your patients to your EMR. Then remember to take a second or two to look at them before engaging in the task to be done. You, and your patients, will be better off because of it.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is @dermdoc on Twitter. He has no conflicts related to the topic of this column.

Surgery volunteerism has been on the rise for several decades. The American College of Surgeons is increasing its role in organizing and facilitating these programs via Operation Giving Back (OGB). And many ACS members are prominent participants in this endeavor.

A leader in global surgery is Michael L. Bentz, M.D., FAAP, FACS, professor of surgery, pediatrics, and neurosurgery, and chairman of the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Dr. Bentz has led international missions in many countries of the world over nearly 20 years and has helped a team develop a long-term program of clinical care and training in Nicaragua. We talked with him about his experiences.

Q: You have been involved in international surgical missions for many years. Can you tell us something about your early projects?

I was first exposed to international work at the University of Pittsburgh. My mentor J. William Futrell, M.D., FACS, was a veteran of over 30 international surgical trips. I went on the first trip with him to Vietnam in the 1997 and have been going ever since. For that initial trip, we worked with a nonprofit organization called Interplast. I went with a large group of 20 people from the University that included plastic surgery attendings, plastic surgery residents, pediatric attendings, pediatric residents, and nursing and anesthesia staff.

In those days, many trips were based predominantly on clinical care – adult care and pediatric care. Teams would do a certain number of operations and then go home. We did cleft lip repairs, cleft palate repairs, burn reconstruction, congenital hand deformity surgery, and tumor management.

That would result in good outcomes for those who actually had a procedure done. But in any place I have ever worked overseas – Vietnam, China, Russia, Nicaragua – the need is overwhelming. The need far outstripped what surgical missions can provide in isolated, single trips back and forth.

Q: The years have brought changes to these missions. What are the most significant changes over the years in how these missions are conducted?

The scope and direction of global health is moving toward sustainable, long-term, and longitudinal education. In those earlier trips where there was an emphasis on doing as many operations as possible, people meant well – we meant well! But the real impact comes with the longitudinal education investment.

I have never been anywhere around the world where there weren’t interested, very capable, excellent surgeons committed to taking care of their patients who only need some support and facilitation.

If you compare the cases we are able to do on a trip with our partners with the cases they are able to do independently, it’s a logarithmic curve – they are far more productive than we could ever be on any number of trips. There is a multiplier effect that allows many more patients to be taken care of.

Q: Your institution has a long-term relationship with a hospital in Nicaragua. How does this work and what is the role of your team in the program?

The University of Wisconsin Division of Plastic Surgery and the Eduplast Foundation has a team of about 10 that goes to Nicaragua twice a year. Most importantly, we support a residency program in there. We move residents through a 3-year modular program much like programs in the U.S. and then examine them. We facilitate this educational process with trips there and we bring them to our institution in the U.S.

Over the past 10 years, we have been doing a weekly live webcast of our Plastic Surgery Grand Rounds which is received on several continents. This creates a very valuable bidirectional, and even tridirectional conversation. This webcast is simple, incredibly inexpensive, and has provided hundreds of hours of education over the years in addition to the on-site work we do.

There can be a language barrier in some cases, but we broadcast in English, with occasional translation support. In addition to Nicaragua, our webcast has been received in institutions in Thailand, China, Ecuador and across the United States. We keep records of cases performed. Our plastic surgery residents can get credit for the cases they do under faculty supervision at our international sites if we meet specific criteria set by our Resident Review Committee.

It is important to note that we take care of the patients in our partner institutions in Nicaragua exactly as we would care for patients in our institution in Wisconsin. There is no “practicing” as all operations are done by surgeons appropriately credentialed and trained for the task.

Q: Do you find that there is a cultural gap that you must bridge in working with colleagues and patients in Nicaragua?

Our program has an orientation session for team participants in advance of each trip, where we talk about the mechanics of the trip – safety, medical issues. We also talk about cultural considerations of each site. It is very important that the residents embed in the culture in which we are working. They also need to know the cultural norms of how to communicate with patients, parents, and children. Some of it is simply good manners – acting like your mother taught you!

The team can reside in a local hotel, but often stays in the homes of local hosts, and this can be a beautiful opportunity to learn about local norms and communication.

Q: What is your favorite part of these missions?

I have so many favorite parts! I like caring for people who otherwise might not receive medical care. This is “giving back” and I think all of the participants would agree that we come home feeling like we received much more than we gave. These experiences remind you of why you went to medical school. It is an opportunity to provide something in return for all the investment that has been made in us for our education. In working with colleagues from other countries, I learn as much as I teach. I come back a better surgeon.

The benefits to residents from our institution are many. They learn how to operate in a resource-limited setting, and they return with a greater appreciation for the equipment and supplies we have available at our institution in Madison. The cultural competence and awareness they also learn is an invaluable life skill.

I want to stress that the friendships with our fellow surgeons are what makes this work. We achieve a degree of continuity and even watch our pediatric patients grow up over the years because of our long-term relationship with the hospital in León and our dedicated colleagues there. This is a truly a partnership among friends.

Q: Do you have some advice for a surgeon interested in participating in an international program?

For those surgeons who were not exposed to these programs during residency, finding a mentor or mentoring organization is the way to begin. A beginner should consider making the first couple of trips with someone who knows the ropes in terms of understanding cultural competency, practical issues of safety, and relevant clinical issues. Almost every surgery discipline has an organization with the capability of identifying volunteer surgery groups in their specialty. ACS’ Operation Giving Back is a particularly important resource for helping Fellows find the right international program.

If you would like to learn more about global surgery programs, contact Operation Giving Back at [email protected]. Or if you would like to share your experiences as an international surgical volunteer, please email this publication at [email protected].

Surgery volunteerism has been on the rise for several decades. The American College of Surgeons is increasing its role in organizing and facilitating these programs via Operation Giving Back (OGB). And many ACS members are prominent participants in this endeavor.

A leader in global surgery is Michael L. Bentz, M.D., FAAP, FACS, professor of surgery, pediatrics, and neurosurgery, and chairman of the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Dr. Bentz has led international missions in many countries of the world over nearly 20 years and has helped a team develop a long-term program of clinical care and training in Nicaragua. We talked with him about his experiences.

Q: You have been involved in international surgical missions for many years. Can you tell us something about your early projects?

I was first exposed to international work at the University of Pittsburgh. My mentor J. William Futrell, M.D., FACS, was a veteran of over 30 international surgical trips. I went on the first trip with him to Vietnam in the 1997 and have been going ever since. For that initial trip, we worked with a nonprofit organization called Interplast. I went with a large group of 20 people from the University that included plastic surgery attendings, plastic surgery residents, pediatric attendings, pediatric residents, and nursing and anesthesia staff.

In those days, many trips were based predominantly on clinical care – adult care and pediatric care. Teams would do a certain number of operations and then go home. We did cleft lip repairs, cleft palate repairs, burn reconstruction, congenital hand deformity surgery, and tumor management.

That would result in good outcomes for those who actually had a procedure done. But in any place I have ever worked overseas – Vietnam, China, Russia, Nicaragua – the need is overwhelming. The need far outstripped what surgical missions can provide in isolated, single trips back and forth.

Q: The years have brought changes to these missions. What are the most significant changes over the years in how these missions are conducted?

The scope and direction of global health is moving toward sustainable, long-term, and longitudinal education. In those earlier trips where there was an emphasis on doing as many operations as possible, people meant well – we meant well! But the real impact comes with the longitudinal education investment.

I have never been anywhere around the world where there weren’t interested, very capable, excellent surgeons committed to taking care of their patients who only need some support and facilitation.

If you compare the cases we are able to do on a trip with our partners with the cases they are able to do independently, it’s a logarithmic curve – they are far more productive than we could ever be on any number of trips. There is a multiplier effect that allows many more patients to be taken care of.

Q: Your institution has a long-term relationship with a hospital in Nicaragua. How does this work and what is the role of your team in the program?

The University of Wisconsin Division of Plastic Surgery and the Eduplast Foundation has a team of about 10 that goes to Nicaragua twice a year. Most importantly, we support a residency program in there. We move residents through a 3-year modular program much like programs in the U.S. and then examine them. We facilitate this educational process with trips there and we bring them to our institution in the U.S.

Over the past 10 years, we have been doing a weekly live webcast of our Plastic Surgery Grand Rounds which is received on several continents. This creates a very valuable bidirectional, and even tridirectional conversation. This webcast is simple, incredibly inexpensive, and has provided hundreds of hours of education over the years in addition to the on-site work we do.

There can be a language barrier in some cases, but we broadcast in English, with occasional translation support. In addition to Nicaragua, our webcast has been received in institutions in Thailand, China, Ecuador and across the United States. We keep records of cases performed. Our plastic surgery residents can get credit for the cases they do under faculty supervision at our international sites if we meet specific criteria set by our Resident Review Committee.

It is important to note that we take care of the patients in our partner institutions in Nicaragua exactly as we would care for patients in our institution in Wisconsin. There is no “practicing” as all operations are done by surgeons appropriately credentialed and trained for the task.

Q: Do you find that there is a cultural gap that you must bridge in working with colleagues and patients in Nicaragua?

Our program has an orientation session for team participants in advance of each trip, where we talk about the mechanics of the trip – safety, medical issues. We also talk about cultural considerations of each site. It is very important that the residents embed in the culture in which we are working. They also need to know the cultural norms of how to communicate with patients, parents, and children. Some of it is simply good manners – acting like your mother taught you!

The team can reside in a local hotel, but often stays in the homes of local hosts, and this can be a beautiful opportunity to learn about local norms and communication.

Q: What is your favorite part of these missions?

I have so many favorite parts! I like caring for people who otherwise might not receive medical care. This is “giving back” and I think all of the participants would agree that we come home feeling like we received much more than we gave. These experiences remind you of why you went to medical school. It is an opportunity to provide something in return for all the investment that has been made in us for our education. In working with colleagues from other countries, I learn as much as I teach. I come back a better surgeon.

The benefits to residents from our institution are many. They learn how to operate in a resource-limited setting, and they return with a greater appreciation for the equipment and supplies we have available at our institution in Madison. The cultural competence and awareness they also learn is an invaluable life skill.

I want to stress that the friendships with our fellow surgeons are what makes this work. We achieve a degree of continuity and even watch our pediatric patients grow up over the years because of our long-term relationship with the hospital in León and our dedicated colleagues there. This is a truly a partnership among friends.

Q: Do you have some advice for a surgeon interested in participating in an international program?

For those surgeons who were not exposed to these programs during residency, finding a mentor or mentoring organization is the way to begin. A beginner should consider making the first couple of trips with someone who knows the ropes in terms of understanding cultural competency, practical issues of safety, and relevant clinical issues. Almost every surgery discipline has an organization with the capability of identifying volunteer surgery groups in their specialty. ACS’ Operation Giving Back is a particularly important resource for helping Fellows find the right international program.

If you would like to learn more about global surgery programs, contact Operation Giving Back at [email protected]. Or if you would like to share your experiences as an international surgical volunteer, please email this publication at [email protected].

Surgery volunteerism has been on the rise for several decades. The American College of Surgeons is increasing its role in organizing and facilitating these programs via Operation Giving Back (OGB). And many ACS members are prominent participants in this endeavor.

A leader in global surgery is Michael L. Bentz, M.D., FAAP, FACS, professor of surgery, pediatrics, and neurosurgery, and chairman of the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Dr. Bentz has led international missions in many countries of the world over nearly 20 years and has helped a team develop a long-term program of clinical care and training in Nicaragua. We talked with him about his experiences.

Q: You have been involved in international surgical missions for many years. Can you tell us something about your early projects?

I was first exposed to international work at the University of Pittsburgh. My mentor J. William Futrell, M.D., FACS, was a veteran of over 30 international surgical trips. I went on the first trip with him to Vietnam in the 1997 and have been going ever since. For that initial trip, we worked with a nonprofit organization called Interplast. I went with a large group of 20 people from the University that included plastic surgery attendings, plastic surgery residents, pediatric attendings, pediatric residents, and nursing and anesthesia staff.

In those days, many trips were based predominantly on clinical care – adult care and pediatric care. Teams would do a certain number of operations and then go home. We did cleft lip repairs, cleft palate repairs, burn reconstruction, congenital hand deformity surgery, and tumor management.

That would result in good outcomes for those who actually had a procedure done. But in any place I have ever worked overseas – Vietnam, China, Russia, Nicaragua – the need is overwhelming. The need far outstripped what surgical missions can provide in isolated, single trips back and forth.

Q: The years have brought changes to these missions. What are the most significant changes over the years in how these missions are conducted?

The scope and direction of global health is moving toward sustainable, long-term, and longitudinal education. In those earlier trips where there was an emphasis on doing as many operations as possible, people meant well – we meant well! But the real impact comes with the longitudinal education investment.

I have never been anywhere around the world where there weren’t interested, very capable, excellent surgeons committed to taking care of their patients who only need some support and facilitation.

If you compare the cases we are able to do on a trip with our partners with the cases they are able to do independently, it’s a logarithmic curve – they are far more productive than we could ever be on any number of trips. There is a multiplier effect that allows many more patients to be taken care of.

Q: Your institution has a long-term relationship with a hospital in Nicaragua. How does this work and what is the role of your team in the program?

The University of Wisconsin Division of Plastic Surgery and the Eduplast Foundation has a team of about 10 that goes to Nicaragua twice a year. Most importantly, we support a residency program in there. We move residents through a 3-year modular program much like programs in the U.S. and then examine them. We facilitate this educational process with trips there and we bring them to our institution in the U.S.

Over the past 10 years, we have been doing a weekly live webcast of our Plastic Surgery Grand Rounds which is received on several continents. This creates a very valuable bidirectional, and even tridirectional conversation. This webcast is simple, incredibly inexpensive, and has provided hundreds of hours of education over the years in addition to the on-site work we do.

There can be a language barrier in some cases, but we broadcast in English, with occasional translation support. In addition to Nicaragua, our webcast has been received in institutions in Thailand, China, Ecuador and across the United States. We keep records of cases performed. Our plastic surgery residents can get credit for the cases they do under faculty supervision at our international sites if we meet specific criteria set by our Resident Review Committee.

It is important to note that we take care of the patients in our partner institutions in Nicaragua exactly as we would care for patients in our institution in Wisconsin. There is no “practicing” as all operations are done by surgeons appropriately credentialed and trained for the task.

Q: Do you find that there is a cultural gap that you must bridge in working with colleagues and patients in Nicaragua?

Our program has an orientation session for team participants in advance of each trip, where we talk about the mechanics of the trip – safety, medical issues. We also talk about cultural considerations of each site. It is very important that the residents embed in the culture in which we are working. They also need to know the cultural norms of how to communicate with patients, parents, and children. Some of it is simply good manners – acting like your mother taught you!

The team can reside in a local hotel, but often stays in the homes of local hosts, and this can be a beautiful opportunity to learn about local norms and communication.

Q: What is your favorite part of these missions?

I have so many favorite parts! I like caring for people who otherwise might not receive medical care. This is “giving back” and I think all of the participants would agree that we come home feeling like we received much more than we gave. These experiences remind you of why you went to medical school. It is an opportunity to provide something in return for all the investment that has been made in us for our education. In working with colleagues from other countries, I learn as much as I teach. I come back a better surgeon.

The benefits to residents from our institution are many. They learn how to operate in a resource-limited setting, and they return with a greater appreciation for the equipment and supplies we have available at our institution in Madison. The cultural competence and awareness they also learn is an invaluable life skill.

I want to stress that the friendships with our fellow surgeons are what makes this work. We achieve a degree of continuity and even watch our pediatric patients grow up over the years because of our long-term relationship with the hospital in León and our dedicated colleagues there. This is a truly a partnership among friends.

Q: Do you have some advice for a surgeon interested in participating in an international program?

For those surgeons who were not exposed to these programs during residency, finding a mentor or mentoring organization is the way to begin. A beginner should consider making the first couple of trips with someone who knows the ropes in terms of understanding cultural competency, practical issues of safety, and relevant clinical issues. Almost every surgery discipline has an organization with the capability of identifying volunteer surgery groups in their specialty. ACS’ Operation Giving Back is a particularly important resource for helping Fellows find the right international program.

If you would like to learn more about global surgery programs, contact Operation Giving Back at [email protected]. Or if you would like to share your experiences as an international surgical volunteer, please email this publication at [email protected].

At this ripe point in my career, many new patients come referred by Dr. Google. “I checked the Internet,” they say. “You have great reviews.”

I don’t read my reviews. The abusive ones make me ill. People must filter out the bile and focus on the positives.

Laymen have little sense of how good the professionals they consult really are. Unless I’m audited and lose, how would I know how skillful my accountant is? My urologist is a nice man. How good is he at prostate surgery? I hope not to find out. Nevertheless, reviews are here to stay, as are physician evaluations by insurers and professional agencies.

Some office days highlight the gap, really the chasm, between the truth of the professional matter and what makes patients decide to trust or mistrust us. Last Thursday was one of those days.

Marla brought in her daughter, aged 3 years. Zoe had a scaly rash and some red papules on her arms and legs.

“Did your pediatrician treat this?” I asked.

“No, I came right to you,” said Marla. “You diagnosed her with bedbugs when she was an infant. The pediatricians had no idea what was going on. I trust you.”

That is flattering, but if I were being fully honest, I would tell Marla:

•  Bedbug bites are tricky to diagnose. I’ve missed my share.

•  What helped me diagnose them in her daughter was that the pediatrician had already tried several remedies that hadn’t helped.

Even if I said these things, though – and why waste all that wonderful transference? – Marla would probably have said, “Maybe so, but you got it right, and I trust you.” Nothing succeeds like success.

The reverse, however, is also true: Nothing fails like failure.

Later the same day Brian brought in Luke, aged 6 years. Luke has severe atopic dermatitis. As usual, he was scratching up a storm. “I think it’s infected,” Brian said. “Shouldn’t he take antibiotics?”

I examined Luke and found subacute eczema. “I don’t think so,” I said. “This is what Luke’s eczema flares look like. Let’s treat him with a topical steroid cream and see how he does.”

“But he had staph last year,” said Brian.

“I recall,” I said, “but most of his outbreaks have not been infected, and it doesn’t look like staph now. Let’s treat it as we usually do and see what happens over the next week.”

Two weeks later Brian brought back Luke, still scratching. There were still no pustules or deeper inflammatory lesions. We started Luke on an antibiotic, and swabbed scratched areas. Two days later the culture grew staph. By the time I called Brian with the results, he had brought Luke to an emergency room. “He has abscesses,” he told me.

The next day the sensitivities were back, confirming staph. I called Brian, who had this to say: “He should have been on antibiotics 2 weeks ago. From now on, whenever he starts scratching, he should be started on them right away. I won’t be bringing him back to your practice. I don’t trust you. I trust the doctors in the ER more.”

Is it really a good idea to start every eczema patient on antibiotics? How about every eczema patient who once had staph? Based on my own clinical experience with both conditions, I would answer both questions in the negative. Others might disagree.

One thing is sure, though: Like most patients, Brian sees the situation not through the eyes of my experience but through his own case series, with an n of 1. But that 1 carries a lot of weight, because the 1 is Luke, his son. It is therefore clear – to him – that his son should be treated preemptively with antibiotics for every eczema flare.

At this point I might too, for Luke, but I will not get the chance. Once trust is gone, the clinical relationship is over. Sometimes it’s one strike and you’re out.

For her part, Marla sees things through her single case report as well, drawing the opposite conclusion: that my success earned me the trust her pediatrician lost.

The subtleties and nuances of such cases, which every clinician knows, are lost in the often black-and-white world of lay reviews and pay-for-performance algorithms. That’s clinical life.

Trust me.

Dr. Rockoff practices dermatology in Brookline, Mass., and is a longtime contributor to Dermatology News. He serves on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and has taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. Write to him at [email protected].

At this ripe point in my career, many new patients come referred by Dr. Google. “I checked the Internet,” they say. “You have great reviews.”

I don’t read my reviews. The abusive ones make me ill. People must filter out the bile and focus on the positives.

Laymen have little sense of how good the professionals they consult really are. Unless I’m audited and lose, how would I know how skillful my accountant is? My urologist is a nice man. How good is he at prostate surgery? I hope not to find out. Nevertheless, reviews are here to stay, as are physician evaluations by insurers and professional agencies.

Some office days highlight the gap, really the chasm, between the truth of the professional matter and what makes patients decide to trust or mistrust us. Last Thursday was one of those days.

Marla brought in her daughter, aged 3 years. Zoe had a scaly rash and some red papules on her arms and legs.

“Did your pediatrician treat this?” I asked.

“No, I came right to you,” said Marla. “You diagnosed her with bedbugs when she was an infant. The pediatricians had no idea what was going on. I trust you.”

That is flattering, but if I were being fully honest, I would tell Marla:

•  Bedbug bites are tricky to diagnose. I’ve missed my share.

•  What helped me diagnose them in her daughter was that the pediatrician had already tried several remedies that hadn’t helped.

Even if I said these things, though – and why waste all that wonderful transference? – Marla would probably have said, “Maybe so, but you got it right, and I trust you.” Nothing succeeds like success.

The reverse, however, is also true: Nothing fails like failure.

Later the same day Brian brought in Luke, aged 6 years. Luke has severe atopic dermatitis. As usual, he was scratching up a storm. “I think it’s infected,” Brian said. “Shouldn’t he take antibiotics?”

I examined Luke and found subacute eczema. “I don’t think so,” I said. “This is what Luke’s eczema flares look like. Let’s treat him with a topical steroid cream and see how he does.”

“But he had staph last year,” said Brian.

“I recall,” I said, “but most of his outbreaks have not been infected, and it doesn’t look like staph now. Let’s treat it as we usually do and see what happens over the next week.”

Two weeks later Brian brought back Luke, still scratching. There were still no pustules or deeper inflammatory lesions. We started Luke on an antibiotic, and swabbed scratched areas. Two days later the culture grew staph. By the time I called Brian with the results, he had brought Luke to an emergency room. “He has abscesses,” he told me.

The next day the sensitivities were back, confirming staph. I called Brian, who had this to say: “He should have been on antibiotics 2 weeks ago. From now on, whenever he starts scratching, he should be started on them right away. I won’t be bringing him back to your practice. I don’t trust you. I trust the doctors in the ER more.”

Is it really a good idea to start every eczema patient on antibiotics? How about every eczema patient who once had staph? Based on my own clinical experience with both conditions, I would answer both questions in the negative. Others might disagree.

One thing is sure, though: Like most patients, Brian sees the situation not through the eyes of my experience but through his own case series, with an n of 1. But that 1 carries a lot of weight, because the 1 is Luke, his son. It is therefore clear – to him – that his son should be treated preemptively with antibiotics for every eczema flare.

At this point I might too, for Luke, but I will not get the chance. Once trust is gone, the clinical relationship is over. Sometimes it’s one strike and you’re out.

For her part, Marla sees things through her single case report as well, drawing the opposite conclusion: that my success earned me the trust her pediatrician lost.

The subtleties and nuances of such cases, which every clinician knows, are lost in the often black-and-white world of lay reviews and pay-for-performance algorithms. That’s clinical life.

Trust me.

Dr. Rockoff practices dermatology in Brookline, Mass., and is a longtime contributor to Dermatology News. He serves on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and has taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. Write to him at [email protected].

At this ripe point in my career, many new patients come referred by Dr. Google. “I checked the Internet,” they say. “You have great reviews.”

I don’t read my reviews. The abusive ones make me ill. People must filter out the bile and focus on the positives.

Laymen have little sense of how good the professionals they consult really are. Unless I’m audited and lose, how would I know how skillful my accountant is? My urologist is a nice man. How good is he at prostate surgery? I hope not to find out. Nevertheless, reviews are here to stay, as are physician evaluations by insurers and professional agencies.

Some office days highlight the gap, really the chasm, between the truth of the professional matter and what makes patients decide to trust or mistrust us. Last Thursday was one of those days.

Marla brought in her daughter, aged 3 years. Zoe had a scaly rash and some red papules on her arms and legs.

“Did your pediatrician treat this?” I asked.

“No, I came right to you,” said Marla. “You diagnosed her with bedbugs when she was an infant. The pediatricians had no idea what was going on. I trust you.”

That is flattering, but if I were being fully honest, I would tell Marla:

•  Bedbug bites are tricky to diagnose. I’ve missed my share.

•  What helped me diagnose them in her daughter was that the pediatrician had already tried several remedies that hadn’t helped.

Even if I said these things, though – and why waste all that wonderful transference? – Marla would probably have said, “Maybe so, but you got it right, and I trust you.” Nothing succeeds like success.

The reverse, however, is also true: Nothing fails like failure.

Later the same day Brian brought in Luke, aged 6 years. Luke has severe atopic dermatitis. As usual, he was scratching up a storm. “I think it’s infected,” Brian said. “Shouldn’t he take antibiotics?”

I examined Luke and found subacute eczema. “I don’t think so,” I said. “This is what Luke’s eczema flares look like. Let’s treat him with a topical steroid cream and see how he does.”

“But he had staph last year,” said Brian.

“I recall,” I said, “but most of his outbreaks have not been infected, and it doesn’t look like staph now. Let’s treat it as we usually do and see what happens over the next week.”

Two weeks later Brian brought back Luke, still scratching. There were still no pustules or deeper inflammatory lesions. We started Luke on an antibiotic, and swabbed scratched areas. Two days later the culture grew staph. By the time I called Brian with the results, he had brought Luke to an emergency room. “He has abscesses,” he told me.

The next day the sensitivities were back, confirming staph. I called Brian, who had this to say: “He should have been on antibiotics 2 weeks ago. From now on, whenever he starts scratching, he should be started on them right away. I won’t be bringing him back to your practice. I don’t trust you. I trust the doctors in the ER more.”

Is it really a good idea to start every eczema patient on antibiotics? How about every eczema patient who once had staph? Based on my own clinical experience with both conditions, I would answer both questions in the negative. Others might disagree.

One thing is sure, though: Like most patients, Brian sees the situation not through the eyes of my experience but through his own case series, with an n of 1. But that 1 carries a lot of weight, because the 1 is Luke, his son. It is therefore clear – to him – that his son should be treated preemptively with antibiotics for every eczema flare.

At this point I might too, for Luke, but I will not get the chance. Once trust is gone, the clinical relationship is over. Sometimes it’s one strike and you’re out.

For her part, Marla sees things through her single case report as well, drawing the opposite conclusion: that my success earned me the trust her pediatrician lost.

The subtleties and nuances of such cases, which every clinician knows, are lost in the often black-and-white world of lay reviews and pay-for-performance algorithms. That’s clinical life.

Trust me.

Dr. Rockoff practices dermatology in Brookline, Mass., and is a longtime contributor to Dermatology News. He serves on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and has taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. Write to him at [email protected].

The subspecialty of gynecologic oncology was formalized less than 50 years ago with the creation of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology and subspecialty training and board certification. The formation of the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) – and the many clinical trials spearheaded by that group – has further advanced evidence-based treatments, resulting in improved survival outcomes, quality of life, and preventive strategies.

While it is not possible to provide a comprehensive and exhaustive review of all of the advances, we hope to highlight many of the notable advances in this article.Cervical cancer

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide with 528,000 new cases in 2012. The majority of cervical cancer cases are caused by infection with human papillomavirus (HPV). While the standard therapies for cervical cancer have been long established (radical hysterectomy for stage I and radiation therapy for locally advanced disease), one of the most significant advances in the past 50 years was the addition of radiation-sensitizing chemotherapy (cisplatin) administered concurrently with radiation therapy.

In randomized trials in both early and advanced cervical cancer, the risk of death was reduced by 30%-50%. These studies changed the paradigm for the treatment of cervical cancer (N Engl J Med. 1999 Apr 15;340[15]:1137-43; N Engl J Med. 1999 Apr 15;340[15]:1144-53; J Clin Oncol. 2000 Apr;18[8]:1606-13).

Future studies evaluating biologic adjuncts or additional chemotherapy are currently underway or awaiting data maturation.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) highlighted the “Top 5 advances in 50 years of Modern Oncology” in 2014, and second on the list was the approval of the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Vaccines have been developed that can protect against types 2, 4 or 9 of HPV. In a 2014 study, depending on vaccination coverage, the relative number of cervical cancer cases avoided was 34% in Africa, 27% for America, 26% for Asia, 21% for Europe, and worldwide was estimated at 27% (Vaccine. 2014 Feb 3;32[6]:733-9).

While the benefit from HPV vaccination has been proven, in the United States, only about a third of eligible girls and women have been vaccinated. Efforts should focus on expanding vaccination penetration to eligible girls, boys, women, and men.

©xrender/Thinkstock

Endometrial cancer

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States with an estimated 54,870 cases and 10,170 deaths annually. Notable advances in the management of women with endometrial cancer have arisen because of a better understanding that there are two types of endometrial cancer – type I and type II.

The type I endometrial cancers tend to be associated with lower stage of disease at the time of diagnosis and fewer recurrences, while type II endometrial cancer is associated with worse outcomes.

Tailoring the surgical approaches and adjuvant therapy for women with endometrial cancer has led to improved outcomes. The GOG conducted a large prospective randomized trial of laparotomy versus laparoscopic surgical staging for women with clinical early-stage endometrial cancer (LAP2). Laparoscopy was associated with improved perioperative outcomes and was found to be noninferior to laparotomy with regards to survival outcomes (J Clin Oncol. 2012 Mar 1;30[7]:695-700). Therefore, minimally invasive surgery has become widely accepted for the surgical staging of women with endometrial cancer.

Appropriate surgical staging allows for tailoring of postoperative adjuvant therapy. The current evidence suggests that vaginal brachytherapy should be the adjuvant treatment of choice over whole pelvic radiation in women with early-stage endometrial cancer (Lancet. 2010 Mar 6;375[9717]:816-23). Studies are underway to evaluate the role of both adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy in women with early-stage type II endometrial cancer who are felt to be at high risk for recurrent disease, as well as how to improve on the therapeutic options for women with advanced or recurrent disease.

Ovarian cancer

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most deadly gynecologic malignancy in the United States with 21,290 cases and 14,180 deaths in 2015. The concept of ovarian tumor debulking was first described by Dr. Joe Meigs in 1934, but did not gain traction until the mid-1970s when Dr. C. Thomas Griffiths published his work (Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1975 Oct;42:101-4).

While there are no randomized trials proving that surgical cytoreduction improves overall survival, most retrospective studies support this concept. In 2009, Chi et al. showed improved median survival in women with ovarian cancer based on the increased percentage of women who underwent optimal cytoreduction (Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Jul;114[1]:26-31). This has led to modifications of surgical techniques and surgical goals with an effort to maximally cytoreduce all of the visible disease.

While initial surgical debulking is the goal, there are circumstances when a different approach may be indicated. Vergote et al. conducted a prospective randomized trial of 670 women with advanced ovarian cancer. In this study, neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking was not inferior to primary debulking followed by chemotherapy with regards to progression-free survival and overall survival. However, initial surgery was associated with increased surgical complications and perioperative mortality as compared with interval surgery. Therefore, in women who are not felt to be candidates for optimal cytoreduction, neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval surgery may be an appropriate treatment strategy (N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 2;363[10]:943-53.).

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/James Heilman, MD/CC-BY-SA-3.0

There have been several notable advances and a series of randomized trials – predominately conducted by the GOG – that have resulted in improved overall survival and progression-free interval in women with ovarian cancer. However, none are as significant as the discovery of paclitaxel and platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin and carboplatin).

In 1962, samples of the Pacific Yew’s bark were collected and, 2 years later, the extracts from this bark were found to have cytotoxic activity. There were initial difficulties suspending the drug in solution; however, ultimately a formulation in ethanol, cremophor, and saline was found to be effective. In 1984, the National Cancer Institute began clinical trials of paclitaxel and it was found to be highly effective in ovarian cancer. In 1992, it was approved for the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Cisplatin was approved in 1978. Carboplatin entered clinical trials in 1982 and was approved for women with recurrent ovarian cancer in 1989.

There were a series of trials beginning in the late 1980s that established the role of platinum agents and led us to GOG 111. This trial evaluated cisplatin with either cyclophosphamide or paclitaxel. The paclitaxel combination was superior and in 2003 two trials were published that solidified carboplatin and paclitaxel as the cornerstone in the treatment of women with ovarian cancer (J Clin Oncol. 2003 Sep 1;21[17]:3194-200; J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Sep 3;95[17]:1320-9).

What has most recently been debated is the route and schedule for both paclitaxel and the platinum agents. In January 2006, the National Cancer Institute released a Clinical Announcement regarding the role of intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy for the treatment of women with optimally debulked ovarian cancer. Of the six trials included in the announcement, four trials showed a benefit for progression-free survival and five studies showed an improvement in overall survival. Armstrong et al (GOG 172) showed a 16-month improvement in overall survival with intravenous (IV) paclitaxel, IP cisplatin, and IP paclitaxel. IP chemotherapy has not been universally embraced by physicians and patients in part because of its toxicity, treatment schedule, and the fact that no IP regimen has been compared with the current standard of IV carboplatin and paclitaxel (N Engl J Med. 2006 Jan 5;354[1]:34-43).

While there have been improvements in 5-year survival over time, most women with advanced ovarian cancer will undergo additional chemotherapy in order to achieve subsequent remissions or maintain stability of disease. Other drugs that have Food and Drug Administration approval in the setting of recurrent ovarian cancer include topotecan, liposomal doxorubicin, gemcitabine, bevacizumab, altretamine, carboplatin, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and melphalan. Olaparib was recently approved as monotherapy in women with a germline BRCA-mutation who had received three or more prior lines of chemotherapy.

Minimally invasive surgery

Over the last 30 years, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in gynecologic oncology, particularly for endometrial cancer, has gone from a niche procedure to the standard of care. The introduction of laparoscopy into gynecologic oncology started in the early 1990s. In a series of 59 women undergoing laparoscopy for endometrial cancer, Childers et al. demonstrated feasibility of the technique and low laparotomy conversion rates (Gynecol Oncol. 1993 Oct;51[1]:33-8.). The GOG trial, LAP2, supported the equivalent oncologic outcomes of MIS versus laparotomy for the treatment of endometrial cancer. While many surgeons and centers offered laparoscopic surgery, there were issues with the learning curve that limited its widespread use.

In 2005, the FDA approval of the robotic platform for gynecologic surgery resulted in at least a doubling of the proportion of endometrial cancer patients treated with MIS (Int J Med Robot. 2009 Dec;5[4]:392-7.). In 2012, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology published a consensus statement regarding robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology (Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Feb;124[2]:180-4.). This review highlights the advantages of the robotics platform with regards to expanding MIS to women with cervical and ovarian cancer; the improvements in outcomes in the obese woman with endometrial cancer; and that the learning curve for robotic surgery is shorter than for traditional laparoscopy. Issues requiring further research include cost analysis as the cost of the new technology decreases, and opportunities for improvement in patient and physician quality of life.

Sentinel node mapping

The rationale for sentinel node mapping is that if one or more sentinel lymph nodes is/are negative for malignancy, then the other regional lymph nodes will also be negative. This would thereby avoid the need for a complete lymph node dissection and its resultant complications, including chronic lymphedema. Much of the work pioneering this strategy has been in breast cancer and melanoma, but data are rapidly emerging for these techniques in gynecologic malignancies.

Candidates for sentinel lymph node biopsy for vulvar cancer include those with a lesion more than 1mm in depth, a tumor less than 4 cm in size, and no obvious metastatic disease on exam or preoperative imaging. Additionally, recommendations have been made regarding case volume in order to achieve limited numbers of false-negative results and to maintain competency. In the study by Van der Zee et al. of 403 patients (623 groins) who underwent sentinel node procedures, the false-negative rate was 0-2%. The overall survival rate was 97% at 3 years (J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 20;26[6]:884-9). However, a more recent data from the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG 173) showed a slightly higher false-negative rate of 8% (J Clin Oncol. 2012 Nov 1;30[31]:3786-91). Overall survival data are pending from this study.

While sentinel lymph node mapping for endometrial cancer has been feasible for many years and has been well described, the questioned role of completed lymphadenectomy for early-stage endometrial cancer has led to a resurgence of interest in these techniques. While blue dye and radiolabeled tracer methods have historically been the most popular mapping solutions, the advent of endoscopic near-infrared imaging, with its higher sensitivity and good depth penetration, has added options. Indocyanine green fluorescence can be easily detected during robotic surgery and as experience with these techniques increase, successful mapping and sensitivity will increase.

Genetics

While hereditary cancer syndromes have been recognized for many years, detecting the genetic mutations that may increase an individual’s risk of developing a malignancy were not elucidated until the early 1990s. In gynecologic oncology, the most commonly encountered syndromes involve mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 and hereditary non–polyposis colorectal cancer, which causes mutations in DNA mismatch-repair genes and increase the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer.

©Jezperklauzen/ThinkStock

The SGO recently published a statement on risk assessment for inherited gynecologic cancer predispositions. In this statement “the evaluation for the presence of a hereditary cancer syndrome enables physicians to provide individualized and quantified assessment of cancer risk, as well as options for tailored screening and preventions strategies that may reduce morbidity associated with the development of malignancy” (Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jan;136[1]:3-7). Beyond risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, therapeutic strategies targeting patients with germline mutations have been developed (PARP inhibitors in BRCA-mutated women with ovarian cancer).

In August 2015, ASCO released an updated policy statement on genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility and highlighted five key areas: germ-line implications of somatic mutation profiling; multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility; quality assurance in genetic testing; education for oncology professionals; and access to cancer genetic services.

Antiemetics

Rounding out ASCO’s “Top 5 advances in 50 years of Modern Oncology” was the improvement in patients’ quality of life from supportive therapies, in particular antinausea medications.

Several of the agents commonly used in gynecologic oncology rate high (cisplatin) to moderate (carboplatin, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, ifosfamide) with regards to emetogenicity. The advent of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (for example, ondansetron) has significantly improved the quality of life of patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy. In addition to improving quality of life, the decrease in nausea and vomiting can also decrease life-threatening complications such as dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. Both ASCO and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network both have guidelines for the management of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Throughout 2016, Ob.Gyn. News will celebrate its 50th anniversary with exclusive articles looking at the evolution of the specialty, including the history of contraception, changes in gynecologic surgery, and the transformation of the well-woman visit. Look for these articles and more special features in the pages of Ob.Gyn. News and online at obgynnews.com.

Dr. Gehrig is professor and director of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Clarke-Pearson is the chair and the Robert A. Ross Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and a professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at UNC. They reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

The subspecialty of gynecologic oncology was formalized less than 50 years ago with the creation of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology and subspecialty training and board certification. The formation of the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) – and the many clinical trials spearheaded by that group – has further advanced evidence-based treatments, resulting in improved survival outcomes, quality of life, and preventive strategies.

While it is not possible to provide a comprehensive and exhaustive review of all of the advances, we hope to highlight many of the notable advances in this article.Cervical cancer

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide with 528,000 new cases in 2012. The majority of cervical cancer cases are caused by infection with human papillomavirus (HPV). While the standard therapies for cervical cancer have been long established (radical hysterectomy for stage I and radiation therapy for locally advanced disease), one of the most significant advances in the past 50 years was the addition of radiation-sensitizing chemotherapy (cisplatin) administered concurrently with radiation therapy.

In randomized trials in both early and advanced cervical cancer, the risk of death was reduced by 30%-50%. These studies changed the paradigm for the treatment of cervical cancer (N Engl J Med. 1999 Apr 15;340[15]:1137-43; N Engl J Med. 1999 Apr 15;340[15]:1144-53; J Clin Oncol. 2000 Apr;18[8]:1606-13).

Future studies evaluating biologic adjuncts or additional chemotherapy are currently underway or awaiting data maturation.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) highlighted the “Top 5 advances in 50 years of Modern Oncology” in 2014, and second on the list was the approval of the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Vaccines have been developed that can protect against types 2, 4 or 9 of HPV. In a 2014 study, depending on vaccination coverage, the relative number of cervical cancer cases avoided was 34% in Africa, 27% for America, 26% for Asia, 21% for Europe, and worldwide was estimated at 27% (Vaccine. 2014 Feb 3;32[6]:733-9).

While the benefit from HPV vaccination has been proven, in the United States, only about a third of eligible girls and women have been vaccinated. Efforts should focus on expanding vaccination penetration to eligible girls, boys, women, and men.

©xrender/Thinkstock

Endometrial cancer

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States with an estimated 54,870 cases and 10,170 deaths annually. Notable advances in the management of women with endometrial cancer have arisen because of a better understanding that there are two types of endometrial cancer – type I and type II.

The type I endometrial cancers tend to be associated with lower stage of disease at the time of diagnosis and fewer recurrences, while type II endometrial cancer is associated with worse outcomes.

Tailoring the surgical approaches and adjuvant therapy for women with endometrial cancer has led to improved outcomes. The GOG conducted a large prospective randomized trial of laparotomy versus laparoscopic surgical staging for women with clinical early-stage endometrial cancer (LAP2). Laparoscopy was associated with improved perioperative outcomes and was found to be noninferior to laparotomy with regards to survival outcomes (J Clin Oncol. 2012 Mar 1;30[7]:695-700). Therefore, minimally invasive surgery has become widely accepted for the surgical staging of women with endometrial cancer.

Appropriate surgical staging allows for tailoring of postoperative adjuvant therapy. The current evidence suggests that vaginal brachytherapy should be the adjuvant treatment of choice over whole pelvic radiation in women with early-stage endometrial cancer (Lancet. 2010 Mar 6;375[9717]:816-23). Studies are underway to evaluate the role of both adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy in women with early-stage type II endometrial cancer who are felt to be at high risk for recurrent disease, as well as how to improve on the therapeutic options for women with advanced or recurrent disease.

Ovarian cancer

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most deadly gynecologic malignancy in the United States with 21,290 cases and 14,180 deaths in 2015. The concept of ovarian tumor debulking was first described by Dr. Joe Meigs in 1934, but did not gain traction until the mid-1970s when Dr. C. Thomas Griffiths published his work (Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1975 Oct;42:101-4).

While there are no randomized trials proving that surgical cytoreduction improves overall survival, most retrospective studies support this concept. In 2009, Chi et al. showed improved median survival in women with ovarian cancer based on the increased percentage of women who underwent optimal cytoreduction (Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Jul;114[1]:26-31). This has led to modifications of surgical techniques and surgical goals with an effort to maximally cytoreduce all of the visible disease.

While initial surgical debulking is the goal, there are circumstances when a different approach may be indicated. Vergote et al. conducted a prospective randomized trial of 670 women with advanced ovarian cancer. In this study, neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking was not inferior to primary debulking followed by chemotherapy with regards to progression-free survival and overall survival. However, initial surgery was associated with increased surgical complications and perioperative mortality as compared with interval surgery. Therefore, in women who are not felt to be candidates for optimal cytoreduction, neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval surgery may be an appropriate treatment strategy (N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 2;363[10]:943-53.).

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/James Heilman, MD/CC-BY-SA-3.0

There have been several notable advances and a series of randomized trials – predominately conducted by the GOG – that have resulted in improved overall survival and progression-free interval in women with ovarian cancer. However, none are as significant as the discovery of paclitaxel and platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin and carboplatin).

In 1962, samples of the Pacific Yew’s bark were collected and, 2 years later, the extracts from this bark were found to have cytotoxic activity. There were initial difficulties suspending the drug in solution; however, ultimately a formulation in ethanol, cremophor, and saline was found to be effective. In 1984, the National Cancer Institute began clinical trials of paclitaxel and it was found to be highly effective in ovarian cancer. In 1992, it was approved for the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Cisplatin was approved in 1978. Carboplatin entered clinical trials in 1982 and was approved for women with recurrent ovarian cancer in 1989.

There were a series of trials beginning in the late 1980s that established the role of platinum agents and led us to GOG 111. This trial evaluated cisplatin with either cyclophosphamide or paclitaxel. The paclitaxel combination was superior and in 2003 two trials were published that solidified carboplatin and paclitaxel as the cornerstone in the treatment of women with ovarian cancer (J Clin Oncol. 2003 Sep 1;21[17]:3194-200; J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Sep 3;95[17]:1320-9).

What has most recently been debated is the route and schedule for both paclitaxel and the platinum agents. In January 2006, the National Cancer Institute released a Clinical Announcement regarding the role of intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy for the treatment of women with optimally debulked ovarian cancer. Of the six trials included in the announcement, four trials showed a benefit for progression-free survival and five studies showed an improvement in overall survival. Armstrong et al (GOG 172) showed a 16-month improvement in overall survival with intravenous (IV) paclitaxel, IP cisplatin, and IP paclitaxel. IP chemotherapy has not been universally embraced by physicians and patients in part because of its toxicity, treatment schedule, and the fact that no IP regimen has been compared with the current standard of IV carboplatin and paclitaxel (N Engl J Med. 2006 Jan 5;354[1]:34-43).

While there have been improvements in 5-year survival over time, most women with advanced ovarian cancer will undergo additional chemotherapy in order to achieve subsequent remissions or maintain stability of disease. Other drugs that have Food and Drug Administration approval in the setting of recurrent ovarian cancer include topotecan, liposomal doxorubicin, gemcitabine, bevacizumab, altretamine, carboplatin, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and melphalan. Olaparib was recently approved as monotherapy in women with a germline BRCA-mutation who had received three or more prior lines of chemotherapy.

Minimally invasive surgery

Over the last 30 years, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in gynecologic oncology, particularly for endometrial cancer, has gone from a niche procedure to the standard of care. The introduction of laparoscopy into gynecologic oncology started in the early 1990s. In a series of 59 women undergoing laparoscopy for endometrial cancer, Childers et al. demonstrated feasibility of the technique and low laparotomy conversion rates (Gynecol Oncol. 1993 Oct;51[1]:33-8.). The GOG trial, LAP2, supported the equivalent oncologic outcomes of MIS versus laparotomy for the treatment of endometrial cancer. While many surgeons and centers offered laparoscopic surgery, there were issues with the learning curve that limited its widespread use.

In 2005, the FDA approval of the robotic platform for gynecologic surgery resulted in at least a doubling of the proportion of endometrial cancer patients treated with MIS (Int J Med Robot. 2009 Dec;5[4]:392-7.). In 2012, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology published a consensus statement regarding robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology (Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Feb;124[2]:180-4.). This review highlights the advantages of the robotics platform with regards to expanding MIS to women with cervical and ovarian cancer; the improvements in outcomes in the obese woman with endometrial cancer; and that the learning curve for robotic surgery is shorter than for traditional laparoscopy. Issues requiring further research include cost analysis as the cost of the new technology decreases, and opportunities for improvement in patient and physician quality of life.

Sentinel node mapping

The rationale for sentinel node mapping is that if one or more sentinel lymph nodes is/are negative for malignancy, then the other regional lymph nodes will also be negative. This would thereby avoid the need for a complete lymph node dissection and its resultant complications, including chronic lymphedema. Much of the work pioneering this strategy has been in breast cancer and melanoma, but data are rapidly emerging for these techniques in gynecologic malignancies.

Candidates for sentinel lymph node biopsy for vulvar cancer include those with a lesion more than 1mm in depth, a tumor less than 4 cm in size, and no obvious metastatic disease on exam or preoperative imaging. Additionally, recommendations have been made regarding case volume in order to achieve limited numbers of false-negative results and to maintain competency. In the study by Van der Zee et al. of 403 patients (623 groins) who underwent sentinel node procedures, the false-negative rate was 0-2%. The overall survival rate was 97% at 3 years (J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 20;26[6]:884-9). However, a more recent data from the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG 173) showed a slightly higher false-negative rate of 8% (J Clin Oncol. 2012 Nov 1;30[31]:3786-91). Overall survival data are pending from this study.

While sentinel lymph node mapping for endometrial cancer has been feasible for many years and has been well described, the questioned role of completed lymphadenectomy for early-stage endometrial cancer has led to a resurgence of interest in these techniques. While blue dye and radiolabeled tracer methods have historically been the most popular mapping solutions, the advent of endoscopic near-infrared imaging, with its higher sensitivity and good depth penetration, has added options. Indocyanine green fluorescence can be easily detected during robotic surgery and as experience with these techniques increase, successful mapping and sensitivity will increase.

Genetics

While hereditary cancer syndromes have been recognized for many years, detecting the genetic mutations that may increase an individual’s risk of developing a malignancy were not elucidated until the early 1990s. In gynecologic oncology, the most commonly encountered syndromes involve mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 and hereditary non–polyposis colorectal cancer, which causes mutations in DNA mismatch-repair genes and increase the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer.

©Jezperklauzen/ThinkStock

The SGO recently published a statement on risk assessment for inherited gynecologic cancer predispositions. In this statement “the evaluation for the presence of a hereditary cancer syndrome enables physicians to provide individualized and quantified assessment of cancer risk, as well as options for tailored screening and preventions strategies that may reduce morbidity associated with the development of malignancy” (Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jan;136[1]:3-7). Beyond risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, therapeutic strategies targeting patients with germline mutations have been developed (PARP inhibitors in BRCA-mutated women with ovarian cancer).

In August 2015, ASCO released an updated policy statement on genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility and highlighted five key areas: germ-line implications of somatic mutation profiling; multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility; quality assurance in genetic testing; education for oncology professionals; and access to cancer genetic services.

Antiemetics

Rounding out ASCO’s “Top 5 advances in 50 years of Modern Oncology” was the improvement in patients’ quality of life from supportive therapies, in particular antinausea medications.

Several of the agents commonly used in gynecologic oncology rate high (cisplatin) to moderate (carboplatin, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, ifosfamide) with regards to emetogenicity. The advent of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (for example, ondansetron) has significantly improved the quality of life of patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy. In addition to improving quality of life, the decrease in nausea and vomiting can also decrease life-threatening complications such as dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. Both ASCO and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network both have guidelines for the management of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Throughout 2016, Ob.Gyn. News will celebrate its 50th anniversary with exclusive articles looking at the evolution of the specialty, including the history of contraception, changes in gynecologic surgery, and the transformation of the well-woman visit. Look for these articles and more special features in the pages of Ob.Gyn. News and online at obgynnews.com.

Dr. Gehrig is professor and director of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Clarke-Pearson is the chair and the Robert A. Ross Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and a professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at UNC. They reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

The subspecialty of gynecologic oncology was formalized less than 50 years ago with the creation of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology and subspecialty training and board certification. The formation of the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) – and the many clinical trials spearheaded by that group – has further advanced evidence-based treatments, resulting in improved survival outcomes, quality of life, and preventive strategies.

While it is not possible to provide a comprehensive and exhaustive review of all of the advances, we hope to highlight many of the notable advances in this article.Cervical cancer

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide with 528,000 new cases in 2012. The majority of cervical cancer cases are caused by infection with human papillomavirus (HPV). While the standard therapies for cervical cancer have been long established (radical hysterectomy for stage I and radiation therapy for locally advanced disease), one of the most significant advances in the past 50 years was the addition of radiation-sensitizing chemotherapy (cisplatin) administered concurrently with radiation therapy.

In randomized trials in both early and advanced cervical cancer, the risk of death was reduced by 30%-50%. These studies changed the paradigm for the treatment of cervical cancer (N Engl J Med. 1999 Apr 15;340[15]:1137-43; N Engl J Med. 1999 Apr 15;340[15]:1144-53; J Clin Oncol. 2000 Apr;18[8]:1606-13).

Future studies evaluating biologic adjuncts or additional chemotherapy are currently underway or awaiting data maturation.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) highlighted the “Top 5 advances in 50 years of Modern Oncology” in 2014, and second on the list was the approval of the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Vaccines have been developed that can protect against types 2, 4 or 9 of HPV. In a 2014 study, depending on vaccination coverage, the relative number of cervical cancer cases avoided was 34% in Africa, 27% for America, 26% for Asia, 21% for Europe, and worldwide was estimated at 27% (Vaccine. 2014 Feb 3;32[6]:733-9).

While the benefit from HPV vaccination has been proven, in the United States, only about a third of eligible girls and women have been vaccinated. Efforts should focus on expanding vaccination penetration to eligible girls, boys, women, and men.

©xrender/Thinkstock

Endometrial cancer

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States with an estimated 54,870 cases and 10,170 deaths annually. Notable advances in the management of women with endometrial cancer have arisen because of a better understanding that there are two types of endometrial cancer – type I and type II.

The type I endometrial cancers tend to be associated with lower stage of disease at the time of diagnosis and fewer recurrences, while type II endometrial cancer is associated with worse outcomes.

Tailoring the surgical approaches and adjuvant therapy for women with endometrial cancer has led to improved outcomes. The GOG conducted a large prospective randomized trial of laparotomy versus laparoscopic surgical staging for women with clinical early-stage endometrial cancer (LAP2). Laparoscopy was associated with improved perioperative outcomes and was found to be noninferior to laparotomy with regards to survival outcomes (J Clin Oncol. 2012 Mar 1;30[7]:695-700). Therefore, minimally invasive surgery has become widely accepted for the surgical staging of women with endometrial cancer.

Appropriate surgical staging allows for tailoring of postoperative adjuvant therapy. The current evidence suggests that vaginal brachytherapy should be the adjuvant treatment of choice over whole pelvic radiation in women with early-stage endometrial cancer (Lancet. 2010 Mar 6;375[9717]:816-23). Studies are underway to evaluate the role of both adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy in women with early-stage type II endometrial cancer who are felt to be at high risk for recurrent disease, as well as how to improve on the therapeutic options for women with advanced or recurrent disease.

Ovarian cancer

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most deadly gynecologic malignancy in the United States with 21,290 cases and 14,180 deaths in 2015. The concept of ovarian tumor debulking was first described by Dr. Joe Meigs in 1934, but did not gain traction until the mid-1970s when Dr. C. Thomas Griffiths published his work (Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1975 Oct;42:101-4).

While there are no randomized trials proving that surgical cytoreduction improves overall survival, most retrospective studies support this concept. In 2009, Chi et al. showed improved median survival in women with ovarian cancer based on the increased percentage of women who underwent optimal cytoreduction (Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Jul;114[1]:26-31). This has led to modifications of surgical techniques and surgical goals with an effort to maximally cytoreduce all of the visible disease.

While initial surgical debulking is the goal, there are circumstances when a different approach may be indicated. Vergote et al. conducted a prospective randomized trial of 670 women with advanced ovarian cancer. In this study, neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking was not inferior to primary debulking followed by chemotherapy with regards to progression-free survival and overall survival. However, initial surgery was associated with increased surgical complications and perioperative mortality as compared with interval surgery. Therefore, in women who are not felt to be candidates for optimal cytoreduction, neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval surgery may be an appropriate treatment strategy (N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 2;363[10]:943-53.).

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/James Heilman, MD/CC-BY-SA-3.0

There have been several notable advances and a series of randomized trials – predominately conducted by the GOG – that have resulted in improved overall survival and progression-free interval in women with ovarian cancer. However, none are as significant as the discovery of paclitaxel and platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin and carboplatin).

In 1962, samples of the Pacific Yew’s bark were collected and, 2 years later, the extracts from this bark were found to have cytotoxic activity. There were initial difficulties suspending the drug in solution; however, ultimately a formulation in ethanol, cremophor, and saline was found to be effective. In 1984, the National Cancer Institute began clinical trials of paclitaxel and it was found to be highly effective in ovarian cancer. In 1992, it was approved for the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Cisplatin was approved in 1978. Carboplatin entered clinical trials in 1982 and was approved for women with recurrent ovarian cancer in 1989.

There were a series of trials beginning in the late 1980s that established the role of platinum agents and led us to GOG 111. This trial evaluated cisplatin with either cyclophosphamide or paclitaxel. The paclitaxel combination was superior and in 2003 two trials were published that solidified carboplatin and paclitaxel as the cornerstone in the treatment of women with ovarian cancer (J Clin Oncol. 2003 Sep 1;21[17]:3194-200; J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Sep 3;95[17]:1320-9).

What has most recently been debated is the route and schedule for both paclitaxel and the platinum agents. In January 2006, the National Cancer Institute released a Clinical Announcement regarding the role of intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy for the treatment of women with optimally debulked ovarian cancer. Of the six trials included in the announcement, four trials showed a benefit for progression-free survival and five studies showed an improvement in overall survival. Armstrong et al (GOG 172) showed a 16-month improvement in overall survival with intravenous (IV) paclitaxel, IP cisplatin, and IP paclitaxel. IP chemotherapy has not been universally embraced by physicians and patients in part because of its toxicity, treatment schedule, and the fact that no IP regimen has been compared with the current standard of IV carboplatin and paclitaxel (N Engl J Med. 2006 Jan 5;354[1]:34-43).

While there have been improvements in 5-year survival over time, most women with advanced ovarian cancer will undergo additional chemotherapy in order to achieve subsequent remissions or maintain stability of disease. Other drugs that have Food and Drug Administration approval in the setting of recurrent ovarian cancer include topotecan, liposomal doxorubicin, gemcitabine, bevacizumab, altretamine, carboplatin, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and melphalan. Olaparib was recently approved as monotherapy in women with a germline BRCA-mutation who had received three or more prior lines of chemotherapy.

Minimally invasive surgery

Over the last 30 years, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in gynecologic oncology, particularly for endometrial cancer, has gone from a niche procedure to the standard of care. The introduction of laparoscopy into gynecologic oncology started in the early 1990s. In a series of 59 women undergoing laparoscopy for endometrial cancer, Childers et al. demonstrated feasibility of the technique and low laparotomy conversion rates (Gynecol Oncol. 1993 Oct;51[1]:33-8.). The GOG trial, LAP2, supported the equivalent oncologic outcomes of MIS versus laparotomy for the treatment of endometrial cancer. While many surgeons and centers offered laparoscopic surgery, there were issues with the learning curve that limited its widespread use.

In 2005, the FDA approval of the robotic platform for gynecologic surgery resulted in at least a doubling of the proportion of endometrial cancer patients treated with MIS (Int J Med Robot. 2009 Dec;5[4]:392-7.). In 2012, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology published a consensus statement regarding robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology (Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Feb;124[2]:180-4.). This review highlights the advantages of the robotics platform with regards to expanding MIS to women with cervical and ovarian cancer; the improvements in outcomes in the obese woman with endometrial cancer; and that the learning curve for robotic surgery is shorter than for traditional laparoscopy. Issues requiring further research include cost analysis as the cost of the new technology decreases, and opportunities for improvement in patient and physician quality of life.

Sentinel node mapping

The rationale for sentinel node mapping is that if one or more sentinel lymph nodes is/are negative for malignancy, then the other regional lymph nodes will also be negative. This would thereby avoid the need for a complete lymph node dissection and its resultant complications, including chronic lymphedema. Much of the work pioneering this strategy has been in breast cancer and melanoma, but data are rapidly emerging for these techniques in gynecologic malignancies.

Candidates for sentinel lymph node biopsy for vulvar cancer include those with a lesion more than 1mm in depth, a tumor less than 4 cm in size, and no obvious metastatic disease on exam or preoperative imaging. Additionally, recommendations have been made regarding case volume in order to achieve limited numbers of false-negative results and to maintain competency. In the study by Van der Zee et al. of 403 patients (623 groins) who underwent sentinel node procedures, the false-negative rate was 0-2%. The overall survival rate was 97% at 3 years (J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 20;26[6]:884-9). However, a more recent data from the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG 173) showed a slightly higher false-negative rate of 8% (J Clin Oncol. 2012 Nov 1;30[31]:3786-91). Overall survival data are pending from this study.

While sentinel lymph node mapping for endometrial cancer has been feasible for many years and has been well described, the questioned role of completed lymphadenectomy for early-stage endometrial cancer has led to a resurgence of interest in these techniques. While blue dye and radiolabeled tracer methods have historically been the most popular mapping solutions, the advent of endoscopic near-infrared imaging, with its higher sensitivity and good depth penetration, has added options. Indocyanine green fluorescence can be easily detected during robotic surgery and as experience with these techniques increase, successful mapping and sensitivity will increase.

Genetics

While hereditary cancer syndromes have been recognized for many years, detecting the genetic mutations that may increase an individual’s risk of developing a malignancy were not elucidated until the early 1990s. In gynecologic oncology, the most commonly encountered syndromes involve mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 and hereditary non–polyposis colorectal cancer, which causes mutations in DNA mismatch-repair genes and increase the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer.

©Jezperklauzen/ThinkStock

The SGO recently published a statement on risk assessment for inherited gynecologic cancer predispositions. In this statement “the evaluation for the presence of a hereditary cancer syndrome enables physicians to provide individualized and quantified assessment of cancer risk, as well as options for tailored screening and preventions strategies that may reduce morbidity associated with the development of malignancy” (Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jan;136[1]:3-7). Beyond risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, therapeutic strategies targeting patients with germline mutations have been developed (PARP inhibitors in BRCA-mutated women with ovarian cancer).

In August 2015, ASCO released an updated policy statement on genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility and highlighted five key areas: germ-line implications of somatic mutation profiling; multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility; quality assurance in genetic testing; education for oncology professionals; and access to cancer genetic services.

Antiemetics

Rounding out ASCO’s “Top 5 advances in 50 years of Modern Oncology” was the improvement in patients’ quality of life from supportive therapies, in particular antinausea medications.

Several of the agents commonly used in gynecologic oncology rate high (cisplatin) to moderate (carboplatin, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, ifosfamide) with regards to emetogenicity. The advent of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (for example, ondansetron) has significantly improved the quality of life of patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy. In addition to improving quality of life, the decrease in nausea and vomiting can also decrease life-threatening complications such as dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. Both ASCO and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network both have guidelines for the management of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Throughout 2016, Ob.Gyn. News will celebrate its 50th anniversary with exclusive articles looking at the evolution of the specialty, including the history of contraception, changes in gynecologic surgery, and the transformation of the well-woman visit. Look for these articles and more special features in the pages of Ob.Gyn. News and online at obgynnews.com.

Dr. Gehrig is professor and director of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Clarke-Pearson is the chair and the Robert A. Ross Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and a professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at UNC. They reported having no relevant financial disclosures.