Business of Medicine

Newly released figures showing a rise in the number of men with advanced prostate cancer have laid bare long-simmering resentment among patient advocates who feel the nation’s leading cancer group has largely ignored their concerns for years.

The American Cancer Society on Jan. 13 revealed what it called “alarming” news about prostate cancer: After 2 decades of decline, the number of men diagnosed with the disease in the United States rose by 15% from 2014 to 2019.

“Most concerning,” according to the group’s CEO Karen Knudsen, PhD, MBA, is that the increase is being driven by diagnoses of advanced disease.

“Since 2011, the diagnosis of advanced-stage (regional- or distant-stage) prostate cancer has increased by 4%-5% annually and the proportion of men diagnosed with distant-stage disease has doubled,” said Dr. Knudsen at a press conference concerning the figures. “These findings underscore the importance of understanding and reducing this trend.”

The increase, which works out to be an additional 99,000 cases of prostate cancer, did not take the ACS by surprise; the group has been predicting a jump in diagnoses of the disease, which is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer, and the second most common cause of cancer death for that group.

The ACS announced a new action plan, “Improving Mortality from Prostate Cancer Together” – or IMPACT – to address the rise, especially in Black men, and to curb the increasing rate of advanced, difficult-to-treat cases.

“We must address these shifts in prostate cancer, especially in the Black community, since the incidence of prostate cancer in Black men is 70% higher than in White men and prostate cancer mortality rates in Black men are approximately two to four times higher than those in every other racial and ethnic group,” William Dahut, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer for the ACS, said at the press conference.

A study published in JAMA Network Open challenged that claim, finding that, after controlling for socioeconomic factors, race does not appear to be a significant predictor of mortality for prostate cancer.

Dr. Dahut said in an interview that IMPACT “is still [in the] early days for this initiative and more details will be coming out soon.”

Charles Ryan, MD, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the world’s largest prostate cancer research charity, called IMPACT “extremely important work. Highlighting the disparities can only serve to benefit all men with prostate cancer, especially Black men.”
 

Bold action ... or passivity?

Overall cancer mortality has dropped 33% since 1991, averting an estimated 3.8 million deaths, according to ACS. But the story for prostate cancer is different.

The society and advocates had warned as recently as 2 years ago that prostate cancer was poised to rise again, especially advanced cases that may be too late to treat.

Leaders in the prostate cancer advocacy community praised the ACS plan for IMPACT, but some expressed frustration over what they said was ACS’ passivity in the face of long-anticipated increases in cases of the disease.

“I think prostate cancer was not high on their agenda,” said Rick Davis, founder of AnCan, which offers several support groups for patients with prostate cancer.  “It’s good to see ACS get back into the prostate cancer game.”

Mr. Davis and patient advocate Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW, founder of Malecare, another prostate support organization, said ACS dropped patient services for prostate cancer patients a decade ago and has not been a vocal supporter of screening for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to detect prostate cancer early.

“Early detection is supposed to be their goal,” Mr. Davis said.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA screening, giving it a D-rating. The move prompted attacks on the task force from most advocates and many urologists.

Following this criticism, the task force recommended shared decision-making between patient and doctor, while giving PSA screening a C-rating. Now, the ACS recommends men in general at age 50 discuss prostate cancer screening with their doctor and that Black men do the same at age 45.

Mr. Mitteldorf said ACS “owes prostate cancer patients an explanation and analysis of its response to the USPTF’s downgrade of PSA testing and how that response might be related to death and instance rates.”

Mr. Mitteldorf added that male patients lost key support from ACS when the group dismantled its Man to Man group for prostate cancer patients and its Brother to Brother group for Blacks in particular.

Dr. Dahut said Man to Man “sunsetted” and was turned over to any local organization that chose to offer it. He said longtime staff didn’t have “a lot of information about [the demise of] Brother to Brother.”

For Mr. Davis, those smaller cuts add up to a much larger insult.

“Today, in 2023, ACS continues to poke a finger in the eyes of prostate cancer patients,” he said. “Since 2010, they have not given us any respect. ACS dumped its support.”

He pointed to the group’s funding priorities, noting that outlays for prostate cancer have consistently lagged behind those for breast cancer.

The ACS spent $25.3 million on breast cancer research and $6.7 million for prostate cancer in 2018, and in 2023 will designate $126.5 for breast cancer research and $43.9 million for prostate cancer.

ACS has earmarked $62 million this year for lung cancer programs and $61 million for colorectal cancer.

“Parity between breast cancer and prostate cancer would be a good start in sizing the IMPACT program,” Mr. Davis said. “After all, breast cancer and prostate cancer are hardly different in numbers today.”

Dr. Dahut denied any gender bias in research funding. He said the group makes funding decisions “based on finding the most impactful science regardless of tumor type. Our mission includes funding every cancer, every day; thus, we generally do not go into our funding cycle with any set-asides for a particular cancer.”

Mr. Davis also said the ACS data suggest the growing number of prostate cancer cases is even worse than the group has said. Although the society cites a 3% annual increase in prostate cancer diagnoses from 2014 to 2019, since 2019 the annual increase is a much more dramatic 16%. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the disease is projected to rise from 175,000 per year in 2019 to 288,000 this year.

Dr. Dahut said the society used the 2014-2019 time frame for technical reasons, separating confirmed cases in the earlier period from estimated cases in recent years.

“We discourage comparing projected cases over time because these cases are model-based and subject to fluctuations,” Dr. Dahut said.

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

Newly released figures showing a rise in the number of men with advanced prostate cancer have laid bare long-simmering resentment among patient advocates who feel the nation’s leading cancer group has largely ignored their concerns for years.

The American Cancer Society on Jan. 13 revealed what it called “alarming” news about prostate cancer: After 2 decades of decline, the number of men diagnosed with the disease in the United States rose by 15% from 2014 to 2019.

“Most concerning,” according to the group’s CEO Karen Knudsen, PhD, MBA, is that the increase is being driven by diagnoses of advanced disease.

“Since 2011, the diagnosis of advanced-stage (regional- or distant-stage) prostate cancer has increased by 4%-5% annually and the proportion of men diagnosed with distant-stage disease has doubled,” said Dr. Knudsen at a press conference concerning the figures. “These findings underscore the importance of understanding and reducing this trend.”

The increase, which works out to be an additional 99,000 cases of prostate cancer, did not take the ACS by surprise; the group has been predicting a jump in diagnoses of the disease, which is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer, and the second most common cause of cancer death for that group.

The ACS announced a new action plan, “Improving Mortality from Prostate Cancer Together” – or IMPACT – to address the rise, especially in Black men, and to curb the increasing rate of advanced, difficult-to-treat cases.

“We must address these shifts in prostate cancer, especially in the Black community, since the incidence of prostate cancer in Black men is 70% higher than in White men and prostate cancer mortality rates in Black men are approximately two to four times higher than those in every other racial and ethnic group,” William Dahut, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer for the ACS, said at the press conference.

A study published in JAMA Network Open challenged that claim, finding that, after controlling for socioeconomic factors, race does not appear to be a significant predictor of mortality for prostate cancer.

Dr. Dahut said in an interview that IMPACT “is still [in the] early days for this initiative and more details will be coming out soon.”

Charles Ryan, MD, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the world’s largest prostate cancer research charity, called IMPACT “extremely important work. Highlighting the disparities can only serve to benefit all men with prostate cancer, especially Black men.”
 

Bold action ... or passivity?

Overall cancer mortality has dropped 33% since 1991, averting an estimated 3.8 million deaths, according to ACS. But the story for prostate cancer is different.

The society and advocates had warned as recently as 2 years ago that prostate cancer was poised to rise again, especially advanced cases that may be too late to treat.

Leaders in the prostate cancer advocacy community praised the ACS plan for IMPACT, but some expressed frustration over what they said was ACS’ passivity in the face of long-anticipated increases in cases of the disease.

“I think prostate cancer was not high on their agenda,” said Rick Davis, founder of AnCan, which offers several support groups for patients with prostate cancer.  “It’s good to see ACS get back into the prostate cancer game.”

Mr. Davis and patient advocate Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW, founder of Malecare, another prostate support organization, said ACS dropped patient services for prostate cancer patients a decade ago and has not been a vocal supporter of screening for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to detect prostate cancer early.

“Early detection is supposed to be their goal,” Mr. Davis said.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA screening, giving it a D-rating. The move prompted attacks on the task force from most advocates and many urologists.

Following this criticism, the task force recommended shared decision-making between patient and doctor, while giving PSA screening a C-rating. Now, the ACS recommends men in general at age 50 discuss prostate cancer screening with their doctor and that Black men do the same at age 45.

Mr. Mitteldorf said ACS “owes prostate cancer patients an explanation and analysis of its response to the USPTF’s downgrade of PSA testing and how that response might be related to death and instance rates.”

Mr. Mitteldorf added that male patients lost key support from ACS when the group dismantled its Man to Man group for prostate cancer patients and its Brother to Brother group for Blacks in particular.

Dr. Dahut said Man to Man “sunsetted” and was turned over to any local organization that chose to offer it. He said longtime staff didn’t have “a lot of information about [the demise of] Brother to Brother.”

For Mr. Davis, those smaller cuts add up to a much larger insult.

“Today, in 2023, ACS continues to poke a finger in the eyes of prostate cancer patients,” he said. “Since 2010, they have not given us any respect. ACS dumped its support.”

He pointed to the group’s funding priorities, noting that outlays for prostate cancer have consistently lagged behind those for breast cancer.

The ACS spent $25.3 million on breast cancer research and $6.7 million for prostate cancer in 2018, and in 2023 will designate $126.5 for breast cancer research and $43.9 million for prostate cancer.

ACS has earmarked $62 million this year for lung cancer programs and $61 million for colorectal cancer.

“Parity between breast cancer and prostate cancer would be a good start in sizing the IMPACT program,” Mr. Davis said. “After all, breast cancer and prostate cancer are hardly different in numbers today.”

Dr. Dahut denied any gender bias in research funding. He said the group makes funding decisions “based on finding the most impactful science regardless of tumor type. Our mission includes funding every cancer, every day; thus, we generally do not go into our funding cycle with any set-asides for a particular cancer.”

Mr. Davis also said the ACS data suggest the growing number of prostate cancer cases is even worse than the group has said. Although the society cites a 3% annual increase in prostate cancer diagnoses from 2014 to 2019, since 2019 the annual increase is a much more dramatic 16%. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the disease is projected to rise from 175,000 per year in 2019 to 288,000 this year.

Dr. Dahut said the society used the 2014-2019 time frame for technical reasons, separating confirmed cases in the earlier period from estimated cases in recent years.

“We discourage comparing projected cases over time because these cases are model-based and subject to fluctuations,” Dr. Dahut said.

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

Newly released figures showing a rise in the number of men with advanced prostate cancer have laid bare long-simmering resentment among patient advocates who feel the nation’s leading cancer group has largely ignored their concerns for years.

The American Cancer Society on Jan. 13 revealed what it called “alarming” news about prostate cancer: After 2 decades of decline, the number of men diagnosed with the disease in the United States rose by 15% from 2014 to 2019.

“Most concerning,” according to the group’s CEO Karen Knudsen, PhD, MBA, is that the increase is being driven by diagnoses of advanced disease.

“Since 2011, the diagnosis of advanced-stage (regional- or distant-stage) prostate cancer has increased by 4%-5% annually and the proportion of men diagnosed with distant-stage disease has doubled,” said Dr. Knudsen at a press conference concerning the figures. “These findings underscore the importance of understanding and reducing this trend.”

The increase, which works out to be an additional 99,000 cases of prostate cancer, did not take the ACS by surprise; the group has been predicting a jump in diagnoses of the disease, which is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer, and the second most common cause of cancer death for that group.

The ACS announced a new action plan, “Improving Mortality from Prostate Cancer Together” – or IMPACT – to address the rise, especially in Black men, and to curb the increasing rate of advanced, difficult-to-treat cases.

“We must address these shifts in prostate cancer, especially in the Black community, since the incidence of prostate cancer in Black men is 70% higher than in White men and prostate cancer mortality rates in Black men are approximately two to four times higher than those in every other racial and ethnic group,” William Dahut, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer for the ACS, said at the press conference.

A study published in JAMA Network Open challenged that claim, finding that, after controlling for socioeconomic factors, race does not appear to be a significant predictor of mortality for prostate cancer.

Dr. Dahut said in an interview that IMPACT “is still [in the] early days for this initiative and more details will be coming out soon.”

Charles Ryan, MD, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the world’s largest prostate cancer research charity, called IMPACT “extremely important work. Highlighting the disparities can only serve to benefit all men with prostate cancer, especially Black men.”
 

Bold action ... or passivity?

Overall cancer mortality has dropped 33% since 1991, averting an estimated 3.8 million deaths, according to ACS. But the story for prostate cancer is different.

The society and advocates had warned as recently as 2 years ago that prostate cancer was poised to rise again, especially advanced cases that may be too late to treat.

Leaders in the prostate cancer advocacy community praised the ACS plan for IMPACT, but some expressed frustration over what they said was ACS’ passivity in the face of long-anticipated increases in cases of the disease.

“I think prostate cancer was not high on their agenda,” said Rick Davis, founder of AnCan, which offers several support groups for patients with prostate cancer.  “It’s good to see ACS get back into the prostate cancer game.”

Mr. Davis and patient advocate Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW, founder of Malecare, another prostate support organization, said ACS dropped patient services for prostate cancer patients a decade ago and has not been a vocal supporter of screening for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to detect prostate cancer early.

“Early detection is supposed to be their goal,” Mr. Davis said.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA screening, giving it a D-rating. The move prompted attacks on the task force from most advocates and many urologists.

Following this criticism, the task force recommended shared decision-making between patient and doctor, while giving PSA screening a C-rating. Now, the ACS recommends men in general at age 50 discuss prostate cancer screening with their doctor and that Black men do the same at age 45.

Mr. Mitteldorf said ACS “owes prostate cancer patients an explanation and analysis of its response to the USPTF’s downgrade of PSA testing and how that response might be related to death and instance rates.”

Mr. Mitteldorf added that male patients lost key support from ACS when the group dismantled its Man to Man group for prostate cancer patients and its Brother to Brother group for Blacks in particular.

Dr. Dahut said Man to Man “sunsetted” and was turned over to any local organization that chose to offer it. He said longtime staff didn’t have “a lot of information about [the demise of] Brother to Brother.”

For Mr. Davis, those smaller cuts add up to a much larger insult.

“Today, in 2023, ACS continues to poke a finger in the eyes of prostate cancer patients,” he said. “Since 2010, they have not given us any respect. ACS dumped its support.”

He pointed to the group’s funding priorities, noting that outlays for prostate cancer have consistently lagged behind those for breast cancer.

The ACS spent $25.3 million on breast cancer research and $6.7 million for prostate cancer in 2018, and in 2023 will designate $126.5 for breast cancer research and $43.9 million for prostate cancer.

ACS has earmarked $62 million this year for lung cancer programs and $61 million for colorectal cancer.

“Parity between breast cancer and prostate cancer would be a good start in sizing the IMPACT program,” Mr. Davis said. “After all, breast cancer and prostate cancer are hardly different in numbers today.”

Dr. Dahut denied any gender bias in research funding. He said the group makes funding decisions “based on finding the most impactful science regardless of tumor type. Our mission includes funding every cancer, every day; thus, we generally do not go into our funding cycle with any set-asides for a particular cancer.”

Mr. Davis also said the ACS data suggest the growing number of prostate cancer cases is even worse than the group has said. Although the society cites a 3% annual increase in prostate cancer diagnoses from 2014 to 2019, since 2019 the annual increase is a much more dramatic 16%. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the disease is projected to rise from 175,000 per year in 2019 to 288,000 this year.

Dr. Dahut said the society used the 2014-2019 time frame for technical reasons, separating confirmed cases in the earlier period from estimated cases in recent years.

“We discourage comparing projected cases over time because these cases are model-based and subject to fluctuations,” Dr. Dahut said.

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

When you became a doctor, you may have moved to one city for med school, another for residency, and a third to be an attending. All that moving can make it hard to maintain friendships. Factor in the challenges from the pandemic, and a physician’s life can be lonely. So, when a patient invites you for coffee or a game of pickleball, do you accept? For almost one-third of the physicians who responded to the Medscape Physician Friendships: The Joys and Challenges 2022, the answer might be yes.

About 29% said they develop friendships with patients. However, a lot depends on the circumstances. As one physician in the report said: “I have been a pediatrician for 35 years, and my patients have grown up and become productive adults in our small, rural, isolated area. You can’t help but know almost everyone.”

As the daughter of a cardiologist, Nishi Mehta, MD, a radiologist and founder of the largest physician-only Facebook group in the country, grew up with that small-town-everyone-knows-the-doctor model.

“When I was a kid, I’d go to the mall, and my friends and I would play a game: How long before a patient [of my dad’s] comes up to me?” she said. At the time, Dr. Mehta was embarrassed, but now she marvels that her dad knew his patients so well that they would recognize his daughter in crowded suburban mall.

In other instances, a physician may develop a friendly relationship after a patient leaves their care. For example, Leo Nissola, MD, now a full-time researcher and immunotherapy scientist in San Francisco, has stayed in touch with some of the patients he treated while at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Dr. Nissola said it was important to stay connected with the patients he had meaningful relationships with. “It becomes challenging, though, when a former patient asks for medical advice.” At that moment, “you have to be explicitly clear that the relationship has changed.”
 

A hard line in the sand

The blurring of lines is one reason many doctors refuse to befriend patients, even after they are no longer treating them. The American College of Physicians Ethics Manual advises against treating anyone with whom you have a close relationship, including family and friends.

“Friendships can get in the way of patients being honest with you, which can interfere with medical care,” Dr. Mehta said. “If a patient has a concern related to something they wouldn’t want you to know as friends, it can get awkward. They may elect not to tell you.”

And on the flip side, friendship can provide a view into your private life that you may not welcome in the exam room.

“Let’s say you go out for drinks [with a patient], and you’re up late, but you have surgery the next day,” said Brandi Ring, MD, an ob.gyn. and the associate medical director at the Center for Children and Women in Houston. Now, one of your patients knows you were out until midnight when you had to be in the OR at 5:00 a.m.

Worse still, your relationship could color your decisions about a patient’s care, even unconsciously. It can be hard to maintain objectivity when you have an emotional investment in someone’s well-being.

“We don’t necessarily treat family and friends to the standards of medical care,” said Dr. Ring. “We go above and beyond. We might order more tests and more scans. We don’t always follow the guidelines, especially in critical illness.”

For all these reasons and more, the ACP advises against treating friends.
 

Put physician before friend

But adhering to those guidelines can lead physicians to make some painful decisions. Cutting yourself off from the possibility of friendship is never easy, and the Medscape report found that physicians tend to have fewer friends than the average American.

“Especially earlier in my practice, when I was a young parent, and I would see a lot of other young parents in the same stage in life, I’d think, ‘In other circumstances, I would be hanging out at the park with this person,’ “ said Kathleen Rowland, MD, a family medicine physician and vice chair of education in the department of family medicine at Rush University, Chicago. “But the hard part is, the doctor-patient relationship always comes first.”

To a certain extent, one’s specialty may determine the feasibility of becoming friends with a patient. While Dr. Mehta has never done so, as a radiologist, she doesn’t usually see patients repeatedly. Likewise, a young gerontologist may have little in common with his octogenarian patients. And an older pediatrician is not in the same life stage as his patients’ sleep-deprived new parents, possibly making them less attractive friends.

However, practicing family medicine is all about long-term physician-patient relationships. Getting to know patients and their families over many years can lead to a certain intimacy. Dr. Rowland said that, while a wonderful part of being a physician is getting that unique trust whereby patients tell you all sorts of things about their lives, she’s never gone down the friendship path.

“There’s the assumption I’ll take care of someone for a long period of time, and their partner and their kids, maybe another generation or two,” Dr. Rowland said. “People really do rely on that relationship to contribute to their health.”

Worse, nowadays, when people may be starved for connection, many patients want to feel emotionally close and cared for by their doctor, so it’d be easy to cross the line. While patients deserve a compassionate, caring doctor, the physician is left to walk the line between those boundaries. Dr. Rowland said, “It’s up to the clinician to say: ‘My role is as a doctor. You deserve caring friends, but I have to order your mammogram and your blood counts. My role is different.’ ”
 

Friendly but not friends

It can be tricky to navigate the boundary between a cordial, warm relationship with a patient and that patient inviting you to their daughter’s wedding.

“People may mistake being pleasant and friendly for being friends,” said Larry Blosser, MD, chief medical officer at Central Ohio Primary Care, Westerville. In his position, he sometimes hears from patients who have misunderstood their relationship with a doctor in the practice. When that happens, he advises the physician to consider the persona they’re presenting to the patient. If you’re overly friendly, there’s the potential for confusion, but you can’t be aloof and cold, he said.

Maintaining that awareness helps to prevent a patient’s offhand invitation to catch a movie or go on a hike. And verbalizing it to your patients can make your relationship clear from the get-go.

“I tell patients we’re a team. I’m the captain, and they’re my MVP. When the match is over, whatever the results, we’re done,” said Karenne Fru, MD, PhD, a fertility specialist at Oma Fertility Atlanta. Making deep connections is essential to her practice, so Dr. Fru structures her patient interactions carefully. “Infertility is such an isolating experience. While you’re with us, we care about what’s going on in your life, your pets, and your mom’s chemo. We need mutual trust for you to be compliant with the care.”

However, that approach won’t work when you see patients regularly, as with family practice or specialties that see the same patients repeatedly throughout the year. In those circumstances, the match is never over but one in which the onus is on the physician to establish a friendly yet professional rapport without letting your self-interest, loneliness, or lack of friends interfere.

“It’s been a very difficult couple of years for a lot of us. Depending on what kind of clinical work we do, some of us took care of healthy people that got very sick or passed away,” Dr. Rowland said. “Having the chance to reconnect with people and reestablish some of that closeness, both physical and emotional, is going to be good for us.”

Just continue conveying warm, trusting compassion for your patients without blurring the friend lines.

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

When you became a doctor, you may have moved to one city for med school, another for residency, and a third to be an attending. All that moving can make it hard to maintain friendships. Factor in the challenges from the pandemic, and a physician’s life can be lonely. So, when a patient invites you for coffee or a game of pickleball, do you accept? For almost one-third of the physicians who responded to the Medscape Physician Friendships: The Joys and Challenges 2022, the answer might be yes.

About 29% said they develop friendships with patients. However, a lot depends on the circumstances. As one physician in the report said: “I have been a pediatrician for 35 years, and my patients have grown up and become productive adults in our small, rural, isolated area. You can’t help but know almost everyone.”

As the daughter of a cardiologist, Nishi Mehta, MD, a radiologist and founder of the largest physician-only Facebook group in the country, grew up with that small-town-everyone-knows-the-doctor model.

“When I was a kid, I’d go to the mall, and my friends and I would play a game: How long before a patient [of my dad’s] comes up to me?” she said. At the time, Dr. Mehta was embarrassed, but now she marvels that her dad knew his patients so well that they would recognize his daughter in crowded suburban mall.

In other instances, a physician may develop a friendly relationship after a patient leaves their care. For example, Leo Nissola, MD, now a full-time researcher and immunotherapy scientist in San Francisco, has stayed in touch with some of the patients he treated while at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Dr. Nissola said it was important to stay connected with the patients he had meaningful relationships with. “It becomes challenging, though, when a former patient asks for medical advice.” At that moment, “you have to be explicitly clear that the relationship has changed.”
 

A hard line in the sand

The blurring of lines is one reason many doctors refuse to befriend patients, even after they are no longer treating them. The American College of Physicians Ethics Manual advises against treating anyone with whom you have a close relationship, including family and friends.

“Friendships can get in the way of patients being honest with you, which can interfere with medical care,” Dr. Mehta said. “If a patient has a concern related to something they wouldn’t want you to know as friends, it can get awkward. They may elect not to tell you.”

And on the flip side, friendship can provide a view into your private life that you may not welcome in the exam room.

“Let’s say you go out for drinks [with a patient], and you’re up late, but you have surgery the next day,” said Brandi Ring, MD, an ob.gyn. and the associate medical director at the Center for Children and Women in Houston. Now, one of your patients knows you were out until midnight when you had to be in the OR at 5:00 a.m.

Worse still, your relationship could color your decisions about a patient’s care, even unconsciously. It can be hard to maintain objectivity when you have an emotional investment in someone’s well-being.

“We don’t necessarily treat family and friends to the standards of medical care,” said Dr. Ring. “We go above and beyond. We might order more tests and more scans. We don’t always follow the guidelines, especially in critical illness.”

For all these reasons and more, the ACP advises against treating friends.
 

Put physician before friend

But adhering to those guidelines can lead physicians to make some painful decisions. Cutting yourself off from the possibility of friendship is never easy, and the Medscape report found that physicians tend to have fewer friends than the average American.

“Especially earlier in my practice, when I was a young parent, and I would see a lot of other young parents in the same stage in life, I’d think, ‘In other circumstances, I would be hanging out at the park with this person,’ “ said Kathleen Rowland, MD, a family medicine physician and vice chair of education in the department of family medicine at Rush University, Chicago. “But the hard part is, the doctor-patient relationship always comes first.”

To a certain extent, one’s specialty may determine the feasibility of becoming friends with a patient. While Dr. Mehta has never done so, as a radiologist, she doesn’t usually see patients repeatedly. Likewise, a young gerontologist may have little in common with his octogenarian patients. And an older pediatrician is not in the same life stage as his patients’ sleep-deprived new parents, possibly making them less attractive friends.

However, practicing family medicine is all about long-term physician-patient relationships. Getting to know patients and their families over many years can lead to a certain intimacy. Dr. Rowland said that, while a wonderful part of being a physician is getting that unique trust whereby patients tell you all sorts of things about their lives, she’s never gone down the friendship path.

“There’s the assumption I’ll take care of someone for a long period of time, and their partner and their kids, maybe another generation or two,” Dr. Rowland said. “People really do rely on that relationship to contribute to their health.”

Worse, nowadays, when people may be starved for connection, many patients want to feel emotionally close and cared for by their doctor, so it’d be easy to cross the line. While patients deserve a compassionate, caring doctor, the physician is left to walk the line between those boundaries. Dr. Rowland said, “It’s up to the clinician to say: ‘My role is as a doctor. You deserve caring friends, but I have to order your mammogram and your blood counts. My role is different.’ ”
 

Friendly but not friends

It can be tricky to navigate the boundary between a cordial, warm relationship with a patient and that patient inviting you to their daughter’s wedding.

“People may mistake being pleasant and friendly for being friends,” said Larry Blosser, MD, chief medical officer at Central Ohio Primary Care, Westerville. In his position, he sometimes hears from patients who have misunderstood their relationship with a doctor in the practice. When that happens, he advises the physician to consider the persona they’re presenting to the patient. If you’re overly friendly, there’s the potential for confusion, but you can’t be aloof and cold, he said.

Maintaining that awareness helps to prevent a patient’s offhand invitation to catch a movie or go on a hike. And verbalizing it to your patients can make your relationship clear from the get-go.

“I tell patients we’re a team. I’m the captain, and they’re my MVP. When the match is over, whatever the results, we’re done,” said Karenne Fru, MD, PhD, a fertility specialist at Oma Fertility Atlanta. Making deep connections is essential to her practice, so Dr. Fru structures her patient interactions carefully. “Infertility is such an isolating experience. While you’re with us, we care about what’s going on in your life, your pets, and your mom’s chemo. We need mutual trust for you to be compliant with the care.”

However, that approach won’t work when you see patients regularly, as with family practice or specialties that see the same patients repeatedly throughout the year. In those circumstances, the match is never over but one in which the onus is on the physician to establish a friendly yet professional rapport without letting your self-interest, loneliness, or lack of friends interfere.

“It’s been a very difficult couple of years for a lot of us. Depending on what kind of clinical work we do, some of us took care of healthy people that got very sick or passed away,” Dr. Rowland said. “Having the chance to reconnect with people and reestablish some of that closeness, both physical and emotional, is going to be good for us.”

Just continue conveying warm, trusting compassion for your patients without blurring the friend lines.

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

When you became a doctor, you may have moved to one city for med school, another for residency, and a third to be an attending. All that moving can make it hard to maintain friendships. Factor in the challenges from the pandemic, and a physician’s life can be lonely. So, when a patient invites you for coffee or a game of pickleball, do you accept? For almost one-third of the physicians who responded to the Medscape Physician Friendships: The Joys and Challenges 2022, the answer might be yes.

About 29% said they develop friendships with patients. However, a lot depends on the circumstances. As one physician in the report said: “I have been a pediatrician for 35 years, and my patients have grown up and become productive adults in our small, rural, isolated area. You can’t help but know almost everyone.”

As the daughter of a cardiologist, Nishi Mehta, MD, a radiologist and founder of the largest physician-only Facebook group in the country, grew up with that small-town-everyone-knows-the-doctor model.

“When I was a kid, I’d go to the mall, and my friends and I would play a game: How long before a patient [of my dad’s] comes up to me?” she said. At the time, Dr. Mehta was embarrassed, but now she marvels that her dad knew his patients so well that they would recognize his daughter in crowded suburban mall.

In other instances, a physician may develop a friendly relationship after a patient leaves their care. For example, Leo Nissola, MD, now a full-time researcher and immunotherapy scientist in San Francisco, has stayed in touch with some of the patients he treated while at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Dr. Nissola said it was important to stay connected with the patients he had meaningful relationships with. “It becomes challenging, though, when a former patient asks for medical advice.” At that moment, “you have to be explicitly clear that the relationship has changed.”
 

A hard line in the sand

The blurring of lines is one reason many doctors refuse to befriend patients, even after they are no longer treating them. The American College of Physicians Ethics Manual advises against treating anyone with whom you have a close relationship, including family and friends.

“Friendships can get in the way of patients being honest with you, which can interfere with medical care,” Dr. Mehta said. “If a patient has a concern related to something they wouldn’t want you to know as friends, it can get awkward. They may elect not to tell you.”

And on the flip side, friendship can provide a view into your private life that you may not welcome in the exam room.

“Let’s say you go out for drinks [with a patient], and you’re up late, but you have surgery the next day,” said Brandi Ring, MD, an ob.gyn. and the associate medical director at the Center for Children and Women in Houston. Now, one of your patients knows you were out until midnight when you had to be in the OR at 5:00 a.m.

Worse still, your relationship could color your decisions about a patient’s care, even unconsciously. It can be hard to maintain objectivity when you have an emotional investment in someone’s well-being.

“We don’t necessarily treat family and friends to the standards of medical care,” said Dr. Ring. “We go above and beyond. We might order more tests and more scans. We don’t always follow the guidelines, especially in critical illness.”

For all these reasons and more, the ACP advises against treating friends.
 

Put physician before friend

But adhering to those guidelines can lead physicians to make some painful decisions. Cutting yourself off from the possibility of friendship is never easy, and the Medscape report found that physicians tend to have fewer friends than the average American.

“Especially earlier in my practice, when I was a young parent, and I would see a lot of other young parents in the same stage in life, I’d think, ‘In other circumstances, I would be hanging out at the park with this person,’ “ said Kathleen Rowland, MD, a family medicine physician and vice chair of education in the department of family medicine at Rush University, Chicago. “But the hard part is, the doctor-patient relationship always comes first.”

To a certain extent, one’s specialty may determine the feasibility of becoming friends with a patient. While Dr. Mehta has never done so, as a radiologist, she doesn’t usually see patients repeatedly. Likewise, a young gerontologist may have little in common with his octogenarian patients. And an older pediatrician is not in the same life stage as his patients’ sleep-deprived new parents, possibly making them less attractive friends.

However, practicing family medicine is all about long-term physician-patient relationships. Getting to know patients and their families over many years can lead to a certain intimacy. Dr. Rowland said that, while a wonderful part of being a physician is getting that unique trust whereby patients tell you all sorts of things about their lives, she’s never gone down the friendship path.

“There’s the assumption I’ll take care of someone for a long period of time, and their partner and their kids, maybe another generation or two,” Dr. Rowland said. “People really do rely on that relationship to contribute to their health.”

Worse, nowadays, when people may be starved for connection, many patients want to feel emotionally close and cared for by their doctor, so it’d be easy to cross the line. While patients deserve a compassionate, caring doctor, the physician is left to walk the line between those boundaries. Dr. Rowland said, “It’s up to the clinician to say: ‘My role is as a doctor. You deserve caring friends, but I have to order your mammogram and your blood counts. My role is different.’ ”
 

Friendly but not friends

It can be tricky to navigate the boundary between a cordial, warm relationship with a patient and that patient inviting you to their daughter’s wedding.

“People may mistake being pleasant and friendly for being friends,” said Larry Blosser, MD, chief medical officer at Central Ohio Primary Care, Westerville. In his position, he sometimes hears from patients who have misunderstood their relationship with a doctor in the practice. When that happens, he advises the physician to consider the persona they’re presenting to the patient. If you’re overly friendly, there’s the potential for confusion, but you can’t be aloof and cold, he said.

Maintaining that awareness helps to prevent a patient’s offhand invitation to catch a movie or go on a hike. And verbalizing it to your patients can make your relationship clear from the get-go.

“I tell patients we’re a team. I’m the captain, and they’re my MVP. When the match is over, whatever the results, we’re done,” said Karenne Fru, MD, PhD, a fertility specialist at Oma Fertility Atlanta. Making deep connections is essential to her practice, so Dr. Fru structures her patient interactions carefully. “Infertility is such an isolating experience. While you’re with us, we care about what’s going on in your life, your pets, and your mom’s chemo. We need mutual trust for you to be compliant with the care.”

However, that approach won’t work when you see patients regularly, as with family practice or specialties that see the same patients repeatedly throughout the year. In those circumstances, the match is never over but one in which the onus is on the physician to establish a friendly yet professional rapport without letting your self-interest, loneliness, or lack of friends interfere.

“It’s been a very difficult couple of years for a lot of us. Depending on what kind of clinical work we do, some of us took care of healthy people that got very sick or passed away,” Dr. Rowland said. “Having the chance to reconnect with people and reestablish some of that closeness, both physical and emotional, is going to be good for us.”

Just continue conveying warm, trusting compassion for your patients without blurring the friend lines.

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

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and its newly installed president have posted an apology for a speech delivered by its outgoing president that appeared, in part, to disparage affirmative action as a means to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field.

The speech, entitled “Three Score & More,” presented Jan. 22 at the STS 58th annual meeting in San Diego by John H. Calhoon, MD, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, unleashed a cascade of tweets, some circumspect but many expressing outrage and dismay.

Many of the tweets were from individuals who acknowledged not hearing the speech but who had seen at least one accompanying slide which, by then, had been widely circulated on the platform. It contained phrases such as “Affirmative Action is not equal opportunity” and “Defining people by color, gender, religion only tends to ingrain bias and discrimination,” all under the heading of “Virtuous Ideals.”

Reactions on Twitter included comments such as “This is bad beyond description” and a description of the slide’s content as “the blueprint & thought process for those actively maintaining Whiteness & the Patriarchy in medicine.”

Following an early onslaught of such tweets, the STS and new president Thomas E. MacGillivray, MD, MedStar Health, Washington, issued a statement disowning at least the controversial parts of Dr. Calhoon’s presentation, stating they were “inconsistent with STS’s core values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

The post continues, “The STS apologizes for these remarks. We know these comments were hurtful and we regret the pain they have caused to so many valued colleagues.” It then states, “Diversity, equity, and inclusion are central principles of our Society, and what we strive for in our profession and our practice. STS is committed to learning from this experience and taking action to reinforce our commitment to these values.”

“I believe that either the slide and/or my remarks were misinterpreted by some. I don’t want to hurt anybody. I’m profoundly sorry and apologize,” Dr. Calhoon said in an interview.

“I’m proud of my own group’s record on diversity and using equity and inclusion to get there,” he said. “We’re committed to it. We’ve had a wonderfully diverse group. I tried to highlight that in my remarks.”

About the Twitter response to the slide in question, Dr. Calhoon said, “I have no idea how they were thinking.” He added, “I can only comment that I’m really proud of our record and, for that matter, the STS’s record on diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

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

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and its newly installed president have posted an apology for a speech delivered by its outgoing president that appeared, in part, to disparage affirmative action as a means to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field.

The speech, entitled “Three Score & More,” presented Jan. 22 at the STS 58th annual meeting in San Diego by John H. Calhoon, MD, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, unleashed a cascade of tweets, some circumspect but many expressing outrage and dismay.

Many of the tweets were from individuals who acknowledged not hearing the speech but who had seen at least one accompanying slide which, by then, had been widely circulated on the platform. It contained phrases such as “Affirmative Action is not equal opportunity” and “Defining people by color, gender, religion only tends to ingrain bias and discrimination,” all under the heading of “Virtuous Ideals.”

Reactions on Twitter included comments such as “This is bad beyond description” and a description of the slide’s content as “the blueprint & thought process for those actively maintaining Whiteness & the Patriarchy in medicine.”

Following an early onslaught of such tweets, the STS and new president Thomas E. MacGillivray, MD, MedStar Health, Washington, issued a statement disowning at least the controversial parts of Dr. Calhoon’s presentation, stating they were “inconsistent with STS’s core values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

The post continues, “The STS apologizes for these remarks. We know these comments were hurtful and we regret the pain they have caused to so many valued colleagues.” It then states, “Diversity, equity, and inclusion are central principles of our Society, and what we strive for in our profession and our practice. STS is committed to learning from this experience and taking action to reinforce our commitment to these values.”

“I believe that either the slide and/or my remarks were misinterpreted by some. I don’t want to hurt anybody. I’m profoundly sorry and apologize,” Dr. Calhoon said in an interview.

“I’m proud of my own group’s record on diversity and using equity and inclusion to get there,” he said. “We’re committed to it. We’ve had a wonderfully diverse group. I tried to highlight that in my remarks.”

About the Twitter response to the slide in question, Dr. Calhoon said, “I have no idea how they were thinking.” He added, “I can only comment that I’m really proud of our record and, for that matter, the STS’s record on diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

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

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and its newly installed president have posted an apology for a speech delivered by its outgoing president that appeared, in part, to disparage affirmative action as a means to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field.

The speech, entitled “Three Score & More,” presented Jan. 22 at the STS 58th annual meeting in San Diego by John H. Calhoon, MD, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, unleashed a cascade of tweets, some circumspect but many expressing outrage and dismay.

Many of the tweets were from individuals who acknowledged not hearing the speech but who had seen at least one accompanying slide which, by then, had been widely circulated on the platform. It contained phrases such as “Affirmative Action is not equal opportunity” and “Defining people by color, gender, religion only tends to ingrain bias and discrimination,” all under the heading of “Virtuous Ideals.”

Reactions on Twitter included comments such as “This is bad beyond description” and a description of the slide’s content as “the blueprint & thought process for those actively maintaining Whiteness & the Patriarchy in medicine.”

Following an early onslaught of such tweets, the STS and new president Thomas E. MacGillivray, MD, MedStar Health, Washington, issued a statement disowning at least the controversial parts of Dr. Calhoon’s presentation, stating they were “inconsistent with STS’s core values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

The post continues, “The STS apologizes for these remarks. We know these comments were hurtful and we regret the pain they have caused to so many valued colleagues.” It then states, “Diversity, equity, and inclusion are central principles of our Society, and what we strive for in our profession and our practice. STS is committed to learning from this experience and taking action to reinforce our commitment to these values.”

“I believe that either the slide and/or my remarks were misinterpreted by some. I don’t want to hurt anybody. I’m profoundly sorry and apologize,” Dr. Calhoon said in an interview.

“I’m proud of my own group’s record on diversity and using equity and inclusion to get there,” he said. “We’re committed to it. We’ve had a wonderfully diverse group. I tried to highlight that in my remarks.”

About the Twitter response to the slide in question, Dr. Calhoon said, “I have no idea how they were thinking.” He added, “I can only comment that I’m really proud of our record and, for that matter, the STS’s record on diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

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

Several decades ago, a new patient came to my office with her family. She was elderly, in good health, spoke no English, and her extended family translated for her. Their request: “Don’t tell her that she has cancer.” Sharing her diagnosis with her would cause too much stress, they said. Their mother would not be able to tolerate the bad news, they said. She would “give up.”

I asked her (through her family and an interpreter) how much she wanted to know about what was going on, or would she prefer I confine my remarks to her family? It turns out that she did want to know her diagnosis and prognosis, and after a thorough discussion in front of her family about her treatment options, she decided she did not want to proceed with additional therapy. She wanted to focus on quality of life. I did not get the impression that this is what her family would have opted for.

The patient’s voice can take multiple directions, such as making informed decisions about their own care. When empowered, patients can and will express their wants, needs, feelings, and priorities to their providers, and they’ll participate in directing their own care. There is a growing body of evidence that shows patients who are more engaged and share decision-making with their health care professionals have better health outcomes and care experiences. Engaged patients feel more empowered and are more motivated to take action. They’re also more likely to follow treatment plans, take their medications, and heed their provider’s recommendations. By virtue of better treatments for lung cancer, many patients are living longer and better lives. Some of these patients even become “experts” on their own care, often bringing questions about research and clinical trials to the attention of their providers.
 

The patient’s voice in research and advocacy

The patient’s perspective is also key to a meaningful, successful clinical research project. Rather than being carried out to, about, or for the patient, patient involvement means research being carried out with or by patients. A patient and researcher may have different research goals. For example, patients may value being able to work, be with family, and live without pain, whereas a clinical researcher’s goal may be inducing responses. Patient involvement is important in both laboratory research and clinical research. The best-designed projects involve patient advocates from the beginning of the project to help make research relevant and meaningful to patients and include these perspectives through project completion.

More and more pharmaceutical companies are actively involving patients at all levels of protocol development, including protocol design and selection of relevant outcomes to patients. Benefits of engaging patients as partners in research include inclusion of real-world data, increased study enrollment, and translation of results to the cancer community in an understandable and accessible manner.
 

Accelerated research

Advocating for accelerated research is another area where the patient’s voice is important. Patients can and do identify research priorities for researchers, funding agencies, and pharma. Patients who support research advocacy are frequently part of meetings and panel discussions with researchers, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Cancer Institute. And, they serve on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies. They participate in grant reviews and institutional review boards, review manuscripts, and are active members of the cooperative groups and other professional societies. In fact, patient-led advocacy groups are raising money to help fund research they feel is most important to them. In lung cancer, for example, there are many groups organized around biomarkers, including the EGFR Resisters, ALK Positive, ROS1ders, MET Crusaders, and KRAS Kickers, who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund investigator-led translational research that would not have occurred without their involvement.

It is important to recognize that all patients are different and have different values and motivations that are important to them and influence their life decisions. Some patients want to know more about their condition and their preferences should be respected. Similarly, it’s critical to understand that not every patient is an advocate and not every advocate is a research advocate. Research advocates have more in-depth knowledge about the science of lung cancer and focus on representing the patient perspective for all lung cancer patients.

So, getting back to my original story: Did my patient “give up” by choosing palliative care without chemotherapy? Perhaps, but I don’t think she considered her decision “giving up.” Instead, she made the best decision possible for herself. What would have happened had she not been told of her diagnosis? She probably would not have spent extra quality time with her family, as they tried to ignore the obvious. And, after all, quality time with her family was all she wanted.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.

Several decades ago, a new patient came to my office with her family. She was elderly, in good health, spoke no English, and her extended family translated for her. Their request: “Don’t tell her that she has cancer.” Sharing her diagnosis with her would cause too much stress, they said. Their mother would not be able to tolerate the bad news, they said. She would “give up.”

I asked her (through her family and an interpreter) how much she wanted to know about what was going on, or would she prefer I confine my remarks to her family? It turns out that she did want to know her diagnosis and prognosis, and after a thorough discussion in front of her family about her treatment options, she decided she did not want to proceed with additional therapy. She wanted to focus on quality of life. I did not get the impression that this is what her family would have opted for.

The patient’s voice can take multiple directions, such as making informed decisions about their own care. When empowered, patients can and will express their wants, needs, feelings, and priorities to their providers, and they’ll participate in directing their own care. There is a growing body of evidence that shows patients who are more engaged and share decision-making with their health care professionals have better health outcomes and care experiences. Engaged patients feel more empowered and are more motivated to take action. They’re also more likely to follow treatment plans, take their medications, and heed their provider’s recommendations. By virtue of better treatments for lung cancer, many patients are living longer and better lives. Some of these patients even become “experts” on their own care, often bringing questions about research and clinical trials to the attention of their providers.
 

The patient’s voice in research and advocacy

The patient’s perspective is also key to a meaningful, successful clinical research project. Rather than being carried out to, about, or for the patient, patient involvement means research being carried out with or by patients. A patient and researcher may have different research goals. For example, patients may value being able to work, be with family, and live without pain, whereas a clinical researcher’s goal may be inducing responses. Patient involvement is important in both laboratory research and clinical research. The best-designed projects involve patient advocates from the beginning of the project to help make research relevant and meaningful to patients and include these perspectives through project completion.

More and more pharmaceutical companies are actively involving patients at all levels of protocol development, including protocol design and selection of relevant outcomes to patients. Benefits of engaging patients as partners in research include inclusion of real-world data, increased study enrollment, and translation of results to the cancer community in an understandable and accessible manner.
 

Accelerated research

Advocating for accelerated research is another area where the patient’s voice is important. Patients can and do identify research priorities for researchers, funding agencies, and pharma. Patients who support research advocacy are frequently part of meetings and panel discussions with researchers, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Cancer Institute. And, they serve on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies. They participate in grant reviews and institutional review boards, review manuscripts, and are active members of the cooperative groups and other professional societies. In fact, patient-led advocacy groups are raising money to help fund research they feel is most important to them. In lung cancer, for example, there are many groups organized around biomarkers, including the EGFR Resisters, ALK Positive, ROS1ders, MET Crusaders, and KRAS Kickers, who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund investigator-led translational research that would not have occurred without their involvement.

It is important to recognize that all patients are different and have different values and motivations that are important to them and influence their life decisions. Some patients want to know more about their condition and their preferences should be respected. Similarly, it’s critical to understand that not every patient is an advocate and not every advocate is a research advocate. Research advocates have more in-depth knowledge about the science of lung cancer and focus on representing the patient perspective for all lung cancer patients.

So, getting back to my original story: Did my patient “give up” by choosing palliative care without chemotherapy? Perhaps, but I don’t think she considered her decision “giving up.” Instead, she made the best decision possible for herself. What would have happened had she not been told of her diagnosis? She probably would not have spent extra quality time with her family, as they tried to ignore the obvious. And, after all, quality time with her family was all she wanted.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.

Several decades ago, a new patient came to my office with her family. She was elderly, in good health, spoke no English, and her extended family translated for her. Their request: “Don’t tell her that she has cancer.” Sharing her diagnosis with her would cause too much stress, they said. Their mother would not be able to tolerate the bad news, they said. She would “give up.”

I asked her (through her family and an interpreter) how much she wanted to know about what was going on, or would she prefer I confine my remarks to her family? It turns out that she did want to know her diagnosis and prognosis, and after a thorough discussion in front of her family about her treatment options, she decided she did not want to proceed with additional therapy. She wanted to focus on quality of life. I did not get the impression that this is what her family would have opted for.

The patient’s voice can take multiple directions, such as making informed decisions about their own care. When empowered, patients can and will express their wants, needs, feelings, and priorities to their providers, and they’ll participate in directing their own care. There is a growing body of evidence that shows patients who are more engaged and share decision-making with their health care professionals have better health outcomes and care experiences. Engaged patients feel more empowered and are more motivated to take action. They’re also more likely to follow treatment plans, take their medications, and heed their provider’s recommendations. By virtue of better treatments for lung cancer, many patients are living longer and better lives. Some of these patients even become “experts” on their own care, often bringing questions about research and clinical trials to the attention of their providers.
 

The patient’s voice in research and advocacy

The patient’s perspective is also key to a meaningful, successful clinical research project. Rather than being carried out to, about, or for the patient, patient involvement means research being carried out with or by patients. A patient and researcher may have different research goals. For example, patients may value being able to work, be with family, and live without pain, whereas a clinical researcher’s goal may be inducing responses. Patient involvement is important in both laboratory research and clinical research. The best-designed projects involve patient advocates from the beginning of the project to help make research relevant and meaningful to patients and include these perspectives through project completion.

More and more pharmaceutical companies are actively involving patients at all levels of protocol development, including protocol design and selection of relevant outcomes to patients. Benefits of engaging patients as partners in research include inclusion of real-world data, increased study enrollment, and translation of results to the cancer community in an understandable and accessible manner.
 

Accelerated research

Advocating for accelerated research is another area where the patient’s voice is important. Patients can and do identify research priorities for researchers, funding agencies, and pharma. Patients who support research advocacy are frequently part of meetings and panel discussions with researchers, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Cancer Institute. And, they serve on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies. They participate in grant reviews and institutional review boards, review manuscripts, and are active members of the cooperative groups and other professional societies. In fact, patient-led advocacy groups are raising money to help fund research they feel is most important to them. In lung cancer, for example, there are many groups organized around biomarkers, including the EGFR Resisters, ALK Positive, ROS1ders, MET Crusaders, and KRAS Kickers, who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund investigator-led translational research that would not have occurred without their involvement.

It is important to recognize that all patients are different and have different values and motivations that are important to them and influence their life decisions. Some patients want to know more about their condition and their preferences should be respected. Similarly, it’s critical to understand that not every patient is an advocate and not every advocate is a research advocate. Research advocates have more in-depth knowledge about the science of lung cancer and focus on representing the patient perspective for all lung cancer patients.

So, getting back to my original story: Did my patient “give up” by choosing palliative care without chemotherapy? Perhaps, but I don’t think she considered her decision “giving up.” Instead, she made the best decision possible for herself. What would have happened had she not been told of her diagnosis? She probably would not have spent extra quality time with her family, as they tried to ignore the obvious. And, after all, quality time with her family was all she wanted.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.

A recent change in Medicare policy designed to increase access to left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may have had the unintended consequence of increasing inequalities in access to heart transplant for patients with advanced heart failure.

In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relaxed restrictions on centers that implant LVADs but don’t perform heart transplants. Specifically, they dropped the requirement that LVAD-only centers obtain permission from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center authorizing LVAD implantation with “bridge-to-transplant” (BTT) intent, meaning the patient is a transplant candidate.

zimmytws/gettyimages

While the relaxed requirement has the potential to increase access to LVADs for appropriate patients, a look back at 22,221 LVAD recipients found that patients who received LVADs at transplant-capable centers had a 79% higher likelihood of receiving a BTT LVAD designation.

The 2-year heart transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% for patients who received an LVAD at a heart transplant center, compared with 11.9% at LVAD-only centers.

Thomas Cascino, MD, with University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reported their findings in JAMA Network Open.
 

Differential assessment?

Nontransplant LVAD centers are increasing in number in the United States now that the CMS has made establishing an LVAD-only center easier.

“Although there should be enthusiasm for the potential of LVAD-only centers to increase access to LVAD, it appears that receiving an LVAD at a center that does not perform transplants results in differential assessment of transplant eligibility at the time of LVAD implant and inequities in receipt of transplant,” Dr. Cascino and colleagues said.

“Being cared for at a center that does not perform heart transplant should not result in a lesser chance to receive a heart transplant,” Dr. Cascino added in a university news release. “Our study shows that this disparity existed before the policy change, and we think it will likely grow larger now that there is less collaboration.”

The CMS policy will likely “further challenge equity in access to transplant for patients seeking care at nontransplant centers and may have the unintended consequence of contributing to increasing inequities in access to transplants, as has been feared,” the researchers wrote.

They also note that recent changes in the adult heart allocation system under the United Network for Organ Sharing have significantly reduced the likelihood of transplant after durable LVAD implant unless candidates are listed as being at higher urgency status owing to an LVAD complication or clinical deterioration.

“The reality is that durable LVADs are much less likely to be a bridge to the best therapy (that is, transplant) in the current allocation system. As a result, there is a critical need to select appropriate durable LVAD and transplant candidates at the initial evaluation,” the authors said.

“This puts the onus on the transplant community to select appropriate LVAD and transplant candidates during the initial evaluation. We need a system in which any patient can walk into the same hospital and get the right therapy for them,” Dr. Cascino added in the news release.

The research was supported in part through funding from the University of Michigan Health department of cardiac surgery and the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Cascino has received grants from Johnson & Johnson.

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

A recent change in Medicare policy designed to increase access to left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may have had the unintended consequence of increasing inequalities in access to heart transplant for patients with advanced heart failure.

In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relaxed restrictions on centers that implant LVADs but don’t perform heart transplants. Specifically, they dropped the requirement that LVAD-only centers obtain permission from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center authorizing LVAD implantation with “bridge-to-transplant” (BTT) intent, meaning the patient is a transplant candidate.

zimmytws/gettyimages

While the relaxed requirement has the potential to increase access to LVADs for appropriate patients, a look back at 22,221 LVAD recipients found that patients who received LVADs at transplant-capable centers had a 79% higher likelihood of receiving a BTT LVAD designation.

The 2-year heart transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% for patients who received an LVAD at a heart transplant center, compared with 11.9% at LVAD-only centers.

Thomas Cascino, MD, with University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reported their findings in JAMA Network Open.
 

Differential assessment?

Nontransplant LVAD centers are increasing in number in the United States now that the CMS has made establishing an LVAD-only center easier.

“Although there should be enthusiasm for the potential of LVAD-only centers to increase access to LVAD, it appears that receiving an LVAD at a center that does not perform transplants results in differential assessment of transplant eligibility at the time of LVAD implant and inequities in receipt of transplant,” Dr. Cascino and colleagues said.

“Being cared for at a center that does not perform heart transplant should not result in a lesser chance to receive a heart transplant,” Dr. Cascino added in a university news release. “Our study shows that this disparity existed before the policy change, and we think it will likely grow larger now that there is less collaboration.”

The CMS policy will likely “further challenge equity in access to transplant for patients seeking care at nontransplant centers and may have the unintended consequence of contributing to increasing inequities in access to transplants, as has been feared,” the researchers wrote.

They also note that recent changes in the adult heart allocation system under the United Network for Organ Sharing have significantly reduced the likelihood of transplant after durable LVAD implant unless candidates are listed as being at higher urgency status owing to an LVAD complication or clinical deterioration.

“The reality is that durable LVADs are much less likely to be a bridge to the best therapy (that is, transplant) in the current allocation system. As a result, there is a critical need to select appropriate durable LVAD and transplant candidates at the initial evaluation,” the authors said.

“This puts the onus on the transplant community to select appropriate LVAD and transplant candidates during the initial evaluation. We need a system in which any patient can walk into the same hospital and get the right therapy for them,” Dr. Cascino added in the news release.

The research was supported in part through funding from the University of Michigan Health department of cardiac surgery and the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Cascino has received grants from Johnson & Johnson.

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

A recent change in Medicare policy designed to increase access to left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may have had the unintended consequence of increasing inequalities in access to heart transplant for patients with advanced heart failure.

In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relaxed restrictions on centers that implant LVADs but don’t perform heart transplants. Specifically, they dropped the requirement that LVAD-only centers obtain permission from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center authorizing LVAD implantation with “bridge-to-transplant” (BTT) intent, meaning the patient is a transplant candidate.

zimmytws/gettyimages

While the relaxed requirement has the potential to increase access to LVADs for appropriate patients, a look back at 22,221 LVAD recipients found that patients who received LVADs at transplant-capable centers had a 79% higher likelihood of receiving a BTT LVAD designation.

The 2-year heart transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% for patients who received an LVAD at a heart transplant center, compared with 11.9% at LVAD-only centers.

Thomas Cascino, MD, with University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reported their findings in JAMA Network Open.
 

Differential assessment?

Nontransplant LVAD centers are increasing in number in the United States now that the CMS has made establishing an LVAD-only center easier.

“Although there should be enthusiasm for the potential of LVAD-only centers to increase access to LVAD, it appears that receiving an LVAD at a center that does not perform transplants results in differential assessment of transplant eligibility at the time of LVAD implant and inequities in receipt of transplant,” Dr. Cascino and colleagues said.

“Being cared for at a center that does not perform heart transplant should not result in a lesser chance to receive a heart transplant,” Dr. Cascino added in a university news release. “Our study shows that this disparity existed before the policy change, and we think it will likely grow larger now that there is less collaboration.”

The CMS policy will likely “further challenge equity in access to transplant for patients seeking care at nontransplant centers and may have the unintended consequence of contributing to increasing inequities in access to transplants, as has been feared,” the researchers wrote.

They also note that recent changes in the adult heart allocation system under the United Network for Organ Sharing have significantly reduced the likelihood of transplant after durable LVAD implant unless candidates are listed as being at higher urgency status owing to an LVAD complication or clinical deterioration.

“The reality is that durable LVADs are much less likely to be a bridge to the best therapy (that is, transplant) in the current allocation system. As a result, there is a critical need to select appropriate durable LVAD and transplant candidates at the initial evaluation,” the authors said.

“This puts the onus on the transplant community to select appropriate LVAD and transplant candidates during the initial evaluation. We need a system in which any patient can walk into the same hospital and get the right therapy for them,” Dr. Cascino added in the news release.

The research was supported in part through funding from the University of Michigan Health department of cardiac surgery and the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Cascino has received grants from Johnson & Johnson.

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

Surgeon gender was not associated with maternal morbidity or severe blood loss after cesarean delivery, a large prospective cohort study from France reports. The results have important implications for the promotion of gender equality among surgeons, obstetricians in particular, wrote a team led by Hanane Bouchghoul, MD, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bordeaux (France) University Hospital. The report is in JAMA Surgery.

“Our findings are significant in that they add substantially to the string of studies contradicting the age-old dogma that men are better surgeons than women,” the authors wrote. Previous research has suggested slightly better outcomes with female surgeons or higher complication rates with male surgeons.

The results support those of a recent Canadian retrospective analysis suggesting that patients treated by male or female surgeons for various elective indications experience similar surgical outcomes but with a slight, statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality when treated by female surgeons.

“Policy makers need to combat prejudice against women in surgical careers, particularly in obstetrics and gynecology, so that women no longer experience conscious or unconscious barriers or difficulties in their professional choices, training, and relationships with colleagues or patients,” study corresponding author Loïc Sentilhes, MD, PhD, of Bordeaux University Hospital, said in an interview.

Facing such barriers, women may doubt their ability to be surgeons, their legitimacy as surgeons, and may not consider this type of career, he continued. “Moreover a teacher may not be as involved in teaching young female surgeons as young male surgeons, or the doctor-patient relationship may be more complicated in the event of complications if the patient thinks that a female surgeon has less competence than a male surgeon.”  

The analysis drew on data from the Tranexamic Acid for Preventing Postpartum Hemorrhage after Cesarean Delivery 2 trial, a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study conducted from March 2018 through January 2020 in mothers from 27 French maternity hospitals.

Eligible participants had a cesarean delivery before or during labor at or after 34 weeks’ gestation. The primary endpoint was the incidence of a composite maternal morbidity variable, and the secondary endpoint was the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage, defined by a calculated estimated blood loss exceeding 1,000 mL or transfusion by day 2.

Among the 4,244 women included, male surgeons performed 943 cesarean deliveries (22.2%) and female surgeons performed 3,301 (77.8%). The percentage who were attending obstetricians was higher for men at 441 of 929 (47.5%) than women at 687 of 3,239 (21.2%).

The observed risk of maternal morbidity did not differ between male and female surgeons: 119 of 837 (14.2%) vs. 476 of 2,928 (16.3%), for an adjusted risk ratio (aRR) of 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-1.13). Interaction between surgeon gender and level of experience with the risk of maternal morbidity was not statistically significant; nor did the groups differ specifically by risk for postpartum hemorrhage: aRR, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.85-1.13).

Despite the longstanding stereotype that men perform surgery better than women, and the traditional preponderance of male surgeons, the authors noted, postoperative morbidity and mortality may be lower after various surgeries performed by women.

The TRAAP2 trial

In an accompanying editorial, Amanda Fader, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues caution that the French study’s methodology may not fully account for the complex intersection of surgeon volume, experience, gender, clinical decision-making skills, and patient-level and clinical factors affecting outcomes.

That said, appraising surgical outcomes based on gender may be an essential step toward reducing implicit bias and dispelling engendered perceptions regarding gender and technical proficiency, the commentators stated. “To definitively dispel archaic, gender-based notions about performance in clinical or surgical settings, efforts must go beyond peer-reviewed research,” Dr. Fader said in an interview. “Medical institutions and leaders of clinical departments must make concerted efforts to recruit, mentor, support, and promote women and persons of all genders in medicine – as well as confront any discriminatory perceptions and experiences concerning sex, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, or economic class.”

This study was supported by the French Ministry of Health under its Clinical Research Hospital Program. Dr. Sentilhes reported financial relationships with Dilafor, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sigvaris, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The editorial commentators disclosed no funding for their commentary or conflicts of interest.

Surgeon gender was not associated with maternal morbidity or severe blood loss after cesarean delivery, a large prospective cohort study from France reports. The results have important implications for the promotion of gender equality among surgeons, obstetricians in particular, wrote a team led by Hanane Bouchghoul, MD, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bordeaux (France) University Hospital. The report is in JAMA Surgery.

“Our findings are significant in that they add substantially to the string of studies contradicting the age-old dogma that men are better surgeons than women,” the authors wrote. Previous research has suggested slightly better outcomes with female surgeons or higher complication rates with male surgeons.

The results support those of a recent Canadian retrospective analysis suggesting that patients treated by male or female surgeons for various elective indications experience similar surgical outcomes but with a slight, statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality when treated by female surgeons.

“Policy makers need to combat prejudice against women in surgical careers, particularly in obstetrics and gynecology, so that women no longer experience conscious or unconscious barriers or difficulties in their professional choices, training, and relationships with colleagues or patients,” study corresponding author Loïc Sentilhes, MD, PhD, of Bordeaux University Hospital, said in an interview.

Facing such barriers, women may doubt their ability to be surgeons, their legitimacy as surgeons, and may not consider this type of career, he continued. “Moreover a teacher may not be as involved in teaching young female surgeons as young male surgeons, or the doctor-patient relationship may be more complicated in the event of complications if the patient thinks that a female surgeon has less competence than a male surgeon.”  

The analysis drew on data from the Tranexamic Acid for Preventing Postpartum Hemorrhage after Cesarean Delivery 2 trial, a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study conducted from March 2018 through January 2020 in mothers from 27 French maternity hospitals.

Eligible participants had a cesarean delivery before or during labor at or after 34 weeks’ gestation. The primary endpoint was the incidence of a composite maternal morbidity variable, and the secondary endpoint was the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage, defined by a calculated estimated blood loss exceeding 1,000 mL or transfusion by day 2.

Among the 4,244 women included, male surgeons performed 943 cesarean deliveries (22.2%) and female surgeons performed 3,301 (77.8%). The percentage who were attending obstetricians was higher for men at 441 of 929 (47.5%) than women at 687 of 3,239 (21.2%).

The observed risk of maternal morbidity did not differ between male and female surgeons: 119 of 837 (14.2%) vs. 476 of 2,928 (16.3%), for an adjusted risk ratio (aRR) of 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-1.13). Interaction between surgeon gender and level of experience with the risk of maternal morbidity was not statistically significant; nor did the groups differ specifically by risk for postpartum hemorrhage: aRR, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.85-1.13).

Despite the longstanding stereotype that men perform surgery better than women, and the traditional preponderance of male surgeons, the authors noted, postoperative morbidity and mortality may be lower after various surgeries performed by women.

The TRAAP2 trial

In an accompanying editorial, Amanda Fader, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues caution that the French study’s methodology may not fully account for the complex intersection of surgeon volume, experience, gender, clinical decision-making skills, and patient-level and clinical factors affecting outcomes.

That said, appraising surgical outcomes based on gender may be an essential step toward reducing implicit bias and dispelling engendered perceptions regarding gender and technical proficiency, the commentators stated. “To definitively dispel archaic, gender-based notions about performance in clinical or surgical settings, efforts must go beyond peer-reviewed research,” Dr. Fader said in an interview. “Medical institutions and leaders of clinical departments must make concerted efforts to recruit, mentor, support, and promote women and persons of all genders in medicine – as well as confront any discriminatory perceptions and experiences concerning sex, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, or economic class.”

This study was supported by the French Ministry of Health under its Clinical Research Hospital Program. Dr. Sentilhes reported financial relationships with Dilafor, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sigvaris, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The editorial commentators disclosed no funding for their commentary or conflicts of interest.

Surgeon gender was not associated with maternal morbidity or severe blood loss after cesarean delivery, a large prospective cohort study from France reports. The results have important implications for the promotion of gender equality among surgeons, obstetricians in particular, wrote a team led by Hanane Bouchghoul, MD, PhD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bordeaux (France) University Hospital. The report is in JAMA Surgery.

“Our findings are significant in that they add substantially to the string of studies contradicting the age-old dogma that men are better surgeons than women,” the authors wrote. Previous research has suggested slightly better outcomes with female surgeons or higher complication rates with male surgeons.

The results support those of a recent Canadian retrospective analysis suggesting that patients treated by male or female surgeons for various elective indications experience similar surgical outcomes but with a slight, statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality when treated by female surgeons.

“Policy makers need to combat prejudice against women in surgical careers, particularly in obstetrics and gynecology, so that women no longer experience conscious or unconscious barriers or difficulties in their professional choices, training, and relationships with colleagues or patients,” study corresponding author Loïc Sentilhes, MD, PhD, of Bordeaux University Hospital, said in an interview.

Facing such barriers, women may doubt their ability to be surgeons, their legitimacy as surgeons, and may not consider this type of career, he continued. “Moreover a teacher may not be as involved in teaching young female surgeons as young male surgeons, or the doctor-patient relationship may be more complicated in the event of complications if the patient thinks that a female surgeon has less competence than a male surgeon.”  

The analysis drew on data from the Tranexamic Acid for Preventing Postpartum Hemorrhage after Cesarean Delivery 2 trial, a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study conducted from March 2018 through January 2020 in mothers from 27 French maternity hospitals.

Eligible participants had a cesarean delivery before or during labor at or after 34 weeks’ gestation. The primary endpoint was the incidence of a composite maternal morbidity variable, and the secondary endpoint was the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage, defined by a calculated estimated blood loss exceeding 1,000 mL or transfusion by day 2.

Among the 4,244 women included, male surgeons performed 943 cesarean deliveries (22.2%) and female surgeons performed 3,301 (77.8%). The percentage who were attending obstetricians was higher for men at 441 of 929 (47.5%) than women at 687 of 3,239 (21.2%).

The observed risk of maternal morbidity did not differ between male and female surgeons: 119 of 837 (14.2%) vs. 476 of 2,928 (16.3%), for an adjusted risk ratio (aRR) of 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-1.13). Interaction between surgeon gender and level of experience with the risk of maternal morbidity was not statistically significant; nor did the groups differ specifically by risk for postpartum hemorrhage: aRR, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.85-1.13).

Despite the longstanding stereotype that men perform surgery better than women, and the traditional preponderance of male surgeons, the authors noted, postoperative morbidity and mortality may be lower after various surgeries performed by women.

The TRAAP2 trial

In an accompanying editorial, Amanda Fader, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues caution that the French study’s methodology may not fully account for the complex intersection of surgeon volume, experience, gender, clinical decision-making skills, and patient-level and clinical factors affecting outcomes.

That said, appraising surgical outcomes based on gender may be an essential step toward reducing implicit bias and dispelling engendered perceptions regarding gender and technical proficiency, the commentators stated. “To definitively dispel archaic, gender-based notions about performance in clinical or surgical settings, efforts must go beyond peer-reviewed research,” Dr. Fader said in an interview. “Medical institutions and leaders of clinical departments must make concerted efforts to recruit, mentor, support, and promote women and persons of all genders in medicine – as well as confront any discriminatory perceptions and experiences concerning sex, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, or economic class.”

This study was supported by the French Ministry of Health under its Clinical Research Hospital Program. Dr. Sentilhes reported financial relationships with Dilafor, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sigvaris, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The editorial commentators disclosed no funding for their commentary or conflicts of interest.

U.S. health officials want to simplify the recommended COVID-19 vaccine protocol, making it more like the process for annual flu shots.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases. 

Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.

A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.

People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.

About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.

COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.

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

U.S. health officials want to simplify the recommended COVID-19 vaccine protocol, making it more like the process for annual flu shots.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases. 

Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.

A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.

People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.

About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.

COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.

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

U.S. health officials want to simplify the recommended COVID-19 vaccine protocol, making it more like the process for annual flu shots.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases. 

Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.

A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.

People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.

About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.

COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.

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