1
|
Perumalswami CR, Greene AK, Griffith KA, Jagsi R. National science foundation grant awardees' perspectives on Article X and sexual harassment in science. PLoS One 2024; 19:e0300762. [PMID: 38687758 PMCID: PMC11060523 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300762] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2023] [Accepted: 03/03/2024] [Indexed: 05/02/2024] Open
Abstract
Federal scientific agencies seek to make an impact on the continued prevalence of sexual harassment in the scientific academic community beyond institutional self-regulation. The National Science Foundation's Article X, released in 2018, is one of the most significant and ambitious federal policy initiatives to address sexual harassment. The present article presents the results of the first study to examine scientists' knowledge and attitudes about this important recent policy. We found, although overall knowledge about Article X was fairly low, the majority of participants responded positively to it. Crucially, impressions of the policy varied based on past experience and demographic factors. Individuals who had experienced harassment in the past year were less likely to believe the policy would help reduce sexual harassment in the sciences compared to those who had not experienced harassment (OR = 0.47, 95% CI:0.23-0.97, p = .034) and had greater odds of endorsing that the policy failed to go far enough (OR = 2.77, 95% CI:1.15-6.66, p = .023). Associations between demographic factors and views of the policy were less pronounced, but it is notable that, compared to their White counterparts, Black participants were more likely to believe the policy went too far (OR = 5.87, 95% CI:1.04-33.17, p = .045). Additionally, concerns were raised about the institutional enforcement of these policies and the existence of sufficient protections for survivors. Our work has implications for NSF's continued evaluation of the efficacy of this program as well as for other federal agencies implementing or considering similar policies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chithra R. Perumalswami
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America
| | - Amanda K. Greene
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America
| | - Kent A. Griffith
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Harris EE, Wright JL, Recht A, Taghian AG, Lee L, Moran MS, Small W, Johnstone C, Rahimi A, Freedman G, Muzaffar M, Haffty B, Horst K, Powell SN, Sharp J, Sabel M, Schott A, El-Tamer M. Reply to G.B. Mann et al and S. Sorscher. J Clin Oncol 2024:JCO2400224. [PMID: 38489573 DOI: 10.1200/jco.24.00224] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2024] [Accepted: 02/05/2024] [Indexed: 03/17/2024] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Reshma Jagsi
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Eleanor E Harris
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Jean L Wright
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Abram Recht
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Alphonse G Taghian
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Lucille Lee
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Meena S Moran
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - William Small
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Candice Johnstone
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Asal Rahimi
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Gary Freedman
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Mahvish Muzaffar
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Bruce Haffty
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Kathleen Horst
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Simon N Powell
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Jody Sharp
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Michael Sabel
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Anne Schott
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Mahmoud El-Tamer
- Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Kent A. Griffith, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Eleanor E. Harris, MD, St. Luke's University Health Network, Easton, PA; Jean L. Wright, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Abram Recht, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Alphonse G. Taghian, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Lucille Lee, MD, Northwell, Lake Success, NY; Meena S. Moran, MD, Yale University, New Haven, CT; William Small Jr, MD, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL; Candice Johnstone, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Asal Rahimi, MD, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX; Gary Freedman, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mahvish Muzaffar, MD, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; Bruce Haffty, MD, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; Kathleen Horst, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Simon N. Powell, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Jody Sharp, BS, Michael Sabel, MD, and Anne Schott, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Mahmoud El-Tamer, MD, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Jacobson CE, Griffith KA, Krenz C, Jones RD, Cutter CM, Singer K, Paradis KC, Stewart AJ, Feldman EL, Settles IH, Kerr EA, Ubel PA, Spector ND, Jagsi R. The Disproportionate Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Time Allocation of Recipients of NIH Career Development Awards Who Are Women or Caregivers of Dependents. Acad Med 2024:00001888-990000000-00787. [PMID: 38452218 DOI: 10.1097/acm.0000000000005681] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/09/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE To understand time allocation of a national medical faculty cohort 1.5-2 years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, compared to before. METHOD From August 2021-April 2022, the authors conducted a retrospective survey of 1,430 clinician-researchers who received National Institutes of Health career-development awards between 2006-2009 asking about domestic and professional time allocation pre-pandemic and at the time of surveys (TOS). Of 915 respondents (64%), the 830 who remained in academic positions constituted the analytic sample. Multivariable regression models identified demographic factors associated with each time outcome and change in time between pre-pandemic and TOS, and having experienced ≥8-hour increase of total self-reported weekly professional work hours and domestic labor hours. RESULTS Median self-reported weekly professional work hours were 55 hours/week pre- pandemic and 60 at TOS. On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of self-reported weekly professional work hours at TOS were having a non-child other dependent (+2.6 hours, P = .03), academic rank (associate -3.1 hours, assistant -9.0 hours; P < .001), and specialty (P < .001). Average self-reported TOS weekly domestic-labor hours were 23.1 among men and 30.2 among women (P < .001). Predictors of total self-reported TOS weekly domestic hours were being a woman (+5.6 hours; P < .001) and having children requiring supervision (+10.2 hours; P < .001). Overall, 9.3% of men (42/450) and 21.6% of women (88/407) experienced a ≥ 8 hour increase in domestic labor (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, women had higher odds of substantial domestic-labor increase (OR = 2.33, 95% CI: 1.47, 3.68), as did those with children requiring supervision (OR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.25, 2.98) or other dependents (OR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.13, 2.98). CONCLUSIONS This study illuminates demands on women and faculty with dependents during the COVID-19 pandemic and suggests increased flexibility and resources are of heightened importance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Clare E Jacobson
- C.E. Jacobson is a general surgery resident at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Kent A Griffith
- K.A. Griffith is a statistician at the Center for Cancer Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Chris Krenz
- C. Krenz is a student at Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Rochelle D Jones
- R.D. Jones is a Research Area Specialist Senior at the Center for Bioethics & Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Christina M Cutter
- C.M. Cutter is an Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Kanakadurga Singer
- K. Singer is the Valerie Castle Opipari Professor of Pediatrics, Assistant Dean for Tenure Track Faculty in the Medical School, Associate Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Kelly C Paradis
- K.C. Paradis is an Associate Professor of Medical Physics and the Associate Chair of Equity and Wellness within the Department of Radiation Oncology at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Abigail J Stewart
- A.J. Stewart is the Sandra Schwartz Tangri Distinguished University Professor of Psychology and Women's and Gender Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Eva L Feldman
- E.L. Feldman is the James W. Albers Distinguished University Professor, Russell N. DeJong Professor of Neurology and the Director of the ALS Center for Excellence and the Director of the NeuroNetwork for Emerging Therapies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Isis H Settles
- I.H. Settles is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Eve A Kerr
- E.A. Kerr is the Kutsche Memorial Chair of Internal Medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School, Chief of the General Medicine Division at the University of Michigan, Research Scientist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Peter A Ubel
- P.A. Ubel is the Madge and Dennis T. McLawhorn University Professor of Business, Public Policy and Medicine at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Nancy D Spector
- N.D. Spector is Professor of Pediatrics, Executive Director of Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine (ELAM) and Executive Leadership in Health Care (ELH), Senior Vice Dean for Faculty, and the Executive Director of the Lynn Yeakel Institute for Women's Health and Leadership at Drexel University, College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- R. Jagsi is Lawrence W. Davis Professor and Chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Herr DJ, Moncion A, Griffith KA, Marsh R, Grubb M, Bhatt A, Dominello M, Walker EM, Narayana V, Abu-Isa E, Vicini FA, Hayman JA, Pierce LJ. Factors Associated With Cardiac Radiation Dose Reduction After Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized, Left-Sided Breast Cancer in a Large Statewide Quality Consortium. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 118:632-638. [PMID: 37797748 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.09.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2023] [Revised: 08/31/2023] [Accepted: 09/09/2023] [Indexed: 10/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Limiting cardiac radiation dose is important for minimizing long-term cardiac toxicity in patients with left-sided early-stage breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Prospectively collected dosimetric data were analyzed for patients undergoing moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy to the left breast within the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium from 2016 to 2022. The mean heart dose (MHD) goal was progressively tightened from ≤2 Gy in 2016 to MHD ≤ 1.2 Gy in 2018. In 2021, a planning target volume (PTV) coverage goal was added, and the goal MHD was reduced to ≤1 Gy. Multivariate logistic regression models were developed to assess for covariates associated with meeting the MHD goals in 2016 to 2020 and the combined MHD/PTV coverage goal in 2021 to 2022. RESULTS In total, 4165 patients were analyzed with a median age of 64 years. Overall average cardiac metric compliance was 91.7%. Utilization of motion management increased from 41.8% in 2016 to 2020 to 46.5% in 2021 to 2022. Similarly, use of prone positioning increased from 12.2% to 22.2% in these periods. On multivariate analysis in the 2016 to 2020 cohort, treatment with motion management (odds ratio [OR], 5.20; 95% CI, 3.59-7.54; P < .0001) or prone positioning (OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.85-5.57; P < .0001) was associated with meeting the MHD goal, while receipt of boost (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.17-0.39; P < .0001) and omission of hormone therapy (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88; P = .0047) were associated with not meeting the MHD goal. From 2021 to 2022, treatment with motion management (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.12-3.21; P = .018) or prone positioning (OR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.73-7.95; P = .0008) was associated with meeting the combined MHD/PTV goal, while larger breast volume (≥1440 cc; OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.91; P = .031) was associated with not meeting the combined goal. CONCLUSIONS In our statewide consortium, high rates of compliance with aggressive targets for limiting cardiac dose were achievable without sacrificing target coverage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Kent A Griffith
- School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | | | - Amit Bhatt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Karmanos Cancer Institute at McLaren Greater Lansing, Lansing, Michigan
| | - Michael Dominello
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Eleanor M Walker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Vrinda Narayana
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ascension Providence Hospital, Southfield, Michigan
| | - Eyad Abu-Isa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ascension Providence Hospital, Southfield, Michigan
| | - Frank A Vicini
- MHP Radiation Oncology Institute/GenesisCare USA, Farmington Hills, Michigan
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Beydoun H, Griffith KA, Jagsi R, Burmeister JW, Moran JM, Vicini FA, Hayman JA, Paximadis P, Boike TP, Walker EM, Pierce LJ, Dominello MM. Are We Missing Acute Toxicities Associated With Hypofractionated Breast Irradiation? A Report From a Large Multicenter Cohort Study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024:S0360-3016(24)00303-1. [PMID: 38364950 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.01.225] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2023] [Revised: 01/02/2024] [Accepted: 01/28/2024] [Indexed: 02/18/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE The efficacy and long-term safety of hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (HF-WBI) have been established through multiple randomized trials, yet data about acute toxicities remain more limited. Since 2013, our group has prospectively collected acute toxicity data from weekly treatment evaluations and additional assessment after completion. In 2016, we intentionally shifted the posttreatment assessment follow-up visit from 1 month to 2 weeks to evaluate for missed acute toxicity occurring in that immediate posttreatment window. Here, we report whether 2-week follow-up has resulted in increased detection of acute toxicities compared with 4-week follow-up. METHODS AND MATERIALS We prospectively compared acute toxicity for patients treated with HF-WBI between January 1, 2013, and August 31, 2015 (4 week follow-up cohort) to patients treated between January 1, 2016, and August 31, 2018 (2 week follow-up cohort). Analyses included a multivariable model that adjusted for other factors known to correlate with toxicity. We prospectively defined acute toxicity as maximum breast pain (moderate or severe rating) and/or occurrence of moist desquamation reported 7 days before the completion of radiation therapy (RT) until 42 days after completion. RESULTS A total of 2689 patients who received postlumpectomy radiation and boost were analyzed; 1862 patients in the 2-week follow-up cohort and 827 in the 4-week follow-up cohort. All acute toxicity measures assessed were statistically similar between follow-up cohorts when compared in an unadjusted fashion. Overall acute composite toxicity was 26.4% and 27.7% for patients in the 4-week follow-up and 2-week follow-up cohorts, respectively. Overall acute composite toxicity remained similar between follow-up cohorts in a multivariable, adjusted model and was significantly related to patient's age, body mass index, smoking status, and treatment technique (intensity-modulated RT vs 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy) but not follow-up cohort. CONCLUSIONS An earlier posttreatment follow-up for HF-WBI patients did not reveal a significant increased incidence of acute toxicities at 2 weeks compared with 4 weeks. This study provides physicians and patients with additional data on the safety and tolerability of HF-WBI for early stage breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hassan Beydoun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan.
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Jacob W Burmeister
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Jean M Moran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Frank A Vicini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health South, St Joseph, Michigan
| | - James A Hayman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Peter Paximadis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health South, St Joseph, Michigan
| | | | | | - Lori J Pierce
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Michael M Dominello
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Cutter CM, Griffith KA, Settles IH, Stewart AJ, Kerr EA, Feldman EL, Jagsi R. Gender Differences in Faculty Perceptions of Mentorship and Sponsorship. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e2355663. [PMID: 38345823 PMCID: PMC10862153 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.55663] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2023] [Accepted: 12/19/2023] [Indexed: 02/15/2024] Open
Abstract
This survey study examines gender differences in mid- to senior-career faculty experiences of receiving and providing mentorship and sponsorship during early career development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christina M. Cutter
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Kent A. Griffith
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | | | - Abigail J. Stewart
- Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
- Department of Women’s and Gender Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Eve A. Kerr
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
- VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Department of Veterans Affairs, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Eva L. Feldman
- Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Harris EE, Wright JL, Recht A, Taghian AG, Lee L, Moran MS, Small W, Johnstone C, Rahimi A, Freedman G, Muzaffar M, Haffty B, Horst K, Powell SN, Sharp J, Sabel M, Schott A, El-Tamer M. Omission of Radiotherapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Women With Breast Cancer With Low Clinical and Genomic Risk: 5-Year Outcomes of IDEA. J Clin Oncol 2024; 42:390-398. [PMID: 38060195 DOI: 10.1200/jco.23.02270] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2023] [Accepted: 11/03/2023] [Indexed: 12/08/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Multiple studies have shown a low risk of ipsilateral breast events (IBEs) or other recurrences for selected patients age 65-70 years or older with stage I breast cancers treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and endocrine therapy (ET) without adjuvant radiotherapy. We sought to evaluate whether younger postmenopausal patients could also be successfully treated without radiation therapy, adding a genomic assay to classic selection factors. METHODS Postmenopausal patients age 50-69 years with pT1N0 unifocal invasive breast cancer with margins ≥2 mm after BCS whose tumors were estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-positive, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative with Oncotype DX 21-gene recurrence score ≤18 were prospectively enrolled in a single-arm trial of radiotherapy omission if they consented to take at least 5 years of ET. The primary end point was the rate of locoregional recurrence 5 years after BCS. RESULTS Between June 2015 and October 2018, 200 eligible patients were enrolled. Among the 186 patients with clinical follow-up of at least 56 months, overall and breast cancer-specific survival rates at 5 years were both 100%. The 5-year freedom from any recurrence was 99% (95% CI, 96 to 100). Crude rates of IBEs for the entire follow-up period for patients age 50-59 years and age 60-69 years were 3.3% (2/60) and 3.6% (5/140), respectively; crude rates of overall recurrence were 5.0% (3/60) and 3.6% (5/140), respectively. CONCLUSION This trial achieved a very low risk of recurrence using a genomic assay in combination with classic clinical and biologic features for treatment selection, including postmenopausal patients younger than 60 years. Long-term follow-up of this trial and others will help determine whether the option of avoiding initial radiotherapy can be offered to a broader group of women than current guidelines recommend.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reshma Jagsi
- Emory University, Atlanta, GA
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | | | | | - Abram Recht
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Asal Rahimi
- University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX
| | | | | | - Bruce Haffty
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Odei BC, Herrera S, Huang C, Griffith KA, Bae J, Lastra AZ, Jagsi R. Portrayal of Women as Physicians in Movies, 1990-2020. JAMA Intern Med 2023; 183:1168-1170. [PMID: 37639238 PMCID: PMC10463165 DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.2913] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2023] [Accepted: 05/15/2023] [Indexed: 08/29/2023]
Abstract
This cross-sectional study quantifies the portrayal of women as physicians in US movies over the past 3 decades.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bismarck C. Odei
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - Sofia Herrera
- Medical College of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Milwaukee
| | - Christina Huang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Kent A. Griffith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Junu Bae
- Department of Medicine, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
| | | | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Jagsi R, Suresh K, Krenz CD, Jones RD, Griffith KA, Perry L, Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Spector-Bagdady K, Platt J, De Vries R, Bradbury AR, Bansal P, Kaime M, Patel M, Schilsky RL, Miller RS, Spence R. Health Data Sharing Perspectives of Patients Receiving Care in CancerLinQ-Participating Oncology Practices. JCO Oncol Pract 2023; 19:626-636. [PMID: 37220315 PMCID: PMC10424907 DOI: 10.1200/op.23.00080] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2023] [Accepted: 02/09/2023] [Indexed: 05/25/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE CancerLinQ seeks to use data sharing technology to improve quality of care, improve health outcomes, and advance evidence-based research. Understanding the experiences and concerns of patients is vital to ensure its trustworthiness and success. METHODS In a survey of 1,200 patients receiving care in four CancerLinQ-participating practices, we evaluated awareness and attitudes regarding participation in data sharing. RESULTS Of 684 surveys received (response rate 57%), 678 confirmed cancer diagnosis and constituted the analytic sample; 54% were female, and 70% were 60 years and older; 84% were White. Half (52%) were aware of the existence of nationwide databases focused on patients with cancer before the survey. A minority (27%) indicated that their doctors or staff had informed them about such databases, 61% of whom indicated that doctors or staff had explained how to opt out of data sharing. Members of racial/ethnic minority groups were less likely to be comfortable with research (88% v 95%; P = .002) or quality improvement uses (91% v 95%; P = .03) of shared data. Most respondents desired to know how their health information was used (70%), especially those of minority race/ethnicity (78% v 67% of non-Hispanic White respondents; P = .01). Under half (45%) felt that electronic health information was sufficiently protected by current law, and most (74%) favored an official body for data governance and oversight with representation of patients (72%) and physicians (94%). Minority race/ethnicity was associated with increased concern about data sharing (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; P < .001). Women were less concerned about data sharing than men (OR, 0.61; P = .001), and higher trust in oncologist was negatively associated with concern (OR, 0.75; P = .03). CONCLUSION Engaging patients and respecting their perspectives is essential as systems like CancerLinQ evolve.
Collapse
|
10
|
Mohan A, Griffith KA, Wuchu F, Zhen DB, Kumar-Sinha C, Crysler O, Hsiehchen D, Enzler T, Dippman D, Gunchick V, Achreja A, Animasahun O, Choppara S, Nenwani M, Chinnaiyan AM, Nagrath D, Zalupski MM, Sahai V. Devimistat in Combination with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Biliary Tract Cancer: Preclinical Evaluation and Phase Ib Multicenter Clinical Trial (BilT-04). Clin Cancer Res 2023; 29:2394-2400. [PMID: 37115501 PMCID: PMC10330233 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-23-0036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2023] [Revised: 03/16/2023] [Accepted: 04/25/2023] [Indexed: 04/29/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Devimistat (CPI-613) is a novel inhibitor of tumoral mitochondrial metabolism. We investigated the effect of devimistat in vitro and in a phase Ib clinical trial in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Cell viability assays of devimistat ± gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) were performed and the effect of devimistat on mitochondrial respiration via oxygen consumption rate (OCR) was evaluated. A phase Ib/II trial was initiated in patients with untreated advanced BTC. In phase Ib, devimistat was infused over 2 hours in combination with GC on days 1 and 8 every 21 days with a primary objective to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary objectives included safety, overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS In vitro, devimistat with GC had a synergistic effect on two cell lines. Devimistat significantly decreased OCR at higher doses and in arms with divided dosing. In the phase Ib trial, 20 patients received a median of nine cycles (range, 3-19). One DLT was observed, and the RP2D of devimistat was determined to be 2,000 mg/m2 in combination with GC. Most common grade 3 toxicities included neutropenia (n = 11, 55%), anemia (n = 4, 20%), and infection (n = 3, 15%). There were no grade 4 toxicities. After a median follow-up of 15.6 months, ORR was 45% and median PFS was 10 months (95% confidence interval, 7.1-14.9). Median OS is not yet estimable. CONCLUSIONS Devimistat in combination with GC is well tolerated and has an acceptable safety profile in patients with untreated advanced BTC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arathi Mohan
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Kent A. Griffith
- Center for Cancer Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Fulei Wuchu
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Laboratory for Systems Biology of Human Diseases, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109
| | - David B. Zhen
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
- Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Chandan Kumar-Sinha
- Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
- Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
| | - Oxana Crysler
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - David Hsiehchen
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - Thomas Enzler
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | - Valerie Gunchick
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Abhinav Achreja
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Laboratory for Systems Biology of Human Diseases, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109
| | - Olamide Animasahun
- Laboratory for Systems Biology of Human Diseases, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109
- Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109
| | - Srinadh Choppara
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Laboratory for Systems Biology of Human Diseases, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109
| | - Minal Nenwani
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Laboratory for Systems Biology of Human Diseases, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109
| | - Arul M. Chinnaiyan
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
- Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
| | - Deepak Nagrath
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Laboratory for Systems Biology of Human Diseases, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109
- Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109
| | - Mark M. Zalupski
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Vaibhav Sahai
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Roubinov D, Griffith KA, Simone NL, Alvarez SE, Thomas M, Mangurian C, Jagsi R. Gender Composition in Biomedical Research Grant Submissions and Grant Review Panels Before Versus During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2023; 32:471-477. [PMID: 36795988 PMCID: PMC10329151 DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2022.0188] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose: This study examined the gender composition of career development award applicants and grant review panels during the pandemic compared with that beforehand. Methods: Data were collected from 14 Health Research Alliance (HRA) organizations, which fund biomedical research and training. HRA members provided the gender of grant applicants and grant reviewers during the pandemic (April 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021) and prepandemic (April 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020). The signed-rank test compared medians and the chi square test compared the overall gender distribution. Results: The total number of applicants was similar during the pandemic (N = 3,724) and prepandemic (N = 3,882) periods, as was the percentage of women applicants (45.2% pandemic vs. 44.9% prepandemic, p = 0.78). The total number of men and women grant reviewers declined during the pandemic (N = 856) compared with that pre-pandemic (N = 1,689); this decrease was driven by a change for the largest funder. Also driven by changes for this one funder, the percentage of total grant reviewers who were women increased significantly during the pandemic (45.9%) compared with that during prepandemic (38.8%; p = 0.001), but the median percentage of women grant reviewers across organizations remained similar during the pandemic (43.6%) and prepandemic periods (38.2%; p = 0.53). Conclusions: In a sample of research organizations, the gender composition of grant applicants and grant review panels remained similar, except for the review panel composition for one large funder. Given evidence from other studies that have revealed gender differences in other career and life experiences of scientists during the pandemic, ongoing evaluation of women's representation in grant submission and review mechanisms is essential.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Danielle Roubinov
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Kent A. Griffith
- Center for Cancer Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Nicole L. Simone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | | | - Marilyn Thomas
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Christina Mangurian
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory School of Medicine and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Burns CJ, Russell CB, Griffith KA, Mangurian C, Johnson TRB, Jagsi R. Gender Differences of Endowed Professorship in Obstetrics and Gynecology Departments at Top Academic Institutions. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2023; 32:39-46. [PMID: 36126297 DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2022.0060] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: Gender equity is a critical issue in academic medicine. Whether there is equitable access to the prestige and resources of endowed professorships merits evaluation. We investigated this question in obstetrics and gynecology, a field that focuses on the health of women and in which women are much better represented than other specialties of medicine. Materials and Methods: We compiled a list of the top 25 United States departments of obstetrics and gynecology and contacted department chairs (and used department websites) to obtain lists of faculty and their positions. Scopus, department websites, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER were used to collect h-Index, number of publications and citations, graduation year, degrees, gender, and NIH-funding. We conducted a bivariate comparison of endowed professorship attainment by gender using a chi-square test and created a multiple variable regression model. Results: Of the 680 obstetrics and gynecology faculty across 23 departments that had endowed chairs, 64 out of 400 women (16%) and 66 out of 280 men (24%) held endowed chairs (p = 0.01). The multivariable model suggested no independent gender difference in attainment of an endowed chair after adjusting for covariates. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine gender as a variable in endowed chair allocation in top obstetrics and gynecology academic departments. Our findings suggest a significant gender difference in the allocation of endowed chairs. That difference is driven by gender differences in academic rank, graduation year, publications, and funding. To promote the intraprofessional equity necessary to optimally advance women's health, further research and intervention are necessary.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Colin B Russell
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Kent A Griffith
- University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.,Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Christina Mangurian
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Timothy R B Johnson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.,Gender and Women's Studies Department, College of Literature, Science and the Arts, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.,Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Graff SL, Subbiah IM, Markham MJ, Matt-Amaral LB, Close JL, Griffith KA, Jagsi R. Frequency, barriers, outcomes, and consequences of reporting sexual harassment in clinical oncology. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2022; 7:6842329. [PMID: 36416149 PMCID: PMC9808769 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkac081] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2022] [Revised: 09/19/2022] [Accepted: 11/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Sexual harassment is increasingly recognized as widely prevalent in medicine. Broad efforts at the organizational and society level are working to address this inequity, but many of these efforts rely on reporting to eradicate problematic behaviors and shift culture. We examined, among oncologists experiencing sexual harassment, the frequency of reporting, as well as barriers, outcomes, and consequences of reporting. Among 271 survey respondents, 217 reported sexual harassment from peers or superiors or from patients or families. Most harassed oncologists (n = 148, 68%) did not report the event to authority because of concerns about future negative consequences for themselves. Among the minority who reported harassment (n = 31, 14%), 52% felt their concerns were not taken seriously and 55% reported no action was taken as a result of their report. Furthermore, 52% experienced retaliatory behavior. Addressing these findings may help to inform the change necessary to create an antiharassment culture in oncology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie L Graff
- Lifespan Cancer Institute, Rhode Island Hospital, Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
| | - Ishwaria M Subbiah
- Division of Cancer Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Merry Jennifer Markham
- Division of Hematology & Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | | | - Julia L Close
- Division of Hematology & Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Rogel Cancer Center and Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Correspondence to: Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, 1365 Clifton Rd, NE, Ste 1354, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA (e-mail: )
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Jagsi R, Griffith KA. Underrecognition of Symptoms During Breast Radiotherapy-Reply. JAMA Oncol 2022; 8:1510-1511. [PMID: 35951335 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.3245] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Reshma Jagsi
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Chapman CH, Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Moran JM, Vicini F, Walker E, Dominello M, Abu-Isa E, Hayman J, Laucis AM, Mietzel M, Pierce L. Mediators of Racial Disparities in Heart Dose Among Whole Breast Radiotherapy Patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 2022; 114:1646-1655. [PMID: 35916737 PMCID: PMC9949587 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djac120] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2021] [Revised: 03/22/2022] [Accepted: 06/09/2022] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Racial disparities in survival of patients with cancer motivate research to quantify treatment disparities and evaluate multilevel determinants. Previous research has not evaluated cardiac radiation dose in large cohorts of breast cancer patients by race nor examined potential causes or implications of dose disparities. METHODS We used a statewide consortium database to consecutively sample 8750 women who received whole breast radiotherapy between 2012 and 2018. We generated laterality- and fractionation-specific models of mean heart dose. We generated patient- and facility-level models to estimate race-specific cardiac doses. We incorporated our data into models to estimate disparities in ischemic cardiac event development and death. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS Black and Asian race independently predicted higher mean heart dose for most laterality-fractionation groups, with disparities of up to 0.42 Gy for Black women and 0.32 Gy for Asian women (left-sided disease and conventional fractionation: 2.13 Gy for Black women vs 1.71 Gy for White women, P < .001, 2-sided; left-sided disease and accelerated fractionation: 1.59 Gy for Asian women vs 1.27 Gy for White women, P = .002). Patient clustering within facilities explained 22%-30% of the variability in heart dose. The cardiac dose disparities translated to estimated excesses of up to 2.6 cardiac events and 1.3 deaths per 1000 Black women and 0.7 cardiac events and 0.3 deaths per 1000 Asian women vs White women. CONCLUSIONS Depending on laterality and fractionation, Asian women and Black women experience higher cardiac doses than White women. This may translate into excess radiation-associated ischemic cardiac events and deaths. Solutions include addressing inequities in baseline cardiac risk factors and facility-level availability and use of radiation technologies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christina Hunter Chapman
- Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA,Center for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Jean M Moran
- Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | | | | | | | - Eyad Abu-Isa
- Ascension Providence Hospital, Southfield, MI, USA
| | - James Hayman
- Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Anna M Laucis
- Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Melissa Mietzel
- Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Lori Pierce
- Correspondence to: Lori J. Pierce, MD, University of Michigan Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Rm 4308, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA (e-mail: )
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Sahai V, Griffith KA, Beg MS, Shaib WL, Mahalingam D, Zhen DB, Deming DA, Zalupski MM. A randomized phase 2 trial of nivolumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin or nivolumab and ipilimumab in previously untreated advanced biliary cancer: BilT-01. Cancer 2022; 128:3523-3530. [PMID: 35895381 PMCID: PMC9540241 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34394] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2022] [Revised: 06/02/2022] [Accepted: 06/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
Background Gemcitabine and cisplatin has limited benefit as treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). The addition of an anti‐programmed death receptor (PD‐1)/PD‐ligand (L1) antibody to either systemic chemotherapy or anti‐cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte‐associated protein 4 (CTLA4) antibody has shown benefit in multiple solid tumors. Methods In this phase 2 trial, patients 18 years or older with advanced BTC without prior systemic therapy and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0–1 were randomized across six academic centers. Patients in Arm A received nivolumab (360 mg) on day 1 along with gemcitabine and cisplatin on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks for 6 months followed by nivolumab (240 mg) every 2 weeks. Patients in Arm B received nivolumab (240 mg) every 2 weeks and ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 6 weeks. Results Of 75 randomized patients, 68 received therapy (Arm A = 35, Arm B = 33); 51.5% women with a median age of 62.5 years. The observed primary outcome of 6‐month progression‐free survival (PFS) rates in the evaluable population was 59.4% in Arm A and 21.2% in Arm B. The median PFS and overall survival (OS) in Arm A were 6.6 and 10.6 months, and in Arm B 3.9 and 8.2 months, respectively, in patients who received any treatment. The most common treatment‐related grade 3 or higher hematologic adverse event was neutropenia in 34.3% (Arm A) and nonhematologic adverse events were fatigue (8.6% Arm A) and elevated transaminases (9.1% Arm B). Conclusions The addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy or ipilimumab did not improve 6‐month PFS. Although median OS was less than 12 months in both arms, the high OS rate at 2 years in Arm A suggests benefit in a small cohort of patients. Immune checkpoint inhibition alone or in combination with chemotherapy as first‐line therapy does not appear to improve efficacy when compared to chemotherapy alone for patients with advanced biliary cancer in the United States. However, at least one third of the patients were alive at 2 years in the chemoimmunotherapy arm, and additional studies are ongoing to investigate this result, and importantly, evaluate biomarkers predictive for benefit from this treatment regimen.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vaibhav Sahai
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Center for Cancer Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Muhammad S Beg
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Walid L Shaib
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Devalingam Mahalingam
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - David B Zhen
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Dustin A Deming
- Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Mark M Zalupski
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
King R, Schaefer J, Sahai V, Griffith KA, Sood SL. Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Aspirin Use and Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer and an Indwelling Central Venous Catheter. TH Open 2022; 6:e221-e229. [PMID: 36046199 PMCID: PMC9352440 DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1747685] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2021] [Accepted: 02/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background Patients with pancreatic cancer are at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). It is unknown if aspirin reduces the risk of VTE in this setting.
Objectives We sought to determine whether there is an association between aspirin use and VTE risk in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy with a central venous catheter (CVC).
Patients/Methods We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and treated with chemotherapy using a CVC. Subjects were excluded if they were on anticoagulation at the time of CVC placement. The probability of VTE was analyzed using a time-to-event analysis framework for the development of VTE using the product-limit method of Kaplan and Meier (univariate) and adjusting for important confounding covariates using Cox proportional hazards regression (cause-specific hazard) and again using Fine and Gray regression (subdistributional hazard) with death prior to VTE considered a competing event.
Results The final analysis included 314 cases (125 with any aspirin use and 189 without). Patients with any aspirin use had fewer VTE events (34.4%) compared with those without aspirin use (42.3%; p = 0.021) by log-rank test and after adjustment for multiple covariates using a Cox proportional hazards model (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40–0.92; p = 0.019). Using Fine and Gray regression to account for death as a competing event, the effect of aspirin remained in the direction of benefit, but was not statistically significant (HR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.47–1.05, p = 0.083). Higher body mass index, active smoking, and metastatic stage of cancer were associated with VTE events in the Cox proportional hazards model. Rates of major bleeding or clinically relevant minor bleeding were similar between treatment groups.
Conclusions Aspirin may reduce the risk of VTE in patients with pancreatic cancer with a CVC. We did not observe a significant increase in the rates of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard King
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
| | - Jordan Schaefer
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
| | - Vaibhav Sahai
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
| | - Kent A. Griffith
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Biostatistics Unit, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
| | - Suman L. Sood
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Sahai V, Zhen DB, Crysler OV, Beg SS, Enzler T, Griffith KA, Zalupski M. Phase 1b results of a multicenter, randomized phase 1b/2 study of gemcitabine and cisplatin +/- CPI-613 as first-line therapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BilT-04). J Clin Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2022.40.16_suppl.4094] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
4094 Background: Patients (pts) with advanced biliary tract cancers (BTC) have a poor prognosis despite systemic chemotherapy. Gemcitabine (G) and cisplatin (C) is a standard first-line systemic therapy with a reported overall response rate (ORR) of 26% and median overall survival (OS) of 11.7 months (mo). CPI-613/Devimistat (D) is a stable intermediate of a lipoate analog that inhibits pyruvate dehydrogenase and a-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase enzymes of the tricarboxylic (TCA) cycle, preferentially within the mitochondria of cancer cells augmenting chemotherapeutic cytotoxicity. Methods: An investigator-initiated, multi-institutional phase 1b/2 trial is underway across 10 sites in the US investigating the combination of G 1000 mg/m2, C 25 mg/m2 and D (dose levels: (-1) 500, (1) 1000, (2) 1500 and (3) 2000 mg/m2) (GCD) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days in pts with previously untreated advanced BTC. The primary objective of the phase 1b portion (n = 20 pts; TiTE-CRM methodology) was to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The primary objective of the ongoing phase 2 portion (n = 48-58 pts; 2:1 randomization with Bayesian control arm) is to determine the best ORR with an alternative hypothesis of 43% (null of 25%); with 80% power and one-sided alpha of 0.05. Secondary objectives include evaluation of progression-free survival (PFS), OS, and safety. Exploratory objectives include targeted exome/ transcriptomic analysis using tissue, and metabolomic analysis using plasma (pre-, on- and post-treatment). Results: 20 pts were enrolled on phase 1b; median age 65 years (range 43-75), ECOG PS 0/1 (9/11), male/female (11/9), Caucasian (85%), intrahepatic/hilar/distal cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder (9/5/3/3), and metastatic/locally advanced stage (15/5). CPI-613 dose level assignments were 1 pt each for (-1) and (1), 2 pts on (2), and 16 pts on (3). Median follow-up was 9.4 mos and median number of cycles was 9. Only 1 pt had dose-limiting toxicity (grade 2 creatinine elevation). RP2D for CPI-613 was 2000 mg/m2. In phase 1b, ORR was 40% (7 PR, 1 CR). Median PFS not estimable (NE) but probability of PFS at 9 months was 68.1% [95% CI, 38.1%-85.8%]. Median OS is 16.3 months [95% CI, 9.1-NE]. One locally advanced pt was resected with pathologic CR. Conclusions: The combination of GCD was well tolerated and demonstrates encouraging efficacy with ORR, PFS and OS in phase 1b. The randomized phase 2 portion of the trial is open and accruing patients. Clinical trial information: NCT04203160.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Oxana V. Crysler
- National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Jia L, Rooney MK, Jacobson CE, Griffith KA, Mangurian C, Jagsi R, Markham MJ. Factors Associated With Endowed Chair Allocation in Medical Oncology in the United States. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2022; 6:pkac036. [PMID: 35657340 PMCID: PMC9165554 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkac036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2022] [Revised: 03/09/2022] [Accepted: 04/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
To explore persisting gender disparities across leadership roles in medicine, we examined factors associated with holding endowed chairs in US oncology divisions. In 2019, we identified 95 academic oncology divisions, using the Oncology Division Chiefs and Department Chairs listing in the American Society of Clinical Oncology myConnection forum. We collected public information on gender, degree, total National Institutes of Health funding as principal investigator, H-indices, publication and citation numbers, and graduation year and constructed a multivariable logistic regression model. All statistical tests were 2-sided. We identified 1087 oncology full professors. Of these, 287 (26.4%) held endowed chairs: 60 of 269 women (22.3%) vs 227 of 818 men (27.8%) (P = .08). On multivariable analysis, greater research productivity and National Institutes of Health funding were associated with having an endowed chair (P < .001), whereas gender was not (P = .45). Though sample size was limited, if gender differences are in fact smaller in certain subspecialties than other fields of internal medicine, insights might emerge to guide efforts to promote equity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lena Jia
- Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
| | - Michael Kevin Rooney
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Kent A Griffith
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Christina Mangurian
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology and The Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Vicini F, Boike T, Dominello M, Gustafson G, Hayman JA, Moran JM, Radawski JD, Walker E, Pierce L. Identifying Patients Whose Symptoms Are Underrecognized During Treatment With Breast Radiotherapy. JAMA Oncol 2022; 8:887-894. [PMID: 35446337 PMCID: PMC9026246 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.0114] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
Importance Understanding whether physicians accurately detect symptoms in patients with breast cancer is important because recognition of symptoms facilitates supportive care, and clinical trials often rely on physician assessments using Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Objective To compare the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of patients with breast cancer who received radiotherapy from January 1, 2012, to March 31, 2020, with physicians' CTCAE assessments to assess underrecognition of symptoms. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study included a total of 29 practices enrolled in the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium quality initiative. Of 13 725 patients with breast cancer who received treatment with radiotherapy after undergoing lumpectomy, 9941 patients (72.4%) completed at least 1 PRO questionnaire during treatment with radiotherapy and were evaluated for the study. Of these, 9868 patients (99.3%) were matched to physician CTCAE assessments that were completed within 3 days of the PRO questionnaires. Exposures Patient and physician ratings of 4 symptoms (pain, pruritus, edema, and fatigue) were compared. Main Outcomes and Measures We used multilevel multivariable logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with symptom underrecognition, hypothesizing that it would be more common in racial and ethnic minority groups. Results Of 9941 patients, all were female, 1655 (16.6%) were Black, 7925 (79.7%) were White, and 361 (3.6%) had Other race and ethnicity (including American Indian/Alaska Native, Arab/Middle Eastern, and Asian), either as self-reported or as indicated in the electronic medical record. A total of 1595 (16.0%) were younger than 50 years, 2874 (28.9%) were age 50 to 59 years, 3353 (33.7%) were age 60 to 69 years, and 2119 (21.3%) were 70 years or older. Underrecognition of symptoms existed in 2094 of 6781 (30.9%) observations of patient-reported moderate/severe pain, 748 of 2039 observations (36.7%) of patient-reported frequent pruritus, 2309 of 4492 observations (51.4%) of patient-reported frequent edema, and 390 of 2079 observations (18.8%) of patient-reported substantial fatigue. Underrecognition of at least 1 symptom occurred at least once for 2933 of 5510 (53.2%) of those who reported at least 1 substantial symptom. Factors independently associated with underrecognition were younger age (younger than 50 years compared with 60-69 years: odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.14-1.59; P < .001; age 50-59 years compared with 60-69 years: OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.37; P = .02), race (Black individuals compared with White individuals: OR, 1.56; 95% CI 1.30-1.88; P < .001; individuals with Other race or ethnicity compared with White individuals: OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.12-2.07; P = .01), conventional fractionation (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.10-1.45; P = .002), male physician sex (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.20-1.99; P = .002), and 2-field radiotherapy (without a supraclavicular field) (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.97; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance The results of this cohort study suggest that PRO collection may be essential for trials because relying on the CTCAE to detect adverse events may miss important symptoms. Moreover, since physicians in this study systematically missed substantial symptoms in certain patients, including younger patients and Black individuals or those of Other race and ethnicity, improving symptom detection may be a targetable mechanism to reduce disparities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | | | | | | | | | | | - James A Hayman
- Radiation Oncology Clinical Division, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.,Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium
| | - Jean M Moran
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | | - Eleanor Walker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Lori Pierce
- Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Moran JM, Matuszak MM, Marsh R, Grubb M, Abu-Isa E, Dilworth JT, Dominello MM, Heimburger D, Lack D, Walker EM, Hayman JA, Vicini F, Pierce LJ. Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of 3D-Conformal Radiation Therapy Versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) in a Prospective Multicenter Cohort of Patients With Breast Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 112:643-653. [PMID: 34634437 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.09.053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2021] [Revised: 09/22/2021] [Accepted: 09/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Simple intensity modulation of radiation therapy reduces acute toxicity compared with 2-dimensional techniques in adjuvant breast cancer treatment, but it remains unknown whether more complex or inverse-planned intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) offers an advantage over forward-planned, 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS Using prospective data regarding patients receiving adjuvant whole breast radiation therapy without nodal irradiation at 23 institutions from 2011 to 2018, we compared the incidence of acute toxicity (moderate-severe pain or moist desquamation) in patients receiving 3DCRT versus IMRT (either inverse planned or, if forward-planned, using ≥5 segments per gantry angle). We evaluated associations between technique and toxicity using multivariable models with inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting, adjusting for treatment facility as a random effect. RESULTS Of 1185 patients treated with 3DCRT and conventional fractionation, 650 (54.9%) experienced acute toxicity; of 774 treated with highly segmented forward-planned IMRT, 458 (59.2%) did; and of 580 treated with inverse-planned IMRT, 245 (42.2%) did. Of 1296 patients treated with hypofractionation and 3DCRT, 432 (33.3%) experienced acute toxicity; of 709 treated with highly segmented forward-planned IMRT, 227 (32.0%) did; and of 623 treated with inverse-planned IMRT, 164 (26.3%) did. On multivariable analysis with inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting, the odds ratio for acute toxicity after inverse-planned IMRT versus 3DCRT was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.91) with conventional fractionation and 0.41 (95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.65) with hypofractionation. CONCLUSIONS This large, prospective, multicenter comparative effectiveness study found a significant benefit from inverse-planned IMRT compared with 3DCRT in reducing acute toxicity of breast radiation therapy. Future research should identify the dosimetric differences that mediate this association and evaluate cost-effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Jean M Moran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Martha M Matuszak
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Robin Marsh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Margaret Grubb
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Eyad Abu-Isa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Providence Ascension, Novi, Michigan
| | - Joshua T Dilworth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Michael M Dominello
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Karmanos Cancer Center, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
| | - David Heimburger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Munson Healthcare, Traverse City, Michigan
| | - Danielle Lack
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Eleanor M Walker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan
| | - James A Hayman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Frank Vicini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, GenesisCare, Farmington Hills, Michigan
| | - Lori J Pierce
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Jones RD, Krenz C, Griffith KA, Spence R, Bradbury AR, De Vries R, Hawley ST, Zon R, Bolte S, Sadeghi N, Schilsky RL, Jagsi R. Patient Experiences, Trust, and Preferences for Health Data Sharing. JCO Oncol Pract 2022; 18:e339-e350. [PMID: 34855514 PMCID: PMC8932496 DOI: 10.1200/op.21.00491] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Scholars have examined patients' attitudes toward secondary use of routinely collected clinical data for research and quality improvement. Evidence suggests that trust in health care organizations and physicians is critical. Less is known about experiences that shape trust and how they influence data sharing preferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS To explore learning health care system (LHS) ethics, democratic deliberations were hosted from June 2017 to May 2018. A total of 217 patients with cancer participated in facilitated group discussion. Transcripts were coded independently. Finalized codes were organized into themes using interpretive description and thematic analysis. Two previous analyses reported on patient preferences for consent and data use; this final analysis focuses on the influence of personal lived experiences of the health care system, including interactions with providers and insurers, on trust and preferences for data sharing. RESULTS Qualitative analysis identified four domains of patients' lived experiences raised in the context of the policy discussions: (1) the quality of care received, (2) the impact of health care costs, (3) the transparency and communication displayed by a provider or an insurer to the patient, and (4) the extent to which care coordination was hindered or facilitated by the interchange between a provider and an insurer. Patients discussed their trust in health care decision makers and their opinions about LHS data sharing. CONCLUSION Additional resources, infrastructure, regulations, and practice innovations are needed to improve patients' experiences with and trust in the health care system. Those who seek to build LHSs may also need to consider improvement in other aspects of care delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Sarah T. Hawley
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI,VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | - Sage Bolte
- Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Fairfax, VA
| | | | | | - Reshma Jagsi
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI,Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, UHB2C490, SPC 5010, 1500 East Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5010; e-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Dilworth JT, Griffith KA, Pierce LJ, Jagsi R, Quinn TJ, Walker EM, Radawski JD, Dominello MM, Gustafson GS, Moran JM, Hayman JA, Vicini FA. The impact of chemotherapy on toxicity and cosmetic outcome in patients receiving whole breast irradiation: an analysis within a state-wide quality consortium. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 113:266-277. [PMID: 35157997 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.02.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2021] [Revised: 02/01/2022] [Accepted: 02/03/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE We investigated whether the use of chemotherapy prior to whole breast irradiation (WBI) using either conventional fractionation (CWBI) or hypofractionation (HWBI) is associated with increased toxicity or worse cosmetic outcome compared to WBI alone. METHODS AND MATERIALS We identified 6,754 patients who received WBI alone (without a third field covering the superior axillary and supraclavicular nodal regions) with data prospectively collected in a state-wide consortium. We reported rates of four toxicity outcomes: physician-reported acute moist desquamation, patient-reported acute moderate/severe breast pain, a composite acute toxicity measure (including moist desquamation and either patient-reported or physician-reported moderate/significant breast pain), and physician-reported impaired cosmetic outcome at one year following WBI. Successive multivariable models were constructed to estimate the impact of chemotherapy on these outcomes. RESULTS Rates of moist desquamation, patient-reported pain, composite acute toxicity, and impaired cosmetic outcome were 23%, 34%, 42%, and 10% for 2,859 patients receiving CWBI and 13%, 28%, 31%, and 11% for 3,895 patients receiving HWBI. Receipt of chemotherapy prior to CWBI was not associated with higher rates of patient-reported pain, composite acute toxicity, or impaired cosmetic outcome compared to CWBI without chemotherapy but was associated with more moist desquamation (OR=1.32 [1.07-1.63], p=0.01). Receipt of chemotherapy prior to HWBI was not associated with higher rates of any of the four toxicity outcomes compared to HWBI alone. CONCLUSIONS In this cohort, use of chemotherapy prior to WBI was generally well tolerated. CWBI with chemotherapy, but not to HWBI with chemotherapy, was associated with higher rates of moist desquamation. Rates of acute breast pain and impaired cosmetic outcome at one year were comparable in patients receiving chemotherapy prior to either CWBI or HWBI. These data support the use of HWBI following chemotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Kent A Griffith
- University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Lori J Pierce
- University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | | | | | - Michael M Dominello
- Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
| | | | - Jean M Moran
- University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - James A Hayman
- University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Sahai V, Griffith KA, Lin BSL, Soares HP, Chandana SR, Crysler OV, Enzler T, Zalupski M. A multicenter phase Ib/II study of liposomal-irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), and leucovorin (LV) with nivolumab as second-line therapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BilT-03). J Clin Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2022.40.4_suppl.438] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
438 Background: Patients (pts) with advanced biliary tract cancers (BTC) have poor prognosis despite systemic chemotherapy and treatment beyond first-line platinum doublet remains largely investigational. The immunomodulatory properties of conventional cytotoxic therapy, particularly in regard to the upregulation of PD-L1 expression rendering tumor cells less sensitive to T cell-mediated lysis, rapid emergence of chemotherapy resistance, and known modest efficacy of single agent anti-PD-1 antibody in BTC provide a rationale for combination chemoimmunotherapy. We conducted a multi-center, phase Ib/II, single-arm study to investigate the role of liposomal-irinotecan, 5FU and LV in combination with nivolumab as second-line therapy in pts with advanced BTC. Methods: Key eligibility criteria include histologically confirmed unresectable or metastatic BTC after progression or intolerance of first-line systemic therapy, measurable disease per RECISTv1.1, ECOG PS 0-1, and absence of autoimmune disease or chronic steroid use. The limited phase Ib portion evaluated 10 pts to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) based on the probability of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate <30% during days 1-29. Study treatment included 5FU 2400 mg/m2 over 46 hrs, LV 400 mg/m2, liposomal-irinotecan 70 mg/m2 at dose level 0 along with nivolumab 240 mg every 2 wks for up to 2 yrs in absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival (PFS) rate with an alternative and null hypothesis of 5.0 mo and 2.9 mo (two-sided alpha 0.05, power 80%), respectively. Secondary endpoints included best overall response rate (ORR) per immune related (ir)RECIST, median overall survival (OS), 75th percentile estimates of PFS and OS, and safety. Exploratory objectives include biomarker analysis using include targeted panel exome/transcriptome and immune cell subsets in tissue. Results: 30 eligible pts (60% men, 83% Caucasian) including 10 pts in phase Ib and 20 pts in phase II with a median age of 63.5 yrs (range 36-75) were enrolled across 4 US sites between June 2019 and July 2021. In phase Ib, one pt experienced DLT (grade 3 enterocolitis); RP2D was confirmed at dose level 0. All 30 pts were included in study reported outcomes with a median follow-up time of 10.7 mo. Median PFS was 4.2 mo (95% CI, 1.9-10.2) and failed to reject the null hypothesis. Median OS was 7.5 mo (95% CI, 5.8-21.4). The 75th percentile estimates for PFS and OS are 10.2 mo (95% CI, 5.4-NE) and 21.4 mo (95% CI, 7.8-21.4). ORR estimates and toxicity data are pending and will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: The observed median PFS is insufficient to reject the null hypothesis. The 75th percentile estimates for PFS and OS are suggestive of prolonged benefit with chemoimmunotherapy in a small fraction of patients with BTC. Clinical trial information: NCT03785873.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Heloisa P. Soares
- Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Slat Lake City, UT
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Subbiah IM, Markham MJ, Graff SL, Matt-Amaral LB, Close JL, Griffith KA, Jagsi R. Incidence, Nature, and Consequences of Oncologists' Experiences With Sexual Harassment. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40:1186-1195. [PMID: 35089804 PMCID: PMC8987225 DOI: 10.1200/jco.21.02574] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The incidence and impact of workplace sexual harassment (SH) of oncologists requires rigorous characterization. METHODS Oncologists identified by ASCO's Research Survey Pool and social media outreach completed validated measures of SH (encompassing gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion) and four outcomes (mental health, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and sense of workplace safety) over the previous year. Multivariable regression models assess the impact of SH on the four outcomes. RESULTS Of 271 cisgender respondents (153 women and 118 men), 189 (70%) experienced SH in the past year alone by peers and/or superiors (80% of women v 56% of men, P < .0001). Specifically, 186 (69%) experienced gender harassment (79% of women, 55% of men, P < .0001), 45 (17%) unwanted sexual attention (22% of women, 9% of men, P = .005), and 7 (3%) sexual coercion (3% of women, 2% of men, P = .42). SH by patients and/or families in the past year was experienced by 143 (53% overall: 67% of women, 35% of men, P < .0001). Specifically, 141 (52%) experienced gender harassment (66% of women, 34% of men, P < .0001), 15 (6%) unwanted sexual attention (5% of women, 6% of men, P = .80), and 3 (1%) sexual coercion (1% of women, 1% of men, P = .72). Multivariable analysis showed that past-year SH by peers and/or superiors was significantly associated with decreased mental health (β = -0.45, P = .004), sense of workplace safety (β = -0.98, P < .001), and job satisfaction (β = -0.69, P = .001), along with increased turnover intentions (β = 0.93, P < .0001). Past-year SH by patients and/or families was significantly associated with decreased mental health (β = -0.41, P = .002), sense of workplace safety (β = -0.42, P = .014), and increased turnover intentions (β = 0.58, P = .0004). There were no significant interactions between the respondents' gender and the SH scores in any of the four outcome models, signifying no difference in impact between men and women oncologists. CONCLUSION This study using validated measures of SH to systematically characterize oncologists' workplace experience demonstrates substantial incidence of SH in the previous one year alone and its impact on men and women oncologists, informing the need for and design of effective protective and preventive measures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ishwaria M Subbiah
- Division of Cancer Medicine, Department of Palliative, Rehabilitation, and Integrative Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Merry Jennifer Markham
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL
| | - Stephanie L Graff
- Lifespan Cancer Institute, Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI
| | | | - Julia L Close
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Rogel Cancer Center and Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rogel Cancer Center, and Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Mody L, Griffith KA, Jones RD, Stewart A, Ubel PA, Jagsi R. Gender Differences in Work-Family Conflict Experiences of Faculty in Academic Medicine. J Gen Intern Med 2022; 37:280-282. [PMID: 33469767 PMCID: PMC8739409 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-06559-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2020] [Accepted: 12/22/2020] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Lona Mody
- Division of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.,Geriatrics Research Education and Clinical Center, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Center for Cancer Biostatistics, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Rochelle D Jones
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, UHB2C490, SPC 5010, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5010, USA
| | - Abigail Stewart
- Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Peter A Ubel
- The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, UHB2C490, SPC 5010, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5010, USA. .,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
McClelland S, Huang CC, Griffith KA, Shan M, Holliday EB, Jagsi R, Zellars RC. Composition of the Current Academic Radiation Oncology Workforce in Comprehensive Cancer Centers. JCO Oncol Pract 2021; 18:e740-e747. [PMID: 34919411 DOI: 10.1200/op.21.00609] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The landscape of the profession of academic radiation oncology is constantly changing. We sought to determine the demographic makeup of the current academic radiation oncology workforce. MATERIALS AND METHODS Internet web site searches of the 51 National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) were conducted in September 2019. The Scopus database was subsequently searched in December 2019 to ascertain the h-index for each radiation oncologist. Geographic location was economically stratified (New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington DC) as previously reported. Race and binary sex were attributed by authors using publicly available information. Univariate analysis involved the chi-square test; a multivariable model considered several factors including rank and sex. RESULTS Of 993 radiation oncologists at CCCs, 53.6% are junior faculty, 24.8% associate professors, and 21.7% full professors. The average radiation oncologist at a CCC has been a physician for 19.7 (standard deviation = 11.3) years; 4.7% (47/993) are under-represented minorities. 24.6% of men and 15.5% of women were full professors, a statistically significant difference (P = .001). Of the 51 department chairs, 11.8% are women and 5.6% are under-represented minorities. There are fewer female than male program directors in the most economically stratified locations (P = .02). The mean h-index for all faculty is 17.6 (standard deviation = 16.9), and significantly differs between junior faculty (8.21), associate professors (18.46), and full professors (40.05; P < .0001). It also differs between men (19.35) and women (14.11). On multivariable analysis, sex, academic rank, and a secondary advanced degree were independently significant correlates of h-index. CONCLUSION Among academic radiation oncologists at CCCs, under 5% are under-represented minorities, men are significantly over-represented among senior faculty, and women have significantly lower h-indices than men.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shearwood McClelland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| | - Christina C Huang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Center for Cancer Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Mu Shan
- Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| | - Emma B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Richard C Zellars
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Gharzai LA, Griffith KA, Beeler WH, Burrows HL, Hammoud MM, Rodgers PE, Sabel MS, Carethers JM, Jagsi R. Speaker Introductions at Grand Rounds: Differences in Formality of Address by Gender and Specialty. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2021; 31:202-209. [PMID: 34197213 DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2021.0031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Despite increasing representation of women in medicine, gender bias remains pervasive. The authors sought to evaluate speaker introductions by gender in the grand rounds of multiple specialties at a large academic institution to understand the cultural context of this behavior and identify predictors of formality. Materials and Methods: The authors reviewed grand rounds recordings of speakers with doctorates presenting to the departments of family medicine, general surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, and pediatrics at one institution from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome was whether a speaker's professional title was used as the first form of address. The authors assessed factors correlated with professional introduction using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Speakers were introduced professionally in 346/615 recordings (56.3%). Female introducers were more likely to introduce speakers professionally (odds ratio [OR]: 2.52). A significant interaction existed between speaker gender and home institution: female speakers visiting from an external institution were less likely than male external speakers to be introduced professionally (OR: 0.49), whereas female speakers internal to the institution were more likely to be introduced professionally than male internal speakers (OR: 1.75). Use of professional titles varied by specialty and was higher than average for family medicine (83.2%), surgery (75.8%), and pediatrics (64.0%) and lower for internal medicine (37.5%) and obstetrics and gynecology (50.7%). Conclusions: These findings suggest a complex relationship between gender and formality of introduction that merits further investigation. Understanding differences in culture across specialties is important to inform efforts to promote equity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laila A Gharzai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.,Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Whitney H Beeler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Spectrum Healthcare Partners, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine, USA
| | - Heather L Burrows
- Department of Pediatrics and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Maya M Hammoud
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Phillip E Rodgers
- Adult Palliative Care Clinical Programs, Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Michael S Sabel
- Department of Surgical Oncology and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - John M Carethers
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.,Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Jaworski EM, Yin H, Griffith KA, Pandya R, Mancini BR, Jolly S, Boike TP, Moran JM, Dominello MM, Wilson M, Parker J, Burmeister J, Fraser C, Miller L, Baldwin K, Mietzel MA, Grubb M, Kendrick D, Spratt DE, Hayman JA. Contemporary Practice Patterns for Palliative Radiation Therapy of Bone Metastases: Impact of a Quality Improvement Project on Extended Fractionation. Pract Radiat Oncol 2021; 11:e498-e505. [PMID: 34048938 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2021.05.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2021] [Revised: 04/22/2021] [Accepted: 05/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Radiation therapy effectively palliates bone metastases, although variability exists in practice patterns. National recommendations advocate against using extended fractionation (EF) with courses greater than 10 fractions. We previously reported EF use of 14.8%. We analyzed practice patterns within a statewide quality consortium to assess EF use in a larger patient population after implementation of a quality measure focused on reducing EF. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients treated for bone metastases within a statewide radiation oncology quality consortium were prospectively enrolled from March 2018 through October 2020. The EF quality metric was implemented March 1, 2018. Data on patient, physician, and facility characteristics; fractionation schedules; and treatment planning and delivery techniques were collected. Multivariable binary logistic regression was used to assess EF. RESULTS Twenty-eight facilities enrolled 1445 consecutive patients treated with 1934 plans. The median number of treatment plans per facility was 52 (range, 7-307). Sixty different fractionation schedules were used. EF was delivered in 3.4% of plans. Initially, EF use was lower than expected and remained low over time. Significant predictors for EF use included complicated metastasis (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-4.02; P = .04), lack of associated central nervous system or visceral disease (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2; P = .01), nonteaching versus teaching facilities (OR, 8.97; 95% CI, 2.1-38.5; P < .01), and treating physicians with more years in practice (OR, 12.82; 95% CI, 3.9-42.4; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS Within a large, prospective population-based data set, fractionation schedules for palliative radiation therapy of bone metastases remain highly variable. Resource-intensive treatments including EF persist, although EF use was low after implementation of a quality measure. Complicated metastases, lack of central nervous system or visceral disease, and treatment at nonteaching facilities or by physicians with more years in practice significantly predict use of EF. These results support ongoing efforts to more clearly understand and address barriers to high-value radiation approaches in the palliative setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Huiying Yin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Raveena Pandya
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Brandon R Mancini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, West Michigan Cancer Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan
| | - Shruti Jolly
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Thomas P Boike
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MHP Radiation Oncology Institute/21st Century Oncology, Clarkston, Michigan
| | - Jean M Moran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Michael M Dominello
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Melissa Wilson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MHP Radiation Oncology Institute/21st Century Oncology, Troy, Michigan
| | - Jan Parker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Allegiance, Jackson, Michigan
| | - Jay Burmeister
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Correen Fraser
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Lynne Miller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sparrow Herbert-Herman Cancer Center, Lansing, Michigan
| | - Kaitlyn Baldwin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Munson Medical Center, Traverse City, Michigan
| | - Melissa A Mietzel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Margaret Grubb
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Danielle Kendrick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - James A Hayman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Jia L, Rooney MK, Jacobson C, Griffith KA, Jagsi R, Markham MJ. Factors associated with endowed chair allocation in medical oncology divisions and departments in the United States. J Clin Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.11044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
11044 Background: Despite an increasing number of female physicians in the workforce, a gender disparity remains in many leadership roles in medicine. Endowed chairs can provide a multitude of research and career opportunities; thus, they are coveted positions in academic medicine. We examined factors associated with holding endowed chairs in oncology across the US, with a focus on whether a gender difference existed, as has been demonstrated in top internal medicine departments more generally. Methods: In 2019, we identified 95 academic oncology divisions/departments in the US, using the Oncology Division Chiefs & Department Chairs listing in the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) myConnection forum to define the institutions included. We requested a list of full professors and endowed chairs in those divisions/departments, relying on public data on websites when an institution did not respond. Using public data (e.g., institutional websites, NIH reporter, Scopus, state licensing boards), we collected information on gender, degree, total NIH funding as PIs, H-indices, publication and citation numbers, and graduation year for these individuals. We then created a multivariable logistic regression model to examine if, after controlling for other variables, gender was independently associated with an increased likelihood of holding an endowed chair. Results: One thousand thirty-three oncology full professors were identified, 290 (25.6%) of whom held endowed chairs. Overall, and in an adjusted model, greater research productivity (as measured through publications, citations, and h-index) and greater levels of NIH funding were significantly associated with having an endowed chair. Gender was not significantly associated with endowed chair status (21.9% [95% CI:17.2-27.3] of females and 26.8% [23.8-29.9] for males held endowed chairs; p = 0.11) on bivariable analysis, nor was it significant in the adjusted multivariable model (p = 0.50). Power to detect the observed difference given the total number of professors and their gender distribution was found to be ̃53%, suggesting a 47% chance of failing to reject the null hypothesis of equal gender distributions in endowed chairs when the observed difference is as large as estimated. Conclusions: Among oncology full professors, gender was not significantly associated with endowed chair status, although the number of professors in this field is too small to definitively rule out a modest gender difference. This finding contrasts with prior work that revealed a more substantial difference by gender that remained significant after controlling for other factors in a study, including all divisions in the Departments of Internal Medicine at top medical institutions. Further work is necessary to understand what specialty-specific and institutional cultural factors may help mitigate challenges in the pursuit of equity, diversity, and inclusion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lena Jia
- Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Sahai V, Chang AE, Crysler OV, Zhen DB, Beg MS, Pardee TS, Luther S, Griffith KA, Zalupski M. A multicenter, randomized phase 1b/2 study of gemcitabine and cisplatin with or without CPI-613 as first-line therapy for patients with advanced unresectable biliary tract cancer (BilT-04). J Clin Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.tps4158] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
TPS4158 Background: Patients (pts) with advanced biliary tract cancers (BTC) have poor prognosis despite systemic chemotherapy. Gemcitabine and cisplatin is a standard first-line systemic therapy with an overall response rate (ORR) of 26% and a median overall survival of 11.7 months. This investigator-initiated, multi-institutional phase 1b/2 trial is designed to investigate the role of gemcitabine, cisplatin and CPI-613 in pts with advanced BTC. CPI-613 is a stable intermediate of a lipoate analog that inhibits pyruvate dehydrogenase and a-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase enzymes of the tricarboxylic (TCA) cycle preferentially within the mitochondria of cancer cells. Methods: Key eligibility criteria include histologically confirmed, metastatic or unresectable BTC (intra- or extra-hepatic and gallbladder) without prior systemic treatment, measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, and ECOG PS 0-1. Primary objective of the phase 1b portion (n = 20 pts; TiTE-CRM methodology) is to determine the recommended phase 2 dose of the combination, and for the phase 2 portion, ORR (n = 48-58 pts; 2:1 randomization). Assuming a null hypothesis ORR of 25% and an alternative hypothesis of 43%, this ongoing trial has at least 80% power with a one-sided alpha of 0.05 to identify treatment efficacy of the study arm. Secondary objectives include evaluation of progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety in this patient population. Exploratory objectives include identification of molecular markers of response and resistance in tumor samples and serially collected blood (pre-, on-, and post-therapy), including whole exome/transcriptomic analysis, and immunohistochemical staining (PDK, PDH, KGDH, SOD2 and CD79a). Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, cisplatin 25 mg/m2 with or without CPI-613 (dose levels: 500 mg/m2, 1000 mg/m2, 1500 mg/m2, and 2000 mg/m2) will be given IV on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. In the absence of disease progression, pts may continue therapy for up to 2 years. Total accrual goal is 68-78 evaluable pts. To date, 5 of planned 20 pts enrolled on the phase 1b portion are without dose limiting toxicity. Clinical trial information: NCT04203160.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Oxana V. Crysler
- National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Abstract
11001 Background: Few studies have used comprehensive validated measures to investigate the incidence and impact of workplace sexual harassment experienced by physicians (and none, to our knowledge, by oncologists). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of ASCO’s Research Survey Pool with targeted social media outreach to examine the prevalence and types of sexual harassment (SH) experienced by oncologists. Using the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), we measured their work experience of three SH forms (gender harassment [GH], unwanted sexual attention [USA], sexual coercion [SC]) in the past year by institutional insiders (peers/superiors) and patients/families separately. Controlling for race, career stage & specialty, multivariable (MV) regression models assess the impact of SH (independent variable) on 4 dependent variables of mental health (MHI5), perceptions of workplace safety (single item), job satisfaction (MOAQ) & 3-item measure of turnover intentions (in non-trainees). Results: Of 271 respondents, 250 were physicians in practice and 21 were residents/fellows; 153 (56%] were women, 168 (62%) practiced in academic settings & 227 (84%) were medical oncologists. SH by peers/superiors was reported by 189 (70%) overall, including 80% of women and 56% of men (p<0.0001). GH was reported by 79% of women and 55% of men (p<0.0001), USA by 22% of women and 9% of men (p=0.005), and SC by 3% of women and 2% of men (p=0.42). SH by patients and/or families was reported by 67% of women and 35% of men (p<0.0001), GH by 66% of women and 34% of men (p<0.0001), USA by 5% women and 6% men (p=0.80), and SC by 1% women and 1% men (p=0.72). MV analysis showed past-year SH from peers/superiors was significantly associated with decreased mental health (β -0.45, p 0.004), workplace safety (β -0.98, p<0.001) and increased turnover intentions (β 0.93, P<0.0001). SH from patients/families was similarly significantly associated with mental health (β -0.41, p 0.002), workplace safety (β -0.42, p 0.014) and turnover intentions (β 0.58, p 0.0004). SH from insiders (β -0.64, p 0.001) but not patients (p 0.55) was significantly associated with job satisfaction. Furthermore, there were no significant interactions between the respondents’ gender and the SH scores in any of the models of impact. Conclusions: This is the first study in oncology to systematically characterize the incidence of sexual harassment experienced by oncologists. Our findings demonstrate the impact of sexual harassment on men and women oncologists on multiple domains of workplace experience. This study provides critical data to inform the need for and design of effective protective and preventive workplace policies in oncology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ishwaria Mohan Subbiah
- Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | | | - Julia Lee Close
- University of Florida/UF Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, FL
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Bravender T, Selkie E, Sturza J, Martin DM, Griffith KA, Kaciroti N, Jagsi R. Association of Salary Differences Between Medical Specialties With Sex Distribution. JAMA Pediatr 2021; 175:524-525. [PMID: 33555312 PMCID: PMC7871206 DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.5683] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
This cohort study examines the association between the percentage of female clinicians in a medical specialty and the mean and median salaries for the specialty.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Terrill Bravender
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor
| | - Ellen Selkie
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor
| | - Julie Sturza
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor
| | - Donna M. Martin
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor
| | - Kent A. Griffith
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor
| | - Niko Kaciroti
- University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Jacobson CE, Beeler WH, Griffith KA, Flotte TR, Byington CL, Jagsi R. Common pathways to Dean of Medicine at U.S. medical schools. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0249078. [PMID: 33765033 PMCID: PMC7993860 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249078] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2020] [Accepted: 03/10/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE We sought to evaluate common leadership experiences and academic achievements obtained by current U.S. Medical School Deans of Medicine (DOMs) prior to their first appointment as Dean in order to elucidate a common pathway for promotion. METHODS In April-June 2019 the authors requested a curriculum vitae from each of the 153 LCME-accredited U.S. Medical School DOMs. The authors abstracted data on prior appointments, demographics, and achievements from CVs and online databases. Differences by gender and institutional rank were then evaluated by the Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. RESULTS CVs were obtained for 62% of DOMs (95 of 153), with women comprising 16% of the responding cohort (15/95). Prior to appointment as DOM, 34% of respondents had served as both permanent Department Chair and Associate Dean, 39% as permanent Department Chair but not Associate Dean, and 17% as Associate Deans but not permanent Department Chair. There was a non-significant trend for men to have been more likely to have been a permanent Department Chair (76% vs 53%, p = 0.11) and less likely to have been an Associate Dean (48% vs 67%, p = 0.26) compared to women. Responding DOMs at Top-25 research institutions were mostly male (15/16), more likely to have been appointed before 2010 (38% vs 14%, p = 0.025), and had higher H-indices (mean (SD): 73.1 (32.3) vs 33.5 (22.5), p<0.01) than non-Top-25 Deans. CONCLUSIONS The most common pathway to DOM in this study cohort was prior service as Department Chair. This suggests that diversification among Department Chair positions or expansion of search criteria to seek leaders from pools other than Department Chairs may facilitate increased diversity, equity, and inclusion among DOM overall.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Clare E. Jacobson
- University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America
| | - Whitney H. Beeler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America
| | - Kent A. Griffith
- The Center for Cancer Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America
| | - Terence R. Flotte
- School of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Carrie L. Byington
- University of California Health System, University of California, Oakland, CA, United States of America
- Department of Pediatrics, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, United States of America
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Vicini F, Boike T, Dominello M, Gustafson G, Hayman JA, Moran JM, Radawski J, Walker E, Pierce LJ. Abstract GS3-07: Identifying patients whose symptoms are under-recognized during breast radiotherapy: Comparison of patient and physician reports of toxicity in a multicenter cohort. Cancer Res 2021. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs20-gs3-07] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluating whether physicians (MDs) accurately detect symptoms in patients (pts) is important because recognition of symptoms facilitates supportive care and because clinical trials often rely on MD assessments using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).
METHODS: Breast cancer pts who received radiotherapy (RT) after lumpectomy at 29 practices were enrolled in a quality initiative, MROQC. Of 13,725 pts who completed RT between 1/1/2012 and 3/31/2020, 9,941 completed at least one pt-reported outcomes (PRO) questionnaire during RT. Where MD CTCAE assessments were available within 3 days of PRO evaluation, pt and MD ratings of 4 symptoms were compared. Pts reported breast pain via an approved modification of the Brief Pain Inventory, asking for ratings in the last 24 hours of pain at its worst, least, average, and “right now.” MDs were deemed to under-recognize pain when pts reported moderate pain (score 4-6) but MDs graded pain as 0 (absent) on the CTCAE, or when pts reported severe pain (score 7-10) but MDs’ CTCAE grade was ≤1. Bother from pruritis and edema were measured by modified scaled measures adapted from the Skindex. MDs were deemed to under-recognize pruritus and edema if they graded these as absent (grade 0) when pts reported bother often or all of the time from itching or swelling, respectively. MDs were deemed to under-recognize fatigue if they graded fatigue as absent (grade 0) when pts reported having significant fatigue most of the time or always.We describe the proportion of pts for whom under-recognition of at least 1 of these 4 symptoms occurred at least once during the treatment course and use multivariable logistic regression to evaluate predictors of this under-recognition, hypothesizing that it would be more common in racial minorities.
RESULTS: 3,434/9,940 pts (34.5%) reported substantial breast pain, 3,039/9,923 (30.6%) frequent bother from pruritus, 2,363/9,906 (23.9%) frequent bother from edema, and 2,209/8,860 (24.9%) severe fatigue. We could evaluate under-recognition in 9,868 pts, with 37,593 independent paired observations of pt and MD reports (35,797 on the same date and 1,796 within 3 days). Under-recognition existed in 2,094/6,781 (30.9%) observations of pt-reported moderate/severe pain, 748/2,039 (36.7%) of pt-reported frequent pruritis, 2,309/4,492 (51.4%) of pt-reported frequent edema, and 390/2,079 (18.8%) of pt-reported severe fatigue. Under-recognition of at least 1 of these 4 symptoms occurred at least once during the pt’s treatment course for 2,933/5,510 (53.2%) of the pts who reported at least 1 substantial symptom during RT.Factors independently associated with under-recognition were (Table): younger age (OR=1.4 and 1.2 for <50 and 50-59 vs. 60-69, respectively), black or other race (OR=1.9 and 1.8 vs white, respectively), conventional fractionation (OR=1.2), not having a supraclavicular field (OR=1.3) and being treated at an academic center (OR=1.1).
CONCLUSIONS: PRO collection appears essential for trials because relying on the CTCAE to detect adverse events may miss important symptoms. Moreover, since MDs systematically miss substantial symptoms in certain patients, including pts who are younger or of black or other race, improving symptom detection may be a targetable mechanism to reduce disparities in RT experiences and outcomes.
Multivariable model of symptom under-recognitionOR95% CIpAge--0.001<501.351.15-1.58<0.00150-591.211.06-1.390.00660-691 (ref)--70+1.050.89-1.240.55Body Mass Index--0.67Underweight (<18.5).790.52-1.200.27Normal(18.5-<25).990.84-1.150.86Overweight (25-<30)1 (ref)--Obesity I (30-<35)1.010.87-1.180.87Obesity II (35-<40)1.050.88-1.250.61Obesity III (40+)1.110.92-1.340.27Race--<0.001White1 (ref)--Black1.921.65-2.23<0.001Asian1.320.84-2.080.23Other1.821.24-2.660.002Supraclavicular field used (yes vs no)0.800.68-0.950.01Fractionation (conventionalvs hypo fractionation)1.151.02-1.300.02Boost to tumor bed (yes vs no)0.950.80-1.120.53Facility(Academic vs Community)1.131.01-1.270.04
Citation Format: Reshma Jagsi, Kent A. Griffith, Frank Vicini, Thomas Boike, Michael Dominello, Gregory Gustafson, James A. Hayman, Jean M. Moran, Jeffrey Radawski, Eleanor Walker, Lori J. Pierce, on behalf of MROQC, the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium. Identifying patients whose symptoms are under-recognized during breast radiotherapy: Comparison of patient and physician reports of toxicity in a multicenter cohort [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS3-07.
Collapse
|
36
|
Enzler T, Parikh N, Liao CY, Kalyan A, Hsieh D, Griffith KA, Sahai V. A phase I/II trial to evaluate cabozantinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with Child-Pugh class B cirrhosis after first-line therapy. J Clin Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.3_suppl.tps357] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
TPS357 Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the 4th leading cause of cancer related death worldwide. HCC typically develops in patients with cirrhosis and has a 5-year survival estimate of 20%. Only patients with early stage disease may be eligible for a curative approach using local treatment and/or transplant. The majority of patient present with advanced HCC and will require systemic treatment for disease control. Several systemic therapies are FDA-approved for the treatment of HCC; however, they are only approved for patients with Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis. There are limited data and no approved second-line therapy for HCC with more advanced cirrhosis, including Child-Pugh class B, which represents a significant proportion of patients. The aim of this trial is to determine the safety and efficacy of cabozantinib, a multi-kinase inhibitor, in patients with HCC with Child-Pugh class B cirrhosis. Methods: This investigator-initiated, phase I/II study is enrolling 32 patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh B7 or B8, who have previously received first-line systemic treatment. Patients receive cabozantinib at one of 3 dose levels (20 mg, 40 mg, and 60 mg) with a starting dose level of 40 mg to evaluate the safety profile and obtain the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The primary endpoint is assessment of dose-limiting toxicity with a null hypothesis greater than 35%. Secondary endpoints include ORR per RECIST v1.1, PFS, OS, and PK profile. Exploratory endpoints include whole exome/RNAseq analysis (including MET, VEGF, AXL, and immune signature), spatial profiling of immune markers by multiplex immunofluorescence, and specimen banking (tissue, blood and imaging). The trial design is based on the Time-To-Event modification of the Continual Reassessment Method (TiTE-CRM), which allows for continued monitoring of toxicity as a function of a dose-over-time, and is flexible with regard to the number of patients treated at a certain dose. The trial is open at University of Michigan as lead and coordinating site, and due to open at 3 additional high-volume centers. Clinical trial information: 04497038.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Chih-Yi Liao
- University of Chicago Department of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | | | - David Hsieh
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Abstract
This cross-sectional study investigates the diversity of speakers who discussed COVID-19 and other content on cable news programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Center for Cancer Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor
| | - Rochelle D Jones
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Vicini F, Boike T, Burmeister J, Dominello MM, Grills I, Hayman JA, Moran JM, Paximadis P, Radawski JD, Walker EM, Pierce LJ. Toward Improving Patients' Experiences of Acute Toxicity From Breast Radiotherapy: Insights From the Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Large Multicenter Cohort. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:4019-4029. [PMID: 32986529 PMCID: PMC9798927 DOI: 10.1200/jco.20.01703] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Understanding acute toxicities after whole-breast radiotherapy is important to inform patients, guide treatment decisions, and target supportive care. We evaluated patient-reported outcomes prospectively collected from a cohort of patients with breast cancer. METHODS We describe the maximal toxicity reported by 8,711 patients treated between 2012 and 2019 at 27 practices. Multivariable models identified characteristics associated with (1) breast pain, (2) bother from itching, stinging/burning, swelling, or hurting of the treated breast, and (3) fatigue within 7 days of completing whole-breast radiotherapy. RESULTS Moderate or severe breast pain was reported by 3,233 (37.1%): 1,282 (28.9%) of those receiving hypofractionation and 1,951 (45.7%) of those receiving conventional fractionation. Frequent bother from at least one breast symptom was reported by 4,424 (50.8%): 1,833 (41.3%) after hypofractionation and 2,591 (60.7%) after conventional fractionation. Severe fatigue was reported by 2,008 (23.1%): 843 (19.0%) after hypofractionation and 1,165 (27.3%) after conventional fractionation. Among patients receiving hypofractionated radiotherapy, younger age (P < .001), higher body mass index (BMI; P < .001), Black (P < .001) or other race (P = .002), smoking status (P < .001), larger breast volume (P = .002), lack of chemotherapy receipt (P = .004), receipt of boost treatment (P < .001), and treatment at a nonteaching center predicted breast pain. Among patients receiving conventionally fractionated radiotherapy, younger age (P < .001), higher BMI (P = .003), Black (P < .001) or other race (P = .002), diabetes (P = .001), smoking status (P < .001), and larger breast volume (P < .001) predicted breast pain. CONCLUSION In this large observational data set, substantial differences existed according to radiotherapy dose fractionation. Race-related differences in pain existed despite controlling for multiple other factors; additional research is needed to understand what drives these differences to target potentially modifiable factors. Intensifying supportive care may be appropriate for subgroups identified as being vulnerable to greater toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reshma Jagsi
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI,Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, UHB2C490, SPC 5010, 1500 East Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5010; e-mail:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Jasielec JK, Kubicki T, Raje N, Vij R, Reece D, Berdeja J, Derman BA, Rosenbaum CA, Richardson P, Gurbuxani S, Major S, Wolfe B, Stefka AT, Stephens L, Tinari KM, Hycner T, Rojek AE, Dytfeld D, Griffith KA, Zimmerman TM, Jakubowiak AJ. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone plus transplant in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 2020; 136:2513-2523. [PMID: 32735641 PMCID: PMC7714092 DOI: 10.1182/blood.2020007522] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2020] [Accepted: 07/22/2020] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
In this phase 2 multicenter study, we evaluated the incorporation of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) into a carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd) regimen for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Transplant-eligible patients with NDMM received 4 cycles of KRd induction, ASCT, 4 cycles of KRd consolidation, and 10 cycles of KRd maintenance. The primary end point was rate of stringent complete response (sCR) after 8 cycles of KRd with a predefined threshold of ≥50% to support further study. Seventy-six patients were enrolled with a median age of 59 years (range, 40-76 years), and 35.5% had high-risk cytogenetics. The primary end point was met, with an sCR rate of 60% after 8 cycles. Depth of response improved over time. On intent-to-treat (ITT), the sCR rate reached 76%. The rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity using modified ITT was 70% according to next-generation sequencing (<10-5 sensitivity). After median follow-up of 56 months, 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 72% and 84% for ITT, 85% and 91% for MRD-negative patients, and 57% and 72% for patients with high-risk cytogenetics. For high-risk patients who were MRD negative, 5-year rates were 77% and 81%. Grade 3 to 4 adverse events included neutropenia (34%), lymphopenia (32%), infection (22%), and cardiac events (3%). There was no grade 3 to 4 peripheral neuropathy. Patients with NDMM treated with KRd with ASCT achieved high rates of sCR and MRD-negative disease at the end of KRd consolidation. Extended KRd maintenance after consolidation contributed to deepening of responses and likely to prolonged PFS and OS. Safety and tolerability were manageable. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01816971.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Tadeusz Kubicki
- University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL
- Department of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland
| | - Noopur Raje
- Center for Multiple Myeloma, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA
| | - Ravi Vij
- Section of Stem Cell Transplant and Leukemia, Division of Medical Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | - Donna Reece
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Jesus Berdeja
- Sarah Cannon Center for Blood Cancer, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, TN
| | | | - Cara A Rosenbaum
- University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL
- Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY
| | - Paul Richardson
- Division of Hematologic Malignancy, Department of Medical Oncology, Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center, Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | | | - Sarah Major
- University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL
| | | | | | | | | | - Tyler Hycner
- University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL
| | | | - Dominik Dytfeld
- University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL
- Department of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Center for Cancer Biostatistics, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI; and
| | - Todd M Zimmerman
- University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL
- BeiGene, San Mateo, CA
| | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Shumway DA, Motomura A, Griffith KA, Hayman JA, Pierce LJ, Jagsi R. Patient Perceptions in a Nonblinded Randomized Trial of Radiation Therapy Technologies: A Novel Survey Study Exploring Therapeutic Misconception. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 108:867-875. [PMID: 32454191 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.05.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2020] [Revised: 05/04/2020] [Accepted: 05/14/2020] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Therapeutic misconception is the tendency for a clinical trial participant to overlook the scientific objective of a clinical trial and instead believe that an experimental intervention is intended for personal therapeutic benefit. We sought to evaluate this tendency in the setting of a clinical trial of a new radiation therapy technology. METHODS Patients with left-sided, node positive breast cancer enrolled in a randomized clinical trial evaluating intensity modulated radiation therapy with deep inspiration breath hold (IMRT-DIBH) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT). Patients who enrolled completed surveys at baseline, after randomization, and upon completion of radiation therapy to evaluate expectations, satisfaction, and experiences. RESULTS Forty women participated in the survey study, with 20 in each arm. Most participants endorsed the perception that participation in the trial might result in better treatment than the current standard treatment (77%) and more medical attention than being off trial (54%). At baseline, most women (74%) believed that a new treatment technology is superior than an established one. Before randomization, 43% of participants believed IMRT-DIBH would be more effective than standard treatment with 3DCRT, none believed that 3DCRT would be more effective, 23% believed that they would be the same, and 34% did not know. None believed that IMRT-DIBH would cause worse long-term side effects, whereas 37% thought that 3DCRT would. Most (71%) reported that they would choose to be treated with IMRT-DIBH; none would have elected 3DCRT if given a choice. Nearly half (44%) in the 3DCRT arm wished that they had been assigned to the IMRT-DIBH arm; none in the IMRT-DIBH arm expressed a wish for crossover. CONCLUSIONS Most participants reported the perception that trial participation would result in better treatment and more medical attention than off trial, hallmarks of therapeutic misconception. Our observations provide empirical evidence of a fixed belief in the superiority of new technology and highlight the importance of adjusting expectations through informed consent to mitigate therapeutic misconception.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Amy Motomura
- Center for Law and the Biosciences and Stanford Program in Neuroscience and Society, Stanford Law School, Stanford, California
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - James A Hayman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Lori J Pierce
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Beeler WH, Griffith KA, Evans SB, Golden DW, Jagsi R. Visiting Professorship in Academic Radiation Oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 108:824-829. [PMID: 32417406 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.05.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2020] [Revised: 04/28/2020] [Accepted: 05/01/2020] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Visiting professorship is an enjoyable activity that is also influential in academic promotional processes as evidence of the invitee's national reputation. Little is known, however, about the factors considered when selecting visiting professors (VPs) or whether this practice reflects objective criteria. We sought to characterize the process and diversity of participants in visiting professorships within academic radiation oncology (RO) to determine whether opportunities are equitably distributed. METHODS AND MATERIALS Surveys were distributed to program directors (PDs) of every 2018 RO residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. PDs were asked to identify all VPs over the past 2 years and to describe their departments' decision-making processes. Publicly available demographic and academic characteristics were obtained for each VP, and results were compared by VP gender and hosting program (HP) 2019 Doximity rank using the χ2 test for categorical data and t test for continuous data. RESULTS The PD response rate was 60 of 93 (65%); 6 surveys were ≥50% incomplete and were excluded. Over a 2-year timeframe, 51 of 54 departments hosted 233 VPs, of whom 29% were women. The mean number of hosted VPs (5; range, 1-19) and gender distribution (35% women; range, 0-100%) did not significantly differ by HP rank (P = .17 and 0.65, respectively), nor did the selection criteria by which VPs were primarily chosen (subject matter expertise, teaching reputation, and resident interest). Women received significantly lower honoraria amounts than men (P = .035) despite no significant differences by gender in academic rank (P = .71), VP department rank (0.19), or M-index (0.83). CONCLUSION Although sample size is limited, this study suggests that academic RO programs have a relatively equitable approach to selecting VPs that emphasizes trainee education and reflects the gender diversity of RO faculty more generally. Care should be taken to ensure that these similarly qualified women are offered the same monetary amount of honoraria as their male colleagues.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Whitney H Beeler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Suzanne B Evans
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Daniel W Golden
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Jones RD, Krenz C, Griffith KA, Spence R, Bradbury AR, De Vries R, Hawley ST, Zon R, Bolte S, Sadeghi N, Schilsky RL, Jagsi R. Governance of a Learning Health Care System for Oncology: Patient Recommendations. JCO Oncol Pract 2020; 17:e479-e489. [PMID: 33095694 DOI: 10.1200/op.20.00454] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The learning health care system (LHS) was designed to enable real-time learning and research by harnessing data generated during patients' clinical encounters. This novel approach begets ethical questions regarding the oversight of users and uses of patient data. Understanding patients' perspectives is vitally important. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted democratic deliberation sessions focused on CancerLinQ, a real-world LHS. Experts presented educational content, and then small group discussions were held to elicit viewpoints. The deliberations centered around whether policies should permit or deny certain users and uses of secondary data. De-identified transcripts of the discussions were examined by using thematic analysis. RESULTS Analysis identified two thematic clusters: expectations and concerns, which seemed to inform LHS governance recommendations. Participants expected to benefit from the LHS through the advancement of medical knowledge, which they hoped would improve treatments and the quality of their care. They were concerned that profit-driven users might manipulate the data in ways that could burden or exploit patients, hinder medical decisions, or compromise patient-provider communication. It was recommended that restricted access, user fees, and penalties should be imposed to prevent users, especially for-profit entities, from misusing data. Another suggestion was that patients should be notified of potential ethical issues and included on diverse, unbiased governing boards. CONCLUSION If patients are to trust and support LHS endeavors, their concerns about for-profit users must be addressed. The ethical implementation of such systems should consist of patient representation on governing boards, transparency, and strict oversight of for-profit users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Sarah T Hawley
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.,Veterans Administration Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Robin Zon
- Michiana Hematology-Oncology, Mishawaka, IN
| | - Sage Bolte
- Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Fairfax, VA
| | - Navid Sadeghi
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
Abstract
This cross-sectional study examines the gender distribution of endowed chairs in departments of medicine and the association of gender with holding an endowed chair.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica A Gold
- Department of Psychiatry, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
| | - Danielle Roubinov
- Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco
| | - Lena S Jia
- Department of Psychiatry, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.,Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - John M Carethers
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Christina Mangurian
- Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Shumway DA, Kapadia N, Walker EM, Griffith KA, Do TT, Feng M, Boike T, Helfrich Y, DePalma B, Gillespie EF, Miller A, Hayman J, Jagsi R, Pierce LJ. Development of an Illustrated Scale for Acute Radiation Dermatitis in Breast Cancer Patients. Pract Radiat Oncol 2020; 11:168-176. [PMID: 32947041 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2020.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2020] [Revised: 07/21/2020] [Accepted: 09/04/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Scales for rating acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) have not been validated despite decades of clinical use, and little is known regarding the relationship between toxicity scores and patient-reported symptoms. Skin tone also complicates assessment of ARD, and as such we sought to design an illustrated scale to consistently describe ARD across several skin tone types in breast cancer patients undergoing radiation (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients undergoing RT for breast cancer were enrolled on a prospective study with photographs obtained at 2-week intervals. Photographs were clustered according to the apparent severity of acute radiation dermatitis and a descriptive photonumeric scale was developed. Four clinically experienced raters used both the illustrated photonumeric scale and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events to independently score the collection of photographs in 2 independent sessions. RESULTS Among 80 unique patients with 192 photographs, 47 patients (59%) completed questionnaires about their symptoms during RT. Physicians completed toxicity forms at the point-of-care for 52 patients (65%). Photonumeric ratings compared against patient reports of dry and moist desquamation demonstrated high specificity (95% and 93%, respectively) and negative predictive value (84% and 92%), indicating correct identification of patients who did not report dry or moist desquamation. The sensitivity and positive predictive value for separate measures of dry and moist desquamation were considerably lower. A combined measure of any desquamation (dry or moist) portrayed higher diagnostic accuracy, resulting in 72% sensitivity, 93% specificity, 75% positive predictive value, and 92% negative predictive value. Photonumeric ratings of dry or moist desquamation were significantly associated with patient reports of itching, burning or stinging, hurting, and swelling. CONCLUSIONS The Michigan scale for acute radiation dermatitis is a simple grading rubric that is distinguished by characterization of its intra- and interrater reliability and diagnostic accuracy, correlation with patient-reported symptoms of bother and pain, and applicability across the spectrum of skin pigmentation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
| | - Nirav Kapadia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Eleanor M Walker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Kent A Griffith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Thy Thy Do
- Department of Dermatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Mary Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | - Thomas Boike
- MHP Radiation Oncology Institute/21st Century Oncology, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Yolanda Helfrich
- Department of Dermatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Bonnie DePalma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Erin F Gillespie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Alexandria Miller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - James Hayman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Lori J Pierce
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Abstract
Interleukin 6 (IL-6) and its receptors are expressed in approximately half of breast cancer (BC) tissues, and high serum IL-6 levels are associated with poor prognosis. African American (AA) patients with BC have higher serum IL-6 levels compared to Caucasians, suggesting additional risk of disease-related complications in AAs. The purpose of this study was to compare IL-6 complex biomarkers in AA women with and without a history of BC. We conducted a secondary analysis of phenotypic data from two studies of weight loss in AA women with and without a history of BC who had similar age and adiposity. Biomarkers analyzed included tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), IL-6, IL-6 soluble receptor (IL6sr), and soluble glycoprotein 130 (GP130); IL6sr and GP130 were newly analyzed for this study. TNF-α levels were 1.86 times higher in the BC group (N = 7) compared to those without BC (N = 10; p < 0.001) despite similar age, weight, and body mass index. GP130 levels tended to be higher in women with BC; IL-6 and Il-6 sr were not different between groups. There was a strong correlation between GP130 and TNF-α (r = .638; p = .006) in the group overall. High TNF-α levels in the BC group and a strong correlation between GP130 and TNF-α in the overall group suggest the presence of IL-6 complex initiated TNF-α production. Further study is needed to evaluate IL-6 reduction through a variety of approaches, including weight loss and anti-IL-6 therapies, which may ultimately implicate the reduction of IL-6 complex associated BC-specific recurrence and mortality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K A Griffith
- 8367The George Washington University Schools of Nursing and Medicine and George Washington University Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA.,Baltimore Veterans Administration Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - A S Ryan
- Baltimore Veterans Administration Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.,Division of Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Laucis AM, Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Dominello MM, Walker EM, Abu-Isa EI, Dilworth JT, Vicini F, Kocheril PG, Browne CH, Mietzel MA, Moran JM, Hayman JA, Pierce LJ. The Role of Facility Variation on Racial Disparities in Use of Hypofractionated Whole Breast Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 107:949-958. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.04.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2020] [Revised: 04/20/2020] [Accepted: 04/22/2020] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
|
47
|
Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Carrese JA, Collins M, Kao AC, Konrath S, Tovino SA, Wheeler JL, Wright SM. Public Attitudes Regarding Hospitals and Physicians Encouraging Donations From Grateful Patients. JAMA 2020; 324:270-278. [PMID: 32692387 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.9442] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Philanthropy is an increasingly important source of support for health care institutions. There is little empirical evidence to inform ethical guidelines. OBJECTIVE To assess public attitudes regarding specific practices used by health care institutions to encourage philanthropic donations from grateful patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based sample representative of the US population, a survey solicited opinions from a primary cohort representing the general population and 3 supplemental cohorts (with high income, cancer, and with heart disease, respectively). EXPOSURES Web-based questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Descriptive analyses (with percentages weighted to make the sample demographically representative of the US population) evaluated respondents' attitudes regarding the acceptability of strategies hospitals may use to identify, solicit, and thank donors; perceptions of the effect of physicians discussing donations with their patients; and opinions regarding gift use and stewardship. RESULTS Of 831 individuals targeted for the general population sample, 513 (62%) completed surveys, of whom 246 (48.0%) were women and 345 (67.3%) non-Hispanic white. In the weighted sample, 47.0% (95% CI, 42.3%-51.7%) responded that physicians giving patient names to hospital fundraising staff after asking patients' permission was definitely or probably acceptable; 8.5% (95% CI, 5.7%-11.2%) endorsed referring without asking permission. Of the participants, 79.5% (95% CI, 75.6%-83.4%) reported it acceptable for physicians to talk to patients about donating if patients have brought it up; 14.2% (95% CI, 10.9%-17.6%) reported it acceptable when patients have not brought it up; 9.9% (95% CI, 7.1%-12.8%) accepted hospital development staff performing wealth screening using publicly available data to identify patients capable of large donations. Of the participants, 83.2% (95% CI, 79.5%-86.9%) agreed that physicians talking with their patients about donating may interfere with the patient-physician relationship. For a hypothetical patient who donated $1 million, 50.1% (95% CI, 45.4%-54.7%) indicated it would be acceptable for the hospital to show thanks by providing nicer hospital rooms, 26.0% (95% CI, 21.9%-30.1%) by providing expedited appointments, and 19.8% (95% CI, 16.1%-23.5%) by providing physicians' cell phone numbers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this survey study of participants drawn from the general US population, a substantial proportion did not endorse legally allowable approaches for identifying, engaging, and thanking patient-donors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Sara Konrath
- Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Jagsi R, Means O, Lautenberger D, Jones RD, Griffith KA, Flotte TR, Gordon LK, Rexrode KM, Wagner LW, Chatterjee A. Women's Representation Among Members and Leaders of National Medical Specialty Societies. Acad Med 2020; 95:1043-1049. [PMID: 31625994 DOI: 10.1097/acm.0000000000003038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE National medical specialty societies speak for their respective fields in policy debates, influence research, affect trainees' specialization decisions, provide career development opportunities, and confer awards and recognitions. This study provides a comprehensive overview of the gender demographics of society members and leaders. METHOD In 2016, the Group on Women in Medicine and Science (of the Association of American Medical Colleges) sought to characterize the gender of members and leaders of specialty societies from 2000 to 2015. This report provides descriptive data, including how many of the responding societies (representing each of 30 major medical specialties) had substantial (> 10%) increases in women's representation among leadership between the first and second halves of the study period. RESULTS The average proportion of full members who were female in responding societies was 25.4% in 2005 and 29.3% in 2015. The proportion of women among those serving as the highest-ranking elected leader between 2000 and 2015 in each specialty ranged from 0% to 37.5% (mean, 15.8%). The mean proportion of women on governing boards ranged from 0% to 37.3% (mean of means, 18.8%) in 2000-2007 and from 0% to 47.6% (mean of means, 25.2%) in 2008-2015. In 9 specialties, the mean percentage of women serving on governing boards increased by over 10% from the first to the second half of the study period. CONCLUSIONS Although many women are full members of specialty societies, women still constitute a minority of leaders. This report establishes a baseline from which to evaluate the effect of societies' efforts to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reshma Jagsi
- R. Jagsi is professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6562-1228. O. Means is a resident in plastic surgery, Spectrum Health, Grand Rapids, Michigan. D. Lautenberger is director, Women in Medicine and Science, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC. R.D. Jones is research area specialist intermediate, Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. K.A. Griffith is statistician expert, Center for Cancer Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. T.R. Flotte is the Celia and Isaac Haidak Professor, and dean, School of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts. L.K. Gordon is professor of ophthalmology and senior associate dean, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4495-8830. K.M. Rexrode is chief, Division of Women's Health, Department of Medicine, and associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3387-8429. L.W. Wagner is professor of medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6958-9103. A. Chatterjee is professor and chair, Department of Pediatrics, University of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine/Sanford Children's Specialty Clinic, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Brown JR, Chan DK, Shank JJ, Griffith KA, Fan H, Szulawski R, Yang K, Reynolds RK, Johnston C, McLean K, Uppal S, Liu JR, Cabrera L, Taylor SE, Orr BC, Modugno F, Mehta P, Bregenzer M, Mehta G, Shen H, Coffman LG, Buckanovich RJ. Phase II clinical trial of metformin as a cancer stem cell-targeting agent in ovarian cancer. JCI Insight 2020; 5:133247. [PMID: 32369446 PMCID: PMC7308054 DOI: 10.1172/jci.insight.133247] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2019] [Accepted: 04/23/2020] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUNDEpidemiologic studies suggest that metformin has antitumor effects. Laboratory studies indicate metformin impacts cancer stem-like cells (CSCs). As part of a phase II trial, we evaluated the impact of metformin on CSC number and on carcinoma-associated mesenchymal stem cells (CA-MSCs) and clinical outcomes in nondiabetic patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).METHODSThirty-eight patients with stage IIC (n = 1)/III (n = 25)/IV (n = 12) EOC were treated with either (a) neoadjuvant metformin, debulking surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy plus metformin or (b) neoadjuvant chemotherapy and metformin, interval debulking surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy plus metformin. Metformin-treated tumors, compared with historical controls, were evaluated for CSC number and chemotherapy response. Primary endpoints were (a) a 2-fold or greater reduction in aldehyde dehydrogenase-positive (ALDH+) CD133+ CSCs and (b) a relapse-free survival at 18 months of more than 50%.RESULTSMetformin was well tolerated. Median progression-free survival was 18.0 months (95% CI 14.0-21.6) with relapse-free survival at 18 months of 59.3% (95% CI 38.6-70.5). Median overall survival was 57.9 months (95% CI 28.0-not estimable). Tumors treated with metformin had a 2.4-fold decrease in ALDH+CD133+ CSCs and increased sensitivity to cisplatin ex vivo. Furthermore, metformin altered the methylation signature in CA-MSCs, which prevented CA-MSC-driven chemoresistance in vitro.CONCLUSIONTranslational studies confirm an impact of metformin on EOC CSCs and suggest epigenetic change in the tumor stroma may drive the platinum sensitivity ex vivo. Consistent with this, metformin therapy was associated with better-than-expected overall survival, supporting the use of metformin in phase III studies.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT01579812.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jason R. Brown
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Daniel K. Chan
- Magee-Womens Research Institute, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Jessica J. Shank
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California, USA
| | - Kent A. Griffith
- University of Michigan Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Huihui Fan
- Van Andel Institute, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
| | - Robert Szulawski
- Magee-Womens Research Institute, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Kun Yang
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - R. Kevin Reynolds
- University of Michigan Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Carolyn Johnston
- University of Michigan Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Karen McLean
- University of Michigan Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Shitanshu Uppal
- University of Michigan Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - J. Rebecca Liu
- University of Michigan Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Lourdes Cabrera
- University of Michigan Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Sarah E. Taylor
- Magee-Womens Research Institute, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Brian C. Orr
- Magee-Womens Research Institute, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Francesmary Modugno
- Magee-Womens Research Institute, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Pooja Mehta
- University of Michigan Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Michael Bregenzer
- University of Michigan Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Geeta Mehta
- University of Michigan Rogel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Hui Shen
- Van Andel Institute, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
| | - Lan G. Coffman
- Magee-Womens Research Institute, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Ronald J. Buckanovich
- Magee-Womens Research Institute, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Sahai V, Griffith KA, Beg MS, Shaib WL, Mahalingam D, Zhen DB, Deming DA, Dey S, Mendiratta-Lala M, Zalupski M. A multicenter randomized phase II study of nivolumab in combination with gemcitabine/cisplatin or ipilimumab as first-line therapy for patients with advanced unresectable biliary tract cancer (BilT-01). J Clin Oncol 2020. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.4582] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/16/2023] Open
Abstract
4582 Background: Patients (pts) with advanced biliary tract cancers (BTC) have poor prognosis with a median overall survival (OS) less than 12 months (mos). This randomized phase 2, multi-institutional, study was designed to investigate the role of combinational immunotherapy, using nivolumab (nivo) with gemcitabine (gem)/cisplatin (cis), or nivo with ipilimumab (ipi) in pts with untreated advanced BTC. Methods: Key eligibility criteria include histologically confirmed unresectable or metastatic BTC without prior systemic therapy, measurable disease per RECISTv1.1, ECOG PS 0-1, and absence of autoimmune disease or chronic steroid use. Arm A included gem 1000 mg/m2 and cis 25 mg/m2 d1, 8 Q3w + nivo 360 mg d1 Q3w for 6 mos followed by nivo 240 mg Q2w monotherapy for a total duration of 2 yrs; Arm B included nivo 240 mg Q2w and ipi 1 mg/kg Q6w for 2 yrs, in absence of disease progression. Primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 mos with an alternative hypothesis of 80% (null hypothesis of 59%, one-sided alpha 0.05, power 80%) for each non-comparative arm. Secondary endpoints include overall response rate (ORR) per immune related (ir)RECIST, median PFS and OS and safety. Exploratory objectives include biomarker analysis using include sequential whole exome/transcriptome and immune cell subsets in tissue and blood. Results: 71 eligible pts (49% male, 83% Caucasian) with 35 in Arm and 36 in Arm B with a median age of 62 (range 20-80) yrs, and majority with metastatic disease (90%) were enrolled across 6 US sites. PFS rate at 6 mos was 70% in Arm A and 18.6% in Arm B. The median PFS was 8.8 mos (95% CI, 6.1 to 11.3) in Arm A and 4.1 mos (95% CI, 2.4-5.2) in Arm B. Ten patients on Arm A and 2 on Arm B remain on active treatment; additional 7 are in follow-up for OS. ORR, safety data and median OS evaluation are underway and will be presented at the meeting. Exploratory analyses are pending. Conclusions: The observed PFS rates at 6 mos in either arm are insufficient to reject the null hypothesis of 59% PFS at 6 months. While Arm B is inferior, Arm A appears to be as effective as standard of care although OS estimates are pending maturity. Clinical trial information: NCT03101566 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Dustin A. Deming
- University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, and ECOG-ACRIN, Madison, WI
| | - Sumi Dey
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | | |
Collapse
|