oncologyworkforce

Drs. John Sweetenham and Lawrence Shulman discuss the challenges that oncologists will be confronting in 2024 and share insights on how to build clinician resilience and optimize the oncology workforce to provide better, safer care for patients with cancer.

TRANSCRIPT

Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham from the UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm thrilled to welcome my friend and colleague, Dr. Larry Shulman, to the podcast today.

Dr. Shulman is a professor of medicine, associate director of special projects, and the director of the Center for Global Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center. Dr. Shulman is also the immediate past chair of the Commission on Cancer, and also serves on the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.

His acclaimed research has led to the development of models of clinical care to improve the patient experience and quality of care in the United States and internationally. His activities have also included innovations in health information technology, cancer survivorship care, and some other related areas.

Today, Dr. Shulman will be sharing his valuable insights on some of the growing complexities and challenges that we'll be grappling with in oncology in 2024 and beyond, and potential solutions to address these issues.

You'll find our four disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcasts are available at asco.org/DNpod.

Larry, it's great to have you on the podcast today.

Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Thank you so much, John.

Dr. John Sweetenham: To start with Larry, as you know, the growth in the number of patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the U.S. is greatly outpacing the number of clinicians available to care for them.

The American Association for Cancer Research, for example, estimates that there will be nearly 2 million new cancer cases in the U.S. alone this year and that the number will increase significantly in the years to come. The number of cancer survivors in total in the U.S. is predicted to grow to around 20.3 million by 2026.

So, the question our community has been grappling with for some time now is: “How do we confront these realities and provide optimal care for patients, while at the same time building the resilience of the clinicians who need to care for them?”

This is an area I know that you've focused on for a long time and you've published several papers in recent years as well as the great work that you've done as co-chair of the National Cancer Policy Forum workshop on the oncology workforce. Can you share your insights into some of these challenges?

Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Sure, John. Thank you very much. As you mentioned, the number of oncologists in this country is pretty stable. There's consistent but relatively low number entering the workforce and those of us who were really in the first wave of oncologists in the 1970s are beginning to retire.

A number of years ago we thought, well, we need to figure out ways to recruit more medical students and trainees into the field of oncology, but that's clearly not going to happen.

And as you also mentioned, the number of cancer patients is rapidly increasing in this country, partly because of the aging population and partly because frankly we're better at treating them. The cure rates are better, and the number of survivors is going up.

So, the math is pretty straightforward. We have a relatively stable number of oncology providers trying to care for a rapidly increasing number of patients and that's just not going to change.

So, we need to have plan B; we need to figure out how we can better meet the needs in this country. And I think all of us who practice are feeling the strain of trying to take care of these increasing number of patients.

I think there are a few things that are contributing to this as well. One—the good news is we have lots of new therapies, we have lots of genomics, which are leading us to better tailor therapies for our patients.

But this is all complicated and it's a lot for us all to learn and keep abreast of and to manage on a day-to-day basis in the middle of a busy clinic.

But the other thing is that I believe our care has become progressively more inefficient, making it harder every day that we go to clinic to care for the number of patients we need to.

And that really has to change. For those of us who've been doing this for a long time, and I know you have as well, this has been a trend really over decades. It's gone in the wrong direction. It was a lot easier to practice a number of decades ago.

Now, the requirements for documentation and pre-authorization and many other administrative tasks has just grown progressively over these years. And we need to figure out how to change that.

And in addition, our electronic health records, which is where we live in clinic, have been remarkable and wonderful in many ways, but are also inefficient to use and we need to do a better job in optimizing their functionality.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Great, thanks Larry. I do agree with you there and I think that in addition to the challenges of running the electronic health record and using that at the point of care, of course the other thing that many of our clinicians face now is an increasingly complex treatment landscape and a greater need for clinical decision support tools, which of course are not always at the moment quite as facile as we would like them to be.

And I think partly because of that, many oncologists are feeling overburdened partly with these various administrative tasks they have, partly with frankly keeping up with their own specialty areas or if they're community-based general oncologists, just keeping up in general with the new information that's coming at them.

And then add on top of all of that the emotional toll of caring for patients with cancer. And not surprisingly, perhaps I think we have started to see, certainly we have experienced an exodus of some oncologists in recent years who've decided to pursue careers outside of direct patient care and oncology. And those included some moving into other areas of academia, some going into industry, some going into various tech companies and so on.

Are you concerned that we all struggle in the effort of building and support a resilient oncology workforce to meet the needs of this growing population that you mentioned?

Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Yeah, I'm very concerned about that, John. And I think one way to think about this is that as you say, the practice of oncology inherently is a stressful and difficult, though quite rewarding way to spend your professional career.

But we layer on top of that a lot of frustration and difficulties that really don't need to exist. And when I think about this, I think about really two buckets.

There's a bucket of factors that are within our control in an individual institution or an individual practice, and I'll come back to that in a minute.

The other bucket are external forces, things that are required by the government regulators, by the payers that need to be done in routine practice. We have less direct influence over those, though I think it's a profession, we need to think hard about how to influence the external factors as well.

At the practice level, there are a lot of things that we can do. One has to do with optimizing our electronic health record, which does have, in most cases, the ability to have it customized by institution in a way that would make it optimal.

And some of that again, is external because we're dealing with a vendor product that has some limited ability to be customized, but we need to do a better job of the technology that underlies our practice every day when we go to clinic.

The other major factor in support, whether it's advanced practice providers, nurses, medical assistants, navigators, and other personnel who can in fact help to support the patients, help to support their families, and help to support the clinicians who are on the front line trying to care for these patients.

And we all use the term, practicing at the top of your license and aspire to that. But I think frankly we don't do a great job in that regard, and we need to really think harder about how we do have the appropriate team around us.

In addition, I would say that there are a lot of other things at the practice level that we need to think about, including the facility of ordering radiologic studies and consultations and so on, all of which are often more cumbersome than they should be. We really need to not put these obstacles in the way of our clinicians.

Externally, I think we need to get the payers and to get the government CMS to understand that the current state, it's just not going to be viable going forward and they need to make some big changes. And I think one of the ways to think about this is that rather than doing something differently, you want to do a different thing.

I mean, they really need to make some paradigm changes and what's required day in and day out from our clinicians.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. So, I want to pick up on something that you mentioned there, which is the role of navigators and the benefits that navigation, patient navigation, can have in several domains, but certainly it can help to reduce the burden on oncologists and strain in the system in general.

But to take that a little bit further, I wonder if we could talk a little bit about how navigation can help in reducing care disparities. You were saying before we came on the podcast today, the concept of using patient navigators to reduce disparities in care is not new. It's been around for many, many years, but it seems like we almost have to keep relearning that they really help in terms of reducing various disparities which may be rural disparities, racial and ethnic and so on.

There are plenty of data out there, as you've mentioned, just to quote a couple of studies, there was the ACCURE trial published a couple of years ago now, which was really a multi-pronged intervention to help Black patients overcome obstacles to completion of treatment.

And it included navigation along with a number of other interventions, electronic health record flags to alert caregivers to missed appointments, providers to missed appointments, I should say. It also included physician champions to help engage the health care teams and some educational interventions as well with a significant impact on the access to care from Black patients.

The Levine Cancer Institute in the Carolinas conducted a study in my own world, in aggressive large B-cell lymphoma a number of years ago, where they showed that they were able to navigate all of their patients into guideline-concordant care, which essentially eliminated the disparity in outcome between Black and White patients in their population.

And then more recently, a study from the University of Maryland looked at Black men with prostate cancer and demonstrated that with the intervention from a navigator, the number of those patients who had their appropriate genetic testing was increased enormously to levels which were comparable with the White patients in their community.

No clear evidence yet that that's impacted outcome, although intuitively, I think it would, but nevertheless, as you've already pointed out, there is a ton of evidence that navigation can help us to eliminate disparities.

Could you talk a little bit about your own insights into that area and the work that you've done?

Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Sure. A few years ago, the National Cancer Policy Forum held a workshop on navigation in cancer and we spent a couple of days in Washington going over many of the studies you've mentioned.

And one of our speakers was Harold Freeman, who was a surgeon in Harlem. About 60 years ago, he showed that patient navigation could reduce disparities in cancer care in his setting. And I think the surprising and somewhat disappointing aspect of this is, well, we have a new therapy, whether it's immunotherapy or whatever that is shown to improve overall survival and outcomes. We adopt that, and we start using it. And yet here something that's relatively straightforward, patient navigation, which has been shown as you say, to improve access to care, to improve guideline-concordant diagnostics, guideline-concordant treatment, patient satisfaction, and ultimately improve outcomes and reduce disparities, but has not been embraced in the same way that new therapies have been embraced.

And from my point of view, these factors are equally important. They translate in the patient outcomes ultimately just like the therapies that we choose to. And we need to really buy into that. We need to understand that this really affects our patient outcomes as much as our therapies do.

So, a couple of things. One is that you've already mentioned the different ways that navigation might improve outcomes, and that's clearly the case.

But there are other aspects which are really critical to a lot of conversations we've been having, and that is that navigators fill vital roles that when they're not present are often filled by the treating physician, trying to make sure that the diagnostic tests, the genomics are all done, trying to make sure that the patient is getting their radiologic studies on time, trying to make sure that the appropriate appointments are being set up.

Navigators are very, very good at doing this. They're very good at bonding to the patients and helping the patients feel secure through this cancer journey. But if they're not there, either those things don't get done or the clinician, the treating physician or the advanced practice provider is doing that.

And so, it has the dual effect of both burdening clinicians who really have another role in the care of the patients doing these other scheduling and navigation functions as well as improving the overall care.

I will say that in my own experience, it's important to have navigators who are skilled in their areas, that understand the diseases that we're treating, that understand the patient's needs in relation to those diseases and the treatments and diagnostics that we have to offer. So, there is a real skill to navigation, but a skilled navigator really makes a huge difference to the patient.

And again, not only in the very tangible ways that you mentioned, but also frankly in the psychological security of the patient. And patients will tell you this and there are surveys out there that show this, that patients who are undergoing a new diagnosis of cancer are terrified, do much better psychologically when they have a navigator at their side through this journey. But it has tremendous benefit to the clinicians as well.

And why haven't we embraced navigators? I can only speculate, but one of the comments that I get from health system administrators is, “Well, they cost a lot of money, and their work is not reimbursed as part of health care reimbursement.”

But there is, again, overwhelming evidence to show that the return on investment for navigators is substantial. And it's substantial because it keeps patients in your practice, it provides more efficient care at all levels.

And we published out of the National Cancer Policy Forum work, an article that basically shows from a variety of different centers, including mine at Penn, that there is a tremendous ROI for having navigators.

So yeah, it's a little bit of money upfront to hire them, but ultimately, it's a good thing financially as well as clinically.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah. So often with these kind of wraparound services that are so important to our patients showing and being able to clearly demonstrate the kind of downstream revenue from those services is difficult, but is I think probably evident to those of us who are in the clinic and see what happens.

So, maybe we need some more sophisticated financial models to be able to highlight that to our leaders in the health systems, I think that the evidence is really quite clear.

So, Larry, one of the disparities that you've mentioned, and perhaps we haven't focused on quite so much in this discussion, has been the issue of cancer care for rural versus urban communities. And I think it's important that we highlight the challenges that oncologists are facing in rural communities across the country in caring for patients who live many miles away from a hospital or clinical practice and where the oncologists do not have the kind of support system that you'd find in an academic center in a major city. Can you comment a little on that?

Lawrence Shulman: Sure, John. This is a real problem. I and others have published on cancer survival statistics in rural settings and in small community hospitals and they are in fact inferior to larger academic cancer centers, probably for a multitude of reasons.

And one of our colleagues, Dr. Otis Brawley, made the comment a number of years ago and still repeats it, that your likelihood of surviving cancer in the U.S. is more tightly linked to your ZIP code than your genetic code. And there is some truth to that.

Now, there are tremendous challenges for providing cancer care in a small, rural hospital. We practice in academic medical centers; I'm a breast cancer doctor and I spend all of my time trying to stay current in breast cancer. And it's a field that's changing rapidly. It's hard for me to imagine how my colleagues who are generalists in the community are keeping up with the advances in so many different diseases. And I think frankly, it's really, really hard to do that.

In addition, all of us at academic centers have weekly tumor boards. We get to ask our colleagues what their thoughts are about our difficult cases. We get a lot of input from pathologists, radiologists, and other colleagues.

And frequently clinicians, physicians, oncologists, practicing in rural hospitals don't have that constituency around them for them to bounce difficult patients off of to try to figure out what the best approach might be for a patient.

So, the differences are terrific, and the support is just not there. This is something that our country has not really confronted. We have a very big country geographically. Some of the areas of the country are quite rural. A patient can't be expected to travel four hours in each direction to an academic cancer center.

We need to figure out how to better partner between our academic cancer centers and our community colleagues to support their care in ways that we've not done routinely up to this point. I know that the National Cancer Institute is very interested in this and trying to figure it out.

But again, I think we have to feel a collective responsibility to support our colleagues in the community. They try really hard, they're working really hard, they're doing the best they can, but they just don't have the support that we have in academic cancer centers.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, sure. Before we wrap up the podcast today, I'd like to circle back a little to something that you said earlier and a topic that I know that you've published about quite extensively in the past and that's the issue of health care technology.

And I think we probably all agree that health care's been a little bit slow to capitalize on technology to improve our care processes and outcomes. And your research has highlighted that technology can facilitate patient-clinician interactions in a number of ways through augmented intelligence, texting, chatbots, among other things.

Can you tell us a little bit about this, how you think that AI might be able to help us in the future to streamline the management of some of these medical and administrative issues that we've been talking about today?

Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Sure, John. It's hard to turn the TV on or read a newspaper without an article on artificial intelligence. But the word you used is the word that I use, which is augmented intelligence. I don't think we're looking to replace clinicians with technology, but we're looking to in fact make their jobs easier, to remove some of the tasks that they don't need to do themselves as really an assistant, if you will, another assistant.

We have used technology extremely poorly in the medical profession overall. I'm not quite sure why that is. But if you look at the banking industry or other industries, they've used technology tremendously well with great benefit, benefit not only for the people who are using the services, in our case, the patients, but also those who are providing the services, in our case, the clinicians.

So, I think we need to do a better job. We need to have electronic health records that are in fact helping rather than sometimes hindering or making frustrating the care of the patients. We need to use artificial intelligence or augmented intelligence to interact with patients and help to manage them.

We're using augmented intelligence chatbots to manage patients who are on oral chemotherapy able to do a lot of the tasks that normally the clinicians would be doing without in any way jeopardizing the safety or the well-being of the patients.

The patients actually tell us that they like this, that it's just another way to feel connected to their practice in a way that's efficient and easy for them through texting rather than sometimes trying to call the practice, which can be frustrating.

But there are lots of other things as well in analyzing data, bringing data forward that will help us to make the appropriate decisions. And one of the things that I often use as an example is the airline industry.

And they have a remarkable safety record as we all know, thank goodness. But if you sit in the cockpit of an airplane and you look at the instruments, all the critical data is right in front of them, unencumbered and very clearly presented because they need those data to fly the plane, and they need those data to be rapidly and easily accessible.

They can get all the data they need; you look at the cockpit ceiling, it's got a thousand switches on, everything they need is there, but the critical data is never hidden and always presented. I don't think that that in fact is the way our electronic health records are set up. In fact, quite the contrary. And all of us spend a fair amount of time looking for data and so on because the records are complicated, and they're used by a lot of different specialists.

But we can use augmented intelligence to bring all the critical data up, just like the cockpit in an airplane, to make sure that we have what we need rapidly accessible, and we don't miss anything. We don't go looking for the genomic test and can't find them and then assume they weren't done and make a decision without critical data when in fact they were done, but the data is hidden.

So, I think we have a lot of options to use technology to improve our daily lives. I think it will take away some of the frustrations that lead to burnout, and we'll also make practice not only more efficient, but frankly also much safer.

I think we have to work hard on this. We could partner with that technology colleagues. We at Penn are trying to do that. I know others are trying to do it as well. And I think the patients will benefit, will all benefit. Practice will be better, safer, less frustrating, and the outcomes of the patients will be better.

Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, thanks Larry. I think your analogy with an aircraft cockpit is so perceptive and I think that that's something if we could unclutter our electronic health records and what we're seeing in front of us in at the points of care in the clinic, I agree 100% that will be such a step forward. So, thanks for sharing that.

Thanks also, Larry, for discussing some of these challenges that we're going to be confronting in the next year and beyond, as well as the potential solutions.

I think one thing that is really important to remember despite these challenges is something that I mentioned in the introduction to the podcast today. So, when we are all feeling a little bit disheartened because of the challenges ahead of us, it's important to remember that in 2026 there will be an estimated 20.3 million cancer survivors in the United States, which really does underline how far we've come, certainly in the time that you and I have been practicing oncology, and really important not to lose sight of that. We had a lot of challenges, but really the achievements of the last 50 years or so are pretty remarkable.

It's been a real pleasure to have you on the podcast today, so thank you again for joining us and for sharing your thoughts with us.

Dr. Lawrence Shulman: Thanks so much for having me, John.

Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

For more information on Dr. Shulman’s research discussed in this episode, please see the articles below:

The Future of Cancer Care in the United States—Overcoming Workforce Capacity Limitations | Health Care Workforce | JAMA Oncology | JAMA Network

Developing and Sustaining an Effective and Resilient Oncology Careforce: Opportunities for Action - PubMed (nih.gov)

Re-envisioning the Paradigm for Oncology Electronic Health Record Documentation by Paying for What Matters for Patients, Quality, and Research | Health Care Reform | JAMA Oncology | JAMA Network

Survival As a Quality Metric of Cancer Care: Use of the National Cancer Data Base to Assess Hospital Performance - PubMed (nih.gov)

Establishing effective patient navigation programs in oncology - PubMed (nih.gov)

Patient Navigation in Cancer: The Business Case to Support Clinical Needs

Cancer Care and Cancer Survivorship Care in the United States: Will We Be Able to Care for These Patients in the Future? - PMC (nih.gov)

Disclaimer:

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Find out more about today’s speakers:  

  

Dr. John Sweetenham 

Dr. Lawrence Shulman 

  

Follow ASCO on social media:   

  

@ASCO on Twitter   

ASCO on Facebook   

ASCO on LinkedIn   

  

Disclosures:  

  

Dr. John Sweetenham:  

Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness  

 

Dr. Lawrence Shulman:

Consulting or Advisory Role: Genetech

Research Funding (Inst.): Celgene, Independence Blue Cross

Host, Dr. John Sweetenham, associate director of Clinical Affairs at UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Dr. Sandra Kurtin, director of Advanced Practice and Clinical Integration at the University of Arizona Cancer Center, discuss the future importance of advanced practice providers to the oncology workforce and how to enhance their role in cancer research.

Guest host, Dr. John Sweetenham, associate director for Clinical Affairs at the UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Dr. Derek Raghavan, President of the Levine Cancer Center at Atrium Health in North Carolina, discuss some of the major issues ahead for the oncology community in 2022, including tension caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, achieving true equity of care, how to use molecular testing in an optimized fashion, and the future of the oncology workforce.

Transcript

 Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to ASCO Daily News podcast. I'm John Sweetenham, the associate director for Clinical Affairs at UT Southwestern's Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and guest host of the podcast. Today, we'll be discussing the challenges ahead for the oncology community in 2022 with Dr. Derek Raghavan, President of the Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health in North Carolina. Our full disclosures are available in the show notes, and disclosures relating to all episodes of the podcast can be found on our transcripts at asco.org/podcasts. Derek, always a pleasure to have you here, and great to have you back on the podcast again.

 

Dr. Derek Raghavan: Hey, John. Always enjoy chatting together.

 

Dr. John Sweetenham: Derek, we're interested today to get your insights into what you think are going to be the major challenges facing the oncology community in 2022. I think each of us could come up with a pretty substantial list, but very interested to hear what you think are going to be those issues which are going to be uppermost in our mind as we move into the new year.

 

Dr. Derek Raghavan: Well, I think there are a number of important issues, John. I think everybody in clinical practice, medical or nursing, or whatever, have been brutalized somewhat by the COVID-19 pandemic, and I think everyone's tired and a bit cranky, and they're upset with a schism between the fringe and the science-based clinicians. So, I think that underscores everything. And there's an anxiety and a tension that I think is just new.

 

From the practical standpoint, which is where I think your question is directed, yeah, I think there will be issues that relate to achieving true equity of care. And I think hopefully, the focus will move from analysis paralysis to actually doing things and measuring outcomes. I think there will be the tension between value, price, and cost. People are spending an awful lot of money on health care. That's going to be an issue.

 

We have very good information on molecular prognostication, but a lot of the data that are coming out are from technologies that are not fully validated and not even standardized. There's a lot of disinformation and misinformation coming out, and I think we're going to have to address that. I think those are 3 themes that could keep us talking for quite a while.

 

I think the other thing, which is more up your alley than mine, is we've been watching CAR T[-cell therapy] emerge. I think we've got a beginnings of a pretty good handle on how CAR T[-cell] relates to hematological malignancy. It's much less clear in the solid tumors, and there is a bit of a tendency to do what used to happen in the 1970s and '80s, which is here's a new treatment. Let's give it a whack and see what happens.

 

But this is very expensive. We don't want to fall into the trap of how bone marrow transplant was introduced as a standard of breast care management for nearly a decade, based on somewhat flimsy evidence. So, we need to be a little more thoughtful about how we introduce CAR T[-cells] into the solid tumors.

 

Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks. Yeah, plenty to discuss there, as you say. And what I'd like to do just because it is such a topical issue and continues to be at the moment is just pick up a little on the COVID-19 theme. I think that we've all seen a great deal of discussion in recent months about many of the consequences of COVID-19, including delayed screenings, late diagnosis, clinician burnout, and so on. But I'm interested in your insights on a couple of things.

 

Number 1, since we're now seeing the emergence of further new variants, what do you think that this is going to mean for the oncology community in terms of handling these new variants within the context of our patients with cancer? And then secondly, because I'm intrigued by one of the things you mentioned in our discussions about this podcast, you mentioned the changed relationship between health professionals and parts of the community as a consequence of COVID-19. And interested to hear you expand just a little bit on that. So, kind of 2 questions wrapped up in 1 there.

 

Dr. Derek Raghavan: Yeah. Well, I think the 2 are connected. The old style of physicians has always liked to be sure of their ground and to have a firm database when they talk about things. Particularly with the new variants, while it's completely appropriate to be transparent about the fact that they knew that they seemed different and so on, I think there is the problem that there are a lot of physicians who are now becoming TV personalities as much as physicians and who are talking all the time.

 

I'm not critical of that, but the problem is that they're being honest in saying we don't really know this, but this is what I think, and then they have to change direction. So, what's happening is, for the first time in a long time, physicians are regularly being quoted and being seen as saying things that are not necessarily correct, and that reduces confidence by the community and the physicians. At the same time, COVID-19, in my view, highly, inappropriately became a political football.

 

You have people who have absolutely no training, so radio hosts, football quarterbacks, basketball stars making extraordinary statements about COVID-19 and their approach to vaccination, masking, and other things where they have absolutely no business doing it. But they are people who are believed. They're high profile. And so, there's now a schism emerging between patients who listen to people who have no medical training at all and no basis for what they say and those particularly in the political domain who have politicized this and created a situation where, once upon a time, a physician was at least seen as coming from the right place and with good intent.

 

But we've both seen so many of these public demonstrations where physicians and public health physicians are being castigated for simply espousing good practice. Now, with respect to managing the variants, I think the fact is we have some basic principles that I have believed now for 2 years. Masks reduce the chance of getting any type of COVID-19. They just do. If you wear a mask most of the time when you're out and about, you're going to cut your chances down. Vaccination reduces the chance of ending up in the ICU unless you have some sort of immunological deficit.

 

Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah. I'm going to switch gears now and return to the first thing that you mentioned right up front, which is the issue of equity and how we are going to address equity issues in the coming year. I think that in many ways, 2020, going into 2021, has been 2 years where issues of equity in health care have really come to the fore. And of course, there's been a great deal of discussion around this.

 

And I think you'd agree with me that we've seen, at the same time, that some of the strategies that we have been using during the COVID-19 pandemic, including telehealth, which one would have hoped would be a great equalizer, actually has the potential to exacerbate some of the disparities that we've been seeing in health care. But you mentioned analysis paralysis, and just to pick up on that theme, despite the huge amount of coverage that equity has received in medical journals and the media, where do you think we actually are in finally truly addressing some of the cancer care disparities that we see?

 

Dr. Derek Raghavan: Well, I think, John, you know that I was one of the early chairs of the ASCO Task Force. Otis Brawley and I chaired that task force together. Very early in the piece, I'm going to say probably 15 years ago, we wrote really quite a strong position paper on this whole issue. And so, we got started early in doing stuff on what we thought would be important, and we did, with support from the Komen Foundation, was to start training people of color in the oncology space and keeping them working in underserved communities by paying off their college loans for the period of time that they did that.

 

So, people have been doing stuff for a while. I think what's happened in the last decade, and it has been a slow change, is that there's been more a move to saying, let's get started. So, if you look at Chris Lathan up at Harvard, at one of their underserved hospitals, if you look around the country, consider the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, which puts money into active projects that are about doing stuff rather than having meetings to consider doing stuff. I think there's been that swing.

 

Dr. John Sweetenham: When we think about equity and disparities of care, we're often drawn towards the cost of cancer care and how much that plays into disparities and inequity in the delivery of cancer care. And picking up on that theme that you mentioned around value, cost and price, and maybe we could think about linking that with the use of CAR T-cell therapy and the application of CAR T-cells in the solid tumor world, if that is going to happen, what do you think we can do during 2022 to confront some of the cost and price issues that we're seeing within our cancer care environment right now?

 

Dr. Derek Raghavan: Well, I sometimes think in a utopian fashion, which doesn't get me very far, I have to say. What I'd love to see in the United States, because we spend far more money on everything health-wise than any other country in the civilized or uncivilized world, but what I'd like to see is a bipartisan initiative run by people who actually understand health care and health care economics that would go to the issue of, how do you get better bang for your buck? And it would include doing some tough things.

 

We waste money outrageously. We'll treat third-line metastatic pancreas cancer off trial. Nothing works in third-line metastatic pancreas cancer off trial. It's worth maybe a clinical trial to help the next person in line. That's how we make progress. But just to keep giving the same old litany of drugs in the hope that it might work is a waste of money. As I talked about before, BMT for breast cancer turned out to be a huge waste of money over a long period of time. So, if you can actually create a scenario where government set some rules and took the courageous, and this why it would have to be bipartisan, it would actually start to rationalize health care.

 

You know, John, the Oregon experiment many years ago, where one party started to rationalize care, and the other party accused them of rationing care. I mean, you can't have that happen. We've also seen both sides allocate the task of developing health care algorithms to people who are great politicians but know nothing about health care or economics. So, I mean, there are easy ways to do it. What we can do ourselves is be honest. Tell people what bang they'll get for their buck.

 

The person who is likely to have, say, an 80% chance of being dead within 4 months may not wish to mortgage his house if he's told that. On the other hand, he might well want to mortgage his house if he thinks that a very expensive treatment will give him the chance of being alive in 5 years. So, we, as physicians, shouldn't make that decision. It's the patient's right to be able to choose life versus the life of their offspring and spouse and future generations. So, I think it's not that complex, and I think if we brought more transparency about good expectations versus poor expectations, gave a better reason for patients getting more involved in trials, we're still at less than 15% of patients with cancer in the USA getting involved in trials, and that's a tragedy.

 

Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, I think also, the other thing that's occurred to me in this context, is the fact that while we tend to hone in on costs of treatment when we get into these discussions, I've been seeing some emerging literature around the cost of follow-up and unnecessary follow-up and imaging and so on in those patients who are in survivorship part of their cancer journey. And there's a huge opportunity there, I think, for us to reduce costs of care with no impact whatsoever on survival, no difficult treatment decisions to be made because we're simply doing an enormous amount of unnecessary testing in these patients who have completed treatment that we know doesn't impact survival. So, I do think that we could take a really serious look at that and make very significant savings. So, I think there's lots of potential there too.

 

Dr. Derek Raghavan: Yes. I agree, John. And I'd actually give kudos to ASCO in this space because they were early adopters of the Choosing Wisely campaign. They wrote two sets of guidelines about stupid things that we do that make no difference. And to be honest, I think that--I was on that committee, and the committee got tired.

 

I was one of the few people that actually felt we should keep going and very actively keep issuing guidelines of things that just aren't worth doing and having symposia at the ASCO ASM say that the symposia that are entitled “How to Waste Money” or alternatively entitled “How to Stop Doing Dumb Stuff” would be really quite important. And it would give the basis for sensible medicine to people who do medical legal protection work. So, most people who do multiple PET scans on lymphoma where the patient is completely well and blah, blah, blah are doing it for medical-legal reasons. They're not doing it because they think it will make a huge difference.

 

And I, of course, am not talking about the people where they're following PET scans as markers of response. So, I think we can do this work. I'd love to see a presidential campaign which is about not doing dumb stuff and where ASCO takes the bully pulpit and says, “we're spending a year policing ourselves, talking about all the things we do that don't actually make things better for patients.”

 

Dr. John Sweetenham: So, let's extend this theme of expensive therapies. And you mentioned CAR T-cell therapy. And in the hematologic malignancy world, we're now just beginning to see 1 or 2 results, which will be presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting in a couple of weeks from now, positive results from a couple of randomized clinical trials in hematologic malignancy with CAR T-cell therapy. So, what are your thoughts on the application of this treatment in the solid tumor world, and where do you think we are, what do you think we might see during 2022?

 

Dr. Derek Raghavan: Well, let's talk strategy first. I think a good place to begin is with a good scientific hypothesis. So, we both know how CAR T[-cells] work. We don't have to have a long discussion here about them. It would be patronizing to the audience. But you might think about, what solid tumor is actually going to benefit from immunological manipulation? Where have the checkpoint inhibitors been helpful, and where have they not been helpful? And so, you might focus the initial part of CAR T[-cells] and solid tumor work on those where there's a hypothesis that makes sense.

 

Then the second thing you could do would be to actually come to the companies that make all their money from CAR T[-cells] and say, perhaps you could invest in this research with us, and we'll do a couple of Hail Mary passes. So, let's look at the tumors where there isn't a good hypothesis, but nothing works, and see if we can get an experience. So, that'd be a nice, simple, easy way to do it. And then measure tight outcomes, have very robust entry criteria so you don't get confused about various toxicities because you're actually starting with patients in reasonable shape and then expanding to all populations.

 

So, the first part would be phase 1 and 2. Then you, early in the piece, make sure that you have inclusiveness so that you know all the population groups that might benefit from the treatment. I think that'd be a reasonable way to go.

 

Dr. John Sweetenham: Talking about identifying targets appropriately and target populations for treatment, you had mentioned as one of your other challenges for 2022 the concept around identifying molecular subgroups and molecular prognostication as a way of patient selection. So, could you say a little bit more about that and what you think we're going to need to do in the coming year in terms of refinement of targets?

 

Dr. Derek Raghavan: Well, John, this is an area of your expertise as well, coming from the hematological malignancy world. Now, I hope we would both agree that having robust reproducible technology is important. The fact that there are so many molecular diagnostic companies that hype their product doesn't necessarily mean that the product is good. So, there needs to be standardization of approaches to using technology, to measuring outcomes.

 

We need to have comparative sets of data, looking at different technologies to see how they work, and those sorts of studies need to be funded by government because there's no particular reason for the companies to agree to perhaps show that their diagnostic technology is not as good as somebody else's. But this would be a good initiative for the government to actually start to rank order of the products that are out there. I, frankly, think when you think of the impact of all of these molecular diagnostic tests, I've never understood why so many of them are out there without tight U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation. So, I think that's a place to begin.

 

If you think back to the old breast cancer days when there was immunohistochemistry and a bunch of molecular technologies, the outcomes were so varied when compared on common tumor samples. So, we just seem to be quite comfortable to make the same set of mistakes again. I do think there are responsible investigators doing excellent work in the space, so I'm not critical of the space. I'm answering the question, which is we need now to bring some regulation in to ensure that the quality of the work, reproducibility of the work. You'll even see, and I know you and I have talked about this in the past, there'll be Mr. X who has prostate cancer and gets his PSA measured, which is Prostate-Specific Antigen, looking at how active the cancer is regularly in different labs. That makes absolutely no sense. There's no common standard. PSA in my lab is going to be different from PSA in your's. And so there just should be some nice, simple rules of how to use molecular testing in an optimized fashion.

 

Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, and I wonder also whether we need to be looking a little bit more closely at point of care clinical decision support for some oncologists who may not be as molecularly literate as others because I do think that's another real challenge at the moment is giving guidance to everyone who might see these patients in terms of treatment selection.

 

Dr. Derek Raghavan: Well, I agree with you completely. I mean, kudos to the major companies because most of them provide pretty good decision support. One with which we worked tended to be a little too positive about its product, and we worked to change that. And now they're actually very useful.

We have a big series from our molecular tumor board here that runs over I think a 5-year period that Carol Farhangfar, PhD, has just submitted for publication, which shows that you can heavily influence people who are out in the community by providing centralized support for their use of molecular diagnostic tests. But again, we only deal with the major companies so that we think there's good quality control there. And we don't flip back and forth in an individual patient between one company and another.

 

Dr. John Sweetenham: Right. Well, I think we're almost out of time, Derek, but I did want to ask you one more question, and it's a real change of gear. But over the last year or so, I think that probably largely because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen some exacerbation of workforce issues in the oncology workforce that we knew already existed. I think there is undoubtedly more burnout being reported than there was before. Certainly, within our own organization, we have seen some increased staff turnover and a number of people who I think, frankly, have realized that they want to move closer to their families.

 

And so, there's been a certain amount of churn, which I think many of us in cancer centers are experiencing. Interested to know whether you've seen anything similar and what strategies you're using in terms of staff retention and oncology clinician burnout at your center.

 

Dr. Derek Raghavan: I think this is a difficult problem. The morale at the Levine Cancer Institute, much like the Simmons Cancer Center, is high, and that's driven by the leadership cadre being out there with their troops, visible and actively engaged so that the troops on the line feel that the bosses are part of the deal. And we do silly little things that matter, which is parties and celebrations and thank yous and all that sort of stuff. We get the staff to thank each other. We encourage the patients to thank the staff just with an attaboy or something that just says we appreciate the care.

 

So, I think this is a challenge. I do think work-life balance in old geezers like you and me has been a slightly different thing from some of the younger physicians who are spending, I think sensibly, more time with their families and don't want to spend these long hours. I think the other thing is there is still a town-gown issue where there are people who can make a lot more money much more quickly in some parts of non-academic practice, and it's getting harder to publish in academic practice, so the rewards for that are slipping a little.

 

I actually don't really have a solution. I think that the august colleges drawing to the attention of the world that this is a big deal and engaging bipartisan support from the political machinery will be important. I think ASCO can, through its government relations people (ASCO Advocacy), continue to prosecute these issues, which they do. I think there is the mistake that we make in the cancer space is we do still tend to compete between societies.

 

I've always thought it would be much healthier to have ASCO, ASTRO, ACS, SUO, SSO and all those people having a common council that speaks on this sort of issue with one voice and draws to attention of the people out there that this is a big issue. The best of the doctors (docs) are getting older. The younger docs come through the Taylor laws are less experienced and less well-trained and have a different ethos. So, we're going to lose an aspect of practice that's been part of the tradition of medical practice since the time of Osler, and it's definitely going away.

 

I have a superb physician fellow working with me at the moment who I would rate as one of the best 3 in 10 years. The reason she's one of the best 3 in 10 years is she practices the style of medicine that my fellows did 25, 30 years ago, most of whom are now professors of medicine somewhere. And good with patients, knows her staff, does research, and somehow manages to have reasonable time for a family. That tradition is starting to go away, and I don't think there is a simple change. And then the final point, the people who run health care today see it as a business. I was in a meeting recently outside my own domain where someone said, you know, I have to figure out whether medicine is really importantly a health care business or whether it's an IT business focused on health care. And that's going to start to lose the human side of medicine. We spent some time on that today. The outcomes will go down if this is just a business.

 

Dr. John Sweetenham: Well, thanks, Derek. Really appreciate all of your insights today. I think there's no doubt that 2022 is going to be a year of many challenges for those of us in the oncology community and for our patients, but I think it's also inevitably going to be a very exciting year in terms of new developments.

 

And hopefully, if we're recording another podcast like this in a year from now, the COVID-19 pandemic will be a little bit more in the rearview mirror, and we will be able to focus on many of the other important issues that face us. So again, really appreciate your sharing your insights with us, and wish you all the best for 2022.

 

Dr. Derek Raghavan: John, always a pleasure chatting, and the same to you and Caroline and the family.

 

Dr. John Sweetenham: Thank you. And thanks to our listeners for your time today. If you enjoyed this episode, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

 

Disclosures:

Dr. John Sweetenham:

Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness

 

Dr. Derek Raghavan:

Consulting or Advisory Role: Gerson Lehrman Group, Caris Life Sciences

 

Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guests' statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO.  The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

On today’s episode, Dr. Pamela Kunz, director of the Center for Gastrointestinal Cancers at the Yale School of Medicine, and vice chief of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion for Medical Oncology at Yale, discusses compelling sessions from the 2021 ASCO Annual Meeting that addressed gender disparities in the global oncology workforce and sexual harassment experienced by oncologists.

 

Transcript:

ASCO Daily News: Welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Geraldine Carroll, a reporter for the ASCO Daily News. My guest today is Dr. Pamela Kunz, an associate professor of medicine in the division of oncology at the Yale School of Medicine where she also serves as the director of the Center for Gastrointestinal Cancers. Dr. Kunz also serves as the vice chief of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for medical oncology at Yale. Today, Dr. Kunz will highlight strategies to dismantle gender disparities in the global oncology workforce featured at the 2021 ASCO Annual Meeting. She will also tell us about the first study in oncology to systemically characterize the incidence of sexual harassment experienced by oncologists.

Dr. Kunz reports no conflicts of interest relating to our discussion today and her full disclosures are available on the transcript of this episode. Dr. Kunz, welcome back; it's great to have you on the podcast again. 

Dr. Pamela Kunz: Thank you so much. My pleasure to be here.

ASCO Daily News: The theme of the 2021 ASCO Annual Meeting was Equity. Every Patient. Everyday. Everywhere.  Equity issues also apply to the oncology workforce and there were some very interesting discussions at the meeting on workplace disparities and harassment. You chaired an education session on dismantling gender disparities in the global oncology workforce. This session brought together a really interesting and diverse panel of experts  in medicine.  They discussed compelling data around gender disparities and steps to diversify leadership in medicine. They also looked at the role of male allies and how allies and advocates can support all women, and shared strategies on how to activate and empower female leaders.  Can you tell us more about this session? ("Dismantling Gender Disparities in the Global Oncology Workforce Together"). 

Dr. Pamela Kunz: Sure. This was--thank you for asking about that session. I think that really the theme of equity permeated so many different aspects of this Annual Meeting. And I think it was really inspiring and I think incredibly helpful to think about really reimagining how we provide cancer care. And I think I really like to think of workforce disparities as the other side of the same coin of patient disparities or inequities in patient care. I think that in order for us to provide equitable patient care, we really have to provide and create a diverse, inclusive, and equitable workforce.

And so this is really one aspect of that is around gender disparities or, of course, other disparities in the workforce. And we actually do touch on that in one of the talks. So we put together a diverse panel that represents a number of different viewpoints. They were not all oncologists. In fact, I was the only medical oncologist on.

Dr. Reshma Jagsi is a radiation oncologist. And Dr. Hannah Valentine is a cardiologist who was previously at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the inaugural director of their diversity program. Dr. Leon McDougle also spoke. He's a family medicine physician, the current president of the National Medical Association. And Mrs. Dee Anna Smith is the CEO of Sarah Cannon Research Institute. So we had this really incredibly diverse group of perspectives. And as you mentioned, we really touched on a whole variety of topics.

I think it's also worth just mentioning kind of the scenes for this. This session originated well over 2 years ago. And I think that the timing of this now happening in 2021 following the pandemic I think was really incredibly important. I think we didn't really recognize it at the time. We were supposed to do this session last year in 2020. And it was really the 2020 planning committee that approved the session with Dr. Howard Skip Burris and Dr. Tatiana Prowell and Dr. Melissa Johnson. We had all these conversations of how do we get men in the room to talk about gender disparities? And we really crafted this panel to try to address a diverse audience and get everyone in the room. And then it was really so well timed with Dr. Pierce's ASCO theme of equity for every patient, every day, everywhere. It really just tied in nicely.

ASCO Daily News: Excellent. What are the key takeaways here for oncologists? 

Dr. Pamela Kunz: Sure. I can add some of that. I think that the first--and this was really addressed by Dr. Reshma Jagsi--is that we need to collect the data. We need to measure evidence of disparities at our institutions, in our organizations in order to really know where we're starting and in order to know how we're getting better. We have a lot of objective data already. But I think that I want to challenge all of our listeners to think about how can we be better about collecting that data in our own institutions.

I think that the takeaways from Dr. Valentine's talk were some really wonderful concrete solutions to diversify the workforce. She took some lessons learned from programs she initiated at the NIH. And I'd like to specifically highlight a program at the NIH called the Scientific Workforce Diversity Toolkit. And in that, they instituted a program for cohort hiring in the Distinguished Scholars program. And this was bringing together a diverse group of underrepresented minorities and women into this scholars program. And they demonstrated really increased rates of female tenure track investigators. And I think that we can all do that in our institutions and organizations by instituting cohort hiring.

From Dr. Leon McDougle's talk, he really highlighted this concept of intersectional feminism. And this term was coined by Kimberle Crenshaw. She's a professor of law at Columbia University. And it speaks to the fact that many marginalized characteristics or people who are in underrepresented groups may have characteristics that intersect. So that includes gender, age, sexuality, education, race, culture, ethnicity. And if any one person has a number of these characteristics, they may, in fact, increase the burden on that individual and may increase their risk for discrimination and for disparities.

And I think it's recognizing the intersection. Intersectionality happens. And our women of color and our women who may have these other marginalized characteristics may be especially at risk. He also talked about a program at the Ohio State where he is on faculty entitled Advocates and Allies. And it's a National Science Foundation-funded program that trains men how to be advocates and allies.

And then lastly, Miss. Dee Anna Smith spoke about creating a tapestry of allyship. She had this beautiful visual metaphor of really bringing together not just mentors. It's sort of modernizing the idea of mentorship and to really thinking more about allyship and how our trainees need to bring together, yes, perhaps mentors, but that allies really can represent an alternative to mentorship and a tapestry meaning that you need more than one person to serve as an ally for you. So I think those were--it it truly was--I moderated. I think these folks did all of the work in presenting. But it was really inspiring and I think very solution focused.

ASCO Daily News:  Well, you were also the discussant of session that addressed a new study, Abstract 11001 on sexual harassment of oncologists. Now, few studies have used comprehensive validated measures to investigate the incidence and impact of workplace sexual harassment experienced by physicians and none, according to the authors of this study, by oncologists. So this is really important. What can you tell us about it?

Dr. Pamela Kunz: Yes, absolutely. And I think the points that you made already really make this important and validate it. And I think the findings then in and of themselves are quite striking. So this group of authors led by Dr. Ishwaria Subbiah conducted a study. It was a cross-sectional survey of ASCO's research survey pool. And they then used the sexual experiences questionnaire, which is a validated questionnaire, as you mentioned. And this is really I think a real strength of the study. And they examined various aspects of sexual harassment.

I think it's important for our listeners to understand the definition of sexual harassment. So this includes gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion. And gender harassment includes things that if we use the iceberg analogy, which they included in their presentation and was so nicely described in the NASEM, the National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine report from 2018, the iceberg really underneath the surface contains many of these aspects of gender harassment that go unnoticed and unrecognized and include things like microaggressions.

And in this study, they evaluated four downstream domains impacted by workplace sexual harassment including mental health, job satisfaction, sense of safety at work, and turnover intentions, meaning if an individual planned on leaving that specific job. And they looked at incidents of sexual harassment both by perpetrator, so institutional insiders or patients and families, and then by type of sexual harassment. So they received about a 30% response rate. They had 304 practicing oncologists access the survey link. And 273 provided responses.

And I'll just hit some of the take-homes. So I think what I was struck by is the high rate of sexual harassment when the perpetrator is an institutional insider. So those are peers or supervisors. 70% of physicians reported one or more incidences of sexual harassment. This was higher in women. So, 80% of women reported sexual harassment compared to 56% of men. So, that was statistically different. But I was really struck by the fact that men were experiencing this as well.

And then in terms of sexual harassment incidents when the perpetrator was a family or patient, 53% of physicians reported one or more incidences of sexual harassment. And this was 67% for women and 35% for men, also statistically significant. In terms of that difference. And then really a significant downstream impact from these experiences both for physicians who experienced this harassment from institutional insiders or from patients and families. And I think that we saw that really across the board for mental health, workplace safety, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions.

And I think the take home for our listeners is that this can really lead to a significant loss of talent. And I think that if we are really hoping to--see, this is me editorializing. We are hoping to improve the diversity of our workforce because we know that that leads to better patient care and better patient outcomes. This is really important for our workforce to try to tackle and solve this problem of sexual harassment.

ASCO Daily News: Absolutely. Well, thank you, Dr. Kunz, for highlighting some really important issues in oncology today.

Dr. Pamela Kunz: Thank you so much.

ASCO Daily News: Our listeners will find links to the two sessions discussed today on the transcript of this episode. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. If you enjoyed this episode, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts.

 

Disclosures: Dr. Pamela Kunz

Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Guardant Health

Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Lexicon, SunPharma, Acrotech Biopharma, Novartis (Advanced Accelerator Applications)

Research Funding (institution): Lexicon, Ipsen, Xencor, Brahms (Thermo Fisher Scientific), Novartis (Advanced Accelerator Applications)

Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.