Christine Miserandino (of butyoudontlooksick.com) recently asked me some questions about Grand Rounds, and my thoughts on use of the emergency department, and the web, by the chronically ill. The interview is now posted to her site.
My interview of her, as well other Grand Rounds host interviews I've been privileged to conduct, is available on Medscape.com. Just register (free) and search for "Pre-Rounds" (you can sort by date to see the most recent, first) or browse the Pre-Rounds column index.
Hyperresonant
I hardly ever use my record player. Nevertheless, I would like to own this record, featured recently on the website of New York's WFMU:
It's nice to think these clever tunes (you can sample them on the WFMU site) helped fund the education of physicians. Another one of their albums has made it to online auction. They also recorded Medic Emetics, Keep You In Stiches, and Thanks for the Miseries. After a few minutes of web sleuthing, I found a different listing, for the Greene County Boys. Borborygmi sells for $9; they also had an album called Placenta Preview.
There is absolutely no information printed on this 10" record except the word Borborygmi, which is the medical term for stomach-gurgling sounds.
A fitting name for this collection of jaunty piano-and-vocals medical parodies, apparently sung by real doctors. Only real doctors could have gotten away with singing such explicit material in the '50s / early '60s period these songs were probably recorded. Assuming this is the same bunch who did this, this record was produced to benefit the Greene County, MO Medical Society's Scholarship Foundation. It definitely wasn't for the general public - only other medical industry professionals would understand all the references.
Looking for graphics, I was just typing in mildly appropriate phrases like "singing doctors," not really expecting to find anything, and I came across this (the album cover to the right). I'd say it's a different album judging by the song titles, but they mention Greene County in their lyrics. How many Green County singing doctors could their be?
It's nice to think these clever tunes (you can sample them on the WFMU site) helped fund the education of physicians. Another one of their albums has made it to online auction. They also recorded Medic Emetics, Keep You In Stiches, and Thanks for the Miseries. After a few minutes of web sleuthing, I found a different listing, for the Greene County Boys. Borborygmi sells for $9; they also had an album called Placenta Preview.
Early Detection of an Invasive Mass-Marketing Campaign
I was taken aback by a new subway advertising campaign, imploring the public to demand a CAT scan. With lines like "5 out of 5 lung cancer survivors recommend a CAT scan", the idea is a familiar one: early detection saves lives.
Of course, early detection of lung cancer by chest x-ray was shown, decades ago, to have no impact on mortality and is often the example of "lead time bias" taught in evidence-based medicine lectures.
But now we've got computer-aided tomography scanners, with their improved resolution (and higher doses of radiation). Can they find lung cancer soon enough to treat? Will they find "incidentalomas" that prompt dangerous, useless workups? Will this intervention do more harm than help?
These are serious questions, and research is ongoing. Some provocative recent results suggesting CT scans of asymptomatic at-risk individuals (mostly smokers over 40) can improve lung cancer mortality, but others offer some words of caution going forward.
Sadly, the folks at demandaCATscan.org think they've got all the evidence they need. On their front page, it's written:
One of the participating hospitals, linked from the demandaCATscan.org site, is honest about the trial:
Reasonable words. And looking around the site that demandaCATscan points to, thelungcancerfoundation.org, I see a medical advisory board full of oncologists, thoracic surgeons, and indeed, the author of the aforementioned 2006 NEJM study touting early detection via CT. Several board members are themselves lung cancer survivors.
I can't doubt this group's dedication or integrity (I originally expected "demandaCATscan.org" would be backed by GE Lightspeed scanners or something similar).
But I must ask, were these board members behind the subway ad campaign? Do they really want the general public demanding a CT scan? Because it's hard to believe such an informed and experienced group could endorse this approach.
I could have supported ads targeted to smokers over 40, encouraging them to enroll in a lung cancer screening trial. But the way it's currently executed, these ads will plant a lot of misconceptions in peoples' minds, and lead to a lot of fruitless conversations with already time-crunched physicians. Plus, the money spent misguiding young healthy subway riders could've been spent better -- on researching screening, therapies, or just enrolling appropriate subjects.
It seems like this intervention will cause more harm than benefit.
Of course, early detection of lung cancer by chest x-ray was shown, decades ago, to have no impact on mortality and is often the example of "lead time bias" taught in evidence-based medicine lectures.
But now we've got computer-aided tomography scanners, with their improved resolution (and higher doses of radiation). Can they find lung cancer soon enough to treat? Will they find "incidentalomas" that prompt dangerous, useless workups? Will this intervention do more harm than help?
These are serious questions, and research is ongoing. Some provocative recent results suggesting CT scans of asymptomatic at-risk individuals (mostly smokers over 40) can improve lung cancer mortality, but others offer some words of caution going forward.
Sadly, the folks at demandaCATscan.org think they've got all the evidence they need. On their front page, it's written:
The availability of early detection for lung cancer is widely unknown, inexcusably underencouraged, underfunded, and underinsured. Just ask five-out-of-five lung cancer survivors. “While we wait for the cure, the biomarkers, the blood and saliva tests, we will use the early detection imaging and diagnostic tool we have available, right now. The 64-slice low dose CT scan."
One of the participating hospitals, linked from the demandaCATscan.org site, is honest about the trial:
Sequoia’s lung cancer early detection program is a participating member of the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP).
I-ELCAP is the first research study of its kind involving a large number of hospitals that are evaluating the effectiveness of screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT Scanning...
...Who should get screened? We currently do not know what defines the ideal population for lung cancer screening (that is one of the goals of the study). Our screening program includes people 40 and over with a history of smoking or second hand smoke exposure.
Reasonable words. And looking around the site that demandaCATscan points to, thelungcancerfoundation.org, I see a medical advisory board full of oncologists, thoracic surgeons, and indeed, the author of the aforementioned 2006 NEJM study touting early detection via CT. Several board members are themselves lung cancer survivors.
I can't doubt this group's dedication or integrity (I originally expected "demandaCATscan.org" would be backed by GE Lightspeed scanners or something similar).
But I must ask, were these board members behind the subway ad campaign? Do they really want the general public demanding a CT scan? Because it's hard to believe such an informed and experienced group could endorse this approach.
I could have supported ads targeted to smokers over 40, encouraging them to enroll in a lung cancer screening trial. But the way it's currently executed, these ads will plant a lot of misconceptions in peoples' minds, and lead to a lot of fruitless conversations with already time-crunched physicians. Plus, the money spent misguiding young healthy subway riders could've been spent better -- on researching screening, therapies, or just enrolling appropriate subjects.
It seems like this intervention will cause more harm than benefit.
Full Disclosure
Remember that recent study about doctors talking about themselves during patient encounters? It received a lot of attention from the media and patients...
But now (at last!), you can hear three doctors talking about it -- me, and my esteemed Medscape Roundtable colleagues, Dr. Robert Centor and Dr. Robert W. Donnell. I tried to critique the study, and advance another reason why physicians would 'self-disclose.' Check it out, and let your own voice be heard in the comments section.
But now (at last!), you can hear three doctors talking about it -- me, and my esteemed Medscape Roundtable colleagues, Dr. Robert Centor and Dr. Robert W. Donnell. I tried to critique the study, and advance another reason why physicians would 'self-disclose.' Check it out, and let your own voice be heard in the comments section.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)