Background: Guidelines recommend routine screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients, but the strength of evidence supporting these recommendations is unclear. Purpose: To review the benefits and harms of HCC screening in patients with chronic liver disease. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to April 2014; Cochrane databases to June 2013; reference lists; and technical advisors. Study Selection: English-language trials and observational studies comparing screening versus no screening, studies of harms, and trials comparing different screening intervals. Data Extraction: Mortality and adverse events were the outcomes of interest. Individual-study quality and the overall strength of evidence were dual-reviewed using published criteria. Data Synthesis: Of 13 801 citations, 22 studies met inclusion criteria. The overall strength of evidence on the effects of screening was very low. One large trial of patients with hepatitis B found decreased HCC mortality with periodic ultrasonographic screening (rate ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.98]), but the study was limited by methodological flaws. Another trial in patients with hepatitis B found no survival benefit with periodic α-fetoprotein screening. In 18 observational studies, screened patients had earlier-stage HCC than clinically diagnosed patients, but lead- and length-time biases confounded the effects on mortality. Two trials found no survival differences between shorter (3- to 4-month) and longer (6- to 12-month) screening intervals. Harms of screening were not well-studied. Limitations: Only English-language studies were included. The evidence base is limited by methodological issues and a paucity of trials. Conclusion: There is very-low-strength evidence about the effects of HCC screening on mortality in patients with chronic liver disease. Screening tests can identify early-stage HCC, but whether systematic screening leads to a survival advantage over clinical diagnosis is uncertain. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.

Objective: Multicancer Detection (MCD) tests, such as the GRAIL Galleri, offer a novel approach to cancer screening by detecting cancer-specific methylation patterns in cell-free DNA through a single blood sample. This study evaluated an 18-month implementation of MCD testing in a tertiary ambulatory internal medicine clinic. Patients and Methods: Between June 2022 and November 2023, 2244 asymptomatic (without symptoms attributed to cancer) patients underwent MCD testing. The study focused on operational workflows, patient and physician education, and diagnostic follow-up of positive results. Standardized materials, including electronic health record (EHR) workflows, FAQs, and diagnostic pathways, were developed to facilitate implementation. Challenges included managing false positives, patient anxiety, costs, and ethical considerations. Results: Of the 2244 patients tested, 17 (0.76%) had positive results, and 15 underwent further diagnostic evaluation. Cancer was confirmed in 11 (73.3%) patients, including cases of breast, colon, esophageal, lymphoma, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers. Four patients had no identifiable malignancy despite comprehensive work-up. Conclusions: MCD testing is feasible in routine clinical workflows, with 73% of positive cases yielding cancer diagnoses. While promising, further research is required to assess long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and optimal implementation strategies of cancer interception in broader healthcare settings.

The United States spends billions of dollars annually on cancer research. Historically compared to other areas of cancer research very little funding has been dedicated to mental health research in cancer patients and survivors. Previous studies have indicated that psychological disorders are common in patients with cancer and might have significant influence on overall morbidity and mortality. However adequate data are lacking to better assess this influence and the potential benefits of interventions. As the number of cancer survivors is projected to grow dramatically in the coming years we review the importance of dedicating additional funding to mental health research in cancer patients and survivors.

The Dobbs decision will directly affect patients and reproductive rights; it will also impact patients indirectly in many ways, one of which will be changes in the physician workforce through its impact on graduate medical education. Current residency accreditation standards require training in all forms of contraception in addition to training in the provision of abortion. State bans on abortions may diminish access to training as approximately half of obstetrics and gynecology residency programs are in states with significant abortion restrictions. The Dobbs decision creates numerous hurdles for trainees and their programs. Trainees in restrictive states will have to travel to learn in a different program in a protective state. As training opportunities diminish, potentially leading to a decline in clinical skills, knowledge, and experience in the provision of abortion, the rate of complications and maternal mortality are likely to rise. This will likely have a disproportionately negative effect on preexisting disparities in reproductive health fueled by a longstanding history of systemic racism and inequities. This work aims to both define the looming problem in abortion training created by Dobbs and propose solutions to ensure that an adequate workforce is available in the future to serve patient needs.

Ensuring an adequate supply of physicians is paramount in securing the future of healthcare. To do so, accurate physician workforce predictions are needed to inform policymakers. However, the United States lacks such predictions from reliable sources. Several non-governmental organizations have actively been involved in attempting to quantify workforce needs, but they often employ opaque methodologies and are deeply conflicted, leading to potentially unreliable or biased results. Moreover, while federal and state entities invest approximately $15 billion annually in graduate medical education (GME) payments, they have very little control over how the funding is used to shape the future physician workforce. In this article, we review physician workforce predictions from both an international and a domestic perspective and finally discuss how the creation of an apolitical, data-driven, expert-led panel at the federal level with sufficient authority to influence broader workforce policy is the optimal solution for ensuring an adequate supply of physicians for generations to come.