No abstract

Many health care providers adopted telehealth during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This unprecedented transformation in medical practice posed challenges to both physicians and patients. However, little is known about the adaptation of attendings, residents, and patients to this new normal. Thus, a survey was sent out to investigate the feedback of both physicians and patients on telehealth. MethodsSurveys were administered via phone call to patients and electronic survey to physicians at an internal medicine resident clinic in one tertiary community hospital from April to June 2020. Demographic information and assessment of overall experience, satisfaction, and concerns of telehealth were collected. Statistical analyses were performed to compare feedback between patients and physicians. ResultsFifty patients and 45 physicians participated in the study. Eighty-four percent of patients were first-or second-time users, and 50% of patients were older than 60 years. Eighty-four percent of patients were very or extremely satisfied with telehealth, while 72% wanted to continue telehealth in the future. Ninety-four percent of patients believed that their concerns were adequately addressed, but 14% experiencing technical issues. Physicians' feedback to telehealth was less positive than the patients'. More than 60% of physicians experienced technical issues, and nearly 60% of physicians were neutral or not satisfied with telehealth. Nearly 50% of physicians had difficulty transitioning to telehealth, while only 29% believed that their patients' complaints were adequately addressed. Most physicians had to schedule in-person visits after telehealth. Patients were more satisfied with telehealth than physicians (84% vs. 42%; p<0.001) and were more likely to believe that their concerns were properly addressed by telehealth (94% vs. 29%; p<0.001). ConclusionThis survey revealed that patients were more satisfied with telehealth than physicians. Further research with a larger sample should be considered to confirm this conclusion, and subjective studies are needed to determine the imbalance of satisfaction.

The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy. • Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily. • The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

No abstract

No abstract

With the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors, immunotherapy researchers have facilitated substantial progress for patients with mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer, which has led to practice changes at a head-spinning pace. However, this benefit has not been translated into microsatellite stable colorectal cancer, which carries the hallmarks of chromosomal instability. So far, clinical trials have not shown any substantial clinical benefits of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for patients with microsatellite stable colorectal cancer, which has been disappointing. Recently, combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors with tyrosine kinase inhibitors and targeted therapies have been investigated for potential synergistic effects that may increase antitumor activity in the tumor microenvironment and achieve more substantial clinical and radiologic responses. In this article, we discuss the current state of the science for the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in microsatellite stable colorectal cancers, and we review the molecular underpinnings of inherited physiologic barriers for the delivery of effective immunotherapy. We also elaborate on existing therapeutic opportunities to convert microsatellite stable colorectal cancer into an “immune hot” cancer, which may define the future treatment paradigm of colorectal cancer for which there is a great unmet need.

No abstract

No abstract