Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, ""Why Me?", a Question of Opportunity," by Simon Wein, head of Palliative Care Service at the Davidoff Cancer Centre. The essay is followed by an interview with Wein and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Wein considers if patients are able to make rational decisions about their health when they are able to accept the reality of illness. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: "Why Me?", a Question of Opportunity, by Simon Wein, MD "Why me?" A question is an opportunity. It is also an invitation and a revelation. A question by its nature reveals something about the asker. When a patient or family member asks the doctor a question, the challenge for the doctor is to follow up the question diagnostically, then therapeutically, be the therapy medication, or talking. Some questions appear mechanical, such as "Will I be able to drive again?" while others are more obviously self reflective, such as "Why did I get sick?" However, even the most mechanically minded question may be fraught with emotional significance. A recent Art of Oncology poem entitled "Questions for the Oncologist" listed a litany of questions the doctor encouraged his patient to ask. All, except one: "But please, don't ask me that one thing./Don't ask, 'why me?'/You wouldn't like the answer. I don't." Later, the doctor-poet provided the answer: "Bad luck is a second-rate explanation, I know." The poem was sensitively, empathically, and thoughtfully written, apparently recalling an emotionally intense case. The poem reminded me of a patient I looked after some time ago and of a mentor past. An obese 60-year-old man came in. He was miserable and in pain. Ten months after definitive surgery and radiotherapy for lung cancer, the disease had returned with pain in his right chest wall. While awaiting full biopsy results, we irradiated the lesion and started nonsteroidal analgesics and duloxetine for the neuropathic pain (with the hope it might also improve his mood). Within 3 weeks, the pain had been significantly relieved although his misery was unchanged. We talked. He had been divorced for many years, worked in hi-tech, lived alone, and had lost contact with his two adult children. His parents had migrated in middle age, and he was an only child born in a new country. His parents struggled, and the family dynamic could be described as sullen. The family did little together and was silent a lot of the time. He recalls his parents, especially his father, as emotionally distant, involved in their own lives. Growing up he spent a lot of time alone. At university, he studied engineering and married his first girlfriend; however, the marriage fell apart as, in his words, "I did not know how to live together with someone else." In his sullen home life, he had not acquired the skills of building a family nor had he developed a coherent world view. Despite good pain relief, his sense of brooding and demoralized loneliness persisted. Underneath was a seething anger. He kept asking "why me?" I assumed at first that he was referring to the cancer. He was, but not only. I consulted with a mentor, and he said he often answered that question with: "Why not you?" I tried it. The patient was flummoxed. It pushed him to reflect. With further probing, over time, his thinking changed from a closed loop of "Why me," to "What is life asking of me?" And further afield he reflected on his childhood, his failed marriage, and estrangement from his children. Why did this happen to me? He shook off some of his depressed mood as he began to piece together his life's trajectory. In an insightful moment of acceptance he noted: "Indeed, why not me … What makes me special that I should not have the disease?" Sadly, there was no fairy-tale ending. He died alone. When a patient asks a difficult question such as "Why me?" or "How long have I got doc?" the psychologically astute analysis is, "Why and what does the patient want to know?" and "Why now?" Responding with the question "Why not you?" may sound harsh, even confrontational. "Why not you?" is designed to be challenging to shift the locus and focus of thinking from a passive and often ineffectual cry, "Why me?" Nevertheless might such a response appear insensitive and lacking empathy? Over the years, I have learnt that practically any question can be asked of a patient so long as it is asked for the sake of the patient, in an appropriate manner and in the right circumstance. In short, the questions must be empathic. Wiseman suggested the empathic response has four characteristics: to see the world as others see it, to be nonjudgmental, to understand another person's feelings, and to communicate your understanding of that person's feelings. Avoiding difficult and embarrassing questions may provide short-term relief but possibly sets the stage for later unresolved angst. I recently did a sabbatical in palliative care in Australia, a fair distance from the Middle East both physically and culturally. The openness and tempo of questions asked of patients and family in Australia might be considered brusque (or confrontational) and hope depriving in the Middle East. Although the influence of culture is pervasive, it is the individual who needs our help and who ultimately determines the conversation. Sometimes the individual is not open to talking therapy. It is an important communication skill to know when not to probe. "Why me" is both a deeply philosophical and a naive question. "Why me" addresses the question of justice and seeks an explanation on the assumption that ours is a rational world. However if a person thinks the world is inherently random, then such a question is naive and without intellectual value since everything is bad luck, like a random genetic mutation. "Why me" can be a profound philosophical question as the doctor-poet implied when he concluded: "Search for a better answer within, as I have. Unsuccessfully, so far."1 The "answer within" bypasses the issue of whether it is a meaningless world or a god-driven world. The "answer within" locates the responsibility within ourselves to try to make sense of what is happening with my life. An answer within suggests a philosophy that we can make sense and meaning of my life, despite the world's apparent carelessness or bad luck. Alternatively many people, especially here in the Middle East, hold a theological belief, and the question "Why me?" is resolved within the theology of their religious beliefs. The believers are, in a way, lucky. Patients who ask the existential question "Why me?" can be challenged to reflect on themselves. "Why not you?" is a probing question that, with skill and some luck, may enable a measure of acceptance: "Indeed, why not me" (Fig 1). Dr. Lidia Schapira: Hello, and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the field of oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Lidia Schapira, Associate Editor for Art of Oncology and a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. Today we're joined by Dr. Simon Wein, head of Palliative Care Service at the Davidoff Cancer Centre in Petah Tikva, Israel. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology article, "Why Me? A Question of Opportunity." At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. Simon, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us. Dr. Simon Wein: Thank you very much, Lidia. It's a pleasure to be speaking with you. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It is our pleasure as well. I'd like to start this conversation by asking our contributing authors to tell us what they're currently reading or if they have a book they've just read they want to recommend to colleagues and listeners. Dr. Simon Wein: So I recently picked up and reread The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas. I don't know if you've read it. It's a very long production because in those days they used to have a weekly chapter, weekly several chapters, and they didn't have WhatsApp and television and cinemas. And it's very long, but it's a wonderful read. I enjoyed it very much. The other book I'm reading now, more slowly, is The Nature of Natural History by Marston Bates. He is an American zoologist, and it's a wonderful read about his overall view of life, animals and plants, and I'm enjoying it very much. I have a great interest in gardening, and I think his views are very interesting. Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's wonderful. So let's turn now to your essay, "Why Me?" This essay starts as a conversation with an author who has published a prior work, a prose poem of sorts, in Art of Oncology. Tell us what it was about that read that sort of triggered you to want to respond and then clearly elaborate into what's turned into a beautiful manuscript. Dr. Simon Wein: I think what really grabbed me was the sensitivity of the oncologist as he was writing it, and the pain, it's a little bit strong, that word, but the difficulty he had in dealing with this fear that the patient would ask him, "Why me?" He wrote it so beautifully with such empathic sensitivity, that it really grabbed me, that question, "Why me?" that he was scared of. And it recalled for me, my mentor from many, many years ago, Dr. Wally Moon. And I remember as clear as yesterday, he'd say, "Patient asked me the question, 'Why me?' I'd ask him back, 'Why not me?'" So that's what it triggered off for me reading that essay, those two things. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Simon, you also make an interesting point that I want the listeners also to think about, and that is that a cultural context influences whether or not we feel comfortable even asking these questions, right? And you contrast your experience in a recent setting in Australia with your typical practice in Israel and the Middle East. Can you talk a little bit about that? Dr. Simon Wein: The older I get in this profession, the more I'm impressed by the importance of culture and yet how much we have to honor the individual and that ongoing tension between those two points of the compass. And I was brought up in Australia and sort of rather Anglo-Saxon and reserved in that way, and in Australia much less likely, in a sense, to be forthcoming and outgoing in what we want to say. And in Israel, people are much more open. And yet when we come to the consulting room in Israel as in other parts of the Middle East, indeed in Eastern Europe, a lot of the literature has demonstrated that we don't want to tell the truth straight out directly. And in Australia, on the other hand, even though it's a reserved society, people are straight out in the consulting room. Bang. They'll say, "This is the prognosis and this is what it is." So I've developed this model for my own thinking, is that in the West, the individual is the final moral arbiter of deciding ethical behavior, whereas in the Middle East it's more the family or, in a broader context, the culture. And so in Israel, you're much more likely to speak with the family, involve the family, or they'll come in and ask you not to say this to Grandma, and you have to make up your mind where the individual stands and where the cultural family influences. But from my point of view, I still think that the individual has to be honored and respected ultimately in the final decision. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Simon, I want to also ask a little bit about your style and your communication style with patients. You are so clear in your descriptions to address not only physical pain but emotional pain and suffering and misery, as you call it. How do you sit with a patient and try to draw them out in a way that is empathetic and respectful, but also to help them understand that you actually care? Dr. Simon Wein: I'll take you back to another mentor I had. That was Bill Breitbart at Memorial. I did a two-year fellowship in psychiatry psych-oncology there many years ago. As I said, I came from Australia. I was rather green in psychological terms, and I used to do rounds with Bill. And I remember this one patient I had with Bill, and it was a middle-aged man. He was a working blue-collar man. And Bill went up to him, we were asked to see him for depression, and Bill went up to him and started talking with him, and within 30 seconds he'd started asking about the tattoos on his arms. And I thought, wow, that's fairly personal to get into that. You only just met the bloke and you're already talking about that. And of course, from that I learned and with other experiences, that you can ask any patient any question so long as three conditions are fulfilled, and this is what I teach to the residents. The first condition is that it has to be at the right time. Sometimes you have to ask the patient privately and you ask the patient, the family, then to leave. It has to be the right you can't ask questions like this in the corridor, so the timing has to be right. The second thing, and this is I learned a lot from Bill and from my previous mentor, Wally Moon, you have to ask it in the right way. You have to ask with the right intonation. You could have said to that guy with the tattoos, "Wow, look at those tats. I mean, where did you get them from?" You know, that might have then made him shirk a little bit and stand back. Or you could have said, "Hello, Mr. Jones, goodness gracious, look at those tattoos you've got. They look very interesting. Do you mind telling me about them?" And so the way you ask. But I think the third condition for asking any question to any patient is that it has to be for the sake of the patient. It's not for me, it's not for anybody else. It has to be that in some way, this question will benefit the patient. The patient will respect that, they'll see that. And so I remember once I wanted to go and take a photograph of this guy who had these enormous hemangioma tumors on his leg. And I went in and I felt uncomfortable. And I realized the reason I felt uncomfortable was I was taking these photographs for myself, not for his sake. Eventually, I spoke to him and he agreed. He was agreeable for education and so forth. But I think those three conditions, the right time, asking it in the right way, in an empathic way, that's a key word, empathic or sensitive or charming or pleasant way. And for the third condition, for the sake of the patient, and I think that's really, really critical in being able to ask a patient any question. Dr. Lidia Schapira: That is such a thoughtful, beautiful answer. And I'm going to switch to another topic just because I want to pick your brain and I'm curious to know how you would handle this. And that is, I know you do palliative care and you've clearly trained in the psychological aspect of serious illness, but do you think, wearing your palliative care hat, that cancer is special and that cancer patients are a special population when they ask, "Why me?" Dr. Simon Wein: That's a really good question, isn't it? In our hospital now, I started off in palliative care about 15 years ago. For the first 10 years, we only did cancer patients. I'm an oncologist by training. But now we're opening up to non-cancer patients. I think that in society there's little doubt that the myth of cancer being the same as a death sentence is very strong. There are many patients with advanced New York Heart Association IV heart failure whose prognosis that is much worse than many of our cancer patients. But cancer has gotten this flavor of death, of Damocles' Sword hanging over your head and that's that, and it raises- immediately goes to all the existential questions of meaninglessness and emptiness and death and fear and loneliness and all that, much more than these other ones. And it's not true. Cancer patients today may live much much longer than we once knew and much longer than many other non-cancer patients. So I think there is something very special about that. And cancer has got this other horrific aspect about it which is that the body is eating itself up. Your own cells have turned against you. And I think psychologically, emotionally– Well, auto-immune diseases are not dissimilar in the sense of the body turning against itself. But cancer, it's a sense of the cells dividing and coming on and eating you up. It's got that mythical aspect to it. Dr. Lidia Schapira: And if I may add one more thing, in my mind, it's also that cancer treatment is so grueling and awful and sometimes actually exacerbates the suffering. So I think that it's cancer and the fear of consequences and exposure to cancer treatments, would you agree? Dr. Simon Wein: A lot of our patients come to us, but they won't say to the oncologist how tough the treatment has been. They don't want to sort of feel weak in front of the oncologist they don't want to give up on that chance of getting out of the cancer. Because if they say that to the oncologist, the oncologist might say, "Oh, you don't want to miss this chance, but you're not good. But maybe we take a break from the cancer treatment." But many of them are absolutely exhausted. Absolutely exhausted. And then the other aspect of that, not just the fear of the oncologist, but also with the family. The family are egging them on, and I often say to the family, "Listen, guys. Mom is very, very tired. You haven't got the treatment. You're young, you're well, you don't feel sick, you want to fight." The patient doesn't want to disappoint the family. The family don't want to disappoint mom. Nobody talks to each other and they have this dance of the macabre where nobody's talking to each other and the patient just keeps getting this treatment. I mean that's one of the things why I think it's worth confronting patients with the question, "Why not you?" If only to have some sense of acceptance of what it is. Now often in palliative care oncology, when you say acceptance, it means "Right, I accept I am going to die." But I don't see it like that. I think if you have a measure of acceptance, then it will enable you to make more rational decisions about your cancer care. I mean how rational can you be in deciding about the cancer? We don't know. The oncologist gives you 30%. Well, how can you interpret 30%? I don't know. So the rationality is limited. But if you're understanding of what's going on, I think it helps you make more rational- to have treatment and continue or not. So I think that's why it's a useful thing to try and do that. But some patients don't want to, and I just don't push it. And many is the time that I've said to a patient, "You know, this is very bad. You've got cancer." It's like they come back next week, "How's my virus going?" It's like 'It'll just pass and that's it," and so you realize that and you just continue on. Dr. Lidia Schapira: And so my last question to you, Simon, is this: as an oncologist, as a palliative care physician, as an expert in communication and psycho-oncology, what do you say to your oncology colleagues who have trouble responding to the question that patients frequently ask, 'Why me?' Dr. Simon Wein: Lidia, it's a good question because not often do I get a chance to speak to oncologists in this way. We're often kept out of the room, and when the decisions are made, it's very difficult to backtrack a decision about treatment. Very difficult. One, because you can destroy any trust that the patient will have built up in the system, and two, it's not really collegial then afterward to go and undermine. And so that's why I write lots of articles on these subjects, Lidia, and I hope that the oncologists will read them and I hope that they get published. I distribute them at work and sometimes the young ones will come and say, "You know, that's quite good." What we're trying to do, what I think is very, very important, is to have the multidisciplinary meeting. We're trying to develop that now. When I was in Australia, Peter Mac, we used to have them. And I think it's by a process of diffusion, by repeating the messages, the philosophy, the idea that we should ask the patient, get a picture from the patient of what's going on. Do they really want it? What's going on? What's important to them in life? Maybe they're satisfied with their lives. And then to have the balance between the side effects and the challenge of the treatment. The other thing that really gets me, got me on a bit of a hobby horse now, Lidia, is how much time in the last three months of their life patients spend on the road, coming to the hospital, doing blood tests, going home, another PET CT, another scan, and those are the last percentage of their life. It's substantial. So more and more we're actually doing telemedicine, as I'm sure you are. And at first, I was a bit skeptical about that, being an old-fashioned physician, where I think you should talk, touch them, see them, but you actually save a lot of their time and a lot of their difficulty and so forth. I think that's very good. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yeah, both for us and for our patients, time is the greatest gift, right? And if we begin to think about it in those terms, time saved, time freed from hanging on to a test result, or needing to go and get another scan, can be an enormous gift for them as well. Dr. Simon Wein: Or an opportunity to live and enjoy life. And I say to every patient that every day you've got to find something to make yourself happy. I had this one patient the other day, the oncologist was mad. This poor guy's got a metastatic disease, his liver is not as good as it might be, and he was desperate to have a smoke of a cigar and a whiskey. And the oncologist said, "No, you can't do that because it could interact with your chemotherapy." And so I broke my rule and I said, "Look, the oncologist doesn't really know what he's talking about," and the guy promised to bring me in a cigar, which I haven't yet got. But anyway, I thought that was very sweet of him. Now I just like to say one more thing. If we're talking about therapeutic relationships, I think that the best lesson I ever learned and heard was from Irvin Yalom, from his book Existential Psychotherapy. And it's like 40 years since he wrote it, and a lot of paper has been printed, articles have been printed since then. But he really was very good. He said we have to relate to the patient like ourselves. We've got the same existential problems that the patient has, you know, empathy and all that, but we've got the same problems. Theirs are a little bit more contracted in time. And what I like to do with my patients is relate to them in an authentic, real way, a genuine way, and they'll learn from that relationship how to live their lives when they go home. And I thought that was a really, really beautiful thing. And so he's got a quote there, which I love to share. And it's that "The relationship with the patient is that which heals." It's the relationship that heals. And I think we shouldn't underestimate, and I think we do sometimes, the importance of the interaction and the relationship between the patient and the doctor. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It's a lovely way to end our conversation. Dr. Yalom is a colleague here at Stanford. He's in his 90s now, and he recently widowed. So that's a lovely thought and a wonderful teacher and mentor. So thank you, and until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO's shows at asco.org/podcasts. 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. Show Notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr. Simon Wein is head of Palliative Care Service at the Davidoff Cancer Centre in Petah Tikva, Israel. Additional Reading and Podcast Questions for the Oncologist, by Barry Meisenberg Podcast Interview with Drs Meisenberg and Schapira on Questions for the Oncologist.

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, "But Where is My Doctor? The Increasing and Relentless Fragmentation of Oncology Care," by David Mintzer, Chief of Hematology and Medical Oncology at the Abramson Cancer Center of Pennsylvania Hospital. The essay is followed by an interview with Mintzer and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Mintzer stresses the need for oncologists to make an effort to maintain relationships with patients as cancer care becomes more fragmented. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: But Where is My Doctor? The Increasing and Relentless Fragmentation of Oncology Care, by David M. Mintzer, MD (10.1200/JCO.23.00805) For the past 7 years, I have cared for Michael, a man with pseudomyxoma peritonei. He has undergone two aggressive surgical resections with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and endured multiple chemotherapy regimens, all of which resulted in questionable benefit. Recently, his health has declined due to progression of his cancer, and he has had frequent admissions for infectious complications, obstructive symptoms, and several fistulae. I had always been his attending on previous admissions unless I was away, but when I last saw him, he asked me why I had not been his doctor this time. Even before he asked, I felt guilty for not being there for him. For most of my career, I would see my own inpatients on a daily basis, rounding before, and sometimes after office hours. Currently, owing to system changes that likely have evolved with most practices and hospitals, only one of us sees inpatients on the teaching service, with the rest being off service. This happened long ago for our obstetrical, primary care, and other subspecialty colleagues, but for as long as possible, I held onto the belief that in oncology, we and our patient relationships were different. While most of the kerfuffle over the past few years in medicine relates to the electronic medical record and its effect on our lives and on physician-patient interactions, I think the fragmentation of care—while less frequently acknowledged—has been as relentless and impactful though more insidious. While most published articles on fragmentation define it as patients receiving care at more than one hospital, my focus is on the fragmentation of care within our own practices and institutions. Our patients are at their sickest and most frightened, thus most in need of us, when they are hospitalized. But now, instead of providing care with a consistent presence, patients are regularly passed back and forth from the outpatient to inpatient teams, then sometimes to the palliative care team, and then perhaps to a hospice team or, for those with the best outcome, transitioned to a survivorship team. While all these practitioners are kind and competent, they are not a constant. When I am covering our inpatient service, I do not know the detailed medical history of the majority of patients who have been cared for by my colleagues. Can I seriously be expected to know their complex oncologic and other medical issues, let alone their psychosocial needs, in any appropriate depth when I walk in on a Monday to start the week covering 16 new patients? I can be empathetic and do my best to communicate with their outpatient physician, but both emotionally and medically, it is never the same as being cared for by someone one has known and trusted throughout one's disease trajectory. Our relationship with the house staff is also fragmenting. We used to spend a month at a time as teaching attending, giving us a chance to get to know our students, interns, and residents. This has now been reduced to a week, and with our house staff rotating on an every 2 week schedule, we may work with a resident or intern for just a couple of days before one of us rotates off service. Furthermore, they spend much of teaching rounds staring into their smart phones and computer screens feverishly trying to complete their electronic workload. As practices have become larger and medical teams more complex, care has become less personal and often less efficient. If the patient calls with an issue or sends a message, it is notclear to them, and often to us, who will be assuming responsibility for their concern. Should it be directed to my administrative assistant, our triage nurse, the nurse navigator, the palliative care nurse, my nurse practitioner, an off-site call center nurse, or myself? The inbox proliferates; the toss-up for ownership of the message begins; six people now read what used to be handled by one or two. While I was an initial enthusiast for the early integration of palliative care alongside primary cancer care, I now also fear that it has further removed us from some of our most important interactions and deepest responsibilities. The inpatient oncologist used to be the one to provide symptomatic and supportive care and run the family meetings. Our house staff now routinely consults palliative care for even the simplest pain management issues, and we increasingly outsource goals of care and other serious discussions to our palliative care teams, who do not have a longstanding relationship with the patient or their family nor a complete understanding of their disease trajectory and past and future treatment options. Nor do I if it is not my patient and I am just the covering attending of the week. Too often it seems that palliative care has replaced us in some of the roles that used to be integral to our practice as oncologists, and we seem to have eagerly stepped back from some of these responsibilities. Our interactions with our colleagues have also fragmented. Mostly gone are the days when we would sit down in the hospital cafeteria with other physicians from other specialties for coffee or for lunch after grand rounds. And the days when we would review films with our radiologists or slides with our pathologists are mostly long gone. Our tumor boards provide some interaction, but since the pandemic, these tend to be virtual and less intimate. I mourn the loss of our sense of a hospital community. There have been some definite benefits to the fragmentation of care, which is why it has evolved and why we have accepted the bargain. As we increasingly subspecialize, we can get better and more focused on what we do which helps us cope with the explosion of data and new information across every area in our discipline. Some of us can devote more quality time to research, and it has also made our professional lives easier in some ways. How nice not to have to trek to the hospital to see very sick inpatients every day, but rather just a few weeks a year. How much easier to have someone else take charge of difficult end-of-life discussions. There is no point in bemoaning the loss of the old ways of more personalized care, as there is no going back. The current generations of physicians will not feel this loss of inpatient/outpatient continuity having grown up in an already changed environment, just as they will never have known a world before the electronic medical record. Patients have also accepted our absence from their bedside with less resistance than I would have expected, perhaps knowing from the rest of their care experience how depersonalized it has become—not that they have had much say in the matter. The changes in the delivery of health care will likely accelerate as we enter the medical metaverse and how we will navigate artificial intelligence while maintaining our emotional intelligence remains to be seen. The continued emphasis on increased efficiency and throughput of physician efforts—structuring medicine as a fragmented assembly line—runs counter to what is so meaningful to the physician-patient relationship—a function of time spent developing personal connections. As we continue our efforts to keep up to date with the rapid expansion of medical knowledge in our field, we also need to make equivalent efforts to maintain our personal and emotional connections with patients. As we have less frequent direct contact due to so much fragmentation of care, we need to make the time we do have with them more impactful. And sometimes that means going over to the hospital to see Michael after a long office day, although you are not on service. It is the right, human thing to do, and still gratifying—for all of us. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Hello and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the field of oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Lydia Schapira, Associate Editor for Art of Oncology and a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. Today we are joined by Dr. David Mintzer, Chief of Hematology and Medical Oncology at the Abramson Cancer Center of Pennsylvania Hospital. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology article, "'But Where's My Doctor?': The Increasing and Relentless Fragmentation of Oncology Care." At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. David, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us. Dr. David Mintzer: Thank you for the invitation, Lidia. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It's a pleasure to have you. I'd like to start these conversations by asking our authors if they have any books they want to recommend to listeners or if they're currently enjoying anything we should all know about. Dr. David Mintzer: Well, I just finished David Sedaris's most recent book, which is a series of essays. I get a big kick out of him. I think I often mesh with his sense of humor and a little bit of cynicism, a lot of truth, but heartfelt and always amusing. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I love his work. Thank you. That's a great recommendation, especially for the summer. So let's dive into your essay and your perspective, which is really such an important topic for us. You talk about the fragmentation of care and how it's impacted our practice, our relationships, and even our joy in the work that we do. Can you talk a little bit about your feelings about this? Dr. David Mintzer: Certainly. So I've been practicing medical oncology for a long time, about 40 years, so I've seen a lot of change. Favorably, most of that change is certainly in the good sense. We have so much more to offer our patients in terms of therapies that are more numerous, more effective, and less toxic. But there's been a price, I guess, to pay with those changes. We've all become more subspecialized, and the care has increasingly fragmented. And I was stimulated to write this essay because I've been disturbed to some degree by some of the changes. I think they are inevitable. I didn't want to write a piece just about how far I had to walk to school every day, uphill both ways, and complain. But I got a sense that others might have shared these observations and feelings, and I just kind of wanted to get them down. Dr. Lidia Schapira: One of the things that you said that really resonated with me is when you talk about patients being at their most vulnerable and at their sickest and most frightened when they're hospitalized, and that's when they need us. And what you say here, what I'm interpreting that you're saying, is that by not showing up at bedside, in a way, we're abandoning them. And that is something that feels terrible to us as well, those of us who really value that presence and that relationship. Can you talk a little bit about how you're dealing with that and how you see your colleagues dealing with that? Dr. David Mintzer: Well, it's a bit of a Catch-22. Yes. I think a lot of this is driven by guilt, by not being there for patients that we cared for sometimes for many years and know well. And although this happened in university hospitals a long time ago, in our hospital it was relatively recent, that it was recommended in part for house staff accreditation regulations to have only one attending on service at a time, which is understandable so as not to confuse the house staff. But in doing so, we're not there for our patients every day. And so you're kind of torn between running over to the hospital after a long day when you're exhausted and seeing your patients and fulfilling what feels like some responsibility, and also feeling that this is no longer my role, this is no longer the way medicine is practiced. It's not efficient. I don't get paid if I go over, someone else is collecting the RVUs. And in addition to that, the concern that the patients may not be getting not just the optimal emotional care, but even the medical issues. Certainly, the doctors covering are good and do their best, but they don't know these patients. They don't know their whole history, they don't know their complications in the past. That's the trade-off we make. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let's talk a little bit about those relationships that we invest in so heavily in oncology. Oncology is different than many other fields and we've always valued the time we spend with patients and forming those relationships. Can you talk a little bit about how you see those relationships threatened when you as the oncologist and the person who's given them guidance for the entire trajectory of their illness can't be present just when they're at their sickest and most vulnerable? Dr. David Mintzer: So care of cancer patients certainly takes a village and we have tremendous support with so many different practitioners, including our nurse practitioners, our palliative care nurse practitioners, palliative care attendings, nurse navigators. But as we introduce all of these people, we actually have less direct contact time with patients. We're less likely to be the ones to call them on the phone or even answer their email. And one of the great things about practicing oncology is not just the science and what we can do for patients medically, but these bonds and relationships we form. It's been chipped away at rather insidiously, but I think rather steadily over 20 years. Medicine thinks it's so scientific and advanced and technological. But I always kind of reflect that we're probably 20 years behind every other industry, whether it's banking or going to the supermarket or the clothing store or the hardware store. You used to go to your neighborhood pharmacist and you knew him and he would give you advice or your hardware store guy would give you some advice about how to fix something. So those industries lost their personal relationships a long time ago. We're really far behind them, but we're catching up. So now everything is done more remotely, more on the phone, and as I said, there's less direct contact time, which I think we all miss. But we're different. We're different from going to your local banker or grocer or bookstore dealer. This is medicine. These are important medical events for patients. They're very emotionally fraught, they're complicated. And so what may be adaptable to other industries, even though it seems to be being forced upon us, is not as adaptable in medicine. Now, maybe there is some respite for this. I saw recent data that telehealth is going down. We thought telehealth was going to be here to stay with COVID and everyone was going to love it. And yet it's interesting, although it may be partly regulatory and partly because of the end of the epidemic, but I get a sense that both physicians and patients are a little bit less interested in it. I think that shows that we might be a little bit different from other industries, but we'll see how that plays out. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more, but you talk about relationships also with trainees, for instance, that part of this fragmentation and these new schedules that we have also limit the contact you have with the house staff when you are assigned to be the doc on service. Perhaps you don't know all these patients very well, but you also bring up the fact that you don't get to know your trainees very well either because they're coming and going with different schedules. So what I took away was sort of a sense of loss, a bit of a lament that a lot of things are being lost in this super fragmentation. Can you address that a little bit, perhaps for our listeners? Dr. David Mintzer: Yes, I think that's exactly right. So the fragmentation that I describe is not just in patient care, although that's probably the most important to all of us, but the fragmentation with kind of the extended family that was our hospital community. We've gone now to a nuclear family. So if we're a specialist in one particular area, we still have kind of a nuclear family. But my sense is we've lost that extended family, meeting people in the cafeteria after ground rounds, dealing with other subspecialists. And if you're only in the hospital a few weeks a year, you just have less contact, passing people in the hallway, meeting them at conferences, reviewing films, as I said, with radiologists, reviewing slides with pathologists. We're all too busy, we're all sitting in front of our computers at lunch, we're all doing conferences on the phone, driving home from work, but we have less time with each other. And that holds also true for students and residents who now rotate very quickly. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let's talk a little bit about one of the other points that you make in this very thoughtful essay, and that is that you say that you were an early enthusiast of the integration of PalCare, but now you find that certainly, the younger generation seems to be outsourcing symptom management and communication very early to PalCare. And as a result, perhaps from the patient's perspective, care becomes even more fragmented. And that's sort of a bit of a loss all around. We're not able to do some of the things that we enjoy too, in terms of family meetings and communication, but also everybody's becoming more deskilled. Talk a little bit about that. Dr. David Mintzer: Yes, I was an early enthusiast for palliative care, and I still am an enthusiast, don't get me wrong. You can't criticize palliative care. It's like criticizing mom and apple pie. But the idea was, and still is, of course, that you would work in conjunction with a palliative care specialist, that they would be called in, say, on the very difficult cases, cases that needed particular expertise, or to spend more time. And certainly, that happens, and I have tremendous respect for my palliative care colleagues. But what's happened, as you note, is that we've kind of outsourced it. It's much easier to have someone else have that difficult conversation, particularly if you're just covering a patient that belongs to someone else, you're just seeing them for a few days during the week, you don't feel comfortable in doing so. And so I'm concerned that we've abdicated our responsibility in many of these important discussions and left it to the palliative care team who, by the way, are overwhelmed because there aren't enough of them now that they are getting all these consults for almost everything. We should, as oncologists, still be able to run the meetings, to refer patients to hospice, to discuss goals of care. But as we all become more specialized, as we become busier, we have less time and we've built this metaphorical moat between our offices and the hospital, I find that we're just doing it less and less, and I feel some guilt about that and also some loss. Dr. Lidia Schapira: David, you say in your essay, we have accepted the bargain. What I hear from you today and what I read and inferred in reading the essay when it came to us, is that there are feelings of guilt, there's less joy, there's feelings that somehow this bargain isn't so good for us after all, even though at some level it makes our work a little bit more simple and our hours perhaps a little bit more predictable. So can we think together a little bit about what lies ahead and how we get over this deep ditch that we seem to be in? Dr. David Mintzer: Well, as you say, there's both benefit and loss involved with this and it does make our lives easier. If you're seeing relatively healthy outpatients month after month in the office, you get to feel oncology is not so bad and you can kind of put that two-week hospital rotation when everybody's in the ICU and having multiple unfixable problems and poor palliation behind you. So you can almost kind of go into denial. And it does make your quality of life easier to be able to just go to the office and go home most weeks of the year. How are we going to deal with this going forward? I mean, we do have to make the effort. I don't think it's going to go back. I don't think writing this article is going to change the way medicine is structured. This is a more efficient way and in some ways, it may be safer and more high reliability, which are kind of the watchwords. So I'm worried. I don't know where it's going. I think it is going to be a little less personal. But my point is we have to be aware of it and in doing so make the time we have with patients more impactful, be a little bit more aware of our need to support them. Maybe if you're not at the hospital every day, go over once or twice a week, or certainly when there's a big change in event. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Do you think we could use technology to sort of stay in touch and pay a social visit via FaceTime? Or remain connected to our patients, even if it is in a social function, but somehow, for their sake and for ours, remain connected when they're in hospice when they're hospitalized. But we're not the attending of the month. Dr. David Mintzer: Certainly, the way we communicate has changed. I remember being a young attending and I was working at a small community hospital, and one of the surgical attendings would just call their patient on the weekend on the phone, but wouldn't bother to come in. And I thought, my gosh, that's terrible. What kind of impersonal, awful medical care is that? But indeed, now, calling or more likely, texting, communicating, emailing with patients may work. What's coming with virtual or augmented reality or whether EPIC can eventually just plant a chip in our brain and we can all be online all the time, I don't know. But yes, any type of communication helps. I've often said that there's nothing like an unsolicited phone call to a patient to encourage them. Just, "Hey, you didn't call me, but I'm calling you. I was thinking about you. How are you doing?" So, yes, staying in touch by whatever means, I think can be greatly beneficial and mean a lot to the patient, even if it's a brief text or phone call. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yeah, even encouraging your trainees if you have residents or fellows working with you to go with you to that unsolicited visit or participate in that, I think that sort of would model the kind of behavior that we would want if our loved one is the patient, right? Dr. David Mintzer: For sure. Dr. Lidia Schapira: And that's always a good question because what we hear from patients is how much they value and love their oncologists when there is a strong connection. So let's perhaps finish the conversation by going back to Michael, your patient. How did you and Michael resolve this? Dr. David Mintzer: Honestly, we haven't resolved it. So when he's in the hospital, he's now cared for by whoever's on service at the time. Fortunately, he hasn't been in the hospital lately, but I will make an effort to go over and stay in touch with him. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I'm sure Michael would appreciate your presence. Are there any other thoughts that you would like to convey to our listeners or readers? We have dealt with some of these futuristic issues in Art of Oncology before, including one essay I remember was published years ago where there was sort of this very impersonal imagining of what it would be like for an oncology patient to basically be seen by a series of robots along the chain without this human connection. And it was really terrifying to read. So thank you for reminding us about what is lost for us as well as what is lost for patients, something that we all need to go back and revisit, I think, as we think about the future. Any final thoughts, David, for listeners? Dr. David Mintzer: So as a physician who's getting close to the end of their career, I don't want to come off as just protesting against change. We need change. You know, change is crucial, but I think it's not really been clear to a lot of people how much this has been eroded over time - that our direct contact and the fragmentation has impacted us and our patients and other caregivers. And this separation between inpatient and outpatient, I think, is becoming steeper. Our palliative care nurses used to go over to the hospital and see the inpatients as well as the outpatients, or our physical therapists, or our nutritionists. Now everyone is divided. I still think it's a great job. I love caring for patients. I love the teams that I work with. And as medicine gets better, though, we just have to be on guard to stay in touch with our patients and our feelings. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I really appreciate your perspective. Thank you so much for sharing it with us. And until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of the ASCO Shows at asco.org/podcasts. 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. Show Notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr. David Mintzer is a Chief of Hematology and Medical Oncology at the Abramson Cancer Center of Pennsylvania Hospital. Additional Reading: Ars Brevis, by Dr. George Sotos

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, "Afternoons in the Tower of Babel" by Barry Meisenberg, Chair of Medicine and Director of Academic Affairs at Luminis Health. The essay is followed by an interview with Meisenberg and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Meisenberg describes how oncologists and families of patients in the ICU lack a common language when discussing status and prognosis. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: Afternoons in the Tower of Babel, by Barry R. Meisenberg, MD (10.1200/JCO.23.00587) We talked for hours in that little windowless room adjacent to the intensive care unit (ICU) during his final week. A patient dying of a toxicity that should have been treatable, but is not. The oncologist's tasks: to care for the man in the ICU bed by caring for his family; to knit up the raveled opinions of the many consultants; to forge from these strands a family's understanding of status and prognosis; to be a family's ambassador in the ICU, while others toil to adjust the machines and monitor the urine flow; to make a plan that relieves suffering and preserves dignity; and to do all this not with brute-force honesty but with patience, gentleness, and humility. The reckoning process begins for a wife, three adult children, and a daughter-in-law. The youngest begins the questioning. "So, if our prayers were answered and the lung cancer is shrinking, why are we here? "It happens this way sometimes," I hear myself saying, instantly dismayed by my own banality. This is not a physiologic or theologic explanation. Its only virtue is that it is factual. It does happen this way sometimes, no matter how fervent or broadly based the prayers. I have wondered why it is so for more than 35 years as a student of oncology. But the quest to understand is far older than my own period of seeking. Virgil's1 Aeneas in the underworld observes: The world is a world of tears and the burdens of mortality touch the heart In the little windowless room my words, phrases, and metaphors, delivered solemnly, are studied as if they were physical objects one could rub with the fingers or hold up to the light like Mesopotamian pottery shards with strange carved words. My word choices are turned inside out, and compared with yesterdays', I can see the family struggling to understand; they are strangers in a strange land. How lost they must feel, barraged by a slew of new terms, acronyms, and dangerous conditions. The questioning resumes. "Explain 'failing,' explain 'stable,' explain 'stable failure,' explain 'insufficiency.'" My first tries were themselves insufficient. I try again; choosing carefully, using different metaphors: -the heart as pump, -the bone marrow as factory, -the kidneys as filter, -the immune system as … a loose cannon. -the lungs as collateral damage The soon-to-be widow restates my phrases to see if she has it right. Worn down by the exercise, I nod. Close enough. Daughter-in-law, following carefully, is quick to interject, "But yesterday you said the X-ray is 'unchanged,' so why does he need more oxygen?" Did I say that? Yes, the notebook in her lap remembers all. "You say now 'rest the lungs' on the ventilator, but last week, still on the oncology floor, you said get out of bed and work the lung as if they were a muscle." Carefully, I unwrap more of our secret lexicon: "Proven infection" versus "infection" "Less inflamed" is still dangerously inflamed. Five sets of eyes, five sets of ears, five sets of questions. And the notebook. I begin again, choosing carefully. The learning is a process and occurs incrementally. I tiptoe around acronyms and jargon. I assemble the words and metaphors to build understanding. This is part of the oncologist's job; at times, the most important part. But words are not all the tools we possess. There is also the language of the body. The grave subdued manner, the moist eyes, and the trembling voice, none of it pretend. The widow-to-be slowly absorbs these messages in a way that she cannot grasp the strange wordscape of the ICU. With time, understanding drips in, and the wife makes the difficult decision that all families dread, but some must make despite the fear. And tears come to this anguished but gracious family who manage, amid their own heartache, to recognize the dismay and bewilderment of the oncologist who used the right treatment at the right time but still lost a patient. The family sensing this offers to the doctor powerful hugs and the clasping of hands that opens their own circle of pain to include one more in search of why. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Hello and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the field of oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Lidia Schapira, Associate Editor for Art of Oncology and a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. Today we're joined by Dr. Barry Meisenberg, who is Chair of Medicine and Director of Academic Affairs at Luminis Health. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology article "Afternoons in the Tower of Babel." At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. Barry, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us. Dr. Barry Meisenberg: Thank you for having me. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Barry, let me start by asking you my now famous question: What are you reading now and what would you recommend for our listeners and readers? Dr. Barry Meisenberg: I will tell you that, for a very special reason, I've been reading Thomas Wolfe. You know, the author of Look Homeward, Angel, and his final book everyone knows the title of You Can't Go Home Again. But I've been reading them with a very specific view. I'm interested in all the medical interactions and I find them immediately relevant to what I'm doing. And Thomas Wolfe talks about physicians treating dying patients. And the good physicians are also really caring for the family. And there are a couple of just wonderful examples. Would you like me to read you one? Dr. Lidia Schapira: I would love it. Dr. Barry Meisenberg: So this is from Look Homeward, Angel when Tom's beloved older brother Ben is dying from post-influenza pneumonia. And part of his family just can't understand it. They can't get used to it. And they keep insisting that the local physician do more. And this doctor who's Dr. Coker in the book, that's not his real name, of course. And he says to the sister, who's pretty close to hysterical. He said, "My dear, dear girl, we can't turn back the days that have gone. We can't turn life back to the hours when our lungs were sound, our blood hot and our bodies young. We are a flash of fire, a brain, a heart, a spirit, and we are three cents worth of lime and iron which we cannot get back." And I say this that as we learn when we're in the ICU, we see a patient in the bed and we think, "end of life" and families look at that patient in the same patient, the same bed, and think of the young person, healthy lungs and strong desire for life. And we don't always see the same thing. And I just thought that piece of advice by that doctor was wonderful. Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's beautiful. Thank you so much for sharing that with us. Dr. Barry Meisenberg: Thank you. Dr. Lidia Schapira: This is a very special piece. And the first thing that I wanted to ask you about is how did you choose the title? Dr. Barry Meisenberg: I feel, as the readers will appreciate, that we often struggle to communicate with families because of the jargon and of the strangeness of the environment. And although the Tower of Babel is obviously a biblical reference where God punishes humans by scattering their languages so they can't communicate with each other, in the more sort of vernacular sense of that word, it just refers to a failure, an inability to communicate openly. And I think that's what this article is about. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let's talk a little bit about what the article is about. I read it as a very moving reflection, very sincere reflection from an oncologist who is heartbroken because he's about to lose a patient to complications of therapy. Help me understand a little bit about your message and how you wanted to communicate the importance of choosing the right words when the message is just so dire. Dr. Barry Meisenberg: It's actually two themes. You mentioned that sometimes when you choose the right therapy at the right time, at the right dose, and bad things happen anyhow that aren't supposed to happen, we take it very personally. And the second theme here is then our role as oncology, which I believe is at times the most important role we have, is to explain this strange environment to sometimes the patient, but also the family. And that means being aware of all the acronyms we're using and the jargon. Knowing that there are other physicians who they may have talked to who will say one thing and be seized upon one little phrase by the intensivist, by the nephrologist, by all our other colleagues. And feeling that it's our job, my job to wrap all those opinions together and to explain what it really means because they're all partial views. Dr. Lidia Schapira: And also to provide guidance for the family. At one point you needed to explain, but also help the family come to a decision, which is a very difficult decision, and that must have felt very bad for you in a very, very difficult situation in a windowless room next to the ICU. Dr. Barry Meisenberg: Again, I think it's actually our job. Our job is not just to write chemotherapy orders and order images. Our job is to care both for the patient and make sure the end of his life, in this case of his, is dignified, but also to care for the family, knowing what they're experiencing at the moment and what they'll experience after the death. I'm honored to do it. Some excellent intensivists can do this well. But I also think it's my job to do and I think it's important to teach young physicians that's their job. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So let's talk a little bit about that because I think for perhaps our generation and for more senior oncologists this always has been part of the job and we've always understood that it's our responsibility to be present. To be present as you, I think you use the word as an ambassador in some ways. To reconcile what they're hearing from other people, to provide a framework for understanding what has just happened, and to get past the technicalities of the information and the words written down in the notebook to really tell the patient and the family and comfort them to understand where they're at. But it's not the way many of our colleagues today view the job. Can you reflect a little bit on that? On whether or not it's really the oncologist who needs to be at the bedside to explain this? Dr. Barry Meisenberg: Well, by way of background, I am PGY 40, I think that's about right, PGY 40 of people of my generation. So I don't know if it's strictly generational, but I do have a whole view of an oncologist, holistic view, as opposed to a partialist view where we don't go into the hospital, we don't do end-of-life conversations in a hospital. We let the palliative care team do that or let the hospitalist do that. I just think it's not good for patient care. It's also not good for the oncologist because this is why we are viewed as a special breed of physician because we can do this. Other people are afraid of it. They don't like to deal with death or bad outcomes or bad prognosis. And we do it in our routine and people honor us for that. And so if we have a new ethic about this that "Let the intensivists do that or let the palliative care team do that," we're losing what makes, part of what makes us special. Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's a very interesting thought when we'll hold and probably need to come back to it and reflect over the course of the day and the next several days. Let me go back to the scene that you give us in this beautiful essay. And you talk a little bit about the notebook, which I found very interesting, where I think it's the daughter-in-law of the patient is carefully recording the words and she's picking up on some what she sees as inconsistencies. Wait, yesterday you said, or last week you said "Get out of bed," and now it's, "He can't." You used this word yesterday, but this word today. Dr. Barry Meisenberg: Right. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Can you share with us a little bit about how you react in those situations? Because I was just sort of feeling the frustration of trying to say, "You need to drop the pen and we need to just think about what's happening here." Dr. Barry Meisenberg: What you're referring to is this section, when the questioning, when our words are carefully examined, held up for review. Normally, I'm happy to have families write stuff down and record their questions, but if last week I said "stable" and today it's some other term to describe it, well, it is an apparent discrepancy says the notebook. And yeah, a week ago it might have been appropriate, "Get out of bed, get those lungs working." And here we are five or seven days later, and he's on a ventilator because we need the lungs to rest. So explain that and it's in the notebook. Explain this apparent discrepancy, or another physician said he's doing good, meaning he's not progressive. And I'm saying "You've still got respiratory failure." Failure is a powerful word, by the way. You've got to be careful when we describe heart failure, respiratory failure, bone marrow failure. So this is, whether it's the memory or the notebook, I don't consider it an enemy, but it just shows you how careful we have to be in what we say. And what we can communicate in 15 seconds to a colleague takes much more time, and you really have to use metaphor to explain that. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So let me pick your brain a little bit. You describe yourself as a PGY 40, and maybe that's literal, maybe it's not. But as an experienced clinician, what advice do you have for some of the junior oncologists about how to sort of feel perhaps when they're being challenged in a difficult situation and how to choose their words and sort of cultivate that way of being with, that presence that can really bring comfort to families? Dr. Barry Meisenberg: That's a great question, and I just hope that we would all approach this with empathy to try and understand what the family is going through. And the article tries to bring that out, that there's a family struggling in a strange environment. And our patients and families may be very accomplished people, but now they're in a new environment that they can't control, they don't understand, so let's care about them as well. And I never take it personally, someone's challenging my advice or my knowledge. That's almost like expected. So that's how I would try and explain our role there. This particular family wasn't difficult in that way at all, and I hope that didn't come across that way. They were just very concerned and wanted to know and wanted to be educated and looked to me to provide that in a very respectful sort of way. But we certainly have had other families who insist that obviously there's something else better someplace else and some knowledge beyond what I bring to the table. But once again, what you just sort of care- I guess the best word is empathy or compassion for what they're going through. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Barry, if you can bear to share this information, is this a patient who died of a complication of immunotherapy? Dr. Barry Meisenberg: That's exactly right. Lung cancer, smoking history, got immunotherapy. Excellent clinical response until interstitial pneumonitis. So like a more than 50% response to the initial, I think just one cycle. And then though, the symptoms of dyspnea and progressive respiratory failure ended up in a hospital and other complications along the way, heart attack and whatnot. So it is based on a real patient, although the conversations are based on accumulated experience. But it was an actual patient and we knew it early, we used high-dose steroids early, and it just didn't seem to make a difference. And then second-line, third-line, therapies, many of your readers will know that these are all sorts of anecdotes, and one of them was tried as well, but just progressive respiratory insufficiency in a way that just like everything else, when there's a response, we don't really fully understand why some people respond and some don't. Dr. Lidia Schapira: And how do you deal with and how have you learned to deal with the grief that follows losing a patient, especially under these circumstances? Dr. Barry Meisenberg: Yeah, I don't know that I have learned how to deal with it. I mentioned in the article that I was welcomed into the circle of grief by this family who appreciated what I was feeling. Somehow it's kind of remarkable that some people do that. Some grieving people can understand others are grieving. So I don't really think that I've got a solution other than this sort of banal notion, as I mentioned in the article, that it's always been this way. Bad outcomes, bad things happen, and maybe it's the way of the world. I would feel differently if I had missed something, perhaps, but I grieve, I but don't blame myself and ready for the next patient next challenge. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I always think it's wonderful when we are the recipients of such amazing compassion from families and those moments really sort of, in a way, rekindle our vocation and our ability to sort of recharge a little bit, to be present for the next family. I wonder if writing about it in a way helped you process this experience. Dr. Barry Meisenberg: Oh, I think it absolutely does. And I'm so happy that this journal and this society gives us this opportunity and other journals as well. Because processing, which I guess is a modern term, is so important for us. There's a whole interest in reading things of this nature, not overly saccharine and not overly stereotyped because it doesn't always work out that way. But I absolutely feel that we're a brotherhood and sisterhood, and we need to share with each other because these are things we all go through, which I believe is the whole purpose of this section. Am I right? Dr. Lidia Schapira: You're absolutely right. And you sort of anticipated my final question, which was, as a community, I certainly feel we need these stories and we need to share these stories. But I may have asked you this question in a prior conversation, but can you tell me how you use stories in your career for teaching or for sharing experiences, or reflecting with colleagues or trainees? Dr. Barry Meisenberg: I think they're a great opportunity, and obviously we want to encourage young people and medical staff of all ages to write their own and share. But we have a program specifically for residents and trainees where we look at some poetry or very short essays, some of the journals about these kinds of issues, and then reflect. One of them for example is how do you overcome physician errors, and a whole set of readings and poems about errors that have been made and how they linger with you your whole career. Someone wrote a beautiful line, "worn smooth by mental processing," because in general, we don't give them up. So these kinds of things I think are very helpful in reflecting and helping people understand that this is something we are all going to have to face and we're all going to have to deal with in our careers. And you can't hide it, you're going to deal with it so we can't hide from it and it is an effective coping measure. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. My heartfelt condolence on the loss of your patient. Dr. Barry Meisenberg: Thank you. Dr. Lidia Schapira: And keep writing. For our listeners, until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. 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. Show Notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr. Barry Meisenberg is Chair of Medicine and Director of Academic Affairs at Luminis Health. Additional Publications: Questions for the Oncologist, by Dr. Barry Meisenberg and accompanying podcast.

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, "Market, Gift, Everyday Ethics, and Emmanuel Levinas in Patient Care" by Alan Astrow, Chief of the Hematology and Medical Oncology division at the New York Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Lidia Schapira: Hello, and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the field of oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Lidia Schapira, Associate Editor for Art of Oncology and a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. Today we are joined by Dr. Alan Astrow, Chief of the Hematology and Medical Oncology division at the New York Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology article, "Market, Gift, Everyday Ethics, and the Emmanuel Levinas in Patient Care." At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. Alan, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us. Dr. Alan Astrow: Thank you for inviting me. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Your article has a very long title, and we've got Markets and Gifts and Ethics and a philosopher. So let's start by helping our listeners and maybe our readers to really understand the intention of this essay. What is the message of the essay? Dr. Alan Astrow: The message of the essay is that we need to be reflecting and be mindful of the values that underlie medical care as we practice every day. Dr. Lidia Schapira: And if I were to quiz you a little bit on that and push a little bit, what are those values? And how does perhaps market conflict with ethics and mission? Dr. Alan Astrow: Trust, caring, honesty, thoroughness, dedication to the patient, focus on the patient and the patient's needs. The problem with market or the danger of market is that it can sometimes distract us from focusing on the patient and that patient's needs. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So how would you respond to somebody who says, but we need organization, we need markets and finances in order to have a system that provides health care? Where do you see the front of conflict, perhaps between those who are more mission-driven, as you've just beautifully articulated and have the trust in the patient's care front and center, and those who are more concerned with the productiveness and efficiency in collections? Dr. Alan Astrow: I have tremendous respect for my administrative colleagues who are focused on keeping hospitals solvent. I worked at a hospital earlier in my career that was not focused as it needed to be on making sure the hospital had a sound strategic plan. And that hospital is now condominiums. So, absolutely, we need to be aware of financial realities and hospitals need to pay their bills. But underlying that, we can't think that the first mission of a hospital is to earn money. The first mission of a hospital is to provide service to those in need. And then our colleagues in administration have to help us find ways to do that in a manner that's financially responsible. But we think first of the patient and that patient's needs. And patients understand that. Patients don't want the hospitals to go bankrupt, and patients want their doctors and nurses to be paid. Patients do worry sometimes, with good reason I think, that the system may be overly focused - that's the issue, it's an issue of balance - overly focused on markets, overly focused on finance. It seems as if we're living in a world in which money is driving everything. Money is speaking with too loud a voice. That's the issue. Money is important. But the needs of the patient and what our mission is to patients have to be the driving force of the hospital. That has to be the predominant voice, the loudest voice. Markets should be serving the patient and the patient's needs, not the other way around. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I think I understand that clearly. But now let's talk about the gift that's in the title, and that, in my mind, was a very imaginative way of presenting what we bring that is not just a service. Talk a little bit about how you understand the gift of presence or the gift of caring. Dr. Alan Astrow: The gift is when you're really lost in the task itself. When you're really focused on that patient in front of you and trying to understand the patient and trying to address the concerns that the patient has. And during those moments when you're focused on that patient, you're not thinking about money. No, you should not be. But the first predominant impulse needs to be what the underlying mission of that organization is. And in medicine, it's caring for the patient. And so, for example, when we hear administrators saying we're going to reach out to this and that market, well, that to me shows a mistaken focus. We understand that the hospitals need to raise money from banks and other places in order to make needed capital investments. But we need to think first and foremost about the people in the communities we serve, and then the markets should be at the service of people and communities. I think in general, it's a larger issue. The power of money is speaking in too dominant, in a way, in too many aspects of our world. And medicine, above all, needs to resist that. And there's a manner in which healthcare institutions are functioning these days which I think leads patients to have reason to doubt. And so if they have doubts about what our primary interests are, they will lose trust. And the loss of trust is devastating to the medical relationship. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let me explore that a little bit with you, Alan. I would say that in my mind, providing that caring presence is part of the mission of medicine, but you talk about a dimension of gift. Help me and our listeners and readers understand a little bit more about the gift. You talk about the gift being something that's exchanged, that there's even a reciprocity in giving and receiving gifts. How are we to understand that perhaps through the lens of the philosophers and the big thinkers here? Dr. Alan Astrow: I'm borrowing this from Lewis Hyde. He was referring to a traditional gift economy. And according to Hyde, who is taking this from cultural anthropologists, that in many tribal communities, tribal societies, just, for example, in the Native American cultures in our land that were not cash-based, they're based upon a notion of gift. You would provide a gift to the other without any expectation of payment, but there was a passive understanding that at some point that gift would be returned to you. And that's how these societies, according to cultural anthropologists of course, it's probably hard to pin this down, but that's the way Hyde has presented it. This was the base of the economy of gift-oriented cultures. And he was surmising that there's always an element of gift he felt was particularly in the world of creative artists, because if the artist is just thinking about how he or she could make money, their work is not likely to be very good. The artist needs to focus first on the gift dimension to it, the part that comes to them really as a gift. Your talent is a gift, and you may be able to see that your talent as a physician is a gift. And so much of our skill really comes from the gifts that others have given us in a way. Just think of our training. We think about how hard we worked and it's true and how many years we gave into our training. But isn't it also true that we learned from the illnesses of others? They shared their stories, they shared their experiences with us even when we didn't know that much and we didn't have that much to offer to them really. We were relatively unskilled. We developed our skills through treating people who presented themselves to us in a way hoping that we would help them, certainly. But their presence to us, since we were not well-trained at that point, was a bit of a gift. That's how I would see it. And if you see it as a gift, perhaps it could help us in our orientation toward the service we need to provide to others, those moments when we might feel somewhat resentful. Well, maybe it's a good time to just remind ourselves a bit. Not that I don't feel resentful or exhausted or- I'm just like anyone else, but I can remind myself that yes, it's a gift to be a doctor or a nurse. I believe, I really believe that. In so many fields there's so much just about the finances and the bottom line, and that's not true about being a doctor or a nurse. That's not ultimately what it's about. And it's one of the great pleasures of being a doctor how we can help other people with our skills. Dr. Lidia Schapira: When we hear the word "gift," unfortunately, our minds may go to things that we need to declare that could potentially be conflicts. But you're talking about gift in a totally different way. You're talking about giving the gift of our presence and recognizing the gifts that our patients give us by teaching us, by allowing us to learn from their experience through their experiences. And in your essay, you talk a little bit about appreciating this and have an impact on the culture of medicine. So, can you talk a little bit more about how this appreciation of gifts exchanged and time spent together and talents shared can impact favorably on the culture of medicine even perhaps, as you're hinting, improve our sense of wellness or reduce our risk of burnout? Dr. Alan Astrow: When we think of our work as partly a gift we can give to others and a gift we have received from others, I believe it enhances our morale and the morale of whatever enterprise we are part of. If we all, I believe, are able to appreciate more of the dimension of gift in healthcare, it has the potential to have us see things differently, organize the way we care for patients and each other differently, and potentially transform our whole system of care. Because finally, it starts with one-to-one encounter, I believe. But the one-to-one encounter is influenced by the larger systems that shape what we're able to do. So, I think if we doctors and nurses are able to articulate a gift dimension to care, I think we can help our administrators see it that way. Because I think my experience working with many in administration is that they have chosen to work in the field of healthcare because administration wants to see it that way, too. Many of our most talented administrators could be working in other fields - finance, law - they could be making more money in other areas. But they chose to enter healthcare because they do want to provide service to others. And it may be that many in administration, but many of those who are responsible for keeping hospitals financially solvent, are just as concerned as we doctors are by the overweening presence of financial concerns as they more and more dominate our day-to-day lives as physicians, nurses, and others in healthcare. I don't want to sound like a Pollyanna here. We do have to be able to pay for things, no question about it, and there's no simple solution to any of these problems, and how should healthcare be paid for? Should we have single payer? These are complicated issues. But I think if we think about it, we should think about how we can organize our system of care so that we can further enhance the dimension of gift. That would be the point. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, we really appreciate the depth of your reasoning. It certainly is appealing to me, and I hope that it resonates with many of our readers. You've made a very strong pitch here for humanizing and really putting mission front and forward in your incredibly erudite way. So, Alan, how does Levinas enter our conversation? And how does Levinas enter the thinking that you had in putting these pieces together for the essay? Dr. Alan Astrow: So Levinas is one of the great thinkers of the 20th century, and his core insight is that the reason we are here as human beings, in his view, is to bring the ethical order into being. So we're not here to earn the maximum amount of money. We're not here to face our own mortality. No, we have a specific purpose to bring the ethical order into being. And, as doctors and nurses engaged every day in actions that we're trying to help people, he would claim that we should be trying to bring the ethical order into being in healthcare in our day-to-day actions. He was very focused on the idea of face-to-face ethics, that it's in the experience of the other, seeing the face of the other, that you need to respond. We ought to respond to the needs of the other. At that moment, we're not thinking of ourselves at all. We're just responding to the needs of the other. And in that way, we are bringing the ethical order into being. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So the dimension of gift giving is layered onto this ethical order. How do we put the two thoughts together? Dr. Alan Astrow: When you give a gift, ideally, you're trying to think about the other. You're trying to think about what the other needs. The gift is not about you. It's about what's going to make the other happy. It's what's going to make the other feel acknowledged. That's what the nature of a gift is. And you're not really expecting anything back. In medicine, too, it's not about what the patient could do for us, it's only about what we can do for the patient and the patient's needs. So, it's a true gift of the doctor to the patient. And that's why the patient can feel trust in us because they sense that it's a gift of us to them. We are not expecting patients to do anything for us at that moment. We're not expecting them to be paying us, although we hope we'll get paid. We're not expecting them to enroll in a clinical trial, although we might eventually hope that they will. But at that moment, it's pure gift. That's where the trust comes from. The gift comes first, the others later. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So one could argue, Alan, that that is just the ethical conduct of medicine, that there is no extra here, that there is no gift, that that is just how we should behave. So help me understand a little bit more then, about how you understand gift. From my experience, as I was taught by cultural anthropologists, gift can be a gift of time, gift can be a gift of presence. And it is those sorts of additional things that we convey through our actions or transmit through our presence. Reciprocally, we also are gifted by our patient's presence and by their gift of spending the time they have left with us. How do you understand gift? Dr. Alan Astrow: Okay, so you're saying a gift is something extra that we add on. Okay, I can accept that. I wouldn't deny that. My point would be that, yes, a gift orientation is central to the ethical practice of medicine. Yes, it is the ethical practice of medicine. But what we're seeing in our current world is that that orientation is increasingly threatened. Isn't that what we're seeing? That doctors are selling practices to private equity? That we have more and more for-profit businesses in healthcare? And it seems in too many places, patients fear that the primary focus is not on the gift dimension, but the primary focus more and more seems to be on the mercantile aspect, the money aspect. So my point would be that, yes, we ought to know what the ethical practice of medicine is. But it's too easy to forget, isn't it? And don't we see that that's what's happening? People are forgetting. We all need to be reminded - who is going to remind us? Dr. Lidia Schapira: Thank you, Alan, for your contribution. And to our listeners, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of the ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. 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.

TRANSCRIPT Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, "Cemetery Rounds" by David Steensma, a hematologist-oncologist in Boston. The essay is followed by an interview with Steensma and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Steensma describes the complex emotions that result from encountering graves of former patients on walks through a cemetery in his New England hometown. Narrator: Cemetery Rounds, by David Steensma, MD, FACP In the summer of 1784, the body of a 4-month-old infant named Sally was the first to be laid in the earth of the hill next to my home. The gravedigger's backhoe still cuts into the ground about once a week in what has become the largest cemetery in this Massachusetts town. During the recent pandemic, the graveyard was an open place with no need to wear a mask, so I often walked its quiet paths in the evening to stretch my legs after long hours hunched over a computer. These unhurried ambles were a chance to reflect on the day's events and make plans for future days—and sometimes to ruminate on life and how it ends. Little Sally's simple slate marker, with a willow and urn carved above the names of her parents and a short, grim epitaph—"A pleasant plant, a blooming flower, Cut down & wither'd in an hour"—has been joined by thousands of other tombstones over the past two centuries. After a dozen years living in this Boston suburb, I now recognize some of the names on these memorials: Stones that mark the final resting place of people who were once friends or fellow members of the same Congregational church that Sally's family belonged to long ago, and stones with surnames shared by nearby schools and streets. There are too many gravestones that recall young people who were once classmates of our children in the town's schools. Walking past those memorials means remembering moments of shock and sadness: news about car wrecks and ski accidents, suicides, sudden collapses on hockey or football fields, and the other disasters that take the lives of the young. Stones for the 21st century children are all in the newest part of the cemetery, with its memorials for those who died within living memory. In that part of the cemetery, visitors still often leave toys, Boston Bruins or New England Patriots pennants, lacrosse sticks, and horse reins. Sally's stone, in contrast, is the oldest part of the cemetery. It is surrounded only by close cropped grass and stout trees. Once I saw a freshly cut flower laying on Sally's grave, and I wondered who left it. It is rare to see those ancient graves get special attention—a bracing reminder that no matter how bright our star might shine in our own era, we will all eventually be forgotten. The largest and most prominent gravestone in the cemetery recalls the grandson of a local eccentric. This boy drowned in New Hampshire's Lake Sunapee at age 17 while trying to save another teenager who had fallen from a boat. It was the second time a close family member of the man had drowned: In 1893, as a child, he watched his older sister slip beneath the swift water of the Annisquam River. He reacted to this pair of tragedies by declaring a lifelong war on gravity. Grief is not always rational, although it may be productive. The eccentric man became wealthy—by predicting the 1929 stock market crash and by starting a successful business analysis firm—and he created a well-funded private foundation to understand and combat gravity. This Gravity Research Foundation sponsored important conferences attended by Albert Einstein and other luminaries and awarded prizes to Stephen Hawking, Freeman Dyson, and a half-dozen Nobel laureates in physics. Gravity, however, remains unconquered and incompletely understood. All of us will eventually be pulled into the earth by its unrelenting grip. A growing number of gravestones bear the names of people who were once my patients at a Boston cancer institute. Some days it is hard to see those stones on my evening walks, noticing name after name that once graced a clinic schedule or hospital rounding list, and to be so starkly reminded of how our best efforts ultimately failed them. Most of the time, though, what I recall are the happier moments with these patients, which keeps these walks from being morbid. Cancer centers are not known for being joyous places, yet surprisingly, often there is laughter in clinic rooms or on morning hospital rounds. We oncologists celebrate milestones with our patients: remissions achieved, college degrees completed, new grandchildren, and long awaited weddings attended. We know that graves like these await all of us, but for a while, we can put that aside and not just live but thrive. In one corner of the cemetery, a small marble bench faces a stone that marks the final resting place of one memorable former patient: A young woman with a wicked sense of humor who, as a grieving relative said at her funeral, was wise beyond her years, and taken before her time. When I rested on that bench last night, I was reminded of what French vascular surgeon Ren´e Leriche wrote in 1951, at the end of his long career: Every surgeon carries within himself a small cemetery, where from time to time he goes to pray-a place of bitterness and regret, where he must look for an explanation for his failures. For me that cemetery is a physical place as well as metaphorical. Yet when I think of her, I always smile, remembering who she was, and the happiness she brought to those around her. When she was alive, her hospital room was a place of laughter and hope rather than bitterness and regret. Even after a long day in the clinic, when I made hospital rounds in the evening, it was a joy to see her and discuss the events of the day. I do not know how she kept it up for so long in the face of so many disappointments and frustrations. Everything we tried to treat her cancer eventually failed her—every antibody, cell therapy, and drug after drug after drug. Even when new treatment regimens were declared at national meetings to be active, well tolerated, and worthy of further study, she always seemed to be one of those who had not responded or who suffered intolerable side effects. One door after another closed so that soon the only available doors were the ones that took her back home, with the support of a kind and skilled hospice team. At times, she could sense my sense of failure as I sat by her bedside and would try to reassure me as if the sorrow was mine instead of hers. It's all right, it will be OK. We did what we could. You did what you could. Now it's time to move on. Where did she get the strength? Eventually, as evening turned to night, it grew cold in the cemetery. I moved on, buoyed by her memory. Saying good night to Sally, I headed home. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Hello, and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the field of oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Lidia Schapira, Associate Editor for Art of Oncology and a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. Today we're joined by Dr. David Steensma, who currently leads hematology early development for a biotech company in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and was for many years a faculty member in the Leukemia Program at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, and also a past Editor for Art of Oncology. In this episode, we'll be discussing his Art of Oncology article, "Cemetery Rounds." Our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript. David, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us. Dr. David Steensma: Thank you for having me. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I'd like to start by asking you a little bit about your process for writing. You have published beautiful essays in JCO and in other venues, and I know you've always been a writer. Talk a little bit about that, especially for some of our younger listeners Dr. David Steensma: This is the first article that I've submitted to the Art of Oncology in a number of years, actually, and this one was a long time in gestation. One of the things that I found over the years is that whether I'm writing and how much progress I'm making is a really good barometer of where I'm at mentally. And I think the fact that this took the better part of three years to write probably illustrates how difficult these last few years have been for me as they have for so many of us. Sometimes writing happens very quickly. You get a germ of an idea, something maybe you've been mulling over for a long time and it all falls into place. But much more often, it's a process in which one is trying to express what is very difficult sometimes to say appropriately. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Some of your articles, including this one, have elements of history in it, and I think that's something that you've always been interested in, not only medical history but history in general, sort of what was happening at a time when somebody was ill or an illness was first described, or in this case, people were buried. Tell us a little bit about that, about combining your interest in history with your medical writing. Dr. David Steensma: I think I like to tell stories and really always have. If I didn't do medicine, one of the other two alternatives was journalism. And I've always been interested in how things got to be the way that they are. So I think that naturally is reflected in the writing. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I know you're also an avid reader, so what would I find now on your night table or on the desk alongside the medical journals that probably are unopened? Dr. David Steensma: Wow. I have some science. I have Ed Yong's amazing book about the microbiome. I just started reading I'm Glad My Mom Died by Jennette McCurdy, a former child actor, which has just got rave reviews, so reading about her difficult upbringing in this memoir and her mother's death from breast cancer. And so the third one over on the shelf over there that I have off is ASCO-SEP because I'm doing the 10-year medical oncology board renewal next week. I've been doing the LKA for hematology, but I've also kept up MedOnc and internal medicine. It was just too painful to think about all three. So I have all these NTRK and ROS1 inhibitors and pathways for advanced cervical cancer jumbling around in my head right now, which I'm sure a lot of our listeners could relate to. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I can relate to the anxiety I felt the last time I was recertified, and I swore it would be the last time. So thank you for spending a little time with us. Maybe it's a distraction from the other. Yeah. I wanted to talk about "Cemetery Rounds." We were so happy to get your paper after all these years. A reviewer said, "Oh, thank goodness, Steensma's writing again." Tell us a little bit about this quiet, meditative practice of walking along the cemetery near your home, especially during the pandemic. Dr. David Steensma: Well, the pandemic did so many weird things, and just everything was different, from the way we bought food to the way that we caught up with loved ones to the way we structured our days. Everything changed, and one of the things we ended up doing was spending even more time in front of our computers. And I'm kind of fidgety, always have been. So by the end of the day, I'd had a lot of energy I needed to get out and thought about where I could walk nearby that was a good place to stretch my legs. And we lived right around the corner from an old cemetery and quite a large one, a cemetery that actually got quite busy during COVID, so I didn't really think about that part of it. But they brought in at the beginning of the pandemic, all kinds of extra materials for digging graves and cleared out some additional area. It was really quite striking just seeing that happen. But one of the things I think I didn't prepare myself for mentally, walking through that cemetery, which is a beautiful place, very respectful, and well kept, was how many patients and other people I would recognize. And just walking past stone after stone with names that I recognized, people who had been my patient or those of colleagues that I'd interacted with on inpatient services over the years, a number of children who had been our kids' classmates in the town's public schools and who had sadly run into one tragedy or another. It was really quite striking how many of the people I felt like in a very old cemetery, how many names I recognized. There were a lot, of course, I didn't, but their surnames were on the streets nearby and the town founders. And this sort of made me reflect, particularly when I noticed that we don't normally see our patients' graves. We may attend their funerals or their memorial services, but even that often the last time we see them is when they're going home to a hospice setup or to an inpatient hospice or sometimes just at a last clinic visit, and then something sudden happens. So this seemed like something that could have been very sad. But I think partly because of the tranquility of the place and the mindset of the pandemic, there was actually a lot of reflection of positive things, interactions with these patients - the happiness sometimes that we brought to each other, conversations that had been difficult, but also events that have been happy milestones that they got to see because of our care. And then also the hard realization that ultimately modern cancer care failed them that's why they were there. So just a lot to reflect on in a time when it seemed like death was all around anyway because of the pandemic. So I thought, gosh, this would be something I think people could relate to. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It struck me that you describe your approaching these gravestones as an intimate space that we normally don't get to be part of, that sort of belongs to the family and the friends and the community, but the clinician is often not there. And it struck me also that the immediate thing you talk about was how therapies have failed them. And I just wondered if you could talk a little bit more about that. Maybe because we're both part of the same culture, it's so easy immediately to think that we did something wrong and that's why they ended up there. But can you reflect a little bit more about that particular aspect of our work? Dr. David Steensma: Yeah, just because an outcome was sad doesn't mean that mistakes were made, but may reflect the limitations of the science and art of medicine as they currently are. I think surgeons wrestle with this a lot. And in fact, I included a quote in the essay by Rene Leriche, a well-known French vascular surgeon in the 1950s, who talked about how each surgeon has their own personal cemetery of a place that they go to reflect from time to time. And that's something that in M&M conferences I was always shocked as a student and trainee just how brutal they were on each other and on themselves. It's part of this surgical culture. But I think surgery naturally lends itself to thinking that somehow you did something wrong. And perhaps in medicine, we're a little bit more in touch with the fact that we followed the guidelines perfectly. We got advice from colleagues, patients were presented at conferences. We enrolled them in clinical trials of things that seemed interesting and promising and just that the disease just kept coming back. And so that's not necessarily a personal failure. And I think in that circumstance, there's maybe a little bit more space, a little bit more permission to connect with the memory of that person in a positive way and reflect on who they were and what they meant for their families and for the others that they interacted with. And so when I see these stones, I don't think, "Oh man, I really screwed up, and that's why they're here." Never, never. I think about, "Gosh, we tried so much, and he or she went through so much, and yet this was where they ended." Dr. Lidia Schapira: It seems to me a very healthy approach, certainly. And I loved the surgeon's quote here in the essay, that every surgeon carries within himself a small cemetery, not just the surgeon. I think, as you said, we do as well. I also love the framing of the fact that it's not so much guilt but sorrow that we carry for them and also that they affect our lives. I remember when you talked about your patients, I remember the article you published about Michaela, the little girl who played the cello on the Leukemia ward and got to be famous. And in this particular article, you talk about a young woman who somehow seemed to think that she needed to comfort you and reassure you that you did everything that you could. Those are such beautiful memories, and you have such a talent for sort of paying tribute to your current and past patients that this is really so beautiful to read. And with that, I just wanted to ask a personal question, if I may, and that is, do you miss the clinical work? Dr. David Steensma: I do, definitely. So, yes, I am always impressed by the strength of patients and of their families often, and people manifest that in different ways. But I've just seen so many amazing things over the years. When I decided that I wanted to try to influence cancer care and hematology care in a different way and move to direct hematology and early development in a research institute affiliated with a company, I, unfortunately, had to step back from seeing patients at Dana-Farber because it was considered a conflict of interest. It hadn't been until just a few months before but, you know, new rules. So I do miss that. And I've been thinking a lot about ways to get back to making those connections because, yes, it is meaningful to be developing new medicines, but there's something also very immediate about being there for a person in a time of need. And those relationships that you build, by far, that was the hardest part of making the job transition with so many patients that I had long-term relationships with; that was hard. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So my last question is more philosophical. I am teaching a course for undergraduates that involves explaining how people experience illness. So I've been reading a lot of illness memoirs throughout my career, and I was looking for scholars who had worked on this and found, of course, Arthur Frank and his themes of how illness is portrayed by patients, stories of shipwrecks and catastrophes or quests or restitution of meaning. And I wondered if you had given any thought to the same sort of narratives that oncologists play in their heads of how they treat patients. What do you think are the most important themes in the way oncologists think of and remember the patients they've treated? Dr. David Steensma: One of the things that's special about oncology is that even though it's a profession that is very much scientifically based, that we connect with patients at a point in their narrative and often get to know them over months, years, and that narrative and who each of us is along that journey change over time. So I think that's what makes our field really compelling. At least it was very attractive to me. That's very much true. I think of other fields as well, where you do have longitudinal care of a patient, but there is something special about a cancer diagnosis and what that makes people think and how their families and people around them react. That I think, is unique. It really is an honor to be with patients through this narrative, and Arthur Frank has written about that and about the sort of patient story and how that evolves. And I think that's a healthy way of thinking about what people go through. And we also have to remember it's their story that we're fortunate to be able to witness. And when you walk past a tombstone, you know maybe a little bit about how that story ends, but there's always a birth date and there's a death date, and there's a dash in between, and we know very often very little about that dash. Maybe we were a little part of it, but that encompasses their whole lived experience. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I think that's a beautiful way to end this. I tend to think of us when we're in our clinician roles as co-editors of that story if we are invited to play that part, and that's such an honor and privilege. David, thank you so much. I hope and ask that you please continue to write. We all have so much to learn from you. Until next time thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. 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. Show Notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr. David Steensma is a hematologist-oncologist in Boston, and formerly long-time faculty member in the leukemia program at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School. Additional Reading: A Cello for Michayla, by Steensma

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, "A Labor of Love" by Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff, a Palliative Care Attending at the University of Massachusetts. The essay is followed by an interview with Kowaloff and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Kowaloff shares how she connects and supports young patients and families at the end of life. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: A Labor of Love, by Rebecca Kowaloff I had always thought that I gave too much space for death at the bedside of my patients. More than most of my medical colleagues, I seemed to accept its inevitability and had learned to talk about it, to watch it, and to sit with it. I did not cry, even for the patients robbed in their middle age by cancers sucking their life from within, aging them in hyperspeed before my eyes. Why did the weight not feel heavier to me when so many around me seemed unable to carry it? Despite the frailty of his body when we met, caring for Michael showed me my strength. He was a 25-year-old investment banker on Wall Street when he was diagnosed with a rare sarcoma. I wondered what he was doing the moment that first cell divided. Was he working late, handing a $100 tip to a taxi driver as his father said he sometimes did, or practicing with his college soccer team? Was this disease written into his genetic code when he was traveling the world with his family, smiling with missing teeth on a dock in Egypt in the pictures his father showed me? Did his body know it would have only 29 precious years, making him so generous to strangers, so thoughtful of others, and so eager to experience life and travel the world? I am sure he was full of hopes and dreams that shattered at the moment of his diagnosis. Amid the onslaught of emotions at diagnosis and as various chemotherapy regimens failed him, he started a foundation for sarcoma research to leave a legacy of helping children with similar rare tumors. Outside the hospital, we would almost have been peers as I was less than 10 years older and could imagine the assumptions he would have had about his life would be similar to my own. Suddenly there was no meeting a life partner, no wedding, and no children. There was no career advancement, no retirement trips, and no new hobbies or interests. There are books that will go unread and current events unexperienced. The world which had been expanding at a spectacular pace suddenly contracts to one person's orbit: family, close friends, and what dreams can be realized on a shortened timeline in a perhaps newly limited body. He moved from New York City home to his mother's house, returning, in some ways, to childhood. His soft-spoken mother listened to my prognostications with grief but not surprise, and my heart ached and eyes welled as I thought how she was watching her baby die. Each night on my drive home, I wept for her. When she saw him walk for the first time, she must have wondered what sports he might play. When he spoke for the first time, she might have wondered what conversations they would have, what speeches he might give, what school plays he might perform, and what songs he might sing. Like me she might have imagined cheering him on in sports, dancing with him at his wedding, and holding his children. She had watched him forge a path onto Wall Street and earn the friendship and respect of teammates on ever more advanced soccer teams. The sadness of her first child leaving home for college had surely receded as he self-actualized into a thoughtful, well-liked, and successful young man. And then came the diagnosis, and she watched all that her son had built slip away, watched him cling to as much normalcy as he could as the sarcoma ate his legs, sank his eyes into his skull, and sucked the color from his still-thick hair. His father appeared one evening almost a month into his hospital stay with the desperate questions of a parent who has been in such deep denial he had not even told his brothers back home about Michael's illness. In a power suit, he blubbered that he could not live without his son, his "light," and begged me for fantastical treatments to fix him. In a tiny windowless meditation room, I rode the waves of despair with him. I explained over and over why our best efforts were no match for Michael's cancer. Michael and I were practically peers and yet he entrusted me to lead him into this deep dark forest of the unknown, his final journey. Most times when entering his room I thought he had begun to "transition," his eyes half closed, his skin so pale and translucent, and his body so frail. One morning, I sat next to his bed and gently told him he was not improving, his lungs were failing, and I could not, would not, recommend intubation, which seemed imminent. He protested, asserting from behind an oxygen mask that he felt he was improving. He talked about physical therapy and restarting the treatment that had led him to this hospitalization, that had finally failed as he had always known it eventually would, but which was his last hope. His denial was his last defense. I met him where he was, shared his hope, but held fast to reality, framing the decision not as a choice he had to make, but as a recommendation from a trusted physician and an acceptance of his body's truth. He agreed, do not resuscitate, do not intubate. He thanked me and asked why I was the only honest one on his team. When we entered the room to recommend against a BiPap bridge to nowhere, his father tried to block the painful conversation with his body and his pleas "No, please, I don't want him to hear this!" I sat at Michael's side, completing an arc of love and care with his mother, sister, and nurse, and put into words what he knew and was living. His answer broke us all, "Done." This one word, said with surprising strength and finality, felt just as defiant as all his previous optimistic phrases, although it was an acquiescence to reality. To his end, Michael directed his care and made his own decisions, and he made it clear that he was finished with cancer before it finished him. For the first time ever, I sobbed at the bedside. I told Michael I would never forget him and what an honor it had been to care for him. The only response he could muster was, "Likewise," which will live inside my heart forever. His mother, pregnant with grief for 4 years since his diagnosis, began her labor of loss, the painful, arduous separation of child from mother. His breathing became more labored, more erratic. Eventually his consciousness shifted beyond the scope of the room. Had his eyes been open, I know I would have seen the look that I have come to identify with those on the precipice of death: Eyes beginning to glaze, one foot in this world, one in the next, looking beyond us. There was no more color to drain from his face, his translucent skin draped across the angles of his frame. Finally, 3 days later, he returned to that from which we all come into being. The pictures at Michael's funeral were interchangeable with my own from my childhood and college years. The lost tooth photos and pictures taken in friends' swimming pools, huge grins on family vacations in the woods, or in front of monuments. I could almost hear the raucous whoops of a soccer team celebrating after a game and could hear the giggles of posing teenage girls with boys jumping exuberantly and mischievously behind them. The red-faced newborn peering over his mother's shoulder and the toddler posing in overalls with his baby sister were similar to pictures of my own son. His childhood snow suit was tacked to the wall next to his college jersey. He was every mother's child. His college soccer coach in the funeral receiving line commented on how hard my work must be. I thought back to weeping at the bedside with his family and nurse. I thought back to Michael's bony hand reaching for mine on the bed as I walked him through a symptom management plan and his reassurance that he trusted me to keep him comfortable. I recalled sitting outside his room with his father as he cycled through despair, gratitude, and nostalgia while looking through the pictures he kept close to his heart in his suit jacket. My heart was full of awe at the unbelievably precious opportunity to enter someone's life and family at such an extraordinarily raw and sacred time. I was full of gratitude to be able to join that journey as a human being, sharing sadness and honesty and, thankfully, hopefully, being able to bring some small measure of comfort. I responded, as usual, "but it's so rewarding." Driving from the funeral, I thought about his family returning home after the last acquaintance had left the funeral home, with the distractions of planning a service, choosing a casket, and greeting mourners while sharing anecdotes over. Like returning home from the hospital with your first newborn, their lives had irrevocably changed. New parents must adapt to a new presence, a new being in their life. They must make space for it. Michael's family now had to adapt to the absence of a presence. Like a new mother's first discovery of stray burp cloths on the couch and tiny socks stuck in the recesses of the washing machine, they will be caught off guard by his chapstick tube left behind on the coffee table and his half-read book left beside his bed. Caring for Michael showed me that my strength to be present for and bear witness to these difficult deaths is my humanity and my presence. I understand that I do not feel consumed by the heaviness of the work that I do because I distance myself from it, but because I sit with and bear witness to the human experiences, recognizing that doing so is my greatest gift. Becoming a mother changed my practice in a powerful way. I now recognize that every patient is somebody's baby. Many of the mothers who no longer recognize their children once looked at them with an all-consuming maternal love. I return to Michael's bedside in my mind as a way to dip back into my humanity and a grace that is not accessible in everyday life. There are no medications or procedures that will lessen the pain of loss or fear of death, and we in palliative care have only the feeble tools of medicine at our disposal. Michael's story reminds me that in the end, the greatest tool we may have to offer is love. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Hello, and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the field of Oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Lidia Shapira, associate Editor for Art of Oncology and a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. Today we're joined by Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff, Palliative Care Attending at the University of Massachusetts. In this episode, we will be discussing her Art of Oncology article, "A Labor of Love." At the time of this recording, our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Rebecca, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us today. Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: Thank you. I'm excited to be here. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let me start by asking you a little bit about your process for writing. Are you the kind of physician who writes and has always written, or is the process a difficult emotional experience? Do you write for pleasure, or was this a one-time piece for you? Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: This is actually a new thing for me, but I think it will become something I do more regularly. I've always enjoyed writing. I was a history major in college. I loved writing papers, but more creative writing is new to me. But since I started my current job and went into full-time palliative care, I've just been struck by some patient stories and found myself sitting on my computer after seeing them, and these stories just poured out. Dr. Lidia Schapira: And when you talk about patient stories, I imagine those are patients that you've cared for, or are you referring to writings from patients, what we generally call illness narratives? Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: No, patients that I've cared for. Dr. Lidia Schapira: And how do you think that understanding the story of a patient can inform the work that we do and how we teach our trainees? Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: That's a good question. I think that we sometimes lose a patient's humanity when we're caring for them and their disease and getting caught up in treatment options. And I think remembering that they have a story, that they are an individual and not like any of the other patients who might have had a similar diagnosis, helps us bring back to giving them the best care, but also, I think, brings us back to why we went into medicine. And that's what I try to pass on to trainees that I work with. Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's so important. So in a way, it's connecting with or rekindling that sense of vocation, and that has to do with being of service, but also being attentive to the humanity, our own as well as that of patients. Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: Exactly. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Have you recently read any books or stories that you found particularly impactful or that you would want to share with colleagues? Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: Yes. As I thought back to some of the books that I've particularly enjoyed recently, I think that that sense of story and the story of maybe the common person or I really like historical fiction, so characters that are in textbooks, that are sort of uni-dimensional, being brought into a more three-dimensional arena, are ones that I'm really drawn to. I really liked City of a Thousand Gates by Rebecca Sacks, which looks at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict through multiple lenses and really challenges readers to see multiple perspectives. And I think that's something that I'm really drawn to in the books that I like. Another book that I really enjoyed was called The Five, and it was a look at, actually the five victims of Jack the Ripper, but looked at their lives and who they were as people. Something that I was embarrassed to say I hadn't really thought of before, but I found it fascinating not just to learn about them, but to really think about, they had their own stories, and instead they were caught up in this larger narrative. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let's turn our attention to the essay that you beautifully wrote and said and has a title that I think needs to be unpacked a little bit. So let's just start with your choice of title. It mentions 'labor', and there's a strong theme in the essay of the labor associated with childbirth, but also the labor associated with losing a child. And you bring in your personal experience of motherhood. And then the other important word in the title is 'love'. And that doesn't often appear in a medical narrative. So tell us a little bit about how you came to put these two words together and present them in the title. Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: I've always been struck by the way that birth and death mirror each other and that on either end of those is this unknown we come from, wherever we come from, into consciousness, and then we leave into another realm that we always are wondering what's on the other side. So they're both this sort of liminal space between whatever lies beyond and then this life. And then in this particular case, I was really struck by how I was seeing this case, particularly through his mother's eyes, and was able to, I think, really appreciate a level of maternal love that I hadn't before I became a mother myself and what that must have been like for her and feeling it a little bit myself by proxy. And then recognizing that in this particular case, I felt like she had known that this death was coming for a while. The way that pregnancy, you know, that there is a birth coming and then the labor is that separation of the mother and the child. And so I tried to kind of draw that out as well, but I felt like love was what I really felt permeating this case—felt for this patient. Again, sort of that maternal feeling, but also because we were similar in age, a feeling of connection on that level, and that love was really the biggest thing that I could bring to this—that I can't fix death, I can't fix loss, but just being present with love is something I can bring. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I want to go back to that because you use the word love so organically and yet it's been a word that we've been reluctant to use in medicine. I think that there is no question that a mother feels love for her child, but the idea that a palliative care physician or an oncologist feels love for their patient is something that we don't often talk about and yet you're perfectly comfortable with that. So I want to ask you to tell us a little bit more about that because at least in my generation when we were trained, we were cautioned and perhaps even warned not to speak of love when we talked about what we felt for patients. And as a result, I think the medical literature is full of words like caring, but really the sentiment that we're talking about is love. And you very organically and normally basically say it like that and that you brought love to the bedside and that you felt love. Tell us a little bit about that. Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: Yeah, I think you're right. We use words like compassion, empathy, caring because love is such a charged word. But I think if we can think of it as love, then it maybe becomes easier because we've all experienced love, I think, and hopefully felt love. It may be, again, give us that renewed sense of purpose to say that I just have to be a human being who feels love and that is something that comes naturally to human beings when we see others in distress or sorrow or whatever it may be. I think that makes maybe this work more accessible, more fulfilling. And I think it is what we feel and we just are afraid to use the word sometimes. Dr. Lidia Schapira: In this particular case, Rebecca, you also talked about identifying with a patient in so many different ways. You say, we could have been friends. So you talk about him as a peer, as somebody that you felt some feelings of companionship towards, and then you also talk about him as his mother's baby. And I thought that was really a beautiful and very original way of presenting the complexity of the feelings you had. You write in your essay that you normally don't weep or cry at the bedside, but there was something about this particular bedside situation, and Michael in particular, that led you to weep. Can you share a little bit of what that was like for you? Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: Yeah, I think I had been, as I say in the piece, thinking of this as his mother watching her baby die. And that is, of course, an incredibly emotional concept for any mother. And then when he came to terms with it himself, I think it was tears of relief that he was not accepting, but at least he was acknowledging, but then also in terrible sadness that here, indeed it really was happening and that she was watching that happen. I was glad that that came out, not only for him and his family to see that I was there with them in that emotional space, but it just felt very cathartic to let those tears that I'd been letting out in the car actually come out at the bedside but just also to know that that was possible for me to do. And that just felt very connecting to the patient and their family. Dr. Lidia Schapira: And I imagine it might have even felt freeing for you in the sense that you bring your genuine person to the bedside and that you can allow yourself to connect and express your own emotions without that necessarily distracting them from their sorrow or drawing attention to you or in any way diminishing your expertise in that setting. Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: Exactly. In palliative care interactions, I teach my trainees that if the people don't cry that we may not have gotten to the heart of the issue. And so I think tears are a sign that someone is their most naked, vulnerable self and that you know that you're interacting with them without any facade. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So tell us a little bit about how you, if I can use that word, either calibrate or regulate your emotional response to patients. You get called in to help families in very vulnerable and desperate situations. You use the word sacred. You use the word raw in describing what those situations are like. Tell us a little bit about how you prepare and what it takes to be fully present. Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: I think I just walk into each visit knowing that I bring my presence and that that is perhaps what is most required of me, that I have no advice to offer or guidance, but really just being a human being who doesn't look away from suffering is what I'm probably going to bring most to every situation. And that's something that I just know that I can do. And I think that knowing that I can bring that and that I can look at death and illness and I have made it through with patients and that they appreciate that is what keeps me coming back and keeps me able to do that. And as I said at the beginning of the piece, I've always wondered, is it a coldness? Is it a distance? Why is it that I don't weep more often at the bedside? Why is it that I can just keep doing this work and it doesn't wear me down? And I think it's because my perspective on it is that it's so fulfilling and that it is sacred. I describe it as soul-fulfilling work. It's just my soul work. It is almost a transcendent spiritual experience to be able to convene with patients on that level and to be able to bring that level of humanity to the bedside when maybe that is something that they haven't gotten. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I found the description of Michael's father and Michael's mother particularly compelling and how you handled their very different emotional responses to the inevitable passing of their very young and beloved son. Have you stayed in touch with the family? Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: I haven't, and I've actually thought about that and wanted to actually share this piece with them. So I'm still deciding. I think I probably will. I actually did connect with a friend of theirs and I didn't tell her I'd written this piece, but I wanted to give them some space. This death only happened very recently, so I wanted to give them some space to process and I didn't want this to become about me or what I got out of it. I really wanted them to have the space to grieve, but I very much would like to reconnect with them. Dr. Lidia Schapira: You share a lot about yourself in this essay and I think that's wonderful. And I'm curious to hear how you use these stories and your personal story when you teach your residents or when you interact with oncology fellows since that's sort of the world that most of our readers know. Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: I always try to be a person. You look at attendings and they seem like they know exactly what they're doing and they've been doing things forever. And I want my trainees to know what I wish I'd known when I was a trainee, which is everybody at every stage of medicine struggles with feelings of inadequacy, shame, fear, whatever it is, and that those are real and that's part of being a doctor and that having those actually probably makes you a better doctor. So I try to be really vulnerable with my trainees about what I'm going through, how I feel about cases, and then just really stress that what I bring is that humanity and that they can bring that too, and try to remind them to step away a little bit from their sort of medical brain. And that's important, but that what our patients are really going to remember the most, is who we were at their bedside. Dr. Lidia Schapira: There's an element of authenticity and genuine presence here that I'm picking up through your response to the questions but also in your writing that is, I think, quite exceptional. And that is to really also be able to share and be very open, not only self-aware but share with others that there's a huge amount of emotional labor that's involved in being with people who are so desperately ill. And you downplay your technical skills and give more importance to presence. But I imagine it's a sweet combination of both, am I right? Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: It really is. Yeah. I was drawn to medicine for the humanistic aspect, and that is what has kept me here and sustained me. But it is wonderful to have a breadth of skills and knowledge to bring to patients that we can be present, but we can also ameliorate symptoms and give them information to help them make decisions. So that's what I find so much joy in palliative care work because that is exactly what we do. We kind of hit all those aspects of patient care. Dr. Lidia Schapira: And I wonder if you use stories in your repertoire when you talk to patients or when you teach your students. Do you sit with patients and tell them the story of another patient that you've cared for? Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: I actually haven't to this point, other than small snippets of anecdotes, I don't. But it's something that I think could be helpful in the future. Dr. Lidia Schapira: My last question to you, Rebecca, is what made you not just write the story but decide to publish it? I think there is a big difference between writing for ourselves when we are looking to process an experience and then really exposing our vulnerability and sharing it with colleagues and people that we don't know. Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: I think for me, palliative care, there are so many misconceptions that its depressing work, that all we deal with is death. And I call this out in the piece that I spoke to Michael's soccer coach, and he said, it must be such hard work, I forget the exact words. And I thought back to all the things that I felt were really rewarding. And I think a lot of people might look at those aspects and say, that sounds so depressing, and you're dealing with dying young people. So I just really wanted to hopefully convey to the larger oncology community that there is fulfillment and enjoyment and reward and gratification in even the hard work and maybe especially the hard work. And that shying away from it, I think ultimately is self-preserving, but it doesn't lead to the fulfillment that you could feel as a physician and really a healer and that this is really healing work. Dr. Lidia Schapira: You make the point very clearly in your essay. I think that leaning into that distress and leaning into that sorrow actually fortifies us in a way helps us to get through it. And I would say that it requires some active work and also developing self-compassion, something that palliative care doctors know better than oncologists and we have a lot to learn from you. So thank you for the work that you do. Thank you for sharing your insights with readers of Art of Oncology and JCO. Any final message? Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff: I just hope that the piece touches people in a way they think about palliative care and in a way that they haven't before, and hope it will inspire people to lean into those difficult patient interactions and derive something that they didn't expect to. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, thank you very much. It's been a lovely conversation. And for our listeners, until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of the ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. 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. Show Notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr. Rebecca Kowaloff is a Palliative Care Attending at the University of Massachusetts.

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, "At a Loss: Patient Deaths and Clinical Research Coordinators" by Dr. Hermioni Amonoo, a Carol Nadelson MD Distinguished Chair in Psychiatry at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute. The essay is followed by an interview with Amonoo and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Amonoo puts out a call for support for clinical researcher coordinators to manage grief after patient death in clinical trials. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: At a Loss: Patient Deaths and Clinical Research Coordinators, by Emma C. Deary, BA; Elizabeth Daskalakis, BA, Janet L. Abrahm, MD; Sue E. Morris, PsyD; and Hermioni L. Amonoo, MD, MPP (10.1200/JCO.23.00040) As clinical research coordinators (CRCs) working on health outcomes research in patients with hematologic malignancies, we frequently navigate a patient's chart to coordinate study appointments and collect clinical information. When opening a patient's electronic health record, a snapshot immediately appears on the screen with the patient's medical information: demographics, problem list, medical history, allergies, medications, and so on. However, there are times when the chart does not open immediately, and our stomachs drop. A small gray pop-up box that we know all too well reads: "You are opening the chart of [patient's name], who is deceased. Date of death: [date]." We dread that pop-up box. We feel shock, followed by profound grief for the patient and their loved ones. The three words in that one sentence pack an irreversible reminder that our workplace, the place we love, is the same place in which patients and families can experience their worst nightmare. Every time we wait the seconds it takes a chart to load, we hold our breath, hoping that box does not appear. CRCs, sometimes referred to as research assistants, conduct the day-to-day activities of a research study. In human subjects research, this often means performing chart reviews, calling patients to administer surveys, meeting them at clinic visits, or talking to them about different aspects of their treatment and recovery. CRCs like us are typically young, early 20s professionals, who recently graduated from college and are still trying to figure out their career aspirations. We may have previous research experience working in undergraduate professors' laboratories on organic molecules or with student research participants. Aside from volunteer experiences, we usually have not had professional interactions with seriously ill patients. CRCs are the people patients associate with the research study in which they have enrolled. Through frequent study check-ins and phone calls, we build relationships with patients and often chat about nonclinical matters. Patients tell us about their children, grandchildren, pets, daily life, hobbies, and work. The more we meet with study patients, the more we learn about the intricacies of their lives: how they met their spouses, how much they miss seeing their families, and what they love about their hometowns. Even after only a few encounters, we form strong bonds with many patients from a wide variety of backgrounds. As we follow them along their treatment journey, we find ourselves fiercely hoping the treatment works. When a patient dies, we cannot help but think of their life partner, husband, or wife, the friends they will never see again, their children, and their grandchildren. We remember their hobbies and the thoughtful ways they greeted us before appointments. We remember the numerous phone calls we made to remind them of our meetings. We remember the days they were smiling ear to ear under their masks and the days they felt so sick that they could not pick up their heads to look at us. As CRCs, we do not communicate with patients outside the study. We are not their doctors, nurse practitioners, or anyone who has direct involvement in their care. But, we accompany them as they ride the highs and lows of cancer treatment. So, after a patient dies, we often struggle to understand our own emotions and what role we played in their lives. We record their death for the study and are expected to move on, seamlessly, after discovering someone has died. Our role as CRCs may be tiny compared to those of other providers, yet each patient's death has a profound impact on us. We recall the first time we learned that one of our patients died. We became motionless at our desk, distracted and unproductive for the remainder of the day as our thoughts returned again and again to that unexpected warning box. We were hesitant to even speak to each other about how we felt. Thoughts of "I should not be feeling this upset" and "maybe I am overreacting" blocked us from processing or trying to understand our grief. These thoughts were isolating, and we were unaware that many of our colleagues could help us share this burden. Knowing that patients with serious illnesses die did not protect or prepare us for the waves of emotion we experienced when a patient in our study died. Some of us have had personal losses after which we also thought: "Maybe I do not have the right to be upset"— a childhood friend we are no longer close to dies, or we learn that a good friend has had a miscarriage—and our grief is confounded by our feelings of guilt. We experience disenfranchised grief1: grief that is not openly acknowledged, socially accepted, or publicly mourned. For us, there is no place to grieve with the patient's family or the clinical care team. Over time, our grief builds up, and it is hard to find a way to release it. Friends and family do their best to understand, but because they do not work in health care, they can find it difficult to grasp the complex emotions we experience. We seek solace with each other, but lacking coping mechanisms or clear direction, we ultimately bury our grief to continue doing our job. Oncology and palliative care clinicians routinely care for seriously ill and dying patients. To learn how they deal with their grief, we asked our Dana-Farber Cancer Institute study principal investigator and three palliative care clinicians (two physicians and a psychologist, who is a bereavement expert) how we could begin to process our otherwise disenfranchised form of grief. We learned that Dana-Farber Cancer Institute palliative care clinicians hold weekly bereavement rounds or remembrance2: a time carved out every week to read a poem or listen to a song and then share meaningful stories about each patient who touched their lives and had died that week. We adapted the bereavement rounds for our laboratory group of CRCs and principal investigators. We spoke about each patient we had lost, sharing the things that most affected us over the course of our interactions with them. We spoke of Jack (names are changed to protect patient identities), who was beloved by everyone in the clinic. His hearty laugh could be heard throughout the halls whenever he came in for a visit. On the last clinic visit before he died, Jack's appointment was delayed, and he sat in the waiting room for over an hour. When we offered to help find him a room, he stood up and offered a hug in gratitude. The memory of such a seemingly routine request stayed with us for weeks after his death. When we spoke about Jack and his family during these bereavement rounds, we were able to share the wave of grief that overwhelmed us, that grief we had kept suppressed for over a year. We also shared stories about James (names are changed to protect patient identities) and his wife; they met in college and had been together for more than 50 years. Throughout his treatment, James told us often how upsetting it was that his immunosuppression prevented him from spending time with his grandchildren in person. Our hearts broke thinking of his wife and the reunions with grandchildren that would now never happen. Surprisingly, speaking about patients in our studies who died felt like a welcome release; finally sharing these memories and the worries we had harbored since each patient's death was restorative. Bereavement rounds have been invaluable in processing the grief we experience throughout the year. We found ourselves wishing we had known of them sooner, although it would be hard for CRCs who do not work with palliative care programs to be told about them. Through our quarterly bereavement rounds, we have learned to foster healthy grieving processes, creating time to honor each patient and acknowledge their impact on us. This investment in our health and well-being has been crucial to maintaining resilience in the face of challenges that our job entails. We feel cared for by the larger program and know it is investing in us as whole people. Our professional development now extends beyond Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act training and Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative certification to include education in bereavement, burnout, self-care, and compassion fatigue. Direct supervision and mentorship around grief and loss incorporated into our routine check-ins and meetings have been helpful, as well as an open door policy with our supervisors for informal support. We frequently debrief in response to challenging interactions or situations, including the death of a patient. The designation of this safe space has emphasized a culture of support in our team settings. Learning to lean on each other when faced with emotional experiences has become a core aspect of sharing regular study responsibilities, especially when a patient dies. One practical strategy which has helped us is going on a grief walk. After learning of a patient's death, we stop work and take a 15-minute walk, either alone or with a colleague. We give ourselves the space and time we need to begin our grieving process. Losing patients is part of our job as CRCs, as it is for many health care providers. Implementing programs and routines to understand and lessen the emotional burden on us has helped us better navigate our duties while fostering the coping strategies we need to do our job well. We want to learn and to immerse ourselves in academic medicine, and to do this, we need the support of our research team and institutions if we are to navigate the grief we feel when our patients die. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Hello and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the field of oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Lidia Schapira, Associate Editor for Art of Oncology and a professor of medicine at Stanford University. Today we are joined by Dr. Hermioni Amonoo, Carol Nadelson MD Distinguished Chair in Psychiatry at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute. In this episode, we will be discussing her Art of Oncology article 'At a Loss: Patient Deaths and Clinical Research Coordinators'. At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. Hermi, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us. Dr. Hermioni Amonoo: Thank you, Dr. Shapira, for the warm welcome and introduction. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let me start our show by asking this very broad question, and that is how did this article come about? We normally have first-person reflections in Art of Oncology, but this is a group reflection pulled by collective first-person plural, and clearly, you played an important role. How did this start? Dr. Hermioni Amonoo: So as you know, my line of research is trying to understand the well-being needs of patients with hematologic malignancies who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. So this is a really seriously ill group of patients who we are trying to understand what well-being looks like for them in the midst of a serious illness and quite intensive treatment with several toxic side effects and a prolonged recovery. And so in doing this work, unfortunately, a lot of our patients, even in our trials, pass away either from their diseases or complications from the treatment. And so I have noticed over the past few years that a lot of my clinical research coordinators who are young, 20-something-year-old, freshly minted college graduates, who are very critical to the work that we do, have to grapple with the loss that comes with working with our patient population. A lot of these individuals take on these clinical research coordinator roles because they want firsthand experience with patients, but that is one thing. But then working with patients who you bond with, even from mundane conversations, and then having them die was a huge sense of loss and frankly, a bit of a surprise for them. And so, as a psychiatrist, used to sitting with people in grief and helping them reflect different losses that they encounter, but I quickly realized that supporting my CRCs was a little bit more than even what my training had prepared me for and definitely, my training as a researcher hadn't prepared me adequately to be able to support these young clinical research coordinators. And so in our struggle, or I would say I've had a burden for this for several months, I would say a couple of years now. And so one of the ways that I struggle, I manage different burdens is to write about it. So I sort of shared the idea with my clinical research coordinators, a couple of them now, and they really caught on to the idea. And so we decided to share what our experience has been with this. And then I also reached out to a couple of colleagues in palliative care and the director of bereavement services at our cancer center to also support us, or support me to support our clinical research coordinator. So that's sort of how this idea came about. And that's a really long-winded response. I'm sorry. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It's so interesting to think about this, writing as a tool for processing a difficult experience is something that we often discuss with our authors for first-person narratives. What makes this entry and this essay so original, in my opinion, is that this is a group effort and you have so beautifully spoken about the need to, especially for these very young 20-something-year-olds, to process this very difficult experience of grief. And in addition to this manuscript, you speak here of doing this through some form of bereavement rounds, something that you've taken from a clinical setting where we find that it helps support people working with patients who are very ill and who experience a lot of losses to the setting of a research lab. Tell us a little bit about how that idea came about, how you're implementing this very original and useful tool in your own group. Dr. Hermioni Amonoo: It started out with, before instituting what we call remembrance rounds, my CRCs would typically call me whenever they heard of a patient's death. They will literally call my cell phone, I'll stop everything and sort of take a moment of silence with them and ask them how they were doing and check in via supervision and things like that. But it definitely felt inadequate considering the amount of pain that they experienced with the whole process. And so our palliative care teams have this remembrance of bereavement rounds every week. And obviously, on a palliative care service, they have a lot of patient deaths per week where pretty much every clinician on the team would get together for half an hour to an hour. You have different members leading these rounds where someone will share about a patient who had passed away, a memory or something about the patient, and the whole group will reflect on it. For our purposes, we thought it would be great to adapt that for like a lab setting. Fortunately, we don't have a huge volume of patient deaths per week but we realized that a month or every three months we would have close to between five to ten patients who would die from our trials, which is, again, a lot. And so, in conversations with our Director of Bereavement Services and our palliative care colleagues, we picked that time frame every quarter to get together as a lab where the names of patients in our trials who have passed away would be shared. And different members of the team who have interacted with a given patient will share, like a memory, either from a conversation, a poem, or a song, or something that brought to life the individual as a way to just process and acknowledge the loss that comes with losing patients. And I think it's also even more critical in the lab setting because, unlike the clinical setting where there is some form of a closure because as a clinician you may be able to call the patient's family and you sort of have permission to do that. But in the research setting, my CRCs felt like once they recorded the patient had died, they had no business in calling family members or doing anything like that. And so it was helpful to create the safe space to process all of that. In addition to the remembrance rounds, we also arranged with our bereavement services in the cancer center where there are actually cancer center bereavement cards where clinicians could write notes to families. And so our CRCs have started doing that as well, where we could use the cancer center template and if they wanted to, could write a note to the family as a way to share how they were feeling about the situation with the families as well. So that is something that in addition to bereavement rounds, we started doing which is also helpful. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I was very moved and I was very struck, as were the reviewers, by a few things in your article. One, is that you take responsibility for supporting your research assistants. Two, is that you take on what I will say is an almost mentorship role for helping them process this in a way that sort of still leaves them engaged with the content material and stimulates their growth as professionals. And hopefully, some of them will be future medical students, physicians, and maybe even oncologists and psychiatrists. In fact, our reviewers wrote that after reading your paper, they had implemented similar protocols in their own labs and that's pretty amazing. So tell us a little bit more about how your efforts, you think, contribute to creating a more supportive culture in general in our workplaces, both in the lab and research setting, but also this translates into clinical settings. Dr. Hermioni Amonoo: So I think maybe more so than others, I see my clinical research coordinators as really critical partners in the work that we do, especially in clinical research. They are the face of the trials that we do in some ways. They meet all our patients who are eligible for our studies. And they do spend a lot of time with them, especially in the longitudinal studies that we do, where there are multiple assessments. They are calling patients, they are speaking with them in waiting rooms, and they are really essential to a lot of things that we do. When I think about how much we compensate them monetarily wise, it really isn't a lot for really talented college graduates. And so I think, for me, I view an intangible way of making this whole experience worth it, based on how much they contribute to my research program, is to really mentor them. I think as an individual, mentorship has been very critical to my own career development, and working and mentoring CRCs is one way that I pay it forward. And I think because that is very much a part of our lab and our team culture, the CRCs are also willing to go above and beyond and really contribute to the work that we do. Because there is so much that as a principal investigator, you can't always be with them 10 hours in the day that they are working. But when you really get them to latch onto the heart of what you're doing and knowing that they are also going to grow professionally and explore different things about medicine, in general, has been really rewarding. In fact, I've had research coordinators who came in thinking they wanted to do Ph.D. in psychology programs, but then in interacting with patients, they have expressed interest in potentially pursuing nursing. I have a CRC now who came in thinking one thing and is going to nursing school this summer. And so I think there's really a great opportunity to expose them to the breadth of clinical experiences like in medicine. And one way to do that is to be intentional about looking for opportunities to allow them to see things beyond what they even thought they wanted to gain out of the experience because we can't pay them as much. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let me tell you that after this podcast you will be getting emails from people who want to work with you. It sounds like you're an ideal mentor and so collaborative and so generous in your mentorship. It's amazing. I was also thinking, as you were speaking about the people involved with patients and families who are struggling through very difficult times and die, some of our staff, not the ones involved in research, but the people who book appointments and get to know the patients and listen to their stories, they also need a place to grieve and they need to be notified when patients die. And most of us don't have sort of a system or a process for thinking about that, and maybe we should, taking a page from your playbook here of thinking about all of the people who interact with patients and all of the people who are themselves impacted by what happens to these people we take care of and many of whom are so generous as to participate in our research studies. So let me end with a forward-looking question and that is do you have, as a researcher, any interest in studying this? Dr. Hermioni Amonoo: Again, thank you for your really generous and nice comments about the mentorship. And I totally agree with you that there is definitely room to care for a broader range of our clinical team, not just people who have hands-on clinical duties or interactions with our patients. And I think it's even more pertinent in these times post the COVID pandemic, where a lot of individuals who work in clinical settings and again, COVID being the great revealer, it sort of uncovered how a cross-section of hospital staff are really impacted by different difficult things that happen in the hospital. So I think there is a lot of room to even look at how different staff manage loss and grief of patients. And patients dying is just one form of loss that we all have to grapple with as clinicians. But I think it's an area that a lot of people haven't even considered before, and I think there's a lot of room to study the impact of some of the things that we are doing in a research setting. I am open to that. I would need collaborators to do that, because to be able to do it well, I think it's not like an area of expertise yet. I feel like I am growing in this space myself, which was part of the impetus for reflecting in this perspective. I know the director of bereavement services has also been open to extending this to other labs in our cancer center and so I am totally open to that. And if anyone is interested in exploring this in a more rigorous and robust way, as it does deserve, I think I'm open to collaborating with others to pursue this to its fullest. Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's good for all of us. And my last question, Hermi, you've been so generous with your time, is this: if you look back or think back about your early days, your formative years as a student, or maybe if you also worked as a research assistant, did you have a mentor who took the time to listen to how these experiences were falling on your soul? Not just whether or not you showed up for work every day, but how you were thinking about this and taking stock of your own losses. Dr. Hermioni Amonoo: So yeah, I think I have had a village of mentors who have been really invested in me as a human being first beyond work-related interest, and I think that has been really instrumental. And I think my mentors have had to explore some of these topics with me because of my own personal losses and I think having family deaths over the course of my training. And so I've been really privileged to be a beneficiary of mentors who really focus on helping their mentees grow. Not just in a technical way or a career development or professional sense, but really being attuned to how much, for lack of a better word, someone being well in their soul and in their mind, really is interconnected to how well they do professionally such that you don't burn out or lose the sense of joy in the things that we are doing. So I've definitely been a first-hand beneficiary of that, and my psychiatric training probably also makes me a little bit more attuned to those things than probably in other fields of medicine. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, thank you for a wonderful conversation. Thank you for the work that you do and for sending your work to Art of Oncology, the JCO. So until next time, thank you all for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories, The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. 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. Show Notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr. Hermioni Amonoo is a Carol Nadelson MD Distinguished Chair in Psychiatry at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Listen to ASCO's JCO Global Oncology's essay, "Capturing Memories for Children with Cancer in a Low-Resource Setting" by Dr. Allison Silverstein, an Assistant Professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. This Art of Global Oncology essay is followed by an interview with Silverstein and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Silverstein shares her launch of a framed picture legacy project in Malawi for those with childhood cancer in a low-resource setting. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: Capturing Memories for Children With Cancer in a Low-Resource Setting (10.1200/GO.23.00001) I was the paparazza, capturing salient moments from our program's "Palliative Care Day" where children with cancer and their guardians played games, completed artwork, sang and danced, and enjoyed meals together. It was a precious day for these children with life limiting disease to shed the weight of their diagnoses and instead share laughter and joy with one another. As a pediatric resident on a global health year in Malawi, I was invited to document our team's activities with the intent to share with potential donors. However, with a click of the camera's button, I realized the opportunity for an unintended greater impact. I scrolled through the day's pictures and could not help but think the recipients of the pictures should not be strangers, but instead the families or even children themselves. Although families had already provided consent for each picture, they never expected to see them. Pictures capture moments in ways words cannot describe. Coming from a Western society where we celebrate and honor life in pictures, I wondered what happens when you do not have a camera or phone capable of capturing these events. What visual memories do you have when your child dies? Does it feel differently when remembering a lost child without pictures to look at? Do vivid memories fade and, in time, make it difficult to imagine your child's face? As I reflected on this, I acknowledged the overwhelming frequency of childhood cancer death in our setting—in contrast to a .80% survival rate for childhood cancer in the United States,1,2 the childhood cancer mortality rate is estimated to be as high as 90% in sub-Saharan Africa.3 Most of these children present with advanced disease, where disease directed treatment is less likely to be effective,4 and limited availability of medical and supportive care further contribute to poor outcomes. Although progressive medical infrastructure has sprouted across regions of sub-Saharan Africa to help address these disparities, widespread gaps exist in interdisciplinary services. Families of children with cancer face substantial psychosocial, emotional, and spiritual distress. Many families are fortunate to have robust community support, but we must consider how we, as a medical system, can further support families. Our role includes providing comfort to families, especially when curative medical therapy is not an option and a child's final days near. We must integrate humanities and holistic support for our families as we scale up global health programs, just as is already done in high income settings. So, when I set my camera aside, I earnestly turned to my local colleagues for their counsel. They grinned as they confirmed the potential value of my blossoming idea. I went to a nearby store where I printed the pictures and purchased basic supplies—glue, string, tape. We collected old boxes from prior hospital pharmacy deliveries and bought local vibrantly colored fabric—chitenje—from the market. From these materials, our first frame was designed. These local materials were obtained on a minimal budget. I shared the first picture and its frame with our social worker who presented the aunt of P with the picture (Fig 1); P had leukemia and had died recently from complications associated with central nervous system disease. In his picture, there he was, coloring during the event we held a few weeks prior. He wore sunglasses and shared that smirk we had all quickly fallen in love with. As she graciously accepted the frame, the corners of P's aunt's mouth turned upwards into a rarely seen smile; she bowed her head silently as we spent a moment remembering P and sharing in his memory. The next week, I had the privilege of joining our team on a bereavement visit to the home of B's father. B had recently died at home and our team visited to provide grief support and share prayers together. We sat in a circle on well-worn couches and chairs as B's father offered he did not have any physical belongings or keepsakes of his son beyond leftover medical supplies from home wound care management; any clothes or toys were passed along to other children and other families. As he shared with us, he removed a cloth covering their makeshift table to reveal a cardboard box, inside of which he retrieved these remaining medical supplies so they could be given to another family. We pulled out a framed picture of B that was taken before the program had formally started but was printed and framed just as the others. I watched as B's father's eyes welled up with tears in surprise and gratitude; he accepted the gift and stood to shake each of our hands. One by one, we started taking more pictures. My colleagues explained the idea of the project as we obtained consent from each new family. Often we were met with a bit of initial skepticism but also willingness to participate. Pictures were taken away from the crowded medical wards and instead in courtyards with benches, grass, and trees as possible. As we delivered the first batches of framed pictures to families, the skepticism was quickly replaced with enthusiasm, and families embraced the program. We could not seem to print consent forms fast enough, as caregivers changed outfits, brushed their hair, and sought us on the wards to request portraits. They claimed their pictures like prizes. Some of the children lived to see them. Others died. The picture project served as emotional support for families, most of whom had or would lose their children. In time, the program transitioned from volunteers constructing frames to caregivers themselves making the frames together; they sat in open green spaces and connected, providing an organic social support system for one another. With the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, I returned to the United States to continue my training, and my colleagues in Malawi faced new challenges of their own. Just as staffing shifted at my home institution, so too were modifications made in Malawi to optimize patient and team safety. Although our framed photograph program paused similarly to many supportive care programs across the world, months later, my colleague shared a picture with me: a group of caregivers gathered on a lawn, a pile of frames and photographs scattered on the ground, the program restarted, and the memories being created and shared once more. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Hello and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the field of oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Lidia Schapira, Associate Editor for Art of Oncology and a professor of medicine at Stanford University. Today, we are joined by Dr. Allison Silverstein, an Assistant Professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. In this episode, we will be discussing her Art of Global Oncology article, 'Capturing Memories for Children with Cancer in a Low Resource Setting'. At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. Allison, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us. Dr. Allison Silverstein: Thank you so much for having me. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Allison, your essay captures an experience that you had when you were working in Malawi as a medical resident or pediatrics resident. Tell us a little bit about that. Dr. Allison Silverstein: Thank you. I participated in a four-year pediatrics global health residency where I completed three years of my residency in Houston, Texas, and one year of my residency abroad, working clinically in Lilongwe, Malawi. During that time, I split my time working with children who have HIV, as well as working in the pediatric hematology and oncology wards, both inpatient and outpatient. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Where did your passion for global health start, and where is it now? Where is it taking you? Dr. Allison Silverstein: I think I have always had a love of traveling and experiences, learning about new cultures, meeting new people. And when I was in medical school, I participated in a one-week more voluntourism-type trip, admittedly. And I remember handing a woman who had rheumatoid arthritis, like 30 pills of a medication, and leaving that encounter and feeling just gutted that either these medicines would work and in 30 days, she wouldn't be able to get more. Or they wouldn't work, and she wouldn't be able to follow up to try and help relieve her symptoms. And I came back from that trip and was just really excited to engage more in really sustainable practices. And so I've spent about two years cumulatively living abroad in a few different countries in Africa, and that has cultivated a passion for global work in terms of capacity building and policy, done some research, and then more recently, really engaging on a clinical level. Dr. Lidia Schapira: What was it like as a medical resident and practitioner in Malawi? Dr. Allison Silverstein: Gosh, I miss that time so much. Every day I was excited to go into work, and I felt this just passion and, truthfully, a personal value that I was a part of something really meaningful. I worked with just a group of incredible humans in all sorts of different disciplines, and being able to learn together and grow together was amazing. It was admittedly also scary at times. I was a resident and had to really acknowledge my limitations and what my comfort level was, coming from a very different setting. But I think I really ultimately embraced that and grew a lot throughout that experience. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So, in your essay, you describe meeting kids and families with cancer and introducing to them some new ideas. Tell us a little bit more about that. Dr. Allison Silverstein: I had a pretty decent camera, very point-and-shoot, knows more than I do about how to take pictures. And I remember participating in what we were calling a palliative care day, where children from their community and their families, as well as some within the hospital, were able to come and just create joy altogether. There was singing, there was dancing, and someone had asked if I would take some pictures to share with potential donors for the program. And, of course, I was ecstatic to get to join and be a part of things. And as I took pictures, I looked at them, and I just had this kind of an aha moment of this blossoming idea that the recipients of these pictures should really be the children and their families. Knowing that most of the children, especially the ones who were there for that particular day, ultimately would die. I approached a few of my Malawian colleagues who were so excited about this idea, and together we put together a project that I think we're all really proud of, as it has continued for now a few years and has impacted a lot of families. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Talk a little bit about this idea of memories and having a photograph that helps families who are grieving keep that memory of their child so present. Dr. Allison Silverstein: I think in general, in Western societies, within my family and my friends, pictures are such a common way to pay respects and to remember people. When I'm feeling nostalgic, I go through old pictures. I've lost all four of my grandparents and I'll look back at pictures that we took together and it just brings up a lot of memories and a lot of joy of the time that we spent together. With social media, people will post pictures of their loved ones after they die, and I think that's such an ingrained part of how we grieve and how we process during bereavement. And the idea to me that someone might not have a camera phone or a camera and therefore might not have any pictures of their loved ones when they die. That concept, when I first thought of it, very much shook me. It rattled me to my core thinking about how meaningful and important those things are for me. And it's such a small, simple thing that we absolutely take for granted. Dr. Lidia Schapira: When we think about resources and disparities or inequities in care, we don't usually think about it at this very granular level. I'm curious to learn a little bit more about how you develop this concept and transformed an idea into really a project and then how you got the project to continue even after you left Malawi. Dr. Allison Silverstein: It's a great question. I think in global work in general, it's really important to be intentional about surveying your community about what the needs are and not projecting from your internal opinions what those needs are. And so, of course, I took this picture, and there was this light bulb moment for me, and then I asked myself to step back and say, "Hey, is this truly meaningful? Is this truly valuable? And how can we create something that is sustainable?" So I asked multiple Malawian colleagues who kind of have different roles or disciplines on the team and said, "Hey, this is what I'm thinking. What do you think? What are your ideas?" And really work collaboratively, knowing I have different perspectives and resources and experiences, and we need to really make it, not me coming in and projecting those things. And so ultimately, everyone was very excited about this idea, and so we started tinkering with a design. Luckily, there was a Kodak store right next to where I got my groceries, and so I was able to print some photos very easily. And then in Malawi, there's something called Chitenge, which is this beautiful fabric that people will wear, and it will become different articles of clothing, and you can get yards of the fabric very inexpensively at a market. And so I took some scraps that I had and went to the pharmacy and got some cardboard boxes that were left over from prior delivery. So I was really trying to think about things that would be very low cost and repeatable and ultimately designed the first frame. After we had created this first prototype, we internally, the direct members of the team, were the ones who were making them initially, and we started training volunteers in the hospital. And ultimately, the current iteration is that guardians make their own frames, so they sit on a lawn together, and it serves as this opportunity for them to connect and share and serve as kind of a psychosocial support. This project, we started it towards the end of my time in Lilongwe and with COVID in March of 2020. I was not prepared to be coming back to the US. I was supposed to remain abroad for another month. And I remember getting a call saying, "You need to leave before there aren't any more flights." I said, "No, I can't. I haven't handed off this project yet." And so I met with our team. I created step-by-step instructions on how to make the frames and how to use a camera. They thankfully had a digital camera that they had used for some clinical work previously, and so got those nuts and bolts in place, and then I left. And it was about six months before I received a WhatsApp message from the social worker in Malawi saying, "Your dream lives on." I was at the airport. I don't remember where I was flying, and I just started crying. Because this was a project that I thought was valuable, and it was a project that I had engaged with colleagues and felt like they also thought it was valuable. But I wasn't sure until that moment that I received that message how meaningful and valuable it was perceived from the team and the families who were there. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Such a beautiful story, and I'm so glad that you chose to write and share it with your colleagues and that we were able to give it some exposure in the journal. I wonder if you can share with our listeners what other projects you might be involved with, now, again, thinking globally. Dr. Allison Silverstein: I am continuing to do some work with the team in Malawi and in Houston on a global scale. I did my fellowship training at University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis and have done some global work with the team at St. Jude. And I'm now getting established in my new role at University of Colorado. And our pediatric palliative medicine team is exploring our 'what's next' in terms of being leaders within the global health world. And so a lot of little things in progress and trying to figure out what's next. Dr. Lidia Schapira: What opportunities do you see for collaboration in the area of global health, especially global palliative medicine and oncology, the global health infrastructure? Dr. Allison Silverstein: The global health infrastructure is rapidly evolving. Even since I finished medical school until now, I've seen changes in resources and in opportunities, and it's really inspiring to see. A lot of that focus is on those medical interventions, and I think there's a lot of opportunities to think creatively how we can support families beyond just kind of curative or palliative treatment, beyond the medications, beyond the surgery, and think from a very holistic level of involving multiple disciplines and supporting families along their whole journey. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I wonder if during your time in Malawi and through this project of capturing the photos, framing, and then presenting them to families, you had any personal connection with members of families and if you can share with us perhaps some of their reactions or what they said to you. Dr. Allison Silverstein: I very much tried to be a support system for this program and not the face of this program, and so I tried to take a step back and empower my colleagues to really have an active role in the execution and the vision itself. I shared a couple of meaningful encounters in my narrative. I think one of the really special stories I have actually doesn't directly involve me, but I mentioned that I stay in close touch with a social worker in Malawi. And she recently went to a home for a bereavement visit after the passing of a child. And when they entered the home, there were three frames on the wall with pictures that they had taken while the child was alive. And seeing that picture, seeing that moment that the family had recognized the value and taken the initiative to not only accept and embrace these pictures and their frames, but to hang them in their home. That was a really special moment for me. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It sounds like it's been a very moving experience, very meaningful for you. And I wonder if you can reflect a little bit on how this experience perhaps has changed the way you think about palliative medicine and pediatrics. Dr. Allison Silverstein: I think I have realized how much of our role in medicine is about the little things and recognizing that the little things to me might not be little to someone else. And so taking that moment to listen and to hear a family's needs and think creatively and problem solve, no matter what they are articulating, this is something that I really try to practice both in my role in Denver and as I think of other roles that I fill and will grow into. And this project has really helped me frame some of my work in terms of those little things, as well as really enhanced my personal practice of gratitude and appreciation for the little things in my life. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Allison, thank you so much for your words, your wisdom, and the work that you're doing. I hope you continue to be inspired and creative, and I look forward to connecting in the future. Dr. Allison Silverstein: Thank you so much for having me today and letting me share about this project and my passions. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Until next time. Thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe, so you never miss an episode. You can find all of the ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. 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. Show Notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr. Allison Silverstein is an Assistant Professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. See another article in the JCO Global Oncology, Art of Global Oncology section: Yuan Fen 緣份

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, "First Cousins Once Removed" by Dr. Matthew Farrell, a radiation oncology resident at UCLA. The essay is followed by an interview with Farrell and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Farrell paints scenes of how different family dynamics can come into play when advocating for patients. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: First Cousin Once Removed, by Matthew J. Farrell, MD, MFA (10.1200/JCO.22.02611) When I was a kid, long before I wanted to be a doctor or had even heard of oncology, I dreamed of becoming an actor. I grew up in Sacramento—not exactly the beating heart of the film industry—but my mother's mother lived in Santa Monica and we would stay with her for a month every summer. My father would unashamedly sneak me into movie premieres in famous theaters, and he bought us season passes to Universal Studios Hollywood. Despite having a serious job—as a psychologist in the emergency department—he was a kid at heart. Los Angeles was our promised land, and our shepherd was my father's cousin John, my first cousin once removed, who lived in West Hollywood and was a living, breathing actor. John wasn't famous, not yet. He was in his late 20s, just starting out, doing mostly background work and some commercials while working as a waiter at the original Cheesecake Factory in Beverly Hills. All the staff loved him there, so much so that they would give us free pieces of cheesecake just for being related to him. John was generous, outgoing, expressive, and talented. Success seemed just around the corner. One challenge for him was his voice. He had a thick Bronx accent, which would have been perfect if he had been auditioning for Raging Bull but which otherwise narrowed his prospects. He hired a voice coach to help him erase his accent. But that didn't mean he was trying to erase his New York roots. He was proud of his upbringing and family, coming from a long line of police officers, burly men with strong jaws and thick arms and outdoor voices who seemed to be the very genesis of their own stereotype. And as his Bronx accent faded, he was teaching it to me. He said he would take me to a baseball game at Yankee Stadium one day, and he imitated the beer hawkers who walked up and down the aisles, calling out to the crowd, "Get your beer here," but pronounced, "Getcha bee-ah hee-ah!" John was the first person I distinctly remember being in perfect shape. He was a sight to behold—muscular and solid, yet graceful and light on his feet. In addition to being an actor, he was training as a dancer. Coming from generational athletic ineptitude myself, I was enthralled. He taught me how to moonwalk and do bicep curls. I would walk up to my mother and flex my tiny muscles, imagining a day when I would be as strong as John. One summer, John was much thinner—his face hollowed out, his previously bulky arms as lean as my own. What I only vaguely understood at the time was that he was gay, and he now had AIDS. This was the mid-1990s, and highly active antiretroviral therapy was on the horizon but just out of reach.1,2 His treatments failing him, he became desperate for a cure. He did twice daily coffee enemas, choked down repulsive herbal concoctions, and visited New Age visionary healers. For a long time, he remained optimistic. He was in constant contact with his agent, seeking out auditions even as his strength waned. He wasn't only a waiter at The Cheesecake Factory and he wasn't dying of AIDS; he was an actor who was going to be healthy again soon. Occasionally he would call my dad, buoyant with hope, "The virus is gone. I'm cured." Of course, he wasn't. My father never tried to talk John out of pursuing alternative therapies, though he considered doing so many times. The frantic search for a reprieve from death can take us many places, and it is not to be pitied. But how do you also protect your loved ones from harmful remedies and predatory scam artists? How do you provide the best treatment when there is no good treatment? In all my years, all 10 of them, I had thought that doctors knew everything, and if you went to them, you would get better. But John wasn't getting better. Together with his doctors, we embraced helplessness. His CD4 count fell to zero. He developed skin lesions from Kaposi sarcoma. He was repeatedly hospitalized with Pneumocystis pneumonia. His organs began failing. Ultimately, he decided to leave the hospital on hospice. It was only then that he told his parents he was gay and had AIDS. At first, his parents couldn't believe he was gay. They told my father it was a phase, possibly brought on by his living in Los Angeles, a side effect of being an actor and dancer. Later, at his memorial service in New York, they would tell everyone he had died of a rare cancer. My father remembers someone asking John's mother what kind of cancer it was, and she said, "I don't know. It's very rare." During my winter break from school, my family visited John in his apartment. By that time, he had needed to quit his job at The Cheesecake Factory and stop taking auditions. His friends at the restaurant had thrown him a party and still came by his apartment most days. He lay in bed, drowsy and mildly delirious, too weak to stand. Even in this state, he kept trying to sit up to get us something to eat or drink. "I have cheesecake," he said several times. "Let me get you some cheesecake." Just a week later, on the day after Christmas, John lost consciousness. His kidneys weren't making urine, and he was uremic. My father urgently updated John's family in New York. His mother, father, and three sisters with their husbands flew in that day and crowded into John's small West Hollywood apartment. For the first time, they met John's partner, Kevin, and five of their friends, gay men who had taken turns caring for John to make sure he was comfortable and never alone. Kevin was tall, elegant, and gentle. He was as introverted as John was extroverted, and he wouldn't have been caught dead on stage in front of an audience. He ran his own successful small business and had a quiet self possession. John, though he rarely showed it, was insecure about his slow progress in the acting world, and I think Kevin helped him feel more at ease. As a medical professional and the closest relative on the West Coast, my father had served as the point person for the hospice physician. He reported the latest news: John likely had just hours to live. John's New York family, previously shielded by distance, was caught off guard. And there was an uproar. The five stages of grief multiplied to 25, occurring in no discernible order—undulations of shouting and crying and jostling that rolled through the group like The Wave through a baseball crowd. At first, they wanted to take him off hospice. They looked ready to carry him out the door to the nearest hospital. They said his decline was too sudden. It just wasn't right. There must be something he hadn't tried. For every desperate hope they volleyed, my father sensitively explained what could and could not be done, and, more importantly, he described John's wishes. They gradually realized that saving him was impossible, and not what John needed anymore. At last, everyone seemed on the same page. Everyone but John. Day by day, he held on in his unconscious state, not crossing that final threshold, as if something were holding him back. John's family became increasingly exhausted, confused, and frustrated. They couldn't eat or sleep. On day four of John's marathon survival, we called in the hospice nurse. By this time, my grandfather—John's uncle— had also arrived. The nurse gathered everyone together and explained that it was often helpful to talk to your loved one, conscious or not, to say goodbye. People who are dying may feel obligated to cling to life for their family's sake. They may need our permission, even our encouragement, to let go. And so, one by one, we all entered John's bedroom, knelt beside him, and said what we needed to say. And then, it was my grandfather's turn. By way of introduction, Grandpa Joe, my father's father, was raised in the Bronx by a stern mother and career soldier father. He was a businessman by profession and by religion. He rose in the ranks of multiple companies, eventually becoming the president of Hires Root Beer, a company that expanded during his tenure but was eventually bought by Orange Crush, which in turn crushed Hires Root Beer and made a lifelong enemy of my grandfather. (In my family, we do not drink Orange Crush.) Grandpa Joe never surrendered without a fight. Accompanied by my father and me, Grandpa Joe marched up to John's bed and bent down beside him. "You can fight this!" he said, shaking his fist. "I've had illnesses all my life and I came out on the other side. Did I let prostate cancer beat me? Hell no!" "Wait, Dad," my father said. "Wrong plan." "What?" Grandpa Joe said. "We had a whole conversation about this." "When?" "Just now, with the hospice nurse. We need to let go, allow John to pass on." "That's not what I heard." "That's becoming clear to me." My father reviewed the plan, slowly, but no matter how well you explain yourself, sometimes people hear only what they're capable of hearing. Grandpa Joe couldn't surrender. He argued and fumed, eventually stormed out. So my father said goodbye for him. That night, John died. I doubt the timing of his death was related to our collective send-off, but it sure felt like it was, and that will do. The next day, everyone assembled in John's apartment for the last time to decide what to do with his body. The family wanted to take him back to New York for a traditional burial. But there had been talk that John's Los Angeles friends were planning to have him cremated. As if about to face off, two groups formed in opposing semicircles of folding chairs—the family seated on one side, and Kevin and his friends on the other. John's father, Hank, seemed ready to fight, his whole family there to back him up. Grandpa Joe kept saying we needed to put John on a plane and get him out of there. In medical school, we learn that not all family members are created equal; when patients can't make decisions for themselves and there is no living will, you turn to the spouse first, adult children next, then parents, and so on. There is even a mnemonic (one of the clunkiest in existence) to help you remember the ranking: the Spouse ChiPS in For the patient—indicating Spouse, Child, Parent, Sibling, and Friend, in that order. Following this rule, Kevin would have come last. He and John weren't married, and gay marriage wasn't even legal then. My father, a child of the sixties, wasn't a fan of hierarchies. As a psychologist in the emergency department, he had always strived to foster a unanimous meeting of the minds and hearts. To make things a little easier on people like him, he says it is never too early to tell anyone and everyone what you want in life and in death. Then, importantly, write it down, in an advance directive, on a POLST form, and maybe even on a few napkins scattered throughout the house. Hank fired the opening salvo: he told Kevin that they were going to take John back to New York. Their community expected a traditional burial, needed it. Kevin listened quietly until Hank finished. With a softspoken grace, he looked Hank in the eyes and told him he would never do anything against the family's wishes. If they wanted a burial in New York, he would help carry the casket. But, he said, John had told him many times that he wanted to be cremated and have his ashes scattered on Maui, at a certain overlook they had visited together. There was a long silence. Hank looked around, at his wife and family, at Grandpa Joe, all of whom seemed to be waiting for him to deliver their counterpunch. But then he lowered his head. He started crying into his hands. A minute passed, and then he sat upright, sniffed, and nodded. In a clear, firm voice, he said, "That's it. That's what I want for John. I want you to take him to Maui." In perhaps the only true miracle I have ever personally witnessed, Kevin and his friends lifted from their chairs in perfect unison, crossed the small living room, and flooded the family with hugs. Everybody cried, and the many headed beast of our congregation dissolved into a sea of affection. Kevin did go to Maui to scatter John's ashes. Afterward, John's family celebrated his life with a memorial service at their church in New York. My father gave the eulogy and Kevin sat with the family. All of this was a long time ago now. John would be in his fifties. He would have mastered a Hollywood accent. His big break would have come. He would have taken me to the Oscars. I moved away from California to go to graduate school and medical school, but eventually, I found my way back to Los Angeles. I still go to iconic theaters. I finally bought season passes to Universal Studios Hollywood. And like everyone else in this town, I'm trying to write a screenplay. But I'm not an actor. I'm not remotely famous. I'm a radiation oncology resident. I've learned a few things since the 1990s, and so has the rest of the world. It still devastates me that John just missed the major advances in care. I think about him regularly during my training. In oncology, life-prolonging breakthroughs are frequent, which inevitably means that some people will be among the last to miss out. Some people, and their families, will look to me for hope when there is none. In their entreaties, I see shades of my own loved ones—my father's diplomacy, Grandpa Joe's doggedness, Kevin's advocacy, Hank's compromise. Most of all, I see glimmers— brief resurrections—of John, whose disease stripped away so much, but left in clear relief his kindness and humanity. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Hello, and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the field of oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Lydia Schapira, Associate Editor for Art of Oncology and a professor of medicine at Stanford University. Today we're joined by Dr. Matthew Farrell, a radiation oncology resident at UCLA. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology article 'First Cousin Once Removed'. At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. Matt, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us. Dr. Matthew Farrell: Thank you so much for having me. Great to be here. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It's our pleasure. I'd like to start this conversation just asking a little bit about your reading preferences. Are there any books that are on your figurative night table right now that you'd like to recommend to our listeners? Dr. Matthew Farrell: Yeah, a lot of times that night table is very figurative in that I am listening to audiobooks. Living in LA, I spend a lot of time in the car, so I listen to a lot of books. But I do like to physically read certain books, and one of those recently was George Saunders' new collection of short stories, Liberation Day. He is a wonderfully creative, funny, warm-hearted writer of short stories, which is one of my favorite forms. It's what I've written the most and what I studied the most back when I was in school, taking classes, undergraduate and graduate in creative writing. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Tell us a little bit about your passion for writing and how you have integrated that into your professional life now as a medical oncologist? Dr. Matthew Farrell: Yeah, I studied writing and was interested in writing before I transitioned to medicine. So, I minored in creative writing in college, and then I went to graduate school to get a Master of Fine Arts in creative writing and fiction writing. And it was partially that process that eventually led me into medicine. I realized that a lot of what I was writing about actually had to do with medicine. And as I was rereading some of my own work, I was drawn to stories of illness and family and recovery and processing grief, and I decided that those stories were really compelling to me and decided to transition to medicine. It was also helpful that my wife - girlfriend at the time - was applying to med school, so I had that idea in my head, and she was inspiring to me. So, I transitioned to medicine.I love to keep writing. I still love writing, and a lot of what drew me into oncology specifically is the brilliant, captivating, moving stories of interacting with people. And so it's one of my outlets and things I do for fun, as well as a way of helping me process what I see. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Before we talk about this story, let's talk a little bit about your ideas of the language that we use, because I know you've written about that as well. So, as a writer and as a person who loves to reflect and find story, tell us a little bit about how you negotiate the words you use and the language you hear your colleagues and your peers using with patients. Dr. Matthew Farrell: Coming from a writing background, where in workshop, we would go through our own stories, my writing professors would go through each word with a fine-toothed comb and sometimes in very elaborately, critical ways would say that this is a terrible word, this destroys the whole sentence, the whole story. And it just had me paying attention to the written language as well as the spoken language. And one of my creative writing mentors, my thesis advisor Ahud, he had leukemia and eventually died of leukemia, and he talked a lot about the experience of having cancer and the way that cancer is often talked about in this kind of heroic way in which the treatments are weapons and cancer is waged on a battlefield and people with cancer are heroes of that and how that can be very empowering in certain circumstances and also very draining in others. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Those are such fine points, and it's obvious that you're very careful about the language that you use in your writing. So, let's talk a little bit about this piece that we've just published in JCO that is a little different than most of the pieces because it describes scenes. Tell us about how you put these scenes together, what it meant to you, and what the overarching message is for your readers. Dr. Matthew Farrell: Yeah, I think I'm used to writing scenes. I'm used to writing both fiction and nonfiction stories like this, and when I was approaching this, I just wanted to try to capture the experiences as I had understood them. And I also talked a lot with my family about them to try to remember what it was like and how our thoughts have changed on it over time. And so I tried to capture who John was and my memories of him as best as I could. I think that the best way to get across people's personalities, their vibrancy, is by writing scenes about them, because I can never describe someone as well as they can illustrate themselves through their own actions and dialogue. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So John was this figure that you had admired as a child and was so interesting, and then you bring us to a very debilitated John and some scenes in his apartment. Tell us a little bit about the time, the context, and the illness. Dr. Matthew Farrell: Sure. This was the mid-1990s, and there were a lot of changes going on in the care of HIV and AIDS, a lot of rapid changes in our understanding of the illness as well as the treatments available for it. And it was really hard and devastating that John was able to see a lot of promising treatments on the horizon, but they weren't readily available to him when he needed them. And so it's tragic to think about, if all of this had happened just a year later with the rollout of HAART, or Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy, his story might have been completely different, and he could easily still be here today, but he just missed it. And so that was very hard to see him go from being just about as vibrant and healthy and active a person as can be imagined, someone who I just envied and admired in terms of his physical ability; for him, if he could go from where he was to where he ended up, it was just completely devastating. Dr. Lidia Schapira: And then there was the stigma of the disease and the scene that you so beautifully share in your piece about different family members coming in to talk with him and say their goodbyes. And I think it was your grandfather who just couldn't let go of the 'you must fight, you're going to get well' narrative. And I think your father, who is a psychologist, was sort of saying, "Hey, wait, we're having the wrong conversation here. This isn't what we agreed to." Can you tell us a little bit about what that felt like to you, observing it, perhaps your younger self and how you've thought about that now as a professional who's probably having these difficult conversations with patients? Dr. Lidia Schapira: This was my first experience with these sorts of conversations, and I think about them a lot now, is I do have these talks with people, and I just can picture my Grandpa Joe charging in there and saying, "You can fight this," completely out of tune with what the goal was. And he and my father are similar in some ways, but very different in others. My father is very relaxed, easy-going. He could come to a cordial agreement with a grizzly bear, and my grandfather was that grizzly bear in some respects, and he was stubborn and not always the best listener. But what was striking about it to me is that I know that my grandfather's actions in that moment, even though they weren't in line with what we were trying to do or what my father and the hospice folks were trying to have us do, they still came out of love and out of devotion to John. Grandpa Joe, how he expressed his love for his family was through fighting for them, and so he was doing that for John in the only way that he knew. And so when I am involved in conversations toward the end of life with goals of care now and I see situations in which people don't always reach the same page or come to the same understanding, I'm reminded of the fact that that can be surprising and frustrating, but it's okay because people process grief in their own ways and express love in their own ways. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I can just imagine you're thinking about that when you're in a room and you're sort of casting people, "Oh, this is a Grandpa Joe. He means well, he loves a lot, but we just need to help him to understand what's happening." And there's another character in your story that I want you to talk a little bit about, and that's Kevin, the loving partner and caregiver, who's first sort of marginalized by the large group descending upon them and claiming John. And then there's a scene where there's peace between all factions. Tell us a little bit about how that felt to you, witnessing it as a child and how you thought about it in the years that came later. Dr. Matthew Farrell: Yeah, I was still very young at the time, but these scenes completely seared themselves into my memory. And the piece that ended up coming out of this scene was due to Kevin and Kevin alone and his love for John, which he communicated so well, as well as the knowledge he had of John's wishes that other people didn't have. That is what allowed people to come together and to begin healing. And it has reminded me that it is never too early to share your wishes with people you love who can then be advocates for you when you can no longer advocate for yourself. I tend to think about it this way: when you communicate your wishes to other people, you are allowing yourself to get the type of care you want and not get the type of care that you don't want. But you're also giving a gift to your loved ones because by Kevin communicating what John wanted to our family, to John's father, it gave everyone the confidence that they knew that they were giving John what he wanted. And that provided a lot of comfort. So if you share that with someone and then they have certainty that they're helping you achieve what you would want. And that's the gift that Kevin gave to our family that none of us will ever forget. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I think the use of the word 'gift' is wonderful, totally appreciated. And I understand you're very deliberate with your choice of words, so I appreciate that. I think that we don't quite know how to value sometimes some of the gifts that our patients give us in the exam room, at the bedside, in terms of how they help us, help them by being clear, by expressing their gratitude often. And you bring that out so beautifully. So as a gifted and trained writer who's now embarking on a career in radiation oncology, how are you going to continue to combine these talents? Are you writing a play or what are your plans? Dr. Matthew Farrell: I still just write a lot in whatever comes to me. And I do write a lot about medicine and also a lot not about medicine. And it's fun for me. I did study writing formally, but I still have tons to learn all the time and I'm still learning from other people. And I try to be as open as I can to feedback in my own writing. I am, among other things, trying to write a screenplay, like many people in LA. I also worked briefly in the film industry for a summer at a film management company, and there was this joke about how everyone in LA is writing a screenplay, but almost no one has written a screenplay. And so I'm unfortunately still in the former category, but working on it. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Is there something you've learned working in the film industry that you want to share with your colleagues working in oncology that could help us be better doctors? Dr. Matthew Farrell: One is just, I think, movies, shows, writing, a lot of it is focused on people and humanity and the human condition. And I find those stories very moving. And those sorts of stories are also very present and central in medicine. I think that obviously, by getting to know people, you can help them achieve what they want. I know that, again, this whole story was my first encounter with the limitations of medicine and when there aren't very many treatment options available to help people therapeutically. But still, there were many good outcomes for us to work toward in this situation, and in oncology, too. Whether that's helping to provide understanding, helping people come together, helping provide comfort. I know hospice and palliative care was incredibly helpful to John, and that's one of the things that I like about radiation oncology, among many other things, is its role in palliative care, and palliation in terms of reducing pain, reducing bleeding, reducing suffering, enabling functional gain and quality of life. And yeah, I think that the stories that I encountered in movies, which I got a great appreciation for, among other things from John, and the stories that I read about in my study and writing, I still am learning and experiencing those stories in medicine. And it's been each kind of phase that I was in have been incredibly moving to me and have helped me grow as a person. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So before we end, I have to ask you this question. Do you have a favorite illness memoir or story that has been published or has been used to inform a play? Dr. Matthew Farrell: One of the writers that I've studied the most who wrote about medicine as well as illness was Anton Chekhov. I took a whole course on him when I was in graduate school and he was a physician, one of the great physician writers of all time. And he wrote about, in contrast to what a lot of other writers were writing about at the time, he wrote about doctors, people, peasants, everyday humanity in really moving ways. And he just has so many stories about illness and pain and loss that are all worth reading. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, thank you. It's been a lovely conversation. We enjoyed reading your story and learning about the family. Thank you for sharing that with us. Until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of the ASCO's Shows at asco.org/podcasts. 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. Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr. Matthew Farrell is a radiation oncology resident at UCLA.

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, "I Want to Kill You" by Dr. Noelle LoConte, Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. The essay is followed by an interview with LoConte and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. LoConte shares her experience of a patient's threat to kill her and her reflections on how health care can be improved. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: I Want to Kill You, by Noelle K. LoConte, MD (10.1200/JCO.22.02896) My patient threatened to kill me. I was in the middle of a busy medical oncology clinic. I was seeing her to discuss test results 1 week after I told her I was concerned that her cancer had returned. As I suspected, the test confirmed recurrent cancer, and this time, it was incurable. I walked into the room to share this news with a woman who I had been seeing for about 3 years. I had been her oncologist since she was first diagnosed with stage III cancer and saw her through surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. I had met her children, knew the names of her pets, and had discussed my children and pets with her. We were on very friendly terms, and I enjoyed seeing her name on my clinic schedule, certain that beyond discussion of her cancer and test results, we would also get into some interesting conversations about life, the weather, or college sports. Truly, it was a delight to be her oncologist. She had no known mental illness, no brain metastases, and had never been angry or violent with me. I used the SPIKES protocol to review why we were there and deliver the test results.1 I had done this many times before, and there was nothing that stood out to me in the moment about her or this clinical situation to make me think that I was in danger—a fact that made what happened next even more shocking. When I paused to see what questions or thoughts she had, she said, "I want to kill you. I want to blow your face off. You should never have become a doctor." I intellectually understood that she was upset about the news of her cancer recurrence and had understandable anger at the dramatic impact this turn of events would have on her future. I understood that, in her mind, someone had to be blamed, and, mostly out of convenience, it was going to be me. I have since wondered if her lack of close friends and family may have amplified her reaction, in that she had few outlets available to her to discuss her fears and concerns. I have wondered if she felt let down by me after our years of cordial and friendly visits. It was a real-life example of kill the messenger. She continued telling me that she could find my home address. At that moment, I scanned the room and recognized that I could be in real danger. I stood in the corner of the room. To get out, I would have to walk around the desk and between her and the examination table. I also realized that because it was a holiday, there were very few people around who might hear me yell for help. We did not have a panic button or hospital security on speed dial, and it would have taken them many minutes to get to me if I had used the phone in the examination room to call security. I looked down and saw that she had two large bags with her. Patients often bring bags such as these to their chemotherapy appointments, bags filled with things to pass the time such as iPads, books, knitting, board games, blankets, snacks, and water bottles. Suddenly, I realized that she was not scheduled to get chemotherapy that day, so why did she have these bags? I was sure I was about to be killed. I was certain she had a gun in those bags. I said anything I could think of to de-escalate the situation and get out of the room. I promised her a new oncologist, told her I would become a better doctor, and suggested that maybe the biopsy results were wrong (although I knew they were not). As she continued her tirade, I carefully walked past her to get out of the room, and although she never moved toward me, she continued to yell about what a terrible person I am. Once I was back in the workroom, a nurse escorted the patient out of the clinic. We called hospital security and were told they felt their services were not needed as the patient had left the clinic. Despite this horrific encounter, I managed to make it through the rest of the clinic day in a daze. After the clinic was finished, I emailed my supervisor since it was a holiday and other employees were not in the hospital for me to call. In this email, I conveyed my fear and concern about this encounter while making it clear that I was still worried about my safety and the ability of the patient to continue to harm me. The response I received was generic: We will look into it. The very next day while I was at home, I received an alert that there was an active shooter in the area and realized with dread that it was on my block. It was not my patient, but her words about finding my home address haunted me. I hid on the floor after closing the blinds and locking all the windows and doors. My children were with me. For days, I did not sleep more than 1 or 2 hours. I was on constant high alert. Three days later, I was seeing a different patient in the clinic and had what I now realize was a panic attack. I was barely able to complete the visit. The patient was kind and understanding, but I felt inadequate and knew that my patients deserved better. Importantly, I also knew that I deserved better. I reached out again to my immediate leadership team and said plainly that I was struggling and needed help. I was offered statements of support but no concrete actions. While crying in my office, I searched our hospital's website for possible sources of help. I was lucky enough to come across our Employee Assistance Program and eventually got connected to a therapist. I will never forget the kindness and help she provided. She (correctly) told me that I had suffered an intense trauma and walked me through the next steps, which included meditation, hydration and nutrition, and intense aerobic exercise. She explained that the aerobic exercise (telling me to run as hard as you can with a goal for high heart rate and lots of sweating) can help the brain to heal from trauma and will prevent or diminish the development of posttraumatic stress disorder. I resisted my urge to search on PubMed to ascertain if these were evidence-based solutions and decided to try whatever she suggested. She also helped me accept a 2-week leave from work and find a therapist who specialized in trauma for health care workers. I continued to see a trauma therapist for a year until I felt I had adequately recovered. Eventually, as is true with most traumas, time itself was the best healer. A few weeks later, when hospital leadership learned of my experience, things started to happen. Security did a walkthrough of the clinic space. Patient relations notified the patient that this type of behavior would not be tolerated. There was a backup plan put into place in the event the patient needed care when I was the only oncologist available (eg, on the in-patient unit). It was not all forward progress, however. I was told no changes needed to be made to the clinic and that we could not keep examination room doors open because of privacy concerns. The provider desk would continue to be in the corner of the room, and the patient would continue to sit between the provider and the door. This was understandable given the cost to reconfigure rooms and the unfortunate reality with firearms that even being close to a door may not matter. I asked for panic buttons to be installed—I knew these existed in other clinics—but was told this could not happen. When I asked to be scheduled in rooms where my desk could be next to the door, I was offered a single conference room with no examination table and no medical supplies. I usually work out of three rooms on clinic days, so this would not work. I figured this was as good as it would get and elected to move on and suck it up. Fast forward to 2 weeks ago, when I learned that as much as I hoped these traumatic patient interactions would leave health care workers, they never truly do. I was the oncologist for the in-patient unit at our hospital, which is a liminal space of end-stage disease, anxious patients and families, and difficult decisions. The stakes and severity of the patients' situations are high. One patient and her family were furious at their medical situation of rapidly progressive cancer, as well as the hospital parking and layout, the plan of care, and even the cafeteria options. I was the recipient of all their frustration. As the patient and her family yelled at me for being inept and stupid and not serving their needs, I had the distinct sensation that my spirit was floating away from my body. I was rising toward the ceiling, watching it all play out in front of me, seeing myself from a bird's eye view. I thought, "Wow, I am dissociating." It was a surprisingly effective tool to Protect me at that moment and one that I now recognize as a normal response to trauma. Once the patient and family got all their anger out and told me to leave the room, I became unsteady and had to hold the banister to stay grounded. To drive home how vulnerable we all are in facing these kinds of threats, I reflected on the job of an oncologist. I give bad news on a regular basis, I control opiate prescriptions, and many of my patients feel their pain is not well controlled, a phenomenon seen across many oncology patients.2 If we think physicians are only murdered in the emergency room or on the psychiatry unit, we are fooling ourselves. Recent changes to concealed carry laws and increasing levels of medical mistrust and anger directed at health care workers in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic likely will increase all providers' risk of gun violence. With reflection, I now understand that my experience then was made worse by the lack of informed response by leadership to mitigate my trauma and the lack of efforts to improve safety. We deserve leaders and hospital staff who know immediately what to do when a physician is threatened, including reassigning the patient to a new provider immediately, having hospital administration or patient care services review with the patient the zero tolerance policy to provider threats, and allowing a prompt leave from work to address the trauma response, which is best done immediately after the event not months later or only on request. We deserve urgent access to therapists and peer support who understand how to process and overcome trauma. Institutions should track threats to providers in real time and make rapid changes to improve safety. As individuals facing a traumatic patient encounter, we cannot afford to wait for the system to catch up to our needs. We can seek our own counseling and professional support while also providing critical support for our peers.3-5 I thought I was the weak one for not being able (even still) to let this death threat be in the past. I realize now that I am brave and strong for asking for help. We deserve safe environments and clinical practices to allow us to do the difficult work of being an oncologist without worrying about our personal safety. Together we can create clinics, hospitals, and teams that prioritize provider safety and proactively work to mitigate the trauma of patients and families who threaten their physicians and providers. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Hello and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the field of oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Lidia Schapira, associate Editor for Art of Oncology and a professor of medicine at Stanford University. Today we are joined by Dr. Noelle LoConte, associate professor of Medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. In this episode, we will be discussing her Art of Oncology article 'I Want to Kill You'. Our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Noelle, welcome to our podcast. Thank you for joining us. Dr. Noelle LoConte: You're welcome. Thanks for having me. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It's our pleasure. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I like to start the conversation by asking authors what it is that they're reading or what book they would recommend to a friend. Dr. Noelle LoConte: Oh, that's a good one. I'm reading a book called Hell of a Book right now. Highly, highly recommend it. It's phenomenal. And a book that I would recommend that I recently read - well, Pachinko is a book that I read last year, but I just can't stop thinking about it. So I think that would be my recommendation. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So good fiction is a wonderful way of releasing stress after a hard day at work. Dr. Noelle LoConte: Truly. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Can you talk a little bit about what made you write this particular piece? Are you somebody who likes to write to process experiences, or was this a particular message that you needed to convey? Dr. Noelle LoConte: Yeah, I used to journal quite regularly, but gave that up when I started residency and haven't really picked it back up. But this story kind of wrote itself for me. I felt compelled. I could not stop thinking about it, and eventually, I had to do it. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Reading it is very impactful. And you start with this amazing line, "My patient threatened to kill me." So you're telling us immediately what happened. And the story is quite awful, and I don't know if I should ask you to tell us a little bit about it, but just for the sake of bringing the listeners into the story, can you very quickly recap what happened and how that made you feel? Dr. Noelle LoConte: Yeah, the quick version is I had a long-standing patient in Oncology who I had an established relationship with, who had no red flags for me, who was getting the news of a recurrence, and in response to that news, gave me what I thought was a credible threat to kill me. And the story is about sort of what happened after that, the ripple effect even years later, and how the response of my boss, my health system, my colleagues maybe amplified or made it worse. And then what really compelled me to write this story was when there was a physician that was murdered by a patient, I think not an oncologist, but I just felt the circle sort of tightening in that eventually we're all going to have to think about this. And so that's really what pushed me to write it. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yes, and we're grateful for you bringing it to our attention. Let's just start by reflecting on this relationship you had with a patient. You opened the essay by saying that you seemed to trust each other, that you were delighted to see her name on the schedule, that she knew about you, that you had shared freely about your life. And then this threat comes out of nowhere. You didn't anticipate it, and it also comes at a time when there were very few people around because it's a holiday. So tell us a little bit about how you felt in that moment. You basically wanted to make a quick exit from the room, and that comes across, but can you tell us a little bit about what the feelings were that you experienced at the time? Dr. Noelle LoConte: Immediately, I felt terrified because whether she intended to or not, I believed her that she had a firearm and was going to kill me. The story goes into why I felt that way, but suffice to say; I couldn't sort of intellectualize my way out of this one. I really, deep in my heart, felt panicked. I think after the fact after I got out of the room and got through that day of clinic, I felt ashamed. I think that was probably the emotion I felt, that I fell for it, so to speak, that I didn't just trust that everything was going to be fine. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Can we talk a little bit more about that shame? I think that is such an important feeling that many physicians share an experience at some point and often doesn't get talked about. How long did it take you to understand that it was perhaps some shame that you were also feeling and perhaps that that was also isolating and compounding the trauma? Dr. Noelle LoConte: I would say I felt ashamed because I got back to the workroom, and I had to ask for help. I'm of a generation of physician before work hour restrictions and caps and so forth, where I worked many a day, totally sick. I don't think I had ever called in sick to that point. I'm not saying that to say that's the right approach. I, in fact, do not think that's the right approach, but that's the type of physician that I am and how I grew up. I'm also from the upper Midwest, where work ethic really is like the most important personal characteristic, so I take my work pretty seriously. So I felt I had let myself down, I'd let my team down, I had let my patients down, that if I had been a "better physician," that this wouldn't have gotten to me the way it did. So I would say I felt shame almost immediately. It's been the letting go of the shame that has taken a lot longer. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Talk to us a little bit about the process of letting go of the shame. You mentioned very specifically some activities that helped, finding a therapist that helped, taking time away from work that helped. But walk us through that process. Dr. Noelle LoConte: Yeah, and I think part of the story, too, is that I kind of bumbled into this, and it would have been better for people above me or supporting me to be like, "You need to do X-Y-Z." And ultimately, it was when I landed with Primary Care that they were like, "Oh yeah, we get threatened all the time. Here's how we do it." But yeah, what I did was I used employee assistance program, and then they connected me with a trained therapist who worked with providers that have been threatened - so unfortunately, a growing population for her - and I just in that moment decided to set aside my need to kind of be evidence-based and intellectualize my way out of everything, and I said I am just going to trust that whatever they tell me is sound, and no matter how 'woo' it sounds to me, I'm just going to do it. Because, at the time, I wasn't sleeping at all. At this point, it had been days, I think since I had slept. And she talked about hydration, nutrition, exercising to really get your heart pumping, get really sweaty, having a safety plan, not being alone. And so I just really just said, 'I'm just going to do it.'. And then, ultimately, it's really time away from the incident. I mean, it still has not left me, but it is much better. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Can you share with us a little bit how this impacted your life away from work, at home, how it impacted your relationship with your kids, with your peers, and with people you interact with outside of medicine? Dr. Noelle LoConte: Yeah, I mean, the most immediate thing was that, unfortunately, there was an active shooter alert that happened shortly after my incident. And I was at home with my kids, and in the moment, I thought I was going to die, and I thought my kids were going to be left without a mother. So, my kids, I wanted to keep them safe from harm, and so I had real moments of thinking like, I should leave my job. It's not worth it. As far as my husband, he's also a physician, and so he implicitly understood. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I'm glad you had the support that you needed. But you talk a little bit about the lasting trauma, and in the article, you mentioned that what led you to write about this was that there was a trigger that occurred. Can you share a little bit about that? And not only what the triggering incident was, but how do you continue to deal with sort of this ripple effect of what happened now several years ago? Dr. Noelle LoConte: Yeah, the triggering event for me was I was up on our inpatient unit. So I'm an academic oncologist, we have an inpatient oncology unit. At the time, it was staffed by medical oncologists, we do a week at a time. Now it's shared with the hospitalist, which is wonderful. Actually, it's a great model. But I was the medical oncologist up there, and so you get whatever comes in the door for that week, and there was a patient who was angry and frustrated and had a very bad cancer and the recipe for possible aggressive behavior. And so we were rounding, and I was in the room, and she started yelling at me, and her mother started yelling at me about parking and the food in the cafeteria and when her CAT scan was going to happen - things I have zero control over. But I'm used to– I think all oncologists are used to kind of being the receptacle for people's feelings about an out-of-control situation. At least they can control their conversations with us. So in the moment, I was like, "Okay, she's not really mad at me, she's mad at the situation, and I'm just going to let her get this out." But what happened was it brought me right back to that room with my patient, and I dissociated for the first, and I think maybe the only time in my life where I physically could feel myself, like, leaving my body. It was very unsettling for me in the moment, and I had to kind of back up against the wall and ground myself. I realize now what I was doing. But yeah, so that happened. And then that same day, I think, was the day that the orthopedic surgeon got killed. And so I was just like, 'What is going on?' There's so much gun stuff right now that it's just impossible to be like, "Well, I'm never going to think about this again," because it's in your face all the time. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I'm so sorry this happened to you. And again, on behalf of all of our readers, we're grateful that you took the time to share the experience with us. So thinking a little bit about how we can respond to colleagues and how we can perhaps prevent some of these consequences of violent threats or acts of violence, what have you learned, Noelle? How should organizations respond? What do we need? What can we expect? Dr. Noelle LoConte: Yeah, I think if you're in a leadership position over a clinic, over a group of providers, including physicians, NPs, APPs of any variety, learners, medical students, residents, fellows, you need to know at a moment's notice what to do if that person is traumatized. And I would include threats of violence in that trauma. Ultimately, it was sort of a game of hot potato with me, and nobody really knew, and they were looking into it, and it's really time sensitive. So I would say if you're a leader, know what to do and know it immediately. I think the other thing is, if you're a male, know that this happens to your female colleagues and non-binary colleagues much more. One of the strategies is to transfer the patient to a male provider. I think hospital security could have been more responsive to my concerns. So in my workspace, and it continues to this day, the provider's in the corner of the room, so you have to walk past. I think we could take some cues from psychiatry and emergency medicine, having things like panic buttons, easy exit for providers, security walk-throughs. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It saddens me to think that we need to think about it and plan for it in a way because we talk so much and train so much for establishing trusting relationships with our patients, and what you're saying is, basically, we can't take anything for granted, even in the context of what appears to be a functioning longitudinal relationship. And that's a scary thought. How do you go to clinic every day and think that this might happen again when you walk into a room? Dr. Noelle LoConte: I mean, I'd be lying if I didn't say I sort of compartmentalize it, right? I am much more cautious about what I share with my patients about my family. I always kind of take a scan of the room when I'm entering right now and kind of know my surroundings a little bit better, I would say. And I don't assume, I think before this, I had assumed if they have brain mets, if they have a history of a psychotic mental illness, something like that, that I would be more concerned. I'm sort of always aware that this could happen. I think advocating for things like metal detectors, hospital security are all good things too, and I have much less tolerance for being the punching bag, I would say right now. So when people get angry, I just say, 'I'm leaving the room. When you've calmed down, I'm happy to come back. Here's how to get a hold of me.' And that's all just self-preservation. That's not because I think patients are bad for being angry. I would probably be angry too, but I need to have clear boundaries about what I can and cannot do. Dr. Lidia Schapira: How do you think this experience has changed you? And do you think that your colleagues and your patients appreciate the change? Dr. Noelle LoConte: I think it's made me less open. It's definitely made me not want to have super close relationships with patients anymore. Less trusting. I mean, I know that my colleagues happily covered my clinic, but I know there are also hospitals where that wouldn't happen. I'm eternally grateful to those few weeks where they let me take a breather because that's when I realized I really love patient care, and I missed it. I don't know if everybody loves the new me, but I don't know that we had a choice. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Do you think this is, in part, a gendered conversation? You mentioned that it's more likely to happen to women. Can you expand a little bit on that for listeners? Dr. Noelle LoConte: Well, when you go to the literature, which of course, being an academic oncologist, was my first response, this happens all the time in emergency medicine and psychiatry. Much more common against women, I'll say providers, but physicians in particular. So yes, it is absolutely a gendered conversation. I think the expectation when we walk in the room is a different expectation about how relational we're going to be, how caring and compassionate. It's not just enough to be competent and intelligent. You also have to be motherly and loving and all this. So, yes, I absolutely think it's a gender conversation for sure. For sure. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Are there any texts or papers that have been particularly helpful to you or stood out to you that you would recommend to others? Dr. Noelle LoConte: There was a series, I believe, in emergency medicine literature. I can circle back to you guys and get you the exact reference, but I found their strategies for dealing with aggressive patients very helpful. And I actually found talking to my nursing friends and colleagues was really helpful because they are really experts in de-escalation. So I really rely on them to kind of get language that makes sense coming out of my mouth like that whole, "I'm going to come back when you stop being angry." So I would say more than any individual article, it was talking to nurses. Dr. Lidia Schapira: I imagine a simulation exercise could be helpful as well for all of us, right? Especially those of us who may be more at risk or have the sort of open, sincere approach to patient care as if we can trust everybody, and perhaps we can. We're very glad that you shared what you were able to share. Dr. Noelle LoConte: Thank you. Dr. Lidia Schapira: That you brought attention to this very important topic to our community, and I'm sure you've already had responses from colleagues. We've certainly heard from a lot of people who really appreciate your honesty and bringing this story forward and have unfortunately heard similar stories from colleagues. Dr. Noelle LoConte: Yeah, I think it's pretty common. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So good luck, read well, play a lot, exercise your brains out until your heart rate is in the stratosphere. And thank you. Thank you for sending it. Thank you for sharing it. I know it's been very difficult. Dr. Noelle LoConte: You're very welcome. Thank you for reading it. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Until next time. Thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe, so you never miss an episode. You can find all of the ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. 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. Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr. Noelle LoConte is an associate professor of Medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Additional Reading: 1. Richardson SK, Ardagh MW, Morrison R, Grainger PC. Management of the aggressive emergency department patient: non-pharmacological perspectives and evidence base. Open Access Emerg Med. 2019 Nov 12;11:271-290. doi: 10.2147/OAEM.S192884. PMID: 31814780; PMCID: PMC6861170. 2. Incivility in Health Care: Strategies for De-escalating Troubling Encounters