Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology – Détails, épisodes et analyse

Listen to ASCO’s Journal of Clinical Oncology Art of Oncology article, "Just Humor Me” by Dr. Stacey Hubay, who is a Medical Oncologist at the Grand River Regional Cancer Center. The essay is followed by an interview with Hubay and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Dr Hubay share how even though cancer isn't funny, a cancer clinic can sometimes be a surprisingly funny place.

TRANSCRIPT

Narrator: Just Humor Me, by Stacey A. Hubay, MD, MHSc  

Most of the people who read this journal will know the feeling. You are lurking at the back of a school function or perhaps you are making small talk with your dental hygienist when the dreaded question comes up—“So what kind of work do you do?” I usually give a vague answer along the lines of “I work at the hospital” to avoid the more specific response, which is that I am an oncologist. I have found this information to be a surefire conversational grenade, which typically elicits some sort of variation on “wow, that must be so depressing” although one time I did get the response “Great! I’m a lawyer and a hypochondriac, mind if I ask you some questions?” After I recently dodged the question yet again, I found myself wondering why I am so reticent about telling people what I do. While discussing work with strangers in our hard earned free time is something many people wish to avoid, I think for me a significant motive for this urge to hide is that I do not actually find the cancer clinic to be an overwhelmingly depressing place. Admitting this to others who are not engaged in this work can lead to at the very least bafflement and at worst offense to those who believe that laughing while looking after cancer patients is a sign of callousness. I am an oncologist who laughs in my clinic every day.

Of course, the oncology clinic is sometimes a bleak place to work. Cancer has earned its reputation as a fearsome foe, and the patients I see in my clinic are often paying a heavy toll, both physically and emotionally. Many are grappling with their own mortality, and even those with potentially curable cancers face months of challenging treatment and the torture of uncertainty. Yet somehow, perhaps inevitably, the cancer clinic is not just a place of sadness and tears but also a place of hope and laughter.

Although most of us recognize humor and use it to varying degrees, few of us consider it as an academic subject. A few lucky souls in academia have taken on the task of developing theories of humor, which attempt to explain what humor is, what purpose it has, and what social function it serves. Although there are almost as many theories of humor as there are aspiring comedians, most explanations fall into one of three categories: relief theory, superiority theory, and incongruous juxtaposition theory.1 Relief theory holds that people laugh to relieve psychological tension caused by fear or nervousness. I suspect this is the most common type of humor seen in a cancer clinic given the weight of fear and nervousness in such a fraught environment. The second category, people being what we are, asserts that sometimes we laugh out of a feeling of superiority to others. It goes without saying that this sort of humor has no place in the clinician patient interaction. Finally, we laugh at absurdity, or as Kant put it, at “the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing.”2 This last category is also surprisingly fruitful in the oncology setting.

Laughter in the cancer clinic is still to some extent considered taboo. Near the start of my oncology training, I remember laughing until my stomach hurt with my attending staff in the clinic workspace between seeing patients. What we were laughing about escapes me now, but what I do clearly recall is an administrator in a buttoned-up suit striding over to us in high dudgeon. “Don’t you people realize this is a cancer clinic?” she admonished us. “This is not a place for laughter!,” she added before striding off, no doubt to a management meeting or some other place where the policy on laughter is more liberal. At this point, my attending and I looked at each other for a beat and then burst into helpless gales of laughter. We do not tend to think all that much about why we are laughing at something, but looking back now, I think at least part of the reason was the absurdity of a person so unfamiliar with the culture of the cancer clinic presuming that physicians and nurses somehow park their sense of humor when they arrive at work and turn into a herd of gloomy Eeyores. 

We oncologists are starting to come clean about the fact that we laugh in the clinic and there is now a modest amount of work in the medical literature addressing the use of humor in oncology. One survey of patients undergoing radiotherapy in Ottawa found that a stunning 86% of patients felt that laughter was somewhat or very important to their care, whereas 79% felt that humor decreased their level of anxiety about their diagnosis.3 If we had a drug that decreased anxiety levels in 79% of patients, had minimal to no side effects when used correctly, and cost the health care system zero dollars, should not we be using it? 

Sometimes, it is the patient or their family member who introduces an element of humor into an interaction as on one occasion when my patient was filling out a pain survey which included a diagram of the body on which he was asked to circle any areas where he was having pain. As his wife ran through a detailed list of his bowel habits over the past few days, the patient circled the gluteal area on the diagram he was holding, pointed to his wife and said “I’ve been suffering from a pain in my ass doctor.” His wife looked at him pointedly for a moment before the two of them started laughing and I joined in. 

Sometimes, a patient’s use of humor serves to level the playing field. Patients with Cancer are vulnerable, and the physician is an authority figure, meting out judgments from on high. My patient from a few years ago was having none of that. I met him when he was referred to me with widely metastatic lung cancer, a diagnosis typically associated with a dismal prognosis. The patient, however, was not buying into any of the usual gloom and doom that is customary for these interactions. As his daughter translated the information I was providing, he tilted his chin down, fixed his gaze on me, and proceeded to smile at me in a disarmingly friendly way while simultaneously waggling his generous eyebrows up and down throughout the interview. Over the course of 45 min, I became increasingly disconcerted by his behavior until eventually, I was unable to finish a sentence without sputtering with laughter. If you think you would have done better, then you have clearly never been on the losing end of a staring contest. By the end of the interview, all three of us had happily abandoned any hope of behaving with more decorum. Laughter and the use of humor require a certain letting down of one’s guard, and the fact that all three of us were able to laugh together in this interview took me down from any pedestal onto which I might have inadvertently clambered. One study from the Netherlands noted that patients used humor to broach difficult topics and downplay challenges they faced and concluded that “Hierarchy as usually experienced between healthcare professionals and patients/relatives seemed to disappear when using laughter. 

If applied appropriately, adding shared laughter may help optimize shared decision-making.”4 Although it could be a coincidence, it is worth noting that several years after meeting this patient, I discharged him from my practice because he had somehow been cured of lung cancer. Perhaps laughter really is the best medicine. 

On other occasions, it might be the physician who takes the plunge and uses humor during a clinical encounter. The same Dutch study by Buiting et al noted that 97% of all specialists used humor in their interactions and all reported laughing during consultations at least occasionally.

One of my colleagues, a generally serious sort whose smiles in clinic are as rare as a total eclipse albeit not as predictable, managed to win over his patient with a rare outburst of humor. During their first meeting, the patient listed off the numerous ailments he had experienced in the past including his fourth bout with cancer which had prompted this appointment.

As he finished reciting his epic medical history, my colleague looked at him somberly over the rim of his glasses for a moment and asked “Sir, I must ask—who on earth did you piss off?” The patient was so tickled by this interaction that he recounted it to me when I saw him a few weeks later while filling in for my colleague.

Although humor is a powerful tool in the clinic, it is of course not something that comes naturally to all of us. Attempts at humor by a clinician at the wrong time or with the wrong patient do not just fall flat but can even be damaging to the physician-patient relationship. Even if a physician uses humor with the best of intentions, there is always the possibility that they will be perceived by the patient as making light of their situation. As Proyer and Rodden5 point out, tact is essential and humor and laughter are not always enjoyable to all people, or to borrow a phrase frequently used by one of my patients, “about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit.” Socalled gelotophobes have a heightened fear of being laughed at, and with them, humor and especially laughter must be wielded with great care if at all. All I can say in response to the legitimate concern about the use of humor being misconstrued is that as with any other powerful tool physicians learn to use, one improves with time. As far as PubMed knows, there are no courses in medical faculties devoted to the fine art of the pun or the knock-knock joke. But even if we physicians cannot all reliably be funny on command, perhaps there is something to be said for occasionally being a little less self-serious.

One must also be mindful of patients with whom one is not directly interacting—to a patient who has just received bad news, overhearing the sound of laughter in the clinic corridor has the potential to come across as insensitive.

Moments of levity are therefore best confined to a private space such as the examination room in which physicians and patients can indulge in anything from a giggle to a guffaw without running the risk of distressing others.

The final reason I submit in support of laughing in a cancer clinic is admittedly a selfish one. While humor has been shown to have the potential to reduce burnout,6 the real reason I laugh with patients in my clinic is because it brings me joy.

The people at parties who think my job must be depressing are not entirely wrong. I have noticed that when I have a positive interaction with a patient based on humor or laugh with a colleague about something during a meeting, I feel better. Surprise! As it turns out, this is not just an anecdotal observation. In 2022, a study was published whose title was “Adaptive and maladaptive humor styles are closely associated with burnout and professional fulfillment in members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.”7 The SGO has not to my knowledge been widely recognized up to this point for their sense of humor, but I have a feeling that might change.

Humor is an essential part of the way I approach many situations, and given that I spend the majority of my waking hours at work, it is neither possible nor I would argue desirable for me to leave that part of myself at the entrance to the cancer center. So to the administrator who admonished my mentor and me to cease and desist laughing in the cancer clinic, I respectfully decline. My patients, my colleagues, and I will continue to laugh together at any opportunity we get. Joy in one’s work is the ultimate defense against burnout, and I for one intend to take full advantage of it. 

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, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. Today we're joined by Dr. Stacey Hubay, Medical Oncologist at the Grand River Regional Cancer Center. In this episode, we will be discussing her Art of Oncology article, “Just Humor Me.” 

Our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript.  

Stacey, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us.

Dr. Stacey Hubay: Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure to be here. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: It is our pleasure. So let's start by chatting a little bit about what humor means to you and what led you to write this piece and share it with your colleagues. 

Dr. Stacey Hubay: I didn't realize how important humor was to me until recently. I just finished a Masters in Bioethics, which was 20 years in the making, and this was the first time I'd been writing anything that wasn't a case report for many, many years. And there was actually specifically a course called “Writing in Bioethics,” and this was the first thing that came to my mind. And I realized sort of how much humor there is in my day to day work life, which, because none of the other people in this bioethics class of 10 or 14 people were working in oncology, they were surprised. So I thought it would be interesting to write about that. And then when I started thinking about it, I realized how integral it is to most of, I guess not just my practice life, but the way I deal with life. And then I could see a thread going back all the way to the beginning of my practice in oncology, and I'm like, “I should write about this.” And I don't think it's unique to me either. I think it's probably many of us in this field.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: It is. So let's talk a little bit about humor in the practice of such a serious specialty as we tend to think, or people tend to think of, as in oncology. You talk about humor also connecting you with joy and practice, can you tell us a little bit more about that?

Dr. Stacey Hubay: I'm just as surprised, probably as anybody, at least when I first went into this field, which is now more than 20 years ago, how much happiness I found in the field. I meant what I said in the beginning of this essay. When I run into people or strangers, you're getting your hair cut or you're at your kid's volleyball practice, and people always say, “Oh, so what do you do?” And I always say, “I'm in healthcare.” And if they start drilling down, eventually I have to admit what I do. And I say, “I'm an oncologist.” And immediately the long faces and people say, “That must be so terrible.” And I'm like, “Well, it can be, but it's not as bad as you might think.” And they're like, “Oh, it must be very difficult.” And I know that avenue of conversation is closed once or twice. I think I did try saying, “You know what? I have a surprising amount of fun in my clinic with my patients.” And they were aghast, I think is the word I would use. And it made me realize sort of what a taboo it is for many people, including maybe some of us in the field, to admit that we sometimes enjoy ourselves with our patients in our clinics.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So let's talk about that. Let's talk about joy, and then from there to laugh. I think the reason why laughter seems sort of stranger than joy is laughter assumes that we see some levity, humor. And some people would say, there's really nothing funny about having humor. And yet you seem to see it and find it and share it with your patients. So take us into your exam rooms and tell us a little bit more about your process.

Dr. Stacey Hubay: It's funny, when I think about the humor in my clinics, I don't see myself as the one who's necessarily sort of starting it, although maybe sometimes I do. I think perhaps it's just that I'm more open to it. And I think it's frequently the patients who bring it in with them. Obviously, we know patients in the oncology clinic, they're often very nervous. It's a very anxious time for them. And we are in a position of power compared to our patients, they're very vulnerable. And so sometimes the patient makes a joke, sometimes I wonder if it's a way of testing if that kind of relationship will work with you. They're kind of testing you to see if you will respond to that. And it's also a way of them relieving their own anxiety, because one of the theories about humor is just a way of alleviating tension. It makes sense that oncology is a place where humor would be welcome, because it's one of the most tense places, I think, in medical practice, although I'm not sure it's present in other places like at the ICU. 

So the patient often brings it in, and then you respond to it, and if you're on the same wavelength, it sort of immediately establishes this kind of trust between you and the patient. It's not something you can do with everybody. Sometimes some people will not be open to that at any time. And some patients, you have to get to know them quite a bit before that starts to come into the mix. But I find with most people, if you follow them for long enough and you have a good working, therapeutic relationship with them, just like you would the people you like, your friends, your family, that comes into a relationship almost unavoidably. And I used to think, “Oh, I'm not supposed to do that,” when I first came into practice. I'm a serious oncologist, which I am, and I can be a serious oncologist. And I also just didn't have the bandwidth for it. I think I was so kind of focused on, I have to know what I'm doing. Early in my practice, I didn't have the mental energy to devote to that. And then as that part became easier, I became kind of more open, I think, to that, coming into the interactions with my patients. And over time, I started realizing that was probably what I enjoyed the most about my working day. At the end of the day, I'd come home and tell stories, and my kids would be like, “It sounds like you have fun at work.” And I go, “You know? I really do. Surprisingly I do.”

Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's so very cool. I think there's so much wisdom in what you just told us, which is that at the beginning, especially when in the first few years of your practice, you really are so focused on being clinically competent that you may be just very nervous about trying anything. And then as you relax, you actually say in your essay that for some people, this may bring relief and may level the playing field. So if there is an opportunity and you're loose enough to find it, you may be able to keep that conversation going. It made me wonder, I don't know if you've had any experience yourself as a patient or accompanying a family member as a caregiver to a medical visit. Have you used humor when you are the patient or when you're accompanying the patient? 

Dr. Stacey Hubay: That's an interesting question. I haven't been a patient apart from my routine family medicine visits for quite a long time. But when I was much younger, I was a teenager, I did have that experience. I was maybe 15 or 16. I had some parathyroid issues. And I remember seeing these specialists in Toronto, and they were very serious people. I remember thinking, if I want to become a physician, because it was at the back of my mind at that time, I'm going to be a lot more fun than these people. I'm going to enjoy myself a lot more. And little did I realize how difficult that actually was at the time. But I found them kind of very serious and a little bit intimidating as a 15-year-old kid. I hadn't reflected on that before. I'm not sure if that's something that I'm deliberately pushing back against. I think now if I see a physician as a patient, I probably am much more willing to bring that in if the physician is open to it. But you can usually tell many physicians, you meet them and you're like, “You're not going to even try that kind of thing.” But if they're open to it, I think it would bring me much more fun as a patient as well. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yeah. Do you teach your students or trainees or members of your team to use humor?

Dr. Stacey Hubay: That's a very interesting question. How do you do that? So I mentioned, I just finished this Masters of Bioethics, and one of the excellent courses in it was how to teach bioethics, which really was a course about how to teach anything. And most of us who are in medicine, we've spent a lot of time teaching without being taught how to teach. In my own practice of teaching, we mostly use one on one with people coming into our clinics and seeing patients with us. And I think mostly some of it's through observation. I will say to people who work with me that we all have to find our own style. It's important, no matter what your style is, to try and connect with patients, because you're trying to create a therapeutic alliance. You're on the same side. The way that works for me is you don't laugh with people you don't trust. When you're trying to make a plan with people in these difficult situations, I think if you've already formed this alliance where they realize you're with them, they're more likely to believe you and trust your recommendations. I tell trainees, I'd say, “This is my way of doing it. And if it works for you, that's wonderful.” But I can see that for some people it's difficult. 

Although even the most serious clinicians, one of my very good friends and colleagues who I mentioned in my essay and I talked about, he doesn't make a lot of jokes with his patients, which is perfectly reasonable, but the occasional time he does, the patients were so struck by it because they knew him as such a serious person. They bring it up, “Remember that time my doctor said this,” and they thought it was a wonderful thing. So it's difficult to teach. It's just how would the Marx Brothers teach someone else to be the Marx Brothers? It can't be done. Only the Marx Brothers are the Marx Brothers. Not that I'm comparing myself to the Marx Brothers by any means, but I think you find your own style. Maybe what I'd like to show trainees who come through with me is that it's okay to enjoy the patients, even in a very serious discussion.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yeah, I would almost say that it speaks to the fact that you're very comfortable with your clinical persona in that you can allow yourself to be totally human with them. And if human means that you can both sort of align around seeing some humor or cracking a joke, that is perfectly fine. I have a question for you, and that is that a lot of my patients in my practice, and maybe some of our other listeners come from completely different cultural backgrounds, and many don't speak the same language as I do. So for me, thinking about humor in those situations is impossible just because I just don't even know what we can both accept as funny. And I don't want to be misunderstood. Tell me a little bit about how to think of humor in those situations.

Dr. Stacey Hubay: That's a good point you make. It makes me think about how when I read Shakespeare's plays, we all think his tragedies are fantastic. And when I read his comedies, I'm like, “This isn't very funny.” Or if even when you watch sort of silent movies from the 1920s, I'm like, “Did people really laugh at this?” So you're right. Humor is very much of its time and place and its culture. And even people from the same time and place might not share the same sense of humor. That being said, somehow it still works with the people who are open to it. Somehow it's not necessary, because you've made a very witty joke, or vice versa, that we all understood all its complexities. It's more the sense that we're laughing together.  

And I talk about a gentleman that I met in my practice in this essay, and he didn't speak English, so his daughter was translating for us. And nobody was making any kind of verbal jokes or humor. And this was the first time I was meeting him in consultation, and he just kept making funny faces at me the whole time I was talking, and I didn't know what to do. I was completely bamboozled by this interaction. And it actually ended up being sort of one of the funniest visits I'd had with a patient. By the end of it, I could barely get a sentence out. And I thought, this is absurd. This is a very serious situation. This poor gentleman has stage 4 lung cancer, brain metastasis, but he just wouldn't let me be serious. So I think that humor can transcend cultural, linguistic boundaries amazingly enough. Again, if the person was open to it, this person was almost determined that he was going to make me laugh. It was like he'd set out that by the end of his visit, he was going to make sure that we were having a good time. And I was just, “I'm helpless against this. We're going to have a good time.” I remember coming out of the room, the nurses I was working with, they're like, “What was going on in that room? Is he doing well?”I'm like, “Well, in a way, yes, he is doing well.”  

At the end of this visit, we were all in a very good mood. But I'll sometimes use sign language, or I'll make some stab at French or whatever it is that the patient speaks, and then they just laugh at me, which is also fine, because they can kind of see that you've made yourself vulnerable by saying, “You know, it's okay if I can't speak your language.” And they just smile and laugh with me. So it's not that it's a joke so much, it's more that they just feel comfortable with you. But you're right, it is more challenging. It's something I wouldn't usually do in such a situation unless I had gotten to know the patient, their family, reasonably well. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let's talk for a moment about wellness and joy in practice. What gives you the greatest joy in practice? 

Dr. Stacey Hubay: Undoubtedly the people that I see and I work with. When you go into medicine and you train, we all train in academic settings. And I had excellent mentors and academic mentors, and the expectation, because you're trained by people who are good at that kind of work and succeeded, is that you might want to pursue that, too. And it took me a while to realize that that's not where I get most of my joy. I like being involved with research and I appreciate that people are doing that work and I love applying that knowledge to my practice. But I get my joy out of actually seeing patients. That wasn't modeled a lot necessarily to us in the academic setting. It's taken me quite a long time to realize that it's okay to lean into that. If that's what I like about my practice and that's what I can bring to the interaction, then that's what I'm going to do. And I started looking back, it would have been nice to realize, it's okay. It's okay to be a clinician who really enjoys seeing patients and wants to do a lot of that. Again, different kinds of people become physicians, but a lot of the people we had as mentors, they had chosen academic careers because, not that they didn't like patients, they often did, but they really wanted to pursue the research aspect of it. And they would try to cut down on their clinical work and say, “It's nice if you don't have two clinics, you can focus on the research.” And I think to myself, but I like doing the clinics and I like seeing the patients, and it would be a shame to me if I didn't have that. 

It's not just the patients, but my colleagues as well, who are also great fun to have around, the nurses we work with. Really, it's the interactions with people. Of course, we get joy from all kinds of other things. In oncology, it's good to see patients do well. It's wonderful to apply new knowledge and you have a breakthrough coming from immunotherapy to lung cancer, melanoma. That sort of thing is fantastic, and it gives me joy, too. But I have the feeling that when I retire at the end of my career, I'm going to look back and go, “Remember that interaction with that patient?” Even now, when I think of when I started in clinical settings as a medical student, I remember, I think it was my first or second patient, I was assigned to look after an elderly woman. She had a history of cirrhosis, and she was admitted with hepatic encephalopathy and a fractured humerus after a fall. I didn't know what I was doing at all, but I was rounding every day. And I went to see her on the third day, she was usually confused, and I said, “How are you doing?” She looked at her arm and she said, “Well, they call this bone the humerus, but I don't see anything particularly funny about it.” I thought, “Oh, she's better.”

That's actually one of the earliest things I remember about seeing patients.  

Or the next year when I didn't realize I was going to pursue oncology. And I was rotating through with an excellent oncologist, Dr. Ellen Warner at Sunnybrook, who does breast cancer. We were debriefing after the clinic, and she said, “Someday, Stacey, I'm going to publish a big book of breast cancer humor.” And I thought, “I wonder what would be in that book.” And that's when I got this inkling that maybe oncology had just as much humor in as every other part of medicine. And that proved to be true. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: What was it, Stacey, that led you to bioethics? Tell us what you learned from your bioethics work.

Dr. Stacey Hubay: I think it's because basically I’m a person who leads towards the humanities, and for me, bioethics is the application of philosophy and moral ethics to a clinical situation. And I think medicine, thankfully, has room for all kinds of people. Of course, you have to be good at different things to be a physician. But I always imagined myself, when I went to school, that after a class, you'd sit around a pub drinking beer and discuss the great meaning of life. And I thought, this is my chance to pursue that. And I was hoping to kind of– I didn't think of it as that I was going to this because I was interested in humor and joy in oncology, although I obviously am. I was thinking that I would be able to make a difference in terms of resource allocation and priority setting, and I still want to pursue those things. Things often lead you down a side road. And bioethics, for me, has sort of reminded me of what I like about this work. And because I was surrounded by many people who are not doing that kind of work, who were surprised how much I liked it, it made me think very carefully about what is it that I like about this. So the bioethics degree, it's finally allowed me to be that person who sits around in pubs drinking beer, discussing Immanual Kant and Utilitarianism and whatever moral theory is of flavor that particular day.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: What led you to write this particular story and put it in front of your medical oncology colleagues? Is it your wish to sort of let people sort of loosen up and be their authentic selves and find more joy in the clinic?

Dr. Stacey Hubay: That’s a good question! The most immediate impetus was I had an assignment for my degree, and I thought, I have to write something. But I'd been writing down these sort of snippets of things I found funny. Occasionally, I just write them down because they were interesting to me. And because we often relate stories to people, “What did you do today? What was your day like?” And because you tell these stories over and over, they develop some kind of oral, mythical quality. You're like, “Here's what I remember that was funny that happened, and it might have been many years ago now.” And I think I'd been thinking a long time about writing it down and sort of organizing it that way. And I guess having to produce something as part of this degree program was an impetus for me. But I'd always wanted to do it. And I think the main thing was I wanted to make it clear to myself what it is I like about it. It's actually made it, for me, much more clear. It was sort of a nebulous thing that I like my work and what is it like about it. And this is what I like. I like the joy I get from patient interactions. And then a secondary goal is I hope that other people, if they were to read this, they realize it's okay for us to have joy in our work as oncologists. And there is a lot of doom and gloom in the world and in our practices, but there's always, always a chink that lets the light in, there's always some humor in what we do. And so I hope that if other people can find that, too, that they enjoy their practice and they last a long time and ultimately help patients through this difficult journey.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Are you somebody who likes to read stories? And if so, what stories have you read recently that you want to recommend to our listeners?

Dr. Stacey Hubay: Oh, I am reading The Master and Margarita because three different people recommended this novel to me over the last three years. When a third person did, I thought, “That's it. Got to read it.” It's a Russian novel from the 1930s that was banned until, I think, the ‘60s or ‘70s. It's like a satire of Russian society in the ‘30s. And actually, what I like about it, I haven't finished it. I'm a third of the way through, as I think it's one of the so-called classic novels, people tell me, but that's funny. A lot of the classic novels are kind of tragedies or romances, and this one is sort of absurd black humor in the face of a difficult situation, which I guess is related to oncology, again. So this sort of oppressive, difficult society, the 1930s and Soviet Union, how do you deal with that? With humor. So I'm quite enjoying it, actually. So I recommend that one. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, you're an amazing storyteller, and I really enjoyed our conversation. Is there any final message that you want to convey to our listeners?

Dr. Stacey Hubay: If you have a chance to become an oncologist, you should do it. It's just the best career I can imagine.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, with your laughter and with that wonderful wisdom, let me say, until next time, 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.

Show Notes:

Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.  

Guest Bio: Dr. Stacey Hubay is a Medical Oncologist at the Grand River Regional Cancer Center.

Listen to ASCO’s Journal of Clinical Oncology article, "Scotch and Pizza” by Dr. Paul Jansson, who is an Emergency and Critical Care Physician at the Brigham and Women's Hospital. The article is followed by an interview with Jansson and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Dr Jansson share his perspective as a critical care physician and how one question can serve many purposes all at once.

TRANSCRIPT

Narrator: Scotch and Pizza, by Paul S. Jansson, MD, MS 

“Would you tell me about J?,” I asked. What was she like? I made eye contact with one of her sons, who looked back at me, somewhat puzzled. 

“You mean her illness?” he asked, quizzically. Immediately, I worried that I had lost the family,

all sitting shoulder-to-shoulder in the cloistered conference room. No, I responded, can you tell

me about J before the illness? What was she like? J came to the intensive care unit (ICU) in the early hours of the morning, only a few hours after making her way from the emergency department to the oncology ward. Admitted with a diagnosis of failure to thrive and dehydration, her CT scans made clear the extent of her cancer’s spread. Over the last few months, she had shown remarkable improvement with each serial round of palliative chemotherapy, beating the cancer back and holding it at bay, one round at a time, but it had now spread seemingly everywhere, despite medication, despite molecular testing and targeted treatment, and despite her tenacity.

Overnight, she became more and more confused, her electrolytes deranged from days of poor oral intake, now admitted to an unfamiliar environment. Her lungs, bearing the brunt of her disease, had further suffered over the week as she aspirated. As her breathing became more labored, a nasal cannula progressed to positive pressure ventilation. By early morning, she was unresponsive, and the early morning phone call to her family had led to a panicked reversal of her Do Not Resuscitate/Do Not Intubate order. And so she came to me, mechanically ventilated, blood pressure supported by an armada of vasopressors, her body failing, which brought us back to that small room.

We didn’t have the chance to get to know her before she got sick. I looked around the room, meeting their eyes. We only know her like this. What was she like before all of this?

In my first months of intern year in the ICU, I had seen this technique used in family meetings.

Initially, I adopted it as a matter of routine, copying the methods I had seen used by senior residents and attending physicians. As I came into my own as a physician, developing my own style, I began to see its value. It opened my eyes beyond the Comprehensive Flowsheet and the Results Review spreadsheet that scrolled into infinity. It showed me why I was doing what I was doing and who I was doing it for.

“She loved scotch and pizza.”

The room was silent, and we looked around. Her oldest daughter, a nurse herself by training, had broken the silence. Together, she clarified. I know it’s a weird combination, she said, but she loved scotch and pizza. It must have been something from college.

We all glanced around for a moment, making bewildered eye contact, before the entire room broke into laughter. 

“She made a mean coleslaw,” volunteered another brother. “And a great hot dog.”

“She was a fantastic mother,” reported the next.

“She was my soul.” Thus far, her husband had sat quietly in the corner, the face of stoicism. He was a retired physician, a self-described man of few words. A moment of silence as we all looked toward him, across a conference table, barren except for half-used boxes of tissues, surrounded by children on both sides. She was the best thing that could ever happen tome, he continued. Another long pause, until the words spilled forth. When I would leave her to go to work, I felt incomplete. When I returned home, I felt an immense sense of being at peace. When I was with her, I was calm. She made me whole. She was my soul. We sat in silence, the tears welling in my eyes, welling in all our eyes. She was everything that I was not. Kind. Patient. A fantastic cook. We laughed. Then, another long pause as he gathered his thoughts. And now I know what I need to do. 

In his stoicism, his silence, his love, he told us what we all needed to hear. As deeply as her loss would rend his soul, there was nothing more that I could do—that anyone could do—to bring back the woman who gave such life, and further treatment would only prolong her suffering. She died that afternoon, surrounded by her family, finally at peace. A chef for the neighborhood. A mother. A friend. A wife. A soulmate. And a lover of scotch and pizza.

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 am your host, Dr. Lidia Schapira, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. Today we're joined by Dr. Paul Jansson, an Emergency and Critical Care Physician at the Brigham and Women's Hospital and a member of the Harvard Medical School faculty in Boston. In this episode, we'll be discussing his Art of Oncology article, “Scotch and Pizza.” 

At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. 

Paul, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us.

Dr. Paul Jansson: Well, thank you. It's a pleasure to be here with you. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So first, let me ask a little bit about this essay and about your intended audience. This is a beautiful meditation, I would say, on a family meeting that takes place in the context of somebody with advanced cancer. What led you to write it? What led you to decide to share it, mostly with an oncology readership. 

Dr. Paul Jansson: This is a piece that I think wrote itself and it was something that came to me as I couldn't sleep in the hospital call room. I was on call the day after this family meeting and lying in the polyester sheets and listening to the air conditioning rumble, I couldn't sleep. And it just came to me all of a sudden that I had to write it, and I had to write it in this exact way. I was working an overnight shift in the intensive care unit, and at 5:00 a.m. sat down at the computer, and this just all poured out, basically, in the method in which it appears today. I think there were very minor grammatical changes, but it really just came out. It was a story that I feel that I needed to tell.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So why do you think that this meeting and this family impacted you so deeply? I mean, there's a huge emotional connection here, and I introduced you as a critical care doctor, but you sound like a palliative care doctor to me here, sitting with a patient, basically just asking one question and then watching this loving scene unfold. And it struck me that it moved you. Did I get that right?

Dr. Paul Jansson: I think you're absolutely right. Brigham and Women's Hospital is the inpatient hospital for the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. And so, by its nature, intensive care medicine at Brigham Women's is a lot of oncology care. And so you are absolutely right in that these conversations are very routine for us. But there was something about this family, the connection, that just stuck with me. I think with many of these conversations, it's relatively routine. It's certainly not routine for the families. But as an intensive care specialist, this is a relatively routine conversation. And to get this level of detail and humor and eulogizing on the part of her husband is really quite unusual and was very profound to me, sitting in that moment stuck with me.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: I was struck, Paul, by the fact that you asked one question, and immediately they're talking about her in past tense. She was. She loved. She did. Did that strike you in the moment as sort of showing that they actually knew exactly what was happening?

Dr. Paul Jansson: Yeah. I think there is a moment in these conversations where the family understands what is happening and what needs to happen. And it's, I think, best if the family gets there on their own and works really well in that goals of care setting. And I think the love that they were expressing for her and the admiration and the appreciation, that was really profound to me.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: One of the reasons why I love your piece is that it takes us from what we are now teaching as a goals of care discussion or a family meeting. And it brings us back more to the art of medicine, the joy of medicine, and the intimacy of these moments. This family was totally ready to accept you in their little circle and start to share things that were really very deep for them. Tell us a little bit about what it was like to be in the room with her husband, who's a retired physician, her daughter, who's a nurse, and the other family members who seem to be sort of helping one another to eulogize, as you said, in the most loving way, their almost gone mother and wife. 

Dr. Paul Jansson: I am not an oncologist, and I do not have the pleasure of these longitudinal relationships that many oncologists have developed over months and years and decades for some of these patient physician relationships. And so as an intensive care physician, it's a very quick and powerful bond that we are really forced to make with the families. And so I actually never talked with this woman. She was intubated on the night shift and was brought to the intensive care unit, intubated and sedated, and I never got to meet with her. I never got to sit in the office with her and discuss her hopes and her fears and her journey and all of those things that are really more the domain of the oncologist. But in our specialty, I have to really develop this relationship very quickly, where people will trust a life and death discussion with someone whom they've only known for 15 or 20 minutes in some circumstances. 

And so it really is a privilege and an honor to be granted this degree of trust and disclosure and openness about who the patient is and was in the life before I met her. And so sitting in that room, it's always very awkward to start. It's a converted conference room with some boxes in the corners, and there's only, as I wrote in the piece, a box of tissues on the table. And so very quickly, we have to go from, “Paul Jansson, I'm the intensive care doctor,” to these discussions of life and death, and how to negotiate this very fraught transition, I think is really the point that I think you're getting at in the art of medicine. And how do we go from 0 to not 0 to 60, but 0 to 100 with these really life and death decisions? And that's very difficult.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: In a flash.

Dr. Paul Jansson: Exactly. And far sooner than anyone wanted, I think, if any of these families. Everything is so sudden. I even wrote about this in the piece. She had a DNR, DNI in place, and they got the call at 03:00 a.m., 04:00 a.m. however early it was in the morning. And so you can really tell at that moment they were not expecting any of this. They were not ready for any of this. But unfortunately, we were in that circumstance.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: You know, Paul, when I hear you speak, I remember a friend of mine who is an actor and teaches doctors communication skills, and she basically says that doctors and actors have 90 seconds to develop rapport with their audience. And basically in your field or in the emergency room, this actually plays out every day. You're absolutely right, we in oncology often build these relationships, craft these relationships over time. And we probably know the names of all the people in the room and we would know what they do. But you're just kind of walking into the scene. Now that you've had a little time to reflect, do you know what it was that led them to reverse that DNR/DNI decision? Was it panic? Was it not knowing? I think as a reader, I'm struck with the fact that they had a plan, they reversed the plan, and then they quickly just came right back to what the original plan was. Maybe they hadn't expected this to happen so quickly. 

Dr. Paul Jansson: I think it's more common than we think it is, or perhaps it should be. And I think every family has a different reason for why this is. And I think for some families it's just they needed more time. And so this was for them a call that was at 04:00 a.m. and they were at home and they weren't with her. And many families just want to be there for the end. I think for some families there's a bit of denial, “Okay, sure theoretically she said do not resuscitate, do not intubate, but we're not at that point yet.” So I think for some families there's that. And for some families, it just takes more time than they're expecting. And that's not unusual in our world, as I think everyone there saw what was happening to her and what we had essentially done to her, intubating her and putting her on all the pressors and doing all these things that were somewhat against her wishes at the end of life, so we had done these things to her. And it just took a little bit more time to realize this was not what she would want and also to give them time to be there. But I think every family has a different motivation, and it's hard to say how you would react with that phone call at 02:00 a.m. It's never what you think it would be.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yeah, it's the old president's commercial, right? “Who do you want to take this call at 03:00 a.m. when there's an emergency?” But when it's this personal, I can understand it. I wonder if you can tell us a little bit how it struck you when the family sort of very organically again reached the conclusion and her husband articulated, “I know what I need to do.” What did that feel like for you as the critical care doctor who is quickly trying to lead this family to perhaps what you would consider the most dignified or humane, compassionate denouement for them?

Dr. Paul Jansson: I think the first feeling for me was relief and just knowing that the decision that they had made for her was the right decision. And it wasn't a decision that I needed to make and talk them into or negotiate with them. It was the decision that they knew was right. And I think the other thing that stuck with me so much was the love and humor that they displayed in this. And I think many, many families would cry and be sad, but how many families would sit there and make a joke about this strange food combination that she has from college and how she loves to cook from the neighborhood, and all of these just flashes of humanity and humor that I was not expecting from the family. And then in that moment, we went very suddenly from humor to this profound grief and appreciation and reflection on who she was as a woman and her personality and how well that complemented her husband. And it was just this emotional whirlwind where we go from bad news to laughing together to crying together, all in the span of what was probably 10 to 15 minutes. That really stuck with me. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Paul, humor me here. I don't often get to interview a critical care doctor, especially on a public medium like a podcast. So speak a little bit to me and through me to our listeners. What can oncologists do to have a good rapport with the critical care docs and nurses who are actually looking after their patients? Sometimes there are all of these moments of anticipated tension, and I wonder if you can just give us a little instruction.

Dr. Paul Jansson: That's a wonderful question. I think honesty and truthfulness is always incredibly important, and taking that relationship that you've built with the family over time and bringing us into that circle of trust and letting us give our perspective. And I am not the oncologist, as I said before, I do not know all of the data and all of these things that is well within your specialty, but I know that the specialty of critical care and what is and isn't achievable, and to have the oncologist team have those developed relationships and ideally some knowledge of what the patient would want and blend that with what I'm able to deliver as an intensivist. I think that the trust together and the working together for what the patient wishes and what we can actually deliver for the patient, that's really what is most meaningful in collaborating with the oncologists. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yeah, I say a little prayer for that. I know that I've walked into an ICU and hoped very much that my colleagues in critical care didn't see me as an oncologist in denial, somebody who wanted to be very much a sort of present for their patient. You probably have some of those stories.

Dr. Paul Jansson: There's an interesting tension. Yeah, I think you exactly pointed that out, that there's this tendency to think that the oncologist is always going to offer yet another round of chemotherapy or some clinical trial that can be offered. And on the intensive care side of the fence, we're sitting and counting on our fingers and sometimes toes, how many organ systems are not working, and how we negotiate that hopefulness and optimism with who is in front of us and what we've been dealing with over the last hours and days and weeks. And I think the tension is probably more theoretical. Every time I talk to the oncologist, they're quite realistic. I think more than perhaps is in my mind. So I think there's more of a theoretical disconnect than there is in real life. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, I hope our professions can coexist and work collaboratively for the sake of our patients. Talk to me a little bit about how you might use this very intimate story in your teaching, since you're part of a teaching faculty.

Dr. Paul Jansson: Well, shortly after the preprint was posted, I actually received a letter by email from a faculty member at a teaching hospital affiliated with a cancer hospital, saying that he was going to start using this piece in his discussions about how to have goals of care discussions with his oncology fellows. And I think there are two different purposes of the question that I asked: “Tell me about her.” And I think they serve two distinct purposes. And the first is this humanizing and making a human connection that we talked about. It allows you to make some of that connection that you haven't had the ability to do over the last weeks and months and years. You can really see that patient as an individual person. And I think the second role that this question helps with, particularly for the intensivist, is it really helps to expectation set. And so for many people, the answer to this question will be, “Oh, well, she was running a mile a day, and she loved her pottery and she loved whatever it was that is her passion.” And for some people, the answer may be, “Well, she was having a really hard time lately, and she was spending more time in the hospital than out of the hospital.” And so that can also really help from the intensivist side of things with prognosticating and really being realistic about what we can offer at this moment. That's why I really like this question “Tell me about her,” because it really helps with everything all at once. It lets us make that human connection. It lets us gather some of the clinical information that we need, and it reminds us of why we're doing this job in the first place, and that's to take care of the patient. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yeah. My very last question now is this: It occurs to me that you have a lot of these moments, and as you say, you cry, you share in the human aspect of all this. And you're right there, you have a front row seat to this grief and this loss. Do you and your colleagues have any protocol or ritual to help one another and support one another and at least acknowledge the emotional load of your work? 

Dr. Paul Jansson: That's an excellent question. I think from the intensivist side of things, when we have the conversation this way, it's actually a blessing to us. I think there's a lot of moral injury, particularly in critical care, and doing things to the patient that I alluded to before, that the patient wouldn't necessarily want, or unnecessarily prolonging life at the risk of suffering. And I think when patients and families realize that this is not what their loved one would want, I think for many of us, this is a relief, and it's a blessing and an honor to take care of patients at the end of life. When it goes like this, we're actually very happy. It's really a pleasure more than a cross to bear.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yeah. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, your humor, your humanism, your incredible common sense, and I'm so glad that the piece just poured out and that you chose to put it in front of an oncology readership. So from our listeners, thank you so much.  

And for those of you who are listening, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories, the Art of Oncology. Until next time, when we'll find you again. 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. Paul Jansson is an Emergency and Critical Care Physician at the Brigham and Women's Hospital and a member of the Harvard Medical School faculty in Boston.

Listen to ASCO’s Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, “The Heritability of Cancer” by Dr. Leeat Granek, Associate Professor at York University in Toronto, Canada. The essay is followed by an interview with Granek and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Granek shares how her mother's diagnose with breast cancer continues to shape her own life and experiences.

TRANSCRIPT

Narrator: The Heritability of Cancer, by Leeat Granek 

I was 9 years old when my mother was first diagnosed with breast cancer and 25 when she died. The boundary between before and after is so clear that it feels like I have lived two lives. I went from being a careless, cerebral, quirky child to a rough version of the responsible, reliable, and vigilant adult I would eventually became. With cancer came the fear of losing my mother, and with that fear came an unwelcome but necessary maturity. There were other important life events impacting our family around that time that contributed to this sense of split. We had just moved from Israel to Toronto and knew few people in our new environment. My mother had just given birth to my baby brother, and my parents had bought a new house for our growing family. At the time, I was starting third grade in a new school—the fifth new school since beginning kindergarten. All this in addition to the diagnosis. My mother was only 33 years old—the same age I am now.

While I adapted to everything else—new house, new school, new brother, new country—cancer insisted on sticking around, and it claimed not only my mother's life but, in many ways, my own. Cancer enters the body of the caregivers in ways that move far beyond the domestic work involved in the running of the house or the management of medications and appointments. It can become part of caregiver DNA through inherited genes, but it often does so in more insidious ways.

My mother lived with the disease for 17 years before she died in 2005. It is fair to say I grew up in the hospital. Over the years, there were multiple surgeries, along with episodes of weekly chemotherapy and daily radiation sessions. She suffered a host of complications that came with metastatic disease and its treatment, including four instances of strep A bacteremia. Many major events happened in the hospital. We ate Chinese food with our matzos on Passover in her room and lit Hanukkah candles in the waiting room where we accidentally set off the fire alarm on the seventh night, to the consternation of the nursing staff. My 11th, 15th, 18th, and 25th birthdays were celebrated in cramped hospital quarters, cutting the birthday cake with a dull plastic knife. Indeed, the last birthday we had together was my 25th, and we marked it in the hospital 2 days before she died. In her last lucid moment, she managed to miraculously lift out of the fog caused by brain metastases to give me a kiss and exclaim “Mazal tov, Leeatie!”

I remember the sounds and the smells. Static codes being called out over the hospital loudspeakers. The haunting “clink, clink, clink” of the staples being removed from my mother's skin graft and landing with a loud clatter in a silver bowl. The pale green hallways and their antiseptic smell, which I grew to hate. The airless temperature that was neither hot nor cold—hospital weather, I used to call it. The hospital, with its sounds and smells, was my second home.

It sounds awful. And it was a lot of the time, but there were many good moments as well. My mother was smart, intuitive, funny, and astonishingly optimistic. She was always laughing and incredibly giving with her love and affection. We were exceptionally close. Her eyes lit up and her arms stretched out to give me a hug every single time I walked into her room. She would say things like, “Leeatie, I love you so much. I wouldn't change a single thing about you! How did I get to be so lucky to have a daughter like you?” and “There's no one in the world I would rather spend time with than you.” I didn't have to do anything to earn her affection. I felt that I always came first, that I was always wanted and loved, and that my mother was always entirely there for me in every sense of the word.

The hospital days that punctuated much of my childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood were both an annoyance and a blessing. There was nothing else to do but simply be together, which was fun and easy, thankfully. When I was older and no longer living at home, I would sometimes sleep over in her hospital room during her admissions. We would curl up in the twin bed and talk for hours until we both fell asleep, or we would sit together, each absorbed in her own book, comforted by the warmness of being together. 

When I think about being a caregiver for my mom, and by extension a caregiver for our family, it was not the hours of care work—the babysitting, driving to appointments, spending time in the hospital—that consumed me. The impact was long-lasting and continues to this day. As a health psychologist and a researcher in the area of psychooncology, I know the permanent and long-term devastations cancer causes throughout the caregiver's—in my case, the daughter's—entire life span. To this day, I have no real sense of what normal physical development for a woman should feel and look like, and in some sense, I never will. I entered puberty around the same time my mother was having her breasts and ovaries removed, which made that phase frightening and emotionally difficult. And now, I have no mother to turn to and ask about my endlessly evolving female form, no mother to guide me through future pregnancies or talk me through gray hair and menopause. 

Cancer shaped my young adulthood and my emotional development. At 20 years old, I was dealing with issues facing 60-year-olds who care for ill and aging parents. Because part of me recognized that time was running out—indeed, because I lived almost my entire life with a neon awareness of my mother's mortality—I was tethered to home and making decisions about school, life, and love that would keep me close to her. I don't regret these choices or a single moment that I chose to spend with her, and now I have an entire lifetime to come and go as I please. Being challenged with a cancer-driven perspective at 20, however, carries risks of having an entire lifetime being developmentally out of step with one's peers and unprepared for life events outside a hospital. For example, at 25, I could look death in the face without trembling and without abandoning my mother at her end, but I was unprepared to face the dating world that most young adults would have no trouble navigating. Although I was and remain a loved, nurtured, and supported daughter, cancer diverted the vast majority of the temporal, emotional, financial, and physical resources in our family toward fighting the disease. When she was alive, my mother was fully present in my life. But even her unconditional love could not repair the reality of my out-of-sync development as a child and young adult or today make up for her continued absence in my life.

My absent mother is at the core of a black hole of grief that remains inside of me and that has been painfully pried open with subsequent losses to cancer—my grandmother and my aunt, a professor I admired and family friend that I loved. Each loss re-exposes a haunting grief I have learned to accept and live with. Grief is a shadow that looms large in my life. It is both the topic I chose to study and the affect I advocate fiercely for,1–4 because as I have learned through my own experiences and research, love and light come from the same place as grief and darkness. 

The ability to grieve our losses fully also allows us to love and appreciate the people in our lives when they are still with us.

And then, of course, there is the worry: the biannual check-ups, magnetic resonance imaging scans, and mammograms; the surveillance and the false positives and the constant paradoxical tension that comes with the awareness of the nature of these tests provide a false sense of control over a disease that refuses to be harnessed. 

The literature about the impact of parental cancer on children at the time of diagnosis, during treatment, after surgery, and even at the time of death is extensive,5–6 but few of these studies acknowledge how much this disease alters the life course of the child well after the parent has recovered or has died. Being a caregiver for a patient with cancer consumed much of my childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood when my mother was alive and charted the course for my future as a health psychologist working in the field of psychooncology. Although many years have passed and although I have a doctorate in hand, several years of postdoctoral training in the field of psychooncology, an academic career studying these issues, and dozens of publications from my research on the psychological and emotional effects of cancer on patients, caregivers, and their families,7–16 from time to time, I still feel like a scared 9-year-old child trying to gain control over this disease and get out of the shadow that cancer has cast on my life.

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. I'm a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. Today we are joined by Dr. Leeat Granek, Associate Professor at York University in Toronto, Canada, in the School of Social Policy and Health Management. In this episode, we will be talking about her Art of Oncology article, "The Heritability of Cancer." At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. Leeat, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us.

Dr. Leeat Granek: Thank you so much for having me. It's a pleasure. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Your essay is a classic, and I'm so glad that we were able to include it in the recent anthology of Art of Oncology. So let's start by talking a little bit about what led you to not only write, but decide to share this essay eight years after your mother passed of breast cancer. Bring us to that moment. Tell us what you were thinking. 

Dr. Leeat Granek: Yeah, so that's a great question. And I recently, in preparation for this interview, reread it, and I was a little taken aback, even by how exposed and how vulnerable it was. But I really like that essay, and I'm really glad that it was published. It was kind of a culmination of a lot of thoughts that I was having as a person who has researched grief for many years, and as a person who was working in the field of psycho oncology, doing research in the area, and as a grieving daughter. And I think eight years is nothing in the grieving trajectory, right? We often think about grief as something acute that happens to you, and then you get over it and you move on with your life, and that certainly has not been my experience of grieving. I think it changes as you change, and it's just a constant presence in your life.

And I was thinking about that in the context of being a caregiver for somebody who has cancer. So I think my experience is a little different than others, just because my mom was very young. She was 33 when she was diagnosed, and I was only nine. And she lived with this metastatic disease for nearly 20 years. So we had a very long journey with cancer. And I can kind of see now, as I reread it, the parallel thinking processes I had about grief and about cancer. And being a researcher in the field, I still feel that there are a lot of gaps in terms of the caregiver experience. But this idea of heritability, we often think about cancer as something you inherit genetically through our genetic makeup. But I think that it really, especially when you're young, changes your whole life trajectory. And I could not find anything in the literature that spoke about it in that very longitudinal kind of way and the way the impact of cancer changes you throughout your entire life. And so it just came from a very personal place, but also that intersection of being aware of the different literatures and how they came together. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let's unpack this a little bit. One of the things that you just said was that you shared your vulnerabilities, and I want to ask you a little bit more about that. Here you are. You're about the same age that when your mother was living with this as a young woman. I think you said that she was diagnosed roughly at the time that you were writing this. And you decide to explore this wearing a little bit of your research hat in a very deeply personal way. But then the question I wanted to ask you is your decision to share this with the community of oncologists, the people you knew very well because they had looked after your mother for all those years. Tell me a little bit about that. How did you make the decision not only to write it, but to share it?

Dr. Leeat Granek: That's a great question. This also pertains to the research that I do, because a lot of the research I was doing at the time, as a result of my experiences with cancer teams as a child, looked at the emotional impact of being an oncologist. I did a series of studies looking at the way oncologists grieve and how they feel when patients die, some of the emotional burdens of the work. And they were very vulnerable in sharing their experiences. And so I thought, well, they're telling me about their experiences, I can also tell them about mine. And I think that there's kind of a mythology around oncologists. I'm doing studies now on surgeons as well, and I think there's the same mythology around surgeons is that they don't feel or everything is compartmentalized and everything's separate. 

But from my research, I knew that that wasn't the case. And I felt that, although oncologists and oncology teams and nurses as well, witness patient suffering and family suffering, that there was nothing in the literature that kind of brought it home in this very visceral way. I don't think it would have been a surprise for any oncologist reading it, because when you follow families or when you follow parents, you see the children coming in. And so there was something about this intersection of their vulnerability and my vulnerability, enriching the experience of what it means to be a patient, and what does it mean to be a healthcare provider, which is not something that's often discussed in medicine at all.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So to your point, I think that telling the story was a beautiful sort of vehicle for opening up the topic. You were doing it through your research. But telling a story can often start a conversation in a very different way. That's what we try to do also in selecting these essays for Art of Oncology, to bring a story that's deeply personal, that reflects one's lived experience, but opens up a topic that is otherwise perhaps not talked about as much as we think it should. So let me go back and ask, what was the impact of telling the story on your research? 

Dr. Leeat Granek: I just want to add something about what you just said about stories. The very first paper that I published on oncologist experiences of grief, I wrote an op-ed for the New York Times about that research. And it was very story-based. It was very much telling a story, and I was telling my own story as well as a story about the research. And the response to that op-ed was so profound and so much more powerful than any paper I had ever published. I got thousands of emails from people around the world, oncologists and healthcare providers around the world, just saying how touched and how moved they were by that op-ed. And that is the power of the story that you're talking about right now, that we're vying for these peer-reviewed articles all the time. But actually, the impact of just telling a story is so much more meaningful and visceral for the reader than just outlining the research findings.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: And it sounds like just receiving all of those emails after your op-ed was probably very validating. We can get rejected when we apply for grants, but people were telling you what you’re onto is really significant.  

Dr. Leeat Granek: Yeah. And I think that validating in the sense that what I felt was that as you, exactly the words you just used, that it was a conversation that was not being had to the detriment of all. And so it validated that feeling of, yeah, this is something that's really important for us to be talking about in oncology. And just in terms of the response to "The Heritability of Cancer," it was a long time ago. This is 2014, so 10 years ago. I don't remember entirely what are the specific things that people said, but I do remember getting a lot of emails about it, mostly from healthcare providers, so less from caregivers or patients who may not have subscriptions to JCO, but maybe through the podcast now will have more access. Just saying this really shed some light as to the experience of what does it mean for the extended family that I think is not often considered. Certainly, we don't think about kids very often when a parent is going through cancer.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: If you were to write this today, what would you do differently?

Dr. Leeat Granek: I think what's changed for me– I don’t think I would do anything differently, but what I think has changed is that I've had a child since I written that. Having a seven-year-old and thinking about what it's like to be going through a cancer diagnosis or cancer treatment while you have children. That piece was very centered on me and my experiences, and now I have even another layer of empathy and compassion for my mom, who had a newborn at the time. And I can just not imagine anything more– it’s going to make me cry just even now just by thinking about it - it’s just scary to have such a life-threatening diagnosis when you’re a parent. Just like grief, like I said earlier, being a victim of cancer or being part of your family, that impact is lifelong and it changes as your development changes. Now as a parent, my grief is different than it was before I became a parent. And now as a parent, my understanding of what my mother was going through is changed. That terror and fear is so overwhelming.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So, Leeat, I can't help myself, but I need to ask you some practical questions. You're a psycho-oncologist, an expert in grief, and you've talked to and interviewed hundreds of oncologists who have shared stories, you're now a parent, you’ve lived through it. What it makes me think is that when we think about grief counseling or support for grieving children or bereaved spouses or parents, you think about it as an acute intervention and what you’re suggesting is this needs to be explored throughout the life cycle. What are your thoughts about that and what should we be thinking about?

Dr. Leeat Granek: I've written a lot about this in my grief work. The evidence for psychological counseling for grief is not strong actually when we look at the literature. For acute grief experiences in the immediate aftermath, sometimes it’s helpful having someone to talk to. But in actuality, the most helpful is having a community in which grief is an open, accepted, acknowledged, part of living life. And that does not change after the first month or the first six months or the year, five years or ten years.  

Other people may have moved on very quickly, but you’re left with the impact of that loss. And I think the impact of that loss is not only after, when the person has died, it’s also that progressive loss of function. The kind of witnessing of your loved one deteriorating. It’s not just meals that you need, you also need that emotional support. And that emotional support doesn’t necessarily have to take the form of, “Tell me about your grieving right now.” Sometimes it’s just being with. And I think that certainly in North America, we're not very good at integrating grief, loss, pain, suffering, and negative emotions into our day to day lives. So partly, 10 years, 20 years, or 25 years later, it’s hard for people to remember that loss. 

So I think the person is grieving that many years after may have to reach out and ask for the support. But I think it’s done really well in certain religions. I am Jewish and in the Jewish background, you have so many layers of mourning that’s lifelong. So you have the acute grieving experience where it’s seven days or 30 days or one year. And then every year progressively after that four times a year, you say a blessing and remembrance and give charity in the name of the dead. And for religious people, I’m not religious, this idea of every single day for that first year having to go synagogue and having to have at least nine other people that could be there with you to say the prayer for the dead, whether you believe or not believe, whether you’re religious or not, I think the brilliance in those kinds of rituals is that it simply brings you together with other people who see you everyday. 

And decades later, still that four times a year that you’re meeting with people and you’re saying a prayer, or that yearly yahrzeit, that memorial allows people a very very defined space in which to support the mourner. And I think other religions have it too.   

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Those are beautiful thoughts, and I think it speaks to connection and community as a way of supporting rather than pathologizing the grief and thinking what one needs is some sort of a professional intervention. I can’t help but add that as a community of caring oncologists, we are constantly grieving. We are immersed in grief, and in part, there is no label for how we feel. There is a small literature that you probably know far better than I do on disenfranchised grief, which is the idea that we can't quite claim to grieve because we weren't a relative or best friend, but we deeply cared and we lost and we grieve. So I find that this conversation is so helpful because I think what we’re doing is we’re talking about what we ought to be talking about more: perhaps acknowledging more from a point of view, as you say, of a parent, researcher, caregiver, medical or healthcare professional who’s involved. We are living in a society where perhaps we are afraid to think that grief is a part of our life, and we can be happy even if we grieve.

Dr. Leeat Granek: Yeah. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Happiness is not just the absence of sadness, I think, I don’t know. You are the psycho-oncologist, tell me if I’m wrong.

Dr. Leeat Granek: I so appreciate what you’re saying and it makes me sad to hear that grief is still so stigmatized among oncologists. I think what my research has found and all my conversations with people over the decades now is, of course, oncologists feel a lot of things. Not just grief but pain and suffering, distress at seeing their patients and their families suffering and declining. Why wouldn't they? They are human beings. So I think this idea that people don’t feel or don’t have space to feel is part of what leads to burn out actually. I think there’s a kind of fear that grief and the pain and suffering is the burn out but it’s not. In fact, what’s the burn out is the inability to talk about or to have a space to discuss it.

And I also think that the thing that gives meaning to the work is that relationship with patients.  And by the way, I’m finding that with the surgeons as well. The surgeons are even more kind of disconnected in terms of emotions. We kind of assume that they feel nothing, that they are so disconnected. By the way, I just have to say, the surgeons say, “I can’t believe the oncologists does that job.” They find it really hard to believe that oncologists can do that, that they can never do that job. And the oncologists say that about the surgeons, too. So I think it’s very interesting how different medical groups look at each other. 

But there’s this kind of sense that’s very unique about the grieving experience of how care providers is and they feel a lot of guilt and a lot of self doubt, and self criticism when patients die even though they know consciously that there’s nothing that they could’ve done and that is just the disease that is taking over. That lack of control and that sense of having failed the patient is so strong. That is a very unique grieving experience for providers who feel responsible for the care of their patients. The fact that there is no training or no education or no space to talk about that is just appalling to me as a psychologist. Because I just think you learn how to do everything else. There’s so much training on communicating bad news, on dealing with patient anger, on dealing with patient emotions and how to respond. But nothing on how to deal with your own emotions in response to this. For years, it’s just about communications training. 

One of the things we find in the literature is that even when you provide communication training to oncologists that have to discuss end of life, often those skills are not sufficient to be able to have that conversation. And what’s missing is the notion that I found in my own research that they don’t have this conversation because they feel so uncomfortable with it themselves. And so until they have some self reflective practice for healthcare providers, all the skills training in the world is not going to help because it’s about your own emotional resistance. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, this has been a phenomenal conversation, and I hope people will look at some of the beautiful research you've done in this field. Thank you so much for having shared your own experience, for the work you do, and for participating in today's podcast. 

Dr. Leeat Granek: Thank you so much. I really enjoyed it.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So 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 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, experiences, 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. 

New York Times Op-Ed: When Doctors Give

Two Decades of Art of Oncology

Guest Bio: 

Dr. Leeat Granek is an Associate Professor at York University in Toronto, Canada, in the School of Social Policy and Health Management.

Listen to ASCO’s Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, “Pet Therapy: How the Cat I Never Wanted Saved My Life” by Dr. Fumiko Chino, Radiation Oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.. The essay is followed by an interview with Chino and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Chino describes how she became an unlikely cat owner and how her "pet therapy" allowed her to move forward with life as a widow.

TRANSCRIPT

Narrator: Pet Therapy: How the Cat I Never Wanted Saved My Life, by Fumiko Chino 

My husband and I adopted our cat, Franklin, on a cold November day. It was one of the last days that Andrew felt well enough to leave the house to go anywhere other than to chemotherapy or a doctor’s appointment. Our news at these appointments had shifted toward the negative, with disease progression on scans, low blood counts, and fluid accumulating in places it shouldn’t be. After a year of aggressive treatment, his body was tiring out, and treatment options were becoming limited. Andrew had always wanted a cat, but I was resistant; I knew that I would be taking care of both of them and wasn’t sure that I was ready. At a certain point, though, if your dying husband wants a cat … you get a cat, right?

Franklin was a rescue—a scrappy orange boy with stripy legs and a spotted belly. He played with my husband’s oxygen tubing, batting the plastic back and forth. He adapted quickly and would sit in Andrew’s lap in a warm furry ball, signaling his comfort with loud, full-throated purrs. He would play fetch with my husband, who often wasn’t strong enough to leave the bed. There was a large bowl of wrapped candy in the living room, and Franklin would bring one to the bed. Andrew would throw it from his propped-up perch in the bed; if the angle was perfect, he could fling it from the bedroom, through the slight zig-zag of the hallway, and into the large open living room. Franklin would race off to chase the candy and then trot back to deposit it one more time in Andrew’s lap. They could do this for hours, it seemed, until one of them tired and then they would nap. They both napped a lot.

After Andrew died in March, it was hard to keep a schedule. Days and nights would drift into each other; it was the gray days of late winter before spring showed any promise of life. Franklin was my constant companion and followed me around the house, sitting in the living room to watch a movie or on a kitchen chair to stare at my meals, even into the bathroom. He slept at the foot of the bed and woke me up in the morning to feed him; he made it hard to sleep in all day and forced me to keep at least a semiregular schedule. I walked everywhere, trying to make simple tasks last all day; walking to get Franklin’s food from the pet store was a triumph of activity. We did, of course, take a lot of naps; sleep was an easy escape from my purposeless existence. He would fit his furry warmth in the crook of my knees or sprawl across my lap, mitigating the cold emptiness of a lonely day. He was a living presence when all I could see around me was death.

Grieving is no simple process but, with time, I was able to return to some semblance of a normal life. I found focus in singular steps: researching school options, studying for the MCAT, interviewing for and ultimately entering medical school. One step at time (one application, one class, one shelf) is how I progressed from grieving widow to oncologist. Franklin would sit on the kitchen table where I worked, putting his paw occasionally on my papers or resting his chin on the warm edge of my laptop. He kept me company through grueling hours of studying and welcomed me home from the hospital at all hours of the night, greeting me with a small noise halfway between a squeak and a meow. Franklin was a welcome constant as I reinvented myself as a physician, a comforting touchstone as I shed my former life as an artist and wife and gained new footing as a clinician and researcher.

I am now in my first year as an attending physician in a world-leading cancer center; Franklin has moved with me to a glorious, light-filled apartment in New York City. Looking back over the decade since Andrew died, I know that Franklin was the last gift that he gave me. I was so depressed and lonely; I don’t think I could have survived that first dark winter without his presence, much less made it through medical school and residency. That’s the thing about pets; you care for them, but they also care for you. Franklin provided that extra layer of support that allowed a desperate present to turn into a hopeful future. When I meet with patients and families struggling through treatment now, I try to highlight these simple support goals: physical company, a routine, love and warmth. We talk about who is available to help and what comfort they can provide. And for those struggling alone, I sometimes recommend they consider a trip to the animal rescue. I tell them, they may find that they get rescued too. I know I did.

I moved out of that first house a couple of months after Andrew died. It was too big for just a lady and her cat. When I pushed our bed out from against the wall, I discovered a small pile of candy that had slipped behind his pillow down the back side of the bed. After he was gone, Franklin had continued to bring candy to my husband’s side of the bed and it had been piling up. I sat down on the floor of our big, empty house and cried big, ugly tears while staring at that stale candy. Then, like a gift, Franklin came over and sat in my lap, a small, warm presence, purring.

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. I'm an Associate Editor for Art of Oncology for JCO and a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. 

Today we are joined by Dr. Fumiko Chino, a Radiation Oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. In this episode, we will be discussing her Art of Oncology article, "Pet Therapy: How the Cat I Never Wanted Saved My Life." 

At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. 

Fumiko, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us.

Dr. Fumiko Chino: Thank you so much for having me. I'm happy to be here to talk about my pet Franklin, but also to talk about how our animals care for us just as much as we care for them.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's a beautiful thought. Let me first start by just expressing my sincere condolence over the loss of your husband. We have met so many times at medical meetings and have had a chance to talk about work, but this is really personal, so I just wanted to start our conversation by acknowledging that very important part.

Dr. Fumiko Chino: Thank you. I think a lot of us are drawn to the field of oncology for one reason or another. Sometimes we're anchored by the experiences of our friends or our family members, or that one patient that you couldn't get out of your head in medical school. Mine, obviously, I think, started a little earlier than most with my husband's death, and it kind of drew me kicking and screaming into medicine and then into oncology. But against my sort of better angels, I ended up in oncology. The roots of this tree are strong, basically.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So let's talk a little bit about that and the experience of being a care partner, a caregiver, a caretaker. As a very young woman, I think you were an artist at the time, not in medical school. Can you bear to share with us a little bit about that part of your life, those years or months?

Dr. Fumiko Chino: Sure. So I always say that caregivers are kind of the unpaid glue that keeps the US healthcare system together, functioning, working. And the caregiver experience and the burdens that caregivers have are sort of just barely being explored now within research. And I can certainly tell from my own personal experience that being a young caregiver was very challenging. My husband and I were both in our 20s. We were trying to establish our careers. We had a significant battle about his health insurance, which is a very common problem for young people. And even after he died from cancer, I actually was uninsured because I was on his health insurance. So it's hilarious for me now as a researcher who does research on access and equity and insurance that I myself was uninsured for, I think, about two years, actually. 

But those burdens of caregiving, they're sort of physical exhaustion, they're mental exhaustion, but they're also emotional exhaustion. And it's sort of all of the above, all hands on deck when someone you love is sick. And I think it's part of when I shift into research mode or patient centered care mode, I always try to think about the complete picture for the person in front of me, which is also their spouse, their parent, their sister, sometimes their friend, who are also, I think, part of the journey of cancer, but often sort of unacknowledged.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let's talk a little bit about that, the sort of the emotional side of caregiving. Yes, you talk about burdens and exhaustions, but what I read in your essay is also about the love and connection that you experienced during your husband's illness with him. And then this third party, the story is this adorable cat. Can you talk a little bit about that? All of the positive side, not the burdens of caretaking and caregiving, but the love and connection.

Dr. Fumiko Chino: It's sort of shocking when you go through something critical together, how much that bonds you, how much it deepens your connection and your capacity for communicating effectively and making hard decisions. I always say my husband and I were only married for a year, essentially before he died. But it's like dog years. One year of cancer is sort of like seven normal people years. And so we had so much love and humor and insider jokes going through the experience. It's certainly never recommended for anyone. But I will say that it made me realize how much I did love my husband, how deeply connected we were. 

And then this introduction of a small, fuzzy animal was something that I never realized that would make a difference for me personally, but that would carry me forward through my husband's illness and his death and kind of help me become the full me that I didn't even know I was supposed to be at the time we adopted Franklin. And then again, the love that we had together, our little tiny family unit, a cancer patient, a cancer caregiver, and a rescue cat. We were quite a cohort for as long as we lasted.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: And the other incredible theme that emerges from your essay is the grief and the deep, deep grief that you experienced. How long did it take and how did you manage to climb out of that?

Dr. Fumiko Chino: I mean, I'm still grieving, right? So that's the thing about grief, is that it changed shape and color, but it never really goes away. There's this phrase, time heals all wounds, and that's certainly not true. I think that the wound is different. It's not quite as raw, but I'm still grieving. But in terms of pulling myself out of the deep depression that I was in, it was years. I'll be honest. I was sort of groundless. I had no purpose. I feel this sometimes as an oncologist too, which is we feel that when our patient dies that we failed. I only had one job. It was to keep my husband alive, and I didn't do it. And so it took a long time to kind of rebuild myself and my personality when I had quit my job to take care of him. So it really was my only purpose. And then when that went away, it took a long time. 

It's interesting to be on the other side of it now and to sort of think about, well, what are the lessons I can take away from that? To try to practice for myself truly patient centered care and to think  about everything that our patients and their caregivers really need to continue on because it's not an easy thing.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let me just say this and that is that it is absolutely amazing that you have constructed sort of a professional persona from this experience, but it's also your experience and your story. And what I'm so deeply moved by and a little curious about is you're taking it to a story and bringing the narrative side to your professional community. It's not as if you wrote a story or journaled about this and shared it with your friends and family. You actually made yourself vulnerable in a way. And I just want to pick up on that a little bit more because clearly from where I sit, this makes a huge contribution to the discourse in oncology as well, to acknowledge the personal side, the emotional side, and make it a story. And so with that, I just wanted to ask you this. How long did it take or what was the process for this series of experiences that are so intense and emotional to become a story and something you could write?

Dr. Fumiko Chino: That is such a good question. I will be honest to say that I didn't tell any stories at all about my husband having cancer until long after I decided to become an oncologist. And it was only when I was doing the research that I was doing in financial toxicity where I realized that story could make the message of the research more powerful. I knew always why I was doing the research. But having that deeply rooted, personal, let's be honest, terrible story, it could make it more meaningful, it could make it more understandable for people who hadn't personally experienced it. And so I think, similarly, realizing that the larger story of love and loss and of caregiving but also of how these funny things like pets that can make a difference for individuals and families, to develop that into a story that you could tell, again, a decade, to think about how that could turn around essentially into something that is not just a feeling, but is words and paragraphs. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yes. And it was obvious to me when I first read it, the beauty of the position that I have as an editor is that I'm the first reader, is that I felt that I felt the enormous amount of years that went into processing these feelings and then how skillfully you introduce the humor and through the character of the cat. And the cat going to fetch the candy wrappers and bringing them back. I mean, it's beautiful. One of the things Fumiko that I've so admired also about your work is your advocacy, your advocacy for trainees, your advocacy for inclusion and diversity, and your advocacy for pets. Tell us a little bit about how those strong commitments you have to bring people up and to sort of change things for the better are also deeply rooted in your lived experience.

Dr. Fumiko Chino: I have in my life been incredibly privileged. I know this deeply. And I know that even the turning of round of my life from being a grieving cancer widow into being a physician today is deeply rooted in my privilege, from being from a medical family, from being from an educated family, from being from a family where everyone was expected to go to college and succeed in one way or the other. And so realizing that not everyone has that privilege of being able to overcome these obstacles because it's just a pile on. I think sometimes being able to provide that sponsorship and mentorship for other people has been just a strong pillar of my personal mandate for the physician that I wanted to be, for the researcher that I wanted to be. It's rooted from the fact that there's been some bad things that happened in my life, obviously, but my capacity for moving forward and reinventing myself is deeply rooted in my own privilege.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: To bring this short conversation to a close, I wonder if you can reflect a little bit on the role of art. I mean, every time I just see you, I think of art. There's a sort of an artistic aura about you, just the way you accessorize yourself and how you present yourself and all of the images that you choose to post. It's a very deliberate image. So tell us a little bit about both visual art but also stories and how you feel in your role as an academic oncologist they can humanize our culture, they can inspire, they can help, they can even inform research questions. I'd love to hear your thoughts about that.

Dr. Fumiko Chino: Whenever I was in high school, I had these two great loves, and they were science and they were art. And unfortunately, I think I grew up in an era where you really did have to go one way or the other. And so for me, I chose art. And so I had a Bachelor's of Fine Arts. I was immersed deeply in the art world as a young adult and as a growing faculty. It was only cancer that kind of brought me into the science again. But having been immersed in art for so long, when I transitioned over to the more medical school residency, now as an attending, I never wanted to leave the art behind because it so deeply informs how we view the world. And I think that perspective, that shift that comes with looking at a new piece of art, it makes us all stronger observers and, I think, stronger communicators. 

And we all approach art very differently. The example I'll give is that my husband was really into jazz, and I hate free jazz. It just drives me insane. Because for me, my question always is for a piece of art - so in this case, free jazz - what are they trying to communicate to me? And he said, “Well, that's not how I take it. I say, how would it feel to make this music? It's the actual mechanics of making the music and absorbing the music.” And that's how he interpreted that form of art. And I was just always like, “Oh, but I don't get what are they trying to tell me?” And I think that is also just incredibly amazing, that art communicates different things to different people. And it reminds me to take a break and to say, you know what, I feel so steadfast in my opinion that this is the right way of doing something and it could be that someone is going to take it in a totally different direction.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let's end on a note on Franklin. Is Franklin still with you?

Dr. Fumiko Chino: So I was happy to be recording this podcast now. So Franklin died last month. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: I'm so sorry. He died in my home with a home hospice vet. And it was really beautiful. It was exactly what I would want for myself if and when I go, to be surrounded by love and comfort. He was with me for 17 years. Obviously, got me through a lot. And it was a message to me how we could be doing better for our patients as well. He did have cancer, and he had cancer that was rapidly growing. And so that way of putting a bookend in our experiences with cancer, I feel like it was the last message that he gave me that that's the gift I could give to him.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, take care of yourself, please. Again, my condolences on losing Franklin. Thank you for your openness and for your willingness to share. So we are so fortunate to have you in our ranks. I'm very glad that you're doing what you're doing.

Dr. Fumiko Chino: I appreciate the time to talk to you again. This message about a silly cat and his human, I think, certainly it's my story, but I know that many of our patients also have this deep connection with their animals and it really does carry them through some very dark nights. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So until next time and thank you for joining me today in this very moving interview. Thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, and for our listeners, 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. Until next time.

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. Fumiko Chino is a Radiation Oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Listen to ASCO’s Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, “Gosses and the Dalmatian Puppy” by Dr. Zvi Symon, Senior Consultant at the Sheba Medical Center in Israel. The essay is followed by an interview with Symon and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Symon reflects on an ancient Jewish tradition while seeking to palliate a dying patient.

TRANSCRIPT

Narrator: Gosses and the Dalmatian Puppy, by Zvi Symon, MD 

A few months ago, I was paged to see a newly diagnosed patient in the hospital with a malignant trachea-esophageal fistula to consider palliative radiotherapy. Despite the 60-minute delay that had already accumulated in my clinic, I hurried past the folks in my waiting room as they scowled their dismay, and promised to return quickly.

 My new consult was a 70-year-old man who had lost 30 kg over the past few months. He was a heavy smoker with chronic bronchitis and a squamous cell carcinoma of the upper esophagus gnawing into the cartilage of the upper airway. The surgeons ruled out any hope for surgical remediation. The gastroenterologist attempted to insert a stent but could not get past the tumor’s stricture, so radiation therapy became the last option.

On the edge of the bed near the hospital room’s window sat Vladimir, a ghost of a man, coughing intermittently with a constant drool of saliva dripping into a stainless steel bowl that he held in his lap. I introduced myself, but he hardly acknowledged my presence, consumed by his own discomfort. I turned to his pleasant, gray-haired wife sitting in the blue armchair next to his bed. Before proceeding, I asked her what he knew about his condition, and she referred the question to him in Russian. Vladimir closed his eyes, sighed heavily and said softly: “I don’t feel well and… cannot eat.” His wife watched me as a sad smile played on her lips, and she struggled not to cry. I paused for a moment, remembering my full outpatient waiting room, but wanting to give his story justice. I turned to Vladimir’s wife.

“Tell me a bit about Vladimir, what did he do before he became ill?” I drew up a chair and sat closer and she sighed. “He worked as a builder. When the family emigrated to live here in Israel, his mother died soon after. He became deeply depressed and took to the bottle, spending most of the day sitting on the porch, drinking vodka, and chain smoking. A few years ago, I bought him a cute clumsy

Dalmatian puppy who adored him, romping around happily, licking his hands, and jumping all over him. He developed a special relationship with the dog, stopped drinking and took the dog each day for a long walk—well, perhaps the dog took him for a walk.” A smile flickered across her face briefly. “Unfortunately, the dog died a few months ago and he sank back into a depression, stopped eating, and has lost weight.” I was touched and saw the tears in her eyes flowing freely. “Do you have any family, perhaps children you would like to call to perhaps join us for the discussion?” I asked.

“We have two grown-up sons. One is currently ill with COVID and cannot come, and the other son also suffers from major depression: He has a hysterical paralysis and does not leave the house. I work as a cashier in the supermarket and am the only breadwinner for my sick son and husband.” I wondered if she had any idea of his prognosis and started a discussion regarding treatment options. Vladmir’s wife told me that she had heard that radiation therapy could help.

And while I would have loved to have played the role of knight in shining armor, saving him from the ravages of his cancer with radiotherapy, the reality is that the intervention is controversial in the treatment of trachea-esophageal fistula.

Should I raise the possibility of not doing the treatment? How would it be received? What could I offer in lieu? Was this an opportunity for a being and not doing discussion, one that talks about dignity and love and communication, about having the chance to say goodbye forever and even to confess and bless and confide? Patients and family are so often focused on the battle against the disease; they are loath to any suggestion of not doing, despite the minimal odds for a helpful treatment. 

I saw Vladimir’s wife struggle to control her tears. She seemed so vulnerable and carried so much on her shoulders. I wondered if a hospice discussion, at that moment, would add to her huge burden. There was also a part of me that also debated, selfishly, if I should launch into a lengthy end-of life discussion with the angry waiting patients outside my clinic door? So often, we turn to our treatment armamentarium to avoid these deeply painful and complex discussions surrounding the end of life, particularly with patients we barely know.

I breathed deeply, calmed myself and decided to keep it simple and avoid the dilemma. I gently explained that I could not guarantee good results, but radiation therapy may improve his pain and perhaps allow him to eat and drink. It was the answer she was looking for, though I grimaced as I wondered if it was the answer I should have provided. She seemed relieved and encouraged Vladimir to sign consent. Vladimir arrived at the computed tomography (CT) simulation suite sitting bent forward on the stretcher, drooling into the bowl between his legs. The radiation therapists, already running behind schedule, looked at each other, as if wondering if this was another futile heroic effort. 

“I know what you are thinking,” I said to them. “But perhaps we can help. Let me tell you something about Vladimir, he had a Dalmatian puppy he loved, who took him out of his home for a walk every day after years of deep depression.” Vladimir was contorted in pain, and the attempt to transfer him from the stretcher to the CT couch seemed impossible. All eyes turned to me with a perhaps this is too much look. Suddenly, Ilan, a young Russian-speaking radiation technologist who had recently joined the department, had an idea. “Vladimir, rest a few minutes. You know, I too have a Dalmatian, let me show you a picture.”

The deep lines on Vladimir’s face faded into a broad smile as he took Ilan’s cellphone to see the picture of the dog. From the look on his face, he seemed to be transported far from the simulation suite, and I imagined him romping with his Dalmatian puppy in a sun-swept meadow with gurgling streams and lush green grass and watched as Ilan then slid him effortlessly onto the couch of the scanner.

The scan was completed, Vladimir returned to the ward, and I retreated to my workroom to complete the contouring of the structures for the radiotherapy plan. It was a nasty 12-cm mass involving the full circumference of the upper esophagus and eroded into the trachea, almost obstructing the left lung. The dosimetrist calculated a conformal treatment plan, and as I approved it, I uttered a little prayer that this would make him more comfortable. Suddenly, Ilan rushed in, hair tousled, pale and agitated, and eyes red. We were too late. On returning to the inpatient ward, Vladimir experienced a massive aspiration and died less than half an hour after we had scanned him. Ilan was terribly upset. As a young therapist, this was perhaps his first patient who died so quickly and unexpectedly.

I tried to comfort him. “I know it hurts, but nothing we could have done would have changed what happened. Did you see his face after you mentioned his puppy and showed him the photo of yours? We did our best for him.”

After Ilan left my room, I reflected on the day’s events. Was Vladimir what the rabbis refer to as a “Gosses?”2 (Gosses is a Hebrew word meaning a moribund patient). And if that was the case, was I wrong to even transport him from his room? When death is imminent in hours or days, Jewish religious law defines a state of Gosses in which it is forbidden to touch or move a moribund patient in case this could hasten death. The guttural rattle of a dying patient, unable to clear secretions, indicating death within hours or days, reminded the rabbis of the sound of bubbling when stirring the food in the cauldron. This onomatopoeia, in addition to a didactive narrative identifying the significance of performing an action which potentially changes the natural course of events, resulted in the analogy that moving a terminally ill patient which may hasten death is like stirring the food in the cauldron which may hasten the cooking on Sabbath, hence the term Gosses. The ancient rabbinic sages from the beginning of the first millenium drew an additional analogy between touching a Gosses and touching a dripping candle at the end of its wick which may hasten quenching of the light. Another aspect of the law of Gosses forbids performing any act which may prolong suffering and delay a merciful death. Thus, moving a patient to receive a futile treatment would also be forbidden under law of Gosses. 

2000 years later, the notion that we should neither delay nor accelerate death was front of mind formeas I reflected on my treatment of Vladimir. I wondered if the ancient rabbis incorporated into their moral discussion the difficulty of stopping the roller coaster of trying to do more and more to help the patient. How about when the treatment itself fell into a gray area of effectiveness? What advice would they have given a physician with competing demands on his time and a waiting room full of outpatients who demanded his attention?

In retrospect, the painful journey of Vladimir down to the simulator may have hastened his massive aspiration and would have been best avoided. In that sense, the Gosses may have

been violated. But it also allowed him and Ilan to meet and share wonderful memories of a Dalmatian puppy which made him smile and forget his pain, even for a few precious moments.

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. Zvi Symon, until recently Chair of Radiation Oncology and currently Senior Consultant in the Department and Director of the National School of Radiotherapy at the Sheba Medical Center in Israel and Clinical professor of Oncology at Tel Aviv University Medical School. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology article, “Gosses and the Dalmatian Puppy.” Our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript. 

Zvi, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us.

Dr. Zvi Symon: Thank you, Lidia. I'm very happy to be here.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: To start, I'd like to ask authors to tell us what they're reading or perhaps what they've enjoyed reading and would like to recommend to fellow listeners.

Dr. Zvi Symon: Okay, so it's been a bit of a stressful time reading, but I may mention some books I've read in the last few months. I've been reading memoirs. One that I particularly found very touching was Paul Kalanithi's, When Breath Becomes Air. As a physician who had cancer himself and his struggle with his transition from being a consultant neurosurgeon to being a terminal lung cancer patient, I think it's an amazing and beautifully written and touching book. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: It’s a beautiful book. It's evocative and fresh. And you're absolutely right - we're completely in sympathy with and empathic with his amazing desire to live life till the last moment, right? It's just beautiful. 

Dr. Zvi Symon: It’s really beautiful. And I think that memoirs is a very powerful genre for me. And another book that I enjoyed very much is Jan Morris' Conundrum, which is a story of a person who made a transition from male to female over 10 years. She was actually a member of the British team that climbed Everest and a journalist in The Times. It's a beautiful book describing what she actually felt inside and how she went through the medical process as well, of her sex change. And it's also beautiful.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Thank you for that. I haven't read it, but I will add it to my lovely list here.  

Tell me a little bit about writing and what that means for you. Are you somebody who has been writing throughout your career, or was this a story that sort of popped for you, that just needed to be told? 

Dr. Zvi Symon: Right. I think it goes back to when I was a high school student where my Math teacher told my parents, "Your son shouldn't do medicine. He should study English literature." My parents were devastated by that statement because my father was a physician and my mother's family were all physicians, and they were very angry at the time. And I was kind of a writer in high school, and then I kind of left it through my medical career. And now, as I have sort of finished my stint as the chair of the department and I have a bit more time on my hands, I've sort of tried my hand at getting back to writing. I needed to read a lot in order to do that. So I was reading genres. I think maybe some of the initial versions of this piece were written sort of more as a memoir, rather than an article for the Art of Oncology. And I think you guys helped me a lot. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: I'm so glad to hear that we helped. Sometimes editors aren't particularly helpful in the views of authors, but I'm glad you feel differently.  

So let's talk a little bit about the creative process and sort of bringing in all of these themes that you did here. And back to your prior comment that this is in the memoir genre. You have a very interesting philosophical discussion of what a Gosses is and sort of the ethical moral conflict when a patient is extremely vulnerable, instead of recognizing when perhaps all that you need to do, or perhaps what you need to do is to be present instead of trying to fix or intervene. And I loved how you made us all really suffer with you, as you're debating this internally. Can you talk a little bit about that part of the story?

Dr. Zvi Symon: Yes, I think just to put it into context, in my training in internal medicine, I worked in a hospital where hospice care was part of the rotation in internal medicine. I spent three months in the hospice, and at night, when we were on call, we were in charge of the ICU and the hospice. So you would be called to treat a patient in pulmonary edema and with CPAP, or intubate him or an acute MI, and then you would be called to a dying patient in the hospice. And the transition was initially very difficult for me. I actually felt my feet would not carry me to the hospice, and I didn't want to go there, and I had to kind of force myself. But after some time, I realized that it's actually much easier to treat pulmonary edema  to than be able to sit and listen and talk to a dying patient. But the fulfillment that I began to feel when I overcame that kind of fear of going to speak to a dying patient, the fulfillment was far greater than getting somebody out of pulmonary edema. And that's kind of stayed with me to this very day. 

So although radiation oncology is a kind of something you have to do, and you sort of radiate, when I'm called to patients like this, and I do have time, then I kind of sit down with a patient and discuss the options and try to give other options because very often it's a kind of turf in the house of God. Somebody doesn't want to have that conversation with a patient, and they're kind of turfing the patient in a house of God sense to have some radiation. And I'm not sure that radiation in such cases– So this is something that I'm confronting quite often in my daily practice, and it becomes more and more complex culturally because when one is confronted with families who also want to be very active and are dreading having to live with the idea that maybe there's something they could have done that they never did, and they're putting a lot of pressure, then it's a very tough situation. So I'm very sensitive to these situations. 

I've often had end-of-life discussions with patients like that, sometimes against the wish of families that are close by. And the patient would say- well, they'd say to me, 'No, don't talk to him." And the patient said, "No, I want you to go away. Because I think this is the first time someone's listening to me, and I want to hear what he has to say." I feel very passionately about these–

Dr. Lidia Schapira: I have so many comments that we would need hours to discuss. But, of course, the first comment I wanted to make is that some of the most humane oncological specialists I know are radiation oncologists, so I don't see you guys as just treaters and physicists wearing scrubs. I see you as incredibly compassionate members of the cancer team.  

And that brings to mind a lot of the current discussion about palliative radiation, this idea that we can just throw some rads at people because there's nothing to lose and maybe there'll be some improvement in function. So can you talk a little bit about that? I mean, here you are in a very busy clinic falling behind. You've got to walk through a waiting room of people who are sort of looking at you saying, “How can you be walking out when we had an appointment with you half an hour ago?” And you go and find Vladimir, who's despondent and can't have a conversation with you. And I'm pretty sure that you must have been going through this internal conflict even before you met your patient about what to do. Tell us a little bit more about the emotional impact for you.

Dr. Zvi Symon: Yeah. With great trepidation, I actually go up to the department to speak to a patient like this. I think the electronic medical record, for all the problems with that, it allows us to kind of really quickly glimpse and get a true picture of what the situation is. So I had seen the imaging and I'd seen the size of this really very nasty tumor. And I sort of remembered the literature that it's a relative contraindication and it actually may make things worse. But I was getting calls from the department and the medical oncologist who consulted that I must see this patient, and they want that patient to get treated today. So with a kind of a heavy heart, I go up the stairs. I breathe deeply on the way to calm myself and take the staircase up to the 6th floor and walk very slowly up the stairs, trying to go through my mind, what am I going to do, and kind of enter the ward. And then I am confronted by this person who is terribly suffering, very terribly. And he doesn't actually want to look at me at all. His eyes can't meet and he looks kind of, his eyes are very dull. And I see his wife watching me and watching him and turn to her. They are immigrants to the country. And there's also a cultural issue and language problems and difficult socio– 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: If this were fiction, you could not have made it harder. I mean, when I remember reading the manuscript thinking, this poor immigrant, he's depressed, his son is depressed, the other son has COVID, his wife is weeping and says she's the one who's tried to make ends meet. You have all of these barriers in addition to this internal clock that you have somewhere else to be. Can't begin to imagine the pressure. So how did you get through that?

Dr. Zvi Symon: Yeah, I think my mind was kind of ticking over and I think that sometimes we make very practical choices. And I knew that if I sat for too long and I fired a warning shot and said, “Well, this may not help and this may not do it,” but I think that culturally I had the feeling that it was the wrong thing to do and that there was an expectation and the expectation had been created by the team, and it's very difficult to turn down that expectation. And I also felt that she was so frail and that she had really no support and maybe if one of her kids would have come within half an hour, I would have said, “Well, I'll come back after my clinic in the afternoon and let's have a chat with your son.” But the situation was such that I thought, “Well, you just have to be practical and you have to get back to your clinic.” It's a hard feeling that we make value decisions just because it's more comfortable for us. We want to finish our clinic and also go –

Dr. Lidia Schapira: No question about that. Yes, and I think the reader will feel for you, as I did when I read it. I mean, I could immediately sort of imagine all these things playing out. So you follow your intuition, you assess it, you say, “Okay. We'll give it a try,” right? And then you have your team to deal with and your lovely radiation therapist, the technologist who gets personally involved. And then you introduce the idea that perhaps connecting with something in Vladimir's recent past that brings him joy. Can this image of this puppy romping through the fields, is something that can maybe help you all? Like the glue, the emotional glue that keeps you together. Talk a little bit about that part, about how you tried to bring this element out in the story, to give another dimension for the reader, a view not only as the physician giving Vladimir care, but also leading your team.

Dr. Zvi Symon: So I think that an open question to a patient about their– “Just tell me a little bit about yourself,” is an invitation for a person to tell you about the things that they care most about, about the people they love most, that the things were of the most importance in their lives. And I think that kind of human connection, if we can kind of latch onto that and harness that to improve the way we communicate with the patient and the way we get the rest of the team to communicate with the patient, I think that can be very powerful. I mean, I myself love dogs, and I was like, really, my Border Collie just died a few months ago, and we buried her after 12 years, and she was a wonderful animal and part of the family. And in the two minutes that I had to listen to- that's what she told me about, she told me about the dog. And when I tried to motivate the team to add him as an urgent sim and he wasn't cooperating, then it just occurred to me to tell them about it.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: It worked. It was amazing.

Dr. Zvi Symon: And it worked. Yeah.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: It was a beautiful story. I too, am a lover of dogs. I have a wonderful puppy now, and he brings tremendous joy. But your message is so full of compassion and humanity. It's basically back to Dame Cicely Saunders' idea that you want to know who the person is that you're treating and you want to know what matters to them. And so here you caught this moment of connection with the family and with the patient and with your young radiation therapist who needed to feel that he was actually helping this person. So it's a beautiful story. I want to just give you a chance to finish the interview by telling us something perhaps that you want the readers or the listeners to take away from your piece.

Dr. Zvi Symon: Well, I think that the situation of, I think as physicians, we don't really ever know when the patient precisely is going to die. And the whole idea, I think, of a Gosses and my thoughts about the Gosses were, because it's sort of defined within Jewish religious law, someone that is going to die within 72 hours. Now, it's very difficult to define. We don't know that. We never do know that. But I think that that sensitivity to the comfort of a suffering patient and offering a treatment that may be futile or that is highly likely to be futile and that may be involved in an enormous amount of discomfort, I think that we have to be able to sit down with these patients and with their families and discuss other options as just very good sedation and not necessarily, I think, doing, but rather just being there, as you mentioned, for the patient.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: It's a beautiful thought, and I think we all agree with you. And I think what made this story so poignant is that here you are, that time is compressed and you're introduced to the family as somebody who potentially could help fix something or provide something. So it's very difficult to step back, as you say, and do the deep work of sitting and talking and counseling and accompanying. But I think your humanity comes through and your desire to help comes through beautifully in the story. And I really thank you for bringing this concept to our attention. I think that it may be an old idea, but one that is still very relevant. And thank you for sending your work to JCO.

Dr. Zvi Symon: Thank you very much.

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/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. Zvi Symon is a Senior Consultant in the Department and Director of the National School of Radiotherapy at the Sheba Medical Center in Israel and Clinical professor of Oncology at Tel Aviv University Medical School.

Listen to ASCO’s Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, “The Gift of Truth” by Dr. Ilana Hellmann, an Attending Physician in the Hematology Department at Meir Medical Center in Israel. The essay is followed by an interview with Hellmann and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Hellmann shares how it is an immense privilege and grave responsibility for physicians to give bad news to patients who have a terminal disease.

TRANSCRIPT

It was a hot and humid Tuesday in July, and I distinctly remember being grateful for the air conditioning in the pastel-shaded waiting room of the oncology outpatient clinic. My father sat silently beside me. We knew this room well, as we did the doctor we had arrived to see. He had been my late mother’s oncologist until she had passed away just over a year previously from metastatic breast cancer. Dad remembered him being kind yet direct and had requested that he be his oncologist now that he needed one.

I watched his hands fidget with the slip of paper bearing the number that would be called over the loud speaker. My father was 84 and a retired university professor of statistics. He spoke seven languages and his friends called him the encyclopedia as he was an endless fountain of knowledge in history, politics, literature, art, etc.…. His number was called, directing us to a room we had been in many times before. After greetings and some small talk about my late mother, Dr Cohen addressed my dad and slowly went through the history. 

He had had surgery for a squamous cell carcinoma on his scalp along with skin graft 6 months earlier. Two or 3 months later, he complained of pain in his right hip which seemed to worsen by the day. After some imaging and assessment by an orthopedic surgeon, a diagnosis of osteoarthritis was declared, and the treatment recommended was a total hip replacement.

The surgery was performed and my dad, who had been suffering from extreme pain, felt immediate relief. He was delighted with the results of the procedure, delight that dissipated in an instant when the pathology report came back: metastatic squamous cell carcinoma.

He had been quickly referred for a course of radiation which had been completed. This meeting was intended to discuss further treatment. Dr Cohen gently explained that my father’s cancer was not curable and that there was no good treatment available for him at that time.

I do not really remember much of what was said after that. I found myself thanking him for his time and helping my father to the car. The drive home was awful, with awkward silence broken only by a discussion about what he was going to have for lunch. We both pointedly avoided talking about the meaning behind Dr Cohen’s explanations. I was stunned. I felt like my father had been fired by his doctor and that I had been left to deal with the consequences. I felt alone, abandoned, and betrayed.

The next few days passed quickly as I juggled my busy hospital schedule with family dinners, school runs, and the sporting activities of my three boys—the oldest of whom was 11 years old at the time. The weekend came, and on Saturday morning, my husband and I planned to meet friends at the local swimming pool as we so often did in the hot summer months. Leaving him to clean up honey and pancakes, I went across to the apartment opposite ours to say good morning to my father and tell him we would be gone for the better part of the day.

He was sitting up in bed and said: “Before you go, please bring me my phone book.” He still used an alphabetized phone book, mostly in my late mother’s hand writing. I found the book and held it out to him. “Find David Green’s number” he said, which I did. “Dial it please” he said while looking for his glasses on the bedside table. I dialed and handed him the phone. I then listened as he greeted David—an old colleague from his years in academia. Dad had not spoken to David in many years. He explained that he had cancer, and that he did not have much time, but that he wanted David to know how much he had enjoyed working with him and to thank him particularly for his contribution to an article they had published together.

I got up to go and, seeming not to notice, he asked me to dial the number of another friend. Realizing this was going to take some time, I called my husband and told him to take our boys to the swimming pool without me. I sat down next to Dad on his bed and dialed number after number. My parents had lived in a few countries, and my father’s academic career had connected him with people all over the world. Over the course of almost 6 hours, he spoke to friends, relatives, old neighbors, and many work colleagues. He had a personal message for every one of them and started each conversation with a clear and brief explanation of the circumstances of his call.

There were some people who were not home for his call, and he left long messages on answering machines. Those 6 hours were cathartic for the both of us. It was sad but also terribly beautiful and filled with my dad’s signature black humor. Once we had contacted everyone in the phonebook, he continued his mission and gave me a list of people he wanted to be present at his funeral, as well as a second list of those he would prefer not to be there. Then, he handed me an envelope which contained a substantial sum of money. “This” he explained “is for the gentlemen who come to take my body.” My mother had died at home, and he remembered the two ambulance men who had come to take her body to the morgue after she had passed. He had been struck by the difficulty of such thankless work and wanted to make sure they were appropriately compensated.

Very soon after that Saturday, my father had a seizure and was diagnosed with brain metastases. As dad had made it very clear that he wanted palliative care and no admissions to the hospital, Dr Cohen connected us with the services of home hospice care. He deteriorated rapidly and died at home, as he had wished, 3 months later. The money in the envelope was duly delivered to its intended recipients, and there are some people who were not at his funeral. 

I have often gone back to the conversation in the oncologist’s office on that July morning. Oncologists conduct end-of-life discussions with their patients every day. How does one tell the patient the truth without taking away every ounce of hope? Does every patient have to know that he is dying? I had never thought about the immediate consequences of what I say to my patients and their loved ones until I had to get my dad to the car and spend those eternal 20 minutes with him on the drive home.

Bad news is difficult for those on the receiving end but no less so for those given the task of delivering it, especially when it concerns a terminal illness. There are some physicians who avoid telling their patients that their disease is terminal altogether. In not telling patients of the terminal nature of their cancer, are we protecting them or ourselves? And are we preventing them from being able to use the time they have left in a way they would wish with the knowledge that time is limited?

There are those patients who cannot or will not talk about death. Knowing how much to say to each of our patients, and choosing the appropriate words, is an art. The task entrusted to physicians of giving bad news is both an immense privilege and a grave responsibility.

My father received a brutal gift that day. But brutal as it was, it was a gift that enabled him to part, to make peace, and to prepare for his coming death. I have since had countless conversations with my own patients about their imminent demise. I constantly remember my father and that special Saturday. My memories are of tears, and of laughter, and most of all, of a sense of closure for the both of us. I hope that I am able to give my patients their truth in a way that will make it as much a gift for them, as it was for him.

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. Ilana Hellmann, who is an Attending Physician in the Hematology Department at Meir Medical Center in Israel. In this episode, we will be discussing her Art of Oncology article, “The Gift of Truth.” 

At the time of recording, our guest has no disclosures. 

Ilana, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us.

Dr. Ilana Hellmann: Thank you for inviting me. It's wonderful to be here.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: You've been on our show before, so let me just start by diving right into your beautiful article. It honors the memory of your father, a Professor of Statistics, who had an encyclopedic knowledge of the world and spoke seven languages and was known by so many different people. And you start by bringing us to the moment in the waiting room of the oncology department that was familiar to both of you because your mother had been a patient and you had very carefully selected the oncologist for your father. You say it was a July humid day, and his number is called. And then what happened?

Dr. Ilana Hellmann: Well, as I wrote, all the moments that you've just repeated from the article are things that are imprinted in my mind as if it happened yesterday. My father passed away in 2014, and there are those moments and many others that I remember very, very clearly. It's something I hear from my patients also all the time. They remember exactly the day they received the diagnosis, the time of day, they tell me what I was wearing when I told them whatever it was I told them. And it's something that struck me that when I went back to that day and many other things that happened afterwards, I remembered every second. I think I knew what the oncologist was going to say in retrospect, but at the time, maybe I didn't think about it. 

It's very interesting that we as physicians, especially oncologists, we know exactly, but when it comes to family members, we're a little blind. And I've had this experience a few times since my mother passed away from cancer. My father and my father in law passed away just over a year ago, also from metastatic pancreatic cancer. So we know it very well. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Sorry. 

Dr. Ilana Hellmann: As I wrote in the article, I remember going in with my father. I remember the conversation, or at least the beginning part of it, but once the message hit home that, “This is what we have, the bottom line is there's not a lot we can do. We certainly can't cure your disease.” I don't remember anything else that happened after that.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: And you described the ride home after that. You mentioned that you felt your father had been fired, had been fired from anything that was perhaps curative or offered sort of some optimism, perhaps the conversation was a little deeper and supportive and offered some palliation. But what you took away was that this was awful. He was fired. Then you say the ride home was really difficult. 

Tell us a little bit about that. What was it like to leave the oncologist office as the sort of informed knowledgeable daughter who had just received this message?

Dr. Ilana Hellmann: Exactly that. And I kept thinking in my mind, “How much do I say, what is he thinking? How much does he understand?” I was almost jealous, a little of people who have no medical knowledge. So much easier. Maybe it's not, but I think it's really tough for physicians as family members of patients who are unwell. But my father was, as I described, an exceptionally intelligent person, a real intellectual. He was enormous, not physically, but there was nothing he didn't know. You could ask him anything. He read the dictionary for fun. These are things that he liked to compare languages and cancer made him very small. And it was awful. It was just awful, awful to see. And that moment, it was very emphasized how small he was. He was just silent. There was just nothing, and I didn't know what to say. I felt absolutely helpless. And as I described, that drive is 20 minutes, maybe even a little less. It was endless. 

And I remember that I went home with him. It was lunchtime, and I dropped him at home and I went back to work. I think I had taken the day off, to- I didn't know what was going to happen with the oncologist, and I went back to work because it was easier to go back to work than to stay at home. And he was silent. He said nothing. And the next time I understood what he was going through was on that Saturday with everything that happened. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So fast forward to that Saturday, I imagine that you were busy with your children and your work, and it was easy to– I’m going to use the old fashioned word compartmentalize, put this aside for a little bit. And then on Saturday you’re going in to say, “Hey, I’m going to take the children to the pool. How are you?” And he had a completely different idea of how you were going to find yourself spending the day. And I think that’s such a powerful scene in the essay when you say that he started one by one asking you to dial his contacts, his friends, his colleagues and give a message. Tell us a little bit about how that felt and bring us to the bedside or to the scene if you can.  

Dr. Ilana Hellmann: So there's dad. He's in bed. He's got his morning cup of coffee. He lived with a full-time carer at that stage, who brought him some breakfast and a cup of coffee. At some stage, she brought me a cup of coffee. He was very, very focused. It was like I was an assistant, just doing what he needed so that he could talk to all the people he wanted to talk to. It was crazy. It was like watching something surreal. There were people he hadn't spoken to in 20 years that he called. He had no concept of what time it was in various parts of the world, so he woke people in the middle of the night. It was really quite something. People didn't believe me afterwards when I told them the story, and as I say, some of the conversations were very, very humorous. My father had a wicked sense of humor; very black sense of humor. So, there was lots of laughter mixed in with, “I'm dying, and I have cancer.” Lots of humor, and there were a lot of tears, mostly on my part because my father was not a tearful type. He was emotional, but he didn't cry. But I remember being very tearful. I didn't know all the people. Some of the people were people I'd heard of when I was a child, all sorts of neighbors, people we'd lived next door to years before when I grew up in South Africa. 

And when he'd finished, he had this sense of- he was satisfied, “I've done what I had to do.” And then he moved on. He had his list of things he had to do, the money he wanted to give to the ambulance workers, the people he wanted at his funeral, he didn't want to go to his funeral. It was typical of my father to do something like that. He planned everything. And it was like he'd had a box that he had to seal and tie a ribbon and it was done. And then he was finished and he was ready and he let go. It was amazing. It was beautiful.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: When I read your essay, I felt that that was the gift he gave you. You have the word ‘gift’ in the title. But it's such an amazing scene for a father to be able to do, sort of a review of his life while he's still living. Instead of leaving you a box with all of his memories, he basically showed you and gave you this loving and exhaustive, comprehensive demonstration of what his life had been about.

Dr. Ilana Hellmann: Absolutely.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: And in some ways, some of the dimensions that he touched were the professional dimensions that perhaps as a child or a young adult he would not have been able to access. But you saw how big he was. What an amazing thing. Did you and he ever talk about that? What it was that led him to do that? Or was that just something that happened and you sort of both understood and just walked on?

Dr. Ilana Hellmann: It was beautiful and it's certainly a gift I've been left with. There was the gift he got and the gift I got. It was a little intense. Six hours of calls was exhausting. I remember when my husband came home and I told him, he immediately poured me a glass of wine. It was very, very difficult and it took me a long time to go through. I had no time to recover from one conversation to the next conversation. And he just kept going. He had very little breaks during the day. There were a lot of people he had to talk to, and he wanted to finish it today. He thought he was dying next week. That's not what happened. He never spoke about it again. And that was quite typical of him. He was like, “What's done is done. I've said what I had to say.” There were a lot of things that he said that I heard from the conversations that he had. And as you say, there were various gifts during the day that were told to other people but intended for me and for my younger brother who was not there at the time because he lived in England. But we never discussed it again. That was the way my father was.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: You know when we, as physicians, tell patients who are sort of nearing the end of their life to say what they need to say to be prepared, this is exactly why, right? Because very soon after that, he had a seizure. He had brain metastasis. He might not have had the stamina or the ability to do what he did. So that is a very important lesson. I was incredibly moved by that scene, and I've probably read it a dozen times. You've probably thought about it a million times, but certainly this reader took a lot from that very beautifully described scene and so nicely told. 

So for the last few minutes, tell us a little bit about how this personal experience has impacted your delivery of news and your relationship with the patients. You start by telling us that often, as oncologists, we give bad news but then we just move on. But people live with this, people go home like this. How has that experience as a daughter impacted your delivery of news? 

Dr. Ilana Hellmann: Absolutely. There are a few parts of how it's influenced me. Somebody who read the article when I was writing it had said to me, "Wow, do all physicians have to go through these things to be able to identify with their patients or their family members?" Well, I hope not. It's a terrible thing to think of that each of us– On the other hand, there's no question that when you've been through something, you identify with the person in front of you if you know what they're talking about, you know what it's like to be a mother, you know what it's like to be a daughter. You know or you don't know what it's like to lose a parent or somebody else and the experiences that I had and I imagine anybody else have had with interactions with the medical community, with doctors, with the emergency room, with all sorts of things are things that influence the way I approach patients.

So one of the things is true. I'm guilty of the fact that it didn't occur to me that I sit in my room, I see a patient and his daughter, his wife, his whatever, and I give them this news, and then I leave the wife to deal with him outside. Or the fact that when the oncologist said, “We haven't got curative treatment for you,” and I didn't hear anything else after that. Well, we know that when we tell patients something not good, there's often no point in carrying on the conversation and talking about treatment and side effects and whatever because they're not there anymore. And that's something that I remember very clearly from that.

You can't go with the patient, you can't go home with them, you can't get in the car with them, but you can remember it, think about it, choose your words carefully, maybe have a word with the spouse or the family member, whoever it is, as they're leaving outside the door, “If you need anything, call me.” Maybe call them. Sometimes, I've seen that it's difficult, and I've called them the next day. That definitely has influenced me. I'm not sure there's a lot you can do about it, but I think about it. In terms of telling patients that time is limited, that you're not going to live forever, it's hard, and we want to give patients good news. It's so much easier to tell a patient that their PET CT is clear than that it's all come back and the prognosis is not good. 

So I try to understand where the patient is and how much they want to go. Most patients will lead the conversation. Most patients know to tell you how far they want you to go. And I've never been sorry about telling the patient that their prognosis is bad and that their disease is terminal. And I've had lots of return conversations from families after patients have passed on about the conversations they had, about the things that they did, about the fact that the patient decided maybe not to have more intensive treatment, went on a holiday, decided not to come to the emergency room with a fever or whatever it was, and elected to stay at home with hospice. 

I found that that side of oncology is no less rewarding when you have to accompany a patient on their lost journey. I've found over the years that it's actually no less rewarding than the patients who are cured. And then you see them once a year and they come and they say everything's good. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: And that perhaps is part of what we call the art of oncology, which is the being in relationship, connecting with somebody, being a rock or a source of guidance for them when they're going through incredibly vulnerable times. I think that's not something that perhaps others recognize as being rewarding, but for those of us who are drawn to it, it can be incredibly rewarding. 

Thank you, Ilana. This is a beautiful conversation and such a lovely essay. I imagine there's a reason for this taking about ten years to process and write, because the impact is so deep, but you managed to do that. For that, all of the readers of JCO are grateful to you. So I thank you very much. 

Dr. Ilana Hellmann: Thank you. Thank you for taking it and publishing it. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So 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. Ilana Hellmann is an Attending Physician in the Hematology Department at Meir Medical Center in Israel.

Listen to ASCO’s Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, “Do You See Me?,” by Dr. Kristen McCullough, a Hematology Clinical Pharmacy Specialist at Mayo Clinic. The essay is followed by an interview with McCullough and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. McCullough shares a pharmacist's perspective on experiencing a patient loss.

TRANSCRIPT

“Ope!” is the common Minnesotan exclamation when you bump into someone you did not see. As a pharmacist working in ambulatory care, I am more apt to hear it than most. I am a convenient presence in clinic life, available when needed, but I was trained to be as unobtrusive as the beige and bespeckled wallpaper that shrouds the hallway. After a decade, many still struggle to get my name correct. I hear a muttered thanks occasionally, but I know minds are fixated on the next patient, research question, grant deadline, or difficult conversation. 

I try to be accessible when you need me, from the minutiae of learning to order ondansetron as a new fellow to managing catastrophic relapses with multiorgan failure as a seasoned physician giving salvage chemotherapy. On nights, weekends, holidays, or when we are separated by a dozen time zones, I am here. We have navigated the uncomfortable waters of chemotherapy in hemodialysis, written clinical trials, obtained medication on compassionate use, and fought with insurance companies. I bear the brunt of your frustration when the electronic medical record feels cumbersome and ordering chemotherapy is just not like it used to be. Do you remember asking me to “just fix the system” in sheer exasperation but high-fiving me a few weeks later when you entered a chemotherapy plan without my assistance or corrections? I know that needing my help feels inefficient, impractical, and almost like a failure. You wish it was an easier, simpler, and more self-reliant system. 

But there are many times when you do not need me. When things go well and the bone marrow shows a complete response, the BCR::ABL1 is undetectable, or the positron emission tomography scan is clear. I am absent in those often fleetingly beautiful moments when you say “The cancer is in remission!” and you joyfully dismiss your patient. Did you forget that I had planned a visit? It is the desk staff who graciously tell me that my visit was presumably canceled. The patient has already left for the day. I am overjoyed for them, but it is bittersweet to be forgotten.

Do you remember that gray and rainy afternoon in late October? I was in my office after your visit was done that difficult day. You left the examination room after an emotional and raw conversation about resuming therapy and asked for my help. You imparted the bad news and plan, but it was my job to carry out your instructions. I held their hand, sat with them through mutual tears, and paused many times for collective digestion of the information. I explained the differences between their last round of treatment and the new plan. I talked about topics that are difficult and uncomfortable: financial consequences, physical appearance changes, every side effect from hair loss to sepsis, and the need to stay in town and miss thanksgiving at home. It was well after 6 o’clock when I escorted them to admissions and we parted ways. The lights in our department were dim, and everyone was gone. You needed me. They needed me. 

Together, as a pharmacist and a physician, we spent weeks managing side effects for our patient, from nausea and vomiting to blood stream infections and transfusion dependence. I fought with insurance for drug approval, spent many weary hours in front of a fax machine obtaining charitable grants to cover copays, and plead with companies for patient assistance and free medication. We hopped from regimen to regimen, enrolled on clinical trials, and entertained the thought of compassionate use when precision medicine testing yielded a potential target. Weeks turned into months, and months turned into exhaustion. Despite all the awful things happening, our patient snuck treats into appointments and sent portal messages of their bucket list adventures, even if they became increasingly more home centric. Bad days started to outweigh the good as time marched forward.

I was the first person to murmur the words comfort care as a potential next step just before we walked into the next visit. As a physician, you were angry at me for putting these words

out into the universe and called me naïve. I do not think you intended to be hurtful, but I am reminded of my place. It was just shy of 3 weeks later before you and the patient made that mutual decision when chemotherapy was no longer an option, and visits with me ceased. My services were no longer viewed as necessary. I did not get to see our patient again, except for a couple of In Basket messages.

I first read about their passing through an electronic medical record alert that I am entering a deceased patient’s chart while data collecting for a project. Their photo is now gray, and their demographics are a stark red. The chart feels hauntingly cold. The obituary was filled with healthy pictures and beautiful memories. Did you read it too? I missed the memorial service because no one told me.

I closed the obituary and took the back roads home from work. It was a beautiful June day, and the sunshine felt warm and welcoming through my open windows. I wanted our patient to feel remembered, even if my remembrance was not particularly meaningful. Over the next few weeks, I embraced all the things we talked about in our visits. I listened to Earth, Wind, & Fire, their favorite band. I went to the driving range and exploded with laughter at my atrocious hooks and slices. I visited the local ice cream shop and indulged in mint chocolate chip ice cream that melted down my hand from a gigantic waffle cone. I sat on the dock and watched the sunset from the best vacation spot in the Midwest: a Minnesota lake.

A year later, I smile when my playlist cycles through their favorite song, but the weariness of this rhythm grows heavier. As a physician, I hope you will see this side of my practice and the human being in this story, someone who meets patients where they are and agonizes alongside you at the loss of human life; someone who is crushed by the same weight of bureaucracy, red tape, archaic rules, and biases; someone who fights against the archetype that a pharmacist should be seen and not heard; and someone who will relentlessly remind you that pharmacists are brighter than an insurance claim or copay frustration. I hope someday you see the person connected to the In Basket, e-mail, pager, or phone as a team member and not a referee. I hope one day you simply see me, utterly human and some days utterly broken. 

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. Kristen McCullough, a Hematology Clinical Pharmacy Specialist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. In this episode, we will be discussing her Art of Oncology article, “Do You See Me?” 

At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. 

Kristen, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us.

Dr. Kristen McCullough: Thank you for having me.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: It is our pleasure. I like to start these conversations by asking authors to tell us a little bit about their reading preferences. Do you have a book you'd like to recommend or something you're currently reading that's captivating your attention?

Dr. Kristen McCullough: I just started a book called The Measure, which I think so far is excellent. It's about everybody in the world that is an adult receiving a box, and in the box is a string purported to be a measure of the length of your life and whether people choose to open the box or not open the box and what you do with that information. I think that is so closely tied to what we try to do in our day-to-day jobs, which is kind of this foretelling, future telling, and whether or not people want that information or don't want that information and what you do with it. So far, excellent, incredible read. Looking forward to kind of seeing how it unfolds. So that's what I’m reading if you can call that fun, a fun standpoint. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Oh, I hope it is fun.  

Dr. Kristen McCullough: A fun standpoint. I did just finish a Masters in Pharmacy, Business and Administration so I did a big chunk of reading that was more business-y and that was more focused on leadership and culture and that kind of thing.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: How fascinating. Well, the book sounds very interesting. So it's an interesting segue to your essay. What made you write and then submit your work to be read by Oncologists? In other words, the sentiment is very clear and we'll talk about the message. But what was the process that you used that led you to want to share this work through Art of Oncology?

Dr. Kristen McCullough: I've written for a very long time, much of it personal. Obviously, this job is very personal. It's hard not to be. And so I write for myself as a form of processing and I wrote this particular piece a while back simply as a means to help myself understand where my frustrations and sort of my difficulties with this job come from. And not that it's bad difficult, but it's just ongoing how do you get through some of the things that everybody deals with? 

The more that I read through it, it was a piece that I went back to time and again because the feelings continued to surface in a variety of different ways. I thought, am I the only person that feels this way? I discussed the sentiments, but not the article in specific with a couple of colleagues in pharmacy and they said, “Gosh, I feel this sentiment, who are we in the care team and where do we fall and what’s our place?” And I felt like it was an important time to share that as our field grows, as our capacity on a care team grows, to make sure that people understand who we are and what we can provide and that we are important to patients in a variety of capacities.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, you sure are. You're indispensable. So thinking about this, I totally appreciate the sentiment that pharmacists are very important members of the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary cancer team. But what you, I think, showcase in this article is that sometimes as individuals, they may remain invisible or not as visible as they ought to be. So what I heard in this article, and please feel free to correct me, but this is my interpretation as a reader is this is sort of a letter of sorts to the oncologist, the trainee, the attending physician, the clinical investigator who partner with you in clinical care. And what you're saying is look at the emotional labor of our work and we are often not recognized and not brought into the team in the way that we ought to be. Did I get that right?

Dr. Kristen McCullough: Yes. I think we are being brought into the fold more and I want to do service to the people that I work with. I mean, that change has happened very gradually. I've been with a very dedicated group in the past 10 years and that is improving and growing. You certainly have to demonstrate your capacity to provide services and be available. But sometimes the greater sentiment when we try to remember who a care team is, we're very good at saying that our care team is physicians and advanced practice providers and nurses. And it just doesn't seem to sift down to saying and pharmacists. And I don't think- it's never a conscious exclusion. It just doesn't seem to quite get there. And sometimes that can be hurtful when it's heard again and again and again. 

And I want people to remember that we make these tremendous connections with patients repeatedly. They are emotionally connected to us just as much as we are to them. And so when I lose patients, I feel that too, and I want to share that with my providers. I want to say, “Gosh, do you remember these incredible experiences we had and how funny this was? And do you remember their kids and their grandkids and the things that they brought to the table?” Because I was just as impacted by those experiences as I think that they were. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: You also talk about the specific expertise that you bring. What struck me, for instance, was saying,”We gave chemo through hemodialysis together, the advocacy part. We're the ones left looking for the authorization or helping people with payment.” And then you talk about the human connection of, “We are the ones who are left explaining what the treatment actually will look like, what the side effects may be of that particular treatment.” All of which is incredibly important for the practice of oncology both in a community or an academic setting.  

And then you actually take us on. A bit more of a personal journey of what it felt like for you to learn that a patient had passed and how you found a way to honor that connection that you had and remember this patient. Can you tell us a little bit more about what that was like for you, this journey that you took with this particular patient, listening to the music they liked and eating an ice cream for them while you're watching the sunset on the lake?

Dr. Kristen McCullough: Most importantly is I can read everything that happens to a patient in a hospital. I mean, we know every time they eat and sleep and sneeze. And so the more important part to me is if I'm going to send you home, particularly because our therapies are now far more outpatient based, is what are you doing at home that's good? And what are you not doing? What are you not participating in that you wish you could participate in? Because that's more telling to me of what my therapy is causing that's preventing you from participating or that you aren't doing because we told you that you couldn't. If my therapy causes some sensitivity and you hear that and you think, I can't go outside and how do I fix that? Because I want to make sure you go to grandkids’ baseball games and how do we accommodate those things?  

And so I try to listen for that, and what I get out of that is the human side of my patient, what pieces are important to them. And that's where you hear those things. What's your favorite music? What concerts are you going to go to? What are you looking forward to? If you could eat anything, what would you want to eat? What would make you feel better? How do I make that happen? If you could feel well enough to do anything, what's the most important thing for you to do? And I think that's what I remember most about patients is they wish they could get back on their motorcycle. They wish they could go fishing off the dock, they can't taste their favorite ice cream anymore, those kinds of things.

And so that's what I remember. And I don't have a great way to memorialize patients. I can't go to funerals across the country. I mean, I can write cards and call families if it's appropriate, but I need a sense of closure in some of these instances. And so the best way for me to do that is to try and remember them through an activity that I think would make them chuckle, make them laugh, be like, “Oh, I knew she'd never get on a motorcycle. I knew she would never listen to that song from the 70s”, something like that. And so that's what I did for this particular patient, was think about the things that they did. And we laughed about try and process through that particular sentiment because it was just the only way I really knew how to when I wasn't part of the process for the rest of the team. When the death note comes through, and the nurse knows and the event practice providers know and the providers knows and the providers call the patient’s family and they send a card and I just didn’t know. So I had to kind of process in my own way and laugh. 

I mean I’m a terrible golfer, horrible. I went with my husband and I can’t hit a golf ball to save my life, and hooks and slices, and it was terrible and I laughed. It was good to laugh. It was good to imagine my patient thinking, “Oh, my goodness. She’s just atrocious.” 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So I think this is the first time in the 20 plus years of Art of Oncology that we've presented a pharmacist, a clinical pharmacist point of view, and I'm so appreciative of that. We've been getting more and more stories from other members of the team who also felt somehow they weren't sufficiently recognized. And I wonder if you could tell our listeners a little bit about how you imagine that the care should be implemented to perhaps include clinical pharmacists in some of these activities that you say are sort of routinized by care teams but may actually leave important members out. 

Dr. Kristen McCullough: I think the hardest part for me is when patients are making a transition to comfort care or to hospice. Include your pharmacist as part of that because we either have connections in hospice care - I've got colleagues in hospice care - or at least let me help the patient make that move as well. Can I help pull off medications that they don't necessarily need to be on so they're not at home on statins and all sorts of other medications that they don't need? Can we help have that conversation to make it easier? Even if I'm not part of that, then at least let me know that the patient has made a transition because I think other care team members are aware. And if there's support that I can provide in that, I'm really happy to do that. And then if the patient passes away, it would be nice to know and be part of that information piece as well if that's possible.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: You bring up some very valuable points that I think could benefit care and could certainly strengthen the team approach to patient care that is sort of increasingly being adopted in cancer care. One is that you have knowledge that could help patients across these transitions of care, and two is that your input doesn't end when active disease modifying therapies stop. You still have a lot to bring. And then it's the personal part of really feeling that you're integrated into the care team. And I think perhaps wearing your new MBA leader, you can introduce some changes in your system and then kind of lead the rest of the country in thinking about how to restructure the role of the pharmacist and the care team.

Dr. Kristen McCullough: We can dream big, right? 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's what this is about. 

Dr. Kristen McCullough: Gosh, that would be ideal. And there was a really nice article in the Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice that talked about the state of pharmacy care across the country in oncology pharmacy. And I think we have pharmacists in a lot of incredible places, whether it's clinics, infusion centers, specialty care, inpatient, but we're short and we've got a long way to go. So any advocacy that we have from cancer centers and providers to help us and to recognize the value add, it will be incredibly beneficial because we can't advocate alone. We need support. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: I know that there are lots of people who are reimagining cancer care and thinking about how technologies are going to also help us in the future. So I hope some of them are listening to this. I have one final question about this, and that is that from everything you're saying, pharmacists have a real connection with patients and provide advice and so on. What kind of communication skills training do pharmacists receive these days?

Dr. Kristen McCullough: So you're asking somebody who went to pharmacy school a very long time ago.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: You look very young to me.

Dr. Kristen McCullough: It's been a hot minute. They do have rotations, specifically a year of rotations after they've completed their didactics, where they have to orient in a variety of care settings, so whether that's inpatient or outpatient, retail, hospital, etc., where they're introduced to the patient experience. Where they have to learn to interview patients and complete medication reconciliation, and learn to ask good questions and elicit good information. But I think a majority of pharmacists that most people and I don't want to be all encompassing here, but that most clinicians are seeing in outpatient settings and even in hospitals are working with have gone through a residency program. And residency programs are optional. They're a couple of years after you finish pharmacy school. That is where you kind of get a lot of really core experiences in specialty care that give you that experience working directly with patients. It gives you research experience, a lot of more academic if that's what the pharmacist is interested in.  

But truthfully, and I will be honest here, we don't get a lot of good experience in how to manage death and dying. That comes from working with clinicians. And some of the very best learning experiences I have ever had have come with the clinicians I've worked with. The things that they've taught me in terms of conversations and listening have come from the people that I work with and I will treasure those experiences for a lifetime.  

So, include pharmacists. Help us learn to be part of those so that we can help you have those conversations because patients talk to us about those things long after you've left the room and we need help learning how to do that and we learn best from you.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Thank you so much, Kristen. I think this has been a lovely conversation, certainly inspiring. And again, I think that there are so many opportunities to take your message forward. So thank you very much for the work that you do, for your thoughtfulness and for this lovely reminder or perhaps lesson for clinical oncologists. 

Is there anything else that you'd like to tell our listeners today?

Dr. Kristen McCullough: I'm grateful for the opportunity to have this conversation and like I said, for the people that I've learned from over the years, it's been a tremendous experience and I'm looking forward to the continued endeavors to grow in this particular area. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: And we will be watching. 

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. Kristen McCullough is a Hematology Clinical Pharmacy Specialist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Listen to ASCO’s Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, “Buenos Días: A Letter to My Patient’s Mother,” by Dr. Jenny Ruiz, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. The essay is followed by an interview with Ruiz and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Ruiz shares a poignant story of a pediatric oncology immigrant family, social determinants of health and similarities to her own family’s experience.

TRANSCRIPT 

Dear Gabriela,

“Buenos dias,” we said to each other in the pediatric intensive care unit. It was July of my first year of fellowship, and I was meeting you for the first time. From the start, you were there as a family unit, you and your husband supporting your two sons and each other. You were not new to the health care system or to pediatric oncology. But this was the first time you encountered a Latina, Spanish-speaking oncologist. When you heard me speak Spanish, I saw the relief in your eyes, a relief that I had seen before with my previous Spanish-speaking families. An immediate rapport was struck, fortified by our common language, cultivating an environment of trust. It stirred memories of the numerous instances when I accompanied my chronically ill grandfather to his medical appointments, often assuming the role of a medical interpreter for his care team and yearning for such a connection.

I learned that your son had recently completed therapy for his first cancer, and because he (and your family) has a genetic predisposition to cancer, he required surveillance scans. That summer, his whole-body magnetic resonance imaging picked up an asymptomatic brain tumor.

So, our lives became intertwined and I became your son’s pediatric oncology fellow. I would never imagine the events that would follow in the next 4 years.

I couldn’t help but notice the similarities between our families. My family also immigrated from Mexico to the United States in search of better economic opportunities. They too primarily spoke Spanish and worked manual labor jobs earning minimum wage. They too had a genetic predisposition to a chronic disease (although not cancer), and because of this, they too saw multiple family members die at a young age.

You told me about your brother who died in his 20s from cancer and how your father had a similar fate in his early 50s. Back then you didn’t know that your family had a cancer predisposition.

Perhaps the local hospital in Mexico where your family was treated didn’t have the genetic tests, or maybe your family could not afford such tests. I never asked you. My maternal great grandfather also didn’t know why he had end-stage renal disease at a young age in rural Mexico. Even if the local hospital did have the tests, my family could not afford them. Just like your family, it was here in the United States that my family uncovered our own genetic predisposition, but, in our case, it was to kidney disease. Sadly, knowing the root cause did not prevent early deaths.

You told me about the events that led to your son’s first cancer diagnosis. He was having leg pain and was about to turn 2 years old. You went to his pediatrician for a sick visit and routine vaccines. His leg pain worsened after the vaccines. Scans were ordered and unfortunately showed a tumor. You shared how in your mind the vaccines and the cancer were linked and how you worried about future vaccines. I listened to your worries and explained that vaccines did not cause his cancer. This reminded me of conversations I had with my own mother and aunts who would ask me medical questions: was it normal for a healthy young adult to have hypertension?

What are kidney cysts? These early family experiences ingrained in me the importance of communicating in plain language and the responsibility we have as physicians of educating our patients and their families. I would later learn in my medical training that not all physicians learned these communication skills or prioritized them. 

Your worst nightmare came true when we found his second tumor, this time in his brain. You and your family prayed that it was a benign tumor relying on your deep faith in God. So, when I broke the news that it was a malignant tumor, it was far from a buen diıa for your family. Your son had a quick postoperative recovery, and we made plans that I would see him in clinic the following week to discuss his treatment plan.

“Buenos dias,” you said to me in clinic. You were there again as a family unit, both you and your two boys. We discussed the treatment plan in Spanish, and you asked thoughtful questions about the chemotherapies he would receive. I was impressed that you remembered side effects of medications from his previous treatment and that you learned to use the patient portal on your phone. I also noticed how you had mastered enough English to communicate simple things with the nurse or with the physical therapist, but you preferred to speak to me in Spanish. You son was well plugged into our large pediatric academic medical center and all the support that came with it. Our nurse navigators helped you coordinate multispecialty appointments. But I was acutely aware of what another subspeciality appointment meant: another day off work for your husband without pay, or if he did go to work, it meant you had to figure out transportation as you did not know how to drive, challenges my own family members experienced.

So, we started outpatient treatment, and I saw you on a weekly basis. Your son tolerated his therapy exceptionally well and continued to have many buenos dias that you were grateful for. In between updating me on how your son was doing at home, your husband would lovingly tease you and make light of what I am sure was a very stressful situation. Your older son would also come to the appointments, and at one point, we ended up talking about school and going to college. I shared with him that I was the first one in my family to become a doctor and how important it was to work hard in school now, so later on, he could apply for scholarships, and one day, he could be the first in his family to go to college. I told him, “If I can do it, you can do it too.” I could see his excitement in his eyes. At the end of clinic, you ended with “Muchas gracias doctora.” 

Six months later, your son completed his therapy and began surveillance scans. You shared with me your anxieties around these scans. I tried my best to normalize your feelings. Thankfully, your son’s scans continued to be negative for tumors and he continued to have good days. Every so often I would remind you about the importance of your own surveillance scans and you would nod your head. This was not new to me as I had taken on the role of reminding my siblings and cousins to schedule their annual health visits and have screening tests for kidney disease given our family history.

A year and a half went by, and then during one of our routine visits, you told me that you were not doing well and that, in fact, you were having malos dias. I asked you what was going on, and you told me how you had gone to your local community hospital for abdominal pain and had been diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. I was shocked. After updating me on your son and how well he was doing, you asked me a question that stayed with me, a question that my own family members had asked me before: “What is the prognosis for this?” You caught me off guard. I turned the question back to you and asked you what your oncologist had told you. You said they hadn’t given you numbers and that you understood that a higher stage was bad. You looked at me with pleading eyes. I told you how my specialty was children with cancer and that I did not know the numbers for adult cancers. I encouraged you to talk with your oncologist more about this. Although this was during the first year of the pandemic, I gave you a hug. Although I didn’t say it out loud, we both knew this was not going to end well. 

I called you the following week to check on you. I asked if you wanted my help to get a second opinion at the academic adult hospital next door. You explained that you were about to start therapy at your community hospital and that since you didn’t have health insurance because of your undocumented status, you didn’t want to pursue a second opinion at this time. I told you that if you changed your mind, I would be happy to help.

I didn’t hear from you for several weeks, and then I got a notification that your son had multiple emergency department (ED) visits. In his electronic medical record, I read that it was your husband who had brought him in for vomiting. I read in a note that your husband had told the ED team that you had recently died. I was in shock. I cried for your sons who were left without a mother and for your husband who would now have to learn to navigate the medical system by himself.

Two weeks later, I saw your sons and your husband for what I thought was going to be a routine visit. I was shocked when your husband told me that child protective services had been called on them by the hospital social worker. He told me the story that instigated this call. Your older son, now a teen, was struggling to deal with your death. One afternoon, your husband asked him to take out the trash and your son had an emotional outburst and said some disrespectful things to your husband. Your husband reacted quickly and flicked your son’s cheek. This story was shared by your older son to the social worker who made the report. My shock turned into anger, and I did my best to stay composed in front of him and your sons. I understood your husband’s reaction, as respect to parents is a core value in Mexican culture.1 I wondered if the social worker understood this. Before I left the examination room, I told your husband that the medical system can be biased and warned him to be careful and know his rights. For my own extended family had experience with child protective services, several years back my young aunt, a first-time mom, lost custody of my infant cousin after an unwitnessed fall that resulted in brain injury. I wondered if the outcomes would have been different if she was white, wealthy, and well-educated. I would later learn in my medical education the disproportionality in reporting by race and ethnicity.2

Once back in the work room, I cried sad and angry tears. Sad that your husband had to go through this process and the added stress after the recent trauma of your death. Angry that I, the physician with the longest continuity with your family, the physician who spoke your primary language and understood your culture, was not notified before the reporting. Angry also that this system was yet again failing our most vulnerable populations. Knowing that when resources are limited, it is low-income, non–English-speaking families that usually get neglected first. Child protective services investigated and concluded that no major action was warranted. 

Thankfully, your son’s surveillance scans continued to be negative. In the next couple of months, your husband learned to navigate the clinics, the ED, and the hospital. Unfortunately, language barriers made this navigation stressful, and more than once, miscommunication with ED doctors increased his anxiety about the possibility of recurrence for your son. I reiterated to him to call our clinic with any question, saying that I’d rather we answer his questions instead of having him worry weeks on end at home.

Several more months passed, and your son was due for surveillance scans again. I got a call from the social worker that day notifying me that your son came with his uncle to his scan appointments because your husband was admitted in the hospital and that there was concern for cancer. This was completely unexpected as your husband was not the one with the family history of cancer. I called your husband later that day to give him the results of your son’s scans (negative for recurrence and negative for new tumors) and to ask about his health. He told me of the weight loss and abdominal pain. He went to the same community hospital where you had gone and had scans that showed a mass in the colon. He told me he was about to be discharged and insisted on keeping your son’s clinic appointment with me the following week as he wanted his son’s g-tube checked. At the time, it seemed strange tome that he was hyper-focused on the g-tube instead of focusing on his own health, but in retrospect, I think the g-tube was something he could control during a chaotic time. 

I saw your two boys and your husband in the clinic the following week. I was shocked to see how your husband looked compared with our last visit 6 months ago. He was in a wheelchair, had lost a significant amount of weight, and looked like he had aged 10 years. 

He told me how his son, my patient, continued to do well. He was worried the g-tube was irritating him more. We ended up exchanging the size as he had outgrown the previous one. Then, he told me about his health, that the biopsy results were still pending, and that he understood the mass was localized. He shared how the preliminary diagnosis of cancer was disclosed to him: the doctor came in the room and abruptly said it was cancer in front of your older son without a warning. My heart broke when I heard this. Your older son lost you to cancer less than a year ago, saw his brother undergo treatment for two separate cancers, and saw his cousin lose his fight to cancer. He didn’t deserve this. I held back tears, and I apologized for the fact that his family had to experience this poor disclosure. I worried about the care he was receiving at the community hospital, knowing cancer is the leading cause of death for Latinos in the United States and that social determinants of health have a role in this.3 I knew the odds were stacked against him. I reminded him that he has rights, including having an interpreter when talking to the medical team.

Then, he said something that took me by surprise, “I need to get my affairs in order.” I felt this was premature and also felt helpless as I desperately wanted to help your family. I told him he didn’t know all the information yet, and if the cancer is localized, then the chance of cure is higher. He nodded his head. I asked if we could provide assistance in any way, such as coverage for transportation, but he declined this offer. At the end of the visit, he said “Muchas gracias doctora.” At home, I cried for your family and questioned how one family could be so unlucky.

I called your husband on a weekly basis for the next 2 weeks to check on him. I then went on service and was too busy to call, but the following week, I got an e-mail from the oncology psychologist stating your son and your husband missed a telehealth visit, adding no one answered the phone when she called. I replied that I had not spoken to your husband in over a week. A couple of days later, I got a call from your son’s social worker, one of the Spanish interpreters had found out via Facebook that your husband had died. Almost a year after you died. I cried.

I went to your husband’s funeral. I cried for your boys who lost both parents in the span of a year. It was comforting to see that you had a lot of friends in the community who cared about your family. It was also comforting to hear that your cousin agreed to take in the boys.

Gabriela, you and your husband did a phenomenal job raising your boys especially with the two cancer diagnoses of your younger son. Your son, my patient, was always happy in clinic, and that spoke volumes to the type of environment you created for him at home. Despite the complexity of navigating a large academic medical center, you did it with such poise. You were an extraordinary mother. 

Was it fate that our lives became intertwined so early in my fellowship training? Latino physicians in general are underrepresented in medicine,4 and the same is true for Latino oncologists in academic medicine.5 So, it was an honor and privilege for me to be your son’s doctora. Throughout our encounters, I thought about how I would want my own extended family to be treated by their medical team, and I did my best to communicate, educate, and advocate for your son and your family. Your family reminded me of barriers low-income, immigrant, Spanish-speaking families face as they navigate the

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. Jenny Ruiz, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. In this episode, we will be discussing her Art of Oncology article "Buenos Dias: A Letter to My Patient's Mother." 

At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. 

Jenny, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us.

Dr. Jenny Ruiz: Thank you so much for having me here. It's truly a privilege.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: It's our pleasure. So, Jenny, I like to start by asking our authors what it is that they're reading now. 

Dr. Jenny Ruiz: Yeah. So I'm currently reading Lean In by Sheryl Sandberg as I'm new to a transition to a new institution.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Doesn't sound like a lot of fun, but I hope that it's useful. 

So let's talk a little bit about your work. What made you choose a career in pediatric oncology?

Dr. Jenny Ruiz: I think my decision to go into medicine has stemmed from my extended family's interaction with the medical field. At the age of 18, I decided to be premed because I had an encounter with my grandfather, taking him to his clinic appointments after his kidney transplant and being asked by the doctor to interpret for him. I was at that time 17 or 18, and I thought it was a very interesting question that they were asking me. I didn't really think my grandfather would be telling me, his granddaughter, all his personal medical symptoms to then tell the doctor. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: It's a huge responsibility that's often, I’m going to say, inflicted on children, and especially in this case, with your grandfather. You talk very candidly and openly about being in a family where there was a genetic susceptibility to disease other than cancer and your solidarity with your patient and their family for being an immigrant community and having this. Tell us a little bit about the years that you lived with the story. You cared for this child for many years before sharing the story so openly. Tell us about that. 

Dr. Jenny Ruiz: Yeah. I met this family my first year in the first month of my fellowship four years ago. At the beginning, he was doing so well. I mean, it was unfortunate he had a second diagnosis of cancer, but he did exceptionally well in the outpatient setting, really not having any admissions for all of that. And it was just beautiful to have that relationship with the parents, being able to speak the same language, being able to understand the culture, and seeing them kind of go through this all over again and seeing a little boy grow up. 

And it wasn't really until the last two years that a lot of the incidents that I describe in the story started happening. And so it definitely was a lot to kind of process it with the family as they themselves were going through all the trauma of having the parents diagnosed with cancer. And I think it definitely did take me a while to even after all of that, to put it down in the story and writing it down. I found myself oftentimes kind of writing a little part of the story and having to pause because of all the emotions coming back. And so I think I did that a couple of times across the country, across the world, honestly, little paragraphs here and there.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's so interesting. Assuming, maybe reading into this, that telling the story, writing the story, helped you process something that was very personal, very challenging. Can we talk a little bit about this issue of language? You said that you've seen this look of relief on patients' faces when they realize that you speak Spanish and that you can communicate with them, Spanish in this case being the language that binds you to the patient. Tell us a little bit about that, how you view language and speaking the same language as your patient and their family.

Dr. Jenny Ruiz: Yeah, I think we often take for granted that we're able to communicate with our doctors, our medical team, in our primary language. And it's very easy to overlook that there's a lot of immigrants in this country who don't have that luxury of being able to speak to their medical team in their preferred language. So I think one of the main drivers for me to go into medicine is to be able to connect with these families who speak Spanish, knowing that Spanish is my first language, and be able to really communicate in a plain language and explain it to them in a way that they understand and for it to be much easier to then see if they truly understand and check for understanding. I think in pediatric oncology especially, it's a very stressful time to be told that your child might have cancer and to be able to have that conversation in your preferred language, I think takes a lot of that stress away.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: You talk about the fact that patients often feel relief and that it's easier to build rapport and trust, but I think there is something else that perhaps I read into or I wanted to read into it, which was warmth. I think that it's easier to convey that warmth or to understand each other a little bit better when there's concordance in language. So do you find yourself being assigned more of the Spanish speaking families as a result of your ability to communicate?

 Dr. Jenny Ruiz: I didn't really get that sense in fellowship. I mean, I think at one point they were asking for a volunteer from the fellows who needed to pick up another patient, and it just happened that the family spoke Spanish. I was like, “Of course!” I have found it very interesting in fellowship when I would be on call for some reason, every time or quite a few times that I was on call, it'd be a Spanish speaking family in the ED. And I loved going to talk to them. I might not be giving the best news to them, but the fact that somehow our timelines aligned and they would be in the ED, and I would be on call, and I would be that first physician to kind of talk about cancer with them. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's such a beautiful sentiment that you express there. And I wonder if you can tell us or teach us a little bit about how you feel when you work with an interpreter for a language or a culture that you don't understand. Just something that happens to all of us in a society that hopefully welcomes immigrant families.

Dr. Jenny Ruiz: Yeah, I mean, I think there's definitely a lot of skills to be taught in how to work with an interpreter. Again, using simple short sentences, positioning yourself as you are talking to the family, there's not going to be this three-way thing, trying to make that connection as much as possible. I think also noticing the unspoken words and the subtleties of the parent's face, the mom or the dad is very important, even with an interpreter, be like, oh, I noticed this. Is there something that you want to discuss more that made you do this? 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: And even using an opportunity to debrief with interpreters to make sure that we got it right. In your case in pediatric oncology, I think communication is even more complicated because you have the parent and the child and the interpreter. So tell us a little bit about your experience working with families where kids maybe speak English much better than the parents. You still need to communicate with the parents. I think that adds more challenges.

Dr. Jenny Ruiz: Last year when I was a first year attending, I actually prepped a fellow with a talk with a Spanish speaking family with an interpreter. But the teenager's English was his primary language, so yes, he knew Spanish too, and the family wanted him to be involved in this discussion. So definitely a lot of more nuances there, a lot more emotions to be aware of, subtleties to be aware of, nonverbal communication that's happening. But I think honestly, we rely a lot on the parents to guide us in terms of: Do we want the child to be involved? How much information? Do we want to then say it differently for them at a later time or include them from the beginning? It's a lot of talking to the family and making sure that we are meeting their needs.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So what I'm picking up from our conversation is that you seem to be very tuned into the emotional part of the work. Let me ask this question, and that is: How do you take care of your emotions in these situations where there's so much at stake?

Dr. Jenny Ruiz: Yeah, I mean, I think it definitely can be a very emotional career and certain instances can make it even more emotional and stressful. For me, it's been very important to have a very strong support system. I have my husband, I have my extended friends who are in the Northeast, have become another family for me. And I think, honestly, you know, prioritizing your mental health, whether that's doing your hobbies, whether that's going to therapy, have all been very important for me in this career. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: I am delighted to hear you say that you are taking time for yourself and looking for things outside of work. That said, let me turn back to the relationship you developed that you describe here with Gabriela, the mother of your patient to whom the letter is addressed. You talk a lot about feeling strongly when you felt there were injustices or when they didn't have the proper access. Tell us a little bit about what that relationship was like and what it's been like for you when you find yourself advocating for families.

Dr. Jenny Ruiz: Yeah, I think these strong feelings stem from seeing my family go through these same struggles and wanting the medical system to do better for immigrant families so they can have the best outcomes. I think oftentimes I find myself realizing I'm getting emotional or worked up and be like, okay, there's something going on here. I need to step back before I start talking to someone else about this, of what I want to happen or what I need to advocate for and really knowing that people will respond better if I stay calm and also kind of push back and in a professional way, ask questions, like, why is this happening? And if this is not our standard, why are we deviating from our standards?

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So I know this is an early moment in your career. I mean, you're an assistant professor and just in the second year of a new job. But how do you imagine that this interest and this advocacy that you're so good at and feel so strongly about is going to impact your career going forward? 

Dr. Jenny Ruiz: I hope to continue to be a role model for trainees and faculty as I progress in my career, maybe I'll take on some leadership roles within the med school education system.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: As you imagine yourself teaching, leading, and modeling behaviors, what are the most important messages that you'd like to convey to your students or peers?

Dr. Jenny Ruiz: In pediatrics, at least ask the parents. Ask the family what language do they want to be communicated in for the medical information of their child? And then if it's not a language that you have been certified in to speak in, or are a fluent language native speaker, then get that interpreter. And then again the plain language and the short sentences.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So the health literacy and language preference for you are sort of intertwined, so to speak. So I'm curious, does your institution routinely collect that information, and do you ask every patient their language preference?

Dr. Jenny Ruiz: I think there's definitely lots of room for improvement on how that information is being collected. I don't think it's being done in a systematic way. And hospitals are so large, everyone's doing it in different ways. When I was a fellow, I would be called from the emergency, say for cancer. I would always ask the emergency team, “Do they speak English, or am I going to need an interpreter for this?” And it's sad to say, to share that at one point they told me that the family spoke English and it went down there and then they're like, actually, no, English is not the primary language of them all. But we haven't been using an interpreter and I'm like, what is going on?

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yeah, I think that unfortunately, we've all been witnesses to such moments and it's sort of time for our culture to get this right. 

As we get towards the end of this lovely chat, let me ask if you've shared some of this with your family and how your role, perhaps as the early interpreter for your grandfather has evolved over these years in terms of your being at this position of being an expert now in medicine and perhaps a facilitator.

Dr. Jenny Ruiz: Yeah, I definitely have taken on a role with my siblings and my cousins, kind of telling them the things I see in medicine and telling them why it's important to go to your annual checkup to get those screening tests because too often we see too many people just die too early, when it could have been prevented or a medication could have started early. So I think I've definitely taken on that role within my extended family. I hope that they kind of trust me and that little trust can then slowly build into a trust with their own medical team.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: And if I may just dig a little bit more into this story, my last question is what did it feel like to go to the funeral for your patient's dad?

Dr. Jenny Ruiz: I never thought that I would be going to a funeral for a parent. I thought I was going to be going for the child with the field that I had chosen. So it was definitely unusual. I had a couple of family members also pass away during my fellowship years, so it was a lot of reflection of the things that my family went through, things I saw with this family, a lot of similarities. So it's definitely been a very unique story that I felt like I needed to get down on a paper and share because oftentimes we don't hear these stories.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: It was definitely a message that needed to come out. And we are so grateful to you for writing it, as you say, in little snippets in different times of your life from different locations. Thank you for that and thank you very much for agreeing to chat with me today.

Dr. Jenny Ruiz: Thank you.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: And to 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/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. Jenny Ruiz is an Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

Listen to ASCO’s Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, “Playing by Eye: Using Music as a Parallel to Clinical Oncology,” by Dr. Beatrice Preti, Adjunct Professor at Western University in London, Ontario, in Canada. The essay is followed by an interview with Preti and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Preti discusses the parallels in playing music by ear and clinical oncology encounters.

TRANSCRIPT

Narrator: Playing by Eye: Using Music as a Parallel to Clinical Oncology, by Beatrice Preti, MD 

The Yamaha keyboard in our cancer center is strategically placed. It rests in the center of the tall, lofty atrium, an open space that allows sound to travel and echo, creating an effect one might expect from a concert hall or a large-capacity theater. From their position, keyboard players cannot fully appreciate the music they create. In the middle of the atrium, any sound is flat, shallow, and short-lived. But, further away, and on the upper levels of the center, one can hear the music echo as the walls seem to vibrate with reflected sound. It is enough to pause one’s step to listen, perhaps recalling some half-buried memory or latent emotion a song elicits.

But on center stage, beneath the streetlamp-shaped light that feels all too much like a spotlight, the pressure is on. The keyboard faces half of the waiting room and the lobby Tim Horton’s, which means, as one plays, one can see reactions to the music—including winces when fingers slip! Faces turn solemn and reflective during slower songs; patients, relatives, and health care workers alike dance and clap to faster-paced, popular tunes. Feedback and commentary are steady—about the music, the song choices, and, of course, song requests.

I find song requests challenging; a combination of performance anxiety and only moderate competence on the keyboard affects the quality of the music that can be produced on demand, yet does nothing to eliminate the desire to fulfill a patient’s request. Indeed, the request is usually the simplest part:

Do you know Bette Middler’s “The Rose”?

A simple tune, one of my mother’s favorites. But I haven’t played it in years, since high school, actually, and the once-familiar notes now elude me.

But the empty space after a request lingers awkwardly, and the hopeful anticipation from the patient and their family squeezes my heart like a vise. To break the pressure, I test out a few chords. Dozens of pairs of eyes stare down at me from all over the building. My hands start to seize. To freeze.

Panicking, I hit a note. Seems okay.

Then another one. And a chord.

…that was supposed to be a chord.

The eyes pin me down. I see disappointment. I hear whispers. They must be about me, that it’s not as good as it sounded before, that I could do with some practice. I try again. Better. Another note. A broken chord. An octave. A melody emerges. Someone smiles. I think. Sweat soaks my shirt. Are we at the chorus yet?  How much longer is there left in this song?

Singing starts somewhere to my right, also a little out of tune, and it gives me the courage to continue on, although the experience is nerve-wracking enough to make me dread song requests—despite the apparent joy they bring.

The solution, once considered, seems simple: practice playing by ear. It is impossible to predict who might be walking by on any particular day, but having the skills to reply to a request with at least a few bars of a beloved tune, thus brightening a face (and a day!), seems well worth the effort. Playing by ear, like most learnt skills, is more manageable when broken down into steps. 

The first step (or requirement, really) is a general familiarity with the song and a plan for how to approach it (fast or slow? Block chords or broken? Major or minor key?). Once this is determined, one begins with the first verse. The first time is usually rocky, and the mistakes are obvious. But, with luck, a familiar melody starts to emerge by the chorus.

The music grows louder with confidence, and gauging audience reactions helps musicians see how close they are to the target tune and where they need to adjust. Playing by ear—or, perhaps, playing by eye, as it is the reactions which truly guide the musician—is an amazing skill, one which interestingly spills into more domains than initially anticipated. After several ear-practice sessions, I noticed a strange pattern in my clinics—the steps of a clinic encounter mirrored playing a song by ear! Prior to each encounter, I would consider the diagnosis and treatment plan, as well as a vague approach of how to handle the encounter, given the goal of the visit and the patient’s journey thus far. Once inside the room, however, I began to alter this plan based on the patient’s (and family’s) responses, taking cues both verbally and nonverbally.

Sometimes my words, tone, or gestures fell flat, and redirection was needed. Sometimes an unexpected reaction told me I’d just made a mistake, and I backtracked, trying again, paying closer attention to the reactions to ensure the second try was better. But, gradually, we (usually!) reached a steady state and manage to complete the visit on a strong note.

Naturally, then, the next step would be to practice clinical encounters using these same steps, trying to take my clinical skills to the next level. Unlike a song, however, a clinic visit’s stakes are higher—especially in the high-emotion field of oncology—and striking even a single mistimed chord could lead to disaster.

I start small: awareness, noticing reactions I didn’t before. There’s the fullness in an eye before tears fall, the pallor of a clenched fists’ knuckles, the subtle tremor of a shaking leg. I learn to call them out by name, ask about them: grief, frustration, fear. 

There is a pause, an empty space after such a direct question. A wide-eyed stare. My heart pounds, awaiting the verdict. Was my diagnosis correct? A misjudgment breaks rapport, but accuracy is rewarded with surprise, and opening up. Even family members look surprised, as details are elicited that weren’t before. There is no singing along—cancer is not a beloved showtune. But as my skills grow, I find that not only are patients and families less tense during encounters—but I am, as well. I develop faith in my skills to read the room and alter  my direction based on what I see. And, perhaps, the biggest clue that one has succeeded—on both fronts—is the heartfelt thank you that follows the encounter. 

This parallel has made me realize that every interaction between two people, just like every song, has its own beat. Its own melody. Is this fast or slow? Calm or anxious? Is this a happy exchange, or a sad one? The dynamics of the encounter influence the melody, and a misstep or misplaced word, like a note, can lead to dissonance. However, by listening to the song of the encounter and adjusting as appropriate, an astute individual can actually improve the interaction, maximizing the potential of the encounter, and allowing for a strong conclusion to the visit. It isn’t easy work, to be sure, and, sometimes, the impact of the song can be hard to appreciate, especially within the confines of a four-walled clinic room. However, like the keyboard music in the atrium, the echoes resulting from one clinic encounter have the potential to reach far-reaching corners, echoing in ways previously unimagined, and lingering far longer than when the song ends.

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. Beatrice Preti, Adjunct Professor at Western University in London, Ontario, in Canada. In this episode, we will be discussing her Art of Oncology article, “Playing by Eye: Using Music as a Parallel to Clinical Oncology.” 

At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. 

Beatrice, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us.

Dr. Beatrice Preti: Thank you, Lidia. It's a pleasure to be here.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So I usually start by asking our authors to tell me what they're reading, but in your case, I'd love to ask you a little bit about perhaps what you're listening to or your favorite musical pieces.

Dr. Beatrice Preti: Yes, absolutely. Well, I do love music. I play three instruments myself, so I have several YouTube playlists that, as I hear a song, I'll add different ones to. So one of them is retro tunes, like '80s, '70s hits that I know mostly from my parents. And then I have Broadway hits, musical hits because I love musicals and singing. And then I have a random one that has a lot of Taylor Swift, much to the chagrin of my colleagues because I will play that in the cancer center, not around patients, but my colleagues. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's lovely. Well, I think Taylor Swift is a global phenomenon, is all I can tell you. Has music always been a part of your life?

Dr. Beatrice Preti: Yes, very much so. I think- I started piano lessons formally when I was seven. Then I taught myself guitar as a teenager. And then once I hit medical residency, actually, my treat to myself was to start teaching myself violin. And I had the opportunity to take some lessons for a few years as well, which was absolutely lovely. But growing up, my mother loves music as well. She was a Sarah Brightman fan, a British singer. And we used to have her playing and my mother would sing. So I know all of Sarah Brightman's songs from the time I was a very early child, trying to pick those out on the piano as a young child as well.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So let's talk a little bit about how you bring that wonderful part of your life into your work as a physician and as an oncologist. Do you ever sing with or to patients? Do you talk about your love of music? Do you play music during your consultations? I'm curious all of a sudden.

Dr. Beatrice Preti: Yes, absolutely. So I guess one way that I do bring it in is I have a little violin pin that I wear on the lapel of my white coat. It's a conversation point with many patients because the way I approach oncology is really to try to bring in a human aspect and get to know patients, get to know what they like, who's at home with them, what are their lives like outside the cancer center. And oftentimes people who are musically inclined will point to it, and it's a conversation starter, which can actually be quite relevant when we're talking about treatment decisions and such. And then I have the opportunity as well to play and go down in a cancer center. And, yeah, patients will sing and I will sing along with them as well.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So you speak of this with so much joy. Tell me a little bit about this piano that I imagine from your description, located in the center of a large atrium in a cancer center, and people just walk by and informally connect with you and they ask you to play, when do you play and how long do you play? When did it start?

Dr. Beatrice Preti: When I started off in oncology, I was extremely shy. I still am. And one of my mentors, a cellist, who plays the cello found out about my musical inclinations and said, "Well, we need to get a piano in the cancer center lobby. Essentially, I can get Beatrice down there and start getting her more comfortable in front of groups, in front of people, in front of patients." That really, I think, was the rationale, but maybe on paper it's more to have something nice for the patients to listen to. And he actually got a piano donated or, sorry, an electric keyboard donated to the cancer center. We did have a piano a number of years ago, but unfortunately it was too loud with the acoustics of the center, so we needed something with volume control. There's actually a lot of keyboard, a lot of black keyboard that's down there now.  

And the first time I played was probably two, two and a half years ago now with my mentor, with the cello. I was very, very nervous. All these people were staring at you and all these people were looking at you. And I actually had a bit of a meltdown just before I thought, "Well, I can't do this. There's no way I can do this." But he coached me through it and it was the first of many things that he coached me through related to oncology, relating to overcoming your fears to try to help other people. And that's really how that started. And eventually I got brave enough to go down and play on my own and chat with the people down there.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's a beautiful story, both of service and of mentorship. And to see both of these things come together. As you say, your mentor probably had two things in mind: helping the community of patients that you serve and also helping you build confidence, as you say. So talk a little bit about this confidence and this lovely metaphor, in a way. You talk about finding the right tempo or finding the right music to play to please somebody or to help them relax, bring them joy. And then you draw some parallels to how you use communication in the consultation room, taking your cues from people and knowing perhaps when to slow down or when to change the tone or the voice. Talk a little bit about that. It's fascinating to me.

Dr. Beatrice Preti: Well, I think one of the things I struggle with in oncology, and I certainly know I'm not the only one, is that sometimes you feel very helpless. Because we do have wonderful drugs, we have wonderful therapies, I'm a medical oncologist, so drug therapies, but they don't always work. And sometimes, despite your best efforts, despite the best that medicine has to offer, you feel very helpless, and the outcome is not what you or the patient wants. So trying to find something that you can offer and that you can give, that's more than just a treatment or more than just a drug, that's essentially giving of yourself, what can I, as a person, offer to a patient? And I guess superficially, the music itself is something that you can offer. To give people even just a few moments where they can escape the cancer center and they can listen to something. And when I'm down there, I'll play a lot of these tunes and these kinds of things, where maybe it triggers a memory that somebody might have of a time and place that's quite different than the one they’re in right now. But also, it helps evoke that human aspect that I think we touched earlier.

And as you say, Lidia, and as I say in my piece, about trying to match the tempo, trying to match the rhythm, because conversations also have tempos and rhythms. Human interactions have variations and they have moods. And it's also practice in a way. If you can connect to someone through music, perhaps you can connect to your words as well. Perhaps you can connect with your actions as well. Much the same sort of strategy.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: And you bring up a very important point, I think, and that's to play, as you say, you start by saying ‘by ear’, maybe no, but by eye because basically you're also taking in the visual cues that are coming from your audience. In this particular case, it's you're playing in the lobby, but in a consultation room from the patient and family and everybody who is there, and being very quick to take that into account and to redirect or make a change. And when you talk about that in the music, it's so easy to understand. And when you talk about that in the consultation room, that's such a skill. That's sort of where the art and the skill seem to go together. Can you say a little bit more about that or share with us some time or some anecdote where that really worked for you?

Dr. Beatrice Preti: Honestly, I think the first thing that comes to mind is times when it didn't work. Sometimes, especially as a more junior learner, you only realize that the patient encounter isn't going well when it's really not going well. You really miss those early cues that a patient is telling you. That they're in distress, that they're not happy with what they're hearing. And it was, again with the same mentor observing me through several patient encounters and really deciphering it, saying, “Well, this is where– What did you think when they said this? And did you notice this look?” And no, I didn't notice this look. Well, he did, and maybe you can pay more attention. 

And I think it was actually when I was playing music that I really started to make those connections because down there, I'm playing by eye. I'm trying to watch this patient or this person - half the time, I don't know who they are - to see am I playing the tune that they want, and is it recognizable enough? Does it sound okay? Is it transporting them to that place where they're hoping to be and then bringing that into the clinic room and saying, “Okay, this is actually working. I can look at this person and I can figure out how this is going and try and adjust or redirect to really try and make this encounter the most valuable it can be for them and help them get out from what they need to get out .”

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So Beatrice, what I'm hearing is an enormous sense of commitment to your patients. It's absolutely lovely. But I wonder if I can ask you a little bit about the flip side of that, and that is to reflect a little on perhaps how playing and sharing music reduces your stress or increases your sense of being well and being yourself and being more confident. Can you talk a little bit about that? 

Dr. Beatrice Preti: The bottom line is that when a patient encounter goes well, you also feel better because if it's not going well and people are upset, you will also be upset. So, again, very superficially, that's a good end goal to have.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's right. 

Dr. Beatrice Preti: Music itself is very relaxing for me. Maybe when you're a small child and you have to play the exam pieces or you have to play what the teacher says, or what your parents say, it's not quite as much fun trying to learn everything. But now I'm at the point where if I hear a song or I see a song, I'd like to play the song, I can just do it. So it's very lovely that way. Of course, I have all my instruments at home, so even if there's a song that perhaps is not cancer center appropriate, I can just play it at home. I hope the neighbors don't complain and it's fine, but it's really fantastic, especially singing. So being able to sing with two of my instruments at least, I don't know. I'm sure there's violinists who sing. I'm not one of them. I don't have those skills. But with the other two, just go down into the basement. I have a microphone, I have a sound system and just get it all out. Get out all your frustrations, all the things that happened that day. It's very cathartic. It's a good release 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Over the years, we've had a few essays in Art of Oncology that talk about music and how important music is for that particular author. And it's just so lovely to hear. So I want to end by asking you a very simple question, and that is, what is the song that is most often requested these days?

Dr. Beatrice Preti: Oh, that's hard. That's hard. It really depends who it is, because I've played to different generations. I have a rendition of “Zombie” by The Cranberries that a lot of people seem to like, “Losing My Religion.” But these days it's “Flowers” by Miley Cyrus, actually, I would say. Everybody seems to know that song.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, it makes me feel very old because I don't. I was hoping you would say something about these ‘70s or I'll be more comfortable with ‘80s or even with Taylor Swift, but I'll have to go listen now. So thank you. I want to give you the last word in the podcast. What is the central theme of your message as an author and as somebody who's sort of bringing this forward and putting this in front of the global community of oncologists, what can music give us?

Dr. Beatrice Preti: Yes. Well, I think music and writing and words, which are a form of music in a way, they can help us remember, I think, the most important thing about Oncology, which is the human aspect of it. We're dealing with people who are frustrated, scared, alone, lost, in some of the darkest points in their lives. And it's a privilege to be able to serve and help these people through their journeys, but that's not always with drugs and treatments. Sometimes that's just with what we do or what we say, and that's a gift. But it's also a skill that needs to be developed and remembered. And having music is one of the things I think that helps me do that. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's absolutely beautiful. So thank you very much for the work you do and for sending us your essay. And to our listeners, until next time, thank you for listening to JCO 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. Beatrice Preti is an Adjunct Professor at Western University in London, Ontario, in Canada.

Listen to ASCO’s Journal of Clinical Oncology essay, “When the Future Is Not Now,” by Janet Retseck, Assistant Professor of Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin. The essay is followed by an interview with Retseck and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Drawing on cultural history, Retseck explores a dying cancer patient’s persistent optimism.

TRANSCRIPT

Narrator: When the Future Is Not Now, by Janet Retseck, MD, PhD 

 The most optimistic patient I have ever met died a few years ago of lung cancer. From the beginning, Mr L was confident that he would do well, enthusiastically telling me, “I’ll do great!” As chemoradiation for his stage III lung cancer commenced, he did do well. Until he got COVID.

And then reacted to the chemotherapy. And then was admitted with pneumonia. And then c. difficile diarrhea. And then c. diff again. But whenever we checked in with him, he reported, “I’m doing great!” He could not wait to return to treatment, informing me, “We’re going to lick this, Doc!” Of course I asked him if he wanted to know prognosis, and of course he said no, because he was going to do great. He trusted that his radiation oncologist and I would be giving him the absolute best treatment for his cancer, and we did. In the end, weak and worn out and in pain, with cancer in his lungs and lymph nodes and liver and even growing through his skin, he knew he was not doing great. But he remained thankful, because we had done our best for him. Our best just wasn’t enough.

While it can overlap with hope, optimism involves a general expectation of a good future, whereas hope is a specific desire or wish for a positive outcome. Research has shown that for patients with cancer, maintaining optimism or hope can lead to better quality of life.1,2 As an oncologist, I am in favor of anything that helps my patients live longer and better, but sometimes I also wonder if there is any real cause for optimism, because the odds of living at all with advanced cancer are just so bad. From 2013 to 2019, the 5-year relative survival rate for people with stage III lung cancer was 28%. For stage IV disease, it was just 7%.3 Immunotherapy and targeted treatments have improved outcomes somewhat, but the chances for most patients of living more than a couple of years after being diagnosed remain low. Even with our best treatments, there seems to be more reason for despair than optimism. Yet here was my patient and his persistent optimism, his faith in treatment to give him a good future, and my hope that he was right, even when I knew he was probably wrong. What drives this belief in a good future, a better future, in the face of such a rotten present? Optimism as a word and a philosophy emerged in the 18th century in the work of German thinker Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. As it was for my patient, optimism served as a way to negotiate the problem of human suffering.

 Attempting to explain how a perfect, omniscient, and loving God could allow so much suffering, imperfection, and evil, Leibniz argued that God has already considered all possibilities and that this world is the best of all possible worlds. Leibniz did not mean that this world is some sort of a utopia; rather, the God-given freedom to choose to do good or evil, and even our vulnerable aging bodies, are good in themselves.4 If my patient were Leibniz, his optimism about his cancer could be explained by an acceptance that everything happens for a reason, his suffering somehow part of a larger whole, selected by God as the best possible way to the greatest good. 

But while Mr L did take his diagnosis and various complications in stride, a belief that it was all for the best did not seem to be at the core of his optimism. Nor, in the end, did he reject his optimism, as the French philosopher Voltaire would have him do. Voltaire famously skewered Leibniz’s optimism in his 1759 novel Candide, in which Candide, having been raised on Leibniz’ philosophy, is kicked out into the cold, cruel world, where not just he, but everyone around him, suffers horribly and unremittingly, such that at one point, he cries, “If this is the best of all possible worlds, what must the others be like?”

Whatever Voltaire’s satire in favor of empirical knowledge and reason did to Leibniz’s philosophy, it did not kill optimism itself. Scientific optimism, in the form of progressivism, the idea that science and our future could only get better and better, flourished in the nineteenth century. Certainly, life for many did improve with scientific advancements in everything from medicine to telephones to airplanes. With this brightness, though, came a deepening shadow, a tension heightened by the experience of chemical warfare and shellshock in World War I.

Instead of better living through chemistry, science provided the means for horrifically more efficient death. The assimilation of science to the service of evil soon culminated in the vile spread of eugenics, racism, and mass murder. Like Candide, pretty much everyone in the 21st century must be wondering if we do not live in the worst of all possible worlds. And yet, when it came down to it, what else could my patient hold onto if not optimism that science would save his life? As I continued to reflect on Mr L’s response to his illness, I realized that I had unconsciously already stumbled on Mr L’s type of optimism, or rather its popular culture archetype.

One day, when he was getting his chemotherapy in an isolation room due to his recent COVID infection, I passed by the glass window. I waved, and he waved back. Then, I put my hand up to the glass, fingers separated in the Vulcan salute. He laughed, and waved again. The scene, for non-Star Trek fans, is from the movie The Wrath of Khan. The Vulcan, Spock, too is in glass-walled isolation, dying of radiation poisoning, after having sacrificed himself to save the ship and its crew. He and Captain Kirk connect through the glass with the Vulcan salute, as Spock tells his friend, “Live long, and prosper.” Later, Mr L told me that he had never been able to do the Vulcan salute and that he was not especially a Star Trek fan, though he had watched it years ago with his kids. But he loved this private joke we had, flashing this sign to me whenever we met, laughing when he could not make his fingers part properly.

Star Trek epitomizes optimism for the future, arising as it did in the context of the Space Race to the Moon. Set in the 23rd century, Star Trek reveals that humans have finally learned the error of their ways: nuclear warfare, racism, and poverty are all things of the past, as are most diseases, ameliorated by the advance of science. In the world of Star Trek, medicine is, if not easy, then at least almost always successful. In one episode, the ship’s doctor, McCoy, and Spock whip up an antidote to a deadly aging virus. Later, slung back to 1980s San Francisco in Star Trek: Voyage Home, McCoy, aghast at “medieval” 20th-century medicine, gives an elderly woman on dialysis a pill that allows her to grow a new kidney. In the world of Star Trek, cancer, of course, has been cured long ago. My patient’s optimism is realized here, in a future that regards 20th-century science as “hardly far ahead of stone knives and bear skins,” as Spock complains in another episode. Star Trek remains popular because, in spite of everything, there endures a deep desire for, if not the best, then at least a better possible world.

I’m an oncologist, not a Vulcan, and when it became clear that Mr L was not going to “live long and prosper,” I was frustrated and disappointed. His optimism could no longer sustain my hope. We were not in the idealized world of Star Trek, and I could not heal him with science and technology. Whatever the future of medicine might hold, our best possible treatments were still just “stone knives and bearskins.” Optimism, whether his, mine, or that of science, would not save him. The only optimism that seemed warranted was not for the future, but in the future.

At the family meeting to discuss hospice, Mr L sat in a wheelchair, weak and thin, on oxygen, wrapped in a warm blanket. As his family slowly came to realize that their time with him and all that he was to them—father, husband, bedrock—was moving into the past, he seemed to shift from a focus on the future to the reality of now. Gathering his strength, he dismissed their concerns about what his loss would mean to them with a sweep of his arm. Tearful, but not despairing, he instructed his children to support their mother and each other after he was gone. At the end, Mr L’s optimism became not about his future, but theirs. His wish was for them to embrace living their own best lives as they entered this new, not better, future, a future without him.

A few days later, I visited him in his hospital room while he was waiting to go home with hospice care. He was dozing in the bed, and I hated to wake him. Then he opened his eyes and smiled. We chatted for a bit, but he tired easily. As I prepared to leave, I tried to give him the Vulcan salute one last time. He shook his head and opened his arms. “Give me a hug!” he said. And I did.

I would like to thank Mr L’s family and the Moving Pens writing group at the Medical College of Wisconsin for their invaluable support.

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. With me today is Dr. Janet Retseck, Assistant Professor of Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin and the author of “When the Future is Not Now.” 

Dr. Retseck has no disclosures.  

Welcome to the show, Janet. 

Dr. Janet Retseck: Well, thank you. Thank you for inviting me.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: It's our pleasure to have you on. I like to start the conversation by asking authors what is on their night table or if they have a good recommendation for our listeners and colleagues. 

Dr. Janet Retseck: Well, I usually read three books at a time—one book of short stories, one book of nonfiction, and one novel. And right now I'm reading Elizabeth Hand's book of short stories, Last Summer at Mars Hill. I am reading Dr. Rachel Remens' Kitchen Table Wisdom because I work with The Healer's Art, and I found this book misplaced, and I thought, "Oh, my, I should read that." And I'm reading a novel called The Donut Legion by Joe Landsdale. And I bought this because I liked the title, and I am very hopeful that it involves a group of people using donuts to fight evil.

 Dr. Lidia Schapira: How interesting. I look forward to listening and hearing more about that.  

Let me start by asking a little bit about your motivation for writing this essay. I mean, we often write to process difficult experiences, and then what leads many authors to want to share it and publish it is that there is a message or that something was particularly impactful. And I was struck by the fact that you start by sharing with us that you took care of Mr. L, the patient, and the story some time ago, several years ago. So what about Mr. L sort of left a deep impression with you, and if there is one, what is the message and what drove you to write this story?

Dr. Janet Retseck: Mr. L and I connected right away when he came to my clinic. At that time, he did have a curable lung cancer, but everything that could go wrong did go wrong. Yet he had a dispositional optimism. He always told us, no matter what was going on, "I'm doing great,” just like that. When he died, I had a lot of grief around that. And at that time, I thought I would perhaps write about that grief and whether I had any right to that grief. And so I opened up a software that allows mind mapping, and I just looked at it last night in preparation for this interview. And on one side, it has all the things that I cared about and connected with Mr. L, and on the other, there's this bright purple line going with big letters "Do Better." 

Then I reflected again on our connection with the Vulcan “Live long and prosper,” and how ironic it was that that's what one of our connections was. And yet he was not living long and prospering, and nothing about that over-the-top optimism of Star Trek had happened at all with all the medicine that I was able to give him. And that's where it came together. 

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let's talk a little bit about that Vulcan salute. My digging around a little bit led me to understand that it was Leonard Nimoy who introduced that and that it's really a representation of a Hebrew letter, Shin. So how did you and Mr. L come up with a Vulcan salute? What did it mean to you? It's very moving how you tell us about it and what it symbolized. And so I just want to give you a chance to tell our listeners a little bit more about that.

Dr. Janet Retseck: Well, there was a point during his chemoradiation when Mr. L developed the COVID infection, and radiation oncology wanted to continue with radiation, and he wanted to continue with chemotherapy. And everything we knew at the time, we felt it would be safe to do so because it's a pretty low dose. It's just radio-sensitizing. But anyone getting chemotherapy in our infusion center had to be in an isolation room. And this has a glass window. And I was walking past, and I saw him in there, and I kind of goofed around with him. The scene from the movie Wrath of Khan came to me, where Spock is in an isolation room, and Kirk connects with him through the glass. Spock is dying, and Kirk doesn't want him to die, and they give the Vulcan salute to each other through the glass. And of course, he couldn't quite do it. He knew what I was doing. He watched Star Trek in the past, but he wasn't especially a fan. But after that, that was our thing. Whenever he came in, he was trying, he was struggling to push his fingers apart. That was one of the ways we just connected with each other, to signal our affection for each other.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: There is a lot of affection here. When I finished reading it, I read it several times, but I just thought the word "love" came to mind. There's so much love we feel for patients. We often don't quite say the word because we have these weird associations with love as something that's forbidden, but that's what this feels like, and that's the origin for our grief. I mean, we've really lost a loved one here as well. Mr. L sounds incredibly special, even in that last scene where he wants his family to imagine a future without him. So tell us a little bit about your reflections from what you've learned from and with Mr. L about how people who have really no future to live think about their own future and sort of their presence or their memory for those who love them.

Dr. Janet Retseck: That's a very complicated question. For Mr. L. I think he was certain he was going to do well, that with all everything that we would be giving him, that he would survive and spend more time with his family and that's what he held onto. And I don't know that it was sort of delusional hope. We get every brand of acceptance and denial as oncologists. We have people coming in with their magic mushrooms, their vitamins, their vitamin C infusions. We have people going down to Mexico for their special secret treatments that have been withheld by pharmaceutical companies. We have people denying altogether that they are sick, coming in with fungating masses. But Mr. L was very different from that. His disposition was "Everything is good and it's going to be good, and I trust you 100%," and that's a big responsibility— is to take the patient's trust and to try to deliver on that. And in some way, my grief when he died was I could not do that in a lot of the ways the medicine world is at now. We break our patients' trust.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's an interesting way of looking at it, and I sort of would push back a little bit on that.

Dr. Janet Retseck: As you should.  

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Good. I'm trying to do my job here and say that you shared that you both were disappointed by the limitations of what current medicine can offer, and that's I think where you sort of spin your sort of philosophical and very beautiful reflection on the future. It is my understanding that that's where the title of this piece also comes, that you and Mr. L sort of could bond over his optimism and over the sort of futuristic view that medicine can fix anything until you couldn't. And then you both sort of adapted, adjusted, accepted, and again bonded in a very different way through the bonds of affection and support in presence. So I would not want your readers to think that your heart is broken because you disappointed him because you couldn't cure him, but that your heart is broken, if it was, because you had such affection and respect for him. 

I agree with you that he seemed to be well served by his optimism and it was working for him until it wasn't anymore. And I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about how you think about that optimism and hope and acceptance.

Dr. Janet Retseck: Well, I should come clean and say I'm an optimist myself. I have to be, as an oncologist. Here we are starting at the very beginning with a patient, a curable intent, or is palliative intent, and we are giving these very harsh drugs, and I am optimistic I am going to do good rather than hurt the patient. And I tell them that right up front, this is what we hope will happen. Optimism really subtends to everything that I do, as well as an oncologist. So I don't mean to say we shouldn't hope, we should not be optimistic about what we can do now, but there's also that tension with the desire to do better always for our patients.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Janet, I was struck by your sort of teaching us about the origin of the word optimism. So, say a little bit more about what led you to go back to thinking about what the word actually means and how your patient illustrated this for you.

 Dr. Janet Retseck: Thank you for asking that. It was actually serendipitous because I had settled on the Star Trek motif for thinking about my relationship with Mr. L and Star Trek with all of its optimism about the future, and it just fits so well with Mr. L's disposition. And I thought I need to differentiate that from hope or wishful thinking or magical thinking because it is something very different. So I went to the handy dictionary and looked up optimism, and right there the first definition: optimism is a philosophy developed by Leibniz regarding the best of all possible worlds. In other words, this is the world that is the best possible one of all the possibilities, even with all the suffering and the evil and the pain that we have to deal with. And so I thought, well, maybe I'll learn a little bit more about this Leibniz. I'd heard the phrase ‘best of all possible worlds’ before.  

I did a little research and I found this wonderful article that I cite in my paper that described Leibniz and his optimistic science. And I thought, well, this is a real way in to thinking about Mr. L and putting into a larger context of optimism versus hope and optimism and its focus on the future. And really that idea of, not that everything that's happening to him is for the best, but it's the best. He got the best, and he very thoroughly believed that he was getting the best treatment, and he was. But my point was that even though it was the best, it wasn't enough yet. So where is that ‘enough’ located? And I think it is located in the future, but it's a future we can continue to hope for, and a future I think will come to pass someday. Someday we will not need to be oncologists, just like there don't need to be doctors who treat tuberculosis anymore.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So when my son was very little and he heard me very optimistically also talk about new treatments and so on, he said to me, “Mummy, the day that there's no more cancer, what are you going to do?” If somebody asked you the same question? What do you imagine yourself doing other than being an oncologist?

Dr. Janet Retseck: Well, I guess I would go back to being an English professor.

Dr. Lidia Schapira: Tell us more about that. 

Dr. Janet Retseck: Now, I have let the cat out of the bag. So that little Ph.D. next to my name, I've decided to embrace that - that is in English. And as many people may know, the job market in English is not fantastic. And I've always had a bent toward science and medicine. And when I discovered that it was possible to go back and get my sciences, in part through sheer memorization, I decided to do that. Because what better way to spend ten years of my life than learning how to be a physician?

Dr. Lidia Schapira: So in the last minute of the podcast, tell us a little bit about your Ph.D. What is your area of interest, and have you taught? Are you planning to go back to teaching or are you currently teaching?

Dr. Janet Retseck: My Ph.D. is more or less in Victorian novel and interpretation, and I taught for 16 or 17 years, mostly community college, some at the Claremont Colleges, mostly composition, and I am teaching right now. This is what I love, being at the Medical College of Wisconsin. It is like I hit a home run coming here because they have a very strong medical humanities program. And when I arrived here, I was directly pointed to the directors of the medical humanities, “Look, here's a Ph.D. in English!” And I thought, “You mean I can do something with this here in medicine?” And so I connected with Bruce Campbell and Art Derse, who were instrumental in bringing narrative medicine to the Medical College of Wisconsin. So I'll be teaching a class of that in narrative medicine in the spring, and I do everything I can to teach the medical students and residents and fellows here at the Medical College of Wisconsin as a VA.

 Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, that was quite a surprise for me. I didn't know that. I knew, reading your essay, that it was beautifully written. Thank you. I was going to ask what your Ph.D. was in, expecting you to tell me something about some branch of science I know nothing about. But this came as a surprise. So I am so glad that you're doing what you're doing. I'm sure your patients and your future students really appreciate it and will appreciate it. So thank you so much, Janet. 

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 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, experiences, 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. Janet Retseck is an Assistant Professor of Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin.