An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last: Lessons on How NOT to Induce Coma in Your Audience

Listen to ASCO’s JCO Oncology Practice, Art of Oncology Practice article, "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last” by Dr. David Johnson, who is a clinical oncologist at University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. The article is followed by an interview with Johnson and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Through humor and irony, Johnson critiques how overspecialization and poor presentation practices have eroded what was once internal medicine’s premier educational forum.

Transcript

Narrator: An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last, by David H. Johnson, MD, MACP, FASCO  

Over the past five decades, I have attended hundreds of medical conferences—some insightful and illuminating, others tedious and forgettable. Among these countless gatherings, Medical Grand Rounds (MGRs) has always held a special place. Originally conceived as a forum for discussing complex clinical cases, emerging research, and best practices in patient care, MGRs served as a unifying platform for clinicians across all specialties, along with medical students, residents, and other health care professionals. Expert speakers—whether esteemed faculty or distinguished guests—would discuss challenging cases, using them as a springboard to explore the latest advances in diagnosis and treatment. During my early years as a medical student, resident, and junior faculty member, Grand Rounds consistently attracted large, engaged audiences. However, as medicine became increasingly subspecialized, attendance began to wane. Lectures grew more technically intricate, often straying from broad clinical relevance. The patient-centered discussions that once brought together diverse medical professionals gradually gave way to hyperspecialized presentations. Subspecialists, once eager to share their insights with the wider medical community, increasingly withdrew to their own specialty-specific conferences, further fragmenting the exchange of knowledge across disciplines. As a former Chair of Internal Medicine and a veteran of numerous MGRs, I observed firsthand how these sessions shifted from dynamic educational exchanges to highly specialized, often impenetrable discussions.

One of the most striking trends in recent years has been the decline in presentation quality at MGR—even among local and visiting world-renowned experts. While these speakers are often brilliant clinicians and investigators, they can also be remarkably poor lecturers, delivering some of the most uninspiring talks I have encountered. Their presentations are so consistently lackluster that one might suspect an underlying strategy at play—an unspoken method to ensure that they are never invited back. Having observed this pattern repeatedly, I am convinced that these speakers must be adhering to a set of unwritten rules to avoid future MGR presentations. To assist those unfamiliar with this apparent strategy, I have distilled the key principles that, when followed correctly, all but guarantee that a presenter will not be asked to give another MGR lecture—thus sparing them the burden of preparing one in the future. Drawing on my experience as an oncologist, I illustrate these principles using an oncology-based example although I suspect similar rules apply across other subspecialties. It will be up to my colleagues in cardiology, endocrinology, rheumatology, and beyond to identify and document their own versions—tasks for which I claim no expertise. What follows are the seven “Rules for Presenting a Bad Medical Oncology Medical Grand Rounds.”

1.  Microscopic Mayhem:

Always begin with an excruciatingly detailed breakdown of the tumor's histology and molecular markers, emphasizing how these have evolved over the years (eg, PAP v prostate-specific antigen)—except, of course, when they have not (eg, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, etc). These nuances, while of limited relevance to general internists or most subspecialists (aside from oncologists), are guaranteed to induce eye-glazing boredom and quiet despair among your audience.

2. TNM Torture:

Next, cover every nuance of the newest staging system … this is always a real crowd pleaser. For illustrative purposes, show a TNM chart in the smallest possible font. It is particularly helpful if you provide a lengthy review of previous versions of the staging system and painstakingly cover each and every change in the system. Importantly, this activity will allow you to disavow the relevance of all previous literature studies to which you will subsequently refer during the course of your presentation … to wit—“these data are based on the OLD staging system and therefore may not pertain …” This phrase is pure gold—use it often if you can.

NB: You will know you have “captured” your audience if you observe audience members “shifting in their seats” … it occurs almost every time … but if you have failed to “move” the audience … by all means, continue reading … there is more!

3. Mechanism of Action Meltdown:

Discuss in detail every drug ever used to treat the cancer under discussion; this works best if you also give a detailed description of each drug's mechanism of action (MOA). General internists and subspecialists just LOVE hearing a detailed discussion of the drug's MOA … especially if it is not at all relevant to the objectives of your talk. At this point, if you observe a wave of slack-jawed faces slowly slumping toward their desktops, you will know you are on your way to successfully crushing your audience's collective spirit. Keep going—you are almost there.

4. Dosage Deadlock:

One must discuss “dose response” … there is absolutely nothing like a dose response presentation to a group of internists to induce cries of anguish. A wonderful example of how one might weave this into a lecture to generalists or a mixed audience of subspecialists is to discuss details that ONLY an oncologist would care about—such as the need to dose escalate imatinib in GIST patients with exon 9 mutations as compared with those with exon 11 mutations. This is a definite winner!

5. Criteria Catatonia:

Do not forget to discuss the newest computed tomography or positron emission tomography criteria for determining response … especially if you plan to discuss an obscure malignancy that even oncologists rarely encounter (eg, esthesioneuroblastoma). Should you plan to discuss a common disease you can ensure ennui only if you will spend extra time discussing RECIST criteria. Now if you do this well, some audience members may begin fashioning their breakfast burritos into projectiles—each one aimed squarely at YOU. Be brave … soldier on!

6. Kaplan-Meier Killer:

Make sure to discuss the arcane details of multiple negative phase II and III trials pertaining to the cancer under discussion. It is best to show several inconsequential and hard-to-read Kaplan-Meier plots. To make sure that you do a bad job, divide this portion of your presentation into two sections … one focused on adjuvant treatment; the second part should consist of a long boring soliloquy on the management of metastatic disease. Provide detailed information of little interest even to the most ardent fan of the disease you are discussing. This alone will almost certainly ensure that you will never, ever be asked to give Medicine Grand Rounds again.

7. Lymph Node Lobotomy:

For the coup de grâce, be sure to include an exhaustive discussion of the latest surgical techniques, down to the precise number of lymph nodes required for an “adequate dissection.” To be fair, such details can be invaluable in specialized settings like a tumor board, where they send subspecialists into rapturous delight. But in the context of MGR—where the audience spans multiple disciplines—it will almost certainly induce a stultifying torpor. If dullness were an art, this would be its masterpiece—capable of lulling even the most caffeinated minds into a stupor.

If you have carefully followed the above set of rules, at this point, some members of the audience should be banging their heads against the nearest hard surface. If you then hear a loud THUD … and you're still standing … you will know you have succeeded in giving the world's worst Medical Grand Rounds!

 

Final Thoughts

I hope that these rules shed light on what makes for a truly dreadful oncology MGR presentation—which, by inverse reasoning, might just serve as a blueprint for an excellent one. At its best, an outstanding lecture defies expectations. One of the most memorable MGRs I have attended, for instance, was on prostaglandin function—not a subject typically associated with edge-of-your-seat suspense. Given by a biochemist and physician from another subspecialty, it could have easily devolved into a labyrinth of enzymatic pathways and chemical structures. Instead, the speaker took a different approach: rather than focusing on biochemical minutiae, he illustrated how prostaglandins influence nearly every major physiologic system—modulating inflammation, regulating cardiovascular function, protecting the gut, aiding reproduction, supporting renal function, and even influencing the nervous system—without a single slide depicting the prostaglandin structure. The result? A room full of clinicians—not biochemists—walked away with a far richer understanding of how prostaglandins affect their daily practice. What is even more remarkable is that the talk's clarity did not just inform—it sparked new collaborations that shaped years of NIH-funded research. Now that was an MGR masterpiece.

At its core, effective scientific communication boils down to three deceptively simple principles: understanding your audience, focusing on relevance, and making complex information accessible.2 The best MGRs do not drown the audience in details, but rather illuminate why those details matter. A great lecture is not about showing how much you know, but about ensuring your audience leaves knowing something they didn't before. For those who prefer the structured wisdom of a written guide over the ramblings of a curmudgeon, an excellent review of these principles—complete with a handy checklist—is available.2 But fair warning: if you follow these principles, you may find yourself invited back to present another stellar MGRs. Perish the thought!

Dr. Mikkael Sekeres
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 oncology field. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. 

What a pleasure it is today to be joined by Dr. David Johnson, clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology Practice article, "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last." 

Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. 

David, welcome to our podcast and thanks so much for joining us.

Dr. David Johnson
Great to be here, Mikkael. Thanks for inviting me.

Dr. Mikkael Sekeres
I was wondering if we could start with just- give us a sense about you. Can you tell us about yourself? Where are you from? And walk us through your career.

Dr. David Johnson
Sure. I grew up in a small rural community in Northwest Georgia about 30 miles south of Chattanooga, Tennessee, in the Appalachian Mountains. I met my wife in kindergarten.

Dr. Mikkael Sekeres
Oh my.

Dr. David Johnson
There are laws in Georgia. We didn't get married till the third grade. But we dated in high school and got married after college. And so we've literally been with one another my entire life, our entire lives.

Dr. Mikkael Sekeres
My word.

Dr. David Johnson
I went to medical school in Georgia. I did my training in multiple sites, including my oncology training at Vanderbilt, where I completed my training. I spent the next 30 years there, where I had a wonderful career. Got an opportunity to be a Division Chief and a Deputy Director of, and the founder of, a cancer center there. And in 2010, I was recruited to UT Southwestern as the Chairman of Medicine. Not a position I had particularly aspired to, but I was interested in taking on that challenge, and it proved to be quite a challenge for me. I had to relearn internal medicine, and really all the subspecialties of medicine really became quite challenging to me. So my career has spanned sort of the entire spectrum, I suppose, as a clinical investigator, as an administrator, and now as a near end-of-my-career guy who writes ridiculous articles about grand rounds.

Dr. Mikkael Sekeres
Not ridiculous at all. It was terrific. What was that like, having to retool? And this is a theme you cover a little bit in your essay, also, from something that's super specialized. I mean, you have had this storied career with the focus on lung cancer, and then having to expand not only to all of hematology oncology, but all of medicine.

Dr. David Johnson
It was a challenge, but it was also incredibly fun. My first few days in the chair's office, I met with a number of individuals, but perhaps the most important individuals I met with were the incoming chief residents who were, and are, brilliant men and women. And we made a pact. I promised to teach them as much as I could about oncology if they would teach me as much as they could about internal medicine. And so I spent that first year literally trying to relearn medicine. And I had great teachers. Several of those chiefs are now on the faculty here or elsewhere. And that continued on for the next several years. Every group of chief residents imparted their wisdom to me, and I gave them what little bit I could provide back to them in the oncology world. It was a lot of fun. And I have to say, I don't necessarily recommend everybody go into administration. It's not necessarily the most fun thing in the world to do. But the opportunity to deal one-on-one closely with really brilliant men and women like the chief residents was probably the highlight of my time as Chair of Medicine.

Dr. Mikkael Sekeres
That sounds incredible. I can imagine, just reflecting over the two decades that I've been in hematology oncology and thinking about the changes in how we diagnose and care for people over that time period, I can only imagine what the changes had been in internal medicine since I was last immersed in that, which would be my residency.

Dr. David Johnson
Well, I trained in the 70s in internal medicine, and what transpired in the 70s was kind of ‘monkey see, monkey do’. We didn't really have a lot of understanding of pathophysiology except at the most basic level. Things have changed enormously, as you well know, certainly in the field of oncology and hematology, but in all the other fields as well. And so I came in with what I thought was a pretty good foundation of knowledge, and I realized it was completely worthless, what I had learned as an intern and resident. And when I say I had to relearn medicine, I mean, I had to relearn medicine. It was like being an intern. Actually, it was like being a medical student all over again.

Dr. Mikkael Sekeres
Oh, wow.

Dr. David Johnson
So it's quite challenging. 

Dr. Mikkael Sekeres
Well, and it's just so interesting. You're so deliberate in your writing and thinking through something like grand rounds. It's not a surprise, David, that you were also deliberate in how you were going to approach relearning medicine. So I wonder if we could pivot to talking about grand rounds, because part of being a Chair of Medicine, of course, is having Department of Medicine grand rounds. And whether those are in a cancer center or a department of medicine, it's an honor to be invited to give a grand rounds talk. How do you think grand rounds have changed over the past few decades? Can you give an example of what grand rounds looked like in the 1990s compared to what they look like now?

Dr. David Johnson
Well, I should all go back to the 70s and and talk about grand rounds in the 70s. And I referenced an article in my essay written by Dr. Ingelfinger, who many people remember Dr. Ingelfinger as the Ingelfinger Rule, which the New England Journal used to apply. You couldn't publish in the New England Journal if you had published or publicly presented your data prior to its presentation in the New England Journal. Anyway, Dr. Ingelfinger wrote an article which, as I say, I referenced in my essay, about the graying of grand rounds, when he talked about what grand rounds used to be like. It was a very almost sacred event where patients were presented, and then experts in the field would discuss the case and impart to the audience their wisdom and knowledge garnered over years of caring for patients with that particular problem, might- a disease like AML, or lung cancer, or adrenal insufficiency, and talk about it not just from a pathophysiologic standpoint, but from a clinician standpoint. How do these patients present? What do you do? How do you go about diagnosing and what can you do to take care of those kinds of patients? It was very patient-centric. And often times the patient, him or herself, was presented at the grand rounds. And then experts sitting in the front row would often query the speaker and put him or her under a lot of stress to answer very specific questions about the case or about the disease itself.

 Over time, that evolved, and some would say devolved, but evolved into more specialized and nuanced presentations, generally without a patient present, or maybe even not even referred to, but very specifically about the molecular biology of disease, which is marvelous and wonderful to talk about, but not necessarily in a grand round setting where you've got cardiologists sitting next to endocrinologists, seated next to nephrologists, seated next to primary care physicians and, you know, an MS1 and an MS2 and et cetera. So it was very evident to me that what I had witnessed in my early years in medicine had really become more and more subspecialized. As a result, grand rounds, which used to be packed and standing room only, became echo chambers. It was like a C-SPAN presentation, you know, where local representative got up and gave a talk and the chambers were completely empty. And so we had to go to do things like force people to attend grand rounds like a Soviet Union-style rally or something, you know. You have to pay them to go. But it was really that observation that got me to thinking about it. 

And by the way, I love oncology and I'm, I think there's so much exciting progress that's being made that I want the presentations to be exciting to everybody, not just to the oncologist or the hematologist, for example. And what I was witnessing was kind of a formula that, almost like a pancake formula, that everybody followed the same rules. You know, “This disease is the third most common cancer and it presents in this way and that way.” And it was very, very formulaic. It wasn't energizing and exciting as it had been when we were discussing individual patients.

So, you know, it just is what it is. I mean, progress is progress and you can't stop it. And I'm not trying to make America great again, you know, by going back to the 70s, but I do think sometimes we overthink what medical grand rounds ought to be as compared to a presentation at ASH or ASCO where you're talking to subspecialists who understand the nuances and you don't have to explain the abbreviations, you know, that type of thing.

Dr. Mikkael Sekeres
So I wonder, you talk about the echo chamber of the grand rounds nowadays, right? It's not as well attended. It used to be a packed event, and it used to be almost a who's who of, of who's in the department. You'd see some very famous people who would attend every grand rounds and some up-and-comers, and it was a chance for the chief residents to shine as well.

How do you think COVID and the use of Zoom has changed the personality and energy of grand rounds? Is it better because, frankly, more people attend—they just attend virtually. Last time I attended, I mean, I attend our Department of Medicine grand rounds weekly, and I'll often see 150, 200 people on the Zoom. Or is it worse because the interaction's limited?

Dr. David Johnson
Yeah, I don't want to be one of those old curmudgeons that says, you know, the way it used to be is always better. But there's no question that the convenience of Zoom or similar media, virtual events, is remarkable. I do like being able to sit in my office where I am right now and watch a conference across campus that I don't have to walk 30 minutes to get to. I like that, although I need the exercise. But at the same time, I think one of the most important aspects of coming together is lost with virtual meetings, and that's the casual conversation that takes place.

I mentioned in my essay an example of the grand rounds that I attended given by someone in a different specialty who was both a physician and a PhD in biochemistry, and he was talking about prostaglandin metabolism. And talk about a yawner of a title; you almost have to prop your eyelids open with toothpicks. But it turned out to be one of the most fascinating, engaging conversations I've ever encountered. And moreover, it completely opened my eyes to an area of research that I had not been exposed to at all. And it became immediately obvious to me that it was relevant to the area of my interest, which was lung cancer. This individual happened to be just studying colon cancer. He's not an oncologist, but he was studying colon cancer. But it was really interesting what he was talking about. And he made it very relevant to every subspecialist and generalist in the audience because he talked about how prostaglandin has made a difference in various aspects of human physiology. 

The other grand rounds which always sticks in my mind was presented by a long standing program director at my former institution of Vanderbilt. He's passed away many years ago, but he gave a fascinating grand rounds where he presented the case of a homeless person. I can't remember the title of his grand rounds exactly, but I think it was “Care of the Homeless” or something like that. So again, not something that necessarily had people rushing to the audience. What he did is he presented this case as a mysterious case, you know, “what is it?” And he slowly built up the presentation of this individual who repeatedly came to the emergency department for various and sundry complaints. And to make a long story short, he presented a case that turned out to be lead poisoning. Everybody was on the edge of their seat trying to figure out what it was. And he was challenging members of the audience and senior members of the audience, including the Cair, and saying, “What do you think?” And it turned out that the patient became intoxicated not by eating paint chips or drinking lead infused liquids. He was burning car batteries to stay alive and inhaling lead fumes, which itself was fascinating, you know, so it was a fabulous grand rounds. And I mean, everybody learned something about the disease that they might otherwise have ignored, you know, if it'd been a title “Lead Poisoning”, I'm not sure a lot of people would have shown up.

Dr. Mikkael Sekeres

That story, David, reminds me of Tracy Kidder, who's a master of the nonfiction narrative, will choose a subject and kind of just go into great depth about it, and that subject could be a person. And he wrote a book called Rough Sleepers about Jim O'Connell - and Jim O'Connell was one of my attendings when I did my residency at Mass General - and about his life and what he learned about the homeless. And it's this same kind of engaging, “Wow, I never thought about that.” And it takes you in a different direction.

 And you know, in your essay, you make a really interesting comment. You reflect that subspecialists, once eager to share their insight with the wider medical community, increasingly withdraw to their own specialty specific conferences, further fragmenting the exchange of knowledge across disciplines. How do you think this affects their ability to gain new insights into their research when they hear from a broader audience and get questions that they usually don't face, as opposed to being sucked into the groupthink of other subspecialists who are similarly isolated?

Dr. David Johnson

That's one of the reasons I chose to illustrate that prostaglandin presentation, because again, that was not something that I specifically knew much about. And as I said, I went to the grand rounds more out of a sense of obligation than a sense of engagement. Moreover, our Chair at that institution forced us to go, so I was there, not by choice, but I'm so glad I was, because like you say, I got insight into an area that I had not really thought about and that cross pollination and fertilization is really a critical aspect. I think that you can gain at a broad conference like Medical Grand Rounds as opposed to a niche conference where you're talking about APL. You know, everybody's an APL expert, but they never thought about diabetes and how that might impact on their research. So it's not like there's an ‘aha’ moment at every Grand Rounds, but I do think that those kinds of broad based audiences can sometimes bring a different perspective that even the speaker, him or herself had not thought of.

Dr. Mikkael Sekeres
I think that's a great place to end and to thank David Johnson, who's a clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and just penned the essay in JCO Art of Oncology Practice entitled "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last." 

Until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO's shows at asco.org/podcasts. 

David, once again, I want to thank you for joining me today.

Dr. David Johnson
Thank you very much for having me.

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.

Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

  

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


Guest Bio:
Dr David Johnson is a clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School.