Search

Background: Accurate variant classification and relaying reclassified results to patients is critical for hereditary cancer care delivery. Over a 5- to 10-year period, 6%-15% of variants undergo reclassification. As the frequency of reclassifications increases, the issue of whether, how, when, and which providers should recontact patients becomes important but remains contentious., Methods: The authors used inductive thematic analysis to analyze open-ended comments offered by oncologists and genetic counselors (GCs) from a large national survey., Results: Of the 634 oncologists and cancer GCs, 126 (20%) offered substantive free-text comments. Four thematic areas emerged: 1) ambiguity over professional responsibility to recontact, 2) logistical challenges with recontact, 3) importance of inter-institutional communication, and 4) suggested solutions. Some oncologists felt that laboratories, not them, are responsible for recontact; others believed that ordering providers/GCs were responsible; GCs readily acknowledged their own responsibility in recontact but added important caveats. Besides the lack of up-to-date patient contact information, providers raised unique challenges with recontact: financial instability of laboratories, lack of clinical resources, contacting family members, and accumulating burden of reclassifications. There were numerous calls for developing practice guidelines on prioritizing variants for recontact and discussion on whether duty for recontact may be fulfilled via unidirectional, low touch modalities. Potential solutions to recontact including national databases and patient facing databases were discussed., Conclusions: The authors confirm previous themes of stakeholder opinions and add previously unreported contextual details to qualify those themes. Clarifying provider responsibilities through professional guidelines for reclassification and recontact addressing the subthemes identified here will better serve all constituencies., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: The often poor prognosis associated with cancer necessitates empowering patients to express their care preferences. Yet, the prevalence of Advance Directives (AD) among oncology patients remains low. This study investigated oncologists' perspectives on the interests and challenges associated with implementing AD., Methods: A French national online survey targeting hospital-based oncologists explored five areas: AD information, writing support, AD usage, personal perceptions of AD's importance, and respondent's profile. The primary outcome was to assess how frequently oncologists provide patients with information about AD in daily clinical practice. Additionally, we examined factors related to delivering information on AD., Results: Of the 410 oncologists (50%) who responded to the survey, 75% (n = 308) deemed AD relevant. While 36% (n = 149) regularly inform patients about AD, 25% (n = 102) remain skeptical about AD. Among the respondents who do not consistently discuss AD, the most common reason given is the belief that AD may induce anxiety (n = 211/353; 60%). Of all respondents, 90% (n = 367) believe patients require specific information to draft relevant AD. Physicians with experience in palliative care were more likely to discuss AD (43% vs 32.3%, p = 0.027). Previous experience in critical care was associated with higher levels of distrust towards AD (31.5% vs 18.8%, p = 0.003), and 68.5% (n = 281) of the respondents expressed that designating a "person of trust" would be more appropriate than utilizing AD., Conclusion: Despite the perceived relevance of AD, only a third of oncologists regularly apprise their patients about them. Significant uncertainty persists about the safety and relevance of AD., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Cancer is the leading cause of illness-related death in state prisons in the United States. The experiences of physicians providing oncological care to individuals experiencing incarceration are underexplored. The study aims were to evaluate knowledge, attitudes, and practices of oncologists caring for cancer patients who are incarcerated. An online survey was distributed to a random sample of 150 oncologists from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Radiation Oncology from July 2020 to December 2021. Statistical analyses included two proportion Z -test, Fisher's exact test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Cramer's V to estimate factors associated with attitudes and barriers to care. Of the 55 respondents (36.7% response rate), 21 were medical oncologists and 34 were radiation oncologists. Academic center oncologists were more likely to report caring for incarcerated patients than community or private practice oncologists ( p  = .04). Most (53%) incorrectly reported "heart disease" as the leading cause of death, as opposed to "cancer" (15% identified correctly). Oncologists practicing at both academic and community centers were more likely to report care coordination barriers than oncologists at academic or community centers ( p  < .01). We identified potential barriers in caring for incarcerated cancer patients. Future studies should explore ways to improve care coordination between oncology teams and prisons.

Background: Using a specific bioethical theory (=global bioethics) and method (=a posteriori), we try here to identify and evaluate the bio-ethical issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic, and possible solutions, to improve the management of cancer patients at the hospital in future pandemics, before the emergence of vaccines or scientifically validated treatments., Materials & Methods: Our work is based primarily on the clinical experience of three oncologists from the oncology department of Foch Hospital in France, who were on the frontline during the first wave of the epidemic. We compared their perceptions with published findings, to complete or nuance their views., Results: Three bio-ethical issues were identified, and possible solutions to these problems were evaluated: (1) scientific evidence versus lack of time → the creation of emergency multidisciplinary team meetings (MTM); (2) healthcare equality versus lack of resources → the development of telemedicine; (3) individual liberties versus risk of contamination → role of cancer patients' associations, psychologists and bioethicists., Conclusion: We consider the creation of an emergency MTM, in particular, in addition to a true ethics committee with real competence in bioethics, to be a first solution that would be easy to implement in hospitals in many countries., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: In daily practice, oncologists and nurses frequently need to decide whether or not to refer a patient for professional mental health care. We explored the indicators oncologists and nurses use to judge the need for professional mental health care in patients with cancer., Methods: In a qualitative study, oncologists (n = 8) and nurses (n = 6) were each asked to select patients who were or were not referred for professional mental health care (total n = 75). During a semi-structured interview, they reflected on their decision concerning the possible referral of the patient. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data., Results: Respondents reported using a strategy when judging whether professional mental health care was needed. They allowed patients time to adjust, while monitoring patients' psychological well-being, especially if patients exhibited specific risk factors. Risk and protective factors for emotional problems included personal, social, and disease- and treatment-related factors. Respondents considered referral for professional mental health care when they noted specific indicators of emotional problems. These indicators included lingering or increasing emotions, a disproportionate intensity of emotions, and emotions with a negative impact on a patient's daily life or treatment., Conclusions: This study identified the strategy, risk and protective factors, and the indicators of emotional problems used by oncologists and nurses when judging the need for professional mental health care in patients with cancer., Implications for Cancer Survivors: Oncologists and nurses can play an important role in the identification of patients in need of professional mental health care., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Oncology care professionals are exposed to high levels of stress that can lead to burnout. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of burnout among nurses, oncologists and radiographers working in oncology patient care during the COVID -19 pandemic., Methods: Our electronic questionnaire was sent to e-mail contacts registered in the system of the Hungarian Society of Oncologists and to all oncology staff via an internal information system in each cancer center. Burnout was measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory, which measures depersonalization (DP), emotional exhaustion (EE), and personal accomplishment (PA). Demographic and work-related characteristics were collected in our self-designed questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, two-sample t-tests, analyzes of variance, Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed., Results: A total of 205 oncology care workers' responses were analyzed. Oncologists (n = 75) were found to be significantly more committed to DP and EE (p = 0.001; p = 0.001). Working more than 50 h per week and being on-call had a negative effect on the EE dimension (p = 0.001; p = 0.003). Coming up with the idea of working abroad had a negative effect on all three dimensions of burnout (p ≤ 0.05). Respondents who did not leave their job due to their current life situation had significantly higher DE, EE, and lower PA (p ≤ 0.05). Intention to leave current profession was specific in (n = 24/78; 30.8%) of nurses (p = 0.012)., Conclusion: Our results suggest that male gender, being an oncologist, working more than 50 h per week and taking on call duties have a negative impact on individual burnout. Future measures to prevent burnout should be integrated into the professionals' work environment, regardless of the impact of the current pandemic., Implications for Practice: Prevention and oncopsychological training should be developed gradually at the organisational or personal level to avoid early burnout of professionals., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: The aim of this review is defining burnout in medical oncologists, analyzing the causes, and evaluating both individual and institutional approaches to overcome burnout., Recent Findings: Burnout is defined as a reaction to long-term work-related stress, which is a serious condition and has negative consequences at both personal and professional levels. In recent years, there has been a greater emphasis on burnout in medicine in general and specifically in oncology given the complexity of care provided to oncology patients. More research is being done in this field and more coping strategies are evolving to help oncologists reduce the amount of stress and burnout they are experiencing. Oncologists need to recognize and acknowledge burnout and use different strategies to find joy in their work while maintaining their work-life balance. Strategies like individual-directed interventions and organizational-directed interventions, such as providing support and resources to oncologists to relieve their work-related stress may have a positive impact on oncologists' well-being, their patients' care, and satisfaction., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Cancer diagnosis and treatment may influence reproductive planning and impact fertility in patients of reproductive age. Although guidelines have been established in the past decade, education, practice, and attitudes of medical oncologists regarding fertility preservation remain undecided. A nationwide survey was performed among members of the Dutch Society for Medical Oncology. Demographics, practice, knowledge, and barriers were measured regarding information provision of fertility preservation towards cancer patients of childbearing age. From 392 members, 120 oncologists completed the questionnaire (30.6%). Majority of oncologists was convinced it is their responsibility to discuss impact of cancer treatment to fertility (93.2%), yet 68.3% discussed the subject often or always (n = 82). Oncologists employed in district general hospitals were less likely to discuss fertility (p = 0.033). On average, 44.6% of reproductive men and 28.9% of reproductive women is referred to fertility specialists. Half of the respondents declared to possess sufficient knowledge regarding fertility preservation (n = 57, 47.5%). Poor prognosis (53%), unlikely survival (43.1%), and high chances on fertility recovery (28.7%) were identified as barriers to discussing fertility preservation. Among oncologists, impact of cancer treatment on fertility is a well-accepted responsibility to counsel. Despite, self-reported knowledge regarding fertility preservation is strongly varying. In practice, fertility is discussed to some extent, influenced by several barriers and depending on prognosis and type of hospital. Patients benefit from knowledge improvement among oncology care providers concerning fertility effects of cancer treatment. Education during medical school, residency, and among practicing oncologists may raise awareness, together with enhancement of referral possibilities., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Smoking after a cancer diagnosis represents a modifiable health risk. It is recommended that oncology clinicians address tobacco use among their patients using the 5As brief model: Asking about use, Advising users to quit, Assessing willingness to quit, Assisting in quit attempts (counseling and medication), and Arranging follow-up. However, cross-sectional studies have found limited adoption of 5As (especially Assist and Arrange) in oncology settings. Further investigation is needed to understand changes in, and factors associated with, 5As delivery over time., Methods: Patients recently diagnosed with cancer and reporting current smoking (N = 303) enrolled in a smoking cessation clinical trial and completed three longitudinal surveys; at pre-intervention baseline and 3- and 6-month follow-up post-enrollment. Patient-level correlates of 5As receipt at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months were identified using multilevel regression models., Results: At baseline, patient-reported rates of 5As receipt from oncology clinicians ranged from 85.17% (Ask) to 32.24% (Arrange). Delivery declined from baseline to 6-month follow-up for all 5As, with the largest declines observed for Ask, Advise, Assess, and Assist-Counseling. Diagnosis of a smoking-related cancer was associated with greater odds of 5As receipt at baseline but lower odds at 6-month follow-up. At each time point, female gender, religiosity, advanced disease, cancer-related stigma, and smoking abstinence were associated with lower odds of 5As receipt, while reporting a recent quit attempt prior to enrollment was associated with higher odds of 5As receipt., Conclusion: Oncology clinicians' 5As delivery declined over time. Clinician delivery of the 5As varied based on patients' sociodemographics, clinical and smoking characteristics, and psychosocial factors., (© 2023 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

(1) Background: Patients treated with radiotherapy require follow-up care to detect and treat acute and late side effects, and to monitor for recurrence. The increasing demand for follow-up care poses a challenge for specialists and general practitioners. There is a perception that general practitioners do not have the specialised knowledge of treatment side effects and how to manage these. Knowing the concordance between general practitioner and oncologist clinical assessments can improve confidence in healthcare professionals. This study aimed to measure the level of agreement between general practitioners and radiation oncologists using a standardised clinical assessment; (2) Methods: a cross-sectional clinical practice study; sample aim of 20 breast, prostate or colorectal patients, three years post-radiotherapy treatment; their general practitioner and radiation oncologist; (3) Results: There was acceptable percent agreement (>75%) and a moderate to almost perfect agreement (Fleiss kappa) for all variables between the 15 general practitioner-radiation oncologist dyads; (4) Conclusions: The general practitioner and radiation oncologist concordance of a clinical follow-up assessment for radiation oncology patients is an important finding. These results can reassure both general practitioners and oncologists that general practitioners can provide cancer follow-up care. However, further studies are warranted to confirm the findings and improve reassurance for health professionals.

This French study aimed to evaluate oncologists' and patients' perception of physical activity, particularly adapted physical activity, in order to identify the obstacles and levers to its practice in patients with metastatic cancer., Method: Between October 2019 and March 2020, 60 medical oncologists and 305 patients with metastatic cancer were asked to fill in a self-completed questionnaire., Results: The benefits of physical activity are recognised by most oncologists and patients. These benefits were perceived more by oncologists in prevention (78%) or in the early stage (72%) of the disease than in the metastatic stage (55%) (P=0.01). Patient's physical condition (45%) and age (37%) but also the lack of time during the consultation to explain supportive care (35%) are the main obstacles identified by the oncologist to the integration of physical activity into patient care. Furthermore, lack of knowledge of adapted programmes is the main reason given by the physicians who have never prescribed physical activity (51%). On the patient side, while 88% of them had heard of the benefits of physical activity, only 11% had received a prescription. Most oncologists and patients were very interested in receiving information on where and what types of activities to practice, as well as what to avoid., Conclusion: Efforts in terms of information for both oncologists and patients seem necessary to increase the level of physical activity prescription and practice for patients followed for metastatic cancer., (Copyright © 2022 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Palliative care is an essential intervention to improve the quality of life for patients with cancer, whereas the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic poses a challenge to supportive and palliative care providers. This survey aims to explore the current status of palliative care practice for cancer and the influence of COVID-19, from the perspective of oncologists., Methods: The semi-structure electronic questionnaire was designed. Mixed-mode surveys including electronic questionnaires, face-to-face interactions, and telephone interviews were adopted according to the willingness of respondents. Face-to-face and telephone interviews were based on same questions in the online questionnaire. Participants working in cancer-related departments with frontline palliative care experience during the COVID-19 outbreak were included. Surveys covered experiences and perspectives regarding the impact of COVID-19 on clinical work, personal lives, and palliative care practice. Suggestions on coping strategies were further proposed and qualitatively analyzed., Results: Thirty-seven oncologists participated in this study from September 2021 to January 2022. The majority of them believed COVID-19 significantly and negatively affected their clinical work routines (75.7%), personal daily lives (67.6%), and palliative care practice (64.9%). Most specialists considered that currently the palliative care system remained underdeveloped (73.0%), and other factors besides COVID-19 were associated with this situation (78.4%). Seventeen participants further made suggestions on how to promote palliative care during COVID-19, and three themes emerged through the qualitative analysis: (1) Remote or online service (88.2%); (2) Publicity, education, or shared decision-making for patients (29.4%); (3) Guidelines, training, or programs for care providers (23.6%)., Conclusion: Oncologists consider that COVID-19 has an adverse impact on their palliative care practice and daily routine. In addition to COVID-19, other factors affecting palliative care should not be neglected. Corresponding measures are warranted to encourage palliative care practice during COVID-19., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wang, Huang, Ma, Wusiman, Zhang and Bi.)

Background: Cancer palliative care is recommended by guidelines for patients with early stage of cancer. Unlike the Western countries, in mainland China, cancer patients receive specialist-led cancer palliative care. Nurse-led cancer palliative care (NUC) is not well established yet., Objectives: To compare the clinical outcome measures, quality of life and symptom distress in patients suffering from cancer who received NUC with the same results in patient who received consulting oncologist-led cancer palliative care (ONC)., Material and Methods: The study was a chart review of a database of patients suffering from cancer. Data regarding clinical outcome measures, quality of life and symptom distress of patients suffering from cancer who were receiving chemotherapy and NUC (NUC cohort, n = 185) or ONC (ONC cohort, n = 170) were collected and analyzed. One oncologist or 1 nurse was involved in treating 1 patient during the patient's hospital visit. Each visit took 30 min. The Chinese version of the Symptom Distress Scale was used for the evaluation of the degree of symptom distress. The simplified Chinese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment Quality of Life Questionnaire (the EORTC QLQ-C30) v. 3.0 was used for evaluation of the quality of life., Results: Female patients preferred NUC (p < 0.0001). The pain intensity (4.13 ±1.71 compared to 3.35 ±1.01, p < 0.0001), dyspnea (3.89 ±1.48 compared to 2.82 ±0.97, p < 0.0001), constipation (3.56 ±1.78 compared to 3.06 ±1.89, p = 0.0107), and degree of symptom distress (38.09 ±7.26 compared to 35.05 ±7.92, p = 0.0002) were reported higher among patients from the ONC cohort than among those from the NUC cohort. Patients from the NUC cohort reported a better quality of life than those from the ONC cohort (70.41 ±13.62 compared to 45.63 ±7.94, p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: The NUC results in better clinical outcome measures and higher quality of life than ONC for patients receiving chemotherapy.

The paper considers issue of professional burnout of oncologists through the prism of their relationship with patients and their close relatives. The study was carried out using direct and online sociological survey method. The sample included 534 specialists being in constant contact with cancer patients. The results revealed pronounced prevalence of such main burnout domains as emotional exhaustion (55%), depersonalization (19%), reduction of professional achievements (22%). The most common methods of dealing with stress were recreation, sports, communication with immediate relatives, hobbies, walking (7-20%), 4% used alcohol. The high frequency of patient requests to oncologist for psychological support (88%) was established as well as difficulties in communication between doctor and patient because available communication skills are not always sufficient for 76% of oncologists. The majority of respondents support idea of patient need for psychological support and its effectiveness for their treatment and physical and emotional conditions. The similar trends were found in case of close relatives of patients. At the same time some oncologists expressed negative, stigmatizing attitudes towards patients in need of psychological support that requires additional educational work. In oncologists, even when need for psychological support is expressed by patient, willingness to seek it is low: a third of respondents are "rather not ready" to see psychologist even if they had this opportunity. The results meet data of other researches data and reveal that interaction with patients and their relatives is one of the main factors affecting the emotional state of oncologists. Based on study results as well as on publication analysis, comprehensive solution was proposed to implement psychological oncologic service in Russia, which, on one hand, will allow to provide support to cancer patients and their relatives, and on the other hand, will conduct specific training for oncologists concerning skills of psychologically safe communication with patients and coping with negative experiences.

Background: There have been several reports of patients with cancer visiting the Emergency Department (ED) rather than the outpatient department of their oncologist. In this study, we aimed to analyze the chief complaints, visit time, and time spent in the ED between study groups of patients with cancer visiting the ED. This finding will help medical staff provide better care for patients with cancer and reduce time spent in the ED., Methods: A total of 787 patients with cancer visited the Regional Emergency Medical Center between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. After the exclusion criterion such as patients who were transferred to the ED with a referral issued slip, patients who were pregnant women or minors under the age of 18 were applied, data from 607 patients with cancer were collected retrospectively from electronic medical records at the hospital. The participating patients with cancer were divided into two groups: 1) ED group-those who were cared for by the ED physician and 2) Referral group-those who were referred to their oncologist for hospitalization., Results: We found that 40% of the total patients with cancer included in the study visited the ED with a chief complaint of pain. It was observed that the highest frequency of visits to the ED was around noon during clinic hours. The length of ED stay was 169 and 566 min for the ED and referral groups, respectively., Conclusion: It would be more beneficial for patients with cancer visiting the ED to be quickly discharged from the ED physician's active care for their symptoms. This usage of ED services will reduce unnecessary waiting time., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

To investigate how Turkish oncologists' attitudes toward death influence their emotional states, outlooks, and communication styles when breaking bad news to cancer patients and/or their families., Cross-sectional study using self-completed questionnaires., The study sample consisted of 35 physicians working at an oncology department. Physicians completed a quantitative one-time survey developed by the authors and the Death Attitude Profile-Revised (DAP-R)., Thirty-one physicians completed the survey and the DAP-R. A mean of 13.39 ± 8.82 minutes was allocated for breaking bad news; 87.1% of the participants avoided using the word "cancer" and 42% avoided using the word "death". The attitudes characterized by "death avoidance" and "fear of death" were found to be related to the emotional difficulty experienced by the physicians, and were also associated with less eye contact with the patient, and less attention paid to the language used while breaking bad news., It is important for physicians to be aware of how their attitudes toward death affect their communication with patients during bad news. They should be provided in-service professional education, and therapeutic support.

Broaching conversations about goals of care can be difficult for clinicians. Presently, the communication strategies used by pediatric oncologists to approach goals of care conversations are not well understood. We recorded disease re-evaluation conversations between pediatric oncologists, patients, and parents, capturing 141 conversations (∼2400 minutes) for 17 patients with advancing illness across the study period. We conducted content analysis to identify strategies for broaching goals-of-care conversations and found five distinct communication approaches, which were not mutually exclusive. Further research is needed to explore patient and family views on best practices for broaching discussions about goals of care., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: In France, homeopathy is the most frequently used complementary therapy in supportive care in oncology (SCO); its use is steadily increasing. However, data is limited about the perception and relevance of homeopathy by oncologists and general practitioners (GPs) both with and without homeopathic training (HGPs and NHGPs, respectively). Our aim was to evaluate French physicians' perceptions of homeopathy to clarify its place in SCO through two original observation survey-based studies., Materials and Methods: Two cross-sectional surveys of French physicians were conducted involving (1) 150 specialist oncologists; (2) 97 HGPs and 100 NHGPs. Questions evaluated physician attitudes to homeopathy and patterns of use of homeopathic therapies in patients requiring SCO. Survey responses were described and analyzed on the basis of physician status., Results: Ten percent of oncologists stated they prescribe homeopathy; 36% recommend it; 54% think that homeopathy is potentially helpful in SCO. Two-thirds of the NHGPs sometimes prescribe homeopathy in the context of SCO and 58% regularly refer their patients to homeopathic doctors. HGPs have a positive perception of homeopathy in SCO., Conclusions: Homeopathy is viewed favorably as an integrated SCO therapy by the majority of French physicians involved with cancer patients-oncologists and GPs. Symptoms of particular relevance include fatigue, anxiety, peripheral neuropathy, sleep disturbance, and hot flashes. In such clinical situations, response to conventional therapies may be suboptimal and homeopathy is considered a reliable therapeutic option. These two studies highlight the fact that homeopathy has gained legitimacy as the first complementary therapy in SCO in France., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Today, patient management generally requires a multidisciplinary approach. However, due to the growing knowledge base and increasing complexity of Medicine, clinical practice has become even more specialised. Radiation oncology is not immune to this trend towards subspecialisation, which is particularly evident in ablative radiotherapy techniques that require high dose fractions, such as stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The aim of the present report is to establish the position of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR), in collaboration with the Spanish Society of Medical Physics (SEFM), with regard to the roles and responsibilities of healthcare professionals involved in performing SRS and SBRT. The need for this white paper is motivated due to the recent changes in Spanish Legislation (Royal Decree [RD] 601/2019, October 18, 2019) governing the use and optimization of radiotherapy and radiological protection for medical exposure to ionizing radiation (article 11, points 4 and 5) [1 ], which states: "In radiotherapy treatment units, the specialist in Radiation Oncology will be responsible for determining the correct treatment indication, selecting target volumes, determining the clinical radiation parameters for each volume, directing and supervising treatment, preparing the final clinical report, reporting treatment outcomes, and monitoring the patient's clinical course." Consequently, the SEOR and SEFM have jointly prepared the present document to establish the roles and responsibilities for the specialists-radiation oncologists (RO), medical physicists (MP), and related staff -involved in treatments with ionizing radiation. We believe that it is important to clearly establish the responsibilities of each professional group and to clearly establish the professional competencies at each stage of the radiotherapy process.

Introduction: Medical hypnosis has received an increasing attention during the past decades. Various applications of hypnosis can be incorporated into the oncology field. This study aims to assess the knowledge of Lebanese medical oncologists on the use of hypnosis in the management of cancer patients., Material and Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was sent to all Lebanese medical oncologists to assess their knowledge, opinion and understanding of hypnosis and its use in oncology, as well as the obstacles facing its application in Lebanon., Results: Hundred and three Lebanese medical oncologists responded to the survey, with a response rate of 65%. The findings revealed that most oncologists had little or no knowledge about hypnosis, but recommended it due to the benefits they believed it provided for the patients in improving chronic pain, invasive procedures, chemotherapy-induced nausea and anxiety. Around 40% of participants were interested in receiving a training in hypnosis. Lebanese oncologists also described many obstacles to the practice of hypnosis, mainly the lack of training for this technique and the lack of financial resources., Conclusion: Despite all obstacles, the majority of Lebanese oncologists would recommend hypnosis to their patients in order to improve their quality of life., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients suffering from cancers are increasingly numerous in general practice consultations. The General Practitioner (GP) should be at the heart of the management of patients. Several studies have examined the perceptions of GPs confronted with the patient suffering from cancer and the relationships of GPs with oncologists, but few studies have focused on the patients' perspective. We studied the three-way relationship between the oncologist, the GP, and the patient, from the patient's point of view., Methods: A questionnaire validated by a group consisting of GPs, oncologists, nurses, an epidemiologist and quality analyst, was administered over a three-week period to patients suffering from cancer receiving chemotherapy in a day hospital., Results: The analysis was based on 403 questionnaires. Patients had confidence in the GP's knowledge of oncology in 88% of cases; 49% consulted their GP for pain, 15% for cancer-related advice, and 44% in emergencies. Perceived good GP/oncologist communication led patients to turn increasingly to their GP for cancer-related consultations (RR = 1.14; p = 0.01) and gave patients confidence in the GP's ability to manage cancer-related problems (RR = 1.30; p < 0.01). Mention by the oncologist of the GP's role increased the consultations for complications (RR = 1.82; p < 0.01) as well as recourse to the GP in an emergency (RR = 1.35; p < 0.01)., Conclusion: Patients suffering from cancer considered that the GP was competent, but did not often consult their GP for cancer-related problems. There is a discrepancy between patients' beliefs and their behaviour. When the oncologist spoke to patients of the GP's role, patients had recourse to their GP more often. Systematically integrating a GP consultation to conclude cancer diagnosis disclosure, could improve management and care coordination.

Introduction: We aimed to explore the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and to identify their side effects, when used in cancer patients. We also assessed the communication of the patients and families with the oncologist about this issue., Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 120 adult patients treated for cancer in our medical oncology department between January and April 2019, using an anonymous questionnaire to assess complementary and alternative medicine use., Results: One hundred twenty patients participated in the survey, among them 102 used CAM (85%). A majority of users were female patients (n=72, 70.6%), and mean age was 52.4 years±11.6. Patients had breast cancer in 48% of cases. Wild herbs were the most commonly used alternative therapy (67.7%), particularly Ephedra foeminea (Alanda) in 52% of cases. Patients' families incited them to use CAM in 64.7% of cases. Internet and social network (Facebook) were the major sources of information on CAM (79.4%), followed by family and friends (72.5%). Fourteen patients (13.7%) reported nausea and vomiting secondary to CAM use. We reported disruption of liver function in 9.8% of cases, and renal failure in 1.96%, with fatal issue in one patient using Ephedra. Nineteen patients (18.6%) informed their oncologist about the alternative therapy they received., Conclusion: The oncologist has to explore the use of alternative therapies with their patients. Communication about CAM should be a part of cancer care. It may protect patients from some dangerous side effects and improve efficacy of conventional therapy., (Copyright © 2019 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We aimed to investigate the compliance of Turkish Medical Oncologists to antiemetic guidelines for treatment of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving high (HEC), moderate (MEC), and low (LEC) emetogenic chemotherapy., Method: A covering electronic mail letter with an online questionnaire link was sent to e-mail and mobile application groups including all 599 members of the Turkish Society of Medical Oncology in January 2018. The online survey has consisted of twelve questions., Results: Questionnaire form was responded by 146 of Turkish Medical Oncologists. The most of the participants were following up more than one antiemetic guideline (53%). While compliance with the antiemetic guidelines was higher in acute CINV prophylaxis for HEC and MEC, it was significantly lower in the delayed CINV treatment of HEC and LEC. The highest and lowest compliance rate was found in the prophylaxis of acute and delayed CINV of HEC (92% and 15%, respectively). The incidence of noncompliance for delayed CINV in HEC was statistically significantly higher in those who worked for ≤ five years in an oncology department, under 39 years of age, and non-academicians (p = 0.004, p = 0.042, p = 0.005, respectively)., Conclusions: Noncompliance with the antiemetic guidelines is continue to be a big problem in Turkish Medical Oncologists. The use of standardized antiemetic protocols in chemotherapy order forms or a computerized decision-support system is now seen as a better tool to enhance compliance with the guidelines., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction : Advanced cancer patients often want prognostic information, and discussions of prognosis have been shown to enhance patient understanding of their illness. Such discussions can lead to high-quality, value-consistent care at the end of life, yet they are also often emotionally challenging. Despite how common and normal it is for patients to experience transient emotional distress when receiving 'bad news' about prognosis, emotional responses have been under-addressed in existing literature on prognostic discussions. Areas covered : Drawing upon psychology research, principles of skilled clinical communication, and published approaches to discussions of serious illness, we summarize patients' common emotional reactions and coping strategies. We then provide suggestions for how to respond to them in clinic. Expert opinion : Ultimately, effective management of emotional reactions to bad news may lead to earlier, more frequent, and more transparent discussions of prognosis, thus promoting cancer patients' understanding of, and adjustment to, their illness and improving the quality of their end-of-life care.

Aim: Continued smoking in patients diagnosed with cancer affects treatment outcomes and overall survival. With national surveys of Australian medical oncologists (MO) and radiation oncologists (RO) we sought to determine current clinical practices, preferences and barriers in providing patient smoking cessation support., Methods: Oncologist members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (n = 452) and Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (n = 230) were invited to participate in a multiple choice survey exploring smoking cessation practices and beliefs., Results: The survey response rate was 43%. At first consultations more than 90% of MO and RO regularly asked patients if they smoke or use tobacco products, closely followed by documentation of duration of smoking history and current level of consumption. Less common was asking the patient if they intended to quit (MO 63%, RO 53%) and advising cessation (MO 70%, RO 72%). Less than 50% of oncologists regularly asked about current smoking in follow-up consultations. Although a range of referral options for smoking cessation care were used by oncologists, only 2% of MO and 3% of RO actively managed the patients' smoking cessation themselves and this was the least preferred option. The majority believed they require more training in cessation interventions (67% MO, 57% RO) and cited multiple additional barriers to providing cessation care., Conclusions: Oncologists strongly prefer smoking cessation interventions to be managed by other health workers. A collaborative approach with other health professionals is needed to aid the provision of comprehensive smoking cessation care tailored to patients with cancer., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Objective: This qualitative study examines patients' and oncologists' views on how to best address emotions during consultations, and explores oncologists' opinions on their own communication and on strategies to improve oncologists' response to patients' emotions., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 cancer patients and 13 oncologists, after watching videotaped consultations illustrating three communication strategies for addressing emotions., Results: Many participants preferred emotion-oriented speech to address patients' emotions; this strategy was assumed to (positively) affect a broad range of outcomes. Nevertheless, some preferred attentive silence or no emotion-oriented talk at all. Oncologists and patients had similar views on factors that may hinder oncologists to address emotions. Generally, oncologists mentioned that their response to emotions could be improved; for this, various (educational) strategies were suggested., Conclusion: Patients and oncologists generally agree that patients' emotions can best be addressed by empathic, explorative, acknowledging, and supportive statements. Still, differences in preferences exist, thus oncologists need to attune their communication to the individual patient., Practice Implications: The findings can inform medical communication training and encourage oncologists to improve their communication. The regular videotaping of consultations might be a promising method to provide feedback and reflect, thereby improving oncologists' response to patients' emotions., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been widely used by cancer patients but rarely discussed by oncologists. This study was designed to evaluate the communication gap between China's oncologists and cancer patients on CAM., Methods: Two parallel cross-sectional studies assessed 83 oncologists and 402 cancer patients on CAM communication between patients and oncologists, and attitudes toward CAM use and clinical decisions about CAM., Results: A majority (75.1%) of the cancer patients (302/402) were identified as CAM users within the most recent three months while 77.6% of the cancer patients (312/402) were identified as CAM users since diagnosis of cancer. Oncologists and patients responded differently ( P < .001) on CAM communications. Both oncologists and patients expected that CAM could improve the immune system. They both agreed that oncologists usually discouraged their patients from using CAM. Regarding the effectiveness of CAM, cancer patients were more likely to believe that CAM was effective while oncologists had more concerns about adverse effects of CAM use. CAM use by patients was predicted by disease duration (≥9 months) in the multivariable logistic regression model., Conclusion: China's oncologists and cancer patients may hold discrepant views on CAM. China's oncologists are encouraged to improve their knowledge on CAM and to initiate more discussions with their patients regarding effective and the safe use of CAM.

Realistic illness understanding is essential to an advanced cancer patient's ability to make informed medical decisions at the end of life. This study sought to determine whether advanced cancer patients better understood the late stage of their cancer if an oncologist, compared to other members of the care team, was present to discuss their scan results. Data were derived from a multi-institutional, longitudinal cohort study of patients recruited between 2010 and 2015. Patients (n = 209) with late-stage cancers (metastatic cancers that progressed after at least one chemotherapy regimen) were interviewed before and after clinic visits in which scan results were discussed. Patients reported pre- and postvisit if their cancer was at a late stage. Postvisit, patients reported if they discussed scan results with an oncologist or another oncology provider (i.e., oncology fellow, oncology resident, nurse practitioner, nurse, physician's assistant, or other). Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if the presence of an oncologist during scan results discussions differentially predicted the patients' likelihood of postvisit late-stage illness understanding (LSIU). Propensity weighting was used to correct for sociodemographic imbalances between groups, and previsit LSIU and the presence of multiple providers were controlled for in the logistic regression analyses. After propensity-weighted adjustment and controlling for previsit LSIU and the presence of multiple providers, patients were 2.6 times more likely (AOR = 2.6; 95% CI = 1.2, 6.0; P = 0.021) to report that their disease was late stage if an oncologist was present for the scan results discussion compared to if an oncologist was absent. The presence of an oncologist during scan results discussions was associated with a higher likelihood of patients acknowledging being in a late stage of their disease. These results suggest that oncologist involvement in scan results discussions is associated with advanced cancer patients having better prognostic understanding., (© 2018 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Patients with cancer and oncology professional societies believe that advance care planning is important, but we know little of who actually has this conversation. Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms can help to document these important conversations to ensure patients receive the level of treatment they want. We therefore sought to determine the specialty of those signing POLST forms for patients who died of cancer to better understand who is having this discussion with patients., Methods: Retrospective cohort study including all deaths due to cancer in Oregon between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011. Death certificates were matched to POLST forms in the Oregon POLST Registry, and the signing physician's specialty was determined using the Oregon Medical Board's database., Results: A total of 14 979 people died of cancer in Oregon in 2010 to 2011. Of which, 6145 (41.0%) had at least 1 POLST form in the Registry. Oncology specialists signed 14.9% of POLST forms, compared to 53.7% by primary care, 15.3% by hospice/palliative care, 12.8% by advanced practice providers, and 2.7% by other specialists; 51.8% of oncology specialists did not sign a POLST form, whereas 12.5% completed 10 or more., Conclusion: Oncology specialists play a central role in caring for patients with cancer through the end of their lives, but not in POLST completion. Whether or not they actually sign their patients' POLST forms, oncology specialists in the growing number of POLST states should integrate POLST into their goals of care conversations with patients nearing the end of life.

Purpose: Oncologists are making treatment decisions on increasing numbers of older patients with cancer. Due to comorbidities and frailty that increase with age, such decisions are often complex. We determined factors influencing oncologists' decisions to prescribe chemotherapy for older adults., Methods: Members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA) were invited to complete an online survey in February to April 2016., Results: Ninety-three oncologists completed the survey of which 69 (74%) were consultants and 24 (26%) were trainees, with most (72, 77%) working predominantly in a public hospital-associated practice. The three highest ranked factors influencing decisions about (a) adjuvant chemotherapy were performance status, survival benefit of treatment, and life expectancy in the absence of cancer and about (b) palliative chemotherapy were performance status, patient preference, and quality of life. Most geriatric health domains are reportedly assessed routinely by the majority of respondents, though few routinely use geriatric screening tools (14%) or geriatric assessments (5%). In hypothetical patient scenarios, oncologists were less likely to prescribe palliative and adjuvant chemotherapy as age and rates of severe toxicity increased., Conclusion: Performance status was the most influential factor for oncologists when making a decision about chemotherapy for their older patients, and the importance of other factors differed according to treatment intent. Oncologists were less likely to recommend chemotherapy as patient age and treatment toxicity increased. The low uptake of geriatric assessments or screening tools provides scope for improved clinical assessment of older adults in treatment decision-making.

The main objective of this study is to identify the decision criteria of general practitioners and oncologists in the management of older patients with cancer in Lorraine. The secondary objectives are to identify the difficulties encountered and to propose solutions to improve health path of these patients. 2,995 post mail questionnaires were sent to all general practitioners and oncologists in Lorraine. Some decision criteria differ between general practitioners and oncologists: civilian age and accessibility to a specialized advice for general practitioners; type of cancer, nutritional status, application of best practice recommendations, and multidisciplinary discussion for oncologists. The main difficulties reported are organizational and relate to time interval before specific care beginning, accessibility to a medical specialist, and post-diagnosis such link between primary care and hospital. General practitioners and oncologists mainly agree with the difficulties encountered and the solutions to find, even if some decision criteria differences are highlighted. The training of professionals remains the major lever for improvement of medical practices.

The aim of the study was to assess the degree of similarity between the distress expressed by parents of a child cancer survivor and the distress perceived by the oncologist. Overall, 61 parents of a child cancer survivor (between 4 and 6 years of cancer remission) were recruited in Belgian hospitals (Province of Liège). Parents filled out questionnaires about the intolerance of uncertainty (IUS), positive beliefs about worry (WW-II), parental worries about the evolution of their child's health (QIPS-R15), problem orientation (NPOQ), cognitive avoidance (CAQ), ruminations (Mini-CERTS), and anxiety/depression (HADS). Eight oncologists who having taken care of the child filled out the «OncoMed» questionnaire that examines their perception of the parental distress (e.g. anxiety, worries). Parents suffered from anxiety,worries about their child's health and showed a low level of tolerance of uncertainty. Overall, oncologists demonstrated a low perceived distress compared to the level of parental distress. The study highlights the need to detect early parents who are intolerant of uncertainty in order to offer them an efficient psychological follow-up. This study underlines finally the necessity to develop medical perception tools about the distress in order to strengthen the medical communication and the follow-up of these families.

Background & Aims: This study sought to identify discrepancies between the expectations of patients with cancer and oncologists regarding the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs), and to determine how patients evaluate CAM efficacy after its use., Methods: Data from the Cancer Patient Experience Study, a nationwide survey, were used. Seven subdivided efficacy domains were included in the survey. An oncologist-patient matching analysis was done to assess the concordance of CAM efficacies between oncologists and patients with cancer. In addition, the patients' expectations of CAM efficacies were compared before and after use., Results: Out of 719 participants, 201 patients with cancer (28.0%) reported using CAMs. The patients with cancer generally tended to be more positive about CAM efficacies than the oncologists. The largest discrepancy in efficacy perception was found in the efficacy domain of survival benefit, which included complete disease remission and prolonged survival. Many patients reported that they did not experience the positive efficacy they had anticipated before use. However, a substantial proportion of patients indicated that CAMs were as effective as they had expected, even though there is little evidence supporting the CAM efficacies., Conclusions: There was a marked discrepancy and a lack of concordance in expectations of CAM efficacy between patients with cancer and oncologists. Better communication between the patients and oncologists regarding CAM efficacy would be needed to make the patients to have shared expectations, and to reduce unnecessary CAM use., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: End-of-life discussions (EOLds) occur infrequently until cancer patients become terminally ill., Methods: To identify factors associated with the timing of EOLds, we conducted a nationwide survey of 864 medical oncologists. We surveyed the timing of EOLds held with advanced cancer patients regarding prognosis, hospice, site of death, and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status; and we surveyed physicians' experience of EOLds, perceptions of a good death, and beliefs regarding these issues. Multivariate analyses identified determinants of early discussions., Results: Among 490 physicians (response rate: 57%), 165 (34%), 65 (14%), 47 (9.8%), and 20 (4.2%) would discuss prognosis, hospice, site of death, and DNR status, respectively, "now" (i.e., at diagnosis) with a hypothetical patient with newly diagnosed metastatic cancer. In multivariate analyses, determinants of discussing prognosis "now" included the physician perceiving greater importance of autonomy in experiencing a good death (odds ratio [OR]: 1.34; p = .014), less perceived difficulty estimating the prognosis (OR: 0.77; p = .012), and being a hematologist (OR: 1.68; p = .016). Determinants of discussing hospice "now" included the physician perceiving greater importance of life completion in experiencing a good death (OR: 1.58; p = .018), less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.67; p = .002), and no responsibility as treating physician at end of life (OR: 1.94; p = .031). Determinants of discussing site of death "now" included the physician perceiving greater importance of life completion in experiencing a good death (OR: 1.83; p = .008) and less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.74; p = .034). The determinant of discussing DNR status "now" was less discomfort talking about death (OR: 0.49; p = .003)., Conclusion: Reflection by oncologists on their own values regarding a good death, knowledge about validated prognostic measures, and learning skills to manage discomfort talking about death is helpful for oncologists to perform appropriate EOLds., Implications for Practice: Oncologists' own perceptions about what is important for a "good death," perceived difficulty in estimating the prognosis, and discomfort in talking about death influence their attitudes toward end-of-life discussions. Reflection on their own values regarding a good death, knowledge about validated prognostic measures, and learning skills to manage discomfort talking about death are important for improving oncologists' skills in facilitating end-of-life discussions., (©AlphaMed Press.)

Background: The Institute of Medicine recommended that survivors of cancer and their primary care providers receive survivorship care plans (SCPs) to summarize cancer treatment and plan ongoing care. However, the use of SCPs remains limited., Methods: Oncology providers at 14 National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program hospitals completed a survey regarding their perceptions of SCPs, including barriers to implementation, strategies for implementation, the role of oncology providers, and the importance of topics in SCPs (diagnosis, treatment, recommended ongoing care, and the aspects of ongoing care that the oncology practice will provide)., Results: Among 245 providers (response rate of 70%), 52% reported ever providing any component of an SCP to patients. The most widely reported barriers were lack of personnel and time to create SCPs (69% and 64% of respondents, respectively). The most widely endorsed strategy among those using SCPs was the use of a template with prespecified fields; 94% of those who used templates found them helpful. For each topic of an SCP, although 87% to 89% of oncology providers believed it was very important for primary care providers to receive the information, only 58% to 65% of respondents believed it was very important for patients to receive the information. Furthermore, 33% to 38% of respondents reported mixed feelings regarding whether it was the responsibility of oncology providers to provide SCPs., Conclusions: Practices need additional resources to overcome barriers to implementing SCPs. We found resistance toward SCPs, particularly the perceived value for the survivor and the idea that oncology providers are responsible for SCP dissemination., (© 2013 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Tobacco assessment and cessation support are not routinely included in cancer care. An automated tobacco assessment and cessation program was developed to increase the delivery of tobacco cessation support for cancer patients., Methods: A structured tobacco assessment was incorporated into the electronic health record at Roswell Park Cancer Institute to identify tobacco use in cancer patients at diagnosis and during follow-up. All patients who reported tobacco use within the past 30 days were automatically referred to a dedicated cessation program that provided cessation counseling. Data were analyzed for referral accuracy and interest in cessation support., Results: Between October 2010 and December 2012, 11,868 patients were screened for tobacco use, and 2765 were identified as tobacco users and were referred to the cessation service. In referred patients, 1381 of those patients received only a mailed invitation to contact the cessation service, and 1384 received a mailing as well as telephone contact attempts from the cessation service. In the 1126 (81.4%) patients contacted by telephone, 51 (4.5%) reported no tobacco use within the past 30 days, 35 (3.1%) were medically unable to participate, and 30 (2.7%) declined participation. Of the 1381 patients who received only a mailed invitation, 16 (1.2%) contacted the cessation program for assistance. Three questions at initial consult and follow-up generated over 98% of referrals. Tobacco assessment frequency every 4 weeks delayed referral in < 1% of patients., Conclusions: An automated electronic health record-based tobacco assessment and cessation referral program can identify substantial numbers of smokers who are receptive to enrollment in a cessation support service., (© 2013 American Cancer Society.)