Search

Purpose: The purposes of this study were to assess the exposure that medical students (MSs) have to radiation oncology (RO) during the course of their medical school career, as evidenced by 2 time points in current medical training (ie, first vs fourth year; MS1s and MS4s, respectively) and to assess the knowledge of MS1s, MS4s, and primary care physicians (PCPs) about the appropriateness of RT in cancer management in comparison with RO attendings.Methods: We developed and beta tested an electronic survey divided into 3 parts: RO job descriptions, appropriateness of RT, and toxicities of RT. The surveys were distributed to 7 medical schools in the United States. A concordance of >90% (either yes or no) among RO attendings in an answer was necessary to determine the correct answer and to compare with other subgroups using a χ(2) test (P<.05 was significant).Results: The overall response rate for ROs, MS1s, MS4s, and PCPs was 26%; n (22 + 315 + 404 + 43)/3004. RT misconceptions decreased with increasing level of training. More than 1 of 10 MSs did not believe that RT alone could cure cancer. Emergent oncologic conditions for RT (eg, spinal cord compression, superior vena cava syndrome) could not be identified by >1 of 5 respondents. Multiple nontoxicities of RT (eg, emitting low-level radiation from the treatment site) were incorrectly identified as toxicities by >1 of 5 respondents. MS4s/PCPs with an RO rotation in medical school had improved scores in all prompts.Conclusions: Although MS knowledge of general RT principles improves from the first to the fourth year, a large knowledge gap still exists between MSs, current PCPs, and ROs. Some basic misconceptions of RT persist among a minority of MSs and PCPs. We recommend implementing formal education in RO fundamentals during the core curriculum of medical school. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the prognostic value of the sixth and seventh editions of the American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual and the risk-stratification model of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). METHODS: Two-thousand four hundred twenty-nine men who received definitive radiotherapy with or without androgen-deprivation therapy (median follow-up, 74 months) were analyzed. RESULTS: There was a migration of stage II patients to stage I with AJCC seventh edition (stage I increased from 1% to 38%, and stage II decreased from 91% to 55%). One pair-wise comparison (4%) of Kaplan-Meier estimates of biochemical failure, distant metastasis, prostate cancer-specific survival, and overall survival between stages was statistically significant for the AJCC sixth edition. Conversely, 16 of 24 comparisons (67%) were significant for the AJCC seventh edition. With the NCCN risk-stratification model, 9 of 12 comparisons (75%) were significant. Concordance probability estimate (CPE) and standard error (SE) analysis indicated uniform and significant improvement in the predictive power of the AJCC seventh edition versus the sixth edition for all outcomes. CPE ± SE values for the AJCC seventh edition versus the sixth edition were 0.51 ± 0.009 versus 0.59 ± 0.02, respectively, for biochemical failure; 0.54 ± 0.02 versus 0.70 ± 0.05, respectively, for distant metastasis; 0.57 ± 0.009 versus 0.76 ± 0.007, respectively, for prostate cancer-specific survival; and 0.52 ± 0.006 versus 0.57 ± 0.01, respectively, for overall survival. CPE ± SE values for the NCCN model were 0.59 ± 0.02 for biochemical failure, 0.72 ± 0.05 for distant metastasis, 0.80 ± 0.01 for prostate cancer-specific survival, and 0.57 ± 0.01 for overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicated that the seventh edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual is a major improvement over the sixth edition, because it distributes patients better among the stages and is more prognostic. However, the NCCN model was superior to the AJCC seventh edition and remains the preferred method for risk-based clinical management of prostate cancer with radiotherapy. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To quantify and determine the relationship between oncology departmental/division heads and private industry vis-à-vis potential financial conflict of interests (FCOIs) as publicly reported by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database.Methods and Materials: We extracted the names of the chairs/chiefs in medical oncology (MO) and chairs of radiation oncology (RO) for 81 different institutions with both RO and MO training programs as reported by the Association of American Medical Colleges. For each leader, the amount of consulting fees and research payments received in 2015 was determined. Logistic modeling was used to assess associations between the 2 endpoints of receiving a consulting fee and receiving a research payment with various institution-specific and practitioner-specific variables included as covariates: specialty, sex, National Cancer Institute designation, PhD status, and geographic region.Results: The majority of leaders in MO were reported to have received consulting fees or research payments (69.5%) compared with a minority of RO chairs (27.2%). Among those receiving payments, the average (range) consulting fee was $13,413 ($200-$70,423) for MO leaders and $6463 ($837-$16,205) for RO chairs; the average research payment for MO leaders receiving payments was $240,446 ($156-$1,234,762) and $295,089 ($160-$1,219,564) for RO chairs. On multivariable regression when the endpoint was receipt of a research payment, those receiving a consulting fee (odds ratio [OR]: 5.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.22-13.65) and MO leaders (OR: 5.54; 95% CI: 2.62-12.18) were more likely to receive research payments. Examination of the receipt of consulting fees as the endpoint showed that those receiving a research payment (OR: 5.41; 95% CI: 2.23-13.99) and MO leaders (OR: 3.06; 95% CI: 1.21-8.13) were more likely to receive a consulting fee.Conclusion: Leaders in academic oncology receive consulting or research payments from industry. Relationships between oncology leaders and industry can be beneficial, but guidance is needed to develop consistent institutional policies to manage FCOIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In this study, we provide the largest analysis to date of a US-based cancer cohort to characterize death from COVID-19., Methods: A total of 4 020 669 patients across 15 subtypes living with cancer in 2020 and included in the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were abstracted. We investigated prognostic factors for death due to COVID-19 using a Cox proportional hazards model and calculated hazard ratios (HRs). Standardized mortality ratios were calculated using observed mortality counts from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and expected mortality based on US mortality rates., Results: A total of 291 323 patients died, with 14 821 (5.1%) deaths attributed to COVID-19 infection. The COVID-19 disease-specific mortality rate was 11.81/10 000-persons years, and the standardized mortality ratio of COVID-19 was 2.30 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.26 to 2.34; P < .0001). COVID-19 ranked as the second leading cause of death following ischemic heart disease (5.2%) among 26 noncancer causes of death. Patients who are older (80 years and older vs 49 years and younger: HR = 21.47, 95% CI = 19.34 to 23.83), male (vs female: HR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.40 to 1.51), unmarried (vs married: HR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.42 to 1.53), and Hispanic or non-Hispanic African American (vs non-Hispanic White: HR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.94 to 2.14 and HR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.94 to 2.14, respectively) were at greatest risk of COVID-19 mortality., Conclusions: We observed that people living with cancer are at 2 times greater risk of dying from COVID-19 compared with the general US population. This work may be used by physicians and public health officials in the creation of survivorship programs that mitigate the risk of COVID-19 mortality., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Importance: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the noninferiority of shorter radiotherapy (RT) courses (termed hypofractionation) compared with longer RT courses in patients with localized prostate cancer. Although shorter courses are associated with cost-effectiveness, convenience, and expanded RT access, their adoption remains variable., Objective: To identify the current practice patterns of external beam RT for prostate cancer in the US., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study obtained data from the National Cancer Database, which collects hospital registry data from more than 1500 accredited US facilities on approximately 72% of US patients with cancer. Patients were included in the sample if they had localized prostate adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed between 2004 and 2020 and underwent external beam RT with curative intent. Analyses were conducted between February and March 2023., Exposures: Radiotherapy schedules, which were categorized as ultrahypofractionation (≤7 fractions), moderate hypofractionation (20-30 fractions), and conventional fractionation (31-50 fractions)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Longitudinal pattern in RT fractionation schedule was the primary outcome. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the variables associated with shorter RT courses. Covariables included age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, rurality, race, facility location, facility type, median income, insurance type or status, and Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index., Results: A total of 313 062 patients with localized prostate cancer (mean [SD] age, 68.8 [7.7] years) were included in the analysis. There was a temporal pattern of decline in the proportion of patients who received conventional fractionation, from 76.0% in 2004 to 36.6% in 2020 (P for trend <.001). From 2004 to 2020, use of moderate hypofractionation increased from 22.0% to 45.0% (P for trend <.001), and use of ultrahypofractionation increased from 2.0% to 18.3% (P for trend <.001). By 2020, the most common RT schedule was ultrahypofractionation for patients in the low-risk group and moderate hypofractionation for patients in the intermediate-risk group. On multivariable analysis, treatment at a community cancer program (compared with academic or research program; odds ratio [OR], 0.54 [95% CI, 0.52-0.56]; P < .001), Medicaid insurance (compared with Medicare; OR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.41-1.57]; P < .001), Black race (compared with White race; OR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.87-0.92]; P < .001), and higher median income (compared with lower median income; OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.25-1.31]; P < .001) were associated with receipt of shorter courses of RT., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study showed an increase in the use of shorter courses of RT for prostate cancer from 2004 to 2020; a number of social determinants of health appeared to be associated with reduced adoption of shorter treatment courses. Realignment of reimbursement models may be necessary to enable broader adoption of ultrahypofractionation to support technology acquisition costs.

Background: Management of localized or recurrent prostate cancer since the 1990s has been based on risk stratification using clinicopathological variables, including Gleason score, T stage (based on digital rectal exam), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). In this study a novel prognostic test, the Decipher Prostate Genomic Classifier (GC), was used to stratify risk of prostate cancer progression in a US national database of men with prostate cancer., Methods: Records of prostate cancer cases from participating SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program registries, diagnosed during the period from 2010 through 2018, were linked to records of testing with the GC prognostic test. Multivariable analysis was used to quantify the association between GC scores or risk groups and use of definitive local therapy after diagnosis in the GC biopsy-tested cohort and postoperative radiotherapy in the GC-tested cohort as well as adverse pathological findings after prostatectomy., Results: A total of 572 545 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 8927 patients underwent GC testing. GC biopsy-tested patients were more likely to undergo active active surveillance or watchful waiting than untested patients (odds ratio [OR] =2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.04 to 2.38, P < .001). The highest use of active surveillance or watchful waiting was for patients with a low-risk GC classification (41%) compared with those with an intermediate- (27%) or high-risk (11%) GC classification (P < .001). Among National Comprehensive Cancer Network patients with low and favorable-intermediate risk, higher GC risk class was associated with greater use of local therapy (OR = 4.79, 95% CI = 3.51 to 6.55, P < .001). Within this subset of patients who were subsequently treated with prostatectomy, high GC risk was associated with harboring adverse pathological findings (OR = 2.94, 95% CI = 1.38 to 6.27, P = .005). Use of radiation after prostatectomy was statistically significantly associated with higher GC risk groups (OR = 2.69, 95% CI = 1.89 to 3.84)., Conclusions: There is a strong association between use of the biopsy GC test and likelihood of conservative management. Higher genomic classifier scores are associated with higher rates of adverse pathology at time of surgery and greater use of postoperative radiotherapy.In this study the Decipher Prostate Genomic Classifier (GC) was used to analyze a US national database of men with prostate cancer. Use of the GC was associated with conservative management (ie, active surveillance). Among men who had high-risk GC scores and then had surgery, there was a 3-fold higher chance of having worrisome findings in surgical specimens., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Global incidence for brain tumors varies substantially without explanation. Studies correlating radon exposure and incidence are inconclusive. Particulate pollution has been linked to increased tumor incidence. Particulates may disrupt the blood-brain barrier allowing intracranial exposure to oncogenic radon. We investigated the relationship between exposure to residential radon, particulate pollution, and brain tumor incidence in the United States (US)., Methods: County-level median radon testing results and annual air quality index values were obtained and divided into tertiles. Counties without both values were excluded. Four groups of counties were generated: high particulate/high radon (high/high), high/low, low/high, and low/low. Using incidence data from the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the US (provided by CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries and NCI's SEER), annual age-adjusted incidence rates (AAAIRs) by group were generated by behavior. Incidence rate ratios were calculated to examine for significant differences (α = .05). Poisson regression accounting for possible confounders was conducted., Results: Counties with available data included 83% of the US population. High/high exposure was significantly associated with increased AAAIR of all non-malignant tumors (up to 26% higher, including most meningiomas) even after accounting for potential confounders. An increased AAAIR was noted for all malignant tumors (up to 10% higher), including glioblastoma, but was negated after accounting for demographic/socioeconomic differences., Conclusions: We present the first report suggesting increased non-malignant brain tumor incidence in regions with high particulate and radon exposure. These findings provide insight into unexplained variation in tumor incidence. Future studies are needed to validate these findings in other populations., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Importance: As the field of medicine strives for equity in care, research showing the association of social determinants of health (SDOH) with poorer health care outcomes is needed to better inform quality improvement strategies., Objective: To evaluate the association of SDOH with prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall survival (OS) among Black and White patients with prostate cancer., Data Sources: A MEDLINE search was performed of prostate cancer comparative effectiveness research from January 1, 1960, to June 5, 2020., Study Selection: Two authors independently selected studies conducted among patients within the United States and performed comparative outcome analysis between Black and White patients. Studies were required to report time-to-event outcomes. A total of 251 studies were identified for review., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Three authors independently screened and extracted data. End point meta-analyses were performed using both fixed-effects and random-effects models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed, and 2 authors independently reviewed all steps. All conflicts were resolved by consensus., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was PCSM, and the secondary outcome was OS. With the US Department of Health and Human Services Healthy People 2030 initiative, an SDOH scoring system was incorporated to evaluate the association of SDOH with the predefined end points. The covariables included in the scoring system were age, comorbidities, insurance status, income status, extent of disease, geography, standardized treatment, and equitable and harmonized insurance benefits. The scoring system was discretized into 3 categories: high (≥10 points), intermediate (5-9 points), and low (<5 points)., Results: The 47 studies identified comprised 1 019 908 patients (176 028 Black men and 843 880 White men; median age, 66.4 years [IQR, 64.8-69.0 years]). The median follow-up was 66.0 months (IQR, 41.5-91.4 months). Pooled estimates found no statistically significant difference in PCSM for Black patients compared with White patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08 [95% CI, 0.99-1.19]; P = .08); results were similar for OS (HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.95-1.07]; P = .68). There was a significant race-SDOH interaction for both PCSM (regression coefficient, -0.041 [95% CI, -0.059 to 0.023]; P < .001) and OS (meta-regression coefficient, -0.017 [95% CI, -0.033 to -0.002]; P = .03). In studies with minimal accounting for SDOH (<5-point score), Black patients had significantly higher PCSM compared with White patients (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.17-1.41; P < .001). In studies with greater accounting for SDOH variables (≥10-point score), PCSM was significantly lower among Black patients compared with White patients (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96; P = .02)., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that there is a significant interaction between race and SDOH with respect to PCSM and OS among men with prostate cancer. Incorporating SDOH variables into data collection and analyses are vital to developing strategies for achieving equity.

Objectives: Metastatic cancer has historically been considered fatal; however, there is a paucity of evidence characterizing the epidemiology of incidence, treatment, and outcomes in these patients., Materials and Methods: Incidence rates, annual percent change (APC), descriptive epidemiological statistics, and odds ratios for survival were calculated using registry data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and the National Cancer Database (NCDB), 1998 to 2015., Results: There were a total of 1,055,860 patients with metastatic cancer. The most frequent primary cancers were lung (42.6%), colorectal (9.5%), and ovarian (5.5%). Metastatic lung and colorectal cancer incidence decreased, APC: -1.57 (P<0.001) and APC: -1.48 (P<0.001), respectively; metastatic pancreatic cancer incidence increased, APC: 0.62 (P=0.001). The use of local therapies decreased for almost all sites, and the use of systemic therapies increased across multiple sites: single-agent chemotherapy in kidney (2.54% increase/year), female breast (1.14% increase/year), and prostate cancer (1.08% increase/year); multiagent chemotherapy, most notably in pancreas (2.23% increase/year), uterus (1.81% increase/year), and colorectal cancer (1.54% increase/year). Increased utilization of immunotherapy was observed across the majority of sites, most notably in melanoma (2.14% increase/year). Patients diagnosed from 2006 to 2010 had 17.4% higher odds of surviving at least 60 months compared with 1998 to 2002., Conclusions: In this study, metastatic disease has been shown to have unique epidemiological patterns, and survival has improved. Continued research on metastatic disease is important in understanding and addressing the distinct health concerns of this population., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Currently, there are limited published data regarding resource use and spending on cancer care in the US., Objective: To characterize the most frequent medical services provided and the associated spending for privately insured patients with cancer in the US., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the MarketScan database for the calendar year 2018 from a sample of 27.1 million privately insured individuals, including patients with a diagnosis of the 15 most prevalent cancers, predominantly from large insurers and self-insured employers. Overall societal health care spending was estimated for each cancer type by multiplying the mean total spending per patient (estimated from MarketScan) by the number of privately insured patients living with that cancer in 2018, as reported by the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Analyses were performed from February 1, 2018, to July 8, 2021., Exposures: Evaluation and management as prescribed by treating care team., Main Outcomes and Measures: Current Procedural Terminology and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes based on cancer diagnosis code., Results: The estimated cost of cancer care in 2018 for 402 115 patients with the 15 most prevalent cancer types was approximately $156.2 billion for privately insured adults younger than 65 years in the US. There were a total of 38.4 million documented procedure codes for 15 cancers in the MarketScan database, totaling $10.8 billion. Patients with breast cancer contributed the greatest total number of services (10.9 million [28.4%]), followed by those with colorectal cancer (3.9 million [10.2%]) and prostate cancer (3.6 million [9.4%]). Pathology and laboratory tests contributed the highest number of services performed (11.7 million [30.5%]), followed by medical services (6.3 million [16.4%]) and medical supplies and nonphysician services (6.1 million [15.9%]). The costliest cancers were those of the breast ($3.4 billion [31.5%]), followed by lung ($1.1 billion [10.2%]) and colorectum ($1.1 billion [10.2%]). Medical supplies and nonphysician services contributed the highest total spent ($4.0 billion [37.0%]), followed by radiology ($2.1 billion [19.4%]) and surgery ($1.8 billion [16.7%])., Conclusions and Relevance: This analysis suggests that patients with breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers had the greatest number of services performed, particularly for pathology and laboratory tests, whereas patients with breast, lung, lymphoma, and colorectal cancer incurred the greatest costs, particularly for medical supplies and nonphysician services. The cost of cancer care in 2018 for the 15 most prevalent cancer types was estimated to be approximately $156.2 billion for privately insured adults younger than 65 years in the US.

Purpose: With the introduction of the Oncology Care Model and plans for the transition to Oncology Care First, alternative payment models (APMs) are an increasingly important piece of the oncology care landscape. Evidence is mixed on the Oncology Care Model's impact on utilization and costs, but as policymakers consider expansion of similar models, it is critical to understand the characteristics of hospitals that may be differentially affected., Methods: We used 2007-2016 SEER-Medicare data to identify patients with breast and prostate cancer receiving chemotherapy, endocrine therapy (breast), or androgen deprivation therapy (prostate). For each hospital, we calculated 6-month expected mortality, emergency department (ED) visits, inpatient admissions, and costs, all commonly collected APM outcomes. After calculating observed-to-expected rates for each outcome by hospital, we estimated the association between observed-to-expected rates and characteristics of each hospital to understand hospital characteristics that might be associated with higher- or lower-than-expected rates of each outcome., Results: Hospitals with > 15% rural patients had significantly higher-than-expected mortality (0.31 points higher, P < .001) and ED visit rates (0.10 points higher, P = .029) as well as significantly lower costs (0.06 points lower, P = .004). Hospitals unaffiliated with a medical school also experienced significantly higher-than-expected mortality and ED visits. Hospitals eligible for disproportionate share hospital payment experienced significantly higher ED visits but lower costs. For-profit hospitals experienced higher-than-expected mortality., Conclusion: Rural hospitals and those unaffiliated with a medical school may require special consideration as APMs expand in oncology care. Designated cancer centers and larger hospitals may be advantaged., Competing Interests: Christopher S. HollenbeakConsulting or Advisory Role: Cytovale Inc, Yorker Health Jay D. RamanStock and Other Ownership Interests: United Medical, American Kidney Stone ManagementConsulting or Advisory Role: Urogen pharmaSpeakers' Bureau: Urogen PharmaResearch Funding: Urogen Pharma, Pacific Edge BiotechnologyNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Importance: Previous studies have demonstrated that adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer are a distinct cancer population; however, research on long-term epidemiological trends and characteristics of cancers in AYAs is lacking., Objective: To characterize the epidemiology of cancer in AYAs aged 15 to 39 years with respect to (1) patient demographic characteristics, (2) frequencies of cancer types, and (3) cancer incidence trends over time., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, serial cross-sectional, population-based study used registry data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from January 1, 1973, to December 31, 2015 (SEER 9 and SEER 18). The study population was from geographically distinct US regions, chosen to represent the racial and ethnic heterogeneity of the country. Initial analyses were performed from January 1 to August 31, 2019., Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence rates and descriptive epidemiological statistics for patients aged 15 to 39 years with invasive cancer., Results: A total of 497 452 AYAs diagnosed from 1973 to 2015 were included in this study, with 293 848 (59.1%) female and 397 295 (79.9%) White participants. As AYAs aged, an increase in the relative incidence of carcinomas and decrease in the relative incidence of leukemias, lymphomas, germ cell and trophoblastic neoplasms, and neoplasms of the central nervous system occurred. Among the female AYAs, 72 564 (24.7%) were diagnosed with breast carcinoma; 48 865 (16.6%), thyroid carcinoma; and 33 828 (11.5%), cervix and uterus carcinoma. Among the male AYAs, 37 597 (18.5%) were diagnosed with testicular cancer; 20 850 (10.2%), melanoma; and 19 532 (9.6%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The rate of cancer in AYAs increased by 29.6% from 1973 to 2015, with a mean annual percentage change (APC) per 100 000 persons of 0.537 (95% CI, 0.426-0.648; P < .001). Kidney carcinoma increased at the greatest rate for both male (APC, 3.572; 95% CI, 3.049-4.097; P < .001) and female (APC, 3.632; 95% CI, 3.105-4.162; P < .001) AYAs., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional, US population-based study, cancer in AYAs was shown to have a unique epidemiological pattern and is a growing health concern, with many cancer subtypes having increased in incidence from 1973 to 2015. Continued research on AYA cancers is important to understanding and addressing the distinct health concerns of this population.

Importance: Cancer treatment delay has been reported to variably impact cancer-specific survival and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-specific mortality during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. During the pandemic, treatment delay is being recommended in a nonquantitative, nonobjective, and nonpersonalized manner, and this approach may be associated with suboptimal outcomes. Quantitative integration of cancer mortality estimates and data on the consequences of treatment delay is needed to aid treatment decisions and improve patient outcomes., Objective: To obtain quantitative integration of cancer-specific and COVID-19-specific mortality estimates that can be used to make optimal decisions for individual patients and optimize resource allocation., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this decision analytical model, age-specific and stage-specific estimates of overall survival pre-COVID-19 were adjusted by the probability of COVID-19 (individualized by county, treatment-specific variables, hospital exposure frequency, and COVID-19 infectivity estimates), COVID-19 mortality (individualized by age-specific, comorbidity-specific, and treatment-specific variables), and delay of cancer treatment (impact and duration). These model estimates were integrated into a web application (OncCOVID) to calculate estimates of the cumulative overall survival and restricted mean survival time of patients who received immediate vs delayed cancer treatment. Using currently available information about COVID-19, a susceptible-infected-recovered model that accounted for the increased risk among patients at health care treatment centers was developed. This model integrated the data on cancer mortality and the consequences of treatment delay to aid treatment decisions. Age-specific and cancer stage-specific estimates of overall survival pre-COVID-19 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database for 691 854 individuals with 25 cancer types who received cancer diagnoses in 2005 to 2006. Data from 5 436 896 individuals in the National Cancer Database were used to estimate the independent impact of treatment delay by cancer type and stage. In addition, data from 275 patients in a nested case-control study were used to estimate the COVID-19 mortality rate by age group and number of comorbidities. Data were analyzed from March 17 to May 21, 2020., Exposures: COVID-19 and cancer., Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimates of restricted mean survival time after the receipt of immediate vs delayed cancer treatment., Results: At the time of the study, the OncCOVID web application allowed for the selection of up to 47 individualized variables to assess net survival for an individual patient with cancer. Substantial heterogeneity was found regarding the association between delayed cancer treatment and net survival among patients with a given cancer type and stage, and these 2 variables were insufficient to discriminate the net impact of immediate vs delayed treatment. Individualized overall survival estimates were associated with patient age, number of comorbidities, treatment received, and specific local community estimates of COVID-19 risk., Conclusions and Relevance: This decision analytical modeling study found that the OncCOVID web-based application can quantitatively aid in the resource allocation of individualized treatment for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 global pandemic.

Purpose: Academic medical faculty members are assessed on their research productivity for hiring, promotion, grant, and award decisions. The current work systematically reviews, synthesizes, and analyzes the available literature on publication productivity by academic rank across medical specialties., Method: The authors searched PubMed for medical literature, including observational studies, published in English from 2005 to 2018, using the term "h-index," on July 1, 2018. Studies had to report on h-indices for faculty in academic medicine and, if available, other publication metrics, including number of citations, number of publications, and m-indices, stratified by academic rank. The DerSimonian and Laird method was used to perform meta-analyses for the primary (h-index) and secondary (m-index) outcome measures., Results: The systematic review included 21 studies. The meta-analysis included 19 studies and data on 14,567 academic physicians. Both h- and m-indices increased with academic rank. The weighted random effects summary effect sizes for mean h-indices were 5.22 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.21-6.23, n = 6,609) for assistant professors, 11.22 (95% CI: 9.65-12.78, n = 3,508) for associate professors, 20.77 (95% CI: 17.94-23.60, n = 3,626) for full professors, and 22.08 (95% CI: 17.73-26.44, n = 816) for department chairs. Mean m-indices were 0.53 (95% CI: 0.40-0.65, n = 1,653) for assistant professors, 0.72 (95% CI: 0.58-0.85, n = 883) for associate professors, 0.99 (95% CI: 0.75-1.22, n = 854) for full professors, and 1.16 (95% CI: 0.81-1.51, n = 195) for department chairs., Conclusions: Both h- and m-indices increase with successive academic rank. There are unique distributions of these metrics among medical specialties. The h- and m-indices should be used in conjunction with other measures of academic success to evaluate faculty members for hiring, promotion, grant, and award decisions.

As the overlap between heart disease and cancer patients increases as cancer-specific mortality is decreasing and the surviving population is aging, it is necessary to identify cancer patients who are at an increased risk of death from heart disease. The purpose of this study is to identify cancer patients at highest risk of fatal heart disease compared to the general population and other cancer patients at risk of death during the study time period. Here we report that 394,849 of the 7,529,481 cancer patients studied died of heart disease. The heart disease-specific mortality rate is 10.61/10,000-person years, and the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) of fatal heart disease is 2.24 (95% CI: 2.23-2.25). Compared to other cancer patients, patients who are older, male, African American, and unmarried are at a greatest risk of fatal heart disease. For almost all cancer survivors, the risk of fatal heart disease increases with time.

Aims: This observational study characterized cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality risk for multiple cancer sites, with respect to the following: (i) continuous calendar year, (ii) age at diagnosis, and (iii) follow-up time after diagnosis., Methods and Results: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program was used to compare the US general population to 3 234 256 US cancer survivors (1973-2012). Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated using coded cause of death from CVDs (heart disease, hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerosis, and aortic aneurysm/dissection). Analyses were adjusted by age, race, and sex. Among 28 cancer types, 1 228 328 patients (38.0%) died from cancer and 365 689 patients (11.3%) died from CVDs. Among CVDs, 76.3% of deaths were due to heart disease. In eight cancer sites, CVD mortality risk surpassed index-cancer mortality risk in at least one calendar year. Cardiovascular disease mortality risk was highest in survivors diagnosed at <35 years of age. Further, CVD mortality risk is highest (SMR 3.93, 95% confidence interval 3.89-3.97) within the first year after cancer diagnosis, and CVD mortality risk remains elevated throughout follow-up compared to the general population., Conclusion: The majority of deaths from CVD occur in patients diagnosed with breast, prostate, or bladder cancer. We observed that from the point of cancer diagnosis forward into survivorship cancer patients (all sites) are at elevated risk of dying from CVDs compared to the general US population. In endometrial cancer, the first year after diagnosis poses a very high risk of dying from CVDs, supporting early involvement of cardiologists in such patients., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is defined as an assessment of all available options for a specific medical condition, with intent to estimate effectiveness in specific subpopulations. Medical professionals must receive training in CER, including its general goals, the 'toolbox' necessary to perform CER and its design. Oncologic training programs are currently not doing justice to CER: a rationale for conducting CER has been proposed, funding from the US government is available, but encouragement from oncologic residencies and fellowships is minimal. Encouragement to train oncologic physicians in CER is limited by a few factors, including inadequate emphasis on evidence weighing, and no explicit mention of factors key to CER in the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education guidelines. As residency program requirements transition to milestone-based curricula and evaluations, explicit recommendations regarding CER and patient-centered outcomes research should be implemented for all programs. Upper level trainees who have reached milestones related to CER will be competitive applicants for research funding.