Search

BackgroundPrognostic disclosure is essential to informed decision making in oncology, yet many oncologists are unsure how to successfully facilitate this discussion. This scoping review determines what prognostic communication models exist, compares and contrasts these models, and explores the supporting evidence.MethodA protocol was created for this study using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols extension for Scoping Reviews. Comprehensive literature searches of electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane CENTRAL were executed to identify relevant publications between 1971 and 2020.ResultsIn total, 1532 articles were identified, of which 78 met inclusion criteria and contained 5 communication models. Three of these have been validated in randomised controlled trials (the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, the Four Habits Model and the ADAPT acronym) and have demonstrated improved objective communication measures and patient reported outcomes. All three models emphasise the importance of exploring patients’ illness understanding and treatment preferences, communicating prognosis and responding to emotion.ConclusionCommunicating prognostic estimates is a core competency skill in advanced cancer care. This scoping review highlights available communication models and identifies areas in need of further assessment. Such areas include how to maintain learnt communication skills for lifelong practice, how to assess patient and caregiver understanding during and after these conversations, and how to best scale these protocols at the institutional and national levels.

A MESSAGE FROM ASCO’S PRESIDENT I am pleased to present Clinical Cancer Advances 2017, which highlights the most promising advances in patient-oriented cancer research over the past year. The report gives us an opportunity to reflect on what an exciting time it is for cancer research and how swiftly our understanding of cancer has improved. One year ago, the White House announced the national Cancer Moonshot program to accelerate progress against cancer. This shared vision of progress has reinvigorated the research community, identified new areas of scientific collaboration, and raised our ambitions regarding what may be possible beyond the progress we have already made. When I entered the field 35 years ago, I could not have imagined where we would be today. We can now detect cancer earlier, target treatments more effectively, and manage adverse effects more effectively to enable patients to live better, more fulfilling lives. Today, two of three people with cancer live at least 5 years after diagnosis, up from roughly one of two in the 1970s. This progress has resulted from decades of incremental advances that have collectively expanded our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of cancer. There is no better current example of this than ASCO’s 2017 Advance of the Year: Immunotherapy 2.0. Over the last year, there has been a wave of new successes with immunotherapy. Research has proven this approach can be effective against a wide range of hard-to-treat advanced cancers previously considered intractable. Researchers are now working to identify biologic markers that can help increase the effectiveness of treatment and determine who is most likely to benefit from immunotherapy. This knowledge will enable oncologists to make evidence-based decisions so as many patients as possible might benefit from this new type of treatment. Each successive advance builds on the previous hard work of generations of basic, translational, and clinical cancer researchers. Importantly, the advances described in this report would not have been possible without the individuals who volunteered to participate in clinical trials as part of their treatment. To turn the promising vision of a cancer moonshot into meaningful advances, we need sustained, robust federal funding for continued research and innovation. Approximately 30% of the research highlighted in this report was funded, at least in part, through federal dollars appropriated to the National Institutes of Health or the National Cancer Institute. Without this federal investment—unique internationally in scale, duration, and impact for decades—I fear we may lose the forward momentum needed to further the progress we see highlighted in this report. Federal lawmakers can further fuel progress by advancing initiatives that facilitate the use of big data to achieve the common good of high-quality care for all patients. Such programs, like ASCO’s CancerLinQ, will rapidly increase the pace of progress and dramatically expand the reach of treatment advances to the millions of patients who are living with cancer today or who will do so in the future. This investment will yield medical, scientific, economic, and societal benefits for years to come. Much work still lies ahead. Many questions remain about how cancer develops and spreads and how best to treat it. As you read through Clinical Cancer Advances 2017, I hope you are as inspired as I am by the gains the clinical cancer research community has made over the past year and by the promise of a new era of advances just over the horizon. Daniel F Hayes, MD, FASCO, FACP ASCO President, 2016 to 2017

178 Background: To assess the state of palliative care education curricula in radiation oncology residency programs in the United States. Methods: We surveyed 90 program directors of radiation oncology residency programs in the United States from September 2015 to November 2015. An electronic survey on palliative care education during residency was sent to all program directors. The survey consisted of questions on perceived relevance of palliative care in radiation oncology residency, formal didactics on domains of palliative care, effective teaching formats for palliative care education, and perceived barriers for integrating palliative care into the residency curriculum. Results: Sixty-three percent (57/90) residency program directors completed the survey. Most (93%) program directors agree or strongly agree that palliative care is an important competency for radiation oncologists. A vast majority (90%) of programs have dedicated palliative care services; however, only 57% of programs offer residents an opportunity to spend elective time on a palliative care service. Of these programs, only 30% reported residents rotating on a palliative care service in the past two years. Furthermore, 67% of residency programs have formal educational activities in principles and practice of palliative care. The palliative care curriculum included faculty-led lectures (73%), resident-led lectures (42%), and seminars (22%). Most programs have one or more hours of formal didactics on management of pain (66%), management of neuropathic pain (64%), and management of nausea and vomiting (64%). 35%, 46%, and 48% programs had one or more hours of management of non-physical symptoms including fatigue, anorexia, and anxiety, respectively. Conclusions: Residency program directors believe that palliative care is an important competency for their trainees. The survey revealed that many programs have structured curricula on PSC and palliative radiation education, but that there are still areas for improvement.