Search

Introduction: Clinical guidelines and quality improvement initiatives have identified reducing the use of end-of-life cancer therapies as an opportunity to improve care. We examined the extent to which oncologists differed in prescribing systemic therapies in the last 30 days of life., Methods: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, we identified patients who died of cancer from 2012 to 2017 (N = 17,609), their treating oncologists (N = 960), and the corresponding physician practice (N = 388). We used multilevel models to estimate oncologists' rates of providing cancer therapy for patients in their last 30 days of life, adjusted for patient characteristics and practice variation., Results: Patients' median age at the time of death was 74 years (interquartile range, 69-79); patients had lung (62%), colorectal (17%), breast (13%), and prostate (8%) cancers. We observed substantial variation across oncologists in their adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life: oncologists in the 95th percentile exhibited a 45% adjusted rate of treatment, versus 17% among the 5th percentile. A patient treated by an oncologist with a high end-of-life prescribing behavior (top quartile), compared to an oncologist with a low prescribing behavior (bottom quartile), had more than four times greater odds of receiving end-of-life cancer therapy (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89)., Conclusions: Oncologists show substantial variation in end-of-life prescribing behavior. Future research should examine why some oncologists more often continue systemic therapy at the end of life than others, the consequences of this for patient and care outcomes, and whether interventions shaping oncologist decision-making can reduce overuse of end-of-life cancer therapies., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Introduction: The objective of this study was to determine the trends in benign surgery in GO practice across the United States., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database from 2015 to 2021. Subjects were selected by filtering for cases of hysterectomy using current procedural terminology (CPT codes). Trends over time were assessed using linear regression for continuous outcomes and logistic regression for categorical outcomes., Results: From the 2015 to 2021, the dataset contained 246,743 hysterectomies that were performed across the United States. For all gynecologic specialties, 188,534 (76%) were performed for benign indications and 59,209 (24%) were gynecologic cancer cases. The proportion of hysterectomies done by all specialists for benign indications increased with increasing year. When looking at hysterectomy cases by surgeon's subspecialty, GOs performed 35,680 (23%) of all benign cases over the entire time period. Over our study time period, the proportion of benign hysterectomies performed by GOs increased with increasing year with the proportion of benign hysterectomies done by GO in 2016 was 37.8% and reached 45.2% in 202. The proportion of hysterectomies done by all sub-specialists for cancer indications decreased with increasing year including the proportion of cancer cases performed by GOs for cancer indications., Conclusions: The proportion of benign hysterectomies performed by GO consistently increased every year. This study corroborates existing survey data and hypothesizes that the practice of GO is increasingly being consumed by general gynecology., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Multidisciplinary consultations improve decisional conflict and guideline-concordant treatment for men with prostate cancer (PC), but differences in the content discussed by specialty during consultations are unknown., Methods: We audiorecorded and transcribed 50 treatment consultations for localized PC across a multidisciplinary sample of urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. Conversation was coded for narrative content using an open coding approach, grouping similar topics into major content areas. The number of words devoted to each content area per consult was used as a proxy for time spent. Multivariable Poisson regression calculated incidence rate ratios (IRR) for content-specific word count across specialties after adjustment for tumor risk and patient demographics., Results: Coders identified 8 narrative content areas: overview of PC; medical history; baseline risk; cancer prognosis; competing risks; treatment options; physician recommendations; and shared decision making (SDM). In multivariable models, specialties significantly differed in proportion of time spent on treatment options, SDM, competing risks, and cancer prognosis. Urologists spent 1.8-fold more time discussing cancer prognosis than medical oncologists (IRR1.80, 95%CI:1.14-2.83) and radiation oncologists (IRR1.84, 95%CI:1.10-3.07). Urologists (IRR11.38, 95%CI:6.62-19.56) and medical oncologists (IRR10.60, 95%CI:6.01-18.72) spent over 10-fold more time discussing competing risks than radiation oncologists. Medical oncologists (IRR2.60, 95%CI:1.65-4.10) and radiation oncologists (IRR1.77, 95%CI:1.06-2.95) spent 2.6- and 1.8-fold more time on SDM than urologists, respectively., Conclusions: Specialists focus on different content in PC consultations. Our results suggest that urologists should spend more time on SDM and radiation oncologists on competing risks. Our results also highlight the importance of medical oncologists in facilitating SDM., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Prior discrete choice experiments (DCE) in oncology found that, on average, clinicians rank survival as the most important treatment attribute. We investigate heterogeneity in clinician preferences within the context of first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma in Spain, France, Italy, Germany, and the UK., Methods: The online DCE included 12 treatment choice tasks, each comparing two hypothetical therapy profiles defined by treatment attributes: grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), induction and maintenance administration schedules, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). We used a random parameters logit model to estimate attribute relative importance (RI) (0-100%) and generate preference shares for four treatment profiles. Results were stratified by country. Preference heterogeneity was evaluated by latent class analysis., Results: In August and September 2022, 498 clinicians (343 oncologists and 155 urologists) completed the DCE. OS had the strongest influence on clinicians' preferences [RI = 62%; range, 51.6% (Germany) to 63.7% (Spain)] followed by frequency of grade 3/4 TRAEs (RI = 27%). Among treatment profiles, the chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint inhibitor maintenance therapy profile had the largest preference share [51%; range, 38% (Italy) to 56% (UK)]. Four latent classes of clinicians were identified (N = 469), with different treatment profile preferences: survival class (30.1%), trade-off class (22.4%), no strong preference class (40.9%), and aggressive treatment class (6.6%). OS was not the most important attribute for 30.0% of clinicians., Conclusion: While average sample results were consistent with those of prior DCEs, this study found heterogeneity in clinician preferences within and across countries, highlighting the diversity in clinician decision making in oncology., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Objectives: The aim of this study is to describe management and survival in adult patients with malignant ovarian germ cell tumors (MOGCT) undergoing surgery by general gynecologists (GG) versus gynecologic oncologists (GO)., Methods: This is a population-based retrospective cohort study, including patients (age ≥ 18 years old) with MOGCT identified in the provincial cancer registry of Ontario, (1996-2020). Baseline characteristics, surgical and chemotherapy treatment were compared between those with surgery by GG or GO. Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model was used to determine if surgeon specialty was associated with overall survival (OS)., Results: Overall, 363 patients were included. One-hundred and sixty (44%) underwent surgery by GO and 203 (56%) by GG. There were higher rates of stage II-IV in the GO group (27.5% vs 3.9%, p < 0.001, and higher proportion of chemotherapy (64.4% vs 37.4%, p < 0.0001). Five-year OS was 90% and 93% in the GO vs GG groups, respectively (p = 0.39). CPH model showed factors associated with increased risk of death were older age at diagnosis (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.07-1.12) and chemotherapy (HR 3.12, 95% CI 1.44-6.75). Surgeon specialty was not independently associated with all-cause death (HR 1.04, 95% 0.51-2.15, p = 0.91)., Conclusions: In this group of MOGCT, 5-year OS was not significantly different between patients having surgery by GO compared to GG. Nevertheless, survival rates were lower than expected in the GG group despite their low-risk features. Further exploration is warranted regarding the reasons for this and whether patients with suspected MOGCT may benefit from early assessment by GO for optimal management., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Financial interactions between healthcare industry and pediatric hematologist/oncologists (PHOs) could be conflicts of interest. Nevertheless, little is known about financial relationships between healthcare industry and PHOs. This cross-sectional analysis of the Open Payments Database examined general and research payments to PHOs from healthcare industry in the United States between 2013 and 2021. Payments to the PHOs were analyzed descriptively. Trends in payments were assessed using generalized estimating equation models. Of 2784 PHOs, 2142 (76.9%) PHOs received payments totaling $187.3 million from the healthcare industry between 2013 and 2021. Approximately, $46.3 million (24.8%) were general payments and $137.7 million (73.5%) were funding for research where PHOs served as principal investigators (associated research funding). Both general payments and associated research funding considerably increased between 2014 and 2019. The number of PHOs receiving general payments and associated research funding annually increased by 2.2% (95% CI: 1.2-3.3%, p  < .001) and 5.0% (95% CI: 3.3-6.8%, p  < .001) between 2014 and 2019, respectively.

Purpose: Health care consolidation has significantly affected cancer care delivery, with oncology practices undergoing substantial consolidation over the past two decades. This study investigates practice consolidation trends among medical oncologists (MOs), factors associated with consolidation, and changes in MO geographic distribution., Methods: Medicare data from 2015 to 2022 were used to assess MO practice consolidation in hospital referral regions (HRRs), linked with regional health care market data and physician demographics. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) was used to measure consolidation, and the Gini coefficient was used to measure MO distribution across counties. Multivariable linear regression explored factors associated with MO practice consolidation., Results: Between 2015 and 2022, the number of MOs increased by 14.5% (11,727-13,433), whereas the number of MO practices decreased by 18.0% (2,774-2,276). The mean number of MOs per practice increased by 40% (4.26-5.95; P < .001). The percentage of MOs in small practices decreased, whereas larger practices saw an increase. MO consolidation, as indicated by the HHI, increased by 9% (median HHI, 0.3204-0.3480). HRRs with higher baseline hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to have MO practice consolidation. Despite MO practice consolidation, the county-level distribution of MOs did not change substantially., Conclusion: On the basis of Federal Trade Commission classifications, MO practices were highly concentrated in 2015 and consolidated even further by 2022. While distribution of MOs at the county level remained stable, further research is needed to assess the effects of rapid consolidation on cancer care cost, quality, and access. These data have important implications for policymakers and payers as they design programs that ensure high-quality, affordable cancer care.

Background: A survey of medical oncologists (MOs), radiation oncologists (ROs), and surgical oncologists (SOs) who are experts in the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was conducted to identify factors used to consider metastasis-directed therapy (MDT)., Materials and Methods: An online survey to assess clinical factors when weighing MDT in patients with mCRC was developed based on systematic review of the literature and integrated with clinical vignettes. Supporting evidence from the systematic review was included to aid in answering questions., Results: Among 75 experts on mCRC invited, 47 (response rate 62.7%) chose to participate including 16 MOs, 16 ROs, and 15 SOs. Most experts would not consider MDT in patients with 3 lesions in both the liver and lung regardless of distribution or timing of metastatic disease diagnosis (6 vs. 36 months after definitive treatment). Similarly, for patients with retroperitoneal lymph node and lung and liver involvement, most experts would not offer MDT regardless of timing of metastatic disease diagnosis. In general, SOs were willing to consider MDT in patients with more advanced disease, ROs were more willing to offer treatment regardless of metastatic site location, and MOs were the least likely to consider MDT., Conclusions: Among experts caring for patients with mCRC, significant variation was noted among MOs, ROs, and SOs in the distribution and volume of metastatic disease for which MDT would be considered. This variability highlights differing opinions on management of these patients and underscores the need for well-designed prospective randomized trials to characterize the risks and potential benefits of MDT., Competing Interests: Disclosure Eric D. Miller, Kathryn E. Hitchcock, Paul B. Romesser, Sepideh Gholami are part of the study team for A022101, the ERASur trial. No other authors have interests to declare that are relevant to this work., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess trends and differences in patient characteristics, complications, and distributions of hysterectomy for benign indications by benign gynecologists (BG) and gynecologic oncologists (GO)., Methods: This retrospective cohort study identified patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data from 2014 to 2021. Exclusions were made for gynecologic or disseminated cancers, ascites, non-gynecologic surgeons, and cesarean hysterectomies. Primary outcome was major (≥Grade 3) 30-day complications, categorized into any complications, wound, cardiovascular and pulmonary, renal, infectious, andthromboembolic complications. Thirty-day readmissions, reoperations, and mortality were also analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 match of GO to BG patients and was compared. Linear regressions assessed trends., Results: Among 198,767 patients, 18% (n = 37,707) underwent hysterectomy for benign indications with GO. GO patients exhibited more risk factors for complications and differed significantly from BG patients in comorbidities and perioperative characteristics. Overall, GO patients had higher major complication rates (3.1% vs 2.2%, p < 0.001) and for several other composite complications. After matching, compared to BG, GO-performed hysterectomies had similar rates of major complications (3.0% vs 3.0%, p = 0.55) and no differences in other composite complications, except fewer reoperations (1.2 % vs 1.5%, p < 0.01) and wound complications (0.4% vs 0.5%, p = 0.02) in GO patients. Over the eight years, the percentage of GO-performed hysterectomy (β = 0.41, R 2  = 0.71,p < 0.01) increased significantly whereas BG-performed surgeries decreased by the same magnitude. BG had a significant decrease in frail patients (β = -0.47, R 2  = 0.90, p < 0.01), but GO did not (β = -0.36, R 2  = 0.38, p = 0.10)., Conclusions: GO are performing more hysterectomies for benign indications on higher-risk patients. However, on a matched cohort, risks of major complications were similar between GO and BG., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Integration of pharmacies with physician practices, also known as medically integrated dispensing, is increasing in oncology. However, little is known about how this integration affects drug use, expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation., Objective: To examine the association of physician-pharmacy integration with oral oncology drug expenditures, use, and patient-centered measures., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used claims data from a large commercial insurer in the US to analyze changes in outcome measures among patients treated by pharmacy-integrating vs nonintegrating community oncologists in 14 states between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2019. Commercially insured patients were aged 18 to 64 years with 1 of the following advanced-stage diagnoses: breast cancer, colorectal cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, or prostate cancer. Data analysis was conducted from May 2023 to March 2024., Exposure: Treatment by a pharmacy-integrating oncologist, ascertained by the presence of an on-site pharmacy or nonpharmacy dispensing site., Main Outcomes and Measures: Oral, intravenous (IV), total, and out-of-pocket drug expenditures for a 6-month episode of care; share of patients prescribed oral drugs; days' supply of oral drugs; medication adherence measured by proportion of days covered; and time to treatment initiation. The association between an oncologist's pharmacy integration and each outcome of interest was estimated using the difference-in-differences estimator., Results: Between 2012 and 2019, 3159 oncologists (745 females [27.1%], 2002 males [72.9%]) treated 23 968 patients (66.4% female; 53.4% aged 55-64 years). Of the 3159 oncologists, 578 (18.3%) worked in practices that integrated with pharmacies (with a low rate in 2011 of 0% and a high rate in 2019 of 31.5%). In the full sample (including all cancer sites), after physician-pharmacy integration, no significant changes were found in oral drug expenditures, IV drug expenditures, or total drug expenditures. There was, however, an increase in days' supply of oral drugs (5.96 days; 95% CI, 0.64-11.28 days; P = .001). There were no significant changes in out-of-pocket expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation of oral drugs. In the breast cancer sample, there was an increase in oral drug expenditures ($244; 95% CI, $41-$446; P = .02) and a decrease in IV drug expenditures (-$4187; 95% CI, -$8293 to -$80; P = .05)., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study indicated that the integration of oncology practices with pharmacies was not associated with significant changes in expenditures or clear patient-centered benefits.

Objective: To measure wellness and burnout among gynecologic oncology clinicians and identify trends and at-risk populations to inform future interventions., Methods: Gynecologic oncologist (GO) and advanced practice provider (APP) responses to the 2020 Society of Gynecologic Oncology State of the Society survey were analyzed. The Maslach Burnout Inventory criteria for burnout was used. Work-life balance was scored on a 5-point Likert scale. Chi-square tests were used to compare mental health factors and the prevalence of burnout. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for associations between burnout and gender., Results: 543 survey responses were included for analysis. Most GO (54%) and all APP respondents were female. Female GOs were disproportionately affected by burnout particularly in the Northeast (female(F): 40.9% vs male(M): 19.1%, p = 0.007) and South (F: 42.5% vs M:22.9%, p = 0.01). Burnout in female GOs over 40 was 1.79 (CI: 1.13-2.83; p-value 0.01) times higher than similarly aged males. Females in non-private practice experienced burnout 1.66 times that of males in similar positions (CI: 1.18-2.94; p < 0.0001). Female GOs reported the worst work-life balance across all 5 domains. APPs and female GOs experienced more stress and feeling overwhelmed compared to men. GOs were more reluctant to see a mental health professional (p = 0.0003) or take medication (p = 0.009) than APPs., Conclusions: Burnout in gynecologic oncology persists in both genders and is felt most acutely by female GOs. APPs are not immune and would benefit from inclusion in future research to mitigate burnout in healthcare clinicians., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Davidson reports a speaker honorarium from GSK, outside the submitted work. All other authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) fails in a considerable proportion of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients despite treatment per recommended protocol. This real-world study aimed to understand the current patterns of treatment and disease management for the broad BCG-unresponsive NMIBC patient population, alongside collecting sufficient data on patients who do not undergo cystectomy., Methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective survey of physicians treating BCG-unresponsive NMIBC patients. Data were collected in eight countries - France, Germany, Spain, Italy, United Kingdom, United States, China, and Japan - between January and May 2019. The study consisted of a short online physician survey and a retrospective chart review of eligible BCG-unresponsive NMIBC patients. Physicians abstracted chart data for the last 10 (five patients in Japan) eligible BCG-unresponsive NMIBC patients meeting the inclusion criteria, and the data were analysed for all countries combined using descriptive statistics. Country-specific analyses were also carried out, as appropriate., Results: Overall, 508 physicians participated in the study. Almost one-quarter (22.9%) of physicians' current NMIBC patient caseload was BCG-unresponsive, whereby BCG therapy was no longer considered an option. Half of physicians (49.4%) did not regularly use biomarker tests in their practice, with particularly few physicians undertaking biomarker testing in Spain and Japan. Biomarker testing varied considerably, with the proportions of physicians selecting 'none' ranging from 11.4% in China to 70.3% in Japan. Physicians reported transurethral resection of the bladder tumor (TURBT) and BCG as the most common current treatments received by their patients. Chemotherapy and anti-PD-L1 treatment options were considered impactful new therapies by 94.7% and 90.0% of physicians surveyed in this study, respectively., Conclusions: The most common treatments received by patients in this study were TURBT and BCG. Emerging new treatments are driven by exploring biomarkers, but in real-world clinical practice only half of physicians or fewer regularly tested their NMIBC patients for biomarkers; PD-1/PD-L1 was the most common biomarker test used. Most physicians reported that, in addition to chemotherapy, anti-PD-L1 was an impactful new therapy., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Aim: To understand the preferences of US patients and oncologists for PARP inhibitors as second-line maintenance (2LM) for epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted to assess the preferences of treatment attributes. Results: The most valued attributes were risk of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs; patients, n = 204) and progression-free survival (PFS; oncologists, n = 151). To accept a 37% increased risk of grade 3/4 AEs, PFS would need to increase by 27.9 months (patients) and 6.3 months (oncologists). The least valued attributes were dosing form/frequency (patients) and grade 3/4 anemia risk (oncologists). Conclusion: Patients' and oncologists' willingness to make benefit-risk trade-offs in the 2LM setting suggests that the PFS gains observed in selected studies of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in BRCA-mutated disease are worth the toxicity risk.

Background: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing for germline variants in the DPYD and UGT1A1 genes can be used to guide fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan dosing, respectively. Despite the known association between PGx variants and chemotherapy toxicity, preemptive testing prior to chemotherapy initiation is rarely performed in routine practice., Methods: We conducted a qualitative study of oncology clinicians to identify barriers to using preemptive PGx testing to guide chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. Each participant completed a semi-structured interview informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were analyzed using an inductive content analysis approach., Results: Participants included sixteen medical oncologists and nine oncology pharmacists from one academic medical center and two community hospitals in Pennsylvania. Barriers to the use of preemptive PGx testing to guide chemotherapy dosing mapped to four CFIR domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and characteristics of individuals. The most prominent themes included 1) a limited evidence base, 2) a cumbersome and lengthy testing process, and 3) a lack of insurance coverage for preemptive PGx testing. Additional barriers included clinician lack of knowledge, difficulty remembering to order PGx testing for eligible patients, challenges with PGx test interpretation, a questionable impact of preemptive PGx testing on clinical care, and a lack of alternative therapeutic options for some patients found to have actionable PGx variants., Conclusions: Successful adoption of preemptive PGx-guided chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies will require a multifaceted effort to demonstrate clinical effectiveness while addressing the contextual factors identified in this study., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Context: The administration of immune checkpoints inhibitors (ICIs) within hospitalization at home (HaH) organizations is an interesting alternative to conventional care. Three surveys were carried out to describe the different organizational models of French HaHs and criteria used by physicians in patient selection., Methods: Three surveys were conducted between April 1 and August 31, 2020. The first one was addressed to all French HaHs, and the two others to public HaHs and oncologists treating patients with solid cancer in the Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes region., Results: Overall, 54 French HaHs and 23 oncologists participated to the study. The health professionals involved in the patients' care were very heterogeneous, although in 92% of cases, the treatment prescription was made by the oncologist. HaH physicians were more involved in clinical assessment the day before treatment (19% vs. 0%), treatment validation (56% vs. 15%), and treatment prescription (19% vs. 0%), while nurses were better equipped (emergency kit available in 81% versus 50% of cases) when HaHs did carry out ICIs compared to when they did not. Most oncologists agreed that age, neuropsychiatric disorders, home environment, as well as treatment duration and good tolerance should be considered in patient selection. ECOG PS status and treatment response were less consensually considered., Conclusion: These results highlight the variability in French HaH organizations and patient selection criteria for employing ICIs at home. This study resulted in recommendations for administrating ICIs in HaH settings, which will likely be instrumental in further promoting this activity across France., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Early-stage cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) is managed effectively with skin-directed therapies such as topical medications, phototherapy, and local ionizing radiation. Patients with CTCL often seek care from both dermatologists and oncologists. Our study aimed to compare the frequency that skin-directed treatments were prescribed to patients managed by each of these specialties. Overall, we found there was a statistically detectable relationship between the presence or absence of oncologist involvement and the likelihood that a patient would be prescribed skin-directed therapies (P=0.0003). Of the oncologists included in the study, 66% opted for management revolving around systemic rather than skin-directed therapies. However, when a dermatologist and oncologist worked together in a patient's care, the number of patients receiving skin-directed therapies increased to 100%. Our study suggests that patients with early stage CTCL may benefit from having a dermatologist involved in their care.

Introduction: Oral anticancer therapy is becoming increasingly developed; their prescription has become a common practice in oncology. However, there is a variability and diversity in prescription practice. Its magnitude has been very little studied in scientific literature. To our knowledge, this is the first study in Morocco and North Africa to evaluate the practice of prescribing oral chemotherapy., Methods: The authors conducted a national exhaustive cross-sectional survey, to evaluate the practice of the oral chemotherapy "Capecitabine" type prescription by Moroccan oncologists and to identify strategies to promote an adherence to oral anti-neoplasic therapy., Results: Ninety-one medical oncologists answered out of 118, from public oncology centres (29.7%), Hospital University (58.2%), and private sector (12.1%). Thirty-four of the oncologists replied by email, 33 through phone conversation and 24 by filling paper questionnaires. In total, 32% of the cases were handwritten prescriptions, and 51.6% electronically generated. Forty-six percent of medical oncologists dedicated more time to the oral chemotherapy type Capecitabine prescription versus its intravenous equivalent 5FU. However, 33% medical oncologists take less time to this prescription, and 20.9% of them take the same time. Adherence to oral chemotherapy was evaluated by simply questioning of patients in most of the cases (94%) and 4% of medical oncologist declared that they did not evaluate this adherence. In total, 87.9% of Moroccan medical oncologists revealed that they have not received any specific training in the therapeutic education of the patient with oral anti-cancer treatment., Conclusion: In Morocco, there is a great variability in prescription and follow-up practice for patients receiving oral chemotherapy. There is a lack of a national standardization with regards to the procedures of prescribing and monitoring patients to ensure the quality and safety of the oral chemotherapy prescription., (Copyright © 2021 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Tertiary cancer centers offer clinical expertise and multi-modal approaches to treatment alongside the integration of research protocols. Nevertheless, most patients receive their cancer care at community practices. A better understanding of the relationships between tertiary and community practice environments may enhance collaborations and advance patient care., Methods: A 31-item survey was distributed to community and tertiary oncologists in Southern California using REDCap. Survey questions assessed the following attributes: demographics and features of clinical practice, referral patterns, availability and knowledge of clinical trials and precision medicine, strategies for knowledge acquisition, and integration of community and tertiary practices., Results: The survey was distributed to 98 oncologists, 85 (87%) of whom completed it. In total, 52 (61%) respondents were community practitioners and 33 (38%) were tertiary oncologists. A majority (56%) of community oncologists defined themselves as general oncologists, whereas almost all (97%) tertiary oncologists reported a subspecialty. Clinical trial availability was the most common reason for patient referrals to tertiary centers (73%). The most frequent barrier to tertiary referral was financial considerations (59%). Clinical trials were offered by 97% of tertiary practitioners compared to 67% of community oncologists (p = 0.001). Most oncologists (82%) reported only a minimal-to-moderate understanding of clinical trials available at regional tertiary centers., Conclusions: Community oncologists refer patients to tertiary centers primarily with the intent of clinical trial enrollment; however, significant gaps exist in their knowledge of trial availability. Our results identify the need for enhanced communication and collaboration between community and tertiary providers to expand patients' access to clinical trials., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To compare toxicity and all-cause mortality for mCRPC patients receiving first line oral systemic therapy prescribed by medical oncologists and urologists., Methods: Population-based retrospective cohort study of chemotherapy-naïve men aged ≥66 years treated for mCRPC with first-line abiraterone or enzalutamide based on administrative health data (Ontario, Canada, 2012-2017). Primary outcomes were hospitalizations/ER visits for any cause or treatment-related toxicity during first-line mCRPC treatment. Secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) comparing outcomes for different medical specialties using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models., Results: Among 3405 mCRPC patients, 2407 (70.7%) received abiraterone and 998 (29.3%) received enzalutamide. 1786 (52.5%) patients visited the ER or were hospitalized. Men treated by medical oncologists had an increased risk of hospitalization/ER visits (HR1.16, 95%CI 1.03-1.31; P = .02), toxicity-related visits (HR1.34, 95%CI 1.08-1.69; P = .01), and mortality (HR1.16, 95%CI 1.02-1.33; P = .02) compared to urologists. Limited information was available, beyond PSA adjustment and prior treatment, on patient disease burden., Conclusion: We observed fewer hospital visits overall and for treatment-related toxicity for mCRPC patients who were prescribed first line abiraterone or enzalutamide by urologists compared to medical oncologists. These differences may result from higher prostate cancer disease burden in patients managed by medical oncologists, and/or other unmeasured differences in patient management between specialties., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%-12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ACG has served on an advisory board and/or consulted with Alexion, Ra Pharma/UCB and Momenta pharmaceuticals/Janssen. She has received royalties from Oakstone Publishing and research support from the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America, the MG Rare Disease Network and Project Data Sphere® for an irAE-N registry. She has received clinical trial support to the institution from Ra Pharma and Momenta. LBB receives salary support from Biogen, royalties from Oakstone Publishing, and research support from Project Data Sphere for an irAE-N registry. BKC reports research support from Project Data Sphere for an irAE-N registry. JH receives research support from Project Data Sphere for an irAE-N registry and from GE Healthcare. THS is an employee at the not-for-profit corporation Project DS, with a trade name of Project Data Sphere. AAA served on medical advisory boards for Alexion, Sarepta, CSL Behring, Strongbridge Pharma, Argenx, Ra Pharmaceuticals, and as a neurology consultant for Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine trials. ABW served on a medical advisory board or as a consultant with Iovance, Novartis, Shanghai Jo’Ann Medical Technology. PKB has consulted for Angiochem, Genentech-Roche, Lilly, Tesaro, Voyager Therapeutics, ElevateBio, Pfizer (Array), Pfizer, SK Life Sciences and Dantari, received grant/research support (to Massachusetts General Hospital) from Merck, BMS and Lilly and honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Genentech-Roche and Lilly. TAC has received royalties from Wolters Kluwer. SLC serves as the Editor of the Neurology®Podcast and Neurology Minute™. She has received research and/or clinical fellowship support from the Western Institute for Veterans Research, the Siegel Rare Neuroimmune Association, the Immune Deficiency Foundation, Alexion, the Barbara Gural Steinmetz Foundation, and the Sumaira Foundation for NMO. She has served on an advisory board and/or consulted with Alexion, Genentech, VielaBio, Guidepoint, Clarion Healthcare Consulting, ExpertConnect (majority fees paid to University of Utah). JC has received consulting fees from Sanofi-Genzyme and BMS. JD is a consultant for Blue Earth Diagnostics, Magnolia, Gamaka Bio, and Unum Therapeutics. JD has received research support from Beacon Biosignals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brystol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Medimmune, Acerta Pharma, Orbus Therapeutics, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals. JD has received royalties from Wolters Kluwer for serving as an author for UpToDate. MD has research funding from Novartis and Eli Lilly, has served as a consultant for Roche-Genentech, Tillotts Pharma, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Partner Therapeutics, and Moderna, and is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board for Neoleukin Therapeutics. CTD has served on advisory boards for Argenx and Dysimmune Diseases Foundation. He has received royalties from Oakstone Publishing. He has received grant support from NINDS/NeuroNext. DD has served on an advisory board and/or consulted for UCB, Astellas and Immunovant pharmaceuticals. All compensation for the consulting activities is paid to Mayo Clinic. He has patents pending for KLHL11 and LUZP4 as markers of neurological autoimmunity and germ cell tumors. JG has received research to UCSF support from Genentech/Roche for a clinical trial, performed consulting for Biogen, and received personal compensation for medical-legal consulting. JTG has served as a consultant in past 12 months for Immunovant, Alexion, Momenta, Ra Pharma, Grifols, Jacobus, Cabaletta, Regeneron, Argenx, Signant, UCB, Toleranzia and Piedmont Pharmaceuticals. He receives industry grant support from UCB pharma for a fellowship training grant. Full disclosure statement available at: https://dcri.org/about-us/conflict-of-interest/. DBJ has served on advisory boards for Array Biopharma, BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Jansen, Merck, Novartis, and Oncosec, and has received research funding from BMS and Incyte. VCJ is a site investigator in myasthenia gravis research trials sponsored by PCORI and by Alexion Pharmaceuticals. RK receives research funding from Alexion Pharmaceuticals. NK reports no relevant disclosures. NRL is a consultant and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Fortress Biotech, Silverback Therapeutics and SYNOX Therapeutics. JL reports no disclosures. AM reports no disclosures. MM-L reports no relevant disclosures. MJM has served on an advisory board and/or consulted with AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Nektar Therapeutics, Catalyst Pharmaceuticals and Immunai. JN has received research funding from Merck and AstraZeneca; served as a consultant/advisory board member with Merck, AstraZeneca, BMS, Pfizer, Takeda, Roche/Genentech, Daiichi/Sankyo and has received honoraria from Merck, AstraZeneca, BMS, Pfizer, Takeda, Roche/Genentech. TGN reports acting as a consultant for Parexel, Bristol Myers-Squibb, H3 Biomedicine, AbbVie, and Intrinsic Imaging unrelated to the current research. TGN reports grant funding from AstraZeneca unrelated to current research. DR has been an advisor or consultant with AbbVie; Advantagene; Agenus; Agios; Amgen; Bayer; Boston Biomedical; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celldex; Deciphera; DelMar; EMD Serono; Genenta; Genentech/Roche; Imvax; Inovio; Kintara; Kiyatec; Medicenna Biopharma; Merck; Merck KGaA; Monteris; Neuvogen; Novartis; Novocure; Oncorus; Oxigene; Regeneron; Stemline; Sumitono Dainippon Pharma; Taiho Oncology. Research support to his institution has been provided by Acerta Phamaceuticals; Agenus; Celldex; EMD Serono; Incyte; Inovio; Omniox; Tragara. KMR has served on an advisory board and/or consulted with Merck, BMS, and Eisai. BDS has served on an advisory board and/or consulted with Janssen, Kite/Gilead, and Celgene/BMS. RS has served on an advisory board and/or consulted with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squib, Eisai, Iovance, Merck, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, and Replimune. He has received research funding from Merck. NW has served on an advisory board with Seattle Genetics, received royalties from Wolters Kluwer and research support from Merck. KW reports no disclosures. LZ has been a consultant for Merck. WCL is an employee of the not-for-profit corporation Project DS, with a trade name of Project Data Sphere. KLR has received personal compensation from Teladoc research support from Project Data Sphere for a irAE-N registry., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Early discussion of end-of-life (EOL) care preferences improves clinical outcomes and goal-concordant care. However, most EOL discussions occur approximately 1 month before death, despite most patients desiring information earlier., Objective: To describe successful navigation and missed opportunities for EOL discussions (eg, advance care planning, palliative care, discontinuation of disease-directed treatment, hospice care, and after-death wishes) between oncologists and outpatients with advanced cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary qualitative analysis of outpatient visits audio-recorded between November 2010 and September 2014 for the Studying Communication in Oncologist-Patient Encounters randomized clinical trial. The study was conducted at 2 US academic medical centers. Participants included medical, gynecological, and radiation oncologists and patients with stage IV malignant neoplasm, whom oncologists characterized as being ones whom they "…would not be surprised if they were admitted to an intensive care unit or died within one year." Data were analyzed between January 2018 and August 2020., Exposures: The parent study randomized participants to oncologist- and patient-directed interventions to facilitate discussion of emotions. Encounters were sampled across preintervention and postintervention periods and all 4 treatment conditions., Main Outcomes and Measures: Secondary qualitative analysis was done of patient-oncologist dyads with 3 consecutive visits for EOL discussions, and a random sample of 7 to 8 dyads from 4 trial groups was analyzed for missed opportunities., Results: The full sample included 141 patients (54 women [38.3%]) and 39 oncologists (8 women [19.5%]) (mean [SD] age for both patients and oncologists, 56.3 [10.0] years). Of 423 encounters, only 21 (5%) included EOL discussions. Oncologists reevaluated treatment options in response to patients' concerns, honored patients as experts on their goals, or used anticipatory guidance to frame treatment reevaluation. In the random sample of 31 dyads and 93 encounters, 35 (38%) included at least 1 missed opportunity. Oncologists responded inadequately to patient concerns over disease progression or dying, used optimistic future talk to address patient concerns, or expressed concern over treatment discontinuation. Only 4 of 23 oncologists (17.4%) had both an EOL discussion and a missed opportunity., Conclusions and Relevance: Opportunities for EOL discussions were rarely realized, whereas missed opportunities were more common, a trend that mirrored oncologists' treatment style. There remains a need to address oncologists' sensitivity to EOL discussions, to avoid unnecessary EOL treatment.

Background: Metastatic lung cancer is an incurable disease that can be treated with systemic therapy. These treatments might prolong survival and reduce symptoms, but they may also cause serious adverse effects. We studied the treatment goals of patients with metastasized lung cancer and their oncologists before starting systemic therapy, concordance between patients' and oncologists' goals, and feasibility of these goals., Patients and Methods: This research was conducted between November 2016 and April 2018 in 1 academic and 5 nonacademic hospitals across the Netherlands. A total of 266 patients with metastatic lung cancer and their prescribing oncologists (n = 23) filled out a questionnaire about their treatment goals and the estimated feasibility of these goals before treatment was started. Additional interviews were conducted with patients and oncologists., Results: Patients and oncologists reported quality of life (respectively, 45% and 72%), life prolongation (45% and 55%), decrease in tumor size (39% and 66%), and cure (19% and 2%) as treatment goals. The interviews showed that the latter appeared to be often as motivation to stay alive. Concordances between patients' and oncologists' treatment goals were low (ranging from 24% to 33%). Patients had slightly higher feasibility scores than oncologists (6.8 vs. 5.8 on a 10-point scale). Educational level, age, religious views, and performance status of patients were associated with treatment goals., Conclusion: Patients and oncologists set various goals for the treatment they receive/prescribe. Low concordance might exist because different goals are set or because the patient misunderstands something. Clear communication about treatment goals should be integrated into clinical care., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The high incidence of head and neck cancer in Central America and the Caribbean, together with limitations in the healthcare system for patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA SCCHN) in this region necessitate a consensus of opinion based on a review of the literature on therapy with cisplatin plus radiation. Such an approach will ensure appropriate selection of patients who can benefit from therapy and reduce the incidence of related adverse events. Therefore, we recorded the opinion of experts in the region in order to identify needs and challenges in the treatment of LA SCCHN.

The use of opioids across all specialties has increased greatly over the last 2 decades and along with it, opioid misuse, overdose and death. The contribution of opioids prescribed for gynecologic cancers to this problem is unknown. Data from other surgical specialties show prescriber factors including gender, geographic location, board certification, experience, and fellowship training influence opioid prescribing. To characterize national-level opioid prescription patterns among gynecologic oncologists treating Medicare beneficiaries. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database was used to access Medicare Part D opioid claims prescribed by gynecologic oncologists in 2016. Prescription and prescriber characteristics were recorded including medication type, prescription length, number of claims, and total day supply. Region of practice was determined according to the US Census Bureau Regions. Board certification data were obtained from American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology website. Bivariate statistical analysis and linear regression modeling were performed using Stata version 14.2. In 2016, 494 board-certified US gynecologic oncologists wrote 24,716 opioid prescriptions for a total 267,824 days of treatment (median 8 [interquartile range {IQR} 6, 11] prescribed days per claim). Gynecologic oncologists had a median of 33 opioid claims (IQR 18, 64). Male physicians had significantly more opioid prescription claims than females (P < 0.01) including after adjustment for differences in years of experience. There was no difference in prescribed days per claim between male and female physicians. Physicians in the South had the greatest number of opioid prescription claims and significantly more than physicians in all other regions (P < 0.01). Gynecologic oncologists who were board certified for >15 years had a greater number of median opioid claims (28 IQR 16, 50) than those with <5 years since board certification (22 IQR 15, 38) (P= 0.04). Physicians who were board certified in palliative care (n = 19) had significantly more opioids claims (median 40; IQR 18, 91) than those without (median 32; IQR 18, 64) (P< 0.01). In 2016, there were gender-based, regional, and experience-related variations in opioid prescribing by providers caring for Medicare-insured patients., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Communication gaps arise early in the childhood cancer trajectory and may persist. The authors conducted a pilot study of the feasibility and acceptability of a communication intervention, the Day 100 Talk (D100). D100 involves an interprofessional family conference during initial months of treatment between oncologists, psychosocial clinicians, and parents, facilitated by a 3-part conversation tool., Methods: The authors enrolled English-speaking parents of children with nonrelapsed, nonprogressive cancer who were receiving continuity care from enrolled pediatric oncologists and psychosocial clinicians at a single site. The a priori feasibility threshold was 60% parent completion of the D100 intervention. Surveys from parents and professionals and debrief interviews with professionals assessed D100 acceptability., Results: Thirty-seven parents (77%) and 38 oncology professionals (67%) enrolled. Twenty of 33 evaluable parents (61%) participated in a D100 family conference. Most commonly, parents did not complete the D100 intervention because of scheduling difficulties related to clinical team constraints. All 17 parents who completed a post-D100 survey agreed or strongly agreed that D100 participation was helpful. In debrief interviews, professionals identified D100 benefits, namely, stepping back to the big picture and getting on the same page, and barriers related to logistical challenges and professionals' anticipatory dread., Conclusions: The D100 intervention pilot demonstrates high acceptability among parents of children with cancer. Despite meeting the prespecified feasibility threshold, findings highlight important barriers to D100 dissemination, namely, perceived burdens on professionals. Potential strategies to reduce burden may include using virtual visit platforms, incorporating D100 elements across multiple visits, or prioritizing intervention delivery to parents with the greatest need for enhanced communication., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

The speed and spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has been affecting the entire world for the past several months. OncoAlert is a social media network made up of more than 140 oncology stakeholders: oncologists (medical, radiation, and surgical), oncology nurses, and patient advocates who share the mission of fighting cancer by means of education and dissemination of information. As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, OncoAlert hosted The Round Table Discussions. We have documented this effort along with further discussion about the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequences on patients living with cancer to disseminate this information to our colleagues worldwide., Competing Interests: Evandro de AzambujaHonoraria: Roche/Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Zodiac PharmaConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, NovartisResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Servier/Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline/NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline Kevin PunieHonoraria: Pfizer, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, MundipharmaConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Vifor Pharma, TevaResearch Funding: SanofiTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Roche Felipe AdesHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Zodiac Pharma, Novartis, Sun PharmaConsulting or Advisory Role: biommTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly Kathrin HeinrichHonoraria: Roche Pharma AGTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen, Lilly, Celgene Nicola PersoneniHonoraria: Lilly, Abbvie, Amgen, Gilead SciencesConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck SeronoSpeakers' Bureau: ServierTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen Roberto FerraraConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharp & Dohme Marina GarassinoHonoraria: MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Roche, Bristol-Myers SquibbConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Takeda, Roche, Tiziana Life Sciences, Sanofi, Celgene, Daiiki Sankyo, Inivata, Incyte, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, JanssenSpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Takeda, MSD Oncology, Celgene, Incyte, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Otsuka, LillyResearch Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Merck, Incyte, Takeda, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Janssen, Exelixis, MedImmune, Sanofi, Pfizer, AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca Michael von Bergwelt-BaildonHonoraria: Roche, Kite/Gilead, Novartis Gilberto LopesHonoraria: Boehringer IngelheimConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme, EMD Serono, AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Tesaro, Bavarian Nordic, NOVARTIS, G1 Therapeutics, adaptimmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbvie, Rgenix, Pfizer, Roche, Genentech, Lilly, JanssenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, E.R. Squibb Sons, LLC, Janssen Fabrice BarlesiHonoraria: Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Takeda, BayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Takeda, BayerResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Abbvie, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Lilly, Ipsen, Innate Pharma, Novartis, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Sanofi/Aventis, TakedaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, MSD Oncology Toni K. Choueiri,Employment: Dana Farber Cancer HospitalLeadership: Dana Farber Cancer Hospital, NCCN, KidneyCan, ASCOStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pionyr, Tempest TherapeuticsHonoraria: NCCN, UpToDate, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, ASCO, Harborside Press, Analysis Group, AstraZeneca, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi/Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Foundation Medicine, Eisai, PlatformQ Health, Clinical Care Options, Navinata Health, Kidney Cancer Association, Exelixis, Prometheus, Lpath, The New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet Oncology, Cerulean Pharma, Alligent, EMD Serono, Heron, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Eisai, Foundation Medicine, Cerulean Pharma, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Prometheus, alligent, Ipsen, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Lpath, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi/Aventis, Peloton Therapeutics, UpToDate, NCCN, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, Analysis Group, Kidney Cancer Association, Clinical Care Options, PlatformQ Health, Navinata Health, Harborside Press, ASCO, The New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet Oncology, EMD Serono, HERON, Lilly, ESMOResearch Funding: Pfizer, Novartis, Merck, Exelixis, TRACON Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Peloton Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, Celldex, Agensys, Eisai, Takeda, Prometheus, Ipsen, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Cerulean Pharma, Seattle Genetics/Astellas, Bayer, Foundation Medicine, Roche, Calithera Biosciences, Analysis Group, NCI, Gateway for Cancer Research, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (DOD)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: International Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/058430, entitled Biomarkers of Clinical Response and Benefit to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy, International Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/12209, entitled PBRM1 Biomarkers Predictive of Anti-Immune Checkpoint ResponseTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Eisai, Foundation Medicine, Cerulean Pharma, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Prometheus, alligent, Ipsen, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Lpath, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi/Aventis, UpToDate, Peloton Therapeutics, NCCN, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, Analysis Group, Kidney Cancer Association, Clinical Care Options, PlatformQ Health, Harborside Press, Navinata Health, The New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet Oncology, EMD Serono, HERON, Lilly, ESMOOther Relationship: Medical writing and editorial assistance support may have been funded by Communications companies funded by pharmaceutical companies such as ClinicalThinking, Health Interactions, Envision Pharma Group, Fishawack Group of Companies, Parexel Howard BurrisEmployment: HCA HealthcareLeadership: HCA HealthcareStock and Other Ownership Interests: HCA HealthcareConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, FORMA Therapeutics, Celgene, Incyte, NovartisResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Macrogenics, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Agios, Jounce Therapeutics, Moderna Therapeutics, CytomX Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem, Tesaro, BioMed Valley Discoveries, TG Therapeutics, Vertex, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Janssen, Gilead Sciences, BioAtla, CicloMed, Harpoon therapeutics, Arch, Arvinas, Revolution Medicines, Array BioPharma, Bayer, BIND Therapeutics, Kymab, miRNA Therapeutics, Pfizer, Takeda/Millennium, Foundation MedicineExpert Testimony: NovartisUncompensated Relationships: Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Bayer, Grail, NovartisOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/201030/summary Solange PetersHonoraria: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Takeda, IlluminaConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, MSD, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Regeneron, Merck Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Lilly, Abbvie, Bayer, Biocartis, Debiopharm Group, Illumina, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, Incyte, Bioinvent, Clovis Oncology, VaccibodyResearch Funding: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Amgen, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Illumina, Merck Serono, Novartis, Biodesix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boehringer Ingelheim, Iovance BiotherapeuticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Sanofi, IncyteUncompensated Relationships: Journal of Thoracic Oncology, ESMO, European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP), Annals on Oncology associate editorNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: In the wake of the US opioid epidemic, there have been efforts to curb opioid prescribing. However, it is unknown whether these efforts have affected prescribing among oncologists, whose patients often require opioids for symptom management. We investigated temporal patterns in opioid prescribing for Medicare beneficiaries among oncologists and nononcologists., Methods: We queried the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Part D prescriber dataset for all physicians between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017. We used population-averaged multivariable negative binomial regression to estimate the association between time and per-provider opioid and gabapentinoid prescribing rate, defined as the annual number of drug claims (original prescriptions and refills) per beneficiary, among oncologists and nononcologists on a national and state level., Results: From 2013 to 2017, the national opioid-prescribing rate declined by 20.7% (P < .001) among oncologists and 22.8% (P < .001) among non oncologists. During this time frame, prescribing of gabapentin increased by 5.9% (P < .001) and 23.1% (P < .001) among oncologists and nononcologists, respectively. Among palliative care providers, opioid prescribe increased by 15.3% (P < .001). During the 5-year period, 43 states experienced a decrease (P < .05) in opioid prescribing among oncologists, and in 5 states, opioid prescribing decreased more among oncologists than nononcologists (P < .05)., Conclusions: Between 2013 and 2017, the opioid-prescribing rate statistically significantly decreased nationwide among oncologists and nononcologists, respectively. Given similar declines in opioid prescribing among oncologists and nononcologists, there is concern that opioid-prescribing guidelines intended for the noncancer population are being applied inappropriately to patients with cancer and cancer survivors., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) provides a curative therapy for children severely affected by sickle cell disease (SCD). Rejection-free survival after matched sibling donor (MSD) HSCT is very high, but adoption of HSCT as a curative SCD therapy has been slow. In this study, we assess providers' perceptions about MSD HSCT for children with variable SCD severity, and determine the influence of provider characteristics on HSCT referrals., Procedure: After our Institutional Review Board deemed the study exempt, American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Clinical Forum listserv subscribers and American Society of Hematology members who self-identified as pediatric hematologists/oncologists (PHO) were emailed a survey. Analysis was performed to describe and evaluate correlations between participant demographics (including practice focus within PHO) and likelihood of HSCT referral for each scenario., Results: Spearman's rank correlation analysis did not reveal any significant relationship between demographic characteristics except practice focus and likelihood to refer to HSCT for any scenarios. Providers focused on SCD and HSCT were more likely to refer a child who had never been admitted to the hospital or had suboptimal adherence to hydroxyurea than general PHOs. A significantly higher proportion of all respondents would refer a child with β-thalassemia major (87%) than an asymptomatic child with HbSS (47%, P < .00001) or non-HbSS variant (23%, P < .00001)., Conclusion: PSCD and HSCT physicians are more likely to refer for MSD HSCT in almost every condition than general PHO practitioners, likely because of increased awareness of long-term effects of SCD and safety of MSD HSCT for children with SCD., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: There is significant variation in attitude both towards the role of microsatellite instability (MSI) in predicting prognosis, and towards its role in guiding which Stage II colon cancer patients may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy., Aim: To examine the current status of specialist attitudes towards MSI in guiding prognosis and adjuvant therapy in stage II colon cancer., Methods: The Pathology in Colon Cancer, Prognosis and Uptake of Adjuvant Therapy (PiCC UP) Australia and New Zealand questionnaire was distributed to colorectal surgeons, medical oncologists and pathologists after institutional board approval. A 5-scale Likert score was used to assess attitudes towards 23 pathological features for prognosis and 18 features for adjuvant therapy. Data were analysed using a rating scale and graded response model in item response theory (IRT) on STATA (Stata MP, version 15; StataCorp LP)., Results: 164 specialists (45 oncologists, 86 surgeons and 33 pathologists) participated. 80.5% regularly attended colorectal multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings. 89.63% and 59.26% of specialists reported that MSI status was likely or definitely to influence prognosis in colon cancer and recommendations for adjuvant therapy in Stage II colon cancer respectively. IRT modelling was achieved in 17 pathological features for prognosis. MSI IRT score was 4.47 (95% CI: 4.05-4.68). IRT modelling was achieved in 10 pathological features for adjuvant therapy. MSI IRT score was 3.62 (2.89-4.15). MSI ranked 10 (of 17) in order of importance in determining prognosis and ranked three (of 10) in guiding adjuvant therapy., Conclusion: MSI status is considered an important biomarker when selecting patients for adjuvant therapy in Stage II colon cancer. MSI is also considered useful in prognostication of colon cancer. MSI status was ranked similar to the tumour grade of differentiation and the presence of perineural invasion., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Purpose: As frontline workers facing the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers should be well-prepared to fight the disease and prevent harm to their patients and themselves. Our study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitude, and practice of oncologists in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on them., Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a validated questionnaire disseminated to oncologists by SurveyMonkey. The tool had 42 questions that captured participants' knowledge, attitude, and practice; their experiences; and the pandemic's impact on various aspects of their lives. Participants from Middle East and North African countries, Brazil, and the Philippines completed the electronic survey between April 24 and May 15, 2020., Results: Of the 1,010 physicians who participated in the study, 54.75% were male and 64.95% were medical or clinical oncologists. The level of knowledge regarding the prevention and transmission of the virus was good in 52% of participants. The majority (92%) were worried about contracting the virus either extremely (30%) or mildly (62%), and 84.85% were worried about transmitting the virus to their families. Approximately 76.93% reported they would take the COVID 19 vaccine once available, with oncologists practicing in Brazil having the highest odds ratio of intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (odds ratio, 11.8, 95% CI, 5.96 to 23.38, P < .001). Participants reported a negative impact of the pandemic on relations with coworkers (15.84%), relations with family (27.84%), their emotional and mental well-being (48.51%), research productivity (34.26%), and financial income (52.28%)., Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has adverse effects on various personal and professional aspects of oncologists' lives. Interventions should be implemented to mitigate the negative impact and prepare oncologists to manage future crises with more efficiency and resilience.

Introduction: Oncologists have increasingly been proponents of shared decision making (SDM) to enhance patient outcomes and reduce unnecessary health care spending. However, its effect on patient out-of-pocket costs is unknown. This study investigated the relationship between patient preferences for SDM and financial toxicity (FT) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC)., Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized surveys of women aged ≥ 18 with MBC who received care at two academic hospitals in Alabama from 2017 to 2019. Patients self-reported their SDM preference (Control Preferences Scale) and FT (Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity [COST] tool; 11-item scale, with lower scores indicating worse FT). Effect sizes were calculated using the proportion of variance explained (R 2 ) or Cramer's V. Differences in FT by SDM preference were estimated using mixed models clustered by site and treating medical oncologist., Results: In 95 women with MBC, 44% preferred SDM, 29% preferred provider-driven decision making, and 27% preferred patient-driven decision making. Patients preferring SDM were more often college educated (53% vs. 39%; V = 0.12) with an income greater than $40,000/y (55% vs. 43%; V = 0.18). Overall median COST was 22 (interquartile range, 16-29). After adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, patients preferring patient-driven decision making trended toward worse FT (COST 17: 95% confidence interval, 12-22) compared to those preferring SDM (COST 19: 95% confidence interval, 15-23) and those preferring provider-driven decision making (COST 22: 95% confidence interval, 17-27)., Conclusion: Patients preferring more patient-driven decision making reported worse FT, although differences did not reach statistical significance. Further research is needed to understand this relationship., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Guide-wire localisation remains the most commonly used technique for localisation of impalpable breast lesions in the UK. One alternative is magnetic seed localisation. We aimed to investigate patient and clinician satisfaction in two consecutive cohorts, describe re-excision and positive margin rates, and explore reasons for positive margins and the implications for localisation techniques., Methods: A single-institution prospective service evaluation of two cohorts of consecutive cases of wire and then Magseed localisation was carried out. Data were collected on patient and clinician satisfaction, clinico-pathological findings, and causes of involved margins. T tests were used to compare continuous variables and Chi-squared test for satisfaction outcomes., Results: 168 consecutive cases used wire-guided localisation (WGL) and 128 subsequent cases used Magseeds. Patients reported less anxiety between localisation and surgery in the Magseed group, and clinicians reported greater ease of use of Magseeds. There were no differences in lesion size, surgical complexity, or re-excision rate between the groups. In a subset of patients receiving standard wide local excision (i.e., excluding mammoplasties), the impact on margin involvement was investigated. There was no significant difference in radiological under-sizing or accuracy of localisation. However, specimen weight and eccentricity of the lesion were statistically significantly lower in the Magseed group. Despite this, re-excision rates were not significantly different (p = 0.4)., Conclusions: This is the first large study of satisfaction with localisation and showed clinician preference for Magseed and a reduction in patient anxiety. It also demonstrated similar positive margin rates despite smaller specimen weights in the Magseed group. Magnetic seed localisation offers an acceptable clinical alternative to guide wire localisation. The impact on local service provision should also be considered.

Purpose: In 2009, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) genitourinary members published a consensus atlas for contouring prostate pelvic nodal clinical target volumes (CTVs). Data have emerged further informing nodal recurrence patterns. The objective of this study is to provide an updated prostate pelvic nodal consensus atlas., Methods and Materials: A literature review was performed abstracting data on nodal recurrence patterns. Data were presented to a panel of international experts, including radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists. After data review, participants contoured nodal CTVs on 3 cases: postoperative, intact node positive, and intact node negative. Radiation oncologist contours were analyzed qualitatively using count maps, which provided a visual assessment of controversial regions, and quantitatively analyzed using Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficients and Hausdorff distances compared with the 2009 RTOG atlas. Diagnostic radiologists generated a reference table outlining considerations for determining clinical node positivity., Results: Eighteen radiation oncologists' contours (54 CTVs) were included. Two urologists' volumes were examined in a separate analysis. The mean CTV for the postoperative case was 302 cm 3 , intact node positive case was 409 cm 3 , and intact node negative case was 342 cm 3 . Compared with the original RTOG consensus, the mean Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficient for the postoperative case was 0.63 (standard deviation [SD] 0.13), the intact node positive case was 0.68 (SD 0.13), and the intact node negative case was 0.66 (SD 0.18). The mean Hausdorff distance (in cm) for the postoperative case was 0.24 (SD 0.13), the intact node positive case was 0.23 (SD 0.09), and intact node negative case was 0.33 (SD 0.24). Four regions of CTV controversy were identified, and consensus for each of these areas was reached., Conclusions: Discordance with the 2009 RTOG consensus atlas was seen in a group of experienced NRG Oncology and international genitourinary radiation oncologists. To address areas of variability and account for new data, an updated NRG Oncology consensus contour atlas was developed., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak rapidly became a public health emergency affecting particularly the frail category as cancer patients. This led oncologists to radical changes in patient management, facing the unprecedent issue whether treatments in oncology could be postponed without compromising their efficacy. Purpose: To discuss legal implications in oncology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Perspective: Treatment delay is not always feasible in oncology where the timing often plays a key role and may impact significantly in prognosis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the oncologists were found between the anvil and the hammer, on the one hand the need to treat cancer patients aiming to improve clinical benefits, and on the other hand the goal to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection avoiding or delaying immunosuppressive treatments and hospital exposure. Therefore, two rising scenarios with possible implications in both criminal and civil law are emerging. Firstly, oncologists may be "accused" of having delayed or omitted the diagnosis and/or treatments with consequent worsening of patients' outcome. Secondly, oncologists can be blamed for having exposed patients to hospital environment considered at risk for COVID-19 transmission. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical decision making should be well-balanced through a careful examination between clinical performance status, age, comorbidities, aim of the treatment, and the potential risk of COVID-19 infection in order to avoid the risk of suboptimal cancer care with potential legal repercussion. Moreover, all cases should be discussed in the oncology team or in the tumor board in order to share the best strategy to adopt case by case., 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 © 2020 Barranco, Messina, Bonsignore, Cattrini and Ventura.)

Objective: The objectives of this study were to identify barriers to end-of-life discussion with advanced cancer patients and their families as perceived by oncologists, certified/specialized nurses in cancer nursing (hereafter, collectively referred to as 'nurses') and medical social workers, as well as to clarify their opinions about effective strategies to facilitate end-of-life discussion., Methods: A questionnaire survey was distributed to 4354 medical professionals working at 402 designated regional cancer hospitals in Japan. Responses were obtained from 494 oncologists (valid response rate 30.7%), 993 nurses (46.7%) and 387 medical social workers (48.1%)., Results: Among the barriers to end-of-life discussion with advanced cancer patients, factors related to patients and families, such as 'Family members' difficulty accepting loved one's poor prognosis', were recognized as the most important issues, which was the common view shared across the three types of medical professionals who participated in this study. Nurses and medical social workers were significantly more likely than oncologists to recognize as important issues 'Health care team disagreement about goals of care' and 'Lack of training to have conversations for end-of-life discussion'. To facilitate end-of-life discussion, 'providing mental and emotional support for the patients and their families after end-of-life discussion' was needed most as perceived by the respondents regardless of their profession., Conclusions: Barriers impeding end-of-life discussion were factors related to patients and their families, and oncologists' close cooperation with nurses and medical social workers is important in providing emotional support for patients and families. To facilitate end-of-life discussion, it is important to share information on patients' prognosis and goals for treatment among oncologists and other medical professionals, as well as strengthen communication skill of these medical professions., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: There is increasing use of Phase I statistical designs to find a dose that causes rapidly emerging and particularly concerning severe or life-threatening toxicities (dose-limiting toxicities, DLTs) in a specified percent of patients most commonly 25%. While a convenient statistical framework, the foundation for selecting any specified target DLT rate, and its relevance to the recommended Phase II dose is generally lacking., Method: We surveyed 78 medical oncologists, most (69%) with experience as a principal investigator on a Phase I study, to ascertain their opinions related to this approach to Phase I studies and the targets often chosen., Results: Eighty-seven percent of respondents preferred severe toxicities in only 5%-10% of patients, consistent with 58% of respondents noting that 10% or fewer patients experience severe toxicities in the first cycle with standard outpatient treatments. The survey also documented in an example that the majority (62%) of physicians modify their patient selection during the conduct of the study based on observed toxicity and 78% note that higher toxicity is acceptable in patients where a cure is more likely., Conclusion: DLT-target rate designs search for a single target that is rarely well-supported in a patient population that is not stable. The most common target used is inconsistent with the toxicity of most clinically used drugs and investigator preference and can lead to the pursuit of unacceptable doses. Use of Phase I trial designs with a target DLT rate should be limited to settings with a well-justified target and should specify how the target relates to the recommended Phase II dose., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors have confirmed that there are no conflicts of interest associated with this work., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Cancer drug prescribing by medical oncologists accounts for the greatest variation in practice and the largest portion of spending on cancer care. We evaluated the association between a national commercial insurer's ongoing pay-for-performance (P4P) program for oncology and changes in the prescribing of evidence-based cancer drugs and spending., Methods: We conducted an observational difference-in-differences study using administrative claims data covering 6.7% of US adults. We leveraged the geographically staggered, time-varying rollout of the P4P program to simulate a stepped-wedge study design. We included patients age 18 years or older with breast, colon, or lung cancer who were prescribed cancer drug regimens by 1,867 participating oncologists between 2013 and 2017. The exposure was a time-varying dichotomous variable equal to 1 for patients who were prescribed a cancer drug regimen after the P4P program was offered. The primary outcome was whether a patient's drug regimen was a program-endorsed, evidence-based regimen. We also evaluated spending over a 6-month episode period., Results: The P4P program was associated with an increase in evidence-based regimen prescribing from 57.1% of patients in the preintervention period to 62.2% in the intervention period, for a difference of +5.1 percentage point (95% CI, 3.0 percentage points to 7.2 percentage points; P < .001). The P4P program was also associated with a differential $3,339 (95% CI, $1,121 to $5,557; P = .003) increase in cancer drug spending and a differential $253 (95% CI, $100 to $406; P = .001) increase in patient out-of-pocket spending, but no significant changes in total health care spending ($2,772; 95% CI, -$181 to $5,725; P = .07) over the 6-month episode period., Conclusion: P4P programs may be effective in increasing evidence-based cancer drug prescribing, but may not yield cost savings.

Objectives: To report clinician-perceived changes to cancer service delivery in response to COVID-19., Design: Multidisciplinary Australasian cancer clinician survey in collaboration with the European Society of Medical Oncology., Setting: Between May and June 2020 clinicians from 70 countries were surveyed; majority from Europe (n=196; 39%) with 1846 COVID-19 cases per million people, Australia (AUS)/New Zealand (NZ) (n=188; 38%) with 267/236 per million and Asia (n=75; 15%) with 121 per million at time of survey distribution., Participants: Medical oncologists (n=372; 74%), radiation oncologists (n=91; 18%) and surgical oncologists (n=38; 8%)., Results: Eighty-nine per cent of clinicians reported altering clinical practices; more commonly among those with versus without patients diagnosed with COVID-19 (n=142; 93% vs n=225; 86%, p=0.03) but regardless of community transmission levels (p=0.26). More European clinicians (n=111; 66.1%) had treated patients diagnosed with COVID-19 compared with Asia (n=20; 27.8%) and AUS/NZ (n=8; 4.8%), p<0.001. Many clinicians (n=307; 71.4%) reported concerns that reduced access to standard treatments during the pandemic would negatively impact patient survival. The reported proportion of consultations using telehealth increased by 7.7-fold, with 25.1% (n=108) of clinicians concerned that patient survival would be worse due to this increase. Clinicians reviewed a median of 10 fewer outpatients/week (including non-face to face) compared with prior to the pandemic, translating to 5010 fewer specialist oncology visits per week among the surveyed group. Mental health was negatively impacted for 52.6% (n=190) of clinicians., Conclusion: Clinicians reported widespread changes to oncology services, in regions of both high and low COVID-19 case numbers. Clinician concerns of potential negative impacts on patient outcomes warrant objective assessment, with system and policy implications for healthcare delivery at large., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Some authors of this manuscript hold leadership positions on the ESMO board., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Objective: The main objective of the present study is to examine a number of suicides among Italian doctors. We further compared data from our sample with those of suicide in the general population and in the literature, in order to detect any differences that can provide preventive recommendations., Methods: This is a retrospective study of 60 suicides committed by doctors from 2009 to 2019, in Italy., Results: The sample was constituted mainly by men (77%, 46 cases) aged between 50 and 69 years (70%, n=42). Most of the suicides took place in Northern Italy (50%, n=30). Among known medical specialization, 26% (n=14) concerned general practitioners, the remaining 74% (n=39) were specialized doctors, with a prevalence of anesthetists (9%, n=5), haematologists (8 %, n=4), pediatricians (6%, n=3), psychiatrists (6%, n=3) and oncologists (6%, n=3). Regarding the suicide method, the most used was precipitation (30%, n=16), followed by poisoning/overdose (24%, n=13), firearm (19%, n=10), suffocation/hanging (19%, n=10) and self-induced injuries (8%, n=4)). The most frequent place of suicide is in 35 cases was at home (59%), followed by the hospital (18%; n=11), or others (23%; n=14). When possible, any reported risk factors and predisposing conditions for suicide were studied, and divided into five categories: depression/psychiatric pathology (28%, n=16); other organic disease (8%, n=5); work-related problems (stress, burn-out, mobbing, work-related judicial problems) (20%, n=12); judicial problems unrelated to the medical profession (8%, n=5); family and relationship problems (12%, n=7)., Conclusions: The risk factors for suicide in our sample of doctors overlap with data from literature for doctors in western countries. Clinical recommendations and prevention strategies for suicide risk are therefore similar.

Purpose: Cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia have severe negative consequences including reduced survival and reduced ability to complete treatment. This study aimed to determine the awareness, perceptions and practices of Australian oncology clinicians regarding malnutrition and sarcopenia in people with cancer., Methods: A national cross-sectional survey of Australian cancer clinicians was undertaken between November 2018 and January 2019. The 30-item online purpose-designed survey was circulated through professional organizations and health services., Results: The 111 participants represented dietetic (38%), nursing (34%), medical (14%) and other allied health (14%) clinicians. Overall, 86% and 88% clinicians were aware of accepted definitions of malnutrition and sarcopenia, respectively. Perception of responsibility for identification of these conditions varied across participants, although 93% agreed this was a component of their role. However, 21% and 43% of clinicians had limited or no confidence in their ability to identify malnutrition and sarcopenia, respectively. Common barriers to the identification and management of malnutrition were access to the tools or skills required and a lack of services to manage malnourished patients. Common barriers to identification of sarcopenia were lack of confidence and lack of services to manage sarcopenic patients. Enablers for identification and management of malnutrition and sarcopenia were variable; however, training and protocols for management ranked highly., Conclusion: While awareness of the importance of cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia are high, participants identified substantial barriers to delivering optimal nutrition care. Guidance at a national level is recommended to strengthen the approach to management of cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia.

Purpose: Many patients with cancer are interested in complementary therapies, including strategies such as reduced carbohydrate diets. Guidelines regarding the use of these diets during cancer treatment are lacking; therefore, we aimed to explore the perceptions and practices of medical oncologists in Canada regarding low-sugar and ketogenic diets., Method: A cross-sectional, online multiple-choice survey was distributed to 206 Canadian medical oncologists. Questions explored frequency of patient interactions, oncologist perceptions of efficacy, advice given to patients, and concerns about side effects related to reduced carbohydrate diets., Results: Responses were received from 57 medical oncologists in seven of thirteen provinces and territories, with an overall response rate of 28%. Forty-nine percent of respondents were asked at least weekly about a low-sugar diet, and 9% about the ketogenic diet. Eighty-five percent supported the use of a low-added sugar diet in patients with diabetes or hyperglycemia, while conversely 87% did not support the use of a ketogenic diet for any of their patients undergoing active cancer treatment. Respondents felt either that a ketogenic diet was not effective (31%) or that the effect on cancer outcomes was unknown (69%). Ninety-six percent of respondents had concerns about a ketogenic diet for patients receiving active cancer treatment., Conclusion: The role of reduced carbohydrate diets during cancer treatment is topical. Canadian oncologists are particularly reluctant to support a ketogenic diet for patients on active cancer treatment, with concerns about side effects and unknown efficacy. There may be a role for continuing medical education and institutional guidelines to inform these discussions with patients.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and risk factors of burnout and occupational stress among medical oncologists in Korea., Materials and Methods: A survey was conducted of medical oncologists who were members of Korean Society for Medical Oncology (KSMO) using the Korean Occupational Stress Scale, the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and supplemental questions about work and lifestyle factors., Results: Among 220 active KSMO members, 111 responses were collected. The median age was 42 years (range, 32 to 63 years). Two-thirds of responders worked 6 days per week and half of them worked a total of 60-80 hours per week. Each medical oncologist treated a median of 90-120 patients per week in outpatient clinics and 20-30 patients per week in patient practices. MBI subscales indicated a high level of emotional exhaustion in 74%, a high level of depersonalization in 86%, and a low level of personal accomplishment in 65%: 68% had professional burnout according to high emotional exhaustion and high depersonalization scores. The risk of burnout was higher for medical oncologists aged from 30-39 than 40-49 years, and unmarried than married. Considering personal accomplishment, females had a higher risk of burnout. The median score of occupational stress was 63 (range, 43 to 88). Having night-duty call was the strongest risk factor on more stress. A higher stress score was associated with a higher prevalence of burnout., Conclusion: Burnout and occupational stress are quite common amongst Korean medical oncologists. Achieving a healthy work-life balance, ensuring balanced workload distribution, and engaging in proper stress relief solutions are necessary.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a public health emergency affecting frail populations, including patients with cancer. This poses the question of whether cancer treatments can be postponed or modified without compromising their efficacy, especially for highly curable cancers such as germ cell tumors (GCTs)., Materials and Methods: To depict the state-of-the-art management of GCTs during the COVID-19 pandemic, a survey including 26 questions was circulated by e-mail among the physicians belonging to three cooperative groups: (a) Italian Germ Cell Cancer Group; (b) European Reference Network-Rare Adult Solid Cancers, Domain G3 (rare male genitourinary cancers); and (c) Genitourinary Medical Oncologists of Canada. Percentages of agreement between Italian respondents (I) versus Canadian respondents (C), I versus European respondents (E), and E versus C were compared by using Fisher's exact tests for dichotomous answers and chi square test for trends for the questions with three or more options., Results: Fifty-three GCT experts responded to the survey: 20 Italian, 6 in other European countries, and 27 from Canada. Telemedicine was broadly used; there was high consensus to interrupt chemotherapy in COVID-19-positive patients (I = 75%, C = 55%, and E = 83.3%) and for use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor primary prophylaxis for neutropenia (I = 65%, C = 62.9%, and E = 50%). The main differences emerged regarding the management of stage I and stage IIA disease, likely because of cultural and geographical differences., Conclusion: Our study highlights the common efforts of GCT experts in Europe and Canada to maintain high standards of treatment for patients with GCT with few changes in their management during the COVID-19 pandemic., Implications for Practice: Despite the chaos, disruptions, and fears fomented by the COVID-19 illness, oncology care teams in Italy, other European countries, and Canada are delivering the enormous promise of curative management strategies for patients with testicular cancer and other germ cell tumors. At the same time, these teams are applying safe and innovative solutions and sharing best practices to minimize frequency and intensity of patient contacts with thinly stretched health care capacity., (© 2020 AlphaMed Press.)

Objectives: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly impacted health care delivery across the United States, including treatment of cancer. We aim to describe the determinants of treatment plan changes from the perspective of oncology physicians across the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Participants were recruited to an anonymous cross-sectional online survey of oncology physicians (surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists) using social media from March 27 to April 10, 2020. Physician demographics, practice characteristics, and cancer treatment decisions were collected., Results: The analytic cohort included 411 physicians: 241 (58.6%) surgeons, 106 (25.8%) medical oncologists, and 64 (15.6%) radiation oncologists. In all, 38.0% were practicing in states with 1001 to 5000 confirmed COVID-19 cases as of April 3, 2020, and 37.2% were in states with >5000 cases. Most physicians (N=285; 70.0% of surgeons, 64.4% of medical oncologists, and 73.4% of radiation oncologists) had altered cancer treatment plans. Most respondents were concerned about their patients' COVID-19 exposure risks, but this was the primary driver for treatment alterations only for medical oncologists. For surgeons, the primary driver for treatment alterations was conservation of personal protective equipment, institutional mandates, and external society recommendations. Radiation oncologists were primarily driven by operational changes such as visitor restrictions., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a majority of oncologists to alter their treatment plans, but the primary motivators for changes differed by oncologic specialty. This has implications for reinstitution of standard cancer treatment, which may occur at differing time points by treatment modality.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has overwhelmed the health systems worldwide. Data regarding the impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients (CPs) undergoing or candidate for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are lacking. We depicted the practice and adaptations in the management of patients with solid tumors eligible or receiving ICIs during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a special focus on Campania region., Methods: This survey (25 questions), promoted by the young section of SCITO (Società Campana di ImmunoTerapia Oncologica) Group, was circulated among Italian young oncologists practicing in regions variously affected by the pandemic: high (group 1), medium (group 2) and low (group 3) prevalence of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. For Campania region, the physician responders were split into those working in cancer centers (CC), university hospitals (UH) and general hospitals (GH). Percentages of agreement, among High (H) versus Medium (M) and versus Low (L) group for Italy and among CC, UH and GH for Campania region, were compared by using Fisher's exact tests for dichotomous answers and χ 2 test for trends relative to the questions with 3 or more options., Results: This is the first Italian study to investigate the COVID-19 impact on cancer immunotherapy, unique in its type and very clear in the results. The COVID-19 pandemic seemed not to affect the standard practice in the prescription and delivery of ICIs in Italy. Telemedicine was widely used. There was high consensus to interrupt immunotherapy in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients and to adopt ICIs with longer schedule interval. The majority of the responders tended not to delay the start of ICIs; there were no changes in supportive treatments, but some of the physicians opted for delaying surgeries (if part of patients' planned treatment approach). The results from responders in Campania did not differ significantly from the national ones., Conclusion: Our study highlights the efforts of Italian oncologists to maintain high standards of care for CPs treated with ICIs, regardless the regional prevalence of COVID-19, suggesting the adoption of similar solutions. Research on patients treated with ICIs and experiencing COVID-19 will clarify the safety profile to continue the treatments, thus informing on the most appropriate clinical conducts., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Systematically capturing cancer stage is essential for any serious effort by health systems to monitor outcomes and quality of care in oncology. However, oncologists do not routinely record cancer stage in machine-readable structured fields in electronic health records (EHRs)., Objective: To evaluate whether a peer comparison email intervention that communicates an oncologist's performance on documenting cancer stage relative to that of peer physicians was associated with increased likelihood that stage was documented in the EHR., Design, Setting, and Participants: This 12-month, randomized quality improvement pilot study aimed to increase oncologist staging documentation in the EHR. The pilot study was performed at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center from October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019. Participants included 56 oncologists across 3 practice sites who treated patients in the ambulatory setting and focused on diseases that use standardized staging systems. Data were analyzed from July 2, 2019, to March 5, 2020., Interventions: Peer comparison intervention with as many as 3 emails to oncologists during 6 months that displayed the oncologist's staging documentation rate relative to all oncologists in the study sample., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was patient-level documentation of cancer stage, defined as the likelihood that a patient's stage of disease was documented in the EHR after the patient's first (eg, index) ambulatory visit during the pilot period., Results: Among the 56 oncologists participating (32 men [57%]), receipt of emails with peer comparison data was associated with increased likelihood of documentation of cancer stage using the structured field in the EHR (23.2% vs 13.0% of patient index visits). In adjusted analyses, this difference represented an increase of 9.0 (95% CI, 4.4-13.5) percentage points (P = .002) in the probability that a patient's cancer stage was documented, a relative increase of 69% compared with oncologists who did not receive peer comparison emails. The association increased with each email that was sent, ranging from a nonsignificant 4.0 (95% CI, -0.8 to 8.8) percentage points (P = .09) after the first email to a statistically significant 11.2 (95% CI, 4.9-17.4) percentage points (P = .003) after the third email . The association was concentrated among an oncologist's new patients (increase of 11.8 [95% CI, 6.2-17.4] percentage points; P = .001) compared with established patients (increase of 1.6 [95% CI, -2.9 to 6.1] percentage points; P = .44) and persisted for 7 months after the email communications stopped., Conclusions and Relevance: In a quality improvement pilot trial, peer comparison emails were associated with a substantial increase in oncologist use of the structured field in the EHR to document stage of disease.

Background: Breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy (BCP) is uncommon, and thus there is limited evidence on its treatment. However, the incidence of BCP is increasing probably due to women having children at an older age. We aimed to clarify the practice patterns and limitations in treatment for BCP in Japan., Methods: A cross-sectional survey was developed for board-certified Japanese breast cancer specialists (n = 1583) to evaluate their knowledge, attitude, experience, and practice patterns regarding BCP. Survey items also included questions regarding potential barriers of practice toward patients diagnosed during pregnancy and respondents' background., Results: In March 2018, 492 (31.1%) breast oncologists responded to the survey. Among them, 234 (48%) respondents had the experience of treating at least one case of BCP. The accuracy of knowledge about BCP was evaluated by three items regarding BCP treatment from the latest Japanese Breast Cancer Society treatment guideline, and 265 (54%) were categorized to have "appropriate knowledge". Majority of the physicians (89%) have responded that patients should be treated in a center where both a cancer-treating team and obstetrician exist, and 48% responded that treating patients by the collaboration of cancer-treating team and obstetric team in different institutes is an alternative reasonable option., Conclusions: Interest, knowledge, and awareness of the guidelines appear to influence physician attitude, and thus it is urgently important to lay out educational materials and learning opportunities regarding BCP for breast specialists. A regional network of oncologists, obstetricians, and pediatricians to support the BCP patients should be developed.