ESMO/ASCO Recommendations for a Global Curriculum in Medical Oncology Edition 2023.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and ASCO are publishing a new edition of the ESMO/ASCO Global Curriculum (GC) with contributions from more than 150 authors. The purpose of the GC is to provide recommendations for the training of physicians in medical oncology and to establish a set of educational standards for trainees to qualify as medical oncologists. This edition builds on prior ones in 2004, 2010, and 2016 and incorporates scientific advances and input from an ESMO/ASCO survey on GC adoption conducted in 2019, which revealed that GC has been adopted or adapted in as many as two thirds of the countries surveyed. To make GC even more useful and applicable, certain subchapters were rearranged into stand-alone chapters, that is, cancer epidemiology, diagnostics, and research. In line with recent progress in the field of multidisciplinary cancer care new (sub)chapters, such as image-guided therapy, cell-based therapy, and nutritional support, were added. Moreover, this edition includes an entirely new chapter dedicated to cancer control principles, aiming to ensure that medical oncologists are able to identify and implement sustainable and equitable cancer care, tailored to local needs and resources. Besides content renewal, modern didactic principles were introduced. GC content is presented using two chapter templates (cancer-specific and non-cancer-specific), with three didactic points (objectives, key concepts, and skills). The next step is promoting GC as a contemporary and comprehensive document applicable all over the world, particularly due to its capacity to harmonize education in medical oncology and, in so doing, help to reduce global disparities in cancer care.

ESMO/ASCO Recommendations for a Global Curriculum in Medical Oncology Edition 2023.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and ASCO are publishing a new edition of the ESMO/ASCO Global Curriculum (GC) with contributions from more than 150 authors. The purpose of the GC is to provide recommendations for the training of physicians in medical oncology and to establish a set of educational standards for trainees to qualify as medical oncologists. This edition builds on prior ones in 2004, 2010, and 2016 and incorporates scientific advances and input from an ESMO ASCO survey on GC adoption conducted in 2019, which revealed that GC has been adopted or adapted in as many as two thirds of the countries surveyed. To make GC even more useful and applicable, certain subchapters were rearranged into stand-alone chapters, that is, cancer epidemiology, diagnostics, and research. In line with recent progress in the field of multidisciplinary cancer care new (sub)chapters, such as image-guided therapy, cell-based therapy, and nutritional support, were added. Moreover, this edition includes an entirely new chapter dedicated to cancer control principles, aiming to ensure that medical oncologists are able to identify and implement sustainable and equitable cancer care, tailored to local needs and resources. Besides content renewal, modern didactic principles were introduced. GC content is presented using two chapter templates (cancer-specific and non-cancer-specific), with three didactic points (objectives, key concepts, and skills). The next step is promoting GC as a contemporary and comprehensive document applicable all over the world, particularly due to its capacity to harmonize education in medical oncology and, in so doing, help to reduce global disparities in cancer care.

Genomic analysis reveals low tumor mutation burden which may be associated with GNAQ/11 alteration in a series of primary leptomeningeal melanomas.

Primary central nervous system melanoma is rare and characterized by a variable prognosis, and no current treatment guidelines exist. We describe the clinical course of a 70-year-old female patient diagnosed with primary leptomeningeal melanoma (LMN) whose case represents the diagnostic and management challenges of this tumor. Targeted genomic sequencing of 315 genes from this tumor revealed GNAQ Q209L mutation and low (4 mutations/Megabase) tumor mutation burden (TMB). Wild-type NRAS, KIT, and BRAF were also observed. A cohort of 4,787 melanomas was subsequently analyzed to identify additional primary central nervous system melanomas, of which 10 additional tumors met pathologic criteria (0.21% of total melanoma cohort). These tumors were genomically assessed according to the same targeted sequencing panel, and 6 of the tumors were also found to harbor a GNAQ mutation. All 10 tumors had low (less than or equal to 2 mutations/Megabase) TMB indicating a potential trend between G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) alterations and low TMB in LMNs. GPCR alterations were found to significantly correlate with TMB across the cohort of 4,787 melanomas, supporting this potential finding in the limited LMN subset.

Understanding the role of advanced practice providers in oncology in the United States.

PURPOSE: Advanced practice providers (APPs, which include NPs and physician assistants [PAs]) are integral members of oncology teams. This study aims first to identify all APPs in oncology and, second, to understand personal and practice characteristics (including compensation) of those APPs. METHODS: We identified APPs who practice oncology from membership and claims data. We surveyed 3,055 APPs about their roles in clinical care. RESULTS: We identified at least 5,350 APPs in oncology and an additional 5,400 who might practice oncology. Survey respondents totaled 577 out of 3,055, which provided a 19% response rate. Results focused on 540 NPs and PAs. Greater than 90% reported satisfaction with career choice. Respondents identified predominately as white (89%) and female (94%). NPs and PAs spent the majority (80%) of time in direct patient care. The top four patient care activities were patient counseling (NPs, 94%; PAs, 98%), prescribing (NPs, 93%; PAs, 97%), treatment management (NPs, 89%; PAs, 93%), and follow-up visits (NPs, 81%; PAs, 86%). A majority of all APPs reported both independent and shared visits (65% hematology/oncology/survivorship/prevention/pediatric hematology/oncology; 85% surgical/gynecologic oncology; 78% radiation oncology). A minority of APPs reported that they conducted only shared visits. Average annual compensation was between $113,000 and $115,000, which is about $10,000 higher than average pay for APPs not in oncology. CONCLUSION: We identified 5,350 APPs in oncology and conclude that number may be as high as 7,000. Survey results suggest that practices that incorporate APPs routinely rely on them for patient care. Given the increasing number of patients with and survivors of cancer, APPs are important to ensure access to quality cancer care now and in the future.

Understanding the Role of Advanced Practice Providers in Oncology in the United States.

PURPOSE: Advanced practice providers (APPs, which include nurse practitioners [NPs] and physician assistants [PAs]) are integral members of oncology teams. This study aims to identify all oncology APPs and to understand personal and practice characteristics (including compensation) of those APPs. METHODS: We identified APPs who practice oncology from membership and claims data. We surveyed 3,055 APPs about their roles in clinical care. RESULTS: We identified at least 5,350 APPs in oncology and an additional 5,400 who might practice oncology. Survey respondents totaled 577, which provided a 19% response rate. Results focused on 540 NPs and PAs. Greater than 90% reported satisfaction with career choice. Respondents identified predominately as White (89%) and female (94%). NPs and PAs spent the majority (80%) of time in direct patient care. The top four patient care activities were patient counseling (NPs = 94%; PAs = 98%), prescribing (NPs = 93%; PAs = 97%), treatment management (NPs = 89%; PAs = 93%), and follow-up visits (NPs = 81%; PAs = 86%). A majority of all APPs reported both independent and shared visits (65% hematology/oncology/survivorship/prevention/pediatric hematology/oncology; 85% surgical/gynecologic oncology; 78% radiation oncology). A minority of APPs reported that they conducted only shared visits. Average annual compensation was between $113,000 and $115,000, which is approximately $10,000 higher than average pay for nononcology APPs. CONCLUSION: We identified 5,350 oncology APPs and conclude that number may be as high as 7,000. Results suggest that practices that incorporate APPs routinely rely on them for patient care. Given the increasing number of patients with and survivors of cancer, APPs are important to ensure access to quality cancer care.

Understanding the Role of Advanced Practice Providers in Oncology in the United States.

PURPOSE: Advanced practice providers (APPs, which include nurse practitioners [NPs] and physician assistants [PAs]) are integral members of oncology teams. This study aims first to identify all oncology APPs and, second, to understand personal and practice characteristics (including compensation) of those APPs. METHODS: We identified APPs who practice oncology from membership and claims data. We surveyed 3,055 APPs about their roles in clinical care. RESULTS: We identified at least 5,350 APPs in oncology and an additional 5,400 who might practice oncology. Survey respondents totaled 577, which provided a 19% response rate. Results focused on 540 NPs and PAs. Greater than 90% reported satisfaction with career choice. Respondents identified predominately as white (89%) and female (94%). NPs and PAs spent the majority (80%) of time in direct patient care. The top four patient care activities were patient counseling (NPs, 94%; PAs, 98%), prescribing (NPs, 93%; PAs, 97%), treatment management (NPs, 89%; PAs, 93%), and follow-up visits (NPs, 81%; PAs, 86%). A majority of all APPs reported both independent and shared visits (65% hematology/oncology/survivorship/prevention/pediatric hematology/oncology; 85% surgical/gynecologic oncology; 78% radiation oncology). A minority of APPs reported that they conducted only shared visits. Average annual compensation was between $113,000 and $115,000, which is approximately $10,000 higher than average pay for nononcology APPs. CONCLUSION: We identified 5,350 oncology APPs and conclude that number may be as high as 7,000. Survey results suggest that practices that incorporate APPs routinely rely on them for patient care. Given the increasing number of patients with and survivors of cancer, APPs are important to ensure access to quality cancer care now and in the future.

Reversible intrahepatic cholestasis in metastatic prostate cancer: An uncommon paraneoplastic syndrome.

As with other genitourinary malignancies, a variety of paraneoplastic syndromes have been revealed to occur in patients with prostate cancer. Stauffer's Syndrome is a well-described clinical syndrome which manifests via intrahepatic cholestasis in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Less common is intrahepatic cholestasis occurring in association with prostate cancer. The current case report discusses a 67-year-old man presenting with liver failure secondary to intrahepatic cholestasis co-existing with metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma. The patient's liver failure completely resolved with androgen-deprivation therapy suggesting an association between these two entities. The case report evaluates existing literature on this uncommon syndrome including the clinical presentation, natural history, and potential pathophysiology.

Understanding the Role of Advanced Practice Providers in Oncology in the United States.

Purpose: Advanced practice providers (APPs, which include nurse practitioners [NPs] and physician assistants [PAs]) are integral members of oncology teams. This study aims first to identify all oncology APPs and, second, to understand personal and practice characteristics (including compensation) of those APPs. Methods: We identified APPs who practice oncology from membership and claims data. We surveyed 3,055 APPs about their roles in clinical care. Results: We identified at least 5,350 APPs in oncology and an additional 5,400 who might practice oncology. Survey respondents totaled 577, which provided a 19% response rate. Results focused on 540 NPs and PAs. Greater than 90% reported satisfaction with career choice. Respondents identified predominately as white (89%) and female (94%). NPs and PAs spent the majority (80%) of time in direct patient care. The top four patient care activities were patient counseling (NPs, 94%; PAs, 98%), prescribing (NPs, 93%; PAs, 97%), treatment management (NPs, 89%; PAs, 93%), and follow-up visits (NPs, 81%; PAs, 86%). A majority of all APPs reported both independent and shared visits (65% hematology/ oncology/survivorship/prevention/pediatric hematology/oncology; 85% surgical/ gynecologic oncology; 78% radiation oncology). A minority of APPs reported that they conducted only shared visits. Average annual compensation was between $113,000 and $115,000, which is approximately $10,000 higher than average pay for nononcology APPs. Conclusion: We identified 5,350 oncology APPs and conclude that number may be as high as 7,000. Survey results suggest that practices that incorporate APPs routinely rely on them for patient care. Given the increasing number of patients with and survivors of cancer, APPs are important to ensure access to quality cancer care now and in the future.

ESMO / ASCO Recommendations for a Global Curriculum in Medical Oncology Edition 2016.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) are publishing a new edition of the ESMO/ASCO Global Curriculum (GC) thanks to contribution of 64 ESMO-appointed and 32 ASCO-appointed authors. First published in 2004 and updated in 2010, the GC edition 2016 answers to the need for updated recommendations for the training of physicians in medical oncology by defining the standard to be fulfilled to qualify as medical oncologists. At times of internationalisation of healthcare and increased mobility of patients and physicians, the GC aims to provide state-of-the-art cancer care to all patients wherever they live. Recent progress in the field of cancer research has indeed resulted in diagnostic and therapeutic innovations such as targeted therapies as a standard therapeutic approach or personalised cancer medicine apart from the revival of immunotherapy, requiring specialised training for medical oncology trainees. Thus, several new chapters on technical contents such as molecular pathology, translational research or molecular imaging and on conceptual attitudes towards human principles like genetic counselling or survivorship have been integrated in the GC. The GC edition 2016 consists of 12 sections with 17 subsections, 44 chapters and 35 subchapters, respectively. Besides renewal in its contents, the GC underwent a principal formal change taking into consideration modern didactic principles. It is presented in a template-based format that subcategorises the detailed outcome requirements into learning objectives, awareness, knowledge and skills. Consecutive steps will be those of harmonising and implementing teaching and assessment strategies.

Association Between Geographic Access to Cancer Care and Receipt of Radiation Therapy for Rectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Trimodality therapy (chemoradiation and surgery) is the standard of care for stage II/III rectal cancer but nearly one third of patients do not receive radiation therapy (RT). We examined the relationship between the density of radiation oncologists and the travel distance to receipt of RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective study based on the National Cancer Data Base identified 26,845 patients aged 18 to 80 years with stage II/III rectal cancer diagnosed from 2007 to 2010. Radiation oncologists were identified through the Physician Compare dataset. Generalized estimating equations clustering by hospital service area was used to examine the association between geographic access and receipt of RT, controlling for patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 26,845 patients, 70% received RT within 180 days of diagnosis or within 90 days of surgery. Compared with a travel distance of <12.5 miles, patients diagnosed at a reporting facility who traveled ≥50 miles had a decreased likelihood of receipt of RT (50-249 miles, adjusted odds ratio 0.75, P<.001; ≥250 miles, adjusted odds ratio 0.46; P=.002), all else being equal. The density level of radiation oncologists was not significantly associated with the receipt of RT. Patients who were female, nonwhite, and aged ≥50 years and had comorbidities were less likely to receive RT (P<.05). Patients who were uninsured but self-paid for their medical services, initially diagnosed elsewhere but treated at a reporting facility, and resided in Midwest had an increased the likelihood of receipt of RT (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: An increased travel burden was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving RT for patients with stage II/III rectal cancer, all else being equal; however, radiation oncologist density was not. Further research of geographic access and establishing transportation assistance programs or lodging services for patients with an unmet need might help decrease geographic barriers and improve the quality of rectal cancer care.

Effectiveness of bevacizumab exposure beyond disease progression in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: analyses of the ARIES observational cohort study.

PURPOSE: Bevacizumab used in combination with first-line chemotherapy confers an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This analysis from the ARIES observational cohort study (OCS) was initiated to evaluate the effect of bevacizumab use beyond disease progression (BBP) on clinical outcomes in patients with NSCLC receiving first-line treatment with bevacizumab and chemotherapy. METHODS: The ARIES OCS prospectively enrolled patients from 2006 to 2009 in the United States who had advanced non-squamous NSCLC, received bevacizumab with chemotherapy in the first-line setting, and survived progressive disease (PD). A dichotomous landmark analysis examined post-PD OS (ppOS) in patients who received BBP versus no BBP within 30 days post PD. A time-dependent Cox model assessed the effect of cumulative BBP exposure on ppOS. RESULTS: The ARIES OCS enrolled 1967 patients with first-line NSCLC; 1358 patients had first PD and were alive at the 30-day landmark (351 patients with BBP and 1007 patients with no BBP). The landmark analysis showed that BBP was associated with a lower risk of death (BBP versus No-BBP); hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval 0.65-0.86. In the cumulative exposure analysis of 1461 patients who had PD, HRs for ppOS decreased by approximately 4% for each additional 21-day interval of bevacizumab received. Protocol-specified bevacizumab-select adverse events occurred in 14% of BBP patients. CONCLUSIONS: BBP was associated with a lower risk of death in patients with NSCLC treated with first-line bevacizumab and chemotherapy. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Association Between Geographic Access to Cancer Care, Insurance, and Receipt of Chemotherapy: Geographic Distribution of Oncologists and Travel Distance.

PURPOSE: Geographic access to care may be associated with receipt of chemotherapy but has not been fully examined. This study sought to evaluate the association between density of oncologists and travel distance and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer within 90 days of colectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients in the National Cancer Data Base with stage III colon cancer, diagnosed between 2007 and 2010, and age 18 to 80 years were selected. Generalized estimating equation clustering by hospital service area was conducted to examine the association between geographic access and receipt of oncology services, controlling for patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of 34,694 patients in the study cohort, 75.7% received adjuvant chemotherapy within 90 days of colectomy. Compared with travel distance less than 12.5 miles, patients who traveled 50 to 249 miles (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; P=.009) or ≥250 miles (OR, 0.36; P<.001) had decreased likelihood of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Density level of oncologists was not statistically associated with receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (low v high density: OR, 0.98; P=.77). When stratifying analyses by insurance status, non-privately insured patients who resided in areas with low density of oncologists were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (OR, 0.85; P=.03). CONCLUSION: Increased travel burden was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, regardless of insurance status. Patients with nonprivate insurance who resided in low-density oncologist areas were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy. If these findings are validated prospectively, interventions to decrease geographic barriers may improve the timeliness and quality of colon cancer treatment.

Clinical oncology practice 2015: preparing for the future.

The clinical practice of oncology has become increasingly complex. An explosion of medical knowledge, increased demands on provider time, and involved patients have changed the way many oncologists practice. What was an acceptable practice model in the past may now be relatively inefficient. This review covers three areas that address these changes. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) National Oncology Census defines who the U.S. oncology community is, and their perceptions of how practice patterns may be changing. The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-ASCO Teams in Cancer Care Project explores how best to employ team science to improve the efficiency and quality of cancer care in the United States. Finally, how physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) might be best integrated into team-based care in oncology and the barriers to integration are reviewed.

Reviewing cancer care team effectiveness.

PURPOSE: The management of cancer varies across its type, stage, and natural history. This necessitates involvement of a variety of individuals and groups across a number of provider types. Evidence from other fields suggests that a team-based approach helps organize and optimize tasks that involve individuals and groups, but team effectiveness has not been fully evaluated in oncology-related care. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of literature published between 2009 and 2014 to identify studies of all teams with clear membership, a comparator group, and patient-level metrics of cancer care. When those teams included two or more people with specialty training relevant to the care of patients with cancer, we called them multidisciplinary care teams (MDTs). After reviews and exclusions, 16 studies were thoroughly evaluated: two addressing screening and diagnosis, 11 addressing treatment, two addressing palliative care, and one addressing end-of-life care. The studies included a variety of end points (eg, adherence to quality indicators, patient satisfaction with care, mortality). RESULTS: Teams for screening and its follow-up improved screening use and reduced time to follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal screen. Discussion of cases within MDTs improved the planning of therapy, adherence to recommended preoperative assessment, pain control, and adherence to medications. We did not see convincing evidence that MDTs affect patient survival or cost of care, or studies of how or which MDT processes and structures were associated with success. CONCLUSION: Further research should focus on the association between team processes and structures, efficiency in delivery of care, and mortality.