Optimal hyperglycemia thresholds in patients undergoing chemotherapy: a cross sectional study of oncologists' practices.

PURPOSE: Neither the United States nor the European oncology guidelines include details for appropriate management of hyperglycemia in cancer patients. The aim was to identify fasting and random blood glucose thresholds, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) targets used by oncologists in clinical practice when managing hyperglycemia in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: This national, cross sectional study utilized a questionnaire to collect oncologists' perceptions about optimal blood glucose thresholds and HbA1c targets in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarize glucose thresholds, HbA1c targets, and sample characteristics. Responses to an open-ended question about oncologists' approach to hyperglycemia management were analyzed via thematic analysis using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 229) were on average 52.1 years of age, 67.7% men, and 91.3% White. For patients without diabetes but experiencing hyperglycemia, oncologists targeted lower and upper fasting blood glucose levels between 75-121 mg/dL and 105-135 mg/dL, respectively. For patients with diabetes, the targets for lower and upper fasting blood glucose levels ranged between 100-130 mg/dL and 128-150 mg/dL, respectively. Fasting blood glucose (95.6%) and HbA1c (78.6%) were the most commonly used clinical indicators to consider chemotherapy dose reduction, delay, or discontinuation due to hyperglycemia in patients receiving chemotherapy with curative intent. Among those receiving palliative intent chemotherapy, the preferred clinical parameters were random blood glucose (90.0%), patient-reported blood glucose readings (70.7%), continuous glucose monitoring readings (65.1%), and patient-reported symptoms of hyperglycemia (65.1%). Three main themes emerged about oncologists' approach to hyperglycemia management: 1) identification of high-risk patients; 2) need for early identification, screening, and diagnosis of hyperglycemia; and 3) multiple hyperglycemia management strategies. CONCLUSION: Oncologists reported a wide variation of target blood glucose ranges considered appropriate in patients undergoing chemotherapy. Lack of clear guidance for hyperglycemia management during chemotherapy in the United States may be contributing to a lack of consistency in clinical practice.

[Current status of palliative care for patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer in China: a questionnaire-based survey].

Objective: To analyze the current adoption of palliative care by patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in China. Methods: From 1 March 2023 to 30 June 2023, a questionnaire survey was conducted by random sampling. An exclusive research platform for the Blue Book on Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. An online questionnaire was sent to medical oncologists (including chief physicians, associate chief physicians, attending physicians and residents) in general hospitals and oncology hospitals in four major regions of East, Central, South and Northeast China. The questionnaire contained 28 questions requesting basic information about doctors, the number of patients with mCRC, the status of treatment from first to fourth line and beyond, points concerning treatment of pain in patients with mCRC, and expectations for the future. A medical team was responsible for the quality control of data collected, whereas statisticians performed the data cleaning and sorting and statistical analysis. Results: A total of 300 clinical questionnaires were collected, including 217 (72%) from doctors in general hospitals and 83 (28%) from doctors in oncology hospitals. Senior physicians (including associate chief physicians and chief physicians) accounted for 65% of the respondents, attending physicians 30%, and residents 5%. Within 3 months (average for each month), 46.4±26.6% patients were diagnosed with recurrent or unresectable mCRC by each physician, 51.6±26.8% of the patients being in cancer hospitals and 44.4±26.3% in general hospitals. One hundred percent of patients receiving first-line treatment received palliative care, as did 80.3% of those receiving second-line treatment, 58.2% of those receiving third-line treatment, and 35.1% of those receiving ≥fourth-line treatment. The primary factor governing selection of first-line treatment was guideline recommendations, whereas comorbidities and the patients' physical status dictated second line to fourth line treatment. Standard first-line treatment was administered to 93.8% of eligible patients, standard second-line treatment to 94.3%; and standard third-line treatment to 73.5%. First-line therapy included targeted therapy in 63.6% of patients and immunotherapy in 2.8%; second-line therapy included targeted therapy in 63.0% of patients and immunotherapy in 2.0%; third-line therapy included targeted therapy in 59.2% of patients and immunotherapy in 2.2%; and fourth-line therapy included targeted therapy in 48.7% of patients and immunotherapy in 3.1%. First-line treatment lasted an average of 9.6 months, second-line treatment 6.7 months, third-line treatment 4.9 months, and fourth-line treatment 3.7 months. More than 70% of the patients maintained a good quality of life after receiving first and second-line treatment and more than 60% of them had ECOG performance scores of 0-1. After receiving third- and fourth-line treatment, 50%-60% of patients maintained a good quality of life and 40%-50% of them maintained ECOG performance scores of 0-1. The survey also revealed that the main deficiencies in treatment were limited effectiveness of third-line treatment, insufficient availability and opportunity for clinical research, popularity of new drugs or new drug combination strategies, and limited channels for participation in multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment. Clinicians reported looking forward to participating in more clinical research on new drugs, hearing about the experience of experts in the field, and discovery of new targets and new drugs that increased the options for posterior line treatment of colorectal cancer. Conclusions: This report objectively summarizes the current situation, treatment difficulties, and expectations of frontline physicians concerning management of mCRC, thus providing a basis for decision-making and future direction for the diagnosis and research on treatment of mCRC.

Medical oncologist perceptions and willingness to participate in voluntary assisted dying in South Australia.

This study surveyed South Australian medical oncologists to capture their perceptions, willingness to participate and perceived barriers and motivations to participation in voluntary assisted dying (VAD) activities. Approximately 70% of surveyed medical oncologists reported familiarity with VAD legislation. Less than half of physicians (39.1%) reported willingness to participate in any VAD activities, and the rate of conscientious objection was 22%. The top barriers to participation were lack of time and uncertainty given no prior experience. These results demonstrate both a low rate of conscientious objection and a low rate of willingness to participate at the point of VAD implementation in South Australia, and identify barriers to participation that are largely logistical.

Effects of training oncology physicians advising patients on complementary and integrative therapies on patient-reported outcomes: 2-year follow-up of the multi-center, cluster-randomized KOKON-KTO study.

PURPOSE: Many cancer patients wish for complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) consultations led by their oncology physician. Within the KOKON-KTO study, oncology physicians in the intervention group were trained in a blended learning to provide CIM consultations to their cancer patients in addition to distributing a leaflet about CIM websites. Control oncology physicians only distributed the leaflet. The training showed positive effects on the patient-level. As of now, no consistent evidence exists on the long-term effects of such one-time-only CIM consultation during cancer treatment. METHODS: In the KOKON-KTO follow-up study, cancer patients previously participating in the KOKON-KTO study (intervention group:IG and control group: CG) received, at least 24 months later, a follow-up questionnaire by post, evaluating long-term effects of the KOKON-KTO consultation using the measures provided in the original study (patient-physician communication (EORTC-QLQ-COMU2), satisfaction with cancer treatment (PS-CaTE), CIM disclosure with healthcare provider (HCP), and need for CIM consultation during cancer therapy). RESULTS: In total, 102 cancer patients participated in the follow-up study (IG n = 62; CG n = 40). The overall reponse rate was around 36% (IG: 48.4%; CG: 23.7%). In the follow-up study, differences between groups had increased and were still shown (EORTC-QLQ-COMU26, 0-100 point scale, ≥10-point-group difference) in some subscales: patient's active behavior (in means; IG:73.6 (95% CI, 63.8-83.5); CG:61.1 (95% CI, 52.4-69.8)); clinician-patient relationship (IG:80.9 (95% CI, 71.8-90.0); CG:68.7 (95% CI, 59.3-78.0)). For some outcomes, differences decreased over time (e.g., EORTC-QLQ-COMU26 subscales "takes into account patient's preference" and "corrects misunderstandings"). More patients in the CG used CIM without oncology physicians' knowledge (IG: 13.7%, CG: 24.0%). CONCLUSION: This study presents first findings that one-time-only CIM consultations may enhance patient-physican relationship and CIM disclosure long-term. To further support cancer patients' in their wish for CIM consultations, training programs should provide oncology physicians with CIM competencies for different cancer stages including cancer survivors.

Oncologists' palliative care referral behaviour: testing utility of social exchange theory as an explanatory framework.

BACKGROUND: Adults and children with cancer are referred to palliative care infrequently or late. Oncologists often gatekeep these referrals. Social exchange theory is used to explain physician referral behaviour in various clinical settings. Its utility in a cancer palliative care setting is not known. METHODS: We used Karl Popper's hypothetico-deductive approach to test the hypothesis. The hypothesis was that social exchange theory is a helpful framework for explaining oncologists' palliative care referral behaviour in a cancer setting. The utility of the theoretical framework was tested against the empiric findings of a systematic review and original research. RESULTS: Most components of social exchange theory known to explain physician referral behaviour like beliefs about the provider or service, emotions triggered during the professional engagement, its symbolism and stigma, the complexity of the referral task, efforts needed to achieve it, its cost, benefit, and value were similar in a cancer setting. Empirical findings suggest that oncologists provided strategies and solutions to better palliative care integration instead of comparing their existing engagement with potential alternatives and choosing them. CONCLUSION: Social exchange theory was found to be helpful in explaining oncologists' palliative care referral behaviour. To further develop the social exchange theory based on the data used to test it, it is recommended to include feedback and solutions as a component of the theoretical framework alongside a comparison level for alternatives.

What does "urgency" mean when prioritizing cancer treatment? Results from a qualitative study with German oncologists and other experts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Cancer care in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic was affected by resource scarcity and the necessity to prioritize medical measures. This study explores ethical criteria for prioritization and their application in cancer practices from the perspective of German oncologists and other experts. METHODS: We conducted fourteen semi-structured interviews with German oncologists between February and July 2021 and fed findings of interviews and additional data on prioritizing cancer care into four structured group discussions, in January and February 2022, with 22 experts from medicine, nursing, law, ethics, health services research and health insurance. Interviews and group discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Narratives of the participants focus on "urgency" as most acceptable criterion for prioritization in cancer care. Patients who are considered curable and those with a high level of suffering, were given a high degree of "urgency." However, further analysis indicates that the "urgency" criterion needs to be further distinguished according to at least three different dimensions: "urgency" to (1) prevent imminent harm to life, (2) prevent future harm to life and (3) alleviate suffering. In addition, "urgency" is modulated by the "success," which can be reached by means of an intervention, and the "likelihood" of reaching that success. CONCLUSION: Our analysis indicates that while "urgency" is a well-established criterion, its operationalization in the context of oncology is challenging. We argue that combined conceptual and clinical analyses are necessary for a sound application of the "urgency" criterion to prioritization in cancer care.

Multidisciplinary management of patients with cancer in France: The SINPATIC qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Health policymakers have tried to improve the care pathway for cancer patients by improving collaboration between participating healthcare professionals by involving the general practitioner (GP). OBJECTIVE(S): To explore how patients, GPs, oncologists and nurses interacted and how they perceived, in their practice, professional roles, collaboration, and cancer care pathways. METHODS: Between January 2018 and December 2021, we conducted a qualitative study that combined phenomenology and a general inductive analysis, based on semi-structured interviews with cancer patients and their GPs, oncologists, and nurses in France. RESULTS: Our analysis of 59 interviews showed that the stakeholders had different perceptions of the cancer care pathway. Task division was implicit and depended on what each health professional thought he/she should be doing; this led to the blurring of certain tasks (announcement of the diagnosis, coordination, and follow-up). The healthcare professionals were stuck in frameworks centred on their own needs and expectations and were unaware of the other health professionals' needs and expectations. Outside the hospital, GPs and nurses worked in isolation; they were not aware of the other stakeholders and did not communicate with them. GPs and nurses justified this attitude by the lack of a perceived need. Interprofessional communication varied as a function of the needs, involvement and knowledge of the other health professionals and was often mediated by the patient. CONCLUSION: In the cancer management in France, to improve cancer care pathway, there is a need to train healthcare professionals in interprofessional collaboration delivering care tailored to patient needs and preferences.

In the management of patients with cancer, the division of tasks between health professionals was not clear and was not discussed by the group.Communication within the health professionals was mediated often by the patient.Interprofessional collaboration is strongly encouraged by France's public health policies but was not mentioned or put into practice by the health professionals.

Oncologists Must Consider Participant Data When Using Large-Scale Cancer Data Sets.

Primer that helps clarify large-scale clinical data sets and participant demographics for oncologists.

How accurate is clinical prognostication by oncologists during routine practice in a general hospital and can it be improved by a specific prognosis training programme: a prospective interventional study.

OBJECTIVES: Oncologists need competence in clinical prognostication to deliver appropriate care to patients with cancer. Most studies on prognostication have been restricted to patients in palliative care settings. This paper investigates (1) the prognostic accuracy of physicians regarding a broad cohort of patients with cancer with a median life expectancy of >2 years and (2) whether a prognosis training can improve prognostication. DESIGN: Prospective single-centre study comprising 3 phases, each lasting 1 month. SETTING: Large teaching hospital, department of oncology and haematology, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: 18 physicians with a professional experience from entry level to 34 years. 736 patients with oncological and malignant haematological diseases. INTERVENTIONS: Baseline prognostication abilities were recorded during an 'untrained' phase 1. As an intervention, a specific prognosis-training programme was implemented prior to phases 2 and 3. In phase 3, physicians had to provide additional estimates with the inclusion of electronic prognostic tools. OUTCOME MEASURES: Prognostic estimates (PE) were collected using 'standard' surprise question (SQ), 'probabilistic' SQ (both for short-term prognostication up to 6 months) and clinician prediction of survival (CPS) (for long-term prognostication). Estimated prognoses were compared with observed survival. Phase 1 was compared with phases 2 and 3. RESULTS: We included 2427 PE for SQ, 1506 for CPS and 800 for probabilistic SQ. Median OS was 2.5 years. SQ accuracy improved significantly (p<0.001) from 72.6% in phase 1 to 84.3% in phase 3. Probabilistic SQ in phase 3 showed 83.1% accuracy. CPS accuracy was 25.9% and could not be significantly improved. (Electronic) prognostic tools-used alone-performed significantly worse (p<0.0005) than physicians and-used by the clinicians-did not improve their performance. CONCLUSION: A specific prognosis-training programme could improve short-term and intermediate-term prognostication. Improvement of long-term prognostication was not possible. Inexperienced residents as well as experienced oncologists benefited from training.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Oncology: Preliminary Insights From the Global ONCOTRUST-1 Cross-Sectional Study.

PURPOSE: Conflicts of interest (COIs) between oncologists and industry might considerably influence how the presentation of the research results is delivered, ultimately affecting clinical decisions and policy-making. Although there are many regulations on reporting COI in high-income countries (HICs), little is known about their reporting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking (ONCOTRUST-1) is a pilot global survey to explore the knowledge and perceptions of oncologists regarding COI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed an online 27-question-based survey in the English language to explore the perceptions and knowledge of oncologists regarding COI, with an emphasis on LMICs. Descriptive statistics and the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies guidelines were used to report the findings. RESULTS: ONCOTRUST-1 surveyed 200 oncologists, 70.9% of them practicing in LMICs. Median age of the respondents was 36 (range, 26-84) years; 47.5% of them were women. Of the respondents, 40.5% reported weekly visits by pharmaceutical representatives to their institutions. Regarding oncologists' perceptions of COI that require disclosure, direct financial benefits, such as honoraria, ranked highest (58.5%), followed by gifts from pharmaceutical representatives (50%) and travel grants for attending conferences (44.5%). By contrast, personal or institutional research funding, sample drugs, consulting or advisory board, expert testimony, and food and beverage funded by pharmaceutical industry were less frequently considered as COI. Moreover, only 24% of surveyed oncologists could correctly categorize all situations representing a COI. CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the importance of clear guidelines, education, and transparency in reporting COI in oncology. This hypothesis-generating pilot survey provided the rationale for ONCOTRUST-2 study, which will compare perceptions of COI among oncologists in LMICs and HICs.

Oncologists' psychological flourishing: A driving force for positive attitudes at work.

OBJECTIVE: Oncologists' psychological health is a major challenge due to the consequential concerning the quality of the care they provide. However, only critical states of their health have been really examined by scientists. This study sought to plug this gap by investigating the mediating role of psychological flourishing in the relationship between the perception of the professional social context (i.e., perceived workplace isolation and organizational support) and positive attitudes at work among oncologists (i.e., work engagement, task adjustment and empathy). METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional, including 541 French oncologists. Participants completed a self-report questionnaire. Structural Equation Modeling was employed to test the hypotheses. RESULTS: The analysis revealed that workplace isolation and organizational support perceptions were related to oncologists' work engagement, task adjustment and empathy. Additionally, psychological flourishing acted as a partial mediator between these perceptions of professional social context and oncologists' work-related attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: This research underlined the potential of enhancing the psychological flourishing of oncologists by improving organizational support and mitigating their sense of isolation, and in turn, to enhance some dimensions of their positive attitudes at work.

A cross-sectional study evaluating the exercise discussion with oncologist during cancer consultation: the CONNECT study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence demonstrates that physical exercise confers several psycho-physical benefits on patients with cancer. This study aims to investigate the role of oncologists in exercise promotion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter, cross-sectional study was conducted by distributing an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire to patients with cancer. The questionnaire enclosed demographic, health, and exercise variables. The exercise-related questions included in the study used the Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire to measure the amount of physical exercise. In addition, the survey gathered information on whether exercise was discussed with patients, and whether oncologists followed the assess, advise, reinforce, and refer (AARR) process regarding exercise. The survey also asked if patients preferred that exercise be discussed during their consultations. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were applied. RESULTS: With a response rate of 75%, a total of 549 patients completed the survey. Regarding the exercise discussion, 38% of patients stated that their oncologist initiated an exercise discussion, 14% started the discussion themselves, and 48% said that the issue was not considered. Overall, 35% of patients reported that the oncologist assessed their exercise level, 22% and 42% received advice or reinforcement to increase their exercise, respectively, and 10% were referred to a dedicated service. Regarding preferences, 72% of patients thought that the oncologists should initiate an exercise discussion, 2% that only patients should start the discussion, and 26% thought that the issue should not be discussed. Similarly, 74% of patients are willing to receive the exercise assessment, 59% and 75% the advice and reinforcement to increase their exercise, and 46% to be referred to an exercise service. CONCLUSIONS: Although exercise promotion rates are low, patients are willing to receive exercise information. Dedicated strategies should be developed to support oncologists in promoting exercise to their patients.

Oncologist-Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Offering Cancer Clinical Trials to Their Patients.

NCCN guidelines indicate that cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are the best management for patients with cancer. However, only 5% of patients enroll in them. We examined oncologists' perceived barriers and facilitators to discussing CCTs. This qualitative study was part of the ASCO-ACCC Initiative to Increase Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Clinical Trials. Barriers and facilitators at the system, trial, provider, and patient levels were examined. To achieve triangulation, patient encounters were reviewed using chart-stimulated recall (CSR) methods, thereby obtaining a valid assessment of physician performance. Ten oncology providers participated in this study. Nine were oncologists, and one was a clinical research coordinator; five were female; four were White; three were Asian; and three were Black. Barriers to offering CCTs were a lack of trial availability; ineligibility; a lack of knowledge; assumptions about patient interest, benefits, or harms; patient's disease factors; and negative attitudes. Facilitators of offering CCTs were a physical space to discuss trials; greater trial availability; a systematic approach to offering trials; patient factors; patients seeking trials; a lack of comorbidities; patients being younger in age; patients being aware of, asking about, or hearing of trials from their surgeon; and higher levels of altruism. Many of the cited barriers are addressable with the cited facilitators. A larger study is needed to generalize and validate these findings.

Oncologists' Satisfaction with Virtual Care: A Questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION: Although virtual care (VC) has become an integral part of oncology care and healthcare delivery, clinicians' perspectives on and satisfaction with this modality are not well understood. METHODS: Using a National Network Forum framework and expert panel review, we developed a questionnaire to measure oncologists' satisfaction with VC. The questionnaire was distributed to Canadian oncologists through medical society email lists (n = 1541). We used a 5-point Likert scale to capture their responses, which included strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), undecided (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). RESULTS: A total of 61 oncologists and/or oncology trainees, of 768 (7.9%) who opened their email, completed questionnaires between October 2022 and January 2023. Every questionnaire item had a response rate greater than 98%. Seventy-two percent of the respondents were satisfied with VC. Oncologists who were less comfortable with technology were more likely to report lower levels of satisfaction (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon rank-sum). The questionnaire items that received the highest levels of agreement were related to VC reducing costs and improving access for patients and concerns about missing a diagnosis and assessing patients' functional status. The questionnaire items that received the greatest disagreement were related to VC improving access for patients with language barriers, VC being associated with time-savings for clinicians, improvements in clinical efficacy, and more readily available lab tests. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the oncologists surveyed are satisfied with VC; however, there are some concerns with VC that need to be addressed. Future research on optimizing VC should address clinicians' concerns, in addition to addressing the patient experience.

[The oncologist, death and the pharmakon]. / L'oncologue, la mort et le pharmakon.

THE ONCOLOGIST, DEATH AND THE PHARMAKON. Stopping chemotherapy for patients treated in oncology is a difficult moment, feared by oncologists because it is often associated with abandonment or even failure in front of a resistant or aggressive disease. End-of-life chemotherapy is still common in oncology departments. However, it will be harmful if it causes side effects which alter the quality of life of patients or even hasten their death. But above all, this chemotherapy delays the implementation of appropriate palliative care support. Questioning the risk of hubris (excess) in some treatment, asking the relationship between the patient and his death, and prioritizing the quality of last moments is essential to best support patients on the path to the end o f life.

L'ONCOLOGUE, LA MORT ET LE PHARMAKON. L'arrêt des chimiothérapies des malades traités en oncologie est un moment difficile, redouté par les oncologues car souvent associé à un abandon, voire à un échec, face à une maladie résistante devenue trop agressive. La chimio thérapie de la fin de vie est encore fréquente dans les services d'oncologie. Elle est pourtant délétère si elle entraîne des effets indésirables qui altèrent la qualité de vie des malades, voire précipitent leur décès. Mais, surtout, cette chimiothérapie "de trop" retarde la mise en place d'un accompagnement adapté en soins palliatifs. Interroger le risque d'hubris de certains traitements, questionner le rapport à la mort du malade et privilégier la qualité du temps qui reste est pourtant essentiel pour accompagner au mieux les malades sur le chemin de la fin de vie.

Assessing the knowledge and awareness of US oncologists regarding the specialty of oral medicine.

OBJECTIVES: This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the awareness among United States (US) oncologists about oral medicine (OM) as a specialty of dentistry, and their collaboration with OM providers. METHODS: An online survey was conducted, inviting 1350 US oncologists, with data collected on demographics, practice background, comfort level with diagnosing and treating oral conditions, referral practices for oral conditions, and more. RESULTS: Of the invited 1350 oncologists, 192 responded (14% response rate). Among respondents, 46% were familiar with the OM specialty. Of these, 73% had previously sought consultation from OM specialists. The primary reasons for referral included dental clearance before initiating chemotherapy (38.5%), dental clearance before initiating radiotherapy (37%), and managing oral ulcers and oral potentially malignant disorders equally (32.2%). Regarding referrals to providers outside of OM, oncologists primarily referred patients with oral lesions to otolaryngologists (64.6%), followed by oral and maxillofacial surgeons (55.2%) and general dentists (45.3%). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that over half of US oncologists were unfamiliar with the OM specialty. However, the referral rate to OM providers was high among oncologists who had prior OM knowledge. It is advisable to enhance the collaboration between OM and oncology specialists to ensure optimal care for patients with cancer.

Parent and oncologist perspectives on prognostic disclosure in advanced childhood cancer: communication pearls and pitfalls.

PURPOSE: For children with advanced cancer and their families, communication about prognosis is critical. Unfortunately, data demonstrate that prognostic communication occurs infrequently and inconsistently across advancing illness. Prior to developing an intervention to improve prognostic communication, we aimed to (1) characterize parent and oncologist perspectives on "best" approaches for prognostic communication, and (2) explore similarities and differences between parent and oncologist perspectives. METHODS: Children with poor-prognosis solid tumors, their parents, and oncologists were followed prospectively for 24 months or until death. Matched semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents and oncologists 0-7 days after medical encounters at timepoints of disease progression or relapse. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted to describe parent and oncologist impressions of communication quality. RESULTS: A total of 68 interviews were conducted following serial disease reevaluation encounters involving 13 parents and five oncologists. Nine main themes were identified as "best" approaches: (1) speaking with honesty and clarity, (2) leaving room for hope, (3) leaning into a long-standing relationship, (4) personalizing language, (5) empowering the patient and family, (6) collaborating with the multidisciplinary team, (7) providing anticipatory guidance, (8) setting the scene, and (9) creating a therapeutic space. Parents and oncologists generally agreed on themes related to helpful communication approaches, while parents more explicitly described communication pitfalls. CONCLUSION: Parents and oncologists described clear recommendations for helpful communication strategies and pitfalls to avoid during difficult prognostic disclosure. Future work should integrate patient perspectives in the design and testing of an intervention to improve prognostic communication in advanced childhood cancer.

Variation in content discussed by specialty in consultations for clinically localized prostate cancer.

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.