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.

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.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of post-induction phase bevacizumab treatment for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: results from the ARIES observational cohort study.

Data from randomized, controlled trials suggest that post-induction phase (IP) treatment with bevacizumab may benefit patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Real-world clinical practice, however, can involve variable use and patterns of treatment in broader patient populations. To assess the effect of bevacizumab on post-IP overall survival (OS) following IP chemotherapy + bevacizumab, analyses were conducted in patients enrolled in the Avastin(®) Registry--Investigation of Effectiveness and Safety (ARIES) observational cohort study (OCS) who received post-IP bevacizumab. ARIES was a large, prospective OCS of patients who received chemotherapy in combination with bevacizumab for the first-line treatment of NSCLC. This unplanned, post hoc analysis included patients who received chemotherapy and bevacizumab and who did not have progressive disease through the completion of IP treatment. A dichotomous analysis compared outcomes in patients who did and did not receive bevacizumab before a landmark date of day 30 post IP. A cumulative exposure analysis used a time-dependent Cox regression model to assess the effect of cumulative post-IP bevacizumab exposure on post-IP OS. In the dichotomous analysis, the duration of post-IP OS was significantly longer in patients who received post-IP bevacizumab; median post-IP OS was 15.6 vs. 11.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80; 95 % confidence interval 0.71-0.91; P < 0.001). The cumulative exposure analysis observed that each additional cycle of cumulative bevacizumab exposure decreased the HR for post-IP OS by 2.7 %, on average. In conclusion, post-IP bevacizumab exposure was associated with improved post-IP OS in patients with advanced NSCLC who were enrolled in the ARIES OCS.

Safety and effectiveness of bevacizumab-containing treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer: final results of the ARIES observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Bevacizumab, a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel. ARIES (Avastin Regimens: Investigation of Effectiveness and Safety), a prospective observational cohort study, evaluated outcomes in a large, community-based population of patients with first-line NSCLC. METHODS: From 2006 to 2009, ARIES enrolled patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who were eligible for bevacizumab, excluding those with predominantly squamous histology. Patients were required to provide informed consent and to have initiated bevacizumab with chemotherapy within 4 months before enrollment. There were no protocol-defined treatments or assessments. The dosing of bevacizumab and chemotherapy, and the choice of chemotherapy regimen, was at the discretion of the treating physician. RESULTS: ARIES enrolled 1967 patients with first-line NSCLC. At study closure, median follow-up was 12.5 months (range, 0.2-65.5). Median age was 65 years (range, 31-93), and 252 patients (12.8%) identified as never smokers. Median progression-free survival was 6.6 months (95% confidence interval, 6.3-6.9), and median overall survival was 13.0 months (95% confidence interval, 12.2-13.8) with first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. Incidences of bevacizumab-associated adverse events (19.7% overall) were consistent with those in randomized controlled trials of bevacizumab in NSCLC. CONCLUSION: Results from ARIES demonstrate similar outcomes to randomized controlled trials of bevacizumab when added to standard chemotherapy in a real-world patient population with advanced NSCLC.

Oncology fellows' career plans, expectations, and well-being: do fellows know what they are getting into?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the career plans, professional expectations, and well-being of oncology fellows compared with actual experiences of practicing oncologists. METHODS: US oncology fellows taking the 2013 Medical Oncology In-Training Examination (MedOnc ITE) were invited to participate in an optional postexamination survey. The survey evaluated fellows' career plans and professional expectations and measured burnout, quality of life (QOL), fatigue, and satisfaction with work-life balance (WLB) using standardized instruments. Fellows' professional expectations and well-being were compared with actual experiences of US oncologists assessed simultaneously. RESULTS: Of the 1,637 oncology fellows in the United States, 1,373 (83.9%) took the 2013 MedOnc ITE. Among these, 1,345 (97.9%) completed the postexamination survey. The frequency of burnout among fellows decreased from 43.3% in year 1 to 31.7% in year 2 and 28.1% in year 3 (P < .001). Overall, the rate of burnout among fellows and practicing oncologists was similar (34.1% v. 33.7%; P = .86). With respect to other dimensions of well-being, practicing oncologists had lower fatigue (P < .001) and better overall QOL scores (P < .001) than fellows but were less satisfied with WLB (P = .0031) and specialty choice (P < .001). Fellows' expectations regarding future work hours were 5 to 6 hours per week fewer than oncologists' actual reported work hours. Levels of burnout (P = .02) and educational debt (P < or =.004) were inversely associated with ITE scores. Fellows with greater educational debt were more likely to pursue private practice and less likely to plan an academic career. CONCLUSION: Oncology fellows entering practice trade one set of challenges for another. Unrealized expectations regarding work hours may contribute to future professional dissatisfaction, burnout, and challenges with WLB.

Where do patients with cancer in Iowa receive radiation therapy?

PURPOSE: Multiple studies have shown survival benefits in patients with cancer treated with radiation therapy, but access to treatment facilities has been found to limit its use. This study was undertaken to examine access issues in Iowa and determine a methodology for conducting a similar national analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All Iowa residents who received radiation therapy regardless of where they were diagnosed or treated were identified through the Iowa Cancer Registry (ICR). Radiation oncologists were identified through the Iowa Physician Information System (IPIS). Radiation facilities were identified through IPIS and classified using the Commission on Cancer accreditation standard. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2010, 113,885 invasive cancers in 106,603 patients, 28.5% of whom received radiation treatment, were entered in ICR. Mean and median travel times were 25.8 and 20.1 minutes, respectively, to the nearest facility but 42.4 and 29.1 minutes, respectively, to the patient's chosen treatment facility. Multivariable analysis predicting travel time showed significant relationships for disease site, age, residence location, and facility category. Residents of small and isolated rural towns traveled nearly 3× longer than urban residents to receive radiation therapy, as did patients using certain categories of facilities. CONCLUSION: Half of Iowa patients could reach their nearest facility in 20 minutes, but instead, they traveled 30 minutes on average to receive treatment. The findings identified certain groups of patients with cancer who chose more distant facilities. However, other groups of patients with cancer, namely those residing in rural areas, had less choice, and some had to travel considerably farther to radiation facilities than urban patients.

Access to chemotherapy services by availability of local and visiting oncologists.

PURPOSE: Geographic disparities have raised important questions about factors related to treatment choice and travel time, which can affect access to cancer care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Iowa residents who received chemotherapy regardless of where they were diagnosed or treated were identified through the Iowa Cancer Registry (ICR), a member of the SEER program. Oncologists and their practice locations, including visiting consulting clinics (VCCs), were tracked through the Iowa Physician Information System. Oncologists, VCCs, and patients were mapped to hospital service areas (HSAs). RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2010, 113,885 newly diagnosed invasive cancers were entered into ICR; among patients in whom these cancers were diagnosed, 31.6% received chemotherapy as a first course of treatment. During this period, 106 Iowa oncologists practiced in 14 cities, and 82 engaged in outreach to 85 VCCs in 77 rural communities. Of patients receiving chemotherapy, 63.0% resided in an HSA that had a local oncologist and traveled 21 minutes for treatment on average. In contrast, 29.3% of patients receiving chemotherapy resided in an HSA with a VCC, and 7.7% resided in an HSA with no oncology provider. These latter two groups of patients traveled 58 minutes on average to receive chemotherapy. Availability of oncologists and VCCs affected where patients received chemotherapy. The establishment of VCCs increased access to oncologists in rural communities and increased the rate that chemotherapy was administered in rural communities from 10% to 24%, a notable increase in local access. CONCLUSION: Access to cancer care is dependent on the absolute number of providers, but it is also dependent on their geographic distribution.