Intersectional Analysis of U.S. Medical Faculty Diversity over Four Decades.

The 2020 U.S. Census data show a rapidly diversifying U.S. population. We sought to evaluate whether clinical faculty and leadership representation at academic medical schools reflects the diversifying population over time. Using data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for the period of 1977 through 2019, we found notable progress in female representation among clinical faculty, with smaller gains among department chairs and medical school deans. Racial and ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine are designated as such because their presence within the medical profession is disproportionate to the U.S. Census data. Even with accounting for this underrepresentation, clinical faculty and leadership positions show even starker disparities. Thoughtful policy implementation could help address this persistent underrepresentation among medical school faculty and leadership positions.

A pooled patient-reported outcomes analysis of moderately hypofractionated proton beam therapy and photon-based intensity modulated radiation therapy for low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize and compare late patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) for localized prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: This multi-institutional analysis included low- or intermediate-risk group PC patients treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation to an intact prostate stratified by treatment modality: IMRT or PBT. The primary outcomes were prospectively collected patient-reported late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity assessed by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded PC Index Composite (EPIC). Multivariable regression analysis (MVA) controlling for age, race, and risk group tested the effect of time, treatment, and their interaction. RESULTS: 287 IMRT and 485 PBT patients were included. Intermediate risk group (81.2 vs. 68.2%; p < 0.001) and median age at diagnosis (70 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001) were higher in the IMRT group. On MVA, there was no significant difference between modalities. PBT IPSS did not differ from IMRT IPSS at 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; p = 0.08) or 24 months (OR, 0.99; p = 0.94). PBT EPIC overall GI function at 12 months (OR, 3.68; p = 0.085) and 24 months (OR 2.78; p = 0.26) did not differ from IMRT EPIC overall GI function. At 24 months, urinary frequency was no different between PBT and IMRT groups (OR 0.35; p = 0.096). CONCLUSIONS: This multi-institutional analysis of low- or intermediate-risk PC treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT demonstrated low rates of late patient-reported GI and GU toxicities. After covariate adjustment, late GI and GU PROs were not significantly different between PBT or IMRT cohorts.

Standardized template for clinical reporting of PSMA PET/CT scans.

PURPOSE: Accurate diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer are crucial to improving patient care. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging has demonstrated superiority for initial staging and restaging in patients with prostate cancer. Referring physicians and PET/CT readers must agree on a consistent communication method and application of information derived from this imaging modality. While several guidelines have been published, a single PSMA PET/CT reporting template has yet to be widely adopted. Based on the consensus from community and academic physicians, we developed a standardized PSMA PET/CT reporting template for radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians to report and relay key imaging findings to referring physicians. The aim was to improve the quality, clarity, and utility of imaging results reporting to facilitate patient management decisions. METHODS: Based on community and expert consensus, we developed a standardized PSMA PET/CT reporting template to deliver key imaging findings to referring clinicians. RESULTS: Core category components proposed include a summary of any prior treatment history; presence, location, and degree of PSMA radiopharmaceutical uptake in primary and/or metastatic tumor(s), lesions with no uptake, and incidentally found lesions with positive uptake on PET/CT. CONCLUSIONS: This article provides recommendations on best practices for standardized reporting of PSMA PET/CT imaging. The generated reporting template is a proposed supplement designed to educate and improve data communication between imaging experts and referring physicians.

Approach to Patients with High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Radiation Oncology Perspective.

OPINION STATEMENT: High-risk localized prostate cancer is a challenging clinical entity to treat, with heterogeneous responses to an evolving array of multidisciplinary treatment approaches. In addition, this disease state is growing in incidence due to a variety of factors, including shifting recommendations that discouraged routine prostate cancer screening. Current guidelines now incorporate an informed decision-making process for prostate cancer screening and evaluation. More work is underway to improve targeted screening for certain at-risk populations and to implement greater personalization in the use of diagnostic tools. Once diagnosed with high-risk localized disease, a multimodality treatment paradigm is warranted. Radiation-in its various forms and combinations-plays a large and continually evolving role in the management of high-risk prostate cancer, yet treatment outcomes are still suboptimal. There is a growing need to improve upon current treatment approaches, and better personalize a particular treatment recommendation based on both tumor and patient characteristics, as well as patient preference and goals of therapy. Given that treatment generally requires more than one therapy, there are notable implications on long-term quality of life, especially with respect to overlapping and cumulative side effects of local and systemic therapies, respectively. The desire for aggressive therapy to optimize cancer control outcomes must be weighed against the risk of morbidities and overtreatment and discussed with each patient so that an informed decision about treatment and care can be determined. High-level evidence to support treatment recommendations, where available, is critical for a data-driven and tailored approach to address all goals of care.

Colon Cancer Disparities in Stage at Presentation and Time to Surgery for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders: A Study with Disaggregated Ethnic Groups.

BACKGROUND: Vast differences in barriers to care exist among Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) groups and may manifest as disparities in stage at presentation and access to treatment. Thus, we characterized AANHPI patients with stage 0-IV colon cancer and examined differences in (1) stage at presentation and (2) time to surgery relative to white patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed all patients in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) with stage 0-IV colon cancer from 2004 to 2016 who identified as white, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Native Hawaiian, Korean, Vietnamese, Laotian, Hmong, Kampuchean, Thai, Asian Indian or Pakistani, and Pacific Islander. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios (AORs), with 95% confidence intervals (CI), of (1) patients presenting with advanced stage colon cancer and (2) patients with stage 0-III colon cancer receiving surgery at ≥ 60 days versus 30-59 days versus < 30 days postdiagnosis, adjusting for sociodemographic/clinical factors. RESULTS: Among 694,876 patients, Japanese [AOR 1.08 (95% CI 1.01-1.15), p < 0.05], Filipino [AOR 1.17 (95% CI 1.09-1.25), p < 0.001], Korean [AOR 1.09 (95% CI 1.01-1.18), p < 0.05], Laotian [AOR 1.51 (95% CI 1.17-1.95), p < 0.01], Kampuchean [AOR 1.33 (95% CI 1.04-1.70), p < 0.01], Thai [AOR 1.60 (95% CI 1.22-2.10), p = 0.001], and Pacific Islander [AOR 1.41 (95% CI 1.20-1.67), p < 0.001] patients were more likely to present with more advanced colon cancer compared with white patients. Chinese [AOR 1.27 (95% CI 1.17-1.38), p < 0.001], Japanese [AOR 1.23 (95% CI 1.10-1.37], p < 0.001], Filipino [AOR 1.36 (95% CI 1.22-1.52), p < 0.001], Korean [AOR 1.16 (95% CI 1.02-1.32), p < 0.05], and Vietnamese [AOR 1.55 (95% CI 1.36-1.77), p < 0.001] patients were more likely to experience greater time to surgery than white patients. Disparities persisted when comparing among AANHPI subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal key disparities in stage at presentation and time to surgery by race/ethnicity among AANHPI subgroups. Heterogeneity upon disaggregation underscores the importance of examining and addressing access barriers and clinical disparities.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Early Detection provide recommendations for individuals with a prostate who opt to participate in an early detection program after receiving the appropriate counseling on the pros and cons. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines with regard to the testing protocol, use of multiparametric MRI, and management of negative biopsy results to optimize the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and minimize the detection of indolent disease.

Association between hospital competition and quality of prostate cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals account for approximately 6% of United States' gross domestic product. We examined the association between hospital competition and outcomes in elderly with localized prostate cancer (PCa). We also assessed if race moderated this association. METHODS: Retrospective study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) - Medicare database. Cohort included fee-for-service, African American and white men aged ≥ 66, diagnosed with localized PCa between 1998 and 2011 and their claims between 1997 and 2016. We used Hirschman-Herfindahl index (HHI) to measure of hospital competition. Outcomes were emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, Medicare expenditure and mortality assessed in acute survivorship phase (two years post-PCa diagnosis), and long-term mortality. We used Generalized Linear Models for analyzing expenditure, Poisson models for ER visits and hospitalizations, and Cox models for mortality. We used propensity score to minimize bias. RESULTS: Among 253,176 patients, percent change in incident rate of ER visit was 17% higher for one unit increase in HHI (IRR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.15-1.19). Incident rate of ER was 24% higher for whites and 48% higher for African Americans. For one unit increase in HHI, hazard of short-term all-cause mortality was 7% higher for whites and 11% lower for African Americans. The hazard of long-term all-cause mortality was 10% higher for whites and 13% higher for African Americans. CONCLUSIONS: Lower hospital competition was associated with impaired outcomes of localized PCa care. Magnitude of impairment was higher for African Americans, compared to whites. Future research will explore process through which competition affects outcomes and racial disparity.

Association of applicant demographic factors with medical school acceptance.

BACKGROUND: Medical school acceptance rates in the United States (US) have been lower for applicants who identify as Underrepresented-in-Medicine (UiM) compared to non-UiM applicants. The gap between UiM and no-UiM groups is narrowing in recent years. Less well-studied are associations of acceptance decisions with family income and parental education. This study's purpose is to evaluate the relationships between medical school acceptance and family income, parental education status, racial/ethnic background, Grade Point Average (GPA), Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) score, and participation in extracurricular activities. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of first-time US medical school applicants between 2017 and 2020. Acceptance rates for first-time applicants were calculated for first-generation (FG), low-income (LI), and UiM applicants. Associations of these attributes with MCAT scores, science GPAs, and seven categories of extracurricular activities were evaluated. Regression analyses estimated associations between acceptance to medical school with all variables with and without interaction terms (FG*URM, LI*URM, FG*LI). RESULTS: The overall acceptance rate for first-time applicants from 2017-2020 was 45.3%. The acceptance rates among FG, LI and UiM applicants were 37.9%, 39.6% and 44.2%, respectively. In univariable logistic regression analyses, acceptance was negatively associated with being FG (OR: 0.68, CI: 0.67-0.70), LI (OR: 0.70, CI: 0.69-0.72), and UiM (OR: 0.95, CI: 0.93-0.97). In multivariable regression, acceptance was most strongly associated with science GPA (OR: 7.15, CI: 6.78-7.54 for the highest quintile) and UiM (OR: 5.56, CI: 5.48-5.93) status and MCAT score (OR: 1.19, CI: 1.18-1.19), FG (OR: 1.14, CI: 1.10-1.18), and most extracurricular activities. Including interaction terms revealed a negative association between acceptance and LI (OR:0.90, CI: 0.87-0.94) and FG was no longer significant (OR:1.10, CI:0.96-1.08). CONCLUSIONS: Collectively these results suggest medical school admissions committees may be relying on holistic admission practices. While MCAT and GPA scores continue to predict acceptance, individuals from racially and ethnically UiM backgrounds have favorable odds of acceptance when controlling for MCAT and GPA. However, these positive associations were not seen for low-income and first-generation applicants. Additional preparation for college and the MCAT for these latter groups may help further diversify the medical profession.

Assessment of Lymphoma and Other Hematologic Malignancies Training Needs Among Radiation Oncology Residents: a Brief Report.

The role of radiation therapy (RT) varies across hematologic malignancies (HM). Radiation oncology (RO) resident comfort with specific aspects of HM patient management is unknown. The International Lymphoma RO Group (ILROG) assessed resident HM training opportunities and interest in an HM away elective. RO residents (PGY2-5) in the Association of Residents in RO (ARRO) database (n = 572) were emailed an anonymous, web-based survey in January 2019 including binary, Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely, reported as median [interquartile range]), and multiple-choice questions. Of 134 resident respondents (23%), 86 (64%) were PGY4/5 residents and 36 (27%) were in larger programs (≥ 13 residents). Residents reported having specialized HM faculty (112, 84%) and a dedicated HM rotation (95, 71%). Residents reported "moderate" preparedness to advocate for RT in multidisciplinary conferences (3 [2-3]); make HM-related clinical decisions (3 [2-4]); and critique treatment planning (3 [2-4]). They reported feeling "moderately" to "quite" prepared to contour HM cases (3.5 [3-4]) and "quite" prepared to utilize the PET-CT five-point scale (4 [3-5]). Overall, residents reported feeling "moderately" prepared to treat HM patients (3 [2-3]); 24 residents (23%) felt "quite" or "extremely" prepared. Sixty-six residents (49%) were potentially interested in an HM away elective, commonly to increase comfort with treating HM patients (65%). Therefore, HM training is an important component of RO residency, yet a minority of surveyed trainees felt quite or extremely well prepared to treat HM patients. Programs should explore alternative and additional educational opportunities to increase resident comfort with treating HM patients.

Heterogeneity in Radiotherapeutic Parameter Assumptions in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Prostate Cancer: A Call for Uniformity.

OBJECTIVES: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) may provide useful data to inform management decisions depending on the robustness of a model's input parameters. We sought to determine the level of heterogeneity in health state utility values, transition probabilities, and cost estimates across published CEAs assessing primarily radiotherapeutic management strategies in prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of prostate cancer CEAs indexed in MEDLINE between 2000 and 2018 comparing accepted treatment modalities across all cancer stages. Search terms included "cost effectiveness prostate," "prostate cancer cost model," "cost utility prostate," and "Markov AND prostate AND (cancer OR adenocarcinoma)." Included studies were agreed upon. A Markov model was designed using the parameter estimates from the systematic review to evaluate the effect of estimate heterogeneity on strategy cost acceptability. RESULTS: Of 199 abstracts identified, 47 publications were reviewed and 37 were included; 508 model estimates were compared. Estimates varied widely across variables, including gastrointestinal toxicity risk (0%-49.5%), utility of metastatic disease (0.25-0.855), intensity-modulated radiotherapy cost ($21 193-$61 996), and recurrence after external-beam radiotherapy (1.5%-59%). Multiple studies assumed that different radiotherapy modalities delivering the same dose yielded varying cancer control rates. When using base estimates for similar parameters from included studies, the designed model resulted in 3 separate acceptability determinations. CONCLUSIONS: Significant heterogeneity exists across parameter estimates used to perform CEAs evaluating treatment for prostate cancer. Heterogeneity across model inputs yields variable conclusions with respect to the favorability and cost-effectiveness of treatment options. Decision makers are cautioned to review estimates in CEAs to ensure they are up to date and relevant to setting and population.

External validation of genomic classifier-based risk-stratification tool to identify candidates for adjuvant radiation therapy in patients with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To externally validate a Genomic Classifier (GC) based risk-stratification nomogram identifying candidates who would benefit from adjuvant radiation (aRT) therapy after radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: We identified 350 patients who underwent RP, between 2013 and 2018, and had adverse pathological features (positive margin, and/or pT3a or higher) on final pathology. Genomic profile was available for all these men. The clinical recurrence-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The external validity of the nomogram was tested using the concordance index (c-index), calibration plot, and decision curve analysis. RESULTS: The median follow-up of the cohort was 26.5 months. Overall, 14% of the patients received aRT. During the follow-up period, 3.4% of the patients developed metastasis. Overall 3-year metastasis-free survival was 95% (95% CI 0.92-0.98). The c-index of the nomogram was 0.84. The calibration of the model was favorable. Decision-curve analysis showed a positive net benefit for probabilities ranging between 0.01 and 0.09, with the highest difference at threshold probability around 0.05. At that threshold, the net benefit is 0.06 for the model and 0 for treating all the patients. CONCLUSION: Our report is the first to confirm the validity of this genomic-based risk-stratification tool in identifying men who might benefit from aRT after RP. As such, it can be a useful instrument to be incorporated in shared decision making on whether administration of aRT will lead to a clinically meaningful benefit. Such a model can also be useful for patients' classification in future clinical trials.

Stigma, beliefs and perceptions regarding prostate cancer among Black and Latino men and women.

BACKGROUND: Health disparities in prostate cancer (PC) are thought to reflect the complex interplay of socioeconomics, environment and biology. The potential impact of beliefs and perceptions about PC among Black and Latino populations on clinical disparities are not well understood. This qualitative study was conducted to assess current prevalent and pervasive stigma, beliefs and perceptions regarding PC among Blacks and Latinos living in a large metropolitan area, thereby identifying potentially modifiable barriers to care. METHODS: Qualitative data were collected through four separate focus groups of self-identified Black and Latino adult men and women living in Philadelphia to better understand their perceptions of PC diagnosis, screening and treatment. Each focus group was single-sex and conducted by racial/ethnic group in order to assess possible differences in beliefs about PC based on gender and racial/ethnic affiliation. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim by trained research assistants and qualitative data analysis was conducted using modified grounded theory. RESULTS: There were a total of 34 participants: 19 Hispanics/Latinos and 15 Blacks, with equal numbers of men and women (n=17). Median age was 57 years (range: 18 to 85 years). Dominant themes that emerged with respect to PC diagnosis included the stigma surrounding this condition and the perceived role of an "unhealthy lifestyle" and certain sexual behaviors as risk factors for PC development. While the majority of participants acknowledged the importance of PC screening and early detection, discussion centered around the barriers to both the interest in seeking medical care and the likelihood of securing it. These barriers included misunderstanding of PC etiology, distrust of the medical profession, and financial/access limitations. Men expressed substantial confusion about PC screening guidelines. In the Black female group, the role of faith and religion in the course of disease was a major theme. Both Black and Latina females discussed the role of fear and avoidance around PC screening and treatment, as well as the prevalence of misinformation about PC in their familial and social communities. CONCLUSION: Black and Latino focus groups revealed the existence of cultural beliefs, misunderstandings and fears pertaining to PC which could influence health-related behaviors. Some themes were common across groups; others suggested racial and gender predilections. Future targeted efforts focused on directly addressing prevalent misperceptions among underserved communities in urban settings could help to improve health literacy and equity in PC outcomes in these populations.

Bridging the Gap Among Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pain Management in Cancer and Sickle Cell Disease.

Opioids are a critical component of pain relief strategies for the management of patients with cancer and sickle cell disease. The escalation of opioid addiction and overdose in the United States has led to increased scrutiny of opioid prescribing practices. Multiple reports have revealed that regulatory and coverage policies, intended to curb inappropriate opioid use, have created significant barriers for many patients. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Society of Clinical Oncology each publish clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic pain. A recent JAMA Oncology article highlighted perceived variability in recommendations among these guidelines. In response, leadership from guideline organizations, government representatives, and authors of the original article met to discuss challenges and solutions. The meeting featured remarks by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, presentations on each clinical practice guideline, an overview of the pain management needs of patients with sickle cell disease, an overview of perceived differences among guidelines, and a discussion of differences and commonalities among the guidelines. The meeting revealed that although each guideline varies in the intended patient population, target audience, and methodology, there is no disagreement among recommendations when applied to the appropriate patient and clinical situation. It was determined that clarification and education are needed regarding the intent, patient population, and scope of each clinical practice guideline, rather than harmonization of guideline recommendations. Clinical practice guidelines can serve as a resource for policymakers and payers to inform policy and coverage determinations.

Comparative toxicity outcomes of proton-beam therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the postoperative setting.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing utilization of proton-beam therapy (PBT) in the postprostatectomy setting, no data exist regarding toxicity outcomes relative to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The authors compared acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity outcomes in patients with prostate cancer (PC) who received treatment with postprostatectomy IMRT versus PBT. METHODS: With institutional review board approval, patients with PC who received adjuvant or salvage IMRT or PBT (70.2 gray with an endorectal balloon) after prostatectomy from 2009 through 2017 were reviewed. Factors including combined IMRT and PBT and/or concurrent malignancies prompted exclusion. A case-matched cohort analysis was performed using nearest-neighbor 3-to-1 matching by age and GU/GI disorder history. Logistic and Cox regressions were used to identify univariate and multivariate associations between toxicities and cohort/dosimetric characteristics. Toxicity-free survival (TFS) was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Three hundred seven men (mean ± SD age, 59.7 ± 6.3 years; IMRT, n = 237; PBT, n = 70) were identified, generating 70 matched pairs. The median follow-up was 48.6 and 46.1 months for the IMRT and PBT groups, respectively. Although PBT was superior at reducing low-range (volumes receiving 10% to 40% of the dose, respectively) bladder and rectal doses (all P ≤ .01), treatment modality was not associated with differences in clinician-reported acute or late GU/GI toxicities (all P ≥ .05). Five-year grade ≥2 GU and grade ≥1 GI TFS was 61.1% and 73.7% for IMRT, respectively, and 70.7% and 75.3% for PBT, respectively; and 5-year grade ≥3 GU and GI TFS was >95% for both groups (all P ≥ .05). CONCLUSIONS: Postprostatectomy PBT minimized low-range bladder and rectal doses relative to IMRT; however, treatment modality was not associated with clinician-reported GU/GI toxicities. Future prospective investigation and ongoing follow-up will determine whether dosimetric differences between IMRT and PBT confer clinically meaningful differences in long-term outcomes.

Pre-specialization - Considerations for more focused and personalized educational modules in the twenty-first century.

BACKGROUND: This essay provides a multidisciplinary discussion of the current medical education curriculum and the increasing need to adapt it to our rapidly evolving and expanding healthcare environment. METHODS: Thorough literature search on the topic of medical school curriculum, ranging from its historical origins to contemporary practice as well as statistics, was conducted. RESULTS: The authors give a brief historical overview of and rationale behind the current structure of the medical education system in America. The recent trends towards information overload and rapid evolution of the evidence-base are discussed. Specialization, as a means of responding to the burgeoning abundance of information in medicine, is described. The authors further provide current as well as foreseeable limitations of today's medical training paradigm as the trend towards specialization continues. The potential negative influences of a specialist-focused training paradigm on the overall length of training and the degree of autonomy exercised by generalists are described. A proposal toward pre-specialization at the level of medical school is introduced and elaborated upon. The authors incorporate social psychology principles and analyze trends toward career specialization, highlighting potential benefits to a different-size-for-all approach. The importance of optionality and flexibility of such a curriculum is emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: The authors describe the inevitable trend toward specialization, and the need to fundamentally re-configure American medical education system to behoove trainees' experiences and quality of training during the 21st century.

The state of survivorship care in radiation oncology: Results from a nationally distributed survey.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care has become an increasingly critical component of oncologic care as well as a quality practice and reimbursement metric. To the authors' knowledge, the current climate of survivorship medicine in radiation oncology has not been investigated fully. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved, Internet-based survey examining practices and preparedness in survivorship care was distributed to radiation oncology practices participating in the American College of Radiology Radiation Oncology Practice Accreditation program between November 2016 and January 2017. A total of 78 surveys were completed. Among these, 2 were nonphysicians, resulting in 76 evaluable responses. RESULTS: Radiation oncologists (ROs) frequently reported that they are the primary provider in the evaluation of late toxicities and the recurrence of primary cancer. Although approximately 68% of ROs frequently discuss plans for future care with survivors, few provide a written survivorship care plan to their patients (18%) or the patients' primary care providers (24%). Patient prognosis, disease site, and reimbursement factors often influence the provision of survivorship care. Although ROs report that several platforms offer training in survivorship medicine, the quality of these resources is variable and extensive instruction is rare. Fewer than one-half of ROs believe they are expertly trained in survivorship care. CONCLUSIONS: ROs play an active role within the multidisciplinary team in the cancer-related follow-up care of survivors. Investigation of barriers to the provision of survivorship care and optimization of service delivery should be pursued further. The development of high-quality, easily accessible educational programming is needed so that ROs can participate more effectively in the care of cancer survivors. Cancer 2018;124:2653-60. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Long-term risk of second malignancies in women after breast conservation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ or early-stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or early-stage breast cancer have an excellent prognosis, but their risk of developing second malignant neoplasms (SMNs) is not well established. We analyzed SMNs in a large cohort with long follow-up after breast conservation therapy. METHODS: The study population comprised 755 women with DCIS (n = 135) or stage I-II breast carcinoma (n = 620). Subjects were aged 25-89 (median 55) years when they underwent breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy to the entire breast (60-68Gray) between 1992 and 2001. Additional treatment included hormonal therapy and/or chemotherapy based on clinical characteristics. SMNs were grouped by site. The rate of SMNs over time was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. To compare the probability of developing SMNs overall and for specific organs or sites, probability estimates were obtained for a 55-year-old female from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER). RESULTS: Median follow-up from radiotherapy was 13.8 years. The 15-year age-adjusted probability of developing any SMN was 12.0%, close to the SEER rate of 12.1% for a non-breast malignancy. Systemic therapy and higher-dose radiotherapy (> 63 Gray) were not associated with significantly increased risks of SMNs. Compared to SEER, significantly increased risk was noted for gynecologic cancers and melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: Most SMNs were unrelated to treatment, and the 15-year incidence was similar to that of cancer in the SEER control group-findings that should be reassuring to patients. Further risk reduction is expected from prophylactic gynecologic surgery. Continued investigations into genetic links with melanoma are warranted.