Navigating financial toxicity in patients with cancer: A multidisciplinary management approach.

Approximately one-half of individuals with cancer face personal economic burdens associated with the disease and its treatment, a problem known as financial toxicity (FT). FT more frequently affects socioeconomically vulnerable individuals and leads to subsequent adverse economic and health outcomes. Whereas multilevel systemic factors at the policy, payer, and provider levels drive FT, there are also accompanying intervenable patient-level factors that exacerbate FT in the setting of clinical care delivery. The primary strategy to intervene on FT at the patient level is financial navigation. Financial navigation uses comprehensive assessment of patients' risk factors for FT, guidance toward support resources, and referrals to assist patient financial needs during cancer care. Social workers or nurse navigators most frequently lead financial navigation. Oncologists and clinical provider teams are multidisciplinary partners who can support optimal FT management in the context of their clinical roles. Oncologists and clinical provider teams can proactively assess patient concerns about the financial hardship and employment effects of disease and treatment. They can respond by streamlining clinical treatment and care delivery planning and incorporating FT concerns into comprehensive goals of care discussions and coordinated symptom and psychosocial care. By understanding how age and life stage, socioeconomic, and cultural factors modify FT trajectory, oncologists and multidisciplinary health care teams can be engaged and informative in patient-centered, tailored FT management. The case presentations in this report provide a practical context to summarize authors' recommendations for patient-level FT management, supported by a review of key supporting evidence and a discussion of challenges to mitigating FT in oncology care. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:437-453.

Improving patient and caregiver outcomes in oncology: Team-based, timely, and targeted palliative care.

Over the past decade, a large body of evidence has accumulated supporting the integration of palliative care into oncology practice for patients with advanced cancer. The question is no longer whether palliative care should be offered, but what is the optimal model of delivery, when is the ideal time to refer, who is in greatest need of a referral, and how much palliative care should oncologists themselves be providing. These questions are particularly relevant given the scarcity of palliative care resources internationally. In this state-of-the-science review directed at the practicing cancer clinician, the authors first discuss the contemporary literature examining the impact of specialist palliative care on various health outcomes. Then, conceptual models are provided to support team-based, timely, and targeted palliative care. Team-based palliative care allows the interdisciplinary members to address comprehensively the multidimensional care needs of patients and their caregivers. Timely palliative care, at its best, is preventive care to minimize crises at the end of life. Targeted palliative care involves identifying the patients most likely to benefit from specialist palliative care interventions, akin to the concept of targeted cancer therapies. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of innovative care models, such as outpatient clinics, embedded clinics, nurse-led palliative care, primary palliative care provided by oncology teams, and automatic referral, are summarized. Moving forward, more research is needed to determine how different health systems can best personalize palliative care to provide the right level of intervention, for the right patient, in the right setting, at the right time. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;680:00-00. 2018 American Cancer Society, Inc.

Third Report of the Japan Diabetes Society/Japanese Cancer Association Joint Committee on Diabetes and Cancer: Summary of the results of a questionnaire survey of oncologists and diabetologists-Secondary publication.

The Japan Diabetes Society and the Japan Cancer Association launched a joint committee and published their "First Joint Committee Report on Diabetes and Cancer" in 2013, compiling recommendations for physicians and health-care providers as well as for the general population. In 2016, the "Second Joint Committee Report on Diabetes and Cancer" summarized the current evidence on glycemic control and cancer risk in patients with diabetes. The current "Third Joint Committee Report on Diabetes and Cancer", for which the joint committee also enlisted the assistance of the Japanese Society of Clinical Oncology and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology, reports on the results from the questionnaire survey, "Diabetes Management in Patients Receiving Cancer Therapy," which targeted oncologists responsible for cancer management and diabetologists in charge of glycemic control in cancer patients. The results of the current survey indicated that there is a general consensus among oncologists and diabetologists with regard to the need for guidelines on glycemic control goals, the relevance of glycemic control, and glycemic control during cancer therapy in cancer patients.

Evaluating Oncologists' Practice Patterns and Decision-Making in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: The US Physician PARADIGM Study.

BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) has evolved. This study examined US prescribing patterns and clinical decision-making for first-line (1L) and first-line maintenance (1LM) treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: US-based oncologists (N = 150) completed an online survey on patient demographics, practice patterns, and important factors considered in 1L/1LM selection. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with more vs less frequent 1L/1LM prescribing. RESULTS: Physician reports estimated that 23% of patients with la/mUC had not received any systemic therapy in the previous 6 months; however, 46% received 1L, 32% received second-line, and 22% received subsequent-line systemic treatments. Of patients who were receiving 1L treatment, 72% were estimated to be receiving 1L platinum-based chemotherapy. Around 69% of patients eligible for 1LM received the treatment. Physicians categorized as frequent prescribers reported overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), and rate of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) as factors associated with 1L treatment selection (all P < .05). OS, rate of grade 3/4 immune-mediated AEs, and inclusion in institutional guidelines were reported as attributes used in 1LM treatment selection (all P < .05). Multivariable analysis revealed OS, DCR, and rate of grade 3/4 AEs as important factors in oncologists' 1L treatment selection; academic practice setting and use of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 were associated with 1LM use (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: OS and AEs were found to be relevant factors associated with offering 1L and 1LM treatment. Variability exists in physicians' decision-making in the real-world setting for la/mUC.

Physicians' Hierarchy of Tumor Biomarkers for Optimizing Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Tumor biomarkers are regularly used to guide breast cancer treatment and clinical trial enrollment. However, there remains a lack of knowledge regarding physicians' perspectives towards biomarkers and their role in treatment optimization, where treatment intensity is reduced to minimize toxicity. METHODS: Thirty-nine academic and community oncologists participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews, providing perspectives on optimization approaches to chemotherapy treatment. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by 2 independent coders utilizing a constant comparative method in NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. A framework outlining physicians' conception of biomarkers, and their comfortability with their use in treatment optimization, was developed. RESULTS: In the hierarchal model of biomarkers, level 1 is comprised of standard-of-care (SoC) biomarkers, defined by a strong level of evidence, alignment with national guidelines, and widespread utilization. Level 2 includes SoC biomarkers used in alternative contexts, in which physicians expressed confidence, yet less certainty, due to a lack of data in certain subgroups. Level 3, or experimental, biomarkers created the most diverse concerns related to quality and quantity of evidence, with several additional modulators. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that physicians conceptualize the use of biomarkers for treatment optimization in successive levels. This hierarchy can be used to guide trialists in the development of novel biomarkers and design of future trials.

Comparison of Outcomes in Bowel Resections by Gynecologic Oncologists Versus General Surgeons During Maximal Cytoreductive Surgery for Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Research Investigators Collaboration Study (GORILLA-3006).

BACKGROUND: This report describes the oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had bowel surgery performed by gynecologic oncologists (GOs) and compares the outcomes with those for bowel surgery performed by general surgeons (GSs) during maximal cytoreductive surgery. METHODS: Patients from six academic institutions who had FIGO stage III or IV ovarian cancer and underwent any bowel surgeries during maximal cytoreductive surgery were eligible for the study. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether bowel surgery was performed by a GO or a GS. In both groups, the GOs were mainly involved in extra bowel debulking procedures. Perioperative and survival outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The 761 patients in this study included 113 patients who underwent bowel surgery by a GO and 648 who had bowel surgery by a GS. No discernible differences were observed in age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, FIGO stage, histologic type, timing of cytoreductive surgery (primary or interval debulking surgery), or complications between the two groups. The GO group exhibited a shorter operation time than the GS group. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no survival differences between the two groups. In the Cox analysis, non-serous cell types and gross residual diseases were associated with adverse effects on overall survival. However, performance of bowel surgery by a GO did not have an impact on survival. CONCLUSION: Performance of bowel surgery by a GO during maximal cytoreductive surgery is both feasible and safe. These results should be reflected in the training system for GOs regarding bowel surgery, and further research is needed to confirm that GOs can play a more leading role in performing extra-uterine procedures.

Variations in Patterns of Prescribing Durvalumab in Stage III Lung Cancer: A Survey of Australian Medical Oncologists.

INTRODUCTION: Local Australian guidelines for the optimal management of stage III unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are lacking. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines recommend consolidation durvalumab for all patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC, irrespective of their PD-L1 expression or driver mutation status. The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) differs, with consolidation durvalumab only recommended in those patients whose tumours express PD-L1. METHODS: Due to differing global guidelines, we conducted an Australia and New Zealand wide survey of medical oncologists specialising in thoracic cancer to determine the variations in patterns of prescribing durvalumab in stage III unresectable NSCLC. This survey was done electronically and sponsored by the Thoracic Oncology Group of Australia (TOGA). RESULTS: Thirty-two medical oncologists completed the survey. In patients with EGFR-mutated stage III unresectable NSCLC, 6% of respondents stated that they prescribed durvalumab for all patients, while an additional 6% strongly recommended treatment. Forty-four percent suggested little benefit of consolidation durvalumab in this cohort, with an additional 19% advocating for observation only. In patients with PD-L1 negative (0%) stage III unresectable NSCLC, 13% of respondents prescribed durvalumab for all patients, while an additional 56% strongly recommended treatment. Interestingly, 18%, 10%, and 10% of prescribers discussed self-funded oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with EGFR, ALK, or ROS-1-mutated NSCLC respectively as a substitute for consolidation durvalumab. CONCLUSION: Overall, the clinical practice of Australian and New Zealand Medical Oncologists is variable, but remains consistent with either the ASCO or ESMO guidelines. Local practice guidelines are required to ensure consistency in prescribing patterns across Australia, as well as providing evidence for self-funded treatments outside standard of care.

Oncologists' perceptions of tumor genomic profiling and barriers to communicating secondary hereditary risks to African American cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) identifies targets for precision cancer treatments, but also secondary hereditary risks. Oncologists are poorly trained to communicate the results of TGP, especially among patients with lower health literacy, poorer genetics knowledge, and higher mistrust. African American (AA) patients are especially vulnerable to poor understanding due to significant cancer disparities and lower uptake of TGP. The goal of this research is to inform the development of an internet-based brief educational support for oncologists to prepare them to provide better decisional support related to TGP for their AA cancer patients. METHODS: This mixed-methods study used semi-structured interviews of oncologists to inform development of an online survey with a convenience sample of US-based oncologists (n = 50) to assess perceptions of the challenges of TGP and communicating results to AA patients. RESULTS: Most interviewed oncologists felt it was important to consider racial/cultural differences when communicating about hereditary risks. Cost, family dynamics, discrimination concerns, and medical mistrust were identified as particularly salient. Survey respondents' views related to AAs and perceptions of TGP were strongly associated with years since completing training, with recent graduates expressing stronger agreement with statements identifying barriers/disadvantages to TGP for AA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists who had more recently completed training expressed more negative perceptions of TGP and more perceived challenges in communicating about TGP with their AA patients. Focused training for oncologists that addresses barriers specific to AAs may be helpful in supporting improved communication about TGP and improved decisional support for AA patients with cancer considering TGP to evaluate their tumors.

Shifting trends and sicker patients: Reassessing hysterectomy performed for benign indications by gynecologic oncologists.

OBJECTIVE: To assess trends and differences in patient characteristics, complications, and distributions of hysterectomy for benign indications by benign gynecologists (BG) and gynecologic oncologists (GO). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data from 2014 to 2021. Exclusions were made for gynecologic or disseminated cancers, ascites, non-gynecologic surgeons, and cesarean hysterectomies. Primary outcome was major (≥Grade 3) 30-day complications, categorized into any complications, wound, cardiovascular and pulmonary, renal, infectious, andthromboembolic complications. Thirty-day readmissions, reoperations, and mortality were also analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 match of GO to BG patients and was compared. Linear regressions assessed trends. RESULTS: Among 198,767 patients, 18% (n = 37,707) underwent hysterectomy for benign indications with GO. GO patients exhibited more risk factors for complications and differed significantly from BG patients in comorbidities and perioperative characteristics. Overall, GO patients had higher major complication rates (3.1% vs 2.2%, p < 0.001) and for several other composite complications. After matching, compared to BG, GO-performed hysterectomies had similar rates of major complications (3.0% vs 3.0%, p = 0.55) and no differences in other composite complications, except fewer reoperations (1.2 % vs 1.5%, p < 0.01) and wound complications (0.4% vs 0.5%, p = 0.02) in GO patients. Over the eight years, the percentage of GO-performed hysterectomy (ß = 0.41, R2 = 0.71,p < 0.01) increased significantly whereas BG-performed surgeries decreased by the same magnitude. BG had a significant decrease in frail patients (ß = -0.47, R2 = 0.90, p < 0.01), but GO did not (ß = -0.36, R2 = 0.38, p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: GO are performing more hysterectomies for benign indications on higher-risk patients. However, on a matched cohort, risks of major complications were similar between GO and BG.

System-level recommendations for improved wellness for gynecologic oncologists: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology Review.

Burnout and its negative sequelae are a persistent problem in gynecologic oncology, threatening the health of our physician workforce. Individual-level interventions such as stress management training, physical activity, and sleep hygiene only partially address this widespread, systemic crisis rooted in the extended work hours and stressful situations associated with gynecologic oncology practice. There is an urgent need for systematic, institution-level changes to allow gynecologic oncologists to continue the crucial work of caring for people with gynecologic cancer. We present recommendations for institution-level changes which are grounded in the framework presented by the National Plan for Health Workforce Well-Being by the National Academy of Medicine. These are aimed at facilitating gynecologic oncologists' well-being and reduction of burnout. Recommendations include efforts to create a more positive and inclusive work environment, decrease administrative barriers, promote mental health, optimize electronic medical record use, and support a diverse workforce. Implementation and regular evaluation of these interventions, with specific attention to at-risk groups, is an important next step.

The role of surgeon specialty in management and survival of malignant ovarian germ cell tumors: A population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe management and survival in adult patients with malignant ovarian germ cell tumors (MOGCT) undergoing surgery by general gynecologists (GG) versus gynecologic oncologists (GO). METHODS: This is a population-based retrospective cohort study, including patients (age ≥ 18 years old) with MOGCT identified in the provincial cancer registry of Ontario, (1996-2020). Baseline characteristics, surgical and chemotherapy treatment were compared between those with surgery by GG or GO. Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model was used to determine if surgeon specialty was associated with overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 363 patients were included. One-hundred and sixty (44%) underwent surgery by GO and 203 (56%) by GG. There were higher rates of stage II-IV in the GO group (27.5% vs 3.9%, p < 0.001, and higher proportion of chemotherapy (64.4% vs 37.4%, p < 0.0001). Five-year OS was 90% and 93% in the GO vs GG groups, respectively (p = 0.39). CPH model showed factors associated with increased risk of death were older age at diagnosis (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.07-1.12) and chemotherapy (HR 3.12, 95% CI 1.44-6.75). Surgeon specialty was not independently associated with all-cause death (HR 1.04, 95% 0.51-2.15, p = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: In this group of MOGCT, 5-year OS was not significantly different between patients having surgery by GO compared to GG. Nevertheless, survival rates were lower than expected in the GG group despite their low-risk features. Further exploration is warranted regarding the reasons for this and whether patients with suspected MOGCT may benefit from early assessment by GO for optimal management.

Oncologist Perceptions of Racial Disparity, Racial Anxiety, and Unconscious Bias in Clinical Interactions, Treatment, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Cancer spares no demographic or socioeconomic group; it is indeed the great equalizer. But its distribution is not equal; when structural discrimination concentrates poverty and race, zip code surpasses genetic code in predicting outcomes. Compared with White patients in the United States, Black patients are less likely to receive appropriate treatment and referral to clinical trials, genetic testing, or palliative care/hospice. METHODS: In 2021, we administered a survey to 369 oncologists measuring differences in perceptions surrounding racial disparity, racial anxiety, and unconscious bias and adverse influence on clinical interactions, treatment, and outcomes for non-White patients. We analyzed responses by generational age group, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, US region, and selection of "decline to respond." RESULTS: The most significant differences occurred by age group followed by race/ethnicity. Racial disparity was perceived as moderate to very high by 84% of millennial, 69% of Generation X, and 57% of baby boomer oncologists, who were also 86% more likely than millennials and 63% more likely than Generation Xers to perceive low/nonexistent levels of racial anxiety/unconscious bias. CONCLUSIONS: Most oncologists rarely or never perceived racial anxiety/unconscious bias as adversely influencing clinical treatment or survival outcomes in non-White patients, and White oncologists were 85% more likely than non-White oncologists to perceive rare/nonexistent influence on referral of non-White patients to palliative care/hospice. The discrepancy between 62% of oncologists perceiving moderate to very high levels of racial anxiety/unconscious bias and 37% associating them with adverse influence on non-White patients shows a disconnect, especially among older oncologists (baby boomers), who were also least likely to select the decline option. Together, these factors hinder effective patient-provider communication and result in differential care and outcomes. Oncologists should uncover their own perceptions surrounding racial disparity, racial anxiety, and unconscious bias and modify their behaviors accordingly. It is this simple-and this complicated. Cancer does not discriminate, and neither should cancer care.

The Association of Oncology Provider Density With Black-White Disparities in Cancer Mortality in US Counties.

BACKGROUND: Black-White racial disparities in cancer mortality are well-documented in the US. Given the estimated shortage of oncologists over the next decade, understanding how access to oncology care might influence cancer disparities is of considerable importance. We aim to examine the association between oncology provider density in a county and Black-White cancer mortality disparities. METHODS: An ecological study of 1048 US counties was performed. Oncology provider density was estimated using the 2013 National Plan and Provider Enumeration System data. Black:White cancer mortality ratio was calculated using 2014-2018 age-standardized cancer mortality rates from State Cancer Profiles. Linear regression with covariate adjustment was constructed to assess the association of provider density with (1) Black:White cancer mortality ratio, and (2) cancer mortality rates overall, and separately among Black and White persons. RESULTS: The mean Black:White cancer mortality ratio was 1.12, indicating that cancer mortality rate among Black persons was on average 12% higher than that among White persons. Oncology provider density was significantly associated with greater cancer mortality disparities: every 5 additional oncology providers per 100 000 in a county was associated with a .02 increase in the Black:White cancer mortality ratio (95% CI: .007 to .03); however, the unexpected finding may be explained by further analysis showing that the relationship between oncology provider density and cancer mortality was different by race group. Every 5 additional oncologists per 100 000 was associated with a 1.6 decrease per 100 000 in cancer mortality rates among White persons (95% CI: -3.0 to -.2), whereas oncology provider density was not associated with cancer mortality among Black persons. CONCLUSION: Greater oncology provider density was associated with significantly lower cancer mortality among White persons, but not among Black persons. Higher oncology provider density alone may not resolve cancer mortality disparities, thus attention to ensuring equitable care is critical.

Our study provides timely information to address the growing concern about the need to increase oncology supply and the impact it might have on racial disparities in cancer outcomes. This analysis of counties across the US is the first study to estimate the association of oncology provider density with Black-White racial disparities in cancer mortality. We show that having more oncology providers in a county is associated with significantly lower cancer mortality among the White population, but is not associated with cancer mortality among the Black population, thereby leading to a disparity. Our findings suggest that having more oncology providers alone may be insufficient to overcome existing disadvantages for Black patients to access and use high-quality cancer care. These findings have important implications for addressing racial disparities in cancer outcomes that are persistent and well-documented in the US.

Supporting the support person: Oncologists' roles in reducing support people's uncertainty and facilitating psychological adjustment.

OBJECTIVE: Support people of cancer patients are at significant risk for psychological distress. Additionally, cancer patients' well-being is reciprocally associated with support peoples' psychological well-being. Informed by Uncertainty in Illness Theory, this study tests whether support person psychological well-being is influenced by provider communication and uncertainty reduction. METHODS: We tested a multiple mediation model to investigate how empathic communication facilitates psychological adjustment in support people of cancer patients and how this process is mediated by support peoples' illness uncertainty and caregiver burden. Support people of cancer patients (N = 121; including spouses, adult children, etc.) completed an online questionnaire about their perceptions of oncologists' empathy, uncertainty about the cancer patients' illness, perceived caregiving burden, and their psychological adjustment to diagnoses. RESULTS: Path analysis revealed that (1) more perceived oncologist empathy was associated with less illness uncertainty, (2) more illness uncertainty was associated with worse psychological adjustment and more perceived caregiver burden, and (3) more burden was associated with worse adjustment (χ2 (2) = 1.19, p = 0.55; RMSEA < 0.01; CFI = 1.00; SRMR = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Given the reciprocal nature of well-being between cancer patients and their support people, it is critical to understand and bolster support people's psychological well-being. Results demonstrated how empathic provider communication can support psychological well-being for support people of cancer patients. Additionally, this study offers theoretical contributions to understandings of illness uncertainty in caregiver populations.

Psycho-oncologists' experiences with video consultations during the Covid-19 pandemic and implications for the future-a multi-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: During the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been a substantial uptake of telemental health interventions. Consequently, the objective of this study was to assess psycho-oncologists' attitudes toward and experiences with video consultations (VC) since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. Additionally, we sought to investigate psycho-oncologists' perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of VC and its' potential implementation beyond the pandemic. METHODS: We used a multi-methods study design. First, semi-structured interviews with psycho-oncologists (N = 6) were conducted to inform the development of a cross-sectional online survey, which represented the quantitative part of our study. We invited psycho-oncologists, working in different settings, from all over Germany to participate. RESULTS: Data of N = 217 participants (88% female, 49% over 10 years work experience) of the online survey was analyzed. Psycho-oncologists' acceptance toward VC was average to high. In their daily practice, they preferred in-person consultations. Improved access to care and enhanced flexibility were seen as main advantages. The most significant disadvantages included technical issues, privacy concerns at home, loss of non-verbal cues and absence of physical presence for emotional support. Nevertheless, on average, psycho-oncologists wanted to continue seeing approximately 25% of their patients via VC in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Given the average to high acceptance of VC among psycho-oncologists and their desire to continue using VC flexibly even after the pandemic, it may be beneficial to implement VC into future psycho-oncology services. Still, future research should focus on the patients' perspective and the effectiveness of VC in psycho-oncology services.

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.

2023 Radiation oncology highlights.

Radiation oncology plays an important role in the local treatment of cancers. Understanding recent advances in the application of radiation therapy to solid tumors is important for all disciplines. The radiation oncology section editors for this journal have selected the following articles for their overall significance, relevance to surgical oncologists, and to illustrate important concepts within the practice of radiation oncology.

Diagnostic Imaging for Retinoblastoma Cancer Staging: Guide for Providing Essential Insights for Ophthalmologists and Oncologists.

Retinoblastoma is the most common cause of all intraocular pediatric malignancies. It is caused by the loss of RB1 tumor suppressor gene function, although some tumors occur due to MYCN oncogene amplification with normal RB1 genes. Nearly half of all retinoblastomas occur due to a hereditary germline RB1 pathogenic variant, most of which manifest with bilateral tumors. This germline RB1 mutation also predisposes to intracranial midline embryonal tumors. Accurate staging of retinoblastoma is crucial in providing optimal vision-, eye-, and life-saving treatment. The AJCC Cancer Staging Manual has undergone significant changes, resulting in a universally accepted system with a multidisciplinary approach for managing retinoblastoma. The authors discuss the role of MRI and other diagnostic imaging techniques in the pretreatment assessment and staging of retinoblastoma. A thorough overview of the prevailing imaging standards and evidence-based perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of these techniques is provided. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

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.

Experiences of treatment decision-making among older newly diagnosed adults with acute myeloid leukemia: a qualitative descriptive study.

PURPOSE: Treatment decision-making for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is complex and preference-sensitive. We sought to understand the patient experience of treatment decision-making to identify specific challenges in shared decision-making to improve clinical care and to inform the development of directed interventions. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with newly diagnosed older (≥ 60 years) adults with AML and their caregivers following a semi-structured interview guide at a public safety net academic hospital. Interviews were digitally recorded, and qualitative thematic analysis was employed to synthesize findings. RESULTS: Eighteen in-depth interviews were conducted. Age ranged from 62 to 78 years. Patients received intermediate- (50%) or high-intensity (44%) chemotherapy or best supportive care only (6%). Six themes of patient experiences emerged from the analysis: patients (1) felt overwhelmed and in shock at diagnosis, (2) felt powerless to make decisions, (3) felt rushed and unprepared to make a treatment decision, (4) desired to follow oncologist recommendations for treatment, (5) balanced multiple competing factors during treatment decision-making, and (6) desired for ongoing engagement into their care planning. Patients reported many treatment outcomes that were important in treatment decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with newly diagnosed AML feel devastated and in shock at their diagnosis which appears to contribute to a feeling of being overwhelmed, unprepared, and rushed into treatment decisions. Because no one factor dominated treatment decision-making for all patients, the use of strategies to elicit individual patient preferences is critical to inform treatment decisions. Interventions are needed to reduce distress and increase a sense of participation in treatment decision-making.