Factors Associated With Accuracy of Self-Assessment Compared With Tested Non-English Language Proficiency Among Primary Care Providers.

BACKGROUND: There are no accepted best practices for clinicians to report their non-English language (NEL) fluencies. Language discordance between patients with limited English proficiency and their clinicians may contribute to suboptimal quality of care. OBJECTIVES: To compare self-assessed clinician NEL proficiency with a validated oral language proficiency test. To identify clinician characteristics associated with self-assessment accuracy. SUBJECTS: Primary care providers from California and Massachusetts. RESEARCH DESIGN: We surveyed 98 clinicians about demographics and their NEL self-assessment using an adapted version of the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale followed by an oral proficiency interview: The Clinician Cultural and Linguistic Assessment (CCLA). We compared the ILR to the CCLA and analyzed factors associated with the accuracy of self-assessment. RESULTS: Ninety-eight primary care providers participated: 75.5% were women, 62.2% were white, and Spanish was the most common NEL reported (81.6%). The average CCLA score was 78/100 with a 70% passing-rate. There was a moderate correlation between the ILR and CCLA (0.512; P<0.0001). Participants whose self-reported levels were "fair" and "poor" had a 0% pass-rate and 100% who self-reported "excellent" passed the CCLA. Middle ILR levels showed a wider variance. Clinicians who reported a NEL other than Spanish and whose first language was not English were more likely to accurately self-assess their abilities. CONCLUSIONS: Self-assessment showed a moderate correlation with the validated CCLA test. Additional testing may be required for clinicians at the middle levels. Clinicians whose native languages were not English and those using languages other than Spanish with patients may be more accurate in their self-assessment.

Targeting tumor vasculature through oncolytic virotherapy: recent advances.

The oncolytic virotherapy field has made significant advances in the last decade, with a rapidly increasing number of early- and late-stage clinical trials, some of them showing safety and promising therapeutic efficacy. Targeting tumor vasculature by oncolytic viruses (OVs) is an attractive strategy that offers several advantages over nontargeted viruses, including improved tumor viral entry, direct antivascular effects, and enhanced antitumor efficacy. Current understanding of the biological mechanisms of tumor neovascularization, novel vascular targets, and mechanisms of resistance has allowed the development of oncolytic viral vectors designed to target tumor neovessels. While some OVs (such as vaccinia and vesicular stomatitis virus) can intrinsically target tumor vasculature and induce vascular disruption, the majority of reported vascular-targeted viruses are the result of genetic manipulation of their viral genomes. Such strategies include transcriptional or transductional endothelial targeting, "armed" viruses able to downregulate angiogenic factors, or to express antiangiogenic molecules. The above strategies have shown preclinical safety and improved antitumor efficacy, either alone, or in combination with standard or targeted agents. This review focuses on the recent efforts toward the development of vascular-targeted OVs for cancer treatment and provides a translational/clinical perspective into the future development of new generation biological agents for human cancers.