Management of testicular germ cell tumors.

Over the past half century, advancements in treatment have led to cures in an overwhelming majority of patients with testicular germ cell tumors. Astute clinical decision-making, informed by the abundant data from published clinical trials, is essential for achieving a cure whenever possible and minimizing the toxicity of treatment. Important remaining challenges include reducing the risk of secondary malignancies and other late effects of chemotherapy and radiation therapy, and developing curative treatments for patients with cancer that is refractory to current therapies. This article reviews the current treatment landscape and highlights recent discoveries in diagnosis and staging, emerging biomarkers for disease, and treatment for relapsed/refractory disease. Treatment algorithms for testis cancer are complex and clinicians should apply them carefully, not only to optimize shortterm, disease-related outcomes, but also to maximize long-term survival and quality of life.

Practice Variation in Vena Cava Filter Use Among Trauma Centers in the National Trauma Database.

BACKGROUND: Agreement regarding indications for vena cava filter (VCF) utilization in trauma patients has been in flux since the filter's introduction. As VCF technology and practice guidelines have evolved, the use of VCF in trauma patients has changed. This study examines variation in VCF placement among trauma centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed using data from the National Trauma Data Bank (2005-2014). Trauma centers were grouped according to whether they placed VCFs during the study period (VCF+/VCF-). A multivariable probit regression model was fit to predict the number of VCFs used among the VCF+ centers (the expected [E] number of VCF per center). The ratio of observed VCF placement (O) to expected VCFs (O:E) was computed and rank ordered to compare interfacility practice variation. RESULTS: In total, 65,482 VCFs were placed by 448 centers. Twenty centers (4.3%) placed no VCFs. The greatest predictors of VCF placement were deep vein thrombosis, spinal cord paralysis, and major procedure. The strongest negative predictor of VCF placement was admission during the year 2014. Among the VCF+ centers, O:E varied by nearly 500%. One hundred fifty centers had an O:E greater than one. One hundred sixty-nine centers had an O:E less than one. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation in practice is present in VCF placement. This variation cannot be explained only by the characteristics of the patients treated at these centers but could be also due to conflicting guidelines, changing evidence, decreasing reimbursement rates, or the culture of trauma centers.

Individualised axitinib regimen for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma after treatment with checkpoint inhibitors: a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitor therapy is a standard of care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Treatment options after checkpoint inhibitor therapy include vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGF-R) tyrosine kinase inhibitors, although no prospective data regarding their use in this setting exist. Axitinib is a VEGF-R inhibitor with clinical data supporting increased activity with dose titration. We aimed to investigate the activity of dose titrated axitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were previously treated with checkpoint inhibitor. METHODS: We did a multicentre, phase 2 trial of axitinib given on an individualised dosing algorithm. Patients at least 18 years of age with histologically or cytologically confirmed locally recurrent or metastatic renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology, a Karnofsky Performance Status of 70% or more, and measurable disease who received checkpoint inhibitor therapy as the most recent treatment were eligible. There was no limit on number of previous therapies received. Patients received oral axitinib at a starting dose of 5 mg twice daily with dose titration every 14 days in 1 mg increments (ie, 5 mg twice daily to 6 mg twice daily, up to 10 mg twice daily maximum dose) if there was no axitinib-related grade 2 or higher mucositis, diarrhoea, hand-foot syndrome, or fatigue. If one or more of these grade 2 adverse events occurred, axitinib was withheld for 3 days before the same dose was resumed. Dose reductions were made if recurrent grade 2 adverse events despite treatment breaks or grade 3-4 adverse events occurred. The primary outcome was progression-free survival. Analyses were done per protocol in all patients who received at least one dose of axitinib. Recruitment has been completed and the trial is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClincalTrials.gov, number NCT02579811. FINDINGS: Between Jan 5, 2016 and Feb 21, 2018, 40 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of study treatment. With a median follow-up of 8·7 months (IQR 3·7-14·2), the median progression-free survival was 8·8 months (95% CI 5·7-16·6). Fatigue (83%) and hypertension (75%) were the most common all-grade adverse events. The most common grade 3 adverse event was hypertension (24 patients [60%]). There was one (3%) grade 4 adverse event (elevated lipase) and no treatment-related deaths occurred. Serious adverse events that were likely related to therapy occurred in eight (20%) patients; the most common were dehydration (n=4) and diarrhoea (n=2). INTERPRETATION: Individualised axitinib dosing in patients with metastatic renal cell inoma previously treated with checkpoint inhibitors did not meet the prespecified threshold for progression free survival, but these data show that this individualised titration scheme is feasible and has robust clinical activity. These prospective results warrant consideration of axitinib in this setting. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Early Stage Testicular Cancer: AUA Guideline.

PURPOSE: Testis cancer is the most common solid malignancy in young males. The purpose of this guideline is to provide a useful reference on the effective evidence-based treatment of early stage testicular cancer. METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by a methodology team at the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center. The methodology team searched using PubMed®, Embase®, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from January 1980 through August 2018. The evidence review team also reviewed relevant systematic reviews and references provided by the panel to identify articles that may have been missed by the database searches. RESULTS: When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low). Such evidence-based statements are provided as Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In instances of insufficient evidence, additional guidance is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to evaluate and treat patients with testicular cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve level of care for these patients.

Challenges With the 8th Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual for Breast, Testicular, and Head and Neck Cancers.

Three experts discussed changes in the 8th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual and challenges regarding these changes for staging of breast cancer, testicular cancer, and head and neck cancer, respectively. In general, the staging changes for breast cancer and for human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer were hailed as improvements, but the changes for testicular cancer were questioned as to their clinical relevance. Better studies are needed to improve staging for human papillomavirus-negative oropharyngeal cancer.

Testicular Cancer, Version 2.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Testicular cancer is relatively uncommon and accounts for <1% of all male tumors. However, it is the most common solid tumor in men between the ages of 20 and 34 years, and the global incidence has been steadily rising over the past several decades. Several risk factors for testicular cancer have been identified, including personal or family history of testicular cancer and cryptorchidism. Testicular germ cell tumors (GCTs) comprise 95% of malignant tumors arising in the testes and are categorized into 2 main histologic subtypes: seminoma and nonseminoma. Although nonseminoma is the more clinically aggressive tumor subtype, 5-year survival rates exceed 70% with current treatment options, even in patients with advanced or metastatic disease. Radical inguinal orchiectomy is the primary treatment for most patients with testicular GCTs. Postorchiectomy management is dictated by stage, histology, and risk classification; treatment options for nonseminoma include surveillance, systemic therapy, and nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Although rarely occurring, prognosis for patients with brain metastases remains poor, with >50% of patients dying within 1 year of diagnosis. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Testicular Cancer focuses on recommendations for the management of adult patients with nonseminomatous GCTs.

Treatment selection for men with metastatic prostate cancer who progress on upfront chemo-hormonal therapy.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel (D-ADT) increases overall survival (OS) in men with high-volume, metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Although the vast majority of men initially respond to D-ADT, most will progress and develop castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Little is known about the optimal treatment sequence for men with progressive disease on D-ADT. PATIENT AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive mHSPC patients treated with ≥3 cycles of D-ADT at Cleveland Clinic and University of Wisconsin-Madison was undertaken. The primary end-points included radiographic progression free survival (rPFS) and OS with first-line treatment for metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). RESULTS: Final analysis included 136 patients, median age 65 (range 35-86), 77% GS ≥ 8, and 79% with high-volume disease who received ≥3 cycles of docetaxel. Undetectable PSA values at 12 and 24 months were observed in 32% and 25% of patients, respectively. Median time to CRPC (biochemical, clinical, or radiographic) was 19.6 months (16.6-22.6). Sixty patients (44%) received ≥1 treatment for CRPC: 48 patients (80%) received a second-generation hormonal therapy (sHT). Among these, 22 received abiraterone acetate, 20 enzalutamide, and six a novel CYP-17 inhibitor on trial (ASN-001). Five patients (8%) received sipuleucel-T; four (7%) radium-223, five (8%) chemotherapy (two carboplatin-based, two single agent cabazitaxel, one single agent docetaxel) and three other. Patients receiving sHT as the first treatment for mCRPC had a median rPFS of 9.0 months (95%CI, 6.9-11.2) compared with 3.0 months (95%CI, 1.5-4.5) for patients who received a non-sHT (P = 0.024). The choice of first therapy for mCRPC was independent of GS (P = 0.909), visceral disease (P = 0.690) and time to CRPC (P = 0.844). Longer OS correlated with time to CRPC (P = 0.010) and first treatment for CRPC with sHT (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with progressive disease on D-ADT, subsequent treatment with a sHT is associated with a longer rPFS and OS.

The efficacy of VEGFR TKI therapy after progression on immune combination therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of patients who progress on front-line immune-based combination regimens (IC) including immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) and receive subsequent systemic therapy is unknown. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with clear-cell mRCC who progressed on one of seven clinical trials investigating an IC and received ≥1 line of subsequent VEGFR TKI therapy. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients [median age 57 (37-77), 85% male, 73% ECOG 0] were included. For evaluable patients (N = 28), the best response to first subsequent therapy was 29% partial response, 54% stable disease, and 18% progressive disease. The median PFS (mPFS) for first subsequent therapy was 6.4 months (95% CI, 4.4-8.4); no difference in mPFS by prior type of IC (VEGFR TKI-CPI vs. CPI-CPI) was noted (p = 0.310). Significant AEs were observed in 30% of patients, more frequently transaminitis (9%). CONCLUSIONS: VEGFR TKIs have clinical activity in mRCC refractory to IC therapy, possibly impacted by the mechanism of prior combination therapy.

A Phase II Study of Pazopanib in Patients with Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma to Optimize Preservation of Renal Parenchyma.

PURPOSE: Preservation of renal function is prioritized during surgical management of localized renal cell carcinoma. VEGF targeted agents can downsize tumors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma and may do the same in localized renal cell carcinoma, allowing for optimal preservation of renal parenchyma associated with partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma patients meeting 1 or both of the following criteria were enrolled in a prospective phase II trial, including radical or partial nephrectomy likely to yield a glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 ml/minute/1.73 m(2), or partial nephrectomy high risk due to high complexity (R.E.N.A.L. 10 to 12) or tumor adjacent to hilar vessels. Pazopanib (800 mg once daily) was administered for 8 to 16 weeks with repeat imaging at completion of therapy, followed by surgery. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients enrolled with a median tumor size of 7.3 cm and a median R.E.N.A.L. score of 11. Of index lesions 80% were high complexity and 56% of patients had a solitary kidney. Patients received a median of 8 weeks of pazopanib. The median interval from treatment start to surgery was 10.6 weeks. R.E.N.A.L. score decreased in 71% of tumors and 92% of patients experienced a reduction in tumor volume. Six of 13 patients for whom partial nephrectomy was not possible at baseline were able to undergo partial nephrectomy after treatment. The mean parenchymal volume that could be saved with surgery increased from an estimated 107 to 173 cc (p = 0.0015). In 5 patients a urine leak developed, which was managed conservatively, and 7 received a transfusion, of whom 1 required embolization. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant pazopanib resulted in downsizing localized renal cell carcinoma, allowing for improved preservation of renal parenchyma and enabling partial nephrectomy in a select subset of patients who would otherwise require radical nephrectomy.

Knuckleheads.

Partnering with patients who reject our recommended treatment: how to understand what our patients are going through.

Clinical Outcomes for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) Patients Ineligible for Front-line Clinical Trials.

Clinical trials for immunotherapy-based regimens in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have extensive inclusion and exclusion criteria. We investigated the clinical outcomes in a real-world cohort of patients who would not have met the criteria for inclusion in front-line mRCC trials. Patients treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab and axitinib/pembrolizumab for front-line mRCC were identified and divided into clinical trial eligible (CTE) and clinical trial ineligible (CTI) cohorts based on key inclusion or exclusion criteria from their respective Phase-3 registration trials. Clinical outcomes were compared in CTE and CTI cohorts. A total of 62 patients treated with axitinib/pembrolizumab and 103 treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab were identified. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria were similar across CTE and CTI patients in axitinib/pembrolizumab and ipilimumab/nivolumab cohorts. In the axitinib/pembrolizumab cohort (n = 62), 24 (39%) patients were CTI. The major reasons for the ineligibility were lab abnormalities (n = 11), histology (n = 9), and brain metastases (n = 3). There was no significant difference in response rates (P = 0.08). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was numerically longer in CTE patients (28 vs 12 months; P = 0.09). The overall survival (OS) was higher in the CTE patients (P = 0.02). In the ipilimumab/nivolumab cohort (n = 103), 59 (57%) were CTI. The most common reasons for ineligibility were brain metastases (n = 18), lab abnormalities (n = 16), and histology (n = 16). There was no significant difference in response rates (P = 0.22). However, PFS (P = 0.003) and OS (P < 0.0001) were higher in the CTE patients. In conclusion, many real-world patients are ineligible for RCC clinical trials and had worse outcomes when compared to trial-eligible patients. Additional treatment options are needed for these patients, as well as strategies to include them in prospective trials.

Risk of Thromboembolism in Patients Receiving Immunotherapy-Based Combinations as Front-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with treatment-naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) receive combination-based immunotherapy with either 2 immune-oncology checkpoint inhibitors (IO/IO) or an IO agent in combination with a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGF-R) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO/TKI). The rates of thromboembolism (TE) in these cohorts are not clearly described and can potentially impact decision-making between IO/IO and IO/TKI. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective investigation of patients with treatment-naïve mRCC treated with IO-based combinations between January 2015 and April 2021 at the Cleveland Clinic. TE events, including venous and arterial, were identified in each group. Competing risk regression was done to identify factors associated with the development of TE following therapy, with all-cause mortality treated as a competing event. RESULTS: Of 180 patients identified, 77 (43%) received IO/TKI and 103 (57%) received IO/IO. Median age was 65 years, 75% were male, and 80% had clear cell histology. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. At a median follow-up of 22.0 months, 10.0% of all patients had a TE. The one-year incidence of TE was 8.1% (95% CI: 3.3%-15.8%) with IO/TKI and 9.8% (95% CI: 5.0%-16.5%) with IO/IO and was not significantly different between the 2 groups (HR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.35%-2.28%). Occurrence of TE was associated with decreased overall survival regardless of IO/IO or IO/TKI therapy (HR 2.80, 95% CI: 1.57-5.02). There was no difference in incidence of TE based on patient age, gender, prior history of TE, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (IMDC) risk group, or Khorana score. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of TE is similar between IO/IO and IO/TKI regimens in treatment-naïve mRCC and is also associated with decreased overall survival. While risk of TE may not guide decision-making in choice of front-line mRCC therapy, careful attention should be given to the high risk of TE in this population.

Phase II Trial of Intermittent Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Front-line Ipilimumab and Nivolumab.

INTRODUCTION: The combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab is approved for patients with treatment-naïve, intermediate-, and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but duration of therapy and safety/efficacy of reinduction at progression is unknown. A phase II trial of intermittent ipilimumab/nivolumab with reinduction at progression was conducted (NCT03126331). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with treatment-naïve mRCC were treated with induction ipilimumab/nivolumab followed by up to 24 weeks of maintenance nivolumab. Patients who achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) were eligible for inclusion and entered a treatment-free observation period. Patients were restaged every 12 weeks. Patients with no disease progression (PD) remained off therapy. Upon PD, patients were re-challenged with 2 doses of ipilimumab/nivolumab every 3 weeks. Study objectives were to estimate success rate of observation in patients who achieve a CR/PR, and to assess toxicity in patients undergoing reinduction. The study accrued slower than expected and was closed prior to the anticipated accrual goal of 20 patients. RESULTS: Nine patients were included; 89% male, median age 57, 67% clear-cell histology, and 78% intermediate-risk by IMDC criteria. Response to ipilimumab/nivolumab followed by nivolumab maintenance prior to enrollment was 33% CR and 67% PR. Most (78%) patients have remained off therapy, with a median treatment-free interval (TFI) of 34.3 months (range, 8.7-41.8). Two patients had PD off therapy and received 2 cycles of reinduction ipilimumab and nivolumab. No grade 3 or greater toxicities occurred with reinduction. Both patients developed PD at their first scans after reinduction. CONCLUSION: This prospective study demonstrates that patients with a radiographic response to ipilimumab/nivolumab can have prolonged treatment-free intervals. Further studies of de-escalation strategies are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03126331 [Date of registration 4/27/2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03126331].

Safety and Efficacy Outcomes in Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Treated Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Requiring Treatment Interruption or Discontinuation Due to Immune-Related Adverse Events.

INTRODUCTION: As most patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) will be treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), familiarity with their associated immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is critical. We describe the characteristics and outcomes of ICI-treated mUC patients who experienced irAEs requiring treatment interruption (TI) or permanent discontinuation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ICI-treated mUC patients who developed grade ≥2 irAEs were reviewed. Clinical-, treatment-, and toxicity-related data were evaluated. Toxicity was graded per common terminology for categorization of adverse events v5.0. Cohorts were divided into patients who underwent ICI rechallenge and those who required permanent ICI discontinuation. Time to treatment interruption (TTI), time to next treatment, and duration of clinical benefit were assessed descriptively. Progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methodology. RESULTS: Of 200 ICI-treated mUC patients at Cleveland Clinic between October 2015 and October 2020, 16 (8%) experienced ≥ grade 2 irAEs necessitating TI. Median TTI among all patients was 6.5 months (range, 1-19). Eleven patients (69%) required corticosteroids. ICI were held and rechallenged in 10 patients (62%) and permanently discontinued in 6 patients (38%). Of the 10 ICI-rechallenged patients, 7 (70%) experienced another irAE upon rechallenge with median time to irAE recurrence of 2.9 months (range, 0.1-10.9); 3 (30%) eventually discontinued ICI due to recrudescent irAEs. Four (40%) of the 10 ICI-rechallenged patients received subsequent therapy. Five (83%) of the 6 patients who permanently discontinued ICI demonstrated durable clinical benefit off therapy with median duration of clinical benefit 17.7 months (range, 14.2-55.2). Two-year OS was 40% (95% CI: 19%-86%) in the ICI rechallenge cohort and 67% (95% CI: 38%-100%) in the permanent discontinuation cohort. CONCLUSION: ICI-treated mUC patients who developed irAEs requiring TI had a high rate of subsequent irAEs upon ICI rechallenge. Importantly, patients who permanently discontinued ICI due to irAE demonstrated durable clinical benefit off treatment.

Resection of Residual Masses After Chemotherapy for Metastatic Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Tumors in Adolescents and Adults.

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.Optimal treatment of patients with testicular germ cell tumors requires a coordinated multidisciplinary approach, so that surgery, chemotherapy, and, when appropriate, radiation therapy can be integrated into a coherent and comprehensive treatment plan. Nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCT) are often a mixture of teratoma and cancer (choriocarcinoma, embryonal carcinoma, seminoma, and/or yolk sac tumor). While the cancers are highly sensitive to and often cured by chemotherapy, teratoma is resistant to chemotherapy and radiation therapy and generally must be resected surgically to be successfully treated. Therefore, the standard of care for metastatic NSGCT is to resect all resectable residual masses after chemotherapy. If such resection reveals only teratoma and/or necrosis/fibrosis, then patients are put on a surveillance schedule to monitor for relapse. If viable cancer is found and there are positive margins or 10% or more of any of the residual masses consists of viable cancer, then two cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy should be considered.

Cessation of vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: feasibility and clinical outcome.

BACKGROUND: The current treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted agents is continuous therapy until progression of disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Chronic mild to moderate toxicity and risk of long-term toxicity ensue for some patients. It is hypothesized that patients with an initial response to treatment can maintain disease control off all therapy for a period of time. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients with mRCC who initiated VEGF-targeted therapy between January 2004 and December 2009 at The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, or Institut Gustave-Roussy, Villejuif, France, was conducted. Patients had achieved RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors)-defined stable disease or better on therapy, and were then taken off all therapy for reasons not including disease progression. Patient, disease, and therapy characteristics were recorded. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS), measured as the time from discontinuation of therapy to RECIST-defined PD. RESULTS: Forty patients were identified. After a median follow-up of 29.7 months (range, 4.2 to 84.7 months), 25 patients (63%) had PD off therapy (median PFS, 10.0 months; range, 1.4-27.2 months). Among these patients, 8 (32%) had progression in sites that were not previously involved with disease. Heng risk group (hazard ratio, 2.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-5.22; P = .011) and achievement of a complete response prior to discontinuing therapy (hazard ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86; P = .025) were independent predictors of PFS in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. CONCLUSIONS: A select subset of mRCC patients achieving stable disease or better on VEGF-targeted therapy can be observed off all therapy. Further prospective investigation is warranted.

Delivering Bad News.

Giving bad news is a recurrent and predictable task in our lives as humans interacting with other humans. This article presents frameworks and best practices that can help us to deliver bad news in health care in a way that is experienced as caring and empathic, and supports the patient as they adjust to their new reality. Key skills include responding to patients' emotions empathically, structuring bad news conversations, leading with an exploration of the patient's understanding and expectations, delivering the bad news clearly and concisely, and individualizing the balance of empathy and support with providing information and developing a plan.

Microaggressions, Bias, and Equity in the Workplace: Why Does It Matter, and What Can Oncologists Do?

Despite efforts to embrace diversity, women and members of racial, ethnic, and gender minority groups continue to experience bias, inequities, microaggressions, and unwelcoming atmospheres in the workplace. Specifically, women in oncology have lower promotion rates and less financial support and mentorship, and they are less likely to hold leadership positions. These experiences are exceedingly likely at the intersection of identities, leading to decreased satisfaction, increased burnout, and a higher probability of leaving the workforce. Microaggressions have also been associated with depression, suicidal thoughts, and other health and safety issues. Greater workplace diversity and equity are associated with improved financial performance; greater productivity, satisfaction, and retention; improved health care delivery; and higher-quality research. In this article, we provide tools and steps to promote equity in the oncology workplace and achieve cultural change. We propose the use of tailored approaches and tools, such as active listening, for individuals to become microaggression upstanders; we also propose the implementation of education, evaluation, and transparent policies to promote a culture of equity and diversity in the oncology workplace.

Implications of the United States Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations on Prostate Cancer Stage Migration.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen screening is controversial. In 2008, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended against screening men aged ≥ 75 years, and in 2012, expanded this to include all men. The impact of these changes continues to unfold. We hypothesized that these screening changes could delay the diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was used to identify men (age, 55-69 years) diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2004 to 2008 (group 1), 2009 to 2012 (group 2), and 2013 to 2015 (group 3). Groups reflect United States Preventive Services Task Force guideline changes. Descriptive statistics were used to present baseline statistics and the number of patients diagnosed in aforementioned groups. Data was adjusted for population growth. RESULTS: A total of 328,586 men were identified (group 1, 135,625; group 2, 117,979; group 3, 74,982). The average number of men diagnosed annually with N1M0 (group 1, 381; group 2, 477; group 3, 660) and M1 (group 1, 523; group 2, 761; group 3, 1037) disease increased. With group 1 as control, there was a decrease in the incidence of localized disease (group 2, 9.2%; group 3, 33.2%). However, the incidence of N1M0 (group 2, 5.3%; group 3, 30.1%) and M1 disease (group 2, 22.6%; group 3, 49.2%) increased. Separate analyses of patients (age 50-75 years) and African Americans showed similar trends. CONCLUSION: With each recommendation, there was increased incidence of de novo metastatic prostate cancer. The sequelae of advanced disease include financial, emotional, and physical burden. Future studies are needed to identify screening strategies that reduce the risk of developing metastatic disease without over-diagnosing indolent cancers.

A Structured Peer Assessment Method with Regular Reinforcement Promotes Longitudinal Self-Perceived Development of Medical Students' Feedback Skills.

BACKGROUND: Given that training is integral to providing constructive peer feedback, we examined the impact of a regularly reinforced, structured peer assessment method on student-reported feedback abilities throughout a two-year preclinical Communication Skills course. METHODS: Three consecutive 32-student medical school classes were introduced to the Observation-Reaction-Feedback method for providing verbal assessment during Year 1 Communication Skills orientation. In biweekly small-group sessions, students received worksheets reiterating the method and practiced giving verbal feedback to peers. Periodic questionnaires evaluated student perceptions of feedback delivery and the Observation-Reaction-Feedback method. RESULTS: Biweekly reinforcement of the Observation-Reaction-Feedback method encouraged its uptake, which correlated with reports of more constructive, specific feedback. Compared to non-users, students who used the method noted greater improvement in comfort with assessing peers in Year 1 and continued growth of feedback abilities in Year 2. Comfort with providing modifying feedback and verbal feedback increased over the two-year course, while comfort with providing reinforcing feedback and written feedback remained similarly high. Concurrently, student preference for feedback anonymity decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Regular reinforcement of a peer assessment framework can increase student usage of the method, which promotes the expansion of self-reported peer feedback skills over time. These findings support investigation of analogous strategies in other medical education settings. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-021-01242-w.