Public cervical cancer screening recommendations from US cancer centers: Assessing adherence to national guidelines.

Though widespread adoption of cervical cancer screening (CCS) in the US has been associated with a reduction in cervical cancer incidence and mortality, screening also carries with it potential risks. Newer national guidelines recommend decreased screening frequency to optimize the benefit/risk balance and to prevent over-screening. Here, we examined the alignment of US cancer center websites' public recommendations on CCS with national guidelines. We reviewed the websites of 1024 cancer centers accredited by the US Commission on Cancer during January-August 2022. We recorded the recommended frequency and type of CCS and any screening risks mentioned, comparing against national US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) and American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines. Of 1024 US cancer centers, 60% (610) provided CCS recommendations. Most centers are in alignment with the screening starting age (96%, 544/565) and stopping age (94%, 440/470) recommended by national guidelines. Of 508 centers specifying the frequency of standalone cervical cytology, 83% (419) recommended a screening interval of three years; however, 14% (73) recommended cervical cytology more frequently than the three-year interval recommended by the ACS/USPSTF. Screening risks were mentioned by 20% (124/610) of centers. Our findings highlight the importance of education on screening benefits and risks for physicians and patients to enable shared decision making based on evidence-based guidelines.

Pain management for post-treatment survivors of complex cancers: a qualitative study of opioids and cannabis.

Aim: We aimed to understand experiences with opioids and cannabis for post-treatment cancer survivors. Patients & methods: We conducted seven focus groups among head and neck and lung cancer survivors, using standard qualitative methodology to explore themes around 1) post-treatment pain and 2) utilization, perceived benefits and perceived harms of cannabis and opioids. Results & conclusion: Survivors (N = 25) experienced addiction fears, stigma and access challenges for both products. Opioids were often perceived as critical for severe pain. Cannabis reduced pain and anxiety for many survivors, suggesting that anxiety screening, as recommended in guidelines, would improve traditional pain assessment. Opioids and cannabis present complex harms and benefits for post-treatment survivors who must balance pain management and minimizing side effects.

Cannabis use among recently treated cancer patients: perceptions and experiences.

PURPOSE: To characterize cannabis use among cancer patients, we aimed to describe 1) patterns of cannabis use across multiple cancer sites; 2) perceived goals, benefits, harms of cannabis; and 3) communication about cannabis. METHODS: Patients with 9 different cancers treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between March and August 2021 completed an online or phone survey eliciting cannabis use, attitudes, and communication about cannabis. Multivariable logistic regression estimated the association of cancer type and cannabis use, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and prior cannabis use. RESULTS: Among 1258 respondents, 31% used cannabis after diagnosis, ranging from 25% for lung cancer to 59% for testicular cancer. Characteristics associated with cannabis use included younger age, lower education level, and cancer type. In multivariable analysis, compared to lung cancer patients, gastrointestinal cancer patients were more likely to use cannabis (odds ratio [OR] 2.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-5.43). Cannabis use in the year prior to diagnosis was strongly associated with cannabis use after diagnosis (OR 19.13, 95% CI 11.92-30.72). Among users, reasons for use included difficulty sleeping (48%); stress, anxiety, or depression (46%); and pain (42%). Among respondents who used cannabis to improve symptoms, 70-90% reported improvement; < 5% reported that any symptom worsened. Only 25% discussed cannabis with healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: Almost a third of cancer patients use cannabis, largely for symptom management. Oncologists may not know about their patients' cannabis use. To improve decision making about cannabis use during cancer care, research is needed to determine benefits and harms of cannabis use.

The Herbal Medicine Suanzaoren (Ziziphi Spinosae Semen) for Sleep Quality Improvements: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbances are common and bothersome among cancer and noncancer populations. Suanzaoren (Ziziphi Spinosae Semen) is commonly used to improve sleep, yet its efficacy and safety are unclear. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE from inception through October 5, 2021, to identify randomized trials of Suanzaoren. We included randomized trials comparing Suanzaoren to placebo, medications, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), or usual care for improving sleep outcomes in cancer and noncancer patients with insomnia or sleep disturbance. We performed a risk of bias analysis following Cochrane guidelines. Depending on heterogeneity, we pooled studies with similar comparators using fixed- and random-effects models. RESULTS: We included participants with insomnia disorder (N = 785) or sleep disturbance (N = 120) from 9 trials. Compared with placebo, Suanzaoren led to significant subjective sleep quality improvements in participants with insomnia and patients with sleep disturbance combined (standard mean difference -0.58, 95% CI -1.04, -0.11; P < .01); Compared with benzodiazepines or CBT, Suanzaoren was associated with a significant decrease in insomnia severity (mean difference -2.68 points, 95% CI -5.50, -0.22; P = .03) at 4 weeks in the general population and cancer patients. The long-term effects of Suanzaoren were mixed among trials. Suanzaoren did not increase the incidence of major adverse events. The placebo-controlled studies had a low risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Suanzaoren is associated with short-term patient-reported sleep quality improvements among individuals with insomnia or sleep disturbance. Due to the small sample size and variable study quality, the clinical benefits and harms of Suanzaoren, particularly in the long term, should be further assessed in a sufficiently powered randomized trial. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021281943.

Prognostic value of procalcitonin in cancer patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: Many biomarkers have been studied to assist in the risk stratification and prognostication of patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Procalcitonin (PCT), a circulating precursor of the hormone calcitonin, has been studied with mixed results as a predictor of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the general population; however, to date, no studies have focused on the utility of PCT in predicting disease severity and death from COVID-19 in the cancer population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of cancer patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at a comprehensive cancer center over a 10-month period who had PCT recorded on admission. We assessed associations between variables of clinical interest and the primary outcomes of progression of COVID-19 and death during or within 30 days of hospitalization using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The study included 209 unique patients. In the univariate analysis, elevated PCT on admission was associated with higher odds of progression of COVID-19 or death (Odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% CI 1.08-1.93) and mortality alone (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.17-2.11). In multivariate regression, PCT remained significantly associated with progression or death after holding chronic kidney disease (CKD) status constant (OR 1.40, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.93, p=0.003). Similarly, the association of PCT and death remained significant after adjusting for age (OR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.17-2.15). CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized COVID-19 patients with underlying cancer, initial PCT levels on admission may be associated with prognosis, involving higher odds of progression of COVID-19 and/or mortality.

Effectiveness of MRNA booster vaccine among healthcare workers in New York City during the Omicron surge, December 2021 to January 2022.

OBJECTIVE: To describe effectiveness of mRNA vaccines by comparing 2-dose (2D) and 3-dose (3D) healthcare worker (HCW) recipients in the setting of Omicron variant dominance. Performance of 2D and 3D vaccine series against SARS-CoV-2 variants and the clinical outcomes of HCWs may inform return-to-work guidance. METHODS: In a retrospective study from December 15, 2020 to January 15, 2022, SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCWs at a large tertiary cancer centre in New York City were examined to estimate infection rates (aggregated positive tests / person-days) and 95% CIs over the Omicron period in 3D and 2D mRNA vaccinated HCWs and were compared using rate ratios. We described the clinical features of post-vaccine infections and impact of prior (pre-Omicron) COVID infection on vaccine effectiveness. RESULTS: Among the 20857 HCWs in our cohort, 20,660 completed the 2D series with an mRNA vaccine during our study period and 12461 had received a third dose by January 15, 2022. The infection rate ratio for 3D versus 2D vaccinated HCWs was 0.667 (95% CI 0.623, 0.713) for an estimated 3D vaccine effectiveness of 33.3% compared to two doses only during the Omicron dominant period from December 15, 2021 to January 15, 2022. Breakthrough Omicron infections after 3D + 14 days occurred in 1,315 HCWs. Omicron infections were mild, with 16% of 3D and 11% 2D HCWs being asymptomatic. DISCUSSION: Study demonstrates improved vaccine-derived protection against COVID-19 infection in 3D versus 2D mRNA vaccinees during the Omicron surge. The advantage of 3D vaccination was maintained irrespective of prior COVID-19 infection status.

In the weeds: a retrospective study of patient interest in and experience with cannabis at a cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis products, including the cannabinoids CBD and THC, are rising in popularity and increasingly used for medical purposes. While there is some evidence that cannabinoids improve cancer-associated symptoms, understanding regarding appropriate use remains incomplete. PURPOSE: To describe patient experiences with medical cannabis with focus on use contexts and patients' reported benefits and harms. METHODS: A standardized intake form was implemented in a dedicated medical cannabis clinic at an NCI-designated cancer center; data from this form was abstracted for all initial visits from October 2019 to October 2020. We report descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 163 unique new patients, cannabis therapy was commonly sought for sleep, pain, anxiety, and appetite. Twenty-nine percent expressed interest for cancer treatment; 40% and 46% reported past use of CBD and THC, respectively, for medical purposes. Among past CBD users, the most commonly reported benefits were less pain (21%) or anxiety (17%) and improvement in sleep (15%); 92% reported no side effects. Among those with past THC use, reported benefits included improvement in appetite (40%), sleep (32%), nausea (28%), and pain (17%); side effects included feeling "high." Seeking cannabis for anti-neoplastic effects was associated with receipt of active cancer treatment in both univariate and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Cancer patients seek medical cannabis to address a wide variety of concerns despite insufficient evidence of benefits and harms. As more states move to legalize medical and recreational cannabis, cancer care providers must remain aware of emerging data and develop knowledge and skills to counsel their patients about its use.

Attitudes and access to resources and strategies to improve quality of radiotherapy among US radiation oncologists: A mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess contouring-related practices among US radiation oncologists and explore how access to and use of resources and quality improvement strategies vary based on individual- and organization-level factors. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study with a sequential explanatory design. Surveys were emailed to a random 10% sample of practicing US radiation oncologists. Participating physicians were invited to a semi-structured interview. Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and a multivariable regression model were used to evaluate associations. Interview data were coded using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Survey overall response rate was 24%, and subsequent completion rate was 97%. Contouring-related questions arise in ≥50% of clinical cases among 73% of respondents. Resources accessed first include published atlases (75%) followed by consulting another radiation oncologist (60%). Generalists access consensus guidelines more often than disease-site specialists (P = 0.04), while eContour.org is more often used by generalists (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.2-14.8) and younger physicians (OR 1.33 for each 5-year increase, 95% CI 1.08-1.67). Common physician-reported barriers to optimizing contour quality are time constraints (58%) and lack of access to disease-site specialists (21%). Forty percent (40%, n = 14) of physicians without access to disease-site specialists indicated it could facilitate the adoption of new treatments. Almost all (97%) respondents have formal peer review, but only 43% have contour-specific review, which is more common in academic centres (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Potential opportunities to improve radiation contour quality include improved access to disease-site specialists and contour-specific peer review. Physician time must be considered when designing new strategies.

Multidisciplinary Treatment of Non-Spine Bone Metastases: Results of a Modified Delphi Consensus Process.

Purpose: Local treatment for bone metastases is becoming increasingly complex. National guidelines traditionally focus only on radiation therapy (RT), leaving a gap in clinical decision support resources available to clinicians. The objective of this study was to reach expert consensus regarding multidisciplinary management of non-spine bone metastases, which would facilitate standardizing treatment within an academic-community partnership. Methods and Materials: A multidisciplinary panel of physicians treating metastatic disease across the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Alliance, including community-based partner sites, was convened. Clinical questions rated of high importance in the management of non-spine bone metastases were identified via survey. A literature review was conducted, and panel physicians drafted initial recommendation statements. Consensus was gathered on recommendation statements through a modified Delphi process from a full panel of 17 physicians from radiation oncology, orthopaedic surgery, medical oncology, interventional radiology, and anesthesia pain. Consensus was defined a priori as 75% of respondents indicating "agree" or "strongly agree" with the consensus statement. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy was employed to assign evidence strength for each statement. Results: Seventeen clinical questions were identified, of which 11 (65%) were selected for the consensus process. Consensus was reached for 16 of 17 answer statements (94%), of which 12 were approved after Round 1 and additional 4 approved after Round 2 of the modified Delphi voting process. Topics included indications for referral to surgery or interventional radiology, radiation fractionation and appropriate use of stereotactic approaches, and the handling of systemic therapies during radiation. Evidence strength was most commonly C (n = 7), followed by B (n = 5) and A (n = 3). Conclusions: Consensus among a multidisciplinary panel of community and academic physicians treating non-spine bone metastases was feasible. Recommendations will assist clinicians and potentially provide measures to reduce variation across diverse practice settings. Findings highlight areas for further research such as pathologic fracture risk estimation, pre-operative radiation, and percutaneous ablation.

Clinician Attitudes and Beliefs Associated with More Aggressive Diagnostic Testing.

BACKGROUND: Variation in clinicians' diagnostic test utilization is incompletely explained by demographics and likely relates to cognitive characteristics. We explored clinician factors associated with diagnostic test utilization. METHODS: We used a self-administered survey of attitudes, cognitive characteristics, and reported likelihood of test ordering in common scenarios; frequency of lipid and liver testing in patients on statin therapy. Participants were 552 primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants from practices in 8 US states across 3 regions, from June 1, 2018 to November 26, 2019. We measured Testing Likelihood Score: the mean of 4 responses to testing frequency and self-reported testing frequency in patients on statins. RESULTS: Respondents were 52.4% residents, 36.6% attendings, and 11.0% nurse practitioners/physician assistants; most were white (53.6%) or Asian (25.5%). Median age was 32 years; 53.1% were female. Participants reported ordering tests for a median of 20% (stress tests) to 90% (mammograms) of patients; Testing Likelihood Scores varied widely (median 54%, interquartile range 43%-69%). Higher scores were associated with geography, training type, low numeracy, high malpractice fear, high medical maximizer score, high stress from uncertainty, high concern about bad outcomes, and low acknowledgment of medical uncertainty. More frequent testing of lipids and liver tests was associated with low numeracy, high medical maximizer score, high malpractice fear, and low acknowledgment of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician variation in testing was common, with more aggressive testing consistently associated with low numeracy, being a medical maximizer, and low acknowledgment of uncertainty. Efforts to reduce undue variations in testing should consider clinician cognitive drivers.

Safety of opioid prescribing among older cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors receive more long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) than people without cancer, but the safety of LTOT prescribing is unknown. METHODS: Opioid-naive adults aged ≥66 years who had been diagnosed in 2008-2015 with breast, lung, head and neck, or colorectal cancer were identified with data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries linked with Medicare claims. Survivors with 1 or more LTOT episodes (≥90 consecutive days) occurring ≥1 year after their cancer diagnosis and before censoring at hospice entry, another cancer diagnosis, 6 months before death, or December 2016 were included. The safety of prescribing during the first 90 days of the first LTOT episode was measured during follow-up. As a positive safety indicator, the proportion of survivors with concurrent nonopioid pain management was measured. Indicators of less safe prescribing were the proportion of survivors with a high average daily opioid dose (≥90 morphine milligram equivalents) and the proportion of survivors with concurrent benzodiazepine dispensing. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify clinical predictors of each safety outcome. RESULTS: In all, 3628 cancer survivors received LTOT during follow-up (median duration, 4.9 months; interquartile range, 3.5-8.0 months). Seventy-two percent of the survivors received multimodal pain management concurrently with LTOT. Eight percent of the survivors had high-dose opioid prescriptions; 25% of the survivors received benzodiazepines during LTOT. Multivariable analyses identified variations in safety measures by multiple clinical factors, although none were consistently significant across outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To improve safe LTOT prescribing for survivors, efforts should focus on increasing multimodal pain management and reducing inappropriate benzodiazepine prescribing. Different clinical predictors of each outcome suggest different drivers of safe prescribing.

Clinical and Genomic Characterization of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) Infections in mRNA Vaccinated Health Care Personnel in New York City.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine-induced clinical protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) variants is an evolving target. There are limited genomic level data on SARS CoV-2 breakthrough infections and vaccine effectiveness (VE) since the global spread of the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. METHODS: In a retrospective study from 1 November 2020 to 31 August 2021, divided as pre-Delta and Delta-dominant periods, laboratory-confirmed SARS CoV-2 infections among healthcare personnel (HCP) at a large tertiary cancer center in New York City were examined to compare the weekly infection rate-ratio in vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated HCP. We describe the clinical and genomic epidemiologic features of post-vaccine infections to assess for selection of variants of concern (VOC)/variants of interest (VOI) in the early post-vaccine period and impact of B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant domination on VE. RESULTS: Among 13658 HCP in our cohort, 12379 received at least 1 dose of a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine. In the pre-Delta period overall VE was 94.5%. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) of 369 isolates in the pre-Delta period did not reveal a clade bias for VOC/VOI specific to post-vaccine infections. VE in the Delta dominant phase was 75.6%. No hospitalizations occurred among vaccinated HCP in the entire study period, compared to 17 hospitalizations and 1 death among unvaccinated HCP. CONCLUSIONS: Findings show high VE among HCP in New York City in the pre-Delta phase, with moderate decline in VE post-Delta emergence. SARS CoV-2 clades were similarly distributed among vaccinated and unvaccinated infected HCP without apparent clustering during the pre-Delta period of diverse clade circulation. Strong vaccine protection against hospitalization was maintained through the entire study period.

Accuracy of Practitioner Estimates of Probability of Diagnosis Before and After Testing.

Importance: Accurate diagnosis is essential to proper patient care. Objective: To explore practitioner understanding of diagnostic reasoning. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, 723 practitioners at outpatient clinics in 8 US states were asked to estimate the probability of disease for 4 scenarios common in primary care (pneumonia, cardiac ischemia, breast cancer screening, and urinary tract infection) and the association of positive and negative test results with disease probability from June 1, 2018, to November 26, 2019. Of these practitioners, 585 responded to the survey, and 553 answered all of the questions. An expert panel developed the survey and determined correct responses based on literature review. Results: A total of 553 (290 resident physicians, 202 attending physicians, and 61 nurse practitioners and physician assistants) of 723 practitioners (76.5%) fully completed the survey (median age, 32 years; interquartile range, 29-44 years; 293 female [53.0%]; 296 [53.5%] White). Pretest probability was overestimated in all scenarios. Probabilities of disease after positive results were overestimated as follows: pneumonia after positive radiology results, 95% (evidence range, 46%-65%; comparison P < .001); breast cancer after positive mammography results, 50% (evidence range, 3%-9%; P < .001); cardiac ischemia after positive stress test result, 70% (evidence range, 2%-11%; P < .001); and urinary tract infection after positive urine culture result, 80% (evidence range, 0%-8.3%; P < .001). Overestimates of probability of disease with negative results were also observed as follows: pneumonia after negative radiography results, 50% (evidence range, 10%-19%; P < .001); breast cancer after negative mammography results, 5% (evidence range, <0.05%; P < .001); cardiac ischemia after negative stress test result, 5% (evidence range, 0.43%-2.5%; P < .001); and urinary tract infection after negative urine culture result, 5% (evidence range, 0%-0.11%; P < .001). Probability adjustments in response to test results varied from accurate to overestimates of risk by type of test (imputed median positive and negative likelihood ratios [LRs] for practitioners for chest radiography for pneumonia: positive LR, 4.8; evidence, 2.6; negative LR, 0.3; evidence, 0.3; mammography for breast cancer: positive LR, 44.3; evidence range, 13.0-33.0; negative LR, 1.0; evidence range, 0.05-0.24; exercise stress test for cardiac ischemia: positive LR, 21.0; evidence range, 2.0-2.7; negative LR, 0.6; evidence range, 0.5-0.6; urine culture for urinary tract infection: positive LR, 9.0; evidence, 9.0; negative LR, 0.1; evidence, 0.1). Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study suggests that for common diseases and tests, practitioners overestimate the probability of disease before and after testing. Pretest probability was overestimated in all scenarios, whereas adjustment in probability after a positive or negative result varied by test. Widespread overestimates of the probability of disease likely contribute to overdiagnosis and overuse.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Surveillance and Exposure in the Perioperative Setting With Universal Testing and Personal Protective Equipment Policies.

BACKGROUND: New York City (NYC) experienced a surge of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in March and April 2020. Since then, universal polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based surveillance testing and personal protective equipment (PPE) measures are in wide use in procedural settings. There is limited published experience on the utility and sustainability of PCR-based surveillance testing in areas with receding and consistently low community COVID-19 rates. METHODS: The study was conducted at a tertiary care cancer center in NYC from 22 March to 22 August 2020. Asymptomatic patients underwent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing before surgeries, interventional radiology procedures, and endoscopy. Contact tracing in procedural areas was done if a patient with an initial negative screen retested positive within 48 hours of the procedure. RESULTS: From March 22 until August 22, 2020, 11 540 unique patients underwent 14 233 tests before surgeries or procedures at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Overall, 65 patients were positive, with a peak rate of 4.3% that fell below 0.3% after April 2020. Among the 65 positive cases, 3 were presymptomatic and 38 were asymptomatic. Among asymptomatic test-positive patients, 76% had PCR cycle threshold >30 at first detection. Five patients tested newly positive in the immediate postoperative period, exposing 82 employees with 1 case of probable transmission (1.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection identified on preprocedural surveillance was low in our study, which was conducted in an area with limited community spread at the later stage of the study. Universal PPE is protective in procedural settings. Optimal and flexible diagnostic strategies are needed to accomplish and sustain the goals of comprehensive preprocedure surveillance testing.

Trends in Financial Relationships Between Industry and Radiation Oncologists Versus Other Physicians in the United States from 2014 to 2018.

PURPOSE: The Open Payments transparency program publishes data on industry-physician payments, in part to discourage relationships considered inappropriate including gifts, meals, and speaker's bureau fees. We evaluated trends in physician-level payments to test whether implementation of Open Payments resulted in fewer industry-radiation oncologist (RO) interactions or shifted interactions toward those considered more appropriate compared with medical oncologists (MOs) and other hospital-based physicians (HBPs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study of practicing US ROs versus MOs and HBPs in 2014 matched to general (nonresearch) payments between 2014 and 2018. Trends in payments were analyzed and reported by nature of payment. Values of payments to ROs from the top 10 companies were identified. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2018, 3379 (90.3%) ROs accepted 106,930 payments totaling $40.8 million. The per-physician number and value of payments was lower in radiation oncology than in medical oncology and higher than HBPs. The proportion of ROs accepting payments increased from 61.8% in 2014 to 64.2% in 2018; the proportion of MOs accepting payments decreased from 78.7% to 77.7%; and the proportion of HBPs decreased from 40.8% to 37.5%, respectively. The annual per-physician value and number of payments accepted by ROs and MOs increased. Payments in entertainment, meals, travel and lodging, and gifts increased among ROs and remained stable or decreased among MOs and HBPs. Consulting payments increased across all groups. Top RO payors produced novel cancer therapeutics, hydrogel spacers, radiation treatment machines, and opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Industry payments to ROs have become more common since OP's inception, while becoming less common for MOs and HBPs. Payments to ROs and MOs have become more frequent and of modestly increasing value compared with other HBPs, for whom the value is decreasing. No large changes in the nature of relationships were seen in ROs. Increased engagement with financial conflicts of interest is needed in radiation oncology.

The experience of financial toxicity among advanced melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy.

Purpose To measure financial toxicity and explore its association with quality of life (QOL) in an emerging population of survivors: advanced melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy. Design Cross-sectional survey and medical record review. Sample 106 survivors (39% response). Median time since start of immunotherapy was 36.4 months (range: 14.2-133.9). Methods The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity measured financial toxicity, and the EORTC-QLQ30 assessed QOL and functioning across five domains. Data were collected online, by phone, or in clinic. Findings: Younger patients (<65 years) reported higher financial toxicity (p < .001) than older patients. Controlling for age, financial toxicity was correlated with QOL (p < .001), financial difficulties (p < .001), and EORTC-QLQ30 functioning subscales. Conclusions Given the demonstrated association between financial toxicity and QOL, our study highlights the importance of addressing financial toxicity, particularly among patients receiving high-cost treatments. Implications for Psychosocial Providers: Providers should educate patients and their caregivers about cost-management techniques, link them with available resources, and provide psychosocial counseling to alleviate related distress.

Fear of analgesic side effects predicts preference for acupuncture: a cross-sectional study of cancer patients with pain in the USA.

PURPOSE: Approximately one in two cancer patients globally are under-treated for pain. Opioids and other analgesics represent the mainstay of cancer pain management; however, barriers to their use are well-documented. We evaluated whether acupuncture would be a preferable treatment option among cancer patients with attitudinal barriers to pharmacological pain management. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of cancer patients at a tertiary urban cancer center and eleven suburban/rural hospitals in the Northeastern United States. We assessed attitudinal barriers to pharmacological pain management with the Barriers Questionnaire (BQ-13). The BQ-13 consists of two subscales: pain management beliefs and analgesic side effects. We also asked patients whether they prefer acupuncture, analgesics, or have no preference between these two modalities for pain management. Covariates included sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, and attitudes/beliefs about acupuncture. We used logistic regression to examine the association between attitudinal barriers and acupuncture preference. RESULTS: Among 628 patients, 197 (31.4%) preferred acupuncture for pain management, 146 (23.3%) preferred analgesics, and 285 (45.4%) had no preference. The highest reported attitudinal barriers were fear of addiction and fear of analgesic-associated constipation and nausea. Adjusting for covariates, we found that attitudinal barriers related to fear of analgesic side effects were significantly associated with acupuncture preference (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-1.81), but barriers related to pain management beliefs were not (AOR 1.17, 95% CI 0.91-1.51). Attitudes/beliefs about acupuncture (i.e., greater expected benefits, fewer perceived barriers, and more positive social norms) and female gender also predicted acupuncture preference, whereas race and educational status did not. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture may be a preferable treatment option among cancer patients at risk of inadequately controlled pain due to fear of analgesic side effects. Evidence-based integration of acupuncture and analgesics, guided by patient treatment preferences, represents an essential aspect of patient-centered care and has potential to address unmet cancer pain management needs.