Prevalence of potential interactions of medications, including herbs and supplements, before, during, and after chemotherapy in patients with breast and prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The use of herbs and supplements (HS) is common among patients with cancer, yet limited information exists about potential medication interactions (PMIs) with HS use around chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with breast or prostate cancer who had recently finished chemotherapy at 2 academic medical centers were surveyed by telephone. Interviewers inquired about all medications, including HS, before, during, and after chemotherapy. Micromedex, Lexicomp, and Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database interaction software programs were used to determine PMIs. RESULTS: A total of 67 subjects (age range, 39-77 years) were evaluated in this study. Participants were primarily White patients (73%) with breast cancer (87%). The median number of medications was 11 (range, 2-28) during the entire study and was highest during chemotherapy (7; range, 2-22). Approximately four-fifths (84%) used HS. A total of 1747 PMIs were identified, and they represented 635 unique PMIs across all 3 timeframes, with most occurring during chemotherapy. Prescription-related PMIs (70%) were the most common type, and they were followed by HS-related (56%) and anticancer treatment-related PMIs (22%). Approximately half of the PMIs (54%) were categorized as moderate interactions, and more than one-third (38%) were categorized as major interactions. Patient use of HS increased from 51% during chemotherapy to 66% after chemotherapy, and this correlated with an increased prevalence of HS PMIs (46% to 60%). HS users were more likely to be at risk for a major PMI than non-HS users (92% vs 70%; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: The use of HS remains prevalent among patients with cancer and may place them at risk for PMIs both during chemotherapy and after the completion of treatment. LAY SUMMARY: This study evaluates the risk of potential medication interactions for patients with breast or prostate cancer undergoing chemotherapy. The results show that patients often use herbs and supplements during treatment. Prescription medications are most often associated with medication interactions, which are followed by herb and supplement-related interactions. More than one-third of potential medication interactions are considered major. Patients should be educated about the risk of herb and supplement-related medication interactions during treatment.

How well do medical oncologists manage chronic cancer pain? A national survey.

BACKGROUND: Cancer pain is usually managed by oncologists, occasionally with input from specialists in hospice and palliative medicine (PLM) or pain medicine (PMD). We evaluated the knowledge of cancer pain management in these three specialty groups. METHODS: Eight vignettes depicting challenging scenarios of patients with poorly controlled pain were developed; each had five or six treatment choices. Respondents indicated choices likely to be safe and efficacious as "true" and choices likely to be unsafe or inefficacious as "false." Two questionnaires were created, each with four vignettes. Three anonymous mailings targeted geographically representative U.S. samples of 570 oncologists, 266 PMD specialists, and 280 PLM specialists, each randomly assigned one version of the questionnaire. Vignette scores were normalized to a 0-100 numeric rating scale (NRS); a score of 50 indicates that the number of correct choices equals the number of incorrect choices (consistent with guessing). RESULTS: Overall response rate was 49% (oncologists, 39%; PMD specialists, 48%; and PLM specialists, 70%). Average vignette score ranges were 53.2-66.5, 45.6-65.6, and 50.8-72.0 for oncologists, PMD specialists, and PLM specialists, respectively. Oncologists scored lower than PLM specialists on both questionnaires and lower than PMD specialists on one. On a 0-10 NRS, oncologists rated their ability to manage pain highly (median 7, with an interquartile range [IQR] of 5-8). Lower ratings were assigned to pain-related training in medical school (median 3, with an IQR of 2-5) and residency/fellowship (median 5, with an IQR of 4-7). Oncologists older than 46-47 years rated their training lower than younger oncologists. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that oncologists and other medical specialists who manage cancer pain have knowledge deficiencies in cancer pain management. These gaps help clarify the need for pain management education.

Phase II neoadjuvant clinical trial of carboplatin and eribulin in women with triple negative early-stage breast cancer (NCT01372579).

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant treatment with carboplatin and eribulin in patients with early-stage triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), and to explore biomarkers based on DNA and protein expression profiles as predictors of response. Patients with histologically confirmed early-stage TNBC received carboplatin AUC 6 iv every 21 days, and eribulin 1.4 mg/m(2) day 1 and day 8 every 21 days for four cycles. The primary endpoint of the study was pathologic complete response (pCR), with secondary endpoints including clinical response and safety of the combination. Exploratory studies assessed DNA-based biomarkers [homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score, and HR deficiency status (HRD score + BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation status)], protein-based biomarkers (Ki67, TP53, androgen receptor, Cyclin E, CDK2, Cyclin D, CDK4, Pin1 and Smad3), and clinical pretreatment factors as predictors of pCR. 13/30 (43.3 %) patients enrolled in the study achieved pCR. 24 (80.0 %) had a clinical complete or partial response. The combination was safe with mostly grade 1 and 2 toxicities. HRD score (P = 0.0024) and HR deficiency status (P = 0.0012) significantly predicted pCR. Pretreatment cytoplasmic CDK2 was also associated with pCR (P = 0.021). Significant differences in pre- versus post-treatment expression levels of nuclear Cyclin D (P = 0.020), nuclear CDK4 (P = 0.0030), and nuclear Smad3 (P = 0.015) were detected. The combination of carboplatin and eribulin is safe and efficacious in the treatment of early-stage TNBC. HRD score, HR deficiency status, and cytoplasmic CDK2 predicted pCR in this patient population.

Integrating Palliative Care Into Oncology: A Way Forward.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer have complex physical, psychosocial, and spiritual needs that evolve throughout their disease trajectory. As patients are living longer with a diagnosis of cancer, the need is growing to address the morbidity due to the underlying illness as well as treatment-related adverse events. Palliative care includes treating physical symptoms as well as addressing psychosocial and spiritual needs. When these needs are addressed, the quality of care improves, costs decrease, and goals are aligned between the medical care provided and the patient and family. However, how best to integrate palliative care into oncology care is still an area of investigation. METHODS: The authors conducted a literature search, including randomized clinical trials and practice reviews, to evaluate the evidence for integrating palliative care into oncology care. Barriers to integration as well as sustainable paths forward are highlighted. The authors also utilize case studies as representative examples of integration. RESULTS: Current studies demonstrate that integrating palliative care into oncology care improves symptom control, rates of patient and family satisfaction, and quality of end-of-life care. However, for systemwide integration to be successful, commitment must be made to quality improvement, an infrastructure must be built to support palliative care screening, assessment, and intervention, and stakeholders must be engaged in the program. In addition, value must be demonstrated using metrics that affect quality, care utilization, and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Even though most US cancer centers have a palliative care program, palliative care remains limited in scope. An integrated approach for palliative care with oncology care requires a systems-based approach, with agreement between all parties on shared common metrics for value.

Envisioning Academic Global Oncologists: Proposed Competencies for Global Oncology Training From ASCO.

Recognizing the rising incidence, prevalence, and mortality of cancer in low- and middle-resource settings, as well as the increasingly international profile of its membership, ASCO has committed to expanding its engagement at a global level. In 2017, the ASCO Academic Global Oncology Task Force sought to define the potential role for ASCO in supporting global oncology as an academic field. A set of recommendations to advance the status of global oncology as an academic discipline were created through a consensus-based process involving participation by a diverse group of global oncology and global health practitioners; these recommendations were then published. The recommendations included developing a set of global oncology competencies for trainees and faculty interested in a career in academic global oncology. Here, we describe the global oncology competencies developed by this task force. These competencies consist of knowledge and skills needed in general global health as well as cancer-specific care and research, including understanding global cancer health disparities, defining unique resources and needs in low- and middle-resource settings, and promoting international collaboration. Although the competencies were originally developed for US training programs, they are intended to be widely applicable globally. By formalizing the training of oncologists and supporting career pathways in the field of global oncology, we can make progress in achieving global equity in cancer care and control.

A predictive model to identify hospitalized cancer patients at risk for 30-day mortality based on admission criteria via the electronic medical record.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to develop a predictive model for 30-day mortality in hospitalized cancer patients, by using admission information available through the electronic medical record. METHODS: Observational cohort study of 3062 patients admitted to the oncology service from August 1, 2008, to July 31, 2009. Matched numbers of patients were in the derivation and validation cohorts (1531 patients). Data were obtained on day 1 of admission and included demographic information, vital signs, and laboratory data. Survival data were obtained from the Social Security Death Index. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality rate of the derivation and validation samples were 9.5% and 9.7% respectively. Significant predictive variables in the multivariate analysis included age (P < .0001), assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs; P = .022), admission type (elective/emergency) (P = .059), oxygen use (P < .0001), and vital signs abnormalities including pulse oximetry (P = .0004), temperature (P = .017), and heart rate (P = .0002). A logistic regression model was developed to predict death within 30 days: Score = 18.2897 + 0.6013*(admit type) + 0.4518*(ADL) + 0.0325*(admit age) - 0.1458*(temperature) + 0.019*(heart rate) - 0.0983*(pulse oximetry) - 0.0123 (systolic blood pressure) + 0.8615*(O2 use). The largest sum of sensitivity (63%) and specificity (78%) was at -2.09 (area under the curve = -0.789). A total of 25.32% (100 of 395) of patients with a score above -2.09 died, whereas 4.31% (49 of 1136) of patients below -2.09 died. Sensitivity and positive predictive value in the derivation and validation samples compared favorably. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical factors available via the electronic medical record within 24 hours of hospital admission can be used to identify cancer patients at risk for 30-day mortality. These patients would benefit from discussion of preferences for care at the end of life.

Barriers and approaches to the successful integration of palliative care and oncology practice.

As management of patients with cancer is evolving, an increased focus is being placed on individualized patient-centered care. Early integration of palliative care into the overall management of patients with cancer can help achieve this paradigm shift. Despite recommendations for earlier integration of palliative care by national and international societies, several barriers remain to achieving this goal. Survey studies have indicated a significant need for increased education regarding palliative care for both medical undergraduates and postgraduate physicians. Key issues in the early integration of palliative care include relationship-building across multiple health systems and specialties; development of a standardized definition of palliative care, making clear that it should be fully integrated with cancer-directed therapy; identification of physician and nonphysician champions; standardization of tools for patient assessment; education programs designed to meet the needs of health care professionals; and ongoing evaluation to assess program benefits and limitations.

Palliative care always.

Palliative cancer care is the integration into oncologic care of therapies that address the issues that cause physical and psychosocial suffering for the patient and family. Effective provision of palliative cancer care requires an interdisciplinary team that can provide care in all settings (home, inpatient, and outpatient). There is clear evidence for improved outcomes in multiple domains-symptoms, quality of end-of-life care, provider satisfaction, cost of care-with the integration of palliative care into cancer care. As a result, there are now guideline-based recommendations for incorporating palliative care into cancer care. Unfortunately there continue to be barriers to effective integration; these include gaps in education and research, and a cultural stigma that equates palliative care with end-of-life care. These barriers will need to be addressed in order to achieve seamless palliative care integration across the continuum of cancer care for all patients and their families.

Palliative care training and associations with burnout in oncology fellows.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among physicians can lead to decreased career satisfaction, physical and emotional exhaustion, and increased medical errors. In oncologists, high exposure to fatal illness is associated with burnout. METHODS: The Maslach Burnout Inventory, measuring Emotional Exhaustion (EE), Depersonalization (DP), and Personal Accomplishment (PA), was administered to second-year US oncology fellows. Bivariate and multivariate analyses explored associations between burnout and fellow demographics, attitudes, and educational experiences. RESULTS: A total of 254 fellows out of 402 eligible US fellows responded (63.2%) and 24.2% reported high EE, 30.0% reported high DP, and 26.8% reported low PA. Over half of the fellows reported burnout in at least one domain. Lower EE scores were associated with the fellows' perceptions of having received better teaching, explicit teaching about certain end-of-life topics, and receipt of direct observation of goals-of-care discussions. Fellows who reported better overall teaching quality and more frequent observation of their skills had less depersonalization. Fellows who felt a responsibility to help patients at the end of life to prepare for death had higher PA. LIMITATIONS: This survey relies on the fellows' self-reported perceptions without an objective measure for validation. Factors associated with burnout may not be causal. The number of analyses performed raises the concern for Type I errors; therefore, a stringent P value (0.01) was used. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout is prevalent during oncology training. Higher-quality teaching is associated with less burnout among fellows. Fellowship programs should recognize the prevalence of burnout among oncology fellows as well as components of training that may protect against burnout.

Integrated dual training in palliative care and oncology.

Fellowship training in Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM) and Hematology/Oncology (Hem/Onc) share common themes and roots in the holistic care of people living with cancer. As of 2021, approximately 630 physicians in the United States were board-certified in both HPM and Hem/Onc. There is increasing demand for an integrated fellowship pathway, and the inaugural integrated fellowship Match took place in 2022. We present the historical context of the overlap in HPM and Hem/Onc fellowship training, limitations of the standard training paradigm, and an overview of the recently developed integrated training pathway accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). We explore applications of dual training in clinical care, program development, and research at the intersection of HPM and Hem/Onc. Finally, we consider challenges to the success and how best to assess the outcomes of this program. Integrated fellowship training in HPM and Hem/Onc is 1 avenue to develop a cohort of dual-trained physicians poised to effect broad cultural change in this important and evolving space. A subset of physicians with dual training has the potential to fill unmet needs by promoting enhanced patient-centered care, developing infrastructure for heightened collaboration between these distinct but closely related fields, and prioritizing research focused on advanced communication skills and symptom management for patients with cancer.

Advancing the Clinician Educator Career Pathway in Oncology.

PURPOSE: Education is an important component of cancer care; however, most clinician educators (CEs) receive little formal training in this area. Little is known about the factors that influence oncologists to pursue a career as a CE. The primary objective of this study was to determine the current state of oncologists' perceptions regarding the clinician educator role. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A one-time cross-sectional survey was administered to program directors/associate program directors (PDs/APDs) and fellows in November 2021. The survey was meant to elicit their perceptions regarding the CE role, training opportunities, and barriers to a career as a CE. RESULTS: The surveys were completed by a total of 2,134 oncology fellows and 88 PDs/APDs. Most PDs/APDs were female (52%), were associate professors (42%), and considered themselves a CE (82%). Over one-third of PDs/APDs reported no formal educator training (67%) and did not have a CE track for fellows at their institution (76%). The majority of PDs/APDs (80%) perceived the CE track to be a viable career pathway. Over half of fellows (56%) perceived the CE track to be a viable career pathway. Approximately one-third (62%) reported receiving CE training during their residency/fellowship. The top reported barriers to a career in medical education were a lack of jobs and opportunity for future promotions. CONCLUSION: Oncology PDs/APDs and fellows perceive the CE to be a viable career track. Greater advocacy efforts are needed to raise awareness about this career path.

Pilot neoadjuvant trial in HER2 positive breast cancer with combination of nab-paclitaxel and lapatinib.

Lapatinib, a dual kinase inhibitor against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and human epidermal receptor two (HER2) has shown efficacy in treating HER2 positive breast cancer. Nanoparticle albumin bound (nab) paclitaxel was developed to reduce toxicities from paclitaxel and improve its efficacy. Thirty patients with stage I-III HER2 positive breast cancer were treated in the neoadjuvant setting with lapatinib 1,000 mg/day and nab-paclitaxel 260 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for four cycles. The primary end point of the trial was clinical response rate (cRR) with secondary end points including pathologic complete response rate (pCR), tolerability of the combination, and marker response. The cRR was 82.8% (24 patients) with six (20.7%) patients having complete clinical response, 18 (62.1%) having partial clinical response, and five (17.2%) stable disease. A pCR was observed in five of the 28 patients (17.9%). The most frequent grade 2 toxicities were neuropathy in nine patients (30%), fatigue in seven patients (23.3%), rash in 11 patients (36.7%), and bone pain in 10 patients (33.3%). There was no significant drop in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Of the tissue markers examined, we were not able to find a predictor of response. The combination of lapatinib and nab-paclitaxel was well tolerated and provided good efficacy in women with HER2 positive breast cancer. This combination offers an alternative non-anthracycline-containing regimen for women with HER2 positive breast cancer.

Rituximab plus concurrent infusional EPOCH chemotherapy is highly effective in HIV-associated B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Rituximab plus intravenous bolus chemotherapy is a standard treatment for immunocompetent patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Some studies have suggested that rituximab is associated with excessive toxicity in HIV-associated NHL, and that infusional chemotherapy may be more effective. We performed a randomized phase 2 trial of rituximab (375 mg/m(2)) given either concurrently before each infusional etoposide, vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone (EPOCH) chemotherapy cycle or sequentially (weekly for 6 weeks) after completion of all chemotherapy in HIV-associated NHL. EPOCH consisted of a 96-hour intravenous infusion of etoposide, doxorubicin, and vincristine plus oral prednisone followed by intravenous bolus cyclophosphamide given every 21 days for 4 to 6 cycles. In the concurrent arm, 35 of 48 evaluable patients (73%; 95% confidence interval, 58%-85%) had a complete response. In the sequential arm, 29 of 53 evaluable patients (55%; 95% confidence interval, 41%-68%) had a complete response. The primary efficacy endpoint was met for the concurrent arm only. Toxicity was comparable in the 2 arms, although patients with a baseline CD4 count less than 50/microL had a high infectious death rate in the concurrent arm. We conclude that concurrent rituximab plus infusional EPOCH is an effective regimen for HIV-associated lymphoma.

Palliative care.

These guidelines were developed and updated by an interdisciplinary group of experts based on clinical experience and available scientific evidence. The goal of these guidelines is to help patients with cancer experience the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory by providing guidance for the primary oncology team for symptom screening, assessment, palliative care interventions, reassessment, and afterdeath care. Palliative care should be initiated by the primary oncology team and augmented by collaboration with an interdisciplinary team of palliative care experts.

Priority symptoms in advanced breast cancer: development and initial validation of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16).

OBJECTIVES: By using methods consistent with recent regulatory guidance on patient-reported outcomes as endpoints in clinical trials, we created a new version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (FBSI), with emphasis on patient input during the development process. METHODS: We obtained input on the most important symptoms to monitor during treatment for stage III or IV breast cancer from 52 patients recruited from National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions as well as support service organizations. Participating patients shared their top-priority symptoms/concerns through open-ended interviews and symptom checklists. To ensure adequate content coverage, we evaluated results alongside the original version of the FBSI, which was created on the basis of a survey of oncology clinicians at National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions and items in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy measurement system. We also obtained input from 10 National Comprehensive Cancer Network oncologists regarding whether symptoms were primarily related to disease or treatment. RESULTS: We selected breast cancer-related symptoms and concerns endorsed as high priority by both oncology patients and clinicians for inclusion in the new National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index-16 (NFBSI-16), which includes all eight items from the original FBSI and eight additional items from Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy measures. The NFBSI-16 is formatted by subscale: Disease-Related Symptom, Treatment Side-Effect, and General Function and Well-Being. Results provide preliminary support for NFBSI-16's internal consistency reliability (α = 0.87) and validity as evidenced by moderate-to-strong relationships with expected criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Reflecting the priority symptoms of breast cancer patients and clinicians, the NFBSI-16 can be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for advanced breast cancer in clinical practice and research.

Hematology/oncology fellows' training in palliative care: results of a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care is recognized as integral to the practice of oncology, yet many oncologists report inadequate training in critical palliative care domains, such as symptom management, psychosocial care, and communication skills. The authors of this report sought to assess the quantity and quality of palliative care education within oncology fellowships. METHODS: Second-year oncology fellows completed a 104-item survey that was modified and adapted from a national survey of medical students and residents. Items allowed comparison between palliative care and nonpalliative care topics. RESULTS: Of 402 eligible fellows, 63.2% responded (n = 254). Respondents were: 52% men, 62% Caucasian, and 64% US medical school graduates. Twenty-six percent had completed a palliative care rotation. Fellows rated the overall quality of fellowship teaching more highly than teaching on palliative care (3.7 v 3.0 on a 1-5 scale; t = 10.2; P < .001). Rates of being observed (81%) and receiving feedback (80%) on an end-of-life communication skill were high. Psychosocial needs of patients received some attention: Fifty-seven percent of fellows reported that they were conveyed as a core competency, but only 32% of fellows received explicit education on assessing and managing depression at the end of life. Fellows rarely reported receiving explicit education on opioid rotation (33%). Fellows scored a median of 2 of 4 items that tested basic palliative care knowledge, and only 23% correctly performed an opioid conversion. CONCLUSIONS: Fellows rated the quality of palliative care education as inferior to overall oncology training and may benefit from more teaching on pain management, psychosocial care, and communication skills.

Development and validation of 11 symptom indexes to evaluate response to chemotherapy for advanced cancer.

Recent guidance from the FDA discusses patient-reported outcomes as end points in clinical trials. Using methods consistent with this guidance, the authors developed symptom indexes for patients with advanced cancer. Input on the most important symptoms was obtained from 533 patients recruited from NCCN Member Institutions and 4 nonprofit social service organizations. Diagnoses included bladder, brain, breast, colorectal, head and neck, hepatobiliary/pancreatic, kidney, lung, ovarian, and prostate cancers and lymphoma. Physician experts in each of these diseases were also surveyed to differentiate symptoms that were predominantly disease-based from those that were predominantly treatment-induced. Results are evaluated alongside previously published indexes for 9 of these 11 advanced cancers that were created based on expert provider surveys, also implemented at NCCN Member Institutions. Final results are 11 symptom indexes that reflect the highest priorities of people affected by these 11 advanced cancers and the experienced perspective of the people who provide their medical treatment. Beyond the clinical value of such indexes, they may also contribute significantly to satisfying regulatory requirements for a standardized tool to evaluate drug efficacy with respect to symptomatology.

The integration of palliative care and oncology: the evidence.

Cancer care and palliative care each require a complex multi- and interdisciplinary approach to maximize the care of people with cancer. Recommendations for cancer treatment should both relieve the symptoms of cancer and prevent and treat side effects of anticancer therapy. Unrelieved symptoms not only contribute to worse quality of life but also can reduce a patient's ability to tolerate cancer therapy and may have a negative impact on survival. Consistent integration of palliative care practices into standard oncology care is needed across the trajectory of the cancer experience. This article will review the overlap between palliative care and oncology and discuss the available evidence that true integration of palliative and oncology care provides patients with optimal oncology care.

Palliative care and the cancer patient: current state and state of the art.

Comprehensive cancer care requires the integration of palliative care practices and principles across the trajectory of the cancer experience. It complements the treatment of curable disease and may be the sole focus of care for those patients with advanced incurable disease. As the incidence of cancer increases worldwide and the burden of cancer rises, especially in low and middle resource countries, the need for palliative care is greater than ever before. There are numerous barriers to the provision of integrated care, including the ongoing misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care, the "cure-care dichotomy," inadequate training of health professionals and lack of resources. This article reviews the essential elements of comprehensive cancer care and the challenges to providing integrated cancer and palliative care to patients world-wide.

A Grant-Based Experiment to Train Clinical Investigators: The AACR/ASCO Methods in Clinical Cancer Research Workshop.

To address the need for clinical investigators in oncology, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) and American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) established the Methods in Clinical Cancer Research Workshop (MCCRW). The workshop's objectives were to: (i) provide training in the methods, design, and conduct of clinical trials; (ii) ensure that clinical trials met federal and international ethical guidelines; (iii) evaluate the effectiveness of the workshop; and (iv) create networking opportunities for young investigators with mentoring senior faculty. Educational methods included: (i) didactic lectures, (ii) Small Group Discussion Sessions, (iii) Protocol Development Groups, and (iv) one-on-one mentoring. Learning focused on the development of an Institutional Review Board (IRB)-ready protocol, which was submitted on the last day of the workshop. Evaluation methods included: (i) pre- and postworkshop tests, (ii) students' workshop evaluations, (iii) faculty's ratings of protocol development, (iv) students' productivity in clinical research after the workshop, and (v) an independent assessment of the workshop. From 1996 to 2014, 1,932 students from diverse backgrounds attended the workshop. There was a significant improvement in the students' level of knowledge from the pre- to the postworkshop exams (P < 0.001). Across the classes, student evaluations were very favorable. At the end of the workshop, faculty rated 92% to 100% of the students' protocols as ready for IRB submission. Intermediate and long-term follow-ups indicated that more than 92% of students were actively involved in patient-related research, and 66% had implemented five or more protocols. This NCI-sponsored MCCRW has had a major impact on the training of clinicians in their ability to design and implement clinical trials in cancer research.