Putting Adolescents and Young Adults in a Room Together: Launching an Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology Council.

Purpose: This article describes the formation and first meeting of a community adolescent and young adult oncology council (AYAOC), which was created to promote patient and stakeholder involvement in research and programmatic initiatives within community-based cancer centers. Methods: The AYAOC (comprising patients/survivors, family members, researchers and clinicians) convened at a one-day workshop moderated by an Australian not-for-profit AYA cancer organization. The council shared and compared health care experiences and then identified and prioritized unmet health care needs. Workshop notes were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Results: AYAOC members identified similarities in their experiences of cancer care and priorities for improvement of the health care system. Peer connection and the creation of adolescent and young adult (AYA)-specific care facilities were identified as the most pressing needs for AYAs with cancer, closely followed by integration of complementary medicine into medical practice and government advocacy to improve the quality and consistency of AYA cancer care delivery. Themes identified from AYAOC discussion included emotional isolation, naivety with and sometimes distrust of the medical system, the lasting impact of cancer on identity, the need for emotionally safe interactions with both individual clinicians and groups of peers, and the desire to take personal action to improve care for future patients. Conclusion: AYAOC members expressed a drive to share their experiences, advocate for others, and improve health care services for the "next generation" of AYAs diagnosed with cancer. Sharing stories and connecting with peers may have personal value for individuals. Channeling the altruistic energy of AYAs and stakeholders into group advisory and advocacy efforts also has value for health care systems, allowing stakeholder insights to inform clinical service delivery and research priorities.

Evaluating the Strength of the Association Between Industry Payments and Prescribing Practices in Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry are common, but factors that may determine whether such relationships result in physician practice changes are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated physician use of orally administered cancer drugs for four cancers: prostate (abiraterone, enzalutamide), renal cell (axitinib, everolimus, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib), lung (afatinib, erlotinib), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML; dasatinib, imatinib, nilotinib). Separate physician cohorts were defined for each cancer type by prescribing history. The primary exposure was the number of calendar years during 2013-2015 in which a physician received payments from the manufacturer of one of the studied drugs; the outcome was relative prescribing of that drug in 2015, compared with the other drugs for that cancer. We evaluated whether practice setting at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center, receipt of payments for purposes other than education or research (compensation payments), maximum annual dollar value received, and institutional conflict-of-interest policies were associated with the strength of the payment-prescribing association. We used modified Poisson regression to control confounding by other physician characteristics. RESULTS: Physicians who received payments for a drug in all 3 years had increased prescribing of that drug (compared with 0 years), for renal cell (relative risk [RR] 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-2.07), CML (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08-1.39), and lung (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.58-1.82), but not prostate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93-1.02). Physicians who received compensation payments or >$100 annually had increased prescribing compared with those who did not, but NCI setting and institutional conflict-of-interest policies were not consistently associated with the direction of prescribing change. CONCLUSION: The association between industry payments and cancer drug prescribing was greatest among physicians who received payments consistently (within each calendar year). Receipt of payments for compensation purposes, such as for consulting or travel, and higher dollar value of payments were also associated with increased prescribing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Financial payments from pharmaceutical companies are common among oncologists. It is known from prior work that oncologists tend to prescribe more of the drugs made by companies that have given them money. By combining records of industry gifts with prescribing records, this study identifies the consistency of payments over time, the dollar value of payments, and payments for compensation as factors that may strengthen the association between receiving payments and increased prescribing of that company's drug.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Ethics Consultations on a Comprehensive Cancer Center's Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology Service.

The goal of this paper is to review and describe the characteristics and outcomes of ethics consultations on a gastrointestinal oncology service and to identify areas for systems improvement and staff education. This is a retrospective case series derived from a prospectively-maintained database (which includes categorization of the primary issues, contextual ethical issues, and other case characteristics) of the ethics consultation service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The study analyzed all ethics consultations requested for patients on the gastrointestinal medical oncology service from September 2007 to January 2016. A total of 64 patients were identified. The most common primary ethical issue was the DNR order (39%), followed by medical futility (28%). The most common contextual issues were dispute/conflict between staff and family (48%), dispute/conflict intra-family (16%), and cultural/ethnic/religious issues (16%). The majority of ethical issues leading to consultation were resolved (84%); i.e., the patient, surrogate, and/or healthcare team followed the recommendation of the ethics consultant. 22% had a DNR order prior to the ethics consult and 69% had a DNR order after the consult. In this population of patients on a gastrointestinal oncology service, ethics consultations are most often called regarding patients with advanced cancers and the most common ethical conflicts arose between families and the health care team over goals of care at the end of life, specifically related to the DNR order and perceived futility of continued/escalation of treatment. Ethics consultations assisted with conflict resolution. Conflicts might be reduced with improved communication about prognosis and earlier end of life care planning.

Ethics of ongoing cancer care for patients making risky decisions.

Patients who decline conventional cancer therapy yet seek to continue follow-up while pursuing alternative therapy can pose an ethical challenge. The potential benefits and harms of an ongoing clinical relationship need be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Ongoing efforts at communicating, understanding the patient's basis for decision making, and seeking to negotiate evidence-based care that is respectful of the patient's preferences may improve outcomes.13 However, respect for the patient's autonomy does not require support for inappropriate care and should not require that the oncologist check his or her professional judgment at the door.

[Cancer and spirituality: the young oncologists' point of view]. / Spiritualité et cancer : le point de vue des jeunes oncologues.

Because of its pronostic, occurrence of cancer leads patients to questioning about death, life, and illness. Medical and paramedical staffs are often confronted to such questions, which can embarrassed them because not enough prepared and educated about them. How to help patients spiritually ? How to face a situation ethically ? Young french oncologists expose us their own experience and different trains of thought.

Ethical issues in integrative oncology.

Integrative oncology relates to an emerging dialog between complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) scholars, oncologists, family practitioners, and other health care providers who envision an extended and holistic patient-centered approach to oncology care. The multiple commitments of integrative oncology to a medical humanistic approach and to a strong evidence-based foundation may impose considerable ethical concerns and dilemmas. The authors use narrative ethics to present a case study that exemplifies the ethical challenges confronting physicians and health care providers who wish to provide an integrative approach for their patients. An ethical analysis of the narrative is provided to help clarify the ethical issues and conflicts within it. Finally, a framework that may transform ethical constraints to a communication tool is proposed.

El médico ante las enfermedades mortales: el caso del cáncer / No disponible

No disponible

Legal and ethical issues relating to use of complementary therapies in pediatric hematology/oncology.

Pediatricians increasingly are asked to advise pediatric patients and their families concerning integration into conventional care (including hematology and oncology) of complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies such as chiropractic, massage therapy, and herbal medicine. Inclusion of CAM therapies in pediatric oncology and hematology--as in any medical subspecialty--is not itself "unethical," clinically inadvisable, or legally risky; the danger comes from over-reliance on one or more CAM therapies (particularly those with evidence of danger and/or paltry evidence of success) to the exclusion of conventional care that is curative and imminently necessary. Pediatricians can help address potential malpractice liability issues by evaluating the level of clinical risk, engaging the patient in shared decision making and documenting this in the medical record, continuing to monitor conventionally, and being prepared to intervene conventionally when medically required.

Integrative medicine in hematology/oncology: benefits, ethical considerations, and controversies.

Integrative Medicine (IM), a newly emerging field, has evolved from Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM). CAM refers to diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered part of conventional medicine and generally have limited scientific evidence. In the US, CAM is a multi-billion dollar, unregulated industry with potential benefits and risks to consumers, including cancer patients, who are high utilizers of complementary therapies. Patients' CAM use often is unsupervised by physicians, yet patients need the advice and guidance of their hematologists/oncologists as part of total cancer care. Ethical and legal issues physicians need to address include inquiring about and educating patients regarding potential interactions (e.g., drug-herb, radiation-antioxidant) or product contaminants, while discussing other therapies that may alleviate symptoms and/or improve quality of life. Administratively, CAM offerings in medical settings require relevant policies and procedures, such as properly credentialing practitioners and providing financial assistance counseling for those who cannot afford fee-for-service. Unlike "Alternative Medicine," the goal of IM is to combine mainstream medical therapies and CAM therapies (e.g., acupuncture, meditation, music therapy) that have some high-quality scientific evidence of safety and effectiveness. The Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO), a new international organization of oncology professionals studying and integrating effective complementary therapies in cancer care, serves as a forum for presenting scientific data on these therapies while emphasizing the importance of developing infrastructure that promotes IM principles and practices. The ultimate goal is to develop multidisciplinary expertise and therapeutic synergy between conventional and complementary therapies.

Informed consent in complementary and alternative medicine: current status and future needs.

"Informed consent" is an action. It is a process that fulfills the pretreatment ethical obligations of provider to patient. Through the process, the provider discloses meaningful and realistic facts about positive and negative expectations concerning the proposed intervention and addresses concerns that are pertinent to the patient. Disclosure is of facts that are known or realistically expected to be known by a qualified provider regardless of background or product genus. The disclosure obligation does not vary with the background of the provider or the label given to the therapy. MD, nurse, naturapath, chiropractor, and licensed and unlicensed practitioner have the responsibility to provide quality information about the therapeutic worth of the intervention based on reliable data. This obligation pertains whether the intervention is standard, experimental, investigational, natural, alternative, complementary, or unproven. Misrepresentation of material facts voids consent and triggers legal liability. Today, the oncology community meets the informed consent obligation through a stepwise process that produces standards of care and builds studies and data collection to produce reliable outcome information on patient benefit. These data enrich the ability of a patient to consider and provide informed consent to treatment. In contrast, although there are some ongoing studies of complementary and alternative (CAM) therapies, there does not appear to be a groundswell of support for these activities within the CAM community. The development of standards of care and reliable information about CAM therapies appears to be seriously lagging and a disservice to obligations toward informed participation and consent by the patients seeking CAM interventions.