Dermatologists are more likely than oncologists to prescribe skin-directed therapies for early-stage cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: a retrospective review.

Early-stage cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) is managed effectively with skin-directed therapies such as topical medications, phototherapy, and local ionizing radiation. Patients with CTCL often seek care from both dermatologists and oncologists. Our study aimed to compare the frequency that skin-directed treatments were prescribed to patients managed by each of these specialties. Overall, we found there was a statistically detectable relationship between the presence or absence of oncologist involvement and the likelihood that a patient would be prescribed skin-directed therapies (P=0.0003). Of the oncologists included in the study, 66% opted for management revolving around systemic rather than skin-directed therapies. However, when a dermatologist and oncologist worked together in a patient's care, the number of patients receiving skin-directed therapies increased to 100%. Our study suggests that patients with early stage CTCL may benefit from having a dermatologist involved in their care.

Ketogenic and low-sugar diets for patients with cancer: perceptions and practices of medical oncologists in Canada.

PURPOSE: Many patients with cancer are interested in complementary therapies, including strategies such as reduced carbohydrate diets. Guidelines regarding the use of these diets during cancer treatment are lacking; therefore, we aimed to explore the perceptions and practices of medical oncologists in Canada regarding low-sugar and ketogenic diets. METHOD: A cross-sectional, online multiple-choice survey was distributed to 206 Canadian medical oncologists. Questions explored frequency of patient interactions, oncologist perceptions of efficacy, advice given to patients, and concerns about side effects related to reduced carbohydrate diets. RESULTS: Responses were received from 57 medical oncologists in seven of thirteen provinces and territories, with an overall response rate of 28%. Forty-nine percent of respondents were asked at least weekly about a low-sugar diet, and 9% about the ketogenic diet. Eighty-five percent supported the use of a low-added sugar diet in patients with diabetes or hyperglycemia, while conversely 87% did not support the use of a ketogenic diet for any of their patients undergoing active cancer treatment. Respondents felt either that a ketogenic diet was not effective (31%) or that the effect on cancer outcomes was unknown (69%). Ninety-six percent of respondents had concerns about a ketogenic diet for patients receiving active cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: The role of reduced carbohydrate diets during cancer treatment is topical. Canadian oncologists are particularly reluctant to support a ketogenic diet for patients on active cancer treatment, with concerns about side effects and unknown efficacy. There may be a role for continuing medical education and institutional guidelines to inform these discussions with patients.

Awareness, perceptions and practices regarding cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia: a survey of cancer clinicians.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia have severe negative consequences including reduced survival and reduced ability to complete treatment. This study aimed to determine the awareness, perceptions and practices of Australian oncology clinicians regarding malnutrition and sarcopenia in people with cancer. METHODS: A national cross-sectional survey of Australian cancer clinicians was undertaken between November 2018 and January 2019. The 30-item online purpose-designed survey was circulated through professional organizations and health services. RESULTS: The 111 participants represented dietetic (38%), nursing (34%), medical (14%) and other allied health (14%) clinicians. Overall, 86% and 88% clinicians were aware of accepted definitions of malnutrition and sarcopenia, respectively. Perception of responsibility for identification of these conditions varied across participants, although 93% agreed this was a component of their role. However, 21% and 43% of clinicians had limited or no confidence in their ability to identify malnutrition and sarcopenia, respectively. Common barriers to the identification and management of malnutrition were access to the tools or skills required and a lack of services to manage malnourished patients. Common barriers to identification of sarcopenia were lack of confidence and lack of services to manage sarcopenic patients. Enablers for identification and management of malnutrition and sarcopenia were variable; however, training and protocols for management ranked highly. CONCLUSION: While awareness of the importance of cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia are high, participants identified substantial barriers to delivering optimal nutrition care. Guidance at a national level is recommended to strengthen the approach to management of cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia.

Guideline adherence in bone-targeted treatment of cancer patients with bone metastases in Germany.

PURPOSE: To assess adherence to the current European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) clinical practice guideline on bone health in cancer patients and the German guidelines for lung, breast, and prostate cancer among German oncologists in hospitals and office-based physicians and to identify predictors of guideline compliance to assess the needs for dedicated training. METHODS: This was a retrospective sample analysis representing hospitals and office-based physicians in Germany in 2016. Records from lung, breast, and prostate cancer patients who had received a diagnosis of bone metastasis between April 1, 2015, and March 31, 2016, were included. Oncologists at participating centers answered a self-assessment survey on aspects related to their professional life, including guideline adherence and years of clinical experience in medical oncology. Guideline adherence rates were assessed from patient records. Treatment variables and survey data were used to identify predictors of guideline compliance in a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis. RESULTS: Disregarding recommendations for supplementation of calcium and vitamin D, guideline adherence among physicians treating lung, breast, or prostate cancer patients was 62%, 92%, and 83%, respectively. Compliance was 15%, 42%, and 40% if recommendations for dietary supplements were taken into account. Identified predictors of guideline compliance included treatment setting, medical specialty, years of professional experience, and frequency of quality circle attendance. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with the ESMO and the German guidelines in cancer patients varies between medical specialties. In particular, patients with lung cancer and bone metastases often do not receive the recommended osteoprotective treatment and required supplementation. Discrepancies between guideline recommendations and common practice should be addressed with dedicated training.

Quantitative Imaging Assessment for Clinical Trials in Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Objective radiographic assessment is crucial for accurately evaluating therapeutic efficacy and patient outcomes in oncology clinical trials. Imaging assessment workflow can be complex; can vary with institution; may burden medical oncologists, who are often inadequately trained in radiology and response criteria; and can lead to high interobserver variability and investigator bias. This article reviews the development of a tumor response assessment core (TRAC) at a comprehensive cancer center with the goal of providing standardized, objective, unbiased tumor imaging assessments, and highlights the web-based platform and overall workflow. In addition, quantitative response assessments by the medical oncologists, radiologist, and TRAC are compared in a retrospective cohort of patients to determine concordance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The TRAC workflow includes an image analyst who pre-reviews scans before review with a board-certified radiologist and then manually uploads annotated data on the proprietary TRAC web portal. Patients previously enrolled in 10 lung cancer clinical trials between January 2005 and December 2015 were identified, and the prospectively collected quantitative response assessments by the medical oncologists were compared with retrospective analysis of the same dataset by a radiologist and TRAC. RESULTS: This study enlisted 49 consecutive patients (53% female) with a median age of 60 years (range, 29-78 years); 2 patients did not meet study criteria and were excluded. A linearly weighted kappa test for concordance for TRAC versus radiologist was substantial at 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.85; standard error [SE], 0.10). The kappa value was moderate at 0.42 (95% CI, 0.20-0.64; SE, 0.11) for TRAC versus oncologists and only fair at 0.34 (95% CI, 0.12-0.55; SE, 0.11) for oncologists versus radiologist. CONCLUSIONS: Medical oncologists burdened with the task of tumor measurements in patients on clinical trials may introduce significant variability and investigator bias, with the potential to affect therapeutic response and clinical trial outcomes. Institutional imaging cores may help bridge the gap by providing unbiased and reproducible measurements and enable a leaner workflow.

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.

[Integration of Palliative Care into the Comprehensive Cancer Center of Germany - Consultation Hours and Fellowship Rotations of the Specialized Palliative Care]. / Integration von Palliativmedizin in onkologische Spitzenzentren Deutschlands ­ ambulante Sprechstunden und Rotationsprogramme der spezialisierten Palliativmedizin.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Cancer Centers are characterized by interdisciplinary exchange for meeting increasingly complex care needs during the course of the disease. Tumor consultations hours and fellowship rotations build hereby bridges between the subjects and disciplines. OBJECTIVES: In order to be able to provide support in the Comprehensive Cancer Center Network for the further integration of specialized palliative medicine, it was highlighted to what extent consultation hours and fellowship rotations for the palliative care are integrated into the centers. METHODS: Information about the spS and fellowship rotation of the Comprehensive Cancer Center (n = 16), which had previously been funded by the Cancer Aid, was paper-based collected with a survey questionnaire. For this purpose, the heads of the palliative care departments of the centers were interviewed from July to August 2017. The evaluation was performed by SPSS (frequency, mean value, median, range). RESULTS: 15 from 16 centers responded to the survey (93.75 %). Nine centers (60 %) have a consultation hour for palliative care. Four from nine centers can submit this offer for ≥ 4 hours (44.4 %). Fellowship rotations in the palliative care occur primarily in all centers from oncology / hematology (n = 11, 73.3 %) and anaesthesia (n = 6) and often for a twelve months (n = 11) period of time. CONCLUSION: Outpatient structures of the palliative care have been insufficiently implemented to a consultation hour within Comprehensive Cancer Centers. The existing effort to integrate palliative care into the oncological course of disease requires further structuring in order to increase the visibility of palliative care services. Fellowship rotations in the palliative care department are regularly implemented in the network even if only for some of the subjects in order to raise awareness of the possibilities of the palliative care.

Knowledge and practices of medical oncologists concerning nutrition therapy: A survey study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite the identification of malnutrition and administration of nutrition therapy being increasingly recognised as integral to the treatment of cancer patients, this is not always translated into routine clinical practice. The aim of this study was to determine medical oncologists' awareness of, and ability to assess, nutritional status and when to initiate nutrition therapy, to identify their educational status concerning clinical nutrition and their perceived barriers to the routine use of nutrition therapy in their patients through a survey study. METHODS: 155 medical oncologists were invited to complete a digital questionnaire. The questionnaire included information regarding the participants demographic and professional information, clinical nutrition education status, attitudes towards malnutrition and nutrition therapy, and barriers to using nutrition therapy. The questionnaire also included two case scenarios designed to assess ability to diagnose malnutrition/assess nutritional status and identify when nutrition therapy might be indicated. RESULTS: Of 109 medical oncologists who agreed to participate, 43.1% declared that they received clinical nutrition education and 33.9% declared that they followed the oncology sections in the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) Guidelines. The medical oncologists were divided into two groups according to their knowledge score (31 medical oncologists with a knowledge score of <3 and 78 medical oncologists with a knowledge score of ≥3). The rate of having nutrition education was significantly higher in those with a higher knowledge score (≥3) and the rate of medical oncologists having this education during medical and/or oncology education was also significantly higher. The rate of medical oncologists following the oncology sections in the ESPEN guidelines was higher in those with higher knowledge score. CONCLUSIONS: Our results emphasize the association between clinical nutrition education and higher knowledge scores in medical oncologists, but reveal a mis-match between knowledge and awareness and what happens in clinical practice. Nutrition therapy might be used more frequently in routine practice when medical oncologists' lack of knowledge is resolved.

Medical Oncologists' Beliefs, Practices, and Knowledge Regarding Marijuana Used Therapeutically: A Nationally Representative Survey Study.

Background Although almost every state medical marijuana (MM) law identifies cancer as a qualifying condition, little research supports MM's use in oncology. We hypothesized that the discrepancy between these laws and the scientific evidence base poses clinical challenges for oncologists. Oncologists' beliefs, knowledge, and practices regarding MM were examined in this study. Methods In November 2016, we mailed a survey on MM to a nationally-representative, random sample of 400 medical oncologists. Main outcome measures included whether oncologists reported discussing MM with patients, recommended MM clinically in the past year, or felt sufficiently informed to make such recommendations. The survey also queried oncologists' views on MM's comparative effectiveness for several conditions (including its use as an adjunct to standard pain management strategies) and its risks compared with prescription opioids. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed using standard statistical techniques. Results The overall response rate was 63%. Whereas only 30% of oncologists felt sufficiently informed to make recommendations regarding MM, 80% conducted discussions about MM with patients, and 46% recommended MM clinically. Sixty-seven percent viewed it as a helpful adjunct to standard pain management strategies, and 65% thought MM is equally or more effective than standard treatments for anorexia and cachexia. Conclusion Our findings identify a concerning discrepancy between oncologists' self-reported knowledge base and their beliefs and practices regarding MM. Although 70% of oncologists do not feel equipped to make clinical recommendations regarding MM, the vast majority conduct discussions with patients about MM and nearly one-half do, in fact, recommend it clinically. A majority believes MM is useful for certain indications. These findings are clinically important and suggest critical gaps in research, medical education, and policy regarding MM.

Academic Surgical Oncologists' Productivity Correlates with Gender, Grant Funding, and Institutional NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center Affiliation.

BACKGROUND: A scholar's h-index is defined as the number of h papers published, each of which has been cited at least h times. We hypothesized that the h-index strongly correlates with the academic rank of surgical oncologists. METHODS: We utilized the National Cancer Institute (NCI) website to identify NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) and Doximity to identify the 50 highest-ranked general surgery residency programs with surgical oncology divisions. Demographic data of respective academic surgical oncologists were collected from departmental websites and Grantome. Bibliometric data were obtained from Web of Science. RESULTS: We identified 544 surgical oncologists from 64 programs. Increased h-index was associated with academic rank (p < 0.001), male gender (p < 0.001), number of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants (p < 0.001), and affiliation with an NCI CCC (p = 0.018) but not number of additional degrees (p = 0.661) or Doximity ranking (p = 0.102). H-index was a stronger predictor of academic rank (r = 0.648) than total publications (r = 0.585) or citations (r = 0.450). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report to assess the h-index within academic surgical oncology. H-index is a bibliometric predictor of academic rank that correlates with NIH grant funding and NCI CCC affiliation. We also highlight a previously unexpected and unappreciated gender disparity in the academic productivity of US surgical oncologists. When academic rank was accounted for, female surgical oncologists had lower h-indices compared with their male colleagues. Evaluation of the etiologies of this gender disparity is needed to address barriers to academic productivity faced by female surgical oncologists as they progress through their careers.

Oncologists' Perceptions of Drug Affordability Using NCCN Evidence Blocks: Results from a National Survey.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of cancer coupled with approvals of new drugs and technologies used in therapy have brought increased scrutiny to the cost and value of treatments in oncology. To address the rising concern about oncology drug costs, several organizations have developed value frameworks to help assess the value of oncology regimens. The objective of this study was to assess oncologists' perceptions, awareness, and knowledge of all oncology value frameworks in the United States and to understand oncologists' perceptions of affordability in the context of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks. OBJECTIVES: To (a) assess oncologists' awareness, knowledge, perceptions, and ratings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (AVF), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) value framework, NCCN Evidence Blocks, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's DrugAbacus; (b) assess oncologists' knowledge and perceptions of drug affordability as defined by the NCCN Evidence Blocks methodology; and (c) determine the factors that influence drug affordability ratings. METHODS: Data were collected from an electronic cross-sectional survey of 200 U.S.-based oncologists from a variety of practice settings. Oncologists were asked about their knowledge and perceptions of 4 value frameworks-NCCN Evidence Blocks, AVF, the ICER value framework, and DrugAbacus. Using NCCN Evidence Blocks, oncologists were asked to rate a variety of hypothetical cancer therapies and assign costs (in U.S. dollars) to the 5 levels of affordability. Additional questions that assessed perceived patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and comfort level in assessing affordability were also included in the survey. RESULTS: Oncologists were most familiar with NCCN Evidence Blocks (90%), followed by the AVF (84%), ICER value framework (57%), and DrugAbacus (56%). Oncologists rated affordability higher (mean rating 3: moderately expensive) versus the actual NCCN panel affordability rating (mean rating 1: very expensive). The affordability rating was similar across a variety of hypothetical cancer therapies and tumor types (rating: 3). Oncologists estimated the costs for this rating of 3 to range from $4,600 to $6,000 per month, which was inconsistent with actual drug costs. Oncologists estimated the mean monthly OOP costs for patients with insurance to range from $1,260 for a new oral medication to $1,700 for a new infused medication. Only 26% of oncologists were comfortable or very comfortable with rating costs associated with affordability levels. CONCLUSIONS: Surveyed oncologists rated cancer therapies as more affordable (per NCCN Evidence Blocks criteria) than NCCN panel ratings. Costs associated with affordability were not consistent with actual treatment costs; however, most oncologists were not comfortable with rating affordability. Patient OOP costs had the biggest influence on affordability ratings; however, physicians overestimated patient OOP costs significantly. There is an opportunity to improve the value frameworks, especially with regard to affordability assessment. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Genentech. Shah-Manek is employed by Ipsos Healthcare, a health care consulting company that received funding from Genentech to conduct this study. DiBonaventura was employed by Ipsos Healthcare at the time of this study. Wong and Ravelo are employed by Genentech. Shah-Manek has consulted with Genentech, Merck, Alkermes, Avanis, Alnylam, Novo Nordisk, Teva, Lilly, and BMS. This work was presented as an oral presentation at the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois, on June 2-6, 2017.

A "miracle" cancer drug in the era of social media: A survey of Brazilian oncologists' opinions and experience with phosphoethanolamine.

INTRODUCTION: Patients who are treating cancer have often used alternative therapies. In the internet era, information can be broadcasted widely, and this happened with phosphoethanolamine in Brazil, where this substance was claimed by the population to be the "cure for cancer." METHOD: This is a cross-sectional study developed by the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC). An objectively structured questionnaire was sent by e-mail and SMS to active MDs members of the SBOC. Descriptive statistics was used to evaluate the data. Statistical significance between the variables was tested by Pearson's Chi-squared test (p<0.05 was considered significance). RESULTS: The survey was sent to 1,072 oncologists, and 398 (37.1%) answered at least part of it. One hundred and fifteen (28.9%) had followed patients who had used phosphoethanolamine. Among these, 14 (12.2%) observed adverse events and four (3.5%) attributed clinical benefit to the substance. Most of the oncologists (n=331; 83.2%) believe that it should only be used as part of a clinical trial protocol. Most physicians did not recommend this drug to their patients (n=311; 78.1%). Oncologists in Southeast, South and Midwest Brazil were more likely to have patients taking the drug compared to the Northern and Northeastern regions. CONCLUSION: This is the first survey to assess the opinion and experience of oncologists about this alternative therapy. Most oncologists in Brazil do not believe that synthetic phosphoethanolamine is active in cancer treatment, do not recommend its use without proper evaluation, and state that it should only be available to patients in the context of clinical trials.

A "miracle" cancer drug in the era of social media: A survey of Brazilian oncologists' opinions and experience with phosphoethanolamine / Uma "milagrosa" droga contra o câncer na era da mídia social: uma pesquisa sobre a opinião e a experiência dos oncologistas brasileiros com a fosfoetanolamina

Summary Introduction: Patients who are treating cancer have often used alternative therapies. In the internet era, information can be broadcasted widely, and this happened with phosphoethanolamine in Brazil, where this substance was claimed by the population to be the "cure for cancer." Method: This is a cross-sectional study developed by the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC). An objectively structured questionnaire was sent by e-mail and SMS to active MDs members of the SBOC. Descriptive statistics was used to evaluate the data. Statistical significance between the variables was tested by Pearson's Chi-squared test (p<0.05 was considered significance). Results: The survey was sent to 1,072 oncologists, and 398 (37.1%) answered at least part of it. One hundred and fifteen (28.9%) had followed patients who had used phosphoethanolamine. Among these, 14 (12.2%) observed adverse events and four (3.5%) attributed clinical benefit to the substance. Most of the oncologists (n=331; 83.2%) believe that it should only be used as part of a clinical trial protocol. Most physicians did not recommend this drug to their patients (n=311; 78.1%). Oncologists in Southeast, South and Midwest Brazil were more likely to have patients taking the drug compared to the Northern and Northeastern regions. Conclusion: This is the first survey to assess the opinion and experience of oncologists about this alternative therapy. Most oncologists in Brazil do not believe that synthetic phosphoethanolamine is active in cancer treatment, do not recommend its use without proper evaluation, and state that it should only be available to patients in the context of clinical trials.

Resumo Introdução: Alguns pacientes com diagnóstico de câncer utilizam terapias alternativas. Na era da internet, as informações podem se dissipar de forma rápida e abrangente, como foi o caso da fosfoetanolamina no Brasil, onde foi aclamada pela população como sendo a "cura para o câncer". Método: Trata-se de um estudo transversal desenvolvido pela Sociedade Brasileira de Oncologia Clínica (SBOC). Através de e-mail e SMS, enviou-se um questionário com perguntas objetivas para oncologistas membros ativos da SBOC. Os dados foram avaliados por meio de estatística descritiva. A significância estatística entre as variáveis ​​foi testada pelo teste Qui-quadrado de Pearson (p<0,05 foi considerado significativo). Resultados: O questionário foi enviado para 1.072 oncologistas, tendo 398 (37,1%) respondido pelo menos parte dele. Cento e quinze (28,9%) tinham pacientes que fizeram uso da fosfoetanolamina. Desses, 14 (12,2%) observaram eventos adversos e quatro (3,5%) atribuíram benefício clínico para a substância. A maioria (n=331; 83,2%) acreditava que ela só deveria ser utilizada dentro de um ensaio clínico. A principal recomendação dada aos pacientes foi contra o seu uso (n=311; 78,1%). Oncologistas das regiões Sudeste, Sul e Centro-Oeste tiveram mais pacientes que tomaram a substância quando comparados com as regiões Norte e Nordeste. Conclusão: Este é o primeiro estudo que avalia a opinião dos oncologistas sobre essa terapia alternativa e sua experiência. A maioria dos oncologistas brasileiros não acredita que a fosfoetanolamina sintética seja ativa no tratamento do câncer, não recomendando seu uso sem avaliação adequada, e afirmam que a substância só deve estar disponível no contexto de ensaios clínicos.

Current patterns of care for patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer: Survey of US radiation oncologists on their recommendations regarding thoracic consolidation radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend thoracic consolidation radiation therapy (TCRT) for patients with Extensive Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer (ES-SCLC) with response to systemic chemotherapy, based on two randomized clinical trials, which varied in patient selection and radiation therapy doses administered. The current pattern of practice among US radiation oncologists is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have surveyed practicing US radiation oncologist via a short online questionnaire. Respondents' characteristics and their self-rated knowledge base were analyzed for association with their treatment recommendations. RESULTS: We received 473 responses from practicing US radiation oncologists. Over half of respondents were practicing for over 10 years after completing residency training and 70% treated more than 10 lung cancer patients per year. 96% of respondents recommend TCRT for patients with ES-SCLC after systemic chemotherapy. Patient selection and radiation therapy doses vary greatly. High self-rated knowledge of individual clinical trials is associated with lower TCRT recommended doses. Patients treated at academic centers are less likely to receive TCRT than patients treated in private clinics (p=0.0101). CONCLUSION: Our analysis revealed that among the respondents, there was a very high adherence to current NCCN guidelines, which recommend TCRT for ES-SCLC patients with clinical response to systemic chemotherapy. The great variability in patient selection and radiation therapy doses is concerning and calls for future clinical trials to standardize treatment approaches and improve treatment outcomes among patients with ES-SCLC. Until such data exists and in light of poor long-term survival of patients with ES-SCLC, the shorter and less toxic regimen of 30Gy in 10 fractions should be used as the standard of care and the more aggressive regimens studied on clinical protocols.

Awareness and consideration of malnutrition among oncologists: Insights from an exploratory survey.

OBJECTIVES: The attitude toward malnutrition varies considerably among oncologists and many malnourished cancer patients receive inadequate nutritional support. The aim of this brief report was to report the results of the exploratory national survey conducted by the Italian Society of Medical Oncology (AIOM) and the Italian Society of Artificial Nutrition and Metabolism (SINPE) before publication of a consensus document aimed at evaluating current attitudes toward malnutrition and management of nutrition, among Italian medical oncologists. METHODS: Between January and July 2015, the AIOM and the SINPE conducted a national web-based exploratory survey to investigate the attitude of oncologists toward malnutrition, and the management of nutritional support, before publication of an intersociety consensus document. RESULTS: Of the 2375 AIOM members, 135 (5.7%) participated in the survey, with a satisfactory distribution across all Italian regions. Nutritional assessment and support were routinely integrated into patient care for 38 (28%) responders. According to 66 (49%) participants, nutritional assessment was carried out only at the patients' request (n = 62), or not at all (n = 4). Availability of clinical nutritionists was reported by 88 (65%) participants. For 131 responders (97%), nutritional status was decisive (n = 63) or often crucial (n = 68) in assessing whether anticancer treatment was practicable or would be tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The low response rate may reflect the lack of awareness and consideration of nutritional issues among Italian oncologists. Although malnutrition and nutritional support seemed to be perceived by the responders as relevant factors for the efficacy of oncologic treatments, it seems that nutritional care practices may well be inappropriate. The lack of collaboration between oncologists and clinical nutritionists may be the first obstacle to overcome. Educational intersociety initiatives aimed at improving nutritional support management for cancer patients in Italy appear urgently needed.