Development and validation of impact of early integration of palliative care and oncology(IEI PCO) questionnaire: a survey for medical oncologists and nurses.

OBJECTIVES: Many associations have recently recommended early integration of oncology and palliative care for more standard cancer care and better quality of life. We aimed to create a questionnaire to assess the opinion of medical oncologists and nurses about the clinical impact of the integrated palliative care and oncology (PCO) program. METHODS: A novel semi-structured questionnaire called Impact of Early Integration of Palliative Care Oncology (IEI PCO) questionnaire was developed and tested for validity and reliability then distributed to the oncologists and nurses working in Kuwait Cancer Control Center. RESULTS: After the pilot stage, testing the final questionnaire for validity and reliability was done with satisfactory results. Finally, the complete questionnaires were 170 out of 256 (response rate 66.41%). More awareness about the available palliative care services and the new available PCO services (p-value < 0.001 for all). Most of the oncologists and nurses agreed with the currently available structure of PCO, appreciated the patients' discharge plan and continuity of care of palliative medicine, admitted less work burden, a better attitude, and higher satisfaction (p-value for all < 0.001) toward palliative care. Significant improvements in symptoms were appreciated by oncologists and nurses after the integration of palliative care (p-value for all < 0.001. Oncologists and nurses valued repeated honest communication, discussion of the goals of care, dealing more effectively with ending active treatment, and higher acceptance of patients and families of PC policy of transfer, and significant progress in the care of end-of-life symptoms (p-value for all < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The IEI PCO questionnaire demonstrated the psychometric criteria for content, face, and construct validity and reliability. It provides a valuable tool to assess the impact of PCO integration. The opinion of medical oncologists and nurses was significantly positive toward the early integration of PCO in Kuwait in most aspects of care. This integration led to improved symptom control, end-of-life care, communication, and planned discharge and follow-up plans. Moreover, decreases the work burden, improves attitude, higher satisfaction of the oncology staff, and continuity of care.

Standing on the shoulders of giants: Mentorship advice from leaders in the field.

This commentary is presenting opinions and advice on mentorship in the field of gynecologic oncology. Eleven academic gynecologic oncologists from across the country were interviewed and their thoughts about mentorship were recorded with recurring themes and ideas described in this commentary. Trust, respect, and mutual agreement on expectations were all described as vital to a functioning mentor/mentee relationship. Mentorship is critical for fellows and junior faculty to expand and uphold the standards of the field.

COVID-19 and Gynecologic Oncology: What Have We Learned?

OPINION STATEMENT: COVID-19 has transformed the care we provide to gynecologic oncology patients. In addition to directly impacting the diagnosis and treatment of women with gynecologic cancer, it has affected our patient's ability to undergo recommended surveillance and has made an impact on every caregiver providing care during this time. Herein we review the current literature on the impact of COVID-19 on gynecologic oncology and highlight new approaches and innovations that have resulted in gynecologic cancer care as a result of the pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 on the field of gynecologic oncology has been profound. In addition to directly impacting the diagnosis and treatment of women with cancer, it has also challenged the very ethics with which we practice medicine. The equitable distribution of resources is paramount to upholding the Hippocratic Oath which we all invoke. The COVID-19 pandemic has stripped this oath down to its very core, forcing all medical practitioners to scrutinize who gets what resources and when. As the pandemic continues to unfold, the question remains - in the setting of a strained and overburdened healthcare system, how do we maximize beneficence to one group of patients, while maintaining non-maleficence to others? As gynecologic oncologists, we are responsible for advocating for our patients to ensure that the quality of their cancer care is not compromised, while also not overutilizing resources that are sorely needed for the care of COVID-19 victims, and not making them more likely to succumb to COVID-19 by the very nature of the treatment we provide. The effects of the pandemic are far-reaching and broad, and many of these are yet to be determined. Future studies are needed to analyze how the above-utilized strategies in GYN cancer care during the pandemic will impact the long-term outcomes of our patients.

Implementation of tobacco cessation services at a comprehensive cancer center: a qualitative study of oncology providers' perceptions and practices.

PURPOSE: To explore (1) perceptions of tobacco cessation for patients, (2) perceived role in addressing patients' tobacco use, (3) facilitators and barriers to providing cessation services, and (4) perceptions and use of tobacco cessation resources among oncology providers. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 24 oncology providers at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Qualitative themes were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Participants (1) perceived smoking cessation's priority as low and/or dependent upon clinical factors, (2) described a passive role in addressing tobacco cessation, (3) described loss-framed versus gain-framed messaging when delivering cessation advice, (4) reported moderate self-efficacy in discussing and low self-efficacy in implementing cessation strategies, (5) described multi-level facilitators and barriers to patients' tobacco cessation, and (6) expressed high value for the cancer center's tobacco cessation service. CONCLUSION: Oncology providers in this study perceived patients' tobacco cessation as a low priority relative to providing direct cancer treatment and addressing acute complications. These findings indicate opportunities for training to increase delivery of evidence-based cessation advice and facilitate patients' engagement in cessation services. Provider trainings on embracing an active role in tobacco cessation, addressing multi-level barriers to patients' tobacco cessation, and using gain-framed messaging should be implemented. This has the potential to improve cancer patients' treatment outcomes.

Perceptions of time spent pursuing cancer care among patients, caregivers, and oncology professionals.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer spend significant time receiving treatment and recovering from side effects. Little is known about how patients and their caregivers perceive time spent receiving cancer treatment and how this impacts health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Our study aims to characterize perceptions of time invested in receiving cancer therapy as experienced by patients, caregivers, and oncology professionals. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients undergoing treatment for advanced lung cancer and melanoma, their informal caregivers, and oncology professionals (physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains). Participants received and provided care at a tertiary cancer center. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed qualitatively using predominantly inductive coding to identify themes relating to time perception and cancer care. RESULTS: We interviewed 29 participants (11 patients, 7 informal caregivers, and 11 oncology professionals) and found they consistently differentiated between time remaining in life ("existential time") and time required to manage cancer treatment and symptoms ("chronological time"). Patients and caregivers reported distress around the mechanics of oncologic care that interrupted their daily lives (hobbies, activities). Participants described the impact of time invested in cancer care on dimensions of quality of life, ranging from minimal to substantial negative impact. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the time spent undergoing cancer treatment affects well-being and often prevents patients and caregivers from participating in meaningful activities. The investment of personal time undergoing cancer therapy for patients with advanced solid tumors merits further study and can enhance communication between patients, caregivers, and their oncologists.

Clinical assessment of emotions in patients with cancer: Diagnostic accuracy compared with two reference standards.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has suggested that clinical assessment of emotions in patients with cancer is suboptimal. However, it is a possibility that well-trained and experienced doctors and nurses do recognize emotions but that they do not evaluate all emotions as necessitating professional mental health care. This implies that the sensitivity of clinical assessment should be tested against the need for professional mental health care as reference standard, instead of emotional distress. We hypothesized that the observed sensitivity of clinical assessment of emotions would be higher when tested against need for professional mental health care as reference standard, compared with emotional distress as reference standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A consecutive series of patients starting with chemotherapy were recruited during their routine clinical care, at a department of medical oncology. Clinical assessment of emotions by medical oncologists and nurses was derived from the patient file. Emotional distress and need for professional mental health care were assessed using the Distress Thermometer and Problem List. RESULTS: Clinical assessment resulted in notes on emotions in 42.2% of the patient files with 36.2% of patients experiencing emotional distress and 10.8% expressing a need for professional mental health care (N = 185). As expected, the sensitivity of clinical assessment of emotions was higher with the reference standard "need for professional mental health care" compared with "emotional distress" (P < .001). For specificity, equivalent results were obtained with the two reference standards (P = .63). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical assessment of emotions in patients with cancer may be more accurate than previously concluded.

Cancer management challenge in a developing country in COVID-19 pandemic: reflection of a group of Moroccan oncologists.

Management of cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is a worldwide challenge - in particular in developing countries where the risk of saturation of health facilities and intensive care beds must be minimized. The first case of COVID-19 was declared in Morocco on 2 March 2020, after which a panel of Moroccan experts, consisting of medical oncologists from universities and regional and private oncology centers, was promptly assembled to conduct a group reflection on cancer patient's management. The main objective is to protect the immunocompromised population from the risk of COVID-19, while maintaining an adequate management of cancer, which can quickly compromise their prognosis. Recommendations are provided according to each clinical situation: patients undergoing treatment, new cases, hospitalized patients, palliative care and surveillance.

Estimating survival in advanced cancer: a comparison of estimates made by oncologists and patients.

PURPOSE: To compare estimates of expected survival time (EST) made by patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists. METHODS: At enrolment patients recorded their "understanding of how long you may have to live" in best-case, most-likely, and worst-case scenarios. Oncologists estimated survival time for each of their patients as the "median survival of a group of identical patients". We hypothesized that oncologists' estimates of EST would be unbiased (~ 50% longer or shorter than the observed survival time [OST]), imprecise (< 33% within 0.67 to 1.33 times OST), associated with OST, and more accurate than patients' estimates of their own survival. RESULTS: Twenty-six oncologists estimated EST for 179 patients. The median estimate of EST was 6.0 months, and the median OST was 6.2 months. Oncologists' estimates were unbiased (56% longer than OST), imprecise (27% within 0.67 to 1.33 times OST), and significantly associated with OST (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.93, p < 0.01). Only 41 patients (23%) provided a numerical estimate of their survival with 107 patients (60%) responding "I don't know". The median estimate by patients for their most-likely scenario was 12 months. Patient estimates of their most-likely scenario were less precise (17% within 0.67 to 1.33 times OST) and more likely to overestimate survival (85% longer than OST) than oncologist estimates. CONCLUSION: Oncologists' estimates were unbiased and significantly associated with survival. Most patients with advanced cancer did not know their EST or overestimated their survival time compared to their oncologist, highlighting the need for improved prognosis communication training. Trial registration ACTRN1261300128871.

Adoption of enhanced recovery after laparotomy in gynecologic oncology.

INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways combine a comprehensive set of peri-operative practices that have been demonstrated to hasten patient post-operative recovery. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of ERAS components and assess attitudes towards ERAS among gynecologic oncologists. METHODS: We developed and administered a cross-sectional survey of attending, fellow, and resident physicians who were members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology in January 2018. The χ2 test was used to compare adherence to individual components of ERAS. RESULTS: There was a 23% survey response rate and we analyzed 289 responses: 79% were attending physicians, 57% were from academic institutions, and 64% were from institutions with an established ERAS pathway. Respondents from ERAS institutions were significantly more likely to adhere to recommendations regarding pre-operative fasting for liquids (ERAS 51%, non-ERAS 28%; p<0.001), carbohydrate loading (63% vs 16%; p<0.001), intra-operative fluid management (78% vs 32%; p<0.001), and extended duration of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis for malignancy (69% vs 55%; p=0.003). We found no difference in the use of mechanical bowel preparation, use of peritoneal drainage, or use of nasogastric tubes between ERAS and non-ERAS institutions. Nearly all respondents (92%) felt that ERAS pathways were safe. DISCUSSION: Practicing at an institution with an ERAS pathway increased adoption of many ERAS elements; however, adherence to certain guidelines remains highly variable. Use of bowel preparation, nasogastric tubes, and peritoneal drainage catheters remain common. Future work should identify barriers to the implementation of ERAS and its components.

Perception of hematologists and oncologists about the biosimilars: A prospective Tunisian study based on a survey.

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilar drugs have significantly shaken the global pharmaceutical market through a better access to the health care services. The aim of this study is to establish a state of play in Tunisia based on the knowledge and perceptions of doctors on biosimilars in order to identify the problems related to these drugs and to propose solutions for improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In our study, we conducted a prospective, descriptive survey using a questionnaire, destinated to oncologists and hematologists with different grades, from both public and private sectors and from several regions. The questions focused on physicians' general knowledge of biosimilars and their comparison with reference on safety, quality, efficacy, and indication. Finally, we explored the proportion of physicians who are favorable to the policy encouraging biosimilar use. RESULTS: One hundred and seven doctors among 150 answered the questionnaire; 57% were oncologists and 43% were hematologists. About one over five physicians defines biosimilar as a chemical drug. About 29% do not differentiate between a biosimilar and a generic one. A percentage of 68 believe that a biosimilar can have all the indications of its reference following complementary clinical studies. On the other side, 68.2% support the policy encouraging these drugs. Last, only 3.7% of the practitioners believe that they are well informed about biosimilars. DISCUSSION: Our results are comparable to other surveys described in the literature. However, this is the first study that targets oncologists and hematologists specifically. CONCLUSION: Our study showed a lack of information from oncologists and hematologists about biosimilars in Tunisia. Thus, health authorities should carry out training programs on biosimilars and introduce clear and effective legislation in order to allow better access to health care services.

Shared decision making with oncologists and palliative care specialists effectively increases the documentation of the preferences for do not resuscitate and artificial nutrition and hydration in patients with advanced cancer: a model testing study.

BACKGROUND: Communication in do not resuscitate (DNR) and artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) at the end of life is a key component of advance care planning (ACP) which is essential for patients with advanced cancer to have cares concordant with their wishes. The SOP model (Shared decision making with Oncologists and Palliative care specialists) aimed to increase the rate of documentation on the preferences for DNR and ANH in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: The SOP model was implemented in a national cancer treatment center in Taiwan from September 2016 to August 2018 for patients with advanced cancer visiting the oncology outpatient clinic. The framework was based on the model of shared decision making as "choice talk" initiated by oncologists with "option talk" and "decision talk" conducted by palliative care specialists. RESULTS: Among 375 eligible patients, 255 patients (68%) participated in the model testing with the mean age of 68.5 ± 14.7 years (mean ± SD). Comparing to 52.3% of DNR documentation among patients with advanced cancer who died in our hospital, the rate increased to 80.9% (206/255) after the decision talk in our model. Only 6.67% (n = 17) of the participants documented their preferences on ANH after the model. A worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status was the only statistically significant associating factor with a higher rate of DNR documentation in the multiple logistic regression model. CONCLUSIONS: The SOP model significantly increased the rate of DNR documentation in patients with advanced cancer in this pilot study. Dissemination of the model could help the patients to receive care that is concordant with their wishes and be useful for the countries having laws on ACP.

Accreditation Improves Quality of Oncology Education in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Perspectives of African Oncologists.

The purpose of this study is to understand the perspectives of African Oncologists on the role of accreditation and on global standards. We developed a survey that addressed African oncologists' opinions on the role of accreditation. The survey also included 187 standards from World Federation of Medical Education Postgraduate medical education (PGME) standards, American Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-I standards for hematology/oncology, and the Royal College of Physician and Surgeons of Canada Medical Oncology standards. A 3-point scale was employed for each standard: 1 = not important, 2 = important but not essential, 3 = essential. The survey was sent to 79 physicians, 38 responded. Eighty-seven percent agreed that accreditation ensures quality. Forty-five percent agreed it will not increase migration of qualified doctors. Twenty-two individuals who completed the entire survey were analyzed for the standards. Five standards received the highest ratings of 3 (essential) from all respondents. One standard received a rating of < 2.0. The majority of standards had ratings between 2.6 and 2.94 indicating African oncologists found most standards to be useful. Ratings < 2.6 were mostly related to resource constraints. Most African Oncologists believed that accreditation ensures quality of education, and most standards were considered important. This data is useful for developing and adapting accreditation standards in resource-constrained settings.

Cardio-oncology: the new frontier of clinical and preventive cardiology.

Even if cancer and cardiovascular diseases are considered two distinct diseases, an intricate interconnection between these conditions has been established. Increased risk of malignancy has been identified in patients with cardiovascular disease, as well as a greater propensity to the development of cardiovascular diseases has been observed in patients with cancer. The development of cardiotoxicity following exposure to certain anticancer drugs only partially explains this relationship. Shared risk factors and common pathogenic mechanisms suggest the existence of a common biology and a complex interplay between these two conditions. Due to improving longevity and therapeutic advances, the number of patients affected or potentially at risk of developing these two diseases is constantly increasing and currently, several drugs against cancer from anthracyclines to checkpoint inhibitors, can also cause a wide range of unexpected cardiovascular side effects. Management of these issues in clinical practice is an emerging challenge for cardiologists and oncologists, and led to the development of a new dedicated discipline called cardio-oncology. Surveillance and prevention strategies as well as interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk and prevent cardiotoxicities are the primary objectives of cardio-oncology. In this review, we explore the etiopathogenesis common to cardiovascular disease and cancer and the complex interplay between them. We also report the main characteristics of the drugs responsible for cardiotoxicity, highlighting the available strategies for optimal patient management based on a multidisciplinary approach in the cardio-oncology setting.

Artificial Intelligence Systems Assisting Oncologists? Resist and Desist or Enlist and Coexist.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) has become an integral part of patient care, but there are concerns about the impact of non­human decision assistance on patient outcomes. This commentary focuses on how AI can assist oncologists and benefit patients.

What Is Important When Making Treatment Decisions in Metastatic Breast Cancer? A Qualitative Analysis of Decision-Making in Patients and Oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is an ideal environment for shared decision-making because of the large number of guideline-based treatment options with similar efficacy but different toxicity profiles. This qualitative analysis describes patient and provider factors that influence decision-making in treatment of MBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients and community oncologists completed in-person interviews. Academic medical oncologists participated in focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo. Using an a priori model based on the Ottawa Framework, two independent coders analyzed transcripts using a constant comparative method. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. RESULTS: Participants included 20 patients with MBC, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. Analysis of patient interviews revealed a decision-making process characterized by the following themes: decision-making style, contextual factors, and preferences. Patient preference subthemes include treatment efficacy, physical side effects of treatment, emotional side effects of treatment, cognitive side effects of treatment, cost and financial toxicity, salience of cutting-edge treatment options (clinical trial or newly approved medication), treatment logistics and convenience, personal and family responsibilities, treatment impact on daily activities, participation in self-defining endeavors, attending important events, and pursuing important goals. Physician decisions emphasized drug-specific characteristics (treatment efficacy, side effects, cost) rather than patient preferences, which might impact treatment choice. CONCLUSION: Although both patients with MBC and oncologists considered treatment characteristics when making decisions, patients' considerations were broader than oncologists', incorporating contextual factors such as the innovative value of the treatment and life responsibilities. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggests the value of tools to facilitate systematic communication of preferences in the setting of MBC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Both patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and oncologists emphasized importance of efficacy and physical side effects when making treatment decisions. However, other patient considerations for making treatment decisions were broader, incorporating contextual factors such as the logistics of treatments, personal and family responsibilities, and ability to attend important events. Furthermore, individual patients varied substantially in priorities that they want considered in treatment decisions. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggest the value of tools to facilitate systematic elicitation of preferences and communication of those preferences to oncologists for integration into decision-making in MBC.

Challenges in Clinical Trial Implementation: Results from a Survey of the National Accreditation Program of Breast Centers (NAPBC).

BACKGROUND: Although the results of clinical trials often guide best practices, changing clinical practice based on clinical trial results can be challenging. The objective of this study was to examine provider-reported barriers to adopting best clinical practices according to clinical trial data. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted of providers from the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers about barriers that prevent the incorporation of trial findings. Descriptive analyses and multivariable analyses were performed to determine provider characteristics that were significantly associated with reported barriers. RESULTS: Overall, 383 institutions participated (63.5% response rate), with a total of 1226 physicians responding to the survey (80% response rate). Providers identified national guidelines and meetings as the most compelling way to receive practice-changing information. They reported the following internal barriers to trial implementation: patient preference (45%), strongly held beliefs by partners/colleagues (37%), and insufficient time to discuss new practices (30%). External barriers preventing trial implementation included a lack of agreement from multidisciplinary tumor boards (32%), fear of reimbursement loss (23%), and resistance from clinical staff (20%). Reported barriers differed by provider specialty, with plastic surgeons and radiation oncologists reporting that strongly held beliefs by partners/colleagues and disagreement from multidisciplinary tumor boards were the most significant factors preventing clinical trial implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Physician beliefs and patient preferences are the most frequently reported barriers to clinical trial implementation. Tactics to better educate providers about how to explain new clinical trial data to their patients and colleagues are needed.

Communicating "cure" to pediatric oncology patients: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty about cure puts childhood cancer survivors at risk of mental distress. We asked survivors if they had been told they had been cured and investigated associated factors. PROCEDURE: We used nationwide registry data and a questionnaire survey for ≥five-year survivors of childhood cancer (n = 301), followed by online focus groups with a purposive sample of Swiss pediatric oncologists (n = 17). Discussions were coded by investigators using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 235 among 301 survivors (78%; 95% confidence interval, 73%-83%) reported having been told they were cured. The proportion was 89% (81%-97%) among lymphoma and 84% (77%-91%) among leukemia survivors, but only 49% (33%-65%) among central nervous system tumor survivors. Pediatric oncologists acknowledged that telling survivors they are cured may reassure them that their cancer lies behind them. However, many refrained from telling all patients. Reasons included the possibility of late effects (cure disrupted by a continued need for follow-up care) or late relapse (uncertainty of biological cure), case-by-case strategies (use of "cure" according to individual factors), and reluctance (substitution of noncommittal terms for "cure"; waiting for the patient to raise the topic). CONCLUSIONS: Not all physicians tell survivors they have been cured; their choices depend on the cancer type and risk of late effects.

Opioid Prescribing in an Opioid Crisis: What Basic Skills Should an Oncologist Have Regarding Opioid Therapy?

OPINION STATEMENT: Although clinical evidence supports the use of opioids for cancer-related pain, doing so amidst the current opioid crisis remains a challenge. A proportion of opioid-related deaths in the USA are attributable to prescription opioids, which implicates health care providers as one of the major contributors. It is therefore even more important now for all clinicians to follow safe and effective opioid prescribing practices. Oncologists are often in the frontline of cancer pain management. They are encouraged to use validated tools to screen all patients receiving opioids for high risk behaviors. Those identified as high risk for potential abuse of opioids should be monitored closely. When aberrant behavior is detected, the clinician will need to openly discuss the issue and its possible implications. Oncologists may then implement measures such as limiting the dose and quantity of opioids prescribed, shortening interval between follow-ups for refills to allow for increased monitoring, setting boundaries/limitations, weaning off opioid analgesics, or/and referring to a pain or palliative medicine or drug addiction expert for co-management when necessary. These efforts may aid oncologists in safely managing cancer pain in the environment of national opioid crisis.

Factors influencing the adoption of the sentinel lymph node technique for endometrial cancer staging: an international survey of gynecologic oncologists.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the factors influencing adoption of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) technique for endometrial cancer staging among gynecologic oncologists. METHODS: A self-administered, web-based survey was sent via email (April 20 through May 21, 2017) to all members of European Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, International Gynecologic Cancer Society, and Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. Surgical and pathologic practices related to SLN and reasons for not adopting this technique were investigated. RESULTS: Overall, 489 attending physicians or consultants in gynecologic oncology from 69 countries responded: 201 (41.1%), 118 (24.1%), and 117 (23.9%) from Europe, the USA, and other countries, respectively (10.8% did not report a country). SLN was adopted by 246 (50.3%) respondents, with 93.1% injecting the cervix and 62.6 % using indocyanine green dye. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network SLN algorithm was followed by 160 (65.0%) respondents (USA 74.4%, Europe 55.4%, other countries 71.4%). However, 66.7% completed a backup lymphadenectomy in high-risk patients. When SLN biopsy revealed isolated tumor cells, 13.8% of respondents recommended adjuvant therapy. This percentage increased to 52% if micrometastases were detected. Among the 243 not adopting SLN, 50.2% cited lack of evidence and 45.3% stated that inadequate instrumentation fueled their decisions. CONCLUSIONS: SLN with a cervical injection is gaining widespread acceptance for staging of endometrial cancer among gynecologic oncologists worldwide. Standardization of the surgical approach with the National Comprehensive Care Network algorithm is applied by most users. Management of isolated tumor cells and the role of backup lymphadenectomy for 'high-risk' cases remain areas of investigation.

"The median isn't the message": How to communicate the uncertainties of survival prognoses to cancer patients in a realistic and hopeful way.

This study investigated how doctors communicate the uncertainties of survival prognoses to patients recently diagnosed with life-threatening cancer, and suggests ways to improve this communication. Two hundred thirty-eight Norwegian oncologists and general practitioners (GPs) participated in Study 1. The study included both a scenario and a survey. The scenario asked participants to respond to a hypothetical patient who wanted to know how long (s)he could be expected to live. There were marked differences in responses within both groups, but few differences between the GPs and oncologists. There was a strong reluctance among doctors to provide patients with a prognosis. Even when they were presented with a statistically well-founded right-skewed survival curve, only a small minority provided hope by communicating the variation in survival time. In Study 2, 177 healthy students rated their preferences for different ways of receiving information regarding the uncertainty of a survival prognosis. Participants who received an explicitly described right-skewed survival curve believed that they would feel more hopeful. These participants also obtained a more realistic understanding of the variation in survival than those who did not receive this information. Based on the findings of the two studies and on extant psychological research, the author suggests much-needed guidelines for communicating survival prognoses in a realistic and optimistic way to patients recently diagnosed with life-threatening cancer. In particular, the guidelines emphasise that the doctor explains the often strongly right-skewed variation in survival time, and thereby providing the patient with realistic hope.