Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Oncology: Preliminary Insights From the Global ONCOTRUST-1 Cross-Sectional Study.

PURPOSE: Conflicts of interest (COIs) between oncologists and industry might considerably influence how the presentation of the research results is delivered, ultimately affecting clinical decisions and policy-making. Although there are many regulations on reporting COI in high-income countries (HICs), little is known about their reporting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking (ONCOTRUST-1) is a pilot global survey to explore the knowledge and perceptions of oncologists regarding COI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed an online 27-question-based survey in the English language to explore the perceptions and knowledge of oncologists regarding COI, with an emphasis on LMICs. Descriptive statistics and the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies guidelines were used to report the findings. RESULTS: ONCOTRUST-1 surveyed 200 oncologists, 70.9% of them practicing in LMICs. Median age of the respondents was 36 (range, 26-84) years; 47.5% of them were women. Of the respondents, 40.5% reported weekly visits by pharmaceutical representatives to their institutions. Regarding oncologists' perceptions of COI that require disclosure, direct financial benefits, such as honoraria, ranked highest (58.5%), followed by gifts from pharmaceutical representatives (50%) and travel grants for attending conferences (44.5%). By contrast, personal or institutional research funding, sample drugs, consulting or advisory board, expert testimony, and food and beverage funded by pharmaceutical industry were less frequently considered as COI. Moreover, only 24% of surveyed oncologists could correctly categorize all situations representing a COI. CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the importance of clear guidelines, education, and transparency in reporting COI in oncology. This hypothesis-generating pilot survey provided the rationale for ONCOTRUST-2 study, which will compare perceptions of COI among oncologists in LMICs and HICs.

How accurate is clinical prognostication by oncologists during routine practice in a general hospital and can it be improved by a specific prognosis training programme: a prospective interventional study.

OBJECTIVES: Oncologists need competence in clinical prognostication to deliver appropriate care to patients with cancer. Most studies on prognostication have been restricted to patients in palliative care settings. This paper investigates (1) the prognostic accuracy of physicians regarding a broad cohort of patients with cancer with a median life expectancy of >2 years and (2) whether a prognosis training can improve prognostication. DESIGN: Prospective single-centre study comprising 3 phases, each lasting 1 month. SETTING: Large teaching hospital, department of oncology and haematology, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: 18 physicians with a professional experience from entry level to 34 years. 736 patients with oncological and malignant haematological diseases. INTERVENTIONS: Baseline prognostication abilities were recorded during an 'untrained' phase 1. As an intervention, a specific prognosis-training programme was implemented prior to phases 2 and 3. In phase 3, physicians had to provide additional estimates with the inclusion of electronic prognostic tools. OUTCOME MEASURES: Prognostic estimates (PE) were collected using 'standard' surprise question (SQ), 'probabilistic' SQ (both for short-term prognostication up to 6 months) and clinician prediction of survival (CPS) (for long-term prognostication). Estimated prognoses were compared with observed survival. Phase 1 was compared with phases 2 and 3. RESULTS: We included 2427 PE for SQ, 1506 for CPS and 800 for probabilistic SQ. Median OS was 2.5 years. SQ accuracy improved significantly (p<0.001) from 72.6% in phase 1 to 84.3% in phase 3. Probabilistic SQ in phase 3 showed 83.1% accuracy. CPS accuracy was 25.9% and could not be significantly improved. (Electronic) prognostic tools-used alone-performed significantly worse (p<0.0005) than physicians and-used by the clinicians-did not improve their performance. CONCLUSION: A specific prognosis-training programme could improve short-term and intermediate-term prognostication. Improvement of long-term prognostication was not possible. Inexperienced residents as well as experienced oncologists benefited from training.

[The oncologist, death and the pharmakon]. / L'oncologue, la mort et le pharmakon.

THE ONCOLOGIST, DEATH AND THE PHARMAKON. Stopping chemotherapy for patients treated in oncology is a difficult moment, feared by oncologists because it is often associated with abandonment or even failure in front of a resistant or aggressive disease. End-of-life chemotherapy is still common in oncology departments. However, it will be harmful if it causes side effects which alter the quality of life of patients or even hasten their death. But above all, this chemotherapy delays the implementation of appropriate palliative care support. Questioning the risk of hubris (excess) in some treatment, asking the relationship between the patient and his death, and prioritizing the quality of last moments is essential to best support patients on the path to the end o f life.

L'ONCOLOGUE, LA MORT ET LE PHARMAKON. L'arrêt des chimiothérapies des malades traités en oncologie est un moment difficile, redouté par les oncologues car souvent associé à un abandon, voire à un échec, face à une maladie résistante devenue trop agressive. La chimio thérapie de la fin de vie est encore fréquente dans les services d'oncologie. Elle est pourtant délétère si elle entraîne des effets indésirables qui altèrent la qualité de vie des malades, voire précipitent leur décès. Mais, surtout, cette chimiothérapie "de trop" retarde la mise en place d'un accompagnement adapté en soins palliatifs. Interroger le risque d'hubris de certains traitements, questionner le rapport à la mort du malade et privilégier la qualité du temps qui reste est pourtant essentiel pour accompagner au mieux les malades sur le chemin de la fin de vie.

Oncologist-Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Offering Cancer Clinical Trials to Their Patients.

NCCN guidelines indicate that cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are the best management for patients with cancer. However, only 5% of patients enroll in them. We examined oncologists' perceived barriers and facilitators to discussing CCTs. This qualitative study was part of the ASCO-ACCC Initiative to Increase Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Clinical Trials. Barriers and facilitators at the system, trial, provider, and patient levels were examined. To achieve triangulation, patient encounters were reviewed using chart-stimulated recall (CSR) methods, thereby obtaining a valid assessment of physician performance. Ten oncology providers participated in this study. Nine were oncologists, and one was a clinical research coordinator; five were female; four were White; three were Asian; and three were Black. Barriers to offering CCTs were a lack of trial availability; ineligibility; a lack of knowledge; assumptions about patient interest, benefits, or harms; patient's disease factors; and negative attitudes. Facilitators of offering CCTs were a physical space to discuss trials; greater trial availability; a systematic approach to offering trials; patient factors; patients seeking trials; a lack of comorbidities; patients being younger in age; patients being aware of, asking about, or hearing of trials from their surgeon; and higher levels of altruism. Many of the cited barriers are addressable with the cited facilitators. A larger study is needed to generalize and validate these findings.

Oncologists' Satisfaction with Virtual Care: A Questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION: Although virtual care (VC) has become an integral part of oncology care and healthcare delivery, clinicians' perspectives on and satisfaction with this modality are not well understood. METHODS: Using a National Network Forum framework and expert panel review, we developed a questionnaire to measure oncologists' satisfaction with VC. The questionnaire was distributed to Canadian oncologists through medical society email lists (n = 1541). We used a 5-point Likert scale to capture their responses, which included strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), undecided (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). RESULTS: A total of 61 oncologists and/or oncology trainees, of 768 (7.9%) who opened their email, completed questionnaires between October 2022 and January 2023. Every questionnaire item had a response rate greater than 98%. Seventy-two percent of the respondents were satisfied with VC. Oncologists who were less comfortable with technology were more likely to report lower levels of satisfaction (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon rank-sum). The questionnaire items that received the highest levels of agreement were related to VC reducing costs and improving access for patients and concerns about missing a diagnosis and assessing patients' functional status. The questionnaire items that received the greatest disagreement were related to VC improving access for patients with language barriers, VC being associated with time-savings for clinicians, improvements in clinical efficacy, and more readily available lab tests. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the oncologists surveyed are satisfied with VC; however, there are some concerns with VC that need to be addressed. Future research on optimizing VC should address clinicians' concerns, in addition to addressing the patient experience.

Paediatric oncologists' perspectives on Strategic solutions to develop Integrated Cancer Palliative Care: feedback intervention theory as an explanatory Framework.

BACKGROUND: Globally, children with cancer often experience delays in palliative care referral or are infrequently referred. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study to gain insight from paediatric oncologists into what enables or deters palliative care referral. Strategic solutions to develop integrated palliative care was a critical study theme. In this paper, we have explained and interpreted these strategic solutions through the lens of feedback intervention theory. METHODOLOGY: The study findings were interpreted using Kumar's six-step approach that enabled systematic evaluation of a theory's appropriateness and alignment with the researcher's paradigm, methodology, and study findings. It also explained how theory informed analysis and elucidated challenges or the development of new models. The feedback intervention theory appraises the discrepancy between actual and desired goals and provides feedback to improve it. RESULTS: Strategic solutions generated from the study findings were coherent with the aspects elucidated in theory, like coping mechanisms, levels of feedback hierarchy, and factors determining the effect of the feedback intervention on performance. Paediatric oncologists suggested integrating palliative care providers in the team innocuously, improving communication between teams, relabelling palliative care as symptom control, and working with a skilled and accessible palliative care team. The paper proposes an infinite loop model developed from the study, which has the potential to foster integrated palliative care through excellent collaboration and continuous feedback. CONCLUSION: Applying feedback intervention theory can bridge the gap between actual and desired practice for integrated cancer palliative care in paediatric oncology.

Reminder in scarlet: balancing empathy and detachment in oncology.

This article explores an oncologist's journey from emotional vulnerability to practised detachment. A transformative moment, prompted by a poignant photograph of a patient in a scarlet saree, confronts the author with the emotional intricacies of patient care. The narrative delves into the human stories woven into the medical landscape, capturing the delicate balance between clinical detachment and maintaining a genuine connection. It prompts reflection on the emotional dynamics within the decision-making fabric of healthcare.

The Road Less Traveled: Perspective From an Australian Oncologist.

Diverse factors and beliefs define treatment decisions of culturally and linguistically diverse patients. Recognizing, understanding and respecting these enable us to walk with them on their cancer journey, even if it may be the road less traveled.

Cancer Treatment Before and After Physician-Pharmacy Integration.

Importance: Integration of pharmacies with physician practices, also known as medically integrated dispensing, is increasing in oncology. However, little is known about how this integration affects drug use, expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation. Objective: To examine the association of physician-pharmacy integration with oral oncology drug expenditures, use, and patient-centered measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used claims data from a large commercial insurer in the US to analyze changes in outcome measures among patients treated by pharmacy-integrating vs nonintegrating community oncologists in 14 states between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2019. Commercially insured patients were aged 18 to 64 years with 1 of the following advanced-stage diagnoses: breast cancer, colorectal cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, or prostate cancer. Data analysis was conducted from May 2023 to March 2024. Exposure: Treatment by a pharmacy-integrating oncologist, ascertained by the presence of an on-site pharmacy or nonpharmacy dispensing site. Main Outcomes and Measures: Oral, intravenous (IV), total, and out-of-pocket drug expenditures for a 6-month episode of care; share of patients prescribed oral drugs; days' supply of oral drugs; medication adherence measured by proportion of days covered; and time to treatment initiation. The association between an oncologist's pharmacy integration and each outcome of interest was estimated using the difference-in-differences estimator. Results: Between 2012 and 2019, 3159 oncologists (745 females [27.1%], 2002 males [72.9%]) treated 23 968 patients (66.4% female; 53.4% aged 55-64 years). Of the 3159 oncologists, 578 (18.3%) worked in practices that integrated with pharmacies (with a low rate in 2011 of 0% and a high rate in 2019 of 31.5%). In the full sample (including all cancer sites), after physician-pharmacy integration, no significant changes were found in oral drug expenditures, IV drug expenditures, or total drug expenditures. There was, however, an increase in days' supply of oral drugs (5.96 days; 95% CI, 0.64-11.28 days; P = .001). There were no significant changes in out-of-pocket expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation of oral drugs. In the breast cancer sample, there was an increase in oral drug expenditures ($244; 95% CI, $41-$446; P = .02) and a decrease in IV drug expenditures (-$4187; 95% CI, -$8293 to -$80; P = .05). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study indicated that the integration of oncology practices with pharmacies was not associated with significant changes in expenditures or clear patient-centered benefits.

Assessing the knowledge and awareness of US oncologists regarding the specialty of oral medicine.

OBJECTIVES: This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the awareness among United States (US) oncologists about oral medicine (OM) as a specialty of dentistry, and their collaboration with OM providers. METHODS: An online survey was conducted, inviting 1350 US oncologists, with data collected on demographics, practice background, comfort level with diagnosing and treating oral conditions, referral practices for oral conditions, and more. RESULTS: Of the invited 1350 oncologists, 192 responded (14% response rate). Among respondents, 46% were familiar with the OM specialty. Of these, 73% had previously sought consultation from OM specialists. The primary reasons for referral included dental clearance before initiating chemotherapy (38.5%), dental clearance before initiating radiotherapy (37%), and managing oral ulcers and oral potentially malignant disorders equally (32.2%). Regarding referrals to providers outside of OM, oncologists primarily referred patients with oral lesions to otolaryngologists (64.6%), followed by oral and maxillofacial surgeons (55.2%) and general dentists (45.3%). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that over half of US oncologists were unfamiliar with the OM specialty. However, the referral rate to OM providers was high among oncologists who had prior OM knowledge. It is advisable to enhance the collaboration between OM and oncology specialists to ensure optimal care for patients with cancer.

Parent and oncologist perspectives on prognostic disclosure in advanced childhood cancer: communication pearls and pitfalls.

PURPOSE: For children with advanced cancer and their families, communication about prognosis is critical. Unfortunately, data demonstrate that prognostic communication occurs infrequently and inconsistently across advancing illness. Prior to developing an intervention to improve prognostic communication, we aimed to (1) characterize parent and oncologist perspectives on "best" approaches for prognostic communication, and (2) explore similarities and differences between parent and oncologist perspectives. METHODS: Children with poor-prognosis solid tumors, their parents, and oncologists were followed prospectively for 24 months or until death. Matched semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents and oncologists 0-7 days after medical encounters at timepoints of disease progression or relapse. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted to describe parent and oncologist impressions of communication quality. RESULTS: A total of 68 interviews were conducted following serial disease reevaluation encounters involving 13 parents and five oncologists. Nine main themes were identified as "best" approaches: (1) speaking with honesty and clarity, (2) leaving room for hope, (3) leaning into a long-standing relationship, (4) personalizing language, (5) empowering the patient and family, (6) collaborating with the multidisciplinary team, (7) providing anticipatory guidance, (8) setting the scene, and (9) creating a therapeutic space. Parents and oncologists generally agreed on themes related to helpful communication approaches, while parents more explicitly described communication pitfalls. CONCLUSION: Parents and oncologists described clear recommendations for helpful communication strategies and pitfalls to avoid during difficult prognostic disclosure. Future work should integrate patient perspectives in the design and testing of an intervention to improve prognostic communication in advanced childhood cancer.

Variation in content discussed by specialty in consultations for clinically localized prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Multidisciplinary consultations improve decisional conflict and guideline-concordant treatment for men with prostate cancer (PC), but differences in the content discussed by specialty during consultations are unknown. METHODS: We audiorecorded and transcribed 50 treatment consultations for localized PC across a multidisciplinary sample of urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. Conversation was coded for narrative content using an open coding approach, grouping similar topics into major content areas. The number of words devoted to each content area per consult was used as a proxy for time spent. Multivariable Poisson regression calculated incidence rate ratios (IRR) for content-specific word count across specialties after adjustment for tumor risk and patient demographics. RESULTS: Coders identified 8 narrative content areas: overview of PC; medical history; baseline risk; cancer prognosis; competing risks; treatment options; physician recommendations; and shared decision making (SDM). In multivariable models, specialties significantly differed in proportion of time spent on treatment options, SDM, competing risks, and cancer prognosis. Urologists spent 1.8-fold more time discussing cancer prognosis than medical oncologists (IRR1.80, 95%CI:1.14-2.83) and radiation oncologists (IRR1.84, 95%CI:1.10-3.07). Urologists (IRR11.38, 95%CI:6.62-19.56) and medical oncologists (IRR10.60, 95%CI:6.01-18.72) spent over 10-fold more time discussing competing risks than radiation oncologists. Medical oncologists (IRR2.60, 95%CI:1.65-4.10) and radiation oncologists (IRR1.77, 95%CI:1.06-2.95) spent 2.6- and 1.8-fold more time on SDM than urologists, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Specialists focus on different content in PC consultations. Our results suggest that urologists should spend more time on SDM and radiation oncologists on competing risks. Our results also highlight the importance of medical oncologists in facilitating SDM.

Inflammatory breast cancer: As surgical oncologists, what can we do?

Breast cancer surgery is the primary treatment for early-stage breast cancer. However, inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), with its specific presentation characterized by skin invasion, is unfit for primary surgery. According to the different guidelines, the management of IBC is trimodal with the coordination of oncologists, surgeons, and radiation therapists. Advances in breast cancer imaging and the development of more targeted therapies make new challenges for this aggressive cancer. This chapter aims to provide an update on the role of surgery in IBC. Radical surgery is still considered the standard surgical treatment in IBC. Some authors suggest a conservative surgery in patients with a clinical response to chemotherapy without affecting survival. For lymph node surgery, the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is not feasible in IBC patients, according to the existing studies. However, prospective studies on SLNB are needed to verify its reliability after chemotherapy for a specific group of patients. In the metastatic IBC, surgery can be considered if there is a good response after chemotherapy or for uncontrolled symptoms. Existing studies showed that surgery may impact survival for these patients. Prospective studies are mandatory to optimize IBC management, considering factors such as tumor's molecular profile.

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.

Defining D-irAEs: consensus-based disease definitions for the diagnosis of dermatologic adverse events from immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

With an increasing number of patients eligible for immune checkpoint inhibitors, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is on the rise. Dermatologic immune-related adverse events (D-irAEs) are the most common and earliest to manifest, often with important downstream consequences for the patient. Current guidelines lack clarity in terms of diagnostic criteria for D-irAEs. The goal of this project is to better define D-irAE for the purposes of identification, diagnosis, and future study of this important group of diseases.The objectives of this project were to develop consensus guidance for an approach to D-irAEs including disease definitions and severity grading. Knowing that consensus among oncologists, dermatologists, and irAE subspecialists would be critical for usability, we formed a Dermatologic irAE Disease Definition Panel. The panel was composed of 34 experts, including oncologists, dermatologists, a rheumatologist, and an allergist/immunologist from 22 institutions across the USA and internationally. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two virtual meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness, and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. A working group aggregated survey responses and incorporated them into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions.Following revisions based on panelist feedback, all items received consensus in the second round of ratings. Consensus definitions were achieved for 10 core D-irAE diagnoses: ICI-vitiligo, ICI-lichen planus, ICI-psoriasis, ICI-exanthem, ICI-bullous pemphigoid, ICI-Grover's, ICI-eczematous, ICI-eruptive atypical squamous proliferation, ICI-pruritus without rash, and ICI-erosive mucocutaneous. A standard evaluation for D-irAE was also found to reach consensus, with disease-specific exceptions detailed when necessary. Each disorder's description includes further details on disease subtypes, symptoms, supportive exam findings, and three levels of diagnostic certainty (definite, probable, and possible).These consensus-driven disease definitions standardize D-irAE classification in a useable framework for multiple disciplines and will be the foundation for future work. Given consensus on their accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that they can be used broadly across clinical and research settings.

Oncologists' perspective on advance directives, a French national prospective cross-sectional survey - the ADORE study.

BACKGROUND: The often poor prognosis associated with cancer necessitates empowering patients to express their care preferences. Yet, the prevalence of Advance Directives (AD) among oncology patients remains low. This study investigated oncologists' perspectives on the interests and challenges associated with implementing AD. METHODS: A French national online survey targeting hospital-based oncologists explored five areas: AD information, writing support, AD usage, personal perceptions of AD's importance, and respondent's profile. The primary outcome was to assess how frequently oncologists provide patients with information about AD in daily clinical practice. Additionally, we examined factors related to delivering information on AD. RESULTS: Of the 410 oncologists (50%) who responded to the survey, 75% (n = 308) deemed AD relevant. While 36% (n = 149) regularly inform patients about AD, 25% (n = 102) remain skeptical about AD. Among the respondents who do not consistently discuss AD, the most common reason given is the belief that AD may induce anxiety (n = 211/353; 60%). Of all respondents, 90% (n = 367) believe patients require specific information to draft relevant AD. Physicians with experience in palliative care were more likely to discuss AD (43% vs 32.3%, p = 0.027). Previous experience in critical care was associated with higher levels of distrust towards AD (31.5% vs 18.8%, p = 0.003), and 68.5% (n = 281) of the respondents expressed that designating a "person of trust" would be more appropriate than utilizing AD. CONCLUSION: Despite the perceived relevance of AD, only a third of oncologists regularly apprise their patients about them. Significant uncertainty persists about the safety and relevance of AD.

Variability of treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer: How French multidisciplinary teams follow European guidelines?

INTRODUCTION: Cervical cancer is a global public health concern. Despite ESGO recommendations and FIGO classification changes, management of locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) remains debated in France. Our study aimed to review LACC treatment practices and assess adherence to ESGO recommendations among different practitioners. METHODS: From February 2021 to August 2022, we conducted a survey among gynecologic oncology surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists practicing in France and managing LACC (FIGO stages IB3-IVA) according to the 2018 FIGO classification. We analyzed responses against the 2018 ESGO recommendations as a "gold standard." RESULTS: Among 115 respondents (56% radiation oncologists, 30% surgeons, 13% medical oncologists), 48.6% of gynecologic surgeons didn't perform para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PAL) with significant radiologic pelvic involvement. PAL, when indicated by PET-CT, was more common in university hospitals (66.7% of surgeons). Surgeons in university hospitals also followed ESGO recommendations more closely. Overall, compliance with all ESGO recommendations was low: 5.7% of surgeons, 21.5% of radiation oncologists, and 60% of medical oncologists. Prophylactic para-aortic irradiation, per ESGO, was more frequent in comprehensive cancer centers (52% of radiation oncologists). CONCLUSION: Adherence to ESGO recommendations for LACC treatment appears low in France, particularly in surgery, with limited PAL in cases of lymph node negativity on PET-CT. However, these recommendations are more often followed by surgeons in university hospitals and radiation oncologists in cancer centers. Adherence to these recommendations may impact patient survival and warrants evaluation of care quality, justifying the organization of LACC management in expert centers.

A qualitative evaluation of the oncologists', neurologists', and pain specialists' views on the management and care of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in The Netherlands.

PURPOSE: In treating cancer, different chemotherapy regimens cause chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Despite recent international guidelines, a gold standard for diagnosis, treatment, and care is lacking. To identify the current clinical practice and the physicians' point of view and ideas for improvement, we evaluated CIPN care by interviewing different specialists involved. METHODS: We performed semi-structured, audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded interviews with a purposive sample of oncologists, pain specialists, and neurologists involved in CIPN patients' care. Data is analyzed by a constant comparative method for content analysis, using ATLAS.ti software. Codes, categories, and themes are extracted, generating common denominators and conclusions. RESULTS: With oncologists, pain specialists, and neurologists, nine, nine, and eight interviews were taken respectively (including three, two, and two interviews after thematic saturation occurred). While useful preventive measures and predictors are lacking, patient education (e.g., on symptoms and timely reporting) is deemed pivotal, as is low-threshold screening (e.g., anamnesis and questionnaires). Diagnosis focusses on a temporal relationship to chemotherapy, with adjuvant testing (e.g., EMG) used in severe or atypical cases. Symptomatic antineuropathic and topical medication are often prescribed, but personalized and multidimensional care based on individual symptoms and preferences is highly valued. The limited efficacy of existing treatments, and the lack of standardized protocols, interdisciplinary coordination, and awareness among healthcare providers pose significant challenges. CONCLUSION: Besides the obvious need for better therapeutic options, and multidisciplinary exploration of patients' perspectives, a structured and collaborative approach towards diagnosis, treatment, referral, and follow-up, nurtured by improving knowledge and use of existing CIPN guidelines, could enhance care.

Shared decision-making needs, barriers, and facilitators of patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer in the hospital: a multi-level, mixed-methods study.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the shared decision-making (SDM) needs, barriers, and facilitators of patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer in the hospital. Understanding this may improve SDM and cancer care quality in this vulnerable population. METHODS: A single-site, mixed-methods study of hospitalized patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer, caregivers, and oncologists was conducted. After discharge, patient ± caregiver semi-structured interviews exploring SDM needs, barriers, and facilitators regarding their most important upcoming cancer-related decision were conducted. Oncologists were surveyed about patient knowledge and SDM needs using closed- and open-ended questions, respectively. Thematic analysis was performed for qualitative data with a focus on themes unique to or amplified by hospitalization. Descriptive statistics and the Chi-squared test were performed for quantitative data. RESULTS: Patients and caregivers reported high SDM needs surrounding treatment and prognostic information, leading to decisional conflict. Eight themes emerged: anticipated cancer treatment decisions, variable control preferences in decision-making, high cancer-related information needs and uncertainty, barriers and facilitators to information gathering during and post hospitalization, and decision-making facilitators. Among 32 oncologists, most (56%) reported patients were poorly informed about treatment and prognosis. Oncologists reported variable expectations about patient knowledge after hospitalization, facilitators to patient decision-making, and patient uncertainty while awaiting an outpatient oncologist appointment. CONCLUSION: Patients newly diagnosed with advanced cancer in the hospital have high SDM needs and experience decisional conflict. This may be due to barriers unique to or exacerbated by hospitalization. Further research is needed to develop strategies to address these barriers and enhance the facilitators identified in this study.