Knowledge attitude practice among oncologists and health care workers during COVID19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare providers should be well prepared to fight the COVID-19 pandemic and protect their patients and themselves as frontline workers. The aim of this study was to assess oncologists' and health care workers (HCWs) knowledge, attitude, and practice in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on them. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted among Egyptian oncologists and HCWs in the oncology department at Suez Canal University Hospitals, Egypt. Participants were reached through a Google Form questionnaire. The questionnaire was shared on social media (Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp) over four months, from June 1st to September 30, 2022. All physicians and HCWs in the oncology department were invited to participate in the survey. Researchers intended to enroll all physicians and HCWs within the study period. RESULTS: Out of the 110 participants included in the study, there was a female predominance, and the majority were oncology nurses and clinical oncologists. Knowledge with significant participants' characteristics showed that knowledge significantly varied by age. The level of knowledge was significantly higher among participants between 30 and 40 years old (OR = 5.111; 95% CI, 1.202-21.738; P = 0.027). 65.5% of the participants had poor knowledge, with a mean ± SD of 4.9 ± 1.4. About 43.6% of the participants experienced more burnout than before the COVID-19 pandemic, with a negative emotional impact. 63.7% reported a negative financial impact due to the pandemic. 62.7% had support from their family, even though their job increases their risk of infection. 7.3% only reported a positive impact regarding their friend's relationship. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 pandemic has a negative impact on oncologists' personal and professional lives. Interventions should be implemented to lessen the negative impact and better prepare oncologists to handle future crises with greater efficiency and resilience.

Oncologists' communication about tobacco and alcohol use during treatment for esophagogastric cancer: a qualitative observational study of simulated consultations.

PURPOSE: Tobacco and alcohol use influence cancer risk as well as treatment outcomes, specifically for esophageal and gastric cancer patients. Therefore, it is an important topic to discuss during consultations. This study aims to uncover medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists' communication about substance use, i.e., tobacco and alcohol use, in simulated consultations about curative and palliative esophagogastric cancer treatment. METHODS: Secondary analyses were performed on n = 40 standardized patient assessments (SPAs) collected in three Dutch clinical studies. Simulated patients with esophagogastric cancer were instructed to ask about smoking or alcohol use during treatment. The responses of the 40 medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was performed in MAXQDA. RESULTS: Oncologists consistently advocated smoking cessation during curative treatment. There was more variation in their recommendations and arguments in the palliative compared to the curative setting and when addressing alcohol use instead of smoking. Overall, oncologists were less stringent regarding behavior change in the palliative than in the curative setting. Few oncologists actively inquired about the patient's perspective on the substance use behavior, the recommended substance use change, or the support offered. CONCLUSION: Clear guidelines for oncologists on when and how to provide unequivocal recommendations about substance use behavior change and support to patients are needed. Oncologists might benefit from education on how to engage in a conversation about smoking or alcohol.

The Role of Artificial Intelligence on Tumor Boards: Perspectives from Surgeons, Medical Oncologists and Radiation Oncologists.

The integration of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) is fundamental in delivering state-of-the-art cancer treatment, facilitating collaborative diagnosis and management by a diverse team of specialists. Despite the clear benefits in personalized patient care and improved outcomes, the increasing burden on MTBs due to rising cancer incidence and financial constraints necessitates innovative solutions. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) in the medical field offers a promising avenue to support clinical decision-making. This review explores the perspectives of clinicians dedicated to the care of cancer patients-surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists-on the application of AI within MTBs. Additionally, it examines the role of AI across various clinical specialties involved in cancer diagnosis and treatment. By analyzing both the potential and the challenges, this study underscores how AI can enhance multidisciplinary discussions and optimize treatment plans. The findings highlight the transformative role that AI may play in refining oncology care and sustaining the efficacy of MTBs amidst growing clinical demands.

Caring for terminally Ill patients: the impact on oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Journeying with patients throughout their cancer trajectory and caring for them at the end of life can lead to emotional and moral distress in oncologists, negatively impacting their personal and professional identities. A better understanding of how transitions in care goals affect oncologists can shed light on the challenges faced and the support required. This study explored the impact of care transitions on oncologists' professional identity formation (PIF). METHODS: From September to December 2023, semi-structured interviews were conducted with oncologists in a palliative care center in Singapore. The Ring Theory of Personhood (RToP) was used as a framework to capture the effects of experiences with patients transitioning from curative to palliative care on the oncologists' sense of self and identity. Data were analyzed using both inductive and deductive qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Participants included six female and six male physicians, aged 30 to 53 years (mean 38 years), with an average of 9.75 years of experience as oncologists. The main domains identified were 1) challenges faced in transitioning patients to palliative care, 2) the impact of dealing with dying patients on oncologists, and 3) coping mechanisms. CONCLUSION: Oncologists experience self-doubt and moral distress as they manage transitions in care. The PIF of oncologists can be supported through reflection and introspection, peer support, and interventions to promote self-care - ultimately enabling them to make meaning of their experiences, renew family ties, and reaffirm their commitment to the profession.

Optimal hyperglycemia thresholds in patients undergoing chemotherapy: a cross sectional study of oncologists' practices.

PURPOSE: Neither the United States nor the European oncology guidelines include details for appropriate management of hyperglycemia in cancer patients. The aim was to identify fasting and random blood glucose thresholds, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) targets used by oncologists in clinical practice when managing hyperglycemia in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: This national, cross sectional study utilized a questionnaire to collect oncologists' perceptions about optimal blood glucose thresholds and HbA1c targets in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarize glucose thresholds, HbA1c targets, and sample characteristics. Responses to an open-ended question about oncologists' approach to hyperglycemia management were analyzed via thematic analysis using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 229) were on average 52.1 years of age, 67.7% men, and 91.3% White. For patients without diabetes but experiencing hyperglycemia, oncologists targeted lower and upper fasting blood glucose levels between 75-121 mg/dL and 105-135 mg/dL, respectively. For patients with diabetes, the targets for lower and upper fasting blood glucose levels ranged between 100-130 mg/dL and 128-150 mg/dL, respectively. Fasting blood glucose (95.6%) and HbA1c (78.6%) were the most commonly used clinical indicators to consider chemotherapy dose reduction, delay, or discontinuation due to hyperglycemia in patients receiving chemotherapy with curative intent. Among those receiving palliative intent chemotherapy, the preferred clinical parameters were random blood glucose (90.0%), patient-reported blood glucose readings (70.7%), continuous glucose monitoring readings (65.1%), and patient-reported symptoms of hyperglycemia (65.1%). Three main themes emerged about oncologists' approach to hyperglycemia management: 1) identification of high-risk patients; 2) need for early identification, screening, and diagnosis of hyperglycemia; and 3) multiple hyperglycemia management strategies. CONCLUSION: Oncologists reported a wide variation of target blood glucose ranges considered appropriate in patients undergoing chemotherapy. Lack of clear guidance for hyperglycemia management during chemotherapy in the United States may be contributing to a lack of consistency in clinical practice.

Laying the foundation for iCANmeditate: A mixed methods study protocol for understanding patient and oncologist perspectives on meditation.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer experience heightened levels of stress and anxiety, including psychological or physical. In recent years, digitally delivered complimentary therapies, such as meditation, have gained attention in cancer research and advocacy communities for improving quality of life. However, most digital meditation resources are commercially available and are not tailored to the unique needs of cancer patients (addressing fears of recurrence). As such, this study lays the foundation to co-design a publicly available digital meditation program called iCANmeditate that contains cancer-specific meditation content. AIMS: To understand: (1) cancer patients' perceptions and practices of meditation, as well as their needs in addressing the stress that accompanies their cancer diagnosis and (2) current knowledge of meditation and prescribing trends amongst oncologists in Canada. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed-methods design comprised of online patient and oncologist surveys and interviews with patients will be used. Survey data analysis will use multivariate logistic regressions to examine predictors of: (1) interest in using a meditation app among patients and (2) prescribing meditation among oncologists. Patient interviews will gather insights about the contexts of daily living where meditation would be most beneficial for people with cancer; this data will be analyzed thematically. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will inform iterative co-design workshops with cancer patients to build the digital meditation program iCANmeditate; interview results will be used to develop vignettes or "personas" that will supply the initial stimulus material for the iterative co-design workshops. Once the program has been finalized in partnership with cancer patient participants, a usability and pilot study will follow to test the functionality and efficacy of the tool. Results from the oncologist survey will form the basis of knowledge mobilization efforts to facilitate clinical buy-in and awareness of the benefits of meditation to cancer patients.

Is the Medical Oncology Workforce in Canada in Jeopardy? Findings from the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists' COVID-19 Impact Survey Series.

The COVID-19 (C19) pandemic introduced challenges in all areas of the Canadian healthcare system. Along with adaptations to clinical care environments, there was increasing concern about physician burnout during this time. The Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists (CAMO) has examined the effects of the pandemic on the medical oncology (MO) workforce. A series of four multiple choice web-based surveys distributed to MOs who were identified using the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons directory and CAMO membership in May 2020 (S1), July 2020 (S2), December 2020 (S3), and March 2022 (S4). Descriptive analyses were performed for each survey, and a Chi-square test (α = 0.05) was used to assess factors associated with planned change in practice in S4. The majority of respondents work in a comprehensive cancer center S1/S2/S3/S4 (87%/86%81%/88%) and have been in practice >10 years (56%/61%/50%/64%). The most commonly reported personal challenges were physical (60%) and mental (60%) wellness. In S4, 47% of MOs reported dissatisfaction with their current work-life balance. In total, 83% reported that their workload has increased since the beginning of C19, and 51% of MOs reported their future career plans have been impacted by C19. In total, 56% of respondents are considering retiring or reducing total working hours in the next 5 years. Since the onset of the C19 pandemic, there are concerns identified with wellness, increasing workload, and job dissatisfaction among MOs, associated with experienced staff who have >10 years in practice. As rates of cancer prevalence rise and treatments become more complex, it is crucial to address the concerns raised in these surveys to ensure that we have a stable MO workforce in the future.

Yes, it's true: Benign hysterectomy trends for gynecologic oncologists in the United States from 2015 to 2021.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to determine the trends in benign surgery in GO practice across the United States. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database from 2015 to 2021. Subjects were selected by filtering for cases of hysterectomy using current procedural terminology (CPT codes). Trends over time were assessed using linear regression for continuous outcomes and logistic regression for categorical outcomes. RESULTS: From the 2015 to 2021, the dataset contained 246,743 hysterectomies that were performed across the United States. For all gynecologic specialties, 188,534 (76%) were performed for benign indications and 59,209 (24%) were gynecologic cancer cases. The proportion of hysterectomies done by all specialists for benign indications increased with increasing year. When looking at hysterectomy cases by surgeon's subspecialty, GOs performed 35,680 (23%) of all benign cases over the entire time period. Over our study time period, the proportion of benign hysterectomies performed by GOs increased with increasing year with the proportion of benign hysterectomies done by GO in 2016 was 37.8% and reached 45.2% in 202. The proportion of hysterectomies done by all sub-specialists for cancer indications decreased with increasing year including the proportion of cancer cases performed by GOs for cancer indications. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of benign hysterectomies performed by GO consistently increased every year. This study corroborates existing survey data and hypothesizes that the practice of GO is increasingly being consumed by general gynecology.

[Current status of palliative care for patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer in China: a questionnaire-based survey].

Objective: To analyze the current adoption of palliative care by patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in China. Methods: From 1 March 2023 to 30 June 2023, a questionnaire survey was conducted by random sampling. An exclusive research platform for the Blue Book on Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. An online questionnaire was sent to medical oncologists (including chief physicians, associate chief physicians, attending physicians and residents) in general hospitals and oncology hospitals in four major regions of East, Central, South and Northeast China. The questionnaire contained 28 questions requesting basic information about doctors, the number of patients with mCRC, the status of treatment from first to fourth line and beyond, points concerning treatment of pain in patients with mCRC, and expectations for the future. A medical team was responsible for the quality control of data collected, whereas statisticians performed the data cleaning and sorting and statistical analysis. Results: A total of 300 clinical questionnaires were collected, including 217 (72%) from doctors in general hospitals and 83 (28%) from doctors in oncology hospitals. Senior physicians (including associate chief physicians and chief physicians) accounted for 65% of the respondents, attending physicians 30%, and residents 5%. Within 3 months (average for each month), 46.4±26.6% patients were diagnosed with recurrent or unresectable mCRC by each physician, 51.6±26.8% of the patients being in cancer hospitals and 44.4±26.3% in general hospitals. One hundred percent of patients receiving first-line treatment received palliative care, as did 80.3% of those receiving second-line treatment, 58.2% of those receiving third-line treatment, and 35.1% of those receiving ≥fourth-line treatment. The primary factor governing selection of first-line treatment was guideline recommendations, whereas comorbidities and the patients' physical status dictated second line to fourth line treatment. Standard first-line treatment was administered to 93.8% of eligible patients, standard second-line treatment to 94.3%; and standard third-line treatment to 73.5%. First-line therapy included targeted therapy in 63.6% of patients and immunotherapy in 2.8%; second-line therapy included targeted therapy in 63.0% of patients and immunotherapy in 2.0%; third-line therapy included targeted therapy in 59.2% of patients and immunotherapy in 2.2%; and fourth-line therapy included targeted therapy in 48.7% of patients and immunotherapy in 3.1%. First-line treatment lasted an average of 9.6 months, second-line treatment 6.7 months, third-line treatment 4.9 months, and fourth-line treatment 3.7 months. More than 70% of the patients maintained a good quality of life after receiving first and second-line treatment and more than 60% of them had ECOG performance scores of 0-1. After receiving third- and fourth-line treatment, 50%-60% of patients maintained a good quality of life and 40%-50% of them maintained ECOG performance scores of 0-1. The survey also revealed that the main deficiencies in treatment were limited effectiveness of third-line treatment, insufficient availability and opportunity for clinical research, popularity of new drugs or new drug combination strategies, and limited channels for participation in multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment. Clinicians reported looking forward to participating in more clinical research on new drugs, hearing about the experience of experts in the field, and discovery of new targets and new drugs that increased the options for posterior line treatment of colorectal cancer. Conclusions: This report objectively summarizes the current situation, treatment difficulties, and expectations of frontline physicians concerning management of mCRC, thus providing a basis for decision-making and future direction for the diagnosis and research on treatment of mCRC.

Multidisciplinary management of patients with cancer in France: The SINPATIC qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Health policymakers have tried to improve the care pathway for cancer patients by improving collaboration between participating healthcare professionals by involving the general practitioner (GP). OBJECTIVE(S): To explore how patients, GPs, oncologists and nurses interacted and how they perceived, in their practice, professional roles, collaboration, and cancer care pathways. METHODS: Between January 2018 and December 2021, we conducted a qualitative study that combined phenomenology and a general inductive analysis, based on semi-structured interviews with cancer patients and their GPs, oncologists, and nurses in France. RESULTS: Our analysis of 59 interviews showed that the stakeholders had different perceptions of the cancer care pathway. Task division was implicit and depended on what each health professional thought he/she should be doing; this led to the blurring of certain tasks (announcement of the diagnosis, coordination, and follow-up). The healthcare professionals were stuck in frameworks centred on their own needs and expectations and were unaware of the other health professionals' needs and expectations. Outside the hospital, GPs and nurses worked in isolation; they were not aware of the other stakeholders and did not communicate with them. GPs and nurses justified this attitude by the lack of a perceived need. Interprofessional communication varied as a function of the needs, involvement and knowledge of the other health professionals and was often mediated by the patient. CONCLUSION: In the cancer management in France, to improve cancer care pathway, there is a need to train healthcare professionals in interprofessional collaboration delivering care tailored to patient needs and preferences.

In the management of patients with cancer, the division of tasks between health professionals was not clear and was not discussed by the group.Communication within the health professionals was mediated often by the patient.Interprofessional collaboration is strongly encouraged by France's public health policies but was not mentioned or put into practice by the health professionals.

What does "urgency" mean when prioritizing cancer treatment? Results from a qualitative study with German oncologists and other experts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Cancer care in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic was affected by resource scarcity and the necessity to prioritize medical measures. This study explores ethical criteria for prioritization and their application in cancer practices from the perspective of German oncologists and other experts. METHODS: We conducted fourteen semi-structured interviews with German oncologists between February and July 2021 and fed findings of interviews and additional data on prioritizing cancer care into four structured group discussions, in January and February 2022, with 22 experts from medicine, nursing, law, ethics, health services research and health insurance. Interviews and group discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Narratives of the participants focus on "urgency" as most acceptable criterion for prioritization in cancer care. Patients who are considered curable and those with a high level of suffering, were given a high degree of "urgency." However, further analysis indicates that the "urgency" criterion needs to be further distinguished according to at least three different dimensions: "urgency" to (1) prevent imminent harm to life, (2) prevent future harm to life and (3) alleviate suffering. In addition, "urgency" is modulated by the "success," which can be reached by means of an intervention, and the "likelihood" of reaching that success. CONCLUSION: Our analysis indicates that while "urgency" is a well-established criterion, its operationalization in the context of oncology is challenging. We argue that combined conceptual and clinical analyses are necessary for a sound application of the "urgency" criterion to prioritization in cancer care.

Perspectives of pediatric oncologists on referral for CAR-T therapy: a mixed methods pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Receipt of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy at an institution different from the primary oncologist's institution is a complex, multistep process. Referral by oncologists plays an important role in the process but may be susceptible to bias. METHODS: Oncologists who previously referred patients for CAR-T therapy at 5 pediatric hospitals were sent surveys by email exploring their CAR-T referral practices. Descriptive statistics were generated, and multivariate analyses examined associations among oncologist characteristics, familiarity with CAR-T therapy, and referral practices. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of participants and used thematic analysis to code transcripts. RESULTS: Sixty-eight oncologists completed the survey; 77% expressed being "very familiar" with CAR-T therapy. Hispanic oncologists and oncologists at institutions with 50 or fewer new diagnoses per year were more likely to identify as less familiar with CAR-T therapy (odds ratio [OR] = 64.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.45 to 10 452.50, P = .04 and OR = 24.5, 95% CI = 3.3 to 317.3, P = .005, respectively). In total, 38% of respondents considered nonclinical features (compliance, social support, resources, insurance, language, education, and race or ethnicity) influential in referral decisions. Oncologists who were Hispanic and oncologists who had been practicing for 20 or more years were more likely to consider these features significantly influential (OR = 14.52, 95% CI = 1.49 to 358.66, P = .04 and OR = 6.76, 95% CI = 1.18 to 50.5, P = .04). Nine oncologists completed in-depth interviews; common themes included barriers and concerns regarding CAR-T therapy referral, the value of an established relationship with a CAR-T therapy center, and poor communication after CAR-T therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 40% of oncologists consider nonclinical features significantly influential when deciding to refer patients for CAR-T therapy, raising concern for bias in the referral process. Establishing formal partnerships with CAR-T therapy centers may help address physician barriers in referral.

Comparison of Outcomes in Bowel Resections by Gynecologic Oncologists Versus General Surgeons During Maximal Cytoreductive Surgery for Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Research Investigators Collaboration Study (GORILLA-3006).

BACKGROUND: This report describes the oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had bowel surgery performed by gynecologic oncologists (GOs) and compares the outcomes with those for bowel surgery performed by general surgeons (GSs) during maximal cytoreductive surgery. METHODS: Patients from six academic institutions who had FIGO stage III or IV ovarian cancer and underwent any bowel surgeries during maximal cytoreductive surgery were eligible for the study. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether bowel surgery was performed by a GO or a GS. In both groups, the GOs were mainly involved in extra bowel debulking procedures. Perioperative and survival outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The 761 patients in this study included 113 patients who underwent bowel surgery by a GO and 648 who had bowel surgery by a GS. No discernible differences were observed in age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, FIGO stage, histologic type, timing of cytoreductive surgery (primary or interval debulking surgery), or complications between the two groups. The GO group exhibited a shorter operation time than the GS group. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no survival differences between the two groups. In the Cox analysis, non-serous cell types and gross residual diseases were associated with adverse effects on overall survival. However, performance of bowel surgery by a GO did not have an impact on survival. CONCLUSION: Performance of bowel surgery by a GO during maximal cytoreductive surgery is both feasible and safe. These results should be reflected in the training system for GOs regarding bowel surgery, and further research is needed to confirm that GOs can play a more leading role in performing extra-uterine procedures.

Oncologists Must Consider Participant Data When Using Large-Scale Cancer Data Sets.

Primer that helps clarify large-scale clinical data sets and participant demographics for oncologists.

Effects of training oncology physicians advising patients on complementary and integrative therapies on patient-reported outcomes: 2-year follow-up of the multi-center, cluster-randomized KOKON-KTO study.

PURPOSE: Many cancer patients wish for complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) consultations led by their oncology physician. Within the KOKON-KTO study, oncology physicians in the intervention group were trained in a blended learning to provide CIM consultations to their cancer patients in addition to distributing a leaflet about CIM websites. Control oncology physicians only distributed the leaflet. The training showed positive effects on the patient-level. As of now, no consistent evidence exists on the long-term effects of such one-time-only CIM consultation during cancer treatment. METHODS: In the KOKON-KTO follow-up study, cancer patients previously participating in the KOKON-KTO study (intervention group:IG and control group: CG) received, at least 24 months later, a follow-up questionnaire by post, evaluating long-term effects of the KOKON-KTO consultation using the measures provided in the original study (patient-physician communication (EORTC-QLQ-COMU2), satisfaction with cancer treatment (PS-CaTE), CIM disclosure with healthcare provider (HCP), and need for CIM consultation during cancer therapy). RESULTS: In total, 102 cancer patients participated in the follow-up study (IG n = 62; CG n = 40). The overall reponse rate was around 36% (IG: 48.4%; CG: 23.7%). In the follow-up study, differences between groups had increased and were still shown (EORTC-QLQ-COMU26, 0-100 point scale, ≥10-point-group difference) in some subscales: patient's active behavior (in means; IG:73.6 (95% CI, 63.8-83.5); CG:61.1 (95% CI, 52.4-69.8)); clinician-patient relationship (IG:80.9 (95% CI, 71.8-90.0); CG:68.7 (95% CI, 59.3-78.0)). For some outcomes, differences decreased over time (e.g., EORTC-QLQ-COMU26 subscales "takes into account patient's preference" and "corrects misunderstandings"). More patients in the CG used CIM without oncology physicians' knowledge (IG: 13.7%, CG: 24.0%). CONCLUSION: This study presents first findings that one-time-only CIM consultations may enhance patient-physican relationship and CIM disclosure long-term. To further support cancer patients' in their wish for CIM consultations, training programs should provide oncology physicians with CIM competencies for different cancer stages including cancer survivors.

Oncologists' palliative care referral behaviour: testing utility of social exchange theory as an explanatory framework.

BACKGROUND: Adults and children with cancer are referred to palliative care infrequently or late. Oncologists often gatekeep these referrals. Social exchange theory is used to explain physician referral behaviour in various clinical settings. Its utility in a cancer palliative care setting is not known. METHODS: We used Karl Popper's hypothetico-deductive approach to test the hypothesis. The hypothesis was that social exchange theory is a helpful framework for explaining oncologists' palliative care referral behaviour in a cancer setting. The utility of the theoretical framework was tested against the empiric findings of a systematic review and original research. RESULTS: Most components of social exchange theory known to explain physician referral behaviour like beliefs about the provider or service, emotions triggered during the professional engagement, its symbolism and stigma, the complexity of the referral task, efforts needed to achieve it, its cost, benefit, and value were similar in a cancer setting. Empirical findings suggest that oncologists provided strategies and solutions to better palliative care integration instead of comparing their existing engagement with potential alternatives and choosing them. CONCLUSION: Social exchange theory was found to be helpful in explaining oncologists' palliative care referral behaviour. To further develop the social exchange theory based on the data used to test it, it is recommended to include feedback and solutions as a component of the theoretical framework alongside a comparison level for alternatives.

Medical oncologist perceptions and willingness to participate in voluntary assisted dying in South Australia.

This study surveyed South Australian medical oncologists to capture their perceptions, willingness to participate and perceived barriers and motivations to participation in voluntary assisted dying (VAD) activities. Approximately 70% of surveyed medical oncologists reported familiarity with VAD legislation. Less than half of physicians (39.1%) reported willingness to participate in any VAD activities, and the rate of conscientious objection was 22%. The top barriers to participation were lack of time and uncertainty given no prior experience. These results demonstrate both a low rate of conscientious objection and a low rate of willingness to participate at the point of VAD implementation in South Australia, and identify barriers to participation that are largely logistical.

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.