Advancing the Clinician Educator Career Pathway in Oncology.

PURPOSE: Education is an important component of cancer care; however, most clinician educators (CEs) receive little formal training in this area. Little is known about the factors that influence oncologists to pursue a career as a CE. The primary objective of this study was to determine the current state of oncologists' perceptions regarding the clinician educator role. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A one-time cross-sectional survey was administered to program directors/associate program directors (PDs/APDs) and fellows in November 2021. The survey was meant to elicit their perceptions regarding the CE role, training opportunities, and barriers to a career as a CE. RESULTS: The surveys were completed by a total of 2,134 oncology fellows and 88 PDs/APDs. Most PDs/APDs were female (52%), were associate professors (42%), and considered themselves a CE (82%). Over one-third of PDs/APDs reported no formal educator training (67%) and did not have a CE track for fellows at their institution (76%). The majority of PDs/APDs (80%) perceived the CE track to be a viable career pathway. Over half of fellows (56%) perceived the CE track to be a viable career pathway. Approximately one-third (62%) reported receiving CE training during their residency/fellowship. The top reported barriers to a career in medical education were a lack of jobs and opportunity for future promotions. CONCLUSION: Oncology PDs/APDs and fellows perceive the CE to be a viable career track. Greater advocacy efforts are needed to raise awareness about this career path.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in Inpatient Palliative Care Consultation for Patients With Advanced Cancer.

PURPOSE: Inpatient palliative care consultation (IPCC) may help address barriers that limit the use of hospice and the receipt of symptom-focused care for racial/ethnic minorities, yet little is known about disparities in the rates of IPCC. We evaluated the association between race/ethnicity and rates of IPCC for patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic cancer who were hospitalized between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010, at an urban academic medical center participated in the study. Patient-level multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between race/ethnicity and IPCC. RESULTS: A total of 6,288 patients (69% non-Hispanic white, 19% African American, and 6% Hispanic) were eligible. Of these patients, 16% of whites, 22% of African Americans, and 20% of Hispanics had an IPCC (overall P < .001). Compared with whites, African Americans had a greater likelihood of receiving an IPCC (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.44), even after adjusting for insurance, hospitalizations, marital status, and illness severity. Among patients who received an IPCC, African Americans had a higher median number of days from IPCC to death compared with whites (25 v 17 days; P = .006), and were more likely than Hispanics (59% v 41%; P = .006), but not whites, to be referred to hospice. CONCLUSION: Inpatient settings may neutralize some racial/ethnic differences in access to hospice and palliative care services; however, irrespective of race/ethnicity, rates of IPCC remain low and occur close to death. Additional research is needed to identify interventions to improve access to palliative care in the hospital for all patients with advanced cancer.

How well do medical oncologists manage chronic cancer pain? A national survey.

BACKGROUND: Cancer pain is usually managed by oncologists, occasionally with input from specialists in hospice and palliative medicine (PLM) or pain medicine (PMD). We evaluated the knowledge of cancer pain management in these three specialty groups. METHODS: Eight vignettes depicting challenging scenarios of patients with poorly controlled pain were developed; each had five or six treatment choices. Respondents indicated choices likely to be safe and efficacious as "true" and choices likely to be unsafe or inefficacious as "false." Two questionnaires were created, each with four vignettes. Three anonymous mailings targeted geographically representative U.S. samples of 570 oncologists, 266 PMD specialists, and 280 PLM specialists, each randomly assigned one version of the questionnaire. Vignette scores were normalized to a 0-100 numeric rating scale (NRS); a score of 50 indicates that the number of correct choices equals the number of incorrect choices (consistent with guessing). RESULTS: Overall response rate was 49% (oncologists, 39%; PMD specialists, 48%; and PLM specialists, 70%). Average vignette score ranges were 53.2-66.5, 45.6-65.6, and 50.8-72.0 for oncologists, PMD specialists, and PLM specialists, respectively. Oncologists scored lower than PLM specialists on both questionnaires and lower than PMD specialists on one. On a 0-10 NRS, oncologists rated their ability to manage pain highly (median 7, with an interquartile range [IQR] of 5-8). Lower ratings were assigned to pain-related training in medical school (median 3, with an IQR of 2-5) and residency/fellowship (median 5, with an IQR of 4-7). Oncologists older than 46-47 years rated their training lower than younger oncologists. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that oncologists and other medical specialists who manage cancer pain have knowledge deficiencies in cancer pain management. These gaps help clarify the need for pain management education.

Under- or overtreatment of pain in the patient with cancer: how to achieve proper balance.

Achieving balance in the appropriate use of opioids for the treatment of cancer pain is complex. The definition of "balance" is continually being modified. Palliative care professionals, pain specialists, and oncologists have long been advocating for the aggressive management of pain for patients with advanced cancer. Some progress has been made in this arena but barriers persist. Fear of addiction by patients, family members, and oncology professionals presents a serious obstacle to the provision of adequate pain control. This is further complicated by societal factors that receive extensive media coverage, such as diversion of prescribed opioids for recreational use and increasing deaths as a result of this inappropriate use of prescription opioids. This growing concern has led to more opioid regulation, which increases obstacles to pain management in this population. Another evolving concern is whether the long-term use of opioids is safe and effective. Data from the chronic nonmalignant pain literature suggest that toxicities may result and misuse has been underestimated, yet little information is available in the cancer population. These issues lead to serious questions regarding how balance might be successfully achieved for patients in an oncology setting. Can pain relief be provided while reducing negative consequences of treatment? Which patient should be prescribed what medications, in what situations, for what kind of pain, and who should be managing the pain?

Palliative care training and associations with burnout in oncology fellows.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among physicians can lead to decreased career satisfaction, physical and emotional exhaustion, and increased medical errors. In oncologists, high exposure to fatal illness is associated with burnout. METHODS: The Maslach Burnout Inventory, measuring Emotional Exhaustion (EE), Depersonalization (DP), and Personal Accomplishment (PA), was administered to second-year US oncology fellows. Bivariate and multivariate analyses explored associations between burnout and fellow demographics, attitudes, and educational experiences. RESULTS: A total of 254 fellows out of 402 eligible US fellows responded (63.2%) and 24.2% reported high EE, 30.0% reported high DP, and 26.8% reported low PA. Over half of the fellows reported burnout in at least one domain. Lower EE scores were associated with the fellows' perceptions of having received better teaching, explicit teaching about certain end-of-life topics, and receipt of direct observation of goals-of-care discussions. Fellows who reported better overall teaching quality and more frequent observation of their skills had less depersonalization. Fellows who felt a responsibility to help patients at the end of life to prepare for death had higher PA. LIMITATIONS: This survey relies on the fellows' self-reported perceptions without an objective measure for validation. Factors associated with burnout may not be causal. The number of analyses performed raises the concern for Type I errors; therefore, a stringent P value (0.01) was used. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout is prevalent during oncology training. Higher-quality teaching is associated with less burnout among fellows. Fellowship programs should recognize the prevalence of burnout among oncology fellows as well as components of training that may protect against burnout.

Barriers and approaches to the successful integration of palliative care and oncology practice.

As management of patients with cancer is evolving, an increased focus is being placed on individualized patient-centered care. Early integration of palliative care into the overall management of patients with cancer can help achieve this paradigm shift. Despite recommendations for earlier integration of palliative care by national and international societies, several barriers remain to achieving this goal. Survey studies have indicated a significant need for increased education regarding palliative care for both medical undergraduates and postgraduate physicians. Key issues in the early integration of palliative care include relationship-building across multiple health systems and specialties; development of a standardized definition of palliative care, making clear that it should be fully integrated with cancer-directed therapy; identification of physician and nonphysician champions; standardization of tools for patient assessment; education programs designed to meet the needs of health care professionals; and ongoing evaluation to assess program benefits and limitations.

Palliative care always.

Palliative cancer care is the integration into oncologic care of therapies that address the issues that cause physical and psychosocial suffering for the patient and family. Effective provision of palliative cancer care requires an interdisciplinary team that can provide care in all settings (home, inpatient, and outpatient). There is clear evidence for improved outcomes in multiple domains-symptoms, quality of end-of-life care, provider satisfaction, cost of care-with the integration of palliative care into cancer care. As a result, there are now guideline-based recommendations for incorporating palliative care into cancer care. Unfortunately there continue to be barriers to effective integration; these include gaps in education and research, and a cultural stigma that equates palliative care with end-of-life care. These barriers will need to be addressed in order to achieve seamless palliative care integration across the continuum of cancer care for all patients and their families.

Palliative care.

These guidelines were developed and updated by an interdisciplinary group of experts based on clinical experience and available scientific evidence. The goal of these guidelines is to help patients with cancer experience the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory by providing guidance for the primary oncology team for symptom screening, assessment, palliative care interventions, reassessment, and afterdeath care. Palliative care should be initiated by the primary oncology team and augmented by collaboration with an interdisciplinary team of palliative care experts.

American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: the integration of palliative care into standard oncology care.

PURPOSE: An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the integration of palliative care services into standard oncology practice at the time a person is diagnosed with metastatic or advanced cancer. CLINICAL CONTEXT: Palliative care is frequently misconstrued as synonymous with end-of-life care. Palliative care is focused on the relief of suffering, in all of its dimensions, throughout the course of a patient's illness. Although the use of hospice and other palliative care services at the end of life has increased, many patients are enrolled in hospice less than 3 weeks before their death, which limits the benefit they may gain from these services. By potentially improving quality of life (QOL), cost of care, and even survival in patients with metastatic cancer, palliative care has increasing relevance for the care of patients with cancer. Until recently, data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating the benefits of palliative care in patients with metastatic cancer who are also receiving standard oncology care have not been available. RECENT DATA: Seven published RCTs form the basis of this PCO. PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINION: Based on strong evidence from a phase III RCT, patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer should be offered concurrent palliative care and standard oncologic care at initial diagnosis. While a survival benefit from early involvement of palliative care has not yet been demonstrated in other oncology settings, substantial evidence demonstrates that palliative care-when combined with standard cancer care or as the main focus of care-leads to better patient and caregiver outcomes. These include improvement in symptoms, QOL, and patient satisfaction, with reduced caregiver burden. Earlier involvement of palliative care also leads to more appropriate referral to and use of hospice, and reduced use of futile intensive care. While evidence clarifying optimal delivery of palliative care to improve patient outcomes is evolving, no trials to date have demonstrated harm to patients and caregivers, or excessive costs, from early involvement of palliative care. Therefore, it is the Panel's expert consensus that combined standard oncology care and palliative care should be considered early in the course of illness for any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden. Strategies to optimize concurrent palliative care and standard oncology care, with evaluation of its impact on important patient and caregiver outcomes (eg, QOL, survival, health care services utilization, and costs) and on society, should be an area of intense research. NOTE: ASCO's provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision making and identify questions and settings for further research. Because of the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a PCO was submitted for publication. PCOs are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. PCOs cannot account for individual variation among patients and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any PCO is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patient's individual circumstances. ASCO PCOs describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical trials and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical practice. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCO's PCOs, or for any errors or omissions.

Priority symptoms in advanced breast cancer: development and initial validation of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16).

OBJECTIVES: By using methods consistent with recent regulatory guidance on patient-reported outcomes as endpoints in clinical trials, we created a new version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (FBSI), with emphasis on patient input during the development process. METHODS: We obtained input on the most important symptoms to monitor during treatment for stage III or IV breast cancer from 52 patients recruited from National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions as well as support service organizations. Participating patients shared their top-priority symptoms/concerns through open-ended interviews and symptom checklists. To ensure adequate content coverage, we evaluated results alongside the original version of the FBSI, which was created on the basis of a survey of oncology clinicians at National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions and items in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy measurement system. We also obtained input from 10 National Comprehensive Cancer Network oncologists regarding whether symptoms were primarily related to disease or treatment. RESULTS: We selected breast cancer-related symptoms and concerns endorsed as high priority by both oncology patients and clinicians for inclusion in the new National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index-16 (NFBSI-16), which includes all eight items from the original FBSI and eight additional items from Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy measures. The NFBSI-16 is formatted by subscale: Disease-Related Symptom, Treatment Side-Effect, and General Function and Well-Being. Results provide preliminary support for NFBSI-16's internal consistency reliability (α = 0.87) and validity as evidenced by moderate-to-strong relationships with expected criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Reflecting the priority symptoms of breast cancer patients and clinicians, the NFBSI-16 can be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for advanced breast cancer in clinical practice and research.

Clinical cancer advances 2011: Annual Report on Progress Against Cancer from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A message from ASCO'S President. It has been forty years since President Richard Nixon signed the National Cancer Act of 1971, which many view as the nation's declaration of the "War on Cancer." The bill has led to major investments in cancer research and significant increases in cancer survival. Today, two-thirds of patients survive at least five years after being diagnosed with cancer compared with just half of all diagnosed patients surviving five years after diagnosis in 1975. The research advances detailed in this year's Clinical Cancer Advances demonstrate that improvements in cancer screening, treatment, and prevention save and improve lives. But although much progress has been made, cancer remains one of the world's most serious health problems. In the United States, the disease is expected to become the nation's leading cause of death in the years ahead as our population ages. I believe we can accelerate the pace of progress, provided that everyone involved in cancer care works together to achieve this goal. It is this viewpoint that has shaped the theme for my presidential term: Collaborating to Conquer Cancer. In practice, this means that physicians and researchers must learn from every patient's experience, ensure greater collaboration between members of a patient's medical team, and involve more patients in the search for cures through clinical trials. Cancer advocates, insurers, and government agencies also have important roles to play. Today, we have an incredible opportunity to improve the quality of cancer care by drawing lessons from the real-world experiences of patients. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is taking the lead in this area, in part through innovative use of health information technology. In addition to our existing quality initiatives, ASCO is working with partners to develop a comprehensive rapid-learning system for cancer care. When complete, this system will provide physicians with personalized, real-time information that can inform the care of every patient with cancer as well as connect patients with their entire medical teams. The rapid learning system will form a continuous cycle of learning: securely capturing data from every patient at the point of care, drawing on evidence-based guidelines, and evaluating quality of care against those standards and the outcomes of other patients. Clinical trials are another area in which collaboration is critical. Increasing clinical trial participation will require commitment across the cancer community from physicians, patients, insurers, hospitals, and industry. A 2010 report by the Institute of Medicine described challenges to participation in trials by both physicians and patients and provided recommendations for revitalizing clinical trials conducted through the National Cancer Institute's Cooperative Group Program. ASCO has pledged its support for the full implementation of these recommendations. More broadly, ASCO recently outlined a bold vision for translational and clinical cancer research for the next decade and made recommendations to achieve that vision. Accelerating Progress Against Cancer: ASCO's Blueprint for Transforming Clinical and Translational Research, released in November, calls for a research system that takes full advantage of today's scientific and technologic opportunities and sets a high-level agenda for policy makers, regulators, and advocates. Cancer research has transformed cancer care in the past forty years, and this year's Clinical Cancer Advances illustrates how far we have come in the past year alone. We now have a tremendous opportunity to use today's knowledge and collaborate across all facets of cancer care to conquer this deadly disease. Michael P. Link, MD President American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Palliative care and the cancer patient: current state and state of the art.

Comprehensive cancer care requires the integration of palliative care practices and principles across the trajectory of the cancer experience. It complements the treatment of curable disease and may be the sole focus of care for those patients with advanced incurable disease. As the incidence of cancer increases worldwide and the burden of cancer rises, especially in low and middle resource countries, the need for palliative care is greater than ever before. There are numerous barriers to the provision of integrated care, including the ongoing misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care, the "cure-care dichotomy," inadequate training of health professionals and lack of resources. This article reviews the essential elements of comprehensive cancer care and the challenges to providing integrated cancer and palliative care to patients world-wide.

American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update: recommendations on the role of bone-modifying agents in metastatic breast cancer.

Journal of Clinical Oncology recently published ASCO's update to its guideline on the use of bone-modifying agents for patients with bone metastases, the scope of which was narrowed to the use of bone-modifying agents for patients with evidence of bone metastases.

Development and validation of 11 symptom indexes to evaluate response to chemotherapy for advanced cancer.

Recent guidance from the FDA discusses patient-reported outcomes as end points in clinical trials. Using methods consistent with this guidance, the authors developed symptom indexes for patients with advanced cancer. Input on the most important symptoms was obtained from 533 patients recruited from NCCN Member Institutions and 4 nonprofit social service organizations. Diagnoses included bladder, brain, breast, colorectal, head and neck, hepatobiliary/pancreatic, kidney, lung, ovarian, and prostate cancers and lymphoma. Physician experts in each of these diseases were also surveyed to differentiate symptoms that were predominantly disease-based from those that were predominantly treatment-induced. Results are evaluated alongside previously published indexes for 9 of these 11 advanced cancers that were created based on expert provider surveys, also implemented at NCCN Member Institutions. Final results are 11 symptom indexes that reflect the highest priorities of people affected by these 11 advanced cancers and the experienced perspective of the people who provide their medical treatment. Beyond the clinical value of such indexes, they may also contribute significantly to satisfying regulatory requirements for a standardized tool to evaluate drug efficacy with respect to symptomatology.