Envisioning Academic Global Oncologists: Proposed Competencies for Global Oncology Training From ASCO.

Recognizing the rising incidence, prevalence, and mortality of cancer in low- and middle-resource settings, as well as the increasingly international profile of its membership, ASCO has committed to expanding its engagement at a global level. In 2017, the ASCO Academic Global Oncology Task Force sought to define the potential role for ASCO in supporting global oncology as an academic field. A set of recommendations to advance the status of global oncology as an academic discipline were created through a consensus-based process involving participation by a diverse group of global oncology and global health practitioners; these recommendations were then published. The recommendations included developing a set of global oncology competencies for trainees and faculty interested in a career in academic global oncology. Here, we describe the global oncology competencies developed by this task force. These competencies consist of knowledge and skills needed in general global health as well as cancer-specific care and research, including understanding global cancer health disparities, defining unique resources and needs in low- and middle-resource settings, and promoting international collaboration. Although the competencies were originally developed for US training programs, they are intended to be widely applicable globally. By formalizing the training of oncologists and supporting career pathways in the field of global oncology, we can make progress in achieving global equity in cancer care and control.

Integrated dual training in palliative care and oncology.

Fellowship training in Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM) and Hematology/Oncology (Hem/Onc) share common themes and roots in the holistic care of people living with cancer. As of 2021, approximately 630 physicians in the United States were board-certified in both HPM and Hem/Onc. There is increasing demand for an integrated fellowship pathway, and the inaugural integrated fellowship Match took place in 2022. We present the historical context of the overlap in HPM and Hem/Onc fellowship training, limitations of the standard training paradigm, and an overview of the recently developed integrated training pathway accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). We explore applications of dual training in clinical care, program development, and research at the intersection of HPM and Hem/Onc. Finally, we consider challenges to the success and how best to assess the outcomes of this program. Integrated fellowship training in HPM and Hem/Onc is 1 avenue to develop a cohort of dual-trained physicians poised to effect broad cultural change in this important and evolving space. A subset of physicians with dual training has the potential to fill unmet needs by promoting enhanced patient-centered care, developing infrastructure for heightened collaboration between these distinct but closely related fields, and prioritizing research focused on advanced communication skills and symptom management for patients with cancer.

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.

A Grant-Based Experiment to Train Clinical Investigators: The AACR/ASCO Methods in Clinical Cancer Research Workshop.

To address the need for clinical investigators in oncology, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) and American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) established the Methods in Clinical Cancer Research Workshop (MCCRW). The workshop's objectives were to: (i) provide training in the methods, design, and conduct of clinical trials; (ii) ensure that clinical trials met federal and international ethical guidelines; (iii) evaluate the effectiveness of the workshop; and (iv) create networking opportunities for young investigators with mentoring senior faculty. Educational methods included: (i) didactic lectures, (ii) Small Group Discussion Sessions, (iii) Protocol Development Groups, and (iv) one-on-one mentoring. Learning focused on the development of an Institutional Review Board (IRB)-ready protocol, which was submitted on the last day of the workshop. Evaluation methods included: (i) pre- and postworkshop tests, (ii) students' workshop evaluations, (iii) faculty's ratings of protocol development, (iv) students' productivity in clinical research after the workshop, and (v) an independent assessment of the workshop. From 1996 to 2014, 1,932 students from diverse backgrounds attended the workshop. There was a significant improvement in the students' level of knowledge from the pre- to the postworkshop exams (P < 0.001). Across the classes, student evaluations were very favorable. At the end of the workshop, faculty rated 92% to 100% of the students' protocols as ready for IRB submission. Intermediate and long-term follow-ups indicated that more than 92% of students were actively involved in patient-related research, and 66% had implemented five or more protocols. This NCI-sponsored MCCRW has had a major impact on the training of clinicians in their ability to design and implement clinical trials in cancer research.

Prevalence of potential interactions of medications, including herbs and supplements, before, during, and after chemotherapy in patients with breast and prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The use of herbs and supplements (HS) is common among patients with cancer, yet limited information exists about potential medication interactions (PMIs) with HS use around chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with breast or prostate cancer who had recently finished chemotherapy at 2 academic medical centers were surveyed by telephone. Interviewers inquired about all medications, including HS, before, during, and after chemotherapy. Micromedex, Lexicomp, and Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database interaction software programs were used to determine PMIs. RESULTS: A total of 67 subjects (age range, 39-77 years) were evaluated in this study. Participants were primarily White patients (73%) with breast cancer (87%). The median number of medications was 11 (range, 2-28) during the entire study and was highest during chemotherapy (7; range, 2-22). Approximately four-fifths (84%) used HS. A total of 1747 PMIs were identified, and they represented 635 unique PMIs across all 3 timeframes, with most occurring during chemotherapy. Prescription-related PMIs (70%) were the most common type, and they were followed by HS-related (56%) and anticancer treatment-related PMIs (22%). Approximately half of the PMIs (54%) were categorized as moderate interactions, and more than one-third (38%) were categorized as major interactions. Patient use of HS increased from 51% during chemotherapy to 66% after chemotherapy, and this correlated with an increased prevalence of HS PMIs (46% to 60%). HS users were more likely to be at risk for a major PMI than non-HS users (92% vs 70%; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: The use of HS remains prevalent among patients with cancer and may place them at risk for PMIs both during chemotherapy and after the completion of treatment. LAY SUMMARY: This study evaluates the risk of potential medication interactions for patients with breast or prostate cancer undergoing chemotherapy. The results show that patients often use herbs and supplements during treatment. Prescription medications are most often associated with medication interactions, which are followed by herb and supplement-related interactions. More than one-third of potential medication interactions are considered major. Patients should be educated about the risk of herb and supplement-related medication interactions during treatment.

Recommendations from the ASCO Academic Global Oncology Task Force.

In recognition of the rising incidence and mortality of cancer in low- and middle-resource settings, as well as the increasingly international profile of its membership, ASCO has prioritized efforts to enhance its engagement at a global level. Among the recommendations included in the 2016 Global Oncology Leadership Task Force report to the ASCO Board of Directors was that ASCO should promote the recognition of global oncology as an academic field. The report suggested that ASCO could serve a role in transitioning global oncology from an informal field of largely voluntary activities to a more formal discipline with strong research and well-defined training components. As a result of this recommendation, in 2017, ASCO formed the Academic Global Oncology Task Force (AGOTF) to guide ASCO's contributions toward formalizing the field of global oncology. The AGOTF was asked to collect and analyze key issues and barriers toward the recognition of global oncology as an academic discipline, with an emphasis on training, research, and career pathways, and produce a set of recommendations for ASCO action. The outcome of the AGOTF was the development of recommendations designed to advance the status of global oncology as an academic discipline.

Evaluation of a Virtual Learning Collaborative to Integrate Palliative Care Into Routine Oncology Practice.

PURPOSE: The integration of palliative care into usual oncology care is a best practice, but implementation can be challenging. METHODS: We convened a virtual learning collaborative (VLC) of oncology practices with a focus on integrating palliative care. The entire program was virtual, with teams meeting via online Webinar and conference call and accessing content via an online portal. Because of the need to pause and retool after the first 5 months, the VLC evolved into 2 phases, with feedback after the first phase informing the second. We primarily evaluated the reaction of participants and project team members after the completion of the VLC using 2 quantitative surveys (after each phase) and semistructured interviews with participants. RESULTS: A total of 24 oncology practices entered the VLC. Evaluation after each of 2 phases was conducted. For the first evaluation, 67% of respondents agreed a quality improvement coach was helpful to complete the program; 61% agreed a palliative care expert was helpful. The most common reasons for withdrawal involved organizational and VLC factors. Organizational factors included: time constraints, personnel changes (turnover), loss of the champion, and lack of team engagement. Twenty-two active participants and 8 former participants completed the second survey. Of those, 79% agreed the experience with the VLC was valuable, and 74% agreed the virtual delivery mode was useful. We identified 3 themes to drive future improvements related to structure, engagement, and content. CONCLUSION: VLCs are a potential mechanism to disseminate information and facilitate learning in oncology. Further study of program characteristics that promote acceptance of VLCs are needed.

Competitive Funding Strategies for the Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO.

PURPOSE: The Conquer Cancer Foundation (CCF), the philanthropic arm of ASCO, is responsible for funding innovative clinical research. CCF wants to broaden its donor base instead of relying predominantly on health-care companies. Our Leadership Development Program (LDP) group was tasked with identifying potential donor sources and making recommendations to increase funding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected three sources to research: the general public, crowdsourcing/social media, and ASCO members. We subsequently focused our efforts on ASCO members, of whom only 2% to 3% are donors to CCF and < 8% are repeat donors. To analyze this low rate, we sent out two separate surveys to various groups of members within ASCO. RESULTS: We identified lack of knowledge as a major deterrent to giving; surprisingly, even those who hold ASCO leadership positions or participated in committees lacked knowledge about CCF funding. Also, the misconception that ASCO is rich and does not need philanthropic support deterred giving; however, respondents would donate if given the right message that stresses the need of continued member-led donations. CONCLUSION: ASCO members, including those in leadership positions, need to be engaged more aggressively to support CCF. Increased education and updating the CCF message is likely to provide the greatest impact on higher member donation, repeated donations, and facilitate CCF's goal of diversifying its donor base away from healthcare companies. Furthermore, we recommend using technology, such as mobile applications, and providing incentives and visibility to major donors.

Integrating Palliative Care Into Oncology: A Way Forward.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer have complex physical, psychosocial, and spiritual needs that evolve throughout their disease trajectory. As patients are living longer with a diagnosis of cancer, the need is growing to address the morbidity due to the underlying illness as well as treatment-related adverse events. Palliative care includes treating physical symptoms as well as addressing psychosocial and spiritual needs. When these needs are addressed, the quality of care improves, costs decrease, and goals are aligned between the medical care provided and the patient and family. However, how best to integrate palliative care into oncology care is still an area of investigation. METHODS: The authors conducted a literature search, including randomized clinical trials and practice reviews, to evaluate the evidence for integrating palliative care into oncology care. Barriers to integration as well as sustainable paths forward are highlighted. The authors also utilize case studies as representative examples of integration. RESULTS: Current studies demonstrate that integrating palliative care into oncology care improves symptom control, rates of patient and family satisfaction, and quality of end-of-life care. However, for systemwide integration to be successful, commitment must be made to quality improvement, an infrastructure must be built to support palliative care screening, assessment, and intervention, and stakeholders must be engaged in the program. In addition, value must be demonstrated using metrics that affect quality, care utilization, and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Even though most US cancer centers have a palliative care program, palliative care remains limited in scope. An integrated approach for palliative care with oncology care requires a systems-based approach, with agreement between all parties on shared common metrics for value.

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.

Phase II neoadjuvant clinical trial of carboplatin and eribulin in women with triple negative early-stage breast cancer (NCT01372579).

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant treatment with carboplatin and eribulin in patients with early-stage triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), and to explore biomarkers based on DNA and protein expression profiles as predictors of response. Patients with histologically confirmed early-stage TNBC received carboplatin AUC 6 iv every 21 days, and eribulin 1.4 mg/m(2) day 1 and day 8 every 21 days for four cycles. The primary endpoint of the study was pathologic complete response (pCR), with secondary endpoints including clinical response and safety of the combination. Exploratory studies assessed DNA-based biomarkers [homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score, and HR deficiency status (HRD score + BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation status)], protein-based biomarkers (Ki67, TP53, androgen receptor, Cyclin E, CDK2, Cyclin D, CDK4, Pin1 and Smad3), and clinical pretreatment factors as predictors of pCR. 13/30 (43.3 %) patients enrolled in the study achieved pCR. 24 (80.0 %) had a clinical complete or partial response. The combination was safe with mostly grade 1 and 2 toxicities. HRD score (P = 0.0024) and HR deficiency status (P = 0.0012) significantly predicted pCR. Pretreatment cytoplasmic CDK2 was also associated with pCR (P = 0.021). Significant differences in pre- versus post-treatment expression levels of nuclear Cyclin D (P = 0.020), nuclear CDK4 (P = 0.0030), and nuclear Smad3 (P = 0.015) were detected. The combination of carboplatin and eribulin is safe and efficacious in the treatment of early-stage TNBC. HRD score, HR deficiency status, and cytoplasmic CDK2 predicted pCR in this patient population.

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.

Developing a service model that integrates palliative care throughout cancer care: the time is now.

Palliative care is a fundamental component of cancer care. As part of the 2011 to 2012 Leadership Development Program (LDP) of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), a group of participants was charged with advising ASCO on how to develop a service model integrating palliative care throughout the continuum of cancer care. This article presents the findings of the LDP group. The group focused on the process of palliative care delivery in the oncology setting. We identified key elements for models of palliative care in various settings to be potentially equitable, sustainable, feasible, and acceptable, and here we describe a dynamic model for the integrated, simultaneous implementation of palliative care into oncology practice. We also discuss critical considerations to better integrate palliative care into oncology, including raising consciousness and educating both providers and the public about the importance of palliative care; coordinating palliative care efforts through strengthening affiliations and/or developing new partnerships; prospectively evaluating the impact of palliative care on patient and provider satisfaction, quality improvement, and cost savings; and ensuring sustainability through adequate reimbursement and incentives, including linkage of performance data to quality indicators, and coordination with training efforts and maintenance of certification requirements for providers. In light of these findings, we believe the confluence of increasing importance of incorporation of palliative care education in oncology education, emphasis on value-based care, growing use of technology, and potential cost savings makes developing and incorporating palliative care into current service models a meaningful goal.