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.

Differences in discharge letter content: oncologists' vs. home care physicians' needs.

PURPOSE: To compare the details, oncologists include in discharge letters with what home care physicians need. Although discharge letters are important to share patients' information for home palliative care, few studies have compared the details, especially patients' emotions, regarding what oncologists include in discharge letters and home care physicians' needs. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted by sending anonymous, self-administered questionnaires to 500 certified oncologists (OCs) and 500 directors of home care supporting clinics (HCs) in Japan between March and May 2023. The survey considered 20 potential items found in discharge letters, and compared rates of OCs including these items and HCs needs. RESULTS: Of 310 valid responses, 186 were from OCs (average age: 47.7; 29 females) and 124 from HCs (average age: 55.4; 9 females). Major items with lower inclusion rates for OCs included patients' emotions regarding medical conditions (58.4% in OCs vs. 92.6% in HCs, p < 0.001), families' emotions regarding medical conditions (60.0 vs. 92.6%, respectively, p < 0.001), patients' perceptions regarding medical conditions (84.9 vs. 94.3%, respectively, p = 0.011), families' perceptions regarding medical conditions (84.3 vs. 95.1%, respectively, p = 0.004), and potential late-onset treatment-related adverse events (79.3 vs. 92.6%, respectively, p = 0.002). Conversely, OCs included patients' activities of daily living more frequently (96.2 vs. 90.2%, respectively, p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: Transitioning to home-based palliative care may necessitate accurate information and consideration of patients' and families' perceptions and emotions regarding medical conditions in discharge letters for continuous provision of high-quality 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.

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.

The Association of Oncology Provider Density With Black-White Disparities in Cancer Mortality in US Counties.

BACKGROUND: Black-White racial disparities in cancer mortality are well-documented in the US. Given the estimated shortage of oncologists over the next decade, understanding how access to oncology care might influence cancer disparities is of considerable importance. We aim to examine the association between oncology provider density in a county and Black-White cancer mortality disparities. METHODS: An ecological study of 1048 US counties was performed. Oncology provider density was estimated using the 2013 National Plan and Provider Enumeration System data. Black:White cancer mortality ratio was calculated using 2014-2018 age-standardized cancer mortality rates from State Cancer Profiles. Linear regression with covariate adjustment was constructed to assess the association of provider density with (1) Black:White cancer mortality ratio, and (2) cancer mortality rates overall, and separately among Black and White persons. RESULTS: The mean Black:White cancer mortality ratio was 1.12, indicating that cancer mortality rate among Black persons was on average 12% higher than that among White persons. Oncology provider density was significantly associated with greater cancer mortality disparities: every 5 additional oncology providers per 100 000 in a county was associated with a .02 increase in the Black:White cancer mortality ratio (95% CI: .007 to .03); however, the unexpected finding may be explained by further analysis showing that the relationship between oncology provider density and cancer mortality was different by race group. Every 5 additional oncologists per 100 000 was associated with a 1.6 decrease per 100 000 in cancer mortality rates among White persons (95% CI: -3.0 to -.2), whereas oncology provider density was not associated with cancer mortality among Black persons. CONCLUSION: Greater oncology provider density was associated with significantly lower cancer mortality among White persons, but not among Black persons. Higher oncology provider density alone may not resolve cancer mortality disparities, thus attention to ensuring equitable care is critical.

Our study provides timely information to address the growing concern about the need to increase oncology supply and the impact it might have on racial disparities in cancer outcomes. This analysis of counties across the US is the first study to estimate the association of oncology provider density with Black-White racial disparities in cancer mortality. We show that having more oncology providers in a county is associated with significantly lower cancer mortality among the White population, but is not associated with cancer mortality among the Black population, thereby leading to a disparity. Our findings suggest that having more oncology providers alone may be insufficient to overcome existing disadvantages for Black patients to access and use high-quality cancer care. These findings have important implications for addressing racial disparities in cancer outcomes that are persistent and well-documented in the US.

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.

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.

Oncologists' perceptions of tumor genomic profiling and barriers to communicating secondary hereditary risks to African American cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) identifies targets for precision cancer treatments, but also secondary hereditary risks. Oncologists are poorly trained to communicate the results of TGP, especially among patients with lower health literacy, poorer genetics knowledge, and higher mistrust. African American (AA) patients are especially vulnerable to poor understanding due to significant cancer disparities and lower uptake of TGP. The goal of this research is to inform the development of an internet-based brief educational support for oncologists to prepare them to provide better decisional support related to TGP for their AA cancer patients. METHODS: This mixed-methods study used semi-structured interviews of oncologists to inform development of an online survey with a convenience sample of US-based oncologists (n = 50) to assess perceptions of the challenges of TGP and communicating results to AA patients. RESULTS: Most interviewed oncologists felt it was important to consider racial/cultural differences when communicating about hereditary risks. Cost, family dynamics, discrimination concerns, and medical mistrust were identified as particularly salient. Survey respondents' views related to AAs and perceptions of TGP were strongly associated with years since completing training, with recent graduates expressing stronger agreement with statements identifying barriers/disadvantages to TGP for AA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists who had more recently completed training expressed more negative perceptions of TGP and more perceived challenges in communicating about TGP with their AA patients. Focused training for oncologists that addresses barriers specific to AAs may be helpful in supporting improved communication about TGP and improved decisional support for AA patients with cancer considering TGP to evaluate their tumors.

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.

Qualitative assessment of knowledge, attitude and practice of oncologists about precision medicine in cancer patients- study from Lahore, Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: Precision medicine (PM) is in great progressive stages in the West and allows healthcare practitioners (HCPs) to give treatment according to the patient's genetic findings, physiological and environmental characteristics. PM is a relatively new treatment approach in Pakistan Therefore, it is important to investigate the level of awareness, attitude, and challenges faced by oncology physicians while practicing PM for various therapies, especially cancer treatment. OBJECTIVES: The present study aims to explore the level of awareness, attitude, and practice of PM in Pakistan along with the challenges faced by the oncologists for the treatment of cancer using the PM approach. METHODS: Phenomenology-based qualitative approach was used. Face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted using the purposive sampling approach among oncologists in Lahore, Pakistan. The data were analyzed using thematic content analysis to identify themes and sub-themes. RESULTS: Out of 14 physicians interviewed 11 were aware of PM. They were keen on training to hone their skills and agreed on providing PM. Oncologists believed PM was expensive and given to affluent patients only. Other impeding factors include cost, lack of knowledge, and drug unavailability. CONCLUSIONS: Despite basic knowledge and will to practice, resource and cost constraints were marked as significant barriers. Additional training programs and inclusion into the curriculum may help to pave the way to PM implementation in the future. In addition, health authorities and policymakers need to ensure a cheaper PM treatment can be made available for all cancer patients.

Oncology care providers' perceptions and anticipated barriers regarding the use of geriatric assessment in routine clinic practice: A mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment (GA) is currently not a standard of cancer care across Canada. In the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, there are no known formal geriatric teams in outpatient oncology settings. Therefore, it is not known whether, how, and to what extent GA is performed in oncology clinics, or what supports are needed to carry out a GA. The objective of this study was to explore Saskatchewan oncology care providers' knowledge, perceptions, and practices regarding GA, and their perceived barriers to implementing formal GA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, oncology physicians and nurses within the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency (SCA) were invited to participate in an anonymous survey and individual open-ended interview. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; free-text responses provided in the survey were summarized. Data from interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 19 physicians and 30 clinic nurses participated in the survey (response rate: 24% [physicians] and 38.0% [nurses]). In terms of cancer treatment and management, the majority (74% of physicians and 62% of nurses) stated considerations for older adults are different than younger patients. More than half (53% of physicians and 58% of nurses) reported making treatment and management decisions primarily based on judgement versus validated tools. For physicians whose practices involve prescribing chemotherapy (16/19), 75% rarely or never use validated tools (e.g., CARG, CRASH) to assess risk of chemotoxicity for older patients. Lack of time and supporting staff and feeling unsure as to where to refer older patients for help or follow-up were the most commonly voiced anticipated barriers to implementing GA. Two physicians and six nurses (n = 8) participated in the open-ended interviews. Main themes included: (1) tension between knowing the importance of GA versus capacity and (2) buy-in. DISCUSSION: Our findings review barriers and opportunities for implementing GA in oncology care in Saskatchewan and provides foundational knowledge to inform efforts to promote personalized medicine and to optimize cancer care for older adults with cancer in this region.

How to deal with renal toxicities from immune-based combination treatments in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. A nephrological consultation for Oncologists.

We are witnessing a revolution in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Indeed, several immune-based combinations (ICI [immune checkpoint inhibitor] + ICI, or ICI + antiangiogenic agents) have been approved as first-line therapy for mRCC after demonstrating superior efficacy over the previous standard. Despite all the improvements made, safety remains a critical issue, adverse events (AEs) being the main reason for drug discontinuations or dose reductions, ultimately resulting in an increased risk of losing efficacy. Thus, a good understanding of the AEs associated with the use of immune-based combinations, their prevention, and management, are key in order to maximize therapeutic effectiveness. Among these AEs, renal ones are relatively frequent, but always difficult to be diagnosed, not to take into account that it is often difficult to determine which drug is to blame for such toxicities. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common finding in patients with RCC, either as a pre-existing condition and/or as a consequence of cancer and its treatment; furthermore, CKD, especially in advanced stages and in patients undergoing dialysis, may influence the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics properties of anticancer agents. Finally, managing cancer therapy in kidney transplanted patients is another challenge. In this review, we discuss the therapy management of immune-based combinations in patients with CKD, on dialysis, or transplanted, as well as their renal toxicities, with a focus on their prevention, detection and practical management, taking into account the crucial role of the consulting nephrologist within the multidisciplinary care of these patients.

Personal resources for addressing the work demands of Ukrainian oncologists in stressful crisis situations.

BACKGROUND: Many work-related stresses are experienced by oncologists. Ukraine is currently undergoing numerous crises, including the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and military conflicts, which represent stressful situations. The aim of this study was to explore the personal resources that Ukrainian oncologists use to cope with work demands in a situation featuring manifold crises. This study identified the ways in which people deal with stressful situations and the roles that they play in shaping the challenging situations that they encounter (work-related behavior) as well as how they cope with stress (stress management). METHODS: Forty oncologists (18 men and 22 women) working in a clinic in Kharkiv (Ukraine) with an average age of 46.3 ± 13.37 years (ranging from 26 to 74 years) participated in this study. The occupational psychological survey consisted of the Work-Related Behavior and Experience Patterns (German: Arbeitsbezogenes Verhaltens- und Erlebensmuster, AVEM) questionnaire, which was developed by Schaarschmidt and Fischer, and the Differential Stress Inventory (DSI), which was developed by Léfevre and Kubinger. RESULTS: 65% of oncologists exhibited AVEM risk pattern A or B. No gender differences were observed with regard to the distribution of AVEM patterns. Women obtained significantly higher scores than did men on only one dimension: experience of social support (4.86 vs. 3.44; p = 0.045). When the DSI categories were differentiated by gender, no significant differences were observed. Spearman's correlation analysis revealed a medium-sized correlation between perfection striving and palliative coping (ρ = 0.404). CONCLUSIONS: Few gender-based differences in work-related behaviors, experiences, and stress management strategies are evident among oncologists. AVEM risk patterns are more prevalent among Ukrainian oncologists than among comparable occupational groups, and interventions in the context of health management are recommended.

Perspectives of Oncologists on the Ethical Implications of Using Artificial Intelligence for Cancer Care.

Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly integrating into cancer care. Understanding stakeholder views on ethical issues associated with the implementation of AI in oncology is critical to optimal deployment. Objective: To evaluate oncologists' views on the ethical domains of the use of AI in clinical care, including familiarity, predictions, explainability (the ability to explain how a result was determined), bias, deference, and responsibilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, population-based survey study was conducted from November 15, 2022, to July 31, 2023, among 204 US-based oncologists identified using the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was response to a question asking whether participants agreed or disagreed that patients need to provide informed consent for AI model use during cancer treatment decisions. Results: Of 387 surveys, 204 were completed (response rate, 52.7%). Participants represented 37 states, 120 (63.7%) identified as male, 128 (62.7%) as non-Hispanic White, and 60 (29.4%) were from academic practices; 95 (46.6%) had received some education on AI use in health care, and 45.3% (92 of 203) reported familiarity with clinical decision models. Most participants (84.8% [173 of 204]) reported that AI-based clinical decision models needed to be explainable by oncologists to be used in the clinic; 23.0% (47 of 204) stated they also needed to be explainable by patients. Patient consent for AI model use during treatment decisions was supported by 81.4% of participants (166 of 204). When presented with a scenario in which an AI decision model selected a different treatment regimen than the oncologist planned to recommend, the most common response was to present both options and let the patient decide (36.8% [75 of 204]); respondents from academic settings were more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.19-5.51). Most respondents (90.7% [185 of 204]) reported that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use. Some agreed that this responsibility was shared by physicians (47.1% [96 of 204]) or hospitals (43.1% [88 of 204]). Finally, most respondents (76.5% [156 of 204]) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools, but only 27.9% (57 of 204) were confident in their ability to identify poorly representative AI models. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional survey study, few oncologists reported that patients needed to understand AI models, but most agreed that patients should consent to their use, and many tasked patients with choosing between physician- and AI-recommended treatment regimens. These findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise.

Diagnostic Imaging for Retinoblastoma Cancer Staging: Guide for Providing Essential Insights for Ophthalmologists and Oncologists.

Retinoblastoma is the most common cause of all intraocular pediatric malignancies. It is caused by the loss of RB1 tumor suppressor gene function, although some tumors occur due to MYCN oncogene amplification with normal RB1 genes. Nearly half of all retinoblastomas occur due to a hereditary germline RB1 pathogenic variant, most of which manifest with bilateral tumors. This germline RB1 mutation also predisposes to intracranial midline embryonal tumors. Accurate staging of retinoblastoma is crucial in providing optimal vision-, eye-, and life-saving treatment. The AJCC Cancer Staging Manual has undergone significant changes, resulting in a universally accepted system with a multidisciplinary approach for managing retinoblastoma. The authors discuss the role of MRI and other diagnostic imaging techniques in the pretreatment assessment and staging of retinoblastoma. A thorough overview of the prevailing imaging standards and evidence-based perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of these techniques is provided. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

National Survey of Oncologists' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Behaviors: Caring for Cancer Patients Experiencing Incarceration.

Cancer is the leading cause of illness-related death in state prisons in the United States. The experiences of physicians providing oncological care to individuals experiencing incarceration are underexplored. The study aims were to evaluate knowledge, attitudes, and practices of oncologists caring for cancer patients who are incarcerated. An online survey was distributed to a random sample of 150 oncologists from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Radiation Oncology from July 2020 to December 2021. Statistical analyses included two proportion Z-test, Fisher's exact test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Cramer's V to estimate factors associated with attitudes and barriers to care. Of the 55 respondents (36.7% response rate), 21 were medical oncologists and 34 were radiation oncologists. Academic center oncologists were more likely to report caring for incarcerated patients than community or private practice oncologists (p = .04). Most (53%) incorrectly reported "heart disease" as the leading cause of death, as opposed to "cancer" (15% identified correctly). Oncologists practicing at both academic and community centers were more likely to report care coordination barriers than oncologists at academic or community centers (p < .01). We identified potential barriers in caring for incarcerated cancer patients. Future studies should explore ways to improve care coordination between oncology teams and prisons.

Supporting the support person: Oncologists' roles in reducing support people's uncertainty and facilitating psychological adjustment.

OBJECTIVE: Support people of cancer patients are at significant risk for psychological distress. Additionally, cancer patients' well-being is reciprocally associated with support peoples' psychological well-being. Informed by Uncertainty in Illness Theory, this study tests whether support person psychological well-being is influenced by provider communication and uncertainty reduction. METHODS: We tested a multiple mediation model to investigate how empathic communication facilitates psychological adjustment in support people of cancer patients and how this process is mediated by support peoples' illness uncertainty and caregiver burden. Support people of cancer patients (N = 121; including spouses, adult children, etc.) completed an online questionnaire about their perceptions of oncologists' empathy, uncertainty about the cancer patients' illness, perceived caregiving burden, and their psychological adjustment to diagnoses. RESULTS: Path analysis revealed that (1) more perceived oncologist empathy was associated with less illness uncertainty, (2) more illness uncertainty was associated with worse psychological adjustment and more perceived caregiver burden, and (3) more burden was associated with worse adjustment (χ2 (2) = 1.19, p = 0.55; RMSEA < 0.01; CFI = 1.00; SRMR = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Given the reciprocal nature of well-being between cancer patients and their support people, it is critical to understand and bolster support people's psychological well-being. Results demonstrated how empathic provider communication can support psychological well-being for support people of cancer patients. Additionally, this study offers theoretical contributions to understandings of illness uncertainty in caregiver populations.

[Task-Sharing and Task-Shifting between Oncologists and Primary Care Physicians].

The life that a person with cancer leads is called the cancer journey. As cancer treatment advances and specialization progresses, a trend toward integrating each specialty from the perspective of the cancer journey is emerging. In this paper, we consider task-sharing and task-shifting from the perspective of integrating oncology and primary care. Although oncologists and primary care physicians have different specialties, we believe that task-sharing and task-shifting can be achieved and lead to smooth transitional care by strengthening collaboration and sharing knowledge and experience, while taking advantage of their respective characteristics as medical professionals working with people with cancer. For this purpose, I would like both oncologists and primary care physicians to collaborate with a high perspective and a broad viewpoint to improve the quality of life of people with cancer, without making it an objective to pursue their respective specialties.