The effect of COVID-19 on oncology practice in Turkey.

PURPOSE: The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was defined in China, leading an outbreak, impacted the organization, and maintained cancer care. Although the alterations of cancer treatment maintenance were evaluated, the difference in physicians' side was not determined. In this survey study, we tried to assess the alteration of Turkish oncologists' daily practice. METHODS: An online survey was prepared via Google forms and sent to oncologists registered to the Turkish Society of Medical Oncology. One hundred twenty-eight oncologists answered the online survey. RESULTS: Twenty-three percent of the oncologists moved their facilities to another place in the hospital after the pandemic, which was resulted in nearly 90% of worse patient services. Seventy percent of the oncologists did not receive any duties on COVID-19 services after Turkey's first case. Thirty-one percent of the oncologists stated their oncology practice was disturbed by working in the COVID-19 services. Three oncologists accepted they were responsible for cross-infection to oncology patients. Eighty-five percent of the oncologists declared oncology practice was disturbed by the other specialists' assignment in COVID-19 services. The leading areas were general surgery, pulmonary diseases, and ENT, according to oncologists. Twenty-two percent of the oncologists needed to send their patients to other oncology clinics due to the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Although oncologists tolerated oncological patient management alterations, the prolonged pandemic situation may harm oncology practice via the loss of oncologists' motivation and incomplete multi-disciplinary patient management. There is a need for follow-up studies to evaluate the situation for the alternation in the COVID-19 pandemic.​.

Differences in surgical oncology practice in Greece and Cyprus between the first and second COVID-19 pandemic waves: Lessons from a paradigm shift.

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the implementation of certain restrictions and rearrangements regarding the surgical oncology operations, thus affecting the surgical lists, the availability of surgical time, along with the consultations of oncologic patients. The purpose of the present study was to identify the differences in surgical oncology practices in Greece and Cyprus between the first and second pandemic waves. We designed a questionnaire for surgeons treating surgical oncology patients. A total of 104 surgeons participated in the present study by answering our questionnaire. According to our outcomes, there was a significant shift between the two waves in patients' willingness to undergo surgery and to present to consultations. Nonetheless, the availability of surgical services remained limited. The consequent mismatch in patients' needs and the availability of healthcare services, we demonstrate herein, is alarming and should be taken into consideration by the policymakers.

No improvement in survival of older women with cervical cancer-A nationwide study.

AIM: This study aims to report trends in primary treatment and survival in cervical cancer (CC) to identify opportunities to improve clinical practice and disease outcome. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with CC between 1989 and 2018 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (N = 21,644). Trends in primary treatment and 5-year relative survival were analysed with the Cochran-Armitage trend test and multivariable Poisson regression, respectively. RESULTS: In early CC, surgery remains the preferred treatment for ages 15-74. Overall, it was applied more often in younger than in older patients (92% in 15-44; 64% in 65-74). For 75+, surgery use was stable over time (38%-41%, p=0.368), while administration of radiotherapy decreased (57%-29%, p < 0.001). In locally advanced CC, chemoradiation use increased over time (5%-65%, p < 0.001). It was applied least often for 75+, in which radiotherapy remains most common (54% in 2014-2018). In metastatic CC, chemotherapy use increased over time (11%-28%, p < 0.001), but varied across age groups (6%-40% in 2014-2018). In patients treated with primary chemoradiation, regardless of stage, brachytherapy use increased over time (p ≤ 0.001). Full cohort 5-year survival increased from 68% to 74% (relative excess risk 0.55; 95% confidence interval [0.50-0.62]). Increases were most significant in locally advanced CC (38%-60%; 0.55 [0.47-0.65]). Survival remained stable in 75+ (38%-34%; 0.82 [0.66-1.02]). CONCLUSION: Relative survival for cervical cancer increased over the last three decades. The proportion of older patients receiving preferred treatment lags behind. Consequently, survival did not improve in the oldest patients.

Has the Volume and Variability of Procedures Reported by Fellows in ACGME-accredited Musculoskeletal Oncology Fellowship Programs Changed Over Time?

BACKGROUND: There has been a considerable rise in the number of musculoskeletal/orthopaedic oncology fellowships and subsequently, orthopaedic oncologists, in the nation. National societies have been concerned that the increasing number of orthopaedic oncologists, coupled with a limited number of patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcomas in the country, may have led to an unintended impact on the training spectrum and/or exposure of orthopaedic oncology fellows-in-training over time. Fellows who are unable to gain exposure by operating on varied cancer presentations during training may be less confident in dealing with a wide array of patients in their practice. Despite these concerns, the volume and variability of procedures performed by fellows-in-training remains unknown. Understanding these parameters will be helpful in establishing policies for standardizing training of prospective fellows to ensure they are well-equipped to care for patients with bone and/or soft-tissue sarcomas in the beginning of their career. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Has the median surgical procedure volume per fellow changed over time? (2) How much variability in procedural volume exists between fellows, based on the most recent (2017) Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) procedure log data? (3) What proportion of fellows are meeting the minimum procedure volume thresholds, as recommended by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS)? METHODS: The 2010 to 2017 ACGME fellowship procedure logs for musculoskeletal oncology fellowships were retrieved from the council's official website. All fellows enrolled in ACGME-accredited fellowships are mandated to complete case logs before graduation. This study did not include operative procedures performed by fellows in nonACGME-approved fellowship programs. The 2010 to 2016 anatomic site-based procedure log data were used to evaluate fellows' overall and location-specific median operative or patient volume, using descriptive statistics. Linear regression analyses were used to assess changes in the median procedure volume over time. The 2017 categorized procedure log data were used to assess variability in procedure volume between the lowest (10th percentile) and highest (90th percentile) of all fellows. Using 2017 procedure logs, we compared the minimum procedure volume standards, as defined by the MSTS, against the number of procedures performed by fellows across the 10th, 30th, 50th (median), 70th, and 90th percentiles. RESULTS: There was no change in the median (range) procedural volume per fellow from 2010 (292 procedures [131 to 634]) to 2017 (312 procedures [174 to 479]; p = 0.58). Based on 2017 categorized procedure log data, there was considerable variability in procedural volume between the lowest (10th) percentile and highest (90th) percentile of fellows across programs: pediatric oncologic procedures (10-fold difference), surgical management of complications from limb-salvage surgery (sevenfold difference), soft-tissue resections or reconstructions (fourfold difference), bone sarcoma resections or limb-salvage surgery (fourfold difference), and spine, sacrum, and pelvis procedures (threefold difference). A fair proportion of fellows did not meet the minimum procedure volume standards, as recommended by the MSTS across certain categories. For the spine and pelvis (minimum = 10 procedures), fellows in the lowest 10th percentile performed only six procedures. For patients with bone sarcomas or limb salvage (minimum = 20 procedures), fellows in the lowest 10th percentile performed only 14 procedures. For pediatric patients with oncologic conditions (minimum = 15 procedures), fellows in the 50th percentile (13 procedures) and below failed to meet the thresholds. For surgical management of complications from limb-salvage procedures (minimum = five procedures), fellows in the lowest 10th percentile performed only three procedures. CONCLUSION: Although we were encouraged to observe that the median number of procedures performed by musculoskeletal oncology fellows over this time has not changed, we observed wide variability in the procedure volume among fellows for pediatric sarcomas, soft-tissue resection and reconstruction, limb salvage procedures, and spine procedures. We do not know how this compares with fellows trained in nonaccredited fellowship programs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although we recognize that the education of fellows entails much more than performing operations, national societies have recognized a need to bring about more uniformity or standardization of training in musculoskeletal oncology. Limiting the number of orthopaedic oncology fellowships to high-volume institutions, expanding the training time period, and/or introducing subspecialty certification may be possible avenues through which standardization of training can be defined.

Developing and Sustaining an Effective and Resilient Oncology Careforce: Opportunities for Action.

Advances in cancer care have led to improved survival, which, coupled with demographic trends, have contributed to rapid growth in the number of patients needing cancer care services. However, with increasing caseload, care complexity, and administrative burden, the current workforce is ill equipped to meet these burgeoning new demands. These trends have contributed to clinician burnout, compounding a widening workforce shortage. Moreover, family caregivers, who have unique knowledge of patient preferences, symptoms, and goals of care, are infrequently appreciated and supported as integral members of the oncology "careforce." A crisis is looming, which will hinder access to timely, high-quality cancer care if left unchecked. Stemming from the proceedings of a 2019 workshop convened by the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, this commentary characterizes the factors contributing to an increasingly strained oncology careforce and presents multilevel strategies to improve its efficiency, effectiveness, and resilience. Together, these will enable today's oncology careforce to provide high-quality care to more patients while improving the patient, caregiver, and clinician experience.

Patterns of End-of-Life Oncologic Care for Stage IV Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Because aggressive oncological management just prior to death constitutes a substantial proportion of end-of-life (EOL) costs, we investigated patterns of EOL oncologic care for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in USA to better determine at which point in the patient's management new treatments were being initiated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for stage IV NSCLC patients who received any cancer-directed therapy with known timing thereof. RESULTS: A total of 281,990 stage IV NSCLC patients were analyzed. Of all patients, 10.8% commenced any first-course cancer therapy within four weeks of death, and 24.5% within eight weeks of death. CONCLUSION: 10-15% of stage IV NSCLC patients start cancer therapy within four weeks of death, and 25-30% within eight weeks. This represents a population for whom cancer therapy may not be required, which has implications on reducing EOL healthcare costs.

Sentinel lymph node mapping in endometrial and cervical cancer: a survey of practices and attitudes in gynecologic oncologists.

OBJECTIVE: To determine patterns among gynecologic oncologists in sentinel lymph node mapping (SLNM) for endometrial cancer (EC) and cervical cancer (CC). METHODS: A online survey assessing the practice of SLNM, including incidence, patterns of usage, and reasons for non-use was distributed to Society of Gynecologic Oncology candidate and full members in August 2017. Descriptive statistics and univariate analysis was performed. RESULTS: The 1,117 members were surveyed and 198 responses (17.7%) were received. Of the 70% (n=139) performing SLNM, the majority reported use for both CC and EC (64.0%) or EC alone (33.1%). In those using SLNM in EC, the majority (86.6%) performed SLNM in >50% of cases for all patients (56.3%), International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grade 1 (43.0%) and 2 (42.2%). Reported benefits of SLNM in EC were reduced surgical morbidity (89.6%), lymphedema (85.2%), and operative time (63.7%). Among those using SLNM for CC, the majority (73.1%) did so in >50% of cases. In EC, 77.2% and 21.3% reported that micro-metastatic disease (0.2-2.0 cm) and isolated tumor cells (ITCs) should be treated as node positive, respectively. In those not using SLNM for EC (n=64) and CC (n=105), concerns were regarding efficacy of SLNM and lack of training. When queried regarding training, 73.7% felt that SLNM would impact skill in full lymphadenectomy (LND). CONCLUSION: The SLNM is utilized frequently among gynecologic oncologists for EC and CC staging. Common reasons for non-uptake include uncertainty of current data, lack of training and technology. Concerns exist regarding impact of SLNM in fellowship training of LND.

Breast cancer survivor's perspectives on the role different providers play in follow-up care.

IMPORTANCE: Significant variation in the number and types of oncologists that provide breast cancer follow-up exists. However, there is limited understanding regarding breast cancer survivors' preferences for who provides their follow-up. Our objective was to explore breast cancer survivors' perspectives on the goals of breast cancer follow-up, the preferred role for primary care providers, and the perceived roles of different types of oncologists during follow-up. METHODS: A convenience sample of stage 0-III breast cancer survivors was identified and in-depth one-on-one interviews conducted. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Survivors cited a strong preference for oncology-based follow-up within the first 5 years after diagnosis, driven by their need for reassurance that cancer had not recurred. Survivors also thought that their primary care provider needed to be involved. Survivors assumed that oncology follow-up was directed by a standard protocol that included streamlining the follow-up team. Survivors recognized that patients with more complex cancers or challenging treatment courses may require more intensive follow-up and deviate from the standard protocol. Most survivors were comfortable deferring decisions regarding who participated in follow-up to the oncology team. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients think a streamlined approach to oncology-based breast cancer follow-up already occurs, driven by a standard protocol. The use of a standard protocol to provide guidance for which types of oncology providers should participate in breast cancer follow-up will streamline care and represents a significant opportunity to reduce unnecessary variation. This approach is especially critical given patients' strong preferences for oncology-based follow-up.

A mixed methods analysis of experiences and expectations among early-career medical oncologists in Australia.

AIM: A viable and sustainable medical oncology profession is integral for meeting the increasing demand for quality cancer care. The aim of this study was to explore the workforce-related experiences, perceptions and career expectations of early-career medical oncologists in Australia. METHODS: A mixed-methods design, including a survey (n  =  170) and nested qualitative semistructured interviews (n  =  14) with early-career medical oncologists. Recruitment was through the Medical Oncology Group of Australia. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed and for the survey results, logistic regression modeling was conducted. RESULTS: Early-career medical oncologists experienced uncertainty regarding their future employment opportunities. The competitive job market has made them cautious about securing a preferred job leading to a perceived need to improve their qualifications through higher degree training and research activities. The following themes and trends were identified from the qualitative and quantitative analyses: age, career stage and associated early-career uncertainty; locale, professional competition and training preferences; participation in research and evolving professional expectations; and workload and career development opportunities as linked to career uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Perceived diminished employment opportunities in the medical oncology profession, and shifting expectations to be "more qualified," have increased uncertainty among junior medical oncologists in terms of their future career prospects. Structural factors relating to adequate funding of medical oncology positions may facilitate or inhibit progressive change in the workforce and its sustainability. Workforce planning and strategies informed by findings from this study will be necessary in ensuring that both the needs of cancer patients and of medical oncologists are met.

Recent Trends in Chemotherapy Use and Oncologists' Treatment Recommendations for Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Background: There is growing concern about overtreatment of breast cancer as outcomes have improved over time. However, little is known about how chemotherapy use and oncologists' recommendations have changed in recent years. Methods: We surveyed 5080 women (70% response rate) diagnosed with breast cancer between 2013 and 2015 and accrued through two Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries (Georgia and Los Angeles) about chemotherapy receipt and their oncologists' chemotherapy recommendations. We surveyed 504 attending oncologists (60.3% response rate ) about chemotherapy recommendations in node-negative and node-positive case scenarios. We conducted descriptive statistics of chemotherapy use and patients' report of oncologists' recommendations and used a generalized linear mixed model of chemotherapy use according to time and clinical factors. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The analytic sample was 2926 patients with stage I-II, estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer. From 2013 to 2015, keeping other factors constant, chemotherapy use was estimated to decline from 34.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 30.8% to 38.3%) to 21.3% (95% CI = 19.0% to 23.7%, P < .001). Estimated decline in chemotherapy use was from 26.6% (95% CI = 23.0% to 30.7%) to 14.1% (95% CI = 12.0% to 16.3%) for node-negative/micrometastasis patients and from 81.1% (95% CI = 76.6% to 85.0%) to 64.2% (95% CI = 58.6% to 69.6%) for node-positive patients. Use of the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) did not change among node-negative/micrometastasis patients, and increasing RS use in node-positive patients accounted for one-third of the chemotherapy decline. Patients' report of oncologists' recommendations for chemotherapy declined from 44.9% (95% CI = 40.2% to 49.7%) to 31.6% (95% CI = 25.9% to 37.9%), controlling for other factors. Oncologists were much more likely to order RS if patient preferences were discordant with their recommendations (67.4%, 95% CI = 61.7% to 73.0%, vs 17.5%, 95% CI = 13.1% to 22.0%, concordant), and they adjusted recommendations based on patient preferences and RS results. Conclusions: For both node-negative/micrometastasis and node-positive patients, chemotherapy receipt and oncologists' recommendations for chemotherapy declined markedly over time, without substantial change in practice guidelines. Results of ongoing trials will be essential to confirm the quality of this approach to breast cancer care.

Radical Cystectomy Versus Chemoradiation for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: Impact of Treatment Facility and Sociodemographics.

BACKGROUND: The present study sought to compare the differences in practice patterns, as well as clinical outcomes for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer undergoing treatment with either radical cystectomy (RC) or concurrent chemoradiaiton (CRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried for patients diagnosed with T2/T3/T4aN0M0 bladder cancer, between 2004-2013, that received definitive treatment with either RC or CRT. RESULTS: 16,960 patients met the inclusion criteria; 1,450 (8.5%) underwent CRT, while 15,510 (91.5%) were treated with RC. Patients undergoing CRT were older, more likely to be female, African American, received treatment at an academic facility, and lived <20 miles of the treatment facility. CRT was associated with worse median OS (32.8 months vs. 36.1 months; p=0.0004). CONCLUSION: Older patients are more likely to undergo bladder preservation therapy, while those living farther away from treatment facilities are less likely to under CRT.

Follow-Up Practices of Surgeons and Medical Oncologists in Australia and New Zealand Following Resection of Esophagogastric Cancers.

PURPOSE: Follow-up practices for patients who have undergone surgical resection of esophagogastric malignancies are variable and poorly documented. To better understand practice, a questionnaire was used to survey surgeons and medical oncologists to determine whether any consensus exists. METHODS: An opt-in online questionnaire was sent to esophagogastric surgeons and medical oncologists via the membership lists for the Australian and New Zealand Gastric and Oesophageal Surgery Association (ANZGOSA), the Australian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Groups (AGITG), and the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA). The questionnaire proposed five clinical scenarios and provided a range of follow-up options for each scenario. Clinicians were asked to indicate which best matched their clinical practice. RESULTS: Most clinicians follow patients for at least 3-5 years following resection of gastric or esophageal cancer. In total, 52% perform routine surveillance imaging, with individual scenarios not altering this. Tumor markers are infrequently used. Endoscopy and routine blood tests are used by around half the respondents. CONCLUSION: There was little consensus about the use of investigations to monitor patients following esophagogastric cancer surgery. Choices do not follow guidelines or evidence. The identified patterns of postoperative surveillance practice appear not to be evidence based, and generally do not match recently published Australian guidelines.

Association of Provider Specialty and Multidisciplinary Care With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Mortality.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about provider and health system factors that affect receipt of active therapy and outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We investigated patient, provider, and health system factors associated with receipt of active HCC therapy and overall survival. METHODS: We performed a national, retrospective cohort study of all patients diagnosed with HCC from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010 (n = 3988) and followed through December 31 2014 who received care through the Veterans Administration (128 centers). Outcomes were receipt of active HCC therapy (liver transplantation, resection, local ablation, transarterial therapy, or sorafenib) and overall survival. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, receiving care at an academically affiliated Veterans Administration hospital (odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60-2.41) or a multi-specialist evaluation (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.15-2.21), but not review by a multidisciplinary tumor board (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.98-1.46), was associated with a higher likelihood of receiving active HCC therapy. In time-varying Cox proportional hazards models, liver transplantation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.16-0.31), liver resection (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.28-0.52), ablative therapy (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76), and transarterial therapy (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92) were associated with reduced mortality. Subspecialist care by hepatologists (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78), medical oncologists (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91), or surgeons (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89) within 30 days of HCC diagnosis, and review by a multidisciplinary tumor board (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.90), were associated with reduced mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective cohort study of almost 4000 patients with HCC cared for at VA centers, geographic, provider, and system differences in receipt of active HCC therapy are associated with patient survival. Multidisciplinary methods of care delivery for HCC should be prospectively evaluated and standardized to improve access to HCC therapy and optimize outcomes.

Electronic cigarettes: a survey of perceived patient use and attitudes among members of the British thoracic oncology group.

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation following lung cancer diagnosis has been found to improve several patient outcomes. Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use is now prevalent within Great Britain, however, use and practice among patients with lung cancer has not as yet been explored. The current study aims to explore e-cigarette use among patients and examine current practice among clinicians. The results have important implications for future policy and practice. METHODS: Members of The British Thoracic Oncology Group (BTOG) were contacted via several e-circulations (N = 2,009), requesting them to complete an online survey. Of these, 7.7 % (N = 154) completed the survey, which explored participant demographics and smoking history, perceptions of patient e-cigarette use, practitioner knowledge regarding sources of guidance pertaining to e-cigarettes, and practitioner advice. RESULTS: Practitioners frequently observed e-cigarette use among patients with lung cancer. The majority of practitioners (81.4 %) reported responding to patient queries pertaining to e-cigarettes within the past year; however, far fewer (21.0 %) felt confident providing patients with e-cigarette advice. Practitioner confidence was found to differentiate by gender (p = 0.012) and employment speciality (p = 0.030), with nurses reporting particularly low levels of confidence in advising. The results also demonstrate extensive variability regarding the practitioner advice content. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that patients refer to practitioners as a source of e-cigarette guidance, yet few practitioners feel confident advising. The absence of evidence-based guidance may have contributed towards the exhibited inconsistencies in practitioner advice. The findings highlight that training should be delivered to equip practitioners with the knowledge and confidence to advise patients effectively; this could subsequently improve smoking cessation rates and patient outcomes.