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.

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.

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.

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' 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

Oncologist Perceptions of Racial Disparity, Racial Anxiety, and Unconscious Bias in Clinical Interactions, Treatment, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Cancer spares no demographic or socioeconomic group; it is indeed the great equalizer. But its distribution is not equal; when structural discrimination concentrates poverty and race, zip code surpasses genetic code in predicting outcomes. Compared with White patients in the United States, Black patients are less likely to receive appropriate treatment and referral to clinical trials, genetic testing, or palliative care/hospice. METHODS: In 2021, we administered a survey to 369 oncologists measuring differences in perceptions surrounding racial disparity, racial anxiety, and unconscious bias and adverse influence on clinical interactions, treatment, and outcomes for non-White patients. We analyzed responses by generational age group, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, US region, and selection of "decline to respond." RESULTS: The most significant differences occurred by age group followed by race/ethnicity. Racial disparity was perceived as moderate to very high by 84% of millennial, 69% of Generation X, and 57% of baby boomer oncologists, who were also 86% more likely than millennials and 63% more likely than Generation Xers to perceive low/nonexistent levels of racial anxiety/unconscious bias. CONCLUSIONS: Most oncologists rarely or never perceived racial anxiety/unconscious bias as adversely influencing clinical treatment or survival outcomes in non-White patients, and White oncologists were 85% more likely than non-White oncologists to perceive rare/nonexistent influence on referral of non-White patients to palliative care/hospice. The discrepancy between 62% of oncologists perceiving moderate to very high levels of racial anxiety/unconscious bias and 37% associating them with adverse influence on non-White patients shows a disconnect, especially among older oncologists (baby boomers), who were also least likely to select the decline option. Together, these factors hinder effective patient-provider communication and result in differential care and outcomes. Oncologists should uncover their own perceptions surrounding racial disparity, racial anxiety, and unconscious bias and modify their behaviors accordingly. It is this simple-and this complicated. Cancer does not discriminate, and neither should cancer care.

Experiences of treatment decision-making among older newly diagnosed adults with acute myeloid leukemia: a qualitative descriptive study.

PURPOSE: Treatment decision-making for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is complex and preference-sensitive. We sought to understand the patient experience of treatment decision-making to identify specific challenges in shared decision-making to improve clinical care and to inform the development of directed interventions. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with newly diagnosed older (≥ 60 years) adults with AML and their caregivers following a semi-structured interview guide at a public safety net academic hospital. Interviews were digitally recorded, and qualitative thematic analysis was employed to synthesize findings. RESULTS: Eighteen in-depth interviews were conducted. Age ranged from 62 to 78 years. Patients received intermediate- (50%) or high-intensity (44%) chemotherapy or best supportive care only (6%). Six themes of patient experiences emerged from the analysis: patients (1) felt overwhelmed and in shock at diagnosis, (2) felt powerless to make decisions, (3) felt rushed and unprepared to make a treatment decision, (4) desired to follow oncologist recommendations for treatment, (5) balanced multiple competing factors during treatment decision-making, and (6) desired for ongoing engagement into their care planning. Patients reported many treatment outcomes that were important in treatment decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with newly diagnosed AML feel devastated and in shock at their diagnosis which appears to contribute to a feeling of being overwhelmed, unprepared, and rushed into treatment decisions. Because no one factor dominated treatment decision-making for all patients, the use of strategies to elicit individual patient preferences is critical to inform treatment decisions. Interventions are needed to reduce distress and increase a sense of participation in treatment decision-making.

Unveiling the Biosimilar Paradox of Oncologists' Perceptions and Hesitations in South Korea: A Web-Based Survey Study.

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilars offer a cost-effective alternative to original biopharmaceuticals with comparable efficacy and safety. The perception and familiarity of prescribers toward biosimilars play a critical role in their market penetration. Yet, few studies have explored the perception of oncologists toward biosimilars, much less in Asia. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to understand barriers of adopting biosimilars among oncologists and explore strategies to promote their use in clinical practice settings. METHODS: A web-based survey was conducted among Korean oncologists from September to October 2022, assessing their perception of biosimilars and prescribing practices. RESULTS: Among the 118 surveyed oncologists, 75.4% (89 out of 118) had previously prescribed biosimilars. When asked about their preference, 48.3% (57 out of 118) of the respondents preferred originators to biosimilars, whereas 16.1% (19 out of 118) favored biosimilars over the originators. The primary reason for preferring the originators was trust in safety and efficacy (94.7%, 54 out of 57). Still, a paradox was noted as 87.0% (47 out of 54) and 85.2% (46 out of 54) of these also acknowledged the comparable efficacy and safety of biosimilars. A relatively small number of the respondents (16.1%, 19 out of 118) did not consider prescribing biosimilars to biologic-naïve patients at all, and up to 56.8% (67 out of 118) expressed reluctance to switch prescriptions from originators to biosimilars. However, 90.7% (107 out of 118) of respondents considered changing their prescription to biosimilars if patients faced financial stress. Concerns regarding the efficacy when switching to biosimilars were expressed by 42.7% (38 out of 89) of oncologists with biosimilar prescribing experience, increasing to 69.0% (20 out of 29) among those without such experience. CONCLUSION: Korean oncologists perceived biosimilars to be as safe and effective as originators. However, there is a notable mismatch between this perception and their prescribing practices, particularly among those who have not prescribed biosimilars before. The financial burden of patients served as a significant driver for prescribing biosimilars, yet marginal price differences between originators and biosimilars may be associated with the low adoption rate of biosimilars in Korea. Active price competition may enhance market penetration of biosimilars.

Prevalence and factors associated with professional burnout in Polish oncologists-results of a nationwide survey.

BACKGROUND: High rates of burnout are observed among health care professionals worldwide, which could have negative consequences on personal and organizational levels. We aimed to evaluate the burnout prevalence and factors associated with burnout among oncologists in Poland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was conducted using the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) and additional work/lifestyle questions. Descriptive statistics, parametric and nonparametric tests, and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify factors associated with burnout. RESULTS: A total of 228 physicians participated in the survey, including 168 medical oncologists, 43 radiation oncologists, and 17 from other specialties. Data collected from 211 medical and radiation oncologists were included in the final analyses. Most participants were female (71.6%) and ≤40 years of age (70.1%). A self-reported feeling of burnout was present in 65.9% of participants. Based on the MBI-HSS, 74.9% showed evidence of burnout with burnout subdomains as follows: depersonalization 37.0%; emotional exhaustion 64.5%; low accomplishment 43.1%. There were no differences in burnout rates based on specialization (oncology/haematology-75.6%, radiotherapy-72.1%), career stage, gender, or age groups. Lack of work-life balance was the only significant factor associated with the risk of burnout in the logistic regression (relative risk 2.6, 95% confidence interval 1.3-5.4). Only 20.9% of physicians had access to psychological support in their workplace; however, 70.1% desired such support. Three main factors impacting burnout in cancer care workers were: bureaucracy and administrative duties overload, admissions of many patients, and poor work culture. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout is common among medical and radiation oncologists in Poland. There is a high demand for psychological support and organizational changes in the workplace to reduce risk and mitigate the adverse effects of burnout among health care professionals.

Characteristics of Health Care Settings Where Adolescents and Young Adults Receive Care for ALL.

PURPOSE: Individuals diagnosed with cancer between 15 and 39 years (adolescent and young adult [AYA]) face unique vulnerability. Detail is lacking about care delivery for these patients, especially those with ALL. We address these knowledge gaps by describing AYA ALL care delivery details at National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) (sub)affiliates by model of care. METHODS: Participating institutions treated at least one AYA with ALL from 2012 to 2016. Study-specific criteria were used to determine the number of unique clinical facilities (CFs) per NCORP and their model of care (adult/internal medicine [IM], pediatric, mixed [both]). Surveys completed by NCORPs for each CF by model of care captured size, resources, services, and communication. RESULTS: Among 84 participating CFs (adult/IM, n=47; pediatric, n=15; mixed, n=24), 34% treated 5-10 AYAs with ALL annually; adult/IM CFs more often treated <5 (adult/IM, 60%; pediatric, 40%; mixed, 29%). Referral decisions were commonly driven by an age/diagnosis combination (58%), with frequent ALL-specific age minimums (87%) or maximums (80%). Medical, navigational, and social work services were similar across models while psychology was available at more pediatric CFs (pediatric, 80%; adult/IM, 40%; mixed, 46%-54%). More pediatric or mixed CFs reported oncologists interacting with pediatric/adult counterparts via tumor boards (pediatric, 93%; adult/IM, 26%; mixed, 96%) or initiating contact (pediatric, 100%; adult/IM, 77%; mixed 96%); more pediatric CFs reported an affiliated counterpart (pediatric, 53%; adult, 19%). Most CFs reported no AYA-specific resources (79%) or meetings (83%-98%). CONCLUSION: System-level aspects of AYA ALL care delivery have not been examined previously. At NCORPs, these characteristics differ by models of care. Additional work is ongoing to investigate the impact of these facility-level factors on guideline-concordant care in this population. Together, these findings can inform a system-level intervention for diverse practice settings.

Importance of Patient Health Insurance Coverage and Out-of-Pocket Costs for Genomic Testing in Oncologists' Treatment Decisions.

PURPOSE: Use of genomic testing, especially multimarker panels, is increasing in the United States. Not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance, which can result in substantial patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. Little is known about oncologists' treatment decisions with respect to patient insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing. METHODS: We identified 1,049 oncologists who used multimarker tumor panels from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Separate multivariable ordinal logistic regressions examined associations of oncologist-, practice-, and area-level characteristics and oncologists' ratings of importance (very, somewhat, or a little/not important) of insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing in treatment decisions, adjusting for oncologist years of experience, sex, race and ethnicity, specialty, use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests, region, tumor boards, patient insurance mix, and area-level socioeconomic characteristics. RESULTS: Among oncologists, 47.3%, 32.7%, and 20.0% reported that patient insurance coverage for genomic testing was very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively, in treatment decisions. In addition, 56.9%, 28.0%, and 15.2% reported that OOP costs for testing were very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively. In adjusted analyses, oncologists who used NGS tests were more likely to report patient insurance and OOP costs as important (odds ratio [OR], 2.00 [95% CI, 1.16 to 3.45] and OR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.22 to 3.68], respectively) in treatment decisions compared with oncologists who did not use these tests, as were oncologists who treated solid tumors, rather than only hematological cancers. More years of experience and higher percentages of Medicaid or self-paid/uninsured patients in the practice were associated with reporting insurance coverage (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.89]) and OOP costs (OR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.13 to 2.01]) as important. Oncologists in practices with molecular tumor boards for genomic tests were less likely to report coverage (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.85]) and OOP costs (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.97]) as important than their counterparts in practices without these tumor boards. CONCLUSION: Most oncologists rate patient health insurance and OOP costs for genomic tests as important considerations in subsequent treatment recommendations. Modifiable factors associated with these ratings can inform interventions to support patient-physician decision making about care.