Medical oncology workload, workforce census, and needs in Spain: two nationwide studies by the Spanish Society of medical oncology

Purpose Growing complexity and demand for cancer care entail increased challenges for Medical Oncology (MO). The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) has promoted studies to provide updated data to estimate the need for medical oncologists in 2040 and to analyse current professional standing of young medical oncologists. Methods Two national, online surveys were conducted. The first (2021) targeted 146 Heads of MO Departments, and the second (2022), 775 young medical oncologists who had completed their MO residency between 2014 and 2021. Participants were contacted individually, and data were processed anonymously. Results Participation rates reached 78.8% and 48.8%, respectively. The updated data suggest that 87–110 new medical oncologist full-time equivalents (FTEs) should be recruited each year to achieve an optimal ratio of 110–130 new cases per medical oncologist FTE by 2040. The professional standing analysis reveals that 9.1% of medical oncologists trained in Spain do not work in clinical care in the country, with tremendous employment instability (only 15.2% have a permanent contract). A high percentage of young medical oncologists have contemplated career paths other than clinical care (64.5%) or working in other countries (51.7%). Conclusions Optimal ratios of medical oncologists must be achieved to tackle the evolution of MO workloads and challenges in comprehensive cancer care. However, the incorporation and permanence of medical oncologists in the national healthcare system in Spain could be compromised by their current sub-optimal professional standing (AU)

Multi-country clinical practice patterns, including use of biomarkers, among physicians' treatment of BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).

BACKGROUND: Intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) fails in a considerable proportion of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients despite treatment per recommended protocol. This real-world study aimed to understand the current patterns of treatment and disease management for the broad BCG-unresponsive NMIBC patient population, alongside collecting sufficient data on patients who do not undergo cystectomy. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective survey of physicians treating BCG-unresponsive NMIBC patients. Data were collected in eight countries - France, Germany, Spain, Italy, United Kingdom, United States, China, and Japan - between January and May 2019. The study consisted of a short online physician survey and a retrospective chart review of eligible BCG-unresponsive NMIBC patients. Physicians abstracted chart data for the last 10 (five patients in Japan) eligible BCG-unresponsive NMIBC patients meeting the inclusion criteria, and the data were analysed for all countries combined using descriptive statistics. Country-specific analyses were also carried out, as appropriate. RESULTS: Overall, 508 physicians participated in the study. Almost one-quarter (22.9%) of physicians' current NMIBC patient caseload was BCG-unresponsive, whereby BCG therapy was no longer considered an option. Half of physicians (49.4%) did not regularly use biomarker tests in their practice, with particularly few physicians undertaking biomarker testing in Spain and Japan. Biomarker testing varied considerably, with the proportions of physicians selecting 'none' ranging from 11.4% in China to 70.3% in Japan. Physicians reported transurethral resection of the bladder tumor (TURBT) and BCG as the most common current treatments received by their patients. Chemotherapy and anti-PD-L1 treatment options were considered impactful new therapies by 94.7% and 90.0% of physicians surveyed in this study, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The most common treatments received by patients in this study were TURBT and BCG. Emerging new treatments are driven by exploring biomarkers, but in real-world clinical practice only half of physicians or fewer regularly tested their NMIBC patients for biomarkers; PD-1/PD-L1 was the most common biomarker test used. Most physicians reported that, in addition to chemotherapy, anti-PD-L1 was an impactful new therapy.

Preemptive pharmacogenetic testing to guide chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies: a qualitative study of barriers to implementation.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing for germline variants in the DPYD and UGT1A1 genes can be used to guide fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan dosing, respectively. Despite the known association between PGx variants and chemotherapy toxicity, preemptive testing prior to chemotherapy initiation is rarely performed in routine practice. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of oncology clinicians to identify barriers to using preemptive PGx testing to guide chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. Each participant completed a semi-structured interview informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were analyzed using an inductive content analysis approach. RESULTS: Participants included sixteen medical oncologists and nine oncology pharmacists from one academic medical center and two community hospitals in Pennsylvania. Barriers to the use of preemptive PGx testing to guide chemotherapy dosing mapped to four CFIR domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and characteristics of individuals. The most prominent themes included 1) a limited evidence base, 2) a cumbersome and lengthy testing process, and 3) a lack of insurance coverage for preemptive PGx testing. Additional barriers included clinician lack of knowledge, difficulty remembering to order PGx testing for eligible patients, challenges with PGx test interpretation, a questionable impact of preemptive PGx testing on clinical care, and a lack of alternative therapeutic options for some patients found to have actionable PGx variants. CONCLUSIONS: Successful adoption of preemptive PGx-guided chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies will require a multifaceted effort to demonstrate clinical effectiveness while addressing the contextual factors identified in this study.

Patients' and oncologists' preferences for second-line maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Aim: To understand the preferences of US patients and oncologists for PARP inhibitors as second-line maintenance (2LM) for epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted to assess the preferences of treatment attributes. Results: The most valued attributes were risk of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs; patients, n = 204) and progression-free survival (PFS; oncologists, n = 151). To accept a 37% increased risk of grade 3/4 AEs, PFS would need to increase by 27.9 months (patients) and 6.3 months (oncologists). The least valued attributes were dosing form/frequency (patients) and grade 3/4 anemia risk (oncologists). Conclusion: Patients' and oncologists' willingness to make benefit-risk trade-offs in the 2LM setting suggests that the PFS gains observed in selected studies of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in BRCA-mutated disease are worth the toxicity risk.

Plain language summary Maintenance therapy is a treatment option intended to keep ovarian cancer from coming back or getting worse for as long as possible after responding to chemotherapy. PARP inhibitors are a new type of maintenance therapy for ovarian cancer. This study aimed to understand the patients' and physicians' preferences for the benefits and risks associated with different PARP inhibitors used as maintenance therapy for ovarian cancer. Participants were asked to compare various treatment options based on their different safety profiles, effectiveness and form of medication (e.g., three capsules by mouth once a day versus two tablets by mouth twice a day), and then choose the treatment they most preferred. Through this exercise, the treatment features that mattered most to patients and physicians were identified. The most important treatment feature for patients was decreasing the chance of experiencing a serious side effect that requires medical intervention or hospitalization. In contrast, physicians valued lengthening the time that a cancer remains stable and does not worsen. To accept a 37% higher chance of experiencing a side effect that requires medical intervention or hospitalization, patients expect their cancer to remain stable and not worsen for an additional 28 months. This was a large difference from the 6 months that the physicians would consider as acceptable. The least important treatment features for patients are the amount of pills required per dose, the form of the given medication (e.g., tablet vs capsule) and the schedule of taking the treatment. On the other hand, physicians were least concerned about lowering the risk of experiencing low blood counts that, requiring medical intervention.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and hospitalization at home in France.

CONTEXT: The administration of immune checkpoints inhibitors (ICIs) within hospitalization at home (HaH) organizations is an interesting alternative to conventional care. Three surveys were carried out to describe the different organizational models of French HaHs and criteria used by physicians in patient selection. METHODS: Three surveys were conducted between April 1 and August 31, 2020. The first one was addressed to all French HaHs, and the two others to public HaHs and oncologists treating patients with solid cancer in the Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes region. RESULTS: Overall, 54 French HaHs and 23 oncologists participated to the study. The health professionals involved in the patients' care were very heterogeneous, although in 92% of cases, the treatment prescription was made by the oncologist. HaH physicians were more involved in clinical assessment the day before treatment (19% vs. 0%), treatment validation (56% vs. 15%), and treatment prescription (19% vs. 0%), while nurses were better equipped (emergency kit available in 81% versus 50% of cases) when HaHs did carry out ICIs compared to when they did not. Most oncologists agreed that age, neuropsychiatric disorders, home environment, as well as treatment duration and good tolerance should be considered in patient selection. ECOG PS status and treatment response were less consensually considered. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the variability in French HaH organizations and patient selection criteria for employing ICIs at home. This study resulted in recommendations for administrating ICIs in HaH settings, which will likely be instrumental in further promoting this activity across France.

[Evaluation of the practice of prescribing oral chemotherapy type "Capecitabine" by medical oncologist: A first study from Morocco]. / Évaluation de la pratique de prescription d'une chimiothérapie orale type « capécitabine ¼. Résultats de la première enquête auprès des oncologues médicaux marocains.

INTRODUCTION: Oral anticancer therapy is becoming increasingly developed; their prescription has become a common practice in oncology. However, there is a variability and diversity in prescription practice. Its magnitude has been very little studied in scientific literature. To our knowledge, this is the first study in Morocco and North Africa to evaluate the practice of prescribing oral chemotherapy. METHODS: The authors conducted a national exhaustive cross-sectional survey, to evaluate the practice of the oral chemotherapy "Capecitabine" type prescription by Moroccan oncologists and to identify strategies to promote an adherence to oral anti-neoplasic therapy. RESULTS: Ninety-one medical oncologists answered out of 118, from public oncology centres (29.7%), Hospital University (58.2%), and private sector (12.1%). Thirty-four of the oncologists replied by email, 33 through phone conversation and 24 by filling paper questionnaires. In total, 32% of the cases were handwritten prescriptions, and 51.6% electronically generated. Forty-six percent of medical oncologists dedicated more time to the oral chemotherapy type Capecitabine prescription versus its intravenous equivalent 5FU. However, 33% medical oncologists take less time to this prescription, and 20.9% of them take the same time. Adherence to oral chemotherapy was evaluated by simply questioning of patients in most of the cases (94%) and 4% of medical oncologist declared that they did not evaluate this adherence. In total, 87.9% of Moroccan medical oncologists revealed that they have not received any specific training in the therapeutic education of the patient with oral anti-cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: In Morocco, there is a great variability in prescription and follow-up practice for patients receiving oral chemotherapy. There is a lack of a national standardization with regards to the procedures of prescribing and monitoring patients to ensure the quality and safety of the oral chemotherapy prescription.

Consensus disease definitions for neurologic immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%-12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two 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. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.

Characterizing the relationships between tertiary and community cancer providers: Results from a survey of medical oncologists in Southern California.

BACKGROUND: Tertiary cancer centers offer clinical expertise and multi-modal approaches to treatment alongside the integration of research protocols. Nevertheless, most patients receive their cancer care at community practices. A better understanding of the relationships between tertiary and community practice environments may enhance collaborations and advance patient care. METHODS: A 31-item survey was distributed to community and tertiary oncologists in Southern California using REDCap. Survey questions assessed the following attributes: demographics and features of clinical practice, referral patterns, availability and knowledge of clinical trials and precision medicine, strategies for knowledge acquisition, and integration of community and tertiary practices. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 98 oncologists, 85 (87%) of whom completed it. In total, 52 (61%) respondents were community practitioners and 33 (38%) were tertiary oncologists. A majority (56%) of community oncologists defined themselves as general oncologists, whereas almost all (97%) tertiary oncologists reported a subspecialty. Clinical trial availability was the most common reason for patient referrals to tertiary centers (73%). The most frequent barrier to tertiary referral was financial considerations (59%). Clinical trials were offered by 97% of tertiary practitioners compared to 67% of community oncologists (p = 0.001). Most oncologists (82%) reported only a minimal-to-moderate understanding of clinical trials available at regional tertiary centers. CONCLUSIONS: Community oncologists refer patients to tertiary centers primarily with the intent of clinical trial enrollment; however, significant gaps exist in their knowledge of trial availability. Our results identify the need for enhanced communication and collaboration between community and tertiary providers to expand patients' access to clinical trials.

Actual and Missed Opportunities for End-of-Life Care Discussions With Oncology Patients: A Qualitative Study.

Importance: Early discussion of end-of-life (EOL) care preferences improves clinical outcomes and goal-concordant care. However, most EOL discussions occur approximately 1 month before death, despite most patients desiring information earlier. Objective: To describe successful navigation and missed opportunities for EOL discussions (eg, advance care planning, palliative care, discontinuation of disease-directed treatment, hospice care, and after-death wishes) between oncologists and outpatients with advanced cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary qualitative analysis of outpatient visits audio-recorded between November 2010 and September 2014 for the Studying Communication in Oncologist-Patient Encounters randomized clinical trial. The study was conducted at 2 US academic medical centers. Participants included medical, gynecological, and radiation oncologists and patients with stage IV malignant neoplasm, whom oncologists characterized as being ones whom they "…would not be surprised if they were admitted to an intensive care unit or died within one year." Data were analyzed between January 2018 and August 2020. Exposures: The parent study randomized participants to oncologist- and patient-directed interventions to facilitate discussion of emotions. Encounters were sampled across preintervention and postintervention periods and all 4 treatment conditions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Secondary qualitative analysis was done of patient-oncologist dyads with 3 consecutive visits for EOL discussions, and a random sample of 7 to 8 dyads from 4 trial groups was analyzed for missed opportunities. Results: The full sample included 141 patients (54 women [38.3%]) and 39 oncologists (8 women [19.5%]) (mean [SD] age for both patients and oncologists, 56.3 [10.0] years). Of 423 encounters, only 21 (5%) included EOL discussions. Oncologists reevaluated treatment options in response to patients' concerns, honored patients as experts on their goals, or used anticipatory guidance to frame treatment reevaluation. In the random sample of 31 dyads and 93 encounters, 35 (38%) included at least 1 missed opportunity. Oncologists responded inadequately to patient concerns over disease progression or dying, used optimistic future talk to address patient concerns, or expressed concern over treatment discontinuation. Only 4 of 23 oncologists (17.4%) had both an EOL discussion and a missed opportunity. Conclusions and Relevance: Opportunities for EOL discussions were rarely realized, whereas missed opportunities were more common, a trend that mirrored oncologists' treatment style. There remains a need to address oncologists' sensitivity to EOL discussions, to avoid unnecessary EOL treatment.

OncoAlert Round Table Discussions: The Global COVID-19 Experience.

The speed and spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has been affecting the entire world for the past several months. OncoAlert is a social media network made up of more than 140 oncology stakeholders: oncologists (medical, radiation, and surgical), oncology nurses, and patient advocates who share the mission of fighting cancer by means of education and dissemination of information. As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, OncoAlert hosted The Round Table Discussions. We have documented this effort along with further discussion about the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequences on patients living with cancer to disseminate this information to our colleagues worldwide.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Oncologists: Results of an International Study.

PURPOSE: As frontline workers facing the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers should be well-prepared to fight the disease and prevent harm to their patients and themselves. Our study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitude, and practice of oncologists in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on them. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a validated questionnaire disseminated to oncologists by SurveyMonkey. The tool had 42 questions that captured participants' knowledge, attitude, and practice; their experiences; and the pandemic's impact on various aspects of their lives. Participants from Middle East and North African countries, Brazil, and the Philippines completed the electronic survey between April 24 and May 15, 2020. RESULTS: Of the 1,010 physicians who participated in the study, 54.75% were male and 64.95% were medical or clinical oncologists. The level of knowledge regarding the prevention and transmission of the virus was good in 52% of participants. The majority (92%) were worried about contracting the virus either extremely (30%) or mildly (62%), and 84.85% were worried about transmitting the virus to their families. Approximately 76.93% reported they would take the COVID 19 vaccine once available, with oncologists practicing in Brazil having the highest odds ratio of intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (odds ratio, 11.8, 95% CI, 5.96 to 23.38, P < .001). Participants reported a negative impact of the pandemic on relations with coworkers (15.84%), relations with family (27.84%), their emotional and mental well-being (48.51%), research productivity (34.26%), and financial income (52.28%). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has adverse effects on various personal and professional aspects of oncologists' lives. Interventions should be implemented to mitigate the negative impact and prepare oncologists to manage future crises with more efficiency and resilience.

A Population-based Study Comparing Outcomes for Patients With Metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated by Urologists or Medical Oncologists With First Line Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide.

OBJECTIVES: To compare toxicity and all-cause mortality for mCRPC patients receiving first line oral systemic therapy prescribed by medical oncologists and urologists. METHODS: Population-based retrospective cohort study of chemotherapy-naïve men aged ≥66 years treated for mCRPC with first-line abiraterone or enzalutamide based on administrative health data (Ontario, Canada, 2012-2017). Primary outcomes were hospitalizations/ER visits for any cause or treatment-related toxicity during first-line mCRPC treatment. Secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) comparing outcomes for different medical specialties using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among 3405 mCRPC patients, 2407 (70.7%) received abiraterone and 998 (29.3%) received enzalutamide. 1786 (52.5%) patients visited the ER or were hospitalized. Men treated by medical oncologists had an increased risk of hospitalization/ER visits (HR1.16, 95%CI 1.03-1.31; P = .02), toxicity-related visits (HR1.34, 95%CI 1.08-1.69; P = .01), and mortality (HR1.16, 95%CI 1.02-1.33; P = .02) compared to urologists. Limited information was available, beyond PSA adjustment and prior treatment, on patient disease burden. CONCLUSION: We observed fewer hospital visits overall and for treatment-related toxicity for mCRPC patients who were prescribed first line abiraterone or enzalutamide by urologists compared to medical oncologists. These differences may result from higher prostate cancer disease burden in patients managed by medical oncologists, and/or other unmeasured differences in patient management between specialties.

Platinum ineligibility in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: consensus from Central America and the Caribbean.

The high incidence of head and neck cancer in Central America and the Caribbean, together with limitations in the healthcare system for patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA SCCHN) in this region necessitate a consensus of opinion based on a review of the literature on therapy with cisplatin plus radiation. Such an approach will ensure appropriate selection of patients who can benefit from therapy and reduce the incidence of related adverse events. Therefore, we recorded the opinion of experts in the region in order to identify needs and challenges in the treatment of LA SCCHN.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplant referral patterns for children with sickle cell disease vary among pediatric hematologist/oncologists' practice focus: A Sickle Cell Transplant Advocacy and Research Alliance (STAR) study.

BACKGROUND: Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) provides a curative therapy for children severely affected by sickle cell disease (SCD). Rejection-free survival after matched sibling donor (MSD) HSCT is very high, but adoption of HSCT as a curative SCD therapy has been slow. In this study, we assess providers' perceptions about MSD HSCT for children with variable SCD severity, and determine the influence of provider characteristics on HSCT referrals. PROCEDURE: After our Institutional Review Board deemed the study exempt, American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Clinical Forum listserv subscribers and American Society of Hematology members who self-identified as pediatric hematologists/oncologists (PHO) were emailed a survey. Analysis was performed to describe and evaluate correlations between participant demographics (including practice focus within PHO) and likelihood of HSCT referral for each scenario. RESULTS: Spearman's rank correlation analysis did not reveal any significant relationship between demographic characteristics except practice focus and likelihood to refer to HSCT for any scenarios. Providers focused on SCD and HSCT were more likely to refer a child who had never been admitted to the hospital or had suboptimal adherence to hydroxyurea than general PHOs. A significantly higher proportion of all respondents would refer a child with ß-thalassemia major (87%) than an asymptomatic child with HbSS (47%, P < .00001) or non-HbSS variant (23%, P < .00001). CONCLUSION: PSCD and HSCT physicians are more likely to refer for MSD HSCT in almost every condition than general PHO practitioners, likely because of increased awareness of long-term effects of SCD and safety of MSD HSCT for children with SCD.

What Goals Do Patients and Oncologists Have When Starting Medical Treatment for Metastatic Lung Cancer?

BACKGROUND: Metastatic lung cancer is an incurable disease that can be treated with systemic therapy. These treatments might prolong survival and reduce symptoms, but they may also cause serious adverse effects. We studied the treatment goals of patients with metastasized lung cancer and their oncologists before starting systemic therapy, concordance between patients' and oncologists' goals, and feasibility of these goals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This research was conducted between November 2016 and April 2018 in 1 academic and 5 nonacademic hospitals across the Netherlands. A total of 266 patients with metastatic lung cancer and their prescribing oncologists (n = 23) filled out a questionnaire about their treatment goals and the estimated feasibility of these goals before treatment was started. Additional interviews were conducted with patients and oncologists. RESULTS: Patients and oncologists reported quality of life (respectively, 45% and 72%), life prolongation (45% and 55%), decrease in tumor size (39% and 66%), and cure (19% and 2%) as treatment goals. The interviews showed that the latter appeared to be often as motivation to stay alive. Concordances between patients' and oncologists' treatment goals were low (ranging from 24% to 33%). Patients had slightly higher feasibility scores than oncologists (6.8 vs. 5.8 on a 10-point scale). Educational level, age, religious views, and performance status of patients were associated with treatment goals. CONCLUSION: Patients and oncologists set various goals for the treatment they receive/prescribe. Low concordance might exist because different goals are set or because the patient misunderstands something. Clear communication about treatment goals should be integrated into clinical care.

Dermatologists are more likely than oncologists to prescribe skin-directed therapies for early-stage cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: a retrospective review.

Early-stage cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) is managed effectively with skin-directed therapies such as topical medications, phototherapy, and local ionizing radiation. Patients with CTCL often seek care from both dermatologists and oncologists. Our study aimed to compare the frequency that skin-directed treatments were prescribed to patients managed by each of these specialties. Overall, we found there was a statistically detectable relationship between the presence or absence of oncologist involvement and the likelihood that a patient would be prescribed skin-directed therapies (P=0.0003). Of the oncologists included in the study, 66% opted for management revolving around systemic rather than skin-directed therapies. However, when a dermatologist and oncologist worked together in a patient's care, the number of patients receiving skin-directed therapies increased to 100%. Our study suggests that patients with early stage CTCL may benefit from having a dermatologist involved in their care.

Patient and clinician satisfaction and clinical outcomes of Magseed compared with wire-guided localisation for impalpable breast lesions.

BACKGROUND: Guide-wire localisation remains the most commonly used technique for localisation of impalpable breast lesions in the UK. One alternative is magnetic seed localisation. We aimed to investigate patient and clinician satisfaction in two consecutive cohorts, describe re-excision and positive margin rates, and explore reasons for positive margins and the implications for localisation techniques. METHODS: A single-institution prospective service evaluation of two cohorts of consecutive cases of wire and then Magseed localisation was carried out. Data were collected on patient and clinician satisfaction, clinico-pathological findings, and causes of involved margins. T tests were used to compare continuous variables and Chi-squared test for satisfaction outcomes. RESULTS: 168 consecutive cases used wire-guided localisation (WGL) and 128 subsequent cases used Magseeds. Patients reported less anxiety between localisation and surgery in the Magseed group, and clinicians reported greater ease of use of Magseeds. There were no differences in lesion size, surgical complexity, or re-excision rate between the groups. In a subset of patients receiving standard wide local excision (i.e., excluding mammoplasties), the impact on margin involvement was investigated. There was no significant difference in radiological under-sizing or accuracy of localisation. However, specimen weight and eccentricity of the lesion were statistically significantly lower in the Magseed group. Despite this, re-excision rates were not significantly different (p = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large study of satisfaction with localisation and showed clinician preference for Magseed and a reduction in patient anxiety. It also demonstrated similar positive margin rates despite smaller specimen weights in the Magseed group. Magnetic seed localisation offers an acceptable clinical alternative to guide wire localisation. The impact on local service provision should also be considered.

Opioid prescription by gynecologic oncologists: An analysis of Medicare Part D claims.

The use of opioids across all specialties has increased greatly over the last 2 decades and along with it, opioid misuse, overdose and death. The contribution of opioids prescribed for gynecologic cancers to this problem is unknown. Data from other surgical specialties show prescriber factors including gender, geographic location, board certification, experience, and fellowship training influence opioid prescribing. To characterize national-level opioid prescription patterns among gynecologic oncologists treating Medicare beneficiaries. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database was used to access Medicare Part D opioid claims prescribed by gynecologic oncologists in 2016. Prescription and prescriber characteristics were recorded including medication type, prescription length, number of claims, and total day supply. Region of practice was determined according to the US Census Bureau Regions. Board certification data were obtained from American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology website. Bivariate statistical analysis and linear regression modeling were performed using Stata version 14.2. In 2016, 494 board-certified US gynecologic oncologists wrote 24,716 opioid prescriptions for a total 267,824 days of treatment (median 8 [interquartile range {IQR} 6, 11] prescribed days per claim). Gynecologic oncologists had a median of 33 opioid claims (IQR 18, 64). Male physicians had significantly more opioid prescription claims than females (P < 0.01) including after adjustment for differences in years of experience. There was no difference in prescribed days per claim between male and female physicians. Physicians in the South had the greatest number of opioid prescription claims and significantly more than physicians in all other regions (P < 0.01). Gynecologic oncologists who were board certified for >15 years had a greater number of median opioid claims (28 IQR 16, 50) than those with <5 years since board certification (22 IQR 15, 38) (P= 0.04). Physicians who were board certified in palliative care (n = 19) had significantly more opioids claims (median 40; IQR 18, 91) than those without (median 32; IQR 18, 64) (P< 0.01). In 2016, there were gender-based, regional, and experience-related variations in opioid prescribing by providers caring for Medicare-insured patients.

Current status on microsatellite instability, prognosis and adjuvant therapy in colon cancer: A nationwide survey of medical oncologists, colorectal surgeons and gastrointestinal pathologists.

BACKGROUND: There is significant variation in attitude both towards the role of microsatellite instability (MSI) in predicting prognosis, and towards its role in guiding which Stage II colon cancer patients may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. AIM: To examine the current status of specialist attitudes towards MSI in guiding prognosis and adjuvant therapy in stage II colon cancer. METHODS: The Pathology in Colon Cancer, Prognosis and Uptake of Adjuvant Therapy (PiCC UP) Australia and New Zealand questionnaire was distributed to colorectal surgeons, medical oncologists and pathologists after institutional board approval. A 5-scale Likert score was used to assess attitudes towards 23 pathological features for prognosis and 18 features for adjuvant therapy. Data were analysed using a rating scale and graded response model in item response theory (IRT) on STATA (Stata MP, version 15; StataCorp LP). RESULTS: 164 specialists (45 oncologists, 86 surgeons and 33 pathologists) participated. 80.5% regularly attended colorectal multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings. 89.63% and 59.26% of specialists reported that MSI status was likely or definitely to influence prognosis in colon cancer and recommendations for adjuvant therapy in Stage II colon cancer respectively. IRT modelling was achieved in 17 pathological features for prognosis. MSI IRT score was 4.47 (95% CI: 4.05-4.68). IRT modelling was achieved in 10 pathological features for adjuvant therapy. MSI IRT score was 3.62 (2.89-4.15). MSI ranked 10 (of 17) in order of importance in determining prognosis and ranked three (of 10) in guiding adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSION: MSI status is considered an important biomarker when selecting patients for adjuvant therapy in Stage II colon cancer. MSI is also considered useful in prognostication of colon cancer. MSI status was ranked similar to the tumour grade of differentiation and the presence of perineural invasion.