Do you mind if I record?: Perceptions and practice regarding patient requests to record clinic visits in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Audio recordings of oncology clinic discussions can help patients retain and understand information about their disease and treatment decisions. Access to this tool relies on acceptance of recordings by oncologists. This is the first study to evaluate experience and attitudes of oncologists toward patients recording clinic visits. METHODS: Medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists from 5 US cancer centers and community affiliates were surveyed to evaluate clinicians' experience, beliefs, and practices regarding patient-initiated recordings. RESULTS: Among 360 oncologists (69% response rate), virtually all (93%) have experienced patients seeking to record visits. Although 75% are comfortable with recording, 25% are uncomfortable and 56% report concerns ranging from less thorough discussions to legal liability. Most (85%) always agree when patients ask to record, but 15% never or selectively allow recording. Although 51% believe recording is positive for the patient-physician relationship, a sizable minority report that it can lead to less detailed conversations (28%) or avoidance of difficult topics, including prognosis (33%). Views did not vary based on subspecialty, practice setting, or geographic region, but older age and years in practice were associated with more positive views of recording. The majority of clinicians (72%) desire institutional policies to govern guidelines about recordings. CONCLUSIONS: Most oncologists are comfortable with patient requests to record visits, but a sizable minority remain uncomfortable, and access to recording varies solely on physician preference. This difference in care delivery may benefit from institutional policies that promote access while addressing legitimate physician concerns over privacy and appropriate use of recordings.

Gaps in patient-physician communication at the time of malignant bowel obstruction from recurrent gynecologic cancer: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: We sought to investigate the patient and physician approaches to malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) due to recurrent gynecologic cancer by (1) comparing patient and physician expectations and priorities during a new MBO diagnosis, and (2) highlighting factors that facilitate patient-doctor communication. METHODS: Patients were interviewed about their experience during an admission for MBO, and physicians were interviewed about their general approach towards MBO. Interviews were analyzed for themes using QDAMiner qualitative analysis software. The analysis utilized the framework analysis and used both predetermined themes and those that emerged from the data. RESULTS: We interviewed 14 patients admitted with MBO from recurrent gynecologic cancer and 15 gynecologic oncologists. We found differences between patients and physicians regarding plans for next chemotherapy treatments, foremost priorities, communication styles, and need for end-of-life discussions. Both patients and physicians felt that patient-physician communication was improved in situations of trust, understanding patient preferences, corroboration of information, and increased time spent with patients during and before the MBO. CONCLUSION: Gaps in patient-physician communication could be targeted to improve the patient experience and physician counseling during a difficult diagnosis. Our findings emphasize a need for patient-physician discussions to focus on expectations for future cancer-directed treatments, support for patients at home with home health or hospice level support in line with their wishes, and acknowledgement of uncertainty while providing direct information about the MBO diagnosis.

Decisional Capacity Determination In Patients With Cancer.

Patients with cancer face many difficult decisions and encounter many clinical situations that undermine decisional capacity. For this reason, assessing decision-making capacity should be thought of at every medical encounter. The culmination of variable disease trajectories, following patients to the end of life, use of high-risk treatments, and other weighty personal decisions require attention to patients' ability to engage in decisions. Oncologists develop meaningful relationships with their patients. This familiarity may lead to forgoing the process of diligently assessing a patient's cognitive ability and/or decisional capacity when important decisions need to be made. While the process may feel like it takes place spontaneously, many subtle and overt details are involved with the decisions around cancer care that require pointed questioning and probing. Thus, there are many ways to fall short in determining decisional capacity. Clinicians are inconsistent in their decisional capacity determinations and generally assume more decisional capacity than the patient has. Consult and referral services such as ethics and psychiatry can help with treatment decisions and with assessing underlying psychosocial and psychiatric conditions. Decisional capacity may fluctuate and requires a variable amount of decisional ability depending on the clinical situation; hence, it is time-specific and decision-specific. This review is intended to provide a summary of key components of decisional capacity while highlighting areas in need of clinical refinement.

Secondary Use of Patient Tissue in Cancer Biobanks.

BACKGROUND: As scientific techniques evolve, historical informed consent forms may inadequately address modern research proposals, leading to ethical questions regarding research with archived biospecimens. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: We conducted focus groups among patients with cancer recruited from Massachusetts General Hospital to explore views on medical research, biobanking, and scenarios based on real biospecimen research dilemmas. Our multidisciplinary team developed a structured focus group guide, and all groups were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were coded for themes by two independent investigators using NVivo software. RESULTS: Across five focus groups with 21 participants, we found that most participants were supportive of biobanks and use of their own tissue to advance scientific knowledge. Many favor allowing research beyond the scope of the original consent to proceed if recontact is impossible. However, participants were not comfortable speaking for other patients who may oppose research beyond the original consent. This was viewed as a potential violation of participants' rights or interests. Participants were also concerned with a "slippery slope" and potential scientific abuse if research were permitted without adherence to original consent. There was strong support for recontact and reconsent when possible and for the concept of broad consent at the time of tissue collection. CONCLUSION: Our participants support use of their tissue to advance research and generally support any productive scientific approach. However, in the absence of broad initial consent, when recontact is impossible, a case-by-case decision must be made regarding a proposal's potential benefits and harms. Many participants support broad use of their tissue, but a substantial minority object to use beyond the original consent. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: For prospective studies collecting tissue for future research, investigators should consider seeking broad consent, to allow for evolution of research questions and methods. For studies using previously collected tissues, researchers should attempt recontact and reconsent for research aims or methods beyond the scope of the original consent. When reconsent is not possible, a case-by-case decision must be made, weighing the scientific value of the biobank, potential benefits of the proposed research, and the likelihood and nature of risks to participants and their welfare interests. This study's data suggest that many participants support broad use of their tissue and prefer science to move forward.

Association of externalizing religious and spiritual beliefs on stage of colon cancer diagnosis among black and white multicenter urban patient populations.

BACKGROUND: This study explores whether externalizing religious and spiritual beliefs is associated with advanced-stage colon cancer at initial oncology presentation and whether this association is stronger for blacks than for whites. METHODS: Patients who had newly diagnosed, invasive colon cancer were recruited at 9 sites in the Chicago metropolitan area. Eligible patients were non-Hispanic white or black, ages 30 to 79 years, and diagnosed with a primary invasive colon cancer. Patients were interviewed on prior screening and diagnosis. Social and attitudinal constructs were measured, including the God Locus of Health Control (GLHC) and Religious Problem Solving. The final response rate was 52% and included 407 patients. RESULTS: The median age was 59 years (range, 30-79 years), and 51% of participants were black. Cancer stage was available for 389 (96%) patients and was divided between late stage (stages III-IV; 60%) and early stage (stages I-II; 40%). Multivariate analysis indicated that patients in the highest tertile of scores on the GLHC were more likely have an advanced stage of disease at presentation (odds ratio, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-4.59; P = .05) compared with those in the lowest tertile. No significant interaction was identified between race and GLHC scores for stage at presentation (P = .78). CONCLUSIONS: In a large sample of black and white individuals across diverse health care systems, higher scores on the GLHC predicted late disease stage at presentation. Although blacks had significantly higher GLHC scores, race was not associated with stage at presentation, nor was the association between GLHC and stage limited to blacks. Further work is needed to better understand this association and to develop interventions to better connect the religious and health care spheres. Cancer 2018;124:2578-87. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Measuring financial toxicity as a clinically relevant patient-reported outcome: The validation of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST).

BACKGROUND: Cancer and its treatment lead to increased financial distress for patients. To the authors' knowledge, to date, no standardized patient-reported outcome measure has been validated to assess this distress. METHODS: Patients with AJCC Stage IV solid tumors receiving chemotherapy for at least 2 months were recruited. Financial toxicity was measured by the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) measure. The authors collected data regarding patient characteristics, clinical trial participation, health care use, willingness to discuss costs, psychological distress (Brief Profile of Mood States [POMS]), and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General (FACT-G) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QOL questionnaires. Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and validity of the COST measure were assessed using standard-scale construction techniques. Associations between the resulting factors and other variables were assessed using multivariable analyses. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients with advanced cancer were approached, 233 of whom (62.1%) agreed to participate. The COST measure demonstrated high internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Factor analyses revealed a coherent, single, latent variable (financial toxicity). COST values were found to be correlated with income (correlation coefficient [r] = 0.28; P<.001), psychosocial distress (r = -0.26; P<.001), and HRQOL, as measured by the FACT-G (r = 0.42; P<.001) and by the EORTC QOL instruments (r = 0.33; P<.001). Independent factors found to be associated with financial toxicity were race (P = .04), employment status (P<.001), income (P = .003), number of inpatient admissions (P = .01), and psychological distress (P = .003). Willingness to discuss costs was not found to be associated with the degree of financial distress (P = .49). CONCLUSIONS: The COST measure demonstrated reliability and validity in measuring financial toxicity. Its correlation with HRQOL indicates that financial toxicity is a clinically relevant patient-centered outcome. Cancer 2017;123:476-484. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

What advanced cancer patients with limited treatment options know about clinical research: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Discussions between oncologists and advanced cancer patients (ACPs) may touch on the complex issue of clinical trial participation. Numerous initiatives have sought to improve the quality of these potentially difficult conversations. However, we have limited data about what ACPs know about clinical research as they enter such discussions as, to date, such research has focused on the period following informed consent. This study examines ACPs' understanding of clinical research in the treatment period before consent. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with adult ACPs with limited treatment options at four clinics in an academic medical center. So as not to influence patients' perspectives, interviewers probed patients' knowledge of clinical research only if the patient first brought up the topic. Interviews (40-60 min) were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically and via quantitative content analysis by an interdisciplinary team. RESULTS: Of 78 patients recruited, 56 (72%) spontaneously brought up the topic of clinical research during interview and are included in this analysis. Qualitative thematic analysis and quantitative content analysis revealed that patients' knowledge varied in terms of (1) accuracy and (2) specificity (level of detail). ACPs who spoke with high specificity were not always accurate, and ACPs with accurate knowledge included both high- and low-specificity speakers. CONCLUSIONS: ACPs' knowledge of clinical research is variable. Patients who can discuss the technical details of their care may or may not understand the broader purpose and procedures of clinical trials. Understanding this variability is important for improving patient-provider communication about clinical research and supporting efforts to provide individualized care for ACPs.

Psychological morbidities in adolescent and young adult blood cancer patients during curative-intent therapy and early survivorship.

BACKGROUND: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer face unique psychosocial challenges. This pilot study was aimed at describing the prevalence of psychological morbidities among AYAs with hematologic malignancies during curative-intent therapy and early survivorship and at examining provider perceptions of psychological morbidities in their AYA patients. METHODS: Patients aged 15 to 39 years with acute leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or Hodgkin lymphoma who were undergoing curative-intent therapy (on-treatment group) or were in remission within 2 years of therapy completion (early survivors) underwent a semistructured interview that incorporated measures of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress (PTS). A subset of providers (n = 15) concomitantly completed a survey for each of the first 30 patients enrolled that evaluated their perception of each subject's anxiety, depression, and PTS. RESULTS: Sixty-one of 77 eligible AYAs participated. The median age at diagnosis was 26 years (range, 15-39 years), 64% were male, and 59% were non-Hispanic white. On-treatment demographics differed significantly from early-survivor demographics only in the median time from diagnosis to interview. Among the 61 evaluable AYAs, 23% met the criteria for anxiety, 28% met the criteria for depression, and 13% met the criteria for PTS; 46% demonstrated PTS symptomatology. Thirty-nine percent were impaired in 1 or more psychological domains. Psychological impairments were as frequent among early survivors as AYAs on treatment. Provider perceptions did not significantly correlate with patient survey results. CONCLUSIONS: AYAs with hematologic malignancies experience substantial psychological morbidities while they are undergoing therapy and during early survivorship, with more than one-third of the patients included in this study meeting the criteria for anxiety, depression, or traumatic stress. This psychological burden may not be accurately identified by their oncology providers.

The development of a financial toxicity patient-reported outcome in cancer: The COST measure.

BACKGROUND: Considering patients' experience is essential for optimal decision-making. However, despite increasing recognition of the impact of costs on oncology care, there is no patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that specifically describes the financial distress experienced by patients. METHODS: The content for a comprehensive score for financial toxicity (COST) was developed with a stepwise approach: step 1) a literature review and semistructured, qualitative interviews with patients for content generation; step 2) patients' assessment of the items for importance to their quality of life; step 3) pilot testing assessing interitem (IIC) and item-total (ITC) correlations to identify redundancy (Spearman rho, > 0.7) and statistically unrelated content (P > .05); and step 4) exploratory factor analysis. Sociodemographic data were collected. RESULTS: In total, 155 patients with advanced cancer who were receiving treatment (20 patients in step 1, 35 patients in step 2, and 100 patients in steps 3 and 4) participated in the PROM development. In step 1, the literature was reviewed, and 20 patients generated 147 items, which were reduced to 58 items because of redundancy. In step 2, 35 patients rated the 58 items on importance, and 30 items were retained. In step 3, 46 patients assessed the 30 items, 14 items were excluded because of high IIC, and 3 were excluded because of nonsignificant ITC. In step 4, 2 items were discarded because of poor loadings in a factor analysis of 100 patients, resulting in an 11-item PROM. CONCLUSIONS: The content for a financial toxicity PROM was developed in 155 patients. The provisional COST measure demonstrated face and content validity as well as internal consistency and should be validated in larger samples.

Challenges and Solutions to Support Oncology Professionals Serving Underserved Populations With Cancer in the United States: Results From the ASCO Serving the Underserved Task Force.

PURPOSE: Little data exist regarding approaches to support oncology professionals who deliver cancer care for underserved populations. In response, ASCO developed the Serving the Underserved Task Force to learn from and support oncology professionals serving underserved populations. METHODS: The Task Force developed a 28-question survey to assess oncology professionals' experiences and strategies to support their work caring for underserved populations. The survey was deployed via an online link to 600 oncology professionals and assessed respondent and patient demographic characteristics, clinic-based processes to coordinate health-related social services, and strategies for professional society support and engagement. We used chi-square tests to evaluate whether there were associations between percent full-time equivalent (FTE) effort serving underserved populations (<50% FTE v ≥50% FTE) with responses. RESULTS: Of 462 respondents who completed the survey (77% response rate), 79 (17.1%) were Asian; 30 (6.5%) Black; 43 (9.3%) Hispanic or Latino/Latina; and 277 (60%) White. The majority (n = 366, 79.2%) had a medical doctor degree (MD). A total of 174 (37.7%) had <25% FTE, 151 (32.7%) had 25%-50% FTE, and 121 (26.2%) had ≥50% FTE effort serving underserved populations. Most best guessed patients' sociodemographic characteristics (n = 388; 84%), while 42 (9.2%) used data collected by the clinic. Social workers coordinated most health-related social services. However, in clinical settings with high proportions of underserved patients, there was greater reliance on nonclinical personnel, such as navigators (odds ratio [OR], 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07 to 4.33]) or no individual (OR, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.14 to 5.72]) for addressing mental health needs and greater reliance on physicians or advance practice practitioners (OR, 2.54 [95% CI, 1.11 to 5.81]) or no individual (OR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.09 to 3.35]) for addressing childcare or eldercare needs compared with social workers. Prioritization of solutions, which did not differ by FTE effort serving underserved populations, included a return-on-investment model to support personnel, integrated health-related social needs screening, and collaboration with the professional society on advocacy and policy. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight crucial strategies that professional societies can implement to support oncology clinicians serving underserved populations with cancer.

The development of a Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) questionnaire to assess dermatologic symptoms associated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (FACT-EGFRI-18).

PURPOSE: Dermatologic toxicities from epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRIs) are common, disrupt health-related quality of life (HRQL), and lead to dose reduction or discontinuation of potentially life-saving cancer therapy. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-EGFRI was developed to measure HRQL among patients receiving EGFRIs. METHODS: The FACT-EGFRI was developed through the triangulation approach using the established functional assessment of chronic illness therapy method of patient questionnaire construction. This included literature review, qualitative data collection and analysis, and quantitative survey data collection on candidate items to identify the most important items related to EGFRI-induced dermatologic toxicities according to patients receiving EGFRIs and expert clinicians. RESULTS: Twelve expert clinicians and 20 patients were interviewed for the initial questionnaire development. Dermatologic symptoms associated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors endorsed as high priority by both patients and oncologist experts were selected. The final version includes 18 items which assess the physical, emotional, social, and functional impact that skin, nail, and hair toxicities have on patients' HRQL. CONCLUSIONS: The FACT-EGFRI-18 measures the severity of patient-reported EGFRI-induced dermatologic toxicities and effects on HRQL and was developed using qualitative data from patients and expert clinicians. Further validation is underway. The FACT-EGFRI-18 may be useful for clinicians and researchers to quantify dermatologic toxicities from the patient perspective in standard clinical care, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent or reduce dermatologic toxicities, and to guide treatment decision making.

Assessing the Needs of Those Who Serve the Underserved: A Qualitative Study among US Oncology Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology established the 'Supporting Providers Serving the Underserved' (SUS) Task Force with a goal to develop recommendations to support cancer clinicians who deliver care for populations at risk for cancer disparities. As a first step, the Task Force explored barriers and facilitators to equitable cancer care delivery. METHODS: Clinicians across the United States who deliver care predominantly for low-income and racially and ethnically minoritized populations were identified based on lists generated by the Task Force and the Health Equity Committee. Through purposive sampling based on geographical location, clinicians were invited to participate in 30-60 min semi-structured interviews to explore experiences, barriers, and facilitators in their delivery of cancer care. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, imported into qualitative data management software, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thematic analysis revealed three major themes regarding barriers (lack of executive leadership recognition of resources; patient-related socio-economic needs; clinician burnout) and two major themes regarding facilitators (provider commitment, experiential training). CONCLUSIONS: Findings reveal modifiable barriers and potential solutions to facilitate equitable cancer care delivery for populations at risk for cancer disparities.

Development, Feasibility, and Acceptability of an Oncologist Group Peer Support Program From ASCO's Clinician Well-Being Task Force.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has had deleterious effects on oncologist professional and personal well-being, the optimal delivery of quality cancer care, and the future cancer care workforce, with many departing the field. Hence, the identification of evidence-based approaches to sustain oncologists is essential to promote well-being. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a brief, oncologist-centered, virtual group peer support program and tested its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary impact on well-being. Trained facilitators provided support to peers on the basis of burnout research in oncology with available resources to enhance oncologist resilience. Peers completed pre- and postsurvey assessment of well-being and satisfaction. RESULTS: From April to May 2022, 11 of 15 (73%) oncologists participated in its entirety: mean age 51.1 years (range, 33-70), 55% female, 81.8% Ca, 82% medical oncologists, 63.6% trained ≥15 years, average 30.3 patients/wk (range, 5-60), and 90.9% employed in hospital/health system practice. There was a statistically significant difference in pre- and postintervention well-being (7.0 ± 3.6 v 8.2 ± 3.0, P = .03) with high satisfaction with postgroup experience (9.1 ± 2.5). These quantitative improvements were affirmed by qualitative feedback. These themes included (1) an enhanced understanding of burnout in oncology, (2) shared experience in practice of oncology, and (3) fostering connections with diverse colleagues. Future recommendations proposed included (1) restructuring group format and (2) tailoring groups according to practice setting (academic v community). CONCLUSION: Preliminary results suggest that a brief, innovative oncologist-tailored group peer support program is feasible, acceptable, and beneficial for enhancing well-being dimensions including burnout, engagement, and satisfaction. Additional study is required to refine program components (optimal timing, format) to support oncologist well-being, now during the pandemic and well into recovery.

Longitudinal assessment of quality of life in indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas managed with active surveillance.

There are limited data describing the impact of active surveillance on longitudinal health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL). A cohort of untreated indolent NHL patients completed FACT-LYM questionnaires at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months after diagnosis. Longitudinal FACT-LYM scores were analyzed by ANOVA and generalized linear mixed models. Indolent NHL scores were compared to norm general population scores. A total of 52 patients were identified, of which 46 (88%) remained on active surveillance at 36 months. There was no significant change in any of the FACT-LYM scores over 36 months. As compared to the general population, indolent NHL patients had higher, clinically meaningful scores in physical, functional, and social well-being, but not emotional well-being. Patients with indolent NHL on active surveillance have globally preserved HRQoL for up to 3 years after diagnosis. Emotional well-being continues to be an unmet need during active surveillance.

Resilience in the Face of Pandemic: The Impact of COVID-19 on the Psychologic Morbidity and Health-Related Quality of Life Among Women With Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has created new challenges for ovarian cancer survivors. This study aims to evaluate the psychologic morbidity and alterations in medical care caused by the pandemic. METHODS: Advanced-stage ovarian cancer survivors at our institution were contacted for participation in a cross-sectional telephone-based quantitative survey study assessing pandemic-related psychologic morbidity. Psychologic domains using validated measures were explored: health-related quality of life (HRQOL; functional assessment of cancer therapy [FACT-G7]), anxiety (generalized anxiety disorder-7 [GAD7]), depression (Patient Health Questionnarie-2 [PHQ2]), global health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System - Global Physical Health/Global Mental Health (PROMIS-GMH/GPH), resilience (brief resilience scale), and loneliness (English Longitudinal Study on Aging). Novel COVID-19 pandemic questions were drawn from a larger survey developed in our department. RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent (61 of 104) of contacted patients completed the survey. One quarter of respondents had high resilience, with only 10% reporting low resilience. Only one patient screened positive for depression, and two for anxiety. Increased loneliness was reported by 43% of respondents. Patients' overall HRQOL was good (median = 21; range = 6-28). Few patients experienced treatment delays, with only four experiencing chemotherapy interruption and two reporting surgical delays. Multiple regression analyses revealed that high FACT-G7 HRQOL was predicted by age > 65 years, high self-reported mental health, high resilience, and being off chemotherapy. Lower COVID-19 concern was predicted by recurrent cancer and high resilience. CONCLUSION: Despite the far-reaching impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, ovarian cancer survivors' HRQOL has been maintained. Older age, high resilience, high mental health, and being off chemotherapy predicted better HRQOL. Ovarian cancer survivors remain resilient in the face of the pandemic, and the support of clinicians to preserve this invaluable personal resource is critical for well-being.

Utilization of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Platform to Evaluate the Psychosocial and Quality-of-Life Experience Among a Community Sample of Ovarian Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Novel distress screening approaches using electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measurements are critical for the provision of comprehensive quality community cancer care. Using an ePRO platform, the prevalence of psychosocial factors (distress, post-traumatic growth, resilience, and financial stress) affecting quality of life in ovarian cancer survivors (OCSs) was examined. METHODS: A cross-sectional OCS sample from the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition-Illinois Chapter completed web-based clinical, sociodemographic, and psychosocial assessment using well-validated measures: Hospital Anxiety/Depression Scale-anxiety/depression, Post-traumatic Growth Inventory, Brief Resilience Scale, comprehensive score for financial toxicity, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian (FACT-O/health-related quality of life [HRQOL]). Correlational analyses between variables were conducted. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent (174 of 300) of OCS completed virtual assessment: median age 59 (range 32-83) years, 94.2% White, 60.3% married/in domestic partnership, 59.6% stage III-IV, 48.8% employed full-time/part-time, 55.2% had college/postgraduate education, 71.9% completed primary treatment, and median disease duration 6 (range < 1-34) years. On average, OCS endorsed normal levels of anxiety (mean ± standard deviation = 6.9 ± 3.8), depression (4.1 ± 3.6), mild total distress (10.9 ± 8.9), high post-traumatic growth (72.6 ± 21.5), normal resilience (3.7 ± 0.72), good FACT-O-HRQOL (112.6 ± 22.8), and mild financial stress (26 ± 10). Poor FACT-O emotional well-being was associated with greater participant distress (P < .001). Partial correlational analyses revealed negative correlations between FACT-O-HRQOL and anxiety (r = -0.65, P < .001), depression (r = -0.76, P < .001), and total distress (r = -0.92, P < .001). Yet, high FACT-O-HRQOL was positively correlated with post-traumatic coping (r = 0.27; P = .006) and resilience (r = 0.63; P < .001). CONCLUSION: ePRO assessment is feasible for identification of unique psychosocial factors, for example, financial toxicity and resilience, affecting HRQOL for OCS. Future investigation should explore large-scale, longitudinal ePRO assessment of the OCS psychosocial experience using innovative measures and community-based advocacy populations.

Provider-Level Barriers to Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in Survivors of Childhood and Young Adult Cancers.

Purpose: We sought to understand clinician-level barriers to providing HPV vaccination to survivors of childhood and young adult cancers (CYACs). Methods: We conducted 30-minute qualitative interviews with primary care and specialty clinicians who care for survivors of CYACs at our academic medical center. Blinded reviewers analyzed transcripts and used an inductive approach to identify barriers to vaccination in this population. Results: We conducted 24 interviews (n = 11 primary care clinicians, n = 13 oncology clinicians). Thematic analysis revealed that primary care clinicians are universally viewed as holding ultimate responsibility for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among survivors of CYACs. Both primary care and oncology clinicians believed vague, inconsistent HPV guidelines engendered uncertainty toward HPV vaccination's role and timing following completion of CYAC therapies. As such, compared with other vaccines, the HPV vaccination is not as consistently offered to survivors. Respondents identified direct guidance from oncologists to primary care clinicians and to patients as a potential strategy for improving HPV vaccination rates in this population. Finally, oncology clinicians frequently deprioritize the issue of preventing second, noniatrogenic cancers and consequently miss opportunities to discuss vaccination's merits with their patients. Conclusions: Despite not holding ultimate responsibility for vaccination, oncology clinicians have an opportunity to play an important role in ensuring access and overcoming hesitancy among survivors of CYACs. Developing clearer and more collaborative guidelines, helping to integrate vaccination into institutional electronic health record protocols, offering direct guidance to primary care colleagues, and participating in conversations with survivors of CYACs may help improve vaccination rates.

Anxiety Shapes Expectations of Therapeutic Benefit in Phase I Trials for Patients With Advanced Cancer and Spousal Caregivers.

PURPOSE: Advanced cancer patients (ACP) hope to receive significant therapeutic benefit from phase I trials despite terminal disease and presumed symptom burdens. We examined associations between symptom burdens and expectations of therapeutic benefit for ACP and spousal caregivers (SC) during phase I trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort of ACP-SC enrolled in phase I trials was assessed at baseline and one month using symptom burden measures evaluating depression, state-trait anxiety, quality of life, global health, post-traumatic coping, and marital adjustment. Interviews evaluated expectations of benefit. RESULTS: Fifty-two phase I ACP and 52 SC (N = 104) were separately assessed and interviewed at baseline and one month. Total population demographics included the following: median age 61 years (28-78), 50% male, 100% married, 90% White, and 46% ≥ college education. At T1, ACP reported symptoms of mild state anxiety, mild trait anxiety, poor global health, and quality of life. SC reported moderate state and mild trait anxiety and good global health with little disability at baseline. State anxiety was a significant predictor of ACP expectations for phase I producing the following therapeutic benefits: stabilization (P = .01), shrinkage (P < .01), and remission (P = .04). Regression analyses also revealed negative associations between SC expectation for stabilization and SC anxiety: state (P = .01) and trait (P = .02). ACP quality of life was also negatively associated with SC expectations for stabilization (P = .02) and shrinkage (P = .01). CONCLUSION: Anxiety, both state and trait, impacts couples' beliefs regarding the likelihood of therapeutic benefit from phase I trial participation.

Occupational and Personal Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic on US Oncologist Burnout and Well-Being: A Study From the ASCO Clinician Well-Being Task Force.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global crisis profoundly affecting oncology care delivery. PURPOSE: This study will describe the occupational and personal consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncologist well-being and patient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four virtual focus groups were conducted with US ASCO member oncologists (September-November 2020). Inquiry and subsequent discussions centered on self-reported accounts of professional and personal COVID-19 experiences affecting well-being, and oncologist recommendations for well-being interventions that the cancer organization and professional societies (ASCO) might implement were explored. Qualitative interviews were analyzed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-five oncologists were interviewed: median age 44 years (range: 35-69 years), 52% female, 52% racial or ethnic minority, 76% medical oncologists, 64% married, and an average of 51.5 patients seen per week (range: 20-120). Five thematic consequences emerged: (1) impact of pre-COVID-19 burnout, (2) occupational or professional limitations and adaptations, (3) personal implications, (4) concern for the future of cancer care and the workforce, and (5) recommendations for physician well-being interventions. Underlying oncologist burnout exacerbated stressors associated with disruptions in care, education, research, financial practice health, and telemedicine. Many feared delays in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Oncologists noted personal and familial stressors related to COVID-19 exposure fears and loss of social support. Many participants strongly considered working part-time or taking early retirement. Yet, opportunities arose to facilitate personal growth and rise above pandemic adversity, fostering greater resilience. Recommendations for organizational well-being interventions included psychologic or peer support resources, flexible time-off, and ASCO and state oncology societies involvement to develop care guidelines, well-being resources, and mental health advocacy. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected oncologist burnout, fulfillment, practice health, cancer care, and workforce. It illuminates where professional organizations could play a significant role in oncologist well-being.