Reporting time toxicity in prospective cancer clinical trials: A scoping review.

PURPOSE: This review aimed to assess the measurement and reporting of time toxicity (i.e., time spent receiving care) within prospective oncologic studies. METHODS: On July 23, 2023, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were queried for prospective or randomized controlled trials (RCT) from 1984 to 2023 that reported time toxicity as a primary or secondary outcome for oncologic treatments or interventions. Secondary analyses of RCTs were included if they reported time toxicity. The included studies were then evaluated for how they reported and defined time toxicity. RESULTS: The initial query identified 883 records, with 10 studies (3 RCTs, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 5 secondary analyses of RCTs) meeting the final inclusion criteria. Treatment interventions included surgery (n = 5), systemic therapies (n = 4), and specialized palliative care (n = 1). The metric "days alive and out of the hospital" was used by 80% (n = 4) of the surgical studies. Three of the surgical studies did not include time spent receiving ambulatory care within the calculation of time toxicity. "Time spent at home" was assessed by three studies (30%), each using different definitions. The five secondary analyses from RCTs used more comprehensive metrics that included time spent receiving both inpatient and ambulatory care. CONCLUSIONS: Time toxicity is infrequently reported within oncologic clinical trials, with no standardized definition, metric, or methodology. Further research is needed to identify best practices in the measurement and reporting of time toxicity to develop strategies that can be implemented to reduce its burden on patients seeking cancer care.

Surgical Second Opinion for Pancreatic Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Due to the complexity of pancreatic surgery, patients diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) may seek out the opinion of more than one surgeon. Little is known regarding how second surgical opinions impact the likelihood of pancreatectomy and perioperative outcomes. Our study aimed to determine the impact of obtaining second surgical opinions on pancreatectomy rates and to assess its impact on surgical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Patients who were diagnosed with PDAC between 2013 and 2020 were identified using 100% Medicare Inpatient and Outpatient Standard Analytic Files (SAFs). Data collected included the number of surgeons consulted and geographic region. Receipt of pancreatectomy and perioperative outcomes were compared between patients who received more than one surgical consultation. RESULTS: Of 116,072 patients diagnosed with PDAC, 10,640 (9.2%) underwent pancreatectomy. Among the 1,906 (17.9%) patients who underwent pancreatectomy after a second opinion, 39.7% (n=756) underwent resection with their initial surgeon. Patients receiving a second surgical opinion were more likely to undergo pancreatectomy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 6.17; 95% CI 5.78-6.59), with decreased odds among rural patients (aOR 5.57; 95% CI: 4.64-6.69). Patients who underwent surgery and received a second opinion had equivalent length of stay and complication rates compared to those who did not seek a second opinion (both p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare patients who underwent pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer, approximately 1 in 7 patients received a second surgical opinion. Additional research is needed on the impact of second opinions on long-term cancer-specific outcomes.