Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose To compare estimates of expected survival time (EST) made by patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists. Methods At enrolment patients recorded their “understanding of how long you may have to live” in best-case, most-likely, and worst-case scenarios. Oncologists estimated survival time for each of their patients as the “median survival of a group of identical patients”. We hypothesized that oncologists’ estimates of EST would be unbiased (~ 50% longer or shorter than the observed survival time [OST]), imprecise (< 33% within 0.67 to 1.33 times OST), associated with OST, and more accurate than patients’ estimates of their own survival. Results Twenty-six oncologists estimated EST for 179 patients. The median estimate of EST was 6.0 months, and the median OST was 6.2 months. Oncologists’ estimates were unbiased (56% longer than OST), imprecise (27% within 0.67 to 1.33 times OST), and significantly associated with OST (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.93, p < 0.01). Only 41 patients (23%) provided a numerical estimate of their survival with 107 patients (60%) responding “I don’t know”. The median estimate by patients for their most-likely scenario was 12 months. Patient estimates of their most-likely scenario were less precise (17% within 0.67 to 1.33 times OST) and more likely to overestimate survival (85% longer than OST) than oncologist estimates. Conclusion Oncologists’ estimates were unbiased and significantly associated with survival. Most patients with advanced cancer did not know their EST or overestimated their survival time compared to their oncologist, highlighting the need for improved prognosis communication training. Trial registration ACTRN1261300128871

ObjectiveTo explore the factors influencing adoption of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) technique for endometrial cancer staging among gynecologic oncologists.MethodsA self-administered, web-based survey was sent via email (April 20 through May 21, 2017) to all members of European Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, International Gynecologic Cancer Society, and Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. Surgical and pathologic practices related to SLN and reasons for not adopting this technique were investigated.ResultsOverall, 489 attending physicians or consultants in gynecologic oncology from 69 countries responded: 201 (41.1%), 118 (24.1%), and 117 (23.9%) from Europe, the USA, and other countries, respectively (10.8% did not report a country). SLN was adopted by 246 (50.3%) respondents, with 93.1% injecting the cervix and 62.6 % using indocyanine green dye. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network SLN algorithm was followed by 160 (65.0%) respondents (USA 74.4%, Europe 55.4%, other countries 71.4%). However, 66.7% completed a backup lymphadenectomy in high-risk patients. When SLN biopsy revealed isolated tumor cells, 13.8% of respondents recommended adjuvant therapy. This percentage increased to 52% if micrometastases were detected. Among the 243 not adopting SLN, 50.2% cited lack of evidence and 45.3% stated that inadequate instrumentation fueled their decisions.ConclusionsSLN with a cervical injection is gaining widespread acceptance for staging of endometrial cancer among gynecologic oncologists worldwide. Standardization of the surgical approach with the National Comprehensive Care Network algorithm is applied by most users. Management of isolated tumor cells and the role of backup lymphadenectomy for ‘high-risk’ cases remain areas of investigation.

PurposePatients with cancer spend significant time receiving treatment and recovering from side effects. Little is known about how patients and their caregivers perceive time spent receiving cancer treatment and how this impacts health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Our study aims to characterize perceptions of time invested in receiving cancer therapy as experienced by patients, caregivers, and oncology professionals.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with patients undergoing treatment for advanced lung cancer and melanoma, their informal caregivers, and oncology professionals (physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains). Participants received and provided care at a tertiary cancer center. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed qualitatively using predominantly inductive coding to identify themes relating to time perception and cancer care.ResultsWe interviewed 29 participants (11 patients, 7 informal caregivers, and 11 oncology professionals) and found they consistently differentiated between time remaining in life (“existential time”) and time required to manage cancer treatment and symptoms (“chronological time”). Patients and caregivers reported distress around the mechanics of oncologic care that interrupted their daily lives (hobbies, activities). Participants described the impact of time invested in cancer care on dimensions of quality of life, ranging from minimal to substantial negative impact.ConclusionsWe found that the time spent undergoing cancer treatment affects well-being and often prevents patients and caregivers from participating in meaningful activities. The investment of personal time undergoing cancer therapy for patients with advanced solid tumors merits further study and can enhance communication between patients, caregivers, and their oncologists.

Background: Radiation oncology in India is much debated as a career option to take up. This survey among young radiation oncologists (YROs), the first of its kind, attempts to assess the career expectations and concerns that affect most of us. Materials and Methods: This survey was conducted using the online survey tool of SurveyMonkey in October 2018. The Association of Radiation Oncologists of India (AROI) members' database was used to send the survey link over E-mail to recipients (AROI life member after 2004). Results: Out of 1685 invitees, 492 (29.19%) recipients took the survey. Most (69.14%) of the respondents were males who worked as senior residents and junior consultants and employed in private hospitals and state-level teaching institutes. Postspecialization (MD/DNB) experience was mostly <3 years (56.52%). Most of YROs worked in Tier-I city (48.9%) mostly in telecobalt-based facilities. Most of our respondents (73.01%) aspired to work in academic teaching hospital/research institute, and the primary concern was academics/research (39.88%) followed by income (23.31%). There was a similar distribution of respondents with respect to their desire to shift to medical oncology. There was marked dissatisfaction over remuneration, job openings, job security, and poor scope of career improvement. 56.50% of respondents believed that they need to move abroad to improve their quality of life. However, 76.69% of respondents still felt very passionate about their professional choice. Finally, 61.97% of professionals believed that this survey will correctly reflect the present scenario among YROs. Conclusions: The survey portrays a mixed picture as expected. Major policy changes are required to improve the infrastructure and job opportunities of this profession.

IntroductionEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways combine a comprehensive set of peri-operative practices that have been demonstrated to hasten patient post-operative recovery. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of ERAS components and assess attitudes towards ERAS among gynecologic oncologists.MethodsWe developed and administered a cross-sectional survey of attending, fellow, and resident physicians who were members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology in January 2018. The χ2 test was used to compare adherence to individual components of ERAS.ResultsThere was a 23% survey response rate and we analyzed 289 responses: 79% were attending physicians, 57% were from academic institutions, and 64% were from institutions with an established ERAS pathway. Respondents from ERAS institutions were significantly more likely to adhere to recommendations regarding pre-operative fasting for liquids (ERAS 51%, non-ERAS 28%; p<0.001), carbohydrate loading (63% vs 16%; p<0.001), intra-operative fluid management (78% vs 32%; p<0.001), and extended duration of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis for malignancy (69% vs 55%; p=0.003). We found no difference in the use of mechanical bowel preparation, use of peritoneal drainage, or use of nasogastric tubes between ERAS and non-ERAS institutions. Nearly all respondents (92%) felt that ERAS pathways were safe.DiscussionPracticing at an institution with an ERAS pathway increased adoption of many ERAS elements; however, adherence to certain guidelines remains highly variable. Use of bowel preparation, nasogastric tubes, and peritoneal drainage catheters remain common. Future work should identify barriers to the implementation of ERAS and its components.

Background Although the results of clinical trials often guide best practices, changing clinical practice based on clinical trial results can be challenging. The objective of this study was to examine provider-reported barriers to adopting best clinical practices according to clinical trial data. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted of providers from the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers about barriers that prevent the incorporation of trial findings. Descriptive analyses and multivariable analyses were performed to determine provider characteristics that were significantly associated with reported barriers. Results Overall, 383 institutions participated (63.5% response rate), with a total of 1226 physicians responding to the survey (80% response rate). Providers identified national guidelines and meetings as the most compelling way to receive practice-changing information. They reported the following internal barriers to trial implementation: patient preference (45%), strongly held beliefs by partners/colleagues (37%), and insufficient time to discuss new practices (30%). External barriers preventing trial implementation included a lack of agreement from multidisciplinary tumor boards (32%), fear of reimbursement loss (23%), and resistance from clinical staff (20%). Reported barriers differed by provider specialty, with plastic surgeons and radiation oncologists reporting that strongly held beliefs by partners/colleagues and disagreement from multidisciplinary tumor boards were the most significant factors preventing clinical trial implementation. Conclusions Physician beliefs and patient preferences are the most frequently reported barriers to clinical trial implementation. Tactics to better educate providers about how to explain new clinical trial data to their patients and colleagues are needed.

Background: In India, where the annual incidence of cancer is projected to reach 1.7 million by 2020, the need for clinical research to establish the most effective, resource-guided, and evidence-based care is paramount. In this study, we sought to better understand the research training needs of radiation oncologists in India. Methods: A 12 item questionnaire was developed to assess research training needs and was distributed at the research methods course jointly organized by Indian College of Radiation Oncology, the American Brachytherapy Society, and Education Committee of the American Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology during the Indian Cancer Congress, 2017. Results: Of 100 participants who received the questionnaire, 63% responded. Ninety percent (56/63) were Radiation Oncologists. Forty-two percent (26/63) of respondents had previously conducted research. A longer length of practice (>10 years) was significantly associated with conducting research (odds ratio (OR) 6.99, P = 0.031) and having formal research training trended toward significance (OR 3.03, P = 0.058). The most common reason for not conducting research was \"lack of training\" (41%, 14/34). The most common types of research conducted were Audits and Retrospective studies (62%, 16/26), followed by a Phase I/II/III Trial (46%, 10/26). Having formal research training was a significant factor associated with writing a protocol (OR 5.53, P = 0.016). Limited training in research methods (54%, 13/24) and lack of mentorship (42%, 10/24) were cited as reasons for not developing a protocol. Ninety-seven percent (57/59) of respondents were interested in a didactic session on research, specifically focusing on biostatistics. Conclusions: With research training and mentorship, there is a greater likelihood that concepts and written protocols will translate into successfully completed studies in radiation therapy.

Purpose To study the performance of a proposed deep learning-based autocontouring system in delineating organs at risk (OARs) in breast radiotherapy with a group of experts. Methods Eleven experts from two institutions delineated nine OARs in 10 cases of adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery. Autocontours were then provided to the experts for correction. Overall, 110 manual contours, 110 corrected autocontours, and 10 autocontours of each type of OAR were analyzed. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD) were used to compare the degree of agreement between the best manual contour (chosen by an independent expert committee) and each autocontour, corrected autocontour, and manual contour. Higher DSCs and lower HDs indicated a better geometric overlap. The amount of time reduction using the autocontouring system was examined. User satisfaction was evaluated using a survey. Results Manual contours, corrected autocontours, and autocontours had a similar accuracy in the average DSC value (0.88 vs. 0.90 vs. 0.90). The accuracy of autocontours ranked the second place, based on DSCs, and the first place, based on HDs among the manual contours. Interphysician variations among the experts were reduced in corrected autocontours, compared to variations in manual contours (DSC: 0.89–0.90 vs. 0.87–0.90; HD: 4.3–5.8 mm vs. 5.3–7.6 mm). Among the manual delineations, the breast contours had the largest variations, which improved most significantly with the autocontouring system. The total mean times for nine OARs were 37 min for manual contours and 6 min for corrected autocontours. The results of the survey revealed good user satisfaction. Conclusions The autocontouring system had a similar performance in OARs as that of the experts’ manual contouring. This system can be valuable in improving the quality of breast radiotherapy and reducing interphysician variability in clinical practice.

Objectives Many associations have recently recommended early integration of oncology and palliative care for more standard cancer care and better quality of life. We aimed to create a questionnaire to assess the opinion of medical oncologists and nurses about the clinical impact of the integrated palliative care and oncology (PCO) program. Methods A novel semi-structured questionnaire called Impact of Early Integration of Palliative Care Oncology (IEI PCO) questionnaire was developed and tested for validity and reliability then distributed to the oncologists and nurses working in Kuwait Cancer Control Center. Results After the pilot stage, testing the final questionnaire for validity and reliability was done with satisfactory results. Finally, the complete questionnaires were 170 out of 256 (response rate 66.41%). More awareness about the available palliative care services and the new available PCO services ( p -value < 0.001 for all). Most of the oncologists and nurses agreed with the currently available structure of PCO, appreciated the patients’ discharge plan and continuity of care of palliative medicine, admitted less work burden, a better attitude, and higher satisfaction ( p -value for all < 0.001) toward palliative care. Significant improvements in symptoms were appreciated by oncologists and nurses after the integration of palliative care ( p -value for all < 0.001. Oncologists and nurses valued repeated honest communication, discussion of the goals of care, dealing more effectively with ending active treatment, and higher acceptance of patients and families of PC policy of transfer, and significant progress in the care of end-of-life symptoms ( p -value for all < 0.001). Conclusions The IEI PCO questionnaire demonstrated the psychometric criteria for content, face, and construct validity and reliability. It provides a valuable tool to assess the impact of PCO integration. The opinion of medical oncologists and nurses was significantly positive toward the early integration of PCO in Kuwait in most aspects of care. This integration led to improved symptom control, end-of-life care, communication, and planned discharge and follow-up plans. Moreover, decreases the work burden, improves attitude, higher satisfaction of the oncology staff, and continuity of care. Key message What is already known? Many studies proved the role of integrated palliative and oncology care but no available tools to assess this impact in clinical practice. What does this study add? • Impact of Early Integration of Palliative Care and Oncology Questionnaire (IEI PCO) is a newly developed and validated tool that can be used for evaluation of the impact of the PCO integration program. • It compares symptom control, end-of-life care, professional communication, structure, and clinical practice of PCO before and after integration and how this can affect the work burden, attitude, and satisfaction of oncology staff. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy? • It increases the awareness of oncology staff about the available PCO models such as ambulatory SPC team. The joint clinic, weekends round by SPC?etc • It can provide a guide to the important aspects that should be considered during the preparation of any PCO integration program and give feedback about aspects that need improvement.

PurposeTo explore (1) perceptions of tobacco cessation for patients, (2) perceived role in addressing patients’ tobacco use, (3) facilitators and barriers to providing cessation services, and (4) perceptions and use of tobacco cessation resources among oncology providers.MethodsInterviews were conducted with 24 oncology providers at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Qualitative themes were analyzed using content analysis.ResultsParticipants (1) perceived smoking cessation’s priority as low and/or dependent upon clinical factors, (2) described a passive role in addressing tobacco cessation, (3) described loss-framed versus gain-framed messaging when delivering cessation advice, (4) reported moderate self-efficacy in discussing and low self-efficacy in implementing cessation strategies, (5) described multi-level facilitators and barriers to patients’ tobacco cessation, and (6) expressed high value for the cancer center’s tobacco cessation service.ConclusionOncology providers in this study perceived patients’ tobacco cessation as a low priority relative to providing direct cancer treatment and addressing acute complications. These findings indicate opportunities for training to increase delivery of evidence-based cessation advice and facilitate patients’ engagement in cessation services. Provider trainings on embracing an active role in tobacco cessation, addressing multi-level barriers to patients’ tobacco cessation, and using gain-framed messaging should be implemented. This has the potential to improve cancer patients’ treatment outcomes.