Composition of the Current Academic Radiation Oncology Workforce in Comprehensive Cancer Centers

PURPOSE: The landscape of the profession of academic radiation oncology is constantly changing. We sought to determine the demographic makeup of the current academic radiation oncology workforce. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Internet web site searches of the 51 National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) were conducted in September 2019. The Scopus database was subsequently searched in December 2019 to ascertain the h-index for each radiation oncologist. Geographic location was economically stratified (New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington DC) as previously reported. Race and binary sex were attributed by authors using publicly available information. Univariate analysis involved the chi-square test; a multivariable model considered several factors including rank and sex. RESULTS: Of 993 radiation oncologists at CCCs, 53.6% are junior faculty, 24.8% associate professors, and 21.7% full professors. The average radiation oncologist at a CCC has been a physician for 19.7 (standard deviation = 11.3) years; 4.7% (47/993) are under-represented minorities. 24.6% of men and 15.5% of women were full professors, a statistically significant difference ( P = .001). Of the 51 department chairs, 11.8% are women and 5.6% are under-represented minorities. There are fewer female than male program directors in the most economically stratified locations ( P = .02). The mean h-index for all faculty is 17.6 (standard deviation = 16.9), and significantly differs between junior faculty (8.21), associate professors (18.46), and full professors (40.05; P < .0001). It also differs between men (19.35) and women (14.11). On multivariable analysis, sex, academic rank, and a secondary advanced degree were independently significant correlates of h-index. CONCLUSION: Among academic radiation oncologists at CCCs, under 5% are under-represented minorities, men are significantly over-represented among senior faculty, and women have significantly lower h-indices than men.

Stakeholder Perceptions of Barriers to Diverse Acute Myeloid Leukemia Clinical Trial Enrollment at Comprehensive Cancer Centers

Introduction Disparities in clinical trial enrollment have the potential to bias findings, limit generalizability, misdirect drug development, and reduce equitable access to novel therapy. Given the unique care delivery and clinical trial patterns of acute leukemia (AML), barriers to trial enrollment for underrepresented groups at the Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs), where patients are often treated, may be distinct. Characterization of these barriers has been limited, preventing the development of interventions to overcome this disparity for AML. Methods We conducted an exploratory qualitative project to characterize barriers to trial enrollment and facilitators to overcome them through a series of focus groups and individual interviews. Participants were persons with AML who identified from one or more underrepresented groups and AML physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants at three Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center hospitals. A moderator guide was developed based on literature review and iteratively revised by study investigators. The questions enabled an open-ended multi-level (patient, provider, trial, institution, societal) exploration of five main domains, including familiarity and experience with clinical trials, factors influencing participation, participant concerns and enrollment supports, and facilitators to address enrollment barriers and disparities. Focus groups and interviews occurred through video conference or phone and were audio recorded and professionally transcribed. The interdisciplinary research team conducted a multi-step thematic analysis guided by framework analysis, and included prefigured and emergent codes. The team-based analysis synthesized data within and across participant types and focused on the identification of key patterns and prevalent themes related to barriers to clinical trial enrollment. Coding and analysis were assisted by NVivo 12 software. Results presented below highlight barriers that were considered relevant to the unique care delivery patterns of AML and clinically significant. Results 37 participants (19 patients; 18 providers) were recruited to focus groups (30) or interviews (7) between 5/6-6/28/2021. Participant characteristics are shown in Table 1. Patient participants were generally familiar with clinical trials. Despite limited explicit expression of enrollment hesitancy, both patients and providers noted multiple potential barriers to clinical trial enrollment specific to AML, including the rapidity from diagnosis to treatment; the inpatient setting of therapy; a lack of knowledge regarding incidence and enrollment demographics and their differences; restrictive trial design factors (e.g., hospital stays, mutation specificity); and concerns over the appropriateness and efficacy of a given trial relative to individual disease risk. Key enrollment barriers reported by participants are shown in Figure 1. Participant-identified facilitators to address these barriers are shown in Figure 2. Facilitators to overcome barriers specific to AML that were considered potentially impactful included: peri-enrollment peer support for patients, continuance of telehealth visits during trial participation, feedback and training to increase provider awareness and understanding of disparities and diverse communities, trial design augmentation to minimize restrictive barriers (centralized laboratory draws, multiple hospitalizations, white blood cell count and organ function criteria) and increase inclusivity (multiple language and culturally competent consent), and bolstering inter-institutional AML program partnerships to increase diverse patient referral. Conclusions Stakeholder-reported barriers to diverse AML clinical trial enrollment at CCCs include multiple disease-specific characteristics that reflect the unique care pattern of AML, such as concerns about restrictive trial design characteristics, the need to be inpatient, and the requirement to make decisions quickly after diagnosis. Several barriers and potential interventions at each level were considered impactful by both providers and patients. These formative data suggest a novel multi-level approach for overcoming AML enrollment disparities at CCCs is needed. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Building a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Overall Structure

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer is the second leading cause of death globally, accounting for approximately 9.6 million deaths [1]. The WHO recommends that each nation has a national cancer control program (NCCP) to reduce the incidence of cancer and deaths related to cancer, as well as to improve the quality of life of cancer patients [2]. Comprehensive cancer centers form the backbone of a NCCP and are charged with developing innovative approaches to cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment [3]. This is accomplished through basic and clinical research, the provision of patient care, the training of new clinicians and scientists, and community outreach and education. Most comprehensive cancer centers are affiliated with university medical centers, but their cancer care initiatives may involve partnering outside the institution with other comprehensive cancer centers, community leaders, or members of industry [3]. When affiliated with a university medical center, cancer center executives must work in concert with their counterparts at the hospital, patient practice, medical school, and allied health science leaders resulting in an overlapping, often complicated reporting structure. Comprehensive cancer centers and the departments in the center receive funding for their services from various sources, including national and local grants, institutional funds, private donations, and industry [4].

Psychosocial and Patient Support Services in Comprehensive Cancer Centers

Patient support and psychosocial services are an important aspect of cancer care. Comprehensive cancer centers need to provide a spectrum of these services to provide high-quality and holistic care to cancer patients. Provision of these services begins from the time of diagnosis, continues through cancer treatment, and then subsequently transitions to survivorship or end-of-life phase. Examples of these services include psychological assessment and management, patient navigation, care coordination, genetic counseling, and complementary medicine. Survivorship care is an important aspect of patients’ experience during their cancer journey and beyond. This chapter discusses key psychosocial and supportive care services that are recommended for cancer centers that strive to provide comprehensive cancer care to their patients.