Three Perspectives: The Approach of Neoadjuvant Treatment of Rectum Cancer According to Medical Oncologists, Radiation Oncologists, and Surgeons

Purpose Two treatment modalities are considerable for radiation therapy: short-course radiotherapy and immediate surgery or chemoradiation with 5-Fluorouracil based chemotherapy with delayed surgery. In this study, we try to evaluate the real-life treatment approaches of medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists for neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancers. Method The online survey form was established via Google Forms. The survey was taken voluntarily by medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgical oncologists, and general surgeons. Results One hundred eighty-three of the participants were medical oncologists while 36 were radiotherapists and 36 were surgeons. Most of the study population preferred long-course radiation therapy and chemotherapy which was consisting eighty-five percent. Two-thirds of the participants apply chemotherapies before operation. The most frequent chemotherapy cycles for the pre-operative setting were ‘three’ or ‘four-or-more’ with the percent of 27,8 and 25,1 respectively. Medical oncologists had a significantly higher tendency of offering chemotherapy between radiation therapy and surgery compared with the other groups. The optimal time of surgery was different between groups. There was no difference among groups between surgery and the ‘watch & wait’ strategy. A significant difference was observed between groups in offered neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens. Conclusion In our study, we found the new pre-operative chemotherapy regimen with short-course radiotherapy was slowly adopted in current practice. Also, medical oncologists tend pre-operative chemotherapy compared with other groups. The optimal surgery time for patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment is still controversial.

Prevalence and Predictors of Palliative Care Utilization among Hospitalized Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

Objective: Research has shown that palliative care improves the quality of life of cancer patients; however, there is no literature on specific factors that predict its use in diffuse large b-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients. Therefore, the prevalence of palliative care utilization and predictors of palliative care utilization among patients with DLBCL were examined. Methods: Data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) collected between 2016 to 2018 were used for all analyses. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the predictors of palliative care utilization among hospitalized patients with DLBCL. Descriptive analyses were used to explore the overall prevalence of palliative care receipt in this population. Results: Of the 41,789 hospitalizations, 7.1% of patients used palliative care during hospitalization, while 4.8% utilized palliative care and were discharged alive. DLBCL patients aged 70 and older had 1.3 times (95% CI: 1.14-1.41) higher odds of utilizing palliative care compared to those less than 70 years. Relative to Medicare/Medicaid patients, those with other types of insurance were 1.7 times (95% CI: 1.34-2.05) more likely to receive palliative care. Those who were either transferred to a facility/discharged with home health (AOR: 6.23; 95% CI: 5.21-7.44) or died during hospitalization (AOR: 45.17; 95% CI: 36.98-55.17) had higher odds of receiving palliative care when relative to those with a routine hospital discharge. Other associated factors were type of admission, length of stay, chemotherapy receipt, and number of comorbidities. Conclusions: The prevalence of palliative care utilization was low and factors predicting utilization in our population were identified. Our findings highlight the need to increase awareness among medical oncologists on the need to involve the palliative care team early in the management of hospitalized patients with DLBCL.

Evolution of Surgical Treatment of Metastatic Spine Tumors.

Purpose The treatment of cancer has transformed over the past forty years, with medical oncologists, radiation oncologists and surgeons working together to prolong survival times and minimize treatment related morbidity. With each advancement, the risk-benefit scale has been calibrated to provide an accurate assessment of surgical hazard. The goal of this review is to look back at how the role of surgery has evolved with each new medical advance, and to explore the role of surgeons in the future of cancer care. Methods A literature review was conducted, highlighting the key papers guiding surgical management of spinal metastatic lesions. Conclusion The roles of surgery, medical therapy and radiation have evolved over the past forty years, with new advances requiring complex multidisciplinary care.

Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumors—A Comprehensive Review of Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Multidisciplinary Management

Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNSTs) are aggressive soft tissue sarcomas (STS) with nerve sheath differentiation and a tendency to metastasize. Although occurring at an incidence of 0.001% in the general population, they are relatively common in individuals with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), for whom the lifetime risk approaches 10%. The staging of MPNSTs is complicated and requires close multi-disciplinary collaboration. Their primary management is most often surgical in nature, with non-surgical modalities playing a supportive, necessary role, particularly in metastatic, invasive, or widespread disease. We, therefore, sought to provide a comprehensive review of the relevant literature describing the characteristics of these tumors, their pathophysiology and risk factors, their diagnosis, and their multi-disciplinary treatment. A close partnership between surgical and medical oncologists is therefore necessary. Advances in the molecular characterization of these tumors have also begun to allow the integration of targeted RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway inhibitors into MPNST management.

Increasing Financial Payments From Industry to Medical Oncologists in the United States, 2014–2017

Background: Personal payments from the pharmaceutical industry to US physicians are common and are associated with changes in physicians’ clinical practice and interpretation of clinical trial results. We assessed temporal trends in industry payments to oncologists, with particular emphasis on payments to authors of oncology clinical practice guideline and on payments related to immunotherapy drugs. Methods: We included US physicians with active National Plan and Provider Enumeration System records and demographic data available in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician Compare system who had a specialty type of medical oncology or general internal medicine. Medical oncologists serving on NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Panels were identified manually. Industry payments, and the subset associated with PD-1/PD-L1 drugs, were identified in Open Payments, the federal repository of all transactions of financial value from industry to physicians and teaching hospitals, from 2014 to 2017. Results: There were 13,087 medical oncologists and 85,640 internists who received payments. The mean, annual, per-physician value of payments to oncologists increased from $3,811 in 2014 to $5,854 in 2017, and from $444 to $450 for internists; the median payment increased from $152 to $199 for oncologists and remained at $0 for internists. Oncologists who served on NCCN Guidelines Panels received a greater value in payments and experienced a greater relative increase: mean payments increased from $10,820 in 2014 to $18,977 in 2017, and median payments increased from $500 to $1,366. Among companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs, mean annual per-oncologist payments associated with PD-1/PD-L1 drugs increased from $28 to $773. Total per-oncologist payments from companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs experienced a 165% increase from 2014 to 2017, compared with a 31% increase among similar companies not marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs. Conclusions: Pharmaceutical industry payments increased for US oncologists from 2014 to 2017 more than for general internists. The increase was greater among oncologists contributing to clinical practice guidelines and among pharmaceutical companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs. The increasing flow of money from industry to US oncologists supports ongoing concern regarding commercial interests in guideline development and clinical decision-making.

The Hardest Weeks of My Life: A Qualitative Study of Experiences, Practice Changes, and Emotional Burden of New York City Oncology Physicians During the COVID-19 Surge in 2020

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic surge in New York City in Spring 2020 resulted in an unprecedented constraint on health care resources. This study aimed to explore the experiences of doctors providing care to oncology patients during this time. METHODS: Hospitalists and medical oncologists from two large inpatient services at a dedicated cancer center participated in virtual in-depth interviews exploring how the pandemic affected their practice and to what extent it may have affected decisions for urgent evaluation or hospital admission, interventions, or goals-of-care discussions. Interviews also explored how the pandemic affected each individual physician's psychologic well-being. Transcripts were analyzed by three independent coders in Atlas.ti v. 7.5, using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Eighteen physicians were interviewed (n = 6 GI medical oncologists, n = 6 gynecologic medical oncologists, and n = 6 hospitalists). Analysis identified five major themes related to fear and distress: (1) perceived patient fears of the hospital during COVID-19, leading to avoidance and delay of acute care needs before admission, (2) physicians' fear and distress delivering oncology care during COVID-19, (3) physician distress resulting from ambiguity in decision making, (4) distress and anxiety balancing the need for patient contact with the need to minimize infection risk, and (5) distress regarding impact of uncertainty and acuity of COVID-19 on goals-of-care discussions. CONCLUSION: Insight into the experiences of physicians providing cancer care during a COVID-19 surge underscores the need for strategies mitigate short-term distress and long-term psychologic impacts. Findings can also inform practitioner training and preparedness for future pandemics in the oncology setting.

The Perspective of the Oncology Health Care Professionals on Educational Conferences

BACKGROUND: Continuous education is vital to update the knowledge of the health care professionals (HCPs) engaged in cancer management. We aim to explore the perspective of the oncology HCPs on oncology conferences. METHODS: A questionnaire was handed to the delegates and faculty of an oncology educational scientific conference in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The questionnaire explored the perspective on the ideal number, duration and the educational value of such conferences. RESULTS: Medical oncologists represented 70.5% of the 78 responders. All responders attended oncology conferences in the preceding year with 24.4% have attended >9 conferences. The educational value of these conferences was rated 7.98/10. Two thirds are satisfied with the frequency of conducted event or desire more. Short (half to one day) meetings are preferred by 66.67% and the mean number of optimum educational events is 5.7 per year. Educational events were highly valued (score ≥ 8/10) as venues to meet colleagues. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the current frequency and scientific value of oncology conferences and educational events are satisfactory to the majority of the relevant HCPs in the KSA. More CME events of up to one day in duration seem to be desired.

Gender, Productivity, and Philanthropic Fundraising in Academic Oncology

Background: Philanthropic donations are important funding sources in academic oncology but may be vulnerable to implicit or explicit biases toward women. However, the influence of gender on donations has not been assessed quantitatively. Methods: We queried a large academic cancer center’s development database for donations over 10 years to the sundry funds of medical and radiation oncologists. Types of donations and total amounts for medical oncologists and radiation oncologists hired prior to April 1, 2018 (allowing ≥2 years on faculty prior to query), were obtained. We also obtained publicly available data on physician/academic rank, gender, specialty, disease site, and Hirsch-index (h-index), a metric of productivity. Results: We identified 127 physicians: 64% men and 36% women. Median h-index was higher for men (31; range, 1–100) than women (17; range, 3–77; P=.003). Men were also more likely to have spent more time at the institution (median, 15 years; range, 2–43 years) than women (median, 12.5 years; range, 3–22 years; P=.025). Those receiving donations were significantly more likely to be men (70% vs 30%; P=.034). Men received significantly higher median amounts ($259,474; range, $0–$29,507,784) versus women ($37,485; range, $0–$7,483,726; P=.019). On multivariable analysis, only h-index and senior academic rank were associated with donation receipt, and only h-index with donation amount. Conclusions: We found significant gender disparities in receipt of philanthropic donations on unadjusted analyses. However, on multivariable analyses, only productivity and rank were significantly associated with donations, suggesting gender disparities in productivity and promotions may contribute to these differences.