Fertility preservation in female cancer patients in Brazil: perceptions and attitudes of infertility specialists

Objective: Fertility preservation is a priority in oncology for female cancer patients. However, there is a lack of communication between infertility specialists and oncologists. This study aimed to evaluate infertility specialists' perceptions and experiences regarding fertility preservation. Methods: Conduct an online survey to profile infertility specialists. Participants were infertility affiliated with the Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations (FEBRASGO). The specialists received an online survey, which response rate were 30.9%, most of whom were in southern and southeastern. The survey consisted on 14 questions about the infertility specialists' location, techniques in clinical practice, treatment successful rate, patients idea, etc. Results: The average experience in human reproduction were 15.5 ± 10.2 years (mean ± standard deviation, range 1-40). Among reproductive-aged female cancer patients recommended for fertility preservation, 60.3 ± 28.8% (range 10-100%) underwent preservation procedures. Main barriers were cost (41%), oncologists' knowledge or acceptance (35%) and accessibility (9%). Most infertility specialists (58%) considered 40 years the limit for fertility preservation. Leukemia, lymphoma, breast and ovarian cancers were prioritized for fertility preservation, while lung, thyroid, gastric, and brain cancers were less relevant. Conclusion: This is the first Brazilian study about infertility specialists' perceptions on oncology patients access to fertility preservation. These patients primarily receive treatment in the public health system, while infertility specialists mainly work in the private healthcare. This healthcare mode is currently fragmented, but integrating these experts is enhancing patient access to fertility preservation. Studies on this topic are still warranted.

Attitudes and beliefs of argentinian medical oncologists regarding palliative care referral / Actitudes y creencias de los médicos oncólogos argentinos sobre la derivación a cuidados paliativos

Abstract Introduction: Local evidence suggests insufficient access to palliative care (PC) for advanced cancer patients. The objective was to investigate the attitudes and beliefs of Argentinian medical oncologists regarding PC referral of their patients. Methods: All medical oncologists listed in the main national Clinical Oncology Associations (N = 831) were invited to participate in a telephone survey. Results: Fifty nine percent (N = 489) completed the survey. Most reported being informed about the scopes of PC (83%) and having accessible PC service/specialists (71%). However, 53% did not work collaboratively, and 55% exceptionally or never referred their patients. Oncologists who usually referred their patients did so mainly due to uncontrolled pain (67%) or absence of curative treatment (48%). Only 19% supported early-referral criteria. Those who exception ally referred their patients argued that PC was not meaningful/beneficial/a priority (78%) or that they preferred to handle the patient's problems by themselves (55%). End-of-life care (33%) and improvement in quality of life (32%) were stated as primary benefits of PC for cancer patients. Addressing psychological aspects was consid ered the least important item (2%). Having an accessible PC service (P = 0.002) and being well informed about PC (P = 0.008) were associated with frequent referral. Having ≤10 years or >30 years from graduation were associated with exceptional or no referral (P = 0.012 and 0.001, respectively). Discussion: Oncologists report awareness of the potential advantages of PC and have accessible PC services, but rarely refer patients. They mainly use late-referral criteria. Younger and older age are negatively associated with referral. More research is needed to improve the referral rate and timing of cancer patients to PC.

Resumen Introducción: La evidencia local sugiere un acceso insuficiente a los cuidados paliativos (CP) para los pacien tes con cáncer avanzado. El objetivo fue investigar las actitudes y creencias de médicos oncólogos argentinos respecto de la derivación de sus pacientes a CP. Métodos: Todos los médicos oncólogos registrados en las principales Asociaciones Nacionales de Oncología Clínica (N = 831) fueron invitados a participar en una encuesta telefónica. Resultados: El 59% (N = 489) completó la encuesta. La mayoría informó estar informado sobre los alcances de CP (83%) y tener especialistas/servicios de CP acce sibles (71%). Sin embargo, el 53% no trabajaba de forma colaborativa y el 55% excepcionalmente o nunca derivaba a sus pacientes. Los oncólogos que habi tualmente derivan a sus pacientes lo hacen principalmente por dolor no controlado (67%) o ausencia de trata miento curativo (48%). Solo el 19% mencionó criterios de derivación temprana. Aquellos que excepcionalmente derivan a sus pacientes argumentaron que los CP no era significativos, beneficiosos o prioritarios (78%) o que preferían manejar los problemas del paciente por sí mismos (55%). La atención al final de la vida (33 %) y la mejora de la calidad de vida (32 %) se señalaron como los principales beneficios de los CP para los pacientes con cáncer. El abordaje de los aspectos psicológicos fue el ítem menos señalado (2%). Tener un servicio de CP accesible (P= 0,002) y estar bien informado sobre CP (P = 0,008) se asociaron con la derivación frecuente. Tener ≤10 años o >30 años desde la graduación se asoció con una derivación excepcional o nula (P = 0,012 y 0,001, respectivamente). Discusión: Los oncólogos refieren conocer las ventajas potenciales de los CP y tienen servicios de CP accesibles, pero rara vez derivan pacientes. Utilizan principalmente criterios de derivación tardía. Las edades más jóvenes y mayores se asocian negativamente con la derivación. Se necesita más investigación para mejorar la tasa y momento de derivación de los pacientes con cáncer a CP.

Experiences and Opinions Related to End-of-Life Discussion: From Oncologists' and Resident Physicians' Perspectives / Journal of the Korean Cancer Association, 대한암학회지

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to explore how oncologists and resident physicians practice end-of-life (EOL) discussions and to solicit their opinions on EOL discussions as a means to improve the quality of EOL care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey questionnaire was developed to explore the experiences and opinions about EOL discussions among oncologists and residents. Descriptive statistics, the t test, and the chisquare test were performed for the analyses. RESULTS: A total of 147 oncologists and 229 residents participated in this study. The study respondents reported diverse definitions of “terminal state,” and mostrespondents tried to disclose the patient's condition to the patient and/or family members. Both groups were involved in EOL care discussions, with a rather low satisfaction level (57.82/100). The best timing to initiate discussionwas consideredwhen metastasis or disease recurrence occurred orwhen withdrawal of chemotherapy was anticipated. Furthermore, the study respondents suggested that patients and their family members should be included in the EOL discussion. Medical, legal, and ethical knowledge and communication difficulties along with practical issues were revealed as barriers and facilitators for EOL discussion. CONCLUSION: This study explored various perspectives of oncologists and resident physicians for EOL discussion. Since the Life-Sustaining-Treatment Decision-Making Act will be implemented shortly in Korea, now is the time for oncologists and residents to prepare themselves by acquiring legal knowledge and communication skills. To achieve this, education, training, and clinical tools for healthcare professionals are required.

Oncologist Perspectives on Rare Cancer Care: A Nationwide Survey / Journal of the Korean Cancer Association, 대한암학회지

PURPOSE: In response to the challenges and difficulties imposed by rare cancers, multi-stakeholder initiatives dedicated to improving rare cancer care was launched, and several recommendations were made by professional societies. However, these primarily reflect the view of the advocates and supporters, and may not represent the views of the "average" clinician or researcher. In this study, we sought to investigate perceived difficulties with regard to rare cancer care and potential solutions endorsed by oncologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A representative sample of 420 oncologists recruited in 13 cancer centers participated in a nationwide survey. RESULTS: Oncologists faced various difficulties in treatment of patients with rare cancers, including the lack of clinical practice guidelines (65.7%) and personal experience (65.2%), lack of approved treatment options (39.8%), and reimbursement issues (44.5%). They were generally supportive of recent recommendations by multi-stakeholder initiatives as well as professional societies for development of clear clinical practice guidelines (66.0%), flexible reimbursement guidelines (52.9%), and a national rare cancer registry (47.4%). However, there was only moderate endorsement for referrals to high-volume centers (35.5%) and encouragement of off-label treatments (21.0%). CONCLUSION: Insights into the general attitudes of oncologists gained through our nationwide survey of representative samples would be helpful in development of clinical practices and public health policies in rare cancer treatment and research.

Oncologists' Experience with Patients with Second Primary Cancer and the Attitudes toward Second Primary Cancer Screening: A Nationwide Survey / Journal of the Korean Cancer Association, 대한암학회지

PURPOSE: Screening for second primary cancer (SPC) is one of the key components to survivorship care. We aim to evaluate the oncologists' experience with SPCs and assess the current practice, perceived barriers, and recommendations related to SPC screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A nationwide survey was conducted with a representative sample of 496 Korean oncologists. A questionnaire based on the findings from our previous qualitative study was administered. RESULTS: More than three-fourths of oncologists (76.3%), who participated in the study, had experience with SPC patients. Over half of them (51.9%) stated that it was an embarrassing experience. While the current management practice for SPC varies, most oncologists (80.2%) agreed on the necessity in proactively providing information on SPC screening. A short consultation time (52.3%), lack of guidelines and evidence on SPC screening (47.7%), and patients' lack of knowledge about SPCs (45.1%) or SPC screening (41.4%) were most frequently reported as barriers to providing appropriate care for managing SPC. Oncologists recommended the development of specific screening programs or guidelines in accordance to the type of primary cancer (65.9%), the development of an internal system for SPC screening within the hospital (59.7%) or systematic connection with the national cancer screening program (44.3%), and education of oncologists (41.4%) as well as patients (48.9%) regarding SPC screening. CONCLUSION: Many oncologists reported the occurrence of SPC as an embarrassing experience. Given the variations in current practice and the lack of consensus, further studies are warranted to develop the optimal clinical strategy to provide SPC screening for cancer survivors.

Can positron emission tomography be more than a diagnostic tool? A survey on clinical practice among radiation oncologists in India.

AIM: The purpose of the survey was to understand the role of positron emission tomography (PET) in clinical radiotherapy practice among the radiation oncologists’ in India. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: An online questionnaire was developed to survey the oncologists on their use of PET, viewing protocols, contouring techniques practiced, the barriers on the use of PET and the need for training in use of PET in radiotherapy. The questionnaire was sent to about 500 oncologists and 76 completed responses were received. RESULTS: The survey shows that radiation oncologists use PET largely to assess treatment response and staging but limitedly use it for radiotherapy treatment planning. Only manual contouring and fixed threshold based delineation techniques (e.g. 40% maximum standard uptake value [SUVmax] or SUV 2.5) are used. Cost is the major barrier in the wider use of PET, followed by limited availability of FDG radionuclide tracer. Limited or no training was available for the use of PET. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey revealed the vast difference between literature suggestions and actual clinical practice on the use of PET in radiotherapy. Additional training and standardization of protocols for use of PET in radiotherapy is essential for fully utilizing the capability of PET.

Diferencias individuales y burnout en médicos oncólogos venezolanos / Individual Differences and Burnout in Venezuelan Oncologists

El presente estudio explora la influencia de ciertas diferencias individuales como la sensibilidad emocional, los estilos de afrontamiento y los estilos de comunicación sobre el burnout de médicos oncólogos venezolanos. Participaron en el estudio 93 médicos oncólogos de diversos hospitales oncológicos públicos de Caracas (Venezuela), quienes completaron los cuestionarios que evaluaban las variables mencionadas. Los resultados indicaron niveles medios de burnout en los médicos estudiados, una mayor sensibilidad emocional positiva, adopción de funcionales estilos de afrontamiento y estilos de comunicación más centrados en sí mismos. Por su parte, el análisis de regresión reveló que una mayor sensibilidad egocéntrica negativa y una menor sensibilidad interpersonal positiva determinan mayores niveles de burnout en los oncólogos.

The present study explores the influence of certain individual differences such as the emotional sensitivity, the coping styles and the communication styles over the burnout of Venezuelan oncologists. 93 oncologists participated in the study from different public oncological hospitals from Caracas-Venezuela, who completed the questionnaires evaluating the mentioned variables. Results indicated medium levels of burnout for the physicians, a higher positive emotional sensitivity, the use of functional coping styles and communication styles more self centered. On the other side, the regression analysis revealed that a higher negative egocentric sensitivity and a lower positive interpersonal sensitivity determine higher levels of burnout in the oncologists.

Infección por el virus de hepatitis B en el paciente oncológico. Encuesta en la práctica clínica / Hepatitis B infections in oncology patients. A survery of clinical practice

El riesgo de reactivación de la infección por el virus de la hepatitis B en los pacientes que reciben tratamientos de quimioterapia se reconoce cada día más. El presente estudio se hizo con el objetivo de evaluar el grado de conocimiento de este riesgo por parte de los médicos que tratan los pacientes oncológicos en Colombia y examinar las prácticas de tamizaje y profilaxis por parte de los especialistas.Un cuestionario con 7 preguntas fue distribuido entre los asistentes al Congreso nacional de cáncer que se realizo en Cali, en octubre del año 2008. Un total de 134 médicos (60 oncólogos, 31 hemato-oncólogos, 17 hematólogos, 6 pediatras oncólogos y 20 cirujanos oncólogos) respondieron el cuestionario. Un poco más de la mitad de estos especialistas (58%), tiene más de 10 años de experiencia en su práctica clínica. El 23% de los oncólogos nunca solicita pruebas para hepatitis B antes de iniciar una quimioterapia, el 50% algunas veces lo hace, y solo el 27% siempre las solicita. Cuando se eligen las pruebas serológicas para estos pacientes, solo el 23% de los oncólogos pide las pruebas recomendadas.Cuando se trata de elegir un agente para profilaxis de la reactivación del virus de la hepatitis B, la mayoría de los especialistas selecciona el interferón pegilado.Conclusiones. Se deben realizar más foros académicos entre infectólogos, hepatólogos y los especialistas que tratan pacientes oncológicos para generar pautas y recomendaciones propias que puedan aplicarse a todos los pacientes.

The risk of chronic hepatitis B reactivation during chemotherapy treatment is being increasingly recognized. In this study our aims were to evaluate the degree of awareness of the potential risk of reactivation of hepatitis B and to examine the screening, and prevention practices among the hematologists / oncologists in Colombia.Methods. A written questionnaire survey was applied to the physicians convened in Cali for the national congress of cancer in October 2008.Results. A number of 134 specialists in the treatment of the oncology patients were surveyed. Just over half (58%) of them have more than 10 years of clinical practice.Regarding screening, 23% of the oncologists never screened patients for hepatitis B infection prior to initiating chemotherapy, 50% “sometimes” and only 27% of them screened all the patients before chemotherapy. Only 23% of the oncologists selected the specifics serological tests for hepatitis B in persons needing chemotherapy. Regarding selection of a prophylactic agent, most of these specialists prescribed interferon pegilated.Conclusions. More awareness of hepatitis B reactivation during chemotherapy in the oncology community is recommended.

Discrepant Views of Korean Medical Oncologists and Cancer Patients on Complementary and Alternative Medicine / Journal of the Korean Cancer Association, 대한암학회지

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate the communication gap between Korean medical oncologists and cancer patients on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross sectional studies utilized the responses of 59 medical oncologists and 211 patients. To understand the communication gap, perceived reasons and nondisclosure of CAM use, reactions of physicians to disclosure, and expectations for CAM were analyzed. Data were compared with use of the chi- squared test. RESULTS: Both medical oncologists and patients were in accord that CAM use would privde the patients with a feeling of hope. The medical oncologists believed more often than patients to attribute CAM use for control over medical care decisions, for the treatment of an incurable disease or as a nontoxic approach (p<0.05). Regarding reasons for nondisclosure, medical oncologists were morelikely to think that physicians would not understand the use of CAM, discontinue treatment or disapprove of the use of CAM (p<0.0001). Patients attributed nondisclosure mainly to the lack of questioning about CAM. Medical oncologists were more likely to warn of the risks with CAM use and less likely to encourage the use of CAM than perceived by patients (p=0.01). Patients expected that CAM could cure disease, extend survival, relieve symptoms and improve the immune system or quality of life more often than medical oncologists (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Given the discrepant views of medical oncologists and patients on the use of CAM, medical oncologists should be aware of the discrepancies and attempt to resolve any differences.