Correlation between psychological resilience and burnout syndrome in oncologists amid the Covid-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Oncologists are predisposed to developing burnout syndrome. Like other health care professionals worldwide, oncologists have endured additional, extreme challenges during the Covid-19 pandemic. Psychological resilience presents a potential protective mechanism against burnout. This cross-sectional study examines whether psychological resilience eased burnout syndrome among Croatian oncologists during the pandemic. METHODS: An anonymized self-reporting questionnaire was electronically distributed by the Croatian Society for Medical Oncology to 130 specialist and resident oncologists working in hospitals. Available for completion from September 6-24, 2021, the survey comprised demographic questions; the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI), covering exhaustion and disengagement; and the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). The response rate was 57.7%. RESULTS: Burnout was moderate or high for 86% of respondents, while 77% had moderate or high psychological resilience. Psychological resilience was significantly negatively correlated with the OLBI exhaustion subscale (r = - .54; p < 0.001) and the overall OLBI score (r = - .46; p < 0.001). Scheffe's post hoc test showed that oncologists with high resilience scored significantly lower on the overall OLBI (M = 2.89; SD = 0.487) compared to oncologists with low resilience (M = 2.52; SD = 0.493). CONCLUSION: The findings thus indicate that oncologists with high psychological resilience are at significantly lower risk of developing burnout syndrome. Accordingly, convenient measures to encourage psychological resilience in oncologists should be identified and implemented.

Burnout among oncologists, nurses, and radiographers working in oncology patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Oncology care professionals are exposed to high levels of stress that can lead to burnout. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of burnout among nurses, oncologists and radiographers working in oncology patient care during the COVID -19 pandemic. METHODS: Our electronic questionnaire was sent to e-mail contacts registered in the system of the Hungarian Society of Oncologists and to all oncology staff via an internal information system in each cancer center. Burnout was measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory, which measures depersonalization (DP), emotional exhaustion (EE), and personal accomplishment (PA). Demographic and work-related characteristics were collected in our self-designed questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, two-sample t-tests, analyzes of variance, Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed. RESULTS: A total of 205 oncology care workers' responses were analyzed. Oncologists (n = 75) were found to be significantly more committed to DP and EE (p = 0.001; p = 0.001). Working more than 50 h per week and being on-call had a negative effect on the EE dimension (p = 0.001; p = 0.003). Coming up with the idea of working abroad had a negative effect on all three dimensions of burnout (p ≤ 0.05). Respondents who did not leave their job due to their current life situation had significantly higher DE, EE, and lower PA (p ≤ 0.05). Intention to leave current profession was specific in (n = 24/78; 30.8%) of nurses (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that male gender, being an oncologist, working more than 50 h per week and taking on call duties have a negative impact on individual burnout. Future measures to prevent burnout should be integrated into the professionals' work environment, regardless of the impact of the current pandemic. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Prevention and oncopsychological training should be developed gradually at the organisational or personal level to avoid early burnout of professionals.

Breast Medical Oncologists' Perspectives of Telemedicine for Breast Cancer Care: A Survey Study.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic forced rapid adoption of telemedicine (TM) for breast oncology visits in the United States, but the appropriate role of postpandemic TM is uncertain. We sought to understand physician and advance practice practitioner perspectives on the use of TM for outpatient breast cancer care through an electronically administered survey. METHODS: Breast medical oncology clinicians at two academic cancer centers and five satellite locations affiliated with the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and the Massachusetts General Cancer Center were invited to respond to a 21-question survey administered in September 2021 about clinicians' perceptions and attitudes toward TM during the previous 12 months. RESULTS: Of the 71 survey invitations, 51 clinicians (36 physicians and 15 advance practice practitioners) provided survey responses (response rate = 72%). Ninety-two percent of respondents (n = 47) agreed that TM visits enhance patient care. Ninety-two percent of respondents (n = 46) also agreed that TM is valuable for early-stage breast cancer follow-up visits. Most respondents felt that there was no difference between TM and face-to-face (F2F) visits when it came to patient adherence, ease of ordering tests, ease of accessing patient records, and workflow outside of the visit (82%, 82%, 78%, and 53%, respectively). Fifty-one percent of respondents (n = 26) said that TM was better for timely access to follow-up appointments. Most respondents said that F2F visits were better for seeing physical problems, personal connection with patients, overall quality of visits, and patient-physician communication (100%, 75%, 65%, and 63%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Breast clinicians believe that TM is a valuable tool to enhance outpatient breast cancer care. TM was felt to be appropriate for routine follow-up visits and second opinion consultations and is as good as or better than F2F visits for several routine aspects of breast cancer care.

Afebrile chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: an international survey spots oncologists' routine clinical practice versus the standard of care and the impact of COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Afebrile chemotherapy-induced neutropenia represents a frequent clinical situation where chemotherapy protocol, patient's comorbidities, and disease status determine the risk of infection hence the management plan. Internationally distributed, this questionnaire aims to evaluate the routine practice and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on afebrile chemotherapy-induced neutropenia management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Coordinators from Egypt, Morocco, Azerbaijan, and Russia developed a 12-item questionnaire using Google forms to explore how oncologists deal with afebrile chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The link to the survey was available internationally through social media and to their local societies over the period from July to September 2021. RESULTS: We received 151 responses from 4 world regions: 58.9, 9.9, 11.3, and 15.2% from the Mena area, Russia, Europe, and Asia. The responses deviated from the guideline-driven practice as G-CSF was the most chosen option for intermediate risk that was statistically different based on the academic background of the treating physician. Half of the responders ignored patients and disease risk factors in the intermediate-risk cases that trend was statistically different based on the geographical distribution. The steroid was a valid option for intermediate and low-risk as per oncologists practicing in Russia. COVID-19 pandemic positively affected the rate of prescription of G-CSF as expected. CONCLUSION: The disparities in the routine practice of oncologists based on their geographical and academic backgrounds highlight the need to analyze the underlying obstacles that hinder guideline-based practice like workload or lack of the proper knowledge.

From uro-oncologists' perspectives: golf as a means of improving wellbeing among prostate cancer survivors.

Prostate cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death among men. Due to related societal limitations, the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic increases physical inactivity, which decreases cancer survivors' functional capacity. As a result, golf might be a good way for prostate cancer survivors who have been fully vaccinated against coronavirus disease to improve their musculoskeletal function, cardiorespiratory fitness, psychological function, and general quality of life. Aerobic activity's ability to adjust hormone levels, prevent obesity, increase immunological function, and lower oxidative stress have all been identified as reasons for its benefit for prostate cancer survivors. Prostate cancer survivors must first complete a fitness evaluation supervised and recommended by a certified clinical exercise physiologist after consultations with a urologic oncologist before enrolling in a cancer-specific community golf program. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing is currently the gold standard technique for the evaluation of cardiopulmonary fitness. Prostate cancer survivors should be placed in a group with regard to their fitness level if they pass this fitness test. Prostate cancer survivors can be grouped into four to five groups at a time. Golfing activities should include warm-up, driving range, and course activities (on-course golf play twice a week for a duration of 90 min per day or 180 min per week at moderate-intensity). From the uro-oncologists' point of view, prostate cancer survivors can benefit from group-based community golf programs that can be recommended and designed for them through the collaboration of their physician and a certified exercise professional.

Oncology provider experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic upended nearly all aspects of daily life and of medical care, placing a double burden of professional and personal concerns on those who provide medical care. We set out to assess the burden of the pandemic on provider outlook and understand how cancer survivorship providers experienced rapid changes to practice. METHODS: We distributed a survey through the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) to its accredited organizations in mid-October 2020. We included questions on provider characteristics, changes in patient care practices resulting from the pandemic, worry about COVID-19, and concern about impact on cancer survivors. RESULTS: Of the n = 607 participants, three-quarters were female and three-quarters were White. Only 2.1% of participants reported having had COVID-19, but 43% reported anxiety about getting COVID-19 and over a quarter experienced sadness or depression, anxiety about the future, changes to sleep, difficulty concentrating, or social isolation. Approximately half of providers also expressed significant concern about progression of cancer in patients who experienced care delays or were afraid of accessing in-person care. In terms of changes to survivorship care, respondents reported changes to visitor policies, delays or cancellations, and efforts to reduce in-person visits. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has taken a significant toll on front-line healthcare professionals, including oncologists and cancer care allied health professionals. Findings support proactive mental health support of healthcare professionals as well as emergency preparedness to manage delays to care for cancer patients in the event of future unexpected pandemics.

Oncologist counseling practice and COVID-19 vaccination outcomes for patients with history of PEG-asparaginase hypersensitivity.

Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an effective strategy to prevent serious coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and is important for oncology patients. mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are contraindicated in those with a history of severe or immediate allergy to any vaccine component, including polyethylene glycol (PEG)2000. Patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma receive asparaginase conjugated to PEG5000 (PEG-ASNase) and those with PEG-ASNase-associated hypersensitivity may be unnecessarily excluded from receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. We, therefore, surveyed oncologists on COVID-19 vaccine counseling practice and vaccination outcomes in COVID-19 vaccination-eligible patients and show safe receipt of mRNA vaccines despite PEG-ASNase hypersensitivity.

Patient, physician, and policy factors underlying variation in use of telemedicine for radiation oncology cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Oncology telemedicine was implemented rapidly after COVID-19. We examined multilevel correlates and outcomes of telemedicine use for patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for cancer. METHODS: Upon implementation of a telemedicine platform at a comprehensive cancer center, we analyzed 468 consecutive patient RT courses from March 16, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Patients were categorized as using telemedicine during ≥1 weekly oncologist visits versus in-person oncologist management only. Temporal trends were evaluated with Cochran-Armitage tests; chi-squared test and multilevel multivariable logistic models identified correlates of use and outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 33% used telemedicine versus 67% in-person only oncologist management. Temporal trends (ptrend  < 0.001) correlated with policy changes: uptake was rapid after local social-distancing restrictions, reaching peak use (35% of visits) within 4 weeks of implementation. Use declined to 15% after national "Opening Up America Again" guidelines. In the multilevel model, patients more likely to use telemedicine were White non-Hispanic versus Black or Hispanic (odds ratio [OR] = 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-4.72; p = 0.04) or receiving ≥6 fractions of RT versus 1-5 fractions (OR = 4.49, 95% CI 2.29-8.80; p < 0.001). Model intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated 43% utilization variation was physician-level driven. Treatment toxicities and 30-day emergency visits or unplanned hospitalizations did not differ for patients using versus not using telemedicine (p > 0.05, all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Though toxicities were similar with telemedicine oncology management, there remained lower uptake among non-White patients. Continuing strategies for oncology telemedicine implementation should address multilevel patient, physician, and policy factors to optimize telemedicine's potential to surmount-and not exacerbate-barriers to quality cancer care.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on psychological wellbeing of Oncology clinicians in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.

OBJECTIVE: The reorganization of cancer services and the increased work burden on health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to be associated with significant negative psychological impact. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the psychological well-being of oncology clinicians in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We randomly invited 1500 oncology clinicians including medical oncologists, clinical oncologists, radiation oncologists and surgical oncologists from 17 countries in the MENA region to complete a web-based survey to determine the level of psychological stress during the COVID-19 pandemic from October 2020 to January 2021. The questionnaire was based on the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Generalized Anxiety Disorders Scale (GAD-7) and WHO Well-being Index (WHO-5). The data was analyzed using SPSS version 21 and the difference between groups was measured by t-test and ANOVA. RESULTS: Overall, 520 (35%) clinicians including 368 (71%) males and 152 (29%) females participated in the survey with 247 (47%) participants between the ages of 36 to 45 years. Average score of 29.6 for males and 30.2 on PSS-10, indicative of high-perceived stress in both the genders. Compared to males, females had significantly higher anxiety levels on GAD-7 scale (p=.04), but this difference in stress level and well-being was not observed on PSS-10 (p=.134) and WHO -5 well-being index (p=.709). Clinicians of age 25-35 years had significantly higher anxiety levels on GAD-7 scale (p=.004) and higher stress on PSS (p=.000) as compared to other age groups. Age over 55 years was associated with lower levels of anxiety and stress on GAD-7 and PSS. Oncology clinicians working in public sector experienced significantly lower stress as compared to private sector on PSS scale (p=.041). CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety and stress levels among oncology clinicians have significantly increased in COVID-19 pandemic in the MENA region. Females and young clinicians had higher anxiety and stress, while oncology clinicians over the age of 55 years and working in the public sector reported less stress and anxiety. The general wellbeing of clinicians was well preserved even in a highly stressful and anxious situation.

Defining comprehensive biomarker-related testing and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a survey of U.S. oncologists.

BACKGROUND: An ASCO taskforce comprised of representatives of oncology clinicians, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (NLCRT), LUNGevity, the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer, and the ROS1ders sought to: characterize U.S. oncologists' biomarker ordering and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); ascertain barriers to biomarker testing; and understand the impact of delays on treatment decisions. METHODS: We deployed a survey to 2374 ASCO members, targeting U.S. thoracic and general oncologists. RESULTS: We analyzed 170 eligible responses. For non-squamous NSCLC, 97% of respondents reported ordering tests for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF. Testing for MET, RET, and NTRK was reported to be higher among academic versus community providers and higher among thoracic oncologists than generalists. Most respondents considered 1 (46%) or 2 weeks (52%) an acceptable turnaround time, yet 37% usually waited three or more weeks to receive results. Respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to defer treatment until results were reviewed (63%). Community and generalist respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to initiate non-targeted treatment while awaiting results. Respondents <5 years out of training were more likely to cite their concerns about waiting for results as a reason for not ordering biomarker testing (42%, vs. 19% with ≥6 years of experience). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents reported high biomarker testing rates in patients with NSCLC. Treatment decisions were impacted by test turnaround time and associated with practice setting and physician specialization and experience.

Oncologists' reflections on patient rights and access to compassionate use drugs: A qualitative interview study from an academic cancer center.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows patients with serious illnesses to access investigational drugs for "compassionate use" outside of clinical trials through expanded access (EA) Programs. The federal Right-to-Try Act created an additional pathway for non-trial access to experimental drugs without institutional review board or FDA approval. This removal of oversight amplifies the responsibility of physicians, but little is known about the role of practicing physicians in non-trial access to investigational drugs. We undertook semi-structured interviews to capture the experiences and opinions of 21 oncologists all with previous EA experience at a major cancer center. We found five main themes. Participants with greater EA experience reported less difficulty accessing drugs through the myriad of administrative processes and drug company reluctance to provide investigational products while newcomers reported administrative hurdles. Oncologists outlined several rationales patients offered when seeking investigational drugs, including those with stronger health literacy and a good scientific rationale versus others who remained skeptical of conventional medicine. Participants reported that most patients had realistic expectations while some had unrealistic optimism. Given the diverse reasons patients sought investigational drugs, four factors-scientific rationale, risk-benefit ratio, functional status of the patient, and patient motivation-influenced oncologists' decisions to request compassionate use drugs. Physicians struggled with a "right-to-try" framing of patient access to experimental drugs, noting instead their own responsibility to protect patients' best interest in the uncertain and risky process of off-protocol access. This study highlights the willingness of oncologists at a major cancer center to pursue non-trial access to experimental treatments for patients while also shedding light on the factors they use when considering such treatment. Our data reveal discrepancies between physicians' sense of patients' expectations and their own internal sense of professional obligation to shepherd a safe process for patients at a vulnerable point in their care.

Challenges posed by COVID-19 in cancer patients: A narrative review.

A novel coronavirus, or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was identified as the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In early 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 the sixth public health emergency of international concern. The COVID-19 pandemic has substantially affected many groups within the general population, but particularly those with extant clinical conditions, such as having or being treated for cancer. Cancer patients are at a higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 since the malignancy and chemotherapy may negatively affect the immune system, and their immunocompromised condition also increases the risk of infection. Substantial international efforts are currently underway to develop specific methods for diagnosing and treating COVID-19. However, cancer patients' risk profiles, management, and outcomes are not well understood. Thus, the main objective of this review is to discuss the relevant evidence to understand the prognosis of COVID-19 infections in cancer patients more clearly, as well as helping to improve the clinical management of these patients.

Basic Characteristics, Status, and Challenges of Integrative Oncology in China.

Integrative oncology has developed for about 20 years in some countries; however, integrative oncology is still a relative new term for most China's oncologists. Thus, it is essential to summarize the experience and expertise, share details of differing existing models and discuss future perspectives to help define and guide practice in integrative oncology in China. This study presents a summary of the basic characteristics, status, and challenges of integrative oncology in China, and also reports on China's integrative physicians' service delivery, clinical practice and research patterns of integrative oncology by an online national survey, including 405 oncologists. It is easy for cancer patients to access to integrative therapies in China. Public funding is sufficient for integrative oncology in China, and services are often provided through general hospitals and academic hospitals. Most (95.3%) of oncologists showed a positive attitude toward the development of integrative oncology. More than half (55.6%) of the oncologists worried about the influence on integrative oncology of COVID-19, especially for routine treatment, follow-up and holding seminars. We found that integrative oncology in China has swiftly developed in recent years. However, we suggest that standard diagnosis and treatment patterns and national professional guidelines should be set up as soon as possible.