Current professional standing of young medical oncologists in Spain a nationwide survey by the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology + MIR section

Background There is a lack of knowledge about the career paths and employment situation of young medical oncologists. The aim of our study was to evaluate the current professional standing of these professionals in Spain. Methods The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology + MIR section conducted a national online survey in May 2021 of young medical oncology consultants (< 6 years of expertise) and final year medical oncology residents. Results A total of 162 responses were eligible for analysis and included participants from 16 autonomous communities; 64% were women, 80% were consultants, and 20% were residents. More than half of the participants performed routine healthcare activity and only 7% research activity. Almost three quarters (73%) were subspecialized in a main area of interest and almost half of these chose this area because it was the only option available after residency. Half of the respondents (51%) considered working abroad and 81% believed the professional standing in Spain was worse than in other countries. After finishing their residency, only 22 were offered a job at their training hospital. Just 16% of participants had a permanent employment contract and 87% were concerned (score of ≥ 5 on a scale of 1–10) about their job stability. In addition, one quarter of the participants in our study showed an interest in increasing their research activity. Conclusions The choice of subspecialty in medical oncology may depend on job opportunities after residency rather than personal interest. The abundance of temporary contracts may have influenced the job stability concerns observed. Future mentoring strategies should engage in building a long-term career path for young medical oncologists (AU)

Drug cost avoidance analysis of cancer clinical trials in Spain: a study on cost contributors and their impact.

OBJECTIVE: Analyze the cost contributors and their impact on the drug cost avoidance (DCA) resulting from cancer clinical trials over the period of 2015-2020 in a tertiary-level hospital in Spain (HCUVA). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study of a total of 53 clinical trials with 363 patients enrolled. We calculated the DCA from the price of the best standard of care (i.e.: drugs that the institution would otherwise fund). A linear regression model was used to determine cost contributors and estimate their impact. RESULTS: The total DCA was ~ 4.9 million euros (31 clinical trials; 177 enrollees), representing ~ 30% and ~ 0,05% approximately of the annual pharmaceutical expenditures at the HCUVA and for the Spanish Health System, respectively. Cancer type analysis showed that lung cancer had the highest average DCA by trial, indicating that treatments in these trials were the most expensive. Linear regression analysis showed that the number of patients in a trial did not significantly affect that trial's DCA. Instead, cancer type, phase trials, and intention of treatment were significant cost contributors to DCA. Compared to digestive cancer trials, breast and lung trials were significantly more expensive, (p < 0.05 and p < 0.1, respectively). Phase III trials were more expensive than Phase II (p < 0.01) and adjuvant trials were less expensive than palliative (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: We studied cost contributors that significantly impacted the estimated DCA from cancer clinical trials. Our work provides the groundwork to explore DCA contributors with potential to enhance public relations material and serve as a negotiating tool for budgeting, thus playing an important role to inform decisions about resource allocation.