The Ethics of Hope-A Moral Imperative for Oncologists.

This Viewpoint suggests that giving patients with terminal cancer unrealistic hope based only on cure is ethically inferior to redirecting patients toward noncurative goals and noncancer-related hope.

Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and the practice, knowledge and beliefs of medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: No previous review has assessed the extent and effect of industry interactions on medical oncologists and haematologists specifically. METHODS: A systematic review investigated interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and how these might affect the clinical practice, knowledge and beliefs of cancer physicians. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched from inception to February 2021. RESULTS: Twenty-nine cross-sectional and two cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. These were classified into three categories of investigation: (1) extent of exposure to industry for cancer physicians as whole (n = 11); (2) financial ties among influential cancer physicians specifically (n = 11) and (3) associations between industry exposure and prescribing (n = 9). Cancer physicians frequently receive payments from or maintain financial ties with industry, at a prevalence of up to 63% in the United States (US) and 70.6% in Japan. Among influential clinicians, 86% of US and 78% of Japanese oncology guidelines authors receive payments. Payments were associated with either a neutral or negative influence on the quality of prescribing practice. Limited evidence suggests oncologists believe education by industry could lead to unconscious bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial evidence of frequent relationships between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in a range of high-income countries. More research is needed on clinical implications for patients and better management of these relationships. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO identification number CRD42020143353.

Decisional Capacity Determination In Patients With Cancer.

Patients with cancer face many difficult decisions and encounter many clinical situations that undermine decisional capacity. For this reason, assessing decision-making capacity should be thought of at every medical encounter. The culmination of variable disease trajectories, following patients to the end of life, use of high-risk treatments, and other weighty personal decisions require attention to patients' ability to engage in decisions. Oncologists develop meaningful relationships with their patients. This familiarity may lead to forgoing the process of diligently assessing a patient's cognitive ability and/or decisional capacity when important decisions need to be made. While the process may feel like it takes place spontaneously, many subtle and overt details are involved with the decisions around cancer care that require pointed questioning and probing. Thus, there are many ways to fall short in determining decisional capacity. Clinicians are inconsistent in their decisional capacity determinations and generally assume more decisional capacity than the patient has. Consult and referral services such as ethics and psychiatry can help with treatment decisions and with assessing underlying psychosocial and psychiatric conditions. Decisional capacity may fluctuate and requires a variable amount of decisional ability depending on the clinical situation; hence, it is time-specific and decision-specific. This review is intended to provide a summary of key components of decisional capacity while highlighting areas in need of clinical refinement.

Evaluating the Strength of the Association Between Industry Payments and Prescribing Practices in Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry are common, but factors that may determine whether such relationships result in physician practice changes are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated physician use of orally administered cancer drugs for four cancers: prostate (abiraterone, enzalutamide), renal cell (axitinib, everolimus, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib), lung (afatinib, erlotinib), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML; dasatinib, imatinib, nilotinib). Separate physician cohorts were defined for each cancer type by prescribing history. The primary exposure was the number of calendar years during 2013-2015 in which a physician received payments from the manufacturer of one of the studied drugs; the outcome was relative prescribing of that drug in 2015, compared with the other drugs for that cancer. We evaluated whether practice setting at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center, receipt of payments for purposes other than education or research (compensation payments), maximum annual dollar value received, and institutional conflict-of-interest policies were associated with the strength of the payment-prescribing association. We used modified Poisson regression to control confounding by other physician characteristics. RESULTS: Physicians who received payments for a drug in all 3 years had increased prescribing of that drug (compared with 0 years), for renal cell (relative risk [RR] 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-2.07), CML (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08-1.39), and lung (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.58-1.82), but not prostate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93-1.02). Physicians who received compensation payments or >$100 annually had increased prescribing compared with those who did not, but NCI setting and institutional conflict-of-interest policies were not consistently associated with the direction of prescribing change. CONCLUSION: The association between industry payments and cancer drug prescribing was greatest among physicians who received payments consistently (within each calendar year). Receipt of payments for compensation purposes, such as for consulting or travel, and higher dollar value of payments were also associated with increased prescribing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Financial payments from pharmaceutical companies are common among oncologists. It is known from prior work that oncologists tend to prescribe more of the drugs made by companies that have given them money. By combining records of industry gifts with prescribing records, this study identifies the consistency of payments over time, the dollar value of payments, and payments for compensation as factors that may strengthen the association between receiving payments and increased prescribing of that company's drug.

What determines the timing of discussions on forgoing anticancer treatment? A national survey of medical oncologists.

PURPOSE: End-of-life discussions (EOLd) including the option of forgoing anticancer treatment infrequently occur until treatment options have been exhausted for advanced cancer patients. We aimed to identify oncologist-related factors contributing to the timing of discussing the option of forgoing anticancer treatment. METHODS: In this nationwide survey of 864 medical oncologists, we asked about physicians' attitudes toward the timing of discussing the option of forgoing anticancer treatment for a simulated patient with newly diagnosed metastatic cancer, physicians' experience of EOLd, perceptions of a good death, and beliefs. Multivariate analyses identified determinants of early discussions. RESULTS: Among 490 physicians (response rate = 57%), 167 (35%) would discuss the option of forgoing anticancer treatment "now (at the diagnosis)." Physicians' attitudes toward discussing the option "now" were significantly correlated with a greater physician-perceived importance of life completion (odds ratio (OR) = 1.30, 95%CI = 1.00-1.69, p = 0.048) and dying in a preferred place (OR = 1.29, 95%CI = 1.01-1.65, p = 0.045) for a good death, and not perceiving EOLd as being severely distressing for patients/families (OR = 0.70, 95%CI = 0.54-0.95, p = 0.021). In multivariate analyses, independent determinants of the attitude toward discussing the option now included a greater physician-perceived importance of life completion for a good death (OR = 1.38, 95%CI = 1.05-1.81, p = 0.019), and not perceiving EOLd as being severely distressing for patients/families (OR = 0.70, 95%CI = 0.52-0.94, p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Reflection by oncologists on their own perception regarding a good death and beliefs about EOLd may help oncologists individualize the timing of discussing the option of forgoing anticancer treatment.

Physician perspectives on compassionate use in pediatric oncology.

BACKGROUND: Targeted cancer treatments are almost always first studied in adults, even when there is a biologically plausible potential for efficacy in children. Through compassionate use programs, children who are not eligible for a clinical trial and for whom there are no known effective therapies may obtain access to investigational agents, including drugs under development for adults. However, little is known about pediatric oncologists' experiences with applying for and obtaining compassionate use agents. METHODS: This study surveyed 132 pediatric oncologists to assess awareness and utilization of compassionate use programs, to identify barriers to their use, and to evaluate available institutional support and resources. RESULTS: We found that the process of applying for access to drugs in development is poorly understood, which presents a barrier to obtaining investigational drugs. Fifty-seven percent of the pediatric oncologists applied for compassionate use. Providers from larger institutions or with more than 15 years of clinical experience were more likely to complete an application and obtain investigational agents for their patients. CONCLUSION: Identified perceived and actual barriers to compassionate use application submission suggest pediatric oncologists may benefit from educational resources and support to ensure children with cancer equal access to investigational agents and care.

Caring for Colleagues and Loved Ones With Cancer.

Throughout the arc of a career in medicine, physicians are universally faced with the difficult decision of when to provide care for a colleague and when to refer to another physician. Gauging the magnitude of your relationship, both professionally and personally, and then weighing how to add the roles of physician and patient to your preexisting relationship is complex. We review and discuss care of family and colleagues, address ethical boundaries both firm and flexible, and explore the emotional weight of those relationships.

Conflict of interest among Italian medical oncologists: a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: To assess Italian medical oncologists' opinion on the implications of conflict of interest (COI) on medical education, care and research, and to evaluate their direct financial relationships. DESIGN: National cross-sectional survey conducted between March and April 2017 among Italian oncologists. SETTING: Online survey sponsored by the Italian College of Medical Oncology Chiefs through its website. PARTICIPANTS: Italian oncologists who filled out an anonymous questionnaire including 19 items and individual and working characteristics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The proportion of medical oncologists perceiving COI as an outstanding issue and those receiving direct payments from industry. RESULTS: There were 321 respondents, representing 13% of Italian tenured medical oncologists. Overall, 62% declared direct payments from the pharmaceutical industry in the last 3 years. Sixty-eight per cent felt the majority of Italian oncologists have a COI with industry, but 59% suppose this is not greater than that of other specialties. Eighty-two per cent consider that most oncology education is supported by industry. More than 75% believe that current allocation of industry budget on marketing and promotion rather than research and development is unfair, but 75% consider it appropriate to receive travel and lodging hospitality from industry. A median net profit margin of €5000 per patient enrolled in an industry trial was considered appropriate for the employee institution. Sixty per cent agree to receive a personal fee for patients enrolled in industry trials, but 79% state this should be reported in the informed consent. Over 90% believe that scientific societies should publish a financial report of industry support. Finally, 79% disagree to being a coauthor of an article written by a medical writer when no substantial scientific contribution is made. CONCLUSIONS: Among Italian oncologists COI is perceived as an important issue influencing costs, education, care and science. A more rigorous policy on COI should be implemented.

Intended and unintended consequences: Ethics, communication, and prognostic disclosure in pediatric oncology.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients desire all available prognostic information, but some physicians hesitate to discuss prognosis. The objective of the current study was to examine outcomes of prognostic disclosure among the parents of children with cancer. METHODS: The authors surveyed 353 parents of children with newly diagnosed cancer at 2 tertiary cancer centers, and each child's oncologist. Using multivariable logistic regression, the authors assessed associations between parental report of elements of prognosis discussions with the oncologist (quality of information/communication and prognostic disclosure) and potential consequences of these discussions (trust, hope, peace of mind, prognostic understanding, depression, and anxiety). Analyses were stratified by oncologist-reported prognosis. RESULTS: Prognostic disclosure was not found to be associated with increased parental anxiety, depression, or decreased hope. Among the parents of children with less favorable prognoses (<75% chance of cure), the receipt of high-quality information from the oncologist was associated with greater peace of mind (odds ratio [OR], 5.23; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.81-15.16) and communication-related hope (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.00-6.40). High-quality oncologist communication style was associated with greater trust in the physician (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.09-5.48) and hope (OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.26-7.19). Accurate prognostic understanding was less common among the parents of children with less favorable prognoses (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.88). Receipt of high-quality information, high-quality communication, and prognostic disclosure were not found to be significantly associated with more accurate prognostic understanding. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study demonstrate no evidence that disclosure is associated with anxiety, depression, or decreased hope. Communication processes may increase peace of mind, trust, and hope. It remains unclear how best to enhance prognostic understanding. Cancer 2018;124:1232-41. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Experiences and Opinions Related to End-of-Life Discussion: From Oncologists' and Resident Physicians' Perspectives.

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.

Clinical Research Ethics: Considerations for the Radiation Oncologist.

Consideration of clinical research ethics in radiation oncology is underexplored relative to other areas of oncology. A number of ethical challenges related to informed consent, randomization, conflicts of interest, and scientific validity and social value are shared with other areas of medicine, although their exact inflections are specific to radiation oncology. In addition, there are unique concerns in radiation oncology arising from the rapid evolution and uneven distribution of radiation technologies; the greater unfamiliarity of the general public and research oversight committees in regard to radiation oncology clinical practice; and the high complexity of managing most radiation oncology research, much of which is carried out in high-acuity multidisciplinary oncologic settings. To produce the best research, adherence to the highest ethical standards should be pursued as an integral component of all radiation oncology research.

Survey of practices around pharmaceutical company funding for continuing professional development among medical oncologists and trainees in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The completion of continuing professional development (CPD) is mandatory for medical oncologists and trainees (MO&T). Pharmaceutical companies may fund some CPD activities, but there is increasing debate about the potential for conflicts of interest (COI). AIM: To assess current practices around funding to attend CPD activities. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to Australian MO&T. The survey asked questions about current practices, institutional policies and perceptions about attending CPD funded by pharmaceutical companies. The design looked at comparing responses between MO&T as well as their understanding of and training around institutional and ethical process. RESULTS: A total of 157 of 653 (24%) responses was received, the majority from MO (76%). Most CPD activities attended by MO&T were self-funded (53%), followed by funding from institutions (19%), pharmaceutical companies (16%) and salary award (16%). Most institutions allowed MO&T to receive CPD funding from professional organisations (104/157, 66%) or pharmaceutical companies (90/157, 57%). A minority of respondents (13/157, 8%) reported that the process to use pharmaceutical funds had been considered by an ethics committee. Although 103/157 (66%) had received pharmaceutical funding for CPD, most (109/157, 69%) reported never receiving training about potential COI. The lack of education was more noticeable among trainees (odds ratio (OR) 8.61, P = 0.02). MO&T acknowledged the potential bias towards a pharmaceutical product (P = 0.05) but believed there was adequate separation between themselves and pharmaceutical companies (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Majority of CPD attended by MO&T is self-funded. There is lack of clarity in institutional policies regarding external funding support for CPD activities. Formal education about potential COI is lacking.

Do Patients and Oncologists Discuss the Cost of Cancer Treatment? An Observational Study of Clinical Interactions Between African American Patients and Their Oncologists.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity negatively affects patients with cancer, especially racial/ethnic minorities. Patient-oncologist discussions about treatment-related costs may reduce financial toxicity by factoring costs into treatment decisions. This study investigated the frequency and nature of cost discussions during clinical interactions between African American patients and oncologists and examined whether cost discussions were affected by patient sociodemographic characteristics and social support, a known buffer to perceived financial stress. Methods Video recorded patient-oncologist clinical interactions (n = 103) from outpatient clinics of two urban cancer hospitals (including a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center) were analyzed. Coders studied the videos for the presence and duration of cost discussions and then determined the initiator, topic, oncologist response to the patient's concerns, and the patient's reaction to the oncologist's response. RESULTS: Cost discussions occurred in 45% of clinical interactions. Patients initiated 63% of discussions; oncologists initiated 36%. The most frequent topics were concern about time off from work for treatment (initiated by patients) and insurance (initiated by oncologists). Younger patients and patients with more perceived social support satisfaction were more likely to discuss cost. Patient age interacted with amount of social support to affect frequency of cost discussions within interactions. Younger patients with more social support had more cost discussions; older patients with more social support had fewer cost discussions. CONCLUSION: Cost discussions occurred in fewer than one half of the interactions and most commonly focused on the impact of the diagnosis on patients' opportunity costs rather than treatment costs. Implications for ASCO's Value Framework and design of interventions to improve cost discussions are discussed.