Search

Purpose: Our purpose was to evaluate the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures used in the ongoing RadComp pragmatic randomized clinical trial (PRCT)., Methods and Materials: The deidentified and blinded data set included 774 English-speaking female participants who completed their 6-month posttreatment assessment. Eleven PRO measures were evaluated, including the Trial Outcome Index from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes, the BREAST-Q, and selected Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures. PROs were measured at 3 timepoints: baseline, completion of radiation therapy (RT), and 6 months post-RT. Ten variables were used as validity anchors. Pearson or Spearman correlations were calculated between PROs and convergent validity indicators. Mean PRO differences between clinically distinct categories were compared with analysis of variance methods (known-groups validity). PRO change scores were mapped to change in other variables (sensitivity to change)., Results: Most correlations between PROs and validity indicators were large (≥0.5). Mean score for Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes was higher (better) for those with a lumpectomy compared with those with a mastectomy (P < .001). Mean scores for the FACT-B Trial Outcome Index and for PROMIS Fatigue and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities were better for those with good baseline performance status compared with those with poorer baseline performance status (P < .05). At completion of RT and post-RT, mean scores for Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes and BREAST-Q Radiation were significantly different (P < .001) across categories for all Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy -Treatment Satisfaction - General items. There were medium-sized correlations between change scores for FACT-B Trial Outcome Index, Fatigue, Anxiety, and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and change scores in the Visual Analog Scale., Conclusions: For patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer receiving radiation in the RadComp PRCT, our findings demonstrate high reliability and validity for important PRO measures, supporting their psychometric strength and usefulness to reflect the effect of RT on health-related quality of life., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This article aims to determine the prevalence of caregiving among faculty at a large academic health sciences institution, to examine the effect of gender and other demographic and professional covariates on caregiving status, and to explore caregiver-generated policy recommendations., Method: A cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey was collected from June through August 2018. Participants were faculty within one of the institution's health professional schools (dentistry, medicine, nursing, or pharmacy) receiving at least 50% salary from the institution. In addition to demographic information, we collected academic series and rank, and assessed association between covariates on caregiving status using logistic regression. We analyzed open-ended responses using thematic analysis to identify themes in caregiver barriers and policy suggestions., Results: Among 657 eligible respondents, 11.4% were informal caregivers. Women were more likely to be caregivers than men (aOR 2.53, 95% CI: 1.40, 4.78), as were older faculty. Caregivers identified unsupportive climate or unrealistic work expectations, concern about career advancement, insufficient information about policies, and concern about colleague burden as barriers to support. Suggestions for workplace support included improved leave policies, increased flexibility, caregiver resource support, improved clarity and dissemination of policy information, and financial support., Conclusions: Women faculty are more likely to be informal caregivers, exacerbating disparities within academic medicine for promotion and retention among women faculty. Institutions might include caregiving status in annual burnout surveys to guide the development of structural support and policies for extension of family leave beyond childbearing (or catastrophic leave), flexibility in work hours, and subsidized eldercare services., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to American Association of Chairs of Departments of Psychiatry, American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training, Association for Academic Psychiatry and Association of Directors of Medical Student Education in Psychiatry.)

Purpose: The optimal adjuvant therapy (antiestrogen therapy [ET] + radiation therapy or ET alone, or in some reports radiation therapy alone) in older women with early-stage breast cancer has been highly debated. However, granular details on the role of insurance in the out-of-pocket cost for patients receiving ET with or without radiation therapy are lacking. This project disaggregates out-of-pocket costs by insurance plans to increase treatment cost transparency., Methods and Materials: Several radiation therapy schedules are accepted standards as per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. For our financial estimate model, we used the 5-fraction and 15-fraction radiation therapy and ET prescribed over a 5-year duration. The total aggregate out-of-pocket costs were determined from the sum of treatment costs, deductibles, and copays/coinsurance based on Medicaid, Original Medicare, Medigap Plan G, and Medicare Part D Rx plans. The model assumes a Medicare- and/or Medicaid-eligible patient ≥70 years of age with node-negative, early-stage estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Patient out-of-pocket costs were estimated from publicly available insurance data from plan-specific benefit coverage materials using a 5-year time horizon., Results: Original Medicare beneficiaries face a total out-of-pocket treatment charge of $2738.52 for ET alone, $2221.26 for 5-fraction radiation therapy alone, $2573.92 for 15-fraction radiation therapy alone, $3361.26 for combined ET+ 5-fraction radiation therapy, and $3713.92 for combined ET + 15-fraction radiation therapy. Medigap Plan G beneficiaries have an out-of-pocket charge of $1130.00 with radiation therapy alone and face an out-of-pocket of $2270.00 for ET alone and combined ET+ radiation therapy. For Medicaid beneficiaries, all treatments approved by Medicaid are covered without limit, resulting in no out-of-pocket expense for either adjuvant treatment option., Conclusions: This model (based on actual cost estimates per insurance plan rather than claims data), by estimating expenses within Medicare and Medicaid plans, provides a level of transparency to patient cost. With knowledge of the costs borne by patients themselves, treatment decisions informed by patients' individual priorities and preferences may be further enhanced., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The efficacy and long-term safety of hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (HF-WBI) have been established through multiple randomized trials, yet data about acute toxicities remain more limited. Since 2013, our group has prospectively collected acute toxicity data from weekly treatment evaluations and additional assessment after completion. In 2016, we intentionally shifted the posttreatment assessment follow-up visit from 1 month to 2 weeks to evaluate for missed acute toxicity occurring in that immediate posttreatment window. Here, we report whether 2-week follow-up has resulted in increased detection of acute toxicities compared with 4-week follow-up., Methods and Materials: We prospectively compared acute toxicity for patients treated with HF-WBI between January 1, 2013, and August 31, 2015 (4 week follow-up cohort) to patients treated between January 1, 2016, and August 31, 2018 (2 week follow-up cohort). Analyses included a multivariable model that adjusted for other factors known to correlate with toxicity. We prospectively defined acute toxicity as maximum breast pain (moderate or severe rating) and/or occurrence of moist desquamation reported 7 days before the completion of radiation therapy (RT) until 42 days after completion., Results: A total of 2689 patients who received postlumpectomy radiation and boost were analyzed; 1862 patients in the 2-week follow-up cohort and 827 in the 4-week follow-up cohort. All acute toxicity measures assessed were statistically similar between follow-up cohorts when compared in an unadjusted fashion. Overall acute composite toxicity was 26.4% and 27.7% for patients in the 4-week follow-up and 2-week follow-up cohorts, respectively. Overall acute composite toxicity remained similar between follow-up cohorts in a multivariable, adjusted model and was significantly related to patient's age, body mass index, smoking status, and treatment technique (intensity-modulated RT vs 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy) but not follow-up cohort., Conclusions: An earlier posttreatment follow-up for HF-WBI patients did not reveal a significant increased incidence of acute toxicities at 2 weeks compared with 4 weeks. This study provides physicians and patients with additional data on the safety and tolerability of HF-WBI for early stage breast cancer., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Women account for only 28% of current US medical school deans. Studying the differences between women and men in their preparation to becoming deans might help to explain this discrepancy., Objective: To identify differences in the leadership development experiences between women and men in their ascent to the medical school deanship., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative study, volunteers from the roster of the Association of American Medical Colleges Council of Deans were solicited and interviewed from June 15 to November 9, 2023. Women deans were recruited first, then men who had been appointed to their deanships at a similar time to their women counterparts were recruited. Deans were interviewed on topics related to number of applications for deanships, prior leadership roles, leadership development, personal factors, and career trajectories. Interviews were coded, and themes were extracted through conventional content analysis., Main Outcome and Measures: Career and leadership development experiences were elicited using a semistructured interview guide., Results: We interviewed 17 women and 17 men deans, representing 25.8% (34 of 132) of the total population of US medical school deans. Most deans (23 [67.6%]) practiced a medicine-based specialty or subspecialty. No statistically significant differences were found between women and men with regard to years to attain deanship (mean [SD], 2.7 [3.4] vs 3.7 [3.7] years), years as a dean (mean [SD], 5.7 [5.2] vs 6.0 [5.0] years), highest salary during career (mean [SD], $525 769 [$199 936] vs $416 923 [$195 848]), or medical school rankings (mean [SD], 315.5 [394.5] vs 480.5 [448.9]). Their reports indicated substantive gender differences in their paths to becoming a dean. Compared with men, women deans reported having to work harder to advance, while receiving less support and opportunities for leadership positions by their own institutions. Subsequently, women sought leadership development from external programs. Women deans also experienced gender bias when working with search firms., Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study of US medical school deans found that compared with men, women needed to be more proactive, had to participate in external leadership development programs, and had to confront biases during the search process. For rising women leaders, this lack of support had consequences, such as burnout and attrition, potentially affecting the makeup of future generations of medical school deans. Institutional initiatives centering on leadership development of women is needed to mitigate the gender biases and barriers faced by aspiring women leaders.

Purpose: Our purpose was to assess whether an association exists between surgical localization technique and lumpectomy cavity size on radiation therapy planning computed tomography (CT) scan., Methods and Materials: A single-institution retrospective review was conducted of women undergoing breast conserving surgery with wire or magnetic seed guided lumpectomy followed by adjuvant radiation therapy from 2018 to 2021. Patients of a surgeon only performing 1 localization technique or undergoing bracketed localization were excluded. The primary outcome was lumpectomy cavity size on simulation CT. Confounding due to imbalance in patient and tumor factors was addressed with overlap weights derived from a propensity score analysis and used in a weighted multivariable analysis. Secondary outcomes included positive margins, total pathologic volume, boost delivery, and boost modality., Results: Of 617 women who received lumpectomy during the study period, 387 were included in final analysis. Tumors of patients undergoing seed localization were more likely unifocal, assessable by ultrasound, and smaller. Seed use rates ranged from 27.7% to 70.7% per surgeon. There was no difference in positive margins (6.4 vs 5.4%, P = .79) or second surgeries (9.4 vs 8.1%, P = .79) between groups. Close margin rates were similar for ductal carcinoma in situ (P = .35) and invasive carcinoma (P = .97). In unadjusted bivariable analyses, wire localization was associated with larger total pathology volume (P = .004), but localization technique showed no association with CT cavity volume (P = .15). After adjusting for potentially confounding variables, multivariable analysis failed to show an association between localization technique and either CT cavity (P = .35) or total path volume (P = .08). There was no difference in indicated-boost delivery (P = .15) or electron boost (P = .14) by localization technique., Conclusions: There was no significant difference in CT cavity size by localization technique, suggesting choice between surgical techniques does not impede radiation therapy boost delivery., Competing Interests: Disclosures Michael Dykstra, Jessica Thompson, Jessica Aldous, Shannon Jiang, Tasha Hughes, James Hayman, Aleksandar Dragovic, Jennifer Shah, Alfred Chang, Michael Sabel, and Lesly Dossett have no disclosures. Corey Speers receives consulting fees from Exact Sciences and has received honoraria for presentations unrelated to the current work. He is also on the DSMB for a head and neck radiosensitizer and is on the ASCO Cancer Communications Committee. Matthew Schipper receives consulting fees from Innovative Analytics. Reshma Jagsi has stock options as compensation for her advisory board role in Equity Quotient, a company that evaluates culture in health care companies; she has received personal fees from the Greenwall Foundation, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health and grants or contracts for unrelated work from the National Institutes of Health, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the Greenwall Foundation, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, and Genentech. She has served as an expert witness for Kleinbard, LLC., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Because some stakeholders within medicine seek to diversify and attain greater workforce equity, it is critical to understand gender-based divisions within specialization. Radiation oncology (RO) has one of the smallest proportions of women representation of all specialties, and to our knowledge, no prior studies have investigated gender differences in all the disease site specializations within RO. Thus, we analyzed the relationship between gender and disease site(s) treated in academic RO (ARO)., Methods and Materials: Faculty gender and disease site(s) treated by faculty from ARO departments were collected via publicly available department websites in January 2020. X 2 analyses were conducted to assess differences between the proportions of women faculty treating each disease site., Results: Of 1337 ARO faculty, 408 (30.5%) were identified as women. Breast, gynecology, and pediatrics had the largest proportions of women faculty (all >40%; P < .001). A majority (53%; P < .001) of women ARO faculty treated breast. Genitourinary, thoracic, and head and neck had the smallest proportions of women faculty (all <25%; P < .001). Women ARO faculty were twice as likely to treat breast and gynecologic malignancies compared with men faculty (risk ratio [RR] with 95% CI, 2.01 [1.75-2.50]; P < .001 and RR [95% CI], 2.06 [1.72-2.79]; P <.001, respectively). Men ARO faculty were 3 times more likely to treat genitourinary cancer compared with women faculty (RR [95% CI], 0.40 [0.34-0.48]; P < .001). There was no difference in the mean number of disease sites treated between women and men ARO faculty (2.63 vs 2.53; P = .29)., Conclusions: Gender differences in disease site specialization were observed in ARO. Future research into the drivers of disease site selection should be explored., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This study aimed to elucidate the experiences and perceptions of mid-career to senior clinician-scientists in academic medicine regarding pursuing, attaining, or rejecting leadership roles as well as their conceptualization of the influence of leadership in their broader career trajectories., Method: The authors conducted a qualitative analysis of in-depth, semistructured interviews conducted in 2022 with a diverse sample of clinician-scientists who received new National Institutes of Health K08 or K23 Career Development Awards between 2006 and 2009. A total of 859 of the 915 survey respondents (94%) were eligible to be recruited for the qualitative study. Qualitative analysis was informed by thematic analysis and used a social constructionist approach to understanding participants' conceptualizations of their experiences. Interview transcripts were coded using an iterative, inductive coding process. Themes were generated by reviewing coded data and identifying common patterns in participant narratives, affording particular attention to participants' discussion of the effect of race and/or gender on their leadership experiences., Results: Sixty clinician-scientists participated in individual interviews. Five themes were generated surrounding participants' conceptualizations of their leadership experiences. Themes were (1) feeling unprepared for leadership roles, (2) reluctance and lack of intention in attaining leadership positions, (3) influence of networks on leadership access and decision-making, (4) impact-related benefits and downsides of leadership, and (5) confining ideas of who leaders are., Conclusions: The study highlighted the need for formal leadership training in academic medicine and the importance of mentorship and sponsorship in attaining and succeeding in leadership positions. Individuals from communities underrepresented in leadership positions faced additional challenges internalizing a leadership identity. Efforts to encourage current leaders to engage in intentional succession planning and development of faculty towards leadership roles, including expansion of institutional leadership development programs, are needed to promote equitable distribution of leadership opportunities., (Copyright © 2024 the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

Importance: Studies reveal that most physicians report symptoms of burnout. Less is known about burnout in mid-career medical faculty specifically., Objective: To characterize burnout and its risk factors, particularly differences by gender, among mid-career medical faculty., Design, Setting, and Participants: Between August 2021 and August 2022, a survey was sent to 1430 individuals who received new National Institutes of Health K08 and K23 career development awards from 2006 to 2009. Data were analyzed between June and October 2023., Main Outcomes and Measures: Personal and work-related burnout as evaluated using the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI). The CBI score ranges from 0 to 100, with a score of 50 or higher indicating a high degree of burnout. Multivariable models were used to investigate associations between burnout and participant characteristics, including race and ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity, academic rank, work climate, experiences of workplace sexual harassment, sleep hours, work and domestic caregiving time, and time allocation changes in work and domestic work hours compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic. Work climate was evaluated by a general climate elements scale assessing elements such as friendliness, respect, and collegiality, and a diversity, equity, and inclusion climate elements scale assessing elements such as homogeneity, sexism, and homophobia; higher scores indicated a more favorable view of the climate., Results: In all, 1430 surveys were sent, 926 candidates responded (65% response rate), and the analytic cohort was limited to the 841 respondents who were still in academic medicine (50.7% men). Burnout was significantly more common for women than men (mean [SD] CBI personal scores, 46.6 [19.4] vs 37.5 [17.2]; P < .001; mean [SD] CBI work-related scores, 43.7 [20.4] vs 34.6 [19.7]; P < .001). In multivariable models, personal burnout was significantly more likely for women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.29 [95% CI, 1.54-3.41]; P < .001) and with more weekly hours of patient care (AOR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.00-1.15] for each 5-hour increase; P = .04). Personal burnout was less likely with more nightly sleep hours (AOR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.56-0.81] for each 1-hour increase; P < .001) and with an improved general work climate rating (AOR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.48-0.85] for each 1-point increase in general work climate scale score; P = .002). Work-related burnout was also significantly more likely for women than men (AOR, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.17-2.69]; P = .007). Greater work-related burnout was associated with an increase of 8 or more work hours per week compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic (AOR, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.13-3.08]; P = .01), more weekly hours of patient care (AOR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.03-1.19] for each 5-hour increase; P = .007), and a workplace sexual harassment experience in the past 2 years (AOR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.11-2.62]; P = .01). Work-related burnout was significantly less likely with more nightly sleep hours (AOR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.66-0.96] for each 1-hour increase; P = .02) and with an improved general work climate rating (AOR, 0.49; [95% CI, 0.36-0.65] for each 1-point increase in general work climate scale score; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study of K grant awardees revealed substantial rates of burnout among mid-career medical faculty, and burnout rates differed by gender. Evidence-based interventions are needed to realize the benefits of workforce diversity and vitality.

Objective: Despite the pervasiveness and adverse impacts of financial toxicity (FT) in cancer care, there are no definitive measures for FT screening that have been widely integrated into clinical practice. The aim of this review is to evaluate current methods of assessing FT among patients with cancer and confirm factors associated with higher risk of FT., Methods: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We included peer-reviewed studies that cross-sectionally, longitudinally, or prospectively measured the self-reported financial impact of patients undergoing cancer care in the United States., Results: Out of 1,085 identified studies, 51 met final inclusion criteria. Outcomes evaluated included FT measures or tools, time and setting of screening, FT prevalence, and sociodemographic or clinical patient-level associated factors. Our findings demonstrate that there is wide variability in FT screening practices including in the timing (diagnosis versus treatment versus survivorship), setting (clinic-based, online, telephone or mail), tools used (21 unique tools, 7 previously validated), and interpretations of screening results (varying FT score cutoffs defining high versus low FT). Younger age, lower income, lower education, non-White race, employment status change, advanced cancer stage, and systemic or radiation therapy were among factors associated with worse FT across the studies., Discussion: FT screening remains heterogenous within the United States. With the ever-escalating cost of cancer care, and the strong association between FT and poor patient outcomes, universal and routine FT screening is imperative in cancer care. Further research and multifaceted interventions identifying best practices for FT screening are needed., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CEC reports grants from Breast Cancer Now, Cancer Research UK (CRUK), Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR); participation in the Independent Data Monitoring Committees for the UK PivotalBoost trial (chair), the PROTIS phase III sinonasal proton versus IMRT trial (member), the TORPEdO Proton Beam Therapy trial (member); and a leadership role for the Lancet Breast Cancer Commission (chair). CHB reports grants and research support from AbbVie, Nektar Therapeutics, Pfizer, Polyphor, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Exelixis, Regeneron, Novartis, Henlius, Shanghai Henlius Biotech, GSK, Janssen, OBI Pharma, Eli Lilly, Seagen, Checkpoint Therapeutics, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca, Novocure, Aveo Oncology, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, TRIO Pharmaceuticals, PharmaMar, Celgene, Myovant, PPD, Syneos Health, DOCS, Labcorp, ICON, IQVIA, Parexel, Nuvisan, PSI, and Medpace; ownership or stocks in Tummi and MEDSir; and participation in advisory boards and consulting activities for Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Zodiac, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Daiichi Sankyo. DAC reports research grants and support from Exact Sciences and Novartis; consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, Erytech Pharma, Carnall Farrar, Sapience, and Sanofi; payment or honoraria for lectures and presentations from Exact Sciences, Gilead, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer; participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Grail; unremunerated leadership roles for Make Seconds Count (chair of charity trustees) and the Breast International Group (chair of board of not-for-profit research organisation); and receipt of funding for analysis and medical writing for Eli Lilly and Novartis. FC reports payment or honoraria for lectures and presentations and support for attending meetings and travel from Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, IQVIA, Macrogenics, Medscape, MSD, Merus, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sanofi, Samsung Bioepis, Seagen, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Touch Independent Medical Education; institutional financial support for clinical trials from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Fresenius, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Ipsen, Incyte, Nektar Therapeutics, Nerviano, Novartis, Macrogenics, MediGene, MedImmune, MSD, Millenium, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Sonus, Tesaro, Tigris, Wilex, and Wyeth; a leadership role for the ABC Global Alliance and ABC Consensus Conference and Guidelines (president); and membership of ESMO, ESO, EORTC-BCG, IBCSG, SOLTI, ASCO, AACR, EACR, SIS, and ASPIC. WC reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, and Eisai. PAF reports a former role in the scientific advisory committee of Breast Cancer Trials Australia and New Zealand cooperative group (chair). RJ reports support from the Susan G Komen Foundation; grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Greenwall Foundation, and the American Cancer Society; serving as an expert witness for Kleinbard and Hawks Quindel Law; roles in the Board of Directors of ASCO (former member), ASTRO's Ethics Committee (chair), and the Women in Radiation Oncology Affinity Group (chair); membership on the Medical Advisory Board for Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; stock options for their advisory board role in Equity Quotient; and personal fees from the NIH, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and the Greenwall Foundation. FMK reports research grants from the ABC Global Alliance, Breast Cancer Now, Merck Serono WHO, MSD, Avon Cosmetics, the US Cancer Pain Relief Committee, and the Medical Research Council; consulting fees from Merck Serono and Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey Mexico; and leadership roles for the Board of Directors of Women in Global Health (unpaid member), Tómatelo a Pecho (unpaid president and founder), the Mexican Health Foundation (unpaid Senior Economist), and the Board of Directors of the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care (unpaid member). SAMcI reports grant funding from the NIHR, CRUK, and Breast Cancer Now; honoraria from Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Becton, Dickinson and Company; travel and conference support from Roche, Eli Lilly, and MSD; membership of advisory boards for Eli Lilly, MSD, Roche, and Novartis; and roles for the UK National Cancer Research Institute Breast Research Group (unpaid chair) and the Royal College of Surgeons Breast Surgical Specialty Lead (unpaid). K-AP reports clinical trial funding from AstraZeneca (paid to institution) and unremunerated previous participation in AstraZeneca advisory boards. LR reports grants from the European Commission Horizon 2020 and the German Research Foundation and a role in the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care (Chair of Board of Directors). MKT reports grants from Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust and CRUK. FA reports grants from Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche and consulting fees from MedImmune, Gilead, Relay Therapeutics, and Guardant Health. JEA reports speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and Eisai and conference travel support from AstraZeneca. ISB reports participation in the Roche advisory board for ESMO. JMB reports research grants from Breast Cancer Now, AstraZeneca, MSD, Puma Biotechnology, Clovis Oncology, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, CRUK, and the NIHR. MAF is funded by a Conquer Cancer Breast Cancer Research Foundation Career Development Award for Diversity and Inclusion supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and reports financial support from the WeShare project. AF reports consultancy work for Oxford Immune Algorithmics; grants from Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust and the Ann McLaren Building Preclinical Imaging Suite of the University of Cambridge; and travel support from the University of Cambridge. DIR reports support from the University of Chicago Center for Global Health. DN reports research support from Cepheid; a grant from the US National Cancer Institute; and an unpaid leadership role with the WHO Global Breast Cancer Initiative. WER reports grants from the Cambia Health Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Rita and Alex Hillman Foundation; and book royalties from Springer Publishing and Jones & Bartlett Learning. JR reports funding from the NIHR and support from AstraZeneca for attendance at a teaching event. DS reports a leadership role at the Jamaica Cancer Care and Research Institute (co-director). HS reports membership of the Breast Cancer Now Tissue Bank Advisory Board and voluntary patient membership of the Independent Cancer Patients' Voice charity; an honorarium from the CRUK Precision Grand Challenge; and support for travel expenses from Breast Cancer Now, CRUK, the Association of Breast Surgeons UK, and Breast International Group. IV-L reports grants from Resilience; consulting fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Amgen; payment or honoraria for lectures and presentations from Novartis, Sandoz, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and support for travel and attending meetings from Novartis. CV-G reports grants from AstraZeneca and Roche; consulting fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly; honoraria from Roche, Myriad Genetics, and Novartis; and support for attending meetings and travel from Roche, MSD Oncology, and Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Federal scientific agencies seek to make an impact on the continued prevalence of sexual harassment in the scientific academic community beyond institutional self-regulation. The National Science Foundation's Article X, released in 2018, is one of the most significant and ambitious federal policy initiatives to address sexual harassment. The present article presents the results of the first study to examine scientists' knowledge and attitudes about this important recent policy. We found, although overall knowledge about Article X was fairly low, the majority of participants responded positively to it. Crucially, impressions of the policy varied based on past experience and demographic factors. Individuals who had experienced harassment in the past year were less likely to believe the policy would help reduce sexual harassment in the sciences compared to those who had not experienced harassment (OR = 0.47, 95% CI:0.23-0.97, p = .034) and had greater odds of endorsing that the policy failed to go far enough (OR = 2.77, 95% CI:1.15-6.66, p = .023). Associations between demographic factors and views of the policy were less pronounced, but it is notable that, compared to their White counterparts, Black participants were more likely to believe the policy went too far (OR = 5.87, 95% CI:1.04-33.17, p = .045). Additionally, concerns were raised about the institutional enforcement of these policies and the existence of sufficient protections for survivors. Our work has implications for NSF's continued evaluation of the efficacy of this program as well as for other federal agencies implementing or considering similar policies., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)

Importance: Despite increasing evidence and recognition of persistent gender disparities in academic medicine, qualitative data detailing the association of gender-based experiences with career progression remain sparse, particularly at the mid- to senior-career stage., Objective: To investigate the role gender has played in everyday professional experiences of mid- to senior-career women clinician-scientists and their perceptions of gender-related barriers experienced across their careers., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative study, a total of 60 of 159 invited clinician-scientists who received National Institutes of Health K08 or K23 awards between 2006 and 2009 and responded to a survey in 2021 agreed to participate. Invitees were selected using random, purposive sampling to support sample heterogeneity. Semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted January to May 2022. For this study, interviews from 31 women were analyzed using the framework approach to thematic analysis. Data analyses were performed between August and October 2023., Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive themes of participant experiences of gender and gender-based barriers in academic medicine., Results: A total of 31 women clinician-scientists (8 identifying as Asian [25.8%], 14 identifying as White [45.2%], and 9 identifying as members of a minority group underrepresented in medicine [29.0%]; 14 aged 40-49 years [45.2%] and 14 aged 50-59 years [45.2%]) were included. Among them, 17 participants (54.8%) had children who required adult supervision or care, 7 participants (22.6%) had children who did not require supervision or care, and 6 participants (19.4%) did not have children. There were 4 dominant themes identified within participant experiences in academic medicine: the mental burden of gendered expectations at work and home, inequitable treatment of women in bureaucratic processes, subtle and less subtle professional exclusion of women, and value of communities built on shared identities, experiences, and solidarity., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that women perceived the institution of academic medicine as a male-centric system misaligned with the needs of women, with associated feelings of exclusion, disillusionment, and loss of trust in their institutions. Findings suggest that the confluence of domestic obligations and unaccommodating institutional environments may make it difficult for women clinician-scientists to achieve established timelines of career progression and productivity; these findings may have long-term implications for the well-being and retention of women in academic medicine.

Purpose: To understand time allocation of a national medical faculty cohort 1.5-2 years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, compared to before., Method: From August 2021-April 2022, the authors conducted a retrospective survey of 1,430 clinician-researchers who received National Institutes of Health career-development awards between 2006-2009 asking about domestic and professional time allocation pre-pandemic and at the time of surveys (TOS). Of 915 respondents (64%), the 830 who remained in academic positions constituted the analytic sample. Multivariable regression models identified demographic factors associated with each time outcome and change in time between pre-pandemic and TOS, and having experienced ≥8-hour increase of total self-reported weekly professional work hours and domestic labor hours., Results: Median self-reported weekly professional work hours were 55 hours/week pre- pandemic and 60 at TOS. On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of self-reported weekly professional work hours at TOS were having a non-child other dependent (+2.6 hours, P = .03), academic rank (associate -3.1 hours, assistant -9.0 hours; P < .001), and specialty (P < .001). Average self-reported TOS weekly domestic-labor hours were 23.1 among men and 30.2 among women (P < .001). Predictors of total self-reported TOS weekly domestic hours were being a woman (+5.6 hours; P < .001) and having children requiring supervision (+10.2 hours; P < .001). Overall, 9.3% of men (42/450) and 21.6% of women (88/407) experienced a ≥ 8 hour increase in domestic labor (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, women had higher odds of substantial domestic-labor increase (OR = 2.33, 95% CI: 1.47, 3.68), as did those with children requiring supervision (OR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.25, 2.98) or other dependents (OR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.13, 2.98)., Conclusions: This study illuminates demands on women and faculty with dependents during the COVID-19 pandemic and suggests increased flexibility and resources are of heightened importance., (Copyright © 2024 the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

Purpose: Breast and skin changes are underrecognized side effects of radiation therapy for breast cancer, which may have long-term implications for quality of life (QOL). Racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer outcomes, including long-term QOL differences after breast radiation therapy, are poorly understood., Methods and Materials: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study of patients from the Texas Cancer Registry who received diagnoses of stage 0-II breast cancer from 2009 to 2014 and treated with lumpectomy and radiation therapy; 2770 patients were sampled and 631 responded (23%). The BREAST-Q Adverse Effects of Radiation overall score and subindices measured the effect of radiation therapy on breast tissue. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated associations of demographic and treatment characteristics with outcomes., Results: The median age was 57 years (IQR, 48-65), median time from diagnosis to survey response 9 years (IQR, 7-10), and the cohort included 62 Asian American or Pacific Islander (9.8%), 11 American Indian or Alaskan Native (AIAN) (1.7%), 161 Black (25.5%), 144 Hispanic (22.8%), and 253 White (40.1%) patients. Mean BREAST-Q Adverse Effects of Radiation score was worse for AIAN patients (-22.2; 95% CI, -39.9 to -4.6; P = .01), Black patients (-10.8; 95% CI, -16.1 to -5.5; P < .001), and Hispanic patients (-7.8; 95% CI, -13.0 to -2.5; P = .004) compared with White patients, age <50 compared with ≥65 (effect size -8.6; 95% CI, -14.0 to -3.2; P = .002), less than a college education (-5.8; 95% CI, -10.0 to -1.6; P = .01), bra cup size of D/E versus A/B (-5.3; 95% CI, -9.9 to -0.65; P = .03), and current smokers (-11.3; 95% CI, -18.3 to -4.2; P = .002). AIAN, Black, and Hispanic patients reported worse changes in skin pigmentation, telangiectasias, dryness, soreness, and/or irritation compared with White patients., Conclusions: AIAN, Black, and Hispanic patients reported substantially worse long-term breast and skin QOL outcomes after radiation therapy. Additional work is needed to understand these differences and how to alleviate them., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Peak fertility commonly occurs during medical training, and delaying parenthood can complicate pregnancies. Trainee parental leave policies are varied and lack transparency. Research on the impacts of parenthood on trainee education is limited. Methods: A Qualtrics-based survey was distributed via e-mail/social media to program directors (PDs) within oncologic specialties with a request to forward a parallel survey to trainees. Questions assessed awareness of parental leave policies, supportiveness of parenthood, and impacts on trainee education. Statistical analyses included descriptive frequencies and bivariable comparisons by key groups. Results: A total of 195 PDs and 286 trainees responded. Twelve percent and 29% of PDs were unsure of maternity/paternity leave options, respectively. PDs felt they were more supportive of trainee parenthood than trainees perceived they were. Thirty-nine percent of nonparent trainees (NPTs) would have children already if not in medicine, and >80% of women trainees were concerned about declining fertility. Perceived impacts of parenthood on trainee overall education and academic productivity were more negative for women trainees when rated by PDs and NPTs; however, men/women parents self-reported equal impacts. Leave burden was perceived as higher for women trainees. Conclusions: A significant portion of PDs lack awareness of parental leave policies, highlighting needs for increased transparency. Trainees' perception of PD support for parenthood is less than PD self-reported support. Alongside significant rates of delayed parenthood and fertility concerns, this poses a problem for trainees seeking to start a family, particularly women who are perceived more negatively. Further work is needed to create a supportive culture for trainee parenthood.

Purpose: Multiple studies have shown a low risk of ipsilateral breast events (IBEs) or other recurrences for selected patients age 65-70 years or older with stage I breast cancers treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and endocrine therapy (ET) without adjuvant radiotherapy. We sought to evaluate whether younger postmenopausal patients could also be successfully treated without radiation therapy, adding a genomic assay to classic selection factors., Methods: Postmenopausal patients age 50-69 years with pT1N0 unifocal invasive breast cancer with margins ≥2 mm after BCS whose tumors were estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-positive, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative with Oncotype DX 21-gene recurrence score ≤18 were prospectively enrolled in a single-arm trial of radiotherapy omission if they consented to take at least 5 years of ET. The primary end point was the rate of locoregional recurrence 5 years after BCS., Results: Between June 2015 and October 2018, 200 eligible patients were enrolled. Among the 186 patients with clinical follow-up of at least 56 months, overall and breast cancer-specific survival rates at 5 years were both 100%. The 5-year freedom from any recurrence was 99% (95% CI, 96 to 100). Crude rates of IBEs for the entire follow-up period for patients age 50-59 years and age 60-69 years were 3.3% (2/60) and 3.6% (5/140), respectively; crude rates of overall recurrence were 5.0% (3/60) and 3.6% (5/140), respectively., Conclusion: This trial achieved a very low risk of recurrence using a genomic assay in combination with classic clinical and biologic features for treatment selection, including postmenopausal patients younger than 60 years. Long-term follow-up of this trial and others will help determine whether the option of avoiding initial radiotherapy can be offered to a broader group of women than current guidelines recommend.

The financial burden of breast cancer treatment and reconstruction is a significant concern for patients. Patient desire for preoperative cost-of-care counseling while navigating the reconstructive process remains unknown. A cross-sectional survey of women from the Love Research Army was conducted. An electronic survey was distributed to women over 18 years of age and at least 1 year after postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Descriptive statistics and multivariable modeling were used to determine desire for and occurrence of cost-of-care discussions, and factors associated with preference for such discussions. Secondary outcomes included the association of financial toxicity with desire for cost discussions. Among 839 women who responded, 620 women (74.1%) did not speak to their plastic surgeon and 480 (57.4%) did not speak to a staff member regarding costs of breast reconstruction. Of the 550 women who reported it would have been helpful to discuss costs, 315 (57.3%) were not engaged in a financial conversation initiated by a health care provider. A greater proportion of women who reported financial toxicity, compared to those who did not, would have preferred to discuss costs with their plastic surgeon (65.2% vs. 43.5%, p  < 0.001) or a staff member (75.5% vs. 59.3%, p  < 0.001). Among women with financial toxicity, those who had some form of insurance (private, Medicaid, Medicare, "other") were significantly more likely to prefer a cost-of-care discussion ( p  < 0.001, p  = 0.02, p  = 0.05, p  = 0.01). Financial discussions about the potential costs of breast reconstruction seldom occurred in this national cohort. Given the reported preference and unmet need for financial discussions by a majority of women, better cost transparency and communication is needed., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Purpose/objectives: Radiation therapy (RT) is a central component of cancer treatment with survival and long-term quality-of-life benefits across a spectrum of oncologic diagnoses. However, RT has been associated with varying levels of fatigue, pain, weight loss, and changes in mental health both during and post-treatment. Prehabilitation aims to optimize health prior to anti-neoplastic therapy in order to reduce side effects, increase adherence to treatment, expedite post-treatment recovery, and improve long-term outcomes. Though prehabilitation has been studied in those undergoing cancer-related surgery, literature on prehabilitation in individuals undergoing RT has not been comprehensively explored. Thus, this scoping review aims to summarize the existing literature focused on prehabilitation interventions for patients receiving RT., Materials/methods: The PRISMA-ScR checklist for conducting scoping reviews was adopted to identify and evaluate studies investigating the efficacy of prehabilitation before and during RT for cancer over the past 21 years (10/2002-10/2022). A search of prehabilitation and RT was performed to identify studies investigating prehabilitation interventions in adult cancer patients undergoing RT., Results: A total of 30 articles met inclusion criteria, yielding 3657 total participants. Eighteen (60%) studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with sample sizes ranging from 21 to 221. The most commonly studied populations were patients with head and neck cancer, followed by rectal, breast, and lung cancer. A majority (80%) of studies evaluated one prehabilitation intervention (i.e., unimodal). Targeted physical exercises were the most common intervention, followed by general physical exercises and technology/apps. Adherence/feasibility was the most common primary outcome, representing 30% of studies. All studies reported data on sex, and 5 (17%) reported data on race and/or ethnicity., Conclusions: Prehabilitation interventions have been successfully implemented in patients with cancer undergoing surgical treatment. Based on limited current literature, prehabilitation appears to have a promising effect in reducing morbidity in adult cancer patients requiring RT. Though our review identified many RCTs, they were frequently small sample trials with primary outcomes focused on feasibility, rather than functional status or quality of life. Thus, there is a need for adequately powered, randomized controlled intervention trials to investigate the efficacy of prehabilitation and maximize the treatment outcomes for patients undergoing RT., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Up to 50% of women treated for localized breast cancer will experience some degree of arm or shoulder morbidity. Although radiation is thought to contribute to this morbidity, the mechanism remains unclear. Prior studies have shown biologic and radiographic changes in the pectoralis muscles after radiation. This study thus aimed to investigate the relationship between radiation to the pectoralis muscles and referrals for rehabilitation services posttreatment for arm and shoulder morbidity., Methods and Materials: A retrospective 1:1 matched case-control study was conducted for patients with breast cancer who were and were not referred for breast or shoulder rehabilitation services between 2014 and 2019 at a single academic institution. Patients were included if they had a lumpectomy and adjuvant radiation. Patients who underwent an axillary lymph node dissection were excluded. Cohorts were matched based on age, axillary surgery, and use of radiation boost. Muscle doses were converted to equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions assuming an α:β ratio of 2.5 and were compared between the 2 groups., Results: In our cohort of 50 patients of a median age 60 years (interquartile range, 53-68 years), 36 patients (72%) underwent a sentinel lymph node biopsy in addition to a lumpectomy. Although pectoralis muscle doses were generally higher in those receiving rehabilitation services, this was not statistically significant. Pectoralis major V20-40 Gy reached borderline significance, as did pectoralis major mean dose (17.69 vs 20.89 Gy; P = .06)., Conclusions: In this limited cohort of patients, we could not definitively conclude a relationship between pectoralis muscle doses and use of rehabilitation services. Given the borderline significant findings, this should be further investigated in a larger cohort., Competing Interests: Disclosures None., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: For early stage breast cancer (BC), the choice of radiation therapy duration (1 vs 3 weeks) is highly debated. Cost and financial toxicity are major concerns that patients with BC face. Nonetheless, there remain limited discussions providing granular details of the role of insurance in the aggregate cost of 1 week versus 3 weeks of radiation therapy for patients. This project aims to disaggregate costs by plan to increase transparency of out-of-pocket (OOP) cost estimates in radiation therapy., Methods and Materials: Treatment procedures were determined through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. OOP treatment costs, deductibles, and copays/coinsurance were calculated by using Medicaid, Original Medicare, Medigap Plan G, and Medicare Part D prescription plans. The medicare.gov, medicaid.oh.gov, aarpmedicareplans.com, and the physician fee schedule from cms.gov were used to determine costs by treatment. Price estimates reflect actual costs per insurance plan rather than costs estimated from claims data. All procedures were considered to be performed in an Ohio hospital setting. One-week radiation therapy was defined as 5 fractions without boost, and 3-week radiation therapy was defined as 15 fractions without boost., Results: Medicare beneficiaries with Original Medicare coverage face an OOP treatment charge of $649.24 for 1 week of radiation therapy and $1006.20 for 3 weeks of radiation therapy. Assuming the deductible is met postlumpectomy, Medigap Plan G beneficiaries are faced with no additional charges for both lengths of radiation therapy. Similarly for Medicaid beneficiaries (assuming treatment is approved by Medicaid), all expenses are covered without limit, resulting in no OOP expense., Conclusions: Considerations of 1 and 3 weeks of radiation therapy for postlumpectomy early-stage BC are often dependent on cancer characteristics and patient preferences. This model (based on actual cost estimates per insurance plan rather than claims data) compares OOP costs across Medicaid and Medicare plans, which more holistically informs providers and patients in radiation therapy duration decision making., Competing Interests: Disclosures Reshma Jagsi has stock options as compensation for her advisory board role in Equity Quotient, a company that evaluates culture in health care companies; she has received personal fees from the National Institutes of Health as a special government employee (in her role as a member of the Advisory Committee for Research on Women's Health), the Greenwall Foundation, and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. She has received grants for unrelated work from the National Institutes of Health, the Doris Duke Foundation, the Greenwall Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the Komen Foundation, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium. She had a contract to conduct an investigator-initiated study with Genentech. She has served as an expert witness for Sherinian and Hasso, Dressman Benzinger LaVelle, and Kleinbard LLC. Shearwood McClelland III serves as a consultant for Gilmartin Capital (a company that evaluates surgically targeted radiation therapies), receives travel funding from GT Medical Technologies Inc, and research funding from the University Hospitals Minority Faculty Career Development Award, the American Society of Radiation Oncology Emerging Investigator Award, the Robert Winn Diversity in Clinical Trials Career Development Award, and the National Cancer Institute Paul Calabresi K12 Clinical Oncology Research Career Development Program., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare long-term quality of life (QOL) outcomes in breast cancer survivors who received breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy (BCS+RT) with those who received a mastectomy and reconstructive surgery (Mast+Recon) without radiotherapy and identify other important factors., Background: The long-term differences in patient-reported QOL outcomes following BCS+RT and Mast+Recon are not well understood., Methods: We identified patients from the Texas Cancer Registry with stage 0-II breast cancer diagnosed in 2009-2014 after BCS+RT or Mast+Recon without radiotherapy. Sampling was stratified by age and race and ethnicity. A paper survey was sent to 4800 patients which included validated BREAST-Q and PROMIS modules. Multivariable linear regression models were implemented for each outcome. Minimal clinically important difference for BREAST-Q and PROMIS modules, respectively, was 4 points and 2 points., Results: Of 1215 respondents (25.3% response rate), 631 received BCS+RT and 584 received Mast+Recon. The median interval from diagnosis to survey completion was 9 years. In adjusted analysis, Mast+Recon was associated with worse BREAST-Q psychosocial well-being (effect size: -3.80, P =0.04) and sexual well-being (effect size: -5.41, P =0.02), but better PROMIS physical function (effect size: 0.54, P =0.03) and similar BREAST-Q satisfaction with breasts, physical well-being, and PROMIS upper extremity function ( P >0.05) compared with BCS+RT. Only the difference in sexual well-being reached clinical significance. Older (≥65) patients receiving BCS+RT and younger (<50) patients receiving autologous Mast+Recon typically reported higher QOL scores. Receipt of chemotherapy was associated with detriments to multiple QOL domains., Conclusions: Patients who underwent Mast+Recon reported worse long-term sexual well-being compared with BCS+RT. Older patients derived a greater benefit from BCS+RT, while younger patients derived a greater benefit from Mast+Recon. These data inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer., Competing Interests: B.D.S. receives salary support from Varian Medical Systems that is unrelated to the current project. He also has a royalty and equity interest in Oncora Medical. R.J.’s time on this work was supported by the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Outside the current work, she has stock options as compensation for her advisory board role in Equity Quotient, a company that evaluates culture in health care companies; she has received personal fees from the Greenwall Foundation, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health and grants or contracts for unrelated work from the National Institutes of Health, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the Greenwall Foundation, and Genentech. She has served as an expert witness for Dressman Benzinger LaVelle and Kleinbard LLC. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Bullying, a severe form of mistreatment, occurs when an individual in an authority position intentionally imposes negative persistent behaviors on a target. In academic medicine, bullying is used to impede the target's professional growth. While there is abundant literature on how to disrupt other forms of mistreatment, the literature related to bullying among academic medical faculty members is scarce., Methods: We developed an interactive workshop on disrupting faculty-on-faculty bullying in academic medicine, with a focus on gender-based bullying, following Kern's model of curriculum development. The workshop consisted of three didactics on the scope of bullying in academic medicine: identifying bullying behaviors, learning strategies to mitigate bullying, and understanding what constitutes comprehensive antibullying policies. The workshop also included three small-group activities to reinforce learned concepts., Results: Eighty-seven faculty attended one of three workshops held over a 6-month period. We received 24 completed evaluations for a 28% rate of return. Most participants rated workshop activities as being well taught and of great value. Many respondents commented that after participating in the workshop, they realized they had likely experienced or witnessed bullying in their careers and that mitigating bullying required effort at multiple levels (individual, institutional, national)., Discussion: This workshop fills a need in academic medicine through addressing how faculty members and institutions can help themselves and others to disrupt bullying. We will continue to disseminate this workshop at national conferences and at individual institutions. This resource will allow other educators to offer the workshop at their home institutions., (© 2023 Iyer et al.)

The concept of informed consent has evolved considerably over the course of the 20th century, leading to its establishment as a foundational ethical principle for the conduct of biomedical research in the United States. Even though it is now a highly regulated part of cancer research, the process of obtaining informed consent is often impeded by systemic, clinician, and patient factors that require both small- and large-scale intervention. New challenges and considerations continue to emerge due to innovations in clinical trial design, increases in utilization of genomic sequencing, and advances in genomic editing and artificial intelligence. We present a review of the history, policy, pragmatic challenges, and evolving role of the central ethical tenet of informed consent in clinical trials., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To describe the policies, processes, and programs at U.S. medical schools to support faculty caregivers before and in response to the COVID-19 pandemic., Method: In 2021, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and founding members of the COVID-19 Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS) Collaborative launched and supported the COVID-19 FRCS program to recognize medical schools and their efforts to strengthen policies, processes, and programs supporting biomedical faculty with family caregiving responsibilities in the context of COVID-19-related impacts. The authors conducted a qualitative conceptual content analysis of the deidentified, open-ended responses submitted by institutions in their applications to the COVID-19 FRCS program and summarized the reported strategies using recurring patterns and common approaches., Results: Fifty-four institutions applied to the COVID-19 FRCS program in 2021 and were included in this study. COVID-19-related impacts on biomedical faculty included stymied career progression and academic productivity, exacerbated career-caregiving time conflicts, adverse effects on family and personal well-being and mental health, increased financial hardships, and amplified faculty caregiver stigma. The described policies, processes, and programs to support faculty caregivers fell into 4 domains: support for dependent care, career and workplace flexibility, career development support, and institutional culture change to reduce stigma. COVID-19-related modifications spanned these domains with remote and flexible work manifesting as disruptive changes. Strategies to support women and underrepresented in medicine faculty, who bear a disproportionate burden of caregiving responsibilities, centered on career development support and institutional culture change. The projected durability of the enacted changes varied by institution and across strategies., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic presents a disruptive opportunity to translate lessons learned into positive change to better support faculty caregivers, particularly women and underrepresented in medicine faculty. This study's findings provide a framework to guide sustainable change to support equity, diversity, and vitality in the academic biomedical workforce., (Copyright © 2023 by the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

Background: The inequitable representation of women and members of racial and ethnic minority groups in leadership positions within academic medicine is an ongoing challenge with practical and realistic solutions. The purpose of this study was to assess the race and ethnicity of individuals in leadership positions among the 24 Member Boards of Directors (Boards) of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the race and ethnicity patterns for individuals holding leadership positions among the 24 Boards of the ABMS as of March 1, 2022. Two independent coders with 100% concordance recorded race and ethnicity using online biographies and photographs. Percentages were compared to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) 2018 data reports. Results: Among 449 director positions, 415 (92.4%) were physicians. Within the physician subset, 12.3% (51/415) Asian, 8.2% (34/415) Black, and 3.4% (14/415) Hispanic individuals were identified. Women who are members of racial and ethnic minority groups have less representation than men of the same race. Of 24 Boards, 37.5% (9/24) had no Asian women, 50.0% (12/24) had no Black women, and 75.0% (18/24) had no Hispanic women. White physicians were overrepresented on 14 of 21 (66.7%) Boards compared to the proportion of active White physicians or White individuals in the United States general population. Conclusion: Disparities exist for members of racial and ethnic minority groups, particularly women from these groups. As a leader in academic medicine, the ABMS should ensure its Boards are diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity. Diverse groups often contribute unique insights that support medical education, advance science, and improve clinical care.

Importance: Little is known about regional nodal irradiation (RNI) practice patterns or rates of locoregional recurrence (LRR) with and without RNI in patients with limited nodal disease and favorable biology treated with modern surgical and systemic therapy, including approaches that de-escalate those latter treatments., Objective: To investigate how often patients with low-recurrence score breast cancer with 1 to 3 nodes involved receive RNI, incidence and predictors of LRR, and associations between locoregional therapy and disease-free survival., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this secondary analysis of the SWOG S1007 trial, patients with hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative breast cancer, and a Oncotype DX 21-gene Breast Recurrence Score assay result of no more than 25, were randomized to endocrine therapy alone vs chemotherapy then endocrine therapy. Prospectively collected radiotherapy information was collected from 4871 patients treated in diverse settings. Data were analyzed June 2022 to April 2023., Exposure: Receipt of RNI (targeting at least the supraclavicular region)., Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Cumulative incidence of LRR was calculated by locoregional treatment received. Analyses were assessed for associations between invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and locoregional therapy, adjusted for menopausal status, treatment group, recurrence score, tumor size, nodes involved, and axillary surgery. Radiotherapy information was recorded in the first year after randomization, so survival analyses were landmarked as starting at 1 year among those still at risk., Results: Of 4871 female patients (median [range] age, 57 [18-87] years) with radiotherapy forms, 3947 (81.0%) reported radiotherapy receipt. Of 3852 patients who received radiotherapy and had complete information on targets, 2274 (59.0%) received RNI. With a median follow-up of 6.1 years, the cumulative incidence of LRR by 5 years was 0.85% among patients who received breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy with RNI; 0.55% after breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy without RNI; 0.11% after mastectomy with postmastectomy radiotherapy; and 1.7% after mastectomy without radiotherapy. Similarly low LRR was observed within the group assigned to endocrine therapy without chemotherapy. The rate of IDFS did not differ by RNI receipt (premenopausal: hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.74-1.43; P = .87; postmenopausal: HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.68-1.07; P = .16)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a clinical trial, RNI use was divided in the setting of biologically favorable N1 disease, and rates of LRR were low even in patients who did not receive RNI. Disease-free survival was not associated with RNI receipt; omission of chemotherapy among patients similar to those enrolled in the S1007 trial is not an independent indication for use of RNI.

Purpose: CancerLinQ seeks to use data sharing technology to improve quality of care, improve health outcomes, and advance evidence-based research. Understanding the experiences and concerns of patients is vital to ensure its trustworthiness and success., Methods: In a survey of 1,200 patients receiving care in four CancerLinQ-participating practices, we evaluated awareness and attitudes regarding participation in data sharing., Results: Of 684 surveys received (response rate 57%), 678 confirmed cancer diagnosis and constituted the analytic sample; 54% were female, and 70% were 60 years and older; 84% were White. Half (52%) were aware of the existence of nationwide databases focused on patients with cancer before the survey. A minority (27%) indicated that their doctors or staff had informed them about such databases, 61% of whom indicated that doctors or staff had explained how to opt out of data sharing. Members of racial/ethnic minority groups were less likely to be comfortable with research (88% v 95%; P = .002) or quality improvement uses (91% v 95%; P = .03) of shared data. Most respondents desired to know how their health information was used (70%), especially those of minority race/ethnicity (78% v 67% of non-Hispanic White respondents; P = .01). Under half (45%) felt that electronic health information was sufficiently protected by current law, and most (74%) favored an official body for data governance and oversight with representation of patients (72%) and physicians (94%). Minority race/ethnicity was associated with increased concern about data sharing (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; P < .001). Women were less concerned about data sharing than men (OR, 0.61; P = .001), and higher trust in oncologist was negatively associated with concern (OR, 0.75; P = .03)., Conclusion: Engaging patients and respecting their perspectives is essential as systems like CancerLinQ evolve.

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected cancer care worldwide, including radiation therapy (RT) for breast cancer (BC), because of risk-based resource allocation. We report the evolution of international breast RT practices during the beginning of the pandemic, focusing on differences in treatment recommendations between countries., Materials and Methods: Between July and November 2020, a 58-question survey was distributed to radiation oncologists (ROs) through international professional societies. Changes in RT decision making during the first surge of the pandemic were evaluated across six hypothetical scenarios, including the management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), early-stage, locally advanced, and metastatic BC. The significance of changes in responses before and during the pandemic was examined using chi-square and McNemar-Bowker tests., Results: One thousand one hundred three ROs from 54 countries completed the survey. Incomplete responses (254) were excluded from the analysis. Most respondents were from the United States (285), Japan (117), Italy (63), Canada (58), and Brazil (56). Twenty-one percent (230) of respondents reported treating at least one patient with BC who was COVID-19-positive. Approximately 60% of respondents reported no change in treatment recommendation during the pandemic, except for patients with metastatic disease, for which 57.7% (636/1,103; P < .0005) changed their palliative practice. Among respondents who noted a change in their recommendation during the first surge of the pandemic, omitting, delaying, and adopting short-course RT were the most frequent changes, with most transitioning to moderate hypofractionation for DCIS and early-stage BC., Conclusion: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, significant changes in global RT practice patterns for BC were introduced. The impact of published results from the FAST FORWARD trial supporting ultrahypofractionation likely confounded the interpretation of the pandemic's independent influence on RT delivery.

Importance: The culture of academic medicine may foster mistreatment that disproportionately affects individuals who have been marginalized within a given society (minoritized groups) and compromises workforce vitality. Existing research has been limited by a lack of comprehensive, validated measures, low response rates, and narrow samples as well as comparisons limited to the binary gender categories of male or female assigned at birth (cisgender)., Objective: To evaluate academic medical culture, faculty mental health, and their relationship., Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 830 faculty members in the US received National Institutes of Health career development awards from 2006-2009, remained in academia, and responded to a 2021 survey that had a response rate of 64%. Experiences were compared by gender, race and ethnicity (using the categories of Asian, underrepresented in medicine [defined as race and ethnicity other than Asian or non-Hispanic White], and White), and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ+) status. Multivariable models were used to explore associations between experiences of culture (climate, sexual harassment, and cyber incivility) with mental health., Exposures: Minoritized identity based on gender, race and ethnicity, and LGBTQ+ status., Main Outcomes and Measures: Three aspects of culture were measured as the primary outcomes: organizational climate, sexual harassment, and cyber incivility using previously developed instruments. The 5-item Mental Health Inventory (scored from 0 to 100 points with higher values indicating better mental health) was used to evaluate the secondary outcome of mental health., Results: Of the 830 faculty members, there were 422 men, 385 women, 2 in nonbinary gender category, and 21 who did not identify gender; there were 169 Asian respondents, 66 respondents underrepresented in medicine, 572 White respondents, and 23 respondents who did not report their race and ethnicity; and there were 774 respondents who identified as cisgender and heterosexual, 31 as having LGBTQ+ status, and 25 who did not identify status. Women rated general climate (5-point scale) more negatively than men (mean, 3.68 [95% CI, 3.59-3.77] vs 3.96 [95% CI, 3.88-4.04], respectively, P < .001). Diversity climate ratings differed significantly by gender (mean, 3.72 [95% CI, 3.64-3.80] for women vs 4.16 [95% CI, 4.09-4.23] for men, P < .001) and by race and ethnicity (mean, 4.0 [95% CI, 3.88-4.12] for Asian respondents, 3.71 [95% CI, 3.50-3.92] for respondents underrepresented in medicine, and 3.96 [95% CI, 3.90-4.02] for White respondents, P = .04). Women were more likely than men to report experiencing gender harassment (sexist remarks and crude behaviors) (71.9% [95% CI, 67.1%-76.4%] vs 44.9% [95% CI, 40.1%-49.8%], respectively, P < .001). Respondents with LGBTQ+ status were more likely to report experiencing sexual harassment than cisgender and heterosexual respondents when using social media professionally (13.3% [95% CI, 1.7%-40.5%] vs 2.5% [95% CI, 1.2%-4.6%], respectively, P = .01). Each of the 3 aspects of culture and gender were significantly associated with the secondary outcome of mental health in the multivariable analysis., Conclusions and Relevance: High rates of sexual harassment, cyber incivility, and negative organizational climate exist in academic medicine, disproportionately affecting minoritized groups and affecting mental health. Ongoing efforts to transform culture are necessary.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate United States (US) radiation oncology (RO) program directors' (PDs) attitudes and practices regarding racial/ethnic diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to better understand potential effects on underrepresented in medicine (UIM) residents in RO., Methods and Materials: A 28-item survey was developed using the validated Ethnic Harassment Experiences Scale and the Daily Life Experiences subscale, as well as input from DEI leaders in RO. The survey was institutional review board-approved and administered to RO PDs. PDs were provided with the American Association of Medical Colleges definition of UIM, that is, "Underrepresented in medicine means those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population." Descriptive statistics were used in analysis., Results: The response rate was 71% (64/90). Institutional Culture and Beliefs: 42% responded that they had a department DEI director. A minority (17%, n = 11) agreed "I believe that people from UIM backgrounds have equal access to quality tertiary education in the US." The majority (97%, n = 62) agreed "My program values residents from UIM backgrounds." Support and Resources: The majority (78%, n = 50) agreed "My program has resources in place to assist/provide support for resident physicians from UIM backgrounds." Interview and Recruitment: Most PDs (53%) had not taken part in activities aimed at recruiting UIM residents and 17% had interviewed no UIM applicants in the past 5 years for residency. Resident Experiences of Racism: 17% (n = 11) agreed "UIM residents in my program have reported incidents of racism to me," and 28% (n = 18) agreed "I believe that UIM residents in my program have been treated differently because of their race/ethnicity by faculty, staff, coresidents or patients.", Conclusions: Most PDs reported that they did not believe that UIM residents were treated differently in their department because of their race/ethnicity, and only a minority had received reports of racial discrimination experienced by residents. These data contrast resident experiences and suggest a disconnect between DEI perceptions and resident experiences among US RO PDs that should be addressed through increased programmatic action and evaluation., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In this study, radiation oncology residents were surveyed on perceptions of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in their residency training programs., Methods and Materials: A 23-item survey was developed by the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Equity and Inclusion Subcommittee resident members and faculty advisors. The survey was divided into 4 sections: institutional culture, support and resources, interview and recruitment, and experiences of bias. The survey was sent individually to residents from all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited radiation oncology programs., Results: The survey was issued to 757 residents. A total of 319 residents completed the survey, for a response rate of 42%. All postgraduate years and geographic regions were represented. Significant racial, ethnic, and gender differences were present in survey response patterns. White residents (94%, 164 of 174) and male residents (96%, 186 of 194) were more likely to strongly agree/agree that they were treated with respect by their colleagues and their coworkers than other racial groups (P < .005) or gender groups (P < .008). Only 3% (5 of 174) of White residents strongly agreed/agreed that they were treated unfairly because of their race/ethnicity, while 31% (5 of 16) of Black residents and 10% (9 of 94) of Asian residents strongly agreed/agreed (P < .0001). Similarly, Hispanic residents were more likely to strongly agree/agree (24%, 5 of 21) than non-Hispanic residents (7%, 20 of 298) (P = .003). Regarding mentorship, there were no differences by gender or ethnicity. There were differences by race in residents reporting that they had a supportive mentor (P = .022), with 89% (154 of 174) of White residents who strongly agreed/agreed, 88% (14 of 16) of Black residents, and 91% of Asian residents (86 of 94)., Conclusions: This survey reveals that experiences of support, mentorship, inclusion, and bias vary significantly among radiation oncology residents based on race, ethnicity, and gender. Radiation oncology has opportunity for growth to ensure an equitable experience for all residents., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Phyllodes tumors of the breast are rare fibroepithelial lesions that are classified as benign, borderline or malignant. There is little consensus on best practice for the work-up, management, and follow-up of patients with phyllodes tumors of the breast, and evidence-based guidelines are lacking., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of surgeons and oncologists with the aim to describe current clinical practice in the management of phyllodes tumors. The survey was constructed in REDCap and distributed between July 2021 and February 2022 through international collaborators in sixteen countries across four continents., Results: A total of 419 responses were collected and analyzed. The majority of respondents were experienced and worked in a university hospital. Most agreed to recommend a tumor-free excision margin for benign tumors, increasing margins for borderline and malignant tumors. The multidisciplinary team meeting plays a major role in the treatment plan and follow-up. The vast majority did not consider axillary surgery. There were mixed opinions on adjuvant treatment, with a trend towards more liberal regiments in patients with locally advanced tumors. Most respondents preferred a five-year follow-up period for all phyllodes tumor types., Conclusions: This study shows considerable variation in clinical practice managing phyllodes tumors. This suggests the potential for overtreatment of many patients and the need for education and further research targeting appropriate surgical margins, follow-up time and a multidisciplinary approach. There is a need to develop guidelines that recognize the heterogeneity of phyllodes tumors., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

The promotion of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) is being increasingly pursued in health care, both in general and within radiation oncology. Because bibliometrics is a powerful tool to reveal the scientific literature on a specific topic during a certain timespan, a systematic bibliometric analysis of the documents published on EDI in radiation oncology was performed, aiming at exploring common patterns in research and emerging trends, tracking collaborations and networks, and anticipating future directions in clinical research. Standard descriptive statistics and bibliometric techniques were used in the analysis. A collaboration network and thematic map were generated from the data. Four domains were represented: (1) motor themes, including themes well developed and important for the structuring of the research field; (2) niche themes, representing the isolated topics that do not share important external links with other themes; (3) emerging themes, referring to still weakly developed topics; and (4) basic themes, including the essential topics. EDI in the profession of radiation oncology is essential to ensure that the workforce delivering radiation oncology care both draws from the full talent pool of human capital and delivers the highest quality science and clinical care to all patients. The burgeoning literature on EDI in radiation oncology suggests that a large and growing cohort of scholars within radiation oncology are dedicated to addressing these important challenges., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment have been well-studied in the fields of science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine. However, less is known about these topics and their effect within the profession of medical physics. We aimed to better understand and clarify the views and experiences of practicing medical physicists and medical physics residents regarding gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment., Methods and Materials: We conducted in-depth, semistructured, and confidential interviews with 32 practicing medical physicists and medical physics residents across the United States. The interviews were broad and covered the topics of discrimination, mentorship, and work/life integration. All participants were associated with a department with a residency program accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs and had appointments with a clinical component., Results: Participants shared views about gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment that were polarized. Some perceived that discrimination and harassment were a current concern within medical physics, while some either perceived that they were not a concern or that discrimination positively affected women and minoritized populations. Many participants shared personal experiences of discrimination and harassment, including those related to unequal compensation, discrimination against mothers, discrimination during the hiring process, gender-biased assumptions about behaviors or goals, communication biases, and overt and persistent sexual harassment., Conclusions: There is an urgent need to acknowledge, better understand, and address gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment in the field of medical physics., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned federal protections for abortion rights, making way for states to enact abortion bans with or without exceptions for the health or life of the pregnant patient. Patient care across many areas of medicine including oncology continues to be affected. Although the change in the legal landscape is widely felt, the core ethical considerations for physicians do not change because of restrictions on the practice of medicine. ASCO offers this guidance to assist US oncologists and institutions who must balance limitations with established ethical duties. This paper articulates principles for cancer care and pregnancy, offers a framework for ethical reflection and action for oncologists who care for pregnant patients, and makes recommendations for individual and institutional action to support evidence-based, patient-centered care in the United States where abortion is illegal or access is limited.

Purpose: Patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) are at high risk for financial toxicity (FT), but the nature, extent, and predictors of FT experienced after primary radiation therapy (RT) or surgery are poorly understood., Methods and Materials: We used a population-based sample of patients from the Texas Cancer Registry with stage I to III OPSCC diagnosed from 2006 to 2016 and treated with primary RT or surgery. Of 1,668 eligible patients, 1,600 were sampled, 400 responded, and 396 confirmed OPSCC. Measures included the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Head and Neck, Neck Dissection Impairment Index, and a financial toxicity instrument adapted from the Individualized Cancer Care (iCanCare) study. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated associations of exposures with outcomes., Results: Of 396 analyzable respondents, 269 (68%) received primary RT and 127 (32%) surgery. The median time from diagnosis to survey was 7 years. Due to OPSCC, 54% of patients experienced material sacrifice (including 28% who reduced food spending and 6% who lost their housing), 45% worried about financial problems, and 29% experienced long-term FT. Independent factors associated with more long-term FT included female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-2.40), Black non-Hispanic race (OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.26-7.09), unmarried status (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.11-2.03), feeding tube use (OR, 3.98; 95% CI, 2.29-6.90), and worst versus best quartile on the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Head and Neck (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.23-2.90) and Neck Dissection Impairment Index (OR, 5.62; 95% CI, 3.79-8.34). Factors associated with less long-term FT included age >57 years (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.71; P < .001) and household income ≥$80,000 (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.44-0.82; P = .001). Primary RT versus surgery was not associated with long-term FT (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.68-1.24)., Conclusions: Oropharynx cancer survivors experience high rates of material sacrifice and long-term FT, and we identified important risk factors. Chronic symptom burden was associated with significantly worse long-term financial status, supporting the hypothesis that toxicity mitigation strategies may reduce long-term FT., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Plain Language Summary: Financial toxicity is increasingly being recognized as an important and devastating consequence of cancer treatment that receives little attention when clinical trials are being designed. There is a significant need to obtain this important information in an era of increasingly expensive anticancer treatments. Patients who are informed of all implications of therapy-efficacy, side effects, cost, and broader financial impact-are able to select the best cancer treatment for themselves., (© 2023 American Cancer Society.)