Search

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.

Radiotherapy has become much better targeted since the 1980s, improving both safety and efficacy. In breast cancer, radiotherapy to regional lymph nodes aims to reduce risks of recurrence and death. Its effects have been studied in randomised trials, some before the 1980s and some after. We aimed to assess the effects of regional node radiotherapy in these two eras.

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.

Anthracycline–taxane chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer substantially improves survival compared with no chemotherapy. However, concerns about short-term and long-term side-effects of anthracyclines have led to increased use of taxane chemotherapy without anthracycline, which could compromise efficacy. We aimed to better characterise the benefits and risks of including anthracycline, and the comparative benefits of different anthracycline–taxane regimens.

In 2022, the Association of American Medical Colleges published data from its annual Dean’s Office Staff Compensation and Dean’s Compensation Surveys in a new report addressing salary equity among medical school leadership. These data, disaggregated by gender and race/ethnicity, represent earnings of the senior most leaders in the dean suite and have historically been shared only with medical school Deans and principal business officers. The report shows that the highest-ranking decanal positions in U.S. medical schools are filled along the lines of traditional gender stereotypes (with men in clinical affairs and research affairs deanships and women in admissions, diversity affairs, faculty affairs, and student affairs deanships) and that the roles held mostly by men carry grander titles (e.g., senior associate dean vs assistant dean) and significantly higher salaries than those typically held by women. Additionally, within the same decanal positions, women earn lower median compensation than men.In this commentary, the authors describe limited advancement and lower compensation as foregone conclusions for women in medicine and science due to a professional model that places a premium on activities traditionally pursued by men. They define and characterize the impact of this occupational gender segregation in the dean suite and offer a roadmap for an alternative value system that recognizes complementary leadership activities across the mission areas of academic medicine and ensures that the contributions of women in the profession are appropriately recognized, valued, and rewarded.

Productivity in medical academia encompasses research output impact, and professional influence, with the Hirsch index (h-index) serving as a key metric. H-index measures the number of publications (x) cited at least x times. While prior research in radiation oncology has explored the h-index's influence on career trajectories and academic rank, its connection with academic promotion remains underexplored. This study systematically delves into the relationship between the h-index and academic promotion through a comprehensive analysis of a nationwide cohort.

Background: Concerns have been raised about the career pipeline in academic medicine, including whether women with a demonstrated commitment to research succeed at the same rate as male colleagues. Objective: To determine the subsequent academic success of recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) career development awards. Setting: United States. Participants: 2784 of 2799 (99.5%) recipients of K08 and K23 awards for whom sex could be ascertained from the NIH Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects database and other publicly available sources. Measurements: Actuarial rates at which recipients of K08 and K23 awards from 1997 to 2003 went on to receive R01 awards. Sex-specific rates of R01 award attainment were calculated by using the Kaplan--Meier method, and sex differences were assessed by using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Overall, 31.4% of the 1919 K08 awardees and 43.7% of the 865 K23 awardees were female (P < 0.001). Women were less likely than men to receive an R01 award (P < 0.001). The actuarial rate of R01 award attainment at 5 years was 22.7% overall, 18.8% among women, and 24.8% among men. At 10 years, the rate was 42.5% overall, 36.2% among women, and 45.6% among men. Sex persisted as an independent significant predictor of R01 award attainment (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.92]; P = 0.002) in multivariate analysis controlling for K award type, year of award, funding institute, institution, and specialty. Limitation: Whether the lower rate of R01 award achievement among women is due to lower rates of application or lower rates of success in application could not be determined. Conclusion: Only a minority of K awardees studied achieved R01 award funding during the period assessed, and a significant sex disparity was evident.

Background Few studies have evaluated the association between patient decision involvement and surgery received among racially and ethnically diverse patients or patients' attitudes about surgery and the role of family and friends in surgical treatment choices. Methods Women diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer from June 2005 through February 2007 and reported to the Los Angeles or Detroit Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries were mailed a survey after diagnosis (N = 3133). Latina and African American women were oversampled. The response rate was 72.4%. The analytic sample (N = 1651) excluded those with stage IliA or higher disease, self-reported clinical contraindications to breast-conserving surgery with radiation, and unclear race or ethnicity. The dependent variable was receipt of mastectomy initially. The primary independent variables were patient involvement in decision making, race or ethnicity, attitudes about recurrence, the effects of radiation, the impact of surgery on body image, and the role of others in decision making. Latinas were categorized as low or high acculturated. The association between patient involvement in decision making and the receipt of mastectomy was evaluated using logistic regression while controlling for other independent variables. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results The analytic sample was 23.9% Latina (12.0% low acculturated, 11.9% high acculturated), 27.1% African American, and 48.9% white, and 17.2% received a mastectomy initially. For each racial or ethnic group, more women who reported a patient-based decision received mastectomy than those who reported a shared or surgeon-based decision (P = .022 for low-acculturated Latinas, P< .001 for other groups). Women who reported that concerns about recurrence or radiation effects were very important in their surgery decision were more likely to receive mastectomy than those less concerned (for recurrence concerns, estimated relative risk [RR] = 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.28 to 2.10; for radiation concerns, estimated RR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.88 to 2.85). Women who reported that body image concerns and their spouse's opinion were very important in their surgery decision less often received mastectomy than those less concerned about body image or who placed less weight on their spouse's opinion (for body image concerns, estimated RR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.74; for spouse's opinion, estimated RR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.78). Conclusion Greater patient involvement in decision making was associated with receipt of mastectomy for all racial and ethnic groups. Patient attitudes about surgery and the opinions of family and friends contribute to surgical choices made by women with breast cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Understanding whether physicians accurately detect symptoms in patients with breast cancer is important because recognition of symptoms facilitates supportive care, and clinical trials often rely on physician assessments using Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). OBJECTIVE: To compare the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of patients with breast cancer who received radiotherapy from January 1, 2012, to March 31, 2020, with physicians’ CTCAE assessments to assess underrecognition of symptoms. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study included a total of 29 practices enrolled in the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium quality initiative. Of 13 725 patients with breast cancer who received treatment with radiotherapy after undergoing lumpectomy, 9941 patients (72.4%) completed at least 1 PRO questionnaire during treatment with radiotherapy and were evaluated for the study. Of these, 9868 patients (99.3%) were matched to physician CTCAE assessments that were completed within 3 days of the PRO questionnaires. EXPOSURES: Patient and physician ratings of 4 symptoms (pain, pruritus, edema, and fatigue) were compared. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We used multilevel multivariable logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with symptom underrecognition, hypothesizing that it would be more common in racial and ethnic minority groups. RESULTS: Of 9941 patients, all were female, 1655 (16.6%) were Black, 7925 (79.7%) were White, and 361 (3.6%) had Other race and ethnicity (including American Indian/Alaska Native, Arab/Middle Eastern, and Asian), either as self-reported or as indicated in the electronic medical record. A total of 1595 (16.0%) were younger than 50 years, 2874 (28.9%) were age 50 to 59 years, 3353 (33.7%) were age 60 to 69 years, and 2119 (21.3%) were 70 years or older. Underrecognition of symptoms existed in 2094 of 6781 (30.9%) observations of patient-reported moderate/severe pain, 748 of 2039 observations (36.7%) of patient-reported frequent pruritus, 2309 of 4492 observations (51.4%) of patient-reported frequent edema, and 390 of 2079 observations (18.8%) of patient-reported substantial fatigue. Underrecognition of at least 1 symptom occurred at least once for 2933 of 5510 (53.2%) of those who reported at least 1 substantial symptom. Factors independently associated with underrecognition were younger age (younger than 50 years compared with 60-69 years: odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.14-1.59; P &lt; .001; age 50-59 years compared with 60-69 years: OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.37; P = .02), race (Black individuals compared with White individuals: OR, 1.56; 95% CI 1.30-1.88; P &lt; .001; individuals with Other race or ethnicity compared with White individuals: OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.12-2.07; P = .01), conventional fractionation (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.10-1.45; P = .002), male physician sex (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.20-1.99; P = .002), and 2-field radiotherapy (without a supraclavicular field) (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.97; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this cohort study suggest that PRO collection may be essential for trials because relying on the CTCAE to detect adverse events may miss important symptoms. Moreover, since physicians in this study systematically missed substantial symptoms in certain patients, including younger patients and Black individuals or those of Other race and ethnicity, improving symptom detection may be a targetable mechanism to reduce disparities.

A comprehensive guide to past, present, and future therapeutic approaches for patients with advanced melanoma.

US academic radiation oncology is <5% underrepresented minorities; men are significantly overrepresented among senior faculty.

As the nation seeks to recruit and retain physician-scientists, gaps remain in understanding and addressing mitigatable challenges to the success of faculty from underrepresented minority (URM) backgrounds. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists program, implemented in 2015 at 10 academic medical centers in the United States, seeks to retain physician-scientists at risk of leaving science because of periods of extraordinary family caregiving needs, hardships that URM faculty—especially those who identify as female—are more likely to experience. At the annual Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists program directors conference in 2018, program directors—21% of whom identify as URM individuals and 13% as male—addressed issues that affect URM physician-scientists in particular. Key issues that threaten the retention of URM physician-scientists were identified through focused literature reviews; institutional environmental scans; and structured small- and large-group discussions with program directors, staff, and participants. These issues include bias and discrimination, personal wealth differential, the minority tax(i.e., service burdens placed on URM faculty who represent URM perspectives on committees and at conferences), lack of mentorship training, intersectionality and isolation, concerns about confirming stereotypes, and institutional-level factors. The authors present recommendations for how to create an environment in which URM physician-scientists can expect equitable opportunities to thrive, as institutions demonstrate proactive allyship and remove structural barriers to success. Recommendations include providing universal training to reduce interpersonal bias and discrimination, addressing the consequences of the personal wealth gap through financial counseling and benefits, measuring the service faculty members provide to the institution as advocates for URM faculty issues and compensating them appropriately, supporting URM faculty who wish to engage in national leadership programs, and sustaining institutional policies that address structural and interpersonal barriers to inclusive excellence.

A study is conducted to determine whether a junior faculty mentoring program is beneficial to participants and to identify particular positive and negative aspects of such a program to enable others to institute similar programs. The results indicated that the faculty mentoring program had significant benefits for everyone who participated.

Although the number of Hispanic/Latina women earning medical degrees has increased in recent years, the article by Anaya and colleagues in this issue highlights their stark underrepresentation in the U.S. physician workforce. In this Invited Commentary, the authors provide context on proposed drivers of underrepresentation, including bias, discrimination, harassment, and other structural barriers, which are amplified for women with multiple minoritized identities. They summarize the 2020 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recommendations for supporting women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) fields, including committed leadership, dedicated financial and human resources, data-driven accountability, and use of an intersectional approach to address the challenges faced by individuals who encounter multiple forms of bias and discrimination. The authors also provide additional recommendations and highlight innovative new National Institutes of Health funding opportunities to promote diversity in the scientific workforce. They argue that more research is needed to identify and best implement institutional practices that increase representation and retention of Latina women and other women with minoritized identities in STEMM fields.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Multiple randomized trials and their meta-analysis have demonstrated an overall survival benefit from postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) in women with node-positive breast cancer. However, none of the patients treated in these trials received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is now an increasingly common approach. It is unclear how best to apply data from trials conducted in patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy to this population. To illuminate these issues, this article first reviews the history of PMRT and the current indications for its use based on contemporary data. It focuses on the ways in which staging and outcomes differ for patients who undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy before mastectomy (as compared with those who receive postoperative adjuvant therapy) and how pathologic features such as response to therapy are correlated with recurrence and survival outcomes. It highlights key information obtained from analysis of the pooled data from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) prospective neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials B-18 and B-27 and separate retrospective single-institution studies; this includes the low risk of locoregional recurrence in early-stage patients in whom a pathologic complete response (pCR) was achieved after neoadjuvant chemotherapy without PMRT and the high risk of recurrence in patients with stage III disease, even in the setting of a pCR. It also discusses the ongoing NSABP B-51/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 1304 and Alliance A011202 trials, which will provide information on whether PMRT can be omitted in patients who have a pathologic complete response (pCR) in the lymph nodes, and whether axillary lymph node dissection will improve recurrence rates compared with sentinel lymph node biopsy and radiotherapy in patients who do not achieve a pCR in the lymph nodes. Finally, it identifies directions for future research., Rationale For and Against Postmastectomy Radiotherapy Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) has been investigated in a number of trials over the past few decades as a strategy to improve outcomes in women [...]

IMPORTANCE: There is currently no guidance on how to approach surveillance mammography for older breast cancer survivors, particularly when life expectancy is limited. OBJECTIVE: To develop expert consensus guidelines that facilitate tailored decision-making for routine surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older. EVIDENCE: After a literature review of the risk of ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events among breast cancer survivors and the harms and benefits associated with mammography, a multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop consensus guidelines on surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older. Using an iterative consensus-based approach, input from clinician focus groups, and critical review by the International Society for Geriatric Oncology, the guidelines were refined and finalized. FINDINGS: The literature review established a low risk for ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events in most older breast cancer survivors and summarized the benefits and harms associated with mammography. Draft mammography guidelines were iteratively evaluated by the expert panel and clinician focus groups, emphasizing a patient’s risk for in-breast cancer events, age, life expectancy, and personal preferences. The final consensus guidelines recommend discontinuation of routine mammography for all breast cancer survivors when life expectancy is less than 5 years, including those with a history of high-risk cancers; consideration to discontinue mammography when life expectancy is 5 to 10 years; and continuation of mammography when life expectancy is more than 10 years. Individualized, shared decision-making is encouraged to optimally tailor recommendations after weighing the benefits and harms associated with surveillance mammography and patient preferences. The panel also recommends ongoing clinical breast examinations and diagnostic mammography to evaluate clinical findings and symptoms, with reassurance for patients that these practices will continue. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: It is anticipated that these expert guidelines will enhance clinical practice by providing a framework for individualized discussions, facilitating shared decision-making regarding surveillance mammography for breast cancer survivors 75 years or older.

Unpublished randomized controlled trial (RCT) frequency, correlates, and financial impact are not well understood. We sought to characterize the nonpublication of peer-reviewed manuscripts among interventional, therapeutic, multi-arm, phase 3 oncology RCTs. Trials were identified by searching ClinicalTrials.gov, while publications and abstracts were identified through PubMed and Google Scholar. Trial data were extracted from ClinicalTrials.govand individual publications. Publication was defined as a peer-reviewed manuscript addressing the primary endpoint. Patient accrual cost was extrapolated from experimental data; investigators/sponsors were contacted to determine nonpublication reasons. Six hundred eighty-four completed RCTs met inclusion criteria, which accrued 434,610 patients from 1994 to 2015; 638 were published (93.3%) and 46 were unpublished (6.7%). Among the unpublished trials, the time difference from primary endpoint maturity to data abstraction was a median of 6 years (interquartile range, 4 to 8 years). On multiple binary logistic regression analysis, factors associated with unpublished trials included lack of cooperative group sponsorship (odds ratio, 5.91, 95% CI, 1.35 to 25.97; P=.019) and supportive care investigation (odds ratio, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.13 to 7.41; P=.027). The estimated inflation-adjusted average cost of patient accrual for all unpublished trials was $113,937,849 (range, $41,136,883 to $320,201,063). Direct contact with sponsors/investigators led to a 50.0% response rate (n=23 of 46); manuscript in preparation and/or in submission (n=10 of 23) was the most commonly cited reason for nonpublication. In conclusion, approximately 1 in 15 clinical oncology RCTs are unpublished and this has a profound impact on the research enterprise. The cooperative group infrastructure may serve as a blueprint to reduce nonpublication.

The Hedwig van Ameringen Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine (ELAM) Program for Women is designed to promote the careers of senior female leaders in academic health care in a way that ultimately seeks to transform culture and promote gender equity far beyond the careers of its participants. In an era of increased awareness of gender inequity within academic medicine, the longevity of the ELAM program raises several important questions. First, why is such a program still needed? Second, what exactly does it do, and what has been its influence on its participants and beyond? And third, what lessons can ELAM’s example provide to help guide the medical profession as it strives to promote gender equity in the field? In this Invited Commentary, the authors seek to answer these questions from the perspective of a recent program participant and the current program director. The authors review the evidence that identifies how women, even today, face accumulating disadvantage over the course of their academic careers, stemming from repeated encounters with powerful unconscious biases and stereotypes, societal expectations for a gendered division of domestic labor, and still-present overt discrimination and sexual harassment. They describe ELAM’s approach, which builds the knowledge and skills of the women who participate in the program, while also intentionally raising their visibility within their home institutions so that they have opportunities to share with institutional leaders what they have learned in ways that not only promote their own careers but also support gender equity in the broader environment. The authors conclude by offering thoughts on how ELAM’s model may be leveraged in the future, ideally in partnership with the numerous professional societies, funding agencies, and other organizations that are committed to accelerating the rate of progress toward gender equity at all levels of academic medicine.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

'Harassment is more common in organizations that have been male-dominated, such as hospitals and medical practices. Many women in healthcare face harassment not only from co-workers, but also from patients, [...]

IMPORTANCE: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically changed the US health care system, causing an influx of patients who require resources. Many oncologists are having challenging conversations with their patients about how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting cancer care and may desire evidence-based communication guidance. OBJECTIVES: To identify the clinical scenarios that pose communication challenges, understand patient reactions to these scenarios, and develop a communication guide with sample responses. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This qualitative study that was conducted at a single Midwestern academic medical center invited physicians to respond to a brief semistructured interview by email or telephone and then disseminated an anonymous online survey among patients with cancer. Oncology-specific, COVID-19–related clinical scenarios were identified by the physicians, and potential reactions to these scenarios were gleaned from the patient responses to the survey. Health communication experts were invited to participate in the iterative development of a communication guide, comprising 3 essential communication principles and strategies and informed by insights from physicians and patients. This study was conducted from March 25, 2020, to April 2, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Expert review, interviews, and surveys assessing challenging situations specific to cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Oncology-specific, COVID-19–related clinical scenarios from physician interviews; responses to each scenario from patient surveys; and applicable communication principles from health communication expert literature review. RESULTS: Of the 8 physicians who participated in interviews, 4 were men (50%) and 4 were women (50%). These physicians represented the following disciplines: internal medicine (n = 1), hematology/oncology (n = 2), radiation oncology (n = 3), and surgical oncology (n = 2). Their disease site specialization included cancers of the breast, head and neck, melanoma, and gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts. A total of 48 patients with cancer completed the online survey; no demographic information was collected from the patients. The physicians identified 8 oncology-specific, COVID-19–related scenarios in which communication might be challenging: (1) worse outcomes from COVID-19, (2) delay in cancer screening, (3) delay in diagnostic workup, (4) delay in initiation of treatment, (5) offer of nonstandard treatment, (6) treatment breaks, (7) delay in follow-up imaging or care, and (8) inability to be admitted into the hospital for management. Potential patient reactions to each of these scenarios were compiled from survey responses. For most scenarios, patient reactions involved anger, fear, and anxiety (eg, “I’m scared”; “This isn’t fair. I am upset.”). These emotional patient responses informed the selection of the 3 general communication principles, which suggested language and strategies that physicians can use to respond to patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this qualitative study, physicians and patients identified communication needs used by health communication experts to inform the development of a practical, evidence-based communication guide for oncology care during the COVID-19 pandemic.