Search

BackgroundIn a recent phase III randomized control trial, delivering a focal radiotherapy (RT) boost to tumors visible on MRI was shown to improve disease-free survival and regional/distant metastasis-free survival for patients with prostate cancer-without increasing toxicity. The aim of this study was to assess how widely this technique is being applied in current practice, as well as physicians' perceived barriers toward its implementation.MethodsWe invited radiation oncologists to complete an online questionnaire assessing their use of intraprostatic focal boost in December 2022 and February 2023. To include perspectives from a broad range of practice settings, the invitation was distributed to radiation oncologists worldwide via email list, group text platform, and social media.Results263 radiation oncologist participants responded. The highest-represented countries were the United States (42%), Mexico (13%), and the United Kingdom (8%). The majority of participants worked at an academic medical center (52%) and considered their practice to be at least partially genitourinary (GU)-subspecialized (74%). Overall, 43% of participants reported routinely using intraprostatic focal boost. Complete GU-subspecialists were more likely to implement focal boost, with 61% reporting routine use. In both high-income and low-to-middle-income countries, less than half of participants routinely use focal boost. The most cited barriers were concerns about registration accuracy between MRI and CT (37%), concerns about risk of additional toxicity (35%), and challenges to accessing high-quality MRI (29%).ConclusionsTwo years following publication of a randomized trial of patient benefit without increased toxicity, almost half of the radiation oncologists surveyed are now routinely offering focal RT boost. Further adoption of this technique might be aided by increased access to high-quality MRI, better registration algorithms of MRI to CT simulation images, physician education on benefit-to-harm ratio, and training on contouring prostate lesions on MRI.

Social media growth has revolutionized health care, facilitating user-friendly, rapid and global sharing of content. Within oncology, this allows for new frontiers in communication for cancer patients, caregivers and healthcare providers. As more physicians engage in online spaces, it is imperative that there are resources to assist in establishing a professional presence on social media. This article describes how to create a social media identity, best practices for engaging both in patient and caregiver spaces and professional communities, and how to address antagonistic and inappropriate behavior on social media with the goal of helping physicians develop an engaging, productive and enjoyable experience online.

PurposeNumerous publications during the COVID-19 pandemic recommended the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy. This project assessed aggregate changes in the quality of the evidence supporting these schedules to establish a comprehensive evidence base for future reference and highlight aspects for future study.Methods and materialsBased on a systematic review of published recommendations related to dose fractionation during the COVID-19 pandemic, 20 expert panelists assigned to 14 disease groups named and graded the highest quality of evidence schedule(s) used routinely for each condition and also graded all COVID-era recommended schedules. The American Society for Radiation Oncology quality of evidence criteria were used to rank the schedules. Process-related statistics and changes in distributions of quality ratings of the highest-rated versus recommended COVID-19 era schedules were described by disease groups and for specific clinical scenarios.ResultsFrom January to May 2020 there were 54 relevant publications, including 233 recommended COVID-19-adapted dose fractionations. For site-specific curative and site-specific palliative schedules, there was a significant shift from established higher-quality evidence to lower-quality evidence and expert opinions for the recommended schedules (P = .022 and P < .001, respectively). For curative-intent schedules, the distribution of quality scores was essentially reversed (highest levels of evidence "pre-COVID" vs "in-COVID": high quality, 51.4% vs 4.8%; expert opinion, 5.6% vs 49.3%), although there was variation in the magnitude of shifts between disease sites and among specific indications.ConclusionsA large number of publications recommended hypofractionated radiation therapy schedules across numerous major disease sites during the COVID-19 pandemic, which were supported by a lower quality of evidence than the highest-quality routinely used dose fractionation schedules. This work provides an evidence-based assessment of these potentially practice-changing recommendations and informs individualized decision-making and counseling of patients. These data could also be used to support radiation therapy practices in the event of second waves or surges of the pandemic in new regions of the world.

PurposeParticipation in cancer support groups can provide a sense of community and may better prepare patients for interactions with their health care team. Online interactions may overcome some barriers to in-person support group participation. #BCSM (breast cancer social media), the first cancer support community established on Twitter, was founded in 2011 by two breast cancer survivors. The aims of this study are to describe the growth and changes in this community and to discuss future directions and lessons that may apply to other online support communities.MethodsSymplur Signals was used to obtain all #BCSM Twitter data from January 1, 2011, to January 1, 2020 (00:00:00 Coordinated Universal Time for both). Hashtag use by selected stakeholder groups, user locations, weekly tweet chat activity, and topics were determined.ResultsFrom year 1 (2011) to year 9 (2019), tweets using the #BCSM hashtag increased by 424%. Tweets by patient advocates increased by 226%, with a peak in 2016. Impressions, a measure of potential tweet views, by patient advocates increased by 517%. Tweets by doctors and nonphysician health care professionals increased by 693%. Weekly #BCSM tweet chat activity peaked in 2013, increasing by 58.1% from 2011. Chat topics have included survivorship, metastatic breast cancer, death and dying, advocacy, and highlights from national breast cancer meetings.Conclusions#BCSM has experienced tremendous growth since 2011, although there are challenges to community sustainability. The weekly chats, as well as discussions utilizing the hashtag but occurring outside of scheduled chat times, serve as an important resource for patients and offer physicians an opportunity to both support and learn from patients.

PurposeOvarian cancer is the most fatal of all gynecologic cancers, with a high relapse rate regardless of stage. Women treated for ovarian cancer, therefore, likely have supportive care needs that extend well beyond the time frame of first-line therapy. Unfortunately, there is minimal data describing these needs. The purpose of this qualitative study is to understand the supportive care needs of women with ovarian care at the end of treatment.MethodsTo better understand the issues faced by women with ovarian cancer, we conducted a public Twitter chat in collaboration with gynecologic cancer social media (#gyncsm). Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed.ResultsThe chat occurred over a 1-hour time frame on Twitter and resulted in more than 300 unique and original tweets from 43 participants during the chat and an additional 60 unique participants following the chat. Survivors and physicians represented 32% and 11% of participants, respectively; caregivers, advocates, and other clinicians represented the remaining participants. Participants noted deep interest in receiving support during survivorship and dissatisfaction with currently available resources. Sentiment analysis showed that participants viewed the support from social media in a positive light and also revealed negative sentiment around the lack of support from health care providers at the end of treatment.ConclusionsThemes derived from the Twitter chat revealed the unique experiences of individuals with ovarian cancer after treatment, including a heightened sense of vulnerability. Understanding these themes represents an opportunity for clinicians to better understand and address the needs of this patient community.

Twitter use by physicians, including those in the hematology-oncology field, is increasing. This microblogging platform provides a means to communicate and collaborate on a global scale. For the oncology professional, an active Twitter presence provides opportunities for continuing medical education, patient engagement and education, personal branding, and reputation management. However, because Twitter is an open, public forum, potential risks such as patient privacy violations, personal information disclosures, professionalism lapses, and time management need to be considered and managed. The authors have summarized the benefits and risks of Twitter use by the hematology-oncology physician. In addition, strategies to maximize benefit and minimize risk are discussed, and resources for additional learning are provided.

* Context.--Pathologists evaluate human disease and teach medical students, residents, and clinicians. Historically recognized as the 'doctor's doctor,' pathologists are well suited to be a direct patient resource of individualized, accurate information. Objective.--To develop and implement a pathology consultation service whereby patients review their tissue slides directly with pathologists. Design.--A pathologist conducted patient consultations, reviewing biopsy or surgery findings on a multiheaded microscope or computer screen. The pathologist evaluated patients' understanding of their disease and invited patients to ask specific questions. We recorded patient demographic data and assessed utilization with a short patient satisfaction survey using 6 questions with a 5-point Likert scale and 2 questions for open response. Results.--A total of 31 patients came for consultation; 39% (12 of 31) were accompanied by a friend or family member. Patients' median age was 59 years, with a strong female predominance (90%; 28 of 31). The majority of patients had breast cancer (58%; 18 of 31) or hematologic malignancy (19%; 6 of 31). Of the 31 patients, the survey response rate was 58% (18 of 31). Top-box scoring demonstrated program support, with 89% (16 of 18) of respondents strongly recommending the experience to another patient. Additionally, 78% (14 of 18) strongly agreed that they felt more empowered after seeing their disease. Mean scores for Likert-based questions all were higher than 4.0. Conclusions.--To our knowledge, this study is the first report of direct patient-pathologist consultation. Early data suggest that the program may provide effective patient-specific education. The high response rate and favorable assessment of the program suggest that it may be a valuable resource for some patients. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019;143:852-858; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2018-0379-OA), The relatively rapid evolution of molecular diagnosis and molecular therapeutics, and the even more recent rise of immunodiagnostics and immunotherapeutics, has provided pathologists with unprecedented opportunities to more fully engage [...]

BackgroundThe Brain Tumor Social Media (#BTSM) Twitter hashtag was founded in February 2012 as a disease-specific hashtag for patients with brain tumor. ObjectiveTo understand #BTSM’s role as a patient support system, we describe user descriptors, growth, interaction, and content sharing. MethodsWe analyzed all tweets containing #BTSM from 2012 to 2018 using the Symplur Signals platform to obtain data and to describe Symplur-defined user categories, tweet content, and trends in use over time. We created a network plot with all publicly available retweets involving #BTSM in 2018 to visualize key stakeholders and their connections to other users. ResultsFrom 2012 to 2018, 59,764 unique users participated in #BTSM, amassing 298,904 tweets. The yearly volume of #BTSM tweets increased by 264.57% from 16,394 in 2012 to 43,373 in 2018 with #BTSM constantly trending in the top 15 list of disease hashtags, as well the top 15 list of tweet chats. Patient advocates generated the most #BTSM tweets (33.13%), while advocacy groups, caregivers, doctors, and researchers generated 7.01%, 4.63%, 3.86%, and 3.37%, respectively. Physician use, although still low, has increased over time. The 2018 network plot of retweets including #BTSM identifies a number of key stakeholders from the patient advocate, patient organization, and medical researcher domains and reveals the extent of their reach to other users. ConclusionsFrom its start in 2012, #BTSM has grown exponentially over time. We believe its growth suggests its potential as a global source of brain tumor information on Twitter for patients, advocates, patient organizations as well as health care professionals and researchers.

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of conspiracy theories have emerged. A popular theory posits that the pandemic is a hoax and suggests that certain hospitals are “empty.” Research has shown that accepting conspiracy theories increases the likelihood that an individual may ignore government advice about social distancing and other public health interventions. Due to the possibility of a second wave and future pandemics, it is important to gain an understanding of the drivers of misinformation and strategies to mitigate it. ObjectiveThis study set out to evaluate the #FilmYourHospital conspiracy theory on Twitter, attempting to understand the drivers behind it. More specifically, the objectives were to determine which online sources of information were used as evidence to support the theory, the ratio of automated to organic accounts in the network, and what lessons can be learned to mitigate the spread of such a conspiracy theory in the future. MethodsTwitter data related to the #FilmYourHospital hashtag were retrieved and analyzed using social network analysis across a 7-day period from April 13-20, 2020. The data set consisted of 22,785 tweets and 11,333 Twitter users. The Botometer tool was used to identify accounts with a higher probability of being bots. ResultsThe most important drivers of the conspiracy theory are ordinary citizens; one of the most influential accounts is a Brexit supporter. We found that YouTube was the information source most linked to by users. The most retweeted post belonged to a verified Twitter user, indicating that the user may have had more influence on the platform. There was a small number of automated accounts (bots) and deleted accounts within the network. ConclusionsHashtags using and sharing conspiracy theories can be targeted in an effort to delegitimize content containing misinformation. Social media organizations need to bolster their efforts to label or remove content that contains misinformation. Public health authorities could enlist the assistance of influencers in spreading antinarrative content.

BackgroundRespecting patient privacy and confidentiality is critical for doctor-patient relationships and public trust in medical professionals. The frequency of potentially identifiable disclosures online during periods of active engagement is unknown. ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to quantify potentially identifiable content shared on social media by physicians and other health care providers using the hashtag #ShareAStoryInOneTweet. MethodsWe accessed and searched Twitter’s API using Symplur software for tweets that included the hashtag #ShareAStoryInOneTweet. We identified 1206 tweets by doctors, nurses, and other health professionals out of 43,374 tweets shared in May 2018. Tweet content was evaluated in January 2019 to determine the incidence of instances where names or potentially identifiable information about patients were shared; content analysis of tweets in which information about others had been disclosed was performed. The study also evaluated whether participants raised concerns about privacy breaches and estimated the frequency of deleted tweets. The study used dual, blinded coding for a 10% sample to estimate intercoder reliability using Cohen κ statistic for identifying the potential identifiability of tweet content. ResultsHealth care professionals (n=656) disclosing information about others included 486 doctors (74.1%) and 98 nurses (14.9%). Health care professionals sharing stories about patient care disclosed the time frame in 95 tweets (95/754, 12.6%) and included patient names in 15 tweets (15/754, 2.0%). It is estimated that friends or families could likely identify the clinical scenario described in 242 of the 754 tweets (32.1%). Among 348 tweets about potentially living patients, it was estimated that 162 (46.6%) were likely identifiable by patients. Intercoder reliability in rating the potential identifiability demonstrated 86.8% agreement, with a Cohen κ of 0.8 suggesting substantial agreement. We also identified 78 out of 754 tweets (6.5%) that had been deleted on the website but were still viewable in the analytics software data set. ConclusionsDuring periods of active sharing online, nurses, physicians, and other health professionals may sometimes share more information than patients or families might expect. More study is needed to determine whether similar events arise frequently and to understand how to best ensure that patients’ rights are adequately respected.

Purpose: Workforce shortages will impact oncologists' ability to provide both active and survivorship care. While primary care provider (PCP) or survivorship clinic transition has been emphasized, there is little evidence regarding patient comfort. Methods: We developed an online survey in partnership with patient advocates to assess survivors' comfort with PCP or survivorship clinic care and distributed the survey to online, cancer-specific patient communities from June to August 2020. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results: A total of 975 surveys were complete. Most respondents were women (91%) and had private insurance (65%). Thirty-six cancer types were reported. Ninety-three percent had a PCP. Twenty-four percent were comfortable seeing a PCP for survivorship care. Higher odds of comfort were seen among respondents who were Black or had stage 0 cancer; female sex was associated with lower odds. Fifty-five percent were comfortable with a survivorship clinic. Higher odds of comfort were seen with lymphoma or ovarian cancer, > 15 years from diagnosis, and non-US government insurance. Lower odds were seen with melanoma, advanced stage, Medicaid insurance, and one late effect. Preference for PCP care was 87% for general health, 32% for recurrence monitoring, and 37% for late effect management. Conclusions: One quarter of cancer survivors were comfortable with PCP-led survivorship care and about half with a survivorship clinic. Most preferred oncologist care for recurrence monitoring and late-effect management. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Patient preference and comfort should be considered when developing survivorship care models. Future efforts should focus on facilitating patient-centered transitions to non-oncologist care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]