An urgent call to raise the bar in oncology

Important breakthroughs in medical treatments have improved outcomes for patients suffering from several types of cancer. However, many oncological treatments approved by regulatory agencies are of low value and do not contribute significantly to cancer mortality reduction, but lead to unrealistic patient expectations and push even affluent societies to unsustainable health care costs. Several factors that contribute to approvals of low-value oncology treatments are addressed, including issues with clinical trials, bias in reporting, regulatory agency shortcomings and drug pricing. With the COVID-19 pandemic enforcing the elimination of low-value interventions in all fields of medicine, efforts should urgently be made by all involved in cancer care to select only high-value and sustainable interventions. Transformation of medical education, improvement in clinical trial design, quality, conduct and reporting, strict adherence to scientific norms by regulatory agencies and use of value-based scales can all contribute to raising the bar for oncology drug approvals and influence drug pricing and availability.

Development of an Art of Oncology Curriculum to Mitigate Burnout and Foster Solidarity Among Hematology/Oncology Fellows

PURPOSE

Oncologists and fellows in hematology/oncology (HO) training programs report high levels of burnout. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires accredited programs to have a mechanism to foster well-being among fellows.

METHODS

Through an iterative process involving a multidisciplinary committee, we created a 3-year longitudinal Art of Oncology (AOO) curriculum intended to address burnout and foster solidary among HO fellows. Sessions used narratives to promote the formation of a shared mental model through discussion of the mutual experience of caring for patients with cancer. We tested the feasibility, acceptability, and initial effectiveness of implementing the curriculum into traditional didactic lectures as a pilot intervention from 2018 to 2019. Eight sessions were completed.

RESULTS

Sixteen fellows participated. Most were married (63%) and planned on pursuing careers in academic medicine (75%). The sample was racially and ethnically diverse (31% minority representation). Thirty-eight percent of fellows reported burnout symptoms. AOO sessions had higher attendance than didactic lectures (P = .04). Of 14 fellows who completed all follow-up assessments (87.5% response rate), 93% (13 of 14 fellows) felt the sessions were very or somewhat helpful and that sessions improved solidarity. Preparedness in managing work-life balance significantly improved (paired t test, mean difference, 0.53; P = .04). Measured levels of burnout did not significantly improve from baseline (mean difference, -0.133; P = .67). Work-life balance was associated with burnout on multivariable analysis (coefficient, 0.40; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

The implementation of a dedicated AOO curriculum is feasible and viewed as helpful by HO fellows. Larger studies are needed to assess the efficacy of this curricular intervention.

Conflict of interest: "Be rigorous in judging ourselves and gracious in judging others"

The recent New York Times article with the banner headline Top Cancer Researcher Fails to Disclose Corporate Financial Ties in Major Research Journals and the subsequent discussion about Dr. Jose Baselga [...]