Summary
Treatment paradigms for bladder (UC) and kidney (RCC) cancers is evolving with the advent of novel treatment approaches, personalized medicine, and combinatorial strategies. As the medical literature in the space evolves, identifying oncologists’ (oncs) and urologists’ (uros) educational gaps is important to inform continuing medical education (CME) needs and, ultimately, to improve patient outcomes.
Original Article
Insights on oncologist and urologist gaps in bladder (UC) and kidney (RCC) cancer education.
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Kinjal Parikh, Pan Chen
Abstract:
Background: Treatment paradigms for bladder (UC) and kidney (RCC) cancers is evolving with the advent of novel treatment approaches, personalized medicine, and combinatorial strategies. As the medical literature in the space evolves, identifying oncologists’ (oncs) and urologists’ (uros) educational gaps is important to inform continuing medical education (CME) needs and, ultimately, to improve patient outcomes. Methods: Medscape Oncology conducted a 16 question, online, incentivized survey in June 2020 targeting genitourinary (GU) cancer physicians. Respondents’ confidentiality was maintained and responses were de-identified and aggregated for analysis. Results: Results are reported for 100 respondents (50 oncs & 50 uros): In UC: Learners identified CME as mostly/very important for: Managing treatment related adverse events (trAEs) – 84% Clinical trial outcomes – 77% Timely/appropriate biomarker testing – 68% Understanding mechanism of action (MOA) and rationale of novel agents – 66% Treatment planning CME was considered mostly/very important for: All stages: non-muscle invasive (NMIBC), muscle-invasive (MIBC), and first line (1L) metastatic – 72%, 85%, 92% respectively Determining the optimal role for immunotherapy (IO) – 82% Sequencing therapies – 72% In subgroup analyses More oncs vs. uros identified biomarker testing and treatment selection as mostly/very important (p < .01) More general oncs vs. GU oncs identified education on clinical trial outcomes and sequencing of therapies as mostly/very important (p < .05) More uros vs. oncs identified NMIBC treatment education as mostly/very important (p < .01) More low vs. high volume treaters identified education on sequencing and MIBC as mostly/very important (p < .01) Rating % very experienced: Counseling on trAEs – 41% but mitigating AEs of FGFR therapies, ADCs, or IO was only: 16%, 19%, and 26% respectively In RCC: Learners identified CME as mostly/very important for: Selecting optimal 1L therapy – 80% Clinical trial outcomes – 77% Sequencing therapies – 69% Managing trAEs – 64% Understanding MOA and rationale of novel agents – 62% In subgroup analyses More general oncs vs. GU oncs identified importance of education on clinical trial outcomes and 1L treatment selection (p < .05) More low vs. high volume treaters identified importance of education on 1L treatment selection and clinical trial outcomes (p < .05) Rating % very experienced: Counseling on trAEs – 30% but mitigating AEs of targeted therapy or IO was only: 22% and 23% respectively Determining risk score – 22% Selecting 1L therapy – 28%. Conclusions: Medscape Oncology surveys provide valuable information to guide education for oncs and uros and individualize education unique to their treatment setting, patient volume, and practice coverage.