Current Oncology

Background: There is an insufficient knowledge base for optimal parenteral nutrition (PN) use for patients with incurable cancer, leading to vague guidelines and varied practices. The aim of the study is to describe the practices and actual outcomes of PN in patients with incurable cancer at Norwegian hospitals. Methods: This multicentre study retrospectively reviewed 507 deceased patients (>18 years) receiving PN between 2011 and 2017. Data were collected from PN initiation until death, and analyses were descriptive. Results: Fifty-one percent had upper and lower gastrointestinal cancers, and the main PN indications were insufficient intake (75%) and gastrointestinal malfunction (47%). Sixty-seven percent received no anticancer treatment. Forty-three (8%) received PN as temporary bridging to anticancer treatment, of whom fifteen (35%) resumed or initiated treatment. The median PN dose corresponded to 53% of estimated energy requirements, and 94% of the patients had complementary energy intake. The most common reason for discontinuation was expected imminent death (47%). While common symptoms during PN were nausea (52%), vomiting (46%), and oedema (37%), 15% reported improved wellbeing. Conclusions: In this real-world cohort, up to 80% of the patients would not meet the eligibility criteria of previous trials due to cancer diagnosis and treatment, gastrointestinal tract function, weight loss criteria or complications such as ascites. This study highlights the heterogeneity in how patients with incurable cancer receive PN, and emphasises the importance of individualised PN treatment, carefully and safely managed to meet the patients’ palliative care situation. Future real-world pragmatic patient-centred protocols bridging the gap between clinical trials and patients in clinical practice are warranted.

Background: This study’s objective was to be the first to explore the ethnicity/cultural origins, gender identity, ability/disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background, and harassment/discrimination experiences of Canadian radiation oncologists (ROs). Methods: Following a literature review and input from content experts, an ethics-approved national cross-sectional electronic survey was developed in English and French and electronically distributed to all ROs in Canada (n = 598). Descriptive statistics summarized responses. Comparisons between groups were performed using Chi-square tests, and content analysis was performed on open-ended responses. Results: The survey was completed in full by 42.5% of ROs (254/598). Most respondents were male (62.9%), 35–44 years old (39.2%), and heterosexual (94.3%). 41.2% identified as belonging to a racialized group, which is higher than the overall Canadian population (27%), but Black, Indigenous, and Southeast Asian ROs were underrepresented (1.9% vs. 4%, <1% vs. 5% and 1.6% compared to 4%, respectively). A significant subset analysis showed that only 20% (21/105) of racialized ROs were women, whereas Caucasian women comprised 49.3% (74/150) of Caucasian respondents (p < 0.001). While 75.4% of respondents reported job satisfaction, 42.1% reported experiencing workplace discrimination/harassment within the past 5 years; most commonly, this was perpetrated by fellow faculty (31.7%; 58/183) or patients or their family members (31.7%; 58/183). Respondents felt that gender, race/ethnicity, and age were the three top reasons for discrimination/harassment, with double the amount of racialized ROs reporting harassment compared to White ROs (p < 0.001). Nearly half (45.2%; 114/252) did not understand how to report, or felt uncomfortable reporting, workplace discrimination/harassment. Conclusions: This study highlights high harassment and discrimination rates amongst Canadian ROs, especially amongst racialized women, which may affect career satisfaction and attrition rates. Compared to census data, Black, Indigenous, and Southeast Asian ROs were underrepresented, and amongst racialized ROs, racialized women were significantly underrepresented. These findings underscore the need for targeted diversity initiatives, improved mentorship programs, and stronger institutional policies to address harassment and foster an inclusive work environment.

Introduction/Background: Treatment of localized prostate cancer includes radical prostatectomy (RP) with or without pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND). While multiple guidelines recommend PLND for staging purposes, recent data has shown questionable therapeutic benefit. Thus, understanding the morbidity associated with PLND is important for counseling patients. We used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) targeted prostatectomy database to quantify real-world 30-day postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing contemporary robot-assisted PLND at the time of RP for prostate cancer to quantify the incremental morbidity. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the NSQIP database of adult patients undergoing radical prostatectomy from 2019 to 2022. The primary outcomes were procedure-specific outcomes such as lymphocele and rectal injury. Secondary outcomes included a composite of any of the following 30-day major postoperative outcomes: mortality, reoperation, cardiac or neurologic event, as well as the individual components of this outcome, as well as infectious and other complications. We also analyzed yearly trends associated with PLND. Groups were balanced using propensity score matching (PSM) with a 1:1 ratio using demographic characteristics, prior medical history, and cancer staging data. Likelihood of complications was assessed by conditional logistic regression. Results: We identified 13,413 patients between 2019 and 2022 who underwent robotic prostatectomy: 11,341 (85%) had PLND while 2072 (15%) did not. After PSM, our cohort included 2071 matched pairs of patients with and without PLND. Patients who underwent PLND were more likely to be diagnosed with lymphocele (2.14% vs. 0.68%, OR 4.17; 95% CI 2.00, 8.68), have unplanned readmission (4.22% vs. 3.27%, OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.03, 1.65), and develop organ-site/space SSI (1.18% vs. 0.60%) (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.20, 3.23). There was no significant association between the receipt of PLND and the likelihood of urinary leak or fistula, or ureteral obstruction. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to secondary outcomes of interest. Conclusion: Contemporary robotic PLND is associated with a 3-fold increased likelihood of lymphocele, as well as increased likelihood of unplanned readmission and organ-site SSI, though no significant differences in major postoperative complications were identified. We found that the odds of lymphoceles, readmission, and SSI in our study are lower than previously reported. These data provide real-world data to guide patient counseling and optimize patient selection for PLND at the time of RALP.