International Expert-Based Consensus Definition, Staging Criteria, and Minimum Data Elements for Osteoradionecrosis of the Jaw: An Inter-Disciplinary Modified Delphi Study

Purpose

Osteoradionecrosis of the jaw (ORNJ) is a severe iatrogenic disease characterized by bone death after radiation therapy (RT) to the head and neck. With over 9 published definitions and at least 16 diagnostic/staging systems, the true incidence and severity of ORNJ are obscured by lack of a standard for disease definition and severity assessment, leading to inaccurate estimation of incidence, reporting ambiguity, and likely under-diagnosis worldwide. This study aimed to achieve consensus on an explicit definition and phenotype of ORNJ and related precursor states through data standardization to facilitate effective diagnosis, monitoring, and multidisciplinary management of ORNJ.

Methods

The ORAL Consortium comprised 69 international experts, including representatives from medical, surgical, radiation oncology, and oral/dental disciplines. Using a web-based modified Delphi technique, panelists classified descriptive cases using existing staging systems, reviewed systems for feature extraction and specification, and iteratively classified cases based on clinical/imaging feature combinations.

Results

The Consortium ORNJ definition was developed in alignment with SNOMED-CT terminology and recent ISOO-MASCC-ASCO guideline recommendations. Case review using existing ORNJ staging systems showed high rates of inability to classify (up to 76%). Ten consensus statements and nine minimum data elements (MDEs) were outlined for prospective collection and classification of precursor/ORNJ stages.

Conclusion

This study provides an international, consensus-based definition and MDE foundation for standardized ORNJ reporting in cancer survivors treated with RT. Head and neck surgeons, radiation, surgical, medical oncologists, and dental specialists should adopt MDEs to enable scalable health information exchange and analytics. Work is underway to develop both a human- and machine-readable knowledge representation for ORNJ (i.e., ontology) and multidisciplinary resources for dissemination to improve ORNJ reporting in academic and community practice settings.

Open RT Structures: A Solution for TG-263 Accessibility

PURPOSE

Consistency of nomenclature within radiation oncology is increasingly important as big data efforts and data sharing become more feasible. Automation of radiation oncology workflows depends on standardized contour nomenclature that enables toxicity and outcomes research, while also reducing medical errors and facilitating quality improvement activities. Recommendations for standardized nomenclature have been published in the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) report from Task Group 263 (TG-263). Transitioning to TG-263 requires creation and management of structure template libraries and retraining of staff, which can be a considerable burden on clinical resources. Our aim is to develop a program that allows users to create TG-263-compliant structure templates in English, Spanish, or French to facilitate data sharing.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fifty-three premade structure templates were arranged by treated organ based on an American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) consensus paper. Templates were further customized with common target structures, relevant organs at risk (OARs) (eg, spleen for anatomically relevant sites such as the gastroesophageal junction or stomach), subsite- specific templates (eg, partial breast, whole breast, intact prostate, postoperative prostate, etc) and brachytherapy templates. An informal consensus on OAR and target coloration was also achieved, although color selections are fully customizable within the program.

RESULTS

The resulting program is usable on any Windows system and generates template files in practice-specific Digital Imaging and Communications In Medicine (DICOM) or XML formats, extracting standardized structure nomenclature from an online database maintained by members of the TG-263U1, which ensures continuous access to up-to-date templates.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a tool to easily create and name DICOM radiation therapy (DICOM-RT) structures sets that are TG-263-compliant for all planning systems using the DICOM standard. The program and source code are publicly available via GitHub to encourage feedback from community users for improvement and guide further development.

Use of focal radiotherapy boost for prostate cancer: radiation oncologists' perspectives and perceived barriers to implementation

BACKGROUND

In 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.

METHODS

We 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.

RESULTS

263 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%).

CONCLUSIONS

Two 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.

Use of Focal Radiotherapy Boost for Prostate Cancer and Perceived Barriers toward its Implementation: A Survey

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

In a recent phase III randomized control trial (FLAME), delivering a focal radiotherapy (RT) boost to tumors visible on MRI was shown to improve outcomes for prostate cancer patients without increasing toxicity. The aim of this study was to assess how widely this technique is being applied in current practices worldwide as well as physicians' perceived barriers toward its implementation.

MATERIALS/METHODS

An online survey assessing the use of intraprostatic focal boost was conducted in December 2022 and February 2023. The survey link was distributed to radiation oncologists worldwide via email list, group text platform, and social media. Survey questions included how many prostate cancer cases participants treat in a typical month; how often they use focal boost, if at all; the degree to which their practice is genitourinary (GU)-subspecialized; main barriers to implementing focal boost more often in their practice; and demographic information. Subgroup analyses were also conducted for participants from high-income or low-to-middle-income countries, as defined by the World Bank.

RESULTS

The survey initially collected 205 responses from various countries over a two-week period in December 2022. The survey was then reopened for one week in February 2023 to allow for more participation, leading to a total of 263 responses. The highest-represented countries were the United States (42%), Mexico (13%), and the United Kingdom (8%). The majority of respondents worked at an academic medical center (52%) and considered their practice to be at least partially GU-subspecialized (74%). 57% of participants overall reported not routinely using intraprostatic focal boost. Even among complete subspecialists, a substantial proportion (39%) do not routinely use focal boost. Less than half of participants in both high-income and low-to-middle-income countries were shown to routinely use focal boost. Perceived barriers to implementation are shown in Table 1.

CONCLUSION

Despite the promising level 1 results of the FLAME trial, many radiation oncologists worldwide are not routinely offering focal RT boost. Adoption of this technique might be accelerated by increased access to high-quality MRI, better registration algorithms of MRI to CT simulation images, physician education on benefit-to-harm ratio, automated planning algorithms, and physician training on contouring prostate lesions on MRI.

Dose Constraints and Planning Considerations for Thoracic Radiation Therapy: Delphi Consensus from a National Survey of Experts

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Many physicians refer to trial protocols or published guidelines (NCCN, QUANTEC, HyTEC) for dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics. However, there may be variation in implementing these metrics during plan optimization. Some studies have suggested better outcomes for patients treated at high-volume, high-expertise centers. These differences may in part be due to greater standardization or center-specific treatment planning processes. We surveyed radiation oncologists with stated thoracic-specific expertise using the Delphi method to formulate consensus DVH metrics that would be considered ideal for high-quality radiation treatment plans.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Thoracic radiation oncology experts were identified using departmental websites of ACGME-accredited radiation oncology programs. After confirming their expertise, panelists were invited to submit their institutional templates and complete three rounds of questions related to normal organ dose constraints, target coverage metrics, prescribing practices, and other planning considerations. Queried radiation schemes included conventional fractionation, twice-daily fractionation, and stereotactic body radiation therapy (3 and 5 fractions). Preliminary consensus statements were generated using median values for DVH metrics and were iteratively refined in subsequent surveys. Consensus was pre-defined as ≥75% agreement among panelists.

RESULTS

A total of 194 experts were invited, and 100 agreed to participate. The panel was 28% female and included experts from 29 states with a median of 11 years of clinical experience (IQR 6-19). 89% specialized in 1-2 disease sites. Response rates for the Demographics, round 1, 2, and 3 surveys were 83%, 78%, 57%, and 55%, respectively. 93% of panelists believed that DVH metrics should provide thresholds for both optimal and acceptable criteria for treatment planning. 49 of the 96 proposed normal tissue dose constraint statements were iterated to consensus (Table 1), and 5 of 7 proposed target coverage metric statements achieved consensus.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the heterogeneity in metrics used by thoracic radiation oncologists and provides levels of consensus on ideal and acceptable dose constraints as guidance for treatment planning. Future directions include using these statements to develop prescription templates and acceptance criteria for treatment planning systems for widespread use as well as extending this Delphi approach to additional disease sites.

Patient preferences and comfort for cancer survivorship models of care: results of an online survey

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.

Use of focal radiotherapy boost for prostate cancer and perceived barriers toward its implementation: a survey

Background

In a recent phase III randomized control trial (FLAME), delivering a focal radiotherapy (RT) boost to tumors visible on MRI was shown to improve outcomes for prostate cancer patients 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.

Methods

An online survey assessing the use of intraprostatic focal boost was conducted in December 2022 and February 2023. The survey link was distributed to radiation oncologists worldwide via email list, group text platform, and social media.

Results

The survey initially collected 205 responses from various countries over a two-week period in December 2022. The survey was then reopened for one week in February 2023 to allow for more participation, leading to a total of 263 responses. 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%). 57% of participants reported not routinely using intraprostatic focal boost. Even among complete subspecialists, a substantial proportion (39%) do not routinely use focal boost. Less than half of participants in both high-income and low-to-middle-income countries were shown to routinely use focal boost. The most commonly 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%).

Conclusion

Despite level 1 evidence from the FLAME trial, most radiation oncologists surveyed are not routinely offering focal RT boost. Adoption of this technique might be accelerated 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.

Development and dissemination of structured hashtags for radiation oncology: Two-Year trends

Purpose

For radiation oncology, social media is a favored communication platform, but it uses non-structured hashtags, which limits communication. In this work, we created a set of structured hashtags with key opinion leaders in radiation oncology, and we report on their use after two years post-deployment.

Materials/Methods

Hashtags were created, voted on, and refined by crowdsourcing 38 international experts, including physicians, physicists, patients, and organizations from North America, Europe, and Australia. The finalized hashtag set was shared with the radiation oncology community in September 2019. The number of tweets for each hashtag was quantified via Symplur through December 2021. For the top five tweeted hashtags, we captured the number of yearly tweets in the pre-deployment and post-deployment periods from 09/01/2019 to 08/31/2021.

Results

The initial 2019 list contained 39 hashtags organized into nine categories. The top five hashtags by total number of tweets were: #Radonc, #PallOnc, #MedPhys, #SurvOnc, and #SuppOnc. Six hashtags had less than 10 total tweets and were eliminated. Post-deployment, there was an increase in the yearly tweets, with the following number of tweets by the second year post-deployment: #RadOnc (98,189 tweets), #MedPhys (15,858 tweets), and #SurvOnc (6,361 tweets). Two popular radiation oncology-related hashtags were added because of increased use: #DEIinRO (1,603 tweets by year 2) and #WomenWhoCurie (7,212 tweets by year 2). Over the two years, hashtags were used mostly by physicians (131,625 tweets, 34.8%).

Conclusion

We created and tracked structured social media hashtags in radiation oncology. These hashtags disseminate information among a diverse oncologic community. To maintain relevance, regular updates are needed.

Social Media and the Quest for Equity and Diversity in Oncology: On Safe Spaces and the Concept of the Public Physician

Despite their increased enrollment into medical school, women still face systemic barriers in medicine, whether in an academic or nonacademic setting. Those from Under-Represented Minority (URM) groups face similar issues, which may affect their desire to enter, pursue, and/or maintain a career in medicine. Social media provides unique opportunities for peer-to-peer support among members of URM communities and for amplification of their voices calling for social justice-here defined as a redistribution of power and the quest for equity in access to opportunities, including access to mentorship, professional development, and timely promotion in academic rank. These issues are relevant to oncologists especially as we strive for diversity, equity, and inclusion and to ensure that our patients have equal access to care, regardless of their circumstances. In this article, we review current literature that highlights issues faced by women and historically URM groups in medicine, particularly in oncology. We also discuss the physician's role as a social justice advocate and the concept of the public physician.

Renal function changes associated with transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve for prosthetic regurgitation compared to stenosis

Background

Renal dysfunction is frequently encountered in patients with aortic prosthesis degeneration requiring valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The effect of VIV TAVR on renal function in patients with bioprosthetic aortic regurgitation (AR) and stenosis (AS) is unknown.

Objectives

The aims of this study were to describe the change in renal function after VIV TAVR and to compare differences in renal function changes in those with predominant prosthetic regurgitation compared to stenosis.

Methods

All VIV TAVR between June of 2014, and October 2019 (n = 141) at a single institution were reviewed. Baseline renal function parameters including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were compared with post-discharge follow-up values in both prosthetic AR and AS patient groups. Linear regression analysis was performed to determine correlates of renal function change.

Results

Mean baseline eGFR was lower in the AR group (55 SD21 vs. 64 SD24 ml/min/1.73 m² p = 0.0495). At post-discharge follow-up there was an increase in mean eGFR in the AR group which was not present in the AS group (8 SD12 vs. 0 SD11 ml/min/1.73 m² respectively p = 0.0006). There were strong correlations between change in creatinine (β = −0.57, R² = 0.64, p < 0.0001) and BUN (β = −0.61, R² = 0.51, p < 0.0001), and pre-procedure values in the AR group.

Conclusions

Patients who underwent VIV TAVR for AR experienced significant improvement of renal function at post-discharge follow-up. More advanced renal dysfunction at baseline was associated with greater improvement in renal function at post discharge in AR patients.

The primary stability of two dental implant systems in low-density bone

Primary stability in low-density bone is crucial for the long-term success of implants. Tapered implants have shown particularly favourable properties under such conditions. The aim of this study was to compare the primary stability of tapered titanium and novel cylindrical zirconia dental implant systems in low-density bone. Fifty implants (25 tapered, 25 cylindrical) were placed in the anterior maxillary bone of cadavers meeting the criteria of low-density bone. The maximum insertion (ITV) and removal (RTV) torque values were recorded, and the implant stability quotients (ISQ) determined. To establish the isolated influence of cancellous bone on primary stability, the implantation procedure was performed in standardized low-density polyurethane foam bone blocks (cancellous bone model) using the same procedure. The primary stability parameters of both implant types showed significant positive correlations with bone density (Hounsfield units) and cortical thickness. In the cadaver, the cylindrical zirconia implants showed a significantly higher mean ISQ when compared to the tapered titanium implants (50.58 vs 37.26; P < 0.001). Pearson analysis showed significant positive correlations between ITV and ISQ (P = 0.016) and between RTV and ISQ (P = 0.035) for the cylindrical zirconia implants; no such correlations were observed for the tapered titanium implants. Within the limitations of this study, the results indicate that cylindrical zirconia implants represent a comparable viable treatment option to tapered titanium implants in terms of primary implant stability in low-density human bone.

#radonc: Growth of the global radiation oncology Twitter network

INTRODUCTION

Social media connects people globally and may enhance access to radiation oncology information. We characterized the global growth of the radiation oncology Twitter community using the hashtag #radonc.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed all public tweets bearing the hashtag #radonc from 2014 to 2019 using Symplur Signals. We collected data on #radonc activity and growth, stakeholder distribution, user geolocation, and languages. We obtained global Twitter user data and calculated average annual growth rates for users and tweets. We analyzed growth rates by stakeholder. We conducted thematic analysis on a sample of tweets in each three-year period using frequently occurring two-word combinations.

RESULTS

We identified 193,115 tweets including #radonc composed by 16,645 Twitter users. Globally, users wrote in 35 languages and came from 122 countries, with the known highest users from the United States, United Kingdom, and Spain. Use of #radonc expanded from 23 countries in 2014 to 116 in 2019. The average annual growth rate in #radonc users and tweets was 70.5% and 69.2%, respectively. The annual growth rate of #radonc users was significantly higher than for all Twitter users (p = 0.004). While doctors were the source of 46.9% of all tweets, research and government organizations had annual increases in tweet volume of 84.6% and 211.4%, respectively. From 2014 to 2016, promotion of the radiation oncology community was the most active theme, though this dropped to 7th in 2017-2019 as discussion increased regarding aspects of radiation and treated disease sites.

CONCLUSION

Use of #radonc has grown rapidly into a global community. Focused discussion related to radiation oncology has outpaced the growth of general Twitter use, both among physicians and non-physicians. #radonc has grown into a self-sustaining community. Further research is necessary to define the risks and benefits of social media in medicine and to determine whether it adds value to oncology practice.

Overcoming Barriers to Radiation Oncology Access in Low-Resource Settings in the United States

Providing high-quality radiation therapy in medically underserved, low-resource environments can be challenging in the United States. During the American Society of Radiation Oncology 2020 Annual Meeting, the American Society for Radiation Oncology Committee on Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion hosted 4 radiation oncologists from both academic and community practices in an educational session. Speakers discussed creative ways to overcome barriers to equitable cancer care and outcomes for their vulnerable patient populations in both rural and urban settings. Successful tactics have included applying for state-sponsored grants, lobbying hospital leadership for equipment upgrades, implementing quality improvement programs specifically targeting the needs of the patient population, studying novel hypofractionation schedules, monitoring toxicities using wearable devices, and expanding transportation options.

Unsealed Source: Scope of Practice for Radiopharmaceuticals Among United States Radiation Oncologists

Purpose

Our purpose was to determine the utilization of and barriers to implementation of radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) among U.S. radiation oncologists.

Methods and Materials

An anonymous, voluntary 21-item survey directed toward attending radiation oncologists was distributed via social media platforms (Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Student Doctor Network). Questions assessed practice characteristics, specific RPT prescribing patterns, RPT prescribing interest, and perceived barriers to RPT implementation. Nonparametric χ² test was used for correlation statistics.

Results

Of the 142 respondents, 131 (92.3%) practiced in the United States and were included for this analysis. Respondents were well balanced in terms of practicing region, population size served, practice setting, and years in practice. Forty-eight percent (n = 63) reported prescribing at least 1 RPT. An additional 7% (n = 8) participate in RPT administration without billing themselves. Among those that actively prescribed RPT, the mean cumulative cases per month was 4.2 (range, 1-5). The most commonly prescribed radionuclides were radium-223 (40%; mean 2.8 cases/mo), iodine-131 (18%; mean 2.3 cases/mo), yttrium-90 (13%; mean 3.4 cases/mo), “other” (8%), samarium-153 (6%; mean 1.0 cases/mo), and strontrium-89 and phosphorous-32 (2% each; mean 1.8 and 0.4 cases/mo, respectively). Of those who answered “other,” lutetium-177 dotatate was most commonly prescribed (8%). No significant (P < .05) association was noted between practice type, practice location, years of practice, or practice volume with utilization of any RPTs. Most radiation oncologists (56%, n = 74) responded they would like to actively prescribe more RPT, although 27% (n = 35) were indifferent, and 17% (n = 22) said they would not like to prescribe more RPT. Perceived barriers to implementation were varied but broadly categorized into treatment infrastructure (44%, n = 57), interspecialty relations (41%, n = 53), lack of training (23%, n = 30), and financial considerations (16%, n = 21).

Conclusions

Among surveyed U.S. radiation oncologists, a significant number reported prescribing at least 1 RPT. The majority expressed interest in prescribing additional RPT. Wide-ranging barriers to implementation exist, most commonly interspecialty relations, treatment infrastructure, lack of training, and financial considerations.

Gaps in Public Awareness About BRCA and Genetic Testing in Prostate Cancer: Social Media Landscape Analysis

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing, particularly for BRCA1/2, is increasingly important in prostate cancer (PCa) care, with impact on PCa management and hereditary cancer risk. However, the extent of public awareness and online discourse on social media is unknown, and presents opportunities to identify gaps and enhance population awareness and uptake of advances in PCa precision medicine.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to characterize activity and engagement across multiple social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube) regarding BRCA and genetic testing for PCa compared with breast cancer, which has a long history of public awareness, advocacy, and prominent social media presence.

METHODS

The Symplur Signals online analytics platform was used to obtain metrics for tweets about (1) #BRCA and #breastcancer, (2) #BRCA and #prostatecancer, (3) #genetictesting and #breastcancer, and (4) #genetictesting and #prostatecancer from 2016 to 2020. We examined the total number of tweets, users, and reach for each hashtag, and performed content analysis for a subset of tweets. Facebook and YouTube were queried using analogous search terms, and engagement metrics were calculated.

RESULTS

During a 5-year period, there were 10,005 tweets for #BRCA and #breastcancer, versus 1008 tweets about #BRCA and #prostatecancer. There were also more tweets about #genetictesting and #breastcancer (n=1748), compared with #genetic testing and #prostatecancer (n=328). Tweets about genetic testing (12,921,954) and BRCA (75,724,795) in breast cancer also had substantially greater reach than those about PCa (1,463,777 and 4,849,905, respectively). Facebook groups and pages regarding PCa and BRCA/genetic testing had fewer average members, new members, and new posts, as well as fewer likes and followers, compared with breast cancer. Facebook videos had more engagement than YouTube videos across both PCa and breast cancer content.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantially less social media engagement about BRCA and genetic testing in PCa compared with breast cancer. This landscape analysis provides insights into strategies for leveraging social media platforms to increase public awareness about PCa germline testing, including use of Facebook to share video content and Twitter for discussions with health professionals.

Time management: Improving the timing of post-prostatectomy radiotherapy, clinical trials, and knowledge translation

Background

Management of prostate cancer after surgery is controversial. Past studies on adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) for higher-risk features have had conflicting results. Through the collaborative conversations of the global radiation oncology Twitter-based journal club (#RadOnc #JC), we explored this complex topic to share recent advances, better understand what the global radiation oncology community felt was important and inspire next steps.

Methods

We selected the recent publication of a landmark international randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing immediate and salvage radiotherapy for prostate cancer, RADICALS-RT, for discussion over the weekend of January 16 to 17, 2021. Coordination included open access to the article and an asynchronous portion to decrease barriers to participation, cooperation of study authors (CP, MS) who participated to share deeper insights including a live hour, and curation of related resources and tweet content through a blog post and Wakelet journal club summary.

Discussion of Results

Our conversations created 2,370,104 impressions over 599 tweets with 51 participants spanning 11 countries and 5 continents. A quarter of the participants were from the US (13/51) followed by 10% from the UK (5/51). Clinical or Radiation Oncologists comprised 59% of active participants (16/27) with 62% (18/29) reporting giving aRT within the last 5 years. Discussion was interdisciplinary with three urologists (11%), three trainees (11%), and two physiotherapists (7%). Four months after the journal club its article Altmetric score had increased by 7% (214 to 229). Thematic analysis of tweet content suggested participants wanted clarification on definitions of adjuvant (aRT) and salvage radiotherapy (sRT) including indications, timing, and decision-making tools including guidelines; more interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaboration including with patients for study design including survivorship and meaningful outcomes; more effective knowledge translation including faster clinical trials; and more data including mature results of current trials, particular high-risk features (Gleason Group 4+, pT4b+, and margin-positive disease), implications of newer technologies such as PSMA-PET and genomic classifiers, and better explanations for practice pattern variations including underutilization of radiotherapy. This was further explored in the context of relevant literature.

Conclusion

Together, this global collaborative review on the postoperative management of prostate cancer suggested a stronger signal for the uptake of early salvage radiation treatment with careful PSA monitoring, more sensitive PSA triggers, and expected access to radiotherapy. Questions still remain on potential exceptions and barriers to use. These require better decision-making tools for all practice settings, consideration of newer technologies, more pragmatic trials, and better use of social media for knowledge translation.

Readdressing the Needs of Cancer Survivors During COVID-19: A Path Forward

The growing number of cancer survivors and the high prevalence of cancer-related physical and psychosocial effects pose important and pressing challenges to health systems. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to further stressors on cancer survivors and health care systems. As the pandemic continues to have substantial impact on the world, it is critical to focus attention on the health care needs of cancer survivors. In this commentary, we propose an adoption of essential steps that should be part of a continuous adaptive approach to promote effective cancer survivorship care during ongoing COVID-19 waves and beyond.

Technical Giants But Biologic Infants: Defining a More Sophisticated Role for Local Therapy in Metastatic Disease

The role of radiation therapy in metastatic cancer is rapidly evolving with increased understanding of the oligometastatic state and improved technologies to deliver higher doses of radiation with greater precision and avoidance of normal tissues than before. Recent data have demonstrated that the use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in oligometastatic disease confers a survival benefit. Yet, the current enthusiasm must be balanced with caution. Here we summarize the evidence in favor of SABR for oligometastatic patients as well as the concerns regarding rapid adoption into clinical practice and outline broad principles to guide clinical trials evaluating the role of SABR in oligometastatic disease. As oncologists, we must exercise due diligence and gather the appropriate evidence necessary to 1) understand the oligometastatic disease state and 2) optimize benefit in those patients before broadly offering SABR to all. Any alternative path forward will do our field and our patients a great injustice.

Patient preferences for cancer survivorship care: Results of an online survey

12064

Background: Nearly 17 million cancer survivors live in the United States. Workforce shortages are projected to diminish the number of available medical oncologists (MOs) to care for newly diagnosed patients with cancer and for the growing number of cancer survivors. Models of survivorship care include oncologist-led, primary care-led, and shared care approaches. Recent proposals recommend a risk-stratified approach to care, guided by individual and cancer-specific factors, but there is little evidence regarding patient preferences for non-oncologist survivorship care. Methods: We developed a survey in partnership with patient advocates. The primary endpoints were patient-reported comfort with survivorship care by a primary care provider (PCP) or in a dedicated survivorship clinic. We distributed the survey to online, cancer-specific patient communities from June to August 2020. Logistic regression analyses were adjusted for patient age, race and ethnicity, insurance, and cancer type and stage. Results: Of 1166 responses, 975 surveys were complete and available for analysis. Respondents were primarily women (91%), white (92%), and US residents (73%); 78% had a college or graduate degree. Two-thirds had private insurance. Thirty-six different cancer types were reported; 61% of respondents had breast cancer, and 25% were treated for more than one type of cancer. Most respondents (83%) had nonmetastatic disease, 74% reported experiencing late effects of cancer therapy, and almost all (93%) had a PCP. Only 21% of respondents were comfortable seeing a PCP (versus MO) for survivorship care, including cancer follow-up, side effect management, and monitoring for recurrence or progression. About half (55%) were comfortable with follow-up in a survivorship clinic instead of with their MO. Multivariable analyses showed no significant associations between age, race or ethnicity, insurance, cancer type, or stage at diagnosis and comfort with follow-up care from a PCP or in a survivorship clinic. In analyses restricted to the 439 respondents with a history of early-stage breast cancer, the 239 (54%) who were within 1 to 5 years of diagnosis were less comfortable with PCP versus MO follow-up, compared with the 52 (12%) who were > 15 years from diagnosis (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.20–0.75; p= 0.004). In this sub-analysis, time from diagnosis was not associated with comfort being seen in a survivorship clinic. Conclusions: In our study, most patients with a history of cancer were not comfortable receiving follow-up care from their PCP. It is often recommended that survivors of early-stage breast cancer transition to primary care for follow-up and surveillance, but our study revealed comfort with this approach only many years after diagnosis. While both PCP survivorship training and patient confidence in PCP follow up is needed, preferences of cancer survivors should be considered in designing new models of survivorship care.

Current Social Media Use Among Radiation Oncology Trainees

Purpose

Resident physicians use social media (SM) for many reasons. We sought to characterize current SM use by radiation oncology (RO) trainees for education and professional development.

Methods and Materials

An anonymous 40-question survey was sent by e-mail to RO residents in the 2018 to 2019 academic year. SM platform use, time spent on SM, professional use, and opinions regarding SM use were assessed. Descriptive statistics and a univariate logistic regression analysis were performed to identify factors associated with perceptions of SM and spending >25% of SM time for academic or professional purposes.

Results

Of the 615 residents surveyed, 149 responded (24% response rate). Facebook (73%), theMednet (62%), Instagram (59%), Twitter (57%), and Doximity (50%) were the top SM platforms used. Most respondents (53%) reported <25% of overall SM time on professional/academic purposes, and 21% reported using SM >60 minutes per day over the past week. Residents with an RO mentor on SM (n = 35; 24%; odds ratio [OR]: 2.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-6.08; P = .010), those participating in RO discussions on SM (n = 71; 48%; OR: 2.85; 95% CI, 1.42-5.72; P = .003), and those interacting with professional societies (n = 69; 46%; OR: 7.11; 95% CI, 3.32-15.24; P < .001) were more likely to spend >25% of their SM time on professional/academic purposes. The vast majority of respondents agreed that SM exposed them to novel educational content (82%) and was helpful for career development (65%). In addition, 69% agreed that SM can improve clinical skills and knowledge. A substantial minority agreed that SM distracts them from studying (38%) or they felt pressure to have a SM presence (29%).

Conclusions

Most RO residents reported that SM provides novel educational content and can help with career development. Potential disadvantages of SM for trainees may include distraction and pressure to maintain a SM presence. SM use by RO trainees merits further research to optimize its potential for education and professional development.

A History of #BCSM and Insights for Patient-Centered Online Interaction and Engagement

Purpose

Participation 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.

Methods

Symplur 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.

Results

From 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.

Brain Tumor Discussions on Twitter (#BTSM): Social Network Analysis

BACKGROUND

The Brain Tumor Social Media (#BTSM) Twitter hashtag was founded in February 2012 as a disease-specific hashtag for patients with brain tumor.

OBJECTIVE

To understand #BTSM's role as a patient support system, we describe user descriptors, growth, interaction, and content sharing.

METHODS

We 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.

RESULTS

From 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.

CONCLUSIONS

From 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.

COVID-19 and the "Film Your Hospital" Conspiracy Theory: Social Network Analysis of Twitter Data

BACKGROUND

During 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.

OBJECTIVE

This 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.

METHODS

Twitter 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.

RESULTS

The 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Hashtags 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.

Radiation Fractionation Schedules Published During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of the Quality of Evidence and Recommendations for Future Development

PURPOSE

Numerous 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 MATERIALS

Based 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.

RESULTS

From 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.

CONCLUSIONS

A 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.

Public Disclosure on Social Media of Identifiable Patient Information by Health Professionals: Content Analysis of Twitter Data

Background

Respecting 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.

Objective

The 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

Health 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.

Conclusions

During 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.

Organizing Online Health Content: Developing Hashtag Collections for Healthier Internet-Based People and Communities

Twitter use has increased among patients with cancer, advocates, and oncology professionals. Hashtags, a form of metadata, can be used to share content, organize health information, and create virtual communities of interest. Cancer-specific hashtags modeled on a breast cancer community, #bcsm, led to the development of a structured set of hashtags called the cancer tag ontology. In this article, we review how these hashtags have worked with the aim of describing our experience from 2011 to 2017. We discuss useful guidelines for the development and maintenance of health-oriented communities on Twitter, including possible challenges to community sustainability and opportunities for future improvement and research.

Empowering patients in decision-making in radiation oncology - can we do better?

The decision as to whether or not a patient should receive radiation therapy as part of their cancer treatment is based on evidence‐based practice and on recommended international consensus treatment guidelines. However, the merit of involving the patients' individual preferences and values in the treatment decision is frequently overlooked. Here, we review the current literature pertaining to shared decision‐making (SDM) in the field of radiation oncology, including discussion of the patient's perception of radiation therapy as a treatment option and patient involvement in clinical trials. The merit of decision aids during the SDM process in radiation oncology is considered, as are patient preferences for active or passive involvement in decisions about their treatment. Clarity of terminology, a better understanding of effective strategies and increased resources will be needed to ensure SDM in radiation oncology becomes a reality.

Nomogram-based estimate of axillary nodal involvement in ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance): validation and association with radiation protocol variations

PURPOSE

A substantial proportion of patients enrolled on ACOSOG Z0011 received protocol-deviant radiation treatment. It is currently unknown whether these deviations involved the use of more extensive fields in patients at higher nomogram-predicted risk.

METHODS

We used the M.D. Anderson (MDA) and Memorial Sloan-Kettering (MSK) nomograms to estimate risk of additional positive axillary nodes using surgical pathology information. In the control arm, we compared axillary dissection (AD) findings to nomogram-predicted estimates for validation. We used logistic regression to evaluate whether nomogram-estimated higher risk of nodal involvement was associated with high tangent (HT) or supraclavicular (SCV) radiation fields for patients with known radiation field design.

RESULTS

552/856 (64.5%) had complete details for the MDA nomogram. Mean MDA risk estimate in both treatment arms was 23.8%. Estimated risk for patients on the AD arm with positive nodes was 25.9%. Higher risk estimate was associated with additional positive nodes in the AD arm (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06, p < 0.0001). We observed significant association with higher MDA nomogram-estimated risk and SCV radiation (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.10, p < 0.0001) but not HT (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96-1.02, p = 0.52) The MSK nomogram had similar associations.

CONCLUSION

MDA and MSK nomogram risk estimates were associated with lymph node risk in ACOSOG Z0011. Radiation oncologists' use of differing radiation fields were associated with treating higher risk patients. ClinicalTrials.gov id: NCT00003854.

Association Between Twitter Reception at a National Urology Conference and Future Publication Status

BACKGROUND

Social media is an increasingly popular means to disseminate medical research. However, it is unknown whether the extent to which content is shared mirrors conventional measures of scientific merit or impact.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether Twitter activity (as measured by the number of "likes" and "retweets" [RTs]) relating to original research presented at a national urology meeting was associated with subsequent publication status and journal impact factor (IF).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We retrospectively reviewed Twitter data obtained through the Keyhole archiving platform using the hashtag "#aua15" from May 1 through June 1, 2015 reflecting the hashtag of the American Urological Association (AUA) meeting.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We analyzed all posts containing keywords related to research studies. Among posts reporting on newly presented studies with discernable attribution, we evaluated subsequent publication status within 45 mo, including journal IF. We compared social media reception (number of likes/RTs) by publication status, and assessed the relationship between social media reception and subsequent journal IF using Pearson's correlation.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 15 303 posts were associated with #aua15 between May 1 and June 1, 2015, which reached 2 263 438 users. The median number of likes/RTs was 2 (interquartile range 1-3). We analyzed all posts receiving at least one like/RT (n = 2964) for text content related to research and identified 496 associated with new scientific studies presented at the meeting. Forty-five months following the AUA meeting, 96 studies were identifiable on PubMed (19.4%). Research with more likes/RTs at the AUA meeting were more likely to be subsequently published (p = 0.001). Among published studies, there was a modest, positive correlation between the number of likes/RTs and publication journal IF (r² = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Measures of social media engagement with data presented at a national medical meeting were positively correlated with subsequent publication and journal IF after presentation.

PATIENT SUMMARY

New urological research that was shared more often at a national meeting was more likely to be published in journals that are more highly cited.

Integrating Social Media in Modern Oncology Practice and Research

The widespread adoption and diffusion of social media provides oncology professionals with a unique and unprecedented opportunity to engage with the public. However, there remains a paucity of literature examining how clinicians and researchers can effectively use social media to complement modern oncology practice and research. In this review, we dissect the benefits and risks of professional social media use in oncology and offer several best practices for clinicians and researchers to achieve effective engagement. We also describe how to participate constructively in Twitter conversations at the time of medical or scientific conferences. Additionally, we demonstrate how to communicate appropriately and safely with patients and families online. Finally, we explore the exciting and nascent field of social media research and highlight the need to investigate its potential value in personalized cancer medicine.

“Please Help Me See the Dragon I Am Slaying”: Implementation of a Novel Patient-Pathologist Consultation Program and Survey of Patient Experience

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.

The Needs of Women Treated for Ovarian Cancer: Results From a #gyncsm Twitter Chat

Purpose

Ovarian 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.

Methods

To 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.

Results

The 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.

Conclusions

Themes 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.

The PM&R Journal Implements a Social Media Strategy to Disseminate Research and Track Alternative Metrics in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Implementation science is an evolving part of translating evidence into clinical practice and public health policy. This report describes how a social media strategy for the journal PM&R using metrics, including alternative metrics, contributes to the dissemination of research and other information in the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation. The primary goal of the strategy was to disseminate information about rehabilitation medicine, including but not limited to new research published in the journal, to health care professionals. Several different types of metrics were studied, including alternative metrics that are increasingly being used to demonstrate impact in academic medicine. A secondary goal was to encourage diversity and inclusion of the physiatric workforce-enhancing the reputations of all physiatrists by highlighting their research, lectures, awards, and other accomplishments with attention to those who may be underrepresented. A third goal was to educate the public so that they are more aware of the field and how to access care. This report describes the early results following initiation of PM&R's coordinated social media strategy. Through a network of social media efforts that are strategically integrated, physiatrists and their associated institutions have an opportunity to advance their research and clinical agendas, support the diverse physiatric workforce, and educate the public about the field to enhance patient awareness and access to care.

Risks and benefits of Twitter use by hematologists/oncologists in the era of digital medicine

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.

Quantification of Urology Related Twitter Traffic Activity through a Standardized List of Social Media Communication Descriptors

INTRODUCTION

The social media microblogging service Twitter is gaining popularity in the field of urology as a fast and effective communication platform. We assessed volume, subject matter, influencers and content of urology related discussions on the Twitter platform using the recently proposed Urology Tag Ontology hashtag list.

METHODS

We queried the Symplur Signals database for tweet activity during a 1-year period. We used the Urology Tag Ontology hashtag list, comprised of 45 disease related hashtags in 9 urological subspecialties, to assess activity (numbers of tweets, users and impressions), users (geolocation, influencers) and content (words, tweet enhancements) of urology related Twitter traffic.

RESULTS

Twitter activity during the study period included 334,642 tweets by 104,166 users with 1,397,107,305 impressions. Tweet activity varied among urological subspecialties and was largely dominated by urological oncology topics driven by #ProstateCancer. Users came from 224 countries and from all continents around the globe. Health care organizations accounted for the largest proportion of influencers (44%), followed by other individuals (22%) and physicians (13%). The top words were "prevent" (used 20,955 times), "cancer" (19,610), "follow" (19,169), "men" (19,165) and "condom" (18,425). The median (range) number of shares was 2,200 (1,414-8,854) for the top 10 links, 2,123 (1,878-2,737) for the top 10 retweets and 207 (12-438) for the top 10 photos.

CONCLUSIONS

Twitter activity in the field of urology can be assessed using a standardized list of social media communication descriptors. The value of the Twitter communication platform is underscored by the large number of tweets and impressions in the urology space.

Tweet for the cure: A snapshot of Twitter usage by 3 U.S. oncologic professional societies

Purpose

Medical societies are incorporating Twitter to communicate with their members and connect with patients. This study compares the online presence of 3 major oncologic societies.

Methods and materials

All available tweets in 2014 by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) were collected. We analyzed whether posts were original content or retweets. The monthly tweet rate was followed to assess trends. We created 2 new metrics, supporter ratio and tweet density, to correlate online presence and engagement with offline membership breadth. The supporter ratio is the number of people following the organization divided by the number of registered members of each society. The tweet density is the total number of posts divided by the number of registered members of each society.

Results

In February 2015, ASCO, ASTRO, and SSO had 36,385; 10,899; and 2721 members, respectively. ASCO's Twitter handle had 33,974 followers, with a supporter ratio of 0.93. A total of 2563 original tweets and 1416 retweets were estimated, which represents a tweet density of 0.11. @ASTRO_org had 5445 followers and a supporter ratio of 0.50. In 2014, ASTRO posted 415 original content tweets and 9 retweets, with a tweet density of 0.039. SSO had a supporter ratio of 0.91 on the basis of 2481 followers. In 2014, SSO posted 207 original tweets and 190 retweets, with a tweet density of 0.15. An increase in tweets and retweets was seen during the month of each society's annual meeting. ASTRO's 61% increase in September 2014 was smaller than SSO's 462% and ASCO's 84%.

Conclusion

ASTRO's use of Twitter lags behind ASCO and SSO. Although all 3 societies show increased Twitter use during their annual meetings, they should work toward more meaningful engagement throughout the year. The new metrics of tweet density and supporter ratio will serve as benchmarks for member engagement in future studies.