The State of Neuro-Oncology During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Worldwide Assessment

To assess the impact of the pandemic on the field, we performed an international web-based survey of practitioners, scientists, and trainees from 21 neuro-oncology organizations across 6 continents from April 24 through May 17. Of 582 respondents, 258 (45%) were in the US, and 314 (55%) were international. 80.4% were affiliated with academic institutions. 94% respondents reported changes in clinical practice; 95% reported conversion to telemedicine for at least some appointments. However, almost 10% practitioners felt the need to see patients in person specifically because of billing concerns and perceived institutional pressure. Over 50% believed neuro-oncology patients were at increased risk of contracting COVID-19. 67% practitioners suspended enrollment for at least one clinical trial: 53% suspended phase II and 62% suspended phase III trial enrollment. 71% clinicians feared for their or their families’ safety, specifically because of their clinical duties. 20% percent said they did not have enough PPE to work safely; about the same percentage were unhappy with their institutions’ response to the pandemic. 43% believed the pandemic would negatively affect their academic career, and 52% fellowship program directors were worried about losing funding for their training programs. While 69% respondents reported increased stress, 44% were offered no psychosocial support. 37% had their salary reduced. 36% researchers had to temporarily close their laboratories. In contrast, the pandemic created positive changes in perceived patient and family satisfaction, quality of communication, and use of technology to deliver care and interactions with other practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has altered standard treatment schedules and limited investigational treatment options for patients. In some cases, clinicians felt institutional pressure to continue conducting billable in-person visits when telemedicine visits would have sufficed. A lack of institutional support created anxiety among clinicians and researchers. We make specific recommendations to guide clinical and scientific infrastructure moving forward

Survivorship care planning in neuro-oncology.

Cancer patient survivorship has become a significant topic within oncology care for both adult and pediatric patients. Starting in 2005, the Institute of Medicine recommended the use of survivorship care plans to assist patients transitioning from active treatment to the posttreatment phase of their cancer care, a critical time for many patients. Since 2014 there has been a mandate within the United States for adult cancer patients treated with curative intent to receive survivorship care plans comprised of a treatment summary and a follow-up plan to facilitate a better understanding among patients of what to expect after treatment. In addition to a general oncology survivorship care plan, specific care plans have been created for breast, lung, prostate, and colon cancers, as well as lymphoma. A survivorship care plan specific to adult neuro-oncology has been developed by a multidisciplinary and interprofessional committee, with approval from the Society for Neuro-Oncology Guidelines Committee. It has been published in compendium with this review of survivorship care planning and available as a fillable PDF on the Society of Neuro-Oncology Guidelines Endorsement web page (https://www.soc-neuro-onc.org/SNO/Resources/Survivorship_Care_Plan.aspx). Implementation of this survivorship care plan provides a unique opportunity to begin addressing the range of survivorship issues our neuro-oncology patients navigate from diagnosis to end of life

SNO 2020 diversity survey: defining demographics, racial biases, career success metrics and a path forward for the field of neuro-oncology

Abstract Background Neuro-oncology has grown tremendously since 2010, marked by increasing society membership, specialized clinical expertise, and new journals. Yet, modest improvement in racial/ethnic diversity amongst clinical trial participants, researchers, and clinicians led us to conduct a survey to identify opportunities to enhance diversity and inclusiveness amongst neuro-oncology professionals. Methods In summer 2020, the Women and Diversity Committee of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) distributed an anonymous online survey to members and affiliates including the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO), Society for Neuro-Oncology Latin America (SNOLA) and Society for Neuro-Oncology Sub-Saharan Africa (SNOSSA). The survey captured personal and professional characteristics, biases, effective mentorship qualities, career service metrics, and suggested field/society changes. Results were analyzed by geography, profession, age, racial/ethnic, and sexual identity. Standard descriptive statistics characterized the study population. Results The 386 respondents were predominantly female (58%) with a median age range of 40–49 years (31%), White (65%), and SNO members (97%). Most worked in North America (77%) in a research profession (67%). A majority of White respondents reported never experiencing biases (64%), while the majority of non-White respondents reported unconscious biases/microaggressions, followed by a lack of/limited mentorship. Qualitative assessments showcased that personal/professional success metrics were linked to needed improvements in diversity and inclusion efforts within the neuro-oncology field. Conclusions The prevalence of racial/ethnic biases and poor mentorship rates amongst underrepresented groups in neuro-oncology is high and potentially linked to the limited diverse representation amongst members and affiliates. These findings warrant a swift implementation of equity and inclusion practices within the neuro-oncology field

SNO 2020 diversity survey: defining demographics, racial biases, career success metrics and a path forward for the field of neuro-oncology.

BACKGROUND: Neuro-oncology has grown tremendously since 2010, marked by increasing society membership, specialized clinical expertise, and new journals. Yet, modest improvement in racial/ethnic diversity amongst clinical trial participants, researchers and clinicians led us to conduct a survey to identify opportunities to enhance diversity and inclusiveness amongst neuro-oncology professionals. METHODS: In summer 2020, the Women and Diversity Committee of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) distributed an anonymous online survey to members and affiliates including European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO), Society for Neuro-Oncology Latin America (SNOLA) and Society for Neuro-Oncology Sub-Saharan Africa (SNOSSA). The survey captured personal and professional characteristics, biases, effective mentorship qualities, career service metrics and suggested field/society changes. Results were analyzed by geography, profession, age, racial/ethnic and sexual identity. Standard descriptive statistics characterized the study population. RESULTS: The 386 respondents were predominantly female (58%) with a median age range of 40-49 years (31%), White (65%), and SNO members (97%). Most worked in North America (77%) in a research profession (67%). A majority of White respondents reported never experiencing biases (64%), while the majority of non-White respondents reported unconscious biases/microaggressions, followed by a lack of/limited mentorship. Qualitative assessments showcased that personal/professional success metrics were linked to needed improvements in diversity and inclusion efforts within the neuro-oncology field. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of racial/ethnic biases and poor mentorship rates amongst underrepresented groups in neuro-oncology is high and potentially linked to the limited diverse representation amongst members and affiliates. These findings warrant a swift implementation of equity and inclusion practices within the neuro-oncology field