Christine Lu-Emerson1, Sajeel Chowdhary2, Rupesh Kotecha3, Akanksha Sharma4, Yazmin Odia5, Brian Vaillant6, Charles Redfern7, Aaron Mammoser8, Kent shih9, Santosh Kesari10, Richard Peterson11, Brett Friday12, W. Jeffery Edenfield13, Sebastian Koga14, James Snyder15, Jerry Jaboin16, Isaac Melguizo-Gavilanes17, Melissa McCabe18, Michael Humeniuk19, Prakash Ambady20, Erin Dunbar21
1Oncology, Maine Health Cancer Care, 2Marcus Neuroscience Institute, 3Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health Cancer Care, 4Pacific Neuroscience Institute, 5Miami Cancer Institute, BHSF, 6University of Texas at Austin, 7Laurel Amtower Cancer Institute, 8Piedmont Brain Tumor Center, 9Tennessee Oncology, 10Saint John's Cancer Institute, 11Regions Hospital, 12Essentia Health, 13Prisma Health Cancer Institute, 14Koga Neurosurgery, 15Hermelin Brain Tumor Center, Henry Ford Health, 16University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 17Aurora Cancer Care, 18Good Samaritan University Hospital, 19Gibbs Cancer Center, 20Providence Health and Services, 21Piedmont Physicians Neuro-Oncology
Objective:
The objective of this study was to understand the current landscape of the delivery of neuro-oncology care in the community. Importantly, the goal was to highlight challenges faced by community partners and to organize a call for appropriate resources for community neuro-oncology providers and patients.
Background:
The complexities of the field of neuro-oncology require multidisciplinary collaboration in order to deliver contemporary comprehensive care. There is increasing awareness that much of neuro-oncology care occurs in the community setting. In 2022, the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) created the Community Neuro-Oncology committee (CNO) in an inaugural attempt to formally acknowledge community neuro-oncology practitioners.
Design/Methods:
A 19 question survey was developed by SNO-CNO to gather initial data on the current landscape of neuro-oncology care in the community. The survey was distributed via the SNO newsletter and eblasts as well as through partnerships with multiple advocacy groups. Results were analyzed and tabulated through R2.
Results:
There were 112 responses from providers in the United States and Canada. Most providers were physicians and represented multiple disciplines including neurology, neuro-oncology, medical oncology, neurosurgery, and radiation oncology. Sixty-four (57%) described themselves as neuro-oncology focused. Eighty-eight (79%) reported access to neuro-oncology tumor boards. Sixty-eight (73%) stated they had access to molecular tumor boards. Most respondents felt that they were adequately supported to manage neuro-oncology patients. When dividing responses based on a neuro-oncology focused practice compared to a less neuro-oncology focused practice, there were significant differences between access to molecular tumors boards (85% vs 63%, p=0.023) and access to clinical trials (98% vs 82%, p=0.022).
Conclusions:
This qualitative and quantitative hypothesis-generating data is the start to understanding the challenges faced by community neuro-oncology providers. These results will guide future studies and recommendations aimed toward better supporting them and their patients.
Disclaimer: Abstracts were not reviewed by Neurology® and do not reflect the views of Neurology® editors or staff.