Zoň, Robin

406 Background: Anxiety is highly prevalent among oncology patients, often arising from uncertainty around diagnosis, treatment options, and prognosis. Elevated anxiety can impair decision-making, reduce treatment adherence, and diminish overall quality of life. Effective second opinion consultations may help mitigate anxiety and increase patients’ confidence in recommending healthcare services to others. Our study evaluates the impact of oncology second opinion (OSO) consultations on anxiety level (AL) and confidence in the organization (CIO) providing the second opinion, i.e., Cincinnati Cancer Advisors (CCA) and Naples Cancer Advisors (NCA). Methods: The study included patients with cancer diagnoses, age ≥18 years, who were served in person for OSO at CCA and NCA. A survey was used before and after consultation, measuring AL (scale 1- 10) and CIO level (scale 1 - 10), assessed by asking patients how likely they would refer loved ones to the organization. After the content and face validation, patients completed the survey anonymously, put it in a sealed envelope, and dropped it in a dedicated box. Data was analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the change from pre- to post-consultation scores. Spearman’s correlation test was used to assess the relation between the changes in AL and CIO. Statistical significance was assessed using an alpha-level of 0.05. Analyses were conducted via R and R Studio (version 2025.5.1.513). Results: Overall, 46 consecutive patients participated (45 completed AL pre and post visit survey and 43 completed the CIO pre and post visit survey). The mean pre-consultation anxiety score was 5.92 (SD = 2.58), and the post-consultation score was 3.87 (SD = 2.10), demonstrating a significant reduction (mean paired difference = -2.05; p < 0.0001). The mean pre-consult CIO was 8.21 (SD = 2.03), increasing to 9.73 post-consultation (SD = 0.53), indicating a significant improvement (mean paired difference = 1.66; p < 0.0001). The correlation between changes in AL and CIO was not statistically significant, which may be attributed to the high baseline CIO scores (ceiling effect) and the small sample size. Conclusions: Oncology second opinion was associated with a marked decrease in patient AL and a significant increase in CIO. The patient survey will continue to recruit additional participants to increase the sample size and explore the correlation between changes in AL and CIO. Studying the downstream impact on patient experience and outcome is warranted.

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO’s) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.