Evans, Suzanne

Abstract Cancer occurs in ∼1 per 1000 pregnancies; thousands of patients may require radiation procedures for diagnosis and treatment each year in the United States alone. This rare but high-risk scenario, coupled with fear of radiation, has created ambiguity in the ideal management of pregnant patients. Without a comprehensive guide for the use of radiation in imaging and treatment for pregnant cancer patients, it is difficult for providers to offer optimal patient-centered care without introducing disparities. The goal of this paper is to provide guidance on the use of radiation for screening, diagnosis, staging, and treatment of cancer, while highlighting gaps in existing knowledge and guidelines. The intention is that physicians, medical physicists, and patients could use this document as a resource for shared decision-making, ensuring safe and effective practice. A team of physicians and medical physicists with expertise in imaging, radiotherapy, and maternal fetal medicine was assembled, along with a patient advocate and lawyer. Existing guidelines and recent literature were reviewed. Authors also drew from their experience where published guidance was lacking. The resulting document discusses best practice to guide use of radiation for cancer, as well as patient-centered care management and legal considerations. Overall, it is possible to safely and effectively deliver radiation to pregnant patients in numerous circumstances. Use of radiation or other modalities should be discussed through shared decision-making with the physician and patient, contextualizing the maternal and fetal risk from treatments. Healthcare providers should support wide access to reproductive healthcare to allow equitable, evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare.

AbstractPurposePrevious studies suggest that within radiation oncology, medical physicists (MP) experience high workloads. Little is known about how MPs use social support (SS) in times of stress.MethodsIn collaboration with the Workgroup on Prevention of Medical Error, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine administered this Human Investigation Committee (HIC) approved email survey to 8566 members. Respondents were considered likely to seek SS if they answered (probably/definitely would) and unlikely to seek support if they answered (probably/definitely would not). Logistic regression was applied to determine associations between demographic factors and willingness to seek support as well as perception of barriers.ResultsOne thousand two hundred and ninety‐seven members (15.1%) accessed and gave consent for the survey. One thousand and one (11.7%) respondents answered all relevant questions. Respondents were predominantly male (69.1%), MP in radiation oncology (81.8%), private practice (51.6%), with practice duration> 10 yr (60.2%). MPs were likely to seek SS for personal physical illness (78.63%), involvement in a medical error (73.94%) or adverse patient outcome (75.17%). MPs sought SS in the setting of personal fatigue (33.2%) or burnout (44.3%). Barriers to seeking SS were lack of time (80.3%), and uncertainty about whom to access (70.7%). MPs responded that they would be most likely to seek support from an equally experienced medical physicist colleague (81.0%). Most MPs (67.0%) identified as having experienced stressors, with serious family illness (35.2%), or burnout (32.8%) being most common. Factors associated with MPs unwillingness to seek SS for medical error included> 20 yr in practice (vs still in training — OR 0.30, P = 0.015), and male gender (OR 0.60, P = 0.003). Male gender was associated with the lowest willingness to seek support (OR 2.10, P = 0.0001), but also with fewer perceived barriers (OR 1.60, P = 0.0075).ConclusionWillingness to seek SS is demonstrated, and MPs want colleagues to provide support. Given these results, peer support could be considered among MPs.