1407 - What do European community oncologists expect from ESMO? A survey in Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Romania, and Spain by the ESMO Com...

Date 28 September 2012
Event ESMO Congress 2012
Session Publication Only
Topics Bioethics, Legal, and Economic Issues
Presenter Robert Eckert
Authors R. Eckert1, R. Curca2, G. D'Addario3, M.V. Karamouzis4, G. Lanzetta5, P. Martin Martorell6, D. Mauri7, S. Rauh8, S. Schmitz9, K. Tamas10
  • 1Oncology Group Practice, 73240 - Wendlingen/DE
  • 2Medical Oncology, Alba County Hospital, RO-510055 - Alba Iulia/RO
  • 3-, Onkologie Schaffhausen, CH-8200 - Schaffhausen/CH
  • 4Dept. Of Biological Chemistry, University of Athens Medical School, Kolonaki/GR
  • 5Dept. Oncology, Instituto Neurotraumatologico Italiano(I.N.I) Grottaferrata, IT-00046 - Grottaferrata/IT
  • 6Oncology, Hospital Clinico Universitario de Valencia, Valencia/ES
  • 7Medical Oncology, General Hospital of Lamia, GR-351 00 - Roditsa Lamias/GR
  • 8Oncologie / Med Interne, Centre Hospitalier Emile MayrischSite Niedercorn, LU-4501 - Differdange/LU
  • 9Haematology And Oncology, Oncology Practice, 50677 - Cologne/DE
  • 10Department Of Oncology, Szent Laszlo Teaching Hospital, 1097 - Budapest/HU

Abstract

Introduction

Community oncologists (COs) mainly work outside academic institutions and typically treat a wide range of tumours. It is estimated that COs care for over 50% of all cancer patients. Time-saving and efficient access to relevant and up to date information and tools could improve the quality of patient care and possibly disease outcomes. We asked COs from 7 European countries for their needs and wishes for support by a professional society like ESMO.

Methods

In Germany, Greece, Romania, Hungary, Luxembourg, and Spain, questionnaires were distributed by email by WG members. In Italy and Spain, AIOM and SEOM member COs were asked to answer an online questionnaire. We asked about topics like ESMO membership, use of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG), use of electronic tools, and ESMO conferences.

Results

389 answers were received from COs in 7 European countries (DE 164, GR 45, HU 21, IT 96, LU 12, RO 41, ES 10; average response rate where evaluable: 27%). 52% of responding COs are ESMO members and 82% know ESMO's home page. The use of ESMO CPGs varies greatly among countries (39-95%). 67% of COs have access to an intranet with electronic tools; yet 83% are interested in web based tools on the ESMO homepage, particularly guidelines, score calculators, and therapy protocols / planning aids. 87% of COs attend ESMO conferences at least occasionally; 62% of ESMO members attend regularly vs. 20% of non-members. 49% of COs are satisfied with the conferences' scientific content, but miss practice relevance; 72% would like to have sessions particularly for COs.

Conclusions

This is the largest survey among COs in Europe to date. In spite of Europe‘s political and cultural heterogeneity, we find a surprising homogeneity in most answers across countries. A high proportion of COs are ESMO members. There is a definite interest in ESMO also by non-ESMO-members. COs wish more practice relevant sessions at ESMO conferences. They are interested in online services provided by ESMO, particularly guidelines and tools. To support practising oncologists in delivering the best available care to their patients, ESMO and the Community Oncology WG have already implemented several measures, such as OncologyPro, a first CO Symposium at ESMO 2012, and additions to ESMO's web page.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.