Background: Precision oncology, using comprehensive biomarker testing (cBT) to inform individual cancer diagnosis, prognosis and treatment, includes increasingly complex technology and clinical data sets. People impacted by cancer (patients and caregivers) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) face distinct challenges in navigating the cBT and personalized treatment landscape. This review summarizes evidence regarding cBT‐related communication between people impacted by cancer and HCPs and identifies important avenues for future research in precision oncology.Methods: A scoping review was conducted using records published in PubMed during January 2017–August 2022, focusing on the breadth of topics on patient‐HCP communication and knowledge resources used by HCPs as guidance in cBT‐related communication. Data were extracted from records meeting inclusion criteria, and findings were summarized according to main topics.Results: The search identified 287 unique records and data were extracted from 42 records, including nine from expert input. Most records originated from the United States included patients with different types of cancer, and oncologists were the main HCPs. Patients' motivation for undergoing cBT and receiving results was generally high in different settings. However, patients' understanding of cBT‐related concepts was limited, and their knowledge and information preferences changed based on cBT implications and significance to family members. HCPs were valued by patients as a trusted source of information. Limited evidence was available on HCPs' information‐seeking behavior and factors influencing cBT‐related knowledge and confidence, often self‐reported as insufficient.Conclusions: Patient education by knowledgeable and confident HCPs, information management and a caring patient‐HCP relationship communicating continuity of care regardless of cBT results are crucial to empower patients and shared decision‐making in precision oncology. More data on the process and structure of cBT‐related communication, distinction between and characterization of different timepoints of patient‐HCP interactions are needed.

(1) Background: As genomic testing is becoming a part of the mainstream oncology practice, it is vital to ensure that our patients fully understand the implications of these tests. This study aimed to compare the attitudes and expectations of cancer patients with those of their physicians regarding the role of biomarker testing in clinical decision making. (2) Methods: Two separate, complimentary, self-administered questionnaires for patients with cancer and their physicians, respectively, were collected in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Out of 117, 113 completed patient surveys were included in the statistical analysis, constituting a 96.4% response rate. These surveys were subsequently matched with those of their corresponding oncologists to determine the concordance rates. (3) Results: Overall, patients demonstrated a good understanding of general cancer biology (80.0%) and diagnostic processes (90.0%) associated with precision oncology. Most patients wanted their tumours to be tested to guide treatment, and the oncologists broadly shared these views (concordance 65.1%). However, there were discrepancies between the knowledge and expectations regarding the applications of test results on actual diagnosis and prognosis between patients and their oncologists (concordance 26.1% and 36.0%, respectively). While only 28.0% of patients thought they had enough knowledge to make informed decisions, the majority (68.0%) said they needed more information. (4) Conclusion: Our study shows that patients and cancer physicians do not always agree with the roles and applications of genomic tests, which could lead to misplaced expectations and poor health outcomes. More research is needed to devise strategies to improve education and communication to align these expectations and improve the quality of clinical decision making.

The CASPIAN and IMpower133 trials revealed a significant survival benefit of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy in patients with extensive-stage SCLC. The current study characterizes the proportion of real-world patients who would have met eligibility for these trials and highlights factors influencing eligibility in the real-world setting. A retrospective analysis of patient data was conducted for stage IV patients with SCLC treated at the Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Canada. Trial eligibility was based on criteria used in the IMpower133 and CASPIAN trials. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Overall survival was assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Of the 116 patients included, only 12.1% met the overall eligibility criteria for the IMpower133 trial, and 14.7% for the CASPIAN trial. The most common reasons for ineligibility included: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 2 or greater (77.5%), inadequate organ function (48%), and the presence of brain metastases at diagnosis (37.3%). Sixty-one patients (59.8%) met two or more major ineligibility criteria. If trial eligibility was expanded to include ECOG 2 patients, an additional 10.3% would have met eligibility. The median overall survival for all-comers was 6.5 months. Only a small minority of real-world patients with extensive-stage SCLC would have met eligibility for the IMpower133 and CASPIAN trials, with ECOG greater than or equal to 2, inadequate organ function, and brain metastases comprising the most common reasons for trial ineligibility. Future clinical trials should expand the inclusion criteria to better represent real-world patient populations.

Background: Priapism is a very rare complication of malignancy and is usually accompanied by locally advanced or widely metastatic disease. We describe a case of priapism arising in a 46-year-old male with localised rectal cancer that was responding to therapy. Case presentation: This patient had just completed two weeks of neoadjuvant, long-course chemoradiation when he presented with persistent painful penile erection. Assessment and diagnosis were delayed for more than 60 h, and although a cause could not be determined from imaging, a near complete radiological response of the primary rectal cancer was seen. His symptoms were refractory to urologic intervention and were associated with extreme psychological distress. He re-presented shortly thereafter with extensively metastatic disease in the lungs, liver, pelvis, scrotum, and penis; additionally, multiple venous thromboses were identified, including in the dorsal penile veins. His priapism was not reversible and was associated with a considerable symptom burden for the remainder of his life. His malignancy did not respond to first-line palliative chemotherapy or radiation, and his clinical course was further complicated by obstructive nephropathy, ileus, and genital skin breakdown with a suspected infection. We initiated comfort measures, and he ultimately died in hospital less than five months after his initial presentation. Conclusion: Priapism in cancer is usually related to tumour infiltration of the penis and corporal bodies resulting in poor venous and lymphatic drainage. The management is palliative and can include chemotherapy, radiation, surgical shunting, and potentially penectomy; however, conservative penis-sparing therapy may be reasonable in patients with limited life expectancy.

(1) Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe the outcomes of diagnostic breast imaging and the incidence of delayed breast cancer diagnosis in the study population. (2) Methods: We collected the outcome data from diagnostic mammograms and/or breast ultrasounds (USs) performed on women between the ages of 30 and 50 with symptomatic breast clinical presentations between 2018 and 2019. (3) Results: Out of 171 eligible patients, 10 patients (5.8%) had BIRADS 0, 90 patients (52.6%) had benign findings (BIRADS 1 and 2), 41 (24.0%) patients had probable benign findings requiring short-term follow-up (BIRADS 3), while 30 (17.5%) patients had findings suspicious of malignancy (BIRADS 4 and 5). In the BIRADS 3 group, 92.7% had recommended follow-up, while in BIRADS 4 and 5, only 83.3% underwent recommended biopsy at a mean time of 1.7 weeks (range 0–22 wks) from their follow-up scan. Ten (6%) patients were diagnosed with breast cancer, all of whom had BIRADS 4 or 5, with a mean time of breast cancer diagnosis from initial diagnostic imaging of 2.2 weeks (range 1–22 wks). No patients had delayed breast cancer diagnosis in our cohort. (4) Conclusions: We conclude that diagnostic mammograms and breast US are appropriate investigations for clinical breast concerns in women aged 30–50 years.