Background: The traditional model of promotion and tenure in the health professions relies heavily on formal scholarship through teaching, research, and service. Institutions consider how much weight to give activities in each of these areas and determine a threshold for advancement. With the emergence of social media, scholars can engage wider audiences in creative ways and have a broader impact. Conventional metrics like the h-index do not account for social media impact. Social media engagement is poorly represented in most curricula vitae (CV) and therefore is undervalued in promotion and tenure reviews. Objective: The objective was to develop crowdsourced guidelines for documenting social media scholarship. These guidelines aimed to provide a structure for documenting a scholar’s general impact on social media, as well as methods of documenting individual social media contributions exemplifying innovation, education, mentorship, advocacy, and dissemination. Methods: To create unifying guidelines, we created a crowdsourced process that capitalized on the strengths of social media and generated a case example of successful use of the medium for academic collaboration. The primary author created a draft of the guidelines and then sought input from users on Twitter via a publicly accessible Google Document. There was no limitation on who could provide input and the work was done in a democratic, collaborative fashion. Contributors edited the draft over a period of 1 week (September 12-18, 2020). The primary and secondary authors then revised the draft to make it more concise. The guidelines and manuscript were then distributed to the contributors for edits and adopted by the group. All contributors were given the opportunity to serve as coauthors on the publication and were told upfront that authorship would depend on whether they were able to document the ways in which they met the 4 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria. Results: We developed 2 sets of guidelines: Guidelines for Listing All Social Media Scholarship Under Public Scholarship (in Research/Scholarship Section of CV) and Guidelines for Listing Social Media Scholarship Under Research, Teaching, and Service Sections of CV. Institutions can choose which set fits their existing CV format. Conclusions: With more uniformity, scholars can better represent the full scope and impact of their work. These guidelines are not intended to dictate how individual institutions should weigh social media contributions within promotion and tenure cases. Instead, by providing an initial set of guidelines, we hope to provide scholars and their institutions with a common format and language to document social media scholarship.

The incidence and mortality of squamous cell carcinoma of the anus has been gradually increasing globally over the last few decades. The evolution of different modalities, including immunotherapies, has changed the treatment paradigm of metastatic anal cancers. Chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and immune-modulating therapies form the backbone of treatment of anal cancer in various stages. Most anal cancers are linked to high-risk human papilloma virus (HPV) infections. HPV oncoproteins E6 and E7 are responsible for an anti-tumor immune response triggering the recruitment of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. This has led to the development and utilization of immunotherapy in anal cancers. Current research in anal cancer is moving forward to discover ways to incorporate immunotherapy in the treatment sequencing in various stages of anal cancers. Immune checkpoint inhibitors alone or in combination, adoptive cell therapy, and vaccines are the areas of active investigations in anal cancer in both locally advanced and metastatic settings. Immunomodulating properties of non-immunotherapies are incorporated to enhance immune checkpoint inhibitors’ effectiveness in some of the clinical trials. The aim of this review is to summarize the potential role of immunotherapy in anal squamous cell cancers and future directions.

Discussions involving racial health disparities must include pathways for engaging in shared decision-making with racial/ethnic minorities. Research demonstrates glaring racial and ethnic disparities when it comes to hematologic malignancies from the time of diagnosis to treatment and even at the end of life. Unfortunately, decision-making in these circumstances may be streamlined, given the urgency of the disease, prognostic uncertainty, and varying treatment options. Being diagnosed with cancer is undoubtedly a traumatic experience and a patient’s race and/or ethnicity add an important dimension to their experience. The tenets of trauma-informed care (TIC) are anchored in recognizing that trauma can manifest in several ways and acknowledging the impact of past trauma on a patient’s present and future behaviors. We argue that using a TIC approach may help hematologists create a space for decision-making while minimizing the risk of re-traumatization and perpetuating racial disparities. Using the foundation of TIC, an interprofessional team can begin addressing manifestations of trauma and hopefully mitigate racial and ethnic disparities.

PURPOSE: Integrating palliative care into oncology is essential, yet disparities in access and quality persist, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The ASCO guidelines advocate for early, routine, interdisciplinary palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. Barriers to implementing these recommendations include resource limitations, inadequate training, and cultural perceptions. Recognizing these challenges is essential for improving equitable access to palliative care worldwide. METHODS: This prospective survey assessed adherence to ASCO recommendations for palliative care integration among LMIC health care providers (HCPs). Participants were recruited via e-mail, social media, and a list of members involved in the ASCO Palliative Care Communities of Practice from February to May 2024. The survey included sections on sociodemographic information, self-perceived adherence to ASCO guidelines on a 5-point Likert scale, and open-ended questions on implementation barriers. Data were collected using Research Electronic Data Capture system. Participants were grouped by WHO regions. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics and adherence scores, and chi-square tests were used to evaluate regional differences. Thematic analysis identified key themes from open-ended responses. RESULTS: One hundred eighty HCPs participated; 62% was female, and 51.1% was age 35-44 years. Most were physicians (66%), and 50% lacked palliative care specialization. Adherence to ASCO guidelines varied, with early palliative care referrals ranging from 50% in the Americas region to 0% in the Western Pacific region. Key barriers included lack of policy support (25%), unmet educational needs (22%), and accessibility constraints (19%). CONCLUSION: Addressing identified barriers through evidence-based advocacy, comprehensive policy changes, training, and continuing education programs is essential for integrating palliative care into oncology services across LMICs, promoting health equity for patients with cancer.