Purpose Platinum-based chemotherapies used to treat many types of cancers are ototoxic. Ototoxicity management (OtoM) to mitigate the ototoxic outcomes of cancer survivors is recommended practice yet it is not a standard part of oncologic care. Although more than 10,000 patients each year are treated with platinum-based chemotherapies at the US Veterans Health Administration (VA), the current state of OtoM in VA is not well-defined. This study reports on a national survey of VA audiologists’ perceptions regarding OtoM in cancer patients. Methods A 26-item online survey was administered to VA audiologists and service chiefs across the VA’s 18 regional systems of care. Descriptive statistics and deductive thematic analysis were used to analyze the data. Results The 61 respondents included at least one from each VA region. All reported they felt some form of OtoM was necessary for at-risk cancer patients. A pre-treatment baseline, the ability to detect ototoxicity early, and management of ototoxic effects both during and after treatment were considered high value objectives of OtoM by respondents. Roughly half reported routinely providing these services for patients receiving cisplatin and carboplatin. Respondents disagreed regarding appropriate hearing testing schedules and how to co-manage OtoM responsibilities with oncology. They identified barriers to care that conformed to three themes: care and referral coordination with oncology, audiology workload, and lack of protocols. Conclusions Although VA audiologists value providing OtoM for cancer patients, only about half perform OtoM for highly ototoxic treatment regimens. The OtoMIC survey provides clinician perspectives to benchmark and address OtoM care gaps. Implications for cancer survivors Collaboration between oncology and audiology is needed to improve current OtoM processes, so that cancer survivors can have more control over their long term hearing health.

A point-of-care (POC) device to measure mouse glucose and lipid profiles is an important unmet need for cost-effective, immediate decision making in research. We compared metabolic analyte profiles obtained using a human clinical POC device with those from a veterinary laboratory chemical analyzer (LCA). Unfasted terminal blood samples were obtained by cardiac puncture from C57Bl/6J mice used in a diet-induced obesity model of type 2 diabetes mellitus; age-matched C57Bl/6J controls; a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease on a C57BL/6J background (16 wk old); and aged C57BL/6J mice (24 to 60 wk old). Aliquots of the blood were immediately assayed onsite using the POC device. Corresponding serum aliquots were sent analyzed by LCA. Measures from the POC and LCA devices were compared by using the Bland–Altman and Passing–Bablok methods. Of a total of 40 aliquots, LCA results were within reported reference ranges for each model. POC results that fell beyond the device range were excluded from the analyses. The coefficient of determination and Passing–Bablok analysis demonstrated that POC glucose and HDL had the best agreement with LCA. The Bland–Altman analysis found no value-dependent bias in glucose and no significant bias in HDL. The remaining lipid analytes (cholesterol and triglyceride) showed significant bias. Until an improved, validated mouse POC device with lipid profile capability is available, the POC device that we tested appears adequate for screening glucose and HDL in mouse blood. Disadvantages of this clinical POC device are the narrow human ranges relative to ranges found in mice and its limited precision as compared with the LCA. This study demonstrates that when the samples are within the device range limits, this human POC device can accurately track metabolic syndrome and be used to compare patterns in glucose and HDL.