PurposeMultidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs) are universally recommended, but recent literature has challenged their efficiency.MethodsThe American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conducted a survey of a randomly selected cohort of international ASCO members. The survey was built on SurveyMonkey and was sent via e-mail to a sample of 5,357 members.ResultsIn all, 501 ASCO members practicing outside the United States responded, and 86% of them participated in MDTBs at their own institutions. Those who attended represented a variety of disciplines in 70% to 86% of all MDTBs. The majority of MDTBs held weekly specialty and/or general meetings. Eighty-nine percent of 409 respondents attended for advice on treatment decisions. Survey respondents reported changes of 1% to 25% in treatment plans for 44% to 49% of patients with breast cancer and in 47% to 50% of patients with colorectal cancer. They reported 25% to 50% changes in surgery type and/or treatment plans for 14% to 21% of patients with breast cancer and 12% to 18% of patients with colorectal cancer. Of the 430 respondents 96% said overall benefit to patients was worth the time and effort spent at MDTBs, and 96% said that MDTBs have teaching value. Mini tumor boards held with whatever types of specialists were available were considered valid. In all, 94.8% (425 of 448) said that MDTBs should be required in institutions in which patients with cancer are treated.ConclusionMDTBs are commonplace worldwide. A majority of respondents attend them to obtain recommendations, and they report changes in patient management. Change occurred more frequently with nonmedical oncologists and with physicians who had less than 15 years in practice. MDTBs helped practitioners make management decisions. Mini tumor boards may improve time efficiency and are favored when the full team is not available. Suggestions for improving MDTBs included making them more efficient, better selection and preparation of cases, choosing an effective team leader, and improving how time is used, but more research is needed on ways to improve the efficiency of MDTBs.

PURPOSE In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ASCO launched a Global Webinar Series to address various aspects of cancer care during the pandemic. Here we present the lessons learned and recommendations that have emerged from these webinars. METHODS Fifteen international health care experts from different global regions and oncology disciplines participated in one of the six 1-hour webinars to discuss the latest data, share their experiences, and provide recommendations to manage cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These sessions include didactic presentations followed by a moderated discussion and questions from the audience. All recommendations have been transcribed, categorized, and reviewed by the experts, who have also approved the consensus recommendations. RESULTS The summary recommendations are divided into different categories, including risk minimization; care prioritization of patients; health care team management; virtual care; management of patients with cancer undergoing surgical, radiation, and systemic therapy; clinical research; and recovery plans. The recommendations emphasize the protection of patients and health care teams from infections, delivery of timely and appropriate care, reduction of harm from the interruption of care, and preparation to handle a surge of new COVID-19 cases, complications, or comorbidities thereof. CONCLUSION The recommendations from the ASCO Global Webinar Series may guide practicing oncologists to manage their patients during the ongoing pandemic and help organizations recover from the crisis. Implementation of these recommendations may improve understanding of how COVID-19 has affected cancer care and increase readiness to manage the current and any future outbreaks effectively.

The burden of cancer in low- to middle-income countries is growing and is expected to rise dramatically while resources to manage this disease remain inadequate. All authorities for the management of cancer recommend multidisciplinary care. Educational efforts by international organizations to assist local professionals in caring for their patients tend to have a lasting impact because they empower local professionals and enhance their skills. A multidisciplinary cancer management course was designed by American Society of Clinical Oncology staff and local experts to provide a roadmap for cross-specialty interaction and coordination of care in Zimbabwe. The outcome of the course was measured through feedback obtained from participants and impact on local workforce. The cancer management course was relevant to daily practice and fostered long-lasting partnerships and collaborations. Furthermore, it resulted in a more motivated local workforce and strengthened existing multidisciplinary practices. Cancer care is in a critical state in low- to middle-income countries. Educational efforts and collaborative partnerships may provide a cost-effective strategy with sustainable benefits. A multidisciplinary approach to optimize therapy is desirable. Evaluation of the course impact after a period of 6 months to 1 year is needed to determine the sustainability and impact of such efforts.

Cervical cancer is the leading cause of death among women in Nepal. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center collaborated with international and local experts to hold a cervical cancer prevention course in Nepal in November 2019. The course included didactic lectures and a hands-on workshop. The didactic lectures included the epidemiology of cervical cancer globally and locally, cervical cancer screening guidelines, human papillomavirus vaccination, colposcopy and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), cervical dysplasia, and cervical cancer treatment. The hands-on workshop consisted of four stations: (1) VIA; (2) colposcopy, cervical biopsy, and endocervical curettage; (3) thermal ablation; and (4) loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP). A train-the-trainer model short course was held by the international faculty to assist six local faculty to become familiar with the instruments, procedures, and models used in the hands-on training stations. Forty-two people (84% gynecologist, 8% radiation oncologist, and 8% other) attended the course. Following the course, the international faculty visited the regional hospitals for additional educational activities. Increased knowledge in cervical cancer screening guidelines and ability in performing VIA, colposcopy and cervical biopsy, thermal ablation, and LEEP were reported by 89%, 84%, 84%, 87%, and 84% of participants, respectively, from the postcourse on-site evaluations. From the 6-month follow-up survey, all respondents reported that they had made practice changes based on what they learned in the course and had implemented or tried to implement the cervical cancer screening guidelines presented at the course. In conclusion, the course evaluations suggested an improvement in participants' ability to perform cervical cancer screening and diagnostic procedures and reported the changes in practices after training.