PURPOSE: Screening for second primary cancer (SPC) is one of the key components to survivorship care. We aim to evaluate the oncologists' experience with SPCs and assess the current practice, perceived barriers, and recommendations related to SPC screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A nationwide survey was conducted with a representative sample of 496 Korean oncologists. A questionnaire based on the findings from our previous qualitative study was administered. RESULTS: More than three-fourths of oncologists (76.3%), who participated in the study, had experience with SPC patients. Over half of them (51.9%) stated that it was an embarrassing experience. While the current management practice for SPC varies, most oncologists (80.2%) agreed on the necessity in proactively providing information on SPC screening. A short consultation time (52.3%), lack of guidelines and evidence on SPC screening (47.7%), and patients' lack of knowledge about SPCs (45.1%) or SPC screening (41.4%) were most frequently reported as barriers to providing appropriate care for managing SPC. Oncologists recommended the development of specific screening programs or guidelines in accordance to the type of primary cancer (65.9%), the development of an internal system for SPC screening within the hospital (59.7%) or systematic connection with the national cancer screening program (44.3%), and education of oncologists (41.4%) as well as patients (48.9%) regarding SPC screening. CONCLUSION: Many oncologists reported the occurrence of SPC as an embarrassing experience. Given the variations in current practice and the lack of consensus, further studies are warranted to develop the optimal clinical strategy to provide SPC screening for cancer survivors.
Consensus ; Early Detection of Cancer ; Education ; Humans ; Mass Screening* ; Neoplasms, Second Primary* ; Survival Rate ; Survivors

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to identify the differences in obesity rates among people with and without disabilities, and evaluate the relationship between obesity rates and the existence of disabilities or characteristics of disabilities. METHODS: Mass screening data from 2008 from the National Disability Registry and National Health Insurance (NHI) are used. For analysis, we classified physical disability into three subtypes: upper limb disability, lower limb disability, and spinal cord injury. For a control group, we extracted people without disabilities by each subtype. To adjust for the participation rate in the NHI mass screening, we calculated and adopted the weight stratified by sex, age, and grade of disability. Differences in obesity rates between people with and without disabilities were examined by a chi-squared test. In addition, the effect of the existence of disabilities and grade of disabilities on obesity was examined by multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: People with disabilities were found to have a higher obesity rate than those without disabilities. The obesity rates were 35.2% and 35.0% (people with disabilities vs. without disabilities) in the upper limb disability, 44.5% and 34.8% in the lower limb disability, 43.4% and 34.6% in the spinal cord injury. The odds for existence of physical disability and grade of disability are higher than the non-disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that people with physical disability have a higher vulnerability to obesity.
Adult ; Aged ; Case-Control Studies ; Disabled Persons/*statistics & numerical data ; Female ; *Health Surveys ; Humans ; Male ; Mass Screening ; Middle Aged ; Obesity/*epidemiology/etiology ; Republic of Korea/epidemiology ; Spinal Cord Injuries/complications/epidemiology ; Young Adult