As part of a recent national survey our CME group conducted with 100 US-based medical oncologists, participants were asked to estimate the fraction of patients in their practices with various hematologic cancers. As in our other surveys of this type, clinicians reported that approximately one third of their patients were diagnosed with these diverse diseases (Figure 1).

While representing a “minority” of oncology practice, the huge volume of important clinical research information that is emerging in each one of these complex blood and/or lymphoid neoplasias is equal to, if not greater than, the amount of new data in several much more common solid tumors. In response, our group has in recent years introduced a number of time-saving tools to help clinicians access information and perspectives on hematologic cancers. Our Hematologic Oncology Update audio program is a good example in that it allows users to multitask and learn about AML, NHL, MM, et cetera as they drive, work out and participate in a number of other pretty interesting activities, including gardening, mowing the lawn and simmering in the hot tub.

Our Year in Review series is another attempt to bring efficiency into education. For each one of these adventures, we use the RTP “home-brewed” peer-review process involving clinical investigators and practicing oncologists, working with us to identify key new data sets relevant to research and practice (Figure 2). The enclosed YiR focuses on what our aforementioned survey documents to be one of the most common hematologic cancers seen in practice — multiple myeloma (Figure 3). This second myeloma issue of the series is again designed to provide access to the most up-to-date and important research data available in this not-so-uncommon disease, as we provide graphical summaries — and a PowerPoint version available for downloading at ResearchToPractice.com — of 17 “tier one” papers or presentations considered essential for clinicians and an annotated bibliography of 29 “ tier two” publications considered important but less critical to know about.

For all of the important studies profiled here, ideally oncologists should attempt to read the actual papers and watch the virtual presentations if available. (Come on ASH!) As a supplement or perhaps a replacement, we hope you will find this presentation useful, beneficial and time saving.

— Neil Love, MD
DrNeilLove@ResearchToPractice.com
May 3, 2010