Background Cancer survivors face an increased risk of cardiovascular events compared with the general population. Adopting a healthy lifestyle may reduce these risks, and guidelines encourage health‐promotion counseling for cancer survivors, but the extent of physician adherence is unclear. Methods This mixed‐method study surveyed 91 physicians, including 30 primary care physicians (PCPs), 30 oncologists, and 31 specialists (urologists, dermatologists, and gynecologists). Interviews also were conducted with 12 oncologists. Results Most PCPs (90%) reported recommending health promotion (eg, weight loss, smoking cessation) to at least some cancer survivors, whereas few oncologists (26.7%) and specialists (9.7%) said they ever did so (P < .001). Although most physicians believed that at least 50% of cancer survivors would be adherent to medication regimens to prevent cancer recurrence, they also believed that, if patients were trying to lose weight, they would not remain medication‐adherent. In interviews, oncologists expressed fear that providing health‐promotion advice would distress or overwhelm patients. Additional health‐promotion barriers identified by thematic analysis included: identifying cancer as oncologists' focal concern, time pressure, insufficient behavior change training, and care coordination challenges. Facilitators included perceiving a patient benefit and having health‐promotion resources integrated into the cancer care system. Conclusions Physicians often do not have the time, expertise, or resources to address health promotion with cancer survivors. Research is needed to evaluate whether health‐promotion efforts compromise medical regimen adherence, as physicians' responses suggest.

treatment, depth of invasion, tumor differentiation, lymphatic invasion, vascular invasion, tumor budding, polypoid/non-polypoid growth, adenoma component, and lymph node metastasis. Pathologically diagnosis of massive invasion was judged according to Kudo's classification of the degree of submucosal invasion. Their morphology (gross appearances) were divided into protruded, flat-elevated, and depressed type. Results: The incidence of small T1 cancers was 15.5% (179/1153). 'Small' group had significantly more depressed-type lesions('Small' 46.9% vs. 'Large' 20.1%, p<0.01), significantly lower adenoma component ('Small' 29.0% vs. 'Large' 42.6%, p<0.01) and polypoid growth ('Small' 46.4% vs. 'Large' 64.9%, p<0.01) than 'Large' group. Concerning initial treatment, 'small' group was significantly more likely to undergo endoscopic treatment, whilst the lymph node metastasis rate was not significantly different between the two groups('Small' 12.4% vs. 'Large' 10.8%, pZ0.64). Conclusion: Although 'small' T1 cancers tended to be adopted to initial endoscopic treatment, nodal metastasis rate showed no differences between 'small' and 'large'. In addition, 'small' T1 cancers contain more depressed-typed tumors. It is therefore important to take more careful assessment even when we find a 'small' lesion. And we have to do endoscopy so as not to miss any 'small' lesions.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract