Search

Objectives To assess the prevalence and drivers of distress, a composite of burnout, decreased meaning in work, severe fatigue, poor work–life integration and quality of life, and suicidal ideation, among nurses and physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design Cross-sectional design to evaluate distress levels of nurses and physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic between June and August 2021.Setting Cardiovascular and oncology care settings at a Canadian quaternary hospital network.Participants 261 nurses and 167 physicians working in cardiovascular or oncology care. Response rate was 29% (428 of 1480).Outcome measures Survey tool to measure clinician distress using the Well-Being Index (WBI) and additional questions about workplace-related and COVID-19 pandemic-related factors.Results Among 428 respondents, nurses (82%, 214 of 261) and physicians (62%, 104 of 167) reported high distress on the WBI survey. Higher WBI scores (≥2) in nurses were associated with perceived inadequate staffing (174 (86%) vs 28 (64%), p=0.003), unfair treatment, (105 (52%) vs 11 (25%), p=0.005), and pandemic-related impact at work (162 (80%) vs 22 (50%), p

BackgroundPatients with cancer require adequate preparation in self-management of treatment toxicities to reduce morbidity that can be achieved through well-designed digital technologies that are developed in co-design with patients and end users. ObjectiveWe undertook a user-centered co-design process in partnership with patients and other knowledge end users to develop and iteratively test an evidence-based and theoretically informed web-based cancer self-management program (I-Can Manage). The specific study aims addressed in 2 phases were to (1) identify from the perspective of patients with cancer and clinicians the desired content, features, and functionalities for an online self-management education and support (SMES) program to enable patient self-management of treatment toxicities (phase 1); (2) develop the SMES prototype based on human-centered, health literate design principles and co-design processes; and (3) evaluate usability of the I-Can Manage prototype through user-centered testing (phase 2). MethodsWe developed the I-Can Manage program using multiperspective data sources and based on humanistic and co-design principles with end users engaged through 5 phases of development. We recruited adult patients with lung, colorectal, and lymphoma cancer receiving systemic treatments from ambulatory clinics in 2 regional cancer programs for the qualitative inquiry phase. The design of the program was informed by data from qualitative interviews and focus groups, persona and journey mapping, theoretical underpinnings of social cognitive learning theory, and formalized usability testing using a cognitive think-aloud process and user satisfaction survey. A co-design team comprising key stakeholders (human design experts, patients/caregiver, clinicians, knowledge end users, and e-learning and digital design experts) was involved in the developmental process. We used a cognitive think-aloud process to test usability and participants completed the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ). ResultsIn the initial qualitative inquiry phase, 16 patients participated in interviews and 19 clinicians participated in interviews or focus groups and 12 key stakeholders participated in a persona journey mapping workshop to inform development of the program prototype. The I-Can Manage program integrates evidence-based information and strategies for the self-management of treatment toxicities and health-promoting behaviors in 6 e-learning modules (lay termed “chapters”), starting with an orientation to self-management. Behavioral exercises, patient written and video stories, downloadable learning resources, and online completion of goals and action plans were integrated across chapters. Patient participants (n=5) with different cancers, gender, and age worked through the program in the human factors laboratory using a cognitive think-aloud process and all key stakeholders reviewed each chapter of the program and approved revisions. Results of the PSSUQ (mean total score: 3.75) completed following the cognitive think-aloud process (n=5) suggest patient satisfaction with the usability of I-Can Manage. ConclusionsThe I-Can Manage program has the potential for activating patients in self-management of cancer and treatment toxicities but requires testing in a larger randomized controlled trial.

Background Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is a process where providers work with patients to document and communicate comprehensive medication information by creating a complete medication list (best possible medication history (BPMH)) then reconciling it against what patient is actually taking to identify potential issues such as drug-drug interactions. We undertook an environmental scan of current MedRec practices in outpatient cancer care to inform a quality improvement project at our centre with the aim of 30% of patients having a BPMH or MedRec within 30 days of initiating treatment with systemic therapy.Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from 21 cancer centres across Canada, probing on current policies, and barriers and facilitators to MedRec. Guided by the findings of the scan, we then undertook a quality improvement project at our cancer centre, comprising six iterative improvement cycles.Results Most institutions interviewed had a process in place for collecting a BPMH (81%) and targeted patients initiating systemic therapy (59%); however, considerable practice variation was noted and completion of full MedRec was uncommon. Lack of resources, high patient volumes, lack of a common medical record spanning institutions and settings which limits access to medication records from external institutions and community pharmacies were identified as significant barriers. Despite navigating challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, we achieved 26.6% of eligible patients with a documented BPMH. However, uptake of full MedRec remained low whereby 4.7% of patients had a documented MedRec.Conclusions Realising improvements to completion of MedRec in outpatient cancer care is possible but takes considerable time and iteration as the process is complex. Resource allocation and information sharing remain major barriers which need to be addressed in order to observe meaningful improvements in MedRec.

BackgroundMajor advances in different cancer treatment modalities have been made, and people are now living longer with cancer. However, patients with cancer experience a range of physical and psychological symptoms during and beyond cancer treatment. New models of care are needed to combat this rising challenge. A growing body of evidence supports the effectiveness of eHealth interventions in the delivery of supportive care to people living with the complexities of chronic health conditions. However, reviews on the effects of eHealth interventions are scarce in the field of cancer-supportive care, particularly for interventions with the aim of empowering patients to manage cancer treatment–related symptoms. For this reason, this protocol has been developed to guide a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of eHealth interventions for supporting patients with cancer in managing cancer-related symptoms. ObjectiveThis systematic review with meta-analysis is conducted with the aim of identifying eHealth-based self-management intervention studies for adult patients with cancer and evaluating the efficacy of eHealth-based self-management tools and platforms in order to synthesize the empirical evidence on self-management and patient activation through eHealth. MethodsA systematic review with meta-analysis and methodological critique of randomized controlled trials is conducted following Cochrane Collaboration methods. Multiple data sources are used to identify all potential research sources for inclusion in the systematic review: (1) electronic databases such as MEDLINE, (2) forward reference searching, and (3) gray literature. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for conducting the review were followed. The PICOS (Population, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, and Study Design) framework is used to identify relevant studies. ResultsThe literature search yielded 10,202 publications. The title and abstract screening were completed in May 2022. Data will be summarized, and if possible, meta-analyses will be performed. It is expected to finalize this review by Winter 2023. ConclusionsThe results of this systematic review will provide the latest data on leveraging eHealth interventions and offering effective and sustainable eHealth care, both of which have the potential to improve quality and efficiency in cancer-related symptoms. Trial RegistrationPROSPERO 325582; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=325582 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/38758

Cancer care is complex and exists within the broader healthcare system. The CanIMPACT team sought to enhance primary cancer care capacity and improve integration between primary and cancer specialist care, focusing on breast cancer. In Canada, all medically-necessary healthcare is publicly funded but overseen at the provincial/territorial level. The CanIMPACT Administrative Health Data Group’s (AHDG) role was to describe inter-sectoral care across five Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. This paper describes the process used and challenges faced in creating four parallel administrative health datasets. We present the content of those datasets and population characteristics. We provide guidance for future research based on ‘lessons learned’. The AHDG conducted population-based comparisons of care for breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2007-2011. We created parallel provincial datasets using knowledge from data inventories, our previous work, and ongoing bi-weekly conference calls. Common dataset creation plans (DCPs) ensured data comparability and documentation of data differences. In general, the process had to be flexible and iterative as our understanding of the data and needs of the broader team evolved. Inter-sectoral data inconsistencies that we had to address occurred due to differences in: 1) healthcare systems, 2) data sources, 3) data elements and 4) variable definitions. Our parallel provincial datasets describe the breast cancer diagnostic, treatment and survivorship phases and address ten research objectives. Breast cancer patient demographics reflect inter-provincial general population differences. Across provinces, disease characteristics are similar but underlying health status and use of healthcare services differ. Describing healthcare across Canadian jurisdictions assesses whether our provincial healthcare systems are delivering similar high quality, timely, accessible care to all of our citizens. We have provided a description of our experience in trying to achieve this goal and include a list of ‘lessons learned’ and a study process checklist for future use.

Treatment with small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has improved survival in many cancers, yet has been associated with an increased risk of adverse events. Warnings of cardiovascular events are common in drug labels of many TKIs. Despite these warnings, cardiovascular toxicity of patients treated with TKIs remains unclear. Here, we evaluate the cardiovascular outcomes of advanced cancer patients treated with small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors.A population based cohort study was undertaken involving adults aged >18 years in Ontario, Canada, diagnosed with any advanced malignancy between 2006 and 2012. Data were extracted from linked administrative governmental databases. Adults with advanced cancer receiving TKIs were identified and followed throughout the time period. The main outcomes of interest were rates of hospitalization for ischemic heart disease (acute myocardial infarction and angina) or cerebrovascular accidents and death.1642 patients with a mean age of 62.5 years were studied; 1046 were treated with erlotinib, 166 with sorafenib and 430 with sunitinib. Over the 380 day median follow-up period (range 6-1970 days), 1.1% of all patients had ischemic heart events, 0.7% had cerebrovascular accidents and 72.1% died. Rates of cardiovascular events were similar to age and gender-matched individuals without cancer. In a subgroup analysis of treatment patients with a prior history of ischemic heart disease, 3.3% had ischemic heart events while 1.2% had cerebrovascular accidents.TKIs do not appear to increase the cause-specific hazard of ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular accidents compared to age and gender-matched individuals without advanced cancer.

Background: First-line treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) consists of a combination of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. Recently, targeted therapies such as bevacizumab have been shown to improve oncologic outcomes in a subset of a high-risk population. The objective of this study is to evaluate the patterns of practice and outcomes of first-line systemic treatment of advanced EOC, focusing on the adoption of bevacizumab. Methods: A population cohort study was conducted using administrative data in Ontario, Canada. Patients diagnosed with advanced stage non-mucinous EOC between 2014 and 2018 were identified. Datasets were linked to obtaining information on first-line treatment including surgery, systemic therapy, providers of care, systemic therapy facilities, and acute care utilization (emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations) during systemic treatment. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with systemic therapy utilization. Results: Among 3726 patients with advanced EOC, 2838 (76%) received chemotherapy: 1316 (47%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 1060 (37%) underwent primary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy, and 462 (16%) received chemotherapy only. The median age was 67 (range: 20–100). Most chemotherapies were prescribed by gynecologic oncologists (60%) and in level 1 academic cancer centres (58%). Only 54 patients (3.1%) received bevacizumab in the first-line setting after its approval in Ontario in 2016. Bevacizumab was more likely to be administered by medical oncologists compared to gynecologic oncologists (OR 3.95, 95% CI 2.11–7.14). In total, 1561 (55%) and 1594 (56%) patients had at least one ED visit and/or hospitalization during systemic treatment, respectively. The most common reasons for ED visits were fever and bowel obstruction. Conclusion: Patterns of care for EOC in Ontario differed between care providers. The uptake of bevacizumab for first-line treatment of EOC was low. Acute care utilization related to EOC was high.

Abstract Background Chemotherapy is associated with a significant risk of toxicity, which often peaks between ambulatory visits to the cancer centre. Remote symptom management support is a tool to optimize self-management and healthcare utilization, including emergency department visits and hospitalizations (ED+H) during chemotherapy. We performed a single-arm pilot study to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and potential impact of a telephone symptom management intervention on healthcare utilization during chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer (EBC). Methods Women starting adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for EBC at two cancer centres in Ontario, Canada, received standardized, nurse-led calls to assess common toxicities at two time points following each chemotherapy administration. Feasibility outcomes included patient enrollment, retention, RN adherence to delivering calls per the study schedule, and resource use associated with calls; acceptability was evaluated based on patient and provider feedback. Impact on acute care utilization was evaluated post hoc by linking individual patient records to provincial data holdings to examine ED+H patterns among participating patients compared to contemporaneous controls. Results Between September 2013 and December 2014, 77 women were enrolled (mean age 55 years). Most commonly used regimens were AC-paclitaxel (58%) and FEC-docetaxel (16%); 78% of patients received primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis. 83.8% of calls were delivered per schedule; mean call duration was 9 min. The intervention was well received by both patients and clinicians. Comparison of ED+H rates among study participants versus controls showed that there were fewer ED visits in intervention patients [incidence rate ratio (IRR) (95% CI) = 0.54 (0.36, 0.81)] but no difference in the rate of hospitalizations [IRR (95% CI) = 1.02 (0.59, 1.77)]. Main implementation challenges included identifying eligible patients, fitting the calls into existing clinical responsibilities, and effective communication to the patient’s clinical team. Conclusions Telephone-based pro-active toxicity management during chemotherapy is feasible, perceived as valuable by clinicians and patients, and may be associated with lower rates of acute care use. However, attention must be paid to workflow issues for scalability. Larger scale evaluation of this approach is in progress.

Abstract Background The clinical utility of molecular profiling of tumor tissue to guide treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors is unknown. Our objectives were to evaluate the frequency of genomic alterations, clinical “actionability” of somatic variants, enrollment in mutation-targeted or other clinical trials, and outcome of molecular profiling for advanced solid tumor patients at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM). Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors aged ≥18 years, good performance status, and archival tumor tissue available were prospectively consented. DNA from archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue was tested using a MALDI-TOF MS hotspot panel or a targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) panel. Somatic variants were classified according to clinical actionability and an annotated report included in the electronic medical record. Oncologists were provided with summary tables of their patients’ molecular profiling results and available mutation-specific clinical trials. Enrolment in genotype-matched versus genotype-unmatched clinical trials following release of profiling results and response by RECIST v1.1 criteria were evaluated. Results From March 2012 to July 2014, 1893 patients were enrolled and 1640 tested. After a median follow-up of 18 months, 245 patients (15 %) who were tested were subsequently treated on 277 therapeutic clinical trials, including 84 patients (5 %) on 89 genotype-matched trials. The overall response rate was higher in patients treated on genotype-matched trials (19 %) compared with genotype-unmatched trials (9 %; p

PURPOSEThe early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic affected cancer care globally. Evaluating the impact of the pandemic on the quality of cancer care delivery is crucial for understanding how changes in care delivery may influence outcomes. Our study compared care delivered during the early phase of the pandemic with the same period in the previous year at two institutions across continents (Princess Margaret Cancer Center [PM] in Canada and A.C. Camargo Cancer Center [AC] in Brazil).METHODSPatients newly diagnosed with colorectal or anal cancer between February and December 2019 and the same period in 2020 were analyzed. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and performance of individual indicators within and between centers and between the peri–COVID-19 and control cohorts were tested using Cohen's h test to assess the standardized differences between the two groups.RESULTSAmong 925 patients, distinct effects of the early COVID-19 pandemic on oncology services were observed. AC experienced a 50% reduction in patient consultations (98 v 197) versus a 12.5% reduction at PM (294 v 336). Similarly, AC experienced a higher proportion of stage IV disease presentations (42.9% v 29.9%; P = .015) and an increase in treatment delay (61.9% v 9.7%; P < .001) compared with prepandemic. At PM, a 10% increase in treatment interruption (32.4% v 22.3%; P < .001) and a higher rate of discontinuation of radiotherapy (9.4% v 1.1%; P < .001) were observed during the pandemic. Postsurgical readmission rates increased in both AC (20.9% v 2.6%; P < .001) and PM (10.5% v 3.6%; P < .01).CONCLUSIONThe early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic affected the quality of care delivery for colorectal and anal cancers at both centers. However, the magnitude of this impact was greater in Brazil.

We undertook a retrospective study to compare the quality of care delivered to a cohort of newly diagnosed adults with colon, rectal or anal cancer during the early phase of COVID-19 (02/20–12/20) relative to the same period in the year prior (the comparator cohort), and examine the impact of the pandemic on 2-year disease progression and all-cause mortality. We observed poorer performance on a number of quality measures, such as approximately three times as many patients in the COVID-19 cohort experienced 30-day post-surgical readmission (10.5% vs. 3.6%; SD:0.27). Despite these differences, we observed no statistically significant adjusted associations between COVID-19 and time to either all-cause mortality (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.61–1.27, p = 0.50) or disease progression (HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.82–1.64, p = 0.41). However, there was a substantial reduction in new patient consults during the early phase of COVID-19 (12.2% decrease), which appeared to disproportionally impact patients who traditionally experience sociodemographic disparities in access to care, given that the COVID-19 cohort skewed younger and there were fewer patients from neighborhoods with the highest Housing and Dwelling, ands Age and Labour Force marginalization quintiles. Future work is needed to understand the more downstream effects of COVID-19 related changes on cancer care to inform planning for future disruptions in care.

Abstract Background Little is known about the association between the COVID‐19 pandemic and early survival among newly diagnosed cancer patients. Methods This retrospective population‐based cohort study used linked administrative datasets from Ontario, Canada. Adults (≥18 years) who received a cancer diagnosis between March 15 and December 31, 2020, were included in a pandemic cohort, while those diagnosed during the same dates in 2018/2019 were included in a pre‐pandemic cohort. All patients were followed for one full year after the date of diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess survival in relation to the pandemic, patient characteristics at diagnosis, and the modality of first cancer treatment as a time‐varying covariate. Interaction terms were explored to measure the pandemic association with survival for each cancer type. Results Among 179,746 patients, 53,387 (29.7%) were in the pandemic cohort and 37,741 (21.0%) died over the first post‐diagnosis year. No association between the pandemic and survival was found when adjusting for patient characteristics at diagnosis (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.96–1.01]), while marginally better survival was found for the pandemic cohort when the modality of treatment was additionally considered (HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.95–0.99]). When examining each cancer type, only a new melanoma diagnosis was associated with a worse survival in the pandemic cohort (HR 1.25 [95% CI 1.05–1.49]). Conclusions Among patients able to receive a cancer diagnosis during the pandemic, one‐year overall survival was not different than those diagnosed in the previous 2 years. This study highlights the complex nature of the COVID‐19 pandemic impact on cancer care.

We surveyed patients who had a received care for a gastrointestinal cancer between 03/2020 and 05/2021 to understand their perceptions of the impact of the Covid pandemic on cancer care delivery and quality of care. Three-hundred fifty-eight respondents provided evaluable responses (response rate: 17.3%). Approximately half of respondents (46.4%) perceived that they had experienced a pandemic-related cancer care modification; most changes were initiated by a clinician or the cancer center (44.6%). Relative to White patients those from Racialized Groups (OR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.03-3.54) were more likely to report a cancer treatment change. Additionally, relative to patients in follow-up, those who were newly diagnosed (OR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.21-4.71) were more likely to report a change. Compared to White patients, patients from Racialized Groups were approximately twice as likely to report perceiving that virtual visits during Covid negatively impacted the quality of their care (OR: 2.21; 95% CI: 0.96-5.08). These findings potentially reflect pre-existing systemic disparities in quality of and access to care, as well as differences in how care is experienced by patients from Racialized Groups.

Abstract Background In the phase 2 double‐blind Study 211, a starting dose of lenvatinib 18 mg/day was compared with the approved starting dose of 24 mg/day in patients with radioiodine‐refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR‐DTC). Predefined criteria for noninferiority for efficacy in the 18 mg arm were not met; safety was similar in both arms. Impact of lenvatinib treatment on health‐related quality‐of‐life (HRQoL) was a secondary endpoint of Study 211. Methods Patients with RR‐DTC were randomly assigned to a blinded starting dose of lenvatinib 18 mg/day or 24 mg/day. HRQoL was assessed at baseline, every 8 weeks until Week 24, then every 16 weeks, and at the off‐treatment visit, using the EQ‐5D‐3L and FACT‐G instruments. Completion and compliance rates, mean change from baseline, and times to first and definitive deterioration were evaluated. Results Baseline EQ‐5D and FACT‐G scores, and overall changes from baseline, were comparable between patients in the lenvatinib 18 mg/day (n = 77) and 24 mg/day arms (n = 75). For the 18 mg versus 24 mg arms, least squares mean differences were −0.42 (95% CI −4.88, 4.03) for EQ‐5D‐VAS and 0.47 (95% CI −3.45, 4.39) for FACT‐G total. Time to first deterioration did not significantly favor either arm; EQ‐5D‐VAS HR [18 mg/24 mg] 0.93 (95% CI 0.61–1.40), EQ‐5D‐HUI HR [18 mg/24 mg] 0.68 (95% CI 0.44–1.05), FACT‐G total HR [18 mg/24 mg] 0.73 (95% CI 0.48–1.12). Time to definitive deterioration did not significantly favor either arm, though EQ‐5D‐VAS showed a trend in favor of the 24 mg arm (HR [18 mg/24 mg] 1.72; 95% CI 0.99–3.01); EQ‐5D‐HUI HR [18 mg/24 mg] was 0.96 (95% CI 0.57–1.63), FACT‐G total HR [18 mg/24 mg] was 0.72 (95% CI 0.43–1.21). Conclusions In Study 211, HRQoL for patients in the lenvatinib 18 mg/day arm was not statistically different from that of patients in the 24 mg/day arm. These data further support the use of the approved lenvatinib starting dose of 24 mg/day in patients with RR‐DTC. ClinicalTrials.gov Number NCT02702388.

Due to the ramping down of cancer surgery in early pandemic, many newly diagnosed patients received other treatments first. We aimed to quantify the pandemic-related shift in rate of surgery following chemotherapy. This is a retrospective population-based cohort study involving adults diagnosed with cancer between 3 January 2016 and 7 November 2020 in Ontario, Canada who received chemotherapy as first treatment within 6-months of diagnosis. Competing-risks regression models with interaction effects were used to quantify the association between COVID-19 period (receiving a cancer diagnosis before or on/after 15 March 2020) and receipt of surgical reSection 9-months after first chemotherapy. Among 51,653 patients, 8.5% (n = 19,558) of them ultimately underwent surgery 9-months after chemotherapy initiation. Receipt of surgery was higher during the pandemic than before (sHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02–1.13). Material deprivation was independently associated with lower receipt of surgery (least vs. most deprived quintile: sHR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04–1.17), but did not change with the pandemic. The surgical rate increase was most pronounced for breast cancer (sHR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.20). These pandemic-related shifts in cancer treatment requires further evaluations to understand the long-term consequences. Persistent material deprivation-related inequity in cancer surgical access needs to be addressed.

Emergency department (ED) use is a concern for surgery patients, physicians and health administrators particularly during a pandemic. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the pandemic on ED use following cancer-directed surgeries. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing cancer-directed surgeries comparing ED use from 7 January 2018 to 14 March 2020 (pre-pandemic) and 15 March 2020 to 27 June 2020 (pandemic) in Ontario, Canada. Logistic regression models were used to (1) determine the association between pandemic vs. pre-pandemic periods and the odds of an ED visit within 30 days after discharge from hospital for surgery and (2) to assess the odds of an ED visit being of high acuity (level 1 and 2 as per the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale). Of our cohort of 499,008 cancer-directed surgeries, 468,879 occurred during the pre-pandemic period and 30,129 occurred during the pandemic period. Even though there was a substantial decrease in the general population ED rates, after covariate adjustment, there was no significant decrease in ED use among surgical patients (OR 1.002, 95% CI 0.957–1.048). However, the adjusted odds of an ED visit being of high acuity was 23% higher among surgeries occurring during the pandemic (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.14–1.33). Although ED visits in the general population decreased substantially during the pandemic, the rate of ED visits did not decrease among those receiving cancer-directed surgery. Moreover, those presenting in the ED post-operatively during the pandemic had significantly higher levels of acuity.

Abstract Background Identifying optimal chemotherapy (CT) utilization rates can drive improvements in quality of care. We report a benchmarking approach to estimate the optimal rate of perioperative CT for muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Methods The Ontario Cancer Registry and linked treated records were used to identify neoadjuvant and adjuvant CT rates among patients with MIBC during 2004‐2013. Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate the proportion of observed rate variation that could be due to chance alone. The criterion‐based benchmarking approach was used to explore whether social and health‐system factors were associated with CT rates. We also used the “pared‐mean” approach to identify a benchmark population of hospitals with the highest treatment rates. Hospital CT rates were adjusted for case mix and simulated using a multi‐level multivariable model and a parametric bootstrapping approach. Results The study population included 2581 patients; perioperative CT was delivered to 31% (798/2581). Multivariate analysis showed that treatment was strongly associated with patient socioeconomic status and hospital teaching status. The benchmark rate was 36%. Unadjusted CT rates were significantly different across hospitals (range 0%‐52%, P

Abstract Background Identifying optimal chemotherapy utilization rates can drive improvements in quality of care. We report a benchmarking approach to estimate the optimal rate of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) for stage III colon cancer. Methods The Ontario Cancer Registry and linked treated records were used to identify ACT utilization. Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate the proportion of ACT rate variation that could be due to chance alone. The criterion‐based benchmarking approach was used to explore whether socioeconomic or system‐level factors were associated with ACT. We also used the “pared‐mean” approach to identify a benchmark population of hospitals with the highest ACT rates. Results The study population included 2801 patients; ACT was delivered to 66% (1861/2801). Monte Carlo simulation suggested that the observed component of variation (15.6%) in ACT rates was within the 95% CI (11.5%‐17.3%) of what could be expected due to chance alone; the nonrandom component of ACT rate variation across hospitals was only 1.5%. There was no difference in hospital ACT rate by teaching status (P = .107), cancer center status (P = .362), or having medical oncology on site (P = .840). Unadjusted ACT rates varied across hospitals (range 44%‐91%, P = .017). The unadjusted benchmark ACT rate was 81% (95%CI 76%‐86%); utilization rate in non‐benchmark hospitals was 65% (95%CI 63%‐66%). However, after adjusting for case mix, the difference in ACT utilization between benchmark and non‐benchmark populations was significantly smaller. Conclusions We did not find any system‐level factors associated with the utilization of ACT. Our results suggest that the observed variation in hospital ACT rate is not significantly different from variation due to chance alone. Using the “pared‐mean” approach may significantly overestimate optimal treatment rates if case mix is not considered.

Abstract Background Population-based studies suggest that emergency department visits and hospitalizations are common among patients receiving chemotherapy and that rates in routine practice are higher than expected from clinical trials. Chemotherapy-related toxicities are often predictable and, consequently, acute care visits may be preventable with adequate treatment planning and support between visits to the cancer centre. We will evaluate the impact of proactive telephone-based toxicity management on emergency department visits and hospitalizations in women with early stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. Methods In this pragmatic covariate constraint-based cluster randomized trial, 20 centres in Ontario, Canada are randomly allocated to either proactive telephone toxicity management (intervention) or routine care (control). The primary outcome is the cluster-level mean number of ED + H visits per patient evaluated using Ontario administrative healthcare data. Participants are all patients with early stage (I-III) breast cancer commencing adjuvant or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy at participating institutions during the intervention period. At least 25 patients at each centre participate in a patient reported outcomes sub-study involving the collection of standardized questionnaires to measure: severity of treatment toxicities, self-care, self-efficacy, quality of life, and coordination of care. Patients participating in the patient reported outcomes (PRO) sub-study are asked to provide written consent to link their PRO data to administrative data. Unit costs will be applied to each per person resource utilized, and a total cost per population and patient will be generated. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis will be undertaken to compare the incremental costs and outcomes between the intervention and control groups from the health system perspective. Discussion This study evaluates the effectiveness of a proactive toxicity management intervention in a routine care setting. The use of administrative healthcare data to evaluate the primary outcome enables an evaluation in a real world setting and at a much larger scale than previous studies. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02485678. Registered 30 June 2015.

Abstract Background Matched tumor-normal sequencing, applied in precision cancer medicine, can identify unidentified germline Medically Actionable Variants (gMAVS) in cancer predisposition genes. We report patient preferences for the return of additional germline results, and describe various gMAV scenarios delivered through a clinical genetics service. Methods Tumor profiling was offered to 1960 advanced cancer patients, of which 1556 underwent tumor-normal sequencing with multigene hotspot panels containing 20 cancer predisposition genes. All patients were provided with an IRB-approved consent for return of additional gMAVs. Results Of the whole cohort 94% of patients consented to be informed of additional germline results and 5% declined, with no statistically significant differences based on age, sex, race or prior genetic testing. Eight patients were found to have gMAVs in a cancer predisposition gene. Five had previously unidentified gMAVs: three in TP53 (only one fulfilled Chompret’s Revised criteria for Li-Fraumeni Syndrome), one in SMARCB1 in the absence of schwannomatosis features and one a TP53 variant at low allele frequency suggesting an acquired event in blood. Conclusion Interest in germline findings is high among patients who undergo tumor profiling. Disclosure of previously unidentified gMAVs present multiple challenges, thus supporting the involvement of a clinical genetics service in all tumor profiling programs.

Purpose Routine evaluation of quality measures (QMs) can drive improvement in cancer systems by highlighting gaps in care. Targeting quality improvement at QMs that demonstrate substantial variation has the potential to make the largest impact at the population level. We developed an approach that uses both variation in performance and number of patients affected by the QM to set priorities for improving the quality of systemic therapy for women with early-stage breast cancer (EBC). Patients and Methods Patients with EBC diagnosed from 2006 to 2010 in Ontario, Canada, were identified in the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked deterministically to multiple health care databases. Individual QMs within a panel of 15 QMs previously developed to assess the quality of systemic therapy across four domains (access, treatment delivery, toxicity, and safety) were ranked on interinstitutional variation in performance (using interquartile range) and the number of patients who were affected; then the two rankings were averaged for a summative priority ranking. Results We identified 28,427 patients with EBC who were treated at 84 institutions. The use of computerized physician electronic order entry for chemotherapy, emergency room visits or hospitalizations during chemotherapy, and timely receipt of chemotherapy were identified as the QMs that had the largest potential to improve quality of care at a system level within this cohort. Conclusion A simple ranking system based on interinstitutional variation in performance and patient volume can be used to identify high-priority areas for quality improvement from a population perspective. This approach is generalizable to other health care systems that use QMs to drive improvement.