Search

The 5th Canadian Cancer Research Conference (ccrc) took place 3-5 November 2019 in Ottawa, Ontario. Nearly 1000 participants--scientists, oncologists, community members, and patients--gathered to share knowledge, foster collaboration, and fuel the future of cancer research in Canada. The scientific program included 3 plenary sessions, 26 concurrent sessions, and 2 poster sessions presenting research described in more than 600 submitted abstracts, giving participants the opportunity to share health research that collectively encompassed the 4 pillars recognized by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. In addition to the breadth of topics addressed by Canadian and international experts, the highlights of the meeting included the integration of patients and patient advocates, new rapid-fire sessions for abstract presentation, and events that enhanced learning opportunities for trainees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In 2000, a Canadian task force recommended that medical oncologists (mos) meet a target of 160-175 new patient consultations per year. Here, we report the Canadian results of a global survey of mo workload compared with mo workload in other high-income countries (hics). Methods Using a snowball method, an online survey was distributed by national oncology societies to chemotherapy-prescribing physicians in 22 hics (World Bank criteria). The survey was distributed within Canada to all members of the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists. Workload was measured as the annual number of new cancer patient consults per oncologist. Results The survey was completed by 782 oncologists from hics, including 58 from Canada. Median annual consults per mo were 175 in Canada compared with 125 in other hics. The proportions of mos having 100 or fewer consults or more than 300 consults per year were 3% (2/58) and 5% (3/58) in Canada compared with 31% (222/724) and 16% (116/724) in other hics (p < 0.001 and p = 0.023 respectively). The median number of patients seen in a full-day clinic was 15 in Canada and 25 in other hics (p = 0.220). Canadian mos reported spending a median of 55 minutes per new consultation; new consultations of 35 minutes were reported in other hics (p < 0.001). Median hours worked per week was 55 in Canada and 45 in other hics (p = 0.200). Conclusions Although the median annual clinical volume for Canadian mos aligns with recommended targets, half the respondents exceeded that level of activity. Health policymakers and educators have to consider mo workforce supply and alternative models of care in preparation for the anticipated surge in cancer incidence in the coming decade. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background As part of Choosing Wisely Canada (a national campaign to encourage patient--provider conversations about unnecessary medical tests, treatments, and procedures), a list of ten oncology practices that could be low-value in some instances was developed. Of those practices, two were specific to radiation therapy (RT): conventional fractionation as part of breast-conserving therapy (BCT) for women with early-stage breast cancer, and multifraction radiation for palliation of uncomplicated painful bone metastases. Here, we report baseline findings for the current utilization rates of those two RT practices in Canada. Results The use of conventional fractionation as part of BCT varied substantially from province to province. Of women 50 years of age and older, between 8.8% (Alberta) and 36.5% (Saskatchewan) received radiation in 25 fractions (excluding boost irradiation) as part of BCT. The use of hypofractionated RT (that is, 16 fractions excluding boost irradiation)--a preferred approach for many patients--was more common in all 6 reporting provinces, ranging from 43.2% in Saskatchewan to 94.7% in Prince Edward Island. The use of multifraction RT for palliation of bone metastases also varied from province to province, ranging from 40.3% in British Columbia to 69.0% in Saskatchewan. The most common number of fractions delivered to bone metastases was 1, at 50.2%; the second most common numbers were 2--5 fractions, at 41.7%. Conclusions Understanding variation in the use of potentially low-value RT practices can help to inform future strategies to promote higher-value care, which balances high-quality care with the efficient use of limited system resources. Further work is needed to understand the factors contributing to the interprovincial variation observed and to develop benchmarks for the appropriate rate of use of these RT practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the preferred conventional radiation therapy (CRT) practice, and willingness to randomize to high dose spine SBRT, in a group of patients with complex spinal metastases. Methods and Material: The survey was based on four complex spinal metastases cases, considered candidates for the proposed Phase 2 randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing 24 Gy in 2 fractions delivered with SBRT to either 20 Gy in 5 fraction (frx) or 30 Gy in 10 frx CRT. Participants were asked to determine their preferred CRT practice, whether they would treat the same patient with SBRT, and if they would participate in the RCT. Two cases were of radioresistant histologies (renal cell and hepatocellular carcinoma), one had epidural disease, two were oligometastatic, and one consisted of a C2 level metastases with paraspinal extension. Results: 51 radiation oncologists from across the country participated. For each of the clinical scenarios, 20 Gy in 5 frx was the favored CRT practice. However, equivalence was noted for the one renal cell case. All respondents were comfortable with delivering the intended SBRT dose, and most would participate on the proposed RCT . With respect to the primary treatment intent, both local control (LC) and symptom relief were of primary importance; however, local control was more important than symptom relief for the two patients with oligometastatic disease and an expected long-term survival. 51 % of respondents would be able to randomize one patient per month and 35% could randomize 2 to 5 patients per month. Conclusion: 20Gy/5fx was the preferred CRT practice for the treatment of complex spinal metastases described in the survey. Most radiation oncologists surveyed would be willing to participate in the proposed Phase 2 RCT. Disclosure: No significant relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Background: Comprehensive and timely lung cancer (LC) staging is essential for prognosis and management. The Lung Diagnostic Assessment Program (LDAP) in Southeastern (SE) Ontario aims to provide rapid, guideline-concordant care for suspected LC patients. We evaluated factors affecting the completeness and timeliness of staging for stage I-III LC patients in SE Ontario, including the impact of LDAP management. (2) Methods: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study using the LDAP database (January 2017-December 2019), linked with the Ontario Cancer Registry, to identify newly diagnosed LC patients. A Cox model approach identified variables associated with staging completeness and timeliness. (3) Results: Among 755 patients, 459 (60.8%) were managed through LDAP. Optimal staging was achieved in 596 patients (78.9%), 23 (3.0%) had alternative staging, and 136 (18.0%) had incomplete staging. In the adjusted analyses, LDAP management was associated with a higher likelihood of complete staging (OR 2.29, p < 0.0001) and faster staging completion (β = -18.53, p < 0.0001). Increased distance to PET centres was associated with a longer time to complete staging (β = 8.95 per 100 km, p = 0.0007), as was longer time to diagnosis (β = 21.63 per 30 days, p < 0.0001). (4) Conclusions: LDAP management in SE Ontario significantly improved staging completeness and shortened staging time for stage I-III LC patients.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in healthcare research to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from the patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The use of PROs in clinical practice can facilitate symptom monitoring, tailor care to individual needs, aid clinical decision-making and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. Despite their benefits, there are concerns that the potential burden on respondents may reduce their willingness to complete PROs, with potential impact on the completeness and quality of the data for decision-making. We therefore conducted an initial literature review to generate a list of candidate recommendations aimed at reducing respondent burden. This was followed by a two-stage Delphi survey by an international multi-stakeholder group. A consensus meeting was held to finalize the recommendations. The final consensus statement includes 19 recommendations to address PRO respondent burden in healthcare research and clinical practice. If implemented, these recommendations may reduce PRO respondent burden., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Background: Potential bidirectional drug-drug interactions between feminizing hormone therapy (FHT) and antiretroviral therapy (ART) are of concern for trans women with HIV and their healthcare providers. This study aimed to characterize patterns of FHT and ART among trans women with HIV and to compare serum hormone levels to trans women without HIV., Methods: Charts of trans women were reviewed at seven HIV primary care or endocrinology clinics in Toronto and Montreal from 2018 to 2019. ART regimens, FHT use, serum estradiol, and serum testosterone levels were compared on the basis of HIV status (positive, negative, missing/unknown)., Results: Of 1495 trans women, there were 86 trans women with HIV, of whom 79 (91.8%) were on ART. ART regimens were most commonly integrase inhibitor-based (67.4%), many boosted with ritonavir or cobicistat (45.3%). Fewer (71.8%) trans women with HIV were prescribed FHT, compared to those without HIV (88.4%) and those with missing/unknown status (90.2%, p < 0.001). Among trans women on FHT with recorded serum estradiol ( n = 1153), there was no statistical difference in serum estradiol between those with HIV (median: 203 pmol/L, IQR: 95.5, 417.5) and those with negative (200 mol/L [113, 407]) or missing/unknown HIV status (227 pmol/L [127.5, 384.5) ( p = 0.633). Serum testosterone concentrations were also similar between groups., Conclusions: In this cohort, trans women with HIV were prescribed FHT less often than trans women with negative or unknown HIV status. There was no difference in serum estradiol or testosterone levels of trans women on FHT regardless of HIV status, providing reassurance regarding potential drug-drug interactions between FHT and ART.

Introduction: Regional variability in lung cancer (LC) outcomes exists across Canada, including in the province of Ontario. The Lung Diagnostic Assessment Program (LDAP) in southeastern (SE) Ontario is a rapid-assessment clinic that expedites the management of patients with suspected LC. We evaluated the association of LDAP management with LC outcomes, including survival, and characterized the variability in LC outcomes across SE Ontario., Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study by identifying patients with newly diagnosed LC through the Ontario Cancer Registry (January 2017-December 2019) and linked to the LDAP database to identify LDAP-managed patients. Descriptive data were collected. Using a Cox model approach, we compared 2-year survival for patients managed through LDAP vs. non-LDAP., Results: We identified 1832 patients, 1742 of whom met the inclusion criteria (47% LDAP-managed and 53% non-LDAP). LDAP management was associated with a lower probability of dying at 2 years (HR 0.76 vs. non-LDAP, p < 0.0001). Increasing distance from the LDAP was associated with a lower likelihood of LDAP management (OR 0.78 for every 20 km increase, p < 0.0001). LDAP-managed patients were more likely to receive specialist assessment and undergo treatments., Conclusions: In SE Ontario, initial diagnostic care provided via LDAP was independently associated with improved survival in patients with LC.

Background : Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality. In Ontario, Canada, there are significant survival differences for patients with newly diagnosed LC across the 14 provincial regions. Methods : A population-based retrospective cohort study using ICES databases from 01/2007-12/2017 identified patients with newly diagnosed LC through the Ontario Cancer Registry and those with LC as the cause of death. Descriptive data included patient, disease, and system characteristics. The primary outcome was 5-year survival by region. Results : 178,202 patient records were identified; 101,263 met inclusion criteria. LC incidence varied by region (5.6-14.6/10,000), as did histologic subtype (adenocarcinoma: 27.3-46.1%). Five-year cancer-specific survival was impacted by age, rurality, pathologic subtype, stage at diagnosis, and income quintile. Timely care was inversely related to survival (fastest quintile: HR 3.22, p < 0.0001). Adjusted 5-year cancer-specific survival varied across regions (24.1%, HR 1.12; 34.0%, HR 0.89, p < 0.001). Conclusions : When adjusting for confounders, differences in survival by health region persisted, suggesting a complex interplay between patient, disease, and system factors. A single approach to improving patient care is likely to be ineffective across different systems. Quality improvement initiatives to improve patient outcomes require different approaches amongst health regions to address local disparities in care.

Objectives: Regional variation in cancer survival is an important health system performance measurement. We evaluated if regional variation in colon cancer survival may be driven by differences in the patient population, their health and healthcare utilisation, and/or cancer care delivery., Design: Population-based retrospective cohort study using routinely collected linked health administrative data., Setting: Ontario, Canada., Participants: Patients with colon cancer diagnosed between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2012., Outcome: Cancer-specific survival was compared across the province's 14 health regions. Using accelerated failure time models, we assessed whether regional survival variations were mediated through differences in case mix, including age, sex, comorbidities, stage at diagnosis and colon subsite, potential marginalisation and/or prediagnosis healthcare., Results: The study population included 16 895 patients with colon cancer. There was statistically significant regional variation in cancer-specific survival. Three regions had cancer-specific survival that was between 30% (95% CI 1.03 to 1.65) and 39% (95% CI 1.13 to 1.71) longer and one region had cancer-specific survival that was 26% shorter (95% CI 0.58 to 0.93) than the reference region. For three of these regions, case mix explained between 26% and 56% of the survival variation. Further adjustment for rurality explained 22% of the remaining survival variation in one region. Adjustment for continuity of primary care and the diagnostic interval length explained 10% and 11% of the remaining survival variation in two other regions. Socioeconomic marginalisation, recent immigration and colonoscopy history did not explain colon cancer survival variation., Conclusions: Case mix accounted for much of the regional variation in colon cancer survival, indicating that efforts to monitor the quality of cancer care through survival metrics should consider case mix when reporting regional survival differences. Future work should repeat this approach in other settings and other cancer sites considering a broad range of potential mediators., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Despite the known importance and necessity of the standardized collection and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), there remain challenges to successful clinical implementation. Facilitated through a quality improvement initiative spearheaded by the Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy (CPQR), and now guided by the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO)'s Quality and Standards Committee, patient representatives and early-adopter radiation treatment programs continue to champion the expansion of PROs initiatives across the country. The current review discusses the evolution of a pan-Canadian approach to PROs use, striving to fill in gaps between clinical practice and guideline recommendations through multi-centre and multidisciplinary collaboration.

Background: Positron emission tomography targeting the prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA PET/CT) has demonstrated unparalleled performance as a staging examination for prostate cancer resulting in substantial changes in management. However, the impact of altered management on patient outcomes is largely unknown. This study aims to assess the impact of intensified radiotherapy or surgery guided by PSMA PET/CT in patients at risk of advanced prostate cancer., Methods: This pan-Canadian phase III randomized controlled trial will enroll 776 men with either untreated high risk prostate cancer (CAPRA score 6-10 or stage cN1) or biochemically recurrent prostate cancer post radical prostatectomy (PSA > 0.1 ng/mL). Patients will be randomized 1:1 to either receive conventional imaging or conventional plus PSMA PET imaging, with intensification of radiotherapy or surgery to newly identified disease sites. The primary endpoint is failure free survival at 5 years. Secondary endpoints include rates of adverse events, time to next-line therapy, as well as impact on health-related quality of life and cost effectiveness as measured by incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years gained., Discussion: This study will help create level 1 evidence needed to demonstrate whether or not intensification of radiotherapy or surgery based on PSMA PET findings improves outcomes of patients at risk of advanced prostate cancer in a manner that is cost-effective., Trial Registration: This trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04557501 on September 21, 2020., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Canadian radiation oncology (RO) trainees have experienced employment challenges after residency training. The present study was conducted to evaluate current employment trends and perform comparisons to prior reported assessments., Methods and Materials: A survey was administered to all 13 Canadian RO program directors requesting the employment status and location of their graduates during the past 3 years, and their perceptions on graduates' employment challenges. Visa trainees were excluded. Findings were compared with surveys performed in 2014, 2016, and 2018., Results: The response rate from RO program directors was 100%. There were 77 graduates identified who completed their residency training between 2017 and 2020. All had known employment status and location. Two (17%) 2020 graduates, 16 (84%) 2019 graduates, 17 (81%) 2018 graduates, and 24 (100%) 2017 graduates had staff employment. Of the 59 graduates with staff positions, 86% were in Canada. Some graduates (28%) obtained staff or locum employment in a province other than their training program. The proportion of graduates obtaining staff positions 1 year after residency increased to 84% from 46%-48% in prior assessments. Most program directors (62%) did not perceive any difficulties with their graduates finding staff employment or trainees transferring to training programs in other disciplines owing to perceived workforce challenges., Conclusions: Compared with 3 prior employment outcome assessments, this study observed a higher proportion of graduates with staff positions in Canada, fewer total graduates, fewer graduates seeking staff employment or in fellowship positions, and a trend for fewer graduates seeking employment or fellowships abroad. These findings support the view that the Canadian RO job market continues to improve. Although employment challenges for newly certified, Canadian-trained radiation oncologists still exist, national corrective measures to regulate resident intake in 2011 appear to have had a positive effect on the employment outcomes of recent Canadian RO graduates., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Purpose: Evidence suggests that the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of cancer trial protocols is frequently inadequate and non-reporting of PRO findings is widespread. This qualitative study examined the factors influencing suboptimal PRO protocol content, implementation, and reporting, and use of PRO data during clinical interactions., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four stakeholder groups: (1) trialists and chief investigators; (2) people with lived experience of cancer; (3) international experts in PRO cancer trial design; (4) journal editors, funding panelists, and regulatory agencies. Data were analyzed using directed thematic analysis with an iterative coding frame., Results: Forty-four interviews were undertaken. Several factors were identified that could influenced effective integration of PROs into trials and subsequent findings. Participants described (1) late inclusion of PROs in trial design; (2) PROs being considered a lower priority outcome compared to survival; (3) trialists' reluctance to collect or report PROs due to participant burden, missing data, and perceived reticence of journals to publish; (4) lack of staff training. Strategies to address these included training research personnel and improved communication with site staff and patients regarding the value of PROs. Examples of good practice were identified., Conclusion: Misconceptions relating to PRO methodology and its use may undermine their planning, collection, and reporting. There is a role for funding, regulatory, methodological, and journalistic institutions to address perceptions around the value of PROs, their position within the trial outcomes hierarchy, that PRO training and guidance is available, signposted, and readily accessible, with accompanying measures to ensure compliance with international best practice guidelines., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item's importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and declare: SPIRIT-PRO group members were reimbursed for travel/subsistence at the consensus meeting. MC is Director of the Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, Director of the Centre for the Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research and is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. MC has received personal fees from Astellas, Takeda, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Glaukos, GSK and the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) outside the submitted work. RM-B reports non-financial support from University of Birmingham. OA, DK and ARet report grants from NIHR. OA and DK report grants from Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). OA reports grants from UCB Pharma and also receives funding from the Health Foundation and declares personal fees from Gilead Sciences Ltd. DK and ARet report grants from Innovate UK and Macmillan Cancer Support. DK reports grants from Kidney Research UK, NIHR SRMRC at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, personal fees from Merck, GSK. EB declares personal fees from Navigating Cancer, Sivan Healthcare, CareVive Systems and AstraZeneca. Bell reports other from AstraZeneca, is an employee with stock ownership and/or stock options in the company. JCC reports other from Pfizer Inc., and is an employee and a stockholder of Pfizer Inc. IG is a fully paid employee of Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. CE is Chair of the Government of Canada Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. LM reports non-financial support from Daiichi-Sankyo and Cell & Gene Therapy Catapult. Morel reports other from UCB. LN reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, including employment and ownership of stock in GSK. RS reports personal fees from BioMed Central and Pfizer, other from NHS England, NHSx, NDC, NCRI, NIHR, MRC CTU, GeL, Glasgow CTU, UCLH, LSHTM, Cancer Research UK, Macmillan, Warwick University, Warwick CTU and University of Birmingham. AW reports grants from NIHR and Innovate UK. All other authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form and declare no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in routine clinical care can help ensure symptoms are identified, acknowledged and addressed. In 2007, the provincial cancer agency, Cancer Care Ontario, began to implement routine symptom screening with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) for ambulatory cancer patients. Having had a decade of experience with ESAS, the program developed a strategic interest in implementing new and/or additional measures. This article describes the development of a streamlined PROM selection and implementation evaluation process with core considerations., Methods: Development of the PROM selection and implementation evaluation process involved analysis of quantitative and qualitative data as well as consensus building through a multi-stakeholder workshop. Core PROM selection considerations were developed through a literature scan, review and refinement by a panel of methodological experts and patient advisors, and testing via a test case. Core PROM implementation evaluation considerations were developed through analysis of PROM evaluation frameworks, and review and refinement by a committee of provincial implementation leads., Results: Core PROM selection considerations were identified under three overarching themes: symptom coverage, usability and psychometric properties. The symptom coverage category assesses each PROM to determine how well the PROM items address the most prevalent and burdensome symptoms in the target patient population. The usability category aims to assess each measure on characteristics key to successful implementation in the clinical setting. The psychometric properties category assesses each PROM to ensure the data collected is credible, meaningful and interpretable. A scoring system was developed to rate PROM performance by assigning a grade of "weak", "average" or "good" for each category. The process results in a summary matrix which illustrates the overall assessment of each PROM. Implementation evaluation considerations were identified under three overarching concepts: acceptability, outcomes, and sustainability. A consensus building exercise resulted in the further identification of patient, provider, and clinic specific indicators for each consideration., Conclusion: To address the need for a systematic, evidence-based approach to selection, implementation and evaluation of PROMs in the clinical setting, Cancer Care Ontario defined a process with embedded core considerations to facilitate decision-making and encourage standardization.

Purpose: Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), formerly known as CCO, is the provincial governmental agency in Ontario, Canada responsible for developing radiation therapy-specific capital investment strategies, updated every 5 years, to ensure equitable access and to gain the highest value from these investments in infrastructure. These plans are informed by the changing landscape of health care delivery, technologic advancements affecting radiation therapy care, patient desire for care closer to home, and expected increases in utilization of radiation therapy services. In this article, we describe the development, model, and final recommendations of CCO's fifth radiation therapy capital investment strategy., Methods and Materials: A panel of multidisciplinary provincial experts, in combination with 2 patient and family advisors, developed planning principles to guide the development of a patient-centered strategy. Adaption of the previously used model for radiation therapy planning was used., Results: The development of the capital investment strategy took place from fall 2017 to fall 2018. The model included 3 main factors: patient demand (including utilization targets), machine throughput, and machine demand and supply. The final recommendation is for an investment of 26 new radiation therapy machines in the province by 2028., Conclusions: The strategy plans for continued province-wide access to quality radiation therapy care and ensures machines are added to the system at the right place and in the right time. Ongoing data collection throughout this period is necessary to ensure the strategy achieves its goals and to allow for planning of future strategies., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Background: After a prostate cancer diagnosis, men want information about their disease and treatment options. The internet offers a convenient means to deliver health information to patients with prostate cancer. However, there are concerns about the use of the internet among this largely senior population., Objective: This study aimed to determine the patterns and factors associated with the use of the internet as a source of health information among Canadian men with prostate cancer and the features and information required in a website., Methods: Population surveys were conducted in four Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario) in 2014-2015. Data analyses included descriptive, bivariable, and multivariable analyses. The Pearson Chi-square and univariable regression were used to examine associations between independent variables and health-related internet use. Correlates of health-related internet use were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression., Results: A total of 1362 patients responded across the four provinces. The mean age of respondents was 69 years (SD 8.2). In addition, 82% (n=1071) were internet users and 71% (n=910) used the internet daily. Further, 65% (n=784) used the internet as a source of prostate cancer information, and 40% (n=521) were confident about using information obtained from the internet to make health decisions. Men who used the internet to obtain prostate cancer information were more likely to be active information seekers (odds ratio [OR]: 4.5, 95% CI 2.6-7.8), be confident using information from the internet to make health decisions (OR: 3.6, 95% CI 2.3-5.7), have broadband internet access (OR: 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.7), and have more unmet supportive care needs (OR: 1.05, 95% CI 1.0-1.1). Top features wanted in a website, reported by more than 50% of respondents, were a library of resources (n=893, 65.6%), tools to support treatment decision making (n=815, 59.8%), and tools to help navigate the prostate cancer journey (n=698, 51.2%). Top three topics of information wanted in such a website were treatment options (n=916, 67.3%), disease progression (n=904, 66.4%), and management of side effects (n=858, 63%)., Conclusions: Over two-thirds of Canadian patients with prostate cancer surveyed use the internet as a source of health information about prostate cancer, but over half did not feel confident using information from the internet to make health decisions. Being an active information seeker, having confidence in using information from the internet to make health decisions, having broadband internet, and having more unmet supportive care needs were significantly associated with health-related internet use. Future work should examine electronic health literacy interventions as a means to boost men's confidence in using information from the internet and design websites that include information and features that help men navigate the prostate cancer journey and support treatment decision making and management of side effects., (©Jacqueline L Bender, Deb Feldman-Stewart, Christine Tong, Karen Lee, Michael Brundage, Howard Pai, John Robinson, Tony Panzarella. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 19.11.2019.)

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical practice., Methods: We systematically investigated a cohort of randomized controlled cancer trials that included a primary or secondary PRO. For each trial, an evaluation of protocol and reporting quality was undertaken using standard checklists. General patterns of reporting where also explored., Results: Protocols (101 sourced, 44.3%) included a mean (SD) of 10 (4) of 33 (range = 2-19) PRO protocol checklist items. Recommended items frequently omitted included the rationale and objectives underpinning PRO collection and approaches to minimize/address missing PRO data. Of 160 trials with published results, 61 (38.1%, 95% confidence interval = 30.6% to 45.7%) failed to include their PRO findings in any publication (mean 6.43-year follow-up); these trials included 49 568 participants. Although two-thirds of included trials published PRO findings, reporting standards were often inadequate according to international guidelines (mean [SD] inclusion of 3 [3] of 14 [range = 0-11]) CONSORT PRO Extension checklist items). More than one-half of trials publishing PRO results in a secondary publication (12 of 22, 54.5%) took 4 or more years to do so following trial closure, with eight (36.4%) taking 5-8 years and one trial publishing after 14 years., Conclusions: PRO protocol content is frequently inadequate, and nonreporting of PRO findings is widespread, meaning patient-important information may not be available to benefit patients, clinicians, and regulators. Even where PRO data are published, there is often considerable delay and reporting quality is suboptimal. This study presents key recommendations to enhance the likelihood of successful delivery of PROs in the future., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the incidence of radiation induced brachial plexopathy (RIBP) and the associated radiotherapy doses to this structure., Methods: Databases were queried without language restriction for cohort studies reporting RIBP incidence and associated brachial plexus dose maximum dose (bpDmax). Studies specifying RIBP relative risk (RR) effect size were selected for meta-analysis. RRs for RIBP from each study were converted to a regression coefficient (β) and standard error corresponding to a continuous representation of bpDmax. The adjusted β from individual studies were combined using a random effects model and weighted by inverse variance (1/SE 2 ). The trim and fill approach was used to assess publication bias., Results: We identified 25 studies that included 37 unique patient cohorts eligible for analysis. Seventeen cohorts experienced an RIBP incidence ≤5%, of which 6 cohorts exceeded conventional plexus constraints of 60 Gy for bpDmax. Five of the 6 cohorts were simulated with 3D-CT techniques. Meta-analysis of eligible studies demonstrated a significant increase in RIBP risk for each Gy increase in bpDmax (RR, 1.11; 95% CI 1.07-1.15). Results remained significant after adjustment for publication bias and when sensitivity analysis was performed., Conclusions: Our results suggest that current brachial plexus constraints of 60-66 Gy are safe. Meta-analysis provides a log-linear model to quantify the association of brachial plexus dose and RIBP risk, and thus inform the therapeutic ratio for dose escalation. Further prospective studies reporting dosimetric data can better refine this model and inform brachial plexus constraint guidelines., Competing Interests: None.

Introduction: We sought to determine the experiences and preferences of prostate cancer patients related to the process of making their treatment decisions, and to the use of decision support., Methods: Population surveys were conducted in four Canadian provinces in 2014-2015. Each provincial cancer registry mailed surveys to a random sample of their prostate cancer patients diagnosed in late 2012. Three registries' response rates were 46-55%; the fourth used a different recruiting strategy, producing a response rate of 13% (total n=1366)., Results: Overall, 90% (n=1113) of respondents reported that they were involved in their treatment decisions. Twenty-three percent (n=247) of respondents wanted more help with the decision than they received and 52% of them (n=128) reported feeling well-informed. Only 51% (n=653) of all respondents reported receiving any decision support, but an additional 34% (n=437) would want to if they were aware of its existence. A quarter (25%, n=316) of respondents found it helpful to use a decision aid, a type of decision support that provides assistance to decision processes and provides information, but 64% (n=828) reported never having heard of decision aids; 26% (n=176) of those who had never heard of decision aids wanted more help with the decision than they received compared to 13% (n=36) of those who had used a decision aid., Conclusions: The majority of respondents wanted to participate in their treatment decisions, but a portion wanted more help than they received. Half of those who wanted more help felt well-informed, thus, needed support beyond information. Decision aids have potential to provide information and support to the decision process.