Search

The Canadian Screening for Colorectal Cancer Research Network (CanSCCRN) recently set out to develop a national CRC screening research agenda and identify priority research areas. The specific objectives were to (1) identify evidence gaps relevant to CRC screening and the barriers and facilitators to evidence generation and uptake by CRC screening programs, (2) establish high-priority collaborative research ideas to inform best CRC screening practices, and (3) identify one to two research topics for grant development and submission within 12 to 18 months. Three focus groups were conducted with network members and relevant parties (n = 15) to identify evidence gaps, barriers, and facilitators to evidence generation and uptake. Three workshops were subsequently held to discuss focus group findings and develop an action plan for research. An electronic survey was used to prioritize the evidence gaps to be addressed. Overall, five categories of barriers and six categories of facilitators to evidence uptake and generation were identified, as well as 23 evidence gaps to be addressed. Screening participation, post-polypectomy surveillance, and screening age range were identified as research priority research areas. Adequate resourcing and infrastructure, as well as partnerships with knowledge end users, are integral to addressing these research areas and advancing CRC screening programs in Canada and beyond.

This study examines the allocation of COVID-19 funding for Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States during the pandemic’s first wave. Indigenous communities, already facing health disparities, systemic discrimination, and historical forces of colonisation, found themselves further vulnerable to the virus. Analysing the funding policies of these countries, we employed a Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) tool and an Indigenous Lens Tool supplement to evaluate potential impacts. Our results identify three major funding equity issues: unique health and service needs, socioeconomic disparities, and limited access to community and culturally safe health services. Despite efforts for equitable funding, a lack of meaningful consultation led to shortcomings, as seen in Canada’s state of emergency declaration and legal disputes in the United States. New Zealand stood out for integrating Māori perspectives, showcasing the importance of consultation. The study calls for a reconciliation-minded path, aligning with Truth and Reconciliation principles, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and evolving government support. The paper concludes that co-creating equitable funding policies grounded in Indigenous knowledge requires partnership, meaningful consultation, and organisational cultural humility. Even in emergencies, these measures ensure responsiveness and respect for Indigenous self-determination.

Background With improvements in cancer treatment and early detection, the number of people living with cancer is increasing.Objective This study aimed to investigate the association between combined prediagnostic lifestyle factors, assessed by a Healthy Lifestyle Index (HLI) score, and mortality among women diagnosed with breast cancer (BC), colorectal cancer (CRC) and lung cancer (LC).Design Prospective cohort.Setting Women residing in Norway, general population.Participants Our analysis included 5032, 2468 and 1594 women from the Norwegian Women and Cancer study diagnosed with BC, CRC and LC, respectively, who responded to a questionnaire between 1996 and 2014.Exposure measures HLI score measured prior to cancer diagnosis. The HLI combines physical activity level, body mass index, smoking behaviour, alcohol consumption and dietary habits.Outcome measures We estimated HRs and 95% CIs using Cox proportional hazard models for all-cause and site-specific cancer mortality.Results After median follow-up times of 9.8, 7.1 and 5.9 years for BC, CRC and LC cases, respectively, there were 912, 902 and 1094 all-cause deaths; and 509 BC deaths, 679 CRC deaths and 961 LC deaths. For women diagnosed with BC, a 1-point HLI score increment was associated with a 6% lower all-cause mortality rate (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.92 to 0.97). The data were compatible with no association for the estimated 3% lower BC mortality rate (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.00) among women diagnosed with BC, and for the estimated 3% lower all-cause (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.00) and 2% lower CRC mortality rates (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.01) among women diagnosed with CRC. For women diagnosed with LC, prediagnostic HLI score was not associated with all-cause (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.02) or LC mortality rates (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.03).Conclusions We observed that a higher HLI score measured before cancer diagnosis was associated with lower all-cause and, possibly, lower BC mortality among Norwegian women diagnosed with BC; and a possible lower all-cause and CRC mortality among those diagnosed with CRC. Smoking was likely responsible for the observed associations.

Introduction Reduced thrombin generation is an important component of post cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) coagulopathy. To replenish coagulation factors and enhance thrombin generation in bleeding surgical patients, frozen plasma (FP) and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) are used. However, the efficacy–safety balance of 4F-PCC relative to FP in cardiac surgery is unconfirmed.Methods and analysis LEX-211 (FARES-II) is an active-control, randomised, phase 3 study comparing two coagulation factor replacement therapies in bleeding adult cardiac surgical patients at 12 hospitals in Canada and the USA. The primary objective is to determine whether 4F-PCC (Octaplex/Balfaxar, Octapharma) is clinically non-inferior to FP for haemostatic effectiveness. Inclusion criteria are any index (elective or non-elective) cardiac surgery employing CPB and coagulation factor replacement with 4F-PCC or FP ordered in the operating room for bleeding management. Patients will be randomised to receive 1500 or 2000 international units of 4F-PCC or 3 or 4 units of FP, depending on body weight. The primary endpoint of haemostatic treatment response is ‘effective’ if no additional haemostatic intervention is required from 60 min to 24 hours after the first initiation of 4F-PCC or FP; or ‘ineffective’ if any other haemostatic intervention (including a second dose of study drug) is required. An estimated 410 evaluable patients will be required to demonstrate non-inferiority (one-sided α of 0.025, power ≥90%, non-inferiority margin 0.10). Secondary outcomes include transfusions, bleeding-related clinical endpoints, coagulation parameters and safety.Ethics and dissemination The trial has been approved by the institutional review boards of all participating centres. Trial completion is anticipated at the end of 2024, and results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations in 2025. The results will advance our understanding of coagulation management in bleeding surgical patients, potentially reducing the need for allogeneic blood products and improving outcomes in surgical patients.Trial registration number NCT05523297.

Abstract Background In spite of past efforts to increase screening uptake, the rates of screening-detectable cancers including breast, cervical, colorectal and lung are rising among Indigenous persons in Ontario compared to other Ontarians. The Ontario Ministry of Health has an equity framework, the Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) Tool, that was developed to guide organizations in the provision of more equitable health and social services. Although the HEIA Tool identifies that the health of Indigenous persons may benefit from more equitable provision of health and social services, it provides very little specific guidance on how to apply the HEIA Tool in a culturally relevant way to policies and programs that may impact Indigenous peoples. Discussion Guided by the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, an Indigenous Lens Tool was developed through a collaborative and iterative process with stakeholders at Cancer Care Ontario and with representatives from Indigenous community-based organizations. The Indigenous Lens Tool consists of four scenarios, with supporting documentation that provide context for each step of the HEIA Tool and thereby facilitate application of the equity framework to programs and policies. The document is in no way meant to be comprehensive or representative of the diverse health care experiences of Indigenous peoples living in Canada nor the social determinants that surround health and well-being of Indigenous peoples living in Canada. Rather, this document provides a first step to support development of policies and programs that recognize and uphold the rights to health and well-being of Indigenous peoples living in Canada. Conclusions The Indigenous Lens Tool was created to facilitate implementation of an existing health equity framework within Cancer Care Ontario (now Ontario Health). Even though the Indigenous Lens Tool was created for this purpose, the principles contained within it are translatable to other health and social service policy applications.

Introduction Transfusions in surgery can be life-saving interventions, but inappropriate transfusions may lack clinical benefit and cause harm. Transfusion decision-making in surgery is complex and frequently informed by haemoglobin (Hgb) measurement in the operating room. Point-of-care testing for haemoglobin (POCT-Hgb) is increasingly relied on given its simplicity and rapid provision of results. POCT-Hgb devices lack adequate validation in the operative setting, particularly for Hgb values within the transfusion zone (60–100 g/L). This study aims to examine the accuracy of intraoperative POCT-Hgb instruments in non-cardiac surgery, and the association between POCT-Hgb measurements and transfusion decision-making.Methods and analysis PREMISE is an observational prospective method comparison study. Enrolment will occur when adult patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery require POCT-Hgb, as determined by the treating team. Three concurrent POCT-Hgb results, considered as index tests, will be compared with a laboratory analysis of Hgb (lab-Hgb), considered the gold standard. Participants may have multiple POCT-Hgb measurements during surgery. The primary outcome is the difference in individual Hgb measurements between POCT-Hgb and lab-Hgb, primarily among measurements that are within the transfusion zone. Secondary outcomes include POCT-Hgb accuracy within the entire cohort, postoperative morbidity, mortality and transfusion rates. The sample size is 1750 POCT-Hgb measurements to obtain a minimum of 652 Hgb measurements

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.

Background and aims Non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy may be effective at mitigating negative experiences and perceptions of the procedure, but research to characterise the extent and features of studies of these interventions is limited.Methods We conducted a scoping review searching multiple databases for peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials conducted in adults investigating a non-pharmacological intervention to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy. Study characteristics were tabulated and summarised narratively and graphically.Results We screened 5939 citations and 962 full texts, and included 245 publications from 39 countries published between 1992 and 2022. Of these, 80.8% were full publications and 19.2% were abstracts. Of the 41.9% of studies reporting funding sources, 11.4% were unfunded. The most common interventions were carbon dioxide and/or water insufflation methods (33.9%), complementary and alternative medicines (eg, acupuncture) (20.0%), and colonoscope technology (eg, magnetic scope guide) (21.6%). Pain was as an outcome across 82.0% of studies. Studies most often used a patient-reported outcome examining patient experience during the procedure (60.0%), but 42.9% of studies included an outcome without specifying the time that the patient experienced the outcome. Most intraprocedural patient-reported outcomes were measured retrospectively rather than contemporaneously, although studies varied in terms of when outcomes were assessed.Conclusion Research on non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy is unevenly distributed across types of intervention and features high variation in study design and reporting, in particular around outcomes. Future research efforts into non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy should be directed at underinvestigated interventions and developing consensus-based guidelines for study design, with particular attention to how and when outcomes are experienced and measured.PROSPERO registration number 42020173906.

The Canadian Screening for Colorectal Cancer Research Network (CanSCCRN) recently set out to develop a national CRC screening research agenda and identify priority research areas. The specific objectives were to (1) identify evidence gaps relevant to CRC screening and the barriers and facilitators to evidence generation and uptake by CRC screening programs, (2) establish high-priority collaborative research ideas to inform best CRC screening practices, and (3) identify one to two research topics for grant development and submission within 12 to 18 months. Three focus groups were conducted with network members and relevant parties (n = 15) to identify evidence gaps, barriers, and facilitators to evidence generation and uptake. Three workshops were subsequently held to discuss focus group findings and develop an action plan for research. An electronic survey was used to prioritize the evidence gaps to be addressed. Overall, five categories of barriers and six categories of facilitators to evidence uptake and generation were identified, as well as 23 evidence gaps to be addressed. Screening participation, post-polypectomy surveillance, and screening age range were identified as research priority research areas. Adequate resourcing and infrastructure, as well as partnerships with knowledge end users, are integral to addressing these research areas and advancing CRC screening programs in Canada and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines the allocation of COVID-19 funding for Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States during the pandemic's first wave. Indigenous communities, already facing health disparities, systemic discrimination, and historical forces of colonisation, found themselves further vulnerable to the virus. Analysing the funding policies of these countries, we employed a Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) tool and an Indigenous Lens Tool supplement to evaluate potential impacts. Our results identify three major funding equity issues: unique health and service needs, socioeconomic disparities, and limited access to community and culturally safe health services. Despite efforts for equitable funding, a lack of meaningful consultation led to shortcomings, as seen in Canada's state of emergency declaration and legal disputes in the United States. New Zealand stood out for integrating Māori perspectives, showcasing the importance of consultation. The study calls for a reconciliation-minded path, aligning with Truth and Reconciliation principles, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and evolving government support. The paper concludes that co-creating equitable funding policies grounded in Indigenous knowledge requires partnership, meaningful consultation, and organisational cultural humility. Even in emergencies, these measures ensure responsiveness and respect for Indigenous self-determination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Cancer screening is an integral component of primary care, and providers can play a key role in facilitating screening. While much work has focused on patient interventions, there has been less attention on primary care provider (PCP) interventions. In addition, marginalised patients experience disparities in cancer screening which are likely to worsen if not addressed. The objective of this scoping review is to report on the range, extent and nature of PCP interventions that maximise cancer screening participation among marginalised patients. Our review will target cancers where there is strong evidence to support screening, including lung, cervical, breast and colorectal cancers.Methods and analysis This is a scoping review conducted in accordance with the framework by Levac et al. Comprehensive searches will be conducted by a health sciences librarian using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Complete and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include peer-reviewed English language literature published from 1 January 2000 to 31 March 2022 that describes PCP interventions to maximise cancer screening participation for breast, cervical, lung and colorectal cancers. Two independent reviewers will screen all articles and identify eligible studies for inclusion in two stages: title and abstract, then full text. A third reviewer will resolve any discrepancies. Charted data will be synthesised through a narrative synthesis using a piloted data extraction form informed by the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist.Ethics and dissemination Since this is a synthesis of digitally published literature, no ethics approval is needed for this work. We will target appropriate primary care or cancer screening journals and conference presentations to publish and disseminate the results of this scoping review. The results will also be used to inform an ongoing research study developing PCP interventions for addressing cancer screening with marginalised patients.

Author(s): Philippe Bégin [sup.1] [sup.2] , Jeannie Callum [sup.3] [sup.4] [sup.5] [sup.6] , Erin Jamula [sup.7] , Richard Cook [sup.8] , Nancy M. Heddle [sup.6] [sup.7] [sup.9] , Alan Tinmouth [...], The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset (NCT04348656). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm--relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14-2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care. A randomized trial in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 showed no benefit and potentially increased harm associated with the use of convalescent plasma, with subgroup analyses suggesting that the antibody profile in donor plasma is critical in determining clinical outcomes.

Abstract Background The BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) intervention was designed to integrate the approach to chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care and demonstrated effective in a previous randomized trial. Methods We tested the effectiveness of the BETTER HEALTH intervention, a public health adaptation of BETTER, at improving participation in chronic disease prevention and screening actions for residents of low-income neighbourhoods in a cluster randomized trial, with ten low-income neighbourhoods in Durham Region Ontario randomized to immediate intervention vs. wait-list. The unit of analysis was the individual, and eligible participants were adults age 40–64 years residing in the neighbourhoods. Public health nurses trained as “prevention practitioners” held one prevention-focused visit with each participant. They provided participants with a tailored prevention prescription and supported them to set health-related goals. The primary outcome was a composite index: the number of evidence-based actions achieved at six months as a proportion of those for which participants were eligible at baseline. Results Of 126 participants (60 in immediate arm; 66 in wait-list arm), 125 were included in analyses (1 participant withdrew consent). In both arms, participants were eligible for a mean of 8.6 actions at baseline. At follow-up, participants in the immediate intervention arm met 64.5% of actions for which they were eligible versus 42.1% in the wait-list arm (rate ratio 1.53 [95% confidence interval 1.22–1.84]). Conclusion Public health nurses using the BETTER HEALTH intervention led to a higher proportion of identified evidence-based prevention and screening actions achieved at six months for people living with socioeconomic disadvantage. Trial registration NCT03052959 , registered February 10, 2017.

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been used for numerous viral diseases including influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome, Middle East respiratory syndrome and Ebola virus; however, evidence to support its use is weak. SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus responsible for the 2019 global pandemic of COVID-19 community acquired pneumonia. We have undertaken a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods CONCOR-1 is an open-label, multicentre, randomized trial. Inclusion criteria include the following: patients > 16 years, admitted to hospital with COVID-19 infection, receiving supplemental oxygen for respiratory complications of COVID-19, and availability of blood group compatible CCP. Exclusion criteria are : onset of respiratory symptoms more than 12 days prior to randomization, intubated or imminent plan for intubation, and previous severe reactions to plasma. Consenting patients are randomized 2:1 to receive either approximately 500 mL of CCP or standard of care. CCP is collected from donors who have recovered from COVID-19 and who have detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies quantified serologically. The primary outcome is intubation or death at day 30. Secondary outcomes include ventilator-free days, length of stay in intensive care or hospital, transfusion reactions, serious adverse events, and reduction in SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Exploratory analyses include patients who received CCP containing high titre antibodies. A sample size of 1200 patients gives 80% power to detect a 25% relative risk reduction assuming a 30% baseline risk of intubation or death at 30 days (two-sided test; α = 0.05). An interim analysis and sample size re-estimation will be done by an unblinded independent biostatistician after primary outcome data are available for 50% of the target recruitment (n = 600). Discussion This trial will determine whether CCP will reduce intubation or death non-intubated adults with COVID-19. The trial will also provide information on the role of and thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 antibody titres and neutralization assays for donor qualification. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04348656 . Registered on 16 April 2020.

BackgroundThe ColonCancerCheck screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Ontario, Canada, is considering switching from biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening between age 50-74 years to the more sensitive, but also less specific fecal immunochemical test (FIT). The aim of this study is to estimate whether the additional benefits of FIT screening compared to gFOBT outweigh the additional costs and harms.MethodsWe used microsimulation modeling to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs of gFOBT and FIT, compared to no screening, in a cohort of screening participants. We compared strategies with various age ranges, screening intervals, and cut-off levels for FIT. Cost-efficient strategies were determined for various levels of available colonoscopy capacity.ResultsCompared to no screening, biennial gFOBT screening between age 50-74 years provided 20 QALYs at a cost of CAN$200,900 per 1,000 participants, and required 17 colonoscopies per 1,000 participants per year. FIT screening was more effective and less costly. For the same level of colonoscopy requirement, biennial FIT (with a high cut-off level of 200 ng Hb/ml) between age 50-74 years provided 11 extra QALYs gained while saving CAN$333,300 per 1000 participants, compared to gFOBT. Without restrictions in colonoscopy capacity, FIT (with a low cut-off level of 50 ng Hb/ml) every year between age 45-80 years was the most cost-effective strategy providing 27 extra QALYs gained per 1000 participants, while saving CAN$448,300.InterpretationCompared to gFOBT screening, switching to FIT at a high cut-off level could increase the health benefits of a CRC screening program without considerably increasing colonoscopy demand.