Shaping the future of healthcare in British Columbia: Establishing provincial clinical governance for responsible deployment of AI tools.

As healthcare embraces the transformative potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI), it is imperative to safeguard patient and provider safety, equity, and trust in the healthcare system. This article outlines the approach taken by the British Columbia (BC) Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) to establish clinical governance for the responsible deployment of AI tools in healthcare. Leveraging its province-wide mandate and expertise, PHSA establishes the infrastructure and processes to proactively and systematically intake, assess, prioritize, and evaluate AI tools. PHSA proposes a coordinated approach in AI tool deployment in collaboration with regional health authorities to prevent duplication of efforts and ensure equitable access to existing and emerging AI tools across the province of BC, incorporating principles of anti-Indigenous racism, cultural safety, and humility. The proposed governance structure underscores the identification of clinical needs, proactive ethics review, rigorous risk assessment, data validation, transparent communication, provider training, and ongoing evaluation to ensure success.

Implementation and evaluation of a national quality improvement initiative in cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, a Canadian federally sponsored organisation, initiated a national multijurisdictional quality improvement (QI) initiative to maximise the use of synoptic data to drive cancer system improvements, known as the Evidence for Surgical Synoptic Quality Improvement Programme. The goal of our study was to evaluate the outcomes, determinants and learning of this nationally led initiative across six jurisdictions in Canada, integrating a mix of cancer surgery disease sites and clinicians. METHODS: A mixed-methods evaluation (surveys, semistructured interviews and focus groups) of this initiative was focused on the ability of each jurisdiction to use synoptic reporting data to successfully implement and sustain QI projects to beyond the completion of the initiative and the lessons learnt in the process. Resources provided to the jurisdictions included operational funding, training in QI methodology, national forums, expert coaches, and ad hoc monitoring and support. The programme emphasised foundational concepts of the QI process including data literacy, audit and feedback reports, communities of practice (CoP) and positive deviance methodology. RESULTS: 101 CoP meetings were held and 337 clinicians received feedback reports. There were 23 projects, and 22 of 23 (95%) showed improvements with 15 of 23 (65%) achieving the proposed targets. Enablers of effective data utilisation/feedback reports for QI included the need for clinicians to trust the data, have comparative data for feedback, and the engagement of both data scientists and clinicians in designing feedback reports. Enablers of sustainability of QI within each jurisdiction included QI training for clinicians, the ability to continue CoP meetings, executive and broad stakeholder engagement, and the ability to use pre-existing organisational infrastructures and processes. Barriers to continue QI work included lack of funding for core team members, lack of automated data collection processes and lack of clinician incentives (financial and other). CONCLUSION: Success and sustainability in data-driven QI in cancer surgery require skills in QI methodology, data literacy and feedback, dedicated supportive personnel and an environment that promotes the process of collective learning and shared accountability. Building these capabilities in jurisdictional teams, tailoring interventions to facility contexts and strong leadership engagement will create the capacity for continued success in QI for cancer surgery.

How a Canadian federal organization integrated synoptic reporting and quality improvement tools to drive a national learning health system in cancer surgery.

Accurate and complete surgical and pathology reports are the cornerstone of treatment decisions and cancer care excellence. Synoptic reporting is a process for reporting specific data elements in a specific format in surgical and pathology reports. Since 2007, The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer has led the implementation of synoptic reporting mechanisms across multiple cancer disease sites and jurisdictions across Canada. While the implementation of synoptic reporting has been successful, its use to drive improvements in the quality of cancer care delivery has been lacking. Here we describe the Partnership's 4-year, national multi-jurisdictional quality improvement initiative to catalyse the use synoptic data to drive cancer system improvements. Resources provided to the jurisdictions included operational funding, training in quality improvement methodology, national forums, expert coaches, and ad hoc monitoring and support. The program emphasized foundational concepts including data literacy, audit and feedback reports, communities of practice, and positive deviance methodology.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on follow-up of patients with early breast cancer: A patient survey.

PURPOSE: Despite limited evidence supporting its effectiveness, most guidelines recommend long-term, routinely scheduled in-person surveillance of patients with early breast cancer (EBC). The COVID-19 pandemic led to increased use of virtual care. This survey evaluated patient perspectives on follow-up care. METHODS: Patients with EBC undergoing surveillance were surveyed about follow-up protocols, perceptions, and interest in clinical trials assessing different follow-up strategies. RESULTS: Of 402 approached patients 270 completed the survey (response rate 67%). Median age 62.5 years (range 25-86) and median time since breast cancer diagnosis was 3.8 years (range < 1-33 years). Most (n = 148/244, 60%) were followed by more than one provider. Routine follow-ups with breast examination were mostly conducted by medical/radiation oncologists every 6 months (n = 110/236, 46%) or annually (n = 106/236, 44%). Participants felt routine follow-up was useful to monitor for recurrence, manage side effects of cancer treatment and to provide support/reassurance. Most participants felt regular follow-up care would detect recurrent cancer earlier (n = 214/255, 96%) and increase survival (n = 218/249, 88%). The COVID-19 pandemic reduced the number of in-person visits for 54% of patients (n = 63/117). Patients were concerned this reduction of in-person visits would lead to later detection of both local (n = 29/63, 46%) and distant recurrences (n = 25/63, 40%). While many felt their medical and radiation oncologists were the most suited to provide follow-up care, 55% felt comfortable having their primary care provider (PCP) conduct surveillance. When presented with a scenario where follow-up has no effect on earlier detection or survival, 70% of patients still wanted routine in-person follow-up for reassurance (63%) with the goal of earlier recurrence detection (56%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited evidence of effectiveness of routine in-person assessment, patients continue to place importance on regularly scheduled in-person follow-up.

Symmetric Breast Surgery: Balancing Procedures versus Prophylactic Mastectomy and Immediate Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Various techniques for management of the contralateral breast exist in patients with unilateral breast cancer, including contralateral prophylactic mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (PMIBR), and symmetrization techniques including augmentation, reduction, or mastopexy. The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate and compare complications and patient-reported satisfaction of patients with contralateral PMIBR versus having symmetrization procedures. METHODS: A 7-year, single-institution, prospectively maintained database was reviewed. Patient-reported BREAST-Q scores were obtained at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months prospectively. Postoperative complications, oncologic outcomes, and BREAST-Q scores were compared. RESULTS: A total of 249 patients were included, 93 (37%) of whom underwent contralateral PMIBR and 156 (63%) of whom underwent contralateral symmetrization. The patients who underwent PMIBR were younger and had less comorbidities compared with patients with symmetrization. Rates of major and minor complications were similar, apart from higher rates of minor wound dehiscence in the PMIBR group. When comparing mean change at 12-month follow-up to preoperative results, there was a significant decrease in physical well-being of the chest in the symmetrization compared with the PMIBR group (2.94 versus -5.69; P = 0.042). There were no significant differences in mean breast satisfaction and psychosocial well-being, and nonsignificant decreases in sexual well-being between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with unilateral breast cancer who underwent immediate contralateral breast management, with either contralateral PMIBR or symmetrization techniques, demonstrated similar profiles of major complications and good overall satisfaction except for one physical well-being domain. Management of the contralateral breast with symmetrization may provide similar outcomes compared with PMIBR, which often is considered not necessary in patients without specific indications. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Can routinely collected administrative data effectively be used to evaluate and validate endpoints used in breast cancer clinical trials? Protocol for a scoping review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a critical component of evidence-based medicine and the evolution of patient care. However, the costs of conducting a RCT can be prohibitive. A promising approach toward reduction of costs and lessening of the burden of intensive and lengthy patient follow-up is the use of routinely collected healthcare data (RCHD), commonly called real-world data. We propose a scoping review to identify existing RCHD case definitions of breast cancer progression and survival and their diagnostic performance. METHODS: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to identify primary studies of women with either early-stage or metastatic breast cancer, managed with established therapies, that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of one or more RCHD-based case definitions or algorithms of disease progression (i.e., recurrence, progression-free survival, disease-free survival, or invasive disease-free survival) or survival (i.e., breast-cancer-free survival or overall survival) compared with a reference standard measure (e.g., chart review or a clinical trial dataset). Study characteristics and descriptions of algorithms will be extracted along with measures of the diagnostic accuracy of each algorithm (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value), which will be summarized both descriptively and in structured figures/tables. DISCUSSION: Findings from this scoping review will be clinically meaningful for breast cancer researchers globally. Identification of feasible and accurate strategies to measure patient-important outcomes will potentially reduce RCT budgets as well as lessen the burden of intensive trial follow-up on patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6D9RS ).

Leveraging technology in public-private partnerships: a model to address public health inequities.

Long-standing inequities in healthcare access and outcomes exist for underserved populations. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are where the government and a private entity jointly invest in the provision of public services. Using examples from the Health Equity Consortium (HEC), we describe how technology was used to facilitate collaborations between public and private entities to address health misinformation, reduce vaccine hesitancy, and increase access to primary care services across various underserved communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. We call out four enablers of effective collaboration within the HEC-led PPP model, including: 1. Establishing trust in the population to be served 2. Enabling bidirectional flow of data and information 3. Mutual value creation and 4. Applying analytics and AI to help solve complex problems. Continued evaluation and improvements to the HEC-led PPP model are needed to address post-COVID-19 sustainability.

Impact of 18F-Labeled Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography Versus Conventional Staging in Patients With Locally Advanced Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) typically undergo staging tests at presentation. If staging does not detect metastases, treatment consists of curative intent combined modality therapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and regional radiation). Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) may detect more asymptomatic distant metastases, but the evidence is based on uncontrolled studies. METHODS: For inclusion, patients had histological evidence of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast and TNM stage III or IIb (T3N0, but not T2N1). Consenting patients from six regional cancer centers in Ontario were randomly assigned to 18F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT or conventional staging (bone scan, CT of the chest/abdomen and pelvis). The primary end point was upstaging to stage IV. A key secondary outcome was receiving curative intent combined modality therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02751710). RESULTS: Between December 2016 and April 2022, 184 patients were randomly assigned to whole-body PET-CT and 185 patients to conventional staging. Forty-three (23%) PET-CT patients were upstaged to stage IV compared with 21 (11%) conventional staged patients (absolute difference, 12.3% [95% CI, 3.9 to 19.9]; P = .002). Consequently, treatment was changed in 35 (81.3%) of 43 upstaged PET-CT patients and 20 (95.2%) of the 21 upstaged conventional patients. Subsequently, 149 (81%) patients in the PET-CT group received combined modality treatment versus 165 (89.2%) patients in the conventional staging group (absolute difference, 8.2% [95% CI, 0.1 to 15.4]; P = .03). CONCLUSION: In patients with LABC, PET-CT detected more distant metastases than conventional staging, and fewer PET-CT patients received combined modality therapy. Our randomized trial demonstrates the utility of the PET-CT staging strategy.

Randomized trial of surveillance with abbreviated MRI in women with a personal history of breast cancer- impact on patient anxiety and cancer detection.

BACKGROUND: Abbreviated breast MRI (A-MRI) substantially reduces the image acquisition and reading times and has been reported to have similar diagnostic accuracy as a full diagnostic protocol but has not been evaluated prospectively with respect to impact on psychological distress in women with a prior history of breast cancer (PHBC). This study aimed to determine if surveillance mammography (MG) plus A-MRI reduced psychological distress and if A-MRI improved cancer detection rates (CDR) as compared to MG alone. METHODS: This prospective controlled trial of parallel design was performed at a tertiary cancer center on asymptomatic women with PHBC who were randomized into two groups: routine surveillance with MG or intervention of MG plus A-MRI in a 1:1 ratio. Primary outcome was anxiety measured by four validated questionnaires at three different time-points during the study. Other parameters including CDR and positive predictive value for biopsy (PPV3) were compared between imaging modalities of MG and A-MRI. Tissue diagnoses or 1 year of follow-up were used to establish the reference standard. Linear mixed models were used to analyze anxiety measures and Fisher's exact test to compare imaging outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-eight patients were allocated to either MG alone (94) or MG plus A-MRI (104). No significant group difference emerged for improvement in trait anxiety, worry and perceived health status (all Time-by-surveillance group interaction ps > .05). There was some advantage of A-MRI in reducing state anxiety at Time 2 (p < .05). Anxiety scores in all questionnaires were similarly elevated in both groups (50.99 ± 4.6 with MG alone vs 51.73 ± 2.56 with MG plus A-MRI, p > 0.05) and did not change over time. A-MRI detected 5 invasive cancers and 1 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and MG detected 1 DCIS. A-MRI had higher incremental CDR (48/1000(5/104) vs MG 5/1000(1/198, p = 0.01)) and higher biopsy rates (19.2% (20/104) vs MG 2.1% (2/94), p < 0.00001) with no difference in PPV3 (A-MRI 28.6% (6/21) vs MG 16.7% (1/6, p > .05). CONCLUSION: There was no significant impact of A-MRI to patient anxiety or perceived health status. Compared to MG alone, A-MRI had significantly higher incremental cancer detection in PHBC. Despite a higher rate of biopsies, A-MRI had no demonstrable impact on anxiety, worry, and perceived health status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02244593 ). Prospectively registered on Sept. 14, 2014.

Outcomes of Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Triple Negative Breast Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

PURPOSE: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients have a significantly worse prognosis and survival compared to non-TNBC patients. Mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction (MIBR) is associated with higher rates of complications overall, but whether MIBR significantly increases oncological risk in TNBC patients has not been fully elucidated. Our study aimed to evaluate the oncological safety of MIBR in patients with TNBC compared to non-TNBC. METHODS: A 6-year prospectively maintained retrospective database at The Ottawa Hospital was reviewed from January 1, 2013 to May 31, 2019. Propensity score-matching was performed using the nearest-neighbour method with a matching ratio of 2:1. Kaplan-Meier and log rank tests were performed to provide statistical comparison of disease-free interval (DFI). DFI was defined as time from MIBR to locoregional recurrence or disease-specific mortality. P-value < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. RESULTS: Of 277 eligible patients, 153 patients were matched. The cohort consisted of 51(33%) TNBC patients and 102 (67%) non-TNBC patients after 2:1 propensity score-matching. The rates of delays to first radiochemotherapy [17 (33%) vs.14 (14%), p = 0.10], postoperative complications [13 (26%) vs. 34 (33%), p = 0.50], and locoregional recurrence [2 (1.96%) vs. 1 (1.96%), p = 1.0] were statistically similar in TNBC and non-TNBC, respectively. DFI was not significantly different in TNBC compared to non-TNBC patients (log-rank p = 1.0). There was no mortality in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This 6-year retrospective 2:1 propensity score-matched cohort study demonstrated similar oncological safety for MIBR in patients with TNBC and non-TNBC. Overall, these findings provide additional support for the oncological safety of MIBR in TNBC. Therefore, MIBR remains a therapeutic option for patients with TNBC.

The Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Safety Outcomes Following Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction (MIBR) are becoming an increasingly popular option for women with breast cancer. However, MIBR is associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications compared to mastectomy alone, which may delay adjuvant cancer therapy. The main objective of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate oncologic outcomes in MIBR patients with and without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). METHODS: A 6-year retrospective study of breast cancer patients treated with MIBR was conducted from January 2013 to May 2019. The primary outcome was a delay in adjuvant radiochemotherapy. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and locoregional recurrences. RESULTS: Of 1832 patients reviewed, 300 (7.1%) were included. The cohort consisted of 277 (92%) MIBR patients without NACT and 23 (7.7%) with NACT. There was significantly more N1 and N2 tumor node status in the non-NACT group compared to the NACT group (p<0.001). The overall complication rates were similar in the NACT group compared to non-NACT (37.5% versus 21.7%, p=0.148). The rates of major and minor complications were also similar between NACT and non-NACT groups (Major: 29.6% versus 21.7%, p=0.823) and (Minor: 26.7% versus 8.70%, p =0.0970). The rates of locoregional recurrence (p=1.00), time to adjuvant therapy (p=0.629), and rates of delay (p=0.305) was also similar between groups. Overall survival was significantly lower in the NACT group compared to non-NACT (98.2% versus 82.6%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in complication rates, or timing to adjuvant therapy, among MIBR patients with and without NACT. However, MIBR patients who received NACT had worse overall survival than MIBR patients without NACT.

Experiences and Perceptions of Older Adults with Lower-Risk Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer about Adjuvant Radiotherapy and Endocrine Therapy: A Patient Survey.

Older patients with lower-risk hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer are frequently offered both radiotherapy (RT) and endocrine therapy (ET) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). A survey was performed to assess older patients' experiences and perceptions regarding RT and ET, and participation interest in de-escalation trials. Of the 130 patients approached, 102 eligible patients completed the survey (response rate 78%). The median age of respondents was 74 (interquartile range 71-76). Most participants (71%, 72/102) received both RT and ET. Patients felt the role of RT and ET, respectively, was to: reduce ipsilateral tumor recurrence (91%, 90/99 and 62%, 61/99) and improve survival (56%, 55/99 and 49%, 49/99). More patients had significant concerns regarding ET (66%, 65/99) than RT (39%, 37/95). When asked which treatment had the most negative effect on their quality of life, the results showed: ET (35%, 25/72), RT (14%, 10/72) or both (8%, 6/72). Participants would rather receive RT (57%, 41/72) than ET (43%, 31/72). Forty-four percent (44/100) of respondents were either, "not comfortable" or "not interested" in participating in potential de-escalation trials. Although most of the adjuvant therapy de-escalation trials evaluate the omission of RT, de-escalation studies of ET are warranted and patient centered.

The effect of immediate breast reconstruction on adjuvant therapy delay, locoregional recurrence, and disease-free survival.

BACKGROUND: An important risk inherent to both alloplastic and autologous immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is the higher incidence of postoperative complications and delays to adjuvant therapy. The main objective of this retrospective cohort study was to identify risk factors for locoregional recurrence after breast cancer mastectomy and IBR. METHODS: A 6-year retrospective study of breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy only (MO) or mastectomy and IBR (MIBR) was conducted from January 2013 to May 2019. The outcomes of interest included delay in adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, postoperative complications, and locoregional recurrence. Cox regression survival was used to estimate the risk of locoregional recurrence and time to adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: Of 1832 patients reviewed, 720 (38%) were included. The cohort consisted of 443 (62%) MO and 277 (38%) MIBR [140 (51%) direct-to-implant (MIBRi1), 96(35%) tissue expander to implant (MIBRi2), and 41(15%) autologous flap (MIBRf)]. MIBR had more delays to adjuvant therapy compared to MO [113 (70%) vs. 72 (80%) months, p = 0.022]. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that MIBRi2 had significantly shorter DFS compared to MO [MIBRi2: 39.2 (15.6) vs MO: 41.7 (19.6) months, log-rank p-value = 0.01]. Cox regression indicated that MIBRi2 was associated with a 3.26-higher risk of locoregional recurrence compared to MO [HR: 3.26; 95% CI: 1.56, 9.24]. CONCLUSIONS: Cox regression showed MIBRi2 was significantly associated with increased risk of locoregional recurrence compared to MO. Neither delays nor postoperative complications were identified as significant risk factors for locoregional recurrence risk.

De-escalating adjuvant therapies in older patients with lower risk estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy (RT) and endocrine therapy (ET) are standard treatments for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). However, many older patients are at greater risk of treatment-related toxicities and non-cancer related death, and less likely to benefit from these standard treatments. A systematic review was performed evaluating outcomes of omitting RT or ET in older patients aged ≥50 treated with BCS for lower-risk breast cancer. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were queried from 1980 to April 30th, 2020 for randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies (PCSs) evaluating omission of RT and/or ET compared to RT plus ET in patients. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models with findings reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: From 3860 citations, 10 prospective studies met eligibility criteria. Omission of RT alone was evaluated in 7 RCTs (n = 4604) and one PCS (n = 667); omission of ET alone was assessed in 1 PCS (n = 271); and omission of either ET or RT was compared to ET plus RT in 1 RCT (n = 495). Adjuvant RT compared to no RT reduced 5- and 10-year in-breast tumor recurrence [5-year: RR 0.16, 95 %CI 0.09-0.27 l 10-year: 0.28, 95 %CI 0.16-0.5], but had no effect on survival [5-year: RR 0.94, 95 %CI 0.77-1.15; 10-year: 1.01, 95 %CI 0.9-1.12]. CONCLUSION: The current body of evidence suggests that RT can be omitted in older patients with lower-risk disease. However, more trials on the omission of ET are required to better inform treatment decisions.

Breast cancer in Indigenous women living in Canada: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to describe and synthesize the current state of knowledge pertaining to breast cancer in Indigenous women living in Canada. We will examine the continuum of breast cancer care in this population, including breast cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance. INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer in Indigenous women is an evolving health care concern in Canada, with mounting evidence suggesting that these women present at later stages, and have poorer survival rates compared with the general population. A comprehensive overview of the state of knowledge of breast cancer in this population is required. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The population of interest will include Indigenous women living in Canada aged 18 years or older who have been screened or require screening for breast cancer, or who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. "Indigenous" will include women who identify as First Nations, Métis, or Inuit. Eligible sources must report on breast cancer risk factors, tumor characteristics, health systems access, screening, diagnosis, treatment, surveillance, or breast cancer outcomes. We will include analytic studies, surveys, case series, reviews, meta-analyses, and gray literature. METHODS: We will conduct a search of five health sciences databases for relevant studies published in English or French from database inception onward. We will utilize dual independent screening for titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, and will utilize a similar method for gray literature sources. Data will be synthesized using a narrative approach, and outcomes of interest will be compared with data from the general breast cancer population. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/xkde5.

Lost in Transition? Thoughts on Retirement, Part 2. "Should I Stay or Should I Go Now?"

Although it is accepted that oncologists should plan for a future beyond full-time oncology, there is little practical guidance for a successful transition into retirement. Previously, we provided strategies for various aspects of retirement planning. However, this became significantly more complicated as we face newer issues such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the move to virtual patient care, greater awareness of burnout, and the increasing burden of regulatory issues such as the electronic medical record. It is evident that more prospective information is needed to guide oncologists in planning their retirement.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: Review of the Evidence and Conditions That Facilitated Its Use during the Global Pandemic.

Practice and behaviour change in healthcare is complex, and requires a set of critical steps that would be needed to implement and sustain the change. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer is traditionally used for locally advanced disease and is primarily advantageous for surgical downstaging purposes. However, it does also offer patients with certain biologic subtypes such as the triple negative or Her2 positive breast cancers the opportunity to improve survival, even in early stage disease. During the height of the pandemic, an opportunity and motivation for the increased use of neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer was identified. This paper describes the conditions that have supported this practice change at the provider and institutional levels. We also include our own institutional algorithm based on tumor biology and extent of disease that have guided our decisions on breast cancer management during the pandemic. Our processes can be adapted by other institutions and breast oncology practices in accordance with local conditions and resources, during and beyond the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic: An opportunity to rethink and harmonise the frequency of follow-up visits for patients with early stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: While routine, in-person follow-up of early-stage breast cancer patients (EBC) after completion of initial treatment is common, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented changes in clinical practice. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting different frequencies of routine follow-up. METHODS: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched from database inception to July 16, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies (PCS) evaluating different frequencies of routine follow-up. Citations were assessed by pairs of independent reviewers. Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies. Findings were summarized narratively. RESULTS: The literature search identified 3316 studies, of which 7 (6 RCTs and 1 PCS) were eligible. Study endpoints included; quality of life (QoL; 5 RCTs and 1 PCS), disease free survival (DFS) (1 RCT), overall survival (OS) (1 RCT) and cost-effectiveness (1 RCT). The results showed reduction in follow-up frequency had no adverse effect on: QoL (6 studies, n = 920), DFS (1 trial, n = 472) or OS (1 trial, n = 472), but improved cost-effectiveness (1 trial, n = 472). Four RCTs specifically examined follow-up on-demand versus scheduled follow-up visits and found no statistically significant differences in QoL (n = 544). CONCLUSION: While no evidence-based guidelines suggest that follow-up of EBC patients improves DFS or OS, routinely scheduled in-person assessment is common. RCT data suggests that reduced frequency of follow-up has no adverse effects.

National Thoracic Surgery Standards Implementation: Barriers, Enablers, and Opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis and surgical treatment decision making for thoracic cancers is complex. Moreover, there is demonstrated variability in how each province in Canada delivers cancer care, resulting in disparities in patient outcomes. Recently, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) published pan-Canadian evidence-based standards for the care of thoracic surgery cancer patients. This study was undertaken to assess the degree to which these standards were currently met in practice and to further understand the determinants to their implementation nationally. METHODS: This study was undertaken in two parts: (1) a national survey of thoracic surgeons to assess the perceived extent of implementation of these standards in their institution and province; and (2) formation of a focus group with a representative sample of thoracic surgeons across Canada in a qualitative study to understand the determinants of successful standards implementation. RESULTS: 37 surgeons (33% response rate) participated in the survey; 78% were from academic hospitals. The top categories of standards that were under-implemented included (a) quality assurance processes, data collection and clinician audit and feedback, and (b) ongoing regional planning and workload assessments for thoracic surgeons, and (c) pathology turnaround time target of two weeks and the use of a standardized synoptic pathology report format. Enablers, barriers, and opportunities for standards implementation contextualized the discussion within the focus group. CONCLUSION: Study results demonstrated variation in the implementation of surgery standards across Canada and identified the determinants to the delivery of high quality surgical care. Future work will need to include the promotion and development of quality improvement strategies and effective resource allocation that is aligned with the implementation of thoracic cancer surgery standards in order to improve patient outcomes.