The impact of advancing the standard of care in radiotherapy on operational treatment resources.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the impact of implementing hypofractionated prescription regimens and advanced treatment techniques on institutional operational hours and radiotherapy personnel resources in a multi-institutional setting. The study may be used to describe the impact of advancing the standard of care with modern radiotherapy techniques on patient and staff resources. METHODS: This study uses radiation therapy data extracted from the radiotherapy information system from two tertiary care, university-affiliated cancer centers from 2012 to 2021. Across all patients in the analysis, the average fraction number for curative and palliative patients was reported each year in the decade. Also, the institutional operational treatment hours are reported for both centers. A sub-analysis for curative intent breast and lung radiotherapy patients was performed to contextualize the impact of changes to imaging, motion management, and treatment technique. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2021, Center 1 had 42 214 patient plans and Center 2 had 43 252 patient plans included in the analysis. Averaged over both centers across the decade, the average fraction number per patient decreased from 6.9 to 5.2 (25%) and 21.8 to 17.2 (21%) for palliative and curative patients, respectively. The operational treatment hours for both institutions increased from 8 h 15 min to 9 h 45 min (18%), despite a patient population increase of 45%. CONCLUSION: The clinical implementation of hypofractionated treatment regimens has successfully reduced the radiotherapy workload and operational treatment hours required to treat patients. This analysis describes the impact of changes to the standard of care on institutional resources.

High Symptom Burden in Patients Receiving Radiotherapy and Factors Associated with Being Offered an Intervention.

Patient report outcomes are commonly collected during oncology visits to elicit symptom burden and guide management. We aimed to determine the frequency of intervention for patients undergoing radiotherapy with high symptom complexity scores and identify which factors are associated with being offered an intervention. A retrospective chart audit was completed of adult patients with cancer who had at least one radiotherapy appointment and were assigned a high symptom complexity. A total of 200 patients were included; 150 (75.0%) patients were offered an intervention for the main symptom. The most offered intervention was medications. Multivariable logistic regression showed factors associated with being offered an intervention were the following: symptom score of 9 (OR = 9.56, 95% CI 1.64-62.8) and 10 (OR = 7.90, 95% CI 1.69-38.2); palliative intent radiation (OR 3.87, 96% CI 1.46-11.1); and last review appointment (OR 6.22, 95% CI 1.84-23.3). Symptoms associated with being offered an intervention included pain (OR 22.6, 95% CI 6.47-91.1), nausea (OR 15.7, 95% CI 1.51-412), shortness of breath (OR 7.97, 95% CI 1.20-63.7), and anxiety (OR 6.69, 95% CI 1.58-31.6). This knowledge will help guide clinical practice to understand symptom burden and how we can improve our management of patients' symptoms.

Testing a modified electronic version of the Edmonton symptom assessment system-revised for remote online completion with ambulatory cancer patients in Alberta, Canada.

Objective: The cancer program in Alberta, Canada routinely collects patient-reported outcomes using the Edmonton symptom assessment system-revised (ESAS-r). The program recently launched the province's new clinical information system which has expanded functionality, allowing patients to complete symptom questionnaires remotely online, instead of completing a paper form at the clinic. This study aimed to test a modified electronic version of the ESAS-r [(e)ESAS-r] with patients, to assess the feasibility of completion and questionnaire clarity. Methods: Staff, patients, and other stakeholders worked to create modified definitions for ESAS-r symptoms, to aid in patient understanding. Patient and family advisors were recruited to test the questionnaire. Participants completed an online mock-up of the (e)ESAS-r and answered questions about technical issues. One-to-one cognitive interviews were held to discuss each symptom definition in detail. Modifications were made based on the feedback and a second round of interviews was held to finalize the wording. Results: In total, 19 patients and 7 family advisors participated. All but one (96.2%) completed the questionnaire without assistance and had no technical issues. Participants requested certain wording modifications and that definitions be added for all symptoms for consistency. Very few participants reported any confusion with the final definitions. Conclusions: The (e)ESAS-r was tested for clarity and ease of completion and was determined to be suitable for remote online use with ambulatory cancer patients. The enhanced definitions on the new questionnaire were clear to patients and helped ensure they understood the meaning of each symptom they were asked to rate.

Patient-Reported Symptom Complexity and Acute Care Utilization Among Patients With Cancer: A Population-Based Study Using a Novel Symptom Complexity Algorithm and Observational Data.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer in Canada are often effectively managed in ambulatory settings; however, patients with unmanaged or complex symptoms may turn to the emergency department (ED) for additional support. These unplanned visits can be costly to the healthcare system and distressing for patients. This study used a novel patient-reported outcomes (PROs)-derived symptom complexity algorithm to understand characteristics of patients who use acute care, which may help clinicians identify patients who would benefit from additional support. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study used population-based linked administrative healthcare data. All patients with cancer in Alberta, Canada, who completed at least one PRO symptom-reporting questionnaire between October 1, 2019, and April 1, 2020, were included. The algorithm used ratings of 9 symptoms to assign a complexity score of low, medium, or high. Multivariable binary logistic regressions were used to evaluate factors associated with a higher likelihood of having an ED visit or hospital admission (HA) within 7 days of completing a PRO questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 29,133 patients in the cohort, 738 had an ED visit and 452 had an HA within 7 days of completing the PRO questionnaire. Patients with high symptom complexity had significantly higher odds of having an ED visit (OR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.59-3.70) or HA (OR, 4.20; 95% CI, 3.36-5.26) compared with low complexity patients, controlling for demographic covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Given that patients with higher symptom complexity scores were more likely to use acute care, clinicians should monitor these more complex patients closely, because they may benefit from additional support or symptom management in ambulatory settings. A symptom complexity algorithm can help clinicians easily identify patients who may require additional support. Using an algorithm to guide care can enhance patient experiences, while reducing use of acute care services and the accompanying cost and burden.

The impact of routine Edmonton symptom assessment system use on receiving palliative care services: results of a population-based retrospective-matched cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, Cancer Care Ontario began standardised symptom assessment as part of routine care using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of ESAS on receipt of palliative care when compared with a matched group of unexposed patients. DESIGN: A retrospective-matched cohort study examined the impact of ESAS screening on initiation of palliative care services provided by physicians or homecare nurses. The study included adult patients diagnosed with cancer between 2007 and 2015. Exposure was defined as completing ≥1 ESAS during the study period. Using 4 hard and 14 propensity score-matched variables, patients with cancer exposed to ESAS were matched 1:1 to those who were not. Matched patients were followed from first ESAS until initiation of palliative care, death or end of study. RESULTS: The final cohort consisted of 204 688 matched patients with no prior palliative care consult. The pairs were well matched. The cumulative incidence of receiving palliative care within the first 5 years was higher among those exposed to ESAS compared with those who were not (27.9% (95% CI: 27.5% to 28.2%) versus 27.9% (95% CI: 27.5% to 28.2%)), when death is considered as a competing event. In the adjusted cause-specific Cox proportional hazards model, ESAS assessment was associated with a 6% increase in palliative care services (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.08). CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that patients exposed to ESAS were more likely to receive palliative care services compared with patients who were not exposed. This observation provides real-world data of the impact of routine assessment with a patient-reported outcome.

Feasibility and Acceptability of Implementing Site-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure in Head and Neck Cancer Clinics: A Prospective Institutional Study.

Purpose: To assess the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck (MDASI-HN) module in cancer clinics and its effect on patient-reported experience. Methods: We conducted a prospective, longitudinal study at a tertiary cancer institution between September 2020 and August 2021. Patients with newly diagnosed head and neck (HN) cancer who were evaluated to receive radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy and could communicate in English were approached to participate. The primary outcome was feasibility and acceptability of the MDASI-HN implementation in the radiation oncology department assessed by patient and provider exit surveys. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported experience as recorded by a shortened Your Voice Matters survey (YVM) in 2 cohorts pre- and post-MDASI-HN implementation and symptom scores. Descriptive statistics were used for exit surveys and symptom scores. Mann-Whitney tests were used to assess differences in positive responses between pre- and postimplementation for each YVM question. Cochrane-Armitage tests were used to examine changes in patient-reported experience over time. Results: Fifty-one patients were enrolled in the postimplementation cohort and 29 (60%) responded to the exit survey. Eighty-nine percent of patients reported that MDASI-HN made it easier to remember symptoms, and 86% recommend its use in routine care. Four of the 5 radiation oncology HN providers (80%) responded to exit surveys; 75% felt the MDASI-HN provided clinically relevant information, improved communication with patients, and did not increase clinic time. The overall patient-reported experience was not affected by the implementation (P = .82). The probability of positive responses over time was significant (P = .025) in the clinic coordination domain for the postimplementation cohort. Conclusions: Implementation of MDASI-HN was feasible and acceptable by patients and providers. Although the overall patient-reported experience was not affected by implementation, some aspects improved as treatment progressed.

Representation of Women in Canadian Radiation Oncology Trainees and Radiation Oncologists: Progress or Regress?

Purpose: The study objective was to determine the representation of women in Canadian radiation oncology (RO) trainees and the radiation oncologist workforce over time. Methods and Materials: Gender data for Canadian RO trainees (residents and fellows) and radiation oncologists were collected from the Canadian Post-MD Education Registry (1994-2021) and Canadian Medical Association (1994-2019). Visa trainees were excluded. Gender parity was defined as a 1:1 female-to-male ratio. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Results: Female trainee proportions varied with 2 rising trend periods (1994-1998: 38%-43%, P = .93; 2002-2014: 35%-51%, P = .53) and 2 regression trend periods (1998-2002: 43%-35%, P = .83; 2014-2021: 52%-35%, P = .011). Gender parity was observed in RO trainees between 2012 and 2016. The annual number of RO trainees ranged from 66 to 173 with 2 near-parallel periods of gender-associated growth (1994-1996; 2002-2008) and regression (1997-2001; 2009-2016) followed by gender divergence (2017-2021) with increasing male and decreasing female trainees. Nearly all Canadian regions, except Ontario, reached 50% or higher female representation in RO trainees during the study period. In the radiation oncologist workforce, female representation increased from 20% (54/271) to 37% (217/582) between 1994 and 2019, and all regions and age groups demonstrated higher female representation over time. Within radiation oncologist subgroups, age <35 years old and Quebec region cohorts reached gender parity. Conclusions: Representation of women varied in Canadian RO trainees and has fallen since 2014, whereas female representation generally increased in the radiation oncologist workforce over time. Gender parity was observed in RO trainees, radiation oncologists <35 years old, and radiation oncologists in Quebec. Recent declining female representation among RO trainees is worrisome, and further study is warranted to identify potential gender-based barriers in attracting women to the specialty.

Radiation Therapy With Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4/6 Inhibitors: A Multi-institutional Safety and Toxicity Study.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to investigate radiation therapy (RT) toxicity when given with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) compared with RT alone. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with hormonal receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor-2 negative metastatic breast cancer treated with RT at 4 cancer centers in Alberta, Canada, between 2016 and 2020. Toxicity in patients treated with RT within 30 days of initiating to discontinuing CDK4/6i (RT + CDK4/6i) was compared with toxicity of RT in CDK4/6i-naïve patients (RT alone). The primary outcome was acute grade (G) 2 or higher, nonhematological toxicity within 30 days of RT. We also explored toxicity based on the timing of RT (prior, concurrent, post) in relation to CDK4/6i. Propensity score matching was applied to create comparable cohorts. A generalized linear mixed model was used to evaluate factors associated with acute toxicity. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two patients (220 RT sites) in the RT + CDK4/6i and 53 patients (93 RT sites) in RT alone were eligible. The rate of acute G2 or higher nonhematological toxicity was 11.5% versus 7%, respectively (P = .439), and acute G3 or higher nonhematological toxicity was 3.7% versus 0%, respectively (P = .151). Acute toxicity in RT + CDK4/6i group was mainly observed when RT was given concurrently (67%), with most of the G3 toxicity recorded. After propensity score matching, the association of acute toxicity with RT + CDK4/6i versus RT alone was not significant on multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 3.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-13.2; P = .121). CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe a significant association between CDK4/6i use and acute G2 or higher nonhematological toxicity in women with metastatic breast cancer receiving palliative RT. Given the findings of G3 toxicity, caution is advised whenever CDK4/6i is given concurrently with RT.

Striving to Fill in Gaps between Clinical Practice and Standards: The Evolution of a Pan-Canadian Approach to Patient-Reported Outcomes Use.

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.

Comparing the M.D. Anderson Symptom and Dysphagia Inventories for Head and Neck Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Where patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may be administered at multiple patient visits, it is advantageous to capture these symptoms with as few questions as possible. In this study, the M.D. Anderson Head and Neck Symptom Inventory (MDASI-HN), and the M.D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) is compared to determine if using the MDASI-HN alone would overlook symptoms identified with MDADI. METHODS: The MDASI-HN and the MDADI were completed by 156 patients, postradiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC). Associations between the two instruments were analyzed using correlation analysis, unsupervised machine learning, and sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Little correlation was found between the two surveys; however, there was overlap between MDASI-HN dry mouth and many MDADI items, confirming that dry mouth is an important factor in difficulty swallowing, and patient QoL. Taking longer to eat (MDADI), was the most commonly reported item overall, with 85 (54%) patients rating it as moderate-severe. Dry mouth was the most endorsed MDASI-HN item (68, 44%). There were 51 patients missed by the MDASI-HN, reporting no moderate-severe symptoms, but reported one or more moderate-severe QoL impacts on MDADI. If patients who reported a score of 2 or higher on the MDASI-HN Dry Mouth item are flagged as requiring follow-up, the number of patients missed by MDASI-HN drops to 15. CONCLUSION: In an HNC clinic where MDASI-HN is routinely administered, assessment of symptoms and QoL might be enhanced by reducing the value at which MDASI Dry Mouth is considered moderate-severe to 2. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 132:2388-2395, 2022.

Increasing Demand on Human Capital and Resource Utilization in Radiation Therapy: The Past Decade.

PURPOSE: To quantify the change resource utilization in radiation therapy in the context of advancing technologies and techniques over the last decade. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Prospectively, the time to complete radiation therapy workflow tasks was captured between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. The institutional task workflows are specific to each technique and broadly organized into 4 categories: 3-dimenstional conformal radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy simple, and volumetric modulated arc therapy complex. These discipline-specific task times were used to quantify a resource utilization factor, which is the median time taken to complete all tasks for each category divided by the median time for 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy treatments. Retrospectively, all plans treated between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2019, were quantified and categorized. The resource factor was applied to determine resource utilization. For context, institutional staffing levels were captured across the same decade for medical dosimetrists, medical physicists, and radiation oncologists. RESULTS: This analysis includes 30,229 patient plans in the retrospective data set and 4747 patient plans in the prospective data set. This analysis demonstrates that over this period, patient numbers increased by approximately 45%, whereas time-based human resources increased by almost 150%. The resource allocation factors for 3-dimenstional conformal radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy simple, and volumetric arc therapy complex were 1.0, 2.4, 2.9, and 4.3, respectively. Across the 3 disciplines, staffing levels increased from 15 to 17 (13%) for medical dosimetrists, from 10 to 13 (30%) for medical physicists, and from 16 to 23 (44%) for radiation oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates the increase in resource utilization due to the introduction of advanced technologies and changes in radiation therapy techniques over the past decade. Human resource utilization is the predominant factor and should be considered with increasing patient volume for operational planning.

Diagnostic timelines and self-reported symptoms of patients with lung and gastrointestinal cancers undergoing radiation therapy. Retrospective case control study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found that patients with lung cancer report worse patient experience compared to other tumour groups. Reasons that may negatively impact patient experience include delays in diagnosis as well as inadequate symptom management. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic timelines and symptom reports of patients with lung and gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. METHODS: This study included patients diagnosed with lung or GI cancers who attended a radiation oncology (RO) consultation and/or received radiation treatment between May and August 2019 at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Data collected included demographics, dates of diagnostic time points, and self-reported symptom scores across 3 time points. A descriptive analysis was completed, and the median number of days between time points was compared between tumour groups. RESULTS: Patients with lung cancer had longer diagnostic timelines compared to GI patients. The median number of days between the first investigative test and biopsy was 21 days longer for patients with lung cancer (p < 0.05). From RO consultation to the first treatment review appointment, 25% and 4% of lung and GI patients, respectively, reported worsening of symptoms. A greater proportion of lung patients reported worse symptom scores during treatment compared to GI patients. This varied by specific symptom. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with lung cancer experienced delays in receiving a diagnosis and worse symptom burden during radiation therapy in this study. We identified potential targets to improve patient experience.

Effect of Early Palliative Care on End-of-Life Health Care Costs: A Population-Based, Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the impact of early versus not-early palliative care among cancer decedents on end-of-life health care costs. METHODS: Using linked administrative databases, we created a retrospective cohort of cancer decedents between 2004 and 2014 in Ontario, Canada. We identified those who received early palliative care (palliative care service used in the hospital or community 12 to 6 months before death [exposure]). We used propensity score matching to identify a control group of not-early palliative care, hard matched on age, sex, cancer type, and stage at diagnosis. We examined differences in average health system costs (including hospital, emergency department, physician, and home care costs) between groups in the last month of life. RESULTS: We identified 144,306 cancer decedents, of which 37% received early palliative care. After matching, we created 36,238 pairs of decedents who received early and not-early (control) palliative care; there were balanced distributions of age, sex, cancer type (24% lung cancer), and stage (25% stage III and IV). Overall, 56.3% of early group versus 66.7% of control group used inpatient care in the last month (P < .001). Considering inpatient hospital costs in the last month of life, the early group used an average (±standard deviation) of $7,105 (±$10,710) versus the control group of $9,370 (±$13,685; P < .001). Overall average costs (±standard deviation) in the last month of life for patients in the early versus control group was $12,753 (±$10,868) versus $14,147 (±$14,288; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Receiving early palliative care reduced average health system costs in the last month of life, especially via avoided hospitalizations.

The impact of symptom screening on survival among patients with cancer across varying levels of pre-diagnosis psychiatric care.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with cancer often experience considerable challenges with mental health, and those who had more intense psychiatric care prior to their cancer diagnosis have a higher risk of mortality. As prior research demonstrated a survival benefit among patients screened for symptoms using the Edmonton symptom assessment system (ESAS), this study aims to examine the association between being ESAS-screened and the risk of mortality across varying intensity levels of pre-diagnosis psychiatric care utilization. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study using population-wide administrative databases. All patients diagnosed with cancer in Ontario, Canada, from January 2007 to December 2015 were identified. Propensity score matching was used to pair ESAS-screened individuals to those not screened. Pairs were also hard matched on a pre-diagnosis psychiatric care utilization gradient. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was implemented to estimate the association between ESAS and mortality, for each intensity level of pre-diagnosis psychiatric care. RESULTS: The matched cohort consisted of 119,806 patient pairs (ESAS-screened and not screened), of whom 54,468 (45.5%) pairs had prior outpatient psychiatric care and 2249 (1.8%) pairs had experienced emergency department visits or had been hospitalized for psychiatric care. Overall being exposed to ESAS was significantly associated with a 51% decrease in the hazard of mortality (HR 0.49, 95%CI 0.48-0.50, p-value <0.0001). This association was similar across all levels of prior psychiatric use, however, there was no evidence of a differential impact. CONCLUSION: In addition to routinely monitoring symptom severity, including depression, among patients with cancer, it is also important to identify those with preexisting psychiatric comorbidities at the time of diagnosis. This information can be used to ensure that timely and appropriate psycho-oncology services and psycho-social supports are offered to help the patient and their family cope during the cancer disease trajectory.

Quality of End-of-Life Cancer Care in Canada: A 12-Year Retrospective Analysis of Three Provinces' Administrative Health Care Data Evaluating Changes over Time.

This retrospective cohort study of cancer decedents during 2004-2015 examined end-of-life cancer care quality indicators (QIs) in the provinces of British Columbia (BC), Ontario, and Nova Scotia (NS). These included: emergency department use, in-patient hospitalization, intensive care unit admissions, physician house calls, home care visits, and death experienced in hospital. Ontario saw the greatest 12-year decrease in in-hospital deaths from 52.8% to 41.1%. Hospitalization rates within 30 days of death decreased in Ontario, increased in NS, and remained the same in BC. Ontario's usage of aggressive end-of-life measures changed very little, while BC increased their utilization rates. Supportive care use increased in both NS and Ontario. Those who were male or living in a lower income/smaller community (in Ontario) were associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving supportive care. Despite the shift in focus to providing hospice and home care services, approximately 50% of oncology patients are still dying in hospital and 11.7% of patients overall are subject to aggressive care measures that may be out of line with their desire for comfort care. Supportive care use is increasing, but providers must ensure that Canadians are connected to palliative services, as its utilization improves a wide variety of outcomes.

Acute Care Use by Breast Cancer Patients on Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Alberta: Demonstrating the Importance of Measurement to Improving Quality.

Breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy are at increased risk of acute care use. The incidence of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations (H) have been characterized in other provinces but never in Alberta. We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study using administrative data of women with stage I-III breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Rates of ED and H use in the 180 days following chemotherapy initiation were determined, and logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors. We found that 47% of women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy experienced ED or H, which compared favourably to other provinces. However, Alberta had the highest rate of febrile neutropenia-related ED visits, and among the highest chemotherapy-related ED visits. The incidence of acute care use increased over time, and there were significant institutional differences despite operating under a single provincial healthcare system. Our study demonstrates the need for systematic measurement and the importance of quality improvement programs to address this gap.

Patient-Reported Outcomes-Guided Adaptive Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: To identify which patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may be most improved through adaptive radiation therapy (ART) with the goal of reducing toxicity incidence among head and neck cancer patients. METHODS: One hundred fifty-five head and neck cancer patients receiving radical VMAT (chemo)radiotherapy (66-70 Gy in 30-35 fractions) completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI), and Xerostomia Questionnaire while attending routine follow-up clinics between June-October 2019. Hierarchical clustering characterized symptom endorsement. Conventional statistical approaches indicated associations between dose and commonly reported symptoms. These associations, and the potential benefit of interfractional dose corrections, were further explored via logistic regression. RESULTS: Radiotherapy-related symptoms were commonly reported (dry mouth, difficulty swallowing/chewing). Clustering identified three patient subgroups reporting: none/mild symptoms for most items (60.6% of patients); moderate/severe symptoms affecting some aspects of general well-being (32.9%); and moderate/severe symptom reporting for most items (6.5%). Clusters of PRO items broadly consisted of acute toxicities, general well-being, and head and neck-specific symptoms (xerostomia, dysphagia). Dose-PRO relationships were strongest between delivered pharyngeal constrictor Dmean and patient-reported dysphagia, with MDADI composite scores (mean ± SD) of 25.7 ± 18.9 for patients with Dmean <50 Gy vs. 32.4 ± 17.1 with Dmean ≥50 Gy. Based on logistic regression models, during-treatment dose corrections back to planned values may confer ≥5% decrease in the absolute risk of self-reported physical dysphagia symptoms ≥1 year post-treatment in 1.2% of patients, with a ≥5% decrease in relative risk in 23.3% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported dysphagia symptoms are strongly associated with delivered dose to the pharyngeal constrictor. Dysphagia-focused ART may provide the greatest toxicity benefit to head and neck cancer patients, and represent a potential new direction for ART, given that the existing ART literature has focused almost exclusively on xerostomia reduction.

Identifying Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Routine Surveillance of Physical and Emotional Symptoms in Head and Neck Cancer Populations: A Systematic Review.

The aims of this review were to identify symptoms experienced by head and neck cancer (HNC) patients and their prevalence, as well as to compare symptom coverage identified in HNC specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Searches of Ovid Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, and CINAHL were conducted to identify studies. The search revealed 4569 unique articles and identified 115 eligible studies. The prevalence of reported symptoms was highly variable among included studies. Variability in sample size, timing of the assessments, and the use of different measures was noted across studies. Content mapping of commonly used PROMs showed variability and poor capture of prevalent symptoms, even though validation studies confirmed satisfactory reliability and validity. This suggests limitations of some of the tools in providing an accurate and comprehensive picture of the patient's symptoms and problems.

Higher-risk breast cancer in women aged 80 and older: Exploring the effect of treatment on survival.

BACKGROUND: To understand the association between various treatments and survival for older women with higher-risk breast cancer when controlling for patient and tumor factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, population-based study. Women aged 80 years or older and diagnosed between 2004 and 2017 with non-metastatic, higher-risk breast cancer were identified form the provincial cancer registry in Alberta, Canada. Higher-risk was defined as any of following: T3/4, node positive, human epidermal factor receptor-2 (Her2) positive or triple negative disease. Treatments were surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapy (hormonal therapy, and/or chemotherapy and/or trastuzumab) or a combination of the previous. Cox regression models were used to examine the association between treatments and breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 1369 patients were included. The median age was 84 years. 332 (24%) of women had T3-T4 tumors, 792 (58%) had nodal involvement, 130 (10%) had Her2 positive tumors, 124 (9%) had triple negative tumors. After a median follow-up of 35 months, 29.5% of patients died of breast cancer whereas 34.2% died from other causes. Patients had a lower adjusted hazard for BCSS if they had surgery (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27, 0.51), or systemic therapy (HR = 0.75, 95%CI: 0.58, 0.98). Patients had an increased probability of breast cancer death in the first 5 years after diagnosis compared to death from other causes. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery and systemic therapy were associated with longer BCSS and OS. This suggests that maximizing treatments might benefit higher-risk patients.

Comparison of Patient-Reported Experience of Patients Receiving Radiotherapy Measured by Two Validated Surveys.

Patient-reported experience is associated with improved patient safety and clinical outcomes. Quality improvement programs rely on validated patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) to design projects. This descriptive study compares the experience of cancer patients treated with radiation as recorded through the Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey (AOPSS) or as recorded through Your Voice Matters (YVM) between February and August 2019. Six questions were compared ("overall experience with care", "discussion of worries", "involvement in decisions", "trusting providers with confidential information", "providing family with information", and "knowing who to contact"). Positive experience scores were calculated by cohort and by tumor groups. Multivariable logistic regression models evaluated factors associated with positive experience. Two cohorts (220 and 200 patients) met the eligibility criteria for the AOPSS and YVM, respectively. Positive experience was reported similarly between the two PREMs for "overall experience with care", "discussion of worries", and "trusting providers with confidential information" with a score difference of 1-4% at the cohort level. Positive experience score difference ranged from 5% to 44% across questions at the tumor group level. Different experience gaps were identified with the two measures, mainly at the tumor group level. Programs interested in using these PREMS might consider this when designing projects.