Wait times and breast cancer survival: a population-based retrospective cohort study using CanIMPACT data.

PURPOSE: The time from breast cancer surgery to chemotherapy has been shown to affect survival outcomes; however, the effect of time from first breast cancer-related healthcare contact to first cancer specialist consultation, or the time from first breast cancer-related healthcare contact to adjuvant chemotherapy on survival has not been well explored. We aimed to determine whether various wait times along the breast cancer treatment pathway (contact-to-consultation, contact-to-chemotherapy, surgery-to-chemotherapy) were associated with overall survival in women within the Canadian province of Ontario. METHODS: We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study of women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer in Ontario between 2007 and 2011 who received surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. This was the Ontario cohort of a larger, nationwide study (the Canadian Team to improve Community-Based Cancer Care along the Continuum - CanIMPACT). We used Cox-proportional hazards regression to determine the association between the contact-to-consultation, contact-to-chemotherapy, and surgery-to-chemotherapy intervals and overall survival while adjusting for cancer stage, age, comorbidity, neighborhood income, immigration status, surgery type, and method of cancer detection. RESULTS: Among 12,782 breast cancer patients, longer surgery-to-chemotherapy intervals (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.18 per 30-day increase), but not the contact-to-consultation (HR 0.979, 95% CI 0.95-1.01 per 30-day increase), nor the more comprehensive contact-to-chemotherapy intervals (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98-1.02 per 30-day increase) were associated with decreased survival in our adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: Our findings emphasize the prognostic importance of a shorter surgery-to-chemotherapy interval, whereas the contact-to-consultation and contact-to-chemotherapy intervals have less impact on survival outcomes.

The Impact of the Pandemic on the Quality of Colorectal and Anal Cancer Care, and 2-Year Clinical Outcomes.

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

TOward a comPrehensive supportive Care intervention for Older men with metastatic Prostate cancer (TOPCOP3): A pilot randomized controlled trial and process evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Current management of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) includes androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy (ARATs), which is associated with substantial toxicity in older adults. Geriatric assessment and management and remote symptom monitoring have been shown to reduce toxicity and improve quality of life in patients undergoing chemotherapy, but their efficacy in patients being treated with ARATs has not been explored. The purpose of this study is to examine whether these interventions, alone or in combination, can improve treatment tolerability and quality of life (QOL) for older adults with metastatic prostate cancer on ARATs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TOPCOP3 is a multi-centre, factorial pilot clinical trial coupled with an embedded process evaluation. The study includes four treatment arms: geriatric assessment and management (GA + M); remote symptom monitoring (RSM); geriatric assessment and management plus remote symptom monitoring; and usual care and will be followed for six months. The aim is to recruit 168 patients between two cancer centres in Toronto, Canada. Eligible participants will be randomized equally via REDCap. Participants in all arms will complete a comprehensive baseline assessment upon enrollment following the Geriatric Core dataset, as well as follow-up assessments at 1.5, 3, 4.5, and 6 months. The co-primary outcomes will be grade 3-5 toxicity and QOL. Toxicities will be graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. QOL will be measured by patient self-reporting using the EuroQol 5 dimensions of health questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include fatigue, insomnia, and depression. Finally, four process evaluation outcomes will also be observed, namely feasibility, fidelity, and acceptability, along with implementation barriers and facilitators. DISCUSSION: Data will be collected to observe the effects of GA + M and RSM on QOL and toxicities experienced by older adults receiving ARATs for metastatic prostate cancer. Data will also be collected to help the design and conduct of a definitive multicentre phase III randomized controlled trial. This study will extend supportive care interventions for older adults with cancer into new areas and inform the design of larger trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT05582772).

Machine Learning to Allocate Palliative Care Consultations During Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: For patients with advanced cancer, early consultations with palliative care (PC) specialists reduce costs, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. However, capacity limitations prevent all patients from receiving PC shortly after diagnosis. We evaluated whether a prognostic machine learning system could promote early PC, given existing capacity. METHODS: Using population-level administrative data in Ontario, Canada, we assembled a cohort of patients with incurable cancer who received palliative-intent systemic therapy between July 1, 2014, and December 30, 2019. We developed a machine learning system that predicted death within 1 year of each treatment using demographics, cancer characteristics, treatments, symptoms, laboratory values, and history of acute care admissions. We trained the system in patients who started treatment before July 1, 2017, and evaluated the potential impact of the system on PC in subsequent patients. RESULTS: Among 560,210 treatments received by 54,628 patients, death occurred within 1 year of 45.2% of treatments. The machine learning system recommended the same number of PC consultations observed with usual care at the 60.0% 1-year risk of death, with a first-alarm positive predictive value of 69.7% and an outcome-level sensitivity of 74.9%. Compared with usual care, system-guided care could increase early PC by 8.5% overall (95% CI, 7.5 to 9.5; P < .001) and by 15.3% (95% CI, 13.9 to 16.6; P < .001) among patients who live 6 months beyond their first treatment, without requiring more PC consultations in total or substantially increasing PC among patients with a prognosis exceeding 2 years. CONCLUSION: Prognostic machine learning systems could increase early PC despite existing resource constraints. These results demonstrate an urgent need to deploy and evaluate prognostic systems in real-time clinical practice to increase access to early PC.

Prevalence and drivers of nurse and physician distress in cardiovascular and oncology programmes at a Canadian quaternary hospital network during the COVID-19 pandemic: a quality improvement initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence and drivers of distress, a composite of burnout, decreased meaning in work, severe fatigue, poor work-life integration and quality of life, and suicidal ideation, among nurses and physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design to evaluate distress levels of nurses and physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic between June and August 2021. SETTING: Cardiovascular and oncology care settings at a Canadian quaternary hospital network. PARTICIPANTS: 261 nurses and 167 physicians working in cardiovascular or oncology care. Response rate was 29% (428 of 1480). OUTCOME MEASURES: Survey tool to measure clinician distress using the Well-Being Index (WBI) and additional questions about workplace-related and COVID-19 pandemic-related factors. RESULTS: Among 428 respondents, nurses (82%, 214 of 261) and physicians (62%, 104 of 167) reported high distress on the WBI survey. Higher WBI scores (≥2) in nurses were associated with perceived inadequate staffing (174 (86%) vs 28 (64%), p=0.003), unfair treatment, (105 (52%) vs 11 (25%), p=0.005), and pandemic-related impact at work (162 (80%) vs 22 (50%), p<0.001) and in their personal life (135 (67%) vs 11 (25%), p<0.001), interfering with job performance. Higher WBI scores (≥3) in physicians were associated with perceived inadequate staffing (81 (79%) vs 32 (52%), p=0.001), unfair treatment (44 (43%) vs 13 (21%), p=0.02), professional dissatisfaction (29 (28%) vs 5 (8%), p=0.008), and pandemic-related impact at work (84 (82%) vs 35 (56%), p=0.001) and in their personal life (56 (54%) vs 24 (39%), p=0.014), interfering with job performance. CONCLUSION: High distress was common among nurses and physicians working in cardiovascular and oncology care settings during the pandemic and linked to factors within and beyond the workplace. These results underscore the complex and contextual aspects of clinician distress, and the need to develop targeted approaches to effectively address this problem.

Socioeconomic Status, Palliative Care, and Death at Home Among Patients With Cancer Before and During COVID-19.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the delivery of cancer care, but less is known about its association with place of death and delivery of specialized palliative care (SPC) and potential disparities in these outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life and to examine whether disparities in socioeconomic status exist for these outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, an interrupted time series analysis was conducted using Ontario Cancer Registry data comprising adult patients aged 18 years or older who died with cancer between the pre-COVID-19 (March 16, 2015, to March 15, 2020) and COVID-19 (March 16, 2020, to March 15, 2021) periods. The data analysis was performed between March and November 2023. Exposure: COVID-19-related hospital restrictions starting March 16, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life (last 30 days before death). Socioeconomic status was measured using Ontario Marginalization Index area-based material deprivation quintiles, with quintile 1 (Q1) indicating the least deprivation; Q3, intermediate deprivation; and Q5, the most deprivation. Segmented linear regression was used to estimate monthly trends in outcomes before, at the start of, and in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Of 173 915 patients in the study cohort (mean [SD] age, 72.1 [12.5] years; males, 54.1% [95% CI, 53.8%-54.3%]), 83.7% (95% CI, 83.6%-83.9%) died in the pre-COVID-19 period and 16.3% (95% CI, 16.1%-16.4%) died in the COVID-19 period, 54.5% (95% CI, 54.2%-54.7%) died at home during the entire study period, and 57.8% (95% CI, 57.5%-58.0%) received SPC at the end of life. In March 2020, home deaths increased by 8.3% (95% CI, 7.4%-9.1%); however, this increase was less marked in Q5 (6.1%; 95% CI, 4.4%-7.8%) than in Q1 (11.4%; 95% CI, 9.6%-13.2%) and Q3 (10.0%; 95% CI, 9.0%-11.1%). There was a simultaneous decrease of 5.3% (95% CI, -6.3% to -4.4%) in the rate of SPC at the end of life, with no significant difference among quintiles. Patients who received SPC at the end of life (vs no SPC) were more likely to die at home before and during the pandemic. However, there was a larger immediate increase in home deaths among those who received no SPC at the end of life vs those who received SPC (Q1, 17.5% [95% CI, 15.2%-19.8%] vs 7.6% [95% CI, 5.4%-9.7%]; Q3, 12.7% [95% CI, 10.8%-14.5%] vs 9.0% [95% CI, 7.2%-10.7%]). For Q5, the increase in home deaths was significant only for patients who did not receive SPC (13.9% [95% CI, 11.9%-15.8%] vs 1.2% [95% CI, -1.0% to 3.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with amplified socioeconomic disparities in death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life. Future research should focus on the mechanisms of these disparities and on developing interventions to ensure equitable and consistent SPC access.

Virtual Cancer Care Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: Patient and Staff Perspectives and Recommendations.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 catalyzed rapid implementation of virtual cancer care (VC); however, work is needed to inform long-term adoption. We evaluated patient and staff experiences with VC at a large urban, tertiary cancer center to inform recommendations for postpandemic sustainment. METHODS: All physicians who had provided VC during the pandemic and all patients who had a valid e-mail address on file and at least one visit to the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada, in the preceding year were invited to complete a survey. Interviews and focus groups with patients and staff across the cancer center were analyzed using qualitative descriptive analysis and triangulated with survey findings. RESULTS: Response rates for patients and physicians were 15% (2,343 of 15,169) and 41% (100 of 246), respectively. A greater proportion of patients than physicians were satisfied with VC (80.1 v 53.4%; P < .01). In addition, fewer patients than physicians felt that virtual visits were worse than those conducted in person (28.0 v 43.4%; P < .01) and that telephone and video visits negatively affected the human interaction that they valued (59.8% v 82.0%; P < .01). Major barriers to VC for patients were respect for care preferences and personal boundaries, accessibility, and equitable access. For staff, major barriers included a lack of role clarity, dedicated resources (space and technology), integration of nursing and allied health, support (administrative, clinical, and technical), and guidance on appropriateness of use. CONCLUSION: Patient and staff perceptions and barriers to virtual care are different. Moving forward, we need to pay attention to both staff and patient experiences with virtual care since this will have major implications for long-term adoption into clinical practice.

COVID-19 pandemic impact on the potential exacerbation of screening mammography disparities: A population-based study in Ontario, Canada.

Strategies to ramp up breast cancer screening after COVID-19 require data on the influence of the pandemic on groups of women with historically low screening uptake. Using data from Ontario, Canada, our objectives were to 1) quantify the overall pandemic impact on weekly bilateral screening mammography rates (per 100,000) of average-risk women aged 50-74 and 2) examine if COVID-19 has shifted any mammography inequalities according to age, immigration status, rurality, and access to material resources. Using a segmented negative binomial regression model, we estimated the mean change in rate at the start of the pandemic (the week of March 15, 2020) and changes in weekly trend of rates during the pandemic period (March 15-December 26, 2020) compared to the pre-pandemic period (January 3, 2016-March 14, 2020) for all women and for each subgroup. A 3-way interaction term (COVID-19*week*subgroup variable) was added to the model to detect any pandemic impact on screening disparities. Of the 3,481,283 mammograms, 8.6 % (n = 300,064) occurred during the pandemic period. Overall, the mean weekly rate dropped by 93.4 % (95 % CI 91.7 % - 94.8 %) at the beginning of COVID-19, followed by a weekly increase of 8.4 % (95 % CI 7.4 % - 9.4 %) until December 26, 2020. The pandemic did not shift any disparities (all interactions p > 0.05) and that women who were under 60 or over 70, immigrants, or with a limited access to material resources had persistently low screening rate in both periods. Interventions should proactively target these underserved populations with the goals of reducing advanced-stage breast cancer presentations and mortality.

Indolent lymphoma care delivery and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada.

The treatment pattern and outcomes in patients with indolent B-cell lymphoma treated during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period compared to the prepandemic period are unclear. This was a retrospective population-based study using administrative databases in Ontario, Canada (follow-up to 31 March 2022). The primary outcome was treatment pattern; secondary outcomes were death, toxicities, healthcare utilization (emergency department [ED] visit, hospitalization) and SARS-CoV-2 outcomes. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) from Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate associations. We identified 4143 patients (1079 pandemic, 3064 prepandemic), with a median age of 69 years. In both time periods, bendamustine (B) + rituximab (BR) was the most frequently prescribed regimen. During the pandemic, fewer patients received R maintenance or completed the full 2-year course (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.92, p = 0.001). Patients treated during the pandemic had less healthcare utilization (ED visit aHR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68, 0.88, p < 0.0001; hospitalization aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94, p = 0.0067) and complications (infection aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82, p < 0.0001; febrile neutropenia aHR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.94, p = 0.020), with no difference in death. Independent of vaccination, active rituximab use was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 complications. Despite similar front-line regimen use, healthcare utilization and admissions for infection were less in the pandemic cohort.

Interventions to Promote Safety Culture in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: There is limited guidance on how to effectively promote safety culture in health care settings. We performed a systematic review to identify interventions to promote safety culture, specifically in oncology settings. METHODS: Medical Subject Headings and text words for "safety culture" and "cancer care" were combined to conduct structured searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science for peer-reviewed articles published from 1999 to 2021. To be included, articles had to evaluate a safety culture intervention in an oncology setting using a randomized or nonrandomized, pre-post (controlled or uncontrolled), interrupted time series, or repeated-measures study design. The review followed PRISMA guidelines; quality of included citations was assessed using the ROBINS-I risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Eighteen articles meeting the inclusion criteria were retained, reporting on interventions in radiation (14 of 18), medical (3 of 18), or general oncology (1 of 18) settings. Articles most commonly addressed incident learning systems (7 of 18), lean initiatives (4 of 18), or quality improvement programs (3 of 18). Although 72% of studies reported improvement in safety culture, there was substantial heterogeneity in the evaluation approach; rates of reporting of adverse events (9 of 18) or Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Culture survey results (9 of 18) were the most commonly used metrics. Most of the studies had moderate (28%) or severe (67%) risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a growing evidence base describing interventions to promote safety culture in cancer care, definitive recommendations were difficult to make because of heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes. Implementation of incident learning systems seems to hold most promise.

The Use of Wearable Devices in Oncology Patients: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the current literature on wearable technologies in oncology patients for the purpose of prognostication, treatment monitoring, and rehabilitation planning. METHODS: A search was conducted in Medline ALL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science, up until February 2022. Articles were included if they reported on consumer grade and/or non-commercial wearable devices in the setting of either prognostication, treatment monitoring or rehabilitation. RESULTS: We found 199 studies reporting on 18 513 patients suitable for inclusion. One hundred and eleven studies used wearable device data primarily for the purposes of rehabilitation, 68 for treatment monitoring, and 20 for prognostication. The most commonly-reported brands of wearable devices were ActiGraph (71 studies; 36%), Fitbit (37 studies; 19%), Garmin (13 studies; 7%), and ActivPAL (11 studies; 6%). Daily minutes of physical activity were measured in 121 studies (61%), and daily step counts were measured in 93 studies (47%). Adherence was reported in 86 studies, and ranged from 40% to 100%; of these, 63 (74%) reported adherence in excess of 80%. CONCLUSION: Wearable devices may provide valuable data for the purposes of treatment monitoring, prognostication, and rehabilitation. Future studies should investigate live-time monitoring of collected data, which may facilitate directed interventions.

First impressions: A prospective evaluation of patient-physician concordance and satisfaction following the initial medical oncology consultation.

BACKGROUND: An especially significant event in the patient-oncologist relationship is the initial consultation, where many complex topics-diagnosis, treatment intent, and often, prognosis-are discussed in a relatively short period of time. This study aimed to measure patients' understanding of the information discussed during their first medical oncology visit and their satisfaction with the communication from medical oncologists. METHODS: Between January and August 2021, patients without prior systemic treatment of their gastrointestinal malignancy (GI) attending the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PMCC) were approached within 24 h of their initial consultation to complete a paper-based questionnaire assessing understanding of their disease (diagnosis, treatment plan/intent, and prognosis) and satisfaction with the consultation. Medical oncology physicians simultaneously completed a similar questionnaire about the information discussed at the initial visit. Matched patient-physician responses were compared to assess the degree of concordance. RESULTS: A total of 184 matched patient-physician surveys were completed. The concordance rates for understanding of diagnosis, treatment plan, treatment intent, and prognosis were 92.9%, 59.2%, 66.8%, and 59.8%, respectively. After adjusting for patient and physician variables, patients who reported treatment intent to be unclear at the time of the consultation were independently associated with lower satisfaction scores (global p = 0.014). There was no statistically significant association between patient satisfaction and whether prognosis was disclosed (p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: An in-depth conversation as to what treatment intent and prognosis means is reasonable during the initial medical oncology consultation to ensure patients and caregivers have a better understanding about their cancer.

Machine Learning-Based Early Warning Systems for Acute Care Utilization During Systemic Therapy for Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department visits and hospitalizations frequently occur during systemic therapy for cancer. We developed and evaluated a longitudinal warning system for acute care use. METHODS: Using a retrospective population-based cohort of patients who started intravenous systemic therapy for nonhematologic cancers between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2020, we randomly separated patients into cohorts for model training, hyperparameter tuning and model selection, and system testing. Predictive features included static features, such as demographics, cancer type, and treatment regimens, and dynamic features, such as patient-reported symptoms and laboratory values. The longitudinal warning system predicted the probability of acute care utilization within 30 days after each treatment session. Machine learning systems were developed in the training and tuning cohorts and evaluated in the testing cohort. Sensitivity analyses considered feature importance, other acute care endpoints, and performance within subgroups. RESULTS: The cohort included 105,129 patients who received 1,216,385 treatment sessions. Acute care followed 182,444 (15.0%) treatments within 30 days. The ensemble model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.742 (95% CI, 0.739-0.745) and was well calibrated in the test cohort. Important predictive features included prior acute care use, treatment regimen, and laboratory tests. If the system was set to alarm approximately once every 15 treatments, 25.5% of acute care events would be preceded by an alarm, and 47.4% of patients would experience acute care after an alarm. The system underestimated risk for some treatment regimens and potentially underserved populations such as females and non-English speakers. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning warning systems can detect patients at risk for acute care utilization, which can aid in preventive intervention and facilitate tailored treatment. Future research should address potential biases and prospectively evaluate impact after system deployment.

Implementing geriatric assessment and management for older Canadians with cancer: Adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention, results of the 5C study.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) is recommended by professional organizations and recently several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits in multiple health outcomes. GAM typically leads to one or more recommendations for the older adult on how to optimize their health. However, little is known about how well recommendations are adhered to. Understanding these issues is vital to designing GAM trials and clinical programs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the number of GAM recommendations made and adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention in a multicentre RCT of GAM for older adults with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 5C study was a two-group parallel RCT conducted in eight hospitals across Canada. Each centre kept a detailed recruitment and retention log. The intervention teams documented adherence to their recommendations. Medical records were also reviewed to assess which recommendations were adhered to. Twenty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 members of the intervention teams and 11 oncology team members to assess implementation of the study and the intervention. RESULTS: Of the 350 participants who were enrolled, 173 were randomized to the intervention arm. Median number of recommendations was seven. Mean adherence to recommendations based on the GAM was 69%, but it varied by type of recommendation, ranging from 98% for laboratory tests to 28% for psychosocial/psychiatry oncology referrals. There was no difference in the number of recommendations or non-adherence to recommendations by sex, level of frailty, or functional status. Oncologists and intervention team members were satisfied with the study implementation and intervention delivery. DISCUSSION: Adherence to recommendations was variable. Adherence to laboratory investigations and further imaging were generally high but much lower for recommendations regarding psychosocial support. Further collaborative work with older adults with cancer is needed to understand how to optimize the intervention to be consistent with patient goals, priorities, and values to ensure maximal impact on health outcomes.

Daily physical activity monitoring in older adults with metastatic prostate cancer on active treatment: Feasibility and associations with toxicity.

INTRODUCTION: Physical activity may be associated with cancer treatment toxicity, but generalizability to geriatric oncology is unclear. As many older adults have low levels of physical activity and technology use, this area needs further exploration. We evaluated the feasibility of daily step count monitoring and the association between step counts and treatment-emergent symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults aged 65+ starting treatment (chemotherapy, enzalutamide/abiraterone, or radium-223) for metastatic prostate cancer were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Participants reported step counts (measured via smartphone) and symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale) daily for one treatment cycle (i.e., 3-4 weeks). Embedded semi-structured interviews were performed upon completion of the study. The feasibility of daily monitoring was evaluated with descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. The predictive validity of a decline in daily steps (compared to pre-treatment baseline) for the emergence of symptoms was examined using sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). Associations between a 15% decline in steps and the emergence of moderate (4-6/10) to severe (7-10/10) symptoms and pain in the next 24 h were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 90 participants, 47 engaged in step count monitoring (median age = 75, range = 65-88; 52.2% participation rate). Daily physical activity monitoring was found to be feasible (94% retention rate; 90.5% median response rate) with multiple patient-reported benefits including increased self-awareness and motivation to engage in physical activity. During the first treatment cycle, instances of a 15% decline in steps were common (n = 37, 78.7%), as was the emergence of moderate to severe symptoms overall (n = 40, 85.1%) and pain (n = 26, 55.3%). The predictive validity of a 15% decline in steps on the emergence of moderate to severe symptoms was good (sensitivity = 81.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 68.7-95.0; PPV = 73.0%, 95% CI = 58.7-87.3), although the PPV for pain was poor (sensitivity = 77.8%, 95% CI = 58.6-97.0; PPV = 37.8%, 95% CI = 22.2-53.5). In the regression models, changes in daily physical activity were not associated with symptoms or pain. DISCUSSION: Changes in physical activity had modest ability to predict moderate to severe symptoms overall. Although participation was suboptimal, daily activity monitoring in older adults with cancer appears feasible and may have other uses such as improving physical activity levels. Further studies are warranted.

A Web-Based Cancer Self-Management Program (I-Can Manage) Targeting Treatment Toxicities and Health Behaviors: Human-Centered Co-design Approach and Cognitive Think-Aloud Usability Testing.

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

The rate and quality of post-mortem hair root changes in relation to melanin content.

Hairs is a relatively environmentally resistant biological material that is often found at crime scenes. Human hair is more durable than other biological traces such as blood or urine, and its collection and storage does not require specific preservation procedures. Melanin is the hair pigment, which is the main determinant of hair colour. There are two pigments present in human hair: eumelanin, predominant in dark hair, and pheomelanin, responsible for red colour. Eumelanin is more resistant and has photoprotective properties, while pheomelanin is phototoxic and shows lower resistance to environmental factors. The differences in the properties of eu- and pheomelanin are the basis of the present study, which aimed to examine the rate and quality of taphonomic changes in hair roots in relation to the predominant melanin type, under the influence of selected environmental factors, such as soil pH, degree of exposure to solar radiation, temperature and water from a natural watercourse (river) and chemically pure water. Therefore, changes in blonde, dark, grey, red and dyed hair roots were microscopically documented for six months under the influence of the above factors. The results of the study indicated the strongest degradation potential among acidic soil and a riverine environment, as well as the protective role of eumelanin against environmental taphonomic factors. Degradation occurred most rapidly in the river environment, where microbial activity was additionally observed. Distilled water, exposure to sunlight and low temperature did not lead to decomposition changes. The results of our team's research provide the basis for an extended analysis of the changes occurring in hair under the influence of environmental factors in relation to melanin content.

Drivers of Emergency Department Use Among Oncology Patients in the Era of Novel Cancer Therapeutics: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with cancer are frequent users of the emergency department (ED). While many visits are unavoidable, a significant portion may be potentially preventable ED visits (PPEDs). Cancer treatments have greatly advanced, whereby patients may present with unique toxicities from targeted therapies and are often living longer with advanced disease. Prior work focused on patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy, and often excluded those on supportive care alone. Other contributors to ED visits in oncology, such as patient-level variables, are less well-established. Finally, prior studies focused on ED diagnoses to describe trends and did not evaluate PPEDs. An updated systematic review was completed to focus on PPEDs, novel cancer therapies, and patient-level variables, including those on supportive care alone. METHODS: Three online databases were used. Included publications were in English, from 2012-2022, with sample sizes of ≥50, and reported predictors of ED presentation or ED diagnoses in oncology. RESULTS: 45 studies were included. Six studies highlighted PPEDs with variable definitions. Common reasons for ED visits included pain (66%) or chemotherapy toxicities (69.1%). PPEDs were most frequent amongst breast cancer patients (13.4%) or patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy (20%). Three manuscripts included immunotherapy agents, and only one focused on end-of-life patients. CONCLUSION: This updated systematic review highlights variability in oncology ED visits during the last decade. There is limited work on the concept of PPEDs, patient-level variables and patients on supportive care alone. Overall, pain and chemotherapy toxicities remain key drivers of ED visits in cancer patients. Further work is needed in this realm.

Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care (STEP) versus usual care for patients with advanced cancer: a mixed methods study.

PURPOSE: Although early palliative care is recommended, resource limitations prevent its routine implementation. We report on the preliminary findings of a mixed methods study involving a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care (STEP) and qualitative interviews. METHODS: Adults with advanced solid tumors and an oncologist-estimated prognosis of 6-36 months were randomized to STEP or symptom screening alone. STEP involved symptom screening at each outpatient oncology visit; moderate to severe scores triggered an email to a palliative care nurse, who offered referral to in-person outpatient palliative care. Patient-reported outcomes of quality of life (FACT-G7; primary outcome), depression (PHQ-9), symptom control (ESAS-r-CS), and satisfaction with care (FAMCARE P-16) were measured at baseline and 2, 4, and 6 months. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subset of participants. RESULTS: From Aug/2019 to Mar/2020 (trial halted due to COVID-19 pandemic), 69 participants were randomized to STEP (n = 33) or usual care (n = 36). At 6 months, 45% of STEP arm patients and 17% of screening alone participants had received palliative care (p = 0.009). Nonsignificant differences for all outcomes favored STEP: difference in change scores for FACT-G7 = 1.67 (95% CI: -1.43, 4.77); ESAS-r-CS = -5.51 (-14.29, 3.27); FAMCARE P-16 = 4.10 (-0.31, 8.51); PHQ-9 = -2.41 (-5.02, 0.20). Sixteen patients completed qualitative interviews, describing symptom screening as helpful to initiate communication; triggered referral as initially jarring but ultimately beneficial; and referral to palliative care as timely. CONCLUSION: Despite lack of power for this halted trial, preliminary results favored STEP and qualitative results demonstrated acceptability. Findings will inform an RCT of combined in-person and virtual STEP.