Applying Implementation Science to Identify Primary Care Providers' Enablers and Barriers to Using Survivorship Care Plans.

Primary care providers (PCPs) have been given the responsibility of managing the follow-up care of low-risk cancer survivors after they are discharged from the oncology center. Survivorship Care Plans (SCPs) were developed to facilitate this transition, but research indicates inconsistencies in how they are implemented. A detailed examination of enablers and barriers that influence their use by PCPs is needed to understand how to improve SCPs and ultimately facilitate cancer survivors' transition to primary care. An interview guide was developed based on the second version of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF-2). PCPs participated in semi-structured interviews. Qualitative content analysis was used to develop a codebook to code text into each of the 14 TDF-2 domains. Thematic analysis was also used to generate themes and subthemes. Thirteen PCPs completed the interview and identified the following barriers to SCP use: unfamiliarity with the side effects of cancer treatment (Knowledge), lack of clarity on the roles of different healthcare professionals (Social Professional Role and Identity), follow-up tasks being outside of scope of practice (Social Professional Role and Identity), increased workload, lack of options for psychosocial support for survivors, managing different electronic medical records systems, logistical issues with liaising with oncology (Environmental Context and Resources), and patient factors (Social Influences). PCPs value the information provided in SCPs and found the follow-up guidance provided to be most helpful. However, SCP use could be improved through streamlining methods of communication and collaboration between oncology centres and community-based primary care settings.

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.

Regularly scheduled physical examinations and the detection of breast cancer recurrences.

PURPOSE: Follow-up care of early breast cancer (EBC) patients usually includes routinely scheduled physical examinations. While ASCO guidelines recommend a physical exam every three to six months for the first three years, little evidence supports this schedule. We evaluated recurrence detection of patients transferred into a single centre survivorship program that follows ASCO recommendations. METHODS: Patients with EBC referred to the Wellness Beyond Cancer Program (WBCP) who had breast cancer recurrence between February 1, 2013, and January 1, 2019 were reviewed. Descriptive analyses were used to present patient and disease characteristics stratified by type of recurrence and mode of cancer detection. RESULTS: Of 206 recurrences, 135 were distant recurrences (65.5%), 41 were ipsilateral breast recurrences (19.9%), and 30 were contralateral breast primaries (14.6%). Distant recurrences were primarily detected via patient-reported symptoms (125/135, 92.6%). 53.7% (22/41) of ipsilateral breast recurrences were detected by patients and 41.5% (17/41) by routine imaging. Contralateral breast primaries were primarily detected by imaging 83.3% (25/30) and patient-reported symptoms 16.7% (5/30). Only 2/206 (1.14%) recurrences/new primaries were detected by healthcare providers at routinely scheduled follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: Despite following ASCO guidelines, healthcare providers rarely detect recurrences at routinely scheduled follow-up appointments. Our data suggests that approximately 35, 000 follow-up visits were required for healthcare providers to detect these 2 recurrences. While reduced in-person visits may affect other aspects of follow-up care (e.g. toxicity management), it appears unlikely, provided patients attend regular screening tests, that less frequent in-person follow-up is associated with worse breast cancer-related outcomes.

Delivery of cancer care via an outpatient telephone support line: a cross-sectional study of oncology nursing perspectives on quality and challenges.

RATIONALE: Patient support lines (PSLs) assist in triaging clinical problems, addressing patient queries, and navigating a complex multi-disciplinary oncology team. While providing support and training to the nursing staff who operate these lines is key, there is limited data on their experience and feedback. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of oncology nurses' (ONs') perspectives on the provision of care via PSLs at a tertiary referral cancer center via an anonymous, descriptive survey. Measures collected included nursing and patient characteristics, nature of questions addressed, perceived patient and nursing satisfaction with the service, common challenges faced, and initiatives to improve the patient and nursing experience. The survey was delivered online, with electronic data collection, and analysis is reported descriptively. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent (30/42) of eligible ONs responded to the survey. The most common disease site, stage, and symptom addressed by PSLs were breast cancer, metastatic disease, and pain, respectively. The most common reported issue was treatment-related toxicity (96.7%, 29/30). Sixty-seven percent (20/30) of respondents were satisfied with the care provided by the service; however, many areas for potential improvement were identified. Fifty-nine percent (17/29) of respondents recommended redefining PSLs' responsibilities for improved use, with 75% (6/8) ONs identifying high call volumes due to inappropriate questions as a barrier to care. Sixty percent (18/30) of ONs reported having hospital-specific management plans for common issues would improve the care provided by the PSL. CONCLUSION: Despite high rates of satisfaction with the care provided by the PSL, our study identified several important areas for improvement which we feel warrant further investigation.

Using machine learning to predict individual patient toxicities from cancer treatments.

PURPOSE: Machine learning (ML) is a powerful tool for interrogating datasets and learning relationships between multiple variables. We utilized a ML model to identify those early breast cancer (EBC) patients at highest risk of developing severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS). METHODS: A gradient boosted decision model utilizing cross-sectional survey data from 360 EBC patients was created. Seventeen patient- and treatment-specific variables were considered in the model. The outcome variable was based on the Hot Flush Night Sweats (HFNS) Problem Rating Score, and individual scores were dichotomized around the median to indicate individuals with high and low problem scores. Model accuracy was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve, and conditional partial dependence plots were constructed to illustrate relationships between variables and the outcome of interest. RESULTS: The model area under the ROC curve was 0.731 (SD 0.074). The most important variables in the model were as follows: the number of hot flashes per week, age, the prescription, or use of drug interventions to manage VMS, whether patients were asked about VMS in routine follow-up visits, and the presence or absence of changes to breast cancer treatments due to VMS. A threshold of 17 hot flashes per week was identified as being more predictive of severe VMS. Patients between the ages of 49 and 63 were more likely to report severe symptoms. CONCLUSION: Machine learning is a unique tool for predicting severe VMS. The use of ML to assess other treatment-related toxicities and their management requires further study.

Vasomotor symptoms in early breast cancer-a "real world" exploration of the patient experience.

BACKGROUND: Despite the frequency of vasomotor symptoms (VMS) in patients with early breast cancer (EBC), their optimal management remains unknown. A patient survey was performed to determine perspectives on this important clinical challenge. METHODS: Patients with EBC experiencing VMS participated in an anonymous survey. Patients reported on the frequency and severity of VMS using the validated Hot Flush Rating Scale (HFRS) and ranked their most bothersome symptoms. Respondents were also asked to determine endpoints that defined effective treatment of VMS and report on the effectiveness of previously tried interventions. RESULTS: Responses were received from 373 patients, median age 56 years (range 23-83), who experienced an average of 5.0 hot flashes per day (SD 6.57). Patients reported the most bothersome symptoms to be feeling hot/sweating (155/316, 49%) and sleeping difficulties (86/316, 27%). Fifty-five percent (201/365) of patients would consider a treatment to be effective if it reduced night-time awakenings. While 68% of respondents were interested in trying interventions from their healthcare team to manage VMS, only 18% actually did so. Of the 137 patients who had tried an intervention for VMS, pharmacological treatments, exercise, and relaxation strategies were more likely to be effective, while therapies such as melatonin and black cohosh were deemed less effective. CONCLUSION: VMS are a common and bothersome problem for EBC patients, with a minority receiving interventions to manage these symptoms. Further research is needed to identify patient-centered strategies for managing these distressing symptoms.

Time to Update Evidence-Based Guideline Recommendations About Concurrent Tamoxifen and Antidepressant Use? A Systematic Review.

Concerns around pharmacological interaction between tamoxifen and antidepressants have resulted in evidence-base guidelines that recommend avoidance or caution with concurrent use. It remains unclear however whether this interaction is clinically important. A systematic review of studies comparing endocrine therapy (including tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors) alone or concurrent with antidepressants in breast cancer patients was performed. The literature search sought studies within MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library published from database inception until December 1, 2020. Outcomes of interest included recurrence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall mortality, quality of life, and treatment compliance. Studies were assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle Ottawa tool for case-control and cohort studies. From 695 citations, we included 15 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [255 patients], 10 retrospective cohort studies [75,678 patients], and 3 case-control studies [18,836 patients]). While between-study clinical and methodologic differences (including analysis of confounding variables) precluded formal meta-analysis, findings from included studies did not find consistent evidence that concurrent use of antidepressants (including paroxetine) with tamoxifen therapy has negative impacts on the outcomes of interest. In this systematic review, despite data from nearly 100,000 patients, concurrent use of tamoxifen and antidepressants showed no consistent negative effect on clinical outcomes. Given the recognized harm to patients of changing either endocrine therapy or antidepressants to avoid concurrent use, current evidence-based guidelines should be updated accordingly. More rigorously designed pharmacoepidemiologic studies are needed.

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.

Developing patient-centred strategies to optimize the management of vasomotor symptoms in breast cancer patients: a survey of health care providers.

PURPOSE: Vasomotor symptoms (VMS) such as hot flashes and night sweats are common in breast cancer patients and can affect both quality of life and treatment adherence. However, there is limited practical data to guide clinicians in the optimal selection of therapeutic strategies. A survey of health care providers was performed to better understand perspectives and prescribing practices for managing this problem. METHODS: Canadian health care providers who treat patients with early stage breast cancer (EBC) participated in an anonymous electronic survey. Participants provided their perspectives on the prevalence and severity of VMS among patients with EBC, outlined their management strategies, and provided feedback on the perceived efficacy of interventions for VMS. RESULTS: Responses were received from 65 providers including breast oncologists (36/65, 55%) and nurses with oncology expertise (29/65, 45%). Seventy-seven percent of participants reported regularly asking patients about VMS, and most indicated that bothersome VMS occurred in the majority of patients. Health care providers cited hot flash severity and sleep disruption as the most important issues for patients. The most common first- and second-line interventions recommended were lifestyle modifications (n = 32/65, 49.2%) and pharmacologic strategies (n = 27/65, 41.5%), respectively. Most respondents felt that interventions, including pharmacologic, over-the-counter, and complementary therapies, were only "somewhat effective". Overall, half of respondents (n = 35/65, 54%) reported being "confident" in managing VMS. CONCLUSION: Given the variability of treatment recommendations, and health care provider uncertainty around the benefits of therapies for VMS, more 'real-world' trials are needed to optimize patient care.

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.

Adjuvant bisphosphonate use in patients with early stage breast cancer: a physician survey.

PURPOSE: Despite the increasing use of adjuvant bone-modifying agents (BMAs) such as zoledronate and clodronate in the treatment of patients with early stage breast cancer (EBC), little is known about real world practice patterns. A physician survey was performed to address this deficit and determine interest in clinical trials of alternative strategies for BMA administration. METHODS: Canadian oncologists treating patients with EBC were surveyed via an anonymized online survey. The survey collected information on: physician demographics, knowledge and interpretation of adjuvant bisphosphonate guidelines, and real world prescribing practices. Questions also determined thoughts around the design of future adjuvant BMA trials. RESULTS: Of 127 surveyed physicians, 53 eligible invitees responded (response rate 42%). The majority of physicians are offering high-risk postmenopausal patients adjuvant BMAs. The most common BMA regimen was adjuvant zoledronate (45/53, 85%) every 6 months for 3 years. Concerns around toxicities and repeated visits to the cancer centre were perceived as the greatest barriers to adjuvant bisphosphonate use. Respondents were interested in future trials of de-escalation of BMAs comparing a single infusion of zoledronate vs. 6-monthly zoledronate for 3 years. The most favoured primary endpoints for such a trial included disease recurrence and fragility fracture rates. CONCLUSION: Questions around optimal use of adjuvant bisphosphonates in patients with EBC still exist. There is interest among physicians in performing trials of de-escalation of these agents. The results of this survey will assist in designing pragmatic clinical trials to address this question.

Adjuvant bisphosphonate use in patients with early stage breast cancer: Patient perspectives on treatment acceptability and potential de-escalation.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing use of adjuvant bisphosphonates for early stage breast cancer (EBC), little is known about the patient experience with such treatments. A patient survey was performed to identify current prescribing practices, perceptions around the role of treatment, the impact of treatment on patients' quality of life, and future trial designs. METHODS: EBC patients who had either completed or were currently receiving adjuvant bisphosphonates were sent an anonymized survey. The survey collected information on patient and disease characteristics, bisphosphonate scheduling, compliance, and tolerance. Questions also assessed patient interest in trials of de-escalated bisphosphonate therapy. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients were contacted, with 164 eligible respondents (eligible response rate 164/255, 64.3%). Median patient age was 52 years (range 28 to 82 years). The majority (111/163, 68.1%) were postmenopausal at the time of diagnosis, 23.3% (38/163) were premenopausal, and 7.4% (12/163) were perimenopausal. Most patients (78%) had received chemotherapy. Zoledronate was the most commonly used bisphosphonate (92%), with the majority receiving treatment every 6 months for 3 years (73%). While 66% (107/161) of respondents had experienced side effects with treatment, most had, or expected to, complete treatment (154/163, 94%). Provided there was no detriment in breast cancer outcomes, there was strong interest in future studies of de-escalating adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy. CONCLUSION: While most patients tolerate their treatment, there is interest in performing trials of de-escalation of these agents.

Management Strategies for Older Patients with Low-Risk Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Physician Survey.

When managing older patients with lower-risk hormone-receptor-positive (HR+), HER2 negative (HER2-) early-stage breast cancer (EBC), the harms and benefits of adjuvant therapies should be taken into consideration. A survey was conducted among Canadian oncologists on the definitions of "low risk" and "older", practice patterns, and future trial designs. We contacted 254 physicians and 21% completed the survey (50/242). Most respondents (68%, 34/50) agreed with the definition of "low risk" HR+/HER2- EBC being node-negative and either: ≤3 cm and low histological grade, ≤2 cm and intermediate grade, or ≤1 cm and high grade. The most popular chronological and biological age definition for older patients was ≥70 (45%, 22/49; 45% 21/47). In patients ≥ 70 with low risk EBC, most radiation and medical oncologists would recommend post-lumpectomy radiotherapy (RT) and endocrine therapy (ET). Seventy-eight percent (38/49) felt that trials are needed to evaluate RT and ET's role in patients ≥ 70. The favored design was ET alone, vs. RT plus ET (39%, 15/38). The preferred primary and secondary endpoints were disease-free survival and quality of life, respectively. Although oncologists recommended both RT and ET, there is interest in performing de-escalation trials in patients ≥ 70.

An evaluation of a cancer survivorship education class for follow-up care.

The Wellness Beyond Cancer Program is part of a tertiary care hospital in Ontario, Canada. It provides cancer survivors with information and resources needed to self-manage their follow-up care (i.e., learn relevant information and skills to adapt to life with a chronic illness) after active cancer treatment (i.e., chemotherapy, radiation). A program evaluation was conducted on the two-hour survivorship education class (one component of the overall Wellness Beyond Cancer Program) with the purpose of evaluating whether attendance increased survivors' perceived knowledge and intent to self-manage follow-up care. Breast (n = 107) and colorectal (n = 38) cancer survivors who attended classes completed questionnaires on information needs and intent to self-manage pre- and postclass. Perceived increase in knowledge and intent to self-manage follow-up care were unrelated to age, gender, or time since diagnosis. After attending the class, survivors reported increased knowledge (F(1,11) = 144.6, p < .001) and intent to participate in self-management of their follow-up care (F(1,103) = 57.3, p < .001). Improvements in knowledge predicted increased intent to self-manage (R2 = .64; F(4,86) = 38.5, p < .001). Colorectal cancer survivors showed greater improvement in intent to self-manage than breast cancer survivors (ß = .14, t = 2.2, p < .05). These results can inform the development and implementation of future education classes for survivors.

Time to rethink vascular access in patients with breast cancer.

Breast cancer management is a rapidly evolving field. Diagnosis and treatment options have changed dramatically over the years, as have options for vascular access devices used to administer therapies. We now need to critically rethink vascular access device options for our breast cancer patients. Breast cancer (BC) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among Canadian women. Although BC incidence continues to rise, the overall mortality rate in Canada is the lowest it has been for 70 years. The five-year net survival is 87%, and 83% of women are alive at 10 years. New oral therapies, shorter dose-dense treatments, and decreased use of anthracycline-base regimens are reducing the need for central venous access devices during acute treatment phases. However, these survivors go on to develop other health issues requiring routine venipuncture and insertion of vascular access devices. Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a chronic complication that has no cure and no proven prevention strategies. Approximately 21% of breast cancer survivors are at risk of developing BCRL. Of those patients who do develop BCRL, 70% do so within two years of surgery, 90% within three years, and another one percent per year thereafter. The literature supports axillary lymph node dissection, mastectomy, administration of chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and obesity, as risk factors for the development of BCRL. However, 40% of patients who develop BCRL have no identifiable risk factors. Broader risk reduction strategies developed are not evidence based, the most commonly cited being avoidance of needle sticks. Large cohort studies have found no significant association between blood draws and intravenous infusion in the surgical arm with the development of BCRL. Recommendations that effectively eliminate vascular access on the surgical side for the patient's entire lifetime are neither necessary nor realistic. Vascular access specialists can provide leadership by developing standardized, evidence-informed recommendations for safe vascular access and infusion practices for this patient population.

The legacy of lymphedema: Impact on nursing practice and vascular access.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. Breast cancer related lymphedema (BCRL) is a chronic condition characterized by an abnormal accumulation of protein-rich fluid in tissues resulting in swelling of the upper limb or trunk after treatment. Lack of consensus on definition, classification and grading of BCRL has led to subjective and objective parameters estimating incidence and severity. Prospective studies estimate the risk of BCRL to be approximately 21.4% (14.9-29.8). In patients with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), the estimated risk of 19% (13.5-28.2) was about four times higher than those patients who had sentinel lymph node biopsy (5.6%, 6.1-7.9). Seventy percent of these patients will experience BCRL within two years of surgery, 90% within three years, and a 1% rate per year thereafter. Many patients who have no high-risk variables such as mastectomy, ALND and radiation therapy develop BCRL. Patients fear this complication, which has no cure and no proven prevention strategies. Risk reduction strategies, primarily focused on reducing trauma to the surgical arm, are based on anecdotal information and effectively restrict the use of the at-risk limb for the patient's lifetime. Although broad risk reduction strategies have been recommended, the avoidance of needle sticks has become the most common strategy practised, enforced through institutional policies and procedures and reinforced through patient education initiatives and breast cancer support groups. Large cohort studies have found no significant association between blood draws and intravenous infusions in the surgical arm and the development of BCRL. Current literature supports that approximately 21% of patients will develop BCRL, leaving 79% free of the complication. Due to increased survival, breast cancer survivors go on to develop other healthcare issues that may require vascular access. Therefore, long-held beliefs with regards to risk factors and preventative measures need to be challenged. Education of healthcare providers, patients and support groups through the dissemination of evidence-based information on the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of BCRL is necessary to ensure that patients receive the best care possible with the least risk.