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.

Chemoradiotherapy Using Carboplatin plus Paclitaxel versus Cisplatin plus Fluorouracil for Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Trimodality therapy (TMT) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) using concurrent carboplatin plus paclitaxel (CP) followed by surgery is the standard of care for locoregional esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers. Alternatively, nCRT with cisplatin plus fluorouracil (CF) can be used. Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) with CP or CF can be used if surgery is not planned. In the absence of comparative trials, we aimed to evaluate outcomes of CP and CF in the settings of TMT and dCRT. METHODS: A single-site, retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre to identify all patients who received CRT for locoregional esophageal or GEJ cancer. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regression model. The inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used for sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2015, 93 patients with esophageal (49%) and GEJ (51%) cancers underwent nCRT (n = 67; 72%) or dCRT (n = 26; 28%). Median age was 62.3 years and 74% were male. Median follow-up was 23.9 months. Comparing CP to CF in the setting of TMT, the OS and DFS rates were similar. In the setting of dCRT, CP was associated with significantly inferior 3-year OS (36 vs. 63%; p = 0.001; HR 3.1; 95% CI: 1.2-7.7) and DFS (0 vs. 41%; p = 0.004; HR 3.6; 95% CI: 1.4-8.9) on multivariable and IPTW sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: TMT with CF and CP produced comparable outcomes. However, for dCRT, CF may be a superior regimen.

Impact of adjuvant therapy in patients with a microscopically positive margin after resection for gastric and esophageal cancers.

BACKGROUND: A microscopically positive (R1) resection margin following resection for gastric and esophageal cancers has been documented to be a poor prognostic factor. The optimal strategy and impact of different modalities of adjuvant treatment for an R1 resection margin remain unclear. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed for patients with gastric and esophageal adenocarcinoma treated at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PMCC) from 2006-2016. Electronic medical records of all patients with an R1 resection margin were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods were used to analyze recurrence free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) with stage and neoadjuvant treatment as covariates in the multivariate analysis. RESULTS: We identified 69 gastric and esophageal adenocarcinoma patients with a R1 resection. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was used in 13% of patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 12%, surgery alone in 75%. Margins involved included proximal in 30%, distal in 14%, radial in 52% and multiple margins in 3% of patients. Pathological staging showed 3% with stage I disease, 20% stage II and 74% stage III. Adjuvant therapy was given in 52% of R1 pts (28% CRT, 20% chemotherapy alone, 3% radiation alone, 1% reoperation). Median RFS was 14.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 11.1-17.2]. The site of first recurrence was 72% distant, 12% mixed, 16% locoregional alone. Median OS was 34.5 months (95% CI, 23.3-57.9) for all patients. There was no significant difference in RFS (adjusted P=0.26) or OS (adjusted P=0.83) comparing modality of adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with positive margins after resection for gastric and esophageal cancer had advanced pathologic stage and prognosis was poor. Our study did not find improved RFS or OS with adjuvant treatment and only one patient had reresection. The main failure pattern was distant recurrence, suggesting that patients being considered for adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) should be carefully selected. Further studies are required to determine factors to select patients with good prognosis despite a positive margin, or those who may benefit from adjuvant treatment.

Surveillance and outcomes after curative resection for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The goal of surveillance testing is to enable curative salvage therapy through early disease detection, however supporting evidence in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is limited. We evaluated frequency of successful salvage therapy and outcomes in patients who underwent surveillance. METHODS: A single-site, retrospective cohort study was conducted to identify all patients who received curative resection for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Surveillance testing were those investigations not triggered by abnormal symptoms, physical examination, or blood tests. Successful salvage therapy was any potentially curative therapy for disease recurrence which resulted in postrecurrence disease-free survival ≥2 years. Time-to-event data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log rank tests. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2016, 210 consecutive patients were reviewed. Esophageal (14%), gastroesophageal junction (40%), and gastric adenocarcinomas (45%) were treated with surgery alone (29%) or multimodality therapy (71%). Adjuvant therapy was administered in 35%. At median follow-up of 38.3 months, 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 56%. Among 97 recurrences, 53% were surveillance-detected, and 46% were symptomatic. None was detected by surveillance endoscopy. Median time-to-recurrence (TTR) was 14.8 months. Recurrences included locoregional only (4%), distant (86%), and both (10%). Salvage therapy was attempted in 15 patients, 4 were successful. Compared to symptomatic recurrences, patients with surveillance-detected recurrences had longer median OS (36.2 vs 23.7 months, P = .004) and postrecurrence survival (PRS, 16.5 vs 4.6 months, P < .001), but similar TTR (16.2 vs 13.3 months, P = .40) and duration of palliative chemotherapy (3.9 vs 3.3 months, P = .64). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients surveyed, 96% of recurrences were distant, and salvage therapy was successful in only 1.9% of patients. Longer OS in patients with surveillance-detected compared to symptomatic recurrences was not associated with significant earlier disease detection, and may be contributed by differences in disease biology. Further prospective data are warranted to establish the benefit of surveillance testing in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.