Harmonization of clinical practice guidelines for primary prevention and screening: actionable recommendations and resources for primary care.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) synthesize high-quality information to support evidence-based clinical practice. In primary care, numerous CPGs must be integrated to address the needs of patients with multiple risks and conditions. The BETTER program aims to improve prevention and screening for cancer and chronic disease in primary care by synthesizing CPGs into integrated, actionable recommendations. We describe the process used to harmonize high-quality cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) CPGs to update the BETTER program. METHODS: A review of CPG databases, repositories, and grey literature was conducted to identify international and Canadian (national and provincial) CPGs for CCDPS in adults 40-69 years of age across 19 topic areas: cancers, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hepatitis C, obesity, osteoporosis, depression, and associated risk factors (i.e., diet, physical activity, alcohol, cannabis, drug, tobacco, and vaping/e-cigarette use). CPGs published in English between 2016 and 2021, applicable to adults, and containing CCDPS recommendations were included. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and a three-step process involving patients, health policy, content experts, primary care providers, and researchers was used to identify and synthesize recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 51 international and Canadian CPGs and 22 guidelines developed by provincial organizations that provided relevant CCDPS recommendations. Clinical recommendations were extracted and reviewed for inclusion using the following criteria: 1) pertinence to primary prevention and screening, 2) relevance to adults ages 40-69, and 3) applicability to diverse primary care settings. Recommendations were synthesized and integrated into the BETTER toolkit alongside resources to support shared decision-making and care paths for the BETTER program. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive care requires the ability to address a person's overall health. An approach to identify high-quality clinical guidance to comprehensively address CCDPS is described. The process used to synthesize and harmonize implementable clinical recommendations may be useful to others wanting to integrate evidence across broad content areas to provide comprehensive care. The BETTER toolkit provides resources that clearly and succinctly present a breadth of clinical evidence that providers can use to assist with implementing CCDPS guidance in primary care.

Chronic disease prevention and screening outcomes for patients with and without financial difficulty: a secondary analysis of the BETTER WISE cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Building on Existing Tools To improvE chronic disease pRevention and screening in primary care Wellness of cancer survIvorS and patiEnts (BETTER WISE) was designed to assess the effectiveness of a cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) programme. Here, we compare outcomes in participants living with and without financial difficulty. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Patients of 59 physicians from 13 clinics enrolled between September 2018 and August 2019. PARTICIPANTS: 596 of 1005 trial participants who responded to a financial difficulty screening question at enrolment. INTERVENTION: 1-hour CCDPS visit versus usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Eligibility for a possible 24 CCDPS actions was assessed at baseline and the primary outcome was the percentage of eligible items that were completed at 12-month follow-up. We also compared the change in response to the financial difficulty screening question between baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: 55 of 265 participants (20.7%) in the control group and 69 of 331 participants (20.8%) in the intervention group reported living with financial difficulty. The primary outcome was 29% (95% CI 26% to 33%) for intervention and 23% (95% CI 21% to 26%) for control participants without financial difficulty (p=0.01). Intervention and control participants with financial difficulty scored 28% (95% CI 24% to 32%) and 32% (95% CI 27% to 38%), respectively (p=0.14). In participants who responded to the financial difficulty question at both time points (n=302), there was a net decrease in the percentage of participants who reported financial difficulty between baseline (21%) and follow-up (12%, p<0.001) which was similar in the control and intervention groups. The response rate to this question was only 51% at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The BETTER intervention improved uptake of CCDPS manoeuvres in participants without financial difficulty, but not in those living with financial difficulty. Improving CCDPS for people living with financial difficulty may require a different clinical approach or that social determinants be addressed concurrently with clinical and lifestyle needs or both. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN21333761.

Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of the BETTER intervention for chronic disease prevention and screening by public health nurses in low income neighbourhoods: views of community residents.

BACKGROUND: The BETTER intervention is an effective comprehensive evidence-based program for chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) delivered by trained prevention practitioners (PPs), a new role in primary care. An adapted program, BETTER HEALTH, delivered by public health nurses as PPs for community residents in low income neighbourhoods, was recently shown to be effective in improving CDPS actions. To obtain a nuanced understanding about the CDPS needs of community residents and how the BETTER HEALTH intervention was perceived by residents, we studied how the intervention was adapted to a public health setting then conducted a post-visit qualitative evaluation by community residents through focus groups and interviews. METHODS: We first used the ADAPT-ITT model to adapt BETTER for a public health setting in Ontario, Canada. For the post-PP visit qualitative evaluation, we asked community residents who had received a PP visit, about steps they had taken to improve their physical and mental health and the BETTER HEALTH intervention. For both phases, we conducted focus groups and interviews; transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Thirty-eight community residents participated in either adaptation (n = 14, 64% female; average age 54 y) or evaluation (n = 24, 83% female; average age 60 y) phases. In both adaptation and evaluation, residents described significant challenges including poverty, social isolation, and daily stress, making chronic disease prevention a lower priority. Adaptation results indicated that residents valued learning about CDPS and would attend a confidential visit with a public health nurse who was viewed as trustworthy. Despite challenges, many recipients of BETTER HEALTH perceived they had achieved at least one personal CDPS goal post PP visit. Residents described key relational aspects of the visit including feeling valued, listened to and being understood by the PP. The PPs also provided practical suggestions to overcome barriers to meeting prevention goals. CONCLUSIONS: Residents living in low income neighbourhoods faced daily stress that reduced their capacity to make preventive lifestyle changes. Key adapted features of BETTER HEALTH such as public health nurses as PPs were highly supported by residents. The intervention was perceived valuable for the community by providing access to disease prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: #NCT03052959, 10/02/2017.

SCORE: a randomised controlled trial evaluating shared care (general practitioner and oncologist) follow-up compared to usual oncologist follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer.

Background: SCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months. Methods: The study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I-III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of -10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p. Findings: 150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference -4.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients. Interpretation: SC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors. Funding: Victorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.

Results from the BETTER WISE trial: a pragmatic cluster two arm parallel randomized controlled trial for primary prevention and screening in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and chronic diseases are a major cost to the healthcare system and multidisciplinary models with access to prevention and screening resources have demonstrated improvements in chronic disease management and prevention. Research demonstrated that a trained Prevention Practitioner (PP) in multidisciplinary team settings can improve achievement of patient level prevention and screening actions seven months after the intervention. METHODS: We tested the effectiveness of the PP intervention in a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 40-65 were randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. The intervention consisted of a patient visit with a PP. The PP received training in prevention and screening and use of the BETTER WISE tool kit. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed using a composite outcome of the proportion of the eligible prevention and screening actions achieved between intervention and control groups at 12-months. RESULTS: Fifty-nine physicians were recruited in Alberta, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Of the 1,005 patients enrolled, 733 (72.9%) completed the 12-month analysis. The COVID-19 pandemic occurred during the study time frame at which time nonessential prevention and screening services were not available and in-person visits with the PP were not allowed. Many patients and sites did not receive the intervention as planned. The mean composite score was not significantly higher in patients receiving the PP intervention as compared to the control group. To understand the impact of COVID on the project, we also considered a subset of patients who had received the intervention and who attended the 12-month follow-up visit before COVID-19. This assessment demonstrated the effectiveness of the BETTER visits, similar to the findings in previous BETTER studies. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe an improvement in cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) outcomes at 12 months after a BETTER WISE prevention visit: due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was not implemented as planned. Though benefits were described in those who received the intervention before COVID-19, the sample size was too small to make conclusions. This study may be a harbinger of a substantial decrease and delay in CCDPS activities under COVID restrictions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21333761. Registered on 19/12/2016. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761 .

Opportunities to improve quality of care for cancer survivors in primary care: findings from the BETTER WISE study.

PURPOSE: The BETTER WISE (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care for Wellness of Cancer Survivors and Patients) intervention is an evidence-based approach to prevention and screening for cancers and chronic diseases in primary care that also includes comprehensive follow-up for breast, prostate and colorectal cancer survivors. We describe the process of harmonizing cancer survivorship guidelines to create a BETTER WISE cancer surveillance algorithm and describe both the quantitative and qualitative findings for BETTER WISE participants who were breast, prostate or colorectal cancer survivors. We describe the results in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We reviewed high-quality survivorship guidelines to create a cancer surveillance algorithm. We conducted a cluster randomized trial in three Canadian provinces with two composite index outcome measured 12 months after baseline, and also collected qualitative feedback on the intervention. RESULTS: There were 80 cancer survivors for whom we had baseline and follow-up data. Differences between the composite indices in the two study arms were not statistically significant, although a post hoc analysis suggested the COVID-19 pandemic was a key factor in these results. Qualitative finding suggested that participants and stakeholders generally viewed BETTER WISE positively and emphasized the effects of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: BETTER WISE shows promise for providing an evidence-based, patient-centred, comprehensive approach to prevention, screening and cancer surveillance for cancer survivors in the primary care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21333761. Registered on December 19, 2016, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761 .

Implementation of a Web-Based Communication System for Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists.

Healthcare providers have reported challenges with coordinating care for patients with cancer. Digital technology tools have brought new possibilities for improving care coordination. A web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) was implemented in Ottawa, Canada for cancer specialists and primary care providers (PCPs). This study aimed to examine PCPs' experiences of implementing eOncoNote and how access to the system influenced communication between PCPs and cancer specialists. As part of a larger study, we collected and analyzed system usage data and administered an end-of-discussion survey to understand the perceived value of using eOncoNote. eOncoNote data were analyzed for 76 shared patients (33 patients receiving treatment and 43 patients in the survivorship phase). Thirty-nine percent of the PCPs responded to the cancer specialist's initial eOncoNote message and nearly all of those sent only one message. Forty-five percent of the PCPs completed the survey. Most PCPs reported no additional benefits of using eOncoNote and emphasized the need for electronic medical record (EMR) integration. Over half of the PCPs indicated that eOncoNote could be a helpful service if they had questions about a patient. Future research should examine opportunities for EMR integration and whether additional interventions could support communication between PCPs and cancer specialists.

Web-Based Asynchronous Tool to Facilitate Communication Between Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists: Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer poses a significant global health burden. With advances in screening and treatment, there are now a growing number of cancer survivors with complex needs, requiring the involvement of multiple health care providers. Previous studies have identified problems related to communication and care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine whether a web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) could facilitate communication between PCPs and cancer specialists (oncologists and oncology nurses) to improve patient-reported continuity of care among patients receiving treatment or posttreatment survivorship care. METHODS: In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, a total of 173 patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (eOncoNote plus usual methods of communication between PCPs and cancer specialists) or a control group (usual communication only), including 104 (60.1%) patients in the survivorship phase (breast and colorectal cancer) and 69 (39.9%) patients in the treatment phase (breast and prostate cancer). The primary outcome was patient-reported team and cross-boundary continuity (Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire). Secondary outcome measures included the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire on Major Depression, and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire. Patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and at 2 points following randomization. Patients in the treatment phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 1 month and at either 4 months (patients with prostate cancer) or 6 months following randomization (patients with breast cancer). Patients in the survivorship phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 6 months and at 12 months following randomization. RESULTS: The results did not show an intervention effect on the primary outcome of team and cross-boundary continuity of care or on the secondary outcomes of depression and patient experience with their health care. However, there was an intervention effect on anxiety. In the treatment phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score from baseline to the 1-month follow-up for GAD-7 (mean difference -2.3; P=.03). In the survivorship phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score for GAD-7 between baseline and the 6-month follow-up (mean difference -1.7; P=.03) and between baseline and the 12-month follow-up (mean difference -2.4; P=.004). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to eOncoNote is not significantly associated with patient-reported continuity of care. However, PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to the eOncoNote intervention may be a factor in reducing patient anxiety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03333785; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03333785.

COVID-19: A Qualitative Analysis of Academic Family Physician Leaders' Crisis Response.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic severely threatened all aspects of academic family medicine, constituting a crisis. Multiple publications have identified recommendations and documented the creative responses of primary care and academic organizations to address these challenges, but there is little research on how decisions came about. Our objective was to gain insight into the context, process, and nature of family medicine leaders' discussions in pivoting to address a crisis. METHODS: We used a qualitative descriptive design to explore new dimensions of existing concepts. The setting was the academic family medicine department at the University of Toronto. To identify leadership themes, we used the constant comparative method to analyze transcripts of monthly meetings of the departmental executive: three meetings immediately before and three following the declaration of a state emergency in Ontario. RESULTS: Six themes were evident before and after the onset of the pandemic: building capacity in academic family medicine; developing leadership; advancing equity, diversity, and inclusion; learner safety and wellness; striving for excellence; and promoting a supportive and collegial environment. Five themes emerged as specific responses to the crisis: situational awareness; increased multidirectional communication; emotional awareness; innovation in education and patient care; and proactive planning for extended adaptation to the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Existing cultural and organizational approaches formed the foundation for the crisis response, while crisis-specific themes reflected skills and attitudes that are essential in clinical family medicine, including adapting to community needs, communication, and emotional awareness.

Factors Associated with the Breast Cancer Diagnostic Interval across Five Canadian Provinces: A CanIMPACT Retrospective Cohort Study.

The cancer diagnostic process can be protracted, and it is a time of great anxiety for patients. The objective of this study was to examine inter- and intra-provincial variation in diagnostic intervals and explore factors related to the variation. This was a multi-province retrospective cohort study using linked administrative health databases. All females with a diagnosis of histologically confirmed invasive breast cancer in British Columbia (2007-2010), Manitoba (2007-2011), Ontario (2007-2010), Nova Scotia (2007-2012), and Alberta (2004-2010) were included. The start of the diagnostic interval was determined using algorithms specific to whether the patient's cancer was detected through screening. We used multivariable quantile regression analyses to assess the association between demographic, clinical and healthcare utilization factors with the diagnostic interval outcome. We found significant inter- and intra-provincial variation in the breast cancer diagnostic interval and by screen-detection status; patients who presented symptomatically had longer intervals than screen-detected patients. Interprovincial diagnostic interval variation was 17 and 16 days for screen- and symptom-detected patients, respectively, at the median, and 14 and 41 days, respectively, at the 90th percentile. There was an association of longer diagnostic intervals with increasing comorbid disease in all provinces in non-screen-detected patients but not screen-detected. Longer intervals were observed across most provinces in screen-detected patients living in rural areas. Having a regular primary care provider was not associated with a shorter diagnostic interval. Our results highlight important findings regarding the length of the breast cancer diagnostic interval, its variation within and across provinces, and its association with comorbid disease and rurality. We conclude that diagnostic processes can be context specific, and more attention should be paid to developing tailored processes so that equitable access to a timely diagnosis can be achieved.

Diagnostic pathways for breast cancer in 10 International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) jurisdictions: an international comparative cohort study based on questionnaire and registry data.

OBJECTIVES: A growing body of evidence suggests longer time between symptom onset and start of treatment affects breast cancer prognosis. To explore this association, the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 examined differences in breast cancer diagnostic pathways in 10 jurisdictions across Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. SETTING: Primary care in 10 jurisdictions. PARTICIPANT: Data were collated from 3471 women aged >40 diagnosed for the first time with breast cancer and surveyed between 2013 and 2015. Data were supplemented by feedback from their primary care physicians (PCPs), cancer treatment specialists and available registry data. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient, primary care, diagnostic and treatment intervals. RESULTS: Overall, 56% of women reported symptoms to primary care, with 66% first noticing lumps or breast changes. PCPs reported 77% presented with symptoms, of whom 81% were urgently referred with suspicion of cancer (ranging from 62% to 92%; Norway and Victoria). Ranges for median patient, primary care and diagnostic intervals (days) for symptomatic patients were 3-29 (Denmark and Sweden), 0-20 (seven jurisdictions and Ontario) and 8-29 (Denmark and Wales). Ranges for median treatment and total intervals (days) for all patients were 15-39 (Norway, Victoria and Manitoba) and 4-78 days (Sweden, Victoria and Ontario). The 10% longest waits ranged between 101 and 209 days (Sweden and Ontario). CONCLUSIONS: Large international differences in breast cancer diagnostic pathways exist, suggesting some jurisdictions develop more effective strategies to optimise pathways and reduce time intervals. Targeted awareness interventions could also facilitate more timely diagnosis of breast cancer.

Patient and Healthcare Provider Perspectives on the Implementation of a Web-Based Clinical Communication System for Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

Previous research has identified communication and care coordination problems for patients with cancer. Healthcare providers (HCPs) have reported communication issues due to the incompatibility of electronic medical records (EMR) software and not being consistently copied on patient reports. We evaluated an asynchronous web-based communication system ("eOncoNote") for primary care providers and cancer specialists to improve cancer care coordination. The objectives were to examine patients' perceptions of the role of eOncoNote in their healthcare, and HCPs' experiences of implementing eOncoNote. Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients with breast and prostate cancer, primary care providers, and cancer specialists. Eighteen patients and fourteen HCPs participated. Six themes were identified from the patient interviews focusing on HCP and patient roles related to care coordination and patient awareness of communication among their HCPs. Four themes were identified from HCP interviews related to the context of care coordination and experience with eOncoNote. Both patients and HCPs described the important role patients and caregivers play in care coordination. The results show that patients were often unaware of the communication between their HCPs and assumed they were communicating. HCPs encountered challenges incorporating eOncoNote into their workflow.

High Risk Breast Cancer Screening is a Double Edged Sword: A Qualitative Study of Patient Perspectives on the Ontario High Risk Breast Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: MRI-based breast cancer screening for high-risk women has been associated with false positives. This study explored the benefits and drawbacks of MRI-based screening using in-depth patient interviews. METHODS: This was a qualitative study of interviews with women participating in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program. Women enrolled at two centers who had completed at least one round of screening were invited to participate. Recruitment was suspended when thematic saturation was reached. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Emergent themes were identified and a coding framework established. RESULTS: 21 women (median age 41 years) participated in telephone interviews. Women had been in the program a median of 4 years (IQR 1-5), and 71% had experienced at least one abnormal screen. Eight participants (38%) had undergone biopsies. Six women (29%) were BRCA mutation carriers. MRIs were described as intimidating, uncomfortable, and claustrophobic. Participants were concerned about long-term exposure to gadolinium contrast. Compared to MRI, mammography alone was viewed as painful, less sensitive, and a "useless…waste of time." MRI provided a "psychological safety net" that outweighed the distress associated with abnormal screens. Many women accepted this trade-off as a "two-edged sword" that was "worth it" and provided a sense of control. Suggestions for improvement included more information regarding the risks of MRI, and access to counselling. CONCLUSIONS: Women participating in MRI-based screening strongly value reassurance from a highly sensitive screening test. This outweighed the distress of abnormal screens. There are areas for improvement around patient communication and psychosocial support.

Use of eConsult to enhance genetics service delivery in primary care: A multimethod study.

PURPOSE: Electronic consultation (eConsult) is a freely-available secure online platform connecting primary care providers (PCPs) to geneticists. Our purpose was to determine whether eConsult is effective in improving genetics service delivery in primary care. METHODS: PCP questionnaires regarding eConsult's utility, geneticists' tracking form assessments of eConsult type and appropriateness, and geneticists' interviews on implementing eConsult were carried out. RESULTS: In 2 regions of Ontario, Canada, from January 2019 to June 2020, there were 305 genetics eConsults. For 169 (55%), PCPs indicated receiving good advice for a new course of action; for 110 (36%), referral was now avoided; and for 261 (86%), eConsult was perceived valuable for patient management. Of the 131 geneticist-completed tracking forms, cancer questions were most common (68, 52%). For 63 (48%), geneticists disagreed/strongly disagreed PCPs should know the answer to the referral question. From the interview data, it was observed that geneticists described eConsult positively and suggested how it might improve access and efficiencies if integrated into genetic service delivery. Dealing with eConsults virtually could reduce waitlists, and suggesting appropriate investigations for PCPs could improve efficiencies. CONCLUSION: eConsult offers a potential solution for receiving timely genetics advice and avoiding unnecessary patient referrals, however, greater effect on access and wait times will need systematic integration into PCP and geneticist practice.

Clinical features of glioma patients who develop pneumocystis pneumonia with temozolomide chemoradiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of glioma with temozolomide chemoradiotherapy predisposes patients to pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP). Because PCP is a rare outcome, very little is known about specific clinical risk factors for its development in patients with glioma. METHODS: We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study of glioma patients undergoing temozolomide chemoradiotherapy 2005 to 2019 in Ontario, Canada. We compared clinical features of patients who did not versus did develop PCP within one year of chemoradiotherapy. We examined the overall survival of patients by PCP status. RESULTS: There were 5130 patients with glioma treated with temozolomide chemoradiotherapy. Ultimately, 38 patients (0.74%) were diagnosed with PCP within 1 year of chemoradiotherapy. Most (71%) infections occurred between 0-90 days and 29% occurred between 91-365 days. Median survival was 12.3 months in patients who did not develop PCP and 8.6 months in those who did develop PCP (P < 0.001). Trough 90-day lymphocyte counts were lower in the PCP group. When the lymphocytes fell below 0.19 × 109/L (or 0.25 × 109/L among patients without PCP prophylaxis), the risk of PCP was > 3.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Pneumocystis pneumonia is rare in glioma patients who receive temozolomide chemoradiotherapy. Infection is associated with shorter survival and the development of lymphopenia. Reserving PCP prophylaxis for patients whose lymphocyte counts drop below 0.25 × 109/L may be a reasonable strategy.

Diagnostic routes and time intervals for ovarian cancer in nine international jurisdictions; findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

BACKGROUND: International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of ovarian cancer (OC) diagnosis routes and intervals (symptom onset to treatment start), which may inform previously reported variations in survival and stage. METHODS: Data were collated from 1110 newly diagnosed OC patients aged >40 surveyed between 2013 and 2015 across five countries (51-272 per jurisdiction), their primary-care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists, supplement by treatment records or clinical databases. Diagnosis routes and time interval differences using quantile regression with reference to Denmark (largest survey response) were calculated. RESULTS: There were no significant jurisdictional differences in the proportion diagnosed with symptoms on the Goff Symptom Index (53%; P = 0.179) or National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NG12 guidelines (62%; P = 0.946). Though the main diagnosis route consistently involved primary-care presentation (63-86%; P = 0.068), onward urgent referral rates varied significantly (29-79%; P < 0.001). In most jurisdictions, diagnostic intervals were generally shorter and other intervals, in particular, treatment longer compared to Denmark. CONCLUSION: This study highlights key intervals in the diagnostic pathway where improvements could be made. It provides the opportunity to consider the systems and approaches across different jurisdictions that might allow for more timely ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Effectiveness and safety of pneumocystis pneumonia prophylaxis for patients receiving temozolomide chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Malignant gliomas are treated with temozolomide chemoradiotherapy. Because pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) can occur in patients receiving temozolomide, the product monograph recommends PCP prophylaxis during temozolomide chemoradiotherapy. Not all neuro-oncologists follow these recommendations, though. METHODS: We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study of glioma patients undergoing temozolomide chemoradiotherapy 2005 to 2019 in Ontario, Canada. A propensity score model was used to predict the use of PCP prophylaxis. We compared the risk of PCP within 90 days of starting radiotherapy with versus without PCP prophylaxis using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). We also examined overall survival, hospitalizations, and myelosuppression. RESULTS: There were 3,225 patients included in the cohort (648 received antibiotics and 2,434 did not). Only 18 patients developed PCP within 90 days of therapy. The IPTW-adjusted absolute risk reduction in PCP with antibiotics was 0.0035 (95% CI, -0.0013 to 0.0083), number needed to treat: 288. Neither overall survival nor hospitalization count differed between the groups. The number needed to harm by causing grade 3/4 neutropenia was 39. CONCLUSIONS: In regions (like Ontario) where PCP is rare, routine PCP prophylaxis with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should not be offered, since the harms may outweigh the benefits.

Cancer specialist perspectives on implementing an online communication system with primary care providers.

Context: The Canadian Team to Improve Community-Based Cancer Care along the Continuum (CanIMPACT) is a group of researchers, primary care providers (PCPs), cancer specialists, patients and caregivers working to improve cancer care coordination between PCPs and cancer specialists. Previous research by CanIMPACT and others has identified problems related to communication, coordination, and continuity of care. Objective: Describe findings from qualitative interviews with cancer specialists on implementation of an online communication system with PCPs. Study Design: Hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation study that included a qualitative research component and a pragmatic RCT. Setting: Ottawa Hospital Cancer Program and primary care practices in the Champlain region. Population Studied: Cancer specialists (nurses, medical and radiation oncologists, program administrators). Interviews conducted with 12 cancer specialists. Intervention: Cancer-specific adaptation of Champlain BASE™ eConsult, an online communication system for PCPs and cancer specialists called "eOncoNote". For patients receiving treatment for prostate or breast cancer, cancer specialists had an opportunity to participate in eOncoNote discussion with PCP for 4-6 months; for breast and colorectal cancer survivors, the eOncoNote discussion lasted for 1 year post discharge to the patient's PCP. Results: Cancer specialists described limited PCP involvement in cancer care while patients received active treatment, with one-way communication and notes being "sent into a vacuum". There was more communication with PCPs regarding patients with metastatic disease, comorbid conditions, after patients have completed treatment, or during palliative care. Patients and caregivers play a critical role in coordinating cancer care, helping to facilitate coordination. Lack of access to the same electronic medical record (EMR) among healthcare providers poses a barrier to cancer care coordination. eOncoNote had the potential to be useful tool but it was not used extensively. Conclusions: Accessing eOncoNote as a separate system was challenging to incorporate into the workflow, and cancer specialists highlighted the need for integration with their EMR. eOncoNote did not affect information sharing with PCPs, as there was limited uptake within primary care.

Stakeholder-Identified Interventions to Address Cancer Survivors' Psychosocial Needs after Completing Treatment.

The interventions used in cancer-survivorship care do not always address outcomes important to survivors. This study sought to understand stakeholders' views on the key concerns of cancer survivors after treatment and the interventions needed to meet survivors' and families' psychosocial needs after completing cancer treatment. We conducted a descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (survivors, family/friend caregivers, oncology providers, primary care providers, and cancer system decision-/policy-makers) from across Canada. For the data analysis, we used techniques commonly employed in descriptive qualitative research, such as coding, grouping, detailing, and comparing the data. There were 44 study participants: 11 survivors, seven family/friend caregivers, 18 health care providers, and eight decision-/policy-makers. Stakeholder-relevant interventions to address survivors' psychosocial needs were categorized into five groups, as follows: information provision, peer support, navigation, knowledge translation interventions, and caregiver-specific supports. These findings, particularly interventions that deliver timely and relevant information about the post-treatment period and knowledge translation interventions that strive to integrate effective tools and programs into survivorship care, have implications for future research and practice.