Choosing Wisely India: ten low-value or harmful practices that should be avoided in cancer care.

The Choosing Wisely India campaign was an initiative that was established to identify low-value or potentially harmful practices that are relevant to the Indian cancer health-care system. We undertook a multidisciplinary framework-driven consensus process to identify a list of low-value or harmful cancer practices that are frequently undertaken in India. A task force convened by the National Cancer Grid of India included Indian representatives from surgical, medical, and radiation oncology. Each specialty had representation from the private and public sectors. The task force included two representatives from national patient and patient advocacy groups. Of the ten practices that were identified, four are completely new recommendations, and six are revisions or adaptations from previous Choosing Wisely USA and Canada lists. Recommendations in the final list pertain to diagnosis and treatment (five practices), palliative care (two practices), imaging (two practices), and system-level delivery of care (two practices). Implementation of this list and reporting of concordance with its recommendations will facilitate the delivery of high-quality, value-based cancer care in India.

Engaging Patients as Partners in Developing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Cancer-A Review of the Literature.

PURPOSE: Tools to collect patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently used in the healthcare setting to collect information that is most meaningful to patients. Due to discordance among how patients and healthcare providers rank symptoms that are considered most meaningful to the patient, engagement of patients in the development of PROMs is extremely important. This review aimed to identify studies that described how patients are involved in the item generation stage of cancer-specific PROM tools developed for cancer patients. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using keywords relevant to PROMs, cancer, and patient engagement. A manual search of relevant reference lists was also conducted. Inclusion criteria stipulated that publications must describe patient engagement in the item generation stage of development of cancer-specific PROM tools. Results were excluded if they were duplicate findings or non-English. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 230 publications. After removal of duplicates and review of publications, 6 were deemed relevant. Fourteen additional publications were retrieved through a manual search of references from relevant publications. A total of 13 unique PROM tools that included patient input in item generation were identified. The most common method of patient engagement was through qualitative interviews or focus groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recommendations from international groups and the emphasized importance of incorporating patient feedback in all stages of development of PROMs, few unique tools have incorporated patient input in item generation of cancer-specific tools. Moving forward, a framework of best practices on how to best engage patients in developing PROMs is warranted to support high-quality patient-centered care.

Development of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Rating Tool to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Questions for the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration.

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration developed an MCDA rating tool to assess and prioritize potential post-market real-world evidence (RWE) questions/uncertainties emerging from public drug funding decisions in Canada. In collaboration with a group of multidisciplinary stakeholders from across Canada, the rating tool was developed following a three-step process: (1) selection of criteria to assess the importance and feasibility of an RWE question; (2) development of rating scales, application of weights and calculating aggregate scores; and (3) validation testing. An initial MCDA rating tool was developed, composed of seven criteria, divided into two groups. Group A criteria assess the importance of an RWE question by examining the (1) drug's perceived clinical benefit, (2) magnitude of uncertainty identified, and (3) relevance of the uncertainty to decision-makers. Group B criteria assess the feasibility of conducting an RWE analysis including the (1) feasibility of identifying a comparator, (2) ability to identify cases, (3) availability of comprehensive data, and (4) availability of necessary expertise and methodology. Future directions include partnering with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health's Provincial Advisory Group for further tool refinement and to gain insight into incorporating the tool into drug funding deliberations.

Pan-Canadian consensus recommendations for proton beam therapy access in Canada.

PURPOSE: Proton Beam Therapy (PBT)is a treatment option for select cancer patients. It is currently not available in Canada. Assessment and referral processes for out-of-country treatment for eligible patients vary by jurisdiction, leading to variability in access to this treatment for Canadian cancer patients. The purpose of this initiative was to develop a framework document to inform consistent and equitable PBT access for appropriate patients through the creation of pan-Canadian PBT access consensus recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A modified Delphiprocess was used to develop pan-Canadian recommendations with input from 22 PBT clinical and administrative experts across all provinces, external peer-review by provincial cancer and system partners, and feedback from a targeted community consultation. This was conducted by electronic survey and live discussion. Consensus threshold was set at 70% agreement. RESULTS: Fourconsensus rounds resulted in a final set of 27 recommendations divided into three categories: patient eligibility (n = 9); program level (n = 10); and system level (n = 8). Patient eligibility included: anatomic site (n = 4), patient characteristics (n = 3), clinical efficacy (n = 2). Program level included: regulatory and staff requirements (n = 5), equipment and technologies (n = 4), quality assurance (n = 1). System level included: referral process (n = 5), costing, budget impact and quality adjusted life years (n = 2), eligible patient estimates (n = 1). Recommendations were released nationally in June 2021 and distributed to all 43 cancer programs in Canada. CONCLUSION: A pan-Canadian consensus-building approach was successful in creating an evidence-based, peer-reviewed suite of recommendations thatsupportapplication of consistent clinical criteria to inform treatment options, facility set-up and access to high quality proton therapy.

The optimal dose fractionation schema for malignant extradural spinal cord compression.

Malignant epidural spinal cord compression is a dreaded complication of malignancy. Fortunately, it does not happen very often. Estimating the prognosis is critical to achieving a balance between effective therapy and the burden of treatment. Treatment can be individualized by reviewing simple prognosis scales. For patients with a poor prognosis, a single fraction of 8 Gy is just as effective as multiple fractions and much more convenient. Surgery and radiation should be considered for patients with a more positive prognosis. For patients not getting surgery, enrollment in clinical trials of single vs. multiple fractions of radiation should be a priority.

Considerations for Developing a Reassessment Process: Report from the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration's Reassessment and Uptake Working Group.

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration was established to develop a framework for generating and using real-world evidence (RWE) to inform the reassessment of cancer drugs following initial health technology assessment (HTA). The Reassessment and Uptake Working Group (RWG) is one of the five established CanREValue Working Groups. The RWG aims to develop considerations for incorporating RWE for HTA reassessment and strategies for using RWE to reassess drug funding decisions. Between February 2018 and December 2019, the RWG attended four teleconferences (with follow-up surveys) and two in-person meetings to discuss recommendations for the development of a reassessment process and potential barriers and facilitators. Modified Delphi methods were used to gather input. A draft report of recommendations (to December 2018) was shared for public consultation (December 2019 to January 2020). Initial considerations for developing a reassessment process were proposed. Specifically, reassessment can be initiated by diverse stakeholders, including decision makers from public drug plans or industry stakeholders. The reassessment process should be modelled after existing deliberation and recommendation frameworks used by HTA agencies. Proposed reassessment outcome categories include maintaining status quo, revisiting funding criteria, renegotiating price, or disinvesting. Overall, these initial considerations will serve as the basis for future advancements by the Collaboration.

Choosing Wisely Africa: Ten Low-Value or Harmful Practices That Should Be Avoided in Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: Choosing Wisely Africa (CWA) builds on Choosing Wisely (CW) in the United States, Canada, and India and aims to identify low-value, unnecessary, or harmful cancer practices that are frequently used on the African continent. The aim of this work was to use physicians and patient advocates to identify a short list of low-value practices that are frequently used in African low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: The CWA Task Force was convened by the African Organization for Research and Training in Cancer and included representatives from surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, the private and public sectors, and patient advocacy groups. Consensus was built through a modified Delphi process, shortening a long list of practices to a short list, and then to a final list. A voting threshold of ≥ 60% was used to include an individual practice on the short list. A consensus was reached after a series of teleconferences and voting processes. RESULTS: Of the 10 practices on the final list, one is a new suggestion and 9 are revisions or adaptations of practices from previous CW campaign lists. One item relates to palliative care, 8 concern treatment, and one relates to surveillance. CONCLUSION: The CWA initiative has identified 10 low-value, common interventions in Africa's cancer practice. The success of this campaign will be measured by how the recommendations are implemented across sub-Saharan Africa and whether this improves the delivery of high-quality cancer care.

The palliative performance scale: examining its inter-rater reliability in an outpatient palliative radiation oncology clinic.

INTRODUCTION: The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) was developed by the Victoria Hospice Society in 1996 to modernize the Karnofsky Performance Scale. Currently, it is being used to measure palliative patient performance status in a variety of settings. Despite its widespread use, only one study has examined the inter-rater reliability of the PPS. PURPOSE: To examine the inter-rater reliability of the PPS in measuring performance status in patients seen in an outpatient palliative radiation oncology clinic METHODS: Performance status for 102 consecutive patients was assessed by an oncologist (MD), a radiation therapist (RT), and a research assistant (RA) in the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program at the Odette Cancer Centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Raters' scores were analyzed for correlation and compared to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the PPS tool. RESULTS: Excellent correlation was found between the scores rated by the MD and RA (r = 0.86); good correlation was observed between scores rated by the MD and RT (r = 0.69) and the RT and RA (r = 0.77). Scores between all three raters, as well as between rater pairs, were also found to have good reliability as measured by the Chronbach's alpha coefficient. Significant results were obtained for the range of PPS scores in which the majority of our patients fell: 40-80%. CONCLUSION: PPS was shown to have good overall inter-rater reliability in an outpatient palliative setting, but more research is needed to establish the validity and reliability of the tool in a variety of different palliative settings.

Continued success of the rapid response radiotherapy program: a review of 2004-2008.

PURPOSE: To update the clinical activity of the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program (RRRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of our clinic database from January 2004 until July 2008. The number of patients referred to the RRRP, relevant demographic data, diagnosis and treatment dispositions were recorded. Time interval between referral to consultation and consultation to simulation were also calculated. RESULTS: During the study period, 3,267 patients were seen in the RRRP. Forty-five percent (1,494) of the patients were new to the clinic. Of the 3,267 patients seen, 1,548 (47.4%) were female and 1,719 (52.6%) were male. The median age was 69.2 years (range, 22-101 years). The most common primary sites were lung (34.2%), breast (21.2%) and prostate (17.0%). The majority of patients were referred for palliative treatment of bone metastases (52.4%) or treatment for brain metastases (20.7%). Of the patients referred, 2,311 (70.5%) patients received palliative radiotherapy. The median duration from referral to consultation was 4 days. The majority (82.3%) of patients were simulated and treated within the first 7 days following consultation. CONCLUSION: The number of patients referred to the RRRP from January 2004-July 2008 remains comparable to our previous report (1996-2003). The overall median interval from referral to consultation for the analysed time period was 4 days. Therefore, we are continuing to meet our goal of providing rapid access to palliative radiation treatment for symptomatic cancer patients. Further information relating to progression and advancements within the clinic aimed at improving our patients' quality of life are explored.

Single versus multifraction radiotherapy for spinal cord compression: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: While multifraction radiotherapy (RT) regimens (MFRT) have been considered the standard of care in patients with metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) with limited prognosis, recent randomized evidence has demonstrated that single fraction RT (SFRT) may be equivalent in terms of functional and overall outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the effects of SFRT compared to short course MFRT in patients with MESCC. METHODS: A search of OVID, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to February 2018 was conducted. Randomized and prospective non-randomized trials comparing SFRT and short course MFRT for MESCC were included. Data were analyzed using a random effects model, and relative risks (RR) or hazard ratios (HR) were reported with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria. RESULTS: Overall 1717 articles were reviewed. Three randomized trials were eligible for inclusion (n = 712 patients). The pooled treatment effect for SFRT versus MFRT with respect to motor response was RR = 0.96 (95% CI = 0.86-1.07, I2 = 19%), HR = 1.00 (95% CI = 0.88-1.13, I2 = 0%) for OS, and RR = 0.97, (95% CI = 0.85-1.11, I2 = 61%) for bladder function. There was insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis on quality of life, toxicity or pain response, however available information suggests pain response appears similar between SFRT and MFRT. Overall quality of evidence was deemed moderate due to risk of bias. There was no evidence of an observed difference with respect to motor response, bladder dysfunction and OS between SFRT and MFRT for MESCC in patients with a limited prognosis.

Using an Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) Approach to Enable Policy Change for Electronic Consultations in Canada.

This paper explores our efforts to support the expansion of a regional electronic consultation (eConsult) service on a national level by addressing potential policy barriers. We used an integrated knowledge translation (IKT) strategy based on five key activities leading to a National eConsult Policy Think Tank meeting: (1) identifying potential policy enablers and barriers; (2) engaging national and provincial/territorial partners; (3) including patient voices; (4) undertaking co-design and planning; and (5) adopting a solution-based approach. We successfully leveraged a diverse set of stakeholders in strategic discussions, culminating in actionable suggestions for next steps, which will serve to inform a national implementation strategy.

Directly Improving the Quality of Radiation Treatment Through Peer Review: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Cancer Centers Across a Provincial Cancer Program.

PURPOSE: To describe the outcomes of peer review across all 14 cancer centers in Ontario. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified all peer-reviewed, curative treatment plans delivered in Ontario within a 3-month study period from 2013 to 2014 using a provincial cancer treatment database and collected additional data on the peer-review outcomes. RESULTS: Considerable variation was found in the proportion of peer-reviewed plans across the centers (average 70.2%, range 40.8%-99.2%). During the study period, 5561 curative plans underwent peer review. Of those, 184 plans (3.3%) had changes recommended. Of the 184 plans, the changes were major (defined as requiring repeat planning or having a major effect on planning or clinical outcomes, or both) in 40.2% and minor in 47.8%. For the remaining 12.0%, data were missing. The proportions of recommended changes varied among disease sites (0.0%-7.0%). The disease sites with the most recommended changes to treatment plans after peer review and with the greatest potential for benefit were the esophagus (7.0%), uterus (6.7%), upper limb (6.3%), cervix and lower limb (both 6.0%), head and neck and bilateral lung (both 5.9%), right supraclavicular lymph nodes (5.7%), rectum (5.3%), and spine (5.0%). Although the heart is an organ at risk in left-sided breast treatment plans, the proportions of recommended changes did not significantly differ between the left breast treatment plans (3.0%, 95% confidence interval 2.0%-4.5%) and right breast treatment plans (2.4%, 95% confidence interval 1.5%-3.8%). The recommended changes were more frequently made when peer review occurred before radiation therapy (3.8%) than during treatment (1.4%-2.8%; P=.0048). The proportion of plans with recommended changes was not significantly associated with patient volume (P=.23), peer-review performance (P=.36), or center academic status (P=.75). CONCLUSIONS: Peer review of treatment plans directly affects the quality of care by identifying important clinical and planning changes. Provincial strategies are underway to optimize its conduct in radiation oncology.

A pan-Canadian survey of peer review practices in radiation oncology.

PURPOSE: Peer review (PR) of treatment plans has been recognized internationally as a key component of quality care in radiation oncology programs (ROPs). We conducted a survey of Canadian ROPs to describe current PR practices and identify barriers/facilitators to PR optimization. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 42-item e-survey was sent to all Canadian ROPs (n = 44). Survey development was guided by expert consensus, literature review, and existing guidelines. One multidisciplinary response per ROP was requested. RESULTS: Response rate was 100.0% (44/44). All ROPs (100.0%) reported conducting some PR and rated its importance as 7/10 or higher (10 = extremely important). One-half of ROPs (52.3%) peer-reviewed >80% of curative treatment plans. ROPs reported performing PR "always/almost always" pretreatment (38.6%) or before 25% of radiation therapy delivery (52.3%). The majority of ROPs reported recommending major plan changes in <5% of plans (88.6%) and documenting findings in the medical record (58.1%). Barriers to PR were radiation oncologist availability (34.1%) and time constraints (27.3%). Facilitators included development of PR standards (97.7%) and education/support (90.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The ROPs perceive PR as highly important, but substantial variation in the extent, timing, and documentation of PR exists. The understanding of current PR activities, barriers, and facilitators will inform the development of initiatives to optimize PR in radiation oncology.

The Canadian National System for Incident Reporting in Radiation Treatment (NSIR-RT) Taxonomy.

PURPOSE: Incident investigation, reporting, and learning are core elements of quality improvement in radiation treatment. This report describes the development of a Canadian National System for Incident Reporting in Radiation Treatment (NSIR-RT), focusing especially on the taxonomy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The NSIR-RT was developed to provide a framework in Canada for reporting and analyzing radiation treatment incidents. A key objective was to assure compatibility with other international reporting systems to facilitate future information exchange. The Canadian community was engaged at every step of the development process through Delphi consensus building and inter-user agreement testing to promote awareness of the system and motivate broad-based utilization across the country. RESULTS: The final taxonomy was comprised of 6 data groups (impact, discovery, patient, details, treatment delivery, and investigation) and 33 data categories with predefined menu options. There was a high level agreement within the Canadian community about the final suite of data categories, and broad alignment of these categories with the World Health Organization and other American and European radiation treatment incident classifications. CONCLUSIONS: The Canadian NSIR-RT taxonomy will be implemented as an online, web-based reporting and analysis system. It is expected that the taxonomy will evolve and mature over time to meet the changing needs of the Canadian radiation treatment community and support radiation treatment incident learning on a global scale.

Prospective evaluation of severe skin toxicity and pain during postmastectomy radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: To prospectively capture acute toxicities and pain associated with postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT), to analyze patient and treatment risk factors for severe side effects. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Women referred for PMRT were prospectively enrolled and assessed weekly during and after radiation therapy. The endpoint included severe National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects grade 3 moist desquamation, other skin symptoms, and pain. RESULTS: Of 257 patients, 73 (28.4%) experienced extensive moist desquamation, 84 (32.7%) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects skin toxicity grade 3, and 57 (22.2%) a pain impacting on daily life activities. Among symptoms only grade 3 moist desquamation was significantly associated with severe pain (P<.001). On multivariate analysis, smoking, high-energy photons, and skin bolus were significantly associated with severe moist desquamation. Skin toxicity doubled for smokers, with 40% severe pain, 48% grade 3 moist desquamation, and 64% grade 3 skin toxicity. Without skin bolus 4.2% had severe pain, none moist desquamation, and 2.1% grade 3 skin toxicity. When skin bolus was used on alternate days, the frequency increased to 15% for pain, 22% for moist desquamation, and 26% for grade 3 skin toxicity. When bolus was used daily, 32% had pain, 41% moist desquamation, and 47% grade 3 skin toxicity. Symptoms peaked 1 to 2 weeks after the end of PMRT. CONCLUSIONS: The present cohort study suggests excessive radiation toxicity after PMRT. Among factors associated with an increase of toxicity are smoking habits and the use of skin bolus.

Choosing Wisely Canada cancer list: ten low-value or harmful practices that should be avoided in cancer care.

PURPOSE: Choosing Wisely Canada, modeled after Choosing Wisely in the United States, is intended to identify low-value or potentially harmful practices relevant to the Canadian health care environment. Our objective was to use multidisciplinary, pan-Canadian, physician-based consensus to identify a list of low-value or harmful cancer practices frequently used in Canada. METHODS: A Task Force convened by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer included physician representation from the Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology, Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists, and Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology, and an expert advisor. The methodology included four phases: identify potentially relevant items, develop a long list, refine and reduce the long list to a short list, and select and endorse a final list. A framework-driven consensus process and a series of electronic surveys and voting processes were used to capture consensus. RESULTS: Sixty-six potentially relevant cancer-related practices were identified. The long list (41 practices) was reduced to a short list of 19 practices. Of the 10 practices on the final list, five are completely new, and five are revisions or adaptations of practices from previous US society lists. Six of the 10 involve multiple disease sites, and four are disease-site specific. One relates to diagnosis, six relate to treatment, two relate to surveillance/survivorship, and one practice spans the cancer care continuum. CONCLUSION: The cancer list was developed in partnership with the Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology, Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists, and Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology. Using knowledge translation and exchange efforts, this list should empower patients with cancer and physicians to assist in a targeted conversation about the appropriateness and quality of individual patient care.