Use of chemotherapy in patients with oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, and ovarian cancer: an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) population-based study.

BACKGROUND: There are few data on international variation in chemotherapy use, despite it being a key treatment type for some patients with cancer. Here, we aimed to examine the presence and size of such variation. METHODS: This population-based study used data from Norway, the four UK nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), eight Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan), and two Australian states (New South Wales and Victoria). Patients aged 15-99 years diagnosed with cancer in eight different sites (oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, or ovarian cancer), with no other primary cancer diagnosis occurring from within the 5 years before to 1 year after the index cancer diagnosis or during the study period were included in the study. We examined variation in chemotherapy use from 31 days before to 365 days after diagnosis and time to its initiation, alongside related variation in patient group differences. Information was obtained from cancer registry records linked to clinical or patient management system data or hospital administration data. Random-effects meta-analyses quantified interjurisdictional variation using 95% prediction intervals (95% PIs). FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017, of 893 461 patients with a new diagnosis of one of the studied cancers, 111 569 (12·5%) did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 781 892 were included in the analysis. There was large interjurisdictional variation in chemotherapy use for all studied cancers, with wide 95% PIs: 47·5 to 81·2 (pooled estimate 66·4%) for ovarian cancer, 34·9 to 59·8 (47·2%) for oesophageal cancer, 22·3 to 62·3 (40·8%) for rectal cancer, 25·7 to 55·5 (39·6%) for stomach cancer, 17·2 to 56·3 (34·1%) for pancreatic cancer, 17·9 to 49·0 (31·4%) for lung cancer, 18·6 to 43·8 (29·7%) for colon cancer, and 3·5 to 50·7 (16·1%) for liver cancer. For patients with stage 3 colon cancer, the interjurisdictional variation was greater than that for all patients with colon cancer (95% PI 38·5 to 78·4; 60·1%). Patients aged 85-99 years had 20-times lower odds of chemotherapy use than those aged 65-74 years, with very large interjurisdictional variation in this age difference (odds ratio 0·05; 95% PI 0·01 to 0·19). There was large variation in median time to first chemotherapy (from diagnosis date) by cancer site, with substantial interjurisdictional variation, particularly for rectal cancer (95% PI -15·5 to 193·9 days; pooled estimate 89·2 days). Patients aged 85-99 years had slightly shorter median time to first chemotherapy compared with those aged 65-74 years, consistently between jurisdictions (-3·7 days, 95% PI -7·6 to 0·1). INTERPRETATION: Large variation in use and time to chemotherapy initiation were observed between the participating jurisdictions, alongside large and variable age group differences in chemotherapy use. To guide efforts to improve patient outcomes, the underlying reasons for these patterns need to be established. FUNDING: International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (funded by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Institute New South Wales, Cancer Research UK, Danish Cancer Society, National Cancer Registry Ireland, The Cancer Society of New Zealand, National Health Service England, Norwegian Cancer Society, Public Health Agency Northern Ireland on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, DG Health and Social Care Scottish Government, Western Australia Department of Health, and Public Health Wales NHS Trust).

Use of radiotherapy in patients with oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, and ovarian cancer: an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) population-based study.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on variation in radiotherapy use in different countries, although it is a key treatment modality for some patients with cancer. Here we aimed to examine such variation. METHODS: This population-based study used data from Norway, the four UK nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), nine Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan), and two Australian states (New South Wales and Victoria). Patients aged 15-99 years diagnosed with cancer in eight different sites (oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, or ovarian cancer), with no other primary cancer diagnosis occurring within the 5 years before to 1 year after the index cancer diagnosis or during the study period were included in the study. We examined variation in radiotherapy use from 31 days before to 365 days after diagnosis and time to its initiation, alongside related variation in patient group differences. Information was obtained from cancer registry records linked to clinical or patient management system data, or hospital administration data. Random-effects meta-analyses quantified interjurisdictional variation using 95% prediction intervals (95% PIs). FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017, of 902 312 patients with a new diagnosis of one of the studied cancers, 115 357 (12·8%) did not meet inclusion criteria, and 786,955 were included in the analysis. There was large interjurisdictional variation in radiotherapy use, with wide 95% PIs: 17·8 to 82·4 (pooled estimate 50·2%) for oesophageal cancer, 35·5 to 55·2 (45·2%) for rectal cancer, 28·6 to 54·0 (40·6%) for lung cancer, and 4·6 to 53·6 (19·0%) for stomach cancer. For patients with stage 2-3 rectal cancer, interjurisdictional variation was greater than that for all patients with rectal cancer (95% PI 37·0 to 84·6; pooled estimate 64·2%). Radiotherapy use was infrequent but variable in patients with pancreatic (95% PI 1·7 to 16·5%), liver (1·8 to 11·2%), colon (1·6 to 5·0%), and ovarian (0·8 to 7·6%) cancer. Patients aged 85-99 years had three-times lower odds of radiotherapy use than those aged 65-74 years, with substantial interjurisdictional variation in this age difference (odds ratio [OR] 0·38; 95% PI 0·20-0·73). Women had slightly lower odds of radiotherapy use than men (OR 0·88, 95% PI 0·77-1·01). There was large variation in median time to first radiotherapy (from diagnosis date) by cancer site, with substantial interjurisdictional variation (eg, oesophageal 95% PI 11·3 days to 112·8 days; pooled estimate 62·0 days; rectal 95% PI 34·7 days to 77·3 days; pooled estimate 56·0 days). Older patients had shorter median time to radiotherapy with appreciable interjurisdictional variation (-9·5 days in patients aged 85-99 years vs 65-74 years, 95% PI -26·4 to 7·4). INTERPRETATION: Large interjurisdictional variation in both use and time to radiotherapy initiation were observed, alongside large and variable age differences. To guide efforts to improve patient outcomes, underlying reasons for these differences need to be established. FUNDING: International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (funded by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Institute New South Wales, Cancer Research UK, Danish Cancer Society, National Cancer Registry Ireland, The Cancer Society of New Zealand, National Health Service England, Norwegian Cancer Society, Public Health Agency Northern Ireland on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, DG Health and Social Care Scottish Government, Western Australia Department of Health, and Public Health Wales NHS Trust).

Estimating the incidence of breast cancer recurrence using administrative data.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, but most cancer registries do not capture recurrences. We estimated the incidence of local, regional, and distant recurrences using administrative data. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with stage I-III primary breast cancer in Ontario, Canada from 2013 to 2017 were included. Patients were followed until 31/Dec/2021, death, or a new primary cancer diagnosis. We used hospital administrative data (diagnostic and intervention codes) to identify local recurrence, regional recurrence, and distant metastasis after primary diagnosis. We used logistic regression to explore factors associated with developing a distant metastasis. RESULTS: With a median follow-up 67 months, 5,431/45,857 (11.8%) of patients developed a distant metastasis a median 23 (9, 42) months after diagnosis of the primary tumor. 1086 (2.4%) and 1069 (2.3%) patients developed an isolated regional or a local recurrence, respectively. Patients with distant metastatic disease had a median overall survival of 15.4 months (95% CI 14.4-16.4 months) from the time recurrence/metastasis was identified. In contrast, the median survival for all other patients was not reached. Patients were more likely to develop a distant metastasis if they had more advanced stage, greater comorbidity, and presented with symptoms (p < 0.0001). Trastuzumab halved the risk of recurrence [OR 0.53 (0.45-0.63), p < 0.0001]. CONCLUSION: Distant metastasis is not a rare outcome for patients diagnosed with breast cancer, translating to an annual incidence of 2132 new cases (17.8% of all breast cancer diagnoses). Overall survival remains high for patients with locoregional recurrences, but was poor following a diagnosis of a distant metastasis.

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.

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.

Differences in breast cancer diagnosis by patient presentation in Ontario: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In Ontario, patients with breast cancer typically receive their diagnoses through the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) after an abnormal screen, through screening initiated by a primary care provider or other referring physician, or through follow-up of symptoms by patients' primary care providers. We sought to explore the association of the route to diagnosis (screening within or outside the OBSP or via symptomatic presentation) with use of OBSP-affiliated breast assessment sites (O-BAS), wait times until diagnosis or treatment, health care use and overall survival for patients with breast cancer. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used the Ontario Cancer Registry to identify adults (aged 18-105 yr) who received a diagnosis of breast cancer from 2013 to 2017. We excluded patients if they were not Ontario residents or had missing age or sex, or who died before diagnosis. We used logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with categorical variables (whether patients were or were not referred to an OBAS, whether patients were screened or symptomatic) and Cox proportional hazards regression to identify factors associated with all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 51 460 patients with breast cancer, 42 598 (83%) received their diagnoses at an O-BAS. Patients whose cancer was first detected through the OBSP were more likely than symptomatic patients to be given a diagnosis at an O-BAS (adjusted odds ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57 to 1.80). Patients screened by the OBSP were given their diagnoses 1 month earlier than symptomatic patients, but diagnosis at an O-BAS did not affect the time until either diagnosis or treatment. Patients referred to an O-BAS had significantly better overall survival than those who were not referred (adjusted hazard ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.80). INTERPRETATION: Patients screened through the OBSP were given their diagnoses earlier than symptomatic patients and were more likely to be referred to an O-BAS, which was associated with better survival. Our findings suggest that individuals with signs and symptoms of breast cancer would benefit from similar referral processes, oversight and standards to those used by the OBSP.

Risk factors and prognostic implications of diagnosis of cancer within 30 days after an emergency hospital admission (emergency presentation): an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Greater understanding of international cancer survival differences is needed. We aimed to identify predictors and consequences of cancer diagnosis through emergency presentation in different international jurisdictions in six high-income countries. METHODS: Using a federated analysis model, in this cross-sectional population-based study, we analysed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in six countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK), including patients with primary diagnosis of invasive oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, or ovarian cancer during study periods from Jan 1, 2012, to Dec 31, 2017. Data were collected on cancer site, age group, sex, year of diagnosis, and stage at diagnosis. Emergency presentation was defined as diagnosis of cancer within 30 days after an emergency hospital admission. Using logistic regression, we examined variables associated with emergency presentation and associations between emergency presentation and short-term mortality. We meta-analysed estimates across jurisdictions and explored jurisdiction-level associations between cancer survival and the percentage of patients diagnosed as emergencies. FINDINGS: In 857 068 patients across 14 jurisdictions, considering all of the eight cancer sites together, the percentage of diagnoses through emergency presentation ranged from 24·0% (9165 of 38 212 patients) to 42·5% (12 238 of 28 794 patients). There was consistently large variation in the percentage of emergency presentations by cancer site across jurisdictions. Pancreatic cancer diagnoses had the highest percentage of emergency presentations on average overall (46·1% [30 972 of 67 173 patients]), with the jurisdictional range being 34·1% (1083 of 3172 patients) to 60·4% (1317 of 2182 patients). Rectal cancer had the lowest percentage of emergency presentations on average overall (12·1% [10 051 of 83 325 patients]), with a jurisdictional range of 9·1% (403 of 4438 patients) to 19·8% (643 of 3247 patients). Across the jurisdictions, older age (ie, 75-84 years and 85 years or older, compared with younger patients) and advanced stage at diagnosis compared with non-advanced stage were consistently associated with increased emergency presentation risk, with the percentage of emergency presentations being highest in the oldest age group (85 years or older) for 110 (98%) of 112 jurisdiction-cancer site strata, and in the most advanced (distant spread) stage category for 98 (97%) of 101 jurisdiction-cancer site strata with available information. Across the jurisdictions, and despite heterogeneity in association size (I2=93%), emergency presenters consistently had substantially greater risk of 12-month mortality than non-emergency presenters (odds ratio >1·9 for 112 [100%] of 112 jurisdiction-cancer site strata, with the minimum lower bound of the related 95% CIs being 1·26). There were negative associations between jurisdiction-level percentage of emergency presentations and jurisdiction-level 1-year survival for colon, stomach, lung, liver, pancreatic, and ovarian cancer, with a 10% increase in percentage of emergency presentations in a jurisdiction being associated with a decrease in 1-year net survival of between 2·5% (95% CI 0·28-4·7) and 7·0% (1·2-13·0). INTERPRETATION: Internationally, notable proportions of patients with cancer are diagnosed through emergency presentation. Specific types of cancer, older age, and advanced stage at diagnosis are consistently associated with an increased risk of emergency presentation, which strongly predicts worse prognosis and probably contributes to international differences in cancer survival. Monitoring emergency presentations, and identifying and acting on contributing behavioural and health-care factors, is a global priority for cancer control. FUNDING: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; Cancer Council Victoria; Cancer Institute New South Wales; Cancer Research UK; Danish Cancer Society; National Cancer Registry Ireland; The Cancer Society of New Zealand; National Health Service England; Norwegian Cancer Society; Public Health Agency Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry; the Scottish Government; Western Australia Department of Health; and Wales Cancer Network.

Time intervals and routes to diagnosis for lung cancer in 10 jurisdictions: cross-sectional study findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

OBJECTIVE: Differences in time intervals to diagnosis and treatment between jurisdictions may contribute to previously reported differences in stage at diagnosis and survival. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis and time intervals from symptom onset until treatment start for patients with lung cancer. DESIGN: Newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, their primary care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) were surveyed in Victoria (Australia), Manitoba and Ontario (Canada), Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Using Wales as the reference jurisdiction, the 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles for intervals were compared using quantile regression adjusted for age, gender and comorbidity. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, aged ≥40 years, diagnosed between October 2012 and March 2015 were identified through cancer registries. Of 10 203 eligible symptomatic patients contacted, 2631 (27.5%) responded and 2143 (21.0%) were included in the analysis. Data were also available from 1211 (56.6%) of their PCPs and 643 (37.0%) of their CTS. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Interval lengths (days; primary), routes to diagnosis and symptoms (secondary). RESULTS: With the exception of Denmark (-49 days), in all other jurisdictions, the median adjusted total interval from symptom onset to treatment, for respondents diagnosed in 2012-2015, was similar to that of Wales (116 days). Denmark had shorter median adjusted primary care interval (-11 days) than Wales (20 days); Sweden had shorter (-20) and Manitoba longer (+40) median adjusted diagnostic intervals compared with Wales (45 days). Denmark (-13), Manitoba (-11), England (-9) and Northern Ireland (-4) had shorter median adjusted treatment intervals than Wales (43 days). The differences were greater for the 10% of patients who waited the longest. Based on overall trends, jurisdictions could be grouped into those with trends of reduced, longer and similar intervals to Wales. The proportion of patients diagnosed following presentation to the PCP ranged from 35% to 75%. CONCLUSION: There are differences between jurisdictions in interval to treatment, which are magnified in patients with lung cancer who wait the longest. The data could help jurisdictions develop more focused lung cancer policy and targeted clinical initiatives. Future analysis will explore if these differences in intervals impact on stage or survival.

Diagnostic routes and time intervals for patients with colorectal cancer in 10 international jurisdictions; findings from a cross-sectional study from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

OBJECTIVE: International differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) survival and stage at diagnosis have been reported previously. They may be linked to differences in time intervals and routes to diagnosis. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 (ICBP M4) reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis for patients with CRC and the time intervals from symptom onset until the start of treatment. Data came from patients in 10 jurisdictions across six countries (Canada, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Australia). DESIGN: Patients with CRC were identified via cancer registries. Data on symptomatic and screened patients were collected; questionnaire data from patients' primary care physicians and specialists, as well as information from treatment records or databases, supplemented patient data from the questionnaires. Routes to diagnosis and the key time intervals were described, as were between-jurisdiction differences in time intervals, using quantile regression. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 14 664 eligible patients with CRC diagnosed between 2013 and 2015 were identified, of which 2866 were included in the analyses. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Interval lengths in days (primary), reported patient symptoms (secondary). RESULTS: The main route to diagnosis for patients was symptomatic presentation and the most commonly reported symptom was 'bleeding/blood in stool'. The median intervals between jurisdictions ranged from: 21 to 49 days (patient); 0 to 12 days (primary care); 27 to 76 days (diagnostic); and 77 to 168 days (total, from first symptom to treatment start). Including screen-detected cases did not significantly alter the overall results. CONCLUSION: ICBP M4 demonstrates important differences in time intervals between 10 jurisdictions internationally. The differences may justify efforts to reduce intervals in some jurisdictions.

Family physician access to and wait times for cancer diagnostic investigations: Regional differences among 3 provinces.

OBJECTIVE: To examine provincial and regional differences in FPs' direct access to cancer diagnostic investigations and advice from other specialists regarding investigations and referrals, and to explore FPs' perceptions about wait times for diagnostic investigations and receipt of results. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, online survey. SETTING: British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of FPs from participating provinces. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct FP access to various diagnostic investigations and advice from other specialists regarding investigations and referrals; FPs' perceptions about wait times for diagnostic investigations ordered directly; and FPs' perceptions about wait times for results. RESULTS: A total of 1054 surveys were completed by FPs from British Columbia (n = 229), Manitoba (n = 228), and Ontario (n = 597). Distance from a cancer centre was not significantly associated with direct access to or wait times for diagnostic investigations for most of the investigations studied; however, provincial differences were observed. Family physicians in Manitoba and British Columbia were 30% to 45% less likely to report having direct access to endoscopy and some imaging investigations compared with FPs in Ontario. Family physicians in Manitoba and British Columbia were also at increased odds of waiting longer than 12 weeks for endoscopy investigations and longer than 4 weeks for imaging investigations compared with FPs in Ontario. Most FPs reported wait times of less than 2 weeks for imaging results; however, the proportion of FPs who waited longer than 2 weeks for colonoscopy results ranged from 15% in Ontario to 96% in British Columbia. CONCLUSION: Given the disparities observed among provinces, there is an opportunity for provinces to learn from one another to improve direct access to and shorten wait times for diagnostic investigations. This in turn has the potential to shorten the primary care interval for cancer diagnostic assessment.

An investigation of routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 international jurisdictions, as part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: survey development and implementation.

OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the methods used in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 Survey (ICBPM4) which examines time intervals and routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 jurisdictions. We present the study design with defining and measuring time intervals, identifying patients with cancer, questionnaire development, data management and analyses. DESIGN AND SETTING: Recruitment of participants to the ICBPM4 survey is based on cancer registries in each jurisdiction. Questionnaires draw on previous instruments and have been through a process of cognitive testing and piloting in three jurisdictions followed by standardised translation and adaptation. Data analysis focuses on comparing differences in time intervals and routes to diagnosis in the jurisdictions. PARTICIPANTS: Our target is 200 patients with symptomatic breast, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer in each jurisdiction. Patients are approached directly or via their primary care physician (PCP). Patients' PCPs and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) are surveyed, and 'data rules' are applied to combine and reconcile conflicting information. Where CTS information is unavailable, audit information is sought from treatment records and databases. MAIN OUTCOMES: Reliability testing of the patient questionnaire showed that agreement was complete (κ=1) in four items and substantial (κ=0.8, 95% CI 0.333 to 1) in one item. The identification of eligible patients is sufficient to meet the targets for breast, lung and colorectal cancer. Initial patient and PCP survey response rates from the UK and Sweden are comparable with similar published surveys. Data collection was completed in early 2016 for all cancer types. CONCLUSION: An international questionnaire-based survey of patients with cancer, PCPs and CTSs has been developed and launched in 10 jurisdictions. ICBPM4 will help to further understand international differences in cancer survival by comparing time intervals and routes to cancer diagnosis.

Explaining variation in cancer survival between 11 jurisdictions in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: a primary care vignette survey.

OBJECTIVES: The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) is a collaboration between 6 countries and 12 jurisdictions with similar primary care-led health services. This study investigates primary care physician (PCP) behaviour and systems that may contribute to the timeliness of investigating for cancer and subsequently, international survival differences. DESIGN: A validated survey administered to PCPs via the internet set out in two parts: direct questions on primary care structure and practice relating to cancer diagnosis, and clinical vignettes, assessing management of scenarios relating to the diagnosis of lung, colorectal or ovarian cancer. PARTICIPANTS: 2795 PCPs in 11 jurisdictions: New South Wales and Victoria (Australia), British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario (Canada), England, Northern Ireland, Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis compared the cumulative proportion of PCPs in each jurisdiction opting to investigate or refer at each phase for each vignette with 1-year survival, and conditional 5-year survival rates for the relevant cancer and jurisdiction. Logistic regression was used to explore whether PCP characteristics or system differences in each jurisdiction affected the readiness to investigate. RESULTS: 4 of 5 vignettes showed a statistically significant correlation (p<0.05 or better) between readiness to investigate or refer to secondary care at the first phase of each vignette and cancer survival rates for that jurisdiction. No consistent associations were found between readiness to investigate and selected PCP demographics, practice or health system variables. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a correlation between the readiness of PCPs to investigate symptoms indicative of cancer and cancer survival rates, one of the first possible explanations for the variation in cancer survival between ICBP countries. No specific health system features consistently explained these findings. Some jurisdictions may consider lowering thresholds for PCPs to investigate for cancer-either directly, or by specialist referral, to improve outcomes.

Development of a survey instrument to investigate the primary care factors related to differences in cancer diagnosis between international jurisdictions.

BACKGROUND: Survival rates following a diagnosis of cancer vary between countries. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP), a collaboration between six countries with primary care led health services, was set up in 2009 to investigate the causes of these differences. Module 3 of this collaboration hypothesised that an association exists between the readiness of primary care physicians (PCP) to investigate for cancer - the 'threshold' risk level at which they investigate or refer to a specialist for consideration of possible cancer - and survival for that cancer (lung, colorectal and ovarian). We describe the development of an international survey instrument to test this hypothesis. METHODS: The work was led by an academic steering group in England. They agreed that an online survey was the most pragmatic way of identifying differences between the jurisdictions. Research questions were identified through clinical experience and expert knowledge of the relevant literature.A survey comprising a set of direct questions and five clinical scenarios was developed to investigate the hypothesis. The survey content was discussed and refined concurrently and repeatedly with international partners. The survey was validated using an iterative process in England. Following validation the survey was adapted to be relevant to the health systems operating in other jurisdictions and translated into Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, and into Canadian and Australian English. RESULTS: This work has produced a survey with face, content and cross cultural validity that will be circulated in all six countries. It could also form a benchmark for similar surveys in countries with similar health care systems. CONCLUSIONS: The vignettes could also be used as educational resources. This study is likely to impact on healthcare policy and practice in participating countries.

Between-school variation and student characteristics associated with the accuracy of weight status perception among students: does the school a student attends impact his/her weight status perception?

Research has identified that perceived weight status is a better predictor of weight control behavior than actual weight status. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the accuracy of weight status perception varies across schools, and to identify the student-level characteristics associated with inaccurate weight status perception among 25,060 grade 9 to 12 students attending 76 schools in Ontario, Canada. Although the majority of adolescents (60.4%) had accurate weight status perceptions, multi-level logistic regression analyses revealed significant between-school variability in the accuracy of weight status perceptions for both males and females. School location and school-level socioeconomic status were the school-level variables analyzed. We identified that males attending urban or suburban schools were more likely to overestimate their weight status compared with males attending rural schools. Important student-level characteristics included grade, weight status, sports participation and social influences. Additional research is required to better understand both the school- and student-level characteristics associated with the accuracy of weight status perceptions among adolescents.

Optimizing Canadian breast cancer screening strategies: a perspective for action.

While controversies regarding optimal breast cancer screening modalities, screening start and end ages, and screening frequencies continue to exist, additional population-based randomized trials are unlikely to be initiated to examine these concerns. Simulation models have been used to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of various breast cancer screening strategies, however these models were all developed using US data. Currently, there is a need to examine the optimal screening and treatment policies in the Canadian context. In this commentary, we discuss the current controversies pertaining to breast cancer screening, and describe the fundamental components of a simulation model, which can be used to inform breast cancer screening and treatment policies.

Accuracy of Self-Reported Breast Cancer Information among Women from the Ontario Site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry.

Obtaining complete medical record information can be challenging and expensive in breast cancer studies. The current literature is limited with respect to the accuracy of self-report and factors that may influence this. We assessed the agreement between self-reported and medical record breast cancer information among women from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Women aged 20-69 years diagnosed with incident breast cancer 1996-1998 were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry, sampled on age and family history. We calculated kappa statistics, proportion correct, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values and conducted unconditional logistic regression to examine whether characteristics of the women influenced agreement. The proportions of women who correctly reported having received a broad category of therapy (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery) as well as sensitivity and specificity were above 90%, and the kappa statistics were above 0.80. The specific type of hormonal or chemotherapy was reported with low-to-moderate agreement. Aside from recurrence, no factors were consistently associated with agreement. Thus, most women were able to accurately report broad categories of treatment but not necessarily specific treatment types. The finding of this study can aid researchers in the use and design of self-administered treatment questionnaires.

Importance of frequency, intensity, time and type (FITT) in physical activity assessment for epidemiological research.

Physical activity is a multi-faceted behaviour comprised of several components: frequency, intensity, time and type (FITT). Despite this understanding, there is currently a lack of knowledge regarding how the individual components of FITT influence chronic diseases. This is partly due to the tendency for researchers to focus on intensity via obtaining accurate measurements of energy expenditure. Although energy expenditure is an important consideration in the assessment of physical activity, it is only one component. Accordingly, future studies examining the association between physical activity and disease risk would benefit from examining all the components of FITT. Considering that all the components of FITT are modifiable, knowing their independent or combined influence on risk may provide valuable insight for future prevention interventions.

Age of smoking initiation and risk of breast cancer in a sample of Ontario women.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between time of smoking initiation and both the independent and joint effects of active and passive tobacco smoke exposure and the risk of breast cancer in a sample of Ontario women. METHODS: Data from two large population-based case-control studies conducted among Ontario women aged 25-75 years were combined for analysis (n = 12,768). RESULTS: Women who had ever smoked and were exposed to passive smoke had a significant increased risk of breast cancer (OR 1.13, 95%CI 1.01-1.25). A significant increased risk was also observed among women who initiated smoking: at age 26 or older (OR 1.26, 95%CI 1.03-1.55); more than five years from menarche (OR 1.26, 95%CI 1.12-1.42); and, after their first live birth (OR 1.25, 95%CI 1.02-1.52). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that women who initiate smoking at an older age are at an increased risk of breast cancer.