The Impact of the Pandemic on the Quality of Colorectal and Anal Cancer Care, and 2-Year Clinical Outcomes.

We undertook a retrospective study to compare the quality of care delivered to a cohort of newly diagnosed adults with colon, rectal or anal cancer during the early phase of COVID-19 (02/20-12/20) relative to the same period in the year prior (the comparator cohort), and examine the impact of the pandemic on 2-year disease progression and all-cause mortality. We observed poorer performance on a number of quality measures, such as approximately three times as many patients in the COVID-19 cohort experienced 30-day post-surgical readmission (10.5% vs. 3.6%; SD:0.27). Despite these differences, we observed no statistically significant adjusted associations between COVID-19 and time to either all-cause mortality (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.61-1.27, p = 0.50) or disease progression (HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.82-1.64, p = 0.41). However, there was a substantial reduction in new patient consults during the early phase of COVID-19 (12.2% decrease), which appeared to disproportionally impact patients who traditionally experience sociodemographic disparities in access to care, given that the COVID-19 cohort skewed younger and there were fewer patients from neighborhoods with the highest Housing and Dwelling, ands Age and Labour Force marginalization quintiles. Future work is needed to understand the more downstream effects of COVID-19 related changes on cancer care to inform planning for future disruptions in care.

Virtual Cancer Care Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: Patient and Staff Perspectives and Recommendations.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 catalyzed rapid implementation of virtual cancer care (VC); however, work is needed to inform long-term adoption. We evaluated patient and staff experiences with VC at a large urban, tertiary cancer center to inform recommendations for postpandemic sustainment. METHODS: All physicians who had provided VC during the pandemic and all patients who had a valid e-mail address on file and at least one visit to the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada, in the preceding year were invited to complete a survey. Interviews and focus groups with patients and staff across the cancer center were analyzed using qualitative descriptive analysis and triangulated with survey findings. RESULTS: Response rates for patients and physicians were 15% (2,343 of 15,169) and 41% (100 of 246), respectively. A greater proportion of patients than physicians were satisfied with VC (80.1 v 53.4%; P < .01). In addition, fewer patients than physicians felt that virtual visits were worse than those conducted in person (28.0 v 43.4%; P < .01) and that telephone and video visits negatively affected the human interaction that they valued (59.8% v 82.0%; P < .01). Major barriers to VC for patients were respect for care preferences and personal boundaries, accessibility, and equitable access. For staff, major barriers included a lack of role clarity, dedicated resources (space and technology), integration of nursing and allied health, support (administrative, clinical, and technical), and guidance on appropriateness of use. CONCLUSION: Patient and staff perceptions and barriers to virtual care are different. Moving forward, we need to pay attention to both staff and patient experiences with virtual care since this will have major implications for long-term adoption into clinical practice.

Interventions to Promote Safety Culture in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: There is limited guidance on how to effectively promote safety culture in health care settings. We performed a systematic review to identify interventions to promote safety culture, specifically in oncology settings. METHODS: Medical Subject Headings and text words for "safety culture" and "cancer care" were combined to conduct structured searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science for peer-reviewed articles published from 1999 to 2021. To be included, articles had to evaluate a safety culture intervention in an oncology setting using a randomized or nonrandomized, pre-post (controlled or uncontrolled), interrupted time series, or repeated-measures study design. The review followed PRISMA guidelines; quality of included citations was assessed using the ROBINS-I risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Eighteen articles meeting the inclusion criteria were retained, reporting on interventions in radiation (14 of 18), medical (3 of 18), or general oncology (1 of 18) settings. Articles most commonly addressed incident learning systems (7 of 18), lean initiatives (4 of 18), or quality improvement programs (3 of 18). Although 72% of studies reported improvement in safety culture, there was substantial heterogeneity in the evaluation approach; rates of reporting of adverse events (9 of 18) or Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Culture survey results (9 of 18) were the most commonly used metrics. Most of the studies had moderate (28%) or severe (67%) risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a growing evidence base describing interventions to promote safety culture in cancer care, definitive recommendations were difficult to make because of heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes. Implementation of incident learning systems seems to hold most promise.

Survivorship care for patients curatively treated for Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: We undertook a scoping review of the literature to synthesize what is known about lymphoma survivorship and develop a comprehensive set of lymphoma-specific survivorship recommendations. METHODS: We searched the peer-reviewed literature from January 1995 to April 2022, focused on topics relevant to survivorship care in patients ≥ 18 years of age, treated curatively for non-Hodgkin's and Hodgkin's lymphoma, and in remission for at least 2 years. RESULTS: We retained 92 articles; themes included late effects of treatment (53.3%, 49/92), particularly fatigue and sleep disturbances, and fertility, as well as psychosocial considerations of survivors (27.2%; 25/92), screening for secondary malignancies (22.8%; 21/92), outcomes of interventions to improve survivorship care (10.9%; 10/92), and best practices and elements for survivorship plans (8.7%; 8/92). While there were published guidelines for screening for recurrence and secondary malignancies, despite the considerable number of articles on the psychosocial aspects of survivorship care, there remains limited guidance on screening frequency and management strategies for anxiety and depression, sleep disturbances, and treatment-related fatigue within the lymphoma population. CONCLUSION: We have developed a comprehensive set of lymphoma-survivorship recommendations; however, work is needed to adapt them to local healthcare contexts. IMPLICATIONS FOR SURVIVORS: While there is a focus in the literature on the long-term psychosocial impacts of cancer and its treatment on lymphoma survivors, there remains no concrete recommendations on effective screening and management of detriments to quality of life such as anxiety, depression, fatigue, and distress, and availability of local resources vary widely.

Machine Learning-Based Early Warning Systems for Acute Care Utilization During Systemic Therapy for Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department visits and hospitalizations frequently occur during systemic therapy for cancer. We developed and evaluated a longitudinal warning system for acute care use. METHODS: Using a retrospective population-based cohort of patients who started intravenous systemic therapy for nonhematologic cancers between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2020, we randomly separated patients into cohorts for model training, hyperparameter tuning and model selection, and system testing. Predictive features included static features, such as demographics, cancer type, and treatment regimens, and dynamic features, such as patient-reported symptoms and laboratory values. The longitudinal warning system predicted the probability of acute care utilization within 30 days after each treatment session. Machine learning systems were developed in the training and tuning cohorts and evaluated in the testing cohort. Sensitivity analyses considered feature importance, other acute care endpoints, and performance within subgroups. RESULTS: The cohort included 105,129 patients who received 1,216,385 treatment sessions. Acute care followed 182,444 (15.0%) treatments within 30 days. The ensemble model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.742 (95% CI, 0.739-0.745) and was well calibrated in the test cohort. Important predictive features included prior acute care use, treatment regimen, and laboratory tests. If the system was set to alarm approximately once every 15 treatments, 25.5% of acute care events would be preceded by an alarm, and 47.4% of patients would experience acute care after an alarm. The system underestimated risk for some treatment regimens and potentially underserved populations such as females and non-English speakers. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning warning systems can detect patients at risk for acute care utilization, which can aid in preventive intervention and facilitate tailored treatment. Future research should address potential biases and prospectively evaluate impact after system deployment.

A Web-Based Cancer Self-Management Program (I-Can Manage) Targeting Treatment Toxicities and Health Behaviors: Human-Centered Co-design Approach and Cognitive Think-Aloud Usability Testing.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer require adequate preparation in self-management of treatment toxicities to reduce morbidity that can be achieved through well-designed digital technologies that are developed in co-design with patients and end users. OBJECTIVE: We undertook a user-centered co-design process in partnership with patients and other knowledge end users to develop and iteratively test an evidence-based and theoretically informed web-based cancer self-management program (I-Can Manage). The specific study aims addressed in 2 phases were to (1) identify from the perspective of patients with cancer and clinicians the desired content, features, and functionalities for an online self-management education and support (SMES) program to enable patient self-management of treatment toxicities (phase 1); (2) develop the SMES prototype based on human-centered, health literate design principles and co-design processes; and (3) evaluate usability of the I-Can Manage prototype through user-centered testing (phase 2). METHODS: We developed the I-Can Manage program using multiperspective data sources and based on humanistic and co-design principles with end users engaged through 5 phases of development. We recruited adult patients with lung, colorectal, and lymphoma cancer receiving systemic treatments from ambulatory clinics in 2 regional cancer programs for the qualitative inquiry phase. The design of the program was informed by data from qualitative interviews and focus groups, persona and journey mapping, theoretical underpinnings of social cognitive learning theory, and formalized usability testing using a cognitive think-aloud process and user satisfaction survey. A co-design team comprising key stakeholders (human design experts, patients/caregiver, clinicians, knowledge end users, and e-learning and digital design experts) was involved in the developmental process. We used a cognitive think-aloud process to test usability and participants completed the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ). RESULTS: In the initial qualitative inquiry phase, 16 patients participated in interviews and 19 clinicians participated in interviews or focus groups and 12 key stakeholders participated in a persona journey mapping workshop to inform development of the program prototype. The I-Can Manage program integrates evidence-based information and strategies for the self-management of treatment toxicities and health-promoting behaviors in 6 e-learning modules (lay termed "chapters"), starting with an orientation to self-management. Behavioral exercises, patient written and video stories, downloadable learning resources, and online completion of goals and action plans were integrated across chapters. Patient participants (n=5) with different cancers, gender, and age worked through the program in the human factors laboratory using a cognitive think-aloud process and all key stakeholders reviewed each chapter of the program and approved revisions. Results of the PSSUQ (mean total score: 3.75) completed following the cognitive think-aloud process (n=5) suggest patient satisfaction with the usability of I-Can Manage. CONCLUSIONS: The I-Can Manage program has the potential for activating patients in self-management of cancer and treatment toxicities but requires testing in a larger randomized controlled trial.

Implementation of medication reconciliation in outpatient cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is a process where providers work with patients to document and communicate comprehensive medication information by creating a complete medication list (best possible medication history (BPMH)) then reconciling it against what patient is actually taking to identify potential issues such as drug-drug interactions. We undertook an environmental scan of current MedRec practices in outpatient cancer care to inform a quality improvement project at our centre with the aim of 30% of patients having a BPMH or MedRec within 30 days of initiating treatment with systemic therapy. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from 21 cancer centres across Canada, probing on current policies, and barriers and facilitators to MedRec. Guided by the findings of the scan, we then undertook a quality improvement project at our cancer centre, comprising six iterative improvement cycles. RESULTS: Most institutions interviewed had a process in place for collecting a BPMH (81%) and targeted patients initiating systemic therapy (59%); however, considerable practice variation was noted and completion of full MedRec was uncommon. Lack of resources, high patient volumes, lack of a common medical record spanning institutions and settings which limits access to medication records from external institutions and community pharmacies were identified as significant barriers. Despite navigating challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, we achieved 26.6% of eligible patients with a documented BPMH. However, uptake of full MedRec remained low whereby 4.7% of patients had a documented MedRec. CONCLUSIONS: Realising improvements to completion of MedRec in outpatient cancer care is possible but takes considerable time and iteration as the process is complex. Resource allocation and information sharing remain major barriers which need to be addressed in order to observe meaningful improvements in MedRec.

Impact of a Training Program on Oncology Nurses' Confidence in the Provision of Self-Management Support and 5As Behavioral Counseling Skills.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients and their families play a central role in the self-management of the medical, emotional, and lifestyle consequences of cancer. Nurses with training in self-management support can enable cancer patients to better manage the effects of cancer and treatment. METHODS: As part of a randomized controlled trial, we developed a training program to build nurses' confidence in the provision of self-management support (SMS). The SMS skills taught were adapted from the Stanford Peer Support training programs and embedded within the 5As (Assess, Advise, Agree, Assist, and Arrange) behavioral counseling process. We evaluated the impact of the training program on oncology nurses' and coaches' confidence using a Student's t-test for paired samples in a nonrandomized, one-group pre/postsurvey. RESULTS: Participants were experienced oncology nurses from three participating cancer centers. A two-tailed Student's t-test for paired samples showed a significant improvement in nurses' confidence for the 15 SMS microskills targeted in the training between the pretest and post-test as follows: for Center 1, a mean difference of 0.79 (t = 7.18, p ≤ 0.00001); for Center 2, a mean difference of 0.73 (t = 8.4, p ≤ 0.00001); for Center 3, a mean difference of 1.57 (t = 11.45, p ≤ 0.00001); and for coaches, a mean difference of 0.52 (t = 7.6, p ≤ 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Our training program improved oncology staff nurses' and cancer coaches' confidence in 15 SMS microskills and has potential for SMS training of nurses in routine care.

Feasibility and Effectiveness of Self-Management Education and Coaching on Patient Activation for Managing Cancer Treatment Toxicities.

BACKGROUND: Poorly managed cancer treatment toxicities negatively impact quality of life, but little research has examined patient activation in self-management (SM) early in cancer treatment. METHODS: We undertook a pilot randomized trial to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of the SMARTCare (Self-Management and Activation to Reduce Treatment Toxicities) intervention. This intervention included an online SM education program (I-Can Manage) plus 5 sessions of telephone cancer coaching in patients initiating systemic therapy for lymphoma or colorectal or lung cancer at 3 centers in Ontario, Canada, relative to a usual care control group. Patient-reported outcomes included patient activation (Patient Activation Measure [PAM]), symptom or emotional distress, self-efficacy, and quality of life. Descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to examine changes over time (baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months) within and between groups. We used general estimating equations to compare outcomes between groups over time. The intervention group completed an acceptability survey and qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Of 90 patients approached, 62 (68.9%) were enrolled. Mean age of the sample was 60.5 years. Most patients were married (77.1%), were university educated (71%), had colorectal cancer (41.9%) or lymphoma (42.0%), and had stage III or IV disease (75.8%). Attrition was higher in the intervention group than among control subjects (36.7% vs 25%, respectively). Adherence to I-Can Manage was low; 30% of intervention patients completed all 5 coaching calls, but 87% completed ≥1. Both the continuous PAM total score (P<.001) and categorical PAM levels (3/4 vs 1/2) (P=.002) were significantly improved in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: SM education and coaching early during cancer treatment may improve patient activation, but a larger trial is needed. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT03849950.

Impact of Antibiotic Exposure Before Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Treatment on Overall Survival in Older Adults With Cancer: A Population-Based Study.

PURPOSE: Antibiotic exposure before immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment can negatively affect outcomes through alteration in the gut microbiome, but large-scale evaluations are lacking. We performed a population-level retrospective cohort study to evaluate the impact of antibiotic exposure before starting ICI on overall survival (OS). PATIENT AND METHODS: Patients with cancer, age 65 years or older, who initiated treatment with ICIs between June 2012 and October 2018 in Ontario, Canada, were identified using systemic therapy administration data. The cohort was deterministically linked to other health care databases to obtain covariates and antibiotic prescription claim data at both 1 year and 60 days before ICI therapy. Multivariable Cox models evaluated the association between exposure and OS. RESULTS: Among the 2,737 patients with cancer who received ICIs, 59% and 19% of patients received antibiotics 1 year and 60 days before ICI therapy, respectively. Median OS was 306 days. Any antibiotic exposure within 1 year before ICI was associated with worse OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.12; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.23; P = .03). In antibiotic class analysis, exposure to fluoroquinolones within 1 year (aHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.40; P < .001) or 60 days before ICI (aHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.45; P = .06) was associated with worse OS, with a dose effect seen on the basis of total weeks of exposure over 1 year (aHR, 1.07 per week; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.11; P < .001) and 60 days (aHR, 1.12 per week; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.23; P = .01). CONCLUSION: In this population-level study, exposure to antibiotics and specifically fluoroquinolones before ICI therapy was observed to be associated with worse OS among older adults with cancer. Interventions aimed at altering the gut microbiome to boost immunogenicity may help improve outcomes for patients receiving ICIs with prior antibiotic exposure.

Staff Experiences With Remote Work in a Comprehensive Cancer Center During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Recommendations for Long-Term Adoption.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the rapid implementation of remote work, but few studies have examined the impact. We evaluated clinical staff experience with working remotely at a large, urban comprehensive cancer center in Toronto, Canada. METHODS: An electronic survey was disseminated between June 2021, and August 2021, via e-mail to staff who had completed at least some remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Factors associated with a negative experience were examined with binary logistic regression. Barriers were derived from a thematic analysis of open-text fields. RESULTS: Most respondents (N = 333; response rate, 33.2%) were age 40-69 years (46.2%), female (61.3%), and physicians (24.6%). Although the majority of respondents wished to continue remote work (85.6%), relative to administrative staff (admin), physicians (odds ratio [OR], 16.6; 95% CI, 1.45 to 190.14) and pharmacists (OR, 12.6; 95% CI, 1.0 to 158.9) were more likely to want to return on-site. Physicians were approximately eight times more likely to report dissatisfaction with remote work (OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 1.4 to 51.6) and 24 times more likely to report that remote work negatively affected efficiency (OR, 24.0; 95% CI, 2.7 to 213.0); nurses were approximately seven times more likely to report the need for additional resources (OR, 6.5; 95% CI, 1.71 to 24.48) and/or training (OR, 7.02; 95% CI, 1.78 to 27.62). The most common barriers were the absence of fair processes for allocation of remote work, poor integration of digital applications and connectivity, and poor role clarity. CONCLUSION: Although overall satisfaction with working remotely was high, work is needed to overcome barriers to implementation of remote and hybrid work models in the health care setting.

Association of COVID-19 Vaccination With Breakthrough Infections and Complications in Patients With Cancer.

Importance: Patients with cancer are known to have increased risk of COVID-19 complications, including death. Objective: To determine the association of COVID-19 vaccination with breakthrough infections and complications in patients with cancer compared to noncancer controls. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective population-based cohort study using linked administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, in residents 18 years and older who received COVID-19 vaccination. Three matched groups were identified (based on age, sex, type of vaccine, date of vaccine): 1:4 match for patients with hematologic and solid cancer to noncancer controls (hematologic and solid cancers separately analyzed), 1:1 match between patients with hematologic and patients with solid cancer. Exposures: Cancer diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes occurring 14 days after receipt of second COVID-19 vaccination dose: primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection; secondary outcomes were emergency department visit, hospitalization, and death within 4 weeks of SARS-CoV-2 infection (end of follow-up March 31, 2022). Multivariable cumulative incidence function models were used to obtain adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and 95% CIs. Results: A total of 289 400 vaccinated patients with cancer (39 880 hematologic; 249 520 solid) with 1 157 600 matched noncancer controls were identified; the cohort was 65.4% female, and mean (SD) age was 66 (14.0) years. SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection was higher in patients with hematologic cancer (aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.20-1.46; P < .001) but not in patients with solid cancer (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.05; P = .87). COVID-19 severe outcomes (composite of hospitalization and death) were significantly higher in patients with cancer compared to patients without cancer (aHR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.42-1.63; P < .001). Risk of severe outcomes was higher among patients with hematologic cancer (aHR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.21-2.85; P < .001) than patients with solid cancer (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.64; P < .001). Patients receiving active treatment had a further heightened risk for COVID-19 severe outcomes, particularly those who received anti-CD20 therapy. Third vaccination dose was associated with lower infection and COVID-19 complications, except for patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large population-based cohort study, patients with cancer had greater risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and worse outcomes than patients without cancer, and the risk was highest for patients with hematologic cancer and any patients with cancer receiving active treatment. Triple vaccination was associated with lower risk of poor outcomes.

Factors associated with timely COVID-19 vaccination in a population-based cohort of patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: In many jurisdictions, cancer patients were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination because of increased risk of infection and death. To understand sociodemographic disparities that affected timely receipt of COVID-19 vaccination among cancer patients, we undertook a population-based study in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Patients older than 18 years and diagnosed with cancer January 2010 to September 2020 were identified using administrative data; vaccination administration was captured between approval (December 2020) up to February 2022. Factors associated with time to vaccination were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 356 535 patients, the majority of whom had solid tumor cancers (85.9%) and were not on active treatment (74.1%); 86.8% had received at least 2 doses. The rate of vaccination was 25% lower in recent (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.76) and nonrecent immigrants (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.81). A greater proportion of unvaccinated patients were from neighborhoods with a high concentration of new immigrants or self-reported members of racialized groups (26.0% vs 21.3%, standardized difference = 0.111, P < .001), residential instability (27.1% vs 23.0%, standardized difference = 0.094, P < .001), or material deprivation (22.1% vs 16.8%, standardized difference = 0.134, P < .001) and low socioeconomic status (20.9% vs 16.0%, standardized difference = 0.041, P < .001). The rate of vaccination was 20% lower in patients from neighborhoods with the lowest socioeconomic status (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.81 to 0.84) and highest material deprivation (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.81) relative to those in more advantaged neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Despite funding of vaccines and prioritization of high-risk populations, marginalized patients were less likely to be vaccinated. Differences are likely due to the interplay between systemic barriers to access and cultural or social influences affecting uptake.

Patient Perceptions of the Impact of the COVID Pandemic on the Quality of Their Gastrointestinal Cancer Care.

We surveyed patients who had a received care for a gastrointestinal cancer between 03/2020 and 05/2021 to understand their perceptions of the impact of the Covid pandemic on cancer care delivery and quality of care. Three-hundred fifty-eight respondents provided evaluable responses (response rate: 17.3%). Approximately half of respondents (46.4%) perceived that they had experienced a pandemic-related cancer care modification; most changes were initiated by a clinician or the cancer center (44.6%). Relative to White patients those from Racialized Groups (OR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.03-3.54) were more likely to report a cancer treatment change. Additionally, relative to patients in follow-up, those who were newly diagnosed (OR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.21-4.71) were more likely to report a change. Compared to White patients, patients from Racialized Groups were approximately twice as likely to report perceiving that virtual visits during Covid negatively impacted the quality of their care (OR: 2.21; 95% CI: 0.96-5.08). These findings potentially reflect pre-existing systemic disparities in quality of and access to care, as well as differences in how care is experienced by patients from Racialized Groups.

Considerations for Virtual Care Following the Pandemic.

The pandemic has served as an impetus for rapid uptake of virtual care into clinical practice, creating new patient and clinician needs and a willingness to adopt new technologies. It is obvious that healthcare will not return to pre-pandemic levels of in-person care and that patients expect virtual care to remain an option. However, the underlying structural and behavioural barriers related to equity, access, infrastructure, provider licensing and remuneration structures that limited pre-pandemic use of virtual care still persist. Herein, we provide recommendations and tangible next steps to sustain virtual care moving forward.

Implementation and Impact of Choosing Wisely Recommendations in Oncology.

The Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign, launched in 2012, includes oncology-specific recommendations to promote evidence-based care and deimplementation of low-value practices. However, it is unclear to what extent the campaign has prompted practice change. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the uptake of cancer-specific CW recommendations focusing on the period before the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used Grimshaw's deimplementation framework to thematically group the findings and extracted information on implementation strategies, barriers, and facilitators from articles reporting on active implementation. In the 98 articles addressing 32 unique recommendations, most reported on passive changes in adherence pre-post publication of CW recommendations. Use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer and reduction in staging imaging for early breast cancer were the most commonly evaluated recommendations. Most articles assessing passive changes in adherence pre-post CW publication reported improvement. All articles evaluating active implementation (10 of 98) reported improved compliance (range: 3%-73% improvement). Most common implementation strategies included provider education and/or stakeholder engagement. Preconceived views and reluctance to adopt new practices were common barriers; common facilitators included the use of technology and provider education to increase provider buy-in. Given the limited uptake of oncology-specific CW recommendations thus far, more attention toward supporting active implementation is needed. Effective adoption of CW likely requires a multipronged approach that includes building stakeholder buy-in through engagement and education, using technology-enabled forced functions to facilitate change along with policy and reimbursement models that disincentivize low-value care. Professional societies have a role to play in supporting this next phase of CW.

Improving the quality of self-management support in ambulatory cancer care: a mixed-method study of organisational and clinician readiness, barriers and enablers for tailoring of implementation strategies to multisites.

INTRODUCTION: Improving the quality of self-management support (SMS) for treatment-related toxicities is a priority in cancer care. Successful implementation of SMS programmes depends on tailoring implementation strategies to organisational readiness factors and barriers/enablers, however, a systematic process for this is lacking. In this formative phase of our implementation-effectiveness trial, Self-Management and Activation to Reduce Treatment-Related Toxicities, we evaluated readiness based on constructs in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) and developed a process for mapping implementation strategies to local contexts. METHODS: In this convergent mixed-method study, surveys and interviews were used to assess readiness and barriers/enablers for SMS among stakeholders in 3 disease site groups at 3 regional cancer centres (RCCs) in Ontario, Canada. Median survey responses were classified as a barrier, enabler or neutral based on a priori cut-off values. Barriers/enablers at each centre were mapped to CFIR and then inputted into the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change Strategy Matching Tool V.1.0 (CFIR-ERIC) to identify centre-specific implementation strategies. Qualitative data were separately analysed and themes mapped to CFIR constructs to provide a deeper understanding of barriers/enablers. RESULTS: SMS in most of the RCCs was not systematically delivered, yet most stakeholders (n=78; respondent rate=50%) valued SMS. For centre 1, 7 barriers/12 enablers were identified, 14 barriers/9 enablers for centre 2 and 11 barriers/5 enablers for centre 3. Of the total 46 strategies identified, 30 (65%) were common across centres as core implementation strategies and 5 tailored implementation recommendations were identified for centres 1 and 3, and 4 for centre 2. CONCLUSIONS: The CFIR and CFIR-ERIC were valuable tools for tailoring SMS implementation to readiness and barriers/enablers, whereas NPT helped to clarify the clinical work of implementation. Our approach to tailoring of implementation strategies may have relevance for other studies.

Remote, proactive, telephone based management of toxicity in outpatients during adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer: pragmatic, cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of remote proactive management of toxicities during chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer. DESIGN: Pragmatic, cluster randomised trial. SETTING: 20 cancer centres in Ontario, Canada, allocated by covariate constrained randomisation to remote management of toxicities or routine care. PARTICIPANTS: All patients starting adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer at each centre. 25 patients from each centre completed patient reported outcome questionnaires. INTERVENTIONS: Proactive, standardised, nurse led telephone management of common toxicities at two time points after each chemotherapy cycle. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome, cluster level mean number of visits to the emergency department or admissions to hospital per patient during the whole course of chemotherapy treatment, was evaluated with routinely available administrative healthcare data. Secondary patient reported outcomes included toxicity, self-efficacy, and quality of life. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of participants were similar in the intervention (n=944) and control arms (n=1214); 22% were older than 65 years. Penetration (that is, the percentage of patients who received the intervention at each centre) was 50-86%. Mean number of visits to the emergency department or admissions to hospital per patient was 0.91 (standard deviation 0.28) in the intervention arm and 0.94 (0.40) in the control arm (P=0.94); 47% (1014 of 2158 patients) had at least one visit to the emergency department or a hospital admission during chemotherapy. Among 580 participants who completed the patient reported outcome questionnaires, at least one grade 3 toxicity was reported by 48% (134 of 278 patients) in the intervention arm and by 58% (163 of 283) in the control arm. No differences in self-efficacy, anxiety, or depression were found. Compared with baseline, the functional assessment of cancer therapy trial outcome index decreased by 6.1 and 9.0 points in the intervention and control participants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Proactive, telephone based management of toxicities during chemotherapy did not result in fewer visits to the emergency department or hospital admissions. With the rapid rise in remote care because of the covid-19 pandemic, identifying scalable strategies for remote management of patients during cancer treatment is particularly relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02485678.

Impact of the early phase of the COVID pandemic on cancer treatment delivery and the quality of cancer care: a scoping review and conceptual model.

BACKGROUND: The disruption of health services due to coronavirus disease (COVID) is expected to dramatically alter cancer care; however, the implications for care quality and outcomes remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: We undertook a scoping review to evaluate what is known in the literature about how cancer treatment has been modified as a result of the COVID pandemic in patients receiving treatment for solid tumours, and what domains of quality of care are most impacted. METHODS: Citations were retrieved from MEDLINE and EMBASE (from 1 January 2019 to 28 October 2020), utilizing search terms grouped by the key concept (oncology, treatment, treatment modifications and COVID). Articles were excluded if they dealt exclusively with management of COVID-positive patients, modifications to cancer screening, diagnosis or supportive care or were not in English. Articles reporting on guidelines, consensus statements, recommendations, literature reviews, simulations or predictive models, or opinions in the absence of accompanying information on experience with treatment modifications in practice were excluded. Treatment modifications derived from the literature were stratified by modality (surgery, systemic therapy (ST) and radiotherapy) and thematically grouped. To understand what areas of quality were most impacted, modifications were mapped against the Institute of Medicine's quality domains. Where reported, barriers and facilitators were abstracted and thematically grouped to understand drivers of treatment modifications. Findings were synthesized into a logic model to conceptualize the inter-relationships between different modifications, as well as their downstream impacts on outcomes. RESULTS: In the 87 retained articles, reductions in outpatients visits (26.4%) and delays/deferrals were commonly reported across all treatment modalities (surgery: 50%; ST: 55.8% and radiotherapy: 56.7%), as were reductions in surgical capacity (57.1%), alternate systemic regimens with longer treatment intervals or use of oral agents (19.2%) and the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy regimens (40.0%). Delivery of effective, timely and equitable care was the quality domains found to be the most impacted. The most commonly reported facilitator of maintaining cancer care delivery levels was the shift to virtual models of care (62.1%), while patient-initiated deferrals and cancellations (34.8%), often due to fear of contracting COVID (60.9%), was a commonly reported barrier. CONCLUSIONS: As it will take a considerable amount of time for the cancer system to resume capacity and adjust models of care in response to the pandemic, these treatment delays and modifications will likely be prolonged and will negatively impact the quality of care and patient outcomes.

Evaluating Patients' Perception of the Risk of Acute Care Visits During Systemic Therapy for Cancer.

PURPOSE: Unplanned emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations are common during systemic cancer therapy. To determine how patients with cancer trade off treatment benefit with risk of experiencing an ED visit or hospitalization when deciding about systemic therapy, we undertook a discrete choice experiment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with breast, colorectal, or head and neck cancer contemplating, receiving, or having previously received systemic therapy were presented with 10 choice tasks (5 in the curative and 5 in the palliative setting) that varied on 3 attributes: benefit, risk of ED visit, and risk of hospitalization. Preferences for attributes and levels were measured using part-worth utilities, estimated using hierarchical Bayes analysis. Segmentation analysis was conducted to identify subgroups with different preferences. RESULTS: A total of 293 patients completed the survey; most were female (76%), had breast cancer (63%), and were currently receiving systemic therapy (72%) with curative intent (59%). Benefit was the most important decision attribute regardless of treatment intent, followed by risk of hospitalization, then risk of ED visit. Two segments were observed: one large cluster exhibiting logical and consistent choices, and a smaller segment exhibiting illogical and inconsistent choices. Patients in the latter segment were more likely to have metastatic head and neck cancer, be male, were older, and reported fewer prior ED visits. CONCLUSION: Although the risk of ED visit or hospitalization contributes to patient treatment preferences, benefit was the most important attribute. Segmentation suggests that a subset of patients may lack cognitive abilities, engagement, or literacy to consistently evaluate treatment choices. Understanding this subset may provide insight into patients' decision making and understanding of treatment options.