Barriers, supports, and effective interventions for uptake of human papillomavirus- and other vaccines within global and Canadian Indigenous peoples: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Despite the existence of human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines with demonstrated safety and effectiveness and funded HPV vaccination programs, coverage rates are persistently lower and cervical cancer burden higher among Canadian Indigenous peoples. Barriers and supports to HPV vaccination in Indigenous peoples have not been systematically documented, nor have interventions to increase uptake in this population. This protocol aims to appraise the literature in Canadian and global Indigenous peoples, relating to documented barriers and supports to vaccination and interventions to increase acceptability/uptake or reduce hesitancy of vaccination. Although HPV vaccination is the primary focus, we anticipate only a small number of relevant studies to emerge from the search and will, therefore, employ a broad search strategy to capture literature related to both HPV vaccination and vaccination in general in global Indigenous peoples. METHODS: Eligible studies will include global Indigenous peoples and discuss barriers or supports and/or interventions to improve uptake or to reduce hesitancy, for the HPV vaccine and/or other vaccines. Primary outcomes are documented barriers or supports or interventions. All study designs meeting inclusion criteria will be considered, without restricting by language, location, or data type. We will use an a priori search strategy, comprised of key words and controlled vocabulary terms, developed in consultation with an academic librarian, and reviewed by a second academic librarian using the PRESS checklist. We will search several electronic databases from date of inception, without restrictions. A pre-defined group of global Indigenous websites will be reviewed for relevant gray literature. Bibliographic searches will be conducted for all included studies to identify relevant reviews. Data analysis will include an inductive, qualitative, thematic synthesis and a quantitative analysis of measured barriers and supports, as well as a descriptive synthesis and quantitative summary of measures for interventions. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this study will contribute the first systematic review of documented barriers, supports, and interventions for vaccination in general and for HPV vaccination. The results of this study are expected to inform future research, policies, programs, and community-driven initiatives to enhance acceptability and uptake of HPV vaccination among Indigenous peoples. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42017048844.

Consensus Review of Optimal Perioperative Care in Breast Reconstruction: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery following surgery can be achieved through the introduction of evidence-based perioperative maneuvers. This review aims to present a consensus for optimal perioperative management of patients undergoing breast reconstructive surgery and to provide evidence-based recommendations for an enhanced perioperative protocol. METHODS: A systematic review of meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large prospective cohorts was conducted for each protocol element. Smaller prospective cohorts and retrospective cohorts were considered only when higher level evidence was unavailable. The available literature was graded by an international panel of experts in breast reconstructive surgery and used to form consensus recommendations for each topic. Each recommendation was graded following a consensus discussion among the expert panel. Development of these recommendations was endorsed by the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Society. RESULTS: High-quality randomized controlled trial data in patients undergoing breast reconstruction informed some of the recommendations; however, for most items, data from lower level studies in the population of interest were considered along with extrapolated data from high-quality studies in non-breast reconstruction populations. Recommendations were developed for a total of 18 unique enhanced recovery after surgery items and are discussed in the article. Key recommendations support use of opioid-sparing perioperative medications, minimal preoperative fasting and early feeding, use of anesthetic techniques that decrease postoperative nausea and vomiting and pain, use of measures to prevent intraoperative hypothermia, and support of early mobilization after surgery. CONCLUSION: Based on the best available evidence for each topic, a consensus review of optimal perioperative care for patients undergoing breast reconstruction is presented. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, V.

Optimal Perioperative Care in Major Head and Neck Cancer Surgery With Free Flap Reconstruction: A Consensus Review and Recommendations From the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society.

Importance: Head and neck cancers often require complex, labor-intensive surgeries, especially when free flap reconstruction is required. Enhanced recovery is important in this patient population but evidence-based protocols on perioperative care for this population are lacking. Objective: To provide a consensus-based protocol for optimal perioperative care of patients undergoing head and neck cancer surgery with free flap reconstruction. Evidence Review: Following endorsement by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society to develop this protocol, a systematic review was conducted for each topic. The PubMed and Cochrane databases were initially searched to identify relevant publications on head and neck cancer surgery from 1965 through April 2015. Consistent key words for each topic included "head and neck surgery," "pharyngectomy," "laryngectomy," "laryngopharyngectomy," "neck dissection," "parotid lymphadenectomy," "thyroidectomy," "oral cavity resection," "glossectomy," and "head and neck." The final selection of literature included meta-analyses and systematic reviews as well as randomized controlled trials where available. In the absence of high-level data, case series and nonrandomized studies in head and neck cancer surgery patients or randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in non-head and neck cancer surgery patients, were considered. An international panel of experts in major head and neck cancer surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery reviewed and assessed the literature for quality and developed recommendations for each topic based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. All recommendations were graded following a consensus discussion among the expert panel. Findings: The literature search, including a hand search of reference lists, identified 215 relevant publications that were considered to be the best evidence for the topic areas. A total of 17 topic areas were identified for inclusion in the protocol for the perioperative care of patients undergoing major head and neck cancer surgery with free flap reconstruction. Best practice includes several elements of perioperative care. Among these elements are the provision of preoperative carbohydrate treatment, pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, perioperative antibiotics in clean-contaminated procedures, corticosteroid and antiemetic medications, short acting anxiolytics, goal-directed fluid management, opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia, frequent flap monitoring, early mobilization, and the avoidance of preoperative fasting. Conclusions and Relevance: The evidence base for specific perioperative care elements in head and neck cancer surgery is variable and in many cases information from different surgerical procedures form the basis for these recommendations. Clinical evaluation of these recommendations is a logical next step and further research in this patient population is warranted.

Low compliance with guidelines for re-staging in high-grade T1 bladder cancer and the potential impact on patient outcomes in the province of Alberta.

INTRODUCTION: Despite high-level evidence of benefit, early repeat resection (ERR) among high-grade T1 bladder cancer (HGT1-BC) patients remains low in several non-Canadian jurisdictions and rates in Canada are largely unreported. We evaluated rates of ERR and trends over time in Alberta. We also examined factors associated with uptake of ERR. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of data from all patients diagnosed with HGT1-BC from 2007 through 2011. Patients were identified from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Patients with a non-urothelial carcinoma of the bladder and those with invasion into the prostate or metastatic disease were excluded. We collected demographic and clinicopathologic information from patients' electronic medical records. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients diagnosed with HGT1-BC were included. Overall, 167 patients (27.8%) received an ERR; however, the rate increased in a non-linear fashion from 27.4% in 2007 to 37.8% in 2011. Factors associated with ERR included age <80 years (p=0.021) and centre at which the initial transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) was performed (p=0.013). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached, but five-year OS was 72.7% (95% CI 68.9, 76.5) for those who received an ERR and 55.3% (95% CI 52.5, 58.1) for those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Use of ERR in patients with HGT1-BC is improving over time. Regional variation in practice suggests the need for implementation strategies (i.e., provincial clinical care pathways) to standardize practice and set indicators for future measurement and reporting. Targeted interventions would require further investigation around the reasons for variation in practice.

Predictors of referral for neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer and changes in practice over time.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) fit for curative therapy, a multidisciplinary approach consisting is recommended. This approach includes local treatment (usually radical cystectomy), ideally combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Despite a survival benefit with NACT, uptake remains low. We assessed NACT consultation in Alberta and examined associative factors, as well as the relationship to survival. METHODS: Patients with MIBC were identified through the Alberta Cancer Registry. Demographic and clinicopathologic information was collected from electronic medical records between 2007 and 2011. In addition to descriptive statistics, logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with receiving NACT consultation. Overall survival was described using a Kaplan-Meier estimate. RESULTS: Of the 315 radical cystectomy patients, 140 (45.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 39.5, 50.8) received NACT consultation. Patients ≥80 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.21, 95% CI 0.08, 0.57, p = 0.002) and those treated in Calgary (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.05, 0.25, p < 0.001) were less likely to receive NACT consultation. The rate of NACT consultation increased steadily from 2007 to 2011 (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.04, 1.45 per year of diagnosis, p = 0.018). After a median follow-up of 28.1 months (range: 14.6-50.3), median survival was 54.7 months for patients who received NACT consultation versus 31.2 months for those who did not (p = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: NACT consultation in patients with MIBC undergoing radical cystectomy has improved over time; however, regional differences underscore the need for a standardized approach to NACT consultation, including common referral mechanisms.

Bone Health in Patients with Breast Cancer: Recommendations from an Evidence-Based Canadian Guideline.

Bone loss is common in patients with breast cancer. Bone modifying agents (BMAs), such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, have been shown to reverse or stabilize bone loss and may be useful in the primary and metastatic settings. The purpose of this review is to provide clear evidence-based strategies for the management of bone loss and its symptoms in breast cancer. A systematic review of clinical trials and meta-analyses published between 1996 and 2012 was conducted of MEDLINE and EMBASE. Reference lists were hand-searched for additional publications. Recommendations were developed based on the best available evidence. Zoledronate, pamidronate, clodronate, and denosumab are recommended for metastatic breast cancer patients; however, no one agent can be recommended over another. Zoledronate or any oral bisphosphonate and denosumab should be considered in primary breast cancer patients who are postmenopausal on aromatase inhibitor therapy and have a high risk of fracture and/or a low bone mineral density and in premenopausal primary breast cancer patients who become amenorrheic after therapy. No one agent can be recommended over another. BMAs are not currently recommended as adjuvant therapy in primary breast cancer for the purpose of improving survival, although a major Early Breast Cancer Cooperative Trialists' Group meta-analysis is underway which may impact future practice. Adverse events can be managed with appropriate supportive care.

Is there a role for clinical practice guidelines in multidisciplinary tumor board meetings? A descriptive study of knowledge transfer between research and practice.

The aim of this study was to characterize practice patterns and decision-making processes of healthcare providers attending weekly neuro-oncology tumor board meetings, and to assess their familiarity with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in neuro-oncology. Members of the Neuro-Oncology Tumor Team at two tertiary cancer centers completed a web-based questionnaire assessing characteristics of weekly tumor board meetings and perceptions of CPGs. Twenty-three (66%) tumor team members responded. Diagnostic imaging results and interpretation, medical, surgical, and/or radiation treatment planning, and pathology results and interpretation were the most commonly identified aspects of patient care discussed at tumor board meetings, and almost all respondents indicated that these meetings were "very beneficial" to their own practice. When deciding on a treatment plan, respondents rely most on the clinical expertise of colleagues, medical literature, personal experience, active clinical trial protocols, and published CPGs. Opinions of the local CPGs varied considerably, and while 56% of respondents supported regular discussion of them during meetings, only 32% indicated that they were routinely reviewed. Updating the literature more frequently, implementing a formal grading system for the evidence, and incorporating clinical care pathways were the most frequently cited methods to improve the CPGs. Tumor board meetings are beneficial to the treatment planning process for neuro-oncology patients.