Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared to those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end-of-life. These MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: An expert panel comprising MASCC and ASCO members was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting: (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including 8 people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low-to-middle resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥ 94.8% agreement for seven standards (1. Person-Centred Care; 2. Coordinated and Integrated Care; 3. Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; 4. Evaluated and Communicated Care; 5. Accessible and Equitable Care; 6. Sustainable and Resourced Care; 7. Research and Data-Driven Care) and ≥ 84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards will support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders in cancer care (healthcare professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers. Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.

Survivorship Care for People Affected by Advanced or Metastatic Cancer: MASCC-ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.Additional information is available at www.mascc.org, www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Challenges adopting next-generation sequencing in community oncology practice.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We are in an exhilarating time in which innovations exist to help reduce the impact of cancer for individuals, practitioners and society. Innovative tools in cancer genomics can optimize decision-making concerning appropriate drugs (alone or in combination) to cure or prolong life. The genomic characterization of tumours can also give direction to the development of novel drugs. Next-generation tumour sequencing is increasingly becoming an essential part of clinical decision-making, and, as such, will require appropriate coordination for effective adoption and delivery. RECENT FINDINGS: There are several challenges that will need to be addressed if we are to facilitate cancer genomics as part of routine community oncology practice. Recent research into this novel testing paradigm has demonstrated the barriers are at the individual level, while others are at the institution and societal levels. SUMMARY: This article, based on the authors' experience in community oncology practice and summary of literature, describes these challenges so strategies can be developed to address these challenges to improve patient outcomes.

COVID-19 and supportive cancer care: key issues and opportunities.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The disruption to people's lives, including financial impacts, morbidity and loss of life caused by the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic requires a dramatic transformation of cancer care delivery, including supportive care. This paper focuses on issues of supportive care in the context of the pandemic, and the extent to which these issues will impact supportive cancer care post-COVID-19. RECENT FINDINGS: Cancer care, including supportive care delivery, has had to be dramatically altered during the COVID-19 pandemic, including reallocation of human resources, repurposing of existing physical space, amplified use of telehealth and other remote patient monitoring technologies, changes to treatment and follow-up care patient schedules, among others. These changes have resulted in psychosocial sequelae for cancer patients (including anxiety, stress, loss of control), financial toxicity, and risk of disengagement from treatment and follow-up care. SUMMARY: COVID-19 has seriously disrupted cancer treatment and supportive care for patients and survivors. This paper highlights implications for clinical practice during and post-COVID-19, including the durability of practice adaptations and opportunities for research into mechanisms to support supportive care post the pandemic, including the advancement of eHealth technologies and alternative models of care that integrate community resources, primary care and allied health disciplines.

Effect of Current Dietary Recommendations on Weight Loss and Cardiovascular Risk Factors.

BACKGROUND: Dietary recommendations emphasize increased consumption of fruit, vegetables, and whole grain cereals for prevention of chronic disease. OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the effect of dietary advice and/or food provision on body weight and cardiovascular disease risk factors. METHODS: Healthy overweight men (n = 209) and women (n = 710), mean age 44.7 years, body mass index [BMI] 32.4 kg/m2, were randomized between November 2005 and August 2009 to receive Health Canada's food guide (control, n = 486) or 1 of 3 interventions: dietary advice consistent with both Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) and dietary portfolio principles (n = 145); weekly food provision reflecting this advice (n = 148); or food delivery plus advice (n = 140). Interventions lasted 6 months with 12-month follow-up. Semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires and fasting blood, anthropometric and blood pressure measurements were obtained at baseline, 6 months, and 18 months. RESULTS: Participant retention at 6 and 18 months was 91% and 81%, respectively, after food provision compared to 67% and 57% when no food was provided (p < 0.0001). Test and control treatments showed small reductions in body weight (-0.8 to -1.2 kg), waist circumference (-1.1 to -1.9 cm), and mean arterial pressure (0.0 to -1.1 mm Hg) at 6 months and Framingham coronary heart disease risk score at 18 months (-0.19 to -0.42%), which were significant overall. Outcomes did not differ among test and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of foods increased retention but only modestly increased intake of recommended foods. Current dietary recommendations showed small overall benefits in coronary heart disease risk factors. Additional dietary strategies to maximize these benefits are required. (Fruits, Vegetables, and Whole Grains: A Community-based Intervention; NCT00516620).

Comparing alternative design options for chronic disease prevention interventions.

BACKGROUND: While the randomized clinical trial is considered to provide the highest level of evidence in clinical medicine, its superiority to other study designs in the context of prevention studies is debated. The purpose of this review was (i) to gather evidence about challenges facing both randomized controlled trials and observational designs for the conduct of population-based chronic disease prevention interventions and (ii) to consider the suitability of recently proposed hybrid designs for population-based prevention intervention studies. METHODS: Rapid review methods were employed for this study. Articles published within 2007-2012, were included if they: (i) discussed challenges or benefits related to any intervention study design, (ii) compared randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational designs or (iii) introduced a new study design potentially applicable to population-based interventions. After initial screening, papers retained for inclusion were subjected to content analysis and synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 35 included articles were reviewed and used for synthesis. Both RCTs and observational studies are subject to multiple challenges, the main being external and internal validity for RCTs and observational designs, respectively. Four new hybrid designs identified. CONCLUSION: Although any high quality design can produce high level of evidence, multiple challenges with prevention intervention RCTs or observational studies identified. New hybrid designs that carry benefits of randomized and observational methods may be the road ahead for to assess the effects of population-based interventions.

Effectiveness of individual-focused interventions to prevent chronic disease.

BACKGROUND: The burden of chronic disease is projected to assume crisis proportions in most parts of the world by the middle of the century, focusing attention on the need for preventive interventions. We identify and review published research on primary prevention individual-level interventions in current practice and describe and discuss the limitations of the current evidence. The report facilitates prioritizing a research agenda for potential interventions that might be investigated within cohort studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a rapid review. Computerized database searches (PubMed and EMBASE) were performed in October 2012 to identify articles on primary prevention interventions that are directed at the individual level. Potentially, relevant International Agency of Research on Cancer handbooks and monographs were also reviewed. The review includes articles reported in English on the efficacy or effectiveness of a preventive intervention in an adult population. It excludes articles on alcohol or tobacco smoking. RESULTS: Many chronic disease interventions directed at individuals report a protective effect in the short term and some evidence for the efficacy of chemoprevention in chronic disease prevention exists. Evidence these effects persist in the longer term is inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently only limited evidence-based preventions for most chronic diseases, for which a summary is available in Table A1 (see Appendix B). Most individual-level intervention research studies have been conducted using case-control designs and some small, randomized studies. There are fewer impediments to lifestyle modifications when compared to prevention using chemoprevention and vaccination or other methods of prevention of persistent infection.

Personalised medicine in Canada: a survey of adoption and practice in oncology, cardiology and family medicine.

Introduction In order to provide baseline data on genetic testing as a key element of personalised medicine (PM), Canadian physicians were surveyed to determine roles, perceptions and experiences in this area. The survey measured attitudes, practice, observed benefits and impacts, and barriers to adoption. Methods A self-administered survey was provided to Canadian oncologists, cardiologists and family physicians and responses were obtained online, by mail or by fax. The survey was designed to be exploratory. Data were compared across specialties and geography. Results The overall response rate was 8.3%. Of the respondents, 43%, 30% and 27% were family physicians, cardiologists and oncologists, respectively. A strong majority of respondents agreed that genetic testing and PM can have a positive impact on their practice; however, only 51% agreed that there is sufficient evidence to order such tests. A low percentage of respondents felt that they were sufficiently informed and confident practicing in this area, although many reported that genetic tests they have ordered have benefited their patients. Half of the respondents agreed that genetic tests that would be useful in their practice are not readily available. A lack of practice guidelines, limited provider knowledge and lack of evidence-based clinical information were cited as the main barriers to practice. Differences across provinces were observed for measures relating to access to testing and the state of practice. Differences across specialties were observed for the state of practice, reported benefits and access to testing. Conclusions Canadian physicians recognise the benefits of genetic testing and PM; however, they lack the education, information and support needed to practice effectively in this area. Variability in practice and access to testing across specialties and across Canada was observed. These results support a need for national strategies and resources to facilitate physician knowledge, training and practice in PM.

Responsibility for Canada's healthcare quality agenda: interviews with Canadian health leaders.

Canadian healthcare is under increased scrutiny to improve quality and performance, and for good reason. The proliferation of provincial-level quality councils underscores the urgency to establish an aligned national quality agenda. Patient safety has long been held as a critical element of a high-quality healthcare system; with the inexorable growth in spending, efficiency has more recently been introduced. Efficiency and quality are both factors in Ontario's Excellent Care for All legislation introduced in June of 2010, and Quebec's l'Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS) arising from the Castonguay report. These associations of quality and efficiency are also echoed in the US, Australian and UK public debates. The development of a quality agenda has concurrently precipitated discussion regarding responsibility for quality, particularly but not exclusively with the emergence of quality issues in the technical and interpretive pathology arena. The discussion and debate on responsibility have become preoccupations at the national, provincial, institutional and individual profession levels.

Designing a framework for the delivery of collaborative musculoskeletal care involving chiropractors and physicians in community-based primary care.

Strategies have been proposed to facilitate collaboration between conventional health care providers in primary care. However, little is known if these are transferable to CAM health care providers. We designed a qualitative study to articulate a conceptual model to advance the interprofessional collaboration between physicians and chiropractors within community-based primary care in Ontario, Canada. Data obtained from 16 key informants and eight focus groups, with a range of professionals including chiropractors, physicians and academia as well as patients, informed the development our framework. The framework included processed-based factors that clustered under three categories: communication, practice parameters, and service delivery; presumed necessary to address challenges and optimize benefits of collaboration. The development of this framework may help understand and promote interprofessional collaborative practice and contribute to the understanding of how CAM may participate in mainstream healthcare.

The difference between integration and collaboration in patient care: results from key informant interviews working in multiprofessional health care teams.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the growing interest in integrative health care, collaborative care, and interdisciplinary health care teams, there appears to be little consistency in terminology and clarity regarding the goal for these teams, other than "working together" for the good of the patients. The purpose of this study was to explore what the terms integration and collaboration mean for practitioners and other key informants working in multiprofessional health care teams, with a specific look at chiropractic and family physician teams in primary care settings. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 16 key informants until saturation was obtained in the key emerging themes. All interviews were audiorecorded, and the transcripts were coded using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Most participants differentiated collaboration from integration. They generally described a model of professions working closely together (ie, collaborating) in the delivery of care but not subsumed into a single organizational framework (ie, integration). Our results suggest that integration requires collaboration as a precondition but collaboration does not require integration. CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration and integration should not be used interchangeably. A critical starting point for any new interdisciplinary team is to articulate the goals of the model of care.

Smoking frequency, prevalence and trends, and their socio-demographic associations in Alberta, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the numbers of smokers, smoking prevalence and trends, and to examine their socio-demographic associations in Alberta using data from three Canadian national health surveys undertaken between 2000 and 2005. METHODS: The three surveys collected self-reported health data from Canadians aged 12 years and older. The weighted number of smokers and the smoking prevalence by health region and by urban/rural status were determined. The socio-demographic associations of smoking in Alberta were examined using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The numbers of smokers and the smoking prevalence were both higher among men than women, in middle-aged groups (20-39 and 40-59 years) than in younger (12-19 years) and older (> or = 60 years) groups, and among Canadian-born people than immigrants to Canada. The smoking prevalence tended to 1) increase with the increasing rurality of residence, 2) decrease over the timeframe examined, 3) be inversely proportional to educational level and 4) be inversely proportional to household income. The number of smokers was largest in urban areas and among those who reported the highest education and household income. DISCUSSION: The new tobacco legislation being introduced in Alberta in 2009 may decrease the smoking prevalence in the province, but additional interventions in the regions with the largest numbers of smokers may help further reduce the smoking population and overall smoking prevalence in Alberta.

QOLLTI-F: measuring family carer quality of life.

BACKGROUND: The primary goal of palliative care is to optimize the quality of life (QOL) of people living with a life-threatening illness and that of their families. While there have been important advances in measurement of the QOL of palliative care patients, little attention has been paid to the QOL of their carers (family caregivers). To develop and deliver the most effective services to these carers, their QOL needs to be measured with acceptable and psychometrically sound instruments that have content validity. METHODS: This study reports three phases of the development and testing of such a measure: QOLLTI-F, Quality of Life in Life Threatening Illness--Family Carer Version, simultaneously in English and French. Participants were carers from 12 Canadian palliative care services who were asked to complete QOLLTI-F on three occasions. RESULTS: The final version of QOLLTI-F consists of 16 items. It was deemed acceptable by the vast majority of carers and a longer, 24-item version was completed in a median of 12 min. Content validity was assured by inclusion of all domains reported by carers to be important to their QOL: state of carer, patient wellbeing, quality of care, outlook, environment, finances and relationships. Construct validity was demonstrated, as principal components analysis indicated that the 16 items did indeed reflect these seven domains. Furthermore, the seven domain scores predicted 53% of the variance in global QOL, although the QOLLTI-F Total score predicted less well (43%). The test-retest reliability for the QOLLTI-F Total score was 0.77-0.80 and ranged from 0.50 to 0.79 for the seven domain scores. All QOLLTI-F scores were shown to be significantly different between days the carers considered bad, average and good, demonstrating responsiveness to change, with the exception of the Financial Concerns submeasure, which did not distinguish between average and good days. CONCLUSIONS: QOLLTI-F is unique in that in measuring one person's QOL (the carer's) it includes their perception of the condition of another (the patient). This attests to the close relationship between the two. It is also unique in that its content is derived from a qualitative study asking carers what is important to their own QOL, rather than focusing on the changes or burdens related to caregiving. QOLLTI-F also has the advantage of being briefer than other carer QOL measures. It contains measures of seven different domains that are determinants of carer QOL, in addition to a summary score. All these measures are valid, reliable and responsive to change in QOL.