Multidisciplinary team meeting Chairs' attitudes and perceived facilitators, barriers and ideal improvements to meeting functionality: A qualitative study.

AIM: Oncology care provision by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) is widely acknowledged as best practice. Formal team meetings, led by chairpersons, coordinate decisions on diagnosis, staging, treatment planning, and review. This study addresses a gap in meeting Chairs' perspectives on factors affecting functionality across the meeting cycle, from pre-meeting patient list triage to post-meeting dissemination of recommendations. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in person with Chairs within two urban geographical regions in New South Wales, Australia as part of a larger project. Though the population of oncology MDT Chairs in Australia is small, the richness and depth of data from nine Chairs were considered to be valuable knowledge in support of extant literature on meeting functionality. An integrated deductive-inductive approach was applied to data analysis. RESULTS: Perceived facilitators, barriers, and ideals relating to pre-meeting, in-meeting, and post-meeting functionality were identified across five pre-determined analytic categories: the team; meeting infrastructure; meeting organization and logistics; patient-centered clinical decision-making, and; team governance. Key barriers included inadequate information technology, limited support staff, and lack of dedicated time for Chair duties. Corresponding facilitators included robust Information Technology infrastructure and support, provision of clinically knowledgeable MDT meeting coordinators, and formal employment recognition of Chairs' responsibilities and skill sets. CONCLUSION: Chairs across various tumor streams develop workarounds to overcome barriers and ensure quality meeting outcomes. With more robust support they could enhance value by sharing evidence, conducting audits, and engaging in research. The findings highlight the need for healthcare systems to support tumor stream clinical networks by allocating greater resources to prioritize multidisciplinary meetings and cancer care decision-making.

Experience of patients considering or using checkpoint inhibitors in cancer treatment: a systematic review of qualitative research.

Increasing numbers of patients with cancer are considering or undergoing immunotherapy, however, little is known about patients' perspectives on this treatment. We undertook a systematic review for use by clinicians and researchers, consolidating published qualitative research studies on patient experience of checkpoint inhibitor therapy. A search of Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO was carried out for publications in English to 30 June 2022. Publications were selected if they reported a qualitative study of patient experience with checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer, either by patients or their families or carers. Quality was appraised using the Johanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tool for qualitative studies. A thematic synthesis was conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standard was followed. We identified 17 eligible studies published between 2017 and 2022, 9 using mixed methods, and 8 solely using qualitative methods. Most studies reported on the experiences of patients with advanced stage melanoma and were using the earliest approved checkpoint inhibitors for cancer therapy. Studies met most formal quality criteria but varied in the extent of their qualitative explorations of data; some mixed methods studies had limited reporting of qualitative results. Through thematic synthesis, we categorized study findings into four domains: (1) treatment decision-making; (2) success with immunotherapy; (3) treatment-related adverse events (AEs); and (4) quality of life on immunotherapy. Our review identified several areas with potential for improving the care system. These include, for example: routinely linking patients to peers who have experienced this therapy; improving the capacity of patients and carers to identify and report AEs faster; and supporting patients and carers to live with changed circumstances after successful treatment. Most studies focused on patients who had successful treatment, effectively excluding those who do not respond or who discontinue due to serious side effects; future research targets are suggested.

Development of an age- and comorbidity- adjusted optimal radiotherapy utilisation rate for lung, rectal, prostate and cervical cancers.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal radiotherapy utilisation (RTU) modelling estimates the proportion of people with cancer who would benefit from radiotherapy. Assessment of comorbidities is an important component of the assessment of suitability for radiotherapy in addition to chronological age and life expectancy. Comorbidities have not been considered in previous optimal RTU models. We aimed to develop an age- and comorbidity- adjusted optimal RTU model for patients with lung, rectal, prostate, and cervical cancer, and compare them to actual RTU rates, with a particular focus on those aged 80+ years, METHODS: New South Wales (NSW) Cancer Registry data (2010-2014) linked to radiotherapy data (2010-2015) and hospitalisation data (2008-2015) were used to determine the number of patients diagnosed with lung, rectal, prostate and cervical cancer. The Cancer Specific C3 'all sites' comorbidity index was calculated from hospital diagnosis data for each patient to determine suitability for radiotherapy. The index was then incorporated into a tumour site-specific decision tree model. The actual RTU was also calculated using the linked datasets. RESULTS: 14,696 patients were diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 1839 with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), 5551 with rectal cancer, 30,935 with prostate cancer and 1216 with cervical cancer in New South Wales from 2010-2014. The proportion of patients aged 80+ years at cancer diagnosis was 25% (3603 patients), 15% (279 patients), 17% (943 patients), 12% (3745 patients), and 7% (88 patients) respectively. The age- and comorbidity- adjusted optimal RTU rates for patients aged 80+ years using the C3 index were 49% (NSCLC), 49% (SCLC), 43% (rectal), 51% (prostate) and 40% (cervical). The corresponding actual RTU rates for patients aged 80+ years were 25%, 32%, 27%, 16%, and 56%. CONCLUSION: Even after adjusting for age and comorbidities, the actual radiotherapy utilisation rates were lower than optimal radiotherapy utilisation rates in patients aged 80+ years except for patients with cervical cancer. This warrants further assessment and research into reasons and solutions.

Age-related experiences of colorectal cancer diagnosis: a secondary analysis of the English National Cancer Patient Experience Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in people aged <50 years has been increasing dramatically in the past three decades and such patients are known to face difficulties in diagnosis. The objective of this study was to better understand the diagnostic experiences of patients with CRC and explore age-related differences in the proportion with positive experiences. METHOD: A secondary analysis of the English National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) 2017 was conducted on the responses of patients with CRC, restricted to those likely to have been diagnosed in the preceding 12 months via pathways other than routine screening. Ten diagnosis-related experience questions were identified, with responses to them categorised as positive, negative or uninformative. Age group-related difference in positive experiences were described and ORs estimated, both raw and adjusted for selected characteristics. Sensitivity analysis was performed by weighting survey responses to 2017 cancer registrations by strata defined by age group, sex and cancer site, to assess whether differential response patterns by these characteristics affected the estimated proportion of positive experiences. RESULTS: The reported experiences of 3889 patients with CRC were analysed. There was a significant linear trend (p<0.0001) for 9 of 10 experience items, with older patients consistently displaying higher rates of positive experiences and patients aged 55-64 showing rates of positive experience intermediate between younger and older age groups. This was unaffected by differences in patient characteristics or CPES response rates. CONCLUSION: The highest rates of positive diagnosis-related experiences were reported by patients aged 65-74 or 75 years and older, and this is robust.

Radiation Therapy and Indigenous Peoples in Canada and Australia: Building Paths Toward Reconciliation in Cancer Care Delivery.

Indigenous peoples represent approximately 5% of the world's population and reside in over 90 countries worldwide. They embody a rich diversity of cultures, traditions, languages and relationships with the land that are shared through many generations and that are distinct from those of the settler societies within which they now live. Many Indigenous peoples have a shared experience of discrimination, trauma, and violation of rights, rooted in complex sociopolitical relationships with settler societies that are still ongoing. This results in continuing social injustices and pronounced disparities in health for many Indigenous peoples around the globe. Indigenous peoples exhibit a significantly higher cancer incidence, mortality, and poorer survival compared to non-Indigenous peoples. Cancer services, including radiotherapy, have not been designed to support the specific values and needs of Indigenous populations, resulting in poorer access to cancer services for Indigenous peoples globally across the entire cancer care spectrum. Specific to radiotherapy, available evidence demonstrates disparities in radiotherapy uptake between Indigenous and non-Indigenous patients. Radiotherapy centres are also located disparately further away from Indigenous communities. Studies are limited by a lack of Indigenous-specific data to help inform effective radiotherapy delivery. Recent Indigenous-led partnerships and initiatives have helped to address existing gaps in cancer care, and radiation oncologists play an important role in supporting such efforts. In this article, we present an overview of access to radiotherapy for Indigenous peoples in Canada and Australia, with a focus on strengthening cancer care delivery through education, partnerships, and research.

Cancer Care Team's Management of Clinical Alerts Generated by Electronically Collected Patient Reported Outcomes: We Could Do Better.

Electronically administered patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are effective digital health tools for informing clinicians about cancer patients' symptoms and facilitating timely patient-centred care. This paper describes the delivery of healthcare activities supported by the PROMPT-Care model, including ePROMs generated clinical alerts, cancer care team (CCT) response to alerts, and patients' perceptions of the CCT response and ePROMs system. This mixed-methods study includes cancer patients from four cancer therapy centres in New South Wales, Australia. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected regarding clinical alert activity, CCT response, and patient perceptions of the CCT responses and ePROMs system. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. Of the 328 participants whose care was informed by the digital health tool, 70.8% (n = 233) generated at least one alert during the trial period, with 877 alerts generated in total. Although 43.7% (n = 383) were actioned by the CCT, at least 80% of participants found follow-up CCT phone calls beneficial, with multiple benefits confirmed in interviews. The cancer care delivery arm of the PROMPT-Care trial involving clinical alerts to the CCT was positively perceived by most participants, resulting in a diverse range of benefits. However, further work is required, informed by implementation science, to improve the percentage of actioned clinical alerts.

Open-source, fully-automated hybrid cardiac substructure segmentation: development and optimisation.

Radiotherapy for thoracic and breast tumours is associated with a range of cardiotoxicities. Emerging evidence suggests cardiac substructure doses may be more predictive of specific outcomes, however, quantitative data necessary to develop clinical planning constraints is lacking. Retrospective analysis of patient data is required, which relies on accurate segmentation of cardiac substructures. In this study, a novel model was designed to deliver reliable, accurate, and anatomically consistent segmentation of 18 cardiac substructures on computed tomography (CT) scans. Thirty manually contoured CT scans were included. The proposed multi-stage method leverages deep learning (DL), multi-atlas mapping, and geometric modelling to automatically segment the whole heart, cardiac chambers, great vessels, heart valves, coronary arteries, and conduction nodes. Segmentation performance was evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean distance to agreement (MDA), Hausdorff distance (HD), and volume ratio. Performance was reliable, with no errors observed and acceptable variation in accuracy between cases, including in challenging cases with imaging artefacts and atypical patient anatomy. The median DSC range was 0.81-0.93 for whole heart and cardiac chambers, 0.43-0.76 for great vessels and conduction nodes, and 0.22-0.53 for heart valves. For all structures the median MDA was below 6 mm, median HD ranged 7.7-19.7 mm, and median volume ratio was close to one (0.95-1.49) for all structures except the left main coronary artery (2.07). The fully automatic algorithm takes between 9 and 23 min per case. The proposed fully-automatic method accurately delineates cardiac substructures on radiotherapy planning CT scans. Robust and anatomically consistent segmentations, particularly for smaller structures, represents a major advantage of the proposed segmentation approach. The open-source software will facilitate more precise evaluation of cardiac doses and risks from available clinical datasets.

Radiotherapy utilisation rates for patients with cancer as a function of age: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: There is an increasing incidence of cancer in older people, but limited data on radiotherapy uptake, and in particular, radiotherapy utilisation (RTU) rates. The RTU rate for older adults with cancer may be lower than recommended due to lower tolerance for radiotherapy as well as additional comorbidities, reduced life expectancy and travel for treatment. Radiotherapy use must be aligned with best available, age-specific evidence to ensure older adults with cancer receive optimal benefit without harms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to synthesise the published data on the actual RTU rate for patients with cancer as a function of age. MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify relevant population-based and hospital-based cohort studies on radiotherapy utilisation for all age groups, published in English, from 1 January 1990 to 1 July 2020. We focused on the following common cancers in older adults for which radiotherapy is recommended: breast, prostate, lung, rectal cancer, glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), and cervical cancer. Age-specific radiotherapy utilisation data were extracted and analysed as a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: From 2606 studies screened, 75 cohort and population-based studies were identified with age-specific radiotherapy utilisation data. The total number of patients in the 75 studies was 4,792,138. The RTU rate decreased with increasing age for all tumour sites analysed, except for patients receiving curative radiotherapy as definitive treatment for prostate or cervical cancer. This reduction with increasing age was demonstrated in both palliative and curative settings. DISCUSSION: There is a global reduction in radiotherapy utilisation with increasing age for most tumour sites. The reduction in delivery of radiotherapy warrants further examination and evidence-based guidelines specific to this population.

Patterns of curative treatment for non-small cell lung cancer in New South Wales, Australia.

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of large population-based studies examining patterns of curative treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Australia. This study aimed to evaluate the utilization of curative treatment for NCSLC at a population level and identify factors associated with its use in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with localized or locoregional NSCLC between 2009 and 2014 were identified from the NSW Central Cancer Registry. Curative treatment was defined as surgery or radiotherapy with a 45 Gy minimum dose. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to investigate factors associated with the receipt of curative treatment. A Cox proportional-hazards regression model was used to analyze the factors associated with 2-year overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of the 5722 patients diagnosed with NSCLC in the study period, 3355 (59%) patients received curative treatment and 2367 (41%) patients did not receive curative treatment. The receipt of curative treatment was significantly associated with younger patients, female gender, localized disease, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) = 0. The use of curative treatment increased significantly over time from 2009 (55%) to 2014 (63%) and varied significantly from 24% to 70% between local health districts (LHDs) of residence. Younger age, female gender, localized disease, CCI = 0, and overseas country of birth were significantly associated with 2-year OS. The 2-year OS significantly improved from 70% in 2009 to 77% in 2014 for patients who received curative treatment. CONCLUSION: The use of curative treatment for patients with potentially curable NSCLC was low at 59%. However, the use of curative treatment and survival have increased over time. Significant variation was noted in the use of curative treatment between LHDs.

Clinical practice guideline adherence in oncology: A qualitative study of insights from clinicians in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The burden of cancer is large in Australia, and rates of cancer Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) adherence is suboptimal across various cancers. METHODS: The objective of this study is to characterise clinician-perceived barriers and facilitators to cancer CPG adherence in Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect data from 33 oncology-focused clinicians (surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists and haematologists). Clinicians were recruited in 2019 and 2020 through purposive and snowball sampling from 7 hospitals across Sydney, Australia, and interviewed either face-to-face in hospitals or by phone. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim, and qualitative thematic analysis of the interview data was undertaken. Human research ethics committee approval and governance approval was granted (2019/ETH11722, #52019568810127). RESULTS: Five broad themes and subthemes of key barriers and facilitators to cancer treatment CPG adherence were identified: Theme 1: CPG content; Theme 2: Individual clinician and patient factors; Theme 3: Access to, awareness of and availability of CPGs; Theme 4: Organisational and cultural factors; and Theme 5: Development and implementation factors. The most frequently reported barriers to adherence were CPGs not catering for patient complexities, being slow to be updated, patient treatment preferences, geographical challenges for patients who travel large distances to access cancer services and limited funding of CPG recommended drugs. The most frequently reported facilitators to adherence were easy accessibility, peer review, multidisciplinary engagement or MDT attendance, and transparent CPG development by trusted, multidisciplinary experts. CPGs provide a reassuring framework for clinicians to check their treatment plans against. Clinicians want cancer CPGs to be frequently updated utilising a wiki-like process, and easily accessible online via a comprehensive database, coordinated by a well-trusted development body. CONCLUSION: Future implementation strategies of cancer CPGs in Australia should be tailored to consider these context-specific barriers and facilitators, taking into account both the content of CPGs and the communication of that content. The establishment of a centralised, comprehensive, online database, with living wiki-style cancer CPGs, coordinated by a well-funded development body, along with incorporation of recommendations into point-of-care decision support would potentially address many of the issues identified.

Infrastructure platform for privacy-preserving distributed machine learning development of computer-assisted theragnostics in cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Emerging evidence suggests that data-driven support tools have found their way into clinical decision-making in a number of areas, including cancer care. Improving them and widening their scope of availability in various differing clinical scenarios, including for prognostic models derived from retrospective data, requires co-ordinated data sharing between clinical centres, secondary analyses of large multi-institutional clinical trial data, or distributed (federated) learning infrastructures. A systematic approach to utilizing routinely collected data across cancer care clinics remains a significant challenge due to privacy, administrative and political barriers. METHODS: An information technology infrastructure and web service software was developed and implemented which uses machine learning to construct clinical decision support systems in a privacy-preserving manner across datasets geographically distributed in different hospitals. The infrastructure was deployed in a network of Australian hospitals. A harmonized, international ontology-linked, set of lung cancer databases were built with the routine clinical and imaging data at each centre. The infrastructure was demonstrated with the development of logistic regression models to predict major cardiovascular events following radiation therapy. RESULTS: The infrastructure implemented forms the basis of the Australian computer-assisted theragnostics (AusCAT) network for radiation oncology data extraction, reporting and distributed learning. Four radiation oncology departments (across seven hospitals) in New South Wales (NSW) participated in this demonstration study. Infrastructure was deployed at each centre and used to develop a model predicting for cardiovascular admission within a year of receiving curative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. A total of 10,417 lung cancer patients were identified with 802 being eligible for the model. Twenty features were chosen for analysis from the clinical record and linked registries. After selection, 8 features were included and a logistic regression model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of 0.70 and C-index of 0.65 on out-of-sample data. CONCLUSION: The infrastructure developed was demonstrated to be usable in practice between clinical centres to harmonize routinely collected oncology data and develop models with federated learning. It provides a promising approach to enable further research studies in radiation oncology using real world clinical data.

Radiation doses and fractionation schedules in non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ in the breast (BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01): a randomised, factorial, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Whole breast irradiation (WBI) after conservative surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) reduces local recurrence. We investigated whether a tumour bed boost after WBI improved outcomes, and examined radiation dose fractionation sensitivity for non-low-risk DCIS. METHODS: The study was an international, randomised, unmasked, phase 3 trial involving 136 participating centres of six clinical trials organisations in 11 countries (Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Italy, Ireland, and the UK). Eligible patients were women aged 18 years or older with unilateral, histologically proven, non-low-risk DCIS treated by breast-conserving surgery with at least 1 mm of clear radial resection margins. They were assigned to one of four groups (1:1:1:1) of no tumour bed boost versus boost after conventional versus hypofractionated WBI, or randomly assigned to one of two groups (1:1) of no boost versus boost after each centre prespecified conventional or hypofractionated WBI. The conventional WBI used was 50 Gy in 25 fractions, and hypofractionated WBI was 42·5 Gy in 16 fractions. A boost dose of 16 Gy in eight fractions, if allocated, was delivered after WBI. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was time to local recurrence. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00470236). FINDINGS: Between June 25, 2007, and June 30, 2014, 1608 patients were randomly assigned to have no boost (805 patients) or boost (803 patients). Conventional WBI was given to 831 patients, and hypofractionated WBI was given to 777 patients. Median follow-up was 6·6 years. The 5-year free-from-local-recurrence rates were 92·7% (95% CI 90·6-94·4%) in the no-boost group and 97·1% (95·6-98·1%) in the boost group (hazard ratio 0·47; 0·31-0·72; p<0·001). The boost group had higher rates of grade 2 or higher breast pain (10% [8-12%] vs 14% [12-17%], p=0·003) and induration (6% [5-8%] vs 14% [11-16%], p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: In patients with resected non-low-risk DCIS, a tumour bed boost after WBI reduced local recurrence with an increase in grade 2 or greater toxicity. The results provide the first randomised trial data to support the use of boost radiation after postoperative WBI in these patients to improve local control. The international scale of the study supports the generalisability of the results. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Susan G Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer Now, OncoSuisse, Dutch Cancer Society, Canadian Cancer Trials Group.

Stepping into the real world: a mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation of electronic patient reported outcomes in routine lung cancer care.

BACKGROUND: To realize the broader benefits of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in routine care, we used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to inform the translation of a clinically effective ePROM system (hereafter referred to as the PRM system) into practice. The study aimed to evaluate the processes and success of implementing the PRM system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. METHOD: A controlled before-and-after mixed-methods study was undertaken. Data sources included a self-report questionnaire and interviews with healthcare providers, electronic health record data for PRMs patients and historical controls, and field notes. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression modelling, negative binomial models, generalized estimating equations and repeated measures ANOVA were used to analyze quantitative data. Qualitative data was thematically analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 48/79 eligible people diagnosed with lung cancer completed 90 assessments during the 5-month implementation period (RE-AIM reach). Every assessment breached the pre-defined threshold and care coordinators reviewed and actioned 95.6% of breaches, resulting in 146 referrals to allied health services, most frequently for social work (25.3%), dietetics (18.5%), physiotherapy (18.5%) and occupational therapy (17.1%). PRMs patients had significantly fewer visits to the cancer assessment unit for problematic symptoms (M = 0.23 vs. M = 0.43; p = 0.035), and were significantly more likely to be offered referrals (71% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001) than historical controls (RE-AIM effect). The levels of 'organizational readiness for implementing change' (ORIC) did not show much differences between baseline and follow-up, though this was already high at baseline; but significantly more staff reported improved confidence when asking patients to complete assessments (64.7% at baseline vs. 88.2% at follow-up, p = 0.0046), and when describing the assessment tool to patients (64.7% at baseline vs. 76.47% at follow-up, p = 0.0018) (RE-AIM adoption). A total of 78 staff received PRM system training, and 95.6% of the PRM system alerts were actioned (RE-AIM implementation); and all lung cancer care coordinators were engaged with the PRM system beyond the end of the study period (RE-AIM maintenance). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the potential of the PRM system in enhancing the routine care of lung cancer patients, through leveraging the capabilities of automated web-based care options. Research has shown the clear benefits of using electronically collected patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) for cancer patients and health services. However, we need to better understand how to implement ePROMs as part of routine care. This study evaluated the processes and outcomes of implementing an ePROMs system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. Key findings included: (a) a majority of eligible patients completed the scheduled assessments; (b) patient concerns were identified in every assessment, and care coordinators reviewed and actioned almost all of these, including making significantly more referrals to allied health services; (c) patients completing assessments regularly were less likely to present to the cancer assessment unit with problematic symptoms, suggesting that ePROMs identified patient concerns early and this led to a timely response to concerns; (d) staff training and engagement was high, and staff reporting increased confidence when asking patients to complete assessments and when describing the assessment tool to patients at the end of the implementation period. This study shows that implementing ePROMs in routine care is feasible and can lead to improvements in patient care.

Implementing patient-reported outcomes into routine care: an audit of cancer patients from two local health districts in New South Wales to understand their capabilities and preferences.

Objective It has been established that the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine care provides significant benefits to patients, providers and health services. However, there are patient-level barriers that must be identified and addressed for the successful implementation of PROMs. This study aimed to understand the capabilities and preferences of our cancer patient population prior to implementation of electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs). Specifically, we conducted a clinic audit to determine the proportion of patients in clinics with access to out-of-clinic internet; those preferring to complete PROMs on paper or via an electronic device; those capable of completing PROMs in English; and those anticipating requiring assistance to complete PROMs. Methods Patients receiving cancer treatment or follow-up care at two Local Health Districts (LHDs) in New South Wales, Australia, completed a questionnaire (audit form) with items about internet and mobile access, communication preferences and assistance needed to complete PROMs. Participant demographic and treatment information were extracted from their electronic medical records. Results Across both LHDs, 637 of 1668 participants (38%) completed the audit forms. Mean participant age was 65 years (range = 23-98), 53% were female, and 92% were outpatients. Patients in the two LHDs differed in their levels of internet and email access, and ability to complete PROMs independently in English, suggesting that some LHD-specific tailoring of implementation strategies is necessary to optimise ePROMs uptake. Conclusion This study highlights the importance of understanding the specific local contexts and patient populations, including potential technology and language barriers, which can influence patient ability to complete ePROMs.

Development of an age- and comorbidity adjusted- optimal radiotherapy utilisation rate for women with breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal radiotherapy utilisation (RTU) modelling estimates the proportion of people with cancer who would benefit from radiotherapy. Older adults with cancer may have comorbidities that can impact physiological reserve and affect radiotherapy recommendations. These have not been considered in previous models. We aimed to develop an age- and comorbidity-adjusted optimal RTU model for breast cancer. METHODS: New South Wales (NSW) Cancer Registry data (2010-2014) linked to radiotherapy data (2010-2015) and hospitalisation data (2008-2015) was used to determine the number of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in four pre-specified age groups. The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Cancer-Specific C3 'all sites' index and the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) were derived for each woman from diagnostic codes in hospital records. Women were deemed unfit, and thus unsuitable candidates for radiotherapy, if the comorbidity indices were as follows: CCI ≥2; C3 score ≥ 3; and HFRS ≥5. The proportions of women suitable for radiotherapy in each age group were then incorporated into a breast cancer decision tree model. The actual RTU was also calculated using the linked datasets. RESULTS: 23,601 women were diagnosed with breast cancer in NSW from 2010 to 2014 and 2526 were aged 80+ years. The overall comorbidity adjusted- RTU for women of all ages was 85·9% (CCI), 83·7% (C3) and 81·9% (HFRS). The optimal comorbidity adjusted- RTU for women aged 80+ was 76·1% (CCI), 70·1% (C3) and 61·8% (HFRS). The actual RTU for women aged 80+ years was 24.7%. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of older Australian women with breast cancer are fit for radiotherapy. The overall optimal RTU is only slightly reduced when adjusted for age and comorbidities and was similar using each of the three indices examined. Our data suggest radiotherapy is markedly underutilised for older women with breast cancer.

Adapting an integrated care pathway for implementing electronic patient reported outcomes assessment in routine oncology care: Lessons learned from a case study.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: Details of the development and implementation of integrated care pathways (ICPs) in the context of electronic collection of patient reported outcomes (ePROs) for cancer patients are largely lacking in the literature. This study describes what, why and how decisions were made to adapt and implement an ePROs ICP for patients with lung cancer. METHODS: A consensus process was utilized, with the implementation advisory group including multidisciplinary representation from three participating hospitals, to identify local champions and adapt and incorporate the ePRO ICP into the local contexts. Engagement meetings were documented via meeting transcripts, and detailed notes from October 2019 to November 2020 were content-analysed to identify decision-making themes based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; workflows and process maps were reviewed and modified to integrate ePROs. RESULTS: In total, 55 engagement activities were held (24 meetings, 20 workshops 11 educational sessions), with n = 96 staff from multiple disciplines participating in the ePROs implementation through advisory meetings, process mapping, change management and staff education. Decisions were made regarding eligible patient cohorts to include, the process for onboarding patients onto the ePRO system, and follow-up and referral pathways. Rationales for decisions included alignment with existing workflows, utilizing available staff, minimizing staff and patient burden and maximizing patient engagement. CONCLUSION: Existing resources, staff input and technical and logistical reasons often guided the ICP decisions, highlighting the need for in-depth engagement across all stakeholders for optimal implementation of ePRO ICPs. The ePRO implementation required substantial dialogue and systematic resolution to reach agreement on the final processes. Adapting the local ICP through rigorous engagement facilitated the successful implementation of ePROs as business-as-usual at all three cancer centres. Involving all relevant stakeholders is critical to the successful adaptation of ICPs before their introduction into routine care.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guided proton therapy: A review of the clinical challenges, potential benefits and pathway to implementation.

Proton therapy and MRI-Linacs are two of the most exciting and fast growing technologies in radiation oncology. With over 100 MRI-Linacs and 100 proton therapy centres either in operation or under construction, an integrated approach that brings together the excellent soft tissue imaging of MRI with the superior dose conformity of proton therapy is compelling. The promise of MRI-guided proton therapy has prompted multiple research studies and the building of two pre-clinical experimental systems, taking us closer to realisation of this technology. Patients who would benefit most are those whose cancers have substantial tumour motion or anatomical variation, and those who are currently unable to receive safe dose-escalation due to nearby critical structures. MRI-guided proton therapy could allow more patients with pancreatic cancer, central lung cancer and oligo-metastatic cancers in the upper abdomen (e.g. liver and adrenal) to safely receive escalated curative doses. Head and neck, lung, brain and cervix cancers, where treatment accuracy is affected by inter-fraction tumour changes such as tumour regression or changing oedema, or normal anatomy variations, would also benefit from MRI-guidance. There will be new options to improve cure by functional MRI-guided biologically adapted proton therapy. This review focuses on the clinical aspects of MRI-guided proton therapy. We describe the clinical challenges in proton therapy and the clinical benefits from the addition of MRI-guidance. We provide updates on the design and beam modelling of in-line and perpendicular MRI-guided proton therapy systems, and a roadmap to clinical implementation.