Patients' attitudes and preferences toward delayed disease progression in the absence of improved survival.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients' attitudes toward progression-free survival (PFS) gains offered by treatment are not well understood, particularly in the absence of overall survival (OS) gains. The objectives were to describe patients' willingness to accept treatment that offers PFS gains without OS gains, to compare these findings with treatments offering OS gains, and to qualitatively summarize patients' reasons for their preferences. METHODS: A multicenter, cross-sectional, convergent mixed-methods study design recruited patients who had received at least 3 months of systemic therapy for incurable solid tumors. A treatment trade-off exercise determined the gains in imaging PFS that patients require to prefer additional systemic treatment for a scenario of a newly diagnosed, asymptomatic, incurable abdominal tumor. A qualitative, descriptive, thematic analysis explored factors influencing patients' decisions, and a narrative method integrated the quantitative and qualitative findings. RESULTS: In total, 100 patients participated (63% were older than 60 years of age). If additional treatment with added toxicity offered no OS advantage, 17% would prefer it for no PFS benefit; 26% for some PFS benefit (range, 3-9 months), whereas 51% would decline it regardless of PFS benefit. Similarly, 71% preferred additional treatment offering a 6-month OS advantage dependent on described toxicity levels (P = .03). A spectrum of reasons for these preferences reflected the complexity of participants' attitudes and values. CONCLUSIONS: Prolongation of time to progression was not universally valued. Most patients did not prefer treatments that negatively affect quality of life for PFS gains alone. Implications for individual decision making, policy, and trials research are discussed.

Listening to the Patient Voice Adds Value to Cancer Clinical Trials.

Randomized clinical trials are critical for evaluating the safety and efficacy of interventions in oncology and informing regulatory decisions, practice guidelines, and health policy. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in randomized trials to reflect the impact of receiving cancer therapies from the patient perspective and can inform evaluations of interventions by providing evidence that cannot be obtained or deduced from clinicians' reports or from other biomedical measures. This commentary focuses on how PROs add value to clinical trials by representing the patient voice. We employed 2 previously published descriptive frameworks (addressing how PROs are used in clinical trials and how PROs have an impact, respectively) and selected 9 clinical trial publications that illustrate the value of PROs according to the framework categories. These include 3 trials where PROs were a primary trial endpoint, 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints supported the primary endpoint, and 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints contrast the primary endpoint findings in clinically important ways. The 9 examples illustrate that PROs add valuable data to the care and treatment context by informing future patients about how they may feel and function on different treatments and by providing clinicians with evidence to support changes to clinical practice and shared decision making. Beyond the patient and clinician, PROs can enable administrators to consider the cost-effectiveness of implementing new interventions and contribute vital information to policy makers, health technology assessors, and regulators. These examples provide a strong case for the wider implementation of PROs in cancer trials.

Clinical research associates experience with missing patient reported outcomes data in cancer randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Missing patient reported outcomes data threaten the validity of PRO-specific findings and conclusions from randomized controlled trials by introducing bias due to data missing not at random. Clinical Research Associates are a largely unexplored source for informing understanding of potential causes of missing PRO data. The purpose of this qualitative research was to describe factors that influence missing PRO data, as revealed through the lived experience of CRAs. METHODS: Maximum variation sampling was used to select CRAs having a range of experiences with missing PRO data from academic or nonacademic centers in different geographic locations of Canada. Semistructured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed according to descriptive phenomenology. RESULTS: Eleven CRAs were interviewed. Analysis revealed several factors that influence missing PRO data that were organized within themes. PROs for routine clinical care compete with PROs for RCTs. Both the paper and electronic formats have benefits and drawbacks. Missing PRO data are influenced by characteristics of the instruments and of the patients. Assessment of PROs at progression of disease is particularly difficult. Deficiencies in center research infrastructure can contribute. CRAs develop relationships with patients that may help reduce missing PRO data. It is not always possible to provide sufficient time to complete the instrument. There is a need for field guidance and a motivation among CRAs to contribute their knowledge to address issues. CONCLUSION: These results enhance understanding of factors influencing missing PRO data and have important implications for designing operational solutions to improve data quality on cancer RCTs.

Application of Value Frameworks to the Design of Clinical Trials: The Canadian Cancer Trials Group Experience.

BACKGROUND: Use of value framework thresholds in the design of clinical trials may increase the proportion of randomized controlled trials that identify clinically meaningful advances for patients. Existing frameworks have not been applied to the research output of a cooperative cancer trials group. We apply value frameworks to the randomized controlled trial output of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG). METHODS: Statistical design, study characteristics, and results of all published phase III trials of CCTG were abstracted. We applied the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) and American Society of Clinical Oncology Net Health Benefit to study results and the statistical power calculations to identify the proportion of all trials that were designed to detect a substantial clinical benefit. RESULTS: During 1979 to 2017, CCTG published 113 phase III trials; 52.2% (59 of 113) of these trials were positive. One-half (50.4%, 57 of 113) of the trials were conducted in the palliative setting. In 37.2% (42 of 113) of trials, the primary endpoint was overall survival; disease-free survival or progression-free survival was used in 38.9% (44 of 113) of trials. The ESMO-MCBS could be applied to the power calculation for 69 trials; 73.9% (51 of 69) of these trials were designed to detect an effect size that could meet ESMO-MCBS thresholds for substantial benefit. Among the 51 positive trials for which the ESMO-MCBS could be applied, 41.1% (21 of 51) met thresholds for substantial benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Most CCTG phase III trials were designed to detect clinically meaningful differences in outcome, although less than one-half of positive trials met the threshold for substantial benefit. Application of value frameworks to the design of clinical trials is practical and may improve research efficiency and treatment options for patients.

Androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer and the risk of bladder cancer: A systematic review of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Recent interest has been geared towards the potential therapeutic and chemopreventive benefit of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for bladder cancer. As a result, several observational studies have investigated this potential association. Given the important side effects associated with ADT treatment, understanding the methodological strengths and weaknesses of the current evidence is warranted. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to examine the heterogeneity of the current observational studies on the association between ADT and bladder cancer by assessing the methodological strengths and limitations of these studies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, EMBASE, Healthstar, Cochrane Library Online, Science Citation Index, and Dissertation Abstracts Online, from inception to August 2019 to identify all observational studies investigating the association between ADT and bladder cancer. We assessed overall study quality using the ROBINS-I tool and evaluated the presence of other key pharmacoepidemiologic biases. RESULTS: Overall, our systematic review included 7 observational studies. Five studies reported a decreased risk of bladder cancer with ADT use, 1 study reported no association, and 1 study reported an increased risk. All studies had time-related biases, did not consider a lag period, and had potential residual confounding. Moreover, 1 study had potential detection bias, 6 included prevalent users, 3 had inadequate follow-up durations, 6 had exposure misclassification, and 5 used an inappropriate comparator. CONCLUSION: Taken together, future methodologically-rigorous studies addressing the limitations underlined in this systematic review are needed to evaluate the important potential association between ADT and bladder cancer.

Promoting effective use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: themes from a "Methods Tool kit" paper series.

OBJECTIVES: "PRO-cision Medicine," using patients' reports of their symptoms, functioning, and well-being to personalize their care, is becoming more prevalent. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are assessed using standardized, validated measures. Research shows that clinicians' and patients' understanding of what the PRO scores mean and how to act on them is often suboptimal. Methods to improve interpretation of PRO scores and action based on PRO results can promote more effective use of PROs in practice. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A recent supplement to Medical Care describes various approaches to address challenges in interpreting and acting on PROs in practice and therefore serves as a "PRO-cision Medicine Methods Tool kit." This commentary provides an overview of the supplement and identifies cross-cutting themes guided by a theoretical framework. RESULTS: Six papers describe methods for interpreting PROs, and eight papers describe how different PRO systems address interpreting PRO scores and/or acting on PRO results. Based on the theoretical framework, cross-cutting themes are described in terms of (1) providing PRO information, (2) using PRO data, (3) screening for problems and monitoring for changes, and (4) changing management and behavior. CONCLUSIONS: The PRO-cision Medicine Methods Tool kit provides a useful resource for interpreting and acting on PRO scores to personalize patient care.

Cancer care workforce in Africa: perspectives from a global survey.

BACKGROUND: While the burden of cancer in Africa is rapidly rising, there is a lack of investment in healthcare professionals to deliver care. Here we report the results of a survey of systemic therapy workload of oncologists in Africa in comparison to oncologists in other countries. METHODS: An online survey was distributed through a snowball method via national oncology societies to chemotherapy-prescribing physicians in 65 countries. The survey was distributed within Africa through a network of physicians associated with the African Organisation for Research and Training in Cancer (AORTIC). Workload was measured as the annual number of new cancer patient consults seen per oncologist. Job satisfaction was ranked on a 10-point Likert scale; scores of 9-10 were considered to represent high job satisfaction. RESULTS: Thirty-six oncologists from 18 countries in Africa and 1079 oncologists from 47 other countries completed the survey. Compared to oncologists from other countries, African oncologists were older (median age 51 vs 44 years, p = 0.007), more likely to prescribe chemotherapy and radiation [61% (22/36) vs 10% (108/1079), p < 0.001], less likely to have completed training in their home country [50% (18/36) vs 91% (979/1079), p < 0.001], and more likely to work in the private sector [47% (17/36) vs 34% (364/1079), p = 0.037]. The median number of annual consults per oncologist was 325 in Africa compared to175 in other countries. The proportion of oncologists seeing > 500 consults/year was 31% (11/36) in Africa compared to 12% (129/1079) in other countries (p = 0.001). African oncologists were more likely than global colleagues to see all cancer sites [72% (26/26) vs 24% (261/1079), p < 0.001]. Oncologists in Africa were less likely than other oncologists to have high job satisfaction [17% (6/36) vs 30% (314/1079), p = 0.013]. CONCLUSION: African oncologists within the AORTIC network have a substantially higher clinical workload and lower job satisfaction than oncologists elsewhere in the world. There is an urgent need for governments and health systems to improve the oncologist-to-patient ratio and develop new models of capacity building, retention and skills enhancement to strengthen the wide variety of cancer care systems across continental Africa.

Medical oncology job satisfaction: Results of a global survey.

BACKGROUND: While physician burnout is increasingly recognized, little is known about medical oncologist job satisfaction, and the factors associated with low satisfaction. Here, we report the results of an international survey of medical oncologists. METHODS: An online survey was distributed using a modified snowball methodology via national oncology societies to chemotherapy-prescribing physicians in 65 countries. Oncologist job satisfaction was assessed by asking, "On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate your satisfaction as an oncologist? 1 = unsatisfying, 10 = satisfying." Low, moderate and high job satisfaction was defined as scores of 1-6, 7-8, and 9-10, respectively. RESULTS: 1,115 physicians from 42 countries completed the survey. Overall job satisfaction rates were 20% (222/1,115), 51% (573/1,115), and 29% (320/1,115) for low-, moderate-, and high-satisfaction, respectively. Respondents with low job satisfaction were younger (P = 0.001) and had fewer years in clinical practice (P = 0.013) compared to those with high satisfaction. Increasing hours worked by per week (p = 0.042), decreasing annual weeks of paid vacation (P = 0.007), being on-call every night (P = 0.016), higher clinic volumes (P = 0.004) and lack of access to on-site radiotherapy (P = 0.049), palliative care (P = 0.005), and chemotherapy pharmacists (P = 0.033) were associated with low-job satisfaction. Respondents with low-job satisfaction were less likely to discuss prognosis with their patients compared to those with moderate or high job satisfaction (median 45% of patients v 65% v 75%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Globally, 1 in 5 medical oncologists report low job satisfaction. The main correlates of job satisfaction are related to system-level pressures resulting in less time for quality patient care and personal resilience. Improving oncologist job satisfaction will require new approaches to models of care delivery.

Quality of Life From Canadian Cancer Trials Group MA.17R: A Randomized Trial of Extending Adjuvant Letrozole to 10 Years.

Purpose MA.17R was a Canadian Cancer Trials Group-led phase III randomized controlled trial comparing letrozole to placebo after 5 years of aromatase inhibitor as adjuvant therapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Quality of life (QOL) was a secondary outcome measure of the study, and here, we report the results of these analyses. Methods QOL was measured using the Short Form-36 (SF-36; two summary scores and eight domains) and menopause-specific QOL (MENQOL; four symptom domains) at baseline and every 12 months up to 60 months. QOL assessment was mandatory for Canadian Cancer Trials Group centers but optional for centers in other groups. Mean change scores from baseline were calculated. Results One thousand nine hundred eighteen women were randomly assigned, and 1,428 women completed the baseline QOL assessment. Compliance with QOL measures was > 85%. Baseline summary scores for the SF-36 physical component summary (47.5 for letrozole and 47.9 for placebo) and mental component summary (55.5 for letrozole and 54.8 for placebo) were close to the population norms of 50. No differences were seen between groups in mean change scores for the SF-36 physical and mental component summaries and the other eight QOL domains except for the role-physical subscale. No difference was found in any of the four domains of the MENQOL Conclusion No clinically significant differences were seen in overall QOL measured by the SF-36 summary measures and MENQOL between the letrozole and placebo groups. The data indicate that continuation of aromatase inhibitor therapy after 5 years of prior treatment in the trial population was not associated with a deterioration of overall QOL.

Delivery of Global Cancer Care: An International Study of Medical Oncology Workload.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, there is no literature that has described medical oncology (MO) workload in the global context. Here, we report results of an international study of global MO workload. METHODS: An online survey was distributed through a snowball method via national oncology societies to chemotherapy-prescribing physicians in 65 countries. Countries were classified into low- or low-middle-income countries (LMICs), upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), and high-income countries (HICs) on the basis of World Bank criteria. Workload was measured as the annual number of new consultations provided to patients with cancer per oncologist. RESULTS: A total of 1,115 physicians completed the survey: 13% (147 of 1,115) from LMICs, 17% (186 of 1,115) from UMICs, and 70% (782 of 1,115) from HICs. Eighty percent (897 of 1,115) of respondents were medical oncologists, 10% (109 of 1,115) were clinical oncologists, and 10% (109 of 1,115) were other. The median number of annual consults per oncologist was 175 (interquartile range, 75 to 275); 13% (140 of 1,103) saw ≥ 500 new patients in a year. Annual case volume in LMICs (median consults, 425; 40% of respondents seeing > 500 consults) was substantially higher than in UMICs (median consults, 175; 14% > 500) and HICs (median consults, 175; 7% > 500; P < .001). Among LMICs, UMICs, and HICs, median working days per week were 6, 5, and 5, respectively ( P < .001). The highest annual case volumes per oncologist were in Pakistan (median consults, 950; 73% > 500 consults), India (median consults, 475; 43% > 500), and Turkey (median consults, 475; 27% > 500). CONCLUSION: There is substantial global variation in medical oncology case volumes and clinical workload; this is most striking among LMICs, where huge deficits exist. Additional work is needed, particularly detailed country-level mapping, to quantify activity-based global MO practice and workload to inform training needs and the design of new pathways and models of care.

"I sleep better at night:" How peer review of radiation treatment plans indirectly improves quality of care across radiation treatment programs.

PURPOSE: Peer review of radiation oncology treatment plans is increasingly recognized as an important component of quality assurance in radiation treatment planning and delivery. Peer review of treatment plans can directly improve the quality of those plans and can also have indirect effects on radiation treatment programs. We undertook a systematic, qualitative approach to describing the indirect benefits of peer review, factors that were seen to facilitate or act as barriers to the implementation of peer review, and strategies to address these barriers across a provincial jurisdiction of radiation oncology programs (ROPs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Semistructured qualitative interviews were held with radiation oncology department heads and radiation therapy managers (or delegates) in all 14 ROPs in Ontario, Canada. We used a theoretically guided phenomenological qualitative approach to design and analyze the interview content. Themes were recorded by 2 independent reviewers, and any discordance was resolved by consensus. RESULTS: A total of 28 interviews were completed with 32 interviewees. Twenty-two unique themes addressed perceived benefits of peer review, relating to either peer review structure (n = 3), process (n = 9), or outcome (n = 10). Of these 22 themes, 19 related to indirect benefits to ROPs. In addition, 18 themes related to factors that facilitated peer review activities and 30 themes related to key barriers to implementing peer review were identified. Findings were consistent with, and enhanced the understanding of, previous survey-based assessments of the benefits and challenges of implementing peer review programs. CONCLUSIONS: Although challenges and concerns regarding the implementation of peer review were evident, the indirect benefits to radiation programs are numerous, far outweigh the implementation challenges, and strongly complement the direct individual-patient benefits that result from peer review quality assurance of radiation treatment plans.

Quality of life with cediranib in relapsed ovarian cancer: The ICON6 phase 3 randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The ICON6 trial showed that cediranib, an oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, improved clinical outcomes for patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer when it was used with chemotherapy and was continued as maintenance therapy. This study describes health-related quality of life (QOL) during the first year of treatment. METHODS: Four hundred fifty-six women were randomly allocated to receive standard chemotherapy only, chemotherapy with concurrent cediranib, or chemotherapy with cediranib administered concurrently and continued as maintenance. Patients completed QOL questionnaires until disease progression every 3 weeks during chemotherapy and then every 6 weeks to 1 year. Patients alive with disease progression completed a QOL form 1 year after randomization. The primary QOL endpoint was the global score from the Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer) at 1 year, with the standard chemotherapy group compared with the concurrent-maintenance cediranib group. RESULTS: The rate of questionnaire compliance was 90% at the baseline and 76% at 1 year and was similar across the 3 groups. The mean global QOL score at 1 year was 62.6 points for the standard chemotherapy group and 68.7 points for the concurrent-maintenance group (+4.5; 95% confidence interval, -2.0 to 11.0; P = .18). Sensitivity analyses suggested that this finding was robust to the effect of missing data, and the improvement became statistically significant after adjustments for self-reported diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: The 6th study by the International Collaboration in Ovarian Neoplasm (ICON6) showed a significant improvement in progression-free survival with cediranib as concurrent and maintenance therapy. No QOL detriment with cediranib was found 1 year after treatment was commenced. The maintenance of QOL along with prolonged cancer control suggests that cediranib has a valuable role in the treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer. Cancer 2017;123:2752-61. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Directly Improving the Quality of Radiation Treatment Through Peer Review: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Cancer Centers Across a Provincial Cancer Program.

PURPOSE: To describe the outcomes of peer review across all 14 cancer centers in Ontario. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified all peer-reviewed, curative treatment plans delivered in Ontario within a 3-month study period from 2013 to 2014 using a provincial cancer treatment database and collected additional data on the peer-review outcomes. RESULTS: Considerable variation was found in the proportion of peer-reviewed plans across the centers (average 70.2%, range 40.8%-99.2%). During the study period, 5561 curative plans underwent peer review. Of those, 184 plans (3.3%) had changes recommended. Of the 184 plans, the changes were major (defined as requiring repeat planning or having a major effect on planning or clinical outcomes, or both) in 40.2% and minor in 47.8%. For the remaining 12.0%, data were missing. The proportions of recommended changes varied among disease sites (0.0%-7.0%). The disease sites with the most recommended changes to treatment plans after peer review and with the greatest potential for benefit were the esophagus (7.0%), uterus (6.7%), upper limb (6.3%), cervix and lower limb (both 6.0%), head and neck and bilateral lung (both 5.9%), right supraclavicular lymph nodes (5.7%), rectum (5.3%), and spine (5.0%). Although the heart is an organ at risk in left-sided breast treatment plans, the proportions of recommended changes did not significantly differ between the left breast treatment plans (3.0%, 95% confidence interval 2.0%-4.5%) and right breast treatment plans (2.4%, 95% confidence interval 1.5%-3.8%). The recommended changes were more frequently made when peer review occurred before radiation therapy (3.8%) than during treatment (1.4%-2.8%; P=.0048). The proportion of plans with recommended changes was not significantly associated with patient volume (P=.23), peer-review performance (P=.36), or center academic status (P=.75). CONCLUSIONS: Peer review of treatment plans directly affects the quality of care by identifying important clinical and planning changes. Provincial strategies are underway to optimize its conduct in radiation oncology.

What do these scores mean? Presenting patient-reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (eg, symptoms, functioning) can inform patient management. However, patients and clinicians often have difficulty interpreting score meaning. The authors tested approaches for presenting PRO data to improve interpretability. METHODS: This mixed-methods study included an Internet survey of cancer patients/survivors, oncology clinicians, and PRO researchers circulated via snowball sampling, plus individual in-person interviews. Clinical importance was conveyed using 3 approaches (presented in random order): normal score range shaded green, concerning scores circled in red, and red threshold lines indicating normal versus concerning scores. Versions also tested 2 approaches to score directionality: higher = more (better for function, worse for symptoms) and higher = better for both function and symptoms. Qualitative data from online comments and in-person interviews supplemented quantitative results on interpretation accuracy, clarity, and the "most useful" format. RESULTS: The survey included 1113 respondents: 627 survivors, 236 clinicians, and 250 researchers, plus 10 patients and 10 clinicians who were purposively sampled interviewees. Interpretation accuracy ranged from 53% to 100%. The formats in which higher = better were interpreted more accurately versus those in which higher = more (odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.58) and were more likely to be rated "very"/"somewhat" clear (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70) and "very" clear (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.18-1.58). Red circle formats were interpreted more accurately than green-shaded formats when the first format presented (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.00-1.65). Threshold-line formats were more likely to be rated "very" clear than green-shaded (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.19-1.71) and red-circled (OR, 1.22, 95% CI, 1.02-1.46) formats. Threshold lines were most often selected as "most useful." CONCLUSIONS: The current results support presenting PRO data with higher = better directionality and threshold lines indicating normal versus concerning scores. Cancer 2017;123:1848-1859. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published byWiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations aremade.

Engaging stakeholders to improve presentation of patient-reported outcomes data in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can promote patient-centered care, but previous research has documented interpretation challenges among clinicians and patients. We engaged stakeholders to improve formats for presenting individual-level PRO data (for patient monitoring) and group-level PRO data (for reporting comparative clinical studies). METHODS: In an iterative process, investigators partnered with stakeholder workgroups of clinicians and patients to address previously identified interpretation challenges. Candidate approaches were then tested in semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with cancer patients and clinicians. Interpretation issues addressed included conveying score meaning (i.e., what is good/bad) and directional inconsistency (whether higher scores are better/worse). An additional issue for individual-level PROs was highlighting potentially concerning scores and, for group-level PROs, identifying important between-group differences (clinical, statistical). RESULTS: One-on-one interviews in a purposive sample of clinicians (n = 40) and patients (n = 39) provided insights regarding approaches to address issues identified. For example, adding descriptive labels to the Y-axis (none, mild, moderate, severe) helps address directional inconsistency and aids interpretation of score meaning. Red circles around concerning data points or a threshold line indicating worse-than-normal scores indicate possibly concerning scores for individual-level PRO data. For group-level PRO data, patients and some clinicians are confused by confidence limits and clinical versus statistical significance, but almost all clinicians want p values displayed. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in interpretation accuracy demonstrate the importance of presenting PRO data in ways that promote understanding and use. In an iterative stakeholder-driven process, we developed improved PRO data presentation formats, which will be evaluated in further research across a large population of patients and clinicians.

A pan-Canadian survey of peer review practices in radiation oncology.

PURPOSE: Peer review (PR) of treatment plans has been recognized internationally as a key component of quality care in radiation oncology programs (ROPs). We conducted a survey of Canadian ROPs to describe current PR practices and identify barriers/facilitators to PR optimization. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 42-item e-survey was sent to all Canadian ROPs (n = 44). Survey development was guided by expert consensus, literature review, and existing guidelines. One multidisciplinary response per ROP was requested. RESULTS: Response rate was 100.0% (44/44). All ROPs (100.0%) reported conducting some PR and rated its importance as 7/10 or higher (10 = extremely important). One-half of ROPs (52.3%) peer-reviewed >80% of curative treatment plans. ROPs reported performing PR "always/almost always" pretreatment (38.6%) or before 25% of radiation therapy delivery (52.3%). The majority of ROPs reported recommending major plan changes in <5% of plans (88.6%) and documenting findings in the medical record (58.1%). Barriers to PR were radiation oncologist availability (34.1%) and time constraints (27.3%). Facilitators included development of PR standards (97.7%) and education/support (90.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The ROPs perceive PR as highly important, but substantial variation in the extent, timing, and documentation of PR exists. The understanding of current PR activities, barriers, and facilitators will inform the development of initiatives to optimize PR in radiation oncology.

What Aspects of Personal Care Are Most Important to Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer?

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: The overall quality of patient care is a function of the quality of both its technical and its nontechnical components. The purpose of this study was to identify the elements of nontechnical (personal) care that are most important to patients undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed the literature and interviewed patients and health professionals to identify elements of personal care pertinent to patients undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer. We identified 143 individual elements relating to 10 aspects of personal care. Patients undergoing radical radiation therapy for prostate cancer completed a self-administered questionnaire in which they rated the importance of each element. The overall importance of each element was measured by the percentage of respondents who rated it as "very important." The importance of each aspect of personal care was measured by the mean importance of its elements. RESULTS: One hundred eight patients completed the questionnaire. The percentage of patients who rated each element "very important" ranged from 7% to 95% (mean 61%). The mean importance rating of the elements of each aspect of care varied significantly: "perceived competence of caregivers," 80%; "empathy and respectfulness of caregivers," 67%; "adequacy of information sharing," 67%; "patient centeredness," 59%; "accessibility of caregivers," 57%; "continuity of care," 51%; "privacy," 51%; "convenience," 45%; "comprehensiveness of services," 44%; and "treatment environment," 30% (P<.0001). Neither age nor education was associated with importance ratings, but the patient's health status was associated with the rating of some elements of care. CONCLUSIONS: Many different elements of personal care are important to patients undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer, but the 3 aspects of care that most believe are most important are these: the perceived competence of their caregivers, the empathy and respectfulness of their caregivers, and the adequacy of information sharing.

Cancer Care Professionals' Attitudes Toward Systematic Standardized Symptom Assessment and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System After Large-Scale Population-Based Implementation in Ontario, Canada.

CONTEXT: Cancer patients experience a high symptom burden throughout their illness. Despite this, patients' symptoms and needs are often not adequately screened for, assessed, and managed. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the attitudes of cancer care professionals toward standardized systematic symptom assessment and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and their self-reported use of the instrument in daily practice in a large healthcare jurisdiction where this is routine. METHODS: A 21-item electronic survey, eliciting both closed and open-ended anonymous responses, was distributed to all 2806 cancer care professionals from four major provider groups: physicians, nurses, radiotherapists, and psychosocial oncology (PSO) staff at the 14 Regional Cancer Centres across Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: A total of 1065 questionnaires were returned (response rate: 38%); 960 were eligible for analysis. Most respondents (88%) considered symptom management to be within their scope of practice. Sixty-six percent of physicians considered the use of standardized tools to screen for symptoms as "best practice," compared to 81% and 93% of nurses and PSO staff, respectively. Sixty-seven percent of physicians and 85% of nurses found the ESAS to be a useful starting point to assess patients' symptoms. Seventy-nine percent of physicians looked at their patient's ESAS scores at visits either "always" or "often," compared to 29%, 66%, and 89% of radiotherapists, PSO staff, and nurses, respectively. Several areas for improvement of ESAS use and symptom screening were identified. CONCLUSION: Findings show significant albeit variable uptake across disciplines in the use of the ESAS since program initiation. Several barriers to using the ESAS in daily practice were identified. These need to be addressed.

Graphical displays of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for use in clinical practice: What makes a pro picture worth a thousand words?

UNLABELLED: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) report patients' assessments of the impact of a health condition and its treatment, and can promote patient-centered care. OBJECTIVES: To address the effectiveness of graphic display of PRO data in clinical practice by reviewing existing literature, and current recommendations, regarding graphic presentations of PROs. METHODS: We performed an integrated literature review to identify themes and emerging principles guiding effective graphic display of PRO data. The findings were placed in the context of the literature informing graphical presentation of other clinical data. RESULTS: Although a large body of literature informs graphical presentation of clinical data, only nine empirical studies addressed presentation of PROs. Four major themes emerged: many patients and most clinicians can accurately interpret some PRO graphs; interpretation accuracy, personal preference, and perceived level of understanding are sometimes discordant; patient age and education may predict PRO graph comprehension; patients tend to prefer simpler graphs than do clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Little empirical research specifically addresses graphic representation of PRO data. A single format may not work optimally for both clinicians and patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patients and clinicians may or may not comprehend PRO data when graphically presented. Further research to determine best practices for presenting PROs optimally is needed.