A pre-implementation examination of barriers and facilitators of an electronic prospective surveillance model for cancer rehabilitation: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: An electronic Prospective Surveillance Model (ePSM) uses patient-reported outcomes to monitor symptoms along the cancer pathway for timely identification and treatment. Randomized controlled trials show that ePSMs can effectively manage treatment-related adverse effects. However, an understanding of optimal approaches for implementing these systems into routine cancer care is limited. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators prior to the implementation of an ePSM to inform the selection of implementation strategies. METHODS: A qualitative study using virtual focus groups and individual interviews was conducted with cancer survivors, oncology healthcare providers, and clinic leadership across four cancer centres in Canada. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided the interviews and analysis of barriers and facilitators based on five domains (intervention characteristics, individual characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, and process). RESULTS: We conducted 13 focus groups and nine individual interviews with 13 patient participants and 56 clinic staff. Of the 39 CFIR constructs, 18 were identified as relevant determinants to the implementation. The adaptability, relative advantage, and complexity of an ePSM emerged as key intervention-level factors that could influence implementation. Knowledge of the system was important at the individual level. Within the inner setting, major determinants were the potential fit of an ePSM with clinical workflows (compatibility) and the resources that could be dedicated to the implementation effort (readiness for implementation). In the outer setting, meeting the needs of patients and the availability of rehabilitation supports were key determinants. Engaging various stakeholders was critical at the process level. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the implementation of ePSMs in routine cancer care has the potential to facilitate early identification and management of treatment-related adverse effects, thereby improving quality of life. This study provides insight into important factors that may influence the implementation of an ePSM, which can be used to select appropriate implementation strategies to address these factors.

Implementation of electronic prospective surveillance models in cancer care: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Electronic prospective surveillance models (ePSMs) for cancer rehabilitation include routine monitoring of the development of treatment toxicities and impairments via electronic patient-reported outcomes. Implementing ePSMs to address the knowledge-to-practice gap between the high incidence of impairments and low uptake of rehabilitation services is a top priority in cancer care. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to understand the state of the evidence concerning the implementation of ePSMs in oncology. Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2021. All articles were screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. Data regarding the implementation strategies, outcomes, and determinants were extracted. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy and the implementation outcomes taxonomy guided the synthesis of the implementation strategies and outcomes, respectively. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided the synthesis of determinants based on five domains (intervention characteristics, individual characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, and process). RESULTS: Of the 5122 records identified, 46 interventions met inclusion criteria. The common implementation strategies employed were "conduct educational meetings," "distribute educational materials," "change record systems," and "intervene with patients to enhance uptake and adherence." Feasibility and acceptability were the prominent outcomes used to assess implementation. The complexity, relative advantage, design quality, and packaging were major implementation determinants at the intervention level. Knowledge was key at the individual level. At the inner setting level, major determinants were the implementation climate and readiness for implementation. At the outer setting level, meeting the needs of patients was the primary determinant. Engaging various stakeholders was key at the process level. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive summary of what is known concerning the implementation of ePSMs. The results can inform future implementation and evaluation of ePSMs, including planning for key determinants, selecting implementation strategies, and considering outcomes alongside local contextual factors to guide the implementation process.

Use of radiation therapy among patients with Extensive-stage Small-cell lung cancer receiving Immunotherapy: Canadian consensus recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: Thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) and prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) are commonly used in the management of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC); however, Phase III trials of first-line immunotherapy often excluded these options. Guidance is needed regarding appropriate use of TRT, PCI, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance while new data are awaited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In two web-based meetings, a pan-Canadian expert working group of five radiation oncologists and four medical oncologists addressed eight clinical questions regarding use of radiation therapy (RT) and MRI surveillance among patients with ES-SCLC receiving immunotherapy. A targeted literature review was conducted using PubMed and conference proceedings to identify recent (January 2019-April 2022) publications in this setting. Fifteen recommendations were developed; online voting was conducted to gauge agreement with each recommendation. RESULTS: After considering recently available evidence across lung cancer populations and clinical experience, the experts recommended that all patients with a response to chemo-immunotherapy, good performance status (PS), and limited metastases be considered for consolidation TRT (e.g., 30 Gy in 10 fractions). When considered appropriate after multidisciplinary team discussion, TRT can be initiated during maintenance immunotherapy. All patients who respond to concurrent chemo-immunotherapy should undergo restaging with brain MRI to guide decision-making regarding PCI versus MRI surveillance alone. MRI surveillance should be conducted for two years after response to initial therapy. PCI (e.g., 25 Gy in 10 fractions or 20 Gy in 5 fractions) can be considered for patients without central nervous system involvement who have a response to chemo-immunotherapy and good PS. Concurrent treatment with PCI and immunotherapy or with TRT, PCI, and immunotherapy is appropriate after completion of initial therapy. All recommendations were agreed upon unanimously. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus recommendations provide practical guidance regarding appropriate use of RT and immunotherapy in ES-SCLC while awaiting new clinical trial data.

Pan-Canadian consensus recommendations for proton beam therapy access in Canada.

PURPOSE: Proton Beam Therapy (PBT)is a treatment option for select cancer patients. It is currently not available in Canada. Assessment and referral processes for out-of-country treatment for eligible patients vary by jurisdiction, leading to variability in access to this treatment for Canadian cancer patients. The purpose of this initiative was to develop a framework document to inform consistent and equitable PBT access for appropriate patients through the creation of pan-Canadian PBT access consensus recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A modified Delphiprocess was used to develop pan-Canadian recommendations with input from 22 PBT clinical and administrative experts across all provinces, external peer-review by provincial cancer and system partners, and feedback from a targeted community consultation. This was conducted by electronic survey and live discussion. Consensus threshold was set at 70% agreement. RESULTS: Fourconsensus rounds resulted in a final set of 27 recommendations divided into three categories: patient eligibility (n = 9); program level (n = 10); and system level (n = 8). Patient eligibility included: anatomic site (n = 4), patient characteristics (n = 3), clinical efficacy (n = 2). Program level included: regulatory and staff requirements (n = 5), equipment and technologies (n = 4), quality assurance (n = 1). System level included: referral process (n = 5), costing, budget impact and quality adjusted life years (n = 2), eligible patient estimates (n = 1). Recommendations were released nationally in June 2021 and distributed to all 43 cancer programs in Canada. CONCLUSION: A pan-Canadian consensus-building approach was successful in creating an evidence-based, peer-reviewed suite of recommendations thatsupportapplication of consistent clinical criteria to inform treatment options, facility set-up and access to high quality proton therapy.

Reducing Wait Time for Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment: Impact of a Multidisciplinary, Centralized Referral Program.

BACKGROUND: A multidisciplinary, centralized referral program was established at our institution in 2014 to reduce delays in lung cancer diagnosis and treatment following diagnostic imaging observed with the traditional, primary care provider-led referral process. The main objectives of this retrospective cohort study were to determine if referral to a Thoracic Triage Panel (TTP): 1) expedites lung cancer diagnosis and treatment initiation; and 2) leads to more appropriate specialist consultation. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of lung cancer and initial diagnostic imaging between March 1, 2015, and February 29, 2016, at a Memorial University-affiliated tertiary care centre in St John's, Newfoundland, were identified and grouped according to whether they were referred to the TTP or managed through a traditional referral process. Wait times (in days) from first abnormal imaging to biopsy and treatment initiation were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: A total of 133 patients who met inclusion criteria were identified. Seventy-nine patients were referred to the TTP and 54 were managed by traditional means. There was a statistically significant reduction in median wait times for patients referred to the TTP. Wait time from first abnormal imaging to biopsy decreased from 61.5 to 36.0 days (P < .0001). Wait time from first abnormal imaging to treatment initiation decreased from 118.0 to 80.0 days (P < .001). The percentage of specialist consultations that led to treatment was also greater for patients referred to the TTP. CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative, centralized intake and referral program helps to reduce wait time for diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer.

Effect of re-irradiation for painful bone metastases on urinary markers of osteoclast activity (NCIC CTG SC.20U).

PURPOSE: The NCIC CTG Symptom Control.20 randomized trial (SC.20) confirmed the effectiveness of re-irradiation to painful bone metastases. This companion study correlates urinary markers of osteoclast activity with response to re-irradiation, survival and skeletal related events (SREs). METHODS: Pain response was assessed using the International Consensus Endpoints. Urinary markers of bone turnover-pyridinoline (PYD), deoxypyridinoline (DPD), N-telopeptide (NTX), Alpha and Beta cross-laps of C-telopeptide (CTX)-before and 1month after re-irradiation were correlated to response to re-irradiation and then to both, either or none of the initial and re-irradiation: frequent responders (response to both); eventual responders (response to re-irradiation only); eventual non-responders (response to initial radiation only), and absolute non-responders (no response to both). RESULTS: Significant differences between 40 responders and 69 non-responders to re-irradiation existed for PYD (p=0.03) and DPD (p=0.04) at baseline. When patients were categorized as frequent responders (N=34), eventual responders (6), eventual non-responders (59) and absolute non-responders (10), the mean values of all markers in the absolute non-responders at baseline and the follow-up were about double those for the other three groups with statistically significant difference for DPD (p=0.03) at baseline. Absolute non-responders had the worst survival. The few occurrences of the SREs did not allow meaningful comparisons among the groups. CONCLUSION: There were significant differences between responders and non-responders to re-irradiation for PYD and DPD at baseline. The urinary markers in the absolute non-responders were markedly elevated at both baseline and follow-up with a statistically significant difference for DPD at baseline.

Phase II study of accelerated hypofractionated three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for stage T1-3 N0 M0 non-small cell lung cancer: NCIC CTG BR.25.

BACKGROUND: A multi-institutional phase II trial was performed to assess a hypofractionated accelerated radiotherapy regimen for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in an era when stereotactic body radiotherapy was not widely available. METHODS: Eighty patients with biopsy-proven, peripherally located, T1-3 N0 M0 NSCLC were enrolled. Eligible patients received 60 Gy in 15 fractions using a three-dimensional conformal technique without inhomogeneity correction. The gross tumour volume (GTV) was the primary tumor only, and the planning target volume (PTV) margin was 1.0 to 1.5cm. The primary endpoint was the 2-year primary tumor control rate. Toxicities were measured using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. RESULTS: The median follow-up of patients was 49 months (range = 21-63 months). The median age of patients was 75.9 years. The actuarial rate of primary tumor control was 87.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 76.2% to 93.5%) at 2 years. Overall survival was 68.7% (95% CI = 57.2% to 77.6%) at 2 years. The actuarial rates of developing regional and distant relapse at 2 years were 8.8% (95% CI = 4.1% to 18.7%) and 21.6% (95% CI = 13.5% to 33.5%), respectively. Tumor size greater than 3cm was associated with an increased risk of developing distant relapse (hazard ratio = 3.11; 95% CI = 1.30 to 7.42; two-sided log-rank test P = .007). The most common grade 3+ toxicities were fatigue (6.3%), cough (7.5%), dyspnea (13.8%), and pneumonitis (10.0%) CONCLUSIONS: Conformal radiotherapy to a dose of 60 Gy in 15 fractions resulted in favorable primary tumor control and overall survival rates in patients with T1-3 N0 M0 NSCLC. Severe toxicities were uncommon with this relatively simple treatment technique.

Intensity-modulated arc therapy simplified.

PURPOSE: We present a treatment planning strategy for intensity-modulated radiation therapy using gantry arcs with dynamic multileaf collimator, previously termed intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The planning strategy is an extension of the photon bar arc and asymmetric arc techniques and is classified into three levels of complexity, with increasing number of gantry arcs. This principle allows us to generalize the analysis of the number of arcs required for intensity modulation for a given treatment site. Using a phantom, we illustrate how the current technique is more flexible than the photon bar arc technique. We then compare plans from our strategy with conventional three-dimensional conformal treatment plans for three sites: prostate (prostate plus seminal vesicles), posterior pharyngeal wall, and chest wall. RESULTS: Our strategy generates superior IMAT treatment plans compared to conventional three-dimensional conformal plans. The IMAT plans spare critical organs well, and the trade-off for simplicity is that the dose uniformity in the target volume may not rival that of true inverse treatment plans. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses presented in this paper give a better understanding of IMAT plans. Our strategy is easier to understand and more efficient in generating plans than inverse planning systems; our plans are also simpler to modify, and quality assurance is more intuitive.