Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for peritoneal mesothelioma: Canadian practices and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Peritoneal mesothelioma (PM) is a rare malignancy originating from the peritoneal lining. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is the standard-of-care for patients with isolated PM. Due to a paucity of prospective data there are several different HIPEC protocols. The aims of this study are to describe the CRS and HIPEC protocols for PM and patient outcomes across Canada. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was performed on patients diagnosed and treated for PM with CRS and HIPEC in four major peritoneal disease centers in Canada between 2000 and 2021. Data on patient characteristics, treatment patterns, postoperative morbidity, recurrence, and survival were collected. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients were identified. Mean age was 52 years (17-75) and 37.5% were male. Epithelioid (70.1%) and multicystic (13%) mesothelioma were the most common subtypes. Twenty-one patients (30%) were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CRS and HIPEC was performed in 64 patients (91.4%). Of these, the mean PCI was 22 (2-39) and cisplatin+doxorubicin was the most common HIPEC regimen (n = 33, 51.6%). A semi-closed coliseum technique was used in 68.8% of HIPECs and the mean duration of surgery was 486 min (90-1052). Clavien-Dindo III or IV complications occurred in 12 patients (16.9%). With a median follow-up of 24 months (0.2-104.4), we found a 5-year overall survival of 61% and a 5-year recurrence-free survival of 35%. CONCLUSION: CRS and HIPEC is a safe and effective treatment modality for well-selected patients with PM, with some achieving prolonged survival.

Tranexamic acid versus placebo to reduce perioperative blood transfusion in patients undergoing liver resection: protocol for the haemorrhage during liver resection tranexamic acid (HeLiX) randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Despite use of operative and non-operative interventions to reduce blood loss during liver resection, 20%-40% of patients receive a perioperative blood transfusion. Extensive intraoperative blood loss is a major risk factor for postoperative morbidity and mortality and receipt of blood transfusion is associated with serious risks including an association with long-term cancer recurrence and overall survival. In addition, blood products are scarce and associated with appreciable expense; decreasing blood transfusion requirements would therefore have health system benefits. Tranexamic acid (TXA), an antifibrinolytic, has been shown to reduce the probability of receiving a blood transfusion by one-third for patients undergoing cardiac or orthopaedic surgery. However, its applicability in liver resection has not been widely researched. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes a prospective, blinded, randomised controlled trial being conducted at 10 sites in Canada and 1 in the USA. 1230 eligible and consenting participants will be randomised to one of two parallel groups: experimental (2 g of intravenous TXA) or placebo (saline) administered intraoperatively. The primary endpoint is receipt of blood transfusion within 7 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes include blood loss, postoperative complications, quality of life and 5-year disease-free and overall survival. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the research ethics boards at participating centres and Health Canada (parent control number 177992) and is currently enrolling participants. All participants will provide written informed consent. Results will be distributed widely through local and international meetings, presentation, publication and ClinicalTrials.gov. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02261415.

Morbid Obesity and Severe Knee Osteoarthritis: Which Should Be Treated First?

BACKGROUND: There are limited prospective data, and conflicting retrospective data, providing guidance on how to optimally manage patients with morbid obesity and severe knee osteoarthritis. This study sought to review the effect of bariatric surgery on knee pain and knee surgery 30-day outcomes, as well as assess whether the sequence of bariatric and knee surgery has any effect on 30-day complications. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) from July 2006 to July 2016 at a university hospital was performed. Patients with knee pain or knee surgery (pre- or post-LSG) were identified using bariatric and orthopedic clinic notes. Those who had improvement in knee pain following LSG resulting in removal from orthopedic surgery waitlist were identified. We also assessed surgical outcomes in patients undergoing knee arthroscopy or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) followed by LSG compared to patients undergoing LSG followed by knee arthroscopy or TKA. RESULTS: During our study timeframe, 355 patients underwent LSG. Knee pain was documented in 150 (42.2%) patients, and orthopedic surgery consultation was completed for 57 (38.0%) patients with knee pain. Orthopedic intervention was performed prior to LSG for 24 patients and after LSG for 27 patients. Procedures were a combination of arthroscopy (18) and TKA (33). Six patients were removed from the waitlist for TKA following LSG due to resolution of symptoms. Order of interventions did not affect 30-day complications for patients undergoing LSG and arthroscopy (16% arthroscopy first, 0% LSG first, p = 0.43). A higher rate of LSG complications was noted in patients who underwent TKA prior to LSG (25% vs 0%, p = 0.04). There were no differences in TKA complications (8.3% TKA first, 4.8% LSG first, p = 1.00). CONCLUSION: In a small number of patients with morbid obesity and severe knee osteoarthritis, orthopedic intervention can be delayed and potentially avoided by undergoing LSG. In our study, 6/57 (10.5%) of patients with orthopedic consultation prior to LSG saw resolution of symptoms of knee pain. Referral to bariatric surgery should be considered for patients with morbid obesity and severe knee osteoarthritis.

A framework for role allocation in education, research and leadership services in Canadian academic divisions of general surgery: a modified Delphi consensus.

BACKGROUND: Moving toward a funding standard similar to that for clinical services for roles essential to the functioning of education, research and leadership services within divisions of general surgery is necessary to strengthen divisional resilience. We aimed to identify roles and underlying tasks in these services central to sustainable functioning of Canadian academic divisions of general surgery. METHODS: Between June 2018 and October 2020, we used a 4-step modified Delphi method (online survey, face-to-face nominal group technique [n = 12], semistructured telephone interview [n = 8] and nominal group technique [n = 12]) to achieve national consensus from an expert panel of all 17 heads of academic divisions of general surgery in Canada on the roles and accompanying tasks essential to education, research and leadership services within an academic division of general surgery. We used 70% agreement to determine consensus. RESULTS: The expert panel agreed that a framework for role allocation in education, research and leadership services was relevant and necessary. Consensus was reached for 7 roles within the educational service, 3 roles within the research service and 5 roles within the leadership service. CONCLUSION: Our framework represents a national consensus that defines role standards for education, research and leadership services in Canadian academic divisions of general surgery. The framework can help divisions build resiliency, and enable sustained and deliberate advances in these services.

Identification and Adjudication of Adverse Events Following Rectal Cancer Surgery: Observational Case Series in a Region of Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: For patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery, we evaluated whether suboptimal preoperative surgeon evaluation of resection margins is a latent condition factor-a factor that is common, unrecognized, and may increase the risk of certain adverse events, including local tumour recurrence, positive surgical margin, nontherapeutic surgery, and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: In this observational case series of patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery during 2016 in Local Health Integrated Network 4 region of Ontario (population 1.4 million), chart review and a trigger tool were used to identify patients who experienced the adverse events. An expert panel adjudicated whether each event was preventable or nonpreventable and identified potential contributing factors to adverse events. RESULTS: Among 173 patients, 25 (14.5%) had an adverse event and 13 cases (7.5%) were adjudicated as preventable. Rate of surgeon awareness of preoperative margin status was low at 50% and similar among cases with and without an adverse event (p = 0.29). Suboptimal surgeon preoperative evaluation of surgical margins was adjudicated a contributing factor in all 11 preventable local recurrence, positive margin, and nontherapeutic surgery cases. Failure to rescue was judged a contributing factor in the two cases with preventable in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal surgeon preoperative evaluation of surgical margins in rectal cancer is likely a latent condition factor. Optimizing margin evaluation may be an efficient quality improvement target.

International variation in oesophageal and gastric cancer survival 2012-2014: differences by histological subtype and stage at diagnosis (an ICBP SURVMARK-2 population-based study).

OBJECTIVE: To provide the first international comparison of oesophageal and gastric cancer survival by stage at diagnosis and histological subtype across high-income countries with similar access to healthcare. METHODS: As part of the ICBP SURVMARK-2 project, data from 28 923 patients with oesophageal cancer and 25 946 patients with gastric cancer diagnosed during 2012-2014 from 14 cancer registries in seven countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK) were included. 1-year and 3-year age-standardised net survival were estimated by stage at diagnosis, histological subtype (oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) and oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC)) and country. RESULTS: Oesophageal cancer survival was highest in Ireland and lowest in Canada at 1 (50.3% vs 41.3%, respectively) and 3 years (27.0% vs 19.2%) postdiagnosis. Survival from gastric cancer was highest in Australia and lowest in the UK, for both 1-year (55.2% vs 44.8%, respectively) and 3-year survival (33.7% vs 22.3%). Most patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer had regional or distant disease, with proportions ranging between 56% and 90% across countries. Stage-specific analyses showed that variation between countries was greatest for localised disease, where survival ranged between 66.6% in Australia and 83.2% in the UK for oesophageal cancer and between 75.5% in Australia and 94.3% in New Zealand for gastric cancer at 1-year postdiagnosis. While survival for OAC was generally higher than that for OSCC, disparities across countries were similar for both histological subtypes. CONCLUSION: Survival from oesophageal and gastric cancer varies across high-income countries including within stage groups, particularly for localised disease. Disparities can partly be explained by earlier diagnosis resulting in more favourable stage distributions, and distributions of histological subtypes of oesophageal cancer across countries. Yet, differences in treatment, and also in cancer registration practice and the use of different staging methods and systems, across countries may have impacted the comparisons. While primary prevention remains key, advancements in early detection research are promising and will likely allow for additional risk stratification and survival improvements in the future.

Factors affecting access to administrative health data for research in Canada: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: In Canada, most provinces have established administrative health data repositories to facilitate access to these data for research. Anecdotally, researchers have described delays and substantial inter-provincial variations in the timeliness of data access approvals and receipt of data. Currently, the reasons for these delays and variations in timeliness are not well understood. This paper provides a study protocol for (1) identifying the factors affecting access to administrative health data for research within select Canadian provinces, and (2) comparing factors across provinces to assess whether and how they contribute to inter-provincial variations in access to administrative health data for research. METHODS: A qualitative, multiple-case study research design will be used. Three cases will be included, representing three different provinces. For each case, data will be collected from documents and interviews. Specifically, interviews will be carried out with (1) research stakeholders, and (2) regulatory stakeholders (10 individuals/group * 2 groups/province * 3 provinces = 60). During within-case analysis, interview data for each stakeholder group will be analyzed separately using constant comparative analysis. Document analysis will occur iteratively, and will inform interview guide adaptation, and supplement interview data. Cross-case analysis will involve systematic comparison of findings across cases. DISCUSSION: This study represents the first in-depth examination of access to administrative health data in Canada. The main outcome will be an overarching mid-range theory explaining inter-provincial variations in access to administrative health data in Canada. This theory will be strengthened by the inclusion of the perspectives of both researchers and those involved in the regulation of data access. The findings from this study may be used to improve equitable and timely access to administrative health data across provinces, and may be transferable to other jurisdictions where barriers to access to administrative health data have been reported.

Identifying the top research priorities in postmastectomy breast cancer reconstruction: a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership.

BACKGROUND: Major improvements in breast cancer treatment in the last decade include advancements in postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR). Unfortunately, the studies in PMBR are primarily researcher or industry led with minimal input from patients and caregivers. The aim of this study is to use the James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach to bring together the patients, caregivers and clinicians in a priority setting partnership to identify the most important unanswered research questions in PMBR. METHODS: The JLA priority setting methodology involved four key stages: gathering research questions on PMBR from patients, caregivers and clinicians; checking these research questions against existing evidence; interim prioritisation and a final consensus meeting to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions using the modified nominal group methodology. RESULTS: In stage 1, 3168 research questions were submitted from 713 respondents across Canada, of which 73% of the participants were patients or caregivers. Stage 2 confirmed that there were a total of 48 unique unanswered questions. In stage three, 488 individuals completed the interim prioritisation survey and the top 25 questions were taken to a final consensus meeting. In the final stage, the top 10 unanswered research questions were determined. They cover a breadth of topics including personalised surgical treatment, safety of implants and newer techniques, access to PMBR, breast cancer recurrence and rehabilitation. INTERPRETATION: Identification of the top 10 unanswered research questions is an important first step to generating relevant and impactful research that will ultimately improve the PMBR experience for patients with breast cancer.

The impact of excluding or including Death Certificate Initiated (DCI) cases on estimated cancer survival: A simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Population-based cancer registries strive to cover all cancer cases diagnosed within the population, but some cases will always be missed and no register is 100 % complete. Many cancer registries use death certificates to identify additional cases not captured through other routine sources, to hopefully add a large proportion of the missed cases. Cases notified through this route, who would not have been captured without death certificate information, are referred to as Death Certificate Initiated (DCI) cases. Inclusion of DCI cases in cancer registries increases completeness and is important for estimating cancer incidence. However, inclusion of DCI cases will generally lead to biased estimates of cancer survival, but the same is often also true if excluding DCI cases. Missed cases are probably not a random sample of all cancer cases, but rather cases with poor prognosis. Further, DCI cases have poorer prognosis than missed cases in general, since they have all died with cancer mentioned on the death certificates. METHODS: We performed a simulation study to estimate the impact of including or excluding DCI cases on cancer survival estimates, under different scenarios. RESULTS: We demonstrated that including DCI cases underestimates survival. The exclusion of DCI cases gives unbiased survival estimates if missed cases are a random sample of all cancer cases, while survival is overestimated if these have poorer prognosis. CONCLUSION: In our most extreme scenarios, with 25 % of cases initially missed, the usual practice of including DCI cases underestimated 5-year survival by at most 3 percentage points.

Colon and rectal cancer survival in seven high-income countries 2010-2014: variation by age and stage at diagnosis (the ICBP SURVMARK-2 project).

OBJECTIVES: As part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) SURVMARK-2 project, we provide the most recent estimates of colon and rectal cancer survival in seven high-income countries by age and stage at diagnosis. METHODS: Data from 386 870 patients diagnosed during 2010-2014 from 19 cancer registries in seven countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK) were analysed. 1-year and 5-year net survival from colon and rectal cancer were estimated by stage at diagnosis, age and country, RESULTS: (One1-year) and 5-year net survival varied between (77.1% and 87.5%) 59.1% and 70.9% and (84.8% and 90.0%) 61.6% and 70.9% for colon and rectal cancer, respectively. Survival was consistently higher in Australia, Canada and Norway, with smaller proportions of patients with metastatic disease in Canada and Australia. International differences in (1-year) and 5-year survival were most pronounced for regional and distant colon cancer ranging between (86.0% and 94.1%) 62.5% and 77.5% and (40.7% and 56.4%) 8.0% and 17.3%, respectively. Similar patterns were observed for rectal cancer. Stage distribution of colon and rectal cancers by age varied across countries with marked survival differences for patients with metastatic disease and diagnosed at older ages (irrespective of stage). CONCLUSIONS: Survival disparities for colon and rectal cancer across high-income countries are likely explained by earlier diagnosis in some countries and differences in treatment for regional and distant disease, as well as older age at diagnosis. Differences in cancer registration practice and different staging systems across countries may have impacted the comparisons.

Exploring the impact of cancer registry completeness on international cancer survival differences: a simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Data from population-based cancer registries are often used to compare cancer survival between countries or regions. The ICBP SURVMARK-2 study is an international partnership aiming to quantify and explore the reasons behind survival differences across high-income countries. However, the magnitude and relevance of differences in cancer survival between countries have been questioned, as it is argued that observed survival variations may be explained, at least in part, by differences in cancer registration practice, completeness and the availability and quality of the respective data sources. METHODS: As part of the ICBP SURVMARK-2 study, we used a simulation approach to better understand how differences in completeness, the characteristics of those missed and inclusion of cases found from death certificates can impact on cancer survival estimates. RESULTS: Bias in 1- and 5-year net survival estimates for 216 simulated scenarios is presented. Out of the investigated factors, the proportion of cases not registered through sources other than death certificates, had the largest impact on survival estimates. CONCLUSION: Our results show that the differences in registration practice between participating countries could in our most extreme scenarios explain only a part of the largest observed differences in cancer survival.

Exploring variations in ovarian cancer survival by age and stage (ICBP SurvMark-2): A population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: The study aims to evaluate the differences in ovarian cancer survival by age and stage at diagnosis within and across seven high-income countries. METHODS: We analyzed data from 58,161 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during 2010-2014, followed until 31 December 2015, from 21 population-based cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and United Kingdom. Comparisons of 1-year and 3-year age- and stage-specific net survival (NS) between countries were performed using the period analysis approach. RESULTS: Minor variation in the stage distribution was observed between countries, with most women being diagnosed with 'distant' stage (ranging between 64% in Canada and 71% in Norway). The 3-year all-ages NS ranged from 45 to 57% with Australia (56%) and Norway (57%) demonstrating the highest survival. The proportion of women with 'distant' stage was highest for those aged 65-74 and 75-99 years and varied markedly between countries (range:72-80% and 77-87%, respectively). The oldest age group had the lowest 3-year age-specific survival (20-34%), and women aged 65-74 exhibited the widest variation across countries (3-year NS range: 40-60%). Differences in survival between countries were particularly stark for the oldest age group with 'distant' stage (3-year NS range: 12% in Ireland to 24% in Norway). CONCLUSIONS: International variations in ovarian cancer survival by stage exist with the largest differences observed in the oldest age group with advanced disease. This finding endorses further research investigating international differences in access to and quality of treatment, and prevalence of comorbid conditions particularly in older women with advanced disease.

Progress in cancer survival, mortality, and incidence in seven high-income countries 1995-2014 (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Population-based cancer survival estimates provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of cancer services and can reflect the prospects of cure. As part of the second phase of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP), the Cancer Survival in High-Income Countries (SURVMARK-2) project aims to provide a comprehensive overview of cancer survival across seven high-income countries and a comparative assessment of corresponding incidence and mortality trends. METHODS: In this longitudinal, population-based study, we collected patient-level data on 3·9 million patients with cancer from population-based cancer registries in 21 jurisdictions in seven countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK) for seven sites of cancer (oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas, lung, and ovary) diagnosed between 1995 and 2014, and followed up until Dec 31, 2015. We calculated age-standardised net survival at 1 year and 5 years after diagnosis by site, age group, and period of diagnosis. We mapped changes in incidence and mortality to changes in survival to assess progress in cancer control. FINDINGS: In 19 eligible jurisdictions, 3 764 543 cases of cancer were eligible for inclusion in the study. In the 19 included jurisdictions, over 1995-2014, 1-year and 5-year net survival increased in each country across almost all cancer types, with, for example, 5-year rectal cancer survival increasing more than 13 percentage points in Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. For 2010-14, survival was generally higher in Australia, Canada, and Norway than in New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. Over the study period, larger survival improvements were observed for patients younger than 75 years at diagnosis than those aged 75 years and older, and notably for cancers with a poor prognosis (ie, oesophagus, stomach, pancreas, and lung). Progress in cancer control (ie, increased survival, decreased mortality and incidence) over the study period was evident for stomach, colon, lung (in males), and ovarian cancer. INTERPRETATION: The joint evaluation of trends in incidence, mortality, and survival indicated progress in four of the seven studied cancers. Cancer survival continues to increase across high-income countries; however, international disparities persist. While truly valid comparisons require differences in registration practice, classification, and coding to be minimal, stage of disease at diagnosis, timely access to effective treatment, and the extent of comorbidity are likely the main determinants of patient outcomes. Future studies are needed to assess the impact of these factors to further our understanding of international disparities in cancer survival. FUNDING: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; Cancer Council Victoria; Cancer Institute New South Wales; Cancer Research UK; Danish Cancer Society; National Cancer Registry Ireland; The Cancer Society of New Zealand; National Health Service England; Norwegian Cancer Society; Public Health Agency Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry; The Scottish Government; Western Australia Department of Health; and Wales Cancer Network.

Factors influencing middle managers' commitment to the implementation of innovations in cancer care.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and illuminate influences on middle managers' commitment to innovation implementation. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted, employing the methods of grounded theory. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data from middle managers (n = 15) in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Canada. Data were collected and analysed concurrently, using an inductive constant comparative approach. Data collection and analysis continued until theoretical saturation was reached. RESULTS: The data revealed middle managers contemplate two central issues in terms of their commitment to implementation, that is whether or not they fully engage in and support the implementation of a particular innovation. These issues are (1) ease of implementation and (2) potential benefit for patients. Middle managers' views and expectations related to ease of implementation are influenced by available resources, fit with setting, and stakeholder buy-in. Their views on patient benefit are influenced by external evidence of benefit and local gaps in care. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide further insight into the factors that influence middle managers' commitment to innovation implementation, and how middle managers consider these factors in the context of their work settings.

Examining the implementation of clinical practice guidelines for the management of adult cancers: A mixed methods study.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Focusing on the implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of adult cancers, the objectives of this study were to (a) describe the intrinsic elements known to influence CPG use; (b) identify the ways in which CPGs are implemented; and (c) explore how CPG characteristics and contextual factors influence implementation and use. METHODS: We conducted a sequential mixed methods study. First, we performed a content analysis of all CPGs developed and approved for the management of adult cancers in Nova Scotia, Canada, from 2005 to 2015. CPGs were examined for the presence of 22 elements known to influence CPG use. Next, we conducted semistructured interviews with CPG developers and end users. Participants were purposively sampled, based on the findings of the content analysis. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed by two researchers using the Framework Method. RESULTS: CPGs (n = 20) demonstrated large variation with respect to elements shown to influence CPG use. For example, 85% included content related to individualization and objectives. Yet no CPGs (0%) had journal or patient versions; discussed the education, training, or competencies needed to deliver recommendations; contained an explicit statement on anticipated work changes, or on potential direct or productivity costs; or identified barriers or facilitators that might influence CPG adoption. Interview data from CPG developers (n = 4) and users (n = 6) revealed five themes related to CPG implementation and use: (a) lack of consistency in CPG development; (b) timing and nature of stakeholder engagement; (c) credibility of the CPG development process and final CPGs; (d) limited understanding of implementation as an active process; and (e) factors at organizational and system levels influence CPG implementation and use. CONCLUSIONS: This mixed methods study provides complementary data that may help inform more effective CPG implementation efforts and optimize their use in practice.

Primary care physician use across the breast cancer care continuum: CanIMPACT study using Canadian administrative data.

OBJECTIVE: To describe primary care physician (PCP) use and continuity of PCP care across the breast cancer care continuum. DESIGN: Population-based, retrospective cohort study using provincial cancer registries linked to health administrative databases. SETTING: British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: All women with incident invasive breast cancer from 2007 to 2012 in Manitoba and Ontario and from 2007 to 2011 in British Columbia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number and proportions of visits to PCPs were determined. Continuity of care was measured using the Usual Provider of Care index calculated as the proportion of visits to the most-often-visited PCP in the 6 to 30 months before a breast cancer diagnosis (baseline) and from 1 to 3 years following a breast cancer diagnosis (survivorship). RESULTS: More than three-quarters of patients visited their PCPs 2 or more times during the breast cancer diagnostic period, and more than 80% of patients had at least 1 PCP visit during breast cancer adjuvant treatment. Contact with the PCP decreased over time during breast cancer survivorship. Of the 3 phases, women appeared to be most likely to not have PCP contact during adjuvant treatment, with 10.7% (Ontario) to 18.7% (British Columbia) of women having no PCP visits during this phase. However, a sizable minority of women had at least monthly visits during the treatment phase, particularly in Manitoba and Ontario, where approximately a quarter of women saw a PCP at least monthly. We observed higher continuity of care with PCPs in survivorship (compared with baseline) in all provinces. CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians were generally involved throughout the breast cancer care continuum, but the level of involvement varied across care phases and by province. Future interventions will aim to further integrate primary and oncology care.

Postirradiation pseudosclerodermatous panniculitis with involvement of breast parenchyma: a dramatic example of a rare entity and a pitfall in diagnosis.

Postirradiation pseudosclerodermatous panniculitis is a rare complication of external beam radiotherapy. This inflammatory process typically presents as an erythematous indurated plaque in a previously irradiated region of skin. To date, 13 cases have been reported worldwide. We present a case of a 70-year-old female who received breast irradiation following conservation surgery for invasive breast carcinoma. In her third year of follow-up, she developed an enlarging mass, involving the subcutis and underlying breast tissue, associated with mammographically detected coarse calcifications and density, at the surgical site. This was deemed highly suspicious of recurrent malignancy. Following several benign needle core biopsies, she had an excision of the mass. This revealed a lobular panniculitis and irradiation-induced vascular changes affecting subcutaneous fat and underlying breast tissue. This is the 14th reported case of this rare entity. It is unique in the degree of involvement, affecting breast parenchyma as well as subcutaneous fat, and in its corresponding dramatic clinical and radiographic manifestations.

Choosing Wisely Canada cancer list: ten low-value or harmful practices that should be avoided in cancer care.

PURPOSE: Choosing Wisely Canada, modeled after Choosing Wisely in the United States, is intended to identify low-value or potentially harmful practices relevant to the Canadian health care environment. Our objective was to use multidisciplinary, pan-Canadian, physician-based consensus to identify a list of low-value or harmful cancer practices frequently used in Canada. METHODS: A Task Force convened by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer included physician representation from the Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology, Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists, and Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology, and an expert advisor. The methodology included four phases: identify potentially relevant items, develop a long list, refine and reduce the long list to a short list, and select and endorse a final list. A framework-driven consensus process and a series of electronic surveys and voting processes were used to capture consensus. RESULTS: Sixty-six potentially relevant cancer-related practices were identified. The long list (41 practices) was reduced to a short list of 19 practices. Of the 10 practices on the final list, five are completely new, and five are revisions or adaptations of practices from previous US society lists. Six of the 10 involve multiple disease sites, and four are disease-site specific. One relates to diagnosis, six relate to treatment, two relate to surveillance/survivorship, and one practice spans the cancer care continuum. CONCLUSION: The cancer list was developed in partnership with the Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology, Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists, and Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology. Using knowledge translation and exchange efforts, this list should empower patients with cancer and physicians to assist in a targeted conversation about the appropriateness and quality of individual patient care.