Colorectal Cancer Patients' Reported Frequency, Content, and Satisfaction with Advance Care Planning Discussions.

(1) Background: This observational cohort study describes the frequency, content, and satisfaction with advance care planning (ACP) conversations with healthcare providers (HCPs), as reported by patients with advanced colorectal cancer. (2) Methods: The patients were recruited from two tertiary cancer centers in Alberta, Canada. Using the My Conversations survey with previously validated questions, the patients were asked about specific ACP elements discussed, with which HCPs these elements were discussed, their satisfaction with these conversations, and whether they had a goals of care designation (GCD) order. We surveyed and analyzed data from the following four time points: enrollment, months 1, 2, and 3. (3) Results: In total, 131 patients were recruited. At enrollment, 24% of patients reported discussing at least one ACP topic. From enrollment to month 3, patients reported a high frequency of discussions (80.2% discussed fears, 71.0% discussed prognosis, 54.2% discussed treatment preferences at least once); however, only 44.3% of patients reported discussing what is important to them in considering health care preferences. Patients reported having ACP conversations most often with their oncologists (84.7%) and cancer clinic nurses (61.8%). Patients reported a high level of satisfaction with their ACP conversations, with over 80% of patients reported feeling heard and understood. From enrollment to month 3, there was an increase in the number of patients with a GCD order from 53% to 74%. (4) Conclusions: Patients reported more frequent conversations compared to the literature and clinical documentation. While the satisfaction with these conversations is high, there is room for quality improvement, particularly in eliciting patients' personal goals for their treatment.

A Real-World Evidence Study Using Alberta-Population-Based Data to Describe Treatment Patterns for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Patients (AWARENESS).

INTRODUCTION: Over the past decade, the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has changed significantly. Current guidelines suggest the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus an additional systemic therapy, regardless of disease burden and risk, based on phase 1 evidence showing improved overall survival. We sought to describe treatment patterns of patients with mCSPC in the province of Alberta. METHODS: This was a retrospective, population-based, cohort study of male patients aged ≥18 with mCSPC at the time of diagnosis and who initiated ADT between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020. Data were obtained from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Patients were assigned to an ADT-alone cohort or a treatment intensification cohort (cohorts 2-5). The primary objectives of this study were to describe baseline characteristics and the treatment of mCSPC patients who initiated ADT with or without treatment intensification. Overall survival between cohorts was a secondary objective. Descriptive statistics were used to describe differences in baseline characteristics of each cohort. Overall survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. All statistical tests were two-sided and are used to call out likely cohort differences descriptively. RESULTS: Between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020, we identified a total of 960 patients with mCSPC (median age 74 years, IQR 66-82). Most patients received ADT alone (67%), followed by ADT plus abiraterone (18%), ADT plus docetaxel (12%), and ADT plus enzalutamide or apalutamide (3%). Over the study period, we observed an increase in the utilization of treatment intensification over time, in particular, the increased use of androgen-receptor-axis-targeted (ARAT) therapies. Patients who received ADT alone were older, were more likely to have more than one comorbid condition, had fewer sites of metastatic disease, and were less likely to be on opioid medications. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we show that patients who received ADT alone as treatment for mCSPC are older, have more comorbidities, and have less extensive disease. While there has been a decline over time in the number of patients treated with ADT alone, over 50% of all patients with mCSPC continue to receive ADT alone. Further work is needed to understand barriers to treatment intensification and for knowledge translation initiatives to improve the treatment of patients with mCSPC.

Impact of Oncology Drug Review Times on Public Funding Recommendations.

New oncology drugs undergo detailed review prior to public funding in a single-payer healthcare system. The aim of this study was to assess how cancer drug review times impact funding recommendations. Drugs reviewed by the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) between the years 2012 and 2020 were included. Data were collected including Health Canada approval dates, initial and final funding recommendations, treatment intent, drug class, clinical indications, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to determine the association between funding recommendations and review times. Of the 164 applications submitted, 130 received a positive final recommendation. Median time from Health Canada (HC) approval to final recommendation was longer for drugs indicated for the treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) and lung cancer compared to breast, genitourinary (GU), and other tumours (205 vs. 198 vs. 111 vs. 129 vs. 181 days, respectively; Kruskal-Wallis p = 0.0312). Drugs with longer review times were more likely to receive a negative pCODR recommendation, even when adjusting for tumour type, drug class, and intent of therapy (157 vs. 298 days; Wilcoxon p = 0.0003, OR 1.002 95% CI [1.000-1.004].). There was no association between funding recommendation and tumour type or class of drug. The exploration of factors associated with variance in review times will be important in ensuring timely patient access to cancer drugs.

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.

The Choosing Wisely Oncology Canada Cancer List: An Update.

BACKGROUND: Choosing Wisely (CW) Canada is a national campaign to identify unnecessary or harmful services that are frequently used in Canada. The original CW Oncology Canada Cancer list was developed in 2014. A CW Oncology Canada working group was established to review new evidence and guidelines and to update the current CW Oncology Canada Cancer List. METHODS: Between January and March 2022, we conducted a survey of members of the Canadian Association of Medical Oncology (CAMO), Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO) and the Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology (CSSO). We took the feedback from the survey, including potential new recommendations as well as those that were thought to be no longer relevant and up to date, and conducted a literature review with the assistance of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH). The final updated list of recommendations was made by the CW Oncology Canada working group based on a consensus process. RESULTS: We reviewed two potential recommendations to add and two potential recommendations to remove from the existing CW Oncology Canada Cancer List. The recommendation "Do not prescribe whole brain radiation over stereotactic radiosurgery for patient with limited brain metastases (≤4 lesions)" was supported by several evidence-based guidelines with the strength of recommendations ranging from strong to moderate and the quality of evidence ranging from level 1 to level 3. After reviewing the evidence, the working group felt that the other potential recommendation to add and the two potential recommendations to remove did not have sufficient strength and quality of evidence at this time to be added or removed from the list. CONCLUSION: The updated Choosing Wisely Oncology Canada Cancer List consists of 11 items that oncologists should question in the treatment of patients with cancer. This list can be used to design specific interventions to reduce low value care.

Are the Choosing Wisely Canada Cancer recommendations relevant and up to date with the current evidence?

INTRODUCTION: The Choosing Wisely (CW) Canada campaign was launched in 2012 to identify low-value, unnecessary and/or harmful services that are frequently used. The CW Canada Cancer list was developed in 2014 by a task force convened by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The list outlines ten harmful or low-value practices that oncologists should avoid. We conducted a study of oncologists to understand the familiarity with the current recommendations and whether these continue to be relevant and up to date. METHODS: An electronic survey was developed by the members of the CW Oncology Working Group and distributed to practicing oncologists. The survey consisted of questions on 1) the familiarity of the existing CW Canada Cancer list 2) the relevance of the current list to current evidence and 3) any recommendation(s) that could be added or removed from the existing list. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze responses and narrative analysis was used to identify themes in open-ended questions. RESULTS: Between January 14 and May 3, 2022, 151 survey responses were received (overall response rate of 20 %) from 68 medical oncologists (45 % of study cohort, response rate 32 %), 54 radiation oncologists (36 % of study cohort, response rate 14 %) and 29 surgical oncologists (19 % of study cohort, response rate 18 %). Seventy-nine percent (120/151) of respondents were familiar with the current list and 65 % (78/119) said they implemented the recommendations "always" or "most of the time". Eight recommendations had > 80 % agreement that they were relevant and up to date with current evidence. There was interest in adding a new recommendation to avoid whole brain radiation and consider stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in patients with ≤ 4 brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: There is excellent familiarity with the CW Canada Cancer list amongst the survey respondents and most recommendations continue to be relevant and up to date with current evidence. There is an opportunity to educate physicians about the intent of the campaign and to add a new recommendation on the use of SRS for patients with a limited number of brain metastases. There is also an opportunity to identify barriers at the patient, provider and institution level that are hindering adoption of the CW Canada Cancer list POLICY SUMMARY: This survey will impact implementation and publication of an updated CW Canada Cancer list.

Choosing Wisely-Barriers and Solutions to Implementation in Low and Middle-Income Countries.

Globally, there is increasing emphasis on value-based cancer care. Rising healthcare costs and reduced health care spending and budgets, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), call for patients, providers, and healthcare systems to apply the Choose Wisely (CW) approach. This approach seeks to advance a dialogue on avoiding unnecessary medical tests, treatments, and procedures. Several factors have been described as barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Choosing Wisely recommendations in high-income countries but none for LMICs. In this review, we attempt to classify potential barriers to the Choose Wisely implementation relative to the sources of behavior and potential intervention functions that can be implemented in order to reduce these barriers.

Choosing Wisely Africa: Insights from the front lines of clinical care.

BACKGROUND: A multidisciplinary Task Force of African oncologists and patient representatives published the Choosing Wisely Africa (CWA) recommendations in 2020. These top 10 recommendations identify low-value, unnecessary, or harmful practices that are frequently used in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In this study, we describe agreement and concordance with the recommendations from front-line oncologists across SSA. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to members of the African Organization for Research & Training in Cancer (AORTIC) and oncology groups within SSA using a hierarchical snowball method; each primary contact distributed the survey through their personal networks. The survey captured information about awareness of the CWA list, agreement with recommendations, and concordance with clinical practice. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize study results. RESULTS: 52 individuals responded to the survey; 64% (33/52) were female and 58% (30/52) were clinical oncologists. Respondents represented 15 countries in SSA; 69% (36/52) practiced exclusively in the public system. Only 46% (24/52) were aware of the CWA list and 89% (46/52) agreed it would be helpful if the list was displayed in their clinic. There was generally a high agreement with the recommendations (range 84-98%); the highest agreement was related to staging/defining treatment intent (98%). The proportion of oncologists who implemented these recommendations in routine practice was somewhat lower (range 68-100%). Lowest rates of concordance related to: the use of shorter schedules of radiotherapy (67%); discussion of active surveillance forlow-risk prostate cancer (67%); only performing breast surgery for a mass that was proven to be malignant (70%); and seeking multidisciplinary input for curative intent treatment plans (73%). CONCLUSION: While most frontline SSA oncologists agree with CWA recommendations, efforts are needed to disseminate the list. Agreement with the recommendations is high but there are gaps in implementation in routine practice. Further work is needed to understand the barriers and enablers of implementation.

Stage migration of testicular germ cell tumours in Alberta, Canada, during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: An absence of screening recommendations and the rapid progression of testicular germ cell tumours (TGCTs) offer a perspective on the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer presentations. We evaluated the presenting cancer stages of TGCTs in a real-world population before and during the pandemic to assess stage migration. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all new patients with TGCT diagnoses in Alberta, Canada, from Dec. 31, 2018, to Apr. 30, 2021, using the Alberta Cancer Registry. Because potential changes in staging should not occur instantaneously, we used a 6-month lag time from Apr. 1, 2020, for seminomas, and a 3-month lag time for nonseminomas, to compare initial cancer stages at presentation before and during the pandemic. We evaluated monthly rates of presentation by stage and histology. Exploratory outcomes included the largest tumour dimension, tumour markers and, for advanced disease, risk category and treatment setting. RESULTS: Of 335 patients with TGCTs, 231 were diagnosed before the pandemic and 104 during the pandemic (using a lag time). In total, 18 (7.8%) patients diagnosed before the pandemic presented with stage III disease, compared to 16 (15.4%) diagnosed during the pandemic (relative risk 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-3.72). We observed no significant differences for secondary outcomes. Without a lag time, the rate ratio for a stage II presentation decreased significantly during the pandemic (0.40, 95% CI 0.21-0.72). INTERPRETATION: We observed signs of TGCT stage migration during the COVID-19 pandemic, driven by a decline in stage II disease and a potential rise in stage III disease. Management of TGCTs should remain a priority, even during a global pandemic.

The ACTION Centre as a Model for Patient Engagement and Knowledge Translation in Integrative Oncology Practice, Training, and Research.

Integrative Oncology (IO) programs are increasingly emerging at cancer centers and universities worldwide; often these include some combination of clinical service, research, and/or training. However, one gap that often occurs is in moving research results into practice, due to complexities and differences between research and service delivery models and priorities. We recently created the ACTION (Alberta Complementary Therapy and Integrative Oncology) Centre with the goal of partnering with the provincial public health service to promote and facilitate evidence-based integrative oncology care throughout Alberta. The Centre bridges the silos of academia and clinical care by embodying 3 core principles, to be (1) Patient-oriented, (2) Collaborative, and (3) Evidence-based. The ACTION Centre oversees the implementation of clinical research and academic training, and supports the development of clinical services, as well as patient and provider education. The ACTION Centre has five components which include: (1) Patient and healthcare provider education; (2) Individualized IO consultation and treatment planning; (3) Supporting access to complementary therapies; (4) Clinical trials of IO interventions, and; (5) Student training through the TRACTION (Training in Clinical Trials and Integrative Oncology) program. We offer this model of shareholder collaboration in the hopes that other IO programs may be able to use it as a template to further their own progress, working collaboratively toward the ultimate goal of advancing evidence-based, comprehensive, integrative healthcare to improve the lives of people affected by cancer.

Top 10 research priorities for early-stage colorectal cancer: a Canadian patient-oriented priority-setting partnership.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer, one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers, is now being detected earlier and treatments are improving, which means that patients are living longer. Partnering with Canadian clinicians, patients and researchers, we aimed to determine research priorities for those living with early-stage colorectal cancer in Canada. METHODS: We followed the well-established priority-setting partnership outlined by the James Lind Alliance to identify and prioritize unanswered questions about early-stage (i.e., stages I-III) colorectal cancer. The study was conducted from September 2018 to September 2020. We surveyed patients, caregivers and clinicians from across Canada between June 2019 and December 2019. We categorized the responses using thematic analysis to generate a list of unique questions. We conducted an interim prioritization survey from April 2020 to July 2020, with patients, caregivers and clinicians, to determine a shorter list of questions, which was then reviewed at a final meeting (involving patients, caregivers and clinicians) in September 2020. At that meeting, we used a consensus-based process to determine the top 10 priorities. RESULTS: For the initial survey, 370 responses were submitted by 185 individuals; of the 98 individuals who provided demographic information, 44 (45%) were patients, 16 (16%) were caregivers, 7 (7%) were members of an advocacy group, 26 (27%) were health care professionals and 5 (5%) were categorized as "other." The responses were refined to create a list of 66 unique unanswered questions. Twenty-five respondents answered the interim prioritization survey: 13 patients (52%), 2 caregivers (8%), 3 advocacy group members (12%) and 7 health care professionals (28%). This led to a list of the top 30 questions. The final consensus meeting involved 20 individuals (10 patients [50%], 3 caregivers [15%] and 7 health care professionals [35%]), who agreed to the top 10 research priorities. The priorities covered a range of topics, including screening, treatment, recurrence, management of adverse effects and decision-making. INTERPRETATION: We determined the top research priorities for early-stage colorectal cancer using a collaborative partnership of stake-holders from across Canada. The priorities covered a broad range of topics that could be addressed by future research, including improved screening practices, the role of personalized medicine, the management of adverse effects of treatment, decision-making and prevention of recurrence.

The Serious Illness Care Program in Oncology: Evidence, Real-World Implementation and Ongoing Barriers.

The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP), designed by Ariadne Labs, is a multicomponent intervention to improve conversations about values and goals for patients with a life-limiting illness. In oncology, implementation of the SICP achieved more, earlier, and better-quality conversations and reduced anxiety and depression among patients with advanced cancer. In this commentary, we describe the SICP, including results from the cluster-randomized trial, provide examples of real-world implementation of this program, and highlight ongoing challenges and barriers that are preventing widespread adoption of this intervention into routine practice. For the SICP to be successfully embedded into routine patient care, it will require significant effort, including ongoing leadership support and training opportunities, champions from all sectors of the interdisciplinary team, and adaptation of the program to a wider range of patients. Future research should also investigate how early conversations can be translated into personalized care plans for patients.

Efficacy and Safety of First-line Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Considerable advances have been made in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), with immunotherapy-based combinations including immunotherapy-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (IO-TKIs) and dual immunotherapy (IO-IO) favored. A lack of head-to-head clinical trials comparing these treatments means that there is uncertainty regarding their use in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare and rank the efficacy and safety of first-line systemic treatments for mRCC with a focus on IO-based combinations. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and abstracts of recent major scientific meetings were searched to identify the most up-to-date phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line IO-based combinations for mRCC up to June 2021. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were completed using the Bayesian framework. Primary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), treatment-related drug discontinuation (TRDD), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The analysis was performed for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population as well as by clinical risk group. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of six phase 3 RCTs were included involving a total of 5121 patients. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO-CABO) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit in the ITT population (surface under the cumulative ranking curve 82%). Avelumab plus axitinib (AVEL-AXI) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with favorable risk (65%). Pembrolizumab plus AXI (PEMBRO-AXI) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with intermediate risk (78%). PEMBRO plus lenvatinib (PEMBRO-LENV) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with poor risk (89%). PEMBRO-LENV was associated with a superior PFS benefit across all risk groups (89-98%). Maximal ORR was achieved with PEMBRO-LENV (97%). The highest likelihood for CR was attained with NIVO plus ipilimumab (NIVO-IPI; 85%) and PEMBRO-LENV (83%). The highest grade 3-4 TRAE rate occurred with PEMBRO-LENV (95%) and NIVO-CABO (83%), but the latter was associated with the lowest TRDD rate (2%). By contrast, NIVO-IPI had the lowest grade 3-4 TRAE rate (6%) and the highest likelihood of TRDD (100%). HRQoL consistently favored NIVO-CABO (66-75%), PEMBRO-LENV (44-85%), and NIVO-IPI (65-93%) in comparison to the other treatments. CONCLUSIONS: IO-TKI drug combinations are associated with consistent improvements in clinically relevant outcomes for all mRCC risk groups. This benefit may be at the cost of higher TRAE rates; however, lower TRDD rates suggest a manageable side-effect profile. Longer follow-up is required to determine if the benefits of IO-TKIs will be sustained and if they should be favored in the first-line treatment of mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Combination treatments based on immunotherapy agents continue to show meaningful benefits in the first-line treatment of metastatic kidney cancer. Our review and network meta-analysis shows that immunotherapy combined with another class of agents called tyrosine kinase inhibitors is promising. However, longer follow-up is needed for this treatment strategy to clarify if the benefits are long-lasting.

Associations Between Physician Prescribing Behavior and Persistent Postoperative Opioid Use Among Cancer Patients Undergoing Curative-intent Surgery: A Population-based Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the association between prescribers' opioid prescribing history and persistent postoperative opioid use in cancer patients undergoing curative-intent surgery. BACKGROUND: Study has shown that patients may be over-prescribed analgesics after surgery. However, whether and how the prescriber's opioid prescribing behavior impacts persistent opioid use is unclear. METHODS: All adults with a diagnosis of solid cancers who underwent surgery during the study period (2009-2015) in Alberta, Canada and were opioid-naïve were included. The key exposure was the historical opioid-prescribing pattern of a patient's most responsible prescriber. The primary outcome was "new persistent postoperative opioid user," was defined as a patient who was opioid-naïve before surgery and subsequently filled at least 1 opioid prescription between 60 and 180 days after surgery. RESULTS: We identified 24,500 patients. Of these, 2106 (8.6%) patients became a new persistent opioid user after surgery. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients with most responsible prescribers that historically prescribed higher daily doses of opioids (≥50 vs <50 mg oral morphine equivalent) had an increased risk of new persistent opioid use after surgery (odds ratio = 2.41, P < 0.0001). In addition to the provider's prescribing pattern, other factors including younger age, comorbidities, presurgical opioid use, chemotherapy, type of tumor/surgical procedure were also found to be independently associated with new persistent postoperative opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that prescriber with a history of prescribing a higher opioid dose is an important predictor of persistent postoperative opioid use among cancer patients undergoing curative-intent surgery.

Impact of Value Frameworks on the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit: Evaluating a Decade of Randomized Trials for Systemic Therapy in Solid Malignancies.

In the era of rapid development of new, expensive cancer therapies, value frameworks have been developed to quantify clinical benefit (CB). We assessed the evolution of CB since the 2015 introduction of The American Society of Clinical Oncology and The European Society of Medical Oncology value frameworks. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing systemic therapies for solid malignancies from 2010 to 2020 were evaluated and CB (Δ) in 2010-2014 (pre-value frameworks (PRE)) were compared to 2015-2020 (POST) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and quality of life (QoL). In the 485 studies analyzed (12% PRE and 88% POST), the most common primary endpoint was PFS (49%), followed by OS (20%), RR (12%), and QoL (6%), with a significant increase in OS and decrease in RR as primary endpoints in the POST era (p = 0.011). Multivariable analyses revealed significant improvement in ΔOS POST (OR 2.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.26, p = 0.02) while controlling for other variables. After the development of value frameworks, median ΔOS improved minimally. The impact of value frameworks has yet to be fully realized in RCTs. Efforts to include endpoints shown to impact value, such as QoL, into clinical trials are warranted.

Oncology training and education initiatives in low and middle income countries: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The global cancer burden falls disproportionately on low and middle-income countries (LMICs). One significant barrier to adequate cancer control in these countries is the lack of an adequately trained oncology workforce. Oncology education and training initiatives are a critical component of building the workforce. We performed a scoping review of published training and education initiatives for health professionals in LMICs to understand the strategies used to train the global oncology workforce. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE and Embase from database inception (1947) to 4 March 2020. Articles were eligible if they described an oncology medical education initiative (with a clear intervention and outcome) within an LMIC. Articles were classified based on the target population, the level of medical education, degree of collaboration with another institution and if there was an e-learning component to the intervention. FINDINGS: Of the 806 articles screened, 25 met criteria and were eligible for analysis. The majority of initiatives were targeted towards physicians and focused on continuing medical education. Almost all the initiatives were done in partnership with a collaborating organisation from a high-income country. Only one article described the impact of the initiative on patient outcomes. Less than half of the initiatives involved e-learning. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of oncology training and education initiatives in LMICs published in English. Initiatives for non-physicians, efforts to foster collaboration within and between LMICs, knowledge sharing initiatives and studies that measure the impact of these initiatives on developing an effective workforce are highly recommended.

Efficacy of perioperative chemotherapy in resected colorectal liver metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nearly half of patients with colorectal cancer develop liver metastases. Radical resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) offers the best chance of cure, significantly improving 5-year survival. Recurrence of metastatic disease is common, occurring in 60 % or more of patients. Clinical equipoise exists regarding the role of perioperative chemotherapy in patients with resected CRLM. This investigation sought to clarify the efficacy of perioperative chemotherapy in patients that have undergone curative-intent resection of CRLM. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was completed of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perioperative chemotherapy to surgery alone in patients with resected CRLM. MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched, as well as abstracts from recent oncology conferences. A meta-analysis was performed pooling the hazard ratios for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of five, phase 3, open-label, RCTs were included resulting in a pooled analysis of 1119 of the total 1146 enrolled patients. 559 patients were randomized to perioperative chemotherapy and 560 to surgery alone. Pooled estimates demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in DFS (HR 0.71, 95 % CI: 0.61-0.82; p < 0.001) but not OS (HR 0.87, 95 % CI: 0.73-1.04; p = 0.136). CONCLUSION: Perioperative chemotherapy in the setting of resected CRLM resulted in an improvement in DFS, however this did not translate into an OS benefit. Poor compliance to post-hepatectomy oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy regimens was identified. Further investigation into the optimal regimen and sequencing of perioperative chemotherapy is justified.

Muslim perspectives on advance care planning: a model for community engagement.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning is the process of communicating and documenting a person's future health care preferences. Despite its importance, knowledge of advance care planning is limited, especially among the Islamic community. In addition, little is known about how the Islamic community views advance care planning in the context of their religious and cultural beliefs. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to increase knowledge of the importance of advance care planning, to improve health care provider and public knowledge, and to encourage dialogue between the community and health care providers. METHODS: We organized a community event and assembled a multi-disciplinary panel. Through a moderated discussion, the panel members offered their perspectives of advance care planning within a Muslim context. RESULTS: Approximately 100 individuals attended the event including community members, health care providers, medical students, and faith leaders. More than 90% of respondents rated the event as very good or excellent, found the session useful and were encouraged to reflect further on advance care planning. CONCLUSION: This event was successful in raising awareness about advance care planning within the Islamic community as well as educating health care providers on Islamic views. This model of community and health care provider engagement may also be beneficial for other faith groups wishing to discuss advance care planning within their respective religious and cultural contexts.

Integrative Oncology Education: An Emerging Competency for Oncology Providers.

A growing number of cancer patients use complementary and alternative therapies during and after conventional cancer treatment. Patients are often reluctant to discuss these therapies with their oncologist, and oncologists may have limited knowledge and confidence on how to advise patients on the appropriate use. Integrative oncology is a patient-centered, evidence-informed field that utilizes mind-body practices, lifestyle modifications and/or natural products interwoven with conventional cancer treatment. It prioritizes safety and best available evidence to offer appropriate interventions alongside conventional care. There are few opportunities for oncologists to learn about integrative oncology. In this commentary, we highlight the Integrative Oncology Scholars (IOS) program as a means to increase competency in this growing field. We provide an overview of several integrative oncology modalities that are taught through this program, including lifestyle modifications, physical activity, and mind-body interventions. We conclude that as more evidence is generated in this field, it will be essential that oncology healthcare providers are aware of the prevalent use of these modalities by their patients and cancer centers include Integrative Oncology trained physicians and other healthcare professionals in their team to discuss and recommend evidence-based integrative oncology therapies alongside conventional cancer treatments to their patients.