Risk-based lung cancer screening performance in a universal healthcare setting.

Globally, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Previous trials demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening of high-risk individuals can reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% or more. Lung cancer screening has been approved by major guidelines in the United States, and over 4,000 sites offer screening. Adoption of lung screening outside the United States has, until recently, been slow. Between June 2017 and May 2019, the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot successfully recruited 7,768 individuals at high risk identified by using the PLCOm2012noRace lung cancer risk prediction model. In total, 4,451 participants were successfully screened, retained and provided with high-quality follow-up, including appropriate treatment. In the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot, the lung cancer detection rate and the proportion of early-stage cancers were 2.4% and 79.2%, respectively; serious harms were infrequent; and sensitivity to detect lung cancers was 95.3% or more. With abnormal scans defined as ones leading to diagnostic investigation, specificity was 95.5% (positive predictive value, 35.1%), and adherence to annual recall and early surveillance scans and clinical investigations were high (>85%). The Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot provides insights into how a risk-based organized lung screening program can be implemented in a large, diverse, populous geographic area within a universal healthcare system.

The value of collecting population-based cancer stage data to support decision-making at organizational, regional and population levels.

The stage of a patient's cancer at diagnosis is essential to predict the prognosis and plan the treatment. Since 2008, stage data have been collected on all Ontario patients with breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancers and are linked to other data collected by Cancer Care Ontario. Here, an analysis of such data is presented. How it can be used to assess the value of screening programs, inform resource allocation, evaluate compliance with treatment guidelines, compare survival trends and enhance the spectrum of cancer control activities across the province is demonstrated. International comparisons can also be made.

Differences in breast cancer diagnosis by patient presentation in Ontario: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In Ontario, patients with breast cancer typically receive their diagnoses through the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) after an abnormal screen, through screening initiated by a primary care provider or other referring physician, or through follow-up of symptoms by patients' primary care providers. We sought to explore the association of the route to diagnosis (screening within or outside the OBSP or via symptomatic presentation) with use of OBSP-affiliated breast assessment sites (O-BAS), wait times until diagnosis or treatment, health care use and overall survival for patients with breast cancer. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used the Ontario Cancer Registry to identify adults (aged 18-105 yr) who received a diagnosis of breast cancer from 2013 to 2017. We excluded patients if they were not Ontario residents or had missing age or sex, or who died before diagnosis. We used logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with categorical variables (whether patients were or were not referred to an OBAS, whether patients were screened or symptomatic) and Cox proportional hazards regression to identify factors associated with all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 51 460 patients with breast cancer, 42 598 (83%) received their diagnoses at an O-BAS. Patients whose cancer was first detected through the OBSP were more likely than symptomatic patients to be given a diagnosis at an O-BAS (adjusted odds ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57 to 1.80). Patients screened by the OBSP were given their diagnoses 1 month earlier than symptomatic patients, but diagnosis at an O-BAS did not affect the time until either diagnosis or treatment. Patients referred to an O-BAS had significantly better overall survival than those who were not referred (adjusted hazard ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.80). INTERPRETATION: Patients screened through the OBSP were given their diagnoses earlier than symptomatic patients and were more likely to be referred to an O-BAS, which was associated with better survival. Our findings suggest that individuals with signs and symptoms of breast cancer would benefit from similar referral processes, oversight and standards to those used by the OBSP.

Changing physician practice: an evaluation of knowledge transfer strategies to enhance physician documentation of cancer stage.

This paper describes the knowledge transfer strategies used by Cancer Care Ontario, in partnership with 14 regional cancer centres, with the aim of improving the cancer stage data in Ontario. As physicians are directly responsible for the documentation of cancer stage, the success of this initiative is directly related to improvements in physician documentation practices. Knowledge transfer strategies included the use of local opinion leaders, educational sessions, and audit/feedback loops. Evaluation results reveal an increase in the provincial cancer stage data from 30 to 68%. The information presented here will be of interest to organizations implementing practice changes requiring physician engagement.

Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reports - so what and who cares? A population-based satisfaction survey of 970 pathologists, surgeons, and oncologists.

CONTEXT: Cancer Care Ontario implemented synoptic pathology reporting across Ontario, impacting the practice of pathologists, surgeons, and medical and radiation oncologists. The benefits of standardized synoptic pathology reporting include enhanced completeness and improved consistency in comparison with narrative reports, with reported challenges including increased workload and report turnaround time. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of synoptic pathology reporting on physician satisfaction specific to practice and process. DESIGN: A descriptive, cross-sectional design was utilized involving 970 clinicians across 27 hospitals. An 11-item survey was developed to obtain information regarding timeliness, completeness, clarity, and usability. Open-ended questions were also employed to obtain qualitative comments. RESULTS: A 51% response rate was obtained, with descriptive statistics reporting that physicians perceive synoptic reports as significantly better than narrative reports. Correlation analysis revealed a moderately strong, positive relationship between respondents' perceptions of overall satisfaction with the level of information provided and perceptions of completeness for clinical decision making (r = 0.750, P < .001) and ease of finding information for clinical decision making (r = 0.663, P < .001). Dependent t tests showed a statistically significant difference in the satisfaction scores of pathologists and oncologists (t169 = 3.044, P = .003). Qualitative comments revealed technology-related issues as the most frequently cited factor impacting timeliness of report completion. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence of strong physician satisfaction with synoptic cancer pathology reporting as a clinical decision support tool in the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of cancer patients.

Closing the quality loop: facilitating improvement in oncology practice through timely access to clinical performance indicators.

PURPOSE: Health care organizations and professionals are being called on to develop clear and transparent measures of quality and to demonstrate the application of the data to performance improvement at the system and provider levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) initiated a pathology reporting project aimed at improving the quality of cancer pathology by standardizing the content, format, and transmission of reports to a central registry and enabling the information to be available for planning, quality measurement, and quality improvement. This population-based quality-improvement project involved more than 400 Ontario pathologists and more than 100 hospitals. Clinically relevant quality indicators that used the newly available data were developed and shared. Synoptic pathology data were electronically captured at the point of report development and used to automate the timely generation of clinical performance indicators that support quality improvement in surgical oncology. These reports provided comparison data at the organizational, regional, and population levels. RESULTS: Monthly quality indicator reports are generated and distributed to each cancer center and are used to generate dialogue at the professional, organizational, and regional levels regarding evidence-informed quality-improvement opportunities. Since the launch of the project, colorectal lymph node retrieval rates have increased from 76% to 87%, and pT2 prostatectomy margin positivity rates have decreased from 37% to 21%. CONCLUSION: High-quality, complete cancer pathology reports are important not only for contemporary oncological practice, but also for secondary users of pathology information including tumor registries, health planners, epidemiologists, and others involved in quality-improvement activities and research.