Psychosocial interventions that target adult cancer survivors' reintegration into daily life after active cancer treatment: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This review explored psychosocial interventions targeting adult cancer survivors' reintegration following active cancer treatment. This included the types of interventions tested and the tools used to measure reintegration.

INTRODUCTION

Cancer survivors face lingering health issues following the completion of cancer treatment. Many cancer survivors still experience unmet psychosocial care needs despite receiving follow-up care. Further, many survivorship interventions do not specifically address outcomes important to survivors. A number of primary studies have identified reintegration as an outcome important to cancer survivors. Reintegration is a concept that focuses on returning to normal activities, routines, and social roles after cancer treatment; however, it is emerging and abstract.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies involving adult cancer survivors (18 years or older at diagnosis) of any cancer type or stage were included in this review. Studies with psychosocial interventions targeted at reintegrating the person into daily life after cancer treatment were included. Interventions addressing clinical depression or anxiety, and interventions treating solely physical needs that were largely medically focused were excluded.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Embase. Gray literature was searched using ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest). Reference lists of included studies were searched. Studies were screened at the title/abstract and full-text levels, and 2 independent reviewers extracted data. Manuscripts in languages other than English were excluded due to feasibility (eg, cost, time of translations). Findings were summarized narratively and reported in tabular and diagrammatic format.

RESULTS

The 3-step search strategy yielded 5617 citations. After duplicates were removed, the remaining 4378 citations were screened at the title and abstract level, then the remaining 306 citations were evaluated at the full-text level by 2 independent reviewers. Forty studies were included that evaluated psychosocial interventions among adult cancer survivors trying to reintegrate after active cancer treatment (qualitative n=23, mixed methods n=8, quantitative n=8, systematic review n=1). Included articles spanned 10 different countries/regions. Over half of all included articles (n=25) focused primarily on breast cancer survivors. Many studies (n=17) were conducted in primary care or community-based settings. The most common types of interventions were peer-support groups (n=14), follow-up education and support (n=14), exercise programs (n=6), and multidisciplinary/multicomponent programs (n=6). While the majority of included studies characterized the outcome qualitatively, 9 quantitative tools were also employed.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified 6 types of interventions to reintegrate survivors back into their daily lives following cancer treatment. An important thread across intervention types was a focus on personalization in the form of problem/goal identification. Given the number of qualitative studies, future research could include a qualitative systematic review and meta-aggregation. Quantitative tools may not be as effective for evaluating reintegration. More primary studies, including mixed methods studies, utilizing consistent measurement tools are required. Furthermore, this work provides a basis for future research to continue examining the complexity of implementing such interventions to successfully achieve reintegration. To do so, primary studies evaluating interventions from an implementation science and complex systems perspective would be useful.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/r6bmx.

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.

Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments

Background: Advances in cancer medicines have resulted in tangible health impacts, but the magnitude of benefits of approved cancer medicines could vary greatly. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process used to inform resource allocation through a systematic value assessment of health technology. This paper reviews the challenges in conducting HTA for cancer medicines arising from oncology trial designs and uncertainties of safety-efficacy data. Methods: Multiple databases (PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar) and grey literature (public health agencies and governmental reports) were searched to inform this policy narrative review. Results: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data from clinical trials and other relevant sources of evidence has made HTA for cancer medicines challenging. The approval of cancer medicines through expedited pathways has increased in recent years, in which surrogate endpoints or biomarkers for patient selection have been widely used. Using these surrogate endpoints has created uncertainties in translating surrogate measures into patient-centric clinically (survival and quality of life) and economically (cost-effectiveness and budget impact) meaningful outcomes, with potential effects on diverting scarce health resources to low-value or detrimental interventions. Potential solutions include policy harmonization between regulatory and HTA authorities, commitment to generating robust post-marketing efficacy-safety data, managing uncertainties through risk-sharing agreements, and using value frameworks. Conclusion: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data is a central problem for conducting HTA of cancer medicines, potentially resulting in misinformed resource allocation.

Implementation and Impact of Choosing Wisely Recommendations in Oncology

The Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign, launched in 2012, includes oncology-specific recommendations to promote evidence-based care and deimplementation of low-value practices. However, it is unclear to what extent the campaign has prompted practice change. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the uptake of cancer-specific CW recommendations focusing on the period before the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used Grimshaw's deimplementation framework to thematically group the findings and extracted information on implementation strategies, barriers, and facilitators from articles reporting on active implementation. In the 98 articles addressing 32 unique recommendations, most reported on passive changes in adherence pre-post publication of CW recommendations. Use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer and reduction in staging imaging for early breast cancer were the most commonly evaluated recommendations. Most articles assessing passive changes in adherence pre-post CW publication reported improvement. All articles evaluating active implementation (10 of 98) reported improved compliance (range: 3%-73% improvement). Most common implementation strategies included provider education and/or stakeholder engagement. Preconceived views and reluctance to adopt new practices were common barriers; common facilitators included the use of technology and provider education to increase provider buy-in. Given the limited uptake of oncology-specific CW recommendations thus far, more attention toward supporting active implementation is needed. Effective adoption of CW likely requires a multipronged approach that includes building stakeholder buy-in through engagement and education, using technology-enabled forced functions to facilitate change along with policy and reimbursement models that disincentivize low-value care. Professional societies have a role to play in supporting this next phase of CW.

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.

Do Sustainable Palliative Single Fraction Radiotherapy Practices Proliferate or Perish 2 Years after a Knowledge Translation Campaign?

In early 2017, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and CancerCare Manitoba undertook a comprehensive knowledge translation (KT) campaign to improve the utilization of single fraction radiotherapy (SFRT) over multiple fraction radiotherapy (MFRT) for palliative management of bone metastases. The campaign significantly increased short-term SFRT utilization. We assess the time-dependent effects of KT-derived SFRT utilization 12–24 months removed from the KT campaign in a Provincial Cancer Program. This study identified patients receiving palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases in Manitoba in the 2018 calendar year using the provincial radiotherapy database. The proportion of patients treated with SFRT in 2018 was compared to 2017. Logistic regression analyses identified risk factors associated with MFRT receipt. In 2018, 1008 patients received palliative radiotherapy for bone metastasis, of which 63.3% received SFRT, a small overall increase in SFRT use over 2017 (59.1%). However, 41.1% of ROs demonstrated year-over-year decreases in SFRT utilization, indicative of a time-dependent loss of SFRT prescription habits derived from KT. Although SFRT use increased slightly overall in 2018, evidence of compliance fatigue was observed, suggestive of a time-perishing property of RO prescription behaviours derived from KT methodologies. Verification of the study’s findings in larger cohorts would be beneficial. These findings highlight the need for additional longitudinal KT reinforcement practices in the years following KT campaigns.

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 Philippines: ten low-value or harmful practices that should be avoided in cancer care

The Choosing Wisely Philippines campaign is an initiative that identifies low-value or potentially harmful practices that are relevant to patients with cancer in the Philippines. The main purpose of these initiatives is to facilitate quality improvement systems and maximise patient outcomes. Of the ten practices identified, four are new recommendations, and six are modified adaptations from previous Choosing Wisely initiatives in the USA and Africa. Recommendations in the final list include interventions involving diagnosis (two practices), treatment (five practices), palliative and supportive care (two practices) and surveillance (1 practice).

De-implementing low-value care in cancer care delivery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Accumulating evidence suggests that interventions to de-implement low-value services are urgently needed. While medical societies and educational campaigns such as Choosing Wisely have developed several guidelines and recommendations pertaining to low-value care, little is known about interventions that exist to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. We conducted this review to summarize the literature on interventions to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the published literature in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus from 1 January 1990 to 4 March 2021. We screened the retrieved abstracts for eligibility against inclusion criteria and conducted a full-text review of all eligible studies on de-implementation interventions in cancer care delivery. We used the framework analysis approach to summarize included studies' key characteristics including design, type of cancer, outcome(s), objective(s), de-implementation interventions description, and determinants of the de-implementation interventions. To extract the data, pairs of authors placed text from included articles into the appropriate cells within our framework. We analyzed extracted data from each cell to describe the studies and findings of de-implementation interventions aiming to reduce low-value cancer care.

RESULTS

Out of 2794 studies, 12 met our inclusion criteria. The studies covered several cancer types, including prostate cancer (n = 5), gastrointestinal cancer (n = 3), lung cancer (n = 2), breast cancer (n = 2), and hematologic cancers (n = 1). Most of the interventions (n = 10) were multifaceted. Auditing and providing feedback, having a clinical champion, educating clinicians through developing and disseminating new guidelines, and developing a decision support tool are the common components of the de-implementation interventions. Six of the de-implementation interventions were effective in reducing low-value care, five studies reported mixed results, and one study showed no difference across intervention arms. Eleven studies aimed to de-implement low-value care by changing providers' behavior, and 1 de-implementation intervention focused on changing the patients' behavior. Three studies had little risk of bias, five had moderate, and four had a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrated a paucity of evidence in many areas of the de-implementation of low-value care including lack of studies in active de-implementation (i.e., healthcare organizations initiating de-implementation interventions purposefully aimed at reducing low-value care).

Documenting patients’ and providers’ preferences when proposing a randomized controlled trial: a qualitative exploration

Background

With advances in cancer diagnosis and treatment, women with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) are living longer, increasing the number of patients receiving post-treatment follow-up care. Best-practice survivorship models recommend transitioning ESBC patients from oncology-provider (OP) care to community-based care. While developing materials for a future randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the feasibility of a nurse-led Telephone Survivorship Clinic (TSC) for a smooth transition of ESBC survivors to follow-up care, we explored patients’ and OPs’ reactions to several of our proposed methods.

Methods

We used a qualitative study design with thematic analysis and a two-pronged approach. We interviewed OPs, seeking feedback on ways to recruit their ESBC patients for the trial, and ESBC patients, seeking input on a questionnaire package assessing outcomes and processes in the trial.

Results

OPs identified facilitators and barriers and offered suggestions for study design and recruitment process improvement. Facilitators included the novelty and utility of the study and simplicity of methods; barriers included lack of coordination between treating and discharging clinicians, time constraints, language barriers, motivation, and using a paper-based referral letter. OPs suggested using a combination of electronic and paper referral letters and supporting clinicians to help with recruitment. Patient advisors reported satisfaction with the content and length of the assessment package. However, they questioned the relevance of some questions (childhood trauma) while adding questions about trust in physicians and proximity to primary-care providers.

Conclusions

OPs and patient advisors rated our methods for the proposed trial highly for their simplicity and relevance then suggested changes. These findings document processes that could be effective for cancer-patient recruitment in survivorship clinical trials.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01549-1.

Personalized Treatment Selection Leads to Low Rates of Local Salvage Therapy for Bone Metastases

PURPOSE

Local therapy for patients with nonspine bone metastases is evolving, with data supporting the use of single-fraction treatments, and more recently, showing possible benefit from stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). However, the rate of local salvage therapy (LST) after each technique has not been characterized in real-world clinic settings where patients are selected at physician discretion. We examined rates of LST in patients with nonspine bone metastases.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We reviewed records of RT for nonspine bone metastases at our institution from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018. We defined LST as the first occurrence of RT or surgery for oncologic progression to a bone metastasis after initial RT. Cumulative incidence functions for retreatment were generated. We conducted multivariate analysis to identify variables associated with LST.

RESULTS

A total of 1754 patients were analyzed, with median follow-up of 16.2 months (range, 0-36.8 months). Of all episodes of RT, 51.5% were multifraction external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), 7.0% were single-fraction EBRT, and 41.4% were SBRT. Altogether, 88 patients (5.0%) required LST, with an incidence at 6 months of 2.5%. Incidence of LST at 6 months was 2.1% for SBRT, 5.3% for single-fraction conventional regimens, and 2.4% for multifraction conventional regimens (P = .26). Patients of younger age, who had a higher Karnofsky performance status, and/or who had lesions in the pelvis had a higher risk of retreatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large institutional cohort, the rate of LST was low, with no difference between RT techniques. The findings indicated that SBRT for patients at high risk for treatment failure may reduce the rate of retreatment overall. When treatment modality was selected based on patient characteristics, rates of LST were lower than when treatment was randomly selected.

Choosing Wisely Africa: Ten Low-Value or Harmful Practices That Should Be Avoided in Cancer Care

PURPOSE

Choosing Wisely Africa (CWA) builds on Choosing Wisely (CW) in the United States, Canada, and India and aims to identify low-value, unnecessary, or harmful cancer practices that are frequently used on the African continent. The aim of this work was to use physicians and patient advocates to identify a short list of low-value practices that are frequently used in African low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

The CWA Task Force was convened by the African Organization for Research and Training in Cancer and included representatives from surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, the private and public sectors, and patient advocacy groups. Consensus was built through a modified Delphi process, shortening a long list of practices to a short list, and then to a final list. A voting threshold of ≥ 60% was used to include an individual practice on the short list. A consensus was reached after a series of teleconferences and voting processes.

RESULTS

Of the 10 practices on the final list, one is a new suggestion and 9 are revisions or adaptations of practices from previous CW campaign lists. One item relates to palliative care, 8 concern treatment, and one relates to surveillance.

CONCLUSION

The CWA initiative has identified 10 low-value, common interventions in Africa’s cancer practice. The success of this campaign will be measured by how the recommendations are implemented across sub-Saharan Africa and whether this improves the delivery of high-quality cancer care.

Changing pattern of radiation therapy for bone metastases in an Australian population-based cohort of men with prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the pattern of use of single-fraction conformal radiation therapy (SF-RT) and advanced radiation therapy techniques (ART), including stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), for management of bone metastases (BM) in a population-based cohort of Australian men with prostate cancer (PCa) PATIENT AND METHODS: We reviewed men with metastatic PCa who received RT for BM between 2012 and 2017 as captured in the statewide Victorian Radiotherapy Minimum Data Set (VRMDS). The primary outcomes were: proportion of RT courses using SF-RT and ART. The Cochrane-Armitage test for trend was used to evaluate the changing pattern of SF-RT and ART over time. Multivariate analyses were used to identify factors associated with the primary outcomes RESULTS: Of the 4,324 courses of palliative RT for BM, 767 (17.7%) were SF-RT, and 615 (14.2%) were ART. There was no evidence of change in SF-RT use over time (P-trend=0.13). In multivariate analyses, increasing age at RT, site of BM (rib, shoulder, pelvis, and extremities), patients' area of residence (regional and remote), and treatment in public and metropolitan centres were associated with increased likelihood of SF-RT use. There was marked increase in ART use from 0.2% in 2012 to 24% in 2017 (11% intensity modulated RT, 13% SBRT) (P-trend<0.001). In multivariate analyses, younger age at RT, site of BM (rib and pelvis), higher socioeconomic status, and treatment in private and metropolitan centres were associated with increased likelihood of ART use.

CONCLUSION

SF-RT continues to be a clear minority of RT schedules employed in management of BM in PCa, and the adoption of SF-RT use should be encouraged in men with limited prognosis. There has been increasing use of ART, especially SBRT, for BM in PCa over time, and we expect this will continue to increase in the era of metastatic-directed treatment for PCa.

Oncology Clinicians' Challenges to Providing Palliative Cancer Care-A Theoretical Domains Framework, Pan-Cancer System Survey

Despite the known benefits, healthcare systems struggle to provide early, integrated palliative care (PC) for advanced cancer patients. Understanding the barriers to providing PC from the perspective of oncology clinicians is an important first step in improving care. A 33-item online survey was emailed to all oncology clinicians working with all cancer types in Alberta, Canada, from November 2017 to January 2018. Questions were informed by Michie's Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) and queried (a) PC provision in oncology clinics, (b) specialist PC consultation referrals, and (c) working with PC consultants and home care. Respondents (n = 263) were nurses (41%), physicians (25%), and allied healthcare professionals (18%). Barriers most frequently identified were "clinicians' limited time/competing priorities" (64%), "patients' negative perceptions of PC" (63%), and clinicians' capability to manage patients' social issues (63%). These factors mapped to all three BCW domains: motivation, opportunity, and capability. In contrast, the least frequently identified barriers were clinician motivation and perceived PC benefits. Oncology clinicians' perceptions of barriers to early PC were comparable across tumour types and specialties but varied by professional role. The main challenges to early integrated PC include all three BCW domains. Notably, motivation is not a barrier for oncology clinicians; however, opportunity and capability barriers were identified. Multifaceted interventions using these findings have been developed, such as tip sheets to enhance capability, reframing PC with patients, and earlier specialist PC nursing access, to enhance clinicians' use of and patients' benefits from an early PC approach.

Mammographic Surveillance in Older Women With Breast Cancer in Canada and the United States: Are We Choosing Wisely?

PURPOSE

Guidelines on mammographic surveillance after breast cancer treatment have been disseminated internationally and incorporated into Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce low-value care. However, adherence within different countries before their publication is unknown.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Low-value mammography, defined as "short-interval" (within 6 months of radiation) or "high-frequency" (>1 within 12 months of radiation), was compared in Medicare fee-for-service in the United States and Ontario, Canada. Women ≥65 years diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving therapy with a minimum of 24 months of follow-up were included (n = 19,715 United States; 6479 Ontario). Secondary outcomes were patient and physician characteristics associated with discordance.

RESULTS

Short-interval mammography was higher in the United States than in Ontario (55.9% vs 38.0%, P < .001), as was high-frequency (39.6% vs 7.9%, P < .001). In Ontario, younger age (42% ≥85 vs 58% <74 years, P < .001) and chemotherapy (69% vs 51%, P < .001) were associated with short-interval mammography; in the United States, age, earlier diagnosis year, stage, chemotherapy, rurality, and academic center treatment were associated with greater use. Chemotherapy was associated with high-frequency mammography in both countries (13% vs 7% in Ontario, P < .001; 69% vs 51% in United States, P = .02); younger age, earlier diagnosis year, stage, and nonacademic center treatment were associated in the United States. In both countries, radiation oncologists had the highest proportion of providers ordering low-value mammograms.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite significant evidence guiding surveillance mammography recommendations, there are high rates of short-interval mammography in both the United States and Ontario, and high rates of high-frequency mammography in the United States. Further international efforts, such as Choosing Wisely, are needed to reduce low-value mammography.

Silver linings: a qualitative study of desirable changes to cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

Public health emergencies and crises such as the current COVID-19 pandemic can accelerate innovation and place renewed focus on the value of health interventions. Capturing important lessons learnt, both positive and negative, is vital. We aimed to document the perceived positive changes (silver linings) in cancer care that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic and identify challenges that may limit their long-term adoption.

Methods

This study employed a qualitative design. Semi-structured interviews (n = 20) were conducted with key opinion leaders from 14 countries. The participants were predominantly members of the International COVID-19 and Cancer Taskforce, who convened in March 2020 to address delivery of cancer care in the context of the pandemic. The Framework Method was employed to analyse the positive changes of the pandemic with corresponding challenges to their maintenance post-pandemic.

Results

Ten themes of positive changes were identified which included: value in cancer care, digital communication, convenience, inclusivity and cooperation, decentralisation of cancer care, acceleration of policy change, human interactions, hygiene practices, health awareness and promotion and systems improvement. Impediments to the scale-up of these positive changes included resource disparities and variation in legal frameworks across regions. Barriers were largely attributed to behaviours and attitudes of stakeholders.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to important value-based innovations and changes for better cancer care across different health systems. The challenges to maintaining/implementing these changes vary by setting. Efforts are needed to implement improved elements of care that evolved during the pandemic.

Willingness of patients with sarcoma to participate in cancer surveillance research: a cross-sectional patient survey

OBJECTIVES

To determine the proportion of patients with extremity sarcoma who would be willing to participate in a clinical trial in which they would be randomised to one of four different postoperative sarcoma surveillance regimens. Additionally, we assessed patients' perspectives on the burden of cancer care, factors that influence comfort with randomisation and the importance of cancer research.

DESIGN

Prospective, cross-sectional patient survey.

SETTING

Outpatient sarcoma clinics in Canada, the USA and Spain between May 2017 and April 2020. Survey data were entered into a study-specific database.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with extremity sarcoma who had completed definitive treatment from seven clinics across Canada, the USA and Spain.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The proportion of patients with extremity sarcoma who would be willing to participate in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that evaluates varying postoperative cancer surveillance regimens.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty complete surveys were obtained. Respondents reported a wide range of burdens related to clinical care and surveillance. The majority of patients (85.5%) responded that they would agree to participate in a cancer surveillance RCT if eligible. The most common reason to participate was that they wanted to help future patients. Those that would decline to participate most commonly reported that participating in research would be too much of a burden for them at a time when they are already feeling overwhelmed. However, most patients agreed that cancer research will help doctors better understand and treat cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that most participants would be willing to participate in an RCT that evaluates varying postoperative cancer surveillance regimens. Participants' motivation for trial participation included altruistic reasons to help future patients and deterrents to trial participation included the overwhelming burden of a cancer diagnosis. These results will help inform the development of patient-centred RCT protocols in sarcoma surveillance research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.

Does dissemination of guidelines alone increase the use of palliative single-fraction radiotherapy? Initial report of a longitudinal change management campaign at a provincial cancer program

Background

Despite level 1 evidence demonstrating the equivalence of single-fraction radiotherapy (sfrt) and multiple-fraction radiotherapy (mfrt) for the palliation of painful bone metastases, sfrt remains underused. In 2015, to encourage the sustainable use of palliative radiation oncology resources, CancerCare Manitoba disseminated, to each radiation oncologist in Manitoba, guidelines from Choosing Wisely Canada (cwc) that recommend sfrt. We assessed whether dissemination of the guidelines influenced sfrt use in Manitoba in 2016, and we identified factors associated with mfrt.

Methods

All patients treated with palliative radiotherapy for bone metastasis in Manitoba from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016 were identified from the provincial radiotherapy database. Patient, treatment, and disease characteristics were extracted from the electronic medical record and tabulated by fractionation schedule. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors associated with mfrt.

Results

In 2016, 807 patients (mean age: 70 years; range: 35-96 years) received palliative radiotherapy for bone metastasis, with 69% of the patients having uncomplicated bone metastasis. The most common primary malignancies were prostate (27.1%), lung (20.6%), and breast cancer (15.9%). In 62% of cases, mfrt was used-a proportion that was unchanged from 2015. On multivariable analysis, a gastrointestinal [odds ratio (or): 5.3] or lung primary (or: 3.3), complicated bone metastasis (or: 4.3), and treatment at a subsidiary site (or: 4.4) increased the odds of mfrt use.

Conclusions

Dissemination of cwc recommendations alone did not increase sfrt use by radiation oncologists in 2016. A more comprehensive knowledge translation effort is therefore warranted and is now underway to encourage increased uptake of sfrt in Manitoba.

Practical Considerations for the Implementation of a Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Program for Oligo-Metastases

Purpose

With multiple phase 2 trials supporting the use of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in oligo-metastatic disease, we evaluated practices that could inform effective implementation of an oligo-metastasis SBRT program.

Methods and Materials

Using a context-focused realist methodology, an advisory committee of interprofessional clinicians met over a series of semistructured teleconference meetings to identify challenges in implementing an oligo-metastasis SBRT program. Consideration was given to 2 models of care: a subspecialist anatomic expertise model versus a single-practitioner “quarterback” model.

Results

The advisory committee structured recommendations within a context-mechanism-outcome framework. In summary, the committee recommends that during patient workup, a single practitioner arranges the minimum number of necessary tests, with case presentation at an appropriate multidisciplinary tumor board, including careful review of all previous treatments, and enrollment on clinical trials when possible. At simulation, common patient positions and immobilization on a single simulation scan for multiple sites is recommended. During radiation planning, dose-fractionation regimens should safely facilitate cumulative dose calculations, a single isocenter should be considered for multiple close targets to reduce treatment time, and adherence to strict quality assurance protocols is strongly recommended. Treatment duration should be minimized by treating multiple sites on the same day or choosing shorter dose fractionations. Team communication, thorough documentation, and standardized nomenclature can reduce system errors. Follow-up should aim to minimize redundant clinical appointments and imaging scans. Expert radiology review may be required to interpret post-SBRT imaging.

Conclusions

These guidelines inform best clinical practices for implementing an oligo-metastasis SBRT program. Iterations using a realist approach may further expand on local contexts.

Limiting surveillance imaging for patients with lymphoma in remission: a mixed methods study leading to a Choosing Wisely recommendation

BACKGROUND

Under the 'Choosing Wisely' (CW) framework, professional organisations internationally have advocated limiting imaging for asymptomatic patients following curative cancer therapy, based on limited value and high cost. F18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography-CT (PET/CT) was widely adopted locally for surveillance lymphoma imaging after 2004.

OBJECTIVES

Prior to ratification of a local CW recommendation to limit surveillance imaging in lymphoma, we aimed to assess: (A) performance characteristics of surveillance FDG-PET/CT; (B) rates, clinical consequences and costs of false positives (FP); and (C) patients and professionals' attitudes towards overuse.

METHODS

Mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) study. We analysed surveillance FDG-PET/CT results of two patient cohorts (n1=215 Hodgkin lymphoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma; n2=203 Hodgkin lymphoma only). FPs were defined by negative biopsy or clinical follow-up. We held focus group discussions and in-depth interviews eliciting attitudes of 26 patients and 11 clinicians, respectively.

RESULTS

FPs were observed in 25.1% (95% CI 20.5 to 30.5) per scan-cohort 1, and 41.7% (95% CI 37.9 to 45.6) per patient-cohort 2, engendering frequent additional testing. Specific characteristics and location of findings altered the FP rate. The estimated cost per relapse detected was $50 000 (cohort 2). Patients sought reassurance via surveillance imaging, which they considered highly accurate, yet stressful. Aware of radiation risks, they were largely unconcerned about consequences of FPs. Confidence in the treating physicians was an important factor in patients' acceptance of forgoing imaging. Clinicians, frequently under patient pressure to order imaging, generally believed that it did not affect prognosis (with important exceptions), welcomed professional guidelines, but rejected regulatory restrictions on its use.

CONCLUSION

Acceptance of CW recommendations to limit overuse may be enhanced by quantitative data on consequences and costs of surveillance imaging, supplemented by qualitative data on patient and physician attitudes.

Variation in the Use of Single- Versus Multifraction Palliative Radiation Therapy for Bone Metastases in Australia

PURPOSE

To evaluate the use of single-fraction palliative radiation therapy (SFRT) for the management of bone metastases (BM) in Victoria, Australia.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This is a population-based cohort of patients with cancer who received radiation therapy for BM between 2012 and 2017 as captured in the Victorian Radiotherapy Minimum Data Set. The primary outcome was proportion of SFRT use. The Cochrane-Armitage test for trend was used to evaluate changes in practice over time. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with SFRT use.

RESULTS

Of the 18,158 courses of radiation therapy for BM delivered to a total of 10,956 patients, 17% were SFRT. There was no significant change in SFRT use over time, from 18% in 2012 to 19% in 2017 (P = .07). SFRT was less commonly given to the skull (4%) and spine (14%), compared with the shoulder (37%) and ribs (53%). Patients with lung cancer (21%) were most likely to receive SFRT, followed by those with prostate cancers (18%) and gastrointestinal cancers (16%). Patients from regional/remote areas were more likely to have SFRT compared with those in major cities (22% vs 16%, P < .001). Patients treated in public institutions were more likely to have SFRT compared with those treated in private institutions (22% vs 10%, P < .001). In multivariable analyses, increasing age, lung cancer, higher socioeconomic status, residence in regional/ remote areas, and being treated in public institutions were factors independently associated with increased likelihood of receiving SFRT.

CONCLUSIONS

SFRT appears underused for BM in Australia over time, with variation in practice by patient, tumor, sociodemographic, geographical, and institutional provider factors.

Real-world data: towards achieving the achievable in cancer care

The use of data from the real world to address clinical and policy-relevant questions that cannot be answered using data from clinical trials is garnering increased interest. Indeed, data from cancer registries and linked treatment records can provide unique insights into patients, treatments and outcomes in routine oncology practice. In this Review, we explore the quality of real-world data (RWD), provide a framework for the use of RWD and draw attention to the methodological pitfalls inherent to using RWD in studies of comparative effectiveness. Randomized controlled trials and RWD remain complementary forms of medical evidence; studies using RWD should not be used as substitutes for clinical trials. The comparison of outcomes between nonrandomized groups of patients who have received different treatments in routine practice remains problematic. Accordingly, comparative effectiveness studies need to be designed and interpreted very carefully. With due diligence, RWD can be used to identify and close gaps in health care, offering the potential for short-term improvement in health-care systems by enabling them to achieve the achievable.

Screening for new primary cancers in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a provincial analysis of the Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations

Introduction

Patients with metastatic cancer have a decreased life expectancy, and with screening and surveillance for new primary cancers, they run the risk of immediate harm with little chance of any benefit. Choosing Wisely Canada therefore recommends that such investigations be avoided in patients with metastatic disease.

Methods

We examined cancer screening practices in a subset of patients with metastatic cancer in Newfoundland and Labrador. Patients with metastatic breast cancer seen at the provincial cancer clinic during 2014-2016 were identified from the Newfoundland and Labrador Cancer Registry. For each patient, we assessed whether any one or a combination of screening mammography, Pap (Papanicolaou) test, flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy, or fecal immunohistochemical test were performed at any point after the diagnosis of metastatic disease.

Results

Of 305 patients with metastatic breast cancer, 114 (37.4%) underwent at least 1 screening investigation (mean: 2.92 investigations per screened patient). The most common screening investigations were mammography (n = 197) and Pap test (n = 107). Primary care providers ordered most of the screening investigations (70%); oncology specialists ordered 14%, and other specialists, 12%. Median overall survival for patients with breast cancer after a diagnosis of metastatic disease was 42 months, with a 5-year overall survival of 35.9%.

Conclusions

A significant proportion of patients with metastatic breast cancer in Newfoundland and Labrador are still undergoing screening for new primary malignancies, which is discordant with oncology guidelines from Choosing Wisely Canada. Increased education strategies are needed if the Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations are to be implemented into routine clinical practice.

Factors influencing current low-value follow-up care after basal cell carcinoma and suggested strategies for de-adoption: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Providing follow-up to patients with low-risk basal cell carcinoma (BCC) can be considered as low-value care. However, dermatologists still provide substantial follow-up care to this patient group, for reasons not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors influencing current BCC follow-up practices among dermatologists and suggested strategies to de-adopt this low-value care. In addition, views of patients regarding follow-up care were explored.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted consisting of 18 semistructured interviews with dermatologists and three focus groups with a total of 17 patients with low-risk BCC who had received dermatological care. The interviews focused on current follow-up practices, influencing factors and suggested strategies to de-adopt the follow-up care. The focus groups discussed preferred follow-up schedules and providers, as well as the content of follow-up. All (group) interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed by two researchers using ATLAS.ti software.

RESULTS

Factors influencing current follow-up care practices among dermatologists included complying with patients' preferences, lack of trust in general practitioners (GPs), financial incentives and force of habit. Patients reported varying needs regarding periodic follow-up visits, preferred to be seen by a dermatologist and indicated a need for improved information provision. Suggested strategies by dermatologists to de-adopt the low-value care encompassed educating patients with improved information, educating GPs to increase trust of dermatologists, realizing appropriate financial reimbursement and informing dermatologists about the low value of care.

CONCLUSIONS

A mixture of factors appear to contribute to current follow-up practices after low-risk BCC. In order to de-adopt this low-value care, strategies should be aimed at dermatologists and GPs, and also patients.

Cancer Drug Use in the Last Month of Life in Men With Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Several new drug therapies have been approved in CRPC in the past decade. However, little is known about their potential overuse at the end of life. Cancer therapy use at the end of life has been considered an indicator of overtreatment. The study objective was to describe CRPC drug use in the last month of life of CRPC patients in Quebec.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using administrative databases from the province of Quebec in Canada, we identified patients who received medical or surgical castration treatment, received one or more CRPC drugs (chemotherapy, abiraterone, or bone-targeted therapy), and died between 2001 and 2013. CRPC drug use in the last month of life was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 1,148 patients with CRPC. A total of 316 men (27.5%) received a CRPC drug in the last month of life. For those who received chemotherapy, abiraterone, and bone-targeted therapy, 10.2%, 27.8%, and 31.8% received them in the last month of life, respectively. In multivariable analyses, age older than 75 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.99), and prostate cancer diagnosis received less than 24 months earlier (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.72) were associated with less CRPC drug use. Relative to dying between 2005 and 2011, dying between 2012 and 2013 (OR 1.60; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.18) was associated with greater CRPC drug use.

CONCLUSION

More than one quarter of patients received CRPC drug therapies in the last month of life. Persistent chemotherapy, abiraterone, bone-targeted therapies, and medical castration drugs in the last month of life may be an indicator of inappropriate and expensive end-of-life care.

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

The Choosing Wisely India campaign was an initiative that was established to identify low-value or potentially harmful practices that are relevant to the Indian cancer health-care system. We undertook a multidisciplinary framework-driven consensus process to identify a list of low-value or harmful cancer practices that are frequently undertaken in India. A task force convened by the National Cancer Grid of India included Indian representatives from surgical, medical, and radiation oncology. Each specialty had representation from the private and public sectors. The task force included two representatives from national patient and patient advocacy groups. Of the ten practices that were identified, four are completely new recommendations, and six are revisions or adaptations from previous Choosing Wisely USA and Canada lists. Recommendations in the final list pertain to diagnosis and treatment (five practices), palliative care (two practices), imaging (two practices), and system-level delivery of care (two practices). Implementation of this list and reporting of concordance with its recommendations will facilitate the delivery of high-quality, value-based cancer care in India.

Five common errors to avoid in clinical practice: the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists (AIGO) Choosing Wisely Campaign

Modern medicine provides almost infinite diagnostic and therapeutic possibilities if compared to the past. As a result, patients undergo a multiplication of tests and therapies, which in turn may trigger further tests, often based on physicians' attitudes or beliefs, which are not always evidence-based. The Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists (AIGO) adhered to the Choosing Wisely Campaign to promote an informed, evidence-based approach to gastroenterological problems. The aim of this article is to report the five recommendations of the AIGO Choosing Wisely Campaign, and the process used to develop them. The AIGO members' suggestions regarding inappropriate practices/interventions were collected. One hundred and twenty-one items were identified. Among these, five items were selected and five recommendations were developed. The five recommendations developed were: (1) Do not request a fecal occult blood test outside the colorectal cancer screening programme; (2) Do not repeat surveillance colonoscopy for polyps, after a quality colonoscopy, before the interval suggested by the gastroenterologist on the colonoscopy report, or based on the polyp histology report; (3) Do not repeat esophagogastroduodenoscopy in patients with reflux symptoms, with or without hiatal hernia, in the absence of different symptoms or alarm symptoms; (4) Do not repeat abdominal ultrasound in asymptomatic patients with small hepatic haemangiomas (diameter < 3 cm) once the diagnosis has been established conclusively; (5) Do not routinely prescribe proton pump inhibitors within the context of steroid use or long-term in patients with functional dyspepsia. AIGO adhered to the Choosing Wisely Campaign and developed five recommendations. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of these recommendations in clinical practice with regards to clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness.

Are radiation oncologists following guidelines? An audit of practice in patients with uncomplicated bone metastases

•

At our center single fraction radiotherapy is used in accordance with guidelines.

•

Patient age, performance status and tumor histology influence treatment choice.

•

We added a quality indicator to our performance dashboard to improve adherence.

•

This strategy can be used in other complex practices and improve quality of care.

Background

Best-practice guidelines recommend single-fraction (SFRT) instead of multi-fraction radiation therapy (MFRT) for uncomplicated symptomatic bone metastases. SFRT is comparable to MFRT in relieving pain, convenient for patients, and cost-effective. Patterns of practice in Canada reveal that SFRT is underused, with significant variability across the country. We audited SFRT use and studied factors that may influence treatment decisions at a large academic tertiary care center in Quebec, Canada.

Methods

Patients who received radiotherapy for uncomplicated bone metastases between February 2014 and March 2015 were reviewed. Age, gender, primary histology, site of metastases and performance status were identified as potential factors affecting fractionation. These were explored by Fisher's test on univariate analysis and logistic regression for multivariate analysis. Retreatment rates were analyzed with cumulative incidence and compared with Gray's test.

Results

254 radiotherapy courses were administered to 165 patients, 85.4% of which were delivered using a single fraction of 8 Gy. Patients age less than 70 years and those with breast histology were more likely to receive MFRT (p = 0.04; p = 0.0046). Performance status (ECOG) was a significant predictor of fractionation because of high correlations between young age, breast histology, and ECOG status (p = 0.03). Follow-up was too short in 40% of patients to derive definitive conclusions on retreatment.

Conclusions

In accordance with current guidelines, our audit confirms that use of SFRT in patients with uncomplicated bone metastases at our center is high. We identified that patient age, primary histology, and performance status influenced fractionation. Incorporation of this quality indicator into our performance dashboard will allow assessment of retreatment differences and other criteria that may also influence treatment choice.

Opportunity is the greatest barrier to providing palliative care to advanced colorectal cancer patients: a survey of oncology clinicians

Palliative care (pc) is part of the recommended standard of care for patients with advanced cancer. Nevertheless, delivery of pc is inconsistent. Patients who could benefit from pc services are often referred late-or not at all. In planning for improvements to oncology pc practice in our health care system, we sought to identify barriers to the provision of earlier pc, as perceived by health care providers managing patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mcrc). We used the Michie Theoretical Domains Framework (tdf) and Behaviour Change Wheel (bcw), together with knowledge of previously identified barriers, to develop a 31-question survey. The survey was distributed by e-mail to mcrc health care providers, including physicians, nurses, and allied staff. Responses were obtained from 57 providers (40% response rate). The most frequently cited barriers were opportunity-related-specifically, lack of time, of clinic space for consultations, and of access to specialist pc staff or services. Qualitative responses revealed that resource limitations varied by cancer centre location. In urban centres, time and space were key barriers. In rural areas, access to specialist pc was the main limiter. Self-perceived capability to manage pc needs was a barrier for 40% of physicians and 30% of nurses. Motivation was the greatest facilitator, with 89% of clinicians perceiving that patients benefit from pc. Based on the Michie tdf and bcw model, interventions that best address the identified barriers are enablement and environmental restructuring. Those findings are informing the development of an intervention plan to improve oncology pc practices in a publicly funded health care system.

Palliative radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases at diagnosis: A hospital-based analysis of patterns of care, RT fractionation scheme, and overall survival

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common malignancies associated with bone metastases, and palliative radiation therapy (RT) is an effective treatment option. A total of 2641 patients were identified with PCa and bone metastases at diagnosis from 2010 to 2014 in the NCDB. Fractionation scheme was designated as short course ([SC‐RT]: 8 Gy in 1 fraction and 20 Gy in 5 fractions) vs long course ([LC‐RT]: 30 Gy in 10 fractions and 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions). Patient characteristics were correlated with fractionation scheme using logistic regression. Overall survival was analyzed using the Kaplan‐Meier method, log‐rank test, Cox proportional hazards models, and propensity score‐matched analyses. A total of 2255 (85.4%) patients were included in the LC‐RT group and 386 (14.6%) patients in the SC‐RT group. SC‐RT was more common in patients over 75 years age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32‐2.20), treatment at an academic center (OR: 1.76, 1.20‐2.57), living greater than 15 miles distance to treatment facility (OR: 1.38, 1.05‐1.83), treatment to the rib (OR: 2.99, 1.36‐6.60), and in 2014 (OR: 1.73, 1.19‐2.51). RT to the spine was more commonly long course (P < .0001). In the propensity‐matched cohort, LC‐RT was associated with improved OS (P < .0001), but no OS difference was observed between 37.5 Gy and either 8 Gy in one fraction or 20 Gy in 5 fractions (P > .5). LC‐RT remains the most common treatment fractionation scheme for palliative bone metastases in PCa patients. Use of palliative SC‐RT is increasing, particularly in more recent years, for older patients, treatment at academic centers, and with increasing distance from a treatment center.

A review of patterns of practice and clinical guidelines in the palliative radiation treatment of uncomplicated bone metastases

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Single fraction radiation treatment (SFRT) is recommended for its equivalence to multiple-fraction (MF) RT in the palliation of uncomplicated bone metastases (BM). However, adoption of SFRT has been slow.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature searches for studies published following 2014 were conducted using online repositories of gray literature, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and Embase Classic, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases.

RESULTS

A total of 32 articles detailing patterns of practice and clinical practice guidelines were included for final synthesis. The majority of organizations have released high level recommendations for SFRT use in treatment of uncomplicated BM, based on evidence of non-inferiority to MFRT. There are key differences between guidelines, such as varying strengths of recommendation for SFRT use over MFRT; contraindication in vertebral sites for SFRT; and risk estimation of pathologic fractures after SFRT. Differences in guidelines may be influenced by committee composition and organization mandate. Differences in patterns of practice may be influenced by individual center policies, payment modalities and consideration of patient factors such as age, prognosis, and performance status.

CONCLUSION

Although there is some variation between groups, the majority of guidelines recommend use of SFRT and others consider it to be a reasonable alternative to MFRT.

Choosing wisely in cancer control across Canada-a set of baseline indicators

Value-based care, which balances high-quality care with the most efficient use of resources, has been considered the next frontier in cancer care and a means to maintain health system sustainability. Created to promote value-based care, Choosing Wisely Canada-modelled after Choosing Wisely in the United States-is a national clinician-driven campaign to identify unnecessary or harmful services that are frequently used in Canada. As part of the campaign, national medical societies have developed recommendations for tests and treatments that clinicians and patients should question. Here, we present baseline indicator findings about current practice patterns associated with 7 cancer-related recommendations from Choosing Wisely Canada and about the effects of those practices on patients and the health care system. Indicator findings point to substantial variations in cancer system performance between Canadian jurisdictions, most notably for breast cancer screening practices, treatment practices for men with low-risk localized prostate cancer, and radiation therapy practices for early-stage breast cancer and bone metastases. Extrapolating indicator findings to the entire country, it was estimated that 740,000 breast and cervical cancer screening tests were performed outside of the recommended age ranges, and within 1 year of diagnosis, 17,000 patients received treatments that could be low-value. A 15% reduction in the use of the 7 screening and treatment practices examined could lead to multiple benefits for patients and the health care system: 9000 false-positive results and 3000 treatments and related side effects could be avoided, and 4500 hours of linear accelerator capacity could be freed up each year. Interjurisdictional performance variations suggest potential differences in clinical practice patterns in the planning and delivery of cancer control services, and in some cases, in disease management outcomes. Although the cancer screening and treatment practices described might be unnecessary for some patients, it is important to realize that they could, in fact, be necessary for other patients. Further research into appropriate rates of use could help to determine how much cancer care represents overuse of practices that are not supported by evidence or underuse of practices that are supported by evidence.

Low-value practices in oncology contributing to financial toxicity

Financial toxicity of cancer treatment is now a well-recognised problem in cancer medicine leading to patient bankruptcy and even poor survival, including in high-income countries and countries with public health care systems. Many oncologists, despite acknowledging the severity of financial toxicity as a problem, resign the responsibility of reducing the costs of cancer treatment to the government, industry, and oncology societies. However, an oncologist can play an important role in reducing the costs of cancer treatment because all cancer treatment decisions are made between the oncologist and the patient. In this article, I point out a few examples of low value practices from various oncology disciplines that we oncologists can easily replace or abandon in our practice and contribute to lessening the financial toxicities to patients and society. As these examples suggest, reducing cost does not necessarily mean compromising efficacy. We should continuously keep looking for other similar cost-saving strategies in our practice.

Choosing Wisely: The Canadian Society of Nephrology's List of 5 Items Physicians and Patients Should Question

Purpose of review:

The purpose of this review is to contribute to the Choosing Wisely Canada campaign and develop a list of 5 items for nephrology health care professionals and patients to re-evaluate based on evidence that they are overused or misused.

Sources of information:

A working group was formed from the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee. This working group sequentially used a multistage Delphi method, a survey of CSN members, a modified Delphi process, and a comprehensive literature review to determine 10 candidate items representing potentially ineffective care in nephrology. An in-person vote by CSN members at their Annual General Meeting was used to rank each item based on their relevance to and potential impact on patients with kidney disease to derive the final 5 items on the list.

Key messages:

One hundred thirty-four of 609 (22%) CSN members responded to the survey, from which the CSN working group identified 10 candidate-misused items. Sixty-five CSN members voted on the ranking of these items. The top 5 recommendations selected for the final list were (1) do not initiate erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) with hemoglobin levels greater than or equal to 100 g/L without symptoms of anemia; (2) do not prescribe nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for individuals with hypertension or heart failure or CKD of all causes, including diabetes; (3) do not prescribe angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors in combination with angiotensin II receptor blockers for the treatment of hypertension, diabetic nephropathy or heart failure; (4) do not initiate chronic dialysis without ensuring a shared decision-making process between patients, their families, and their nephrology health care team; and (5) do not initiate dialysis in outpatients with CKD category G5-ND in the absence of clinical indications.

Limitations:

A low survey response rate of both community and academic nephrologists could contribute to sampling bias. However, the purpose of this report is to generate discussion, rather than study practice variation.

Implications:

These 5 evidence-based recommendations aim to improve outcomes and individualize care for patients with kidney disease, while reducing inefficiencies and preventing harm.

Evaluating Frameworks That Provide Value Measures for Health Care Interventions

The recent acceleration of scientific discovery has led to greater choices in health care. New technologies, diagnostic tests, and pharmaceuticals have widely varying impact on patients and populations in terms of benefits, toxicities, and costs, stimulating a resurgence of interest in the creation of frameworks intended to measure value in health. Many of these are offered by providers and/or advocacy organizations with expertise and interest in specific diseases (e.g., cancer and heart disease). To help assess the utility of and the potential biases embedded in these frameworks, we created an evaluation taxonomy with seven basic components: 1) define the purpose; 2) detail the conceptual approach, including perspectives, methods for obtaining preferences of decision makers (e.g., patients), and ability to incorporate multiple dimensions of value; 3) discuss inclusions and exclusions of elements included in the framework, and whether the framework assumes clinical intervention or offers alternatives such as palliative care or watchful waiting; 4) evaluate data sources and their scientific validity; 5) assess the intervention's effect on total costs of treating a defined population; 6) analyze how uncertainty is incorporated; and 7) illuminate possible conflicts of interest among those creating the framework. We apply the taxonomy to four representative value frameworks recently published by professional organizations focused on treatment of cancer and heart disease and on vaccine use. We conclude that each of these efforts has strengths and weaknesses when evaluated using our taxonomy, and suggest pathways to enhance the utility of value-assessing frameworks for policy and clinical decision making.

Use of low-value radiotherapy practices in Canada: an analysis of provincial cancer registry data

BACKGROUND

As part of Choosing Wisely Canada (a national campaign to encourage patient-provider conversations about unnecessary medical tests, treatments, and procedures), a list of ten oncology practices that could be low-value in some instances was developed. Of those practices, two were specific to radiation therapy (rt): conventional fractionation as part of breast-conserving therapy (bct) for women with early-stage breast cancer, and multifraction radiation for palliation of uncomplicated painful bone metastases. Here, we report baseline findings for the current utilization rates of those two rt practices in Canada.

RESULTS

The use of conventional fractionation as part of bct varied substantially from province to province. Of women 50 years of age and older, between 8.8% (Alberta) and 36.5% (Saskatchewan) received radiation in 25 fractions (excluding boost irradiation) as part of bct. The use of hypofractionated rt (that is, 16 fractions excluding boost irradiation)-a preferred approach for many patients-was more common in all 6 reporting provinces, ranging from 43.2% in Saskatchewan to 94.7% in Prince Edward Island. The use of multifraction rt for palliation of bone metastases also varied from province to province, ranging from 40.3% in British Columbia to 69.0% in Saskatchewan. The most common number of fractions delivered to bone metastases was 1, at 50.2%; the second most common numbers were 2-5 fractions, at 41.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding variation in the use of potentially low-value rt practices can help to inform future strategies to promote higher-value care, which balances high-quality care with the efficient use of limited system resources. Further work is needed to understand the factors contributing to the interprovincial variation observed and to develop benchmarks for the appropriate rate of use of these rt practices.

Patterns of care and treatment trends for Canadian men with localized low-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of provincial cancer registry data

BACKGROUND

Many prostate cancers (pcas) are indolent and, if left untreated, are unlikely to cause death or morbidity in a man's lifetime. As a result of testing for prostate-specific antigen, more such cases are being identified, leading to concerns about "overdiagnosis" and consequent overtreatment of pca. To mitigate the risks associated with overtreatment (that is, invasive therapies that might cause harm to the patient without tangible benefit), approaches such as active surveillance are now preferred for many men with low-risk localized pca (specifically, T1/2a, prostate-specific antigen ≤ 10 ng/mL, and Gleason score ≤ 6). Here, we report on patterns of care and treatment trends for men with localized low-risk pca.

RESULTS

The provinces varied substantially with respect to the types of primary treatment received by men with localized low-risk pca. From 2010 to 2013, many men had no record of surgical or radiation treatment within 1 year of diagnosis-a proxy for active surveillance; the proportion ranged from 53.3% in Nova Scotia to 80.8% in New Brunswick. Among men who did receive primary treatment, the use of radical prostatectomy ranged from 12.0% in New Brunswick to 35.9% in Nova Scotia. The use of radiation therapy (external-beam radiation therapy or brachytherapy) ranged from 4.1% in Newfoundland and Labrador to 17.6% in Alberta. Treatment trends over time suggest an increase in the use of active surveillance. The proportion of men with low-risk pca and no record of surgical or radiation treatment rose to 69.9% in 2013 from 46.1% in 2010 for all provinces combined.

CONCLUSIONS

The provinces varied substantially with respect to patterns of care for localized low-risk pca. Treatment trends over time suggest an increasing use of active surveillance. Those findings can further the discussion about the complex care associated with pca and identify opportunities for improvement in clinical practice.