The effect of diagnostic assessment programs on the diagnosis and treatment of patients with lung cancer in Ontario, Canada

Factors Influencing the Timeliness and Completeness of Appropriate Staging Investigations for Patients with Stage I-III Lung Cancer in Southeastern Ontario

(1) Background: Comprehensive and timely lung cancer (LC) staging is essential for prognosis and management. The Lung Diagnostic Assessment Program (LDAP) in Southeastern (SE) Ontario aims to provide rapid, guideline-concordant care for suspected LC patients. We evaluated factors affecting the completeness and timeliness of staging for stage I-III LC patients in SE Ontario, including the impact of LDAP management. (2) Methods: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study using the LDAP database (January 2017-December 2019), linked with the Ontario Cancer Registry, to identify newly diagnosed LC patients. A Cox model approach identified variables associated with staging completeness and timeliness. (3) Results: Among 755 patients, 459 (60.8%) were managed through LDAP. Optimal staging was achieved in 596 patients (78.9%), 23 (3.0%) had alternative staging, and 136 (18.0%) had incomplete staging. In the adjusted analyses, LDAP management was associated with a higher likelihood of complete staging (OR 2.29, p < 0.0001) and faster staging completion (β = -18.53, p < 0.0001). Increased distance to PET centres was associated with a longer time to complete staging (β = 8.95 per 100 km, p = 0.0007), as was longer time to diagnosis (β = 21.63 per 30 days, p < 0.0001). (4) Conclusions: LDAP management in SE Ontario significantly improved staging completeness and shortened staging time for stage I-III LC patients.

Pathways to cancer care after a suspected cancer diagnosis in the emergency department: a survey of emergency physicians across Ontario

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about how patients are managed after a suspected cancer diagnosis through the emergency department. The objective of this study was to examine the ED management, specifically referral practices, for ten suspected cancer diagnoses by emergency physicians across Ontario and to explore variability in management by cancer-type and centre.

METHODS

An electronic survey was distributed to emergency physicians across Ontario, asking about referral practices for patients who could be discharged from the ED with one of ten suspected cancer diagnoses. Options for referral included: in-ED consult, outpatient medical or surgical specialists, surgical or medical oncology, and specialized cancer clinics. Data were described using frequencies and proportions. Variance partition coefficients were calculated to determine variation in responses attributed to differences between hospitals, with physicians nested within hospitals.

RESULTS

262 physicians from 54 EDs responded. Across most cancers, emergency physicians would refer to surgical specialists for further work-up; however, this ranged from 30.2% for lung cancer to 69.5% for head and neck cancer. For patients with an unknown primary malignancy, most physicians would refer to internal medicine clinic (34.3%) or obtain an in-ED consult (25.0%). Few physicians would refer directly to surgical or medical oncology from the ED. Comments suggest this may be due to oncologists requiring tissue confirmation of malignancy. Most referrals to specialized clinics were for suspected lung (30.2%) or breast cancer (19.5%); however, these appear to only be available at some centres. Variance in referrals between hospitals was lowest for breast cancer (variance partition coefficient = 8.6%) and highest for unknown primary malignancies (variance partition coefficient = 29.8%).

INTERPRETATION

Physician management of new suspected cancer varies between EDs and is specific to cancer type. Strategies to standardize access to cancer care in a timely and equitable way for patients with newly suspected cancer in the ED are needed.

Improving Access to Care, Patient Costs, and Environmental Impact Through a Community Outreach Lung Cancer Rapid Assessment Clinic

PURPOSE

In Southeastern Ontario, increased patient distance from the regional lung cancer diagnostic assessment program (LDAP) is associated with a lower likelihood of patient care via LDAP while receiving care via LDAP is associated with improved survival. We implemented an LDAP outreach clinic to provide specialist assessment for patients with suspected lung cancer at a regional community hospital and assessed the impact on timeliness and accessibility of care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Kingston Health Sciences Centre LDAP team engaged with community hospital partners to develop and launch the LDAP outreach clinic. We performed a retrospective chart review of LDAP patients (N = 1,070) before (August-November 2021; n = 234) and after implementation of the outreach clinic (November 2021-October 2022; n = 836). Descriptive data are reported as No. (%). Unpaired t tests and statistical process control charts assess for significance. A cost analysis of out-of-pocket patient costs related to travel and parking is presented in 2022 Canadian dollars (CAD).

RESULTS

Compared with a 3-month matched time period before (August-October 2021) and after outreach clinic (August-October 2022), the mean time from referral to assessment and time from referral to diagnosis decreased from 20.3 to 14.4 days (P = .0019) and 40.0 to 28.9 days (P = .0007), respectively. Over 12 months, the total patient travel was reduced by 8,856 km, which combined with parking cost-savings, resulted in patient out-of-pocket savings of CAD $5,755.60 (CAD $47.60/patient). Accounting for physician travel, the total travel saved was 5,688 km, corresponding to reduced CO2 emissions by 1.9 tCO2.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a lung cancer outreach clinic led to improved timeliness of care, patient cost-savings, and reduced carbon footprint while serving patients in their community.

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.

Refining the thoracic surgical oncology regionalization standards for esophageal surgery in Ontario, Canada: Moving from good to better

BACKGROUND

The consolidation of surgical practices has been suggested to improve patient outcomes for complex surgeries. In 2005, Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario released the Thoracic Surgical Oncology Standards to facilitate the regionalization process at thoracic centers in Ontario, Canada. This work describes the quality-improvement process involved in updating the minimum surgical volume and supporting requirement recommendations for thoracic centers to further optimize patient care for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review to identify and synthesize evidence informing the volume-outcome relationship related to esophagectomy. The results of this review and esophageal cancer surgery common indicators (reoperation rate, unplanned visit rate, 30-day and 90-day mortality) from Ontario's Surgical Quality Indicator Report were presented and reviewed by a Thoracic Esophageal Standards Expert Panel and Surgical Oncology Program Leads at Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario. Hospital outliers were identified, and a subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the most appropriate minimum surgical volume threshold based on 30- and 90-day mortality rates data from the last 3 fiscal years.

RESULTS

Based on the finding that a significant decrease in mortality occurred at 12 to 15 esophagectomies per year, the Thoracic Esophageal Standards Expert Panel reached a consensus that thoracic centers should perform a minimum of 15 esophagectomies per year. The panel also recommended that any center performing esophagectomies have at least 3 thoracic surgeons to ensure continuity in clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

We have described the process involved in updating the provincial minimum volume threshold and the appropriate support services for esophageal cancer surgery in Ontario.

Characterizing Variability in Lung Cancer Outcomes and Influence of a Lung Diagnostic Assessment Program in Southeastern Ontario, Canada

INTRODUCTION

Regional variability in lung cancer (LC) outcomes exists across Canada, including in the province of Ontario. The Lung Diagnostic Assessment Program (LDAP) in southeastern (SE) Ontario is a rapid-assessment clinic that expedites the management of patients with suspected LC. We evaluated the association of LDAP management with LC outcomes, including survival, and characterized the variability in LC outcomes across SE Ontario.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study by identifying patients with newly diagnosed LC through the Ontario Cancer Registry (January 2017-December 2019) and linked to the LDAP database to identify LDAP-managed patients. Descriptive data were collected. Using a Cox model approach, we compared 2-year survival for patients managed through LDAP vs. non-LDAP.

RESULTS

We identified 1832 patients, 1742 of whom met the inclusion criteria (47% LDAP-managed and 53% non-LDAP). LDAP management was associated with a lower probability of dying at 2 years (HR 0.76 vs. non-LDAP, p < 0.0001). Increasing distance from the LDAP was associated with a lower likelihood of LDAP management (OR 0.78 for every 20 km increase, p < 0.0001). LDAP-managed patients were more likely to receive specialist assessment and undergo treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

In SE Ontario, initial diagnostic care provided via LDAP was independently associated with improved survival in patients with LC.

Management of pulmonary nodules in women with pregnant intention: A review with perspective

The process for the management of pulmonary nodules in women with pregnant intention remains a challenge. There was a certain proportion of targeted female patients with high-risk lung cancer, and anxiety for suspicious lung cancer in early stage also exists. A comprehensive review of hereditary of lung cancer, effects of sexual hormone on lung cancer, natural history of pulmonary nodules, and computed tomography imaging with radiation exposure based on PubMed search was completed. The heredity of lung cancer and effects of sexual hormone on lung cancer are not the decisive factors, and the natural history of pulmonary nodules and the radiation exposure of imaging should be the main concerns. The management of incidental pulmonary nodules in young women with pregnant intention is an intricate and indecisive problem we have to encounter. The balance between the natural history of pulmonary nodules and the radiation exposure of imaging should be weighed.

Characterizing Regional Variability in Lung Cancer Outcomes across Ontario-A Population-Based Analysis

Background: Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality. In Ontario, Canada, there are significant survival differences for patients with newly diagnosed LC across the 14 provincial regions. Methods: A population-based retrospective cohort study using ICES databases from 01/2007-12/2017 identified patients with newly diagnosed LC through the Ontario Cancer Registry and those with LC as the cause of death. Descriptive data included patient, disease, and system characteristics. The primary outcome was 5-year survival by region. Results: 178,202 patient records were identified; 101,263 met inclusion criteria. LC incidence varied by region (5.6-14.6/10,000), as did histologic subtype (adenocarcinoma: 27.3-46.1%). Five-year cancer-specific survival was impacted by age, rurality, pathologic subtype, stage at diagnosis, and income quintile. Timely care was inversely related to survival (fastest quintile: HR 3.22, p < 0.0001). Adjusted 5-year cancer-specific survival varied across regions (24.1%, HR 1.12; 34.0%, HR 0.89, p < 0.001). Conclusions: When adjusting for confounders, differences in survival by health region persisted, suggesting a complex interplay between patient, disease, and system factors. A single approach to improving patient care is likely to be ineffective across different systems. Quality improvement initiatives to improve patient outcomes require different approaches amongst health regions to address local disparities in care.

Implementing and Sustaining Early Cancer Diagnosis Initiatives in Canada: An Exploratory Qualitative Study

Background: The interval between suspected cancer and diagnosis for symptomatic patients is often fragmented, leading to diagnosis delays and increased patient stress. We conducted an exploratory qualitative study to explore barriers and facilitators to implementing and sustaining current initiatives across Canada that optimize early cancer diagnosis, with particular relevance for symptomatic patients. Methods: The national study included a document review and key informant interviews with purposefully recruited participants. Data were analyzed by two researchers using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results: Twenty-two participants from eight provinces participated in key informant interviews and reported on 17 early cancer diagnosis initiatives. Most initiatives (88%) were in early phases of implementation. Two patient-facing and eight provider/organization barriers to implementation (e.g., lack of stakeholder buy-in and limited resources) and five facilitators for implementation and sustainability were identified. Opportunities to improve early cancer diagnosis initiatives included building relationships with stakeholders, co-creating initiatives, developing initiatives for Indigenous and underserved populations, optimizing efficiency and sustainability, and standardizing metrics to evaluate impact. Conclusion: Early cancer diagnosis initiatives in Canada are in early implementation phases. Lack of stakeholder buy-in and limited resources pose a challenge to sustainability. We present opportunities for funders and policymakers to optimize the use and potential impact of early cancer diagnosis initiatives.

Variation in Diagnosis, Treatment, and Outcome of Esophageal Cancer in a Regionalized Care System in Ontario, Canada

IMPORTANCE

Esophageal cancer remains one of the most deadly cancers, ranking sixth highest among cancers leading to the greatest years of life lost.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how patients with esophageal cancer are diagnosed and treated in Ontario's regionalized thoracic surgery centers.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018, identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry, in a single-payer health care system with regionalization of thoracic surgery in the province of Ontario, Canada.

EXPOSURES

Exposures included incidence of esophageal cancer and stage at diagnosis; time from the first health care visit until treatment; and the use of specialist consultations, endoscopic ultrasonography, positron emission tomography and computed tomography, endomucosal resection, esophagectomy, neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, radiation alone, and chemotherapy alone or in combination with other treatment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Outcome measures included wait times, health care use, treatment, and overall survival. Data were analyzed from March 2020 to February 2021.

RESULTS

There were 10 364 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.3 [11.9] years; 7876 men [76%]) identified during the study period. The incidence of esophageal cancer increased over the study period from 1041 in 2010 to 1309 in 2018, which was driven by a 30% increase in the number of adenocarcinomas. The time from first health care encounter to start of treatment was a median 93 days (interquartile range, 56-159 days). Endoscopic ultrasonography was observed for 12% of patients, and positron emission tomography and computed tomography (CT) in 45%. Use of endoscopic mucosal resection was observed for 8% of patients with stage 0 to I disease. A total of 114 of 547 patients (21%) receiving endoscopic resection had a subsequent esophagectomy. Only 2778 patients (27%) had consultations with a thoracic surgeon, a medical oncologist, and a radiation oncologist, whereas 1514 patients (15%) did not see any of these specialists. Of 3047 patients who had an esophagectomy, those receiving neoadjuvant therapy had better overall survival (median survival, 36 months; 95% CI, 32-39 months) than patients who received esophagectomy alone (median survival, 27 months; 95% CI, 24-30 months) or those who received esophagectomy with adjuvant therapy (median survival, 36 months; 95% CI, 32-44 months) despite significant early mortality (log-rank P < .001). There was significant variation in treatment modality across hospitals: esophagectomy ranged from 5% to 39%; esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy ranged from 33% to 93%; and esophagectomy followed by adjuvant therapy ranged from 0 to 34% (P < .001). Perioperative mortality was higher at 30 days for patients receiving esophagectomy at low-volume centers (odds ratio [OR], 3.66; 95% CI, 2.01-6.66) and medium-volume centers (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.33-3.23) compared with high-volume centers (P < .001). A longer wait time until treatment was associated with better overall survival (median overall survival was 15 to 17 days vs 5 to 8 days for patients who received treatment earlier than 30 days vs 30 days or longer after diagnosis; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The results of this cohort study suggest that despite regionalization, there was significant regional variability in volumes at designated centers and in the evaluation and treatment course for patients with esophageal cancer across Ontario.

An Audit of Opportunistic Lung Cancer Screening in a Canadian Province

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death in Canada. Early detection can improve outcomes and despite recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to screen patients who are 55 to 74 years old and have a 30+ pack-year history, formal screening programs are rare in Canada. Our goal was to determine if screening is being performed in a representative Canadian population, if recommendations are being followed, and how screening impacts lung cancer stage at diagnosis and prognosis.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients either screened for lung cancer or imaged due to lung cancer symptoms in Eastern Newfoundland between 2015 and 2018. Age, smoking history, screening modality, diagnosis, cancer stage, and mortality were recorded.

RESULTS

Under 6.0% of the eligible population were screened for lung cancer with only 28.13% meeting age and smoking criteria and being screened appropriately with low-dose CT. However, 70% of patients that had lung cancers found by screening met age and smoking screening criteria. While lung cancer detection rates were similar, screening detected cancer in patients at an earlier stage (50% Stage 1) compared to patients who were not screened (20% Stage 1). Patients who were screened had an improved prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians are opportunistically screening for lung cancer, but not consistently following screening guidelines. As screening is sensitive, leads to earlier stage diagnosis, and has a mortality benefit, implementation of an organized screening program could increase quality assurance and prevent many lung-cancer related deaths.