Machine Learning to Allocate Palliative Care Consultations During Cancer Treatment

PURPOSE

For patients with advanced cancer, early consultations with palliative care (PC) specialists reduce costs, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. However, capacity limitations prevent all patients from receiving PC shortly after diagnosis. We evaluated whether a prognostic machine learning system could promote early PC, given existing capacity.

METHODS

Using population-level administrative data in Ontario, Canada, we assembled a cohort of patients with incurable cancer who received palliative-intent systemic therapy between July 1, 2014, and December 30, 2019. We developed a machine learning system that predicted death within 1 year of each treatment using demographics, cancer characteristics, treatments, symptoms, laboratory values, and history of acute care admissions. We trained the system in patients who started treatment before July 1, 2017, and evaluated the potential impact of the system on PC in subsequent patients.

RESULTS

Among 560,210 treatments received by 54,628 patients, death occurred within 1 year of 45.2% of treatments. The machine learning system recommended the same number of PC consultations observed with usual care at the 60.0% 1-year risk of death, with a first-alarm positive predictive value of 69.7% and an outcome-level sensitivity of 74.9%. Compared with usual care, system-guided care could increase early PC by 8.5% overall (95% CI, 7.5 to 9.5; P < .001) and by 15.3% (95% CI, 13.9 to 16.6; P < .001) among patients who live 6 months beyond their first treatment, without requiring more PC consultations in total or substantially increasing PC among patients with a prognosis exceeding 2 years.

CONCLUSION

Prognostic machine learning systems could increase early PC despite existing resource constraints. These results demonstrate an urgent need to deploy and evaluate prognostic systems in real-time clinical practice to increase access to early PC.

Virtual Cancer Care Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: Patient and Staff Perspectives and Recommendations

PURPOSE

COVID-19 catalyzed rapid implementation of virtual cancer care (VC); however, work is needed to inform long-term adoption. We evaluated patient and staff experiences with VC at a large urban, tertiary cancer center to inform recommendations for postpandemic sustainment.

METHODS

All physicians who had provided VC during the pandemic and all patients who had a valid e-mail address on file and at least one visit to the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada, in the preceding year were invited to complete a survey. Interviews and focus groups with patients and staff across the cancer center were analyzed using qualitative descriptive analysis and triangulated with survey findings.

RESULTS

Response rates for patients and physicians were 15% (2,343 of 15,169) and 41% (100 of 246), respectively. A greater proportion of patients than physicians were satisfied with VC (80.1 v 53.4%; P < .01). In addition, fewer patients than physicians felt that virtual visits were worse than those conducted in person (28.0 v 43.4%; P < .01) and that telephone and video visits negatively affected the human interaction that they valued (59.8% v 82.0%; P < .01). Major barriers to VC for patients were respect for care preferences and personal boundaries, accessibility, and equitable access. For staff, major barriers included a lack of role clarity, dedicated resources (space and technology), integration of nursing and allied health, support (administrative, clinical, and technical), and guidance on appropriateness of use.

CONCLUSION

Patient and staff perceptions and barriers to virtual care are different. Moving forward, we need to pay attention to both staff and patient experiences with virtual care since this will have major implications for long-term adoption into clinical practice.

The Impact of the Pandemic on the Quality of Colorectal and Anal Cancer Care, and 2-Year Clinical Outcomes

We undertook a retrospective study to compare the quality of care delivered to a cohort of newly diagnosed adults with colon, rectal or anal cancer during the early phase of COVID-19 (02/20-12/20) relative to the same period in the year prior (the comparator cohort), and examine the impact of the pandemic on 2-year disease progression and all-cause mortality. We observed poorer performance on a number of quality measures, such as approximately three times as many patients in the COVID-19 cohort experienced 30-day post-surgical readmission (10.5% vs. 3.6%; SD:0.27). Despite these differences, we observed no statistically significant adjusted associations between COVID-19 and time to either all-cause mortality (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.61-1.27, p = 0.50) or disease progression (HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.82-1.64, p = 0.41). However, there was a substantial reduction in new patient consults during the early phase of COVID-19 (12.2% decrease), which appeared to disproportionally impact patients who traditionally experience sociodemographic disparities in access to care, given that the COVID-19 cohort skewed younger and there were fewer patients from neighborhoods with the highest Housing and Dwelling, ands Age and Labour Force marginalization quintiles. Future work is needed to understand the more downstream effects of COVID-19 related changes on cancer care to inform planning for future disruptions in care.

TOward a comPrehensive supportive Care intervention for Older men with metastatic Prostate cancer (TOPCOP3): A pilot randomized controlled trial and process evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Current management of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) includes androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy (ARATs), which is associated with substantial toxicity in older adults. Geriatric assessment and management and remote symptom monitoring have been shown to reduce toxicity and improve quality of life in patients undergoing chemotherapy, but their efficacy in patients being treated with ARATs has not been explored. The purpose of this study is to examine whether these interventions, alone or in combination, can improve treatment tolerability and quality of life (QOL) for older adults with metastatic prostate cancer on ARATs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

TOPCOP3 is a multi-centre, factorial pilot clinical trial coupled with an embedded process evaluation. The study includes four treatment arms: geriatric assessment and management (GA + M); remote symptom monitoring (RSM); geriatric assessment and management plus remote symptom monitoring; and usual care and will be followed for six months. The aim is to recruit 168 patients between two cancer centres in Toronto, Canada. Eligible participants will be randomized equally via REDCap. Participants in all arms will complete a comprehensive baseline assessment upon enrollment following the Geriatric Core dataset, as well as follow-up assessments at 1.5, 3, 4.5, and 6 months. The co-primary outcomes will be grade 3-5 toxicity and QOL. Toxicities will be graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. QOL will be measured by patient self-reporting using the EuroQol 5 dimensions of health questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include fatigue, insomnia, and depression. Finally, four process evaluation outcomes will also be observed, namely feasibility, fidelity, and acceptability, along with implementation barriers and facilitators.

DISCUSSION

Data will be collected to observe the effects of GA + M and RSM on QOL and toxicities experienced by older adults receiving ARATs for metastatic prostate cancer. Data will also be collected to help the design and conduct of a definitive multicentre phase III randomized controlled trial. This study will extend supportive care interventions for older adults with cancer into new areas and inform the design of larger trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT05582772).

Indolent lymphoma care delivery and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada

The treatment pattern and outcomes in patients with indolent B-cell lymphoma treated during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period compared to the prepandemic period are unclear. This was a retrospective population-based study using administrative databases in Ontario, Canada (follow-up to 31 March 2022). The primary outcome was treatment pattern; secondary outcomes were death, toxicities, healthcare utilization (emergency department [ED] visit, hospitalization) and SARS-CoV-2 outcomes. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) from Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate associations. We identified 4143 patients (1079 pandemic, 3064 prepandemic), with a median age of 69 years. In both time periods, bendamustine (B) + rituximab (BR) was the most frequently prescribed regimen. During the pandemic, fewer patients received R maintenance or completed the full 2-year course (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.92, p = 0.001). Patients treated during the pandemic had less healthcare utilization (ED visit aHR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68, 0.88, p < 0.0001; hospitalization aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94, p = 0.0067) and complications (infection aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82, p < 0.0001; febrile neutropenia aHR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.94, p = 0.020), with no difference in death. Independent of vaccination, active rituximab use was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 complications. Despite similar front-line regimen use, healthcare utilization and admissions for infection were less in the pandemic cohort.

Prevalence and drivers of nurse and physician distress in cardiovascular and oncology programmes at a Canadian quaternary hospital network during the COVID-19 pandemic: a quality improvement initiative

OBJECTIVES

To assess the prevalence and drivers of distress, a composite of burnout, decreased meaning in work, severe fatigue, poor work-life integration and quality of life, and suicidal ideation, among nurses and physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional design to evaluate distress levels of nurses and physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic between June and August 2021.

SETTING

Cardiovascular and oncology care settings at a Canadian quaternary hospital network.

PARTICIPANTS

261 nurses and 167 physicians working in cardiovascular or oncology care. Response rate was 29% (428 of 1480).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Survey tool to measure clinician distress using the Well-Being Index (WBI) and additional questions about workplace-related and COVID-19 pandemic-related factors.

RESULTS

Among 428 respondents, nurses (82%, 214 of 261) and physicians (62%, 104 of 167) reported high distress on the WBI survey. Higher WBI scores (≥2) in nurses were associated with perceived inadequate staffing (174 (86%) vs 28 (64%), p=0.003), unfair treatment, (105 (52%) vs 11 (25%), p=0.005), and pandemic-related impact at work (162 (80%) vs 22 (50%), p<0.001) and in their personal life (135 (67%) vs 11 (25%), p<0.001), interfering with job performance. Higher WBI scores (≥3) in physicians were associated with perceived inadequate staffing (81 (79%) vs 32 (52%), p=0.001), unfair treatment (44 (43%) vs 13 (21%), p=0.02), professional dissatisfaction (29 (28%) vs 5 (8%), p=0.008), and pandemic-related impact at work (84 (82%) vs 35 (56%), p=0.001) and in their personal life (56 (54%) vs 24 (39%), p=0.014), interfering with job performance.

CONCLUSION

High distress was common among nurses and physicians working in cardiovascular and oncology care settings during the pandemic and linked to factors within and beyond the workplace. These results underscore the complex and contextual aspects of clinician distress, and the need to develop targeted approaches to effectively address this problem.

Socioeconomic Status, Palliative Care, and Death at Home Among Patients With Cancer Before and During COVID-19

Importance

The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the delivery of cancer care, but less is known about its association with place of death and delivery of specialized palliative care (SPC) and potential disparities in these outcomes.

Objective

To evaluate the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life and to examine whether disparities in socioeconomic status exist for these outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study, an interrupted time series analysis was conducted using Ontario Cancer Registry data comprising adult patients aged 18 years or older who died with cancer between the pre-COVID-19 (March 16, 2015, to March 15, 2020) and COVID-19 (March 16, 2020, to March 15, 2021) periods. The data analysis was performed between March and November 2023.

Exposure

COVID-19-related hospital restrictions starting March 16, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes were death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life (last 30 days before death). Socioeconomic status was measured using Ontario Marginalization Index area-based material deprivation quintiles, with quintile 1 (Q1) indicating the least deprivation; Q3, intermediate deprivation; and Q5, the most deprivation. Segmented linear regression was used to estimate monthly trends in outcomes before, at the start of, and in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

Of 173 915 patients in the study cohort (mean [SD] age, 72.1 [12.5] years; males, 54.1% [95% CI, 53.8%-54.3%]), 83.7% (95% CI, 83.6%-83.9%) died in the pre-COVID-19 period and 16.3% (95% CI, 16.1%-16.4%) died in the COVID-19 period, 54.5% (95% CI, 54.2%-54.7%) died at home during the entire study period, and 57.8% (95% CI, 57.5%-58.0%) received SPC at the end of life. In March 2020, home deaths increased by 8.3% (95% CI, 7.4%-9.1%); however, this increase was less marked in Q5 (6.1%; 95% CI, 4.4%-7.8%) than in Q1 (11.4%; 95% CI, 9.6%-13.2%) and Q3 (10.0%; 95% CI, 9.0%-11.1%). There was a simultaneous decrease of 5.3% (95% CI, -6.3% to -4.4%) in the rate of SPC at the end of life, with no significant difference among quintiles. Patients who received SPC at the end of life (vs no SPC) were more likely to die at home before and during the pandemic. However, there was a larger immediate increase in home deaths among those who received no SPC at the end of life vs those who received SPC (Q1, 17.5% [95% CI, 15.2%-19.8%] vs 7.6% [95% CI, 5.4%-9.7%]; Q3, 12.7% [95% CI, 10.8%-14.5%] vs 9.0% [95% CI, 7.2%-10.7%]). For Q5, the increase in home deaths was significant only for patients who did not receive SPC (13.9% [95% CI, 11.9%-15.8%] vs 1.2% [95% CI, -1.0% to 3.5%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with amplified socioeconomic disparities in death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life. Future research should focus on the mechanisms of these disparities and on developing interventions to ensure equitable and consistent SPC access.

Interventions to Promote Safety Culture in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

There is limited guidance on how to effectively promote safety culture in health care settings. We performed a systematic review to identify interventions to promote safety culture, specifically in oncology settings.

METHODS

Medical Subject Headings and text words for "safety culture" and "cancer care" were combined to conduct structured searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science for peer-reviewed articles published from 1999 to 2021. To be included, articles had to evaluate a safety culture intervention in an oncology setting using a randomized or nonrandomized, pre-post (controlled or uncontrolled), interrupted time series, or repeated-measures study design. The review followed PRISMA guidelines; quality of included citations was assessed using the ROBINS-I risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles meeting the inclusion criteria were retained, reporting on interventions in radiation (14 of 18), medical (3 of 18), or general oncology (1 of 18) settings. Articles most commonly addressed incident learning systems (7 of 18), lean initiatives (4 of 18), or quality improvement programs (3 of 18). Although 72% of studies reported improvement in safety culture, there was substantial heterogeneity in the evaluation approach; rates of reporting of adverse events (9 of 18) or Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Culture survey results (9 of 18) were the most commonly used metrics. Most of the studies had moderate (28%) or severe (67%) risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a growing evidence base describing interventions to promote safety culture in cancer care, definitive recommendations were difficult to make because of heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes. Implementation of incident learning systems seems to hold most promise.

Patient Perceptions of the Impact of the COVID Pandemic on the Quality of Their Gastrointestinal Cancer Care

We surveyed patients who had a received care for a gastrointestinal cancer between 03/2020 and 05/2021 to understand their perceptions of the impact of the Covid pandemic on cancer care delivery and quality of care. Three-hundred fifty-eight respondents provided evaluable responses (response rate: 17.3%). Approximately half of respondents (46.4%) perceived that they had experienced a pandemic-related cancer care modification; most changes were initiated by a clinician or the cancer center (44.6%). Relative to White patients those from Racialized Groups (OR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.03-3.54) were more likely to report a cancer treatment change. Additionally, relative to patients in follow-up, those who were newly diagnosed (OR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.21-4.71) were more likely to report a change. Compared to White patients, patients from Racialized Groups were approximately twice as likely to report perceiving that virtual visits during Covid negatively impacted the quality of their care (OR: 2.21; 95% CI: 0.96-5.08). These findings potentially reflect pre-existing systemic disparities in quality of and access to care, as well as differences in how care is experienced by patients from Racialized Groups.

Drivers of Emergency Department Use Among Oncology Patients in the Era of Novel Cancer Therapeutics: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patients diagnosed with cancer are frequent users of the emergency department (ED). While many visits are unavoidable, a significant portion may be potentially preventable ED visits (PPEDs). Cancer treatments have greatly advanced, whereby patients may present with unique toxicities from targeted therapies and are often living longer with advanced disease. Prior work focused on patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy, and often excluded those on supportive care alone. Other contributors to ED visits in oncology, such as patient-level variables, are less well-established. Finally, prior studies focused on ED diagnoses to describe trends and did not evaluate PPEDs. An updated systematic review was completed to focus on PPEDs, novel cancer therapies, and patient-level variables, including those on supportive care alone.

METHODS

Three online databases were used. Included publications were in English, from 2012-2022, with sample sizes of ≥50, and reported predictors of ED presentation or ED diagnoses in oncology.

RESULTS

45 studies were included. Six studies highlighted PPEDs with variable definitions. Common reasons for ED visits included pain (66%) or chemotherapy toxicities (69.1%). PPEDs were most frequent amongst breast cancer patients (13.4%) or patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy (20%). Three manuscripts included immunotherapy agents, and only one focused on end-of-life patients.

CONCLUSION

This updated systematic review highlights variability in oncology ED visits during the last decade. There is limited work on the concept of PPEDs, patient-level variables and patients on supportive care alone. Overall, pain and chemotherapy toxicities remain key drivers of ED visits in cancer patients. Further work is needed in this realm.

Machine Learning-Based Early Warning Systems for Acute Care Utilization During Systemic Therapy for Cancer

BACKGROUND

Emergency department visits and hospitalizations frequently occur during systemic therapy for cancer. We developed and evaluated a longitudinal warning system for acute care use.

METHODS

Using a retrospective population-based cohort of patients who started intravenous systemic therapy for nonhematologic cancers between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2020, we randomly separated patients into cohorts for model training, hyperparameter tuning and model selection, and system testing. Predictive features included static features, such as demographics, cancer type, and treatment regimens, and dynamic features, such as patient-reported symptoms and laboratory values. The longitudinal warning system predicted the probability of acute care utilization within 30 days after each treatment session. Machine learning systems were developed in the training and tuning cohorts and evaluated in the testing cohort. Sensitivity analyses considered feature importance, other acute care endpoints, and performance within subgroups.

RESULTS

The cohort included 105,129 patients who received 1,216,385 treatment sessions. Acute care followed 182,444 (15.0%) treatments within 30 days. The ensemble model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.742 (95% CI, 0.739-0.745) and was well calibrated in the test cohort. Important predictive features included prior acute care use, treatment regimen, and laboratory tests. If the system was set to alarm approximately once every 15 treatments, 25.5% of acute care events would be preceded by an alarm, and 47.4% of patients would experience acute care after an alarm. The system underestimated risk for some treatment regimens and potentially underserved populations such as females and non-English speakers.

CONCLUSIONS

Machine learning warning systems can detect patients at risk for acute care utilization, which can aid in preventive intervention and facilitate tailored treatment. Future research should address potential biases and prospectively evaluate impact after system deployment.

Implementing geriatric assessment and management for older Canadians with cancer: Adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention, results of the 5C study

INTRODUCTION

Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) is recommended by professional organizations and recently several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits in multiple health outcomes. GAM typically leads to one or more recommendations for the older adult on how to optimize their health. However, little is known about how well recommendations are adhered to. Understanding these issues is vital to designing GAM trials and clinical programs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the number of GAM recommendations made and adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention in a multicentre RCT of GAM for older adults with cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 5C study was a two-group parallel RCT conducted in eight hospitals across Canada. Each centre kept a detailed recruitment and retention log. The intervention teams documented adherence to their recommendations. Medical records were also reviewed to assess which recommendations were adhered to. Twenty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 members of the intervention teams and 11 oncology team members to assess implementation of the study and the intervention.

RESULTS

Of the 350 participants who were enrolled, 173 were randomized to the intervention arm. Median number of recommendations was seven. Mean adherence to recommendations based on the GAM was 69%, but it varied by type of recommendation, ranging from 98% for laboratory tests to 28% for psychosocial/psychiatry oncology referrals. There was no difference in the number of recommendations or non-adherence to recommendations by sex, level of frailty, or functional status. Oncologists and intervention team members were satisfied with the study implementation and intervention delivery.

DISCUSSION

Adherence to recommendations was variable. Adherence to laboratory investigations and further imaging were generally high but much lower for recommendations regarding psychosocial support. Further collaborative work with older adults with cancer is needed to understand how to optimize the intervention to be consistent with patient goals, priorities, and values to ensure maximal impact on health outcomes.

Daily physical activity monitoring in older adults with metastatic prostate cancer on active treatment: Feasibility and associations with toxicity

INTRODUCTION

Physical activity may be associated with cancer treatment toxicity, but generalizability to geriatric oncology is unclear. As many older adults have low levels of physical activity and technology use, this area needs further exploration. We evaluated the feasibility of daily step count monitoring and the association between step counts and treatment-emergent symptoms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adults aged 65+ starting treatment (chemotherapy, enzalutamide/abiraterone, or radium-223) for metastatic prostate cancer were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Participants reported step counts (measured via smartphone) and symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale) daily for one treatment cycle (i.e., 3-4 weeks). Embedded semi-structured interviews were performed upon completion of the study. The feasibility of daily monitoring was evaluated with descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. The predictive validity of a decline in daily steps (compared to pre-treatment baseline) for the emergence of symptoms was examined using sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). Associations between a 15% decline in steps and the emergence of moderate (4-6/10) to severe (7-10/10) symptoms and pain in the next 24 h were assessed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 90 participants, 47 engaged in step count monitoring (median age = 75, range = 65-88; 52.2% participation rate). Daily physical activity monitoring was found to be feasible (94% retention rate; 90.5% median response rate) with multiple patient-reported benefits including increased self-awareness and motivation to engage in physical activity. During the first treatment cycle, instances of a 15% decline in steps were common (n = 37, 78.7%), as was the emergence of moderate to severe symptoms overall (n = 40, 85.1%) and pain (n = 26, 55.3%). The predictive validity of a 15% decline in steps on the emergence of moderate to severe symptoms was good (sensitivity = 81.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 68.7-95.0; PPV = 73.0%, 95% CI = 58.7-87.3), although the PPV for pain was poor (sensitivity = 77.8%, 95% CI = 58.6-97.0; PPV = 37.8%, 95% CI = 22.2-53.5). In the regression models, changes in daily physical activity were not associated with symptoms or pain.

DISCUSSION

Changes in physical activity had modest ability to predict moderate to severe symptoms overall. Although participation was suboptimal, daily activity monitoring in older adults with cancer appears feasible and may have other uses such as improving physical activity levels. Further studies are warranted.

Early mortality in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine practice

BACKGROUND

We sought to estimate the proportion of patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) who die soon after starting ICI in the real world and examine factors associated with early mortality (EM).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked health administrative data from Ontario, Canada. EM was defined as death from any cause within 60 days of ICI initiation. Patients with melanoma, lung, bladder, head and neck, or kidney cancer treated with ICI between 2012 and 2020 were included.

RESULTS

A total of 7126 patients treated with ICI were evaluated. Fifteen percent (1075 of 7126) died within 60 days of initiating ICI. The highest mortality was observed in patients with bladder and head and neck tumors (approximately 21% each). In multivariable analysis, previous hospital admission or emergency department visit, prior chemotherapy or radiation therapy, stage 4 disease at diagnosis, lower hemoglobin, higher white blood cell count, and higher symptom burden were associated with higher risk of EM. Conversely, patients with lung and kidney cancer (compared with melanoma), lower neutrophil to lymphocytes ratio, and with higher body mass index were less likely to die within 60 days post ICI initiation. In a sensitivity analysis, 30-day and 90-day mortality were 7% (519 of 7126) and 22% (1582 of 7126), respectively, with comparable clinical factors associated with EM identified.

CONCLUSIONS

EM is common among patients treated with ICI in the real-world setting and is associated with several patient and tumor characteristics. Development of a validated tool to predict EM may facilitate better patient selection for treatment with ICI in routine practice.

A multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase II study of cediranib with or without lenalidomide in iodine 131-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer

BACKGROUND

Multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) pathway have activity in differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). Lenalidomide demonstrated preliminary efficacy in DTC, but its safety and efficacy in combination with VEGFR-targeted TKIs is unknown. We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of cediranib, a VEGFR-targeted TKI, with or without lenalidomide, in the treatment of iodine 131-refractory DTC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase II clinical trial, 110 patients were enrolled and randomized to cediranib alone or cediranib with lenalidomide. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included response rate, duration of response, toxicity, and overall survival (OS). Patients (≥18 years of age) with DTC who were refractory to further surgical or radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy as reviewed at a multispecialty tumor board conference, and evidence of disease progression within the previous 12 months and no more than one prior line of systemic therapy were eligible.

RESULTS

Of the 110 patients, 108 started therapy and were assessable for efficacy. The median PFS was 14.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.5-23.8 months] in the cediranib arm and 11.3 months (95% CI 8.7-18.9 months) in the cediranib with lenalidomide arm (P = 0.36). The 2-year OS was 64.8% (95% CI 43.3% to 86.4%) and 75.3% (95% CI 59.4% to 91.0%), respectively (P = 0.80). The serious adverse event rate was 41% in the cediranib arm and 46% in the cediranib with lenalidomide arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-agent therapy with cediranib showed promising efficacy in RAI-refractory DTC similar to other VEGFR-targeted TKIs, while the addition of lenalidomide did not result in clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes.

A Web-Based Cancer Self-Management Program (I-Can Manage) Targeting Treatment Toxicities and Health Behaviors: Human-Centered Co-design Approach and Cognitive Think-Aloud Usability Testing

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer require adequate preparation in self-management of treatment toxicities to reduce morbidity that can be achieved through well-designed digital technologies that are developed in co-design with patients and end users.

OBJECTIVE

We undertook a user-centered co-design process in partnership with patients and other knowledge end users to develop and iteratively test an evidence-based and theoretically informed web-based cancer self-management program (I-Can Manage). The specific study aims addressed in 2 phases were to (1) identify from the perspective of patients with cancer and clinicians the desired content, features, and functionalities for an online self-management education and support (SMES) program to enable patient self-management of treatment toxicities (phase 1); (2) develop the SMES prototype based on human-centered, health literate design principles and co-design processes; and (3) evaluate usability of the I-Can Manage prototype through user-centered testing (phase 2).

METHODS

We developed the I-Can Manage program using multiperspective data sources and based on humanistic and co-design principles with end users engaged through 5 phases of development. We recruited adult patients with lung, colorectal, and lymphoma cancer receiving systemic treatments from ambulatory clinics in 2 regional cancer programs for the qualitative inquiry phase. The design of the program was informed by data from qualitative interviews and focus groups, persona and journey mapping, theoretical underpinnings of social cognitive learning theory, and formalized usability testing using a cognitive think-aloud process and user satisfaction survey. A co-design team comprising key stakeholders (human design experts, patients/caregiver, clinicians, knowledge end users, and e-learning and digital design experts) was involved in the developmental process. We used a cognitive think-aloud process to test usability and participants completed the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ).

RESULTS

In the initial qualitative inquiry phase, 16 patients participated in interviews and 19 clinicians participated in interviews or focus groups and 12 key stakeholders participated in a persona journey mapping workshop to inform development of the program prototype. The I-Can Manage program integrates evidence-based information and strategies for the self-management of treatment toxicities and health-promoting behaviors in 6 e-learning modules (lay termed "chapters"), starting with an orientation to self-management. Behavioral exercises, patient written and video stories, downloadable learning resources, and online completion of goals and action plans were integrated across chapters. Patient participants (n=5) with different cancers, gender, and age worked through the program in the human factors laboratory using a cognitive think-aloud process and all key stakeholders reviewed each chapter of the program and approved revisions. Results of the PSSUQ (mean total score: 3.75) completed following the cognitive think-aloud process (n=5) suggest patient satisfaction with the usability of I-Can Manage.

CONCLUSIONS

The I-Can Manage program has the potential for activating patients in self-management of cancer and treatment toxicities but requires testing in a larger randomized controlled trial.

Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care (STEP) versus usual care for patients with advanced cancer: a mixed methods study

PURPOSE

Although early palliative care is recommended, resource limitations prevent its routine implementation. We report on the preliminary findings of a mixed methods study involving a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care (STEP) and qualitative interviews.

METHODS

Adults with advanced solid tumors and an oncologist-estimated prognosis of 6-36 months were randomized to STEP or symptom screening alone. STEP involved symptom screening at each outpatient oncology visit; moderate to severe scores triggered an email to a palliative care nurse, who offered referral to in-person outpatient palliative care. Patient-reported outcomes of quality of life (FACT-G7; primary outcome), depression (PHQ-9), symptom control (ESAS-r-CS), and satisfaction with care (FAMCARE P-16) were measured at baseline and 2, 4, and 6 months. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subset of participants.

RESULTS

From Aug/2019 to Mar/2020 (trial halted due to COVID-19 pandemic), 69 participants were randomized to STEP (n = 33) or usual care (n = 36). At 6 months, 45% of STEP arm patients and 17% of screening alone participants had received palliative care (p = 0.009). Nonsignificant differences for all outcomes favored STEP: difference in change scores for FACT-G7 = 1.67 (95% CI: -1.43, 4.77); ESAS-r-CS = -5.51 (-14.29, 3.27); FAMCARE P-16 = 4.10 (-0.31, 8.51); PHQ-9 = -2.41 (-5.02, 0.20). Sixteen patients completed qualitative interviews, describing symptom screening as helpful to initiate communication; triggered referral as initially jarring but ultimately beneficial; and referral to palliative care as timely.

CONCLUSION

Despite lack of power for this halted trial, preliminary results favored STEP and qualitative results demonstrated acceptability. Findings will inform an RCT of combined in-person and virtual STEP.

Association between the COVID-19 pandemic and first cancer treatment modality: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Physicians were directed to prioritize using nonsurgical cancer treatment at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to quantify the impact of this policy on the modality of first cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy or no treatment).

METHODS

In this population-based study using Ontario data from linked administrative databases, we identified adults diagnosed with cancer from January 2016 to November 2020 and their first cancer treatment received within 1 year postdiagnosis. Segmented Poisson regressions were applied to each modality to estimate the change in mean 1-year recipient volume per thousand patients (rate) at the start of the pandemic (the week of Mar. 15, 2020) and change in the weekly trend in rate during the pandemic (Mar. 15, 2020, to Nov. 7, 2020) relative to before the pandemic (Jan. 3, 2016, to Mar. 14, 2020).

RESULTS

We included 321 535 people diagnosed with cancer. During the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic, the mean rate of receiving upfront surgery over the next year declined by 9% (rate ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.95), and chemotherapy and radiotherapy rates rose by 30% (rate ratio 1.30, 95% CI 1.23-1.36) and 13% (rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.19), respectively. Subsequently, the 1-year rate of upfront surgery increased at 0.4% for each week (rate ratio 1.004, 95% CI 1.002-1.006), and chemotherapy and radiotherapy rates decreased by 0.9% (rate ratio 0.991, 95% CI 0.989-0.994) and 0.4% (rate ratio 0.996, 95% CI 0.994-0.998), respectively, per week. Rates of each modality resumed to prepandemic levels at 24-31 weeks into the pandemic.

INTERPRETATION

An immediate and sustained increase in use of nonsurgical therapy as the first cancer treatment occurred during the first 8 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario. Further research is needed to understand the consequences.

Implementation of medication reconciliation in outpatient cancer care

BACKGROUND

Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is a process where providers work with patients to document and communicate comprehensive medication information by creating a complete medication list (best possible medication history (BPMH)) then reconciling it against what patient is actually taking to identify potential issues such as drug-drug interactions. We undertook an environmental scan of current MedRec practices in outpatient cancer care to inform a quality improvement project at our centre with the aim of 30% of patients having a BPMH or MedRec within 30 days of initiating treatment with systemic therapy.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from 21 cancer centres across Canada, probing on current policies, and barriers and facilitators to MedRec. Guided by the findings of the scan, we then undertook a quality improvement project at our cancer centre, comprising six iterative improvement cycles.

RESULTS

Most institutions interviewed had a process in place for collecting a BPMH (81%) and targeted patients initiating systemic therapy (59%); however, considerable practice variation was noted and completion of full MedRec was uncommon. Lack of resources, high patient volumes, lack of a common medical record spanning institutions and settings which limits access to medication records from external institutions and community pharmacies were identified as significant barriers. Despite navigating challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, we achieved 26.6% of eligible patients with a documented BPMH. However, uptake of full MedRec remained low whereby 4.7% of patients had a documented MedRec.

CONCLUSIONS

Realising improvements to completion of MedRec in outpatient cancer care is possible but takes considerable time and iteration as the process is complex. Resource allocation and information sharing remain major barriers which need to be addressed in order to observe meaningful improvements in MedRec.

Implementing Innovation: Informatics-Based Technologies to Improve Care Delivery and Clinical Research

Improving technology has promised to improved health care delivery and the lives of patients. The realized benefits of technology, however, are delayed or less than anticipated. Three recent technology initiatives are reviewed: the Clinical Trials Rapid Activation Consortium (CTRAC), minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), and electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes. Each initiative is at a different stage of maturity but promises to improve the delivery of cancer care. CTRAC is an ambitious initiative funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to develop processes across multiple NCI-supported cancer centers to facilitate the development of centralized electronic health record (EHR) treatment plans. Facilitating interoperability of treatment regimens has the potential to improve sharing between centers and decrease the time to begin clinical trials. The mCODE initiative began in 2019 and is currently Standard for Trial Use version 2. This data standard provides an abstraction layer on top of EHR data and has been implemented across more than 60 organizations. Patient-reported outcomes have been shown to improve patient care in numerous studies. Best practices for how to leverage these in an oncology practice continue to evolve. These three examples show how innovative has diffused into practice and evolved cancer care delivery and highlight a movement toward patient-centered data and interoperability.

Early survival for patients newly diagnosed with cancer during COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and early survival among newly diagnosed cancer patients.

METHODS

This retrospective population-based cohort study used linked administrative datasets from Ontario, Canada. Adults (≥18 years) who received a cancer diagnosis between March 15 and December 31, 2020, were included in a pandemic cohort, while those diagnosed during the same dates in 2018/2019 were included in a pre-pandemic cohort. All patients were followed for one full year after the date of diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess survival in relation to the pandemic, patient characteristics at diagnosis, and the modality of first cancer treatment as a time-varying covariate. Interaction terms were explored to measure the pandemic association with survival for each cancer type.

RESULTS

Among 179,746 patients, 53,387 (29.7%) were in the pandemic cohort and 37,741 (21.0%) died over the first post-diagnosis year. No association between the pandemic and survival was found when adjusting for patient characteristics at diagnosis (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.96-1.01]), while marginally better survival was found for the pandemic cohort when the modality of treatment was additionally considered (HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.95-0.99]). When examining each cancer type, only a new melanoma diagnosis was associated with a worse survival in the pandemic cohort (HR 1.25 [95% CI 1.05-1.49]).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients able to receive a cancer diagnosis during the pandemic, one-year overall survival was not different than those diagnosed in the previous 2 years. This study highlights the complex nature of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on cancer care.

Feasibility and acceptability of remote symptom monitoring (RSM) in older adults during treatment for metastatic prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Emerging data support multiple benefits of remote symptom monitoring (RSM) during chemotherapy to improve outcomes. However, these studies have not focused on older adults and do not include treatments beyond chemotherapy. Although chemotherapy, androgen receptor axis-targeted therapies (ARATs), and radium-223 prolong survival, toxicities are substantial and increased in older adults with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC). We aimed to assess RSM feasibility among older adults receiving life-prolonging mPC treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Older adults aged 65+ starting chemotherapy, an ARAT, or radium-223 for mPC were enrolled in a multicentre prospective cohort study. As part of the RSM package, participants completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) daily and detailed questionnaires assessing mood, anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, and pain weekly online or by phone throughout one treatment cycle (3-4 weeks). Alerts were sent to the clinical oncology team for severe symptoms (ESAS ≥7). Participants also completed an end of study questionnaire that assessed study burden and satisfaction. Descriptive statistics were used to determine recruitment and retention rates, participant response rates to daily and weekly questionnaires, clinician responses to alerts, and participant satisfaction rates. An inductive descriptive approach was used to categorize open-ended responses about study benefits, challenges, and recommendations into relevant themes.

RESULTS

Ninety males were included (mean age 77 years, 48% ARAT, 38% chemotherapy, and 14% radium-223). Approximately 38% of patients preferred phone-based RSM. Patients provided RSM responses in 1216 out of 1311 daily questionnaires (93%). Over 93% of participants were satisfied (36%), very satisfied (43%), or extremely satisfied (16%) with RSM, although daily reporting was reported by several (8%) as burdensome. Nearly 45% of patients reported severe symptoms during RSM. Most symptom alerts sent to the oncology care team were acknowledged (97%) and 53% led to follow-ups with a nurse or physician for additional care.

DISCUSSION

RSM is feasible and acceptable to older adults with mPC, but accommodation needs to be made for phone-based RSM. The optimal frequency and duration of RSM also needs to be established.

Promoting Self-management and Patient Activation Through eHealth: Protocol for a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Major advances in different cancer treatment modalities have been made, and people are now living longer with cancer. However, patients with cancer experience a range of physical and psychological symptoms during and beyond cancer treatment. New models of care are needed to combat this rising challenge. A growing body of evidence supports the effectiveness of eHealth interventions in the delivery of supportive care to people living with the complexities of chronic health conditions. However, reviews on the effects of eHealth interventions are scarce in the field of cancer-supportive care, particularly for interventions with the aim of empowering patients to manage cancer treatment-related symptoms. For this reason, this protocol has been developed to guide a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of eHealth interventions for supporting patients with cancer in managing cancer-related symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review with meta-analysis is conducted with the aim of identifying eHealth-based self-management intervention studies for adult patients with cancer and evaluating the efficacy of eHealth-based self-management tools and platforms in order to synthesize the empirical evidence on self-management and patient activation through eHealth.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis and methodological critique of randomized controlled trials is conducted following Cochrane Collaboration methods. Multiple data sources are used to identify all potential research sources for inclusion in the systematic review: (1) electronic databases such as MEDLINE, (2) forward reference searching, and (3) gray literature. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for conducting the review were followed. The PICOS (Population, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, and Study Design) framework is used to identify relevant studies.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 10,202 publications. The title and abstract screening were completed in May 2022. Data will be summarized, and if possible, meta-analyses will be performed. It is expected to finalize this review by Winter 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review will provide the latest data on leveraging eHealth interventions and offering effective and sustainable eHealth care, both of which have the potential to improve quality and efficiency in cancer-related symptoms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 325582; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=325582.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/38758.

Feasibility and Effectiveness of Self-Management Education and Coaching on Patient Activation for Managing Cancer Treatment Toxicities

BACKGROUND

Poorly managed cancer treatment toxicities negatively impact quality of life, but little research has examined patient activation in self-management (SM) early in cancer treatment.

METHODS

We undertook a pilot randomized trial to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of the SMARTCare (Self-Management and Activation to Reduce Treatment Toxicities) intervention. This intervention included an online SM education program (I-Can Manage) plus 5 sessions of telephone cancer coaching in patients initiating systemic therapy for lymphoma or colorectal or lung cancer at 3 centers in Ontario, Canada, relative to a usual care control group. Patient-reported outcomes included patient activation (Patient Activation Measure [PAM]), symptom or emotional distress, self-efficacy, and quality of life. Descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to examine changes over time (baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months) within and between groups. We used general estimating equations to compare outcomes between groups over time. The intervention group completed an acceptability survey and qualitative interviews.

RESULTS

Of 90 patients approached, 62 (68.9%) were enrolled. Mean age of the sample was 60.5 years. Most patients were married (77.1%), were university educated (71%), had colorectal cancer (41.9%) or lymphoma (42.0%), and had stage III or IV disease (75.8%). Attrition was higher in the intervention group than among control subjects (36.7% vs 25%, respectively). Adherence to I-Can Manage was low; 30% of intervention patients completed all 5 coaching calls, but 87% completed ≥1. Both the continuous PAM total score (P<.001) and categorical PAM levels (3/4 vs 1/2) (P=.002) were significantly improved in the intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS

SM education and coaching early during cancer treatment may improve patient activation, but a larger trial is needed.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT03849950.

Association of COVID-19 Vaccination With Breakthrough Infections and Complications in Patients With Cancer

Importance

Patients with cancer are known to have increased risk of COVID-19 complications, including death.

Objective

To determine the association of COVID-19 vaccination with breakthrough infections and complications in patients with cancer compared to noncancer controls.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective population-based cohort study using linked administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, in residents 18 years and older who received COVID-19 vaccination. Three matched groups were identified (based on age, sex, type of vaccine, date of vaccine): 1:4 match for patients with hematologic and solid cancer to noncancer controls (hematologic and solid cancers separately analyzed), 1:1 match between patients with hematologic and patients with solid cancer.

Exposures

Cancer diagnosis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes occurring 14 days after receipt of second COVID-19 vaccination dose: primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection; secondary outcomes were emergency department visit, hospitalization, and death within 4 weeks of SARS-CoV-2 infection (end of follow-up March 31, 2022). Multivariable cumulative incidence function models were used to obtain adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and 95% CIs.

Results

A total of 289 400 vaccinated patients with cancer (39 880 hematologic; 249 520 solid) with 1 157 600 matched noncancer controls were identified; the cohort was 65.4% female, and mean (SD) age was 66 (14.0) years. SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection was higher in patients with hematologic cancer (aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.20-1.46; P < .001) but not in patients with solid cancer (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.05; P = .87). COVID-19 severe outcomes (composite of hospitalization and death) were significantly higher in patients with cancer compared to patients without cancer (aHR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.42-1.63; P < .001). Risk of severe outcomes was higher among patients with hematologic cancer (aHR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.21-2.85; P < .001) than patients with solid cancer (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.64; P < .001). Patients receiving active treatment had a further heightened risk for COVID-19 severe outcomes, particularly those who received anti-CD20 therapy. Third vaccination dose was associated with lower infection and COVID-19 complications, except for patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this large population-based cohort study, patients with cancer had greater risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and worse outcomes than patients without cancer, and the risk was highest for patients with hematologic cancer and any patients with cancer receiving active treatment. Triple vaccination was associated with lower risk of poor outcomes.

Impact of Antibiotic Exposure Before Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Treatment on Overall Survival in Older Adults With Cancer: A Population-Based Study

PURPOSE

Antibiotic exposure before immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment can negatively affect outcomes through alteration in the gut microbiome, but large-scale evaluations are lacking. We performed a population-level retrospective cohort study to evaluate the impact of antibiotic exposure before starting ICI on overall survival (OS).

PATIENT AND METHODS

Patients with cancer, age 65 years or older, who initiated treatment with ICIs between June 2012 and October 2018 in Ontario, Canada, were identified using systemic therapy administration data. The cohort was deterministically linked to other health care databases to obtain covariates and antibiotic prescription claim data at both 1 year and 60 days before ICI therapy. Multivariable Cox models evaluated the association between exposure and OS.

RESULTS

Among the 2,737 patients with cancer who received ICIs, 59% and 19% of patients received antibiotics 1 year and 60 days before ICI therapy, respectively. Median OS was 306 days. Any antibiotic exposure within 1 year before ICI was associated with worse OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.12; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.23; P = .03). In antibiotic class analysis, exposure to fluoroquinolones within 1 year (aHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.40; P < .001) or 60 days before ICI (aHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.45; P = .06) was associated with worse OS, with a dose effect seen on the basis of total weeks of exposure over 1 year (aHR, 1.07 per week; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.11; P < .001) and 60 days (aHR, 1.12 per week; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.23; P = .01).

CONCLUSION

In this population-level study, exposure to antibiotics and specifically fluoroquinolones before ICI therapy was observed to be associated with worse OS among older adults with cancer. Interventions aimed at altering the gut microbiome to boost immunogenicity may help improve outcomes for patients receiving ICIs with prior antibiotic exposure.

Staff Experiences With Remote Work in a Comprehensive Cancer Center During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Recommendations for Long-Term Adoption

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the rapid implementation of remote work, but few studies have examined the impact. We evaluated clinical staff experience with working remotely at a large, urban comprehensive cancer center in Toronto, Canada.

METHODS

An electronic survey was disseminated between June 2021, and August 2021, via e-mail to staff who had completed at least some remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Factors associated with a negative experience were examined with binary logistic regression. Barriers were derived from a thematic analysis of open-text fields.

RESULTS

Most respondents (N = 333; response rate, 33.2%) were age 40-69 years (46.2%), female (61.3%), and physicians (24.6%). Although the majority of respondents wished to continue remote work (85.6%), relative to administrative staff (admin), physicians (odds ratio [OR], 16.6; 95% CI, 1.45 to 190.14) and pharmacists (OR, 12.6; 95% CI, 1.0 to 158.9) were more likely to want to return on-site. Physicians were approximately eight times more likely to report dissatisfaction with remote work (OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 1.4 to 51.6) and 24 times more likely to report that remote work negatively affected efficiency (OR, 24.0; 95% CI, 2.7 to 213.0); nurses were approximately seven times more likely to report the need for additional resources (OR, 6.5; 95% CI, 1.71 to 24.48) and/or training (OR, 7.02; 95% CI, 1.78 to 27.62). The most common barriers were the absence of fair processes for allocation of remote work, poor integration of digital applications and connectivity, and poor role clarity.

CONCLUSION

Although overall satisfaction with working remotely was high, work is needed to overcome barriers to implementation of remote and hybrid work models in the health care setting.

Factors associated with timely COVID-19 vaccination in a population-based cohort of patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

In many jurisdictions, cancer patients were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination because of increased risk of infection and death. To understand sociodemographic disparities that affected timely receipt of COVID-19 vaccination among cancer patients, we undertook a population-based study in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

Patients older than 18 years and diagnosed with cancer January 2010 to September 2020 were identified using administrative data; vaccination administration was captured between approval (December 2020) up to February 2022. Factors associated with time to vaccination were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 356 535 patients, the majority of whom had solid tumor cancers (85.9%) and were not on active treatment (74.1%); 86.8% had received at least 2 doses. The rate of vaccination was 25% lower in recent (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.76) and nonrecent immigrants (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.81). A greater proportion of unvaccinated patients were from neighborhoods with a high concentration of new immigrants or self-reported members of racialized groups (26.0% vs 21.3%, standardized difference = 0.111, P < .001), residential instability (27.1% vs 23.0%, standardized difference = 0.094, P < .001), or material deprivation (22.1% vs 16.8%, standardized difference = 0.134, P < .001) and low socioeconomic status (20.9% vs 16.0%, standardized difference = 0.041, P < .001). The rate of vaccination was 20% lower in patients from neighborhoods with the lowest socioeconomic status (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.81 to 0.84) and highest material deprivation (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.81) relative to those in more advantaged neighborhoods.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite funding of vaccines and prioritization of high-risk populations, marginalized patients were less likely to be vaccinated. Differences are likely due to the interplay between systemic barriers to access and cultural or social influences affecting uptake.

Health-related quality-of-life analyses from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind phase 2 study of patients with differentiated thyroid cancer treated with lenvatinib 18 or 24 mg/day

BACKGROUND

In the phase 2 double-blind Study 211, a starting dose of lenvatinib 18 mg/day was compared with the approved starting dose of 24 mg/day in patients with radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). Predefined criteria for noninferiority for efficacy in the 18 mg arm were not met; safety was similar in both arms. Impact of lenvatinib treatment on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) was a secondary endpoint of Study 211.

METHODS

Patients with RR-DTC were randomly assigned to a blinded starting dose of lenvatinib 18 mg/day or 24 mg/day. HRQoL was assessed at baseline, every 8 weeks until Week 24, then every 16 weeks, and at the off-treatment visit, using the EQ-5D-3L and FACT-G instruments. Completion and compliance rates, mean change from baseline, and times to first and definitive deterioration were evaluated.

RESULTS

Baseline EQ-5D and FACT-G scores, and overall changes from baseline, were comparable between patients in the lenvatinib 18 mg/day (n = 77) and 24 mg/day arms (n = 75). For the 18 mg versus 24 mg arms, least squares mean differences were -0.42 (95% CI -4.88, 4.03) for EQ-5D-VAS and 0.47 (95% CI -3.45, 4.39) for FACT-G total. Time to first deterioration did not significantly favor either arm; EQ-5D-VAS HR [18 mg/24 mg] 0.93 (95% CI 0.61-1.40), EQ-5D-HUI HR [18 mg/24 mg] 0.68 (95% CI 0.44-1.05), FACT-G total HR [18 mg/24 mg] 0.73 (95% CI 0.48-1.12). Time to definitive deterioration did not significantly favor either arm, though EQ-5D-VAS showed a trend in favor of the 24 mg arm (HR [18 mg/24 mg] 1.72; 95% CI 0.99-3.01); EQ-5D-HUI HR [18 mg/24 mg] was 0.96 (95% CI 0.57-1.63), FACT-G total HR [18 mg/24 mg] was 0.72 (95% CI 0.43-1.21).

CONCLUSIONS

In Study 211, HRQoL for patients in the lenvatinib 18 mg/day arm was not statistically different from that of patients in the 24 mg/day arm. These data further support the use of the approved lenvatinib starting dose of 24 mg/day in patients with RR-DTC.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV NUMBER

NCT02702388.

Timeliness and Modality of Treatment for New Cancer Diagnoses During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Canada

IMPORTANCE

The impact of COVID-19 on the modality and timeliness of first-line cancer treatment is unclear yet critical to the planning of subsequent care.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with modalities of and wait times for first cancer treatment.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective population-based cohort study using administrative data was conducted in Ontario, Canada, among adults newly diagnosed with cancer between January 3, 2016, and November 7, 2020. Participants were followed up from date of diagnosis for 1 year, until death, or until June 26, 2021, whichever occurred first, to ensure a minimum of 6-month follow-up time.

EXPOSURES

Receiving a cancer diagnosis in the pandemic vs prepandemic period, using March 15, 2020, the date when elective hospital procedures were halted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was a time-to-event variable describing number of days from date of diagnosis to date of receiving first cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation) or to being censored. For each treatment modality, a multivariable competing-risk regression model was used to assess the association between time to treatment and COVID-19 period. A secondary continuous outcome was defined for patients who were treated 6 months after diagnosis as the waiting time from date of diagnosis to date of treatment.

RESULTS

Among 313 499 patients, the mean (SD) age was 66.4 (14.1) years and 153 679 (49.0%) were male patients. Those who were diagnosed during the pandemic were less likely to receive surgery first (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99) but were more likely to receive chemotherapy (sHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.23-1.30) or radiotherapy (sHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20) first. Among patients who received treatment within 6 months from diagnosis (228 755 [73.0%]), their mean (SD) waiting time decreased from 35.1 (37.2) days to 29.5 (33.6) days for surgery, from 43.7 (34.1) days to 38.4 (30.6) days for chemotherapy, and from 55.8 (41.8) days to 49.0 (40.1) days for radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, the pandemic was significantly associated with greater use of nonsurgical therapy as initial cancer treatment. Wait times were shorter in the pandemic period for those treated within 6 months of diagnosis. Future work needs to examine how these changes may have affected patient outcomes to inform future pandemic guideline development.

The development of an electronic geriatric assessment tool: Comprehensive health assessment for my plan (CHAMP)

INTRODUCTION

Geriatric assessment (GA) provides information on key health domains of older adults and is recommended to help inform cancer treatment decisions and cancer care. However, GA is not feasible in many health institutions due to lack of geriatric staff and/or resources. To increase accessibility to GA and improve treatment decision making for older adults with cancer (≥65 years), we developed a self-reported, electronic geriatric assessment tool: Comprehensive Assessment for My Plan (CHAMP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Older adults with cancer were invited to join user-centered design sessions to develop the layout and content of the tool. Subsequently, they participated in usability testing to test the usability of the tool (ease of use, acceptability, etc.). Design sessions were also conducted with oncology clinicians (oncologists and nurses) to develop the tool's clinician interface. GA assessment questions and GA recommendations were guided by a systematic review and Delphi expert panel.

RESULTS

A total of seventeen older adults participated in the study. Participants were mainly males (82.4%) and 75% were aged 75 years and older. Nine oncology clinicians participated in design sessions. Older adults and clinicians agreed that the tool was user-friendly. Domains in the final CHAMP tool (with questions and recommendations) included functional status, falls risk, cognitive impairment, nutrition, medication review, social supports, depression, substance use disorder, and miscellaneous items.

DISCUSSION

CHAMP was designed for use by older adults and oncologists and may enhance access to GA for older adults with cancer. The next phase of the CHAMP study will involve field validation in oncology clinics.

Incident Cancer Detection During Multiple Waves of COVID-19: The Tsunami After the Earthquake

No population-based study exists to demonstrate the full-spectrum impact of COVID-19 on hindering incident cancer detection in a large cancer system. Building upon our previous publication in JNCCN, we conducted an updated analysis using 12 months of new data accrued in the pandemic era (extending the study period from September 26, 2020, to October 2, 2021) to demonstrate how multiple COVID-19 waves affected the weekly cancer incidence volume in Ontario, Canada, and if we have fully cleared the backlog at the end of each wave.

Cancer Patients First Treated with Chemotherapy: Are They More Likely to Receive Surgery in the Pandemic?

Due to the ramping down of cancer surgery in early pandemic, many newly diagnosed patients received other treatments first. We aimed to quantify the pandemic-related shift in rate of surgery following chemotherapy. This is a retrospective population-based cohort study involving adults diagnosed with cancer between 3 January 2016 and 7 November 2020 in Ontario, Canada who received chemotherapy as first treatment within 6-months of diagnosis. Competing-risks regression models with interaction effects were used to quantify the association between COVID-19 period (receiving a cancer diagnosis before or on/after 15 March 2020) and receipt of surgical reSection 9-months after first chemotherapy. Among 51,653 patients, 8.5% (n = 19,558) of them ultimately underwent surgery 9-months after chemotherapy initiation. Receipt of surgery was higher during the pandemic than before (sHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13). Material deprivation was independently associated with lower receipt of surgery (least vs. most deprived quintile: sHR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04-1.17), but did not change with the pandemic. The surgical rate increase was most pronounced for breast cancer (sHR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.20). These pandemic-related shifts in cancer treatment requires further evaluations to understand the long-term consequences. Persistent material deprivation-related inequity in cancer surgical access needs to be addressed.

International comparison of the impact of COVID on adherence with supportive care focused Choosing Wisely recommendations (CWR)

28

Background: The reorganization of cancer care delivery during the COVID pandemic had the potential to catalyze improvement in CWR adherence by reducing provision of low value care to minimize in-person visits and mitigate potential issues with staff and resource shortages. We evaluated the impact of COVID on adherence with CWR for supportive care, relevant to colorectal and anal cancer patients with stage IV disease at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM) in Canada and AC Camargo Cancer Center (AC) in Brazil. Methods: Eligible patients had a new patient consult 02/2020- 12/2020 (COVID) or the same period in 2019 (control). Performance on individual CWR in the 6 months following initial consultation was calculated as the proportion of eligible patients meeting the recommendation. Results: The PM and AC cohorts each consisted of 100 patients; demographic and disease characteristics of COVID and control cohorts were similar within each centre. Marginally fewer patients received surgery during COVID (PM: 38.3 vs 49.1%, p = 0.28; AC: 54.8 vs 55.2%, p = 0.97). At PM, more patients received radiation therapy during COVID (36.2 vs 24.5%, p = 0.21), whereas the opposite occurred at AC (7.1 vs 17.2%, p = 0.14). A higher proportion of both PM and AC patients treated during COVID died within 6 months of initial consult than in 2019 (PM: 10.6 vs 7.5%, p = 0.015; AC: 21.4 vs 8.6%, p = 0.029). Adherence to selected CWR is summarized below; whereby a higher proportion means higher concordance with CWR. Conclusions: There was low overall adherence to CWR across both centers with no significant changes to patterns of care for patients with stage IV disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.[Table: see text]

Staff experiences with remote work in a comprehensive cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic

41

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the rapid implementation of remote work, but few studies have evaluated the impact on staff and care delivery in healthcare settings. Utilizing a cross-sectional survey, we evaluated the experience of working remotely among clinical staff at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada. Methods: “Remote work” was defined as any work (tasks, projects, healthcare delivery) performed from home. A Qualtrics survey was disseminated via email three times from June-August 2021 to 1,168 physicians, nurses, allied health, and administrative staff involved in patient care. The survey evaluated staff perceptions of productivity, efficiency, patient safety, quality, and personal experiences. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. Associations between respondent demographics and responses on perceived efficiency, desire to work remotely, support and safety/quality were evaluated using multivariable binary logistic regression models. Free-text responses were categorized into facilitators and barriers, and summarized using qualitative descriptive analysis. Results: Most respondents (n = 333; response rate: 28.5%) were female (61.3%) and physicians (23.1%). Few respondents (1.5%) worked remotely more than half the time pre-COVID which increased to 66.6% during COVID-19. Majority reported that remote work positively impacted productivity (61.8%) and efficiency (57.6%) and expressed interest in continuing (79.0%) beyond the pandemic. While most respondents agreed with the switch to remote work (89.2%), few were provided with the necessary equipment (14.1%). Some respondents perceived a negative impact on the safety (13.8%) or quality of care (18.6%) delivered remotely. Across clinical roles, compared to administrative staff, physicians were more likely to report remote work having a negative impact on productivity (OR = 24.04, 95% CI: 2.71-213.00), being dissatisfied with remote work (OR: 8.41, 95% CI: 1.37-51.64), being dissatisfied with training available (OR: 2.70, 95% CI: 0.95-7.67), and disagreed with continuing to utilize remote work beyond the pandemic (OR: 16.61, 95% CI: 1.45-190.14). Improved efficiency, less commuting, and improved work-life balance were perceived as facilitators of remote work. Barriers included a lack of clear role expectations, issues accessing clinical applications and out-of-pocket expenses. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that remote work may be a viable model in hospitals beyond the pandemic. Given the variation in experience and perceptions depending on clinical role, addressing barriers and formal evaluation of the impact of working remotely on productivity, efficiency and quality of care should be considered to inform long-term adoption.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient perceptions of the quality of their cancer care

286

Background: COVID has had a significant impact on how cancer care is delivered. Numerous modifications to care aimed at reducing in-person visits, and mitigating potential issues with staff and resource shortages were introduced, including the implementation of virtual visits. As many of the changes to cancer care are likely to persist beyond the pandemic, we undertook a survey to understand patients’ perceptions of the impact of the pandemic on the quality of cancer care that they received. Methods: We developed an electronic survey guided by the Picker Institute’s eight principles of patient-centred care. Patients >18 years of age with a valid email address on file who have had a visit in the gastrointestinal clinic at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM) in Toronto, Canada between 03/2020 and 05/2021 were recruited via email invitation in 10/2021 to anonymously participate. Logistic regression models were utilized to examine adjusted associations between demographic and clinical variables, and reporting a negative perception of care. Results: The response rate was 17.1% (438/2563); after excluding responses from those who are no longer patients and incomplete responses, 358 responses were included in the final analysis. Respondents were most commonly >65 years of age (46.6%), male (48.6%), college/university educated (55.5%) and in follow-up phase of their disease (54.2%). Approximately half of respondents (56.1%) had some experience with care at PM prior to the pandemic, while the remaining patients were referred during. Most respondents (76.3%) indicated that, overall, they were satisfied with the care they received during COVID. Compared to patients who experienced care at PM prior to the pandemic, patients referred during COVID were 2.5 times more likely to believe that patients received worse care during COVID than those treated prior (OR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.08-5.44). Most respondents (69.5%) reported that virtual appointments positively impacted the quality of their cancer care. Adequacy of emotional support was the most negatively perceived dimension of patient-centred care, whereby 18.7% of patients felt they were provided with inadequate information on support services available to them, and 17.6% felt that they had received inadequate support. Relative to those in follow-up, patients with a newly diagnosed cancer were more likely to report receipt of inadequate emotional support (OR: 5.69; 95% CI: 2.18-14.82). Conclusions: Most patients reported being satisfied with the quality of care provided to them during COVID and reported a positive impact of virtual appointments on their care. Future quality improvement efforts should focus on how to improve dissemination of information on available support services and access to appropriate emotional supports, particularly for newly diagnosed patients.

Virtual care beyond COVID-19: Patient and physician perspectives

389

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed rapid implementation of virtual care (VC), resulting in new opportunities to integrate technology and a need to evaluate patient and provider experiences. To inform sustainment beyond COVID-19, we evaluated perceptions of VC at a comprehensive cancer centre in Toronto, Canada. Methods: Physicians who provided VC during the pandemic, and patients with a valid email address on file and at least one visit with centre in the preceding 12 months were eligible to participate. Survey invitations were disseminated between May and July 2021 via email using a modified Dillman approach. The survey examined the implementation outcomes of acceptability, adoption, and appropriateness. Unadjusted associations between patient demographic variables and preference for in-person visits were evaluated using univariate logistic regression models. Results: 41% (100/246) of physicians and 15% (2,343/15,169) of patients completed the survey. The majority of patients were Caucasian (77%), college or university educated (78%), had solid malignancies (73%), and were in the follow-up phase (47%); 50% were male. The median age was 66 (IQR: 58-74). A greater proportion of patients expressed satisfaction with VC than providers (81% and 53%). Conversely, a greater proportion of providers felt that care delivered virtually was worse than care delivered in-person (45% vs 26%). Interestingly, many patients (69%) and physicians (40%) reported feeling they could maintain a good relationship through VC while at the same time reporting concerns that VC would detract from the human interaction they value as part of care (patients: 60%; providers: 82%). Patients expressed relatively equal preference for phone vs video visits (40% vs 31%), but indicated concerns about wait times for VC visits. The majority of physicians (37%) estimated that 10-29% of their practice would remain virtual post-COVID, however physicians expressed concerns with increased workload (72%), decreased efficiency (40%), and increased worry about missing relevant clinical information (61%). The majority of patients and physicians reported that VC was not appropriate for first consultations and discussions of prognosis, and most appropriate for long-term follow-up. Being born outside of Canada, primary language other than English, lower income, lower functional health literacy, and greater physical mobility were associated with preferring in-person over VC visits. Conclusions: Patients and physicians were satisfied with VC but expressed concerns with the impacts on care quality and experience and highlighted the need for guidelines on appropriate use. Providers expressed greater concerns with VC than patients. More research is needed to formally evaluate the impact of VC on quality performance and clinical outcomes as well as investigate the patient, disease and system factors that are associated with effective virtual cancer care.

Factors associated with timely receipt of COVID vaccination in patients with cancer

167

Background: In many jurisdictions patients with new hematological cancers, or those receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplant or immunosuppressive agents, were prioritized for COVID vaccination due to increased risk of infection and death. In Ontario, Canada those residing in congregate settings, or regions with high positivity rates or high proportions of essential workers were also prioritized. While vaccine inequities exist, it remains unclear whether they persisted amongst the prioritized cancer population. Methods: We undertook a retrospective, population-based study to evaluate factors associated with COVID vaccination in patients residing in Ontario, Canada, >18 years of age, and diagnosed with cancer between 01/2010 and 09/2020. Factors associated with time from vaccine approval to full vaccination (two doses) and third doses were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: The cohort consisted of 356,535 patients; as of 30 January 2022 of which 86.8% had received at least two doses. Compared to patients with more remote diagnoses (> 1 year), newly diagnosed patients rate of vaccination was lower (HR: 0.89, 95%CI: 0.88-0.91, p < 0.01) and a greater proportion were unvaccinated (13.6% vs 11.8%; p < 0.01). Conversely, rate of vaccination was higher in patients treated with systemic therapy in the last 6 months (HR: 1.04, 95%CI: 1.03-1.05, p < 0.01). Rate of vaccination was 25% lower in recent (HR:0.74,95% CI: 0.72-0.76, p < 0.01) and non-recent immigrants (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.79-0.81, p < 0.01), and a greater proportion remained unvaccinated, compared to those who were Canadian-born (20.1 and 16.6% vs 10.9%; p < 0.01). Compared to the most advantaged quintiles, quintiles with the lowest socioeconomic status (14.5% vs 9.4%; p < 0.01), or highest residential instability (13.3% vs 10.8%; p < 0.01), material deprivation (10.5% vs 9.6%; p < 0.01), or ethnic concentration quintiles (13.7% vs 10.4%; p < 0.01) had higher proportions of unvaccinated patients. Rate of vaccination was 20% lower in patients with the lowest socioeconomic status (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.81-0.84, p < 0.01) and those with highest material deprivation (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.79-0.82, p < 0.01) relative to more advantaged groups. Similar trends were observed for receipt of third doses in the eligible cohort. Conclusions: Despite direct government funding of COVID vaccines and distribution policies aimed a prioritizing high-risk populations marginalized patients with cancer were less likely to be vaccinated than other cancer patients. Differences in receipt of vaccination are likely due to the interplay between systemic barriers to access (low trust, transportation barriers, work schedules), and cultural/ social influences impacting uptake. Future efforts should work directly members of high-risk communities to understand how to improve vaccine delivery among these communities.

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.

Considerations for Virtual Care Following the Pandemic

The pandemic has served as an impetus for rapid uptake of virtual care into clinical practice, creating new patient and clinician needs and a willingness to adopt new technologies. It is obvious that healthcare will not return to pre-pandemic levels of in-person care and that patients expect virtual care to remain an option. However, the underlying structural and behavioural barriers related to equity, access, infrastructure, provider licensing and remuneration structures that limited pre-pandemic use of virtual care still persist. Herein, we provide recommendations and tangible next steps to sustain virtual care moving forward.

Randomized controlled trial (RCT) of symptom screening with targeted early palliative care (STEP) versus usual care in patients with advanced cancer

e24084

Background: To direct limited specialized palliative care resources to patients in greatest need, we developed STEP (Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care). STEP entails symptom screening (ESAS-r) at each oncology clinic visit and triggered alerts (for moderate-high physical and psychological symptoms) to a nurse who calls the patient to offer a palliative care clinic (PCC) visit. We conducted a phase III RCT to assess the impact of STEP versus usual care on quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: Adults with advanced cancer were recruited from medical oncology clinics at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada. Consenting patients with oncologist-assessed ECOG 0-2 and estimated survival of 6-36 months were enrolled and block randomized (stratified by tumour site and symptom severity) to STEP or usual care. Participants completed measures of quality of life (FACT-G7), depression (PHQ-9), symptom control (ESASr-CS), and satisfaction with care (FAMCARE-P16) at baseline, 2, 4 and 6 months. The primary outcome was FACT-G7 at 6 months, with a planned sample size of 261/arm. Results: From 8/2019 to 3/2020, 69 patients were enrolled: 33 randomized to STEP and 36 to usual care. The trial was then halted permanently due to the COVID-19 pandemic, owing to substantial changes to elements of STEP (shift to virtual symptom screening and palliative care) and usual care (shift to virtual oncology care). Median age was 64 years (range 25-87) and 62% (43/69) were women; study arms were balanced at baseline except gender, with more women randomized to STEP. Within the STEP arm, 20 (61%) participants triggered a nurse’s call to offer a PCC visit, of whom 13 attended the clinic at least once. All outcomes tended to be better in the STEP arm compared to usual care, particularly depression and satisfaction with care at 6 months; however, results were not statistically significant (Table). Conclusions: STEP holds promise for improving quality of life and other PROs in patients with advanced cancer and effectively directing early palliative care towards those who need it most. In response to the pandemic, an online version of STEP has been developed and a further trial is in progress. Clinical trial information: NCT03987906. [Table: see text]

Impact of age and frailty on acute care use during immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment: A population-based study

12002

Background: ICIs are a common therapeutic option across solid tumors. However, older adults were poorly represented in clinical trials evaluating ICIs, especially those who are very old or frail. Although ICIs are better tolerated than chemotherapy, some patients develop immune related adverse events (irAEs) that may require hospitalization. We performed a population-level retrospective cohort study to evaluate the impact of age and frailty among older adults on acute care use and irAE related hospitalizations. Methods: We used administrative data deterministically linked across databases to identify a cohort of cancer patients > 65 years of age receiving ICIs from June 2012 to October 2018 in Ontario, Canada and obtained data on socio-demographic and clinical covariates, and acute care utilization. Acute care use was defined as an emergency department visit or hospitalization from initiation to 120 days after the last ICI dose; hospitalizations were classified as irAE related based on ICD-10 codes. Frailty was assessed using the McIsaac Frailty Index. Multivariable competing risk analyses with Fine Gray subdistribution hazards evaluated the impact of age and frailty on both acute care use and irAE hospitalizations adjusted for sex, rurality, BMI, autoimmune history, hospitalization within 60 days prior to starting ICI and comorbidity score. Results: Among 2737 patients, median age 73 (18% age > 80, 50% age 70-79); 43% received Nivolumab, 41% Pembrolizumab and 13% Ipilimumab; 53% had lung cancer, 34% melanoma. 70% were robust, 26% pre-frail and 4% frail. Most patients (1962; 72%) had an acute care episode during the window, while 212 (8%) had an irAE hospitalization. Older age was associated with reduced risk of being hospitalized due to an irAE when measured as a continuous variable (aHR 0.97 per year [0.95-0.99] p = 0.01). Older adults, age > 80 years were also less likely to be hospitalized due to an irAE (age 70-79 vs 65-69, aHR 0.92 [0.66-1.27] p = 0.61, age > 80 vs 65-69, aHR 0.63 [0.39-1.01] p = 0.05). Age was not associated with acute care use as a continuous or categorical variable. Increasing frailty was associated with increased risk of acute care use during ICI treatment (pre-frail vs robust, aHR 1.20 [1.07-1.36] p = 0.003; frail vs robust, aHR 1.45 [1.12-1.86] p = 0.004) but was not associated with irAE hospitalizations. When evaluating both age and frailty in the same model, the identified associations remained significant. Conclusions: Among older adults receiving ICIs, age was not associated with acute care use but may be associated with reduced risk of experiencing an irAE related hospitalization. In contrast, frailty was associated with risk of acute care use but was not associated with risk of an irAE related hospitalization. Age and frailty may need to be considered independently when evaluating their use as potential factors influencing toxicity risk among older adults receiving ICIs.

Remote symptom monitoring (RSM) during treatment for metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) in older men: Feasibility and efficacy

12056

Background: Emerging data support multiple benefits of RSM during chemotherapy to improve outcomes. These studies do not focus on older adults and do not include non-chemotherapy strategies. mPC represents a major burden in older men. Although both chemotherapy and androgen receptor axis-targeted therapies (ARATs) prolong survival, toxicities are substantial and increased in older men. Understanding the feasibility of RSM and key symptoms experienced by men with mPC on treatment is crucial to designing appropriate supportive care interventions. We aimed to assess RSM feasibility and understand key symptoms during treatment with chemotherapy or an ARAT among older men. Methods: Older adults aged 65+ starting chemotherapy, an ARAT, or Radium-223 for mPC were enrolled in a prospective observational multicentre study. Participants completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) on weekdays online or by phone. Weekly detailed questionnaires assessed mood, anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, and pain. Notifications were sent to the clinical oncology team with severe symptoms (ESAS 7 or higher). Study duration was the first treatment cycle (̃3-4 weeks). Feasibility data were analyzed descriptively. Linear mixed effects models examined symptoms over time and by cohort. Clinician responses were assessed descriptively. Results: A total of 90 men were included (mean age 76.5y, 48% ARAT, 38% chemotherapy, and 14% Radium-223, 42% frail by Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 cutoff of 3+). Approximately half the patients preferred phone-based RSM. Patients provided RSM responses in 1,874 of approximately 2,000 (94%) instances. In the combined cohort, the most common symptoms of moderate to severe intensity (ESAS 4 or higher) occurring at least once were poor well-being (66%), fatigue (62%), reduced appetite (56%), insomnia (54%), and pain (46%). Symptom patterns were similar between chemotherapy and ARAT groups. Moderate to severe symptoms were more common and lasted longer among frail than non-frail men. Symptoms tended to remain stable or improve over the course of 3-4 weeks of RSM. 89% of participants were satisfied or very satisfied with RSM, although daily reporting was reported by several as burdensome. 45% had severe symptoms from RSM leading to informing the oncology care team, 79% of whom were followed up by a nurse or physician, and 12% of treatments were modified. Conclusions: RSM is feasible, acceptable to older adults, and identifies clinically relevant symptoms, but accommodation needs to be made for phone and the optimal frequency of RSM needs to be established. Poor well-being, fatigue, reduced appetite, and insomnia occurred in over half of participants. Longer-term follow up will be important.

Clinical Application of Next-Generation Sequencing in Advanced Thyroid Cancers

Background: With the emergence of mutation-based systemic therapies for patients with advanced thyroid cancer, molecular profiling has become an important component of care. Although next-generation sequencing (NGS) gene panels are accessible to clinicians, there is no consensus on the optimal approach to testing. This study investigates the clinical application of NGS results in the management of advanced thyroid cancer. Methods: Patients with advanced thyroid cancer with NGS completed as part of the Integrated Molecular Profiling in Advanced Cancers Trial (IMPACT; NCT01505400) or Ontario-wide Cancer TArgeted Nucleic Acid Evaluation (OCTANE; NCT02906943) clinical trials at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre were included. Electronic medical records were reviewed to collect clinicopathologic and treatment data. The OncoKB framework was used to categorize molecular alterations based on levels of actionability. Patients with an actionable alteration by OncoKB framework who had treatment with a drug targeting the alteration were categorized as receiving "matched" therapy. Time-to-event data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. This study was approved by the University Health Network Research Ethics Board (ID# 19-5888). Results: NGS was performed on 118 patients with advanced thyroid cancer between 2013 and 2020. The most common molecular alterations included BRAF V600E (62%) and NRAS (15%) mutations in papillary thyroid cancer, RET alterations (78%) in medullary thyroid cancer, and BRAF V600E (38%) and TP53 (62%) mutations in anaplastic thyroid cancer. Actionable alterations were found in 87% of patients, and 57% of patients had at least one Level 1 or 2 alteration for which Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug is available. BRAF and RET alterations made up 86% of Level 1 and 2 alterations. A matched therapeutic approach was undertaken in 13% of patients. Conclusion: This study uses a structured framework to analyze the actionability and clinical use of NGS results in advanced thyroid cancer. Most patients had at least one potentially actionable mutation and 57% of patients had at least one Level 1 or 2 alteration, predominantly driven by BRAF V600E and RET alterations. This study rationalizes the need for routine multigene NGS testing or reflex BRAF and RET testing in the management of patients with advanced thyroid cancer.

Assessing the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Emergency Department Use for Patients Undergoing Cancer-Directed Surgeries

Emergency department (ED) use is a concern for surgery patients, physicians and health administrators particularly during a pandemic. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the pandemic on ED use following cancer-directed surgeries. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing cancer-directed surgeries comparing ED use from 7 January 2018 to 14 March 2020 (pre-pandemic) and 15 March 2020 to 27 June 2020 (pandemic) in Ontario, Canada. Logistic regression models were used to (1) determine the association between pandemic vs. pre-pandemic periods and the odds of an ED visit within 30 days after discharge from hospital for surgery and (2) to assess the odds of an ED visit being of high acuity (level 1 and 2 as per the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale). Of our cohort of 499,008 cancer-directed surgeries, 468,879 occurred during the pre-pandemic period and 30,129 occurred during the pandemic period. Even though there was a substantial decrease in the general population ED rates, after covariate adjustment, there was no significant decrease in ED use among surgical patients (OR 1.002, 95% CI 0.957–1.048). However, the adjusted odds of an ED visit being of high acuity was 23% higher among surgeries occurring during the pandemic (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.14–1.33). Although ED visits in the general population decreased substantially during the pandemic, the rate of ED visits did not decrease among those receiving cancer-directed surgery. Moreover, those presenting in the ED post-operatively during the pandemic had significantly higher levels of acuity.

Daily symptom monitoring commonly leads to treatment modification in older adults receiving treatment for metastatic prostate cancer (mPC)

82

Background: Treatment options for older adults with mPC expanded significantly in recent years but commonly include chemotherapy with Docetaxel (Chemo), androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapies (ARAT), and Radium-223 (Ra-223). Symptom burden associated with Chemo, ARAT, and Ra-223 is frequently observed and often leads to treatment modification, especially in older men. The objective of this study is to explore how often, and which moderate to severe symptoms during treatment for mPC and triggered follow-up, lead to treatment delay and/or dose reduction. Methods: Men aged 65+ with mPC starting standard dose (n=24) or reduced dose (n=1) Chemo, standard dose (n=41) or reduced dose (n=1) ARATs, or Ra223 (n=12) from two tertiary cancer centres in Toronto, Canada, were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Participants self-reported symptoms daily using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) for 3-4 weeks either through a web-based interface or phone calls. ESAS scores of >4 were followed by ‘triggered’ detailed questionnaires. The oncology care team was informed of reportable events based on scores of triggered questionnaires and patients were advised to call their care team. Clinical and treatment data were abstracted from electronic patient records and descriptive analysis was used. Results: 52/79 participants (66%) reported 345 moderate to severe symptoms that merited triggered questionnaires (table) with an adherence of 83%. Tiredness (n=74), appetite (n=49), insomnia (n=49), and pain (n=48) were the most frequently reported symptoms. 28 patients reported high scores on triggered questionnaires that led to informing the oncology care team and 79% of these patients were contacted by the care team, or an appointment with the Most Responsible Physician was scheduled. Moderate to severe symptom reporting resulted in treatment modification for 9 patients, Chemo (n=5), ARAT (n=3), and Ra-223 (n=1). Conclusions: Daily monitoring identified clinically relevant symptoms and actionable concerns. Informing care teams of reportable adverse events resulted in contacting patients and ultimately in treatment modification in a considerable number of patients. [Table: see text]

A Randomized Study of Lenvatinib 18 mg vs 24 mg in Patients With Radioiodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

BACKGROUND

Lenvatinib is a multikinase inhibitor approved to treat radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) at a starting dose of 24 mg/day. This study explored, in a double-blinded fashion, whether a starting dose of 18 mg/day would provide comparable efficacy with reduced toxicity.

METHODS

Patients with RR-DTC were randomized to lenvatinib 24 mg/day or 18 mg/day. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate as of week 24 (ORRwk24); the odds ratio noninferiority margin was 0.4. The primary safety endpoint was frequency of grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) as of week 24. Tumors were assessed using RECIST v1.1. TEAEs were monitored and recorded.

RESULTS

The ORRwk24 was 57.3% (95% CI 46.1, 68.5) in the lenvatinib 24-mg arm and 40.3% (95% CI 29.3, 51.2) in the lenvatinib 18-mg arm, with an odds ratio (18/24 mg) of 0.50 (95% CI 0.26, 0.96). As of week 24, the rates of TEAEs grade ≥3 were 61.3% in the lenvatinib 24-mg arm and 57.1% in the lenvatinib 18-mg arm, a difference of -4.2% (95% CI -19.8, 11.4).

CONCLUSION

A starting dose of lenvatinib 18 mg/day did not demonstrate noninferiority compared to a starting dose of 24 mg/day as assessed by ORRwk24 in patients with RR-DTC. The results represent a clinically meaningful difference in ORRwk24. The safety profile was comparable, with no clinically relevant difference between arms. These results support the continued use of the approved starting dose of lenvatinib 24 mg/day in patients with RR-DTC and adjusting the dose as necessary.

Incident Cancer Detection During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Resource restrictions were established in many jurisdictions to maintain health system capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disrupted healthcare access likely impacted early cancer detection. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the pandemic on weekly reported cancer incidence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a population-based study involving individuals diagnosed with cancer from September 25, 2016, to September 26, 2020, in Ontario, Canada. Weekly cancer incidence counts were examined using segmented negative binomial regression models. The weekly estimated backlog during the pandemic was calculated by subtracting the observed volume from the projected/expected volume in that week.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 358,487 adult patients with cancer. At the start of the pandemic, there was an immediate 34.3% decline in the estimated mean cancer incidence volume (relative rate, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75), followed by a 1% increase in cancer incidence volume in each subsequent week (relative rate, 1.009; 95% CI, 1.001-1.017). Similar trends were found for both screening and nonscreening cancers. The largest immediate declines were seen for melanoma and cervical, endocrinologic, and prostate cancers. For hepatobiliary and lung cancers, there continued to be a weekly decline in incidence during the COVID-19 period. Between March 15 and September 26, 2020, 12,601 fewer individuals were diagnosed with cancer, with an estimated weekly backlog of 450.

CONCLUSIONS

We estimate that there is a large volume of undetected cancer cases related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Incidence rates have not yet returned to prepandemic levels.

Early Warning Scores and Their Application in the Inpatient Oncology Settings

Early Warning Score (EWS) systems are tools that use alterations in vital signs to rapidly identify clinically deteriorating patients and escalate care accordingly. Since its conception in 1997, EWSs have been used in several settings, including the general inpatient ward, intensive care units, and the emergency department. Several iterations of EWSs have been developed with varying levels of sensitivity and specificity for use in different populations. There are multiple strengths of these tools, including their simplicity and their ability to standardize communication and to reduce inappropriate or delayed referrals to the intensive care unit. Although early identification of deteriorating patients in the oncology population is vital to reduce morbidity and mortality and to improve long-term prognosis, the application in the oncology setting has been limited. Patients with an oncological diagnosis are usually older, medically complex, and can have increased susceptibility to infections, end-organ damage, and death. A search using PubMed and Scopus was conducted for articles published between January 1997 and November 2020 pertaining to EWSs in the oncology setting. Seven relevant studies were identified and analyzed. The most commonly used EWS in this setting was the Modified Early Warning Score. Of the seven studies, only two included prospective validation of the EWS in the oncology population and the other five only included a retrospective assessment of the data. The majority of studies were limited by their small sample size, single-institution analysis, and retrospective nature. Future studies should assess dynamic changes in scores over time and evaluate balance measures to identify use of health care resources.