Search

Background: A twelve-gene molecular expression assay (DCIS score) may help guide radiation oncology treatment under specific circumstances. We undertook a study to examine radiation oncologist (RO), surgeon, and decision maker views on implementing the DCIS score in practice for women with low-risk DCIS., Methods: We conducted a qualitative study involving telephone interviews that were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two researchers conducted a thematic analysis of transcripts., Results: Twenty-eight individuals (ROs, breast cancer surgeons, and cancer policy decision makers) were invited to participate; 22 out of the 28 people (79%) agreed. The final sample included 20 participants: 11 of 13 (85%) ROs, 5 of 7 (71%) surgeons, and 4 of 8 (50%) decision makers. Most ROs expressed concerns about overtreatment but could not predict with certainty which low-risk patients could safely avoid radiation. The DCIS score was viewed as contributing valuable personalized risk information as part of treatment decision making that included clinicopathological factors and women's preferences. Future implementation would require guidelines with input from the oncology team., Conclusions: ROs had concerns about the overtreatment of women with DCIS, but lacked the tools to reliably predict which women could safely avoid radiation. By providing oncologists and women with personalized tumor information, the DCIS score was an important component of treatment decision making.

Background: Cancer poses a significant global health burden. With advances in screening and treatment, there are now a growing number of cancer survivors with complex needs, requiring the involvement of multiple health care providers. Previous studies have identified problems related to communication and care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists., Objective: This study aimed to examine whether a web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) could facilitate communication between PCPs and cancer specialists (oncologists and oncology nurses) to improve patient-reported continuity of care among patients receiving treatment or posttreatment survivorship care., Methods: In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, a total of 173 patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (eOncoNote plus usual methods of communication between PCPs and cancer specialists) or a control group (usual communication only), including 104 (60.1%) patients in the survivorship phase (breast and colorectal cancer) and 69 (39.9%) patients in the treatment phase (breast and prostate cancer). The primary outcome was patient-reported team and cross-boundary continuity (Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire). Secondary outcome measures included the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire on Major Depression, and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire. Patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and at 2 points following randomization. Patients in the treatment phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 1 month and at either 4 months (patients with prostate cancer) or 6 months following randomization (patients with breast cancer). Patients in the survivorship phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 6 months and at 12 months following randomization., Results: The results did not show an intervention effect on the primary outcome of team and cross-boundary continuity of care or on the secondary outcomes of depression and patient experience with their health care. However, there was an intervention effect on anxiety. In the treatment phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score from baseline to the 1-month follow-up for GAD-7 (mean difference -2.3; P=.03). In the survivorship phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score for GAD-7 between baseline and the 6-month follow-up (mean difference -1.7; P=.03) and between baseline and the 12-month follow-up (mean difference -2.4; P=.004)., Conclusions: PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to eOncoNote is not significantly associated with patient-reported continuity of care. However, PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to the eOncoNote intervention may be a factor in reducing patient anxiety., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03333785; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03333785., (©Bojana Petrovic, Jim A Julian, Clare Liddy, Amir Afkham, Sharon F McGee, Scott C Morgan, Roanne Segal, Jonathan Sussman, Gregory R Pond, Mary Ann O'Brien, Jacqueline L Bender, Eva Grunfeld. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 18.01.2023.)

Context: The Canadian Team to Improve Community-Based Cancer Care along the Continuum (CanIMPACT) is a group of researchers, primary care providers (PCPs), cancer specialists, patients and caregivers working to improve cancer care coordination between PCPs and cancer specialists. Previous research by CanIMPACT and others has identified problems related to communication, coordination, and continuity of care. Objective: Describe findings from qualitative interviews with cancer specialists on implementation of an online communication system with PCPs. Study Design: Hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation study that included a qualitative research component and a pragmatic RCT. Setting: Ottawa Hospital Cancer Program and primary care practices in the Champlain region. Population Studied: Cancer specialists (nurses, medical and radiation oncologists, program administrators). Interviews conducted with 12 cancer specialists. Intervention: Cancer-specific adaptation of Champlain BASE™ eConsult, an online communication system for PCPs and cancer specialists called "eOncoNote". For patients receiving treatment for prostate or breast cancer, cancer specialists had an opportunity to participate in eOncoNote discussion with PCP for 4-6 months; for breast and colorectal cancer survivors, the eOncoNote discussion lasted for 1 year post discharge to the patient's PCP. Results: Cancer specialists described limited PCP involvement in cancer care while patients received active treatment, with one-way communication and notes being "sent into a vacuum". There was more communication with PCPs regarding patients with metastatic disease, comorbid conditions, after patients have completed treatment, or during palliative care. Patients and caregivers play a critical role in coordinating cancer care, helping to facilitate coordination. Lack of access to the same electronic medical record (EMR) among healthcare providers poses a barrier to cancer care coordination. eOncoNote had the potential to be useful tool but it was not used extensively. Conclusions: Accessing eOncoNote as a separate system was challenging to incorporate into the workflow, and cancer specialists highlighted the need for integration with their EMR. eOncoNote did not affect information sharing with PCPs, as there was limited uptake within primary care., Competing Interests: Authors report none., (2021 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Background: The study purpose was to identify tumor and surgeon predictors of local recurrence (LR), regional recurrence (RR), and distant metastasis (DM) after breast cancer (BC) surgery in a population-based cohort., Methods: Consecutive BC surgical cases from 12 hospitals in South Central Ontario between May 2006 and October 2006 were included. Data collected on chart review included patient and tumor factors, surgery type, adjuvant treatment, surgeon specialty, surgeon case volume, and practice type. Univariate and multivariable survival analyses were performed., Results: Median follow-up was 5.5 years for 402 patients (97% of sample). LR, RR, and DM occurred in 18 (4.5%), 10 (2.5%), and 47 (12%) patients, respectively. Significant predictors of BC recurrence (LR or RR or DM) were tumor size and grade, nodal status, and lymphovascular invasion on multivariable analysis., Conclusion: Tumor factors such as size, grade, lymphovascular invasion, and nodal status predicted BC recurrence, while practice type, surgeon specialty, and case volume did not., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Evidence from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 trial suggests completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (+SLNB) does not improve outcomes in select patients, leading to practice variation. A multidisciplinary group of surgeons, oncologists, and pathologists developed a regional guideline for cALND which was disseminated in August 2012. We assessed the impact of Z0011 and the regional guideline on cALND rates., Methods: Consecutive invasive breast cancer cases undergoing SLNB were reviewed at 12 hospitals. Patient, tumor, and process measures were collected for three time periods: TP1, before publication of Z0011 (May 2009-August 2010); TP2, after publication of Z0011 (March 2011-June 2012); and TP3, after guideline dissemination (January 2013-April 2014). Cases were categorized by whether they met the guideline criteria for cALND (i.e. ≤50 years, mastectomy, T3 tumor, three or more positive sentinel lymph nodes [SLNs]) or not (e.g. age > 50 years, breast-conserving surgery, T1/T2 tumor, and one to two positive SLNs)., Results: The SLNB rate increased from 56 % (n = 620), to 70 % (n = 774), to 78 % (n = 844) in TP1, TP2, and TP3, respectively. Among cases not recommended for cALND using the guideline criteria, cALND rates decreased significantly over time (TP1, 71 %; TP2, 43 %; TP3, 17 %) [p < 0.001]. The cALND rate also decreased over time among cases recommended to have cALND using the guideline criteria (TP1, 92 %; TP2, 69 %; TP3, 58 %) [p < 0.001]. Based on multivariable analysis, age and nodal factors appeared to be significant factors for cALND decision making., Conclusion: Publication of ACOSOG Z0011 and regional guideline dissemination were associated with a marked decrease in cALND after +SLNB, even among several cases in which the guideline recommended cALND.

Background: Recently the impact of completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy on significant outcomes has been questioned, leading to variation in surgical practice. To address this variation, a multidisciplinary working group created a regional guideline for cALND. We explored the views and experiences of surgeons, medical oncologists (MOs), radiation oncologists (ROs) in a qualitative study that examined guideline implementation in practice., Methods: The Pathman framework (awareness, agreement, adoption and adherence) informed the interview guide design and analysis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with MOs, ROs and surgeons and transcribed. Transcripts were coded independently by 2 members of the study team and analyzed. Disagreements were resolved through consensus., Results: Twenty-eight physicians (5 MO; 6RO; 17S) of 41 (68% of those approached) were interviewed. Ten of 11 (91%) hospital sites (54% community; 46% academic) and all 4 cancer clinics within the region were represented. Twenty-seven physicians (96%) were aware of the guideline, with all physicians reporting agreement and general adherence to the guideline. Most physicians indicated nodal factors, age and patient preference were key components of cALND decision-making. Physicians from all disciplines perceived that the guideline helped reduce variation in practice across the region. There were concerns that the guideline could be applied rigidly and not permit individual decision-making., Conclusions: Physicians identified breast cancer as an increasingly complex and multidisciplinary issue. Facilitators to guideline implementation included perceived flexibility and buy-in from all disciplines, while individual patient factors and controversial supporting evidence may hinder its implementation., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: For early stage breast cancer, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that patient decision aids (PtDAs), when used by surgeons, result in increased patient knowledge about options and different patient treatment choices as compared to standard care. Yet, recent data suggests that PtDAs are used by less than 25% of Canadian cancer physicians. We conducted a study to explore breast cancer surgeons' views on enablers and barriers to the use of PtDAs in their practice., Methods: Purposeful sampling was used to select breast cancer surgeons in three Ontario health regions to participate in semi-structured interviews. Inductive coding and the constant comparative method were used to identify the main themes., Results: Twenty-two surgeons (79%) agreed to participate (median age, 50 years; 9 (40%) female). Surgeons practiced in academic (n = 7, 32%) or community (n = 15, 68%) hospitals. Fourteen surgeons were aware of PtDAs, nine had used a PtDA with patients as part of an RCT, and six had developed their own informal PtDA for use in their practice. Enablers of informal PtDA use included surgeon exposure during training and surgeon perceived need for a systematic approach when communicating risks and benefits of surgical treatments with patients. Barriers to formal PtDA use included high surgeon confidence in their verbal communication skills, surgeon belief that patients understood conveyed information, and difficulties embedding such tools in practice routines., Conclusions: Surgeons in this study valued systematic communication with patients. Several surgeons changed their practice to include formal or informal PtDAs provided they perceived there was a clear benefit to themselves or to patients. However, high surgeon confidence in their personal communications skills coupled with beliefs that patients understand conveyed information may be key barriers to PtDA uptake once surgeons have established communication routines.

Background: Gaps in breast cancer (BC) surgical care have been identified. We have completed a surgeon-directed, iterative project to improve the quality of BC surgery in South-Central Ontario., Methods: Surgeons performing BC surgery in a single Ontario health region were invited to participate. Interventions included: audit and feedback (A&F) of surgeon-selected quality indicators (QIs), workshops, and tailoring interviews. Workshops and A&F occurred yearly from 2005-2012. QIs included: preoperative imaging; preoperative core biopsy; positive margin rates; specimen orientation labeling; intraoperative specimen radiography of nonpalpable lesions; T1/T2 mastectomy rates; reoperation for positive margins; sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) rates, number of sentinel lymph nodes; and days to receive pathology report. Semistructured tailoring interviews were conducted to identify facilitators and barriers to improved quality. All results were disseminated to all surgeons performing breast surgery in the study region., Results: Over 6 time periods, 1,828 BC charts were reviewed from 12 hospitals (8 community and 4 academic). Twenty-two to 40 participants attended each workshop. Sustained improvement in rates of positive margins, preoperative core biopsies, specimen orientation labeling, and SLNB were seen. Mastectomy rates and overall axillary staging rates did not change, whereas time to receive pathology report increased. The tailoring interviews concerning positive margins, SLNB, and reoperation for positive margins identified facilitators and barriers relevant to surgeons., Conclusions: This surgeon-directed, regional project resulted in meaningful improvement in numerous QIs. There was consistent and sustained participation by surgeons, highlighting the importance of integrating the clinicians in a long-term, iterative quality improvement strategy in BC surgery.

Background: The investigators designed a sustained, surgeon-directed, iterative project to improve the quality of breast cancer surgery in south central Ontario., Methods: The strategy included audit and feedback of surgeon-selected quality indicators, workshops, and tailoring interviews. Workshops were held to discuss quality improvement strategies, select quality indicators, review audited results, and select interventions for subsequent implementation. Semistructured tailoring interviews were conducted to identify facilitators and barriers to improved quality. All presentations and results were disseminated to all surgeons performing breast surgery in the study region., Results: Forty-four surgeons performing breast surgery across 12 hospitals are involved in the project. Five workshops have been held since 2005. Surgeons' enthusiasm and involvement in the project have been positive. Interim results demonstrated that over 4 audit cycles (2006-2010), the preoperative core biopsy rate increased from 73% to 92%. The tailoring interviews indicated that 18 of 21 surgeons performed preoperative core biopsies., Conclusions: This project highlights the feasibility of a surgeon-directed, iterative quality improvement strategy in breast cancer surgery. Interim results demonstrate consistent improvements in a key selected quality indicator., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To identify patients' and physicians' perceptions of physician-related verbal and nonverbal facilitators and barriers to patient involvement in treatment decision making (TDM) occurring during clinical encounters for women with early stage breast cancer (ESBC)., Methods: Eligible women were offered treatment options including surgery and adjuvant therapy. Eligible physicians provided care for women with ESBC in either a teaching hospital or an academic cancer centre. In Phase 1, women were interviewed 1-2 weeks after their initial consultation. In Phase 2, women and their physicians were interviewed separately while watching their own consultation on a digital video disk. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed., Results: Forty women with ESBC and six physicians participated. Patients and physicians identified thirteen categories of physician facilitators of women's involvement. Of these, seven categories were frequently identified by women: conveyed a rationale for patient involvement in TDM; explained the risk of cancer recurrence; explained treatment options; enhanced patient understanding of information; gave time for TDM; offered a treatment recommendation; and made women feel comfortable. Physicians described similar information-giving facilitators but less often mentioned other facilitators. Few physician barriers to women's involvement in TDM were identified., Conclusions: Women with ESBC and cancer physicians shared some views of how physicians involve patients in TDM, although there were important differences. Physicians may underestimate the importance that women's place on understanding the rationale for their involvement in TDM and on feeling comfortable during the consultation., (© 2011 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: This study aimed to describe the perceptions of women with early stage breast cancer regarding their involvement in treatment decision making (TDM)., Methods: Eligible women with early stage breast cancer were recruited immediately after their first consultation with a specialist. Semistructured personal interviews were held prior to treatment. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed., Results: Nineteen women with early stage breast cancer considering surgery (n = 6) or adjuvant therapy (n = 13) participated. Women described being involved in various stages of TDM and interacting with informal networks and specialists. Women's descriptions suggest that (1) the concept of involvement in TDM may have a broader meaning for patients than strictly their decisional role and (2) inclusion of significant others in TDM contributes to the patient's sense of involvement., Conclusions: Conceptualization and measurement of patient involvement in TDM have often been framed within the context of the medical encounter and the patient's perceived or actual role in this process. Our findings raise questions about what involvement means to patients with early stage breast cancer and suggest that the focus on patient involvement in TDM within the medical encounter may be too narrow to capture the meaning of involvement from the patient's perspective.

Objective: There is limited understanding about what treatment decision making (TDM) means to patients. The study objective was to identify any processes or stages of TDM as perceived by women with early stage breast cancer (ESBC)., Methods: Initial consultations with a surgeon or medical oncologist were videotaped. Subsequently, women viewed their consultation using a qualitative approach with video-stimulated recall (VSR) interviews. Interviews were taped, transcribed, and analyzed., Results: There were 6 surgical and 15 medical oncology (MO) consultations. Most women described TDM as beginning soon after diagnosis and involving several processes including gathering information from informal and formal networks and identifying preferred treatment options before the specialist consultation. Many women wanted more information from their surgeon so they could engage in subsequent TDM with their medical oncologist., Conclusion: In this study, women with ESBC began TDM soon after diagnosis and used several iterative processes to arrive at a decision about their cancer treatment. VSR interviews can be useful to investigate TDM occurring during the consultation., Practice Implications: Women with ESBC rely on information provided by their surgeons and family physicians to make treatment decisions about surgery and also to prepare them for subsequent discussions with medical oncologists about chemotherapy.

Context: The long-term results of randomized trials have demonstrated equivalent survival rates for mastectomy and breast-conserving therapy for the treatment of early stage breast cancer. Consequently, the choice of treatment should be based on a patient's preferences., Objective: To evaluate the impact of a decision aid regarding the different surgical treatment options on patient decision making., Design and Setting: A cluster randomized trial for which general surgeons in the communities of central-west, and eastern Ontario, Canada, were randomly assigned to use the decision aid or not in the surgical consultation. Patients received the decision aid or not based on the surgeon seen., Participants: Twenty surgeons participated in the study. Of the 208 eligible women with newly diagnosed clinical stage I or II breast cancer seen by study surgeons, 201 agreed to be evaluated: 94 were assigned to the decision board and 107 to usual practice. Patients were recruited from November 1999 to April 2002., Intervention: The decision board is a decision aid designed to help physicians inform their patients about different treatment options and to enable patients to express a preference for treatment., Main Outcome Measures: Patient knowledge about the surgical treatment of breast cancer; decisional conflict; satisfaction with decision making; and the treatment decision following the consultation., Results: Patients in the decision board group had higher knowledge scores about their treatment options (66.9 vs 58.7; P<.001), had less decisional conflict (1.40 vs 1.62, P =.02), and were more satisfied with decision making (4.50 vs 4.32, P =.05) following the consultation. Patients who used the decision board were more likely to choose BCT (94% vs 76%, P =.03)., Conclusions: The decision board was helpful in improving communication and enabling women to make a choice regarding treatment. Such instruments should be considered by surgeons when communicating the different surgical options to women with breast cancer.