Search

Background: Emerging evidence suggests that nonadherence to treatment guidelines for seizures may affect patient outcomes. We examined the feasibility of conducting a larger investigation to test this hypothesis in the pediatric population., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed charts of patients aged ≤18 years who presented with seizure to the emergency departments of two Ontario hospitals in 2019 to 2021. Patients were grouped by seizure duration (<5 minutes [n = 37], ≥5 minutes [n = 41]). We examined nonadherence to guideline-recommended treatment, adverse outcomes (hospitalization, length of stay, respiratory complications), and missing values for key variables., Results: Of 78 patients, 34 (44%) did not receive guideline-recommended treatment. Nonadherence was similar in the two groups (<5 minutes: 46%; ≥5 minutes: 41%). Common deviations included administering an antiseizure medication (ASM) for seizures of less than five minutes (46%), a delay (>10 minutes) between the first and second ASM doses (50%), and use of a benzodiazepine for the third dose (45%). Hospitalizations were common in both seizure duration groups (∼90%), whereas respiratory complications were relatively rare. Time of seizure onset was missing in 51% of charts, and none contained the time of first contact with emergency services when patients were transported by ambulance., Conclusion: We found evidence of substantial nonadherence to guideline-recommended treatment of pediatric seizures. Medical records do not contain sufficient information to comprehensively investigate this issue. A multicenter prospective study is the most feasible option to examine the association between nonadherence to guideline-recommended treatment and patient outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Purpose: Take-home cancer drugs (THCDs) have become a standard treatment of many cancers. Robust guidelines have been developed for intravenous chemotherapy drugs, but few exist for THCDs with a focus on decentralized models. Hence, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) established the Oncology Pharmacy Task Force (OPTF) to develop consensus-based recommendations on best practices for THCDs to ensure that patients receive safe, consistent, high-quality care in the community once they leave the cancer center/practice with a prescription., Methods: The OPTF included 34 members with comprehensive representation. Guidance from leading authorities was extracted through literature review, thematically analyzed, and synthesized to develop 29 recommendations. The consensus process (> 70% agreement) included a three-step modified Delphi method followed by an extensive review process., Results: Sixteen recommendations were developed: training and education for providers (2), drug access (1), prescribing (4), patient and family/caregiver education (3), communication (1), dispensing (3), monitoring for patient adherence and adverse effects (1), and incident reporting (1)., Conclusion: Through a rigorous methodology, the OPTF derived a robust set of recommendations similar to the ASCO/Oncology Nursing Society and ASCO/National Community Oncology Dispensing Association guidelines, further validating and strengthening the applicability across multiple jurisdictions, including those with decentralized models. Unique aspects in a decentralized model include the need for two pharmacy professionals, with one doing cognitive verification of the script and the other dispensing the medication; moreover, they optimize interprofessional communication between community providers and the cancer center/practice health care team., Competing Interests: Kathy VuStock and Other Ownership Interests: Incyte Vishal KukretiHonoraria: Amgen, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, CelgeneNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Introduction: Technology is emerging as a solution to develop home-based, proactive 'real-time' symptom monitoring and management in cancer care. The Advanced Symptom Monitoring and Management System-Canada (ASyMS-Can) is a remote phone-based symptom management system that enables real-time remote monitoring of systemic chemotherapy toxicities., Methods and Analysis: This study is an open-label, prospective, mixed-method, Phase II, 2-arm parallel group assignment (ASyMS-Can vs usual care) feasibility study in patients with cancer receiving systemic (neo-adjuvant or adjuvant) chemotherapy at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. A total of 114 patients will be recruited in oncology clinics prior to initiation of chemotherapy. Patients in both arms will complete a demographic and a set of questionnaires at enrolment, mid and end of treatment. Patients in intervention arm will be provided with an encrypted, secure, preprogrammed ASyMS phone for symptom reporting daily for the first 14 days of each chemotherapy treatment cycle up to sixth cycle (16 weeks). Feasibility metrics (recruitment, retention and protocol adherence) and outcomes to assess impact of ASyMS-Can include symptom severity, emotional distress, quality of life and acceptability to patients and clinicians., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has received ethical and institutional approvals from the University Health Network. Dissemination will include presentations at national/international conferences, and publications in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT03335189., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Emergency department visits and hospitalizations after starting systemic therapy for cancer are frequent, undesirable, and costly. A score to quantify the risk of needing acute care can inform decision-making and facilitate the development of preventive interventions., Objective: To develop and validate a score to predict early use of acute care after initiating systemic therapy for cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015. Patients with cancer were eligible if they started a new systemic therapy for cancer, regardless of line of therapy. A total of 12 162 patients in Southwestern Ontario, Canada, formed the development cohort and 15 845 patients in Northeastern Ontario formed the validation cohort. Data analysis was conducted from December 1, 2016, to August 10, 2019., Exposures: The Prediction of Acute Care Use During Cancer Treatment (PROACCT) score was created based on logistic regression in the development cohort. Combinations of cancer type and regimens were grouped into quintiles based on risk of needing acute care. The score was assessed in the validation cohort., Main Outcomes and Measures: At least 1 emergency department visit or hospitalization within 30 days after starting systemic therapy for cancer identified from administrative databases., Results: Among the 12 162 patients in the development cohort, 6903 were women and 5259 were men (mean [SD] age, 62.9 [12.6] years); among the 15 845 patients in the validation cohort, 9025 were women and 6820 were men (mean [SD] age, 62.9 [12.6] years). Use of acute care occurred within 30 days after initiation of systemic therapy in 3039 patients (25.0%) in the development cohort and 4212 patients (26.6%) in the validation cohort. Three characteristics predicted early use of acute care and formed the PROACCT score: combination of cancer type and treatment regimen, age, and emergency department visits in the prior year (C statistic, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.66-0.69; P < .001). Other characteristics including patient-reported symptoms did not improve performance. In the validation cohort, the PROACCT score was associated with use of acute care (odds ratio per point increase, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.20-1.24; P < .001), had a C statistic of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.60-0.62; P < .001), was reasonably calibrated, and provided net benefit in decision curve analysis., Conclusions and Relevance: The PROACCT score predicted the risk of early use of acute care in patients starting systemic treatment for cancer and could be incorporated at the point of care to select patients for preventive interventions. Future studies should validate the PROACCT score in other settings.

Purpose: Systemic treatment (ST) computerized prescriber order entry (CPOE) and preprinted orders (PPO) are proven to reduce errors. There is no known guidance in oncology to facilitate high-quality, accurate regimen development and review; hence, this was identified as a system-wide gap. This provincial initiative aimed to improve the quality of oncology regimens through a comprehensive review of systemic treatment (ST) regimens and the development of standards., Methods: A system-wide analysis of all active regimens (both CPOE and PPO) to ensure they were built as intended was conducted in 2015. Thirty-five hospitals (on behalf of 75 treatment facilities) were asked to report any unintentional discrepancies and details of the maintenance review process. Discrepancies were compiled, categorized, and analyzed for potential to cause harm. In addition, a multidisciplinary expert working group was formed to create best practice recommendations., Results: The review yielded a 94% response rate and took a total of 18 months to complete (70% completed within 9 months). The average number of regimens reviewed was 336 (range, 15 to 700; n = 9). Unintentional discrepancies were reported by nine hospitals (27%). A total of 369 discrepancies were reported (average, 55 per hospital), and 28 were deemed to have a moderate potential for harm. Only two hospitals (6%) had an established maintenance process; now, all have standard processes for review. Consensus-based recommendations for ST-CPOE and PPO regimen development and maintenance were developed., Conclusion: The review identified unintentional discrepancies and, because of the potential for patient harm, corrective action has been taken. Identified discrepancies have been amended, and standard regimen development and maintenance review processes are now implemented system-wide to improve the quality and safety of systemic treatment delivery.

Rapid Response Systems have been introduced in the last decade to increase patient safety and decrease the rate of cardiorespiratory arrest on the hospital wards and readmission to the intensive care units. In this article we share our experience at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto on implementation and evolution of a pediatric rapid response team; the process, barriers, and ongoing challenges.

Mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare cancer, with the majority of patients (pts) presenting in stage III-IV and the outcomes are poor. To determine the curability of localized MCL, we examine stage I-II pts at our institution between 1990-2007. 26 pts with stage I (38%) and stage II (62%) were referred. Sites involved were head and neck in 73%. Five had a blastoid variant. Five patients were treated with palliative intent. Analysis was focused on pts treated with a curative intent (21 pts): 17 CT+RT, 2 RT, 2 CT followed by ASCT. 13 patients received CHOP, 5-RCHOP, 1-CVP; most received 6 cycles. The RT median dose was 35Gy and IFRT for the majority. For 21 pts treated with a curative intent, median follow up was 5.8 years. The overall response rate was 95%. Among the 19 CR/CRu pts, 9 relapsed for a 5-year relapse rate of 46%. Relapses were mainly observed at distant sites, 3 were in GI tract, 1 had both local and distant relapse. Median PFS and OS were 3.2 and 6.4 years, respectively. 5-year OS was 62%. In univariate analysis, blastoid variant and stage II were prognostic factors for PFS. Multivariate analysis could not be performed due to the small sample size. With a treatment approach using combined CT+RT for stage I-II MCL, local control was achieved in 94%. Systemic relapse remains a significant problem, especially for stage II and blastoid variant. Radiotherapy should remain part of curative treatment plan in stage I-II MCL.