Canadian Partnership Against Cancer Research Articles

2024 Updates to Cervical Cancer Screening in Canada

The landscape of cervical cancer screening in Canada is about to undergo a major shift from cytology-based screening to testing directly for the presence of high-risk strains of the human papilloma virus (HPV), the persistence of which is known to be a prerequisite for the development of almost all cases of cervical cancer. In 2018, the World Health Organization declared a call to action for the worldwide elimination of cervical cancer by 2040. Subsequently the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) released an action plan outlining the necessary steps for Canada to reach this goal. One of the 3 major priorities identified in the action plan is the transition to primary HPV testing. This transition from screening to testing represents a major shift in infrastructure and also a shift in mindset for clinicians, policymakers, and the public. To help guide this transition, CPAC has collaborated with the Gynecologic Oncology Society of Canada (GOC) and the Society of Canadian Colposcopists (SCC) to release two open-access, evidence‑based guidelines in June 2023. These guidelines address how to manage a positive HPV screening test, and colposcopy in the context of primary HPV‑screening. This paper will outline the evolution of cervical cancer screening in Canada along with the rationale behind the transition to HPV testing. Also included is a discussion on the broad recommendations from the 2023 CPAC/GOC/SCC guidelines, as well as recommendations for age and interval of screening and special populations. Readers of this article in e-journal format can access the Canadian Guideline on the Management of a Positive Human Papillomavirus Test and Guidance for Specific Populations here. Readers may also access the 2023 Canadian Colposcopy Guideline: A Risk-Based Approach to Management and Surveillance of Cervical Dysplasia here.

Virtually, Anything is Possible: Implementation of an Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Platform Across A Multi-Center Radiation Oncology Department

Aim: To assess the implementation of an electronic patient reported outcomes (ePRO) application across a multi-center radiation oncology department. Process: Dalhousie University's Department of Radiation Oncology (DRO) is composed of four radiotherapy (RT) centres (Halifax, Sydney, Saint John, Charlottetown) across three provinces. The implementation of ePRO across our centres has been made possible by several key events: In 2009, a Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) grant enabled 2 centres to begin paper-based distress screening using the Canadian Problem Checklist (CPC) and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESASr). In 2015, a PRO retreat included representatives from all 4 centres to devise an action plan for ePRO implementation. In 2017, Accreditation Canada mandated routine evaluation of patient outcomes and in 2019, three DRO centres were awarded CPAC funding to launch ePROs. The fourth centre now hopes to use lessons learned in order to facilitate their ePRO implementation. Within the ePRO application (Noona) Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy (CPQR)-endorsed PRO tools are used to capture patient responses including CPC, ESASr, and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Needs assessments were conducted in the areas of human resource (e.g. administrative support) as well as staff and patient education. Clinic workflows were revised to include an ePRO assessment at consultation, first and last RT review as well as follow-up in clinic or remotely. Official roll-out began in November 2021 with a phased approach across centres and tumors sites to allow for stakeholder and user feedback and to facilitate continued project planning. Benefits/Chellenges: Multi-centre and multi-disciplinary collaboration has been a major enabler of this project with significant potential to expand our Department's clinical and research programs. While the challenge of coordinating such a large-scale initiative was aggravated by constantly changing pandemic restrictions, project priority was escalated across the institutions with recognition of the electronic platform as a powerful tool to assess patient distress/symptoms remotely. While implementation of an ePRO program has been feasible, it has also been complex. Approvals from Privacy Impact Assessments to IT architectural reviews were required. An advisory board was formed to facilitate multi-stakeholder feedback including patient representatives, project managers, clinical clerks, nurses, radiation therapists, radiation oncologists, industry representatives, IT and legal. The project has been dependent on support from cancer program leadership to front line staff. Given that implementation of an ePRO application has introduced change in clinic workflow, change management strategies have been required to obtain buy-in for a system that aims to ultimately improve the quality and efficiency of patient care. Impact / Outcomes: PROs capture the patient perspective on physical, emotional and practical impacts of treatment, with the literature showing benefits to include improved patient-provider communication, patient quality of life and even survival. Future evaluation of the program will hopefully confirm that uptake and efficiency of PROs improves with use of the electronic versus paper system. More importantly, we await data collection and analysis to determine whether our multiple RT centres see improved patient outcomes through use of ePROs.

Implementation of the Canadian National Standards in Breast Cancer Surgical Care: Gaps, Barriers, Enablers and Opportunities.

Background: Diagnosis and surgical treatment decision making for breast cancers has become increasingly complex. Recently, Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) published pan-Canadian evidence-based surgical standards for the care of breast cancer patients. This study was undertaken to assess the degree to which these standards were currently met in practice and to further understand the determinants of their implementation nationally. Methods: This study was undertaken in two parts—(1) National survey of breast cancer surgeons to assess the perceived extent of implementation of these standards in their institution and province; (2) Formation of a focus group with a representative sample of breast surgeons across Canada to further understand the barriers and facilitators towards future breast standards implementation. Results: 35 surgeons participated in the survey: 66% were from community hospitals. There were four categories of standards that were the most significantly lacking across the country—(a) processes related to quality assurance, (b) turnaround time for pathology results (c) psychosocial and health-related support for the breast cancer patient and (d) breast reconstruction for patients undergoing mastectomy. The focus group included participants from all ten Canadian provinces. For each standard, the 134 determinants fell into three main categories—individual physician (n = 27, 20%); organizational (n = 46, 34%), and system (n = 61, 46%). While specific determinants were present for each category, surgical standards were more likely to be implemented in practice if (1) they aligned with organizational priorities standards; (2) the individual physicians or physician groups were accountable to the organization and/or cancer jurisdiction regarding compliance with the standard; and (3) if infrastructure or resources existed within the organization or system for the reliable collection of relevant, meaningful, practice changing data combined with the capability of benchmarking, peer–peer comparisons and timely feedback to the surgeons. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrated variation, barriers and opportunities for the national implementation of CPAC’s breast cancer surgery standards and identified determinants of high-quality breast surgical care delivery.

National Thoracic Surgery Standards Implementation: Barriers, Enablers, and Opportunities.

Background: Diagnosis and surgical treatment decision making for thoracic cancers is complex. Moreover, there is demonstrated variability in how each province in Canada delivers cancer care, resulting in disparities in patient outcomes. Recently, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) published pan-Canadian evidence-based standards for the care of thoracic surgery cancer patients. This study was undertaken to assess the degree to which these standards were currently met in practice and to further understand the determinants to their implementation nationally. Methods: This study was undertaken in two parts: (1) a national survey of thoracic surgeons to assess the perceived extent of implementation of these standards in their institution and province; and (2) formation of a focus group with a representative sample of thoracic surgeons across Canada in a qualitative study to understand the determinants of successful standards implementation. Results: 37 surgeons (33% response rate) participated in the survey; 78% were from academic hospitals. The top categories of standards that were under-implemented included (a) quality assurance processes, data collection and clinician audit and feedback, and (b) ongoing regional planning and workload assessments for thoracic surgeons, and (c) pathology turnaround time target of two weeks and the use of a standardized synoptic pathology report format. Enablers, barriers, and opportunities for standards implementation contextualized the discussion within the focus group. Conclusion: Study results demonstrated variation in the implementation of surgery standards across Canada and identified the determinants to the delivery of high quality surgical care. Future work will need to include the promotion and development of quality improvement strategies and effective resource allocation that is aligned with the implementation of thoracic cancer surgery standards in order to improve patient outcomes.

Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC)—Phase 2

Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC) is part of California Breast Cancer Research Program’s (CBCRP) Initiative strategic priority to disseminate and implement high-impact, population-based primary prevention interventions. CLASP-BC is informed by six years of funded program dissemination and implementation (D&I) research and evaluation conducted by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) through its Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention (CLASP). In its second phase, CLASP-BC will fund multi-sector, multi-jurisdictional initiatives that integrate the lessons learned from science with the lessons learned from practice and policy to reduce the risk of developing breast cancer and develop viable and sustainable infrastructure models for primary prevention breast cancer programs and research evidence implementation. Applications will be solicited from research, practice, policy, and community teams to address one or more of the intervention goals for the 23 risk factors identified in Paths to Prevention: The California Breast Cancer Primary Prevention Plan (P2P), expanding upon existing primary prevention efforts into two or more California jurisdictions, focused on disadvantaged, high risk communities with unmet social needs. The lessons learned from CLASP-BC will be widely disseminated within the participating jurisdictions, across California and, where applicable, to jurisdictions outside the state.

Pan-Canadian standards for cancer surgery

The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) is an independent organization funded by the federal government to accelerate action on cancer control for all Canadians. As the steward of the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control (the Strategy), the Partnership works with Canada’s cancer community to take action to ensure fewer people get cancer, more people survive cancer and those living with the disease have a better quality of life. This work is guided by the Strategy, which was refreshed for 2019 to 2029, and will help drive measurable change for all Canadians affected by cancer. The Strategy includes 5 priorities that will tackle the most pressing challenges in cancer control as well as distinct First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples–specific priorities and actions reflecting Canada’s commitment to reconciliation. A specific action in the Strategy calls for reducing the differences in practice and service delivery by setting standards for high-quality care and promoting their adoption. The CPAC will oversee the implementation of the priorities in collaboration with organizations and individuals on the front lines of cancer care: the provinces and territories; health care professionals; people living with cancer and those who care for them; First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities; governments and organizations; and its funder, Health Canada. Learn more about the Partnership and the refreshed Strategy at www.cancerstrategy.ca.

Toward the development of a comprehensive cancer experience measurement framework.

A diagnosis of cancer and its treatment often have a profound impact on an individual's health-related quality of life-affecting physical, psychological, social, occupational, and financial domains. Person-centered care (PCC)-defined as arespectful, responsive, and tailored approach that meets patients' needs, values, and preferences-is becoming an integral part of comprehensive cancer care. The implementation of PCC into clinical practice provides benefits such as improvement in the quality of patient care, enhanced health-related outcomes, and significantly higher satisfaction with care. However, to guide and document more precisely the effects of PCC, various authors have argued that a more comprehensive measurement framework is needed. The primary goal of this paper is to present such an evolving framework based on extant evidence and developed in the context of a series of expert stakeholder meetings spearheaded by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) that began in 2012. Developed collaboratively, the Cancer Experience Measurement Framework goes beyond existing patient experience frameworks by focusing on four key elements and related measures: the patient perspective, the family perspective, the combined patient-family perspective, and interactions with the healthcare system. In light of current healthcare trends promoting cancer self-management, patients as partners, andpatient and family engagement in care, it is imperative that we conduct ongoing assessments using shared and psychometrically sound measures to ensure sound comparisons across settings,as well as better cancer-related processes and outcomesfor indivduals affected by cancer.

Canada's Progress to Make Smoking Cessation a First-Line Cancer Treatment

Background: Evidence indicates that smoking cessation improves the effectiveness of treatment and likelihood of survival among all cancer patients, not just those with tobacco-related disease, yet smoking is rarely addressed in oncology practice. Prior to 2016, only 3 provinces in Canada (out of a total of 10 provinces and three territories) reported implementation of smoking cessation for ambulatory cancer patients. Aim: Based on this evidence, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) implemented a systems change initiative to promote adoption of evidence-based smoking cessation within provincial and territorial cancer systems across Canada. Methods: In 2016, CPAC funded seven provinces and two territories over a 15-month period to plan, implement or evaluate integration of evidence-based smoking cessation for ambulatory cancer patients within cancer systems. Funds were used to plan (2 provinces and 2 territories), implement (3 provinces) or evaluate (2 provinces) systematic, evidence-based approaches to smoking cessation within ambulatory cancer care settings (e.g., establishing routine systems for identification of smoking cancer patients and system to support patients to quit). Funds could not be used for direct service delivery (e.g., cessation counseling). Results: After 15-months of funding from CPAC, 6 provinces reported implementation of smoking cessation for ambulatory cancer patients. The remaining province and 2 territories funded by CPAC reported development of plans for adoption of smoking cessation for cancer patients in the future. Within provinces reporting implementation of smoking cessation for cancer patients, between 65%-97% of ambulatory cancer patients were screened for smoking status; 22%-80% of these patients were offered a referral to cessation services, and 21%-45% of cancer patients accepted a referral. Conclusion: Despite provincial and territorial variations in readiness to uptake evidence-based smoking cessation for cancer patients, CPAC's approach has led to substantial progress in adoption of this approach across Canada. While progress has been made, adoption of smoking cessation and relapse prevention by cancer systems is not yet widespread in Canada. Scale-up to remaining provinces and territory, and spread within existing provinces and territories is required to reach all cancer patients and families who require support to quit smoking. Framing smoking cessation as a therapeutic intervention, not prevention, and a routine part of cancer treatment will be critical for sustainability of this work.

Correlating Quantitative Fecal Immunochemical Test Results with Neoplastic Findings on Colonoscopy in a Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: A Prospective Study.

Background and Aims. The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) recommends a fecal immunochemical test- (FIT-) positive predictive value (PPV) for all adenomas of ≥50%. We sought to assess FIT performance among average-risk participants of the British Columbia Colon Screening Program (BCCSP). Methods. From Nov-2013 to Dec-2014 consecutive participants of the BCCSP were assessed. Data was obtained from a prospectively collected database. A single quantitative FIT (NS-Plus, Alfresa Pharma Corporation, Japan) with a cut-off of ≥10 μg/g (≥50 ng/mL) was used. Results. 20,322 FIT-positive participants underwent CSPY. At a FIT cut-off of ≥10 μg/g (≥50 ng/mL) the PPV for all adenomas was 52.0%. Increasing the FIT cut-off to ≥20 μg/g (≥100 ng/mL) would increase the PPV for colorectal cancer (CRC) by 1.5% and for high-risk adenomas (HRAs) by 6.5% at a cost of missing 13.6% of CRCs and 32.4% of HRAs. Conclusions. As the NS-Plus FIT cut-off rises, the PPV for CRC and HRAs increases but at the cost of missed lesions. A cut-off of ≥10 μg/g (≥50 ng/mL) produces a PPV for all adenomas exceeding national recommendations. Health authorities need to take into consideration endoscopic resources when selecting a FIT positivity threshold.

Health disparities in cancer care: Exploring Canadian, American and international perspectives.

CANO/ACIO’s vision is to be “a driving force nationally and an influencing force internationally in advancing excellence in cancer nursing across the cancer control spectrum.” We want to see “Canadians across the cancer spectrum have timely access to high quality nursing” (CANO/ACIO, p. 8). With this end in view, a panel of experts came together to explore health inequities in cancer care from a variety of national and international perspectives at the 25 th Annual CANO/ACIO conference, held in Vancouver in October 2013. Represented on the panel were experts in health disparities research (Dr. Colleen Varcoe and Dr. Christina Sinding), past presidents of the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) (Dr. Mary Gullatte) and the International Society of Nurses in Cancer Care (ISNCC) (Dr. Greta Cummings), and leadership from the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) (Dr. Margaret Fitch). Oncology nurses are uniquely positioned to positively influence health equity in cancer care at national and international levels. What follows are summaries of the panelists’ presentations.

The Choosing Wisely Canada cancer initiative.

5 Background: Choosing Wisely Canada is a campaign modelled after Choosing Wisely in the USA and aims, through a pan-Canadian cancer physician-based consensus process, to identify a list of low value or harmful cancer services/practices frequently used in Canada. The following describes the approach taken for this work related to cancer in Canada. Methods: A Task Force approach was used, facilitated by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC), and included representation from the Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology, Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists, and Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology, and an expert advisor. The methodology included four phases: (1) identify potentially relevant items and a framework for their subsequent selection; (2) develop a long list; (3) refine and reduce the long list to a short list; and (4) select and endorse a final list of low value or harmful cancer practices. Phases 2–4 followed a framework-driven consensus process and used a series of electronic surveys and voting processes. Results: For Phase 1, 66 cancer relevant practices were initially identified. The framework for subsequent selection included: (1) the size of population to which the practice is relevant; (2) frequency of use in Canada; (3) cost; (4) evidence of low value/harm; and (5) potential for change in use of the practice. The long list (41 practices) was refined and reduced to a short list of 19 practices and a final list including 10 practices. Of these, 5 are completely new, and 3 are revisions/adaptations practices from USA Choosing Wisely. Of the 10 practices, 6 are involve multiple disease sites, while 4 practices are disease-site specific. One practice relates to diagnosis, 6 are treatment- focussed, 2 target surveillance/survivorship, while one practice spans the cancer continuum from diagnosis through survivorship. Conclusions: Through CPAC facilitation, the collective input and work of three professional oncology societies informed this initiative. The content of the final list will be officially released through Choosing Wisely Canada in October 2014, and will be fully revealed at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium.

Peer review in radiotherapy (RT): A national quality improvement initiative.

221 Background: Peer review (PR) in Radiation Oncology has been shown to be effective in improving quality of treatment by detecting and correcting deficiencies in proposed treatment plans prior to treatment. PR is also effective in: guiding departmental treatment planning policies and processes; reducing variation in practice; providing a venue for multi-disciplinary communication, and increasing staff and trainee awareness of evolving treatment processes. The importance of PR is reflected in the inclusion of 3 PR-specific quality indicators in the Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy QA Guidelines for Radiation Oncology programs. Given this endorsement, we aim to enhance PR implementation across all Canadian cancer centres using a knowledge-translation and implementation framework. Methods: This project will facilitate increased uptake of PR in Canadian RT programs by implementing the top-down model used with success in Ontario. This model has several key components, including: a) engaging the leadership of provincial cancer agencies to promote PR at every Provincial cancer centre; b) providing modest financial support for the acquisition of the required hardware and/or staff time for coordinating PR activities; c) systematic collection of each centre’s baseline PR activities, perceived barriers and potential facilitators of PR at each centre; d) creation of a continuous quality improvement cycle by monitoring PR quality indicators over time; e) systematic knowledge and information sharing regarding effective PR processes. Results: Funding for this initiative was obtained from the Canadian Partnership against Cancer (CPAC) in April 2014. A steering committee consisting of stakeholders from across Canada has been struck and provincial launches, based on the tenets used in Ontario, have commenced in 7 of 13 provinces with others expressing interest. A national survey to obtain baseline data relating to PR activities, perceived barriers, and facilitators is underway and will be reported. Conclusions: Preliminary evidence suggests a “snowball effect” of increasing PR uptake across Canada. The implementation model could be applied in other jurisdictions interested in increasing PR in radiation oncology.

Estimating the Population Impact of Introducing Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy for Stage I NSCLC in Canada

Stereotactic Ablative Radiation therapy (SABR) achieves long-term local control rates of up to 90% in stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We used the Cancer Risk Management Model (CRMM), developed by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) to estimate the health and economic impact of introducing SABR for stage I NSCLC in Canada.

Canadian consensus guidelines for the management of testicular germ cell cancer.

Testicular tumours are uncommon but constitute an important group of malignancies in young men. Worldwide, it is estimated that there were more than 48 500 new cases and 8900 deaths from the disease in 2002.1 The vast majority are primary germ cell tumours (GCTs) and the incidence has doubled in the past 30 years (with most of the increase in seminomas).2 While most patients present with early-stage and highly curable disease, the continued rise in the incidence of these tumours presents a major challenge. Germ cell testicular tumours are the most common solid malignancies in males between the ages of 20 and 35; it is estimated that in 2008 there will be 900 new cases and 30 deaths from testicular cancer in Canada.3 Germ cell cancer is a rare disease that requires expert treatment. Clear evidence has emerged that patients with germ cell cancer benefit from treatment in centres with special experience in the field.4 However, it is also of considerable importance that clear, comprehensive and up-to-date consensus guidelines are available which represent the current “state of the art” in diagnosis and management of germ cell cancer. The European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group published guidelines in 2004 (updated in 2008) and these reflect the “European” approach to management of patients with GCTs.5–7 In October 2007, the 1st Canadian Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Conference was held in Toronto with support from the Canadian Partnership against Cancer (CPAC), the Canadian Institute of Health Research, multiple provincial cancer agencies, the Dell’Elce Testicular Cancer Research Fund from the Princess Margaret Foundation and industry sponsors. The initiative was endorsed by the Canadian Urological Association, the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists and the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists. There were a total of 46 attendees from across Canada and international invitees (Dr. Peter Albers, Dr. Robert Huddart and Dr. Craig Nichols). The group reviewed and discussed the current literature and the Canadian experience with germ cell cancer. The group developed this Canadian Consensus Guideline to cover many aspects of the diagnosis and management of germ cell cancer.

CANADIAN CANCER RISK MANAGEMENT MODEL: EVALUATION OF CANCER CONTROL

The aim of this study was to develop a decision support tool to assess the potential benefits and costs of new healthcare interventions. The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) commissioned the development of a Cancer Risk Management Model (CRMM)--a computer microsimulation model that simulates individual lives one at a time, from birth to death, taking account of Canadian demographic and labor force characteristics, risk factor exposures, and health histories. Information from all the simulated lives is combined to produce aggregate measures of health outcomes for the population or for particular subpopulations. The CRMM can project the population health and economic impacts of cancer control programs in Canada and the impacts of major risk factors, cancer prevention, and screening programs and new cancer treatments on population health and costs to the healthcare system. It estimates both the direct costs of medical care, as well as lost earnings and impacts on tax revenues. The lung and colorectal modules are available through the CPAC Web site (www.cancerview.ca/cancerrriskmanagement) to registered users where structured scenarios can be explored for their projected impacts. Advanced users will be able to specify new scenarios or change existing modules by varying input parameters or by accessing open source code. Model development is now being extended to cervical and breast cancers.

The Canadian partnership for quality radiotherapy: A model for radiation treatment quality and safety.

266 Background: Innovative, overarching national, and international strategies for the assurance of safe and high quality radiation treatment (RT) are needed, given the rate of technologic innovation and shifts in traditional roles associated with RT planning and delivery. Methods: The Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy (CPQR) was created as an interprofessional alliance of the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO), Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists (COMP), Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists (CAMRT) and Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC), aimed at developing and promoting coordinated national strategies for high quality and safe RT. Results: A steering committee of national leaders from each profession and content experts in RT quality and safety was created, with financial and strategic backing provided by the federal government through CPAC. The vision and strategy were communicated broadly to the RT treatment community and to other stakeholders provincially, nationally, and internationally. ‘Quality Assurance Guidance for Canadian Radiation Treatment Programs’ was published online in April 2011 and empowered programs across the country to evaluate their internal procedures against these indicators. This document was downloaded over 875 times in the first 6 months, a measure of the demand and broad uptake in Canada and internationally. This early success has fostered other foci of activity, including engagement by the Canadian medical physics community around synthesis of detailed quality control guidelines for equipment, a dialogue about national incident reporting, and support from international partners in relation to collaborative programs. The goal is to incorporate RT quality and safety indicators into national accreditation programs for cancer care to assure long-term sustainability. Conclusions: CPQR has established a model for quality and safety that is fostering the evolution of a new national quality culture. This model is applicable to other jurisdictions, recognizing that a coordinated international approach to setting guidelines and standards will ultimately lead to higher quality and safer RT on a global scale.

Psychosocial health care needs assessment of adult cancer patients: a consensus-based guideline

Although recommended as an essential part of cancer care, there is limited evidence regarding the optimum approach to psychosocial health care needs assessment in this setting. To address this gap, the Cancer Journey Action Group of the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) and the Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology (CAPO) partnered to develop consensus-based recommendations regarding the routine assessment of psychosocial and supportive care needs. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the evidence that informed the guideline and disseminate the recommendations developed by the expert panel. Clinical practice recommendations were developed by a panel comprised of psychosocial and interdisciplinary experts. Recommendations were informed by a review of oncology clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary research, through to May 2008. Following expert consensus on the recommendations, the clinical practice guideline was externally reviewed by a purposively selected sample of national and international interdisciplinary experts. A total of nine clinical practice guidelines, three systematic reviews, and 14 primary studies were included in the review. Overall, this body of literature suggested that routine collection of psychosocial health care data has an influence on communication with oncologists and other study specific outcomes, but the evidence was limited by heterogeneity and methodological limitations. Based on the interpretation of this body of evidence by clinical experts, research methodologists, and external reviewers, 12 substantive recommendations were developed regarding the process and parameters of psychosocial needs assessment in adult cancer patients. Given the limitations in the current body of evidence, there remains a need for rigorous empirical research regarding the optimal approach to psychosocial needs assessment, including the specific characteristics that influence effectiveness on patient outcomes. This guideline fills an important gap in psychosocial care, regarding the routine assessment of psychosocial health care needs.

Trailblazers in Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology.

The development of adolescent and young adult (AYA) oncology as a burgeoning discipline that is now into its own adolescence may be best illustrated by the surge in AYA oncology publications in peer-reviewed journals during the past three years. Prior to 2007, the number of articles identified by the search term ‘‘adolescents young adults cancer’’ in the PubMed database ranged from 129 to 381 per year. Since then, the number increased to 598 in 2007, 1971 in 2008, and 4045 in 2009. The dramatic increase is still well short of the 7000–7500 articles per year that the ‘‘children cancer’’ search term identifies, especially when one considers that the number of cancer patients in the AYA age group is four to six times greater, depending on what age range is used for the AYA group. Nonetheless, the change in publication rate of AYA cancer reports and reviews is striking testimony of need and partial success. To understand the history that led to this revolution, several of its pioneers in England, the United States, and Canada were convened for a roundtable discussion to offer their recall. As described below, the original seed appears to have been sowed in England, thanks to Ian Lewis and London’s Teenage Cancer Trust. A root took hold a decade later when national statistics in the United States showed a survival progress gap that was analogized to the famous London Tube gap between the platform and the Underground train. The stems that then broke ground were conferences, organizations, hospital and outpatient programs, scientific reviews, and international collaborations. The participants in this Roundtable undoubtedly neglected many other events along the way, but they are all appreciative of the emerging buds and blossoms of AYA oncology. Most of all, they sense that AYAs around the world will ultimately truly benefit in improved prevention, early detection, and treatment of cancer during the prime of their lives.

Abstract PL05-04: From basic science to public health: The Canadian approach to oral leukoplakia

Abstract PL05-04: From basic science to public health: The Canadian approach to oral leukoplakia

Conceptual and practical challenges for implementing the communities of practice model on a national scale - a Canadian cancer control initiative

BackgroundCancer program delivery, like the rest of health care in Canada, faces two ongoing challenges: to coordinate a pan-Canadian approach across complex provincial jurisdictions, and to facilitate the rapid translation of knowledge into clinical practice. Communities of practice, or CoPs, which have been described by Etienne Wenger as a collaborative learning platform, represent a promising solution to these challenges because they rely on bottom-up rather than top-down social structures for integrating knowledge and practice across regions and agencies. The communities of practice model has been realized in the corporate (e.g., Royal Dutch Shell, Xerox, IBM, etc) and development (e.g., World Bank) sectors, but its application to health care is relatively new. The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) is exploring the potential of Wenger's concept in the Canadian health care context. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of Wenger's concept with a focus on its applicability to the health care sector.DiscussionEmpirical studies and social science theory are used to examine the utility of Wenger's concept. Its value lies in emphasizing learning from peers and through practice in settings where innovation is valued. Yet the communities of practice concept lacks conceptual clarity because Wenger defines it so broadly and sidelines issues of decision making within CoPs. We consider the implications of his broad definition to establishing an informed nomenclature around this specific type of collaborative group. The CoP Project under CPAC and communities of practice in Canadian health care are discussed.SummaryThe use of communities of practice in Canadian health care has been shown in some instances to facilitate quality improvements, encourage buy in among participants, and generate high levels of satisfaction with clinical leadership and knowledge translation among participating physicians. Despite these individual success stories, more information is required on how group decisions are made and applied to the practice world in order to leverage the potential of Wenger's concept more fully, and advance the science of knowledge translation within an accountability framework.