Melissa Shea-Budgell

Optimal Perioperative Care in Major Head and Neck Cancer Surgery With Free Flap Reconstruction: A Consensus Review and Recommendations From the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society

Importance Head and neck cancers often require complex, labor-intensive surgeries, especially when free flap reconstruction is required. Enhanced recovery is important in this patient population but evidence-based protocols on perioperative care for this population are lacking. Objective To provide a consensus-based protocol for optimal perioperative care of patients undergoing head and neck cancer surgery with free flap reconstruction. Evidence Review Following endorsement by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society to develop this protocol, a systematic review was conducted for each topic. The PubMed and Cochrane databases were initially searched to identify relevant publications on head and neck cancer surgery from 1965 through April 2015. Consistent key words for each topic included “head and neck surgery,” “pharyngectomy,” “laryngectomy,” “laryngopharyngectomy,” “neck dissection,” “parotid lymphadenectomy,” “thyroidectomy,” “oral cavity resection,” “glossectomy,” and “head and neck.” The final selection of literature included meta-analyses and systematic reviews as well as randomized controlled trials where available. In the absence of high-level data, case series and nonrandomized studies in head and neck cancer surgery patients or randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in non–head and neck cancer surgery patients, were considered. An international panel of experts in major head and neck cancer surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery reviewed and assessed the literature for quality and developed recommendations for each topic based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. All recommendations were graded following a consensus discussion among the expert panel. Findings The literature search, including a hand search of reference lists, identified 215 relevant publications that were considered to be the best evidence for the topic areas. A total of 17 topic areas were identified for inclusion in the protocol for the perioperative care of patients undergoing major head and neck cancer surgery with free flap reconstruction. Best practice includes several elements of perioperative care. Among these elements are the provision of preoperative carbohydrate treatment, pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, perioperative antibiotics in clean-contaminated procedures, corticosteroid and antiemetic medications, short acting anxiolytics, goal-directed fluid management, opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia, frequent flap monitoring, early mobilization, and the avoidance of preoperative fasting. Conclusions and Relevance The evidence base for specific perioperative care elements in head and neck cancer surgery is variable and in many cases information from different surgerical procedures form the basis for these recommendations. Clinical evaluation of these recommendations is a logical next step and further research in this patient population is warranted.

Consensus Review of Optimal Perioperative Care in Breast Reconstruction : Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations

Background: Enhanced recovery following surgery can be achieved through the introduction of evidence-based perioperative maneuvers. This review aims to present a consensus for optimal perioperative management of patients undergoing breast reconstructive surgery and to provide evidence-based recommendations for an enhanced perioperative protocol. Methods: A systematic review of meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large prospective cohorts was conducted for each protocol element. Smaller prospective cohorts and retrospective cohorts were considered only when higher level evidence was unavailable. The available literature was graded by an international panel of experts in breast reconstructive surgery and used to form consensus recommendations for each topic. Each recommendation was graded following a consensus discussion among the expert panel. Development of these recommendations was endorsed by the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Society. Results: High-quality randomized controlled trial data in patients undergoing breast reconstruction informed some of the recommendations; however, for most items, data from lower level studies in the population of interest were considered along with extrapolated data from high-quality studies in non–breast reconstruction populations. Recommendations were developed for a total of 18 unique enhanced recovery after surgery items and are discussed in the article. Key recommendations support use of opioid-sparing perioperative medications, minimal preoperative fasting and early feeding, use of anesthetic techniques that decrease postoperative nausea and vomiting and pain, use of measures to prevent intraoperative hypothermia, and support of early mobilization after surgery. Conclusion: Based on the best available evidence for each topic, a consensus review of optimal perioperative care for patients undergoing breast reconstruction is presented. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, V.

Global Gleason grade groups in prostate cancer: concordance of biopsy and radical prostatectomy grades and predictors of upgrade and downgrade

To evaluate concordance, upgrades and downgrades from biopsy to prostatectomy, and associated clincopathological parameters, using the recently proposed Gleason grade groups/International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) grades.

A population-based assessment of melanoma: Does treatment in a regional cancer center make a difference?

Regionalization of care to specialized centers has improved outcomes for several cancer types. We sought to determine if treatment in a regional cancer center (RCC) impacts guideline adherence and outcomes for patients with melanoma.

Predictors of referral for neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer and changes in practice over time.

INTRODUCTION In patients with non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) fit for curative therapy, a multidisciplinary approach consisting is recommended. This approach includes local treatment (usually radical cystectomy), ideally combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Despite a survival benefit with NACT, uptake remains low. We assessed NACT consultation in Alberta and examined associative factors, as well as the relationship to survival. METHODS Patients with MIBC were identified through the Alberta Cancer Registry. Demographic and clinicopathologic information was collected from electronic medical records between 2007 and 2011. In addition to descriptive statistics, logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with receiving NACT consultation. Overall survival was described using a Kaplan-Meier estimate. RESULTS Of the 315 radical cystectomy patients, 140 (45.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 39.5, 50.8) received NACT consultation. Patients ≥80 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.21, 95% CI 0.08, 0.57, p = 0.002) and those treated in Calgary (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.05, 0.25, p < 0.001) were less likely to receive NACT consultation. The rate of NACT consultation increased steadily from 2007 to 2011 (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.04, 1.45 per year of diagnosis, p = 0.018). After a median follow-up of 28.1 months (range: 14.6-50.3), median survival was 54.7 months for patients who received NACT consultation versus 31.2 months for those who did not (p = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS NACT consultation in patients with MIBC undergoing radical cystectomy has improved over time; however, regional differences underscore the need for a standardized approach to NACT consultation, including common referral mechanisms.

Barriers, supports, and effective interventions for uptake of human papillomavirus- and other vaccines within global and Canadian Indigenous peoples: a systematic review protocol.

BackgroundDespite the existence of human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines with demonstrated safety and effectiveness and funded HPV vaccination programs, coverage rates are persistently lower and cervical cancer burden higher among Canadian Indigenous peoples. Barriers and supports to HPV vaccination in Indigenous peoples have not been systematically documented, nor have interventions to increase uptake in this population. This protocol aims to appraise the literature in Canadian and global Indigenous peoples, relating to documented barriers and supports to vaccination and interventions to increase acceptability/uptake or reduce hesitancy of vaccination. Although HPV vaccination is the primary focus, we anticipate only a small number of relevant studies to emerge from the search and will, therefore, employ a broad search strategy to capture literature related to both HPV vaccination and vaccination in general in global Indigenous peoples.MethodsEligible studies will include global Indigenous peoples and discuss barriers or supports and/or interventions to improve uptake or to reduce hesitancy, for the HPV vaccine and/or other vaccines. Primary outcomes are documented barriers or supports or interventions. All study designs meeting inclusion criteria will be considered, without restricting by language, location, or data type. We will use an a priori search strategy, comprised of key words and controlled vocabulary terms, developed in consultation with an academic librarian, and reviewed by a second academic librarian using the PRESS checklist. We will search several electronic databases from date of inception, without restrictions. A pre-defined group of global Indigenous websites will be reviewed for relevant gray literature. Bibliographic searches will be conducted for all included studies to identify relevant reviews. Data analysis will include an inductive, qualitative, thematic synthesis and a quantitative analysis of measured barriers and supports, as well as a descriptive synthesis and quantitative summary of measures for interventions.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this study will contribute the first systematic review of documented barriers, supports, and interventions for vaccination in general and for HPV vaccination. The results of this study are expected to inform future research, policies, programs, and community-driven initiatives to enhance acceptability and uptake of HPV vaccination among Indigenous peoples.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42017048844

The BETTER WISE protocol: building on existing tools to improve cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care for wellness of cancer survivors and patients – a cluster randomized controlled trial embedded in a mixed methods design

BackgroundThere is a pressing need to reduce the burden of chronic disease and improve healthcare system sustainability through improved cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) in primary care. We aim to create an integrated approach that addresses the needs of the general population and the special concerns of cancer survivors. Building on previous research, we will develop, implement, and test the effectiveness of an approach that proactively targets patients to attend an individualized CCDPS intervention delivered by a Prevention Practitioner (PP). The objective is to determine if patients randomized to receive an individualized PP visit (vs standard care) have improved cancer surveillance and CCDPS outcomes. Implementation frameworks will help identify and address facilitators and barriers to the approach and inform future dissemination and uptake.Methods/designThe BETTER WISE project is a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial embedded in a mixed methods design, including a qualitative evaluation and an economic assessment. The intervention, informed by the expanded chronic care model and previous research, will be refined by engaging researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and patients. The BETTER WISE tool kit includes blended care pathways for cancer survivors (breast, colorectal, prostate) and CCDPS including lifestyle risk factors and screening for poverty. Patients aged 40–65, including both cancer survivors and general population patients, will be randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. Once the intervention is completed, patients randomized to wait-list control will be invited to receive a prevention visit. The main outcome, calculated at 12-months follow-up, will be an individual patient-level summary composite index, defined as the proportion of CCDPS actions achieved relative to those for which the patient was eligible at baseline. A qualitative evaluation will capture information related to program outcome, implementation (facilitators and barriers), and sustainability. An economic assessment will examine the projected cost-benefit impact of investing in the BETTER WISE approach.DiscussionThis project builds on existing work and engages end users throughout the process to develop, implement, and determine the effectiveness of a multi-faceted intervention that addresses CCDPS and cancer survivorship in primary care settings.Trial registrationISRCTN21333761. Registered on December 19, 2016