BACKGROUND:Cancer projections to the current year help in policy development, planning of programs and allocation of resources. We sought to provide an over view of the expected incidence and mor tality of cancer in Canada in 2020 in followup to the Canadian Cancer Statistics 2019 report.

Purpose Return to work (RTW) is a major goal to promote cancer survivors' social participation. A multidisciplinary social-healthcare pathway called UNAMANO was designed to support RTW in this population. Methods UNAMANO was developed by the Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia (RE), in partnership with the local branch of the Italian Medical Association, nonprofit associations, vocational training institutions, social cooperatives, a labour union, and a chartered accounting firm. Results UNAMANO is directed towards employed individuals diagnosed with cancer living in the Province of RE. It has been implemented through four actions: A) healthcare professionals training on work-related occupational rehabilitation; B) dissemination among community and stakeholders; C) recruitment and training of volunteers; D) cancer survivor engagement and provision of a personalized comprehensive intervention. This consists in providing information and occupational therapy to overcome barriers and facilitate RTW or social support through retraining and tailored job search strategies for individuals based on their risk of job loss. Conclusions UNAMANO is the first Italian multidisciplinary social-healthcare pathway supporting RTW of cancer survivors. Addressing a wide area of cancer survivors' needs, it provides personalized intervention to resolve work-related issues. We propose this patient-centred RTW model to promote an easier transition from hospital to community.Implications for cancer survivors UNAMANO can positively impact on cancer survivors' health and well-being and can be provided at any stage of disease and treatment. UNAMANO ensures that RTW is coherent with cancer survivors' health condition and expectations.

Patient-reported outcomes measures (proms) are an important component of the shift from disease-centred to person-centred care. In oncology, proms describe the effects of cancer and its treatment from the patient perspective and ideally enable patients to communicate to their providers the physical symptoms and psychosocial concerns that are most relevant to them. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised (esas-r) is a commonly used and validated tool in Canada to assess symptoms related to cancer. Here, we describe the extent to which patient-reported outcome programs have been implemented in Canada and the severity of symptoms causing distress for patients with cancer. As of April 2017, 8 of 10 provinces had implemented the esas-r to assess patient-reported outcomes. Data capture methods, the proportion of cancer treatment sites that have implemented the esas-r, and the time and frequency of screening vary from province to province. From October 2016 to March 2017 in the 8 reporting provinces, 88.0% of cancer patients were screened for symptoms. Of patients who reported having symptoms, 44.3% reported depression, with 15.5% reporting moderate-to-high levels; 50.0% reported pain, with 18.6% reporting moderate-to-high levels; 56.2% reported anxiety, with 20.4% reporting moderate-to-high levels; and 75.1% reported fatigue, with 34.4% reporting moderate-to-high levels. There are some notable areas in which the implementation of proms could be improved in Canada. Findings point to a need to increase the number of cancer treatment sites that screen all patients for symptoms; to standardize when and how frequently patients are screened across the country; to screen patients for symptoms during all phases of their cancer journey, not just during treatment; and to assess whether giving cancer care providers real-time patient-reported outcomes data has led to appropriate interventions that reduce the symptom burden and improve patient outcomes. Continued measurement and reporting at the system level will allow for a better understanding of progress in proms activity over time and of the areas in which targeted quality improvement efforts could ensure that patient symptoms and concerns are being addressed.

Background Communication with health care providers during diagnosis and treatment planning is of special

Background As part of Choosing Wisely Canada (a national campaign to encourage patient-provider conversations

Background Access to cancer care is a significant concern for Canadians. Prolonged delays between cancer diagnosis

Hospitals play an important role in the care of patients with advanced cancer: nearly half of all cancer deaths occur in acute-care settings. The need for increasing access to palliative care and related support services for patients with cancer in acute-care hospitals is therefore growing. Here, we examine how often and how early in their illness patients with cancer might be receiving palliative care services in the 2 years before their death in an acute-care hospital in Canada. The palliative care code from inpatient administrative databases was used as a proxy for receiving, or being referred for, palliative care. Currently, the palliative care code is the only data element routinely collected from patient charts that allows for the tracking of palliative care activity at a pan-Canadian level.     Our findings suggest that most patients with cancer who die in an acute-care hospital receive a palliative designation; however, many of those patients are identified as palliative only in their final admission before death. Of the patients who received a palliative designation before their final admission, nearly half were identified as palliative less than 2 months before death. Findings signal that delivery of services within and between jurisdictions is not consistent, that the palliative care needs of some patients are being missed by physicians, and that palliative care is still largely seen as end-of-life care and is not recognized as an integral component of cancer care.     Measuring the provision of system-wide palliative care remains a challenge because comprehensive national data about palliative care are not currently reported from all sectors. To advance measurement and reporting of palliative care in Canada, attention should be focused on collecting comparable data from regional and provincial palliative care programs that individually capture data about palliative care delivery in all health care sectors.

Objective To explore differences in position emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) service provision internationally to further understand the impact variation may have upon cancer services. To identify areas of further exploration for researchers and policymakers to optimize PET-CT services and improve the quality of cancer services. Design Comparative analysis using data based on pre-defined PET-CT service metrics from PET-CT stakeholders across seven countries. This was further informed via document analysis of clinical indication guidance and expert consensus through round-table discussions of relevant PET-CT stakeholders. Descriptive comparative analyses were produced on use, capacity and indication guidance for PET-CT services between jurisdictions. Setting PET-CT services across 21 jurisdictions in seven countries (Australia, Denmark, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK). Participants None. Intervention(s) None. Main Outcome Measure(s) None. Results PET-CT service provision has grown over the period 2006–2017, but scale of increase in capacity and demand is variable. Clinical indication guidance varied across countries, particularly for small-cell lung cancer staging and the specific acknowledgement of gastric cancer within oesophagogastric cancers. There is limited and inconsistent data capture, coding, accessibility and availability of PET-CT activity across countries studied. Conclusions Variation in PET-CT scanner quantity, acquisition over time and guidance upon use exists internationally. There is a lack of routinely captured and accessible PET-CT data across the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership countries due to inconsistent data definitions, data linkage issues, uncertain coverage of data and lack of specific coding. This is a barrier in improving the quality of PET-CT services globally. There needs to be greater, richer data capture of diagnostic and staging tools to facilitate learning of best practice and optimize cancer services.