Background: Breast cancer (BC) treatment is rapidly evolving with new and costly therapeutics. Existing costing models have a limited ability to capture current treatment costs. We used an Activity-Based Costing (ABC) method to determine a per-case cost for BC treatment by stage and molecular subtype. Methods: ABC was used to proportionally integrate multidisciplinary evidence-based patient and provider treatment options for BC, yielding a per-case cost for the total duration of treatment by stage and molecular subtype. Diagnostic imaging, pathology, surgery, radiation therapy, systemic therapy, inpatient, emergency, home care and palliative care costs were included. Results: BC treatment costs were higher than noted in previous studies and varied widely by molecular subtype. Cost increased exponentially with the stage of disease. The per-case cost for treatment (2023C$) for DCIS was C$ 14,505, and the mean costs for all subtypes were C$ 39,263, C$ 76,446, C$ 97,668 and C$ 370,398 for stage I, II, III and IV BC, respectively. Stage IV costs were as high as C$ 516,415 per case. When weighted by the proportion of molecular subtype in the population, case costs were C$ 31,749, C$ 66,758, C$ 111,368 and C$ 289,598 for stage I, II, III and IV BC, respectively. The magnitude of cost differential was up to 10.9 times for stage IV compared to stage I, 4.4 times for stage III compared to stage I and 35.6 times for stage IV compared to DCIS. Conclusion: The cost of BC treatment is rapidly escalating with novel therapies and increasing survival, resulting in an exponential increase in treatment costs for later-stage disease. We provide real-time, case-based costing for BC treatment which will allow for the assessment of health system economic impacts and an accurate understanding of the cost-effectiveness of screening.

Caring for cancer patients is generally considered very rewarding work, but it can also be stressful and demanding. Therefore, it is important for oncology healthcare professionals to feel satisfied with their work environment in order to provide the best care possible. An ethics-approved 61-item staff satisfaction survey was developed in-house to gain insights regarding workplace satisfaction among all staff at The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the responses. A total of 478 individuals completed the online survey, with 75.1% women, 23.2% men, and 1.7% preferring not to say. This represented the vast majority (>75%) of cancer center staff. The approximate breakdown according to healthcare professional type was as follows: 21% nurses, 20% radiation therapists, 18% physicians, 13% clerical staff, and 28% other types of staff. Almost all (97.4%) generally enjoyed their work, with 60% stating “very much” and 37.4% stating “a little bit”, and 93.3% found working with cancer patients rewarding. The overall satisfaction level at work was high, with 30.1% reporting “very satisfied” and 54.2% “somewhat satisfied”. However, in terms of their work being stressful, 18.6% stated it was “very much” and 62.1% “a little bit”. Also, in terms of their workload, 61.3% stated it was “very busy” and 10% stated it was “excessively busy”. The most enjoyable aspects of work were listed as interactions with colleagues, interactions with patients, and learning new things. The least enjoyable aspects of work were excessive workload, a perceived unsupportive work environment, and technology problems. Levels of satisfaction and stress at work varied according to role at the cancer center. Most cancer center staff seem to enjoy their work and find it rewarding. However, the work environment can be challenging and stressful. Areas for improvement include managing workloads, ensuring staff feel supported, and improving the user-friendliness of technology.

Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), formerly known as CCO, is the provincial governmental agency in Ontario, Canada responsible for developing radiation therapy-specific capital investment strategies, updated every 5 years, to ensure equitable access and to gain the highest value from these investments in infrastructure. These plans are informed by the changing landscape of health care delivery, technologic advancements affecting radiation therapy care, patient desire for care closer to home, and expected increases in utilization of radiation therapy services. In this article, we describe the development, model, and final recommendations of CCO's fifth radiation therapy capital investment strategy. A panel of multidisciplinary provincial experts, in combination with 2 patient and family advisors, developed planning principles to guide the development of a patient-centered strategy. Adaption of the previously used model for radiation therapy planning was used. The development of the capital investment strategy took place from fall 2017 to fall 2018. The model included 3 main factors: patient demand (including utilization targets), machine throughput, and machine demand and supply. The final recommendation is for an investment of 26 new radiation therapy machines in the province by 2028. The strategy plans for continued province-wide access to quality radiation therapy care and ensures machines are added to the system at the right place and in the right time. Ongoing data collection throughout this period is necessary to ensure the strategy achieves its goals and to allow for planning of future strategies.

Background: Unsolicited patient feedback (compliments and complaints) should allow the healthcare system to address and improve individual and overall patient, family, and staff experiences. We evaluated feedback at a tertiary cancer centre to identify potential areas for optimizing care delivery. Methods: unsolicited feedback submitted to the Patient Relations Department, relating to the Divisions of Medical and Radiation Oncology, at the Ottawa Hospital, was analyzed. Results: Of 580 individual reports submitted from 2016 to 2022, patient demographics were available for 97% (563/580). Median patient age was 65 years (range 17–101), and 53% (301/563) were female. The most common cancer types were breast (127/545, 23%) and gastrointestinal (119/545, 22%) malignancies, and most (64%, 311/486) patients had metastatic disease. Feedback was submitted mainly by patients (291/579, 50%), and predominantly negative (489/569, 86%). The main reasons for complaints included: communication (29%, 162/566) and attitude/conduct of care (28%, 159/566). While feedback rates were initially stable, an increase occurred from 2019 to 2021. Conclusions: Unsolicited feedback remains mostly negative, and relates to physician communication. If we are to drive meaningful changes in care delivery, more standardized means of assessing feedback and implementation strategies are needed. In addition, in an era of increased healthcare provider burnout, strategies to enhance formal positive feedback are also warranted.

Introduction: Variable costs of different radiation treatment modalities have played an important factor in selecting the most appropriate treatment for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Methods: Analysis using a Markov model was conducted to simulate 20-year disease trajectory, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health system costs of a cohort of intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients with mean age of 60 years. Clinical outcomes on toxicity and disease recurrence were measured and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed, varying input parameters simultaneously according to their distributions. Results: Among the six radiation treatment modalities, including conventionally fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), hypofractionated IMRT, IMRT combined with high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, HDR brachytherapy monotherapy, low-dose-rate brachytherapy monotherapy, and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), SBRT was found to be more cost-effective when compared with LDR-b and other treatment modalities, resulting in an incremental cost–utility ratio of $2985 per QALY. Conclusions: Stereotactic body radiotherapy is the most cost-effective radiation treatment modality in treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer, while treatment toxicity and cost data are the key drivers of the cost–utility. Further work is required with long-term follow-up for SBRT.

Patients, families, healthcare providers and funders face multiple comparable treatment options without knowing which provides the best quality of care. As a step towards improving this, the REthinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) pragmatic trials program started in 2014 to break down many of the traditional barriers to performing clinical trials. However, until other innovative methodologies become widely used, the impact of this program will remain limited. These innovations include the incorporation of near equivalence analyses and the incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical trial design. Near equivalence analyses allow for the comparison of different treatments (drug and non-drug) using quality of life, toxicity, cost-effectiveness, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data. AI offers unique opportunities to maximize the information gleaned from clinical trials, reduces sample size estimates, and can potentially “rescue” poorly accruing trials. On 2 May 2023, the first REaCT international symposium took place to connect clinicians and scientists, set goals and identify future avenues for investigator-led clinical trials. Here, we summarize the topics presented at this meeting to promote sharing and support other similarly motivated groups to learn and share their experiences.