INTRODUCTION [...]

Acute care hospitals have a role in managing the health care needs of people affected by cancer when they are at the end of life. However, there is a need to provide end-of-life care in other settings, including at home or in hospice, when such settings are more appropriate. Using data from 9 provinces, we examined indicators that describe the current landscape of acute care hospital use at the end of life for patients who died of cancer in hospital in Canada.Interprovincial variation was observed in acute care hospital deaths, length of stay in hospital, readmission to hospital, and intensive care unit use at the end of life. High rates of acute care hospital use near the end of life might suggest that community and home-based end-of-life care might not be suiting patient needs.

Equitable access to appropriate cancer treatment is fundamental for achieving universal, high-quality cancer care [...]

Meaningful performance measures are an important part of the toolkit for health system improvement. The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer has been reporting on pan-Canadian cancer system performance indicators since 2009-work that has led to the availability of standardized measures that can help to shed light on the extent of variation and opportunities for quality improvement across the country. Those measures include a core set of system indicators ranging from prevention and screening, through diagnosis and treatment, to survivorship and end-of-life care.Key indicators were calculated and graphed, showing the range from worst to best result for the provinces and territories included in the data. There were often significant differences in cancer system performance between provinces and territories. For example, smoking prevalence rates ranged from 14% to 62%. The 90th percentile wait times from an abnormal breast screen to resolution (without biopsy) ranged from 4 weeks to 8 weeks. The percentage of breast cancer resections that used breast-conserving surgery rather than mastectomy ranged from 38% to 75%. Clinical trial participation rates for adults ranged from 0.2% to 6.6%.Variations in performance indicators between Canadian jurisdictions suggest potential differences in the planning and delivery of cancer control services and in clinical practice patterns and patient outcomes. Understanding sources of variation can help to identify opportunities for improvements in the quality and outcomes of cancer control service delivery in each province and territory.

311 Background: PET Scans are increasingly used in the diagnosis and management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, uptake of PET at provincial level is not well studied. This project, led by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, established processes and indicators to describe utilization of PET in patients with NSCLC. These indicators support the monitoring of uptake and highlight areas for quality improvement strategies at the national and provincial level. Methods: Cases of NSCLC, diagnosed in the study period of 2009-2011, were identified from cancer registries and linked to PET utilization data. PET scans were identified as indicated for diagnosis/staging or treatment response, based on the timing of scans relative to diagnosis and treatment dates. Scans conducted three months prior to and up to four months post-diagnosis but before start of treatment (surgery or radiation) were identified as diagnosis/staging. Scans conducted after the start of treatment to ten weeks post-treatment were identified as management and follow-up of treatment. Results: A total of 27,984 cases of NSCLC were identified. Preliminary analysis revealed that 8,947 (32.0%) of NSCLC patients had at least one PET scan. Some variation was seen in age, with those 18 to 69 years more likely to receive a scan than those 70 years and older. PET scan use was higher among stages I and II (52.3% to 50.6%) compared to stage IV (17.98%). A majority of PET scans were performed for diagnosing/staging NSCLC (91.1%). PET scans for diagnosis/staging were highest for patients with stage I (36.7%) followed by stage IV (24.6%). Conclusions: This study provided information on the current use of PET technology across Canada, allowing for identification of opportunities for increasing evidence-based use while decreasing extra-evidential use, and forming a baseline for future monitoring as evidence evolves.