Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic greatly impacted primary care and cancer care. We studied how primary care utilization in Ontario, Canada changed for patients who were newly diagnosed with cancer just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic compared to those diagnosed in non-pandemic years.Methods: This population-based, retrospective cohort study used linked healthcare databases to compare outcomes for patients with a new malignancy diagnosed within the year prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, between July 1 and September 30, 2019 (COVID-19 cohort) to those diagnosed in the same months in 2018 and 2017 (pre-pandemic cohort). We used Poisson regression models to compare rates of in-person and virtual visits to patients' usual primary care physician (PCP), emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations, all reported per person-year of follow-up.Results: In-person visits to usual PCPs decreased from 4.07/person-year in the pre-pandemic cohort to 2.58 in the COVID-19 cohort (p < 0.0001). Virtual visits to usual PCPs increased from 0.00 to 1.53 (p < 0.0001). Combined in-person and virtual visits to patients' usual PCPs was unchanged from 4.07 to 4.12 (p = 0.89). The rate of ED visits decreased from 0.99/person-year to 0.88 (p < 0.0001). Non-elective hospitalizations remained unchanged, from 0.49/person-year to 0.47 (p = 0.1675).Conclusion: There was a sizeable shift in primary care visits for cancer patients from in-person to virtual during the pandemic, although there was no resultant increase in hospitalizations. This suggests that early in the pandemic, virtual care allowed for continuity in utilization of primary care, though further studies are required to confirm this persisted later in the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is one of the most malignant tumors and typically presents at an advanced and rapidly fatal stage. To better understand the role of genetics in the etiology and prevention of ESCC and to identify potential susceptibility genes as well as early detection markers, we previously compared tumor and matched normal tissues from ESCC patients from a high-risk area of China using cDNA expression microarrays and identified 41 differentially-expressed genes (13 over-expressed and 28 under-expressed). Methods: In the current study, we validated and quantitated differential mRNA expression in a sample of nine of these 41 genes, including four that were over-expressed (SPARC, FADD, Fascin, COL7A1), and five that were under-expressed (CK4, TGM3, ECM1, PPL, EVPL), in 75 new ESCC patients using quantitative Real-time RT-PCR and the 2-ΔΔCT method to examine both tumor and matched normal tissue. In addition, we examined expression patterns for these genes by selected demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Four previously over-expressed (tumor ≥2-fold normal) genes were all increased in the majority of new ESCC patients: SPARC was increased in 71% of patients, Fascin in 70%, FADD in 63%, and COL7A1 in 57%. Five previously under-expressed (tumor ≤0.5-fold normal) genes similarly showed decreased mRNA expression in two-thirds or more of patients: CK4 was decreased in 83% of patients, TGM3 in 77%, ECM1 in 73%, and PPL and EVPL in 67% each. In subset analyses, associations with age (for COL7A1), family history (for PPL and ECM1), and alcohol use (for SPARC and Fascin) were also noted. Conclusion: These data indicate that these nine genes have consistent differential mRNA expression, validating results of our previous cDNA array results, and affirming their potential role in the early detection of ESCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: While no direct comparative data exist for crizotinib in ROS1+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), studies have suggested clinical benefit with this targeted agent. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of crizotinib compared to standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy for first-line treatment of ROS1+ advanced NSCLC. Methods: A Markov model was developed with a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of the Canadian publicly-funded health care system. Health states included progression-free survival (PFS), up to two further lines of therapy post-progression, palliation and death. Given a lack of comparative data and small study samples, crizotinib or chemotherapy studies with advanced ROS1+ NSCLC patients were identified and time-to-event data from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves were collected to pool PFS data. Costs of drugs, treatment administration, monitoring, adverse events and palliative care were included in 2018 Canadian dollars, with 1.5% discounting. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated probabilistically using 5000 simulations. Results: In the base-case probabilistic analysis, crizotinib produced additional 0.885 life-years and 0.772 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $238,077, producing an ICER of $273,286/QALY gained. No simulations were found to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained. A scenario analysis assuming efficacy equivalent to the ALK+ NSCLC population showed a slightly more favorable cost-effectiveness profile for crizotinib. Conclusions: Available data appear to support superior activity of crizotinib compared to chemotherapy in ROS1+ advanced NSCLC. At the list price, crizotinib was not cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds across a wide range of sensitivity analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: While no direct comparative data exist for crizotinib in ROS1+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), studies have suggested clinical benefit with this targeted agent. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of crizotinib compared to standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy for first-line treatment of ROS1+ advanced NSCLC. Methods: A Markov model was developed with a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of the Canadian publicly-funded health care system. Health states included progression-free survival (PFS), up to two further lines of therapy post-progression, palliation and death. Given a lack of comparative data and small study samples, crizotinib or chemotherapy studies with advanced ROS1+ NSCLC patients were identified and time-to-event data from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves were collected to pool PFS data. Costs of drugs, treatment administration, monitoring, adverse events and palliative care were included in 2018 Canadian dollars, with 1.5% discounting. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated probabilistically using 5000 simulations. Results: In the base-case probabilistic analysis, crizotinib produced additional 0.885 life-years and 0.772 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $238,077, producing an ICER of $273,286/QALY gained. No simulations were found to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained. A scenario analysis assuming efficacy equivalent to the ALK+ NSCLC population showed a slightly more favorable cost-effectiveness profile for crizotinib. Conclusions: Available data appear to support superior activity of crizotinib compared to chemotherapy in ROS1+ advanced NSCLC. At the list price, crizotinib was not cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds across a wide range of sensitivity analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: While no direct comparative data exist for crizotinib in ROS1+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), studies have suggested clinical benefit with this targeted agent. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of crizotinib compared to standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy for first-line treatment of ROS1+ advanced NSCLC.Methods: A Markov model was developed with a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of the Canadian publicly-funded health care system. Health states included progression-free survival (PFS), up to two further lines of therapy post-progression, palliation and death. Given a lack of comparative data and small study samples, crizotinib or chemotherapy studies with advanced ROS1+ NSCLC patients were identified and time-to-event data from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves were collected to pool PFS data. Costs of drugs, treatment administration, monitoring, adverse events and palliative care were included in 2018 Canadian dollars, with 1.5% discounting. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated probabilistically using 5000 simulations.Results: In the base-case probabilistic analysis, crizotinib produced additional 0.885 life-years and 0.772 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $238,077, producing an ICER of $273,286/QALY gained. No simulations were found to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained. A scenario analysis assuming efficacy equivalent to the ALK+ NSCLC population showed a slightly more favorable cost-effectiveness profile for crizotinib.Conclusions: Available data appear to support superior activity of crizotinib compared to chemotherapy in ROS1+ advanced NSCLC. At the list price, crizotinib was not cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds across a wide range of sensitivity analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For novel cancer treatments, effectiveness in clinical practice is not always aligned with clinical efficacy results. As such it is important to understand a treatment's real-world effectiveness. We examined real-world population-based comparative effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab versus non-ipilimumab treatments (chemotherapy or targeted treatments).Methods: We used a cohort of melanoma patients receiving systemic treatment for advanced disease since April 2005 from Ontario, Canada. Patients were identified from provincial drug databases and the Ontario Cancer Registry who received second-line ipilimumab from 2012 to 2015 (treated) or second-line non-ipilimumab treatment prior to 2012 (historical controls). Historical controls were chosen, to permit the most direct comparison to pivotal trial findings. The cohort was linked to administrative databases to identify baseline characteristics and outcomes. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess overall survival (OS). Observed potential confounders were adjusted for using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).Results: We identified 329 patients with metastatic melanoma (MM) who had received second-line treatments (189 treated; 140 controls). Patients receiving second-line ipilimumab were older (61.7 years vs 55.2 years) compared to historical controls. Median OS were 6.9 (95% CI: 5.4-8.3) and 4.95 (4.3-6.0) months for ipilimumab and controls, respectively. The crude 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year OS probabilities were 34.3% (27-41%), 20.6% (15-27%), and 15.2% (9.6-21%) for ipilimumab and 17.1% (11-23%), 7.1% (2.9-11%), and 4.7% (1.2-8.2%) for controls. Ipilimumab was associated with improved OS (IPTW HR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.49-0.78; p < 0.0001).Conclusions: This real-world analysis suggests second-line ipilimumab is associated with an improvement in OS for MM patients in routine practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) incidence is increasing rapidly. Esophageal cancer has the second lowest 5-year survival rate of people diagnosed with cancer in Canada. Given the poor survival and the potential for further increases in incidence, phase-specific cost estimates constitute an important input for economic evaluation of prevention, screening, and treatment interventions. The study aims to estimate phase-specific net direct medical costs of care attributable to EAC, costs stratified by cancer stage and treatment, and predictors of total net costs of care for EAC.Methods: A population-based retrospective cohort study was conducted using Ontario Cancer Registry-linked administrative health data from 2003 to 2011. The mean net costs of EAC care per 30 patient-days (2016 CAD) were estimated from the payer perspective using phase of care approach and generalized estimating equations. Predictors of net cost by phase of care were based on a generalized estimating equations model with a logarithmic link and gamma distribution adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors.Results: The mean net costs of EAC care per 30 patient-days were $1016 (95% CI, $955-$1078) in the initial phase, $669 (95% CI, $594-$743) in the continuing care phase, and $8678 (95% CI, $8217-$9139) in the terminal phase. Overall, stage IV at diagnosis and surgery plus radiotherapy for EAC incurred the highest cost, particularly in the terminal phase. Strong predictors of higher net costs were receipt of chemotherapy plus radiotherapy, surgery plus chemotherapy, radiotherapy alone, surgery alone, and chemotherapy alone in the initial and continuing care phases, stage III-IV disease and patients diagnosed with EAC later in a calendar year (2007-2011) in the initial and terminal phases, comorbidity in the continuing care phase, and older age at diagnosis (70-74 years), and geographic region in the terminal phase.Conclusions: Costs of care vary by phase of care, stage at diagnosis, and type of treatment for EAC. These cost estimates provide information to guide future resource allocation decisions, and clinical and policy interventions to reduce the burden of EAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer is a major public health issue and represents a significant economic burden to health care systems worldwide. The objective of this analysis was to estimate phase-specific, 5-year and lifetime net costs for the 21 most prevalent cancer sites, and remaining tumour sites combined, in Ontario, Canada. Methods: We selected all adult patients diagnosed with a primary cancer between 1997 and 2007, with valid ICD-O site and histology codes, and who survived 30 days or more after diagnosis, from the Ontario Cancer Registry (N = 394,092). Patients were linked to treatment data from Cancer Care Ontario and administrative health care databases at the Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Sciences. Net costs (i.e., cost difference between patients and matched non-cancer control subjects) were estimated by phase of care and sex, and used to estimate 5-year and lifetime costs. Results: Mean net costs of care (2009 CAD) were highest in the initial (6 months post-diagnosis) and terminal (12 months pre-death) phases, and lowest in the (3 months) pre-diagnosis and continuing phases of care. Phase-specific net costs were generally lowest for melanoma and highest for brain cancer. Mean 5-year net costs varied from less than $25,000 for melanoma, thyroid and testicular cancers to more than $60,000 for multiple myeloma and leukemia. Lifetime costs ranged from less than $55,000 for lung and liver cancers to over $110,000 for leukemia, multiple myeloma, lymphoma and breast cancer. Conclusions: Costs of cancer care are substantial and vary by cancer site, phase of care and time horizon analyzed. These cost estimates are valuable to decision makers to understand the economic burden of cancer care and may be useful inputs to researchers undertaking cancer-related economic evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]