Search

Your search keyword '"Everest, Louis"' showing total 27 results
Start Over Author "Everest, Louis" Publication Year Range Last 50 years
27 results on '"Everest, Louis"'

5. Comparison of internal and external reference populations for occupational cancer surveillance in a cohort drawn from a diverse workforce.

Author

Everest, Louis, Tan, Shirui, Navaneelan, Tanya, Demers, Paul A., DeBono, Nathan, Berriault, Colin, and Sritharan, Jeavana

Subjects
WORKERS' compensation claims, OCCUPATIONAL diseases, JOB analysis, DIVERSITY in the workplace, DISEASE risk factors
Abstract

Objectives: Prior analyses of the Occupational Disease Surveillance System (ODSS) have compared cancer rates using internal referent groups. As an exploratory analysis, we sought to estimate cancer risk using general population reference rates to evaluate the impact that the comparison population has on findings from our surveillance program. Methods: A cohort of approximately 2.3 million workers in Ontario, Canada with an accepted lost‐time workers' compensation claim were followed for all cancer diagnoses between 1983 and 2018. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for workers in specific occupational groups using (1) all other workers in the ODSS cohort, and (2) the general population of Ontario. Results: SIRs using the general population reference group were generally equal to or modestly lower compared to SIRs using the internal reference group. Within occupation groups, SIRs had a discordant direction of association (increased rate in the internal comparison and decreased in the external comparison) for some cancer sites including urinary, prostate, and colorectal. Conclusions: Findings emphasize the importance of the choice of reference group when evaluating cancer risks in large occupational surveillance cohorts. Importantly, the magnitude of confounding and the healthy worker hire bias may depend on the occupation group and cancer site of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

16. Examining the association between oncology drug clinical benefit and the time to public reimbursement.

Author

Thomson, Sasha, Everest, Louis, Witzke, Noah, Jiao, Tina, Delos Santos, Seanthel, Nguyen, Vivian, Cheung, Matthew C., and Chan, Kelvin K. W.

Subjects
*ANTINEOPLASTIC agents, *REIMBURSEMENT, *DRUG accessibility, *CLINICAL indications, *MEDICAL societies
Abstract

Background: We examined if oncology drug indications with high clinical benefit, as measured by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO‐VF) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO‐MCBS), received public reimbursement status faster than those with lower clinical benefit from the time of pan‐Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) recommendation. Methods: Oncology drug indications submitted to pCODR between July 2011 and October 2018 were examined. Included indications had a regulatory approval date, completed the pCODR review process, received a positive pCODR recommendation, and been funded by at least one province. Trials cited for clinical efficacy were used to determine the clinical benefit (per ASCO‐VF and ESMO‐MCBS) of drug indications. Results: Eighty‐four indications were identified, yielding 65 ASCO‐VF and 50 ESMO‐MCBS scores. The mean ASCO‐VF and ESMO‐MCBS scores were 44.9 (SD = 21.1) and 3.3 (SD = 1.0), respectively. The mean time to provincial reimbursement from pCODR recommendation was 13.2 months (SD = 9.3 months). Higher ASCO‐VF and ESMO‐MCBS scores had low correlation with shorter time to reimbursement, (ρ = −0.21) and (ρ = 0.24), respectively. In the multivariable analyses, ASCO‐VF (p = 0.40) and ESMO‐MCBS (p = 0.31) scores were not significantly associated with time to reimbursement. Province and year of pCODR recommendation were associated with time to reimbursement in both ASCO and ESMO models. Conclusions: Oncology drug indications with higher clinical benefit do not appear to be reimbursed faster than those with low clinical benefit. This suggests the need to prioritize oncology drug indications based on clinical benefit to ensure quicker access to oncology drugs with the greatest benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results