Search

Background: Physicians were directed to prioritize using nonsurgical cancer treatment at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to quantify the impact of this policy on the modality of first cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy or no treatment)., Methods: In this population-based study using Ontario data from linked administrative databases, we identified adults diagnosed with cancer from January 2016 to November 2020 and their first cancer treatment received within 1 year postdiagnosis. Segmented Poisson regressions were applied to each modality to estimate the change in mean 1-year recipient volume per thousand patients (rate) at the start of the pandemic (the week of Mar. 15, 2020) and change in the weekly trend in rate during the pandemic (Mar. 15, 2020, to Nov. 7, 2020) relative to before the pandemic (Jan. 3, 2016, to Mar. 14, 2020)., Results: We included 321 535 people diagnosed with cancer. During the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic, the mean rate of receiving upfront surgery over the next year declined by 9% (rate ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.95), and chemotherapy and radiotherapy rates rose by 30% (rate ratio 1.30, 95% CI 1.23-1.36) and 13% (rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.19), respectively. Subsequently, the 1-year rate of upfront surgery increased at 0.4% for each week (rate ratio 1.004, 95% CI 1.002-1.006), and chemotherapy and radiotherapy rates decreased by 0.9% (rate ratio 0.991, 95% CI 0.989-0.994) and 0.4% (rate ratio 0.996, 95% CI 0.994-0.998), respectively, per week. Rates of each modality resumed to prepandemic levels at 24-31 weeks into the pandemic., Interpretation: An immediate and sustained increase in use of nonsurgical therapy as the first cancer treatment occurred during the first 8 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario. Further research is needed to understand the consequences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Jonathan Irish is a member of the Canadian Cancer Society and the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research. Natalie Coburn is the clinical lead for patient-reported outcomes and symptom management at Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario). Julie Hallet reports receiving speaking honoraria from Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Medtronic and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Monika Krzyzanowska reports receiving consulting fees from Lilly and Ipsen and attending the advisory boards of Ipsen and Bayer. Alexander Louie reports receiving speaking honoraria and being on the advisory board of AstraZeneca. Nicole Look Hong reports receiving consulting fees from MOLLI Surgical. Daniel McIsaac is on the advisory board of the PRICE 2 Trial and is a member of the American Society of Anesthesiology Committee on Geriatric Anesthesia. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2023 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: Opportunistic salpingectomy (OS) is the removal of fallopian tubes during hysterectomy for benign indications or instead of tubal ligation, for the purpose of preventing ovarian cancer. We determined rates of OS at the time of hysterectomy and tubal sterilization and examined how they changed over the study period., Methods: Using data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information's Discharge Abstract Database and National Ambulatory Care Reporting System for all Canadian provinces and territories (except Quebec) between the fiscal years 2011 and 2016, we conducted a descriptive analysis of all patients aged 15 years or older who underwent hysterectomy or tubal sterilization. We excluded those with diagnostic codes for any gynecologic cancer and those who underwent unilateral salpingectomy. We examined the proportion who had OS during their hysterectomy and compared the proportion of tubal sterilizations that were OS with the proportion that were tubal ligations., Results: A total of 318 528 participants were included in the study (mean age 42.5 yr). The proportion of hysterectomies that included OS increased from 15.4% in 2011 to 35.5% by 2016. With respect to tubal sterilization, the rate of OS increased from 6.5% of all tubal sterilizations in 2011 to 22.0% in 2016. There was considerable variation across jurisdictions in 2016, with British Columbia having the highest rates (53.2% of all hysterectomies and 74.0% of tubal sterilizations involved OS)., Interpretation: The rates of OS increased between 2011 and 2016, but there was considerable variation across the included jurisdictions. Our study indicates room for rates of OS to increase across many of the included jurisdictions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© 2022 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.)

Summary: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, delaying lifesaving cancer surgeries must be done with extreme caution and thoughtfulness. Modelling indicates that delays in high-risk cancer surgeries beyond 6 weeks could affect long-term outcomes for thousands of Canadians. Consequently, it is possible that postponing cancer surgery without consideration of its implications could cost more lives than can be saved by diverting all surgical resources to COVID-19. This article provides general guidance on supporting curative surgical treatment where appropriate and with available resources., Competing Interests: J. Bentley is a member of the advisory boards of AstraZeneca and NSV Tech, and his institution receives funding from Merk, AstraZeneca and Clovis for trials he is involved in. T. Zhong is supported by a Canandian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) New Investigator Award (2015–2020) and she is the inaugural Belinda Stronach Chair in Breast Cancer Reconstruction Surgery at the University Health Network (2017–2022). C. Ball is co-editor in chief of CJS; he was not the accepting editor on this manuscript. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2020 Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: Previous costing and resource estimates for cancer have not been complete owing to lack of comprehensive data on cancer-related medication and radiation treatment. Our objective was to calculate the mean overall costs per patient of cancer-related medications and radiation, as well as by disease subtype and stage, in the first year after diagnosis for the 4 most prevalent cancers in Ontario., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using provincial health administrative databases to identify population health system resources and costs for all patients diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung or prostate cancer between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2015 in Ontario. The primary outcome measure was the overall average cost per patient in the 365 days after diagnosis for cancer-related medications and radiation treatment, calculated with the use of 2 novel costing algorithms. We determined the cost by disease, disease subtype and stage as secondary outcomes., Results: There were 168 316 Ontarians diagnosed with cancer during the study period, 50 141 with breast cancer, 38 108 with colorectal cancer, 34 809 with lung cancer and 45 258 with prostate cancer. The mean per-patient cost for cancer-related medications was $8167 (95% confidence interval [CI] $8023-$8311), $6568 (95% CI $6446-$6691), $2900 (95% CI $2816-$2984) and $1211 (95% CI $1175-$1247) for breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancer, respectively. The corresponding mean radiation treatment costs were $18 529 (95% CI $18 415-$18 643), $15 177 (95% CI $14 899-$15 456), $10 818 (95% CI $10 669-$10 966) and $16 887 (95% CI $16 648-$17 125). In general, stage III and IV cancers were the most expensive stages for both medications and radiation across all 4 disease sites., Interpretation: Our work updates previous costing estimates to help understand costs and resources critical to health care system planning in a single-payer system. More refined costing estimates are useful as inputs to allow for more robust health economic modelling and health care system planning., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Natalie Coburn receives salary support from Cancer Care Ontario and the Sherif and MaryLou Hanna Chair in Surgical Oncology at the Sunnybrook Research Institute. No other competing interests were declared., (Copyright 2020, Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: The aim of this study was to characterize the demographic characteristics and investigate the cost of a publicly funded system, the Ontario Trillium Drug Program (TDP), for an oncology patient population., Methods: We ascertained all TDP claims between April 1997 and December 2016 from the Ontario Drug Benefit database to assess use and cost. Each drug was classified as a cancer treatment drug, cancer supportive therapy drug or noncancer drug. We also identified a cohort of patients with cancer with least 1 TDP claim, for whom we examined demographic and claims-related characteristics., Results: Over the study period, 50 975 293 TDP claims totalling $4.8 billion were made. Although the proportion of cancer claims among all TDP claims remained constant between 1997 and 2016, the total annual cost of cancer treatment drugs increased nearly 40-fold. Imatinib and lenalidomide together accounted for nearly half of the cost of all cancer treatment drugs. We identified a cohort of 49 892 patients with cancer, of whom 18 631 (37.3%) were enrolled in the TDP before their cancer diagnosis and 31 261 (62.7%) were enrolled after their diagnosis. The former were more likely than the latter to be in lower income quintiles and to have more chronic conditions. Significant differences were also found in the distribution of cancer diagnoses between the 2 groups., Interpretation: In the TDP, use increased over time and differed across cancer diagnoses and drugs. These results have public health and policy implications as antineoplastic drug costs continue to rise and place a burden on patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Nicole Mittmann was employed by Cancer Care Ontario until May 2019 during the course of this analysis. Craig Earle is employed by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. Kelvin Chan is a consultant of Cancer Care Ontario. Soo Jin Seung consults with the pharmaceutical industry via the Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomics (HOPE) Research Centre. No other competing interests were declared., (Copyright 2019, Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

About the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer: The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) is an independent organization funded by the federal government to accelerate action on cancer control for all Canadians. As the steward of the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control (the Strategy), the Partnership works with Canada’s cancer community to take action to ensure fewer people get cancer, more people survive cancer and those living with the disease have a better quality of life. This work is guided by the Strategy, which was refreshed for 2019 to 2029, and will help drive measurable change for all Canadians affected by cancer. The Strategy includes 5 priorities that will tackle the most pressing challenges in cancer control as well as distinct First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples–specific priorities and actions reflecting Canada’s commitment to reconciliation. A specific action in the Strategy calls for reducing the differences in practice and service delivery by setting standards for high-quality care and promoting their adoption. The CPAC will oversee the implementation of the priorities in collaboration with organizations and individuals on the front lines of cancer care: the provinces and territories; health care professionals; people living with cancer and those who care for them; First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities; governments and organizations; and its funder, Health Canada. Learn more about the Partnership and the refreshed Strategy at www.cancerstrategy.ca., Competing Interests: None declared., (© 2019 Joule Inc. or its licensors)

Background: Although advancements in systemic therapy have improved the outlook for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, it is not known if patients get access to these therapies. We aimed to examine the patterns and factors associated with access to specialized cancer consultations and subsequent receipt of cancer-directed therapy for patients with non-curative pancreatic adenocarcinoma., Methods: We conducted a population-based analysis of noncurative pancreatic adenocarcinoma diagnosed over 2005-2016 in Ontario by linking administrative health care data sets. Our primary outcomes were specialized cancer consultation and receipt of cancer-directed therapy (chemotherapy or a combination of chemo- and radiation therapy [chemoradiation therapy]). We examined specialized cancer consultation with hepato-pancreatico-biliary surgery, medical and radiation oncology. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with medical oncology consultation and cancer-directed therapy., Results: Of 10 881 patients, 64.9% had a consultation with specialists in medical oncology, 35.1% with hepatopancreatico-biliary surgery and 24.7% with radiation oncology. Sociodemographic characteristics were not associated with the likelihood of medical oncology consultation. Of these patients, 4144 received cancer-directed therapy, representing 38.1% of all patients and 58.6% of those who consulted with medical oncology. Of 6737 patients not receiving cancer-directed therapy, 2988 (44.4%) had a consultation with medical oncology. Older age and lowest income quintile were independently associated with lower likelihood of cancer-directed therapy. If the first specialized cancer consultation was with medical or radiation oncology, the likelihood of cancer-directed therapy was significantly higher compared with surgery., Interpretation: A considerable proportion of patients with noncurable pancreatic adenocarcinoma in Ontario did not have a specialized cancer consultation and most did not receive cancer-directed therapy. We identified disparities in specialized cancer consultation and receipt of systemic cancer-directed therapy that indicate potential gaps in assessment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Julie Hallet has received speaking honoraria from Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals Canada and Novartis Oncology. Sten Myrehaug has received speaking honoraria from Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals Canada and Novartis Oncology, and travel support from Novartis Oncology. Natalie Coburn receives salary support from Cancer Care Ontario as the lead for patient-reported outcomes. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2019 Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: Access to hospice palliative care may improve quality of life, reduce the use of potentially aggressive end-of-life care and allow for death to occur outside of an acute care hospital. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of an ambulatory hospice palliative care program on end-of-life care compared to care received by a matched control group of deceased patients., Methods: This retrospective study included patients who received hospice palliative care through the Symptom Management Program in Sudbury, Ontario, during 2012-2015. Using linked administrative health records, we defined a propensity-matched control group and derived 4 previously defined variables associated with aggressive end-of-life care (chemotherapy received in the last 2 wk of life, > 1 emergency department visit within 30 d of death, > 1 hospital admission within 30 d of death and at least 1 intensive care unit admission within 30 d of death). We also examined place of death. We measured family/caregiver satisfaction with care 3 months after the patient's death using the FAMCARE questionnaire., Results: Of 914 eligible decedents enrolled in the Symptom Management Program, 754 (82.5%) were matched. Receiving care through the program was protective for most measures of aggressive end-of-life care (absolute risk reduction [ARR] 12.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.65-12.81 for any end-of-life care outcome) and death in an acute care setting (ARR 19.89, 95% CI 19.78-20.00). Of the 450 family caregivers invited to complete the FAMCARE questionnaire, 190 (42.2%) returned completed surveys; following data linkage and matching, 96 (21.3%) were available for analysis. Satisfaction with care received within the program appeared high (mean total score 85.72/100)., Interpretation: Provision of hospice palliative care through this ambulatory program was associated with lower use of aggressive end-of-life care and death outside of an acute care hospital. Improving access could be expected to provide positive benefits at the individual and system level., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (Copyright 2019, Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing and survival rates are poor. Our objectives were to estimate the relative survival over time in patients with HCC in Ontario and to examine potential factors associated with excess mortality risk., Methods: We performed a population-based retrospective cohort analysis involving patients with a diagnosis of HCC in Ontario between 1990 and 2009 using data extracted from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Relative survival was estimated by controlling for background mortality using expected mortality from Ontario life tables. A generalized linear model was used to estimate the excess mortality risk for important factors., Results: A total of 5645 patients had HCC diagnosed during the study period; 4412 (78.2%) of these patients were male. Improvements in 1-year relative survival were observed across all age groups over time: the highest was among those patients less than 60 years of age who had a diagnosis of HCC during 2005-2009, with 1-year survival exceeding 50% for both sexes. However, the overall 5-year relative survival did not exceed 28%. The excess mortality risk decreased with increased years of follow-up, recent diagnosis, and curative or noncurative treatments for HCC, whereas excess mortality risk increased with age., Interpretation: Although improving, the prognosis for HCC remains poor. Our findings highlight the importance of effective prevention and treatment for HCC to reduce the burden of disease and improve health care systems.

Background: The utilization and costs of home care services provided for people with colorectal cancer is not well-known. We conducted an analysis to determine the utilization and costs of such services associated with each stage of colorectal cancer among patients in the province of Ontario., Methods: We included cases of colorectal cancer diagnosed in Ontario between Jan. 1, 2005, and Dec. 31, 2009. Data were extracted from the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked to data from a home care administrative database. The types of services used were stratified by stage of disease and by phase of care (initial phase = 180 d after diagnosis, terminal phase = 180 d before death, continuing phase = interval between initial and terminal phases). Overall utilization rates and costs were determined, and regression analysis was used to examine associated factors., Results: A total of 36 195 patients had colorectal cancer diagnosed during the study period; the median age was 71 (interquartile range 61-79) years. Home care services were provided to 24 641 patients (68.1%). The number of services per patient-year was 27.5, at a cost of $2180 per patient-year. The number of services provided per patient-year increased with increasing disease severity at diagnosis (15.5 at stage I, 25.5 at stage II, 32.5 at stage III and 62.5 at stage IV; 22.6 for unstaged disease). The cost of services per patient-year also increased with disease severity at diagnosis ($1170 at stage I, $1995 at stage II, $2727 at stage III and $5541 at stage IV). Publicly funded home care services and associated costs decreased with increasing income group, but they increased among patients who had a history of high health resource utilization. The mean 30-day cost of home care services decreased from the initial phase of care ($323) to the continuing phase ($160) but increased during the terminal phase ($616)., Interpretation: More than two-thirds of the patients with colorectal cancer in this study used home care services. Those who received home care services used about 2 services per month in a one-year period, at a cost of about $2000 per year. This information can aid policy-makers in future decisions regarding resource allocations.

Background: The vital role played by family caregivers in supporting dying cancer patients is well recognized, but the burden and economic impact on caregivers is poorly understood. We prospectively examined the psychosocial, occupational and economic impact of caring for a person with a terminal illness., Methods: We studied 89 caregivers of women with advanced breast cancer receiving care at either the Ottawa or Hamilton regional cancer centres in Ontario. Patients were followed until their death or study completion at 3 years. Patients identified a principal caregiver to participate in the study. The Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) index, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form (SF-36), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Zarit Burden Inventory, FAMCARE and the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey were administered during follow-up. Economic data were collected by means of a questionnaire administered by an interviewer. Assessments were conducted every 3 months during the palliative period (KPS score > 50) and every 2 weeks during the terminal period (KPS score < or = 50)., Results: Over half of the caregivers were male (55%) and the patient's spouse or partner (52%), with a mean age of 53 years. At the start of the palliative period, the caregivers' mean physical functioning score was better than the patients' (51.3 v. 35.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 13.3-20.0); there were similar mean mental functioning scores (46.6 and 47.1 respectively); similar proportions were depressed (11% and 12%); and significantly more caregivers than patients were anxious (35% v. 19%, p = 0.009). More caregivers were depressed (30% v. 9%, p = 0.02) and had a higher level of perceived burden (26.2 v. 19.4, p = 0.02) at the start of the terminal period than at the start of the palliative period. Burden was the most important predictor of both anxiety and depression. Of employed caregivers, 69% reported some form of adverse impact on work. In the terminal period 77% reported missing work because of caregiving responsibilities. Prescription drugs were the most important component of financial burden., Interpretation: Caregivers' depression and perceived burden increase as patients' functional status declines. Strategies are needed to help reduce the psychosocial, occupational and economic burden associated with caregiving.

Objective: To make recommendations on the use of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy in addition to surgery in patients with resectable gastric cancer (T1-4, N1-2, M0)., Options: Neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatments compared with "curative" surgery alone., Outcomes: Overall survival, disease-free survival, and adverse effects., Evidence: The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT and Cochrane Library databases and relevant conference proceedings were searched to identify randomized trials., Values: Evidence was selected and reviewed by one member of the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative (CCOPGI) Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group and methodologists. A systematic review of the published literature was combined with a consensus process around the interpretation of the evidence in the context of conventional practice, to develop an evidence-based practice guideline. This report has been reviewed and approved by the Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group, comprising medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons, a pathologist and 2 community representatives., Benefits, Harms and Costs: When compared with surgery alone, at 3 years adjuvant chemoradiotherapy has been shown to increase overall survival by 9% (50% v. 41%, p = 0.005) and to improve relapse-free survival from 31% to 48% (p = 0.001). At 5 years, it has been shown to increase overall survival by 11.6% (40% v. 28.4%) and to improve relapse-free survival from 25% to 38% (p < 0.001). Treatment has been associated with toxic deaths in 1% of patients. The most frequent adverse effects (> grade 3 [Southwest Oncology Group toxicity scale] are hematologic (54%), gastrointestinal (33%), influenza-like (9%), infectious (6%) and neurologic (4%). The radiation fields used can possibly damage the left kidney, resulting in hypertension and other renal problems. Furthermore, this therapy could increase the demand on radiation resources. Physicians and patients should understand the tradeoffs between survival benefit and toxicity and cost before making treatment decisions., Recommendations: After surgical resection, patients whose tumours have penetrated the muscularis propria or involve regional lymph nodes should be considered for adjuvant combined chemoradiotherapy. The current standard protocol consists of 1 cycle of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (425 mg/m2 daily) and leucovorin (20 mg/m2 daily) administered daily for 5 days, followed 1 month later by 45 Gy (1.8 Gy/d) of radiation given with 5-FU (400 mg/m2 daily) and leucovorin (20 mg/m2 daily) on days 1 through 4 and the last 3 days of radiation. One month after completion of radiation, 2 cycles of 5-FU (425 mg/m2 daily) and leucovorin (20 mg/m2 daily) in a daily regimen for 5 days are given at monthly intervals. There is no evidence on which to make a recommendation for patients with node-negative tumours that have not penetrated the muscularis propria. For patients unable to undergo radiation, adjuvant chemotherapy alone may be of benefit, particularly for those with lymph-node metastases. The optimal regimen remains to be defined. There is insufficient evidence from randomized trials to recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or neoadjuvant or adjuvant radiotherapy or immunotherapy, either alone or in combination, outside a clinical trial., Validation: A draft version of this document was circulated to 166 clinicians using a 21-item feedback questionnaire. Ninety-nine (63%) returned the questionnaire, and 74 of these indicated that the guideline was relevant to their clinical practice and completed the survey. Of the 74 clinicians, 52 (70%) agreed that the document should be approved as a practice guideline., Sponsors: The CCOPGI is supported by Cancer Care Ontario and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.