Search

Medical oncology is a rapidly evolving field, with new medications being discovered yearly, contributing to increased survival rates. However, accessing drugs in a timely manner can be challenging. In Quebec, Canada, a physician can prescribe an unlisted anticancer treatment through a regulated pathway under exceptional circumstances. We conducted a quality improvement study describing the outcomes of incurable cancer patients receiving unlisted anticancer therapy at the Jewish General Hospital between 2018 and 2019. Though our study did not include a comparator arm, unlisted anticancer therapies were associated with interesting median progression-free survival (11 months) and overall survival (25 months). Moreover, a large proportion of treatments, 44%, were subsequently reimbursed in the province of Quebec. Given the delay in anticancer drug reimbursement, this pathway is essential for timely access to oncology drugs. Such 'special access' programs will likely become increasingly important as precision medicine becomes the standard of practice.

Countries face challenges in paying for new drugs. High prices are driven in part by exploding drug development costs, which, in turn, are driven by essential but excessive regulation. Burdensome regulation also delays drug development, and this can translate into thousands of life-years lost. We need system-wide reform that will enable less expensive, faster drug development. The speed with which COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS therapies were developed indicates this is possible if governments prioritize it. Countries also differ in how they value drugs, and generally, those willing to pay more have better, faster access. Canada is used as an example to illustrate how "incremental cost-effectiveness ratios" (ICERs) based on measures such as gains in "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs) may be used to determine a drug's value but are often problematic, imprecise assessments. Generally, ICER/QALY estimates inadequately consider the impact of patient crossover or long post-progression survival, therapy benefits in distinct subpopulations, positive impacts of the therapy on other healthcare or societal costs, how much governments willingly might pay for other things, etc. Furthermore, a QALY value should be higher for a lethal or uncommon disease than for a common, nonlethal disease. Compared to international comparators, Canada is particularly ineffective in initiating public funding for essential new medications. Addressing these disparities demands urgent reform.

Background: BRAF mutations are classified into four molecularly distinct groups, and Class 1 (V600) mutant tumors are treated with targeted therapies. Effective treatment has not been established for Class 2/3 or BRAF Fusions. We investigated whether BRAF mutation class differed according to clinical, genomic, and transcriptomic variables in cancer patients., Methods: Using the AACR GENIE (v.12) cancer database, the distribution of BRAF mutation class in adult cancer patients was analyzed according to sex, age, primary race, and tumor type. Genomic alteration data and transcriptomic analysis was performed using The Cancer Genome Atlas., Results: BRAF mutations were identified in 9515 (6.2%) samples among 153,834, with melanoma (31%), CRC (20.7%), and NSCLC (13.9%) being the most frequent cancer types. Class 1 harbored co-mutations outside of the MAPK pathway (TERT, RFN43) vs. Class 2/3 mutations (RAS, NF1). Across all tumor types, Class 2/3 were enriched for alterations in genes involved in UV response and WNT/β-catenin. Pathway analysis revealed enrichment of WNT/β-catenin and Hedgehog signaling in non-V600 mutated CRC. Males had a higher proportion of Class 3 mutations vs. females (17.4% vs. 12.3% q = 0.003). Non-V600 mutations were generally more common in older patients (aged 60+) vs. younger (38% vs. 15% p < 0.0001), except in CRC (15% vs. 30% q = 0.0001). Black race was associated with non-V600 BRAF alterations (OR: 1.58; p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Class 2/3 BRAFs are more present in Black male patients with co-mutations outside of the MAPK pathway, likely requiring additional oncogenic input for tumorigenesis. Improving access to NGS and trial enrollment will help the development of targeted therapies for non-V600 BRAF mutations.

Single-agent regorafenib is approved in Canada for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who have failed previous lines of therapy. Identifying prognostic biomarkers is key to optimizing therapeutic strategies for these patients. In this clinical study (NCT01949194), we evaluated the safety and efficacy of single-agent regorafenib as a second-line therapy for mCRC patients who received it after failing first-line therapy with an oxaliplatin or irinotecan regimen with or without bevacizumab. Using various omics approaches, we also investigated putative biomarkers of response and resistance to regorafenib in metastatic lesions and blood samples in the same cohort. Overall, the safety profile of regorafenib seemed similar to the CORRECT trial, where regorafenib was administered as ≥ 2 lines of therapy. While the mutational landscape showed typical mutation rates for the top five driver genes (APC, KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, and TP53), KRAS mutations were enriched in intrinsically resistant lesions. Additional exploration of genomic-phenotype associations revealed several biomarker candidates linked to unfavorable prognoses in patients with mCRC using various approaches, including pathway analysis, cfDNA profiling, and copy number analysis. However, further research endeavors are necessary to validate the potential utility of these promising genes in understanding patients' responses to regorafenib treatment.

Most human tumor tissues that are obtained for pathology and diagnostic purposes are formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE). To perform quantitative proteomics of FFPE samples, paraffin has to be removed and formalin-induced crosslinks have to be reversed prior to proteolytic digestion. A central component of almost all deparaffinization protocols is xylene, a toxic and highly flammable solvent that has been reported to negatively affect protein extraction and quantitative proteome analysis. Here, we present a 'green' xylene-free protocol for accelerated sample preparation of FFPE tissues based on paraffin-removal with hot water. Combined with tissue homogenization using disposable micropestles and a modified protein aggregation capture (PAC) digestion protocol, our workflow enables streamlined and reproducible quantitative proteomic profiling of FFPE tissue. Label-free quantitation of FFPE cores from human ductal breast carcinoma in situ (DCIS) xenografts with a volume of only 0.79 mm 3 showed a high correlation between replicates (r 2 = 0.992) with a median %CV of 16.9%. Importantly, this small volume is already compatible with tissue micro array (TMA) cores and core needle biopsies, while our results and its ease-of-use indicate that further downsizing is feasible. Finally, our FFPE workflow does not require costly equipment and can be established in every standard clinical laboratory.

The government of Canada now plans to bring into force new federal drug pricing regulations on 1 July 2022. We do not take issue with the goal of medication affordability, which is vital in healthcare the world over. Our concern is that the new guidelines are being implemented without due consideration for three major unintended consequences: regulatory changes will lower the number of clinical trials for new medications in Canada, fewer clinical trials will mean lower research and development investments, and changes will reduce patients' access to new medications. Access to effective medications is a cornerstone of healthcare for Canadian patients. As physicians, our duty to patient care demands that we tell the government to protect the right of Canadians to timely access to life-changing medicines.

New drugs are expensive, in part due to excessive drug development costs. Governments are trying to reduce drug prices. This can delay access to effective agents. A country's access to new drugs correlates with prices they agree to pay. After Health Canada approves a drug, the Canadian Agency for Drug and Technologies in Health (CADTH) assesses it. CADTH's approval is usually contingent on it costing ≤CAD 50,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. This value (unchanged from the 1970s) is inappropriately low. An inflation-adjusted CAD 50,000 1975 QALY should translate into a CAD 250,000 2021 QALY. CADTH's target also does not consider that drug development costs have risen much faster than inflation or that new precision therapies may only be used in small populations. In a separate process, proposals from the Patented Medicines Price Review Board (PMPRB) would decrease initial Canadian drug prices by 20%, but prices would fall further as sales increased, with ultimate price reductions of up to 80%. PMPRB claims its proposal would not reduce drug access, but multiple analyses strongly suggest otherwise. Government price controls target the symptom (high prices), not the disease. They translate into shortages without solving the problem. CADTH and PMPRB approaches both threaten access to effective drugs.

Canada's vast geography, and centralized delivery of cancer care and clinical trials create barriers for trial participation for patients in remote and rural settings. The development and implementation of a framework that enables safe and regulatory compliant trial participation through local healthcare providers would benefit Canadian patients, clinicians, trial sponsors and the health care system. To address this issue, representatives of Canada's cancer clinical trial community met to identify key challenges and develop recommendations for remote patient participation in trials. A structured literature review identified remote/rural trial delivery models. A panel of expert stakeholders reviewed the models and participated in a workshop to assess health system readiness, identify needed processes, tools and mechanisms, and develop recommendations for a Canadian framework for decentralized clinical trial conduct. The Canadian Remote Access Framework for clinical Trials (CRAFT) represents a risk-based approach used by site investigators to delegate responsibilities for a given trial to satellite health centres within a hub-and-spoke "trial cluster". The Framework includes specific recommendations to ensure research experience, capacity, regulatory compliance and patient safety. Canada's cancer care and telemedicine systems can be leveraged to enable broader access to clinical trials for patients who are geographically remote from cancer centres. CRAFT's risk-based framework is based on other successful models of remote trial patient management and is in the pilot implementation phase in Canada.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) have been reported to be present in different types of human cancers, including CRCs, where they can play a key role in the onset and/or progression of these cancers. Thus, we herein explored the prevalence of high-risk HPVs and EBV in a cohort of 94 CRC tissue samples and 13 colorectal normal tissues from the Lebanese population using polymerase chain reaction, immunohistochemistry, and tissue microarray methodologies. We found that high-risk HPVs are present in 64%, while EBV is present in 29% of our CRC samples. Additionally, our data showed that high-risk HPV types (16, 18, 35, 58, 51, 45, 52, 31, and 33) are the most frequent in CRC in the Lebanese cohort, respectively. Our data point out that HPVs and EBV are copresent in 28% of the samples. Thus, this study clearly suggests that high-risk HPVs and EBV are present/copresent in CRCs, where they could play an important role in colorectal carcinogenesis. Nevertheless, further investigations using a larger cohort are needed to elucidate the possible cooperation between these oncoviruses in the development of CRC.

Current radiomic studies of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) are typically based on datasets combining tumors from different locations, assuming that the radiomic features are similar based on histopathologic characteristics. However, molecular pathogenesis and treatment in HNSCC substantially vary across different tumor sites. It is not known if a statistical difference exists between radiomic features from different tumor sites and how they affect machine learning model performance in endpoint prediction. To answer these questions, we extracted radiomic features from contrast-enhanced neck computed tomography scans (CTs) of 605 patients with HNSCC originating from the oral cavity, oropharynx, and hypopharynx/larynx. The difference in radiomic features of tumors from these sites was assessed using statistical analyses and Random Forest classifiers on the radiomic features with 10-fold cross-validation to predict tumor sites, nodal metastasis, and HPV status. We found statistically significant differences ( p -value ≤ 0.05) between the radiomic features of HNSCC depending on tumor location. We also observed that differences in quantitative features among HNSCC from different locations impact the performance of machine learning models. This suggests that radiomic features may reveal biologic heterogeneity complementary to current gold standard histopathologic evaluation. We recommend considering tumor site in radiomic studies of HNSCC.

Background: Lung cancer is often diagnosed at a late stage with high associated mortality. Timely diagnosis depends on timely referral to a respiratory specialist; however, in Canada, little is known about how patients move through primary care to get to a respiratory specialist. Accordingly, we aimed to identify and describe lung cancer pre-diagnostic pathways in primary care from first presentation to referral., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, patients with primary lung cancer were recruited using consecutive sampling ( n = 50) from a lung cancer center in Montréal, Québec. Data on healthcare service utilization in primary care were collected from chart reviews and structured patient interviews and analyzed using latent class analysis to identify groups of patients with similar pre-diagnostic pathways. Each group was described based on patient- and tumor-related characteristics and the sequence of utilization activities., Results: 68% of the patients followed a pathway where family physician (FP) visits were dominant ("FP-centric") and 32% followed a pathway where walk-in clinic and emergency department (ED) visits were dominant ("ED-centric"). Time to referral in the FP group was double that of the ED group (45 days (IQR: 12-111) vs. 22 (IQR: 5-69)) with more advanced disease (65% vs. 50%). In the FP group, 29% of the patients saw their FP three times or more before being referred and 41% had an ED visit., Conclusions: Our findings may reflect the challenge of diagnosing lung cancer in primary care, missed opportunities for earlier diagnosis, and a lack of integration between primary and specialist care.

: Hotspot testing for activating KRAS mutations is used in precision oncology to select colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who are eligible for anti-EGFR treatment. However, even for KRAS wildtype tumors anti-EGFR response rates are <30%, while mutated- KRAS does not entirely rule out response, indicating the need for improved patient stratification. We performed proteogenomic phenotyping of KRAS wildtype and KRAS G12V CRC liver metastases (mCRC). Among >9000 proteins we detected considerable expression changes including numerous proteins involved in progression and resistance in CRC. We identified peptides representing a number of predicted somatic mutations, including KRAS G12V . For eight of these, we developed a multiplexed parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) mass spectrometry assay to precisely quantify the mutated and canonical protein variants. This allowed phenotyping of eight mCRC tumors and six paired healthy tissues, by determining mutation rates on the protein level. Total KRAS expression varied between tumors (0.47-1.01 fmol/µg total protein) and healthy tissues (0.13-0.64 fmol/µg). In KRAS G12V -mCRC, G12V-mutation levels were 42-100%, while one patient had only 10% KRAS G12V but 90% KRAS wildtype . This might represent a missed therapeutic opportunity: based on hotspot sequencing, the patient was excluded from anti-EGFR treatment and instead received chemotherapy, while PRM-based tumor-phenotyping indicates the patient might have benefitted from anti-EGFR therapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized care for many cancer indications, with considerable effort now being focused on increasing the rate, depth, and duration of patient response. One strategy is to combine immune strategies (for example, ctla-4 and PD-1/L1-directed agents) to harness additive or synergistic efficacy while minimizing toxicity. Despite encouraging results with such combinations in multiple tumour types, numerous clinical challenges remain, including a lack of biomarkers that reliably predict outcome, the emergence of therapeutic resistance, and optimal management of immune-related toxicities. Furthermore, the selection of ideal combinations from the myriad of immune, systemic, and locoregional therapies has yet to be determined. A longitudinal network-based approach could offer advantages in addressing those critical questions, including long-term follow-up of patients beyond individual trials. The molecular cancer registry Personalize My Treatment, managed by the Networks of Centres of Excellence nonprofit organization Exactis Innovation, is uniquely positioned to accelerate Canadian immuno-oncology (io) research efforts throughout its national network of cancer sites. To gain deeper insight into how a pan-Canadian network could advance research in io combinations, Exactis invited preeminent clinical and scientific advisors from across Canada to a roundtable event in November 2017. The present white paper captures the expert advice provided: leverage longitudinal patient data collection; facilitate network collaboration and assay harmonization; synergize with existing initiatives, networks, and biobanks; and develop an io combination trial based on Canadian discoveries., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests outside the submitted work: VH is an employee of Exactis Innovation; RF is the ceo of Exactis Innovation; GB has received research funding from several pharmaceutical companies and is the cmo of Exactis Innovation; PKC has received fees as an advisory board member for Bristol–Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Roche; HLM has received fees as an advisory board member for Merck, Spectrums, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, obi Pharma, Calithera, Roche, Lilly, Peregrine, TapImmune, Amgen, Puma, Pfizer, and Immunomedics, and has received research funding from Bristol–Myers Squibb, MedImmune, Ziopharm, Eli Lilly, and Merck; TMP has received advisory board member fees from Bristol–Myers Squibb, Merck, and Incyte, and a grant from Roche; RS has received honoraria from Pfizer, and honoraria or advisory board fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Roche, Lundbeck, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Takeda; MFS has received honoraria from Amgen; JS is a permanent member of the scientific advisory board of Surface Oncology and owns stock in Surface Oncology; DJS has received honoraria or consulting or advisory board fees from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Merck, AstraZeneca, Bristol–Myers Squibb, and Exactis, and scientific writing or clinical trials support from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bristol–Myers Squibb, and Celgene; SV has received fees as an advisory board member for Amgen, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, and is the co-founder and medical director of OncologyEducation.com (uncompensated). BM, DM, and SSS have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background: Colorectal Cancer Canada, in partnership with a Scientific Advisory Committee, is developing a Canadian Patient Group Pathway to Accessing Cancer Clinical Trials ("Pathway"). A central element of the Pathway is presented here-namely, a set of recommendations and tools aimed at each stakeholder group., Methods: A summary of the peer-reviewed and grey literature informed discussions at a meeting, held in June 2017, in which a cross-section of stakeholders reached consensus on the potential roles of patient groups in the cancer clinical trials process, barriers to accessing cancer clinical trials, best practice models for patient-group integration, and a process for developing the Pathway. Canadian recommendations and tools were subsequently developed by a small working group and reviewed by the Scientific Advisory Committee., Results: The major output of the consensus conference was agreement that the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (ctti) model, successfully applied in the United States, could be adapted to create a Canadian Pathway. Two main differences between the Canadian and American cancer clinical research environments were highlighted: the effects of global decision-making and systems of regulatory and funding approvals. The working group modified the ctti model to incorporate those aspects and to reflect Canadian stakeholder organizations and how they currently interact with patient groups., Conclusions: Developing and implementing a Canadian Pathway that incorporates the concepts of multi-stakeholder collaboration and the inclusion of patient groups as equal partners is expected to generate significant benefits for all stakeholders. The next steps to bring forward a proposed Pathway will involve engaging the broader cancer research community. Clinical trial sponsors will be encouraged to adopt a Charter recognizing the importance of including patient groups, and to support the training of patient groups through an independent body to ensure quality research partners. Integration of patient groups into the process of developing "real world" evidence will be advanced by a further consensus meeting being organized by Colorectal Cancer Canada for 6-7 November 2018., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conf licts of interest, and we declare the following interests: Colorectal Cancer Canada has received support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim Canada, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly Canada, Hoffmann–La Roche, Janssen, Merck Frosst Canada and Company, Novartis Pharma Canada, Pfizer Canada, Pharmascience; GB has contracted with multiple biopharma companies in clinical research programs and has collaborated with many in matching funds for major peer-reviewed grants, including Hoffman–La Roche, Merck, Pfizer, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly Canada, Esperas Pharma, Chorus, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Amgen; DPR has accepted consulting fees, speaker fees, and honoraria from multiple biopharma companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Eli Lilly Canada, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Hoffman–La Roche; BioCanRx has received support from Turnstone Biologics, Merck, EMD Serono, Roche Pharma, General Electric, PeproTech, Immudex, Immunovaccine, Pall, Zymeworks, Beckman Coulter, AstraZeneca, Roche Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, Affymetrix, Blueline Bioscience, Caprion Biosciences, PerkinElmer, BioLegend, PeproTech, and NanoString Technologies.

Background: Lung cancer continues to be one of the most common cancers in Canada, with approximately 28,400 new cases diagnosed each year. Although timely care can contribute substantially to quality of life for patients, it remains unclear whether it also improves patient outcomes. In this work, we used a set of quality indicators that aim to describe the quality of care in lung cancer patients. We assessed adherence with existing guidelines for timeliness of lung cancer care and concordance with existing standards of treatment, and we examined the association between timeliness of care and lung cancer survival., Methods: Patients with lung cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 were identified from the Pulmonary Division Lung Cancer Registry at our centre., Results: We demonstrated that the interdisciplinary pulmonary oncology service successfully treated most of its patients within the recommended wait times. However, there is still work to be done to decrease variation in wait time. Our results demonstrate a significant association between wait time and survival, supporting the need for clinicians to optimize the patient care trajectory., Interpretation: It would be helpful for Canadian clinicians treating patients with lung cancer to have wait time guidelines for all treatment modalities, together with standard definitions for all time intervals. Any reductions in wait times should be balanced against the need for thorough investigation before initiating treatment. We believe that our unique model of care leads to an acceleration of diagnostic steps. Avoiding any delay associated with referral to a medical oncologist for treatment could be an acceptable strategy with respect to reducing wait time.

Background: Despite lack of a true comparative study, the folfox (5-fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin) and capox (capecitabine-oxaliplatin) regimens are believed to be similar in their efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of stage iii colorectal cancer. However, that belief has been disputed, because real-life data suggest that the capox regimen is more toxic, leading to more frequent reductions in the delivered dose intensity-thus raising questions about the effect of dose intensity on clinical outcomes., Methods: A retrospective data review for two Canadian institutions, the Segal Cancer Centre and the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, considered patients diagnosed with stage iii colorectal cancer during 2006-2013. Primary endpoints were dose intensity and toxicity, with a secondary endpoint of disease-free survival., Results: The study enrolled 180 eligible patients (80 at the Segal Cancer Centre, 100 at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre). Of those 180 patients, 75 received capox, and 105 received mfolfox6. In the capox group, a significant dose reduction was identified for capecitabine compared with 5-fluorouracil in mfolfox6 group (p = 0.0014). Similarly, a significant dose reduction was observed for oxaliplatin in mfolfox6 compared with oxaliplatin in capox (p = 0.0001). Compared with the patients receiving capox, those receiving mfolfox6 were twice as likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 1 cycle-length (p = 0.03855). Toxicity was more frequent in patients receiving mfolfox6 (nausea: 30% vs. 18%; diarrhea: 47% vs. 24%; peripheral sensory neuropathy: 32% vs. 3%). At a median follow-up of 40 months, preliminary data showed no difference in disease-free survival (p = 0.598). Pooled data from both institutions were also separately analyzed, and no significant differences were found., Conclusions: Our results support the use of capox despite a lack of head-to-head randomized trial data.

Background: Cancer quality indicators have previously been described for a single tumour site or a single treatment modality, or according to distinct data sources. Our objective was to identify cancer quality indicators across all treatment modalities specific to breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer., Methods: Candidate indicators for each tumour site were extracted from the relevant literature and rated in a modified Delphi approach by multidisciplinary groups of expert clinicians from 3 clinical cancer programs. All rating rounds were conducted by e-mail, except for one that was conducted as a face-to-face expert panel meeting, thus modifying the original Delphi technique. Four high-level indicators were chosen for immediate data collection. A list of confounding variables was also constructed in a separate literature review., Results: A total of 156 candidate indicators were identified for breast cancer, 68 for colorectal cancer, 40 for lung cancer, and 43 for prostate cancer. Iterative rounds of ratings led to a final list of 20 evidence- and consensus-based indicators each for colorectal and lung cancer, and 19 each for breast and prostate cancer. Approximately 30 clinicians participated in the selection of the breast, lung, and prostate indicators; approximately 50 clinicians participated in the selection of the colorectal indicators., Conclusions: The modified Delphi approach that incorporates an in-person meeting of expert clinicians is an effective and efficient method for performance indicator selection and offers the added benefit of optimal clinician engagement. The finalized indicator lists for each tumour site, together with salient confounding variables, can be directly adopted (or adapted) for deployment within a performance improvement program.

The burden of cancer for Canadian citizens and society is large. New technologies have the potential to increase the use of genetic information in clinical decision-making, furthering prevention, surveillance, and safer, more effective drug therapies for cancer patients. Personalized medicine can have different meanings to different people. The context for personalized medicine in the present paper is genetic testing, which offers the promise of refining treatment decisions for those diagnosed with chronic and life-threatening illnesses. Personalized medicine and genetic characterization of tumours can also give direction to the development of novel drugs. Genetic testing will increasingly become an essential part of clinical decision-making. In Canada, provinces are responsible for health care, and most have unique policies and programs in place to address cancer control. The result is inconsistency in access to and delivery of therapies and other interventions, beyond the differences expected because of demographic factors and clinical education. Inconsistencies arising from differences in resources, policy, and application of evidence-informed personalized cancer medicine exacerbate patient access to appropriate testing and quality care. Geographic variations in cancer incidence and mortality rates in Canada-with the Atlantic provinces and Quebec having higher rates, and British Columbia having the lowest rates-are well documented. Our purpose here is to provide an understanding of current and future applications of personalized medicine in oncology, to highlight the benefits of personalized medicine for patients, and to describe issues and opportunities for improvement in the coordination of personalized medicine in Canada. Efficient and more rapid adoption of personalized medicine in oncology in Canada could help overcome those issues and improve cancer prevention and care. That task might benefit from the creation of a National Genetics Advisory Panel that would review research and provide recommendations on tests for funding or reimbursement, guidelines, service delivery models, laboratory quality assurance, education, and communication. More has to be known about the current state of personalized cancer medicine in Canada, and strategies have to be developed to inform and improve understanding and appropriate coordination and delivery. Our hope is that the perspectives emphasized in this paper will stimulate discussion and further research to create a more informed response.

Background: Before its regulatory approval in Canada, bevacizumab to treat patients with colorectal cancer (crc) was accessed through the Bevacizumab Expanded Access Trial and a special-access program at the Jewish General Hospital. We retrospectively evaluated patient outcomes in that large cohort., Methods: All patients (n = 196) had metastatic crc, were bevacizumab-naïve, and received bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy at the Jewish General Hospital between 2004 and 2009. We collected patient demographics and clinical characteristics; relevant medical history, disease stage and tumour pathology at diagnosis; type, duration, and line of therapy; grades 3 and 4 adverse events (aes), time to disease progression (ttp), and overall survival (os) from diagnosis., Results: Median follow-up was 36.0 months. Median ttp was 8.0 months [95% confidence interval (ci): 7.0 to 9.0 months). Median os was 41.0 months (95% ci: 36.0 to 47.0 months). Of the 40 grades 3 and 4 bevacizumab-related aes experienced by 38 patients (19.4%), the most common were thrombocytopenia (n = 17), deep-vein thrombosis (n = 6), pulmonary embolism (n = 4), and hypertension (n = 3)., Conclusions: In an expanded access setting, our data reflect the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab-based therapy in the controlled post-registration clinical trial setting.

Background: Panitumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody, directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor, that was shown to be effective in third-line metastatic colorectal cancer. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with chemo-refractory non-KRAS-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer, who received panitumumab at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, Canada, between 2009 and 2012., Methods: This chart review included 44 patients (median age: 60 years; performance status: 0-3), of whom 50% had already received three lines of treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (pfs). Secondary endpoints were overall survival and safety. Tumour progression was determined by radiologic assessments performed once every 3 months per clinical guidelines or by clinical deterioration as determined by the clinician-investigator., Results: In our sample, median pfs was 21.86 ± 5.23 weeks (95% confidence interval: 12.9 to 36.9 weeks) and overall survival was 35.14 ± 7.75 weeks (95% confidence interval: 25.6 to 73.4 weeks) with a median of 5 cycles of panitumumab treatment. The most frequently reported toxicities with panitumumab were skin toxicity (16.2% grade 3) and hypomagnesemia (10.8% grade 3). No infusion reactions were reported., Conclusions: Despite a small sample size from a single institution, our survival and efficacy data are encouraging and comparable to results obtained from the registration panitumumab trial. Our findings suggest that panitumumab can be effective and tolerable in a real-world setting.

Background: The generally poor prognosis and poor quality of life for lung cancer patients have highlighted the need for a conceptual model of integrative practice. Although the philosophy of integrative oncology is well described, conceptual models that could guide the implementation and scientific evaluation of integrative practice are lacking., Purpose: The present paper describes a conceptual model of integrative practice in which the philosophical underpinnings derive mainly from integrative oncology, with important contributions from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and the discipline of nursing. The conceptual model is described in terms of its purpose, values, concepts, dynamic components, scientific evidence, clinical approach, and theoretical underpinnings. The model argues that these components delineate the initial scope and orientation of integrative practice. They serve as the needed context for evaluating and interpreting the effectiveness of clinical interventions in enhancing patient outcomes in lung cancer at various phases of the illness. Furthermore, the development of relevant and effective integrative clinical interventions requires new research methods based on whole-systems research. An initial focus would be the identification of interrelationship patterns among variables that influence clinical interventions and their targeted patient outcomes.

The McGill University Department of Oncology has changed and expanded since its inception in 1990, responding to the move to interdisciplinary clinical care, teaching, and research. Although the traditional Divisions have been maintained to correspond to University and Royal College interfaces, the department has steadily been generating a variety of cross-departmental and interdisciplinary programs in which new insights into clinical care and biology are being generated. In research areas ranging from psychosocial and fundamental to translational and clinical therapeutics, interdisciplinarity and an emphasis on clinician-scientists are critical features.