Search

Background Almost half of all patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) present with stage iv disease. The objective of the present study was to characterize treatment patterns and survival outcomes in patients with advanced nsclc. Methods We conducted a longitudinal population-level study in patients diagnosed with stage iv nsclc in Ontario between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2015, with follow-up to 31 March 2017 for overall survival and treatment sequence. Patients were stratified as nonsquamous or squamous histology. A sub-analysis was conducted for patients with nonsquamous histology who received targeted therapies, on the assumption that their tumours were EGFR mutation-- positive (EGFRm+). Treatment patterns were determined, and survival was calculated from date of diagnosis to death or censoring. Results Of 24,729 nsclc cases identified, stage iv disease was diagnosed in 49.2%, histology was nonsquamous in 10,103, and EGFRm+ was assumed in 508. Median patient age ranged from 69 to 72 years for the three cohorts. For patients with nonsquamous histology, palliative radiotherapy was the most frequently used first-line treatment (44.4%), followed by no treatment (26.7%) and chemotherapy (14.9%). In the EGFRm+ cohort, 75.6% received gefitinib as first- or second-line therapy, and almost half (47.4%) the 473 patients with squamous histology treated with firstline chemotherapy received cisplatin or carboplatin with gemcitabine. Median overall survival in the nonsquamous and squamous cohorts was 4.9 and 4.6 months respectively; it was 17.6 months for patients who were EGFRm+. Conclusions Survival of patients with stage iv nsclc remains poor, with the exception of patients who are EGFRm+. Only 14.9% of patients received first-line chemotherapy; the mainstay of treatment was palliative radiotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The management of unresectable stage iii non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) is complex and best determined through multidisciplinary consultation. A longitudinal, population-level study was carried out to describe the management approach and outcomes of treatment in the real-world setting in Ontario. Methods Individuals diagnosed with nsclc between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2015 were identified in the Ontario Cancer Registry. Unresectable disease was defined as no surgery reported within 3 months of diagnosis. Initial treatments included radiotherapy (rt, curative or palliative), chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and chemoradiation [crt, concurrent (ccrt) or sequential (scrt)]. Survival was calculated from diagnosis with stage iii disease to death or last follow-up. Results Of the 24,729 individuals diagnosed with nsclc, 5243 (21.2%) had stage iii disease, with most of the latter group (4542, 86.6%) having unresectable disease. Median age was 70 years, and 54.2% were men. The frequency of first-line treatment was ccrt, 22.1%; palliative rt, 21.0%; curative rt, 19.6%; no treatment, 19.6%; chemotherapy alone, 11.6%; scrt, 5.4%; and targeted therapy, 0.7%. Median overall survival (mos) was 14.2 months [95% confidence interval (ci): 13.6 months to 14.7 months], with the longest survival observed in patients who received targeted therapy (mos: 34.7 months; 95% ci: 21.4 months to 51.2 months), and the poorest, in those receiving no cancer treatment (mos: 5.9 months; 95% ci: 5.0 months to 6.4 months). The mos in patients receiving ccrt was 23.6 months (95% ci: 21.4 months to 25.6 months). Conclusions Guideline-recommended ccrt is undertaken in only a small proportion of patients with unresectable nsclc in Ontario. The reasons for low uptake of that recommendation are only partly understood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer was created in 2007 by the federal government to accelerate cancer control across Canada. Its OncoSim microsimulation model platform, which consists of a suite of specific cancer models, was conceived as a tool to augment conventional resources for population-level policy- and decision-making. The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer manages the OncoSim program, with funding from Health Canada and model development by Statistics Canada. Microsimulation modelling allows for the detailed capture of population heterogeneity and health and demographic history over time. Extensive data from multiple Canadian sources were used as inputs or to validate the model. OncoSim has been validated through expert consultation; assessments of face validity, internal validity, and external validity; and model fit against observed data. The platform comprises three in-depth cancer models (lung, colorectal, cervical), with another in-depth model (breast) and a generalized model (25 cancers) being in development. Unique among models of its class, OncoSim is available online for public sector use free of charge. Users can customize input values and output display, and extensive user support is provided. OncoSim has been used to support decision-making at the national and jurisdictional levels. Although simulation studies are generally not included in hierarchies of evidence, they are integral to informing cancer control policy when clinical studies are not feasible. OncoSim can evaluate complex intervention scenarios for multiple cancers. Canadian decision-makers thus have a powerful tool to assess the costs, benefits, cost-effectiveness, and budgetary effects of cancer control interventions when faced with difficult choices for improvements in population health and resource allocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Best supportive care has long been considered to be the standard therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There is now evidence from randomized trials that a number of chemotherapy regimens can palliate cancer-related symptoms and modestly improve survival. We show how cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to make choices between different (ambulatory) chemotherapy regimens.Methods: Clinical algorithms describing the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of metastatic NSCLC were incorporated into Statistics Canada's Population Health Model. Using consistent methodology, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of several chemotherapeutic interventions: a combination of vindesine (VDS) plus cisplatin, etoposide (VP-16) plus cisplatin, vinblastine (VLB) plus cisplatin, vinorelbine (Navelbine; NVB) plus cisplatin, paclitaxel (Taxol) plus cisplatin, and gemcitabine (GEM) and NVB alone. We calculated the total chemotherapy costs in 1995 Canadian dollars, the cost per case, the average life-years saved, and the cost per life-year saved. Using the Population Health Model, we then constructed an advanced decision framework that rank-ordered the various treatment regimens so as to optimize benefit below various cost-effectiveness thresholds.Results: One regimen (VLB plus cisplatin) appears to result in better survival and lower health care expenditures than best supportive care. By use of cost-effectiveness thresholds of $25,000 and $50,000 per life-year gained, NVB plus cisplatin is the preferred regimen. When quality of life is considered, however, GEM is preferred to NVB plus cisplatin at a threshold value of $50,000. At thresholds of $75 000 and $100,000, paclitaxel plus cisplatin at a dose of 135 mg/m(2) is the preferred regimen. At thresholds of $50,000 and above, best supportive care is the least preferred regimen.Conclusions: This decision framework allows the comparison of different treatment regimens based on various cost-effectiveness thresholds. Our analysis also supports the use of chemotherapy regimens and the abandonment of best supportive care as the standard of care for patients with advanced NSCLC. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1321-9]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an era of fiscal restraint, it is important to evaluate the resources required to diagnose and treat serious illnesses. As breast cancer is the major malignancy affecting Canadian women, Statistics Canada has analysed the resources required to manage this disease in Canada, and the associated costs. Here we report the cost of initial diagnosis and treatment of nonmetastatic breast cancer, including adjuvant therapies. Treatment algorithms for Stages I, II, and III of the disease were derived by age group (< 50 or ≤ 50 years old), principally from Canadian cancer registry data, supplemented, where necessary, by the results of surveys of Canadian oncologists. Data were obtained on breast cancer incidence by age, diagnostic work-up, stage at diagnosis, initial treatment, follow-up practice, duration of hospitalization and direct care costs. The direct health care costs associated with 'standard' diagnostic and therapeutic approaches were calculated for a cohort of 17 700 Canadian women diagnosed in 1995. Early stage (Stages I and II) breast cancer represented 87% of all incident cases, with 77% of cases occurring in women ≤ 50 years. Variations were noted in the rate of partial vs total mastectomy, according to stage and age group. Direct costs for diagnosis and initial treatment ranged from $8014 for Stage II women ≤ 50 years old, to $10 897 for Stage III women < 50 years old. Except for Stage III women < 50 years old, the largest expenditure was for hospitalization for surgery, followed by radiotherapy costs. Chemotherapy was the largest cost component for Stage III women < 50 years old. This report describes the cost of diagnosis and initial treatment of nonmetastatic breast cancer in Canada, assuming current practice patterns. A second report will describe the lifetime costs of treating all stages of breast cancer. These data will then be incorporated into Statistics Canada's Population Health Model (POHEM) to perform cost-effectiveness studies of... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Smoking is responsible for nearly 85% of lung cancer cases and 30% of all cancer-related deaths. Canada has set an ambitious target to reduce tobacco use to 5% by 2035 in alignment with a world-wide tobacco endgame initiative. Aim: We project the impact of achieving a national 5% smoking prevalence rate by 2035 on population-level lung cancer outcomes and costs. Methods: OncoSim-Lung (version 2.5), led by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer with model development by Statistics Canada, is a microsimulation model that incorporates Canadian demographics, risk factors, registry data, resource utilization and other data to project clinical and economic impacts of cancer control measures. Smoking cessation parameters were modified to reduce the current average national smoking prevalence rate of 18% over time to 5% in 2035. Impacts were compared with those in a reference scenario, which maintained the current prevalence rate. Outputs of interest included lung cancer incidence, mortality, treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and QALYs are undiscounted and reported in 2016 CAD. Results: Achieving a 5% smoking rate by 2035 would result in a 2017-2035 cumulative total of 31,000 fewer lung cancer cases, 21,000 fewer lung cancer-related deaths, and 457,000 additional QALYs compared with projections based on a constant smoking prevalence rate of ∼20%. When stratified by sex, there would be 15,600 and 15,700 fewer lung cancer diagnoses and 11,000 and 10,000 fewer lung cancer-related deaths for males and females respectively. Furthermore, treatment-related costs would be reduced by $680 million dollars. On average there would be 4,500 fewer lung cancer cases, 3,500 fewer deaths, and $35 million in cost savings annually. If a 5% smoking rate is sustained until 2050, then there would be a 15% reduction in lung cancer cases and a 13% reduction in deaths from 2017-2050. Conclusion: Reducing Canada's smoking prevalence to 5% by 2035 could result in a significant reduction in lung cancer cases, deaths and treatment costs. Like Canada, other countries with relatively high smoking prevalence could use averted treatment costs to offset costs of aggressive smoking prevention and cessation programs or redirect them to other healthcare services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Demonstrated lung cancer mortality reductions through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has encouraged some jurisdictions to consider implementing organized LDCT screening. A retrospective analysis of former smokers in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) suggested that abstention from smoking coupled with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening realized more mortality benefits than abstinence alone or LDCT alone. Aim: We evaluated the potential costs and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening with integrated smoking cessation using OncoSim-Lung (version 2.5), a microsimulation model led by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, with model development by Statistics Canada. Methods: We compared organized LDCT screening without smoking cessation to various plausible scenarios of screening with cessation. Assumptions included: annual screening of 55-74 year-old individuals with a 30-pack-yr history; a 42% participation rate reached over 10 years; cessation therapy (nicotine replacement therapy + varenicline + 12 weeks' counseling) at a cost of $490; and up to 10 cessation attempts, with a permanent quit rate of 5% per attempt. Cost-effectiveness was estimated with a lifetime horizon, health system perspective and 1.5% discount rate. Costs are in 2016 CAD. Results: OncoSim-Lung projected that LDCT screening integrated with cessation would cost approximately $76 million annually (undiscounted) from 2017 to 2036 in Canada. About 110 fewer lung cancer (LC) cases and 50 fewer LC deaths would occur annually, compared with screening without cessation. Additionally, many other smoking-related deaths would be prevented. Using a lifetime horizon, smoking cessation would cost $14,000/QALYs gained. In one-way sensitivity analysis, with a 72% participation rate there would be 260 fewer deaths, at $24,000/QALY. With a 10% quit rate, cost-effectiveness would improve to $6,000/QALY. A 50% increase in the cost of the cessation intervention would decrease cost-effectiveness to $22,000/QALY. Conclusion: Robust smoking cessation efforts within a LDCT screening program could save lives and be relatively cost-effective. Cancer control planners should consider integrating smoking cessation when implementing a lung cancer screening initiative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer control interventions exert their effects over multiple decades. To evaluate diverse and competing opportunities to reduce future cancer burden it is desirable to understand long-term effects prior to any new program implementation or significant change. Internationally, modeling is becoming an accepted source of planning information for decision-makers. Aim: We will describe the construction and use of the OncoSim microsimulation model, which was developed to evaluate cancer control strategies in Canada. Methods: OncoSim is a suite of models (cancers of the lung, colorectum, cervix and breast, plus a composite 32-cancer model) used to address key policy questions and support decision-making. It is led by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer with model development by Statistics Canada. OncoSim incorporates risk factors, cancer natural history, screening, treatment, survival and end-of-life care. Wherever possible it is informed by Canadian data sources. Models are calibrated to reproduce a range of cancer-specific statistics, e.g., current and historical Canadian cancer-specific incidence and mortality, smoking patterns, and results of screening. The site-specific models have undergone further validation by replicating reported short-term effects of cancer prevention and screening interventions. Users may customize interventions through modifying input parameters. Outputs include incidence, mortality, costs, cost-effectiveness, and resource utilization. Users from the public sector have access at no cost to OncoSim and receive extensive support from a multidisciplinary technical team. The model is continually updated to incorporate emerging knowledge. Results: OncoSim has been used to support cancer control decision-making at the national and provincial/territorial levels. Applications include: national guidelines recommendations for colorectal and lung cancer screening; comparison of cytology vs. HPV based cervical cancer screening; and integration of smoking cessation into low-dose CT lung cancer screening. Conclusion: Validated simulation models such as OncoSim can be a versatile and efficient tool for cancer control planners to evaluate and prioritize cancer control strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social marketing campaigns promoting moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) may be more successful when associated with strong brands. Little is known regarding how brand constructs such as brand resonance may be related to MVPA and its antecedents (e.g., having a physical activity identity). A better knowledge of these constructs and their relationships can reveal how to strengthen brands to make them more useful for interventions. The purpose of this study was to test a model linking ParticipACTION (a Canadian social marketing organization) brand constructs (brand affective attitude, identification, resonance), MVPA antecedents (behavioral affective attitude, identity), and MVPA. This study used a cross-sectional online survey design with a representative Canadian adult sample of 1,475 people ( M age = 49.36; 49.1% female). Path analysis was conducted to test the model. Overall, the model fit the data well, demonstrating positive associations between brand affective attitude and identification, identification and resonance, resonance and both behavioral affective attitude and identity, behavioral affective attitude and both identity and MVPA, and identity and MVPA. The results suggest that building brand resonance is important for linking branding to MVPA variables. Brand management activities designed to target brand affective attitude may be crucial to helping people feel strong resonance with a brand in a way that supports behavior change.

Aims: To determine the utility of web-based radiation wait time information for patients and health care providers in decision-making. To revise the information using a simulated laboratory environment and to re-evaluate the new web-based information., Materials and Methods: An online 'pop-up' survey on the Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) website measured user satisfaction. Qualitative data were gathered through patient focus groups and physician interviews. On the basis of the analysis, the website was revised and usability testing conducted. The information was re-evaluated by end-users through survey methodology., Results: The majority accessing the wait time website were patients and family members. The modal age of use of the website was 31-50 years. Patients found the information more helpful after redesign than health professionals, but both found the language less easy to understand, highlighting the need to continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the website. Patients did not identify themselves as consumers of wait time information. Their expectation was that physicians would determine the urgency for treatment and would ensure timely access to care. Physicians reported that they did not use the CCO website on wait times and would not use the data for decision-making. Referrals were based on urgency of care and usual referral patterns. Referral patterns did not shift to centres with shorter wait times., Conclusions: The results of this study did not confirm the usefulness of the web-based wait time information for patients and physicians as a resource on how to obtain timely access to radiation treatment. Patients relied on their physician to manage their access to treatment according to the urgency of their clinical condition. Physicians preferred their established referral process rather than referring their patients to centres with shorter wait times. As patients become more computer savvy, it will be interesting to see if they increasingly become consumers of web-based wait time information.

This paper describes the Population Health Model (POHEM) developed by Statistics Canada and shows its usefulness in the evaluation of cancer control interventions and policy decision-making. Models of the costs of diagnosis and treatment of lung and breast cancer were developed and incorporated into POHEM. Then, POHEM was used to evaluate the economic impact of chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer; reduced length of hospital stay following breast cancer surgery; and the provision of preventive tamoxifen to women at high risk of breast cancer. A lung cancer chemotherapy treatment decision framework was developed to rank order currently available chemotherapy regimens according to relative cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. Reducing post-surgical breast cancer hospitalisation with optimal home care support could produce major healthcare savings. However, the provision of preventive tamoxifen was estimated to have no population health benefit. This paper demonstrates that POHEM is an effective tool for performing economic evaluations of cancer control interventions and to inform healthcare policy decisions.

Purpose: To determine (1) Canadian oncologists' attitudes toward practice guidelines, (2) oncologists' self-reported use of practice guidelines and, (3) physicians' characteristics and attitudes associated with self-reported use of practice guidelines., Participants and Methods: A cross-sectional, self-administered postal survey was administered to Canadian oncologists. Main outcome measures were level of agreement with 8 descriptive statements about guidelines, score on the attitudinal scale of the guideline of Tunis et al., and physicians' stated use of guideline. chi(2) and logistic regression procedures were used to explore the relationship between physician characteristics and use of guidelines., Results: Over 80% of respondents agreed that they were good educational tools, convenient sources of advice, intended to improve quality of care; over 40% agreed that they were unbiased syntheses of expert opinion. Conversely, 42, 26, 20 and 16% felt they were intended to cut costs, were oversimplified cookbook medicine, were too rigid to apply to individual patients, and a challenge to physicians' authority, respectively. Forty-one percent reported using practice guidelines routinely or most of the time. Use was associated with positive attitudes about guidelines, receiving medical school training abroad and being a radiation oncologist., Conclusion: Canadian oncologists were quite positive about practice guidelines and reported using them frequently. Our results suggest that use of guidelines by oncologists may be related to attitudes about guidelines in general, specialty within oncology and country of medical school training., (Copyright 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objective: Although it is commonly assumed that clinical trials are more costly than standard therapy, there have been no previous studies of the cost of conducting phase II trials in lung cancer. We retrospectively analyzed two National Cancer Institute of Canada phase II trials in previously untreated small cell lung cancer (SCLC) to determine the costs of conducting the trials in a cancer treatment centre. Both studies were clinical trials undertaken as part of the NCIC's Investigational New Drug program: IND 69 and IND 50 evaluated docetaxel (taxotere) and gemcitabine, respectively., Methods: data management costs in a Canadian cancer treatment centre were determined from the time estimates provided by data managers to complete various protocol related tasks. Nursing and pharmacy personnel measured the time and supplies necessary to prepare and administer the chemotherapy. Physician fees were determined from the type and number of care visits required by the clinical protocols. Laboratory tests and imaging studies were costed according to the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) Schedule of Fees and Benefits. To estimate whether phase II trials are more costly than standard treatment, we determined the cost of four cycles of VP-16-cisplatin, a standard treatment for SCLC., Results: The total cost of performing the docetaxel study was $18443 for an average cost per case of $1317 and an average cost per treatment cycle of $683. The gemcitabine study cost more, due to the fact that the drug proved to be active against SCLC and more cycles of therapy were administered to a larger number of patients. Laboratory and administration costs were also higher, because of the drug administration schedule. The total cost of this study was estimated to be $64670 and the average cost per patient entered was $2230 with an average cost per treatment cycle of $898. In comparison, the estimated cost of four cycles of VP-16-cisplatin chemotherapy was $3948 or $987 per treatment cycle. The major cost drivers in the clinical trials were laboratory and imaging tests which made up 17 and 39%, respectively, of the costs of the taxotere study, and 29 and 27%, respectively, for the gemcitabine study. Data management costs contributed 21 and 13% of the total costs, respectively., Conclusion: As the main cost drivers in these phase II clinical trials are laboratory and imaging tests, the cost of clinical trials could potentially be reduced by ensuring that only essential tests are required by protocol. Not surprisingly, the cost of conducting a trial of an active agent is greater than for an inactive agent, because more patients are treated and each patient receives more treatment. The implications for the per-case funding of phase II clinical trials are discussed.

A comprehensive understanding of the cost components of common illnesses is a necessary first step towards ensuring optimal use of scarce healthcare resources. Since breast cancer is the commonest malignancy affecting Canadian women, we estimated the direct healthcare costs associated with the lifetime management of a cohort of 17700 women diagnosed in 1995. Using a multiplicity of data sources, treatment algorithms, follow-up and disease progression patterns were determined by age (<50; >/=50 years) for all four stages of breast cancer at diagnosis, as well as for the management of local and distant recurrence. Statistics Canada's Population Health Model (POHEM) was used to integrate the data from the different sources and to estimate the lifetime costs, discounted at 0, 3 and 5% rates. The average undiscounted lifetime cost per case of treating women diagnosed with breast cancer varied by stage, from $36,340 for stage IV or metastatic disease, to $23,275 for stage I patients. The total cost of treatment for the cohort diagnosed in 1995 was estimated to be over 454 million Canadian dollars. Hospitalisation (mainly for initial treatment and terminal care) represented 63% of the lifetime costs of care delivery. Disease costing models are valuable tools for optimising the use of scare resources without compromising the health status of individual patients. The breast cancer costing model has recently been used to assess the cost impact and cost-effectiveness of providing radiotherapy to all patients undergoing breast surgery, and of performing outpatient breast surgery.

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of combination chemotherapy with paclitaxel/cisplatin, compared with standard etoposide/cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We obtained the primary survival and resource utilization data from a large three-arm randomized trial comparing: paclitaxel 135 mg m(-2) by 24-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion + cisplatin; paclitaxel 250 mg m(-2) by 24-h i.v. infusion + cisplatin + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF); and standard etoposide/cisplatin in patients with stage IIIb or IV NSCLC. We also modelled the regimens with paclitaxel 135 mg m(-2) + cisplatin administered as an outpatient by 3-h infusion, as clinical data suggest that this is equivalent to 24-h infusion. We collected costing data from the Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre and applied it to the resources consumed in the randomized trial. We integrated these data into the Statistics Canada POpulation HEalth Model (POHEM), which generated hypothetical cohorts of patients treated with each regimen. The POHEM model assigned diagnostic work-up, treatment, disease progression and survival characteristics to each individual in these cohorts and tabulated the costs associated with each. We did sensitivity analyses around the costs of chemotherapy and its administration, and the survival differences between the two regimens. All costs are in 1997 Canadian dollars ($1.00 Canadian approximately Pound 0.39 sterling). The perspective is that of the Canadian health care system. In the trial, the two paclitaxel-containing arms had almost identical survival curves with a median survival of 9.7 months compared with 7.4 months for etoposide/cisplatin. As administered in the trial, paclitaxel/cisplatin cost $76,370 per life-year gained (LYG) and paclitaxel/cisplatin/G-CSF $138,578 per LYG relative to etoposide/cisplatin. However, when modelled as an outpatient 3-h infusion, paclitaxel/cisplatin was moderately cost-effective at $30,619 per LYG. When compared with historical controls treated with best supportive care, this regimen of paclitaxel/cisplatin cost $4539 per LYG. Assuming a 3-h paclitaxel infusion yields the same survival advantage as the 24-h infusion did in the randomized trial, paclitaxel/cisplatin is a cost-effective improvement over standard etoposide/cisplatin for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of ondansetron availability on the costs of managing nausea and vomiting., Methods: We retrospectively assessed antiemetic costs (drug costs, nursing time, pharmacy time, physician's time, supplies, and facility "hotel" costs, in 1991 Canadian dollars) for all patients who received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy from 6 months before to 6 months after ondansetron became commercially available in September 1991. We compared the costs for treating patients who received ondansetron versus those who received other antiemetic regimens, the costs for treating patients in the 6 months before versus the 6 months after ondansetron commercial availability, and the costs for treating patients in the first 4 months versus the last 4 months of the study period., Results: We found no cost differences for patients treated with ondansetron versus other antiemetic regimens. However, there was a significant reduction in emesis management costs for patients treated after versus before the availability of ondansetron: for patients treated in the last third versus first third of the study period, there was a decrease in cost per patient per month of treatment of $374 (95% confidence interval, $243 to $505). These savings were achieved through a reduction in hospital bed days and other costs associated with the prevention and more effective management of nausea and vomiting. At the same time, the number of patients who received emetogenic chemotherapy and their average age increased, presumably because of the better control of gastrointestinal toxicity., Conclusion: Ondansetron availability has been associated with changes in the clinical management of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and with overall cost savings compared with previously available antiemetic therapy.

The lack of uniform recording of stage is a continued barrier to the success of cancer control activities. To review the role of staging, in 1997 the Canadian Committee on Cancer Staging (CCCS) of the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) formalised a national Consultation initiative with the input of Canadian oncology leaders and international experts on staging. A document was created from prior background work by the Committee and pre-circulated for comment. The document described the importance of cancer staging to patient care, epidemiological and clinical research, and cancer control programs. The document was refined through an iterative process over much of a year which included a formal workshop of the participants and other meetings. The Consultation reaffirmed, with evidence, the central role of staging in all aspects of cancer management. The report of the Consultation, endorsed by the Board of Directors of NCIC, included the following recommendations: 1) the recording of TNM stage by the treating physician should be a standard of care for every cancer patient in Canada where TNM applies, 2) the Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation should include the TNM stage for every cancer patient as a requirement for hospital accreditation. In conclusion, this process represents an effective method for raising awareness about important medical issues such as staging which are fundamental to the management and control of cancer.

The value of routine follow-up programs for patients with early stage breast cancer remains an area of controversy. In recent years, the cost-effectiveness of routine investigations has been questioned, and 2 prospective randomized clinical trials have shown no survival advantage to more intensive diagnostic follow-up approaches. Under the auspices of the Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre, a national survey of the practice patterns of Canadian surgical, radiation and medical oncologists was undertaken to measure current Canadian standards of care and to determine average costs of 5-year follow-up for patients completing primary treatment for stage I and II breast cancer. Standardized questionnaires were sent out to 130 surgeons, 59 radiation oncologists and 89 medical oncologists. The overall response rate was 44%. Based on the frequency of follow-up visits and investigations recommended by respondents, an average cost per patient for a 5-year follow-up plan was derived for each subspecialist group: $791, $911 and $904 for surgeons, radiation oncologists and medical oncologists respectively. Use of a less interventionist follow-up program was estimated to result in a cost saving of $300 per patient over 5 years. The results indicate that, for the most part, Canadian oncologists have been influenced by the available literature concerning follow-up practices and are ordering fewer routine tests. Further cost savings to the Canadian health care system could be achieved with the adoption of even less interventionist follow-up programs.

Purpose: The primary objective was to identify the lessons learned and issues addressed by the Disease Site Group (DSG) developing guidelines on lung cancer for practitioners in the province of Ontario., Methods: The minutes of the Ontario Lung Cancer Disease Site Group (LCDSG) and the meeting notes of a medical sociologist who attended all LCDSG meetings were reviewed to identify the disease-specific and generic issues addressed by the LCDSG during guideline development., Results and Conclusion: The Ontario LCDSG has completed three practice guidelines and has five evidence-based recommendations (EBRs) in production. Topics for guideline development were selected on the basis of known practice variability (eg, advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC]); the size of the patient population that could potentially be affected by the guideline; results of phase II trials of new and potentially expensive agents (vinorelbine, paclitaxel, and docetaxel); and randomized controlled clinical trials that support new practice standards (combined modality therapy for unresectable stage III NSCLC). The wording of each EBR reflects the strength and quality of the evidence in support of the treatment option, the primary outcome(s), and the individual physician and discipline values concerning treatment outcomes in the absence of known patient values.

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of new combined modality strategies in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Recent studies suggest that combined modality therapy confers a survival advantage for patients with stage III NSCLC. Using the Statistics Canada (Ottawa, Canada) lung cancer costing model, we have evaluated the CE of these interventions using 1993 Canadian health care costs and the perspective of the government as payer in a universal health care system., Results: We estimate that the cost to treat a stage IIIa NSCLC patient with preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy would increase by $15,886, and a similar combined modality approach with the addition of postoperative radiotherapy would increase the cost by $22,963. Chemoradiotherapy for stage IIIb NSCLC would produce a smaller incremental cost of approximately $8,912 per case. However, these approaches are remarkably cost-effective, with cost per life-year gained (LYG) ranging from $3,348 to $14,958. Administering all chemotherapy in the outpatient department would improve CE. For sensitivity analysis, we reduced the survival gain that resulted from the three interventions by 25% and 50%, and increased the hospital per diem rates by 10%, 20%, and 30%., Conclusion: Even with the most adverse assumptions, the CE estimates were all considered acceptable for new health care technologies in Canada. Overall, it appears that neoadjuvant therapy for stage IIIa NSCLC and combined modality therapy for stage IIIb NSCLC are cost-effective. Economic considerations should not be a barrier to their adoption.

Statistics Canada (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) is in the process of developing the Population Health Model to simulate the health and common illnesses of Canadians. The Population Health Model incorporates a lung cancer module that is based on contemporary Canadian practice. This microsimulation model can be used to estimate the total direct care costs of treating all lung cancer cases diagnosed in Canada and to evaluate the cost and cost-effectiveness of new therapeutic interventions as they are introduced into practice. Gemcitabine, a new nucleoside analogue with a broad spectrum of antitumor activity, is about to be introduced on the Canadian market. The Population Health Model has been used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine in the management of lung cancer over a range of drug doses per treatment cycle starting at 1,000 mg/m2 weekly x 3, as well as potential survival benefits. The survival of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated on an international trial of gemcitabine (EO-18) was used to estimate the potential survival gain relative to the survival of stage IV NSCLC patients managed with best supportive care on a randomized trial conducted by the National Cancer Institute of Canada (BR 5). Sensitivity analyses were performed assuming that the survival gain was 25% or 50% less than that reported in the EO-18 trial. The perspective of the economic analysis is that of the government as payer in a universal health care system, and all costs are expressed in 1993 Canadian dollars. Based on the apparent survival advantage of the EO-18 trial in comparison to best supportive care, the cost per life-year gained ranged from $632 to $9,285, depending on the dose per treatment cycle. At the highest dose per cycle (2,000 mg/m2) and with survival reduced by 50% as compared with the EO-18 result, the cost per life-year gained was estimated to be $17,390. From these estimates of direct care costs in the Canadian health care system, gemcitabine appears to be a cost-effective intervention for advanced NSCLC.

Because lung cancer is a major health care problem in Canada, it is imperative to understand how resources are used to diagnose and treat this disease. This paper describes a method of modelling the direct patient care costs for lung cancer from the perspective of the government as payer in a universal health care system. Clinical algorithms were developed to describe the management of non-small cell (NSCLC) and small cell (SCLC) lung cancer. Patients were allocated to the treatment algorithms in the model based on a knowledge of their distribution by cell type and stage in Canadian cases. A microsimulation model developed by Statistics Canada was used to integrate the data on type of lung cancer, extent of disease, clinical management, survival and health care resource utilization. The direct care costs for diagnosis and treatment of NSCLC ranged from $Cdn 17 889 for the surgery/post-operative radiotherapy treatment of Stages I and II to $Cdn 6333 for supportive care for patients with Stage IV disease. The costs of determining relapse for NSCLC were estimated to be $Cdn 1528 and terminal care costs, made up largely of hospitalization charges and some palliative radiotherapy, were $Cdn 10 331. Direct care costs for the diagnosis and initial treatment of SCLC ranged from $Cdn 18 691 for management of limited stage disease to $Cdn 4739 for the supportive care of patients with extensive disease. The cost of determining relapse for SCLC was estimated to be $Cdn 1590 and terminal care costs averaged $Cdn 9966. For all 15 624 cases of lung cancer diagnosed in Canada in 1988, it was estimated that the total cost of providing treatment and follow-up, and managing relapse over 5 years was $Cdn 328 million. Despite the large total cost of lung cancer management, estimates of cost effectiveness of therapy showed that the cost per life year gained was approximately $Cdn 11 000 for NSCLC and $Cdn 19 560 for SCLC. These estimates of the direct health care costs assume that all patients have access to care, treatment is uncomplicated and practice is standard, and must be viewed as an idealized assessment of the cost of lung cancer management. The microsimulation model, however, does provide a useful framework for evaluating the costs of new diagnostic procedures, treatment strategies and new drugs.

Because lung cancer is a major health care problem in Canada, it would be useful to identify the direct health care costs of diagnosing and treating this disease and to create an analytic framework within which diagnostic and therapeutic options can be assessed. This paper describes a method of modelling the costs of care for lung cancer. The perspective of the costing model is that of the government as payer in a universal health care system. Clinical algorithms were developed to describe the management of non-small cell (NSCLC) and small cell (SCLC) lung cancer. Patients were allocated to the treatment algorithms in the model, based on a knowledge of the stage distribution of cases within provincial cancer registries and an estimate of the use of therapeutic modalities, according to lung cancer experts. A microsimulation model (POHEM) developed at Statistics Canada was used to integrate data on risk factors, disease onset and progression, health care resource utilization and direct medical care costs. The model incorporates survival data on patients, according to cell type and stage, based on published studies. Relapse and terminal care costs were assigned during the year of death, in order to determine the cost of continuing care and the cumulative cost of lung cancer management over time. Patients surviving five years were assumed to be cured. The model estimates that the total five year cost to provide care to the 15,624 cases of lung cancer diagnosed in Canada in 1988 was in excess of $328 million. Over 82% of this total was spent in the first year for diagnostic tests, therapy (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or combinations of these), hospitalization and follow-up costs. The average five year cost per case was $21,000, and ranged from a high of $29,860 for limited disease SCLC, to a low of $16,500 for Stage IV NSCLC. The actual cost of providing care, including the management of complications, is unknown and our estimates should be regarded as an idealized estimate of the cost of lung cancer management. However, the POHEM model has a level of sophistication which, we believe, reasonably reflects the cost per case and total costs of treating lung cancer by stage and therapeutic modality in Canada.

The POpulation HEalth Model (POHEM) lung cancer microsimulation model has provided a useful framework for calculating the cost of managing individual cases of lung cancer in Canada by stage, cell type, and treatment modality, as well as the total economic burden of managing all cases of lung cancer diagnosed in Canada. These data allow an estimation of the overall cost effectiveness of lung cancer therapy. the model also provides a frame-work for evaluating the cost effectiveness of new therapeutic strategies, such as combined modality therapy for stage III disease or new chemotherapy drugs for stage IV disease. By expressing the cost of lung cancer treatment as cost of life-years gained, such analyses allows useful comparisons of the cost effectiveness of these treatments with those of other costly but accepted medical therapies.

Escalating health care costs have made it imperative to evaluate the resources required to diagnose and treat major illnesses in Canadians. For Canadian men, lung cancer is not only the most common malignancy, but also the major cancer killer. As of 1994, lung cancer is expected to overtake breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer deaths in women. This paper presents a detailed description of the methodology used to determine the direct health care costs associated with 'standard' diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for lung cancer in Canada in 1988. Clinical algorithms were developed for each stage of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). The algorithms were designed to take the form of decision trees for each clinical stage of lung cancer. The proportion of patients assigned to each branch was based upon questionnaire responses obtained from thoracic surgeons and radiation oncologists when presented with clinical scenarios, and information from provincial cancer registries. Direct care costs were derived primarily from one provincial fee schedule (Ontario), and costing information obtained during the conduct of several Canadian clinical trials in lung cancer. Direct costs for diagnosis and initial treatment of NSCLC (excluding relapse and terminal care costs) ranged from $17,889 for the surgery/post-operative radiotherapy arm of stages I and II to $6,333 for the supportive care arm (stage IV). The cost of determining relapse for NSCLC was estimated to be $1,528, and terminal care costs, which included palliative radiotherapy and hospitalisation, were $10,331. Direct costs for diagnosis and initial treatment of SCLC ranged from $18,691 for limited stage disease to $4,739 for the supportive care arm of extensive disease. The cost of diagnosing relapse for SCLC was estimated to be $1,590, and terminal care costs averaged $9,966. This report provides an estimate of the Canadian costs of managing lung cancer by stage and treatment modality. Because the actual costs of all components of care are not available from any combination of sources, these cost estimates must be viewed as an idealised estimate of the cost of lung cancer management. However, we believe that the lung cancer costing model that we have developed provides a level of sophistication which gives a reasonable estimate of the cost per case of treating NSCLC and SCLC.

As health care costs continue to rise in Canada, there is a need to evaluate the resources required for diagnosing and treating the major diseases having an impact on Canadian. In 1993, breast cancer was the most predominant female cancer in Canada, both in terms of incidence and mortality. It would be useful to identify the direct health care costs associated with this disease and to create an analytical framework within which diagnostic and therapeutic options can be assessed. This paper provides a description of the approach to be taken in developing a realistic conceptual model of the management of all stages of breast cancer, including diagnostic and treatment approaches, survival outcomes and costs. It includes an outline of our research objectives, a description of the kind of information required, a section on the methodology and sources to be used, and a brief explanation of the analytical framework into which it will be incorporated and used.

The 12 percent five-year survival rate for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not changed in several decades. However, four randomized trials have shown a modest increase in the mean survival time of patients with advanced NSCLC who received systemic chemotherapy vs best supportive care (BSC), and two others have demonstrated a statistically significant survival advantage (average increase, 12 weeks). Whereas the objective response rate to chemotherapy ranges from 30 to 40 percent, relief of cancer-related symptoms as well as improved performance status and weight gain typically occur in 70 percent of patients. Treatment-related adverse effects have been markedly reduced with new antiemetics. Concerns regarding costs have been lessened by the National Cancer Institute of Canada's observation that at least some chemotherapy regimens may be less costly than BSC. Direct-care costs of managing all stages of NSCLC in Canada were estimated at $102 million (1984 Canadian dollars), assuming that stage IV patients received only BSC. The average incremental cost of the most expensive chemotherapy would be $5,000 per case. If this cost were incurred by 50 percent of stage IV cases (good performance status, symptomatic patients), total care costs would be increased by about 10 percent ($10.5 million). This is less than half the cost of the introduction of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is rapidly being adopted as standard practice in the absence of data from randomized controlled clinical trials.

Seventeen previously untreated patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer were entered in this phase I trial. Treatment consisted of a combination of acivicin and cisplatin at a starting dose of 12 and 15 mg/m2, respectively, given i.v. during 5 days and repeated every 28 days. A total of 46 cycles was given. Renal function abnormality was the dose-limiting toxicity of cisplatin with a maximum tolerated dose of 12 mg/m2. This toxicity occurred at a dose lower than expected, indicating a possible potentiation of platinum renal toxicity by acivicin. Myelosuppression was the dose-limiting toxicity of acivicin, with a maximum tolerated dose of 12 mg/m2. Other side effects included generalized weakness and gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms. In 15 patients evaluable for response seven progressed, six were stable for a median duration of 13 weeks, and two patients achieved a partial remission lasting 8 and 24 weeks, respectively. The overall response rate was 13%. The recommended phase II dose of both agents in this schedule was 12 mg/m2. The possible enhancement of cisplatin toxicity might have compromised the overall response rate of the combination and further studies using these drugs in this schedule are not recommended.

An economic evaluation of a randomized trial of cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (doxorubicin; Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH), and vincristine alone or alternating with etoposide (VP-16) and cisplatin in extensive small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) was undertaken. A survival benefit of 1.6 months in favor of alternating chemotherapy was associated with an additional cost of $450 (1984 Canadian dollars) per patient. This translated to a cost of $3,370 per year of life gained. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness (CEA) of alternating chemotherapy was greatest when treatment was given on an outpatient basis. The results of the evaluation were sensitive to hospitalization rates, but even the most unfavorable analyses revealed the CEA of alternating chemotherapy to be comparable to that of treatments of common nonmalignant diseases. It is concluded that the CEA of alternating chemotherapy for SCLC was favorable when compared with accepted treatments for nonmalignant diseases. The survival benefit seen with alternating chemotherapy was felt to be clinically significant and alternating chemotherapy is recommended as routine therapy for extensive SCLC.