Search

ObjectiveAdministrative data are used to describe the pancreatic cancer (pcc) population. The analysis examines demographic details, incidence, site, survival, and factors influencing mortality in a cohort of individuals diagnosed with pcc.MethodsIncident cases of pcc diagnosed in Ontario between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2011 were extracted from the Ontario Cancer Registry. They were linked by encrypted health card number to several administrative databases to obtain demographic and mortality information. Descriptive, bivariate, and survival analyses were conducted.ResultsDuring the period of interest, 9221 new cases of pcc (4548 in men, 4673 in women) were diagnosed, for an age-adjusted standardized annual incidence in the range of 8.6-9.5 per 100,000 population. Mean age at diagnosis was 70.3 ± 12.5 years (standard deviation). Five-year survival was 7.2% (12.8% for those 80 years of age). Survival varied by sex, older age, rural residence, lower income, site of involvement in the pancreas, and presence of comorbidity.ConclusionsThe mortality rate in pcc is exceptionally high. With an increasing incidence and a mortality positively associated with age, additional support will be needed for this highly fatal disease as demographics in Ontario continue to trend toward a higher proportion of older individuals.

ObjectiveThe objective of the present analysis was to determine the publicly funded health care costs associated with the care of breast cancer (bca) patients by disease stage.MethodsIncident cases of female invasive bca (2005-2009) were extracted from the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked to administrative datasets from the publicly funded system. The type and use of health care services were stratified by disease stage over the first 2 years after diagnosis. Mean costs and costs by type of clinical resource used in the care of bca patients were compared with costs for a matched control group. The attributable cost for the 2-year time horizon was determined in 2008 Canadian dollars.ResultsThis cohort study involved 39,655 patients with bca and 190,520 control subjects. The average age in those groups was 61.1 and 60.9 years respectively. Most bca patients were classified as either stage i (34.4%) or stage ii (31.8%). Of the bca cohort, 8% died within the first 2 years after diagnosis. The overall mean cost per bca case from a public payer perspective in the first 2 years after diagnosis was $41,686. Over the 2-year time horizon, the mean cost increased by stage: i, $29,938; ii, $46,893; iii, $65,369; and iv, $66,627. The attributable cost of bca was $31,732. Cost drivers were cancer clinic visits, physician billings, and hospitalizations.ConclusionsCosts of care increased by stage of bca. Cost drivers were cancer clinic visits, physician billings, and hospitalizations. These data will assist planning and decision-making for the use of limited health care resources.

We examined trends in radiation therapy (rt) utilization by a population-based breast cancer cohort in Ontario. The provincial cancer registry provided a breast cancer cohort based on diagnosis dates from April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2010. Staging information was also available. The cohort was then linked, by encrypted health card number, to linkable administrative datasets, including rt utilization. The average age in the identified female breast cancer cohort (n = 39,656) was 61.6 ± 14.0 years. Almost two thirds of the patients (n = 25,225) received rt, and staging information was available for 22,988 patients (9541 stage i, 8516 stage ii, 4050 stage iii, and 881 stage iv). The average number of rt courses received by the patients was 1.4 ± 0.7 for stage i, 1.8 ± 1.1 for stage ii, 2.5 ± 1.3 for stage iii, and 2.8 ± 2.4 for stage iv. The ratio of conventional rt to intensity-modulated rt was 70.9%:16.6% for stage i, 71.6%:11.3% for stage ii, 74.6%:4.6% for stage iii, and 89.6%:2.2% for stage iv. From 2005 to 2010, almost two thirds of a Canadian female breast cancer cohort received rt, and the average number of courses increased with disease severity. A similar trend was observed with the type of rt (use of conventional rt increased with disease severity). The next step is to apply unit costs to the number of fractions and to obtain rt planning and radiation therapist times.

Background: National guidelines recommend that physicians discuss end-of-life (EOL) care planning with patients with cancer whose life expectancy is less than 1 year.Objective: To evaluate the incidence of EOL care discussions for patients with stage IV lung or colorectal cancer and where, when, and with whom these discussions take place.Design: Prospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with lung or colorectal cancer from 2003 to 2005.Setting: Participants lived in Northern California, Los Angeles County, North Carolina, Iowa, or Alabama or received care in 1 of 5 large HMOs or 1 of 15 Veterans Health Administration sites.Patients: 2155 patients with stage IV lung or colorectal cancer.Measurements: End-of-life care discussions reported in patient and surrogate interviews or documented in medical records through 15 months after diagnosis.Results: 73% of patients had EOL care discussions identified by at least 1 source. Among the 1470 patients who died during follow-up, 87% had EOL care discussions, compared with 41% of the 685 patients who were alive at the end of follow-up. Of the 1081 first EOL care discussions documented in records, 55% occurred in the hospital. Oncologists documented EOL care discussions with only 27% of their patients. Among 959 patients with documented EOL care discussions who died during follow-up, discussions took place a median of 33 days before death.Limitations: The depth and quality of EOL care discussions was not evaluated. Much of the information about discussions came from surrogates of patients who died before baseline interviews could be obtained.Conclusion: Although most patients with stage IV lung or colorectal cancer discuss EOL care planning with physicians before death, many discussions occur during acute hospital care, with providers other than oncologists, and late in the course of illness.Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute and Department of Veterans Affairs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A study was undertaken to determine the survival benefit of postoperative chemoradiation therapy for elderly patients with resected gastric adenocarcinoma.Methods: The authors identified 1023 individuals aged 65 years and older (median = 76) who underwent gastrectomy for nonmetastatic stage IB-IV gastric adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2000 and 2002 in the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. They examined factors associated with receiving postoperative chemoradiation and analyzed the survival benefit associated with receiving postoperative chemoradiation.Results: Thirty percent of patients received adjuvant chemoradiation. On multivariate analysis, younger age (P < .0001), lymph node involvement (P < .0001), and more recent diagnosis (P = .0284) were associated with receiving chemoradiation. There was a trend toward increased use among patients with less comorbidity (P = .0515). The median follow-up was 25.5 months, and 62% died. On multivariate survival analysis, older patients (P < .0001) and those with lymph node involvement (P < .0001), T3 or T4 disease (P = .0472), higher grade disease (P = .0355), and more comorbidity (P = .0411) were more likely to die. After adjustment for other factors, receipt of adjuvant chemoradiation therapy did not significantly increase survival (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.12; P = .3453) and did not increase survival in a multivariate analysis that included propensity scores (P = .2090).Conclusions: The authors did not detect a survival benefit, suggesting that some elderly patients with resected gastric adenocarcinoma may not gain a survival benefit from the administration of adjuvant chemoradiation. The analysis had limitations, and the results are hypothesis generating. Future gastric cancer trials should enroll more elderly patients and stratify patients by age to better understand the impact of treatment regimens on older patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest integrated health care system in the United States. Studies suggest that the VHA provides better preventive care and care for some chronic illnesses than does the private sector. Objective: To assess the quality of cancer care for older patients provided by the VHA versus fee-for-service Medicare. Design: Observational study of patients with cancer that was diagnosed between 2001 and 2004 who were followed through 2005. Setting: VHA and non-VHA hospitals and office-based practices. Patients: Men older than 65 years with incident colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer; lymphoma; or multiple myeloma. Measurements: Rates of processes of care for colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer; lymphoma; or multiple myeloma. Rates were adjusted by using propensity score weighting. Results: Compared with the fee-for-service Medicare population, the VHA population received diagnoses of colon (P < 0.001) and rectal (P = 0.007) cancer at earlier stages and had higher adjusted rates of curative surgery for colon cancer (92.7% vs. 90.5%; P < 0.010), standard chemotherapy for diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (71.1% vs. 59.3%; P < 0.001), and bisphosphonate therapy for multiple myeloma (62.1% vs. 50.4%; P < 0.001). The VHA population had lower adjusted rates of 3-dimensional conformal or intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer treated with external-beam radiation therapy (61.6% vs. 86.0%; P < 0.001). Adjusted rates were similar for 9 other measures. Sensitivity analyses suggest that if patients with cancer in the VHA system have more severe comorbid illness than other patients, rates for most indicators would be higher in the VHA population than in the fee-for-service Medicare population. Limitation: This study included only older men and did not include information about performance status, severity of comorbid illness, or patient preferences. Conclusion: Care for older men with cancer in the VHA system was generally similar to or better than care for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, although adoption of some expensive new technologies may be delayed in the VHA system. Primary Funding Source: Department of Veterans Affairs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vital statistics for the lymphoid malignancies obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program have seldom been directly compared to data from alternative national databases. While SEER is recognized as the standard, some lymphoid malignancies-especially the chronic ones--may be underreported. We compared the incidence, all-cause and cause-specific mortality for Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), multiple myeloma (MM) and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) in SEER to that in the Nurses' Health Study (NHS), a national cohort study of 121,700 female registered nurses, matching for age and race. In over 2.5 million person-years, the incidence of HL was the same as in SEER (SIR=1.01 [0.75, 1.26]), while the incidence of NHL, CLL and MM were slightly higher. All-cause mortality was lower for the lymphoid malignancies except for MM, which was the same; there were no differences in cause-specific mortality, except for MM (HR=1.26 [1.07, 1.48]). Our analysis suggests that, at least among white women, SEER is a reliable data source with respect to lymphoid malignancies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study is concerned with methods to measure population-based indicators of quality end-of-life care. Using a retrospective cohort approach, we assessed the feasibility, validity and reliability of using administrative databases to measure quality indicators of end-of-life care in two Canadian provinces. The study sample consisted of all females who died of breast cancer between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2002, in Nova Scotia or Ontario, Canada. From an initial list of 19 quality indicators selected from the literature, seven were determined to be fully measurable in both provinces. An additional seven indicators in one province and three in the other province were partially measurable. Tests comparing administrative and chart data show a high level of agreement with inter-rater reliability, confirming consistency in the chart abstraction process. Using administrative data is an efficient, population-based method to monitor quality of care which can compliment other methods, such as qualitative and purposefully collected clinical data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) affects approximately 3000-5000 Americans each year, with the American Cancer Society expecting 4600 new cases in 2004. The incidence of CML increases with age; median age at diagnosis is 67 years. Long-term data on the economic burden associated with CML among the elderly are sparse. To fill this void, our study uses population-based data to evaluate longer-term treatment patterns, outcomes and costs among elderly Medicare beneficiaries following their diagnosis of CML. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis used linked data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute and Medicare claims. Study cohorts included 567 patients aged > or = 65 years newly diagnosed with CML between 1991 and 1993 in a SEER registry and followed for 5 years or until death, whichever occurred first. In addition, 567 control patients without CML matched 1 : 1 by age and sex (average age 78 years, 52% male) were included. The costs of care were based on total Medicare payments (in constant 1998 dollars). Groups were generally similar in terms of nonmatched variables. RESULTS: Five years following diagnosis, 13% of CML patients were still alive versus 68% of the control patients (median survival: 14 months vs > 60 months, respectively). The average total Medicare payments were USD35,785 for CML patients versus USD21,161 for control subjects (monthly payments: USD1688 vs USD428, respectively; p < 0.001). Approximately 25% of CML patients underwent Medicare-covered cancer treatment (11% outpatient chemotherapy, 6% inpatient chemotherapy and 8% outpatient interferon-alpha therapy). Younger patients and those diagnosed in the later years were most likely to be treated. Costs for treated patients were higher, and they lived longer. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest low treatment rates, and substantial excess mortality and costs associated with CML among the elderly. The recent introduction of imatinib has dramatically changed the treatment of CML, which is likely to cause important changes to the economic burden of CML. Our results can be used as a baseline for evaluating the impact of such new therapies as data from clinical trials become available. Further work is needed to characterise this disease and the complex factors that influence treatment decisions and associated health outcomes in elderly patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Before the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003, Medicare reimbursed physicians for chemotherapy drugs at rates that greatly exceeded physicians' costs for those drugs. We examined the effect of physician reimbursement on chemotherapy treatment of Medicare beneficiaries older than age sixty-five with metastatic lung, breast, colorectal, or other gastrointestinal cancers between 1995 and 1998 (9,357 patients). A physician's decision to administer chemotherapy to metastatic cancer patients was not measurably affected by higher reimbursement. Providers who were more generously reimbursed, however, prescribed more-costly chemotherapy regimens to metastatic breast, colorectal, and lung cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study assessed health care system costs and resource utilization for adult women with breast cancer in Ontario, Canada. The goal was to update costs by stage, age, and phase of care from a health care system perspective., Data and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using linked population-based administrative data. The study included women diagnosed with breast cancer from 2017 to 2021, with follow-up data until 2022. Cases were matched with controls in a 1:5 ratio using birth year, local health integrative network, income quintile, and resource utilization band at baseline. Incremental costs were estimated using linear regression. The modified income quintile was the neighbourhood- or area-level income quintile., Results: Among the 37,133 cases matched with 185,665 controls, the average age at diagnosis was 62 years. For the entire study duration, cases incurred an additional cost of $27,485 per year, compared with controls. Costs rose with disease severity, ranging from $15,588 for stage I to $137,319 for stage IV. The highest incremental costs occurred during the first 12 months after diagnosis (initial: $43,408), followed by the last 12 months before death (terminal: $25,940), and then interim years (continuous: $9,533 per year). Additionally, the incremental cost of breast cancer was higher when diagnosis was before age 70 ($28,415), compared with diagnosis at age 70 and older ($25,254)., Interpretation: The findings align with previous studies on breast cancer costs for the health care system. Additionally, variations in costs based on disease severity, care phase, and age were emphasized, highlighting higher costs for metastatic breast cancer cases, women younger than 70 years, and the initial 12 months following diagnosis.

Background: A prospective cohort study was undertaken within the PERSPECTIVE I&I project to evaluate healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with breast cancer risk assessment and screening and overall costs stratified by risk level, in Ontario, Canada., Methods: From July 2019 to December 2022, 1997 females aged 50 to 70 years consented to risk assessment and received their breast cancer risk level and personalized screening action plan in Ontario. The mean costs for risk-stratified screening-related activities included risk assessment, screening and diagnostic costs. The GETCOST macro from the Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) assessed the mean overall healthcare system costs., Results: For the 1997 participants, 83.3%, 14.4% and 2.3% were estimated to be average, higher than average, and high risk, respectively (median age (IQR): 60 [56-64] years). Stratification into the three risk levels was determined using the validated multifactorial CanRisk prediction tool that includes family history information, a polygenic risk score (PRS), breast density and established lifestyle/hormonal risk factors. The mean number of genetic counseling visits, mammograms and MRIs per individual increased with risk level. High-risk participants incurred the highest overall mean risk-stratified screening-related costs in 2022 CAD (±SD) at CAD 905 (±269) followed by CAD 580 (±192) and CAD 521 (±163) for higher-than-average and average-risk participants, respectively. Among the breast screening-related costs, the greatest cost burden across all risk groups was the risk assessment cost, followed by total diagnostic and screening costs. The mean overall healthcare cost per participant (±SD) was the highest for the average risk participants with CAD 6311 (±19,641), followed by higher than average risk with CAD 5391 (±8325) and high risk with CAD 5169 (±7676)., Conclusion: Although high-risk participants incurred the highest risk-stratified screening-related costs, their costs for overall healthcare utilization costs were similar to other risk levels. Our study underscored the importance of integrating risk stratification as part of the screening pathway to support breast cancer detection at an earlier and more treatable stage, thereby reducing costs and the overall burden on the healthcare system.

Background: To date, economic analyses of tissue-based next generation sequencing genomic profiling (NGS) for advanced solid tumors have typically required models with assumptions, with little real-world evidence on overall survival (OS), clinical trial enrollment or end-of-life quality of care., Methods: Cost consequence analysis of NGS testing (555 or 161-gene panels) for advanced solid tumors through the OCTANE clinical trial (NCT02906943). This is a longitudinal, propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada using linked administrative data. Patients enrolled in OCTANE at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from August 2016 until March 2019 were matched with contemporary patients without large gene panel testing from across Ontario not enrolled in OCTANE. Patients were matched according to 19 patient, disease and treatment variables. Full 2-year follow-up data was available. Sensitivity analyses considered alternative matched cohorts. Main Outcomes were mean per capita costs (2019 Canadian dollars) from a public payer's perspective, OS, clinical trial enrollment and end-of-life quality metrics., Findings: There were 782 OCTANE patients with 782 matched controls. Variables were balanced after matching (standardized difference <0.10). There were higher mean health-care costs with OCTANE ($79,702 vs. $59,550), mainly due to outpatient and specialist visits. Publicly funded drug costs were less with OCTANE ($20,015 vs. $24,465). OCTANE enrollment was not associated with improved OS (restricted mean survival time [standard error]: 1.50 (±0.03) vs. 1.44 (±0.03) years, log-rank p = 0.153), varying by tumor type. In five tumor types with ≥35 OCTANE patients, OS was similar in three (breast, colon, uterus, all p > 0.40), and greater in two (ovary, biliary, both p < 0.05). OCTANE was associated with greater clinical trial enrollment (25.4% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.001) and better end-of-life quality due to less death in hospital (10.2% vs. 16.4%, p = 0.003). Results were robust in sensitivity analysis., Interpretation: We found an increase in healthcare costs associated with multi-gene panel testing for advanced cancer treatment. The impact on OS was not significant, but varied across tumor types. OCTANE was associated with greater trial enrollment, lower publicly funded drug costs and fewer in-hospital deaths suggesting important considerations in determining the value of NGS panel testing for advanced cancers., Funding: T.P H holds a research grant provided by the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research through funding provided by the Government of Ontario (#IA-035 and P.HSR.158) and through funding of the Canadian Network for Learning Healthcare Systems and Cost-Effective 'Omics Innovation (CLEO) via Genome Canada (G05CHS)., Competing Interests: A.H reports research support from Gilead (to institution outside the submitted work). Honoraria for lectures from TTCC. Support for attending oncology meetings from Kyowa Kirin, MSD and Bristol Myers Squibb. P.B reports support for the present manuscript from Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation. Grants or contracts from BMS, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Novartis, Merck, SeaGen, Lilly, Amgen, Bicara Therapeutics, Zymeworks, Medicenna, Bayer and Takeda (all to institution). Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from the Myeloma Cancer Research Foundation, Lilly and Roche. Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group in the Breast International Group. D.W reports funding to institution from Genome British Columbia/Genome Canada (G05CHS). Consulting fees from Roche Canada and AstraZeneca Canada outside the submitted work. Support for attending meetings from Illumina and leadership role co-directing IMPRINT Research Consulting outside the submitted work. E.A reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis and Seagen. D.R reports grants funding from Roche to Institution outside the submitted work and support for attending meetings from Illumina. B.G reports consulting fees from Vivio Health. B.W reports grants from BMS unrelated to the present work and payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca. N.M reports grants or contracts from Genome Canada with funding for Breast Cancer Screening costing algorithm made to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the University of Toronto. Leadership or fiduciary role as full-time employee of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health outside the submitted work. A.R.A.R reports institutional support for the present manuscript from AstraZeneca, Deciphera, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, MedImmune, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Blueprint Medicines, Merck, AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Iterion Therapeutics, 23&Me, Rain Therapeutics, Neoleukin Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Symphogen, and Frontier Therapeutics. Consulting fees from Adaptimmune, Bayer, GlaxoSmithkline, Medison, Inhibrx. A.S reports grants or contract from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Symphogen, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck, Bayer, Surface Oncology, Northern Biologics, Jansen Oncology/Johnson & Johnson, Roche, Regeneron, Alkermes, Array Biompharma/Pfizer, GSK, Nubiyota, Oncorus, Treadwell, Amgen, ALX Oncology, Genentech, Seagen and Servier. Consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck (both compensated). T.S reports payment or honoraria from Illumina for presentation on molecular profiling. Participation on an Advisory Board with honoraria from AstraZeneca, Jansen, Pfizer, Merck and Bayer. L.L.S reports institutional support for clinical trials from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boerhinger-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche/Genentech, Karyopharm, AstraZeneca, Merck, Celgene, Astellas, Bayer, Abbvie, Amgen, Symphogen, Intensity Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Shattucks. Consulting/Advisory role from Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, Symphogen, Seattle Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Voronoi, Arvinas, Tessa, Navire, Relay, Rubius, Janpix, Daiichi Sanyko, Coherus, Marengo, InteRNA. Leadership or fiduciary role Treadwell Therapeutics (spouse) and stock or stock options at Agios (spouse). T.P.H reports leadership or fiduciary role Radiation Oncology Clinical Quality Lead for Ontario Health Cancer Care Ontario. The rest of the authors report no conflicts of interest., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the delivery of cancer care, but less is known about its association with place of death and delivery of specialized palliative care (SPC) and potential disparities in these outcomes., Objective: To evaluate the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life and to examine whether disparities in socioeconomic status exist for these outcomes., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, an interrupted time series analysis was conducted using Ontario Cancer Registry data comprising adult patients aged 18 years or older who died with cancer between the pre-COVID-19 (March 16, 2015, to March 15, 2020) and COVID-19 (March 16, 2020, to March 15, 2021) periods. The data analysis was performed between March and November 2023., Exposure: COVID-19-related hospital restrictions starting March 16, 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life (last 30 days before death). Socioeconomic status was measured using Ontario Marginalization Index area-based material deprivation quintiles, with quintile 1 (Q1) indicating the least deprivation; Q3, intermediate deprivation; and Q5, the most deprivation. Segmented linear regression was used to estimate monthly trends in outcomes before, at the start of, and in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic., Results: Of 173 915 patients in the study cohort (mean [SD] age, 72.1 [12.5] years; males, 54.1% [95% CI, 53.8%-54.3%]), 83.7% (95% CI, 83.6%-83.9%) died in the pre-COVID-19 period and 16.3% (95% CI, 16.1%-16.4%) died in the COVID-19 period, 54.5% (95% CI, 54.2%-54.7%) died at home during the entire study period, and 57.8% (95% CI, 57.5%-58.0%) received SPC at the end of life. In March 2020, home deaths increased by 8.3% (95% CI, 7.4%-9.1%); however, this increase was less marked in Q5 (6.1%; 95% CI, 4.4%-7.8%) than in Q1 (11.4%; 95% CI, 9.6%-13.2%) and Q3 (10.0%; 95% CI, 9.0%-11.1%). There was a simultaneous decrease of 5.3% (95% CI, -6.3% to -4.4%) in the rate of SPC at the end of life, with no significant difference among quintiles. Patients who received SPC at the end of life (vs no SPC) were more likely to die at home before and during the pandemic. However, there was a larger immediate increase in home deaths among those who received no SPC at the end of life vs those who received SPC (Q1, 17.5% [95% CI, 15.2%-19.8%] vs 7.6% [95% CI, 5.4%-9.7%]; Q3, 12.7% [95% CI, 10.8%-14.5%] vs 9.0% [95% CI, 7.2%-10.7%]). For Q5, the increase in home deaths was significant only for patients who did not receive SPC (13.9% [95% CI, 11.9%-15.8%] vs 1.2% [95% CI, -1.0% to 3.5%])., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with amplified socioeconomic disparities in death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life. Future research should focus on the mechanisms of these disparities and on developing interventions to ensure equitable and consistent SPC access.

Background: In 2007, Cancer Care Ontario began standardised symptom assessment as part of routine care using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS)., Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of ESAS on receipt of palliative care when compared with a matched group of unexposed patients., Design: A retrospective-matched cohort study examined the impact of ESAS screening on initiation of palliative care services provided by physicians or homecare nurses. The study included adult patients diagnosed with cancer between 2007 and 2015. Exposure was defined as completing ≥1 ESAS during the study period. Using 4 hard and 14 propensity score-matched variables, patients with cancer exposed to ESAS were matched 1:1 to those who were not. Matched patients were followed from first ESAS until initiation of palliative care, death or end of study., Results: The final cohort consisted of 204 688 matched patients with no prior palliative care consult. The pairs were well matched. The cumulative incidence of receiving palliative care within the first 5 years was higher among those exposed to ESAS compared with those who were not (27.9% (95% CI: 27.5% to 28.2%) versus 27.9% (95% CI: 27.5% to 28.2%)), when death is considered as a competing event. In the adjusted cause-specific Cox proportional hazards model, ESAS assessment was associated with a 6% increase in palliative care services (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.08)., Conclusion: We have demonstrated that patients exposed to ESAS were more likely to receive palliative care services compared with patients who were not exposed. This observation provides real-world data of the impact of routine assessment with a patient-reported outcome., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LB: Genentech (honorarium). DH: Carevive (consultancy fees, member of scientific advisory board)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Purpose: HPV-associated or positive (HPV+) anal cancer patients may have better outcome compared to those with HPV negative (HPV-) disease. We report a planned interim analysis of a prospective registry study that tailors chemoradiation (CRT) for anal cancer according to HPV status., Materials and Methods: HPV+ patients received de-escalated radiation doses of 45, 50.4 and 55.8 Gy, while HPV- received 50.4, 55.8 and 63 Gy for T1, T2 and T3/T4 disease respectively. Chemotherapy consisted of a single dose of mitomycin-C and oral capecitabine on days of RT. All patients were planned by VMAT following CT, PET/CT and MR simulation. This cohort (n = 24) had a minimum 24-month follow-up. Disease free survival (DFS) and local failure rates (LFR) were compared with 180 patients managed by standard CRT (2 cycles of mitomycin-C and 5-fluorouracil, radiation doses 50.4-63 Gy based on T-category) from 2011-2018. Propensity score comparison was performed using a retrospective to prospective 2 to 1 match based on tumor size and N-category., Results: In the HPV+ cohort (n = 20), there were 2 local failures. Two of 4 HPV- patients failed locally. The 30-month DFS and LFR were 79% and 17% respectively. Similar DFS and LFR were observed in the retrospective (80% and 15% respectively) and matched patients (76% and 16% respectively). No grade ≥3 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were observed in the registry cohort whereas 19% and 14% respectively were seen in the retrospective patients., Conclusion: De-escalation of CRT for HPV+ anal cancer may result in decreased acute toxicities and similar cancer outcomes compared to standard CRT., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Chu, Taggar, Ung, Chan, Earle, Karotki, Pasetka, Presutti, Wong, Zhang and Wong.)

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.)

Aims: First-line FOLFIRINOX (FOLinic acid, Fluorouracil, IRINotecan, and OXaliplatin) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been publicly funded for patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (uLAPC) in Ontario, Canada. We examined the overall survival and surgical resection rate after first-line FOLFIRINOX or GnP and determined the association between resection and overall survival in patients with uLAPC., Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective population-based study including patients with uLAPC who received first-line treatment FOLFIRINOX or GnP from April 2015 to March 2019. The cohort was linked to administrative databases to ascertain demographic and clinical characteristics. Propensity score methods were used to balance differences between FOLFIRINOX and GnP. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate overall survival. Cox regression was used to determine the association between receipt of treatment and overall survival, adjusting for time-dependent surgical resections., Results: We identified 723 patients with uLAPC (mean age = 65.8, 43.5% female) who received FOLFIRINOX (55.2%) or GnP (44.8%). The median overall survival and 1-year overall survival probability were higher for FOLFIRINOX (13.7 months, 54.6%) than for GnP (8.7 months, 34.0%). Post-chemotherapy surgical resection occurred in 89 (12.3%) patients (FOLFIRINOX: 74 [18.5%] versus GnP: 15 [4.6%]), with no difference in survival since surgery between FOLFIRINOX and GnP (P = 0.29). After adjusting time-dependent post-treatment surgical resection, FOLFIRINOX (inverse probability treatment weighting hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.61, 0.84) was independently associated with improved overall survival., Conclusions: In this real-world population-based study of patients with uLAPC, FOLFIRINOX was associated with improved survival and higher resection rates. FOLFIRINOX was associated with improved survival in patients with uLAPC after accounting for the effect of post-chemotherapy surgical resection, suggesting the benefit of FOLFIRINOX was not solely due to improving resectability., (Copyright © 2023 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Little is known about the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and early survival among newly diagnosed cancer patients., Methods: This retrospective population-based cohort study used linked administrative datasets from Ontario, Canada. Adults (≥18 years) who received a cancer diagnosis between March 15 and December 31, 2020, were included in a pandemic cohort, while those diagnosed during the same dates in 2018/2019 were included in a pre-pandemic cohort. All patients were followed for one full year after the date of diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess survival in relation to the pandemic, patient characteristics at diagnosis, and the modality of first cancer treatment as a time-varying covariate. Interaction terms were explored to measure the pandemic association with survival for each cancer type., Results: Among 179,746 patients, 53,387 (29.7%) were in the pandemic cohort and 37,741 (21.0%) died over the first post-diagnosis year. No association between the pandemic and survival was found when adjusting for patient characteristics at diagnosis (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.96-1.01]), while marginally better survival was found for the pandemic cohort when the modality of treatment was additionally considered (HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.95-0.99]). When examining each cancer type, only a new melanoma diagnosis was associated with a worse survival in the pandemic cohort (HR 1.25 [95% CI 1.05-1.49])., Conclusions: Among patients able to receive a cancer diagnosis during the pandemic, one-year overall survival was not different than those diagnosed in the previous 2 years. This study highlights the complex nature of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on cancer care., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: This systematic review aims to characterize the use and trends of instrumental variables (IVs) in oncology research, assess the quality and completeness of IV reporting, and evaluate the agreement and interpretation of IV results in comparison with other techniques used for determining comparative effectiveness in observational research., Methods: We performed a systematic search of observational empirical oncology papers evaluating the comparative effectiveness of cancer treatments using IV methods. EMBASE and MEDLINE (through June 2021) were used for a keyword search; Scopus and Web of Science were used for a citation search. Publication details and characteristics of IV analysis and reporting were extracted from each study to examine the uptake and quality of IV applications., Results: Sixty-five empirical papers were identified from February 2001 through June 2021. Geographic variation (50.8%) was the most common type of IV used, and the majority of IV applications constructed binary instruments (53.8%). Concurrent analyses using another non-IV method to adjust for confounding were conducted in 56 (86.2%) studies, 17 (30.4%) of which produced results divergent from IV approaches. We observed a modest uptake of IV methods between 2011 and 2021 together with its dissemination, which remained fairly limited to the United States (76.9%). The quality and completeness of IV reporting varied greatly. The underlying assumptions required for a valid IV analysis were only accounted for in full by 20 (30.8%) studies., Conclusion: There are limited use and variable quality of IV analyses in oncology. Future research should look to establish standards to better facilitate the quality, transparency, and completeness of IV reporting in this setting.

Background: The efficacy-effectiveness gap between randomized trial and real-world evidence regarding the clinical benefit of ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma (MM) has been well characterized by previous literature, consistent with initial concerns raised by health technology assessment agencies (HTAs). As these differences can significantly impact cost-effectiveness, it is critical to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab versus non-ipilimumab treatments for MM., Methods: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study of patients who received second-line non-ipilimumab therapies between 2008 and 2012 versus ipilimumab treatment between 2012 and 2015 (after public reimbursement) for MM in Ontario. Using a 5-year time horizon, censor-adjusted and discounted (1.5%) costs (from the public payer's perspective in Canadian dollars) and effectiveness were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in life-years gained (LYGs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with bootstrapping to capture uncertainty. Varying the discount rate and reducing the price of ipilimumab were done as sensitivity analyses., Results: In total, 329 MM were identified (Treated: 189; Controls: 140). Ipilimumab was associated with an incremental effectiveness of 0.59 LYG, incremental cost of $91,233, and ICER of $153,778/LYG. ICERs were not sensitive to discounting rate. Adjusting for quality of life using utility weights resulted in an ICER of $225,885/QALY, confirming the original HTA estimate prior to public reimbursement. Reducing the price of ipilimumab by 100% resulted in an ICER of $111,728/QALY., Conclusion: Despite its clinical benefit, ipilimumab as second-line monotherapy for MM patients is not cost-effective in the real world as projected by HTA under conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: The role of frailty in affecting survival in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) is increasingly recognized. Despite this, a paucity of data exists on the association between frailty and other clinically meaningful outcomes including health care resource utilization and costs of care., Methods: We linked the Ontario subset of the prospective Canadian MDS registry (including baseline patient/disease characteristics) to population-based health system administrative databases. Baseline frailty was calculated from the 15-item MDS-specific frailty scale (FS-15). Primary outcomes were public health care utilization and 30-day standardized costs of care (2019 Canadian dollars) determined for each phase of disease (initial, continuation, and terminal phases). Negative binomial regression was used to assess the association between frailty and health care costs with Poisson regression to explore predictors of hospitalization., Results: Among 461 patients with complete FS-15 scores, 374 (81.1%) had a hospitalization with a mean length of stay of 10.6 days. Controlling for age, comorbidities, Revised International Prognostic Scoring System, and transfusion dependence, the FS-15 was independently associated with hospitalization during the initial ( P = .02) and continuation ( P = .01) phases but not the terminal disease phase ( P = .09). The mean 30-day standardized cost per patient was $8,499 (median, $6,295; interquartile range, $2,798-$11,996), largely driven by cancer clinic visits and hospitalization. On multivariable analysis, the FS-15 was independently associated with costs of care during the initial disease phase ( P = .02)., Conclusion: We demonstrate an association between frailty and clinically meaningful outcomes including hospitalization and costs of care in patients with MDS. Our results suggest that baseline frailty may help to inform patients and physicians of expected outcomes.

Context: Many adolescents and young adults (AYAs; 15-39 years) with cancer receive high intensity (HI) care at the end of life (EOL). Palliative care (PC) involvement in this population is associated with lower risk of HI-EOL care. Whether this association differs by specialized vs. generalist PC (SPC, GPC) is unknown., Objectives: (1) To evaluate whether SPC had an impact on the intensity of EOL care received by AYAs with cancer; (2) to determine which subpopulations are at highest risk for reduced access to SPC., Methods: A decedent cohort of AYAs with cancer who died between 2000-2017 in Ontario, Canada was identified using registry and population-based data. The primary composite measure of HI-EOL care included any of: intravenous chemotherapy <14 days from death; more than one ED visit, more than one hospitalization or any ICU admission <30 days from death. Physician's billing codes were used to define SPC and GPC involvement., Results: Of 7122 AYA decedents, 2140 (30%) received SPC and 943 (13%) received GPC. AYAs who died in earlier years, those with hematologic malignancies, males and rural AYAs were least likely to receive SPC. No PC involvement was associated with higher odds of receiving HI-EOL care (odds ratio (OR) 1.5; P < 0.0001). SPC involvement was associated with the lowest risk of HI-EOL care (OR SPC vs. GPC 0.8; P = 0.007) and decreased odds of ICU admission (OR 0.7; P = 0.006)., Conclusion: SPC involvement was associated with the lowest risk of HI-EOL care in AYAs with cancer. However, access to SPC remains a challenge., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The impact of COVID-19 on the modality and timeliness of first-line cancer treatment is unclear yet critical to the planning of subsequent care., Objective: To explore the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with modalities of and wait times for first cancer treatment., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective population-based cohort study using administrative data was conducted in Ontario, Canada, among adults newly diagnosed with cancer between January 3, 2016, and November 7, 2020. Participants were followed up from date of diagnosis for 1 year, until death, or until June 26, 2021, whichever occurred first, to ensure a minimum of 6-month follow-up time., Exposures: Receiving a cancer diagnosis in the pandemic vs prepandemic period, using March 15, 2020, the date when elective hospital procedures were halted., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was a time-to-event variable describing number of days from date of diagnosis to date of receiving first cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation) or to being censored. For each treatment modality, a multivariable competing-risk regression model was used to assess the association between time to treatment and COVID-19 period. A secondary continuous outcome was defined for patients who were treated 6 months after diagnosis as the waiting time from date of diagnosis to date of treatment., Results: Among 313 499 patients, the mean (SD) age was 66.4 (14.1) years and 153 679 (49.0%) were male patients. Those who were diagnosed during the pandemic were less likely to receive surgery first (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99) but were more likely to receive chemotherapy (sHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.23-1.30) or radiotherapy (sHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20) first. Among patients who received treatment within 6 months from diagnosis (228 755 [73.0%]), their mean (SD) waiting time decreased from 35.1 (37.2) days to 29.5 (33.6) days for surgery, from 43.7 (34.1) days to 38.4 (30.6) days for chemotherapy, and from 55.8 (41.8) days to 49.0 (40.1) days for radiotherapy., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the pandemic was significantly associated with greater use of nonsurgical therapy as initial cancer treatment. Wait times were shorter in the pandemic period for those treated within 6 months of diagnosis. Future work needs to examine how these changes may have affected patient outcomes to inform future pandemic guideline development.

No population-based study exists to demonstrate the full-spectrum impact of COVID-19 on hindering incident cancer detection in a large cancer system. Building upon our previous publication in JNCCN, we conducted an updated analysis using 12 months of new data accrued in the pandemic era (extending the study period from September 26, 2020, to October 2, 2021) to demonstrate how multiple COVID-19 waves affected the weekly cancer incidence volume in Ontario, Canada, and if we have fully cleared the backlog at the end of each wave.

Due to the ramping down of cancer surgery in early pandemic, many newly diagnosed patients received other treatments first. We aimed to quantify the pandemic-related shift in rate of surgery following chemotherapy. This is a retrospective population-based cohort study involving adults diagnosed with cancer between 3 January 2016 and 7 November 2020 in Ontario, Canada who received chemotherapy as first treatment within 6-months of diagnosis. Competing-risks regression models with interaction effects were used to quantify the association between COVID-19 period (receiving a cancer diagnosis before or on/after 15 March 2020) and receipt of surgical reSection 9-months after first chemotherapy. Among 51,653 patients, 8.5% ( n = 19,558) of them ultimately underwent surgery 9-months after chemotherapy initiation. Receipt of surgery was higher during the pandemic than before (sHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13). Material deprivation was independently associated with lower receipt of surgery (least vs. most deprived quintile: sHR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04-1.17), but did not change with the pandemic. The surgical rate increase was most pronounced for breast cancer (sHR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.20). These pandemic-related shifts in cancer treatment requires further evaluations to understand the long-term consequences. Persistent material deprivation-related inequity in cancer surgical access needs to be addressed.

Background: There are no randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) and fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Although it is well known that RCT-based efficacy often does not translate to real-world effectiveness, there is limited literature investigating comparative cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC. We aimed to examine the real-world cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario, Canada., Methods: This study compared patients treated with first-line Gem-Nab or FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario from April 2015 to March 2019. Patients were linked to administrative databases. Using propensity scores and a stabilizing weights method, an inverse probability of treatment weighted cohort was developed. Mean survival and total costs were calculated over a 5-year time horizon, adjusted for censoring, and discounted at 1.5%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit were computed to estimate cost-effectiveness from the public health-care payer's perspective. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the propensity score matching method., Results: A total of 1988 patients were identified (Gem-Nab: n = 928; FOLFIRINOX: n = 1060). Mean survival was lower for patients in the Gem-Nab than the FOLFIRINOX group (0.98 vs 1.26 life-years; incremental effectiveness = -0.28 life-years [95% confidence interval = -0.47 to -0.13]). Patients in the Gem-Nab group incurred greater mean 5-year total costs (Gem-Nab: $103 884; FOLFIRINOX: $101 518). Key cost contributors include ambulatory cancer care, acute inpatient hospitalization, and systemic therapy drug acquisition. Gem-Nab was dominated by FOLFIRINOX, as it was less effective and more costly. Results from the sensitivity analysis were similar., Conclusions: Gem-Nab is likely more costly and less effective than FOLFIRINOX and therefore not considered cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)