Search

Objectives: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating the comparative efficacy and safety of new cancer therapies. However, enrolling patients in control arms of clinical trials can be challenging for rare cancers, particularly in the context of precision oncology and targeted therapies. External Control Arms (ECAs) are a potential solution to address these challenges in clinical research design. We conducted a scoping review to explore the use of ECAs in oncology. Methods: We systematically searched four databases, namely MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligible articles focusing on patients undergoing therapy for cancer, employing ECAs, and reporting clinical outcomes. Results: Of the 629 articles screened, 23 were included in this review. The earliest included studies were published in 1996, while most studies were published in the past 5 years. 44% (10/23) of ECAs were employed in blood‐related cancer studies. Geographically, 30% (7/23) of studies were conducted in the United States, 22% (5/23) in Japan, and 9% (2/23) in South Korea. The primary data sources used to construct the ECAs involved pooled data from previous trials (35%, 8/23), administrative health databases (17%, 4/23) and electronic medical records (17%, 4/23). While 52% (12/23) of the studies employed methods to align treatment and ECAs characteristics, 48% (11/23) lacked explicit strategies. Conclusion: ECAs offer a valuable approach in oncology research, particularly when alternative designs are not feasible. However, careful methodological planning and detailed reporting are essential for meaningful and reliable results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Background: The COVID-19 pandemic illuminated vulnerabilities in the Canadian health care system and exposed gaps and challenges across the cancer care continuum. Canada is experiencing significant disruptions to cancer-related services, and the impact these disruptions (delays/deferrals/cancellations) have on the health care system and patients are yet to be determined. Given the potential adverse ramifications, how can Canada's health care systems build resilience for future threats? (2) Methods: To answer this question, CCC facilitated a series of four thought-leadership roundtables, each representing the views of four different stakeholder groups: patients, physicians, health care system leaders, and researchers. (3) Results: Six themes of strength were identified to serve as a springboard for building resilience including, (1) advancing virtual care and digital health technologies to prevent future interruptions in cancer care delivery. (2) developing real-time data metrics, data sharing, and evidence-based decision-making. (3) enhancing public–private-non-profit partnerships to advance research and strengthen connections across the system. (4) advancing patient-centricity in cancer research to drive and encourage precision medicine approaches to care. (5) investing in training and hiring a robust supply of health care human resources. (6) implementing a national strategy and infrastructure to ensure inter-provincial collaborative data sharing (4). Conclusions: A resilient health care system that can respond to shocks and threats is not an emergency system; it is a robust everyday system that can respond to emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The incidence of early-onset (<50 years of age) colorectal cancer (eoCRC) has been steadily increasing in high-income countries including Canada. Despite this increase in incidence, the etiology of eoCRC remains unclear and prospective cohort studies of potential risk factors are limited., Methods: We examined two prospective cohorts of healthy individuals (<50 years of age) who completed baseline questionnaires in the Ontario Health Study and Alberta's Tomorrow Project. We examined the associations between demographic characteristics, chronic health conditions, and lifestyle behaviours with the development of eoCRC using Cox proportional hazard models. Cohorts were analyzed separately and hazard ratios for each risk factor were pooled with random effects meta-analyses., Results: During an average follow-up of 6.63 years, 98 eoCRC cases occurred among study participants (n=127,852). A family history of CRC alone or with a history of other cancer types was associated with an increased risk of developing eoCRC (HR: 2.76, 95% CI: 1.43-5.32), but a family history of a non-CRC cancer only was not (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.61-2.30). Heavy smokers (≥ 10 pack-years) at baseline had a higher risk of eoCRC compared to non-smokers (HR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.00-3.52). Sex, socioeconomic factors, diabetes, alcohol consumption, among other factors were not significantly associated with the risk of eoCRC., Conclusion: Our findings indicate that specific CRC risk factors are also associated with developing eoCRC. The data in the study offers valuable insights that could be integrated in future meta-analyses. Additional prospective cohort studies are required to understand the etiology of eoCRC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)