Search

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in unprecedented changes to cancer care in many countries, impacting cancer patients’ lives in numerous ways. This study examines the impact of changes in cancer care on patient’s health-related quality of life (HRQL), which is a key outcome in cancer care. The study aims to estimate patients’ self-reported HRQL before and during the pandemic and identify predictive factors for their physical and mental wellbeing. Method The study employed the large-scale Outpatient Cancer Care (OCC) Patient Experience Survey, including the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, to evaluate cancer patients’ experiences and HRQL before (January to May 2020) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (May to July 2021). Paired t-tests were conducted to compare differences in Physical Component Scores (PCS) and Mental Component Scores (MCS) before and during the pandemic. Multivariable linear regressions were employed to investigate the factors (sociodemographic, clinical, and patient-reported experience) influencing PCS and MCS during the pandemic. Results PCS decreased significantly during the pandemic, while MCS remained stable. Lower PCS contributors included older age, more telehealth visits, self-reported hospitalization, and a longer time since the last cancer diagnosis. Higher PCS was associated with urban residence, higher MCS during the pandemic, and perceived active Healthcare Provider (HCP) involvement. For MCS, lower scores related to female gender and more telehealth visits, while higher scores were associated with being white, higher education, high MCS before the pandemic, and perceived active HCP involvement. Conclusion The OCC Patient Experience Survey provides a unique patient level data set measuring HRQL pre- and post- the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study highlights challenges faced by cancer patients during the pandemic, with a significant reduction in PCS. However, the stability in MCS suggests effective coping mechanisms. Sociodemographic, clinical, and telehealth-related variables play a complex role in shaping both PCS and MCS. Perceived HCP involvement emerges as a crucial factor correlating with higher PCS and MCS. Navigating the post-pandemic era necessitates interventions fortifying patient-provider relationships, optimizing healthcare support systems, such as telehealth services, and prioritizing mental-well-being given its impact on both PCS and MCS.

Niraparib was recently funded in Canada for the maintenance treatment of ovarian cancer following platinum-based chemotherapy. However, the drug’s safety profile in the real world remains uncertain. We conducted a cohort study to describe the patient population using niraparib and the proportion that experienced adverse events between June 2019 and December 2022 in four Canadian provinces (Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia [BC], and Quebec). We used administrative data and electronic medical records from Ontario Health, Alberta Health Services, and BC Cancer, and registry data from Exactis Innovation. We summarized baseline characteristics using descriptive statistics and reported safety outcomes using cumulative incidence. We identified 514 patients receiving niraparib. Mean age was 67 years and most were initiated on a daily dose of 100 or 200 mg/day. Grade 3/4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 11–16% of the cohort. In Ontario, the three-month cumulative incidence of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was 11.6% (95% CI, 8.3–15.4%), neutropenia was 7.1% (95% CI, 4.6–10.4%), and anemia was 11.3% (95% CI, 8.0–15.2%). Cumulative incidences in the remaining provinces were similar. Initial daily dose and proportions of hematological adverse events were low in the real world and may be related to cautious prescribing and close monitoring by clinicians.

Over the last two decades, patient engagement in cancer research has evolved significantly, especially in addressing the unique challenges faced by adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer populations. This paper introduces a framework for meaningful engagement with AYA cancer patient research partners, drawing insights from the “FUTURE” Study, a qualitative study that utilizes focus groups to explore the impact of cancer diagnosis and treatment on the sexual and reproductive health of AYA cancer patients in Canada. The framework’s development integrates insights from prior works and addresses challenges with patient engagement in research specific to AYA cancer populations. The framework is guided by overarching principles (safety, flexibility, and sensitivity) and includes considerations that apply across all phases of a research study (collaboration; iteration; communication; and equity, diversity, and inclusion) and tasks that apply to specific phases of a research study (developing, conducting, and translating the study). The proposed framework seeks to increase patient engagement in AYA cancer research beyond a supplementary aspect to an integral component for conducting research with impact on patients.

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration developed an MCDA rating tool to assess and prioritize potential post-market real-world evidence (RWE) questions/uncertainties emerging from public drug funding decisions in Canada. In collaboration with a group of multidisciplinary stakeholders from across Canada, the rating tool was developed following a three-step process: (1) selection of criteria to assess the importance and feasibility of an RWE question; (2) development of rating scales, application of weights and calculating aggregate scores; and (3) validation testing. An initial MCDA rating tool was developed, composed of seven criteria, divided into two groups. Group A criteria assess the importance of an RWE question by examining the (1) drug’s perceived clinical benefit, (2) magnitude of uncertainty identified, and (3) relevance of the uncertainty to decision-makers. Group B criteria assess the feasibility of conducting an RWE analysis including the (1) feasibility of identifying a comparator, (2) ability to identify cases, (3) availability of comprehensive data, and (4) availability of necessary expertise and methodology. Future directions include partnering with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health’s Provincial Advisory Group for further tool refinement and to gain insight into incorporating the tool into drug funding deliberations.

Summary: Background: Shifting from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening will initially increase colposcopy referrals. The anticipated impact on health systems has been raised as a concern for implementation. It is unclear if the higher rate of colposcopy referrals is sustained after initial HPV-based screens or reverts to new lower baselines due to earlier detection and treatment of precancer. This study aimed to investigate long-term rates of colposcopy referrals after participation in HPV-based screening. Methods: Participants of HPV for Cervical Cancer Screening trial (HPV FOCAL) received one (HPV1, N = 6204) or two (HPV2, N = 9540) HPV-based screens. After exit, they returned to British Columbia's (BC) cytology screening program. A comparison cohort from the BC screening population (BCS, N = 1,140,745) was identified, mirroring trial inclusion criteria. All participants were followed for 10–14 years through the provincial screening registry. Colposcopy referral rates per 1000 screens were calculated for each group. Trial colposcopy referrals for HPV1 and HPV2 were calculated under two referral scenarios: (1) all HPV positive referred to colposcopy; (2) cytology triage with ASCUS or greater referred to colposcopy. Colposcopy referrals from post-trial screens in HPV1 an HPV2 and all screens in BCS were based on actual recommendations from the screening program. A multivariable flexible survival regression model compared hazard ratios (HR) throughout follow-up. Findings: Scenario 2 referral rates were higher during initial HPV screen(s) vs cytology screen (HPV1: 28 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 24, 33), HPV2: 32 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 29, 36), BCS: 8 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 8.9)). However, post-trial rates in HPV1 and HPV2 were significantly lower than in BCS. Cumulative rates in HPV1 and HPV2 approached the cumulative rate in BCS 11–12 years after HPV-based screening (HPV1: 11 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 10, 12), HPV2: 16 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 15–17), BCS: 11 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 10, 11)). Adjusted models demonstrated reductions in referral rates in HPV1 (HR = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.5, 0.7) and HPV2 (HR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6, 0.8) relative to BCS by 54 and 72 months post-final HPV screen respectively. Interpretation: Reduced colposcopy referral rates were observed after initial rounds of HPV-based screening. After initial HPV screening, referral rates to colposcopy after cytology triage were below the current rates seen in a centralized cytology program after approximately four years. Any expected increase in referrals at initiation of HPV-based screening could be countered by staged program implementation. Funding: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA221918), Michael Smith Health Research BC (RT-2021-1595), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MCT82072).

Abstract Background Given the rising incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer (yCRC) among individuals younger than 50 years old, understanding the economic burden of yCRC is required to inform the delivery of healthcare services. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the direct medical costs of yCRC, and where relevant average-age onset CRC (aCRC). Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to May 2022 for original, peer-reviewed studies, that reported direct medical costs (e.g., chemotherapy, radiotherapy, outpatient visits, inpatient care, prescription medications) for yCRC and aCRC. We used a modified version of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist to appraise the studies. Costs were inflation-adjusted to 2020 US dollars. Results We included 14 studies from 10 countries, including the USA, England, France, Korea, Vietnam, China, Italy, Australia, Canada and Japan. Five studies focused on prevalent disease and reported annualized per-capita cost of prevalent yCRC, ranging from $2,263 to $16,801 and $1,412 to $14,997 among yCRC and aCRC cases, respectively. Nine studies estimated the cost of incident disease. Synthesis of per-capita costs incurred 12 months following colorectal cancer diagnosis ranged from $23,368 to $89,945 for yCRC and $19,929 to $67,195 for aCRC. Five studies used multivariable approaches to compare costs associated with yCRC and aCRC, four showed no differences and one suggested greater costs with yCRC. Conclusion Our synthesis of direct medical costs of yCRC across multiple jurisdictions provide relevant information for healthcare decisions, including on-going considerations for expanding CRC screening strategies to younger adults.

Background: Patients have had their cancer care either postponed or changed to telehealth visits to reduce exposure to COVID-19. However, it is unclear how these changes may have affected their experiences. We aim to identify patient characteristics that affect telehealth experiences and evaluate their preferences for using telehealth in the future. Methods: Patients who completed the Outpatient Cancer Care (OCC) Patient Experience Survey were invited to participate. They comepleted the modified OCC Survey, which focused on telehealth during the pandemic. Linear and logistic regression analyses were used to identify patient characteristics that influenced telehealth experiences and preferences for future telehealth use. Results: Perceived ease of participation in telehealth is a significant predictor of the change in patients’ ratings of their telehealth experience. We found that cancer patients had lower preferences for using telehealth in the future if they were older, female, or non-white; resided in an urban area; had no previous telehealth experience; had lower education; and had poorer mental health. Conclusions: To optimize cancer care and improve equitable access to high-quality telehealth care during the pandemic and beyond, clinicians and policymakers will need to consider patients’ self-reported experiences and their personal characteristics.

Self-collection may provide an opportunity for innovation within population-based human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer screening programs by providing an alternative form of engagement for all individuals. The primary objective was to determine willingness to self-collect a vaginal sample for primary HPV screening and factors that impact willingness in individuals who participated in the Human Papillomavirus For Cervical Cancer (HPV FOCAL) screening trial, a large randomized controlled cervical screening trial. A cross-sectional online survey was distributed between 2017 and 2018 to 13,176 eligible participants exiting the FOCAL trial. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression assessed factors that influence willingness to self-collect on 4945 respondents. Overall, 52.1% of respondents indicated willingness to self-collect an HPV sample. In multivariable analysis, the odds of willingness to self-collect were significantly higher in participants who agreed that screening with an HPV test instead of a Pap test was acceptable to them (odds ratio (OR): 1.45 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15, 1.82), those who indicated that collecting their own HPV sample was acceptable to them (p < 0.001), and those with higher educational ascertainment (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.54). The findings offer insight into the intentions to self-collect in those already engaged in screening, and can inform cervical cancer screening programs interested in offering alternative approaches to HPV-based screening.

Given the increasing incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer (yCRC;

Canadian provinces routinely collect patient-level data for administrative purposes. These real-world data (RWD) can be used to generate real-world evidence (RWE) to inform clinical care and healthcare policy. The CanREValue Collaboration is developing a framework for the use of RWE in cancer drug funding decisions. A Data Working Group (WG) was established to identify data assets across Canada for generating RWE of oncology drugs. The mapping exercise was conducted using an iterative scan with informant surveys and teleconference. Data experts from ten provinces convened for a total of three teleconferences and two in-person meetings from March 2018 to September 2019. Following each meeting, surveys were developed and shared with the data experts which focused on identifying databases and data elements, as well as a feasibility assessment of conducting RWE studies using existing data elements and resources. Survey responses were compiled into an interim data report, which was used for public stakeholder consultation. The feedback from the public consultation was used to update the interim data report. We found that databases required to conduct real-world studies are often held by multiple different data custodians. Ninety-seven databases were identified across Canada. Provinces held on average 9 distinct databases (range: 8–11). An Essential RWD Table was compiled that contains data elements that are necessary, at a minimal, to conduct an RWE study. An Expanded RWD Table that contains a more comprehensive list of potentially relevant data elements was also compiled and the availabilities of these data elements were mapped. While most provinces have data on patient demographics (e.g., age, sex) and cancer-related variables (e.g., morphology, topography), the availability and linkability of data on cancer treatment, clinical characteristics (e.g., morphology and topography), and drug costs vary among provinces. Based on current resources, data availability, and access processes, data experts in most provinces noted that more than 12 months would be required to complete an RWE study. The CanREValue Collaboration’s Data WG identified key data holdings, access considerations, as well as gaps in oncology treatment-specific data. This data catalogue can be used to facilitate future oncology-specific RWE analyses across Canada.

Background: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer diagnosis among men. Family caregivers (often female spouses) play a key role in ensuring patients’ needs are met, frequently assuming their role with no formal training, which can contribute to a high burden. The purpose of this study was to pilot TEMPO—the first dyadic, Tailored, wEb-based, psychosocial and physical activity self-Management PrOgram for men with prostate cancer and their caregivers. Methods: 49 men with prostate cancer and their caregivers were randomized to TEMPO or usual care. Baseline and follow-up questionnaires were completed to assess feasibility, acceptability, and clinical significance. A priori benchmarks for these outcomes were set. Thirteen exit interviews were conducted to further explore acceptability. Results: Feasibility benchmarks were met with the exception for recruitment with on average 6.1 dyads recruited/month (benchmark: 8 dyads/month). Benchmarks of acceptability focused on attrition (

IntroductionThe aim of our study was to assess the initial impact of COVID-19 on total publicly-funded direct healthcare costs and health services use in two Canadian provinces, Ontario and British Columbia (BC).MethodsThis retrospective repeated cross-sectional study used population-based administrative datasets, linked within each province, from January 1, 2018 to December 27, 2020. Interrupted time series analysis was used to estimate changes in the level and trends of weekly resource use and costs, with March 16-22, 2020 as the first pandemic week. Also, in each week of 2020, we identified cases with their first positive SARS-CoV-2 test and estimated their healthcare costs until death or December 27, 2020.ResultsThe resources with the largest level declines (95% confidence interval) in use in the first pandemic week compared to the previous week were physician services [Ontario: -43% (-49%,-37%); BC: -24% (-30%,-19%) (both pConclusionsReduced utilization of healthcare services in the overall population outweighed utilization by COVID-19 patients in 2020. Meeting the needs of all patients across all services is essential to maintain resilient healthcare systems.

This retrospective cohort study of cancer decedents during 2004–2015 examined end-of-life cancer care quality indicators (QIs) in the provinces of British Columbia (BC), Ontario, and Nova Scotia (NS). These included: emergency department use, in-patient hospitalization, intensive care unit admissions, physician house calls, home care visits, and death experienced in hospital. Ontario saw the greatest 12-year decrease in in-hospital deaths from 52.8% to 41.1%. Hospitalization rates within 30 days of death decreased in Ontario, increased in NS, and remained the same in BC. Ontario’s usage of aggressive end-of-life measures changed very little, while BC increased their utilization rates. Supportive care use increased in both NS and Ontario. Those who were male or living in a lower income/smaller community (in Ontario) were associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving supportive care. Despite the shift in focus to providing hospice and home care services, approximately 50% of oncology patients are still dying in hospital and 11.7% of patients overall are subject to aggressive care measures that may be out of line with their desire for comfort care. Supportive care use is increasing, but providers must ensure that Canadians are connected to palliative services, as its utilization improves a wide variety of outcomes.

Objective To summarise peer-reviewed evidence on the effect of a cancer diagnosis on the different sources of income of individuals diagnosed with cancer during adulthood (age ≥18 years).Design A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute’s methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews and reporting results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.Data sources Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, Econ-Lit and Evidence-based Medicine Reviews, and reference lists of evidence syntheses. Published literature of any study type in English was searched from January 2000 to December 2020.Eligibility and criteria Study participants were individuals diagnosed with cancer during adulthood (age ≥18 years). Studies from any country and/or healthcare system were included. Primary outcomes were employment income (eg, individual or household); investment income (eg, stocks/bonds, properties, savings); government transfer payments (eg, disability income/pension); debt and bankruptcy.Data extraction and synthesis Findings are summarised descriptively and in tabular form.Results From 6297 citations retrieved, 63 studies (67 articles) met our inclusion criteria. Most (51%) were published in 2016–2020; 65% were published in the USA or Scandinavia. Survivors incurred debt (24 studies), depleted savings (13 studies) and liquidated stocks/bonds (7 studies) in response to a cancer diagnosis. 41 studies reported changes to employment income; of these, 12 case–control studies reported varying results: 5 reported survivors earned less than controls, 4 reported no significant differences, 2 reported mixed results and 1 reported income increased. Initial declines in income tended to lessen over time.Conclusions Cancer’s impact on survivors’ income is complex and time-varying. Longitudinal studies are needed to document the trend of initial declines in income, with declines lessening over time, and its variations. Study designs using standardised income measures and capturing treatment type and follow-up time will improve our understanding of cancer’s impact on survivors’ income.

Over the years, there have been significant advances in oncology. However, the rate that therapeutics come to market has increased, while the strength of evidence has decreased. Currently, there is limited understanding about how these uncertainties are managed in provincial funding decisions for cancer therapeutics. We conducted qualitative interviews with six senior officials from four different Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, and Ontario) and a document review of the uncertainties found in submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR). Participants reported considerable uncertainty related to a lack of solid clinical evidence (early-phase clinical trials: generalizability, immature data, and the use of unvalidated surrogate outcomes). Proposed strategies to deal with the uncertainty included risk-sharing agreements, collection of real-world evidence (RWE), and ongoing collaboration between federal groups and provinces. The document review added to the reported uncertainties by classifying them into five main categories: trial validity, population, comparators, outcomes, and intervention. This study highlights how decision makers must deal with significant amounts of uncertainty in funding decisions for cancer drugs, most of which stems from methodological limitations in clinical trials. There is a critical need for transparent priority-setting processes and mechanisms to reevaluate drugs to ensure benefit given the high level of uncertainty of novel therapeutics.

Abstract The Human Papillomavirus FOr CervicAL cancer (HPV FOCAL) trial is a large randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of primary HPV testing to cytology among women in the population‐based Cervix Screening Program in British Columbia, Canada. We conducted a cost‐effectiveness analysis based on the HPV FOCAL trial to estimate the incremental cost per detected high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse lesions (CIN2+). A total of 19,009 women aged 25 to 65 were randomized to one of two study groups. Women in the intervention group received primary HPV testing with reflex liquid‐based cytology (LBC) upon a positive finding with a screening interval of 48 months. Women in the control group received primary LBC testing, and those negative returned at 24 months for LBC and again at 48 months for exit screening. Both groups received HPV and LBC co‐testing at the 48‐month exit. Incremental costs during the course of the trial were comparable between the intervention and control groups. The intervention group had lower overall costs and detected a larger number of CIN2+ lesions, resulting in a lower mean cost per CIN2+ detected ($7551) than the control group ($8325), a difference of ‐$773 [all costs in 2018 USD]. Cost per detected lesion was sensitive to the costs of sample collection, HPV testing, and LBC testing. The HPV FOCAL Trial results suggest that primary HPV testing every 4 years produces similar outcomes to LBC‐based testing every 2 years for cervical cancer screening at a lower cost.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and second leading cause of cancer death in Canada. Organized screening programs targeting Canadians aged 50 to 74 at average risk of developing the disease have contributed to decreased rates of CRC, improved patient outcomes and reduced healthcare costs. However, data shows that recent incidence reductions are unique to the screening-age population, while rates in people under-50 are on the rise. Similar incidence patterns in the United States prompted the American Cancer Society and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to recommend screening begin at age 45 rather than 50. We conducted a review of screening practices in Canada, framing them in the context of similar global health systems as well as the evidence supporting the recent U.S. recommendations. Epidemiologic changes in Canada suggest earlier screening initiation in average-risk individuals may be reasonable, but the balance of costs to benefits remains unclear.

Abstract Background Prostate cancer predisposes patients and caregivers to a wide range of complex physical and psychosocial challenges, and interventions must incorporate a wide range of self-management strategies to help patients and their caregivers effectively cope with cancer challenges. To palliate this need, our team recently developed and evaluated the initial acceptability of a dyadic, Tailored, wEb-based, psychosocial, and physical activity self-Management PrOgram (TEMPO). TEMPO is a 10-week, interactive, web-based intervention consisting of five modules designed to help dyads manage their physical and psychosocial needs. It aims to teach dyads new self-management strategies and encourages them to increase their physical activity (PA) levels, mainly through walking and strength-based exercises. Initial acceptability evaluation of TEMPO revealed high user satisfaction, in addition to having a number of potential benefits for participants. After integrating suggested changes to TEMPO, the proposed pilot study aims to further test the acceptability and feasibility of TEMPO. Methods This study is a multicenter, stratified, parallel, two-group, pilot randomized control trial (RCT), where patient–caregiver dyads are randomized (stratified by anxiety level) to receive (a) TEMPO or (b) usual care. Participants (n goal = 40) are recruited across Canada at participating cancer centers and through self-referral (e.g., online recruitment). Patient inclusion criteria are (a) having received prostate cancer treatment within the past 2 years or scheduled to receive treatment, (b) identified a primary caregiver willing to participate in the study, and (c) has access to the Internet. Eligible caregivers are those identified by the patient as his primary source of support. Dyads complete a baseline questionnaire (T1) and another one 3 months later (T2) assessing various aspects of physical and emotional functioning (e.g., the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)), self-management behaviors (e.g., the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ)), physical activity (the International Physical Activity Questionnaires (IPAQ) and the Multidimensional Self-efficacy for Exercise Scale (MSES)), and dyadic coping (the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI)). Dyads that used TEMPO are also asked to participate in a semi-structured exit interview exploring their overall experience with the program. Discussion This feasibility analysis will begin to develop the knowledge base on TEMPO’s value for men with prostate cancer and their caregivers to inform a larger trial. Trial registration NCT04304196

Background. Real-world evidence can be a valuable tool when clinical trial data are incomplete or uncertain. Bevacizumab was adopted as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on significant survival improvements in initial clinical trials; however, survival benefit diminished in subsequent analyses. Consequently, there is uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab therapy achieved in practice. Objective. To assess real-world cost-effectiveness of first-line bevacizumab with irinotecan-based chemotherapy versus irinotecan-based chemotherapy alone for mCRC in British Columbia (BC), Saskatchewan, and Ontario, Canada. Methods. Using provincial cancer registries and linked administrative databases, we identified mCRC patients who initiated publicly funded irinotecan-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, in 2000 to 2015. We compared bevacizumab-treated patients to historical controls (treated before bevacizumab funding) and contemporaneous controls (receiving chemotherapy without bevacizumab), using inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting with propensity scores to balance baseline covariates. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) using 5-year cost and survival adjusted for censoring, with bootstrapping to characterize uncertainty. We also conducted one-way sensitivity analysis for key drivers of cost-effectiveness. Results. The cohorts included 12,112 (Ontario), 1,161 (Saskatchewan), and 2,977 (BC) patients. Bevacizumab significantly increased treatment costs, with mean ICERs between $78,000 and $84,000/LYG (life-year gained) in the contemporaneous comparisons and $75,000 and $101,000/LYG in the historical comparisons. Reducing the cost of bevacizumab by 50% brought ICERs in all comparisons below $61,000/LYG. Limitations. Residual confounding in observational data may bias results, while the use of original list prices overestimates current bevacizumab cost. Conclusion. The addition of bevacizumab to irinotecan-based chemotherapy extended survival for mCRC patients but at significant cost. At original list prices bevacizumab can only be considered cost-effective with certainty at a willingness-to-pay threshold over $100,000/LYG, but price reductions or discounts have a significant impact on cost-effectiveness.

Abstract Background Health system expenditure on cancer drugs is rising rapidly in many OECD countries given the costly new treatments and increased rates of use due to a growing and ageing population. These factors put considerable strain on the sustainability of health systems worldwide, sparking public debate among clinicians, pharmaceutical companies, policy-makers and citizens on issues of affordability and equity. We engaged Canadians through a series of deliberative public engagement events to determine their priorities for making cancer drug funding decisions fair and sustainable in Canada’s publicly financed health system. Methods An approach to deliberation was developed based on the McMaster Health Forum’s citizen panels and the established Burgess and O'Doherty model of deliberative public engagement. Six deliberations were held across Canada in 2016. Transcripts were coded in NVivo and analysed to determine where participants’ views converged and diverged. Recommendations were grouped thematically. Results A total of 115 Canadians participated in the deliberative events and developed 86 recommendations. Recommendations included the review and regular re-review of approved drugs using ‘real-world’ evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; prioritisation of treatments that restore patients’ independence, mental health and general well-being; ensuring that decision processes, results and their rationales are transparent; and commitment to people with similar needs receiving the same care regardless of where in Canada they live. Conclusions The next steps for policy-makers should be to develop mechanisms for (1) re-reviewing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data for all cancer drugs; (2) making disinvestments in cancer drugs that satisfy requirements relating to grandfathering and compassionate access; (3) ensuring fair and equitable access to cancer drugs for all Canadians; and (4) fostering a pan-Canadian approach to cancer drug funding decisions.

Objectives To investigate whether cancer decedents who received palliative care early (ie, >6 months before death) and not-early had different risk of using hospital care and supportive home care in the last month of life.Design/setting We identified a population-based cohort of cancer decedents between 2004 and 2014 in Ontario, Canada using linked administrative data. Analysis occurred between August 2017 to March 2019.Participants We propensity-score matched decedents on receiving early or not-early palliative care using billing claims. We created two groups of matched pairs: one that had Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) home care assessments in the exposure period (Yes-RAI group) and one that did not (No-RAI group) to control for confounders uniquely available in the assessment, such as health instability and pain. The outcomes were the absolute risk difference between matched pairs in receiving hospital care, supportive home care or hospital death.Results In the No-RAI group, we identified 36 238 pairs who received early and not-early palliative care. Those in the early palliative care group versus not-early group had a lower absolute risk difference of dying in hospital (−10.0%) and receiving hospital care (−10.4%) and a higher absolute risk difference of receiving supportive home care (23.3%). In the Yes-RAI group, we identified 3586 pairs, where results were similar in magnitude and direction.Conclusions Cancer decedents who received palliative care earlier than 6 months before death compared with those who did not had a lower absolute risk difference of receiving hospital care and dying in hospital, and an increased absolute risk difference of receiving supportive home care in the last month of life.

Abstract Background The patterns and determinants of long-term income among young people surviving cancer, and differences compared to peers, have not yet been fully explored. The objectives of this paper are to describe long-term income among young survivors of cancer, the impact of socio-demographic, disease, and treatment factors on long-term income, and income relative to the general population. Methods Retrospective cohort study with comparison group from the general population, using linked population-based registries, clinical data, and tax-records. Multivariate random effects regression models were used to determine survivor income, compare long-term income between survivors and comparators, and assess income determinants. Subjects included all residents of British Columbia (BC), Canada, diagnosed with cancer before 25 years of age and surviving 5 years or more. Comparators were selected from the BC general population matched by gender and birth year. Results Young cancer survivors earned significantly less than the general population. In addition, survivors of central nervous system tumors have significantly lower incomes than lymphoma survivors. Survivors who received radiation therapy have significantly lower income. Results should be interpreted with caution as the comparator group was matched by gender and date of birth. Conclusions Depending on original diagnosis, treatment, and other characteristics, survivors face significantly lower income than peers and may require supports to gain and retain paid employment. Lower income will affect their opportunity for independent living, and will reduce productivity in the labour force.

There is growing recognition in the academic literature that critical decisions concerning resource allocation and resource management in health and care are influenced by a range of contextual factors. In their paper in this journal, Williams et al define these ‘decisions of value’ as being characterized by a significant and demonstrable impact on quality and resources in health and care. ‘Decisions of value’ are key functions of health and care organizations, yet relatively little is known about how contextual factors (such as different sources and types of evidence used, organizational context and decision-making structures, and the wider interests of patients, the public and politicians) influence those decisions. In this commentary we offer some reflections on our international experiences in capacity building, developing and implementing priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) mechanisms in the health and care sectors in a range of low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We focus on the role of organizational culture, the relationship to government including political and regulatory environments, and the potential for patient and public engagement in PSRA mechanisms.

BackgroundResearch has shown that people from higher socioeconomic status (SES) have better hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) survival outcomes, although no such research has been carried out in Canada. We aimed to assess if an association between SES and HCC survival existed in the Canadian context.Methodology/principal findingsWe conducted a population-based cohort study linking HCC cases identified in the Ontario Cancer Registry between 1990 and 2009 to administrative and hospital data. Logistic regression and chi-squared tests were used to evaluate associations between SES (income quintile) and covariates. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. Sequential analysis of the proportional-hazards models were used to determine the association between SES and HCC survival controlling for potential prognostic covariates. During the period 1990-2009, 5,481 cases of HCC were identified. A significant association was found between SES and curative treatment (p = 0.0003), but no association was found between SES and non-curative treatment (p = 0.064), palliative treatment (p = 0.680), or ultrasound screening (p = 0.615). The median survival for the lowest SES was 8.5 months, compared to 8.8 months for the highest SES group. The age- and sex-adjusted proportional-hazards model showed statistically significant difference in HCC survival among the SES groups, with hazard ratio 0.905 (95% confidence intervals 0.821, 0.998) when comparing highest to lowest SES group. Further adjustments indicated that potentially curative treatment was the likely explanation for the association between SES and HCC survival.Conclusions/significanceOur findings suggest that a 10% HCC survival advantage exists for the higher SES groups. This association between SES and HCC survival is most likely a reflection of lack of access to care for low SES groups, revealing inequities in the Canadian healthcare system.