Reporting of tobacco use and tobacco-related analyses in cancer cooperative group clinical trials: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Continued smoking after a diagnosis of cancer negatively impacts cancer outcomes, but the impact of tobacco on newer treatments options is not well established. Collecting and evaluating tobacco use in clinical trials may advance understanding of the consequences of tobacco use on treatment modalities, but little is known about the frequency of reporting and analysis of tobacco use in cancer cooperative clinical trial groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify cancer cooperative group clinical trials published from January 2017-October 2019. Eligible studies evaluated either systemic and/or radiation therapies, included ≥100 adult patients, and reported on at least one of: overall survival, disease/progression-free survival, response rates, toxicities/adverse events, or quality-of-life. RESULTS: A total of 91 studies representing 90 trials met inclusion criteria with trial start dates ranging from 1995 to 2015 with 14% involving lung and 5% head and neck cancer patients. A total of 19 studies reported baseline tobacco use; 2 reported collecting follow-up tobacco use. Seven studies reported analysis of the impact of baseline tobacco use on clinical outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity in the reporting of baseline tobacco use: 7 reported never/ever status, 10 reported never/ex-smoker/current smoker status, and 4 reported measuring smoking intensity. None reported verifying smoking status or second-hand smoke exposure. Trials of lung and head and neck cancers were more likely to report baseline tobacco use than other disease sites (83% versus 6%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Few cancer cooperative group clinical trials report and analyze trial participants' tobacco use. Significant heterogeneity exists in reporting tobacco use. Routine standardized collection and reporting of tobacco use at baseline and follow-up in clinical trials should be implemented to enable investigators to evaluate the impact of tobacco use on new cancer therapies.

Retrospective cohort study of unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer in Canada.

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

Real-world treatment patterns and survival in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer in Canada.

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

The generation of two specific cancer costing algorithms using Ontario administrative databases.

Cancer treatment and management have become increasingly economically burdensome. Consequently, to help with planning health service delivery, it is vital to understand the associated costs. Administrative databases can be used to help understand and generate real-world system-level costs. Using databases to generate costs can take one of two approaches: top-down or bottom-up. Top-down approaches disaggregate the total health care spending from a global health care budget by sector and provider. A bottom-up approach begins with individual-level health care use and its costs, which are then aggregated.

Cost-of-illness study for non-small-cell lung cancer using real-world data.

Background: With recent advances in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) and current fiscal constraints within publicly funded health care systems, understanding the real-world economic effect of lung cancer management has become important. The objective of the present study was to determine the costs and resources used in the management of nsclc cohorts in Ontario. Methods: Patients diagnosed between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2015 were identified in the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked to provincial administrative databases, capturing resources such as hospitalizations, cancer clinic visits, physician services, and systemic therapies or radiotherapy. A cost-of-illness analysis using a bottom-up approach and the GETCOST macro available at ices determined the overall total and mean costs in 2017 Canadian dollars. Resource utilization results were analyzed according to the total number of encounters per resource, the number of patients using each resource, and the number of encounters per patient. A separate cost-and-resource analysis was conducted for radiotherapy. Results: The 24,729 nsclc patients identified included 4542 with stage iii unresectable disease and 10,103 with stage iv nonsquamous disease. The overall total cost for all nsclc patients was $1.9 billion, with inpatient hospitalizations ($635.2 million), cancer clinic visits ($323.7 million), and physician services ($301.4 million) being the top cost contributors. The mean cost per patient was $76,816. The total cost of radiotherapy was $38.5 million. Conclusions: Real-world costs for the management of nsclc during the 5-year period examined were substantial, despite the fact that median survival was poor and treatment information was limited.

The OncoSim model: development and use for better decision-making in Canadian cancer control.

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

Lessons learned implementing a province-wide smoking cessation initiative in Ontario's cancer centres.

PURPOSE: A large body of evidence clearly shows that cancer patients experience significant health benefits with smoking cessation. Cancer Care Ontario, the provincial agency responsible for the quality of cancer services in Ontario, has undertaken a province-wide smoking cessation initiative. The strategies used, the results achieved, and the lessons learned are the subject of the present article. METHODS: Evidence related to the health benefits of smoking cessation in cancer patients was reviewed. A steering committee developed a vision statement for the initiative, created a framework for implementation, and made recommendations for the key elements of the initiative and for smoking cessation best practices. RESULTS: New ambulatory cancer patients are being screened for their smoking status in each of Ontario's 14 regional cancer centres. Current or recent smokers are advised of the benefits of cessation and are directed to smoking cessation resources as appropriate. Performance metrics are captured and used to drive improvement through quarterly performance reviews and provincial rankings of the regional cancer centres. CONCLUSIONS: Regional smoking cessation champions, commitment from Cancer Care Ontario senior leadership, a provincial secretariat, and guidance from smoking cessation experts have been important enablers of early success. Data capture has been difficult because of the variety of information systems in use and non-standardized administrative and clinical processes. Numerous challenges remain, including increasing physician engagement; obtaining funding for key program elements, including in-house resources to support smoking cessation; and overcoming financial barriers to access nicotine replacement therapy. Future efforts will focus on standardizing processes to the extent possible, while tailoring the approaches to the populations served and the resources available within the individual regional cancer programs.

Implementing low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer in Canada: implications of alternative at-risk populations, screening frequency, and duration.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose computed tomography (ldct) screening has been shown to reduce mortality from lung cancer; however, the optimal screening duration and "at risk" population are not known. METHODS: The Cancer Risk Management Model developed by Statistics Canada for the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer includes a lung screening module based on data from the U.S. National Lung Screening Trial (nlst). The base-case scenario reproduces nlst outcomes with high fidelity. The impact in Canada of annual screening on the number of incident cases and life-years gained, with a wider range of age and smoking history eligibility criteria and varied participation rates, was modelled to show the magnitude of clinical benefit nationally and by province. Life-years gained, costs (discounted and undiscounted), and resource requirements were also estimated. RESULTS: In 2014, 1.4 million Canadians were eligible for screening according to nlst criteria. Over 10 years, screening would detect 12,500 more lung cancers than the expected 268,300 and would gain 9200 life-years. The computed tomography imaging requirement of 24,000-30,000 at program initiation would rise to between 87,000 and 113,000 by the 5th year of an annual nlst-like screening program. Costs would increase from approximately $75 million to $128 million at 10 years, and the cumulative cost nationally over 10 years would approach $1 billion, partially offset by a reduction in the costs of managing advanced lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Modelling various ways in which ldct might be implemented provides decision-makers with estimates of the effect on clinical benefit and on resource needs that clinical trial results are unable to provide.

A population-based study of the epidemiology of pancreatic cancer: a brief report.

OBJECTIVE: Administrative 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. METHODS: Incident 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. RESULTS: During 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 <60 years of age and 3.6% 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.

Health system costs for stage-specific breast cancer: a population-based approach.

OBJECTIVE: The 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. METHODS: Incident 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. RESULTS: This 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. CONCLUSIONS: Costs 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.

Implementing a regional oncology information system: approach and lessons learned.

RATIONALE: Paper-based medical record systems are known to have major problems of inaccuracy, incomplete data, poor accessibility, and challenges to patient confidentiality. They are also an inefficient mechanism of record-sharing for interdisciplinary patient assessment and management, and represent a major problem for keeping current and monitoring quality control to facilitate improvement. To address those concerns, national, regional, and local health care authorities have increased the pressure on oncology practices to upgrade from paper-based systems to electronic health records. OBJECTIVES: Here, we describe and discuss the challenges to implementing a region-wide oncology information system across four independent health care organizations, and we describe the lessons learned from the initial phases that are now being applied in subsequent activities of this complex project. RESULTS: The need for change must be shared across centres to increase buy-in, adoption, and implementation. It is essential to establish physician leadership, commitment, and engagement in the process. Work processes had to be revised to optimize use of the new system. Culture change must be included in the change management strategy. Furthermore, training and resource requirements must be thoroughly planned, implemented, monitored, and modified as required for effective adoption of new work processes and technology. Interfaces must be established with multiple existing electronic systems across the region to ensure appropriate patient flow. Periodic assessment of the existing project structure is necessary, and adjustments are often required to ensure that the project meets its objectives. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of region-wide oncology information systems across different health practice locations has many challenges. Leadership is essential. A strong, collaborative information-sharing strategy across the region and with the supplier is essential to identify, discuss, and resolve implementation problems. A structure that supports project management and accountability contributes to success.

Population-based utilization of radiation therapy by a Canadian breast cancer cohort.

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.

Population-based home care services in breast cancer: utilization and costs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine utilization and costs of home care services (hcs) for individuals with a diagnosis of breast cancer (bc). METHODS: Incident cases of invasive bc in women were extracted from the Ontario Cancer Registry (2005-2009) and linked with other Ontario health care administrative databases. Control patients were selected from the population of women never diagnosed with any type of cancer. The types and proportions of hcs used were determined and stratified by disease stage. Attributable home care utilization and costs for bc patients were determined. Factors associated with hcs costs were assessed using regression analysis. RESULTS: Among the 39,656 bc and 198,280 control patients identified (median age: 61.6 years for both), 75.4% of bc patients used hcs (62.1% stage i; 85.7% stage ii; 94.6% stage iii; 79.1% stage iv) compared with 14.6% of control patients. The number of hcs used per patient-year were significantly higher for the bc patients than for the control patients (14.97 vs. 6.13, p < 0.01), resulting in higher costs per patient-year ($1,210 vs. $325; $885 attributable cost to bc, p < 0.01). The number of hcs utilized and the associated costs increased as the bc stage increased. In contrast, hcs costs decreased as income increased and as previous health care exposure decreased. INTERPRETATION: Patients with bc used twice as many hcs, resulting in costs that were almost 4 times those observed in a matched control group. Less than an additional $1000 per bc patient per year were spent on hcs utilization in the study population.

Cancer diagnostic assessment programs: standards for the organization of care in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: Improving access to better, more efficient, and rapid cancer diagnosis is a necessary component of a high-quality cancer system. How diagnostic services ought to be organized, structured, and evaluated is less understood and studied. Our objective was to address this gap. METHODS: As a quality initiative of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care, the Diagnostic Assessment Standards Panel, with representation from clinical oncology experts, institutional and clinical administrative leaders, health service researchers, and methodologists, conducted a systematic review and a targeted environmental scan of the unpublished literature. Standards were developed based on expert consensus opinion informed by the identified evidence. Through external review, clinicians and administrators across Ontario were given the opportunity to provide feedback. RESULTS: The body of evidence consists of thirty-five published studies and fifteen unpublished guidance documents. The evidence and consensus opinion consistently favoured an organized, centralized system with multidisciplinary team membership as the optimal approach for the delivery of diagnostic cancer assessment services. Independent external stakeholders agreed (with higher mean values, maximum 5, indicating stronger agreement) that DAP standards are needed (mean: 4.6), that standards should be formally approved (mean: 4.3), and importantly, that standards reflect an effective approach that will lead to quality improvements in the cancer system (mean: 4.5) and in patient care (mean: 4.3). INTERPRETATION: Based on the best available evidence, standards for the organization of DAPS are offered. There is clear need to integrate formal and comprehensive evaluation strategies with the implementation of the standards to advance this field.

The utility of publicly reported cancer treatment wait time information for patients and health care providers.

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

A prospective study of peri-diagnostic and surgical wait times for patients with presumptive colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer.

The objective of this study was to prospectively measure peri-diagnostic and surgical time intervals for patients with suspected colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer. Prospective eligible patients were referred to a regional hospital in Ottawa, Canada between February 2004 and February 2005 for diagnostic assessment of presumptive colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer. Chart abstractions were used to measure nine time intervals; the primary interval was the date of referral for diagnostic assessment to the date the patient was informed of the diagnosis. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) was assessed 5 days following the patient being informed of their diagnosis. The median (IQR) time for the primary interval was 71 (30-110), 37 (29-49), and 81 (56-100) days for colorectal, lung, and prostate patients, respectively (Kruskal-Wallis P=0.0001). This interval was significantly less for colorectal patients diagnosed with cancer than for those without cancer (median difference=59.0 days; Wilcoxon P=0.003). No differences in HRQL existed for patients with cancer and those without. Colorectal and prostate patients wait longer between referral for suspected cancer and being informed of their diagnosis than current recommendations. The shorter diagnostic intervals for colorectal patients with cancer suggest clinicians have an effective process for triaging patients referred for diagnostic assessment.

Second-line or subsequent systemic therapy for recurrent or progressive non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and practice guideline.

PURPOSE: This clinical practice guideline, based on a systematic review, evaluates second-line or subsequent therapy for patients with recurrent or progressive non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Relevant randomized trials and meta-analyses were identified through a systematic search of the literature. External feedback was obtained from practitioners in Ontario, and the guideline was approved by the provincial Lung Cancer Disease Site Group. RESULTS: Twenty-four randomized trials met the eligibility criteria. Two phase III trials demonstrated a significant benefit in overall survival and quality of life (QOL) for single-agent docetaxel. A pooled analysis comparing docetaxel administered weekly versus three-weekly found similar survival between the schedules and a non-significant reduction in febrile neutropenia for the weekly regimen. One phase III trial found that single-agent pemetrexed provided similar survival and QOL, compared to docetaxel. Another phase III trial demonstrated that oral topotecan was non-inferior to docetaxel for one-year survival rate, although QOL significantly favored docetaxel over topotecan. Docetaxel-based and other combination chemotherapy regimens have not been shown to be superior to single-agent docetaxel. One phase III trial revealed a statistically significant survival and QOL benefit for erlotinib over placebo for patients who were not eligible for further chemotherapy. Modest tumor response rates and symptom control have been demonstrated for gefitinib; however, a statistically significant survival benefit has not been established for gefitinib over placebo. CONCLUSION: Second-line or subsequent therapy with single-agent docetaxel, pemetrexed, or erlotinib offers patients a significant survival and QOL advantage.