The impact of oral hypoglycemics and statins on outcomes in myelodysplastic syndromes.

Observational studies suggest an anti-neoplastic effect associated with statins, metformin, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), while sulfonylureas may have a neutral or detrimental effect. We linked the Ontario subset of a prospective Canadian myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) registry with provincial administrative databases. We assessed the impact of statin/oral hypoglycemic medication exposure on overall survival (OS) using Cox regression analysis, controlling for comorbidities and sociodemographic factors. Five hundred thirty-three patients aged ≥ 66 years were included: 49.3% used statins, 18.9% used metformin, 9.0% used sulfonylureas, and 6.4% used DPP4i. Three hundred ninety-five patients were lower-risk based on the International Prognostic Scoring System. On univariate analysis, we identified a marginal improvement in OS in the lower-risk group using DPP4i (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, P = 0.05), while there was no impact on mortality for higher-risk DPP4i users (HR 1.03, CI 0.99-1.07, P = 0.21). There was no mortality difference for statins (HR 1.00, CI 1.00-1.01, P = 0.93), metformin (HR 1.00, CI 0.99-1.01, P = 0.81), or sulfonylureas (HR 1.00, CI 0.99-1.02, P = 0.43) in the entire cohort, as well as when stratified into lower/higher-risk groups. On multivariable analysis in the lower-risk group, there was no association between DPP4i and OS (HR 0.98, CI 0.95-1.00, P = 0.06). Prospective studies with larger cohorts of patients and longer follow-up are required to further study the impact of DPP4i in MDS.

Incident Cancer Detection During Multiple Waves of COVID-19: The Tsunami After the Earthquake.

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.

Incident Cancer Detection During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Resource restrictions were established in many jurisdictions to maintain health system capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disrupted healthcare access likely impacted early cancer detection. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the pandemic on weekly reported cancer incidence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a population-based study involving individuals diagnosed with cancer from September 25, 2016, to September 26, 2020, in Ontario, Canada. Weekly cancer incidence counts were examined using segmented negative binomial regression models. The weekly estimated backlog during the pandemic was calculated by subtracting the observed volume from the projected/expected volume in that week. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 358,487 adult patients with cancer. At the start of the pandemic, there was an immediate 34.3% decline in the estimated mean cancer incidence volume (relative rate, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75), followed by a 1% increase in cancer incidence volume in each subsequent week (relative rate, 1.009; 95% CI, 1.001-1.017). Similar trends were found for both screening and nonscreening cancers. The largest immediate declines were seen for melanoma and cervical, endocrinologic, and prostate cancers. For hepatobiliary and lung cancers, there continued to be a weekly decline in incidence during the COVID-19 period. Between March 15 and September 26, 2020, 12,601 fewer individuals were diagnosed with cancer, with an estimated weekly backlog of 450. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that there is a large volume of undetected cancer cases related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Incidence rates have not yet returned to prepandemic levels.

Caregiver bereavement outcomes in advanced cancer: associations with quality of death and patient age.

PURPOSE: We investigated relationships between domains of quality of dying and death in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers' bereavement outcomes and the moderating effect of patient age at death. METHODS: Bereaved caregivers of deceased patients with advanced cancer who had participated in an early palliative care trial completed measures of grief (Texas Revised Inventory of Grief [TRIG]), complicated grief (Prolonged Grief Inventory [PG-13]), and depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression [CESD-10]). They also completed the Quality of Dying and Death measure (QODD), which assesses patients' symptom control, preparation for death, connectedness with loved ones, and sense of peace with death. RESULTS: A total of 157 bereaved caregivers completed the study. When patient age × QODD subscale interactions were included, greater death preparation was related to less grief at patient death (past TRIG: ß = - .25, p = .04), less current grief (present TRIG: ß = - .26, p = .03), less complicated grief (PG-13: ß = - .37, p = .001), and less depression (CESD-10: ß = - .35, p = .005). Greater symptom control was related to less current grief (present TRIG: ß = - .27, p = .02), less complicated grief (PG-13: ß = - .24, p = .03), and less depression (CESD-10: ß = - .29, p = .01). Significant patient age × connectedness interaction effects for current grief (present TRIG: ß = .30, p = .02) and complicated grief (PG-13: ß = .29, p = .007) indicated that, with less connectedness, younger patient age at death was associated with greater caregiver grief. CONCLUSION: Better end-of-life death preparation and symptom control for patients with cancer may attenuate later caregiver grief and depression. Less connectedness between younger patients and their families may adversely affect caregiver grief.

Breast Density and Risk of Interval Cancers: The Effect of Annual Versus Biennial Screening Mammography Policies in Canada.

Regular screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality. However, in women with dense breasts, the performance of screening mammography is reduced, which is reflected in higher interval cancer rates (ICR). In Canada, population-based screening mammography programs generally screen women biennially; however, some provinces and territories offer annual mammography for women with dense breast tissue routinely and/or on recommendation of the radiologist. This study compared the ICRs in those breast screening programs with a policy of annual vs. those with biennial screening for women with dense breasts. Among 148,575 women with dense breasts screened between 2008 to 2010, there were 288 invasive interval breast cancers; screening programs with policies offering annual screening for women with dense breasts had fewer interval cancers 63/70,814 (ICR 0.89/1000, 95% CI: 0.67-1.11) compared with those with policies of usual biennial screening 225/77,761 (ICR 1.45 /1000 (annualized), 95% CI: 1.19-1.72) i.e. 63% higher (p = 0.0016). In screening programs where radiologists' screening recommendations were able to be analyzed, a total of 76,103 women were screened, with 87 interval cancers; the ICR was lower for recommended annual (65/69,650, ICR 0.93/1000, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.16) versus recommended biennial screening (22/6,453, ICR 1.70/1000 (annualized), 95%CI: 0.70, 2.71)(p = 0.0605). Screening program policies of annual as compared with biennial screening in women with dense breasts had the greatest impact on reducing interval cancer rates. We review our results in the context of current dense breast notification in Canada.

Transforming Canada's role in global cancer control.

Cancer has not been an explicit priority of Canada's international health and development agenda, but it is key to realising the country's Sustainable Development Goal commitments. Multiple converging political, health, and social forces could now drive support for a more integrated Canadian approach to global cancer control. Success will depend on the extent to which Canadian leaders and institutions can build consensus as a community and agree to work together. Collaboration should include agreement on the framing and prioritisation of the core issues, building a broad coalition base, aligning with priorities of international partners, and on a governance structure that reflects the principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion. This Series paper will discuss global cancer control within Canada's global health agenda, how Canada can address its history of colonisation and present-day disparities in its global work, and the challenges and opportunities of creating a Canadian global cancer control network.

Real-world, population-based cohort study of toxicity and resource utilization of second-line ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma in Ontario, Canada.

Second-line ipilimumab has been publicly funded in Ontario for metastatic melanoma (MM) since September 2012. We examined real-world toxicity of second-line ipilimumab compared to standard second-line treatments prior to funding. MM patients who received systemic treatment from April 2005 to March 2015 were included. Patients receiving second-line ipilimumab after September 2012 were considered as cases, and those who received second-line treatment prior to the funding date were included as historical controls. Outcomes assessed include treatment-related mortality, any-cause hospital visits, ipilimumab-related hospital visits and specialist visits (eg, endocrinologists, ophthalmologists, gastroenterologists, rheumatologists and respirologists), which were captured from up to 30 and/or 90 days after end of second-line treatment. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for baseline differences between groups. Odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regressions and rate ratios (RRs) from rate regressions were used to assess differences between groups. We identified 329 MM patients who received second-line treatments (ipilimumab: 189; controls: 140). Ipilimumab was associated greater any-cause (60.1% vs 45.7%; OR = 1.81; P value = .019) and ipilimumab-related (47.2% vs 31.9%; OR = 1.91; P value = .011) hospital visits. Adjusting for different follow-up days, ipilimumab was associated with higher rates of all-cause (RR = 1.56 [95%CI: 1.12-2.16]), and ipilimumab-related (RR = 2.18 [95% CI: 1.45-3.27]) hospital visits. Patients receiving ipilimumab were more likely to visit specialist involved in immunotherapy toxicity management (23.5% vs 13.7%; P value = .04). Compared to historical second-line treatments, second-line ipilimumab was associated with more health service utilization (specifically hospital visits and specialist visits), suggestive of potentially increased toxicity in the real world.

Development and validation of a prediction model of poor performance status and severe symptoms over time in cancer patients (PROVIEW+).

BACKGROUND: Predictive cancer tools focus on survival; none predict severe symptoms. AIM: To develop and validate a model that predicts the risk for having low performance status and severe symptoms in cancer patients. DESIGN: Retrospective, population-based, predictive study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We linked administrative data from cancer patients from 2008 to 2015 in Ontario, Canada. Patients were randomly selected for model derivation (60%) and validation (40%). Using the derivation cohort, we developed a multivariable logistic regression model to predict the risk of an outcome at 6 months following diagnosis and recalculated after each of four annual survivor marks. Model performance was assessed using discrimination and calibration plots. Outcomes included low performance status (i.e. 10-30 on Palliative Performance Scale), severe pain, dyspnea, well-being, and depression (i.e. 7-10 on Edmonton Symptom Assessment System). RESULTS: We identified 255,494 cancer patients (57% female; median age of 64; common cancers were breast (24%); and lung (13%)). At diagnosis, the predicted risk of having low performance status, severe pain, well-being, dyspnea, and depression in 6-months is 1%, 3%, 6%, 13%, and 4%, respectively for the reference case (i.e. male, lung cancer, stage I, no symptoms); the corresponding discrimination for each outcome model had high AUCs of 0.807, 0.713, 0.709, 0.790, and 0.723, respectively. Generally these covariates increased the outcome risk by >10% across all models: lung disease, dementia, diabetes; radiation treatment; hospital admission; pain; depression; transitional performance status; issues with appetite; or homecare. CONCLUSIONS: The model accurately predicted changing cancer risk for low performance status and severe symptoms over time.

Building capacity for palliative care delivery in primary care settings: Mixed-methods evaluation of the INTEGRATE Project.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an intervention aimed at building capacity to deliver palliative care in primary care settings. DESIGN: The INTEGRATE Project was a 3-year pilot project involving interprofessional palliative care education and an integrated care model to promote early identification and support of patients with palliative care needs. A concurrent mixed-methods evaluation was conducted using descriptive data, provider surveys before and after implementation, and interviews with providers and managers. SETTING: Four primary care practices in Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: All providers in each practice were invited to participate. Providers used the "surprise question" as a prompt to determine patient eligibility for inclusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Provider attitudes toward and confidence in providing palliative care, use of palliative care tools, delivery of palliative care, and perceived barriers to delivering palliative care. RESULTS: A total of 294 patients were identified for early initiation of palliative care, most of whom had multiple comorbid conditions. Results demonstrated improvement in provider confidence to deliver palliative care (30% mean increase, P < .05) and self-reported use of palliative care tools and services (25% mean increase, P < .05). There was substantial variation across practices regarding the percentage of patients identified using the surprise question (0.2% to 1.5%), the number of advance care planning conversations initiated (50% to 90%), and mean time to conversation (13 to 76 days). This variation is attributable, in part, to contextual differences across practices. CONCLUSION: A standardized model for the early introduction of palliative care to patients can be integrated into the routine practice of primary care practitioners with appropriate training and support. Additional research is needed to understand the practice factors that contribute to the success of palliative care interventions in primary care and to examine patient outcomes.

Material deprivation and access to cancer care in a universal health care system.

BACKGROUND: The role of socioeconomic factors as determinants of oncology consultations for advanced cancers in public payer health care systems is unknown. This study examined the association between material deprivation and receipt of cancer care among patients with advanced gastrointestinal (GI) cancer. METHODS: This was a population-based, retrospective cohort study of noncuratively treated patients with GI cancer diagnosed from 2007 to 2017. Material deprivation, representing income, quality of housing, education, and family structure, was defined as quintiles on the basis of 2016 census data. The first consultation with a radiation oncologist or medical oncologist and the receipt of 1 or more instances of radiation and/or chemotherapy were measured in the year after diagnosis. Adjusted, cause-specific Cox proportional hazards competing risk analyses were used (competing event = death). RESULTS: This study included 34,022 noncuratively treated patients with GI cancer. Consultation rates ranged from 67.8% for those in the most materially deprived communities to 73.5% for those in the least materially deprived communities. Among those with a consult, rates of cancer-directed therapy ranged from 58.5% for patients in the most materially deprived communities to 62.3% for patients in the least materially deprived communities. Patients living in the most materially deprived communities were significantly less likely to see a radiation and/or medical oncologist after a diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.92) and significantly less likely to receive radiation and/or chemotherapy (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.85) than those living in the least materially deprived communities. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified socioeconomic disparities in accessing cancer care. Continued efforts at examining and developing evidence-based policies for interventions that begin before or at the time of oncologist consultation are required to address root causes of inequities.

Value assessment of oncology drugs using a weighted criterion-based approach.

BACKGROUND: Globally, the rising cost of anticancer therapy has motivated efforts to quantify the overall value of new cancer treatments. Multicriteria decision analysis offers a novel approach to incorporate multiple criteria and perspectives into value assessment. METHODS: The authors recruited a diverse, multistakeholder group who identified and weighted key criteria to establish the drug assessment framework (DAF). Construct validity assessed the degree to which DAF scores were associated with past pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) funding recommendations and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS; version 1.1) scores. RESULTS: The final DAF included 10 criteria: overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, quality of life, toxicity, unmet need, equity, feasibility, disease severity, and caregiver well-being. The first 5 clinical benefit criteria represent approximately 64% of the total weight. DAF scores ranged from 0 to 300, reflecting both the expected impact of the drug and the quality of supporting evidence. When the DAF was applied to the last 60 drugs (with reviewers blinded) reviewed by pCODR (2015-2018), those drugs with positive pCODR funding recommendations were found to have higher DAF scores compared with drugs not recommended (103 vs 63; Student t test P = .0007). DAF clinical benefit criteria mildly correlated with ESMO-MCBS scores (correlation coefficient, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.009-0.59). Sensitivity analyses that varied the criteria scores did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: Using a structured and explicit approach, a criterion-based valuation framework was designed to provide a transparent and consistent method with which to value and prioritize cancer drugs to facilitate the delivery of affordable cancer care.

Comparison of outcomes in a population-based cohort of metastatic breast cancer patients receiving anti-HER2 therapy with clinical trial outcomes.

PURPOSE: Little data exist for comparing cardiac safety and survival outcomes of trastuzumab/pertuzumab or ado-T emtansine (TDM1) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients enrolled in randomized clinical trial (RCT) vs the real-world. METHODS: This was a retrospective population-based cohort of all patients with MBC treated with trastuzumab/pertuzumab or TDM1 (2012-2017) in Ontario, Canada. Outcomes were incident heart failure (HF) and overall survival (OS). RCT data were obtained from digitizing survival curves and compared with cohort data using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Age-based comparison of outcomes was conducted for patients ≥ 65 years old vs younger than 65. RESULTS: The two cohorts composed of 833 and 397 patients treated with trastuzumab/pertuzumab and TDM1, of whom 5.5% and 7.6% had baseline HF, respectively. Incident HF following trastuzumab/pertuzumab or TDM1 was low (trastuzumab/pertuzumab 1.8 events/100 person years; TDM1 0.02 events/100 person years). The median OS was 39.2 and 56.4 months in the trastuzumab/pertuzumab population-based cohort and CLEOPATRA, respectively. The median OS was 15.4 and 30.9 months in the TDM1 population-based cohort and EMILIA, respectively. Cohort OS was significantly worse than RCT OS (trastuzumab/pertuzumab HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.37-2.03, p < 0.0001; TDM1 HR 2.80, 95% CI 2.27-3.44, p < 0.0001). Older patients had worse OS than younger patients for trastuzumab/pertuzumab (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.19-2.16, p = 0.0018), but not for TDM1 (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81-1.66, p = 0.43). CONCLUSION: HF incidence during trastuzumab/pertuzumab or TDM1 therapy in this real-world cohort was low. Survival in this cohort was worse compared to RCT, suggesting that recruitment of patients similar to the real-world population is required.

Factors associated with endocrine therapy adherence among post-menopausal women treated for early-stage breast cancer in Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: Adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy among post-menopausal breast cancer patients is an important survivorship care issue. We explored factors associated with endocrine therapy adherence and survival in a large real-world population-based study. METHODS: We used health administrative databases to follow women (aged ≥ 66 years) who were diagnosed with breast cancer and started on adjuvant endocrine therapy from 2005 to 2010. Adherence was measured by medical possession ratio (MPR) and characterized as low (< 39% MPR), intermediate (40-79% MPR), or high (≥ 80% MPR) over a 5-year period. We investigated factors associated with adherence using a multinomial logistic regression model. Factors associated with all-cause mortality (5 years after starting endocrine therapy) were investigated using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: We identified 5692 eligible patients starting adjuvant endocrine therapy who had low, intermediate, and high adherence rates of 13% (n = 749), 13% (n = 733), and 74% (n = 4210), respectively. Lower rates of adherence were associated with increased age [low vs. high adherence: odds ratio (OR) 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.05 (per year); intermediate vs. high adherence: OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.04 (per year)]. High adherence was associated with previous use of adjuvant chemotherapy (low versus high adherence OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.30-0.59) and short-term follow-up with a medical oncologist within 4 months of starting endocrine therapy (low versus high adherence OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.69-0.99). Unadjusted analysis showed increased survival among patients with high endocrine therapy adherence. However, an independent association was no longer clearly detected after controlling for confounders. CONCLUSION: Interventions to improve adjuvant endocrine therapy adherence are warranted. Non-adherence may be a more significant issue among elderly patients. Short-term follow-up visit by a patient's medical oncologist after starting endocrine therapy may help to improve compliance.

Real-world comparative effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: For novel cancer treatments, effectiveness in clinical practice is not always aligned with clinical efficacy results. As such it is important to understand a treatment's real-world effectiveness. We examined real-world population-based comparative effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab versus non-ipilimumab treatments (chemotherapy or targeted treatments). METHODS: We used a cohort of melanoma patients receiving systemic treatment for advanced disease since April 2005 from Ontario, Canada. Patients were identified from provincial drug databases and the Ontario Cancer Registry who received second-line ipilimumab from 2012 to 2015 (treated) or second-line non-ipilimumab treatment prior to 2012 (historical controls). Historical controls were chosen, to permit the most direct comparison to pivotal trial findings. The cohort was linked to administrative databases to identify baseline characteristics and outcomes. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess overall survival (OS). Observed potential confounders were adjusted for using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). RESULTS: We identified 329 patients with metastatic melanoma (MM) who had received second-line treatments (189 treated; 140 controls). Patients receiving second-line ipilimumab were older (61.7 years vs 55.2 years) compared to historical controls. Median OS were 6.9 (95% CI: 5.4-8.3) and 4.95 (4.3-6.0) months for ipilimumab and controls, respectively. The crude 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year OS probabilities were 34.3% (27-41%), 20.6% (15-27%), and 15.2% (9.6-21%) for ipilimumab and 17.1% (11-23%), 7.1% (2.9-11%), and 4.7% (1.2-8.2%) for controls. Ipilimumab was associated with improved OS (IPTW HR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.49-0.78; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world analysis suggests second-line ipilimumab is associated with an improvement in OS for MM patients in routine practice.

High-Cost Patients and Preventable Spending: A Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Although high-cost (HC) patients make up a small proportion of patients, they account for most health system costs. However, little is known about HC patients with cancer or whether some of their care could potentially be prevented. This analysis sought to characterize HC patients with cancer and quantify the costs of preventable acute care (emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations). METHODS: This analysis examined a population-based sample of all HC patients in Ontario in 2013. HC patients were defined as those above the 90th percentile of the cost distribution; all other patients were defined as non-high-cost (NHC). Patients with cancer were identified through the Ontario Cancer Registry. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were examined and the costs of preventable acute care for both groups by category of visit/condition were estimated using validated algorithms. RESULTS: Compared with NHC patients with cancer (n=369,422), HC patients with cancer (n=187,770) were older (mean age 70 vs 65 years), more likely to live in low-income neighborhoods (19% vs 16%), sicker, and more likely to live in long-term care homes (8% vs 0%). Although most patients from both cohorts tended to be diagnosed with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer, those with multiple myeloma or pancreatic or liver cancers were overrepresented among the HC group. Moreover, HC patients were more likely to have advanced cancer at diagnosis and be in the initial or terminal phase of treatment compared with NHC patients. Among HC patients with cancer, 9% of spending stemmed from potentially preventable/avoidable acute care, whereas for NHC patients, this spending was approximately 30%. CONCLUSIONS: HC patients with cancer are a unique subpopulation. Given the type of care they receive, there seems to be limited scope to prevent acute care spending among this patient group. To reduce costs, other strategies, such as making hospital care more efficient and generating less costly encounters involving chemotherapy, should be explored.

Impact of Geography on Care Delivery and Survival for Noncurable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Population-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how the geographic distribution of cancer services may influence disparities in outcomes for noncurable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We therefore examined the geographic distribution of outcomes for this disease in relation to distance to cancer centers. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective population-based analysis of adults in Ontario, Canada, diagnosed with noncurable pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 2004 through 2017 using linked administrative healthcare datasets. The exposure was distance from place of residence to the nearest cancer center providing medical oncology assessment and systemic therapy. Outcomes were medical oncology consultation, receipt of cancer-directed therapy, and overall survival. We examined the relationship between distance and outcomes using adjusted multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Of 15,970 patients surviving a median of 3.3 months, 65.6% consulted medical oncology and 38.5% received systemic therapy. Regions with comparable outcomes were clustered throughout Ontario. Mapping revealed regional discordances between outcomes. Increasing distance (reference, ≤10 km) was independently associated with lower likelihood of medical oncology consultation (relative risks [95% CI] for 11-50, 51-100, and ≥101 km were 0.90 [0.83-0.98], 0.78 [0.62-0.99], and 0.77 [0.55-1.08], respectively) and worse survival (hazard ratios [95% CI] for 11-50, 51-100, and ≥101 km were 1.08 [1.04-1.12], 1.17 [1.10-1.25], and 1.10 [1.02-1.18], respectively), but not with likelihood of receiving therapy. Receipt of therapy seems less sensitive to distance, suggesting that distance limits entry into the cancer care system via oncology consultation. Regional outcome discordances suggest inefficiencies within and protective factors outside of the cancer care system. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide a basis for clinicians to optimize their practices for patients with noncurable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, for future studies investigating geographic barriers to care, and for regional interventions to improve access.

Economic impacts of care by high-volume providers for non-curative esophagogastric cancer: a population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Esophagogastric cancer (EGC) is one of the deadliest and costliest malignancies to treat. Care by high-volume providers can provide better outcomes for patients with EGC. Cost implications of volume-based cancer care are unclear. We examined the cost-effectiveness of care by high-volume medical oncology providers for non-curative management of EGC. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of non-curative EGC over 2005-2017 by linking administrative datasets. High-volume was defined as ≥ 11 patients/provider/year. Healthcare costs ($USD/patient/month-survived) were computed from diagnosis to death or end of follow-up from the perspective of the healthcare system. Multivariable quantile regression examined the association between care by high-volume providers and costs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying costing horizons and high-volume definitions. RESULTS: Among 7011 non-curative EGC patients, median overall survival was superior with care by high-volume providers with 7.0 (IQR 3.3-13.3) compared to 5.9 (IQR 2.6-12.1) months (p < 0.001) for low-volume providers. Median costs/patient/month-lived were lower for high-volume providers ($5518 vs. $5911; p < 0.001), owing to lower inpatient acute care costs, despite higher medication-associated and radiotherapy costs. Care by high-volume providers was independently associated with a reduction of $599 per patient/month-lived (95% confidence interval - 966 to - 331) compared to low-volume providers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was - 393. Care by high-volume providers remained the dominant strategy when varying the costing horizon and the high-volume definition. CONCLUSION: Care by high-volume providers for non-curative EGC is associated with superior survival and lower healthcare costs, indicating a dominant strategy that may provide an opportunity to improve cost-effectiveness of care delivery.

Variation in receipt of therapy and survival with provider volume for medical oncology in non-curative esophago-gastric cancer: a population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: While surgical care by high-volume providers for esophago-gastric cancer (EGC) yields better outcomes, volume-outcome relationships are unknown for systemic therapy. We examined receipt of therapy and outcomes in the non-curative management of EGC based on medical oncology provider volume. METHODS: We conducted a population based retrospective cohort study of non-curative EGC over 2005-2017 by linking administrative healthcare datasets. The volume of new EGC consultations per medical oncology provider per year was calculated and divided into quintiles. High-volume (HV) medical oncologists were defined as the 4-5th quintiles. Outcomes were receipt of chemotherapy and overall survival (OS). Multivariate logistic and Cox-proportional hazards regressions examined the association between management by HV medical oncologist, receipt of systemic therapy, and OS. RESULTS: 7011 EGC patients with non-curative management consulted with medical oncology. 1-year OS was superior for HV medical oncologists (> 11 patients/year), with 28.4% (95% CI 26.7-30.2%) compared to 25.1% (95% CI 23.8-26.3%) for low volume (p < 0.001). After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity burden, rurality, income quintile, and diagnosis year, HV medical oncologist was independently associated with higher odds of receiving chemotherapy (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.26), and independently associated with superior OS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Medical oncology provider volume was associated with variation in non-curative management and outcomes of EGC. Care by an HV medical oncologist was independently associated with higher odds of receiving chemotherapy and superior OS, after adjusting for case mix. This information is important to inform disease care pathways and care organization; an increase in the number of HV medical oncologists may reduce variation and improve outcomes.

Integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for personalized symptom management in "real-world" oncology practices: a population-based cohort comparison study of impact on healthcare utilization.

BACKGROUND: The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for routine cancer distress screening is endorsed globally as a quality-care standard. However, there is little research on the integration of PROs in "real-world" oncology practices using implementation science methods. The Improving Patient Experience and Health Outcome Collaborative (iPEHOC) intervention was established at multisite disease clinics to facilitate the use of PRO data by clinicians for precision symptom care. The aim of this study was to examine if patients exposed to the intervention differed in their healthcare utilization compared with contemporaneous controls in the same time frame. METHODS: We used a PRE- and DURING-intervention population cohort comparison study design to estimate the effects of the iPEHOC intervention on the difference in difference (DID) for relative rates (RR) for emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, psychosocial oncology (PSO), palliative care visits, and prescription rates for opioids and antidepressants compared with controls. RESULTS: A small significantly lower Difference in Difference (DID) (- 0.223) in the RR for ED visits was noted for the intervention compared with controls over time (0.947, CI 0.900-0.996); and a DID (- 0.0329) for patients meeting ESAS symptom thresholds (0.927, CI 0.869-0.990). A lower DID in palliative care visits (- 0.0097), psychosocial oncology visits (- 0.0248), antidepressant prescriptions (- 0.0260) and an increase in opioid prescriptions (0.0456) in the exposed population compared with controls was also noted. A similar pattern was shown for ESAS as a secondary exposure variable. CONCLUSION: Facilitating uptake of PROs data may impact healthcare utilization but requires examination in larger scale "real-world" trials.

Adherence to human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 testing and adjuvant trastuzumab treatment guidelines in Ontario.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated adherence of human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 testing using immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization, as well as adjuvant trastuzumab treatment according to Canadian guidelines, and predictors of trastuzumab use in early-stage breast cancer in Ontario. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of early-stage breast cancer patients identified in the Ontario Cancer Registry. Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 test type, sequence, result(s), tumor grade, and hormone receptor status were abstracted from Ontario Cancer Registry pathology reports. Trastuzumab treatment was determined from provincial cancer agency records. Other variables were determined from administrative data sources. Logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios for factors associated with guideline adherence. RESULTS: The first human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 test result was the strongest predictor of confirmatory testing (p < 0.05). Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 testing by immunohistochemistry accounted for the majority of documented first tests (94%; n = 8249). Overall, 27% (n = 2360) of tested patients received a second test by fluorescence in situ hybridization (46%) or immunohistochemistry (49%) assay. Most human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 equivocal patients (89%; n = 784) received a confirmatory test. Among human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive patients, only 57% (n = 385) received trastuzumab treatment within the study period. Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 status was the strongest predictor of trastuzumab use. Younger patients (<70 years at diagnosis) and negative hormone receptor status had higher odds of trastuzumab treatment (p < 0.05) compared to older and positive hormone receptor status patients. CONCLUSIONS: Immunohistochemistry use as a first test was largely consistent with Canadian guidelines; however, immunohistochemistry was frequently used as a confirmatory test, which is not guideline-concordant. Monitoring these testing and treating patterns is necessary to optimize health outcomes associated with trastuzumab.