Distinguishing ASH Clinical Practice Guidelines from Other Forms of ASH Clinical Advice.

The American Society of Hematology (ASH) develops a variety of resources that provide guidance to clinicians on the diagnosis and management of blood diseases. These resources include clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and other forms of clinical advice. While both ASH CPGs and other forms of clinical advice provide recommendations, they differ with respect to the methods underpinning their development, the principal type of recommendations they offer, their transparency and concordance with published evidence, and the time and resources required for their development. It is crucial that end users be aware of the differences between CPGs and other forms of clinical advice and that producers and publishers of these resources use clear and unambiguous terminology to facilitate their distinction. The objective of this article is to highlight similarities and differences between ASH CPGs and other forms of ASH clinical advice and to discuss the implications of these differences for end users.

Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Studies for Health Technology Management: Outcomes and Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration.

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a value assessment tool designed to help support complex decision-making by incorporating multiple factors and perspectives in a transparent, structured approach. We developed an MCDA rating tool, consisting of seven criteria evaluating the importance and feasibility of conducting potential real-world evidence (RWE) studies aimed at addressing uncertainties stemming from initial cancer drug funding recommendations. In collaboration with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's Provincial Advisory Group, a validation exercise was conducted to further evaluate the application of the rating tool using RWE proposals varying in complexity. Through this exercise, we aimed to gain insight into consensus building and deliberation processes and to identify efficiencies in the application of the rating tool. An experienced facilitator led a multidisciplinary committee, consisting of 11 Canadian experts, through consensus building, deliberation, and prioritization. A total of nine RWE proposals were evaluated and prioritized as low (n = 4), medium (n = 3), or high (n = 2) priority. Through an iterative process, efficiencies and recommendations to improve the rating tool and associated procedures were identified. The refined MCDA rating tool can help decision-makers prioritize important and feasible RWE studies for research and can enable the use of RWE for the life-cycle evaluation of cancer drugs.

A Prognostic Survival Model Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes for Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Multiple Myeloma.

Developing prognostic tools specifically for patients themselves represents an important step in empowering patients to engage in shared decision-making. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes may improve the accuracy of these prognostic tools. We conducted a retrospective population-based study of transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with multiple myeloma (MM) diagnosed between January 2007 and December 2018. A multivariable Cox regression model was developed to predict the risk of death within 1-year period from the index date. We identified 2356 patients with TIE MM. The following factors were associated with an increased risk of death within 1 year: age > 80 (HR 1.11), history of heart failure (HR 1.52), "CRAB" at diagnosis (HR 1.61), distance to cancer center (HR 1.25), prior radiation (HR 1.48), no proteosome inhibitor/immunomodulatory therapy usage (HR 1.36), recent emergency department (HR 1.55) or hospitalization (HR 2.13), poor performance status (ECOG 3-4 HR 1.76), and increasing number of severe symptoms (HR 1.56). Model discrimination was high with C-statistic of 0.74, and calibration was very good. To our knowledge, this represents one of the first prognostic models developed in MM incorporating patient-reported outcomes. This survival prognostic tool may improve communication regarding prognosis and shared decision-making among older adults with MM and their health care providers.

The impact of marginalization on diffuse large B-cell lymphoma overall survival: a retrospective cohort study.

The aim of this study was to describe the impact of marginalization on DLBCL overall survival (OS) within the Canadian setting. We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of adult patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL in Ontario between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2017 receiving a rituximab-containing chemotherapy regimen with curative intent followed until 1 March 2020. Our primary exposure of interest was the Ontario Marginalization Index (ON-Marg). The primary outcome was 2-year OS, accounting for patient age, sex, cancer characteristics, comorbidity burden, and rural dwelling status. While two-year overall survival was inferior for individuals in the most deprived marginalization quintile (70.4% Q5 vs. 76.0% Q1), after adjustment for relevant covariates neither the composite ON-Marg nor any of its dimensions had a significant effect. Within the Canadian context, among patients who receive chemotherapy, marginalization may not have a significant association with overall survival when accounting for key patient covariates, lending support for preserved outcomes.

Indolent lymphoma care delivery and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada.

The treatment pattern and outcomes in patients with indolent B-cell lymphoma treated during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period compared to the prepandemic period are unclear. This was a retrospective population-based study using administrative databases in Ontario, Canada (follow-up to 31 March 2022). The primary outcome was treatment pattern; secondary outcomes were death, toxicities, healthcare utilization (emergency department [ED] visit, hospitalization) and SARS-CoV-2 outcomes. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) from Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate associations. We identified 4143 patients (1079 pandemic, 3064 prepandemic), with a median age of 69 years. In both time periods, bendamustine (B) + rituximab (BR) was the most frequently prescribed regimen. During the pandemic, fewer patients received R maintenance or completed the full 2-year course (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.92, p = 0.001). Patients treated during the pandemic had less healthcare utilization (ED visit aHR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68, 0.88, p < 0.0001; hospitalization aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94, p = 0.0067) and complications (infection aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82, p < 0.0001; febrile neutropenia aHR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.94, p = 0.020), with no difference in death. Independent of vaccination, active rituximab use was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 complications. Despite similar front-line regimen use, healthcare utilization and admissions for infection were less in the pandemic cohort.

Power and sample size calculation for incremental net benefit in cost effectiveness analyses with applications to trials conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group.

BACKGROUND: Historically, a priori power and sample size calculations have not been routinely performed cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA), partly because the absence of published cost and effectiveness correlation and variance data, which are essential for power and sample size calculations. Importantly, the empirical correlation between cost and effectiveness has not been examined with respect to the estimation of value-for-money in clinical literature. Therefore, it is not well established if cost-effectiveness studies embedded within randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) are under- or over-powered to detect changes in value-for-money. However, recently guidelines (such as those from ISPOR) and funding agencies have suggested sample size and power calculations should be considered in CEAs embedded in clinical trials. METHODS: We examined all RCTs conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group with an embedded cost-effectiveness analysis. Variance and correlation of effectiveness and costs were derived from original-trial data. The incremental net benefit method was used to calculate the power of the cost-effectiveness analysis, with exploration of alternative correlation and willingness-to-pay values. RESULTS: We identified four trials for inclusion. We observed that a hypothetical scenario of correlation coefficient of zero between cost and effectiveness led to a conservative estimate of sample size. The cost-effectiveness analysis was under-powered to detect changes in value-for-money in two trials, at willingness-to-pay of $100,000. Based on our observations, we present six considerations for future economic evaluations, and an online program to help analysts include a priori sample size and power calculations in future clinical trials. CONCLUSION: The correlation between cost and effectiveness had a potentially meaningful impact on the power and variance of value-for-money estimates in the examined cost-effectiveness analyses. Therefore, the six considerations and online program, may facilitate a priori power calculations in embedded cost-effectiveness analyses in future clinical trials.

Augmenting clinical trial economic analysis by linking cancer trial data to administrative data: current landscape and future opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Economic analyses based on clinical trial data are costly and time consuming, and alternative methods for performing economic analyses should be explored. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: In this perspective, we examine the emerging role of administrative data for economic analyses in cancer. RESULTS: Compared with routinely collected clinical trial data, routinely collected administrative data have several strengths including high capture rates for healthcare encounters, less resource utilisation, low rates of misclassification, long follow-up periods and the opportunity to collect data points not traditionally captured in clinical trials. However, there are also limitations including the need for accurate data linkage across multiple databases and systems, the costs and time associated with data linkage, the potential time lag between trial data collection and the availability of administrative data, and limited data on quality of life, toxicity and indirect costs. In this perspective, we identify important barriers and potential solutions to performing economic analyses for oncology using administrative data, and outline strategies to increase research in this field. CONCLUSION: The use of routinely collected administrative data sets for economic analyses of clinical trials presents a unique opportunity that could complement and validate economic analyses based on trial-level data.

Mortality among patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and mental disorders: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Mental disorders have been reported in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), but studies examining their association with mortality are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study using linked administrative health-care databases from Ontario, Canada. All patients with DLBCL 18 years of age or older treated with rituximab-based therapy between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2017, were identified and followed until March 1, 2020. Mental disorders were defined as either preexisting or postdiagnosis (after lymphoma treatment initiation). Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) between mental disorders and 1-year and all-cause mortality while controlling for covariates. RESULTS: We identified 10 299 patients with DLBCL. The median age of the cohort was 67 years; 46% of patients were female, and 28% had a preexisting mental disorder. At 1-year follow-up, 892 (9%) had a postdiagnosis mental disorder, and a total of 2008 (20%) patients died. Preexisting mental disorders were not associated with 1-year mortality (adjusted HR = 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.96 to 1.17, P = .25), but postdiagnosis disorders were (adjusted HR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.26 to 1.82, P = .0001). During a median follow-up of 5.2 years, 2111 (22%) patients had a postdiagnosis mental disorder, and 4084 (40%) patients died. Both preexisting and postdiagnosis mental disorders were associated with worse all-cause mortality (preexisting adjusted HR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.20, P = .0024; postdiagnosis adjusted HR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.49 to 1.79, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with DLBCL and mental disorders had worse short-term and long-term mortality, particularly those with postdiagnosis mental disorders. Further studies are needed to examine mental health service utilization and factors mediating the relationship between mental disorders and inferior mortality.

Fracture risk among patients with cancer compared to individuals without cancer: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer may be at increased risk of osteoporosis and fracture; however, gaps exist in the existing literature and the association between cancer and fracture requires further examination. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of Ontario patients with cancer (breast, prostate, lung, gastrointestinal, haematologic) diagnosed between January 2007 to December 2018 and 1:1 matched non-cancer controls. The primary outcome was incident fracture (end of follow-up December 2019). Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the relative fracture risk with sensitivity analysis accounting for competing risk of death. RESULTS: Among 172,963 cancer patients with non-cancer controls, 70.6% of patients with cancer were <65 years old, 58% were female, and 9375 and 8141 fracture events were observed in the cancer and non-cancer group, respectively (median follow-up 6.5 years). Compared to non-cancer controls, patients with cancer had higher risk of fracture (adjusted HR [aHR] 1.10, 95% CI 1.07-1.14, p < 0.0001), which was also observed for both solid (aHR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.13, p < 0.0001) and haematologic cancers (aHR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10-1.31, p < 0.0001). Sensitivity analysis accounting for competing risk of death did not change these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that patients with cancer are at modest risk of fractures compared to non-cancer controls.

Outcomes of patients with indolent lymphoma treated with bendamustine plus rituximab compared to rituximab plus CVP or CHOP chemoimmunotherapy in Ontario.

Bendamustine (B) with rituximab (R) has become the preferred regimen for patients with indolent lymphoma in Ontario, Canada, compared to R with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone (CVP) or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP). We conducted a propensity-matched retrospective cohort population-based study of patients treated with R-CVP/CHOP from 2005 to 2012 and patients treated with BR from 2013 to 2018. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS), and secondary outcomes included toxicities and healthcare utilization. The 5-year OS for patients treated with BR (n = 2023) and R-CVP/CHOP (n = 2023) was 80% and 75% respectively. Treatment with BR was associated with improved OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.91). During the first 9 months, patients treated with BR versus R-CVP/CHOP had a higher number of admissions for infection (22% compared to 17%, p < 0.01) and a higher number of mean ED visits (mean 1.01 ± 1.68 visits vs. 0.85 ± 1.51 visits, p < 0.01). This trend persisted for 3 years. The adjusted 5-year OS for patients 75 years and older did not differ based on treatment regimen (55.5% for BR vs. 55.4% for R-CVP/CHOP). Our study supports the use of BR for patients with indolent lymphoma requiring treatment but suggests increased risk of certain toxicities warranting careful patient selection.

Contact Days Associated With Cancer Treatments in the CCTG LY.12 Trial.

BACKGROUND: When cancer treatments have similar oncologic outcomes, the number of days with in-person healthcare contact (""contact days'') can help contextualize expected time use with each treatment. We assessed contact days in a completed randomized clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the CCTG LY.12 RCT that evaluated 2-3 cycles of gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin (GDP) vs. dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin (DHAP) in 619 patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma prior to stem cell transplant. Primary analyses reported similar response rates and survival. We calculated patient-level "contact days" by analyzing trial forms. The study period was from assignment to progression or transplant. Days without healthcare contact were considered "home days''. We compared measures of contact days across arms. RESULTS: The study period was longer in the GDP arm (median 50, vs. 47 days, P = .007). Contact days were comparable in both arms (median 18 vs 19, P = 0.79), but home days were higher in the GDP arm (median 33 vs 28, P < .001). The proportion of contact days was lower in the GDP arm (34%, vs. 38%, P = .009). The GDP arm experienced more contact days related to planned outpatient chemotherapy (median, 10 vs. 8 days), but the DHAP arm experienced many more inpatient contact days (median, 11 vs. 0 days). CONCLUSIONS: Measures of time use, such as contact days, can be extracted from RCTs. In LY.12, despite comparable oncologic outcomes, GDP was associated with fewer contact days. Such information can guide decision-making for patients with hematological cancers, who already face significant healthcare contact.

Impact of Frailty on Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs of Care in Myelodysplastic Syndromes.

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

Small volume biopsy diagnostic yield at initial diagnosis versus recurrence/transformation of follicular lymphoma: A retrospective Cyto-Heme Interinstitutional Collaborative study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated diagnostic yield of small volume biopsies (SVB) for the diagnosis and management of follicular lymphoma (FL). METHODS: The authors performed a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of SVBs including fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and needle core biopsy (NCB) for initial FL diagnosis and suspected recurrence or transformation of FL. A total of 676 workups beginning with SVB were assessed for the mean number of biopsies per workup, the proportion of workups requiring multiple biopsies, and the proportion with a complete diagnosis including grade, on initial biopsy. RESULTS: Compared to workups performed for question transformation/recurrence, those done for initial FL diagnosis were significantly more likely to require multiple biopsies (p < .01), had a higher mean number of biopsies per workup (1.7 vs. 1.1, absolute standardized difference = 1.1), and a lower complete diagnosis rate at initial biopsy (39% vs. 56%). At initial FL diagnosis, NCB +/- FNA was associated with fewer biopsies per workup compared to FNA +/- CB (1.2 vs. 1.9), fewer workups requiring multiple biopsies (23% vs. 83%), and a higher complete diagnosis rate (71% vs. 18%). In contrast, during assessment for transformation/recurrence, NCB and FNA showed a similar mean number of biopsies per workup (1.2 vs. 1.2) and few workups required multiple biopsies (6% vs. 19%). CONCLUSIONS: SVB at initial FL diagnosis often required additional biopsies to establish a complete diagnosis. In contrast, when assessing for transformed/recurrent FL, additional biopsies were generally not obtained regardless of SVB type, suggesting that in these clinical settings SVB may be sufficient for clinical decision-making.

Association of COVID-19 Vaccination With Breakthrough Infections and Complications in Patients With Cancer.

Importance: Patients with cancer are known to have increased risk of COVID-19 complications, including death. Objective: To determine the association of COVID-19 vaccination with breakthrough infections and complications in patients with cancer compared to noncancer controls. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective population-based cohort study using linked administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, in residents 18 years and older who received COVID-19 vaccination. Three matched groups were identified (based on age, sex, type of vaccine, date of vaccine): 1:4 match for patients with hematologic and solid cancer to noncancer controls (hematologic and solid cancers separately analyzed), 1:1 match between patients with hematologic and patients with solid cancer. Exposures: Cancer diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes occurring 14 days after receipt of second COVID-19 vaccination dose: primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection; secondary outcomes were emergency department visit, hospitalization, and death within 4 weeks of SARS-CoV-2 infection (end of follow-up March 31, 2022). Multivariable cumulative incidence function models were used to obtain adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and 95% CIs. Results: A total of 289 400 vaccinated patients with cancer (39 880 hematologic; 249 520 solid) with 1 157 600 matched noncancer controls were identified; the cohort was 65.4% female, and mean (SD) age was 66 (14.0) years. SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection was higher in patients with hematologic cancer (aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.20-1.46; P < .001) but not in patients with solid cancer (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.05; P = .87). COVID-19 severe outcomes (composite of hospitalization and death) were significantly higher in patients with cancer compared to patients without cancer (aHR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.42-1.63; P < .001). Risk of severe outcomes was higher among patients with hematologic cancer (aHR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.21-2.85; P < .001) than patients with solid cancer (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.64; P < .001). Patients receiving active treatment had a further heightened risk for COVID-19 severe outcomes, particularly those who received anti-CD20 therapy. Third vaccination dose was associated with lower infection and COVID-19 complications, except for patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large population-based cohort study, patients with cancer had greater risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and worse outcomes than patients without cancer, and the risk was highest for patients with hematologic cancer and any patients with cancer receiving active treatment. Triple vaccination was associated with lower risk of poor outcomes.

Primary care utilization for patients with newly diagnosed cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic greatly impacted primary care and cancer care. We studied how primary care utilization in Ontario, Canada changed for patients who were newly diagnosed with cancer just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic compared to those diagnosed in non-pandemic years. METHODS: This population-based, retrospective cohort study used linked healthcare databases to compare outcomes for patients with a new malignancy diagnosed within the year prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, between July 1 and September 30, 2019 (COVID-19 cohort) to those diagnosed in the same months in 2018 and 2017 (pre-pandemic cohort). We used Poisson regression models to compare rates of in-person and virtual visits to patients' usual primary care physician (PCP), emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations, all reported per person-year of follow-up. RESULTS: In-person visits to usual PCPs decreased from 4.07/person-year in the pre-pandemic cohort to 2.58 in the COVID-19 cohort (p < 0.0001). Virtual visits to usual PCPs increased from 0.00 to 1.53 (p < 0.0001). Combined in-person and virtual visits to patients' usual PCPs was unchanged from 4.07 to 4.12 (p = 0.89). The rate of ED visits decreased from 0.99/person-year to 0.88 (p < 0.0001). Non-elective hospitalizations remained unchanged, from 0.49/person-year to 0.47 (p = 0.1675). CONCLUSION: There was a sizeable shift in primary care visits for cancer patients from in-person to virtual during the pandemic, although there was no resultant increase in hospitalizations. This suggests that early in the pandemic, virtual care allowed for continuity in utilization of primary care, though further studies are required to confirm this persisted later in the pandemic.

Comparison of Use of Neoadjuvant Systemic Treatment for Breast Cancer and Short-term Outcomes Before vs During the COVID-19 Era in Ontario, Canada.

Importance: In response to an increase in COVID-19 infection rates in Ontario, several systemic treatment (ST) regimens delivered in the adjuvant setting for breast cancer were temporarily permitted for neoadjuvant-intent to defer nonurgent breast cancer surgical procedures. Objective: To examine the use and compare short-term outcomes of neoadjuvant-intent vs adjuvant ST in the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada. Patients with cancer starting selected ST regimens in the COVID-19 era (March 11, 2020, to September 30, 2020) were compared to those in the pre-COVID-19 era (March 11, 2019, to March 10, 2020). Patients were diagnosed with breast cancer within 6 months of starting systemic therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimates were calculated for the use of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant ST, the likelihood of receiving a surgical procedure, the rate of emergency department visits, hospital admissions, COVID-19 infections, and all-cause mortality between treatment groups over time. Results: Among a total of 10 920 patients included, 7990 (73.2%) started treatment in the pre-COVID-19 era and 7344 (67.3%) received adjuvant ST; the mean (SD) age was 61.6 (13.1) years. Neoadjuvant-intent ST was more common in the COVID-19 era (1404 of 2930 patients [47.9%]) than the pre-COVID-19 era (2172 of 7990 patients [27.2%]), with an odds ratio of 2.46 (95% CI, 2.26-2.69; P < .001). This trend was consistent across a range of ST regimens, but differed according to patient age and geography. The likelihood of receiving surgery following neoadjuvant-intent chemotherapy was similar in the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era (log-rank P = .06). However, patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant-intent hormonal therapy were significantly more likely to receive surgery in the COVID-19 era (log-rank P < .001). After adjustment, there were no significant changes in the rate of emergency department visits over time between patients receiving neoadjuvant ST, adjuvant ST, or ST only during the ST treatment period or postoperative period. Hospital admissions decreased in the COVID-19 era for patients who received neoadjuvant ST compared with adjuvant ST or ST alone (P for interaction = .01 for both) in either setting. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients were more likely to start neoadjuvant ST in the COVID-19 era, which varied across the province and by indication. There was limited evidence to suggest any substantial impact on short-term outcomes.