Trajectories of Health Care Contact Days for Patients With Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: Patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience substantial morbidity and mortality. Contact days (ie, the number of days with health care contact outside the home) measure how much of a person's life is consumed by health care, yet little is known about patterns of contact days for patients with NSCLC. Objective: To describe the trajectories of contact days in patients with stage IV NSCLC and how trajectories vary by receipt of cancer-directed treatment in routine practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective, population-based decedent cohort study was conducted in Ontario, Canada. Participants included adults aged 20 years or older who were diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC (January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017) and died (January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019); there was a maximum 2-year follow-up. Data analysis was conducted from February 22 to August 16, 2023. Exposure: Systemic cancer-directed therapy (yes or no) and type of therapy (chemotherapy vs immunotherapy vs targeted therapy). Main Outcomes and Measures: Contact days (days with health care contact, outpatient or institution-based, outside the home) were identified through administrative data. The weekly percentage of contact days and fitted models with cubic splines were quantified to describe trajectories from diagnosis until death. Results: A total of 5785 decedents with stage IV NSCLC were included (median age, 70 [IQR 62-77] years; 3108 [53.7%] were male, and 1985 [34.3%] received systemic therapy). The median overall survival was 108 (IQR, 49-426) days, median contact days were 36 (IQR, 21-62), and the median percentage that were contact days was 33.3%. A median of 5 (IQR, 2-10) days were spent with specialty palliative care. Patients who did not receive systemic therapy had a median overall survival of 66 (IQR, 34-130) days and median contact days of 28 (IQR, 17-44), of which a median of 5 (IQR, 2-9) days were spent with specialty palliative care. Overall and for subgroups, normalized trajectories followed a U-shaped distribution: contact days were most frequent immediately after diagnosis and before death. Patients who received targeted therapy had the lowest contact day rate during the trough (10.6%; vs immunotherapy, 15.4%; vs chemotherapy, 17.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, decedents with stage IV NSCLC had a median survival in the order of 3.5 months and spent 1 in every 3 days alive interacting with the health care system outside the home. These results highlight the need to better support patients and care partners, benchmark appropriateness, and improve care delivery.

Impact on costs and outcomes of multi-gene panel testing for advanced solid malignancies: a cost-consequence analysis using linked administrative data.

Background: To date, economic analyses of tissue-based next generation sequencing genomic profiling (NGS) for advanced solid tumors have typically required models with assumptions, with little real-world evidence on overall survival (OS), clinical trial enrollment or end-of-life quality of care. Methods: Cost consequence analysis of NGS testing (555 or 161-gene panels) for advanced solid tumors through the OCTANE clinical trial (NCT02906943). This is a longitudinal, propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada using linked administrative data. Patients enrolled in OCTANE at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from August 2016 until March 2019 were matched with contemporary patients without large gene panel testing from across Ontario not enrolled in OCTANE. Patients were matched according to 19 patient, disease and treatment variables. Full 2-year follow-up data was available. Sensitivity analyses considered alternative matched cohorts. Main Outcomes were mean per capita costs (2019 Canadian dollars) from a public payer's perspective, OS, clinical trial enrollment and end-of-life quality metrics. Findings: There were 782 OCTANE patients with 782 matched controls. Variables were balanced after matching (standardized difference <0.10). There were higher mean health-care costs with OCTANE ($79,702 vs. $59,550), mainly due to outpatient and specialist visits. Publicly funded drug costs were less with OCTANE ($20,015 vs. $24,465). OCTANE enrollment was not associated with improved OS (restricted mean survival time [standard error]: 1.50 (±0.03) vs. 1.44 (±0.03) years, log-rank p = 0.153), varying by tumor type. In five tumor types with ≥35 OCTANE patients, OS was similar in three (breast, colon, uterus, all p > 0.40), and greater in two (ovary, biliary, both p < 0.05). OCTANE was associated with greater clinical trial enrollment (25.4% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.001) and better end-of-life quality due to less death in hospital (10.2% vs. 16.4%, p = 0.003). Results were robust in sensitivity analysis. Interpretation: We found an increase in healthcare costs associated with multi-gene panel testing for advanced cancer treatment. The impact on OS was not significant, but varied across tumor types. OCTANE was associated with greater trial enrollment, lower publicly funded drug costs and fewer in-hospital deaths suggesting important considerations in determining the value of NGS panel testing for advanced cancers. Funding: T.P H holds a research grant provided by the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research through funding provided by the Government of Ontario (#IA-035 and P.HSR.158) and through funding of the Canadian Network for Learning Healthcare Systems and Cost-Effective 'Omics Innovation (CLEO) via Genome Canada (G05CHS).

Common Sense (Radiation) Oncology: Redefining targets in radiotherapy.

In 2023, the Common Sense Oncology (CSO) movement was launched with the goal of recalibrating cancer care to focus on outcomes that matter to patients. We extend the three CSO pillars - evidence generation, interpretation and communication - to radiation oncology and advocate for better evidence demonstrating the value of our modality.

The management of stage I Non-Small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Ontario: A Population-Based study of patterns of care and Stereotactic Ablative Body radiotherapy (SABR) utilization from 2010 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) is the standard of care for medically inoperable patients with Stage I NSCLC. The adoption of SABR and its association with cancer outcomes requires characterization. AIM: We described the management of biopsy-proven Stage I NSCLC with SABR, surgery, non-SABR curative radiotherapy (RT) and observation in Ontario, Canada, between 2010 and 2019. Temporal and geographic trends in practice and survival outcomes were analyzed. METHODS: This was a retrospective population-based cohort study conducted by linking electronic radiotherapy (RT) records to a population-based cancer registry. RESULTS: A total of 12,065 patients were identified, 61.7 % underwent surgery, 17.9 % received SABR, 8.6 % received non-SABR curative RT and 11.7 % were observed. Between 2010 and 2019, the utilization of surgery decreased (63.8 % to 49.9 %, p < 0.0001), while SABR use increased (7.5 % to 24.4 %, p < 0.0001), non-SABR curative RT use increased (6.7 % to 9.6 %, p < 0.0014) and patients observed decreased (14.4 % to 12.0 %, p < 0.0001). Substantial variation in practice exists across Ontario. Two- yr CSS improved for the entire cohort (81.9 % to 85.0 %, p < 0.0001). While there was improvement in 2 yr CSS for surgical patients (92.1 %% to 95.7 %, p < 0.001), survival for patients who received SABR, Non-SABR curative RT and observation remained stable. CONCLUSION: There has been an increase in SABR utilization and a reduction in surgical utilization with a corresponding increased survival of stage I patients in Ontario between 2010 and 2019. Substantial differences in practice patterns exist across health regions, suggesting the need for strategies to improve access to SABR in many jurisdictions.

Challenges in building radiotherapy capacity: A longitudinal study evaluating eight years of the Brazilian radiotherapy expansion plan.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the Brazilian government launched a radiotherapy (RT) expansion plan (PER-SUS) to install 100 linear accelerators. This study assesses the development of this program after eight years. METHODS: Official reports from the Ministry of Health (MoH) were reviewed. RT centres projects status, timeframes, and cost data (all converted to US dollars) were extracted. The time analysis was divided into seven phases, and for cost evaluation, there were five stages. The initial predicted project time (IPPT) and costs (estimated by the MoH) for each phase were compared between the 18 operational RT centres (able to treat patients) and 30 non-operational RT centres using t-tests, ANOVA, and the Mann-Whitney U. A p-value < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. RESULTS: A significant delay was observed when comparing the IPPT with the overall time to conclude each 48 RT centres project (p < 0.001), with considerable delays in the first five phases (p < 0.001 for all). Moreover, the median time to conclude the first 18 operational RT centres (77.4 months) was shorter compared with the 30 non-operational RT centres (94.0 months), p < 0.001. The total cost of 48 RT services was USD 82,84 millions (mi) with a significant difference in the per project median total cost between 18 operational RT centres, USD1,34 mi and 30 non-operational RT centres USD2,11 mi, p < 0.001. All phases had a higher cost when comparing 30 non-operational RT centres to 18 operational RT centres, p < 0.001. The median total cost for expanding existing RT centres was USD1,30 mi versus USD2,18 mi for new RT services, p < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: After eight years, the PER-SUS programs showed a substantial delay in most projects and their phases, with increased costs over time. POLICY SUMMARY: Our findings indicate a need to act to increase the success of this plan. This study may provide a benchmark for other developing countries trying to expand RT capacity.

Efficacy-effectiveness gaps in oncology: Looking beyond survival.

The efficacy-effectiveness (EE) gap describes the differences in survival seen in clinical trials and routine clinical practice, where patients in real-world practice often have inferior outcomes compared to trial populations. However, EE gaps may exist beyond survival outcomes, including gaps in quality of life, toxicity, cost-effectiveness, and patient time, and these EE gaps should also influence patient and clinician treatment decisions. Failure to clearly acknowledge these EE gaps may cause patients, clinicians, and health care systems to have unrealistic expectations of the benefits of therapy across a range of important clinical and economic domains. In this commentary, the authors review the evidence supporting the existence of EE gaps in quality of life, time toxicity, cost and toxicities, and urge for further research into this important topic.

Factors associated with the melanoma diagnostic interval in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Protracted times to diagnosis of cancer can lead to increased patient anxiety, and in some cases, disease progression and worse outcomes. This study assessed the time to diagnosis for melanoma, and its variability, according to patient-, disease-, and system-level factors. METHODS: This is a descriptive, cross-sectional study in Ontario, Canada from 2007-2019. We used administrative health data to measure the diagnostic interval (DI)-and its two subintervals-the primary care subinterval (PCI) and specialist care subinterval (SCI). Multivariable quantile regression was used. RESULTS: There were 33,371 melanoma patients. The median DI was 36 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 8-85 days), median PCI 22 days (IQR: 6-54 days), and median SCI 6 days (IQR: 1-42 days). Increasing comorbidity was associated with increasing DI. Residents in the most deprived neighbourhoods and those in rural areas experienced shorter DIs and PCIs, but no differences in SCI. There was substantial variation in the DI and SCI across health regions, but limited differences in the PCI. Finally, patients with a history of non-melanoma skin cancer, and those previously established with a dermatologist experienced significantly longer DI, PCI, and SCI. DISCUSSION: This study found variability in the melanoma DI, notably by system-level factors.

Incidence, Mortality, and Survival of Merkel Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review of Population Based-Studies.

BACKGROUND: Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive skin cancer that most commonly occurs in UV-exposed body sites. Its epidemiology in different geographies and populations is not well characterised. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to summarize evidence on the incidence, mortality, and survival rates of MCC from population-based studies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to June 6th, 2023. No geographic, age or date exclusions were applied. We included population-based studies of MCC that reported the incidence, survival, or mortality rate, and considered systematic reviews. A data-charting form was created and validated to identify variables to extract. Two reviewers then independently charted the data for each included study with patient characteristics, and estimates of incidence rate, mortality rate, and survival rate and assessed the quality of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence studies, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews. We abstracted age-, sex-, stage- and race-stratified outcomes, and synthesized comparisons between strata narratively and using vote counting. We assessed the certainty of evidence for those comparisons using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Developments and Evaluations framework. RESULTS: We identified 11,472 citations, of which 52 studies from 24 countries met our inclusion criteria. Stage 1 and the head and neck were the most frequently reported stage and location at diagnosis. The incidence of MCC is increasing over time (high certainty), with the highest reported incidences reported in Southern hemisphere countries (Australia [2.5 per 100,000], New Zealand [0.96 per 100,000]) (high certainty). Male patients generally had higher incidence rates compared to female patients (high certainty), although there were some variations over time periods. Survival rates varied, with lower survival and/or higher mortality associated with male sex (moderate certainty), higher stage at diagnosis (moderate-to-high certainty), older age (moderate certainty), and immunosuppression (low-to-moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: MCC is increasing in incidence and may increase further given the ageing population of many countries. The prognosis of MCC is poor, particularly for males, those who are immunosuppressed, and patients diagnosed at higher stages or at an older age.

Health Care Contact Days Experienced by Decedents With Advanced GI Cancer.

PURPOSE: Frequent visits to health care facilities can be time intensive and all-consuming for people with cancer. We measured health care contact days (days with healthcare contact outside the home) among decedents with advanced GI cancer and examined sources of contact days, their associations with demographic and clinical factors, and their temporal patterns over the course of illness. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a tumor registry and electronic medical record data for decedents with stage IV GI cancer between 2011 and 2019 in a large health care network in MN. We determined contact days from diagnosis to death using chart review. Using multivariable beta regression adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics offset by survival, we calculated adjusted estimates of contact days and determined patient-level factors associated with percentage of contact days. RESULTS: We identified 809 patients eligible for analysis (median [IQR] age at diagnosis, 65 [56-73] years). The median (IQR) overall survival was 175 (56-459) days. Patients spent a median (IQR) of 25.8% (17.4%-39.1%) of these as contact days. Of these days, 83.6% were spent on outpatient visits. In the multivariable analysis, older age, Black race, and never receiving systemic cancer-directed treatment were associated with a higher percentage of contact days. The percentage of contact days was highest in the first month after diagnosis (39.6%) and before death (32.2%), with a more moderate middle phase (U-shaped curve). CONCLUSION: Decedents with advanced GI cancer spend 1 in 4 days alive with health care contact, despite a median survival of under 6 months. This is even higher immediately postdiagnosis and near death. These findings highlight the need to understand sources of variation, benchmark appropriate care, and deliver more efficient care for this vulnerable population with limited time.

Changes in Health Care Costs, Survival, and Time Toxicity in the Era of Immunotherapy and Targeted Systemic Therapy for Melanoma.

Importance: Melanoma treatment has evolved during the past decade with the adoption of adjuvant and palliative immunotherapy and targeted therapies, with an unclear impact on health care costs and outcomes in routine practice. Objective: To examine changes in health care costs, overall survival (OS), and time toxicity associated with primary treatment of melanoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed a longitudinal, propensity score (PS)-matched, retrospective cohort of residents of Ontario, Canada, aged 20 years or older with stages II to IV cutaneous melanoma identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry from January 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019. A historical comparison cohort was identified from a population-based sample of invasive melanoma cases diagnosed from the Ontario Cancer Registry from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2012. Data analysis was performed from October 17, 2022, to March 13, 2023. Exposures: Era of melanoma diagnosis (2007-2012 vs 2018-2019). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were mean per-capita health care and systemic therapy costs (Canadian dollars) during the first year after melanoma diagnosis, time toxicity (days with physical health care contact) within 1 year of initial treatment, and OS. Standardized differences were used to compare costs and time toxicity. Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to compare OS among PS-matched cohorts. Results: A PS-matched cohort of 731 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [14.8] years; 437 [59.8%] male) with melanoma from 2018 to 2019 and 731 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [14.4] years; 440 [60.2%] male) from 2007 to 2012 were evaluated. The 2018 to 2019 patients had greater mean (SD) health care (including systemic therapy) costs compared with the 2007 to 2012 patients ($47 886 [$55 176] vs $33 347 [$31 576]), specifically for stage III ($67 108 [$57 226] vs $46 511 [$30 622]) and stage IV disease ($117 450 [$79 272] vs $47 739 [$37 652]). Mean (SD) systemic therapy costs were greater among 2018 to 2019 patients: stage II ($40 823 [$40 621] vs $10 309 [$12 176]), III ($55 699 [$41 181] vs $9764 [$12 771]), and IV disease ($79 358 [$50 442] vs $9318 [$14 986]). Overall survival was greater for the 2018 to 2019 cohort compared with the 2007 to 2012 cohort (3-year OS: 74.2% [95% CI, 70.8%-77.2%] vs 65.8% [95% CI, 62.2%-69.1%], hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.61-0.85]; P < .001). Time toxicity was similar between eras. Patients with stage IV disease spent more than 1 day per week (>52 days) with physical contact with the health care system by 2018 to 2019 (mean [SD], 58.7 [43.8] vs 44.2 [26.5] days; standardized difference, 0.40; P = .20). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found greater health care costs in the treatment of stages II to IV melanoma and substantial time toxicity for patients with stage IV disease, with improvements in OS associated with the adoption of immunotherapy and targeted therapies. These health system-wide data highlight the trade-off with adoption of new therapies, for which there is a greater economic burden to the health care system and time burden to patients but an associated improvement in survival.

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.

Association between the COVID-19 pandemic and first cancer treatment modality: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Physicians were directed to prioritize using nonsurgical cancer treatment at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to quantify the impact of this policy on the modality of first cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy or no treatment). METHODS: In this population-based study using Ontario data from linked administrative databases, we identified adults diagnosed with cancer from January 2016 to November 2020 and their first cancer treatment received within 1 year postdiagnosis. Segmented Poisson regressions were applied to each modality to estimate the change in mean 1-year recipient volume per thousand patients (rate) at the start of the pandemic (the week of Mar. 15, 2020) and change in the weekly trend in rate during the pandemic (Mar. 15, 2020, to Nov. 7, 2020) relative to before the pandemic (Jan. 3, 2016, to Mar. 14, 2020). RESULTS: We included 321 535 people diagnosed with cancer. During the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic, the mean rate of receiving upfront surgery over the next year declined by 9% (rate ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.95), and chemotherapy and radiotherapy rates rose by 30% (rate ratio 1.30, 95% CI 1.23-1.36) and 13% (rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.19), respectively. Subsequently, the 1-year rate of upfront surgery increased at 0.4% for each week (rate ratio 1.004, 95% CI 1.002-1.006), and chemotherapy and radiotherapy rates decreased by 0.9% (rate ratio 0.991, 95% CI 0.989-0.994) and 0.4% (rate ratio 0.996, 95% CI 0.994-0.998), respectively, per week. Rates of each modality resumed to prepandemic levels at 24-31 weeks into the pandemic. INTERPRETATION: An immediate and sustained increase in use of nonsurgical therapy as the first cancer treatment occurred during the first 8 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario. Further research is needed to understand the consequences.

Is cancer stage data missing completely at random? A report from a large population-based cohort of non-small cell lung cancer.

Introduction: Population-based datasets are often used to estimate changes in utilization or outcomes of novel therapies. Inclusion or exclusion of unstaged patients may impact on interpretation of these studies. Methods: A large population-based dataset in Ontario, Canada of non-small cell lung cancer patients was examined to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of unstaged patients compared to staged patients. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to evaluate differences in patient-level characteristics between groups. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival and log-rank statistics were utilized. Results: In our Ontario cohort of 51,152 patients with NSCLC, 11.2% (n=5,707) were unstaged, and there was evidence that stage data was not missing completely at random. Those without assigned stage were more likely than staged patients to be older (RR [95%CI]), (70-79 vs. 20-59: 1.51 [1.38-1.66]; 80+ vs. 20-59: 2.87 [2.62-3.15]), have a higher comorbidity index (Score 1-2 vs 0: 1.19 [1.12-1.27]; 3 vs. 0: 1.49 [1.38-1.60]), and have a lower socioeconomic class (4 vs. 1 (lowest): 0.91 [0.84-0.98]; 5 vs. 1 (lowest): 0.89 [0.83-0.97]). Overall survival of unstaged patients suggested a mixture of early and advanced stage, but with a large proportion that are probably stage IV patients with more rapid death than those with reported stage IV disease. Conclusion: In this case study, evaluation of stage-specific health care utilization and outcomes for staged patients with stage IV disease at the population level may have a bias as a distinct subset of stage IV patients with rapid death are likely among those without a documented stage in administrative data.

Early survival for patients newly diagnosed with cancer during COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and early survival among newly diagnosed cancer patients. METHODS: This retrospective population-based cohort study used linked administrative datasets from Ontario, Canada. Adults (≥18 years) who received a cancer diagnosis between March 15 and December 31, 2020, were included in a pandemic cohort, while those diagnosed during the same dates in 2018/2019 were included in a pre-pandemic cohort. All patients were followed for one full year after the date of diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess survival in relation to the pandemic, patient characteristics at diagnosis, and the modality of first cancer treatment as a time-varying covariate. Interaction terms were explored to measure the pandemic association with survival for each cancer type. RESULTS: Among 179,746 patients, 53,387 (29.7%) were in the pandemic cohort and 37,741 (21.0%) died over the first post-diagnosis year. No association between the pandemic and survival was found when adjusting for patient characteristics at diagnosis (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.96-1.01]), while marginally better survival was found for the pandemic cohort when the modality of treatment was additionally considered (HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.95-0.99]). When examining each cancer type, only a new melanoma diagnosis was associated with a worse survival in the pandemic cohort (HR 1.25 [95% CI 1.05-1.49]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients able to receive a cancer diagnosis during the pandemic, one-year overall survival was not different than those diagnosed in the previous 2 years. This study highlights the complex nature of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on cancer care.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma: A real-world population-based cohort study of resource utilization.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy-effectiveness gap between randomized trial and real-world evidence regarding the clinical benefit of ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma (MM) has been well characterized by previous literature, consistent with initial concerns raised by health technology assessment agencies (HTAs). As these differences can significantly impact cost-effectiveness, it is critical to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab versus non-ipilimumab treatments for MM. METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study of patients who received second-line non-ipilimumab therapies between 2008 and 2012 versus ipilimumab treatment between 2012 and 2015 (after public reimbursement) for MM in Ontario. Using a 5-year time horizon, censor-adjusted and discounted (1.5%) costs (from the public payer's perspective in Canadian dollars) and effectiveness were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in life-years gained (LYGs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with bootstrapping to capture uncertainty. Varying the discount rate and reducing the price of ipilimumab were done as sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In total, 329 MM were identified (Treated: 189; Controls: 140). Ipilimumab was associated with an incremental effectiveness of 0.59 LYG, incremental cost of $91,233, and ICER of $153,778/LYG. ICERs were not sensitive to discounting rate. Adjusting for quality of life using utility weights resulted in an ICER of $225,885/QALY, confirming the original HTA estimate prior to public reimbursement. Reducing the price of ipilimumab by 100% resulted in an ICER of $111,728/QALY. CONCLUSION: Despite its clinical benefit, ipilimumab as second-line monotherapy for MM patients is not cost-effective in the real world as projected by HTA under conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Timeliness and Modality of Treatment for New Cancer Diagnoses During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Canada.

Importance: The impact of COVID-19 on the modality and timeliness of first-line cancer treatment is unclear yet critical to the planning of subsequent care. Objective: To explore the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with modalities of and wait times for first cancer treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective population-based cohort study using administrative data was conducted in Ontario, Canada, among adults newly diagnosed with cancer between January 3, 2016, and November 7, 2020. Participants were followed up from date of diagnosis for 1 year, until death, or until June 26, 2021, whichever occurred first, to ensure a minimum of 6-month follow-up time. Exposures: Receiving a cancer diagnosis in the pandemic vs prepandemic period, using March 15, 2020, the date when elective hospital procedures were halted. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was a time-to-event variable describing number of days from date of diagnosis to date of receiving first cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation) or to being censored. For each treatment modality, a multivariable competing-risk regression model was used to assess the association between time to treatment and COVID-19 period. A secondary continuous outcome was defined for patients who were treated 6 months after diagnosis as the waiting time from date of diagnosis to date of treatment. Results: Among 313 499 patients, the mean (SD) age was 66.4 (14.1) years and 153 679 (49.0%) were male patients. Those who were diagnosed during the pandemic were less likely to receive surgery first (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99) but were more likely to receive chemotherapy (sHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.23-1.30) or radiotherapy (sHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20) first. Among patients who received treatment within 6 months from diagnosis (228 755 [73.0%]), their mean (SD) waiting time decreased from 35.1 (37.2) days to 29.5 (33.6) days for surgery, from 43.7 (34.1) days to 38.4 (30.6) days for chemotherapy, and from 55.8 (41.8) days to 49.0 (40.1) days for radiotherapy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the pandemic was significantly associated with greater use of nonsurgical therapy as initial cancer treatment. Wait times were shorter in the pandemic period for those treated within 6 months of diagnosis. Future work needs to examine how these changes may have affected patient outcomes to inform future pandemic guideline development.

Palliative Radiotherapy for Esophageal and Gastric Cancer: Population-Based Patterns of Utilization and Outcomes in Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with incurable esophageal and gastric cancer may develop local symptoms for which palliative radiotherapy (PRT) may be considered. We sought to evaluate patterns in utilization and outcomes of patients receiving PRT for incurable esophageal and gastric cancer in Ontario, Canada using health administrative data. METHODS: Linked health administrative databases were used to identify patients receiving PRT for incurable esophageal and gastric cancer. Primary outcomes were utilization and delivery of PRT, utilization of endoscopic dilation with or without stent insertion after completion of PRT and survival from 1) date of diagnosis and 2) start of PRT. RESULTS: We identified 2500 patients who received PRT. Mean age was 70 ± 13 years and the majority (75%, n = 1873/2500) were male. Over half of the patients had a diagnosis of gastric cancer (58%, n = 1453/2500) and began PRT within 6 months of cancer diagnosis (85%, n = 2125/2500). Of the 2500 patients in the cohort, 2174 patients received EBRT with few receiving brachytherapy (n = 326) or EBRT and brachytherapy combined (n = 88). Over the study period, there was an increase in the number of patients receiving PRT (136 in 2007 to 290 in 2016), as well as in the use of advanced conformal radiotherapy techniques. Only 5% (115/2500) required dilation with or without stent insertion after completion of PRT. Median overall and cancer-specific survival of the cohort was 205 days and 209 days from date of diagnosis and 108 days and 110 days from start of PRT. CONCLUSIONS: PRT is an important treatment for patients with incurable esophageal and gastric cancer who present with local symptoms. Utilization of PRT and advanced EBRT techniques increased over the study period. Few patients require endoscopic dilation with or without stent insertion after completion of PRT suggesting that PRT provides favorable symptom control.

Imaging and physician visits at cancer diagnosis: COVID -19 pandemic impact on cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the COVID-19 pandemic impact on the provision of diagnostic imaging and physician visits at cancer diagnosis. METHODS: We used administrative databases from Ontario, Canada, to identify MRI/CT/ultrasound scans and in-person/virtual physician visits conducted with cancer patients within 91 days around the date of diagnosis in 2016-2020. In separate segmented regression procedures, we assessed the trends in weekly volume of these services per thousand cancer patients in prepandemic (June 26, 2016 to March 14, 2020), the change in mean volume at the start of the pandemic, and the additional change in weekly volume during the pandemic (March 15, 2020, to September 26, 2020). RESULTS: Totally, 403,561 cancer patients were included. On March 15, 2020 (COVID-19 arrived), mean scan volume decreased by 12.3% (95% CI: 6.4%-17.9%) where ultrasound decreased the most by 31.8% (95% CI: 23.9%-37.0%). Afterward, the volume of all scans increased further by 1.6% per week (95% CI: 1.3%-2.0%), where ultrasound increased the fastest by 2.4% (95% CI: 1.8%-2.9%). Mean in-person visits dropped by 47.4% when COVID-19 started (95% CI: 41.6%-52.6%) while virtual visits rose by 55.15-fold (95% CI: 4927%-6173%). In the pandemic (until September 26, 2020), in-person visits increased each week by 2.6% (95% CI: 2.0%-3.2%), but no change was observed for virtual visits (p -value = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Provision of diagnostic imaging and virtual visits at cancer diagnosis has been increasing since the start of COVID-19 and has exceeded prepandemic utilization levels. Future work should monitor the impact of these shifts on quality of delivered care.

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.

Cancer Patients First Treated with Chemotherapy: Are They More Likely to Receive Surgery in the Pandemic?

Due to the ramping down of cancer surgery in early pandemic, many newly diagnosed patients received other treatments first. We aimed to quantify the pandemic-related shift in rate of surgery following chemotherapy. This is a retrospective population-based cohort study involving adults diagnosed with cancer between 3 January 2016 and 7 November 2020 in Ontario, Canada who received chemotherapy as first treatment within 6-months of diagnosis. Competing-risks regression models with interaction effects were used to quantify the association between COVID-19 period (receiving a cancer diagnosis before or on/after 15 March 2020) and receipt of surgical reSection 9-months after first chemotherapy. Among 51,653 patients, 8.5% (n = 19,558) of them ultimately underwent surgery 9-months after chemotherapy initiation. Receipt of surgery was higher during the pandemic than before (sHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13). Material deprivation was independently associated with lower receipt of surgery (least vs. most deprived quintile: sHR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04-1.17), but did not change with the pandemic. The surgical rate increase was most pronounced for breast cancer (sHR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.20). These pandemic-related shifts in cancer treatment requires further evaluations to understand the long-term consequences. Persistent material deprivation-related inequity in cancer surgical access needs to be addressed.