The 2023 Impact of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Canada: Cancer and IBD.

Cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Intestinal cancers may arise as a complication of IBD itself, while extra-intestinal cancers may arise due to some of the immunosuppressive therapies used to treat IBD. Colorectal cancer (CRC) and small bowel cancer risks remain elevated among persons with IBD as compared to age-and sex-matched members of the general population, and the lifetime risk of these cancers is strongly correlated to cumulative intestinal inflammatory burden. However, the cumulative risk of cancer, even among those with IBD is still low. Some studies suggest that IBD-CRC incidence has declined over the years, possibly owing to improved treatment standards and improved detection and management of early neoplastic lesions. Across studies of extra-intestinal cancers, there are generally higher incidences of melanoma, hepatobiliary cancer, and lung cancer and no higher incidences of breast cancer or prostate cancer, with equivocal risk of cervical cancer, among persons with IBD. While the relative risks of some extra-intestinal cancers are increased with treatment, the absolute risks of these cancers remain low and the decision to forego treatment in light of these risks should be carefully weighed against the increased risks of intestinal cancers and other disease-related complications with undertreated inflammatory disease. Quality improvement efforts should focus on optimized surveillance of cancers for which surveillance strategies exist (colorectal cancer, hepatobiliary cancer, cervical cancers, and skin cancers) and the development of cost-effective surveillance strategies for less common cancers associated with IBD.

Clinical remission in paired phase two and three studies in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Discrepancies in phase two and three studies can result in significant patient and financial burden, as well as the nonapproval of potentially efficacious drugs. We aimed to determine whether this discrepancy exists for clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Electronic databases (MEDLINE and Embase) and clinical trial repositories were searched from 1 January 1946 to 12 March 2021, for paired phase two and three studies of advanced therapies for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. The primary outcome was to compare clinical remission rates between paired phase two and three studies for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Multivariable mixed-model meta-analysis was performed to calculate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to grade the risk of bias. Of 2642 studies, 29 were included. Fifteen were phase three, 11 were phase two, one was phase one/two, and two were phase two/three. There were no differences in clinical remission rates between phase two and three studies for Crohn's disease (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86-1.34; P = 0.54) and ulcerative colitis (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.48-1.36; P = 0.43). Furthermore, there was a lack of any appreciable differences in study characteristics, inclusion criteria and patient demographics among paired phase two and three studies. Most studies were considered low risk of bias. Overall, paired phase two and three studies demonstrate similar clinical remission rates for advanced therapies in IBD. Whether this applies to newer outcomes, such as endoscopic and mucosal healing remains to be determined.

A Guide to Implementing Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors within a Cancer Program: Experience from a Large Canadian Community Centre.

The increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors across cancer programs has created the need for standardized patient assessment, education, monitoring, and management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). At William Osler Health System in Brampton, Ontario, a practical step-wise approach detailing the implementation of cancer immunotherapy in routine practice was developed. The approach focuses on four key steps: (1) identification of patient educators; (2) development of patient education materials; (3) development of patient monitoring tools; (4) involvement and education of multidisciplinary teams. Here, we provide an in-depth description of what was included in each step and how we integrated the different elements of the program. For each step, resources, tools, and materials that may be useful for patients, healthcare providers, and multidisciplinary teams were developed or modified based on existing materials. At our centre, the program led to improved patient comprehension of irAEs, the ability to act on symptoms (patient self-efficacy), and low rates of emergency room visits at first presentation for irAEs. We recognize that centres may need to tailor the approaches to their institutional policies and encourage centres to adapt and modify the forms and tools according to their needs and requirements.