Evidence of decreased long-term risk of cervical pre-cancer after negative primary HPV screens compared to negative cytology screens in a longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Growing use of primary HPV cervical cancer screening requires determining appropriate screening intervals to avoid overtreatment of transient disease. This study examined the long-term risk of cervical precancer after HPV screening to inform screening interval recommendations. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study (British Columbia, Canada, 2008-2022) recruited women and individuals with a cervix (WIC) who received 1-2 negative HPV screen(s) (HPV1 cohort, N = 5,546, HPV2 cohort, N = 6,624) during a randomized trial and WIC with 1-2 normal cytology result(s) (BCS1 cohort, N = 782,297, BCS2 cohort, N = 673,778) extracted from the provincial screening registry. All participants were followed through the registry for 14 years. Long-term risk of cervical precancer or worse (CIN2+) was compared between HPV and cytology cohorts. RESULTS: Cumulative risks of CIN2+ were 3.2/1000 (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.7) in HPV1 and 2.7/1000 (CI: 1.2 to 4.2) in HPV2 after eight years. This was comparable to the risk in the cytology cohorts after 3 years (BCS1: 3.3/1000, [CI: 3.1 to 3.4]; BCS2: 2.5, [CI: 2.4 to 2.6]). The cumulative risk of CIN2+ after 10 years was low in HPV cohorts (HPV1: 4.7/1000, [CI: 2.6 to 6.7]; HPV2: 3.9, [CI: 1.1 to 6.6]). CONCLUSIONS: Risk of CIN2+ eight years after negative screen in HPV cohorts was comparable to risk after 3 years in cytology cohorts (the benchmark for acceptable risk). IMPACT: These findings suggest that primary HPV screening intervals could be extended beyond the current five-year recommendation potentially reducing barriers to screening.

COVID-related disruptions to colorectal cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment could increase cancer Burden in Australia and Canada: A modelling study.

COVID-19 disrupted cancer control worldwide, impacting preventative screening, diagnoses, and treatment services. This modelling study estimates the impact of disruptions on colorectal cancer cases and deaths in Canada and Australia, informed by data on screening, diagnosis, and treatment procedures. Modelling was used to estimate short- and long-term effects on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, including ongoing impact of patient backlogs. A hypothetical mitigation strategy was simulated, with diagnostic and treatment capacities increased by 5% from 2022 to address backlogs. Colorectal cancer screening dropped by 40% in Canada and 6.3% in Australia in 2020. Significant decreases to diagnostic and treatment procedures were also observed in Australia and Canada, which were estimated to lead to additional patient wait times. These changes would lead to an estimated increase of 255 colorectal cancer cases and 1,820 colorectal cancer deaths in Canada and 234 cases and 1,186 deaths in Australia over 2020-2030; a 1.9% and 2.4% increase in mortality, respectively, vs a scenario with no screening disruption or diagnostic/treatment delays. Diagnostic and treatment capacity mitigation would avert 789 and 350 deaths in Canada and Australia, respectively. COVID-related disruptions had a significant impact on colorectal cancer screening, diagnostic, and treatment procedures in Canada and Australia. Modelling demonstrates that downstream effects on disease burden could be substantial. However, backlogs can be managed and deaths averted with even small increases to diagnostic and treatment capacity. Careful management of resources can improve patient outcomes after any temporary disruption, and these results can inform targeted approaches early detection of cancers.

Meaningful Patient Engagement in Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Cancer Research: A Framework for Qualitative Studies.

Over the last two decades, patient engagement in cancer research has evolved significantly, especially in addressing the unique challenges faced by adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer populations. This paper introduces a framework for meaningful engagement with AYA cancer patient research partners, drawing insights from the "FUTURE" Study, a qualitative study that utilizes focus groups to explore the impact of cancer diagnosis and treatment on the sexual and reproductive health of AYA cancer patients in Canada. The framework's development integrates insights from prior works and addresses challenges with patient engagement in research specific to AYA cancer populations. The framework is guided by overarching principles (safety, flexibility, and sensitivity) and includes considerations that apply across all phases of a research study (collaboration; iteration; communication; and equity, diversity, and inclusion) and tasks that apply to specific phases of a research study (developing, conducting, and translating the study). The proposed framework seeks to increase patient engagement in AYA cancer research beyond a supplementary aspect to an integral component for conducting research with impact on patients.

Development of a Value Assessment Framework for Pediatric Health Technologies Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis: Expanding the Value Lens for Funding Decision Making.

OBJECTIVES: A health technology assessment (HTA) does not systematically account for the circumstances and needs of children and youth. To supplement HTA processes, we aimed to develop a child-tailored value assessment framework using a multicriteria decision analysis approach. METHODS: We constructed a multicriteria-decision-analysis-based model in multiple phases to create the Comprehensive Assessment of Technologies for Child Health (CATCH) framework. Using a modified Delphi process with stakeholders having broad disciplinary and geographic variation (N = 23), we refined previously generated criteria and developed rank-based weights. We established a criterion-pertinent scoring rubric for assessing incremental benefits of new drugs. Three clinicians independently assessed comprehension by pilotscoring 9 drugs. We then validated CATCH for 2 childhood cancer therapies through structured deliberation with an expert panel (N = 10), obtaining individual scores, consensus scores, and verbal feedback. Analyses included descriptive statistics, thematic analysis, exploratory disagreement indices, and sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The modified Delphi process yielded 10 criteria, based on absolute importance/relevance and agreed importance (median disagreement indices = 0.34): Effectiveness, Child-specific Health-related Quality of Life, Disease Severity, Unmet Need, Therapeutic Safety, Equity, Family Impacts, Life-course Development, Rarity, and Fair Share of Life. Pilot scoring resulted in adjusted criteria definitions and more precise score-scaling guidelines. Validation panelists endorsed the framework's key modifiers of value. Modes of their individual prescores aligned closely with deliberative consensus scores. CONCLUSIONS: We iteratively developed a value assessment framework that captures dimensions of child-specific health and nonhealth gains. CATCH could improve the richness and relevance of HTA decision making for children in Canada and comparable health systems.

Direct Medical Spending on Young and Average-Age Onset Colorectal Cancer before and after Diagnosis: a Population-Based Costing Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite a better understanding of the increasing incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer (yCRC; age at diagnosis <50 years), little is known about its economic burden. Therefore, we estimated direct medical spending on yCRC before and after diagnosis. METHODS: We used linked administrative health databases in British Columbia, Canada, to create a study population of yCRC and average-age onset colorectal cancer (aCRC; age at diagnosis ≥50 years) cases, along with cancer-free controls. Over the 1-year period preceding a colorectal cancer diagnosis, we estimated direct medical spending on hospital visits, healthcare practitioners, and prescription medications. After diagnosis, we calculated cost attributable to yCRC and aCRC, which additionally included the cost of cancer treatments (e.g., chemotherapy and radiotherapy) across phases of care. RESULTS: We included 1,058 yCRC (45.4% females; age at diagnosis 42.4 ± 6.2 years) and 12,619 aCRC (44.8% females; age at diagnosis of 68.1 ± 9.2 years) cases. Direct medical spending on the average yCRC and aCRC case during the year before diagnosis was $6,711 and $8,056, respectively. After diagnosis, the overall average annualized cost attributable to yCRC significantly differed in comparison with aCRC for the initial ($50,216 vs. $37,842; P < 0.001), continuing ($8,361 vs. $5,014; P < 0.001), and end-of-life cancer phase ($86,125 vs. $61,512; P < 0.001) but not end-of-life non-cancer phase ($77,273 vs. $23,316; P = 0.372). CONCLUSIONS: Reported cost estimates may be used as inputs for future economic evaluations pertaining to yCRC. IMPACT: We provided comprehensive cost estimates for healthcare spending on young-onset colorectal cancer.

Colposcopy referral rates post-introduction of primary screening with human papillomavirus testing: evidence from a large British Columbia cohort study.

Background: Shifting from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening will initially increase colposcopy referrals. The anticipated impact on health systems has been raised as a concern for implementation. It is unclear if the higher rate of colposcopy referrals is sustained after initial HPV-based screens or reverts to new lower baselines due to earlier detection and treatment of precancer. This study aimed to investigate long-term rates of colposcopy referrals after participation in HPV-based screening. Methods: Participants of HPV for Cervical Cancer Screening trial (HPV FOCAL) received one (HPV1, N = 6204) or two (HPV2, N = 9540) HPV-based screens. After exit, they returned to British Columbia's (BC) cytology screening program. A comparison cohort from the BC screening population (BCS, N = 1,140,745) was identified, mirroring trial inclusion criteria. All participants were followed for 10-14 years through the provincial screening registry. Colposcopy referral rates per 1000 screens were calculated for each group. Trial colposcopy referrals for HPV1 and HPV2 were calculated under two referral scenarios: (1) all HPV positive referred to colposcopy; (2) cytology triage with ASCUS or greater referred to colposcopy. Colposcopy referrals from post-trial screens in HPV1 an HPV2 and all screens in BCS were based on actual recommendations from the screening program. A multivariable flexible survival regression model compared hazard ratios (HR) throughout follow-up. Findings: Scenario 2 referral rates were higher during initial HPV screen(s) vs cytology screen (HPV1: 28 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 24, 33), HPV2: 32 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 29, 36), BCS: 8 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 8.9)). However, post-trial rates in HPV1 and HPV2 were significantly lower than in BCS. Cumulative rates in HPV1 and HPV2 approached the cumulative rate in BCS 11-12 years after HPV-based screening (HPV1: 11 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 10, 12), HPV2: 16 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 15-17), BCS: 11 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 10, 11)). Adjusted models demonstrated reductions in referral rates in HPV1 (HR = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.5, 0.7) and HPV2 (HR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6, 0.8) relative to BCS by 54 and 72 months post-final HPV screen respectively. Interpretation: Reduced colposcopy referral rates were observed after initial rounds of HPV-based screening. After initial HPV screening, referral rates to colposcopy after cytology triage were below the current rates seen in a centralized cytology program after approximately four years. Any expected increase in referrals at initiation of HPV-based screening could be countered by staged program implementation. Funding: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA221918), Michael Smith Health Research BC (RT-2021-1595), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MCT82072).

Real-World Cost Effectiveness of a Policy of KRAS Testing to Inform Cetuximab or Panitumumab for Third-Line Therapy of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab and panitumumab, two anti-EGFR therapies, are widely used for third-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with wild-type KRAS, but there remains uncertainty around their cost effectiveness. The objective of this analysis was to conduct a real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of the policy change introducing KRAS testing and third-line anti-EGFR therapy mCRC in British Columbia (BC), Canada. METHODS: We conducted secondary analysis of administrative data for a cohort of mCRC patients treated in BC in 2006-2015. Patients potentially eligible for KRAS testing and third-line therapy after the policy change (July 2009) were matched 2:1 to pre-policy patients using genetic matching on propensity score and baseline covariates. Costs and survival time were calculated over an 8-year time horizon, with bootstrapping to characterize uncertainty around endpoints. Cost effectiveness was expressed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and the probability of cost effectiveness at a range of thresholds. RESULTS: The cohort included 1757 mCRC patients (n = 456 pre-policy and n = 1304 post-policy; of those, n = 420 received cetuximab or panitumumab). There was a significant increase in survival and cost following the policy change. Adoption of KRAS testing and anti-EGFR therapy had an ICER of CA$73,759 per life-year gained (LYG) (95% CI 46,133-186,446). In scenario analysis, a reduction in cetuximab and panitumumab cost of at least 50% was required to make the policy change cost effective at a threshold of CA$50,000/LYG. CONCLUSION: A policy of third-line anti-EGFR therapy informed by KRAS testing may be considered cost effective at thresholds above CA$70,000/LYG. Reduction in drug costs, through price discounts or potential future biosimilars, would make anti-EGFR therapy considerably more cost effective. By using real-world data for a large cohort with long follow-up we can assess the value of a policy of KRAS testing and anti-EGFR therapy achieved in practice.

Sexual health outcomes among adolescent and young adult cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sexual health outcomes (SHO), which entail the physical, emotional, mental, and social impacts, are an important consideration for adolescent and young adults (AYA, ages 15-39) affected by cancer. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the current literature and evaluate AYA cancer impact on SHO. METHODS: EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from January 1, 2000 to September 28, 2022 to identify epidemiologic studies that used an analytic observational design, included individuals with AYA cancer and non-cancer control participants, and evaluated SHO. Odds ratios and prevalence ratios were calculated; random effects models were used to obtain pooled measures where possible. RESULTS: Of 2621 articles, 8 were included that investigated 23 SHO in 9038 AYA cancer patients. Based on the sexual response cycle, outcomes were categorized as those occurring among males (desire = 1, arousal = 1, orgasm = 4, other = 3) and females (desire = 2, arousal = 1, orgasm = 2, pain = 6, other = 3). It was feasible to conduct meta-analysis for 3 female SHO and 5 male SHO. There were associations between AYA cancer and 3 SHO: vaginal dryness (pooled odds ratio = 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.02 to 7.70), ejaculatory dysfunction (pooled odds ratio = 3.66; 95% CI = 2.20 to 6.08), and testosterone level (pooled mean difference = -2.56 nmol/liter; 95% CI = -3.46 to -1.66; P = .00001). CONCLUSION: This study found increased ejaculatory dysfunction and reduced testosterone levels in male AYA cancer patients and increased vaginal dryness in female AYA cancer patients, highlighting the need for sexual health resources in this population.

Association of Reducing the Recommended Colorectal Cancer Screening Age With Cancer Incidence, Mortality, and Costs in Canada Using OncoSim.

Importance: Recent US guideline updates have advocated for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to begin at age 45 years in average-risk adults, whereas Canadian screening programs continue to begin screening at age 50 years. Similarities in early-onset CRC rates in Canada and the US warrant discussion of earlier screening in Canada, but there is a lack of Canadian-specific modeling data to inform this. Objective: To estimate the association of a lowered initiation age for CRC screening by biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT) with CRC incidence, mortality, and health care system costs in Canada. Design, Setting, and Participants/Exposures: This economic evaluation computational study used microsimulation modeling via the OncoSim platform. Main Outcomes and Measures: Modeled rates of CRC incidence, mortality, and health care costs in Canadian dollars. Results: This analysis included 4 birth cohorts (1973-1977, 1978-1982, 1983-1987, and 1988-1992) representative of the Canadian population accounting for previously documented effects of increasing CRC incidence in younger birth cohorts. Screening initiation at age 45 years resulted in a net 12 188 fewer CRC cases, 5261 fewer CRC deaths, and an added 92 112 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to the cohort population over a 40-year period relative to screening from age 50 years. Screening initiation at age 40 years yielded 18 135 fewer CRC cases, 7988 fewer CRC deaths, and 150 373 QALYs. The cost per QALY decreased with younger birth cohorts to a cost of $762 per QALY when Canadians born in 1988 to 1992 began screening at age 45 years or $2622 per QALY with screening initiation at age 40 years. Although costs associated with screening and resulting therapeutic interventions increased with earlier screening, the overall health care system cost of managing CRC decreased. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation study using microsimulation modeling found that earlier screening may reduce CRC disease burden and add life-years to the Canadian population at a modest cost. Guideline changes suggesting earlier CRC screening in Canada may be justified, but evaluation of the resulting effects on colonoscopy capacity is necessary.

Development of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Rating Tool to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Questions for the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration.

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration developed an MCDA rating tool to assess and prioritize potential post-market real-world evidence (RWE) questions/uncertainties emerging from public drug funding decisions in Canada. In collaboration with a group of multidisciplinary stakeholders from across Canada, the rating tool was developed following a three-step process: (1) selection of criteria to assess the importance and feasibility of an RWE question; (2) development of rating scales, application of weights and calculating aggregate scores; and (3) validation testing. An initial MCDA rating tool was developed, composed of seven criteria, divided into two groups. Group A criteria assess the importance of an RWE question by examining the (1) drug's perceived clinical benefit, (2) magnitude of uncertainty identified, and (3) relevance of the uncertainty to decision-makers. Group B criteria assess the feasibility of conducting an RWE analysis including the (1) feasibility of identifying a comparator, (2) ability to identify cases, (3) availability of comprehensive data, and (4) availability of necessary expertise and methodology. Future directions include partnering with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health's Provincial Advisory Group for further tool refinement and to gain insight into incorporating the tool into drug funding deliberations.

Reproductive Health Outcomes among Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aimed to synthesize the current literature on the impacts of adolescent and young adult (AYA, ages 15-39 years) cancer on reproductive health outcomes. METHODS: EMBASE and Medline were searched from 1 January 2000 to 26 January 2022 for observational studies that included individuals with AYA cancer and controls which evaluated reproductive health outcomes. We used random effects models and 95% confidence intervals to obtain pooled measures of associations between AYA cancer, cancer treatment, and reproductive health outcomes. RESULTS: The search identified 8625 articles; 21 were included. 62 reproductive outcomes were assessed and classified according to a sex-based framework as fetal/neonatal (n = 26), maternal (n = 11), fetal/neonatal-maternal (n = 23), and maternal-paternal (n = 2). Meta-analyses of crude estimates showed significant associations between AYA cancer and outcomes including preterm birth (pooled odds ratio [pOR] 1.31; 95% CI: 1.22, 1.42), gestational diabetes (pOR 1.43; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.99), and fertility treatment (pOR 2.66; 95% CI 1.71, 4.11). We also found higher odds of preterm birth (pOR 1.65; 95% CI: 1.21, 2.26) and low APGAR score at birth (pOR 2.03; 95% CI: 1.32, 3.13) among AYA cancer patients who received radiation compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: Our SRMA quantified impacts of AYA cancers and treatments on several reproductive health outcomes.

A perspective on life-cycle health technology assessment and real-world evidence for precision oncology in Canada.

Health technology assessment (HTA) can be used to make healthcare systems more equitable and efficient. Advances in precision oncology are challenging conventional thinking about HTA. Precision oncology advances are rapid, involve small patient groups, and are frequently evaluated without a randomized comparison group. In light of these challenges, mechanisms to manage precision oncology uncertainties are critical. We propose a life-cycle HTA framework and outline supporting criteria to manage uncertainties based on real world data collected from learning healthcare systems. If appropriately designed, we argue that life-cycle HTA is the driver of real world evidence generation and furthers our understanding of comparative effectiveness and value. We conclude that life-cycle HTA deliberation processes must be embedded into healthcare systems for an agile response to the constantly changing landscape of precision oncology innovation. We encourage further research outlining the core requirements, infrastructure, and checklists needed to achieve the goal of learning healthcare supporting life-cycle HTA.

Direct medical costs of young-onset colorectal cancer: a worldwide systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Given the rising incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer (yCRC) among individuals younger than 50 years old, understanding the economic burden of yCRC is required to inform the delivery of healthcare services. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the direct medical costs of yCRC, and where relevant average-age onset CRC (aCRC). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to May 2022 for original, peer-reviewed studies, that reported direct medical costs (e.g., chemotherapy, radiotherapy, outpatient visits, inpatient care, prescription medications) for yCRC and aCRC. We used a modified version of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist to appraise the studies. Costs were inflation-adjusted to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: We included 14 studies from 10 countries, including the USA, England, France, Korea, Vietnam, China, Italy, Australia, Canada and Japan. Five studies focused on prevalent disease and reported annualized per-capita cost of prevalent yCRC, ranging from $2,263 to $16,801 and $1,412 to $14,997 among yCRC and aCRC cases, respectively. Nine studies estimated the cost of incident disease. Synthesis of per-capita costs incurred 12 months following colorectal cancer diagnosis ranged from $23,368 to $89,945 for yCRC and $19,929 to $67,195 for aCRC. Five studies used multivariable approaches to compare costs associated with yCRC and aCRC, four showed no differences and one suggested greater costs with yCRC. CONCLUSION: Our synthesis of direct medical costs of yCRC across multiple jurisdictions provide relevant information for healthcare decisions, including on-going considerations for expanding CRC screening strategies to younger adults.

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.

Gynecologic Cancer Risk and Genetics: Informing an Ideal Model of Gynecologic Cancer Prevention.

Individuals with proven hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 have elevated rates of ovarian, breast, and other cancers. If these high-risk people can be identified before a cancer is diagnosed, risk-reducing interventions are highly effective and can be lifesaving. Despite this evidence, the vast majority of Canadians with HCS are unaware of their risk. In response to this unmet opportunity for prevention, the British Columbia Gynecologic Cancer Initiative convened a research summit "Gynecologic Cancer Prevention: Thinking Big, Thinking Differently" in Vancouver, Canada on 26 November 2021. The aim of the conference was to explore how hereditary cancer prevention via population-based genetic testing could decrease morbidity and mortality from gynecologic cancer. The summit invited local, national, and international experts to (1) discuss how genetic testing could be more broadly implemented in a Canadian system, (2) identify key research priorities in this topic and (3) outline the core essential elements required for such a program to be successful. This report summarizes the findings from this research summit, describes the current state of hereditary genetic programs in Canada, and outlines incremental steps that can be taken to improve prevention for high-risk Canadians now while developing an organized population-based hereditary cancer strategy.

Willingness to Self-Collect a Sample for HPV-Based Cervical Cancer Screening in a Well-Screened Cohort: HPV FOCAL Survey Results.

Self-collection may provide an opportunity for innovation within population-based human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer screening programs by providing an alternative form of engagement for all individuals. The primary objective was to determine willingness to self-collect a vaginal sample for primary HPV screening and factors that impact willingness in individuals who participated in the Human Papillomavirus For Cervical Cancer (HPV FOCAL) screening trial, a large randomized controlled cervical screening trial. A cross-sectional online survey was distributed between 2017 and 2018 to 13,176 eligible participants exiting the FOCAL trial. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression assessed factors that influence willingness to self-collect on 4945 respondents. Overall, 52.1% of respondents indicated willingness to self-collect an HPV sample. In multivariable analysis, the odds of willingness to self-collect were significantly higher in participants who agreed that screening with an HPV test instead of a Pap test was acceptable to them (odds ratio (OR): 1.45 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15, 1.82), those who indicated that collecting their own HPV sample was acceptable to them (p < 0.001), and those with higher educational ascertainment (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.54). The findings offer insight into the intentions to self-collect in those already engaged in screening, and can inform cervical cancer screening programs interested in offering alternative approaches to HPV-based screening.

Cancer Patients' Experiences with Telehealth before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic in British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: Patients have had their cancer care either postponed or changed to telehealth visits to reduce exposure to COVID-19. However, it is unclear how these changes may have affected their experiences. We aim to identify patient characteristics that affect telehealth experiences and evaluate their preferences for using telehealth in the future. METHODS: Patients who completed the Outpatient Cancer Care (OCC) Patient Experience Survey were invited to participate. They comepleted the modified OCC Survey, which focused on telehealth during the pandemic. Linear and logistic regression analyses were used to identify patient characteristics that influenced telehealth experiences and preferences for future telehealth use. RESULTS: Perceived ease of participation in telehealth is a significant predictor of the change in patients' ratings of their telehealth experience. We found that cancer patients had lower preferences for using telehealth in the future if they were older, female, or non-white; resided in an urban area; had no previous telehealth experience; had lower education; and had poorer mental health. CONCLUSIONS: To optimize cancer care and improve equitable access to high-quality telehealth care during the pandemic and beyond, clinicians and policymakers will need to consider patients' self-reported experiences and their personal characteristics.

Are patients with cancer at higher risk of COVID-19-related death? A systematic review and critical appraisal of the early evidence.

BACKGROUND: Early reports suggested that COVID-19 patients with cancer were at higher risk of COVID-19-related death. We conducted a systematic review with risk of bias assessment and synthesis of the early evidence on the risk of COVID-19-related death for COVID-19 patients with and without cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases to 1 July 2020. We included cohort or case-control studies published in English that reported on the risk of dying after developing COVID-19 for people with a pre-existing diagnosis of any cancer, lung cancer, or haematological cancers. We assessed risk of bias using tools adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used the generic inverse-variance random-effects method for meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated separately. Of 96 included studies, 54 had sufficient non-overlapping data to be included in meta-analyses (>500,000 people with COVID-19, >8000 with cancer; 52 studies of any cancer, three of lung and six of haematological cancers). All studies had high risk of bias. Accounting for at least age consistently led to lower estimated ORs and HRs for COVID-19-related death in cancer patients (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; six studies, unadjusted OR=3.30,95%CI:2.59-4.20, adjusted OR=1.37,95%CI:1.16-1.61). Adjusted effect estimates were not reported for people with lung or haematological cancers. Of 18 studies that adjusted for at least age, 17 reported positive associations between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; nine studies, adjusted OR=1.66,95%CI:1.33-2.08; five studies, adjusted HR=1.19,95%CI:1.02-1.38). CONCLUSIONS: The initial evidence (published to 1 July 2020) on COVID-19-related death in people with cancer is characterised by multiple sources of bias and substantial overlap between data included in different studies. Pooled analyses of non-overlapping early data with adjustment for at least age indicated a significantly increased risk of COVID-19-related death for those with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis.

The risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 or developing COVID-19 for people with cancer: A systematic review of the early evidence.

BACKGROUND: The early COVID-19 literature suggested that people with cancer may be more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 or develop COVID-19 than people without cancer, due to increased health services contact and/or immunocompromise. While some studies were criticised due to small patient numbers and methodological limitations, they created or reinforced concerns of clinicians and people with cancer. These risks are also important in COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation decisions. We performed a systematic review to critically assess and summarise the early literature. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic search of Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases including peer-reviewed journal articles, letters/commentaries, and non-peer-reviewed pre-print articles for 1 January-1 July 2020. The primary endpoints were diagnosis of COVID-19 and positive SARS-CoV-2 test. We assessed risk of bias using a tool adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Twelve studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. All four studies of COVID-19 incidence (including 24,181,727 individuals, 125,649 with pre-existing cancer) reported that people with cancer had higher COVID-19 incidence rates. Eight studies reported SARS-CoV-2 test positivity for > 472,000 individuals, 48,370 with pre-existing cancer. Seven of these studies comparing people with any and without cancer, were pooled using random effects [pooled odds ratio 0.91, 95 %CI: 0.57-1.47; unadjusted for age, sex, or comorbidities]. Two studies suggested people with active or haematological cancer had lower risk of a positive test. All 12 studies had high risk of bias; none included universal or random COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 testing. CONCLUSIONS: The early literature on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer is characterised by pervasive biases and limited data. To provide high-quality evidence to inform decision-making, studies of risk of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer should control for other potential modifiers of infection risk, including age, sex, comorbidities, exposure to the virus, protective measures taken, and vaccination, in addition to stratifying analyses by cancer type, stage at diagnosis, and treatment received.

The FACT-8D, a new cancer-specific utility algorithm based on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapies-General (FACT-G): a Canadian valuation study.

INTRODUCTION: Utility instruments are used to assess patients' health-related quality of life for cost-utility analysis (CUA). However, for cancer patients, the dimensions of generic utility instruments may not capture all the information relevant to the impact of cancer. Cancer-specific utilities provide a useful alternative. Under the auspices of the Multi-Attribute Utility in Cancer Consortium, a cancer-specific utility algorithm was derived from the FACT-G. The new FACT-8D contains eight dimensions: pain, fatigue, nausea, sleep, work, support from family/friends, sadness, and worry health will get worse. The aim of the study was to obtain a Canadian value set for the FACT-8D. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was administered to a Canadian general population online panel, quota sampled by age, sex, and province/territory of residence. Respondents provided responses to 16 choice sets. Each choice set consisted of two health states described by the FACT-8D dimensions plus an attribute representing survival duration. Sample weights were applied and the responses were analyzed using conditional logistic regression, parameterized to fit the quality-adjusted life year framework. The results were converted into utility weights by evaluating the marginal rate of substitution between each level of each FACT-8D dimension with respect to duration. RESULTS: 2228 individuals were recruited. The analysis dataset included n = 1582 individuals, who completed at least one choice set; of which, n = 1501 completed all choice sets. After constraining to ensure monotonicity in the utility function, the largest decrements were for the highest levels of pain (- 0.38), nausea (- 0.30), and problems doing work (- 0.23). The decrements of the remaining dimensions ranged from - 0.08 to - 0.18 for their highest levels. The utility of the worst possible health state was defined as - 0.65, considerably worse than dead. CONCLUSIONS: The largest impacts on utility included three generic dimensions (i.e., pain, support, and work) and nausea, a symptom caused by cancer (e.g., brain tumours, gastrointestinal tumours, malignant bowel obstruction) and by common treatments (e.g., chemotherapy, radiotherapy, opioid analgesics). This may make the FACT-8D more informative for CUA evaluating in many cancer contexts, an assertion that must now be tested empirically in head-to-head comparisons with generic utility measures.