Hysterectomy versus chemotherapy for low-risk non-metastatic gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN): A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the cost-effectiveness for hysterectomy versus standard of care single agent chemotherapy for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing single agent chemotherapy with hysterectomy using decision analysis and Markov modeling from a healthcare payer perspective in Canada. The base case was a 40-year-old patient with low-risk non-metastatic GTN that completed childbearing. Outcomes were life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and adjusted 2022 costs (CAD). Discounting was 1.5% annually and the time horizon was the patient's lifetime. Model validation included face validity, deterministic sensitivity analyses, and scenario analysis. RESULTS: Mean costs for chemotherapy and hysterectomy arms were $34,507 and $17,363, respectively, while effectiveness measure were 30.37 QALYs and 31.04 LYs versus 30.14 QALYs and 30.82 Lys, respectively. The ICER was $74,526 (USD $54,516) per QALY. Thresholds favoring hysterectomy effectiveness were 30-day hysterectomy mortality below 0.2% and recurrence risk during surveillance above 9.2% (low-risk) and 33.4% (high-risk). Scenario analyses for Dactinomycin and Methotrexate led to similar results. Sensitivity analysis using tornado analysis found the cost to be most influenced by single agent chemotherapy cost and risk of resistance, number of weeks of chemotherapy, and probability of postoperative mortality. CONCLUSION: Compared to hysterectomy, single agent chemotherapy as a first-line treatment costs $74,526 for each additional QALY gained. Given that this cost falls below the accepted $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold and waitlist limitations within public healthcare systems, these results support the continued use of chemotherapy as standard of care approach for low-risk GTN.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for triple-negative and Her2 +ve breast cancer: striving for the standard of care.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for triple-negative (TN) and Her2-positive (HER2) breast cancers is supported by international guidelines as it can decrease extent of surgery, provide prognostic information, and allow response-driven adjuvant therapies. Our goal was to describe practice patterns for patients with TN and HER2-positive breast cancer and identify the factors associated with the receipt of NAC versus surgery as initial treatment. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study of adult women diagnosed with stage I-III TN or HER2-positive breast cancer (2012-2020) in Ontario was completed using linked administrative datasets. The primary outcome was NAC as first treatment. The association between NAC and patient, tumor, and practice-related factors was examined using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 14,653 patients included, 23.9% (n = 3500) underwent NAC as first treatment. Patients who underwent NAC were more likely to be younger and have larger tumors, node-positive disease, and stage 3 disease. Of patients who underwent surgery first, 8.8% were seen by a medical oncologist prior to surgery. On multivariable analysis, increasing tumor size (T2 vs T1/T0: 2.75 (2.31-3.28)) and node-positive (N1 vs N0: OR 3.54 (2.92-4.30)) disease were both associated increased odds of receiving NAC. CONCLUSION: A considerable proportion of patients with TN and HER2-positive breast cancer do not receive NAC as first treatment. Of those, most were not assessed by both a surgeon and medical oncologist prior to initiating therapy. This points toward potential gaps in multidisciplinary assessment and disparities in receipt of guideline-concordant care.

A Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial of Prehabilitation During Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Women with Breast Cancer: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding the role of multimodal prehabilitation during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for breast cancer. Determining large trial feasibility and identifying signals of prehabilitation benefit are needed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled feasibility trial of multimodal prehabilitation versus usual care during NACT among women diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer. Intervention participants received an individualized exercise program, dietetic support, and stress management counseling during NACT. The trial assessed feasibility via rates of recruitment, attrition, adherence, and study-related adverse events. Physical fitness (Six Minute Walk Test, grip strength, anthropometrics) and patient-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, after NACT completion, and 6 months after surgery as exploratory outcomes, and analyzed using linear mixed effects models. Qualitative data were collected from a subsample to understand feasibility and acceptability of prehabilitation. RESULTS: A total of 72 participants were enrolled from the 123 eligible patients (recruitment rate of 53%). There was a 13% attrition rate and no intervention-related adverse events. Participants in the prehabilitation group had better 6-min walk distance at the post-chemotherapy timepoint [between group difference of 49.43 m, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 118.1, 19.2] and at the post-surgery timepoint (27.3, 95% CI -96.8, 42.2) compared with the control group. Prehabilitation participants reported better quality of life, less fatigue, and improved physical activity levels compared with usual care participants. Interviews revealed that the intervention had a positive impact on the treatment experience. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated feasibility and improvement in physical and psychosocial outcomes. Larger trials assessing intervention efficacy to confirm indications of prehabilitation benefit are warranted.

COVID-19 pandemic impact on the potential exacerbation of screening mammography disparities: A population-based study in Ontario, Canada.

Strategies to ramp up breast cancer screening after COVID-19 require data on the influence of the pandemic on groups of women with historically low screening uptake. Using data from Ontario, Canada, our objectives were to 1) quantify the overall pandemic impact on weekly bilateral screening mammography rates (per 100,000) of average-risk women aged 50-74 and 2) examine if COVID-19 has shifted any mammography inequalities according to age, immigration status, rurality, and access to material resources. Using a segmented negative binomial regression model, we estimated the mean change in rate at the start of the pandemic (the week of March 15, 2020) and changes in weekly trend of rates during the pandemic period (March 15-December 26, 2020) compared to the pre-pandemic period (January 3, 2016-March 14, 2020) for all women and for each subgroup. A 3-way interaction term (COVID-19*week*subgroup variable) was added to the model to detect any pandemic impact on screening disparities. Of the 3,481,283 mammograms, 8.6 % (n = 300,064) occurred during the pandemic period. Overall, the mean weekly rate dropped by 93.4 % (95 % CI 91.7 % - 94.8 %) at the beginning of COVID-19, followed by a weekly increase of 8.4 % (95 % CI 7.4 % - 9.4 %) until December 26, 2020. The pandemic did not shift any disparities (all interactions p > 0.05) and that women who were under 60 or over 70, immigrants, or with a limited access to material resources had persistently low screening rate in both periods. Interventions should proactively target these underserved populations with the goals of reducing advanced-stage breast cancer presentations and mortality.

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.

Budget impact analysis of molecular subtype profiling in endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the costs associated with four approaches to classifying endometrial cancer (EC), including histomorphological, histomorphological with ancillary immunohistochemical assays, histomolecular and selective molecular classification. METHODS: Direct costs were determined per EC sample from the hospital's perspective. A budget impact analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to estimate the mean, minimum and maximum costs per sample and annual institutional costs in adjusted 2022 Canadian dollars. A provincial cost forecast was projected based on expected 2022 EC biopsies. RESULTS: In 2018, our institution performed 190 EC biopsies. The mean cost per biopsy was $158 ($156-$212) for histomorphological classification, $384 ($360-$514) for histomorphological classification with immunohistochemistry and $1297 ($1265-1833) for histomolecular classification. Total annual institutional cost for histomorphological classification was $29,980 and $72,950 with immunohistochemistry. For histomolecular classification, the first year cost was $246,521, accounting for initial educational learning curve, and $233,461 thereafter, assuming a consistent number of biopsies per year. Targeted implementation of histomolecular classification among high-grade, p53 abnormal and/or MMR-deficient ECs (56% of cases) cost $169,688 in the first year and $162,418 annually thereafter. With a projected 3400 EC biopsies in Ontario in 2022, histomorphological classification would annually cost $537,078 and $1,305,677 with immunohistochemistry. Histomolecular classification would cost $4,410,203 in the first year and $4,176,737 annually once established. Selective molecular classification would lead to a cost of $3,044,178 in the first year and $2,913,443 thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the need for informed decision-making when implementing molecular classification in clinical practice, given the substantial incremental healthcare costs associated with these approaches.

Capturing the True Cost of Breast Cancer Treatment: Molecular Subtype and Stage-Specific per-Case Activity-Based Costing.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) treatment is rapidly evolving with new and costly therapeutics. Existing costing models have a limited ability to capture current treatment costs. We used an Activity-Based Costing (ABC) method to determine a per-case cost for BC treatment by stage and molecular subtype. METHODS: ABC was used to proportionally integrate multidisciplinary evidence-based patient and provider treatment options for BC, yielding a per-case cost for the total duration of treatment by stage and molecular subtype. Diagnostic imaging, pathology, surgery, radiation therapy, systemic therapy, inpatient, emergency, home care and palliative care costs were included. RESULTS: BC treatment costs were higher than noted in previous studies and varied widely by molecular subtype. Cost increased exponentially with the stage of disease. The per-case cost for treatment (2023C$) for DCIS was C$ 14,505, and the mean costs for all subtypes were C$ 39,263, C$ 76,446, C$ 97,668 and C$ 370,398 for stage I, II, III and IV BC, respectively. Stage IV costs were as high as C$ 516,415 per case. When weighted by the proportion of molecular subtype in the population, case costs were C$ 31,749, C$ 66,758, C$ 111,368 and C$ 289,598 for stage I, II, III and IV BC, respectively. The magnitude of cost differential was up to 10.9 times for stage IV compared to stage I, 4.4 times for stage III compared to stage I and 35.6 times for stage IV compared to DCIS. CONCLUSION: The cost of BC treatment is rapidly escalating with novel therapies and increasing survival, resulting in an exponential increase in treatment costs for later-stage disease. We provide real-time, case-based costing for BC treatment which will allow for the assessment of health system economic impacts and an accurate understanding of the cost-effectiveness of screening.

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.

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.

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.

Low Rates of Medical Oncology Consultation for Older Women (≥ 70 Years) with Newly Diagnosed, Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Curative intent cancer treatment needs to be balanced with patient comorbidities and quality of life when treating older women with breast cancer. We examined consultation patterns and association of age at diagnosis with lack of specialist cancer consultations for older women with breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of older women (≥ 70 years of age) with incident, non-metastatic breast cancer (2010-2018) by linking administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. The outcomes of interest were lack of specialist cancer consultation (surgeon, medical oncology, or radiation oncology) within 12 months of diagnosis. Association of age with lack of specialist cancer consultation was examined using Poisson regression modeling. RESULTS: Of 21,849 older women, 2.4% (n = 517) did not have any specialist cancer consultation within 12 months of diagnosis; lack of any specialist cancer consultation increased with age (0.8% for age 70-74 years, 1.3% for age 75-79 years, 2.5% for age 80-84 years, and 7.0% for age ≥ 85 years; p < 0.001). The proportion of patients who did not have consultations with surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists was 8.6% (n = 1888), 34.4% (n = 7510), and 24.7% (n = 5404), respectively. Older age group was independently associated with an increased likelihood of lacking any specialist consultation, as well as not receiving surgical and medical oncology consultations. CONCLUSION: More than one-third of women ≥ 70 years of age with non-metastatic breast cancer did not have a consultation with a medical oncologist, with women aged ≥ 85 years least likely to have a medical oncology consultation.

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.

Predictors of Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Thin Melanoma: An International Multi-institutional Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Consideration of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is recommended for patients with T1b melanomas and T1a melanomas with high-risk features; however, the proportion of patients with actionable results is low. We aimed to identify factors predicting SLNB positivity in T1 melanomas by examining a multi-institutional international population. METHODS: Data were extracted on patients with T1 cutaneous melanoma who underwent SLNB between 2005 and 2018 at five tertiary centers in Europe and Canada. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of SLNB positivity. RESULTS: Overall, 676 patients were analyzed. Most patients had one or more high-risk features: Breslow thickness 0.8-1 mm in 78.1% of patients, ulceration in 8.3%, mitotic rate > 1/mm2 in 42.5%, Clark's level ≥ 4 in 34.3%, lymphovascular invasion in 1.4%, nodular histology in 2.9%, and absence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in 14.4%. Fifty-three patients (7.8%) had a positive SLNB. Breslow thickness and mitotic rate independently predicted SLNB positivity. The odds of positive SLNB increased by 50% for each 0.1 mm increase in thickness past 0.7 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-2.13) and by 22% for each mitosis per mm2 (95% CI 1.06-1.41). Patients who had one excised node (vs. two or more) were three times less likely to have a positive SLNB (3.6% vs. 9.6%; odds ratio 2.9 [1.3-7.7]). CONCLUSIONS: Our international multi-institutional data confirm that Breslow thickness and mitotic rate independently predict SLNB positivity in patients with T1 melanoma. Even within this highly selected population, the number needed to diagnose is 13:1 (7.8%), indicating that more work is required to identify additional predictors of sentinel node positivity.

Relationship Between Breast and Axillary Pathologic Complete Response in Women Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to delineate the relationship between breast and axillary pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with clinical T1-4N0-3M0 breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgical therapy at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Canada between 2014 and 2019. Clinicopathologic data were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Women were stratified into receptor subtypes as follows: hormone receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-), HR+/HER2+, HR-/HER2+ and HR-/HER2- (triple negative) and compared with Fisher's exact test. Our primary outcome was to assess the positive predictive value of breast pCR for determining axillary pCR, and vice versa. RESULTS: There were 374 breast cancers, with 109 (29.1%) achieving breast pCR (ypT0/Tis). Amongst node-positive tumours achieving breast pCR, rates of associated axillary pCR (ypN0/0i+) were as follows: HR+/HER2- (2/6, 33.3%), HR+/HER2+ (12/13, 92.3%), HR-/HER2+ (15/17, 88.2%) and triple negative (15/17, 88.2%) (P = 0.02). Conversely, amongst node-positive tumours achieving axillary pCR, rates of associated breast pCR were: HR+/HER2- (2/10, 20.0%), HR+/HER2+ (12/23, 52.2%), HR-/HER2+ (15/24, 62.5%) and triple negative (15/26, 57.7%) (P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Breast pCR is a strong predictor of axillary pCR in women with HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancers. Conversely, axillary pCR is a modest predictor of breast pCR for these subtypes. There is a poor relationship between breast and axillary pCR in women with hormone receptor-positive disease. These data may inform future de-escalation of surgery in women with HER2-positive and triple-negative disease.

Medical Immunosuppression and Outcomes in Cutaneous Melanoma: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma and the immune system are intimately related. However, the association of immunosuppressive medications (ISMs) with survival in melanoma is not well understood. The study evaluated this at a population level. METHODS: A cohort of patients with a diagnosis of invasive cutaneous melanoma (2007-2015) was identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked to identify demographics, stage at diagnosis, prescription of immunosuppressive medications (both before and after diagnosis), and outcomes. The demographics of patients with and without prescriptions for ISM were compared. Patients eligible for Ontario's Drug Benefit Plan were included to ensure accurate prescription data. The primary outcome was overall survival. Cox Proportional Hazards Regression models identified factors associated with mortality, including use of ISM as a time-varying covariate. RESULTS: Of the 4954 patients with a diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma, 1601 had a prescription for ISM. The median age of the patients was 74 years. Overall, 58.4% of the patients were men (60.5% of those without ISM and 54% of those using ISM; p < 0.001). The use of oral immunosuppression was associated with an increased hazard of death (hazard ratio, 5.84; 95% confidence interval, 5.11-6.67; p < 0.0001) when control was used for age, disease stage at diagnosis, anatomic site, comorbidity, and treatment. Other factors associated with death were increasing age, male sex, increased disease stage, truncal location of primary melanoma, and inadequate treatment. In sensitivity analysis with steroid-only ISM use excluded, survival did not differ significantly (p = 0.355). CONCLUSIONS: The use of immunosuppressive steroids for melanoma is associated with worse overall survival. Use of steroids should be limited when possible.

Older women's experience with breast cancer treatment: A systematic review of qualitative literature.

BACKGROUND: The experience of older women during breast cancer treatment is insufficiently described by quantitative studies. This study aimed to systematically review qualitative data describing factors that influence older women's (≥65 years old) experience with breast cancer treatment. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA) principles. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched (inception - 2020). Quality assessment of essential item reporting was performed using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) criteria. Common ideas were coded, thematically organized, and synthesized within a theoretical framework. RESULTS: Of 7,773 studies identified, twelve were included. The median SRQR score was 13.4 (range 11.3-15.9) (maximum score: 21). Data synthesis revealed that older women experienced breast cancer as a journey with challenges during each phase. During diagnosis, they delayed seeking medical help despite symptoms. Age and experience gave them perspective on the impact of their diagnosis. During decision-making, preconceptions and personal values determined choices. In the treatment phase, women experienced medical and social barriers to care. During the post-treatment phase, many experienced treatment adverse effects, but could move on or compartmentalize as coping mechanisms. CONCLUSION: Older women with breast cancer have unique challenges specific to each phase of their treatment journey. Older women may benefit from proactive treatment discussions with health care providers to address their specific needs, individualize care, and assist with cancer care navigation.