Assessment of Glomerular Filtration Rate in Patients with Cancer: A Statement from the American Society of Onco-Nephrology.

Accurate assessment of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is crucial to guiding drug eligibility, dosing of systemic therapy, and minimizing the risks of both undertreatment and toxicity in patients with cancer. Up to 32% of cancer patients have baseline chronic kidney disease (CKD), and both malignancy and treatment may cause kidney injury and subsequent CKD. To date, there has been lack of guidance to standardize approaches to GFR estimation in the cancer population. In this two-part statement from the American Society of Onco-Nephrology, we present key messages for estimation of GFR in patients with cancer, including the choice of GFR estimating equation, use of race and body surface-area (BSA)-adjustment, and anticancer drug dose-adjustment in the setting of CKD. These key messages are based on a systematic review of studies assessing GFR estimating equations using serum creatinine and cystatin C in patients with cancer, against a measured GFR comparator. The preponderance of current data involving validated GFR estimating equations involves the CKD-EPI equations, with 2,508 patients in whom CKD-EPI using serum creatinine and cystatin C was assessed (8 studies) and 15,349 in whom CKD-EPI with serum creatinine was assessed (22 studies). The former may have improved performance metrics and be less susceptible to shortfalls of eGFR using serum creatinine alone. Since included studies were moderate quality or lower, the ASON Position Committee rated the certainty of evidence as low. Additional studies are needed to assess the accuracy of other validated eGFR equations in patients with cancer. Given the importance of accurate and timely eGFR assessment we advocate for the use of validated GFR estimating equations incorporating both serum creatinine and cystatin C in patients with cancer. Measurement of GFR via exogenous filtration markers should be considered in patients with cancer for whom eGFR results in borderline eligibility for therapies or clinical trials.

New Anticancer Drugs: Reliably Assessing "Value" While Addressing High Prices.

Countries face challenges in paying for new drugs. High prices are driven in part by exploding drug development costs, which, in turn, are driven by essential but excessive regulation. Burdensome regulation also delays drug development, and this can translate into thousands of life-years lost. We need system-wide reform that will enable less expensive, faster drug development. The speed with which COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS therapies were developed indicates this is possible if governments prioritize it. Countries also differ in how they value drugs, and generally, those willing to pay more have better, faster access. Canada is used as an example to illustrate how "incremental cost-effectiveness ratios" (ICERs) based on measures such as gains in "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs) may be used to determine a drug's value but are often problematic, imprecise assessments. Generally, ICER/QALY estimates inadequately consider the impact of patient crossover or long post-progression survival, therapy benefits in distinct subpopulations, positive impacts of the therapy on other healthcare or societal costs, how much governments willingly might pay for other things, etc. Furthermore, a QALY value should be higher for a lethal or uncommon disease than for a common, nonlethal disease. Compared to international comparators, Canada is particularly ineffective in initiating public funding for essential new medications. Addressing these disparities demands urgent reform.

Association of Household Income at Diagnosis With Financial Toxicity, Health Utility, and Survival in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer.

Importance: While several studies have documented a link between socioeconomic status and survival in head and neck cancer, nearly all have used ecologic, community-based measures. Studies using more granular patient-level data are lacking. Objective: To determine the association of baseline annual household income with financial toxicity, health utility, and survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prospective cohort of adult patients with head and neck cancer treated at a tertiary cancer center in Toronto, Ontario, between September 17, 2015, and December 19, 2019. Data analysis was performed from April to December 2021. Exposures: Annual household income at time of diagnosis. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome of interest was disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included subjective financial toxicity, measured using the Financial Index of Toxicity (FIT) tool, and health utility, measured using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association between household income and survival. Income was regressed onto log-transformed FIT scores using linear models. The association between income and health utility was explored using generalized linear models. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for patient-level clustering. Results: There were 555 patients (mean [SD] age, 62.7 [10.7] years; 109 [20%] women and 446 [80%] men) included in this cohort. Two-year disease-free survival was worse for patients in the bottom income quartile (<$30 000: 67%; 95% CI, 58%-78%) compared with the top quartile (≥$90 000: 88%; 95% CI, 83%-93%). In risk-adjusted models, patients in the bottom income quartile had inferior disease-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.22-3.71) and overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.94-4.29), when compared with patients in the highest quartile. The average FIT score was 22.6 in the lowest income quartile vs 11.7 in the highest quartile. In adjusted analysis, low-income patients had 12-month FIT scores that were, on average, 134% higher (worse) (95% CI, 16%-253%) than high-income patients. Similarly, health utility scores were, on average, 0.104 points lower (95% CI, 0.026-0.182) for low-income patients in adjusted analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients with head and neck cancer with a household income less than CAD$30 000 experienced worse financial toxicity, health status, and disease-free survival. Significant disparities exist for Ontario's patients with head and neck cancer.

Precision Oncology in Canada: Converting Vision to Reality with Lessons from International Programs.

Canada's healthcare system, like others worldwide, is immersed in a process of evolution, attempting to adapt conventional frameworks of health technology assessment (HTA) and funding models to a new landscape of precision medicine in oncology. In particular, the need for real-world evidence in Canada is not matched by the necessary infrastructure and technologies required to integrate genomic and clinical data. Since healthcare systems in many developed nations face similar challenges, we adopted a solutions-based approach and conducted a search of worldwide programs in personalized medicine, with an emphasis on precision oncology. This search strategy included review articles published between 1 January 2016 and 1 March 2021 and hand-searches of their reference lists for relevant publications back to 1 December 2005. Thirty-nine initiatives across 37 countries in Europe, Australasia, Africa, and the Americas had the potential to lead to real-world data (RWD) on the clinical utility of oncology biomarkers. We highlight four initiatives with helpful lessons for Canada: Genomic Medicine France 2025, UNICANCER, the German Medical Informatics Initiative, and CANCER-ID. Among the 35 other programs evaluated, the main themes included the need for collaboration and systems to support data harmonization across multiple jurisdictions. In order to generate RWD in precision oncology that will prove acceptable to HTA bodies, Canada must take a national approach to biomarker strategy and unite all stakeholders at the highest level to overcome jurisdictional and technological barriers.

PD-L1 assessment in cytology samples predicts treatment response to checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Testing for tumor programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression was initially developed with histology specimens in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, cytology specimens are widely used for primary diagnosis and biomarker studies in clinical practice. Limited clinical data exist on the predictiveness of cytology-derived PD-L1 scores for response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. METHODS: We reviewed all NSCLC specimens clinically tested at the University Health Network (UHN) for PD-L1 with 22C3pharmDx, from 01/2013 to 04/2021. Treatment outcomes in patients treated with single agent ICI therapy were reviewed and compared according to cytology- and histology-derived PD-L1 scores. RESULTS: We identified 494 and 1942 unique patients with cytology- and histology-derived tumor proportion scores, respectively, during the study period. Informative testing rates were 95 % vs 98 % for cytology and histology, respectively. Clinical data were available for 152 patients treated with single agent ICI: 61 cytology and 91 histology. Overall response rates (ORR) were similar for cytology and histology (36 % vs 34 %; p = 0.23), as well as median progression free survival (PFS) (4.9 vs 4.2 months; p = 0.99) and overall survival (23.4 vs 19.7 months; p = 0.99). The results remained similar even after adjusting for PD-L1 expression levels and line of ICI treatment (PFS HR 1.15; 95 %CI 0.78-1.70; p = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment outcomes to single agent ICI based on cytology-derived PD-L1 scores were comparable to histology controls. Our results support PD-L1 biomarker testing on both cytology and histology specimens.

Investigating the effect of sexual behaviour on oropharyngeal cancer risk: a methodological assessment of Mendelian randomization.

BACKGROUND: Human papilloma virus infection is known to influence oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) risk, likely via sexual transmission. However, sexual behaviour has been correlated with other risk factors including smoking and alcohol, meaning independent effects are difficult to establish. We aimed to evaluate the causal effect of sexual behaviour on the risk of OPC using Mendelian randomization (MR). METHODS: Genetic variants robustly associated with age at first sex (AFS) and the number of sexual partners (NSP) were used to perform both univariable and multivariable MR analyses with summary data on 2641 OPC cases and 6585 controls, obtained from the largest available genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Given the potential for genetic pleiotropy, we performed a number of sensitivity analyses: (i) MR methods to account for horizontal pleiotropy, (ii) MR of sexual behaviours on positive (cervical cancer and seropositivity for Chlamydia trachomatis) and negative control outcomes (lung and oral cancer), (iii) Causal Analysis Using Summary Effect estimates (CAUSE), to account for correlated and uncorrelated horizontal pleiotropic effects, (iv) multivariable MR analysis to account for the effects of smoking, alcohol, risk tolerance and educational attainment. RESULTS: In univariable MR, we found evidence supportive of an effect of both later AFS (IVW OR = 0.4, 95%CI (0.3, 0.7), per standard deviation (SD), p = < 0.001) and increasing NSP (IVW OR = 2.2, 95%CI (1.3, 3.8) per SD, p = < 0.001) on OPC risk. These effects were largely robust to sensitivity analyses accounting for horizontal pleiotropy. However, negative control analysis suggested potential violation of the core MR assumptions and subsequent CAUSE analysis implicated pleiotropy of the genetic instruments used to proxy sexual behaviours. Finally, there was some attenuation of the univariable MR results in the multivariable models (AFS IVW OR = 0.7, 95%CI (0.4, 1.2), p = 0.21; NSP IVW OR = 0.9, 95%CI (0.5 1.7), p = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Despite using genetic variants strongly related sexual behaviour traits in large-scale GWAS, we found evidence for correlated pleiotropy. This emphasizes a need for multivariable approaches and the triangulation of evidence when performing MR of complex behavioural traits.

Out-of-pocket costs associated with head and neck cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket costs (OOPC) associated with treatment have significant implications on quality of life and survival in cancer patients. Head and neck cancer patients face unique treatment-related challenges, but to date OOPC have been understudied in this population. AIMS: This study aims to identify and measure OOPC for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) in Ontario. METHODS: HNC patients between 2015 and 2018 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto were recruited. Participants completed OOPC questionnaires and lost income questions during radiation, post-surgery, and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after completion of treatment. Associations between OOPC and treatment modality and disease site were tested with multivariable hurdle regression. RESULTS: A total of 1545 questionnaires were completed by 657 patients. Median estimated OOPC for the total duration of treatment for participants undergoing chemoradiation was $1452 [$0-14 616], for surgery with adjuvant radiation or chemoradiation (C/RT) was $1626, for radiation therapy alone was $635, and for surgery alone was $360. The major expenses for participants at the mid-treatment time-point was travel (mean $424, standard error of the mean [SEM] $34) and meals, parking, and accommodations (mean $617, SEM $67). In multivariable analysis, chemoradiation, surgery with C/RT, and radiation were associated with significantly higher OOPC than surgery alone during treatment (791% higher, p < .001; 539% higher, p < .001; 370% higher, p < .001 respectively) among patients with non-zero OOPC. Participants with non-zero OOPC in the laryngeal cancer group paid 49% lower OOPC than those with oropharyngeal cancers in adjusted analysis (p = .025). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing treatment for HNC pay significant OOPC. These costs are highest during treatment and gradually decrease over time. OOPC vary by patient demographics, clinical factors, and, in particular, treatment modality.

Longitudinal Assessment of Health Utility Scores, Symptoms and Toxicities in Patients with Small Cell Lung Cancer Using Real World Data.

INTRODUCTION: Recent advances in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) treatments necessitate a better understanding of real-world health utility scores (HUS) in patients treated under current standards to facilitate robust pharmaco-economic assessments. METHODS: In this single institution cohort observational study, HUS were evaluated in patients with SCLC through EQ-5D questionnaires at outpatient visits (encounters). In addition, patients completed questionnaires relating to treatment toxicities and cancer symptoms. Clinical and pathological variables were abstracted from electronic medical records and disease status at each patient visit was documented. The impact of these variables on HUS were explored. RESULTS: There were 282 clinical encounters (12% newly diagnosed; 37% stable on treatment; 22% progressing on treatment; 29% stable off therapy/other) in 111 SCLC patients (58% male; 64% extensive stage (ES) SCLC). At the first encounter 29% of patients had an ECOG performance status (PS) ≥ 2. ES-SCLC, bone metastases, female sex, progressive disease and/or PS were each significantly associated with decreased HUS in multivariable analyses. Patients clinically stable on first line therapy had generally steady HUS longitudinally, with differences in HUS between limited disease (LD) and ES patients emerging as treatment progressed. Decreased HUS were associated with increased severity of the majority of measured symptoms (fatigue/tiredness, loss of appetite, pain, drowsiness, shortness of breath, anxiety, depression, and overall well-being; each p<0.001), supporting the value of EQ-5D-derived HUS in assessing health utility. CONCLUSION: Our HUS values in chemotherapy-treated SCLC are clinically relevant and are associated with specific clinico-demographic, symptom and toxicity factors.

Advancing health equity in cancer care: The lived experiences of poverty and access to lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with low income are more likely to smoke, have a higher risk of lung cancer, and are less likely to participate in preventative healthcare (i.e., low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening), leading to equity concerns. To inform the delivery of an organized pilot lung cancer screening program in Ontario, we sought to contextualize the lived experiences of poverty and the choice to participate in lung cancer screening. METHODS: At three Toronto academic primary-care clinics, high-risk screen-eligible patients who chose or declined LDCT screening were consented; sociodemographic data was collected. Qualitative interviews were conducted. Theoretical thematic analysis was used to organize, describe and interpret the data using the morphogenetic approach as a guiding theoretical lens. RESULTS: Eight participants chose to undergo screening; ten did not. From interviews, we identified three themes: Pathways of disadvantage (social trajectories of events that influence lung-cancer risk and health-seeking behaviour), lung-cancer risk and early detection (upstream factors that shape smoking behaviour and lung-cancer screening choices), and safe spaces of care (care that is free of bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening actions, ideas or conversations). We illuminate how 'choice' is contextual to the availability of material resources such as income and housing, and how 'choice' is influenced by having access to spaces of care that are free of judgement and personal bias. CONCLUSION: Underserved populations will require multiprong interventions that work at the individual, system and structural level to reduce inequities in lung-cancer risk and access to healthcare services such as cancer screening.

Measuring financial toxicity incurred after treatment of head and neck cancer: Development and validation of the Financial Index of Toxicity questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC) may cause significant financial toxicity to patients. Herein, the authors have presented the development and validation of the Financial Index of Toxicity (FIT) instrument. METHODS: Items were generated using literature review and were based on expert opinion. In item reduction, items with factor loadings of a magnitude <0.3 in exploratory factor analysis and inverse correlations (r < 0) in test-retest analysis were eliminated. Retained items constituted the FIT. Reliability tests included internal consistency (Cronbach α) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation). Validity was tested using the Spearman rho by comparing FIT scores with baseline income, posttreatment lost income, and the Financial Concerns subscale of the Social Difficulties Inventory. Responsiveness analysis compared change in income and change in FIT between 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: A total of 14 items were generated and subsequently reduced to 9 items comprising 3 domains identified on exploratory factor analysis: financial stress, financial strain, and lost productivity. The FIT was administered to 430 patients with HNC at 12 to 24 months after treatment. Internal consistency was good (α = .77). Test-retest reliability was satisfactory (intraclass correlation, 0.70). Concurrent validation demonstrated mild to strong correlations between the FIT and Social Difficulties Inventory Money Matters subscale (Spearman rho, 0.26-0.61; P < .05). FIT scores were found to be inversely correlated with baseline household income (Spearman rho, -0.34; P < .001) and positively correlated with lost income (Spearman rho, 0.24; P < .001). Change in income was negatively correlated with change in FIT over time (Spearman rho, -0.25; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: The 9-item FIT demonstrated internal and test-retest reliability as well as concurrent and construct validity. Prospective testing in patients with HNC who were treated at other facilities is needed to further establish its responsiveness and generalizability.

Anticancer drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration for gastrointestinal malignancies: Clinical benefit and price considerations.

BACKGROUND: The cost of new anticancer drugs is rising. We aimed to assess the clinical benefit and price of anti-cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for advanced gastrointestinal cancers. METHODS: Drugs approved between 2006 and 2017 for advanced GI malignancies were identified from FDA.gov, and their updated supporting trial data were searched. Incremental clinical benefit was quantified by using ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (grade 0-5) and ASCO Value Framework version 2 (score range -20 to 180). Higher scores indicate larger net benefit, and substantial benefit was defined as score 4 or 5 by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). The Micromedex REDBOOK was used to estimate the monthly average wholesale price (AWP) and total drug price (TDP) over the median treatment duration per patient. Clinical benefit, AWP and TDP of each drug class were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 16 GI cancer drugs received FDA approval for 24 indications, including five monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), five oral targeted therapies (TT), two immunotherapeutics (IO), three cytotoxic chemotherapies (CT), and one recombinant fusion protein (aflibercept). Most supporting trials (82%) reported overall survival benefit of less than 3 months and no significant improvement in quality of life. Only five agents (including one TT and one IO) with 21% the of approved indications met the ESMO's threshold of substantial clinical benefit. Median incremental benefit scores of TT and IO were comparable to other drug classes. However their median TDP was much higher at $153 402 and $98 208, respectively, compared to $30 330 USD per patient for CT. The estimated TDP did not correlate with clinical benefit scores. CONCLUSION: Most FDA-approved gastrointestinal cancer drugs do not meet the ESMO threshold of substantial clinical benefit. TT and IO are estimated to carry significant drug costs, and further cost analysis of these drugs is urgently needed.

Financial Burden Among Patients With Lung Cancer in a Publically Funded Health Care System.

INTRODUCTION: Financial distress has been established as a clinically relevant patient-reported outcome associated with worse mortality and quality of life. Our goal was to define factors associated with financial burden (FB) in a public health care system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced lung cancer were recruited from outpatient clinics at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (Toronto, Canada). FB was measured with the validated Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) instrument, a 12-item survey scored from 0 to 44, with lower scores reflecting worse financial well-being. Data on patient and treatment characteristics, total out-of-pocket costs (OOP), and private insurance coverage were collected. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit for COST score and each variable, to determine factors associated with greater FB (COST < 21). RESULTS: Of 251 patients approached, 200 (80%) participated. The median age of the cohort was 65 years; 56% were female. The median total OOP ranged between $1000 and $5000 CAD. The median COST score was 21 (range, 0-44). FB was associated with age, with patients < 65 years reporting greater FB than older patients (COST, 18.0 vs. 24.0; P < .0001). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, younger age was associated with greater FB, when adjusting for income, employment status, OOP, and private insurance coverage (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-9.1; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Age is significantly associated with FB in the Canadian (Ontario) public health care system, with younger patients with lung cancer reporting greater financial distress. This study highlights priority patient populations where FB should be routinely assessed and appropriate resources for support offered.

Understanding the patient perspective on research access to national health records databases for conduct of randomized registry trials.

BACKGROUND: Use of health administrative databases is proposed for screening and monitoring of participants in randomized registry trials. However, access to these databases raises privacy concerns. We assessed patient's preferences regarding use of personal information to link their research records with national health databases, as part of a hypothetical randomized registry trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cardiology patients were invited to complete an anonymous self-reported survey that ascertained preferences related to the concept of accessing government health databases for research, the type of personal identifiers to be shared and the type of follow-up preferred as participants in a hypothetical trial. A total of 590 responders completed the survey (90% response rate), the majority of which were Caucasians (90.4%), male (70.0%) with a median age of 65years (interquartile range, 8). The majority responders (80.3%) would grant researchers access to health administrative databases for screening and follow-up. To this end, responders endorsed the recording of their personal identifiers by researchers for future record linkage, including their name (90%), and health insurance number (83.9%), but fewer responders agreed with the recording of their social security number (61.4%, p<0.05 with date of birth as reference). Prior participation in a trial predicted agreement for granting researchers access to the administrative databases (OR: 1.69, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-2.90; p=0.04). CONCLUSION: The majority of Cardiology patients surveyed were supportive of use of their personal identifiers to access administrative health databases and conduct long-term monitoring in the context of a randomized registry trial.

The Cost-Effectiveness of High-Risk Lung Cancer Screening and Drivers of Program Efficiency.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer risk prediction models have the potential to make programs more affordable; however, the economic evidence is limited. METHODS: Participants in the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST) were retrospectively identified with the risk prediction tool developed from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. The high-risk subgroup was assessed for lung cancer incidence and demographic characteristics compared with those in the low-risk subgroup and the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (PanCan), which is an observational study that was high-risk-selected in Canada. A comparison of high-risk screening versus standard care was made with a decision-analytic model using data from the NLST with Canadian cost data from screening and treatment in the PanCan study. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess uncertainty and identify drivers of program efficiency. RESULTS: Use of the risk prediction tool developed from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial with a threshold set at 2% over 6 years would have reduced the number of individuals who needed to be screened in the NLST by 81%. High-risk screening participants in the NLST had more adverse demographic characteristics than their counterparts in the PanCan study. High-risk screening would cost $20,724 (in 2015 Canadian dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year gained and would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 in Canadian dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained with a probability of 0.62. Cost-effectiveness was driven primarily by non-lung cancer outcomes. Higher noncurative drug costs or current costs for immunotherapy and targeted therapies in the United States would render lung cancer screening a cost-saving intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Non-lung cancer outcomes drive screening efficiency in diverse, tobacco-exposed populations. Use of risk selection can reduce the budget impact, and screening may even offer cost savings if noncurative treatment costs continue to rise.

EQ-5D Health Utility Scores: Data from a Comprehensive Canadian Cancer Centre.

BACKGROUND: To improve the precision of health economics analyses in oncology, reference datasets of health utility (HU) scores are needed from cancer survivors across different disease sites. These data are particularly sparse amongst Canadian survivors. METHODS: A survey was completed by 1759 ambulatory cancer survivors at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre which contained demographic questions and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) instrument. Clinical information was abstracted from electronic records and HU scores were calculated using Canadian health state valuations. Construct validity was assessed through correlation of HU and visual analog scale (VAS) scores (Spearman) and by comparing HU scores between performance status groups (effect size). The influence of socio-demographic clinical variables on HU was analyzed by non-parametric between-group comparisons and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Mean EQ-5D HU scores were derived for 26 cancers. Among all survivors, the mean ± standard error of the mean EQ-5D utility score was 0.81 ± 0.004. Scores varied significantly by performance status (p < 0.0001) and correlated with VAS (Spearman r = 0.61). The cancer sites with the lowest mean HU scores were acute lymphoblastic leukemia (0.70 ± 0.03) and pancreatic cancer (0.76 ± 0.03); testicular cancer (0.89 ± 0.02) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (0.90 ± 0.05) had the highest mean scores. A multiple regression model showed that scores were influenced by disease site (p < 0.001), education level (p < 0.001), partner status (p < 0.001), disease extent (p = 0.0029), and type of most recent treatment (p = 0.0061). CONCLUSIONS: This work represents the first set of HU scores for numerous cancer sites derived using Canadian preference weights. The dataset demonstrated construct validity and HU scores varied by general socio-demographic and clinical parameters.

Efficacy and Safety Assessment of the Addition of Bevacizumab to Adjuvant Therapy Agents in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in the adjuvant cancer therapy setting within different subset of patients. METHODS & DESIGN/ RESULTS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Clinical trials.gov databases were searched for English language studies of randomized controlled trials comparing bevacizumab and adjuvant therapy with adjuvant therapy alone published from January 1966 to 7th of May 2014. Progression free survival, overall survival, overall response rate, safety and quality of life were analyzed using random- or fixed-effects models according to the PRISMA guidelines. We obtained data from 44 randomized controlled trials (30,828 patients). Combining bevacizumab with different adjuvant therapies resulted in significant improvement of progression free survival (log hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84-0.89), overall survival (log hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98) and overall response rate (relative risk, 1.46; 95% CI: 1.33-1.59) compared to adjuvant therapy alone in all studied tumor types. In subgroup analyses, there were no interactions of bevacizumab with baseline characteristics on progression free survival and overall survival, while overall response rate was influenced by tumor type and bevacizumab dose (p-value: 0.02). Although bevacizumab use resulted in additional expected adverse drug reactions except anemia and fatigue, it was not associated with a significant decline in quality of life. There was a trend towards a higher risk of several side effects in patients treated by high-dose bevacizumab compared to the low-dose e.g. all grade proteinuria (9.24; 95% CI: 6.60-12.94 vs. 2.64; 95% CI: 1.29-5.40). CONCLUSIONS: Combining bevacizumab with different adjuvant therapies provides a survival benefit across all major subsets of patients, including by tumor type, type of adjuvant therapy, and duration and dose of bevacizumab therapy. Though bevacizumab was associated with increased risks of some adverse drug reactions such as hypertension and bleeding, anemia and fatigue were improved by the addition of bevacizumab.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus vaccination of boys for the prevention of oropharyngeal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many western countries have established female human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs for the prevention of cervical cancer. The quadrivalent HPV vaccine (HPV4) has proven efficacy against additional HPV-related disease in both sexes, but the cost effectiveness of male HPV vaccination remains controversial. To assess the cost effectiveness of male HPV vaccination in Canada with respect to oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), the authors performed a preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: After an extensive literature review regarding HPV-related OPC in Canadian males, health care costs and clinical effectiveness estimates were obtained. A Markov model was used to compare the potential costs and effectiveness of HPV4 versus no vaccination among boys aged 12 years. A theoretical cohort based on a Canadian population of 192,940 boys aged 12 years in 2012 was assumed to apply the model. A 3-month cycle length was used with a "lifetime" time horizon. The outcome of the analysis was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses were conducted on variables, including the vaccine uptake rate and vaccine efficacy. RESULTS: Assuming 99% vaccine efficacy and 70% uptake, HPV4 produced 0.05 more QALYs and saved $145 Canadian dollars (CAD) per individual compared with no vaccine (QALYs and costs were discounted at 5% per year). Assuming 50% vaccine efficacy and 50% uptake, HPV4 produced 0.023 more QALYs and saved $42 CAD. The results indicated that HPV4 in males may potentially save between $8 and $28 million CAD for the theoretical cohort of 192,940 over its lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this model, HPV vaccination for boys aged 12 years may be a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of OPC in Canada.

Resource utilization and costs during the initial years of lung cancer screening with computed tomography in Canada.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that millions of North Americans would qualify for lung cancer screening and that billions of dollars of national health expenditures would be required to support population-based computed tomography lung cancer screening programs. The decision to implement such programs should be informed by data on resource utilization and costs. METHODS: Resource utilization data were collected prospectively from 2059 participants in the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Participants who had 2% or greater lung cancer risk over 3 years using a risk prediction tool were recruited from seven major cities across Canada. A cost analysis was conducted from the Canadian public payer's perspective for resources that were used for the screening and treatment of lung cancer in the initial years of the study. RESULTS: The average per-person cost for screening individuals with LDCT was $453 (95% confidence interval [CI], $400-$505) for the initial 18-months of screening following a baseline scan. The screening costs were highly dependent on the detected lung nodule size, presence of cancer, screening intervention, and the screening center. The mean per-person cost of treating lung cancer with curative surgery was $33,344 (95% CI, $31,553-$34,935) over 2 years. This was lower than the cost of treating advanced-stage lung cancer with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or supportive care alone, ($47,792; 95% CI, $43,254-$52,200; p = 0.061). CONCLUSION: In the Pan-Canadian study, the average cost to screen individuals with a high risk for developing lung cancer using LDCT and the average initial cost of curative intent treatment were lower than the average per-person cost of treating advanced stage lung cancer which infrequently results in a cure.

Cancer patients acceptance, understanding, and willingness-to-pay for pharmacogenomic testing.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenomics is gaining increasing importance in the therapeutics of cancer; yet, there is little knowledge of cancer patients' attitudes toward the use of pharmacogenomic testing in clinical practice. We carried out this study to explore cancer patients' acceptance, understanding, and willingness-to-pay for pharmacogenomic testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A broad cross-section of gastrointestinal, lung, breast, and other cancer patients were interviewed in terms of their acceptance of pharmacogenomic testing using hypothetical time, efficacy, and toxicity trade-off and willingness-to-pay scenarios. RESULTS: Among the 96% of 123 adjuvant patients accepting chemotherapy under optimal conditions, 99% wanted pharmacogenomic testing that could identify a subset of patients benefiting from chemotherapy, accepting median incurred costs of $2000 (range $0-25,000) and turnaround time for test results of 16 days (range 0-90 days). Among the 97% of 121 metastatic patients accepting chemotherapy, 97.4% wanted pharmacogenomic testing that could detect the risk of severe toxicity, accepting median incurred costs of $1000 (range $0-10,000) and turnaround time for results of 14 days (range 1-90 days). The majority of patients wanted to be involved in decision-making on pharmacogenomic testing; however, one in five patients lacked a basic understanding of pharmacogenomic testing. CONCLUSION: Among cancer patients willing to undergo chemotherapy, almost all wanted pharmacogenomic testing and were willing-to-pay for it, waiting several weeks for results. Although patients had a strong desire to be involved in decision-making on pharmacogenomic testing, a considerable proportion lacked the necessary knowledge to make informed choices.