Impact of body mass index on survival in women receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The impact of elevated body mass index (BMI) on overall survival (OS) in patients receiving modern anthracycline-taxane chemotherapy for early breast cancer (EBC) has not yet been well established. The purpose of our study was to examine overall survival (OS) by BMI category in women with EBC receiving either doxorubicin (A), cyclophosphamide (C) + paclitaxel (P) or fluorouracil (F), epirubicin (E), cyclophosphamide (C) + docetaxel (D). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study in patients ≥ 18 years with resected stage I-III BC diagnosed between 2007 and 2017 in Ontario, identified through linkage of administrative databases. Patients were classified according to baseline BMI into underweight (< 18.5 kg/m2), normal (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2), and obese (≥ 30 kg/m2) World Health Organization (WHO) categories. The primary outcome was OS. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to examine the association between clinico-pathologic characteristics and OS among BMI categories. RESULTS: Our cohort included 11,601 women, of whom 3890 (33.5%) were normal weight, 3696 (31.9%) overweight, and 3847 (33.1%) obese. Median OS was 7.9 years. There were no statistically significant differences in OS according to BMI (p = 0.66) in the overall study cohort or among the BMI categories after adjusting for age, nodal status, stage, grade, ER and HER2 status for either AC-P or FEC-D- treated patients (p = 0.45 and p = 0.97, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our large population-based retrospective cohort analysis of EBC patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline-taxane chemotherapy found no significant impact of BMI on OS. Further investigation is warranted to confirm these findings in prospective patient cohorts.

The Association of Drug-Funding Reimbursement With Survival Outcomes and Use of New Systemic Therapies Among Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

Importance: Gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel (GEMNAB) and fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) both improve survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer when compared with single-agent gemcitabine in clinical trials. Objective: To describe changes in the survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer associated with sequential drug-funding approvals and to determine if there exist distinct patient populations for whom GEMNAB and FOLFIRINOX are associated with survival benefit. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, retrospective cohort study examined all incident cases of advanced pancreatic cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada (2008-2018) that were identified from the Cancer Care Ontario (Ontario Health) New Drug Funding Program database. Statistical analysis was performed from October 2020 to January 2021. Exposures: First-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the proportion of patients treated with each chemotherapy regimen over time and overall survival for each regimen. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare overall survival between treatment regimens after adjustment for confounding variables, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and matching. Results: From 2008 to 2018, 5465 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada. The median (range) age of patients was 66.9 (27.8-93.4) years; 2447 (45%) were female; 878 (16%) had prior pancreatic resection, and 328 (6%) had prior adjuvant gemcitabine. During the time period when only gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX were funded (2011-2015), 49% (929 of 1887) received FOLFIRINOX. When GEMNAB was subsequently funded (2015-2018), 9% (206 of 2347) received gemcitabine, 44% (1034 of 2347) received FOLFIRINOX, and 47% (1107 of 2347) received GEMNAB. The median overall survival increased from 5.6 months (95% CI, 5.1-6.0 months) in 2008 to 2011 to 6.9 months (95% CI, 6.5-7.4 months) in 2011 to 2015 to 7.6 months (95% CI, 7.1-8.0 months) in 2015 to 2018. Patients receiving FOLFIRINOX were younger and healthier than patients receiving GEMNAB. After adjustment and weighting, FOLFIRINOX was associated with better overall survival than GEMNAB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69-0.81]). In analyses comparing patients treated with GEMNAB and gemcitabine, GEMNAB was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78-0.94]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving first-line palliative chemotherapy within a universal health care system found that drug funding decisions were associated with increased uptake of new treatment options over time and improved survival. Both FOLFIRINOX and GEMNAB were associated with survival benefits in distinct patient populations.

Socioeconomic disparity trends in diagnostic imaging, treatments, and survival for non-small cell lung cancer 2007-2016.

Socioeconomic status (SES) has led to treatment and survival disparities; however, limited data exist for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study investigates the impact of SES on NSCLC diagnostic imaging, treatment, and overall survival (OS), and describes temporal disparity trends. The Ontario Cancer Registry was used to identify NSCLC patients diagnosed between 2007 and 2016. Through linkage to administrative datasets, patients' demographics, imaging, treatment, and survival were obtained. Based on median household neighborhood income, the Ontario population was divided into five income quintiles (Q1-Q5; Q1 = lowest income). Multivariable regressions assessed SES association with OS, imaging, treatment receipt, and treatment delay, and their interaction with year of diagnosis to understand temporal trends. Endpoints were adjusted for demographics, stage and comorbidities, along with treatments and imaging for OS. A total of 50 542 patients were identified. Higher SES patients (Q5 vs. Q1) showed improved 5-year OS (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.92; P < .0001) and underwent greater magnetic resonance imaging head (stages IA-IV; odds ratio [OR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.16-1.32; P < .0001), lung resection (IA-IIIA; OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.43-1.74; P < .0001), platinum-based vinorelbine adjuvant chemotherapy (IB-IIIA; OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.39-1.92; P < .0001), palliative radiation (IV; OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.25; P = .023), and intravenous chemotherapy (IV; OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.32-1.60; P < .0001). Lower SES patients underwent greater thoracic radiation (IA-IIIB; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.94; P = .0003). Across 2007-2016, socioeconomic disparities remain largely unchanged (interaction P > .05) despite widening income inequality.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with non-curative or palliative intent for hepatocellular carcinoma in the real-world setting.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) presentation is heterogeneous necessitating a variety of therapeutic interventions with varying efficacies and associated prognoses. Poor prognostic patients often undergo non-curative palliative interventions including transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), sorafenib, chemotherapy, or purely supportive care. The decision to pursue one of many palliative interventions for HCC is complex and an economic evaluation comparing these interventions has not been done. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of non-curative palliative treatment strategies such as TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib, sorafenib alone, and non-sorafenib chemotherapy compared with no treatment or best supportive care (BSC) among patients diagnosed with HCC between 2007 and 2010 in a Canadian setting. Using person-level data, we estimated effectiveness in life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) along with total health care costs (2013 US dollars) from the health care payer's perspective (3% annual discount). A net benefit regression approach accounting for baseline covariates with propensity score adjustment was used to calculate incremental net benefit to generate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and uncertainty measures. Among 1,172 identified patients diagnosed with HCC, 4.5%, 7.9%, and 5.6%, received TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib, sorafenib, and non-sorafenib chemotherapy clone, respectively. Compared with no treatment or BSC (81.9%), ICER estimates for TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib was $6,665/QALY (additional QALY: 0.47, additional cost: $3,120; 95% CI: -$18,800-$34,500/QALY). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve demonstrated that if the relevant threshold was $50,000/QALY, TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib, non-sorafenib chemotherapy, and sorafenib alone, would have a cost-effectiveness probability of 99.7%, 46.6%, and 5.5%, respectively. Covariates associated with the incremental net benefit of treatments are age, sex, comorbidity, and cancer stage. Findings suggest that TACE with or without sorafenib is currently the most cost-effective active non-curative palliative treatment approach to HCC. Further research into new combination treatment strategies that afford the best tumor response is needed.

Systemic therapy in the curative treatment of head and neck squamous cell cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the available evidence and make recommendations regarding use of systemically administered drugs in combination or in sequence with radiation (RT) and/or surgery for cure and/or organ preservation in patients with locally advanced nonmetastatic (Stage III to IVB) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LASCCHN). METHOD: Recognizing the Meta-analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer (MACH-NC) group reports have de facto guided practice since 2000, we searched for systematic reviews in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published from January 2000 to February 2015 in reference to 4 research questions. A search was also conducted for randomized trials (RCTs) up to February 2015 not included in the meta-analyses. RESULT: The MACH-NC reports, 5 additional meta-analyses, and 30 RCTs not included by MACH-NC were identified. For chemotherapy, MACH-NC findings showing improved overall survival with concomitant chemoRT did not require modification. High-dose cisplatin was most commonly studied. We confirmed this benefit with cisplatin monotherapy in patients treated with with postoperative concurrent chemoRT. Other than cetuximab, no targeted agents and radiosensitizers studied in RCTs were shown effective. TPF induction chemotherapy was superior to PF for tumor response and larynx preservation but not survival. Larynx preservation was reported with both CRT and induction chemotherapy approaches. CONCLUSION: ChemoRT with cisplatin at least 40 mg/m2 per week given as radical or postoperative adjuvant remains a standard treatment approach for LASCCHN that improves overall survival but increases toxicity. 5-FU plus platinum is supported by less data but may be a reasonable alternative for patients unsuitable for cisplatin. Of note, stratification of outcomes by HPV-status was not available but outcomes for oropharynx cancer appeared similar to other subsites in chemoRT RCTs. No RCTs have yet demonstrated superiority or non-inferiority of cetuximab-RT to CRT. In view of this, cetuximab-RT is suggested only for patients not candidates for CRT. Taxane-based triplet induction chemotherapy is superior to doublets for rapid tumour downsizing and for larynx preservation, but does not improve overall survival and should be used with primary G-CSF prophylaxis. Further investigation of induction approaches for larynx preservation may be warranted.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients receiving FEC-D.

5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide â†’ docetaxel (FEC-D) has been associated with higher-than-expected rates of febrile neutropenia (FN) that meet the current guideline threshold of 20 % for primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). We examined the cost-effectiveness of FEC-D with varying strategies of G-CSF prophylaxis from the perspective of the public payer in Ontario, Canada. A state-transition model was developed to compare three strategies: FEC-D with secondary prophylaxis (SP) only, PP starting with the first cycle of D, and PP starting with the first cycle of FEC. Analysis was conducted for a hypothetical cohort of 50-year-old early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy, at a 10-year horizon. Results were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and 2013 Canadian dollars. Costs and benefits were discounted at 5 %. Event rates, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Using filgrastim, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for starting PP with the first cycle of D and starting PP with the first cycle of FEC, compared to using SP only, were $57,886/QALY and $116,186/QALY, respectively. With pegfilgrastim, the ICERs for the same strategies were $90,735/QALY and $149,483/QALY. Compared to using filgrastim SP only, starting PP with D had a 24 % chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY, and a 99 % chance at a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY. Results were sensitive to FN-related parameters, such as the risk of FN per cycle with D and the associated mortality, but were robust to uncertainty in parameters related to breast cancer, such as the utilities and hazard of relapse. FEC-D with PP starting with the first cycle of D is most likely to be cost-effective, especially with increased risk of FN and mortality from FN.