Real-world comparative effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab for PD-L1≥50% metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background: Despite the demonstrated efficacy of pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-024, effectiveness and safety in routine practice remain unclear. Methods: The authors identified first-line pembrolizumab or chemotherapy patients from April 2013 to March 2021. The primary outcome was overall survival; the secondary safety outcomes included rates of hospitalization, emergency department visits, specialist visits, and adverse events. Baseline differences were adjusted using propensity score matching (1:1). Results: The matched cohort included 2284 pairs. Median overall survival for pembrolizumab (13.0 months) was significantly longer than for chemotherapy (9.2 months), with a hazard ratio of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71-0.92). Pembrolizumab patients reported significantly more adverse events and specialist visits, as well as a higher 1-year cumulative incidence of direct hospitalizations. Conclusion: The survival benefit of first-line pembrolizumab persists in the real world, although with increased toxicity and diminished benefit.

[Box: see text].

A population-based analysis of the management of symptoms of depression among patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: Patients with lung cancer can experience significant psychological morbidities including depression. We characterize patterns and factors associated with interventions for symptoms of depression in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using health services administrative data in Ontario, Canada of stage IV NSCLC diagnosed from January 2007 to September 2018. A positive symptom of depression score was defined by reporting at least one ESAS (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) depression score ≥ 2 following diagnosis until the end of follow-up (September 2019). Patient factors included age, sex, comorbidity burden, rurality of residence, and neighbourhood income quintile. Interventions included psychiatry assessment, psychology referral, social work referral and anti-depressant medical therapy (for patients ≥ 65 years with universal drug coverage). Multivariable modified Poisson regression models were used to examine the association between patient factors and intervention use for patients who reported symptoms of depression. RESULTS: In the cohort of 13,159 patients with stage IV NSCLC lung cancer, symptoms of depression were prevalent (71.4%, n = 9,397). Patients who reported symptoms of depression were more likely to receive psychiatry assessment/psychology referral (7.8% vs 3.5%; SD [standardized difference] 0.19), social work referral (17.4% vs 11.9%; SD 0.16) and anti-depressant prescriptions (23.8% vs 13.8%; SD 0.26) when compared to patients who did not report symptoms of depression respectively. In multivariable analyses, older patients were less likely to receive any intervention. Females were more likely to obtain a psychiatry assessment/psychology referral or social work referral. In addition, patients from non-major urban or rural residences were less likely to receive psychiatry assessment/psychology referral or social work referral, however patients from rural residences were more likely to be prescribed anti-depressants. CONCLUSIONS: There is high prevalence of symptoms of depression in stage IV NSCLC. We identify patient populations, including older patients and rural patients, who are less likely to receive interventions that will help identifying and screening for symptoms of depression.

Enhancing Symptom Screening and Patient Education Among Patients with Metastatic Lung Cancer: a Qualitative Analysis.

We explored perspectives of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) on symptom screening and population-level patient-reported outcome (PRO) data regarding common symptom trajectories in the year after diagnosis. A qualitative study of patients with mNSCLC was conducted at a Canadian tertiary cancer centre. English-speaking patients diagnosed ≥ 6 months prior to study invitation were recruited, and semi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted. Patient and treatment characteristics were obtained via chart review. Anonymized interview transcripts underwent deductive-inductive coding and thematic content analysis. Among ten participants (5 (50%) females; median (range) age, 68 (56-77) years; median (range) time since diagnosis, 28.5 (6-72) months; 6 (60%) with smoking histories), six themes were identified in total. Two themes were identified regarding symptom screening: (1) screening is useful for symptom self-monitoring and disclosure to the healthcare team, (2) screening of additional quality-of-life (QOL) domains (smoking-related stigma, sexual dysfunction, and financial toxicity) is desired. Four themes were identified regarding population-level symptom trajectory PRO data: (1) data provide reassurance and motivation to engage in symptom self-management, (2) data should be disclosed after an oncologic treatment plan is developed, (3) data should be communicated via in-person discussion with accompanying patient-education resources, and (4) communication of data should include reassurance about symptom stabilization, acknowledgement of variability in patient experience, and strategies for symptom self-management. The themes and recommendations derived from the patient experience with mNSCLC provide guidance for enhanced symptom screening and utilization of population-level symptom trajectory data for patient education.

Stereotactic radiosurgery versus whole brain radiotherapy in patients with intracranial metastatic disease and small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) are at high risk for intracranial metastatic disease (IMD). Although stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has supplanted whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as first-line treatment for IMD in most solid cancers, WBRT remains first-line treatment for IMD in patients with SCLC. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of SRS in comparison with WBRT and assess treatment outcomes following SRS. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and grey literature sources for controlled trials and cohort studies published in English reporting on SRS for IMD treatment in patients with SCLC from inception to March 23, 2022. Studies were excluded that did not report on SRS for IMD secondary to SCLC. Summary data were extracted. The primary outcome was overall survival, presented as pooled hazard ratios (HR) through random-effects meta-analysis for studies comparing SRS with WBRT with or without SRS boost, and as medians for single-arm SRS studies. This study is registered with the Open Science Framework, DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8M4HC, and PROSPERO, CRD42021258197. FINDINGS: Of 3823 identified records, 31 were eligible for inclusion; seven were included in the meta-analysis. Overall survival following SRS was longer than following WBRT with or without SRS boost (HR 0·85; 95% CI 0·75-0·97; n=7 studies; n=18 130 patients), or WBRT alone (0·77; 0·72-0·83; n=7 studies; n=16 961 patients), but not WBRT plus SRS boost (1·17, 0·78-1·75; n=4 studies; n=1167 patients). Using single-arm studies, pooled median overall survival from SRS was 8·99 months (95% CI 7·86-10·16; n=14 studies; n=1682 patients). Between-study heterogeneity was considerable when pooled among all comparative studies (I2=71·9%). INTERPRETATION: These results suggest survival outcomes are equitable following treatment with SRS compared with WBRT in patients with SCLC and IMD. Future prospective studies should focus on tumour burden and differences in local and distant intracranial progression between WBRT-treated and SRS-treated patients with SCLC. FUNDING: None.

Incident Cancer Detection During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Resource restrictions were established in many jurisdictions to maintain health system capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disrupted healthcare access likely impacted early cancer detection. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the pandemic on weekly reported cancer incidence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a population-based study involving individuals diagnosed with cancer from September 25, 2016, to September 26, 2020, in Ontario, Canada. Weekly cancer incidence counts were examined using segmented negative binomial regression models. The weekly estimated backlog during the pandemic was calculated by subtracting the observed volume from the projected/expected volume in that week. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 358,487 adult patients with cancer. At the start of the pandemic, there was an immediate 34.3% decline in the estimated mean cancer incidence volume (relative rate, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75), followed by a 1% increase in cancer incidence volume in each subsequent week (relative rate, 1.009; 95% CI, 1.001-1.017). Similar trends were found for both screening and nonscreening cancers. The largest immediate declines were seen for melanoma and cervical, endocrinologic, and prostate cancers. For hepatobiliary and lung cancers, there continued to be a weekly decline in incidence during the COVID-19 period. Between March 15 and September 26, 2020, 12,601 fewer individuals were diagnosed with cancer, with an estimated weekly backlog of 450. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that there is a large volume of undetected cancer cases related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Incidence rates have not yet returned to prepandemic levels.

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.

Parametric Survival Extrapolation of Early Survival Data in Economic Analyses: A Comparison of Projected Versus Observed Updated Survival.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the value of cancer drugs by cost-effectiveness analysis, lifetime parametric survival extrapolations are often fitted to early data. Recent literature suggests that the benefit of cancer agents in primary publications is often different compared with updated data. This study aimed to examine the projected survival based on parametric extrapolations compared with observed survival based on updated data. METHODS: US Food and Drug Administration oncology approvals from January 2006 to December 2015 were reviewed to identify randomized controlled trials, with updated overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) data within 5 years. Individual patient data were reconstructed using established methods on initial and updated publications. Projected survival was calculated as the best-fit parametric restricted mean survival time (RMST) based on extrapolated initial Kaplan-Meier curves whereas observed survival was calculated as observed RMST based on updated Kaplan-Meier curves. Mean deviations, mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error, and linear regressions were conducted to examine the relationship between projected and observed survival. RESULTS: In total, 32 randomized controlled trials were included. The MAE between the projected RMST and observed RMST was 3.18 months (OS) and 2.84 months (PFS) and absolute percentage error of 100% (OS) and 23% (PFS), suggesting substantial imprecision of the projected RMST in predicting the updated RMST. The linear regression indicated MAE increased as time extrapolated and as the percentage of censored patients increased. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated substantial difference in projected survival between initial and updated publications. Health technology assessment committees need to be aware of the potential uncertainty of incremental effectiveness and resultant value-for-money assessment when making reimbursement decisions based on initial publications with immature survival data.

Impact of cancer surgery slowdowns on patient survival during the COVID-19 pandemic: a microsimulation modelling study.

BACKGROUND: With the declaration of the global pandemic, surgical slowdowns were instituted to conserve health care resources for anticipated surges in patients with COVID-19. The long-term implications on survival of these slowdowns for patients with cancer in Canada is unknown. METHODS: We constructed a microsimulation model based on real-world population data on cancer care from Ontario, Canada, from 2019 and 2020. Our model estimated wait times for cancer surgery over a 6-month period during the pandemic by simulating a slowdown in operating room capacity (60% operating room resources in month 1, 70% in month 2, 85% in months 3-6), as compared with simulated prepandemic conditions with 100% resources. We used incremental differences in simulated wait times to model survival using per-day hazard ratios for risk of death. Primary outcomes included life-years lost per patient and per cancer population. We conducted scenario analyses to evaluate alternative, hypothetical scenarios of different levels of surgical slowdowns on risk of death. RESULTS: The simulated model population comprised 22 799 patients waiting for cancer surgery before the pandemic and 20 177 patients during the pandemic. Mean wait time to surgery prepandemic was 25 days and during the pandemic was 32 days. Excess wait time led to 0.01-0.07 life-years lost per patient across cancer sites, translating to 843 (95% credible interval 646-950) life-years lost among patients with cancer in Ontario. INTERPRETATION: Pandemic-related slowdowns of cancer surgeries were projected to result in decreased long-term survival for many patients with cancer. Measures to preserve surgical resources and health care capacity for affected patients are critical to mitigate unintended consequences.

Cancer treatment-related financial toxicity experienced by patients in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: In the past decade, literature has called attention to financial toxicities experienced by cancer patients. Though studies have addressed research questions in high-income countries, there remains a paucity of in-depth reviews regarding low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Our scoping review provides an overview of treatment-related financial toxicities experienced by cancer patients in LMICs. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. English peer-reviewed articles that (a) explored patients' experience with financial toxicity due to cancer treatment (b) were specific to LMICs as defined by the World Bank and (c) focused on qualitative data were included. Details regarding participants and main findings were extracted and synthesized. RESULTS: The search yielded 6290 citations, and 42 studies across 3 low-income, 9 lower-middle-income and 8 upper-middle-income countries. Main themes identified included cancer patients encountered various material hardships, managed costs with different coping behaviours and experienced negative psychological responses to their financial burden. Higher levels of financial toxicities were associated with patient characteristics such as lower socio-economic status and lack of insurance, as well as patient outcomes such as lower quality of life. CONCLUSION: Cancer patients in LMIC experience deleterious financial toxicities as a result of treatment. This comprehensive characterization of financial toxicities will better allow health systems to adopt evidence-based mitigation strategies to reduce the financial burden on patients.

Assessing the efficacy-effectiveness gap for cancer therapies: A comparison of overall survival and toxicity between clinical trial and population-based, real-world data for contemporary parenteral cancer therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: Although increasing evidence has suggested that an efficacy-effectiveness gap exists between clinical trial (CT) and real-world evidence (RWE), to the authors' knowledge, the magnitude of this difference remains undercharacterized. The objective of the current study was to quantify the magnitude of survival and toxicity differences between CT and RWE for contemporary cancer systemic therapies. METHODS: Patients receiving cancer therapies funded under Cancer Care Ontario's New Drug Funding Program (NDFP) were identified. Landmark CTs with data regarding survival and adverse events (AEs) for each drug indication were identified. RWE for survival and hospitalization rates during treatment were ascertained through Canadian population-based databases. The efficacy-effectiveness gap for each drug indication was calculated as the difference between RWE and CT data for median overall survival (OS), 1-year OS, and generated hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs from Kaplan-Meier OS curves. Toxicity differences were calculated as the difference between RWE of hospitalization rates and CT serious AE rates. RESULTS: Twenty-nine indications from 20 systemic therapies were included. Twenty-eight of 29 indications (97%) demonstrated worse survival in RWE, with a median OS difference of 5.2 months (interquartile range, 3.0-12.1 months). Lower effectiveness in RWE also was demonstrated through a meta-analysis of an OS hazard ratio of 1.58 (95% CI, 1.39-1.80). The median difference between RWE for hospitalization rates and CT serious AEs was 14% (95% CI, 9%-22%). CONCLUSIONS: An efficacy-effectiveness gap exists for contemporary cancer systemic therapies, with a 5.2-month lower median OS observed in RWE compared with CT data. These data supports the use of RWE to better inform real-world decision making regarding the use of cancer systemic therapies.

Overall survival in lower IPSS risk MDS by receipt of iron chelation therapy, adjusting for patient-related factors and measuring from time of first red blood cell transfusion dependence: an MDS-CAN analysis.

Analyses suggest iron overload in red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent (TD) patients with myleodysplastic syndrome (MDS) portends inferior overall survival (OS) that is attenuated by iron chelation therapy (ICT) but may be biassed by unbalanced patient-related factors. The Canadian MDS Registry prospectively measures frailty, comorbidity and disability. We analysed OS by receipt of ICT, adjusting for these patient-related factors. TD International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) low and intermediate-1 risk MDS, at RBC TD, were included. Predictive factors for OS were determined. A matched pair analysis considering age, revised IPSS, TD severity, time from MDS diagnosis to TD, and receipt of disease-modifying agents was conducted. Of 239 patients, 83 received ICT; frailty, comorbidity and disability did not differ from non-ICT patients. Median OS from TD was superior in ICT patients (5·2 vs. 2·1 years; P < 0·0001). By multivariate analysis, not receiving ICT independently predicted inferior OS, (hazard ratio for death 2·0, P = 0·03). In matched pair analysis, OS remained superior for ICT patients (P = 0·02). In this prospective, non-randomized analysis, receiving ICT was associated with superior OS in lower IPSS risk MDS, adjusting for age, frailty, comorbidity, disability, revised IPSS, TD severity, time to TD and receiving disease-modifying agents. This provides additional evidence that ICT may confer clinical benefit.

Safety and efficacy of POEM for treatment of achalasia: a systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a novel intervention for the treatment of achalasia, which combines the advantages of endoscopic access and myotomy. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the efficacy and safety of POEM. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE (R) including in-process and non-indexed citations were searched for POEM studies using the keywords: esophageal achalasia, POEM, endoscopy, natural orifice surgery, laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), and related terms. Eckardt score, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure, and reported complications were the main outcomes. Two authors reviewed the search result independently. A third reviewer resolved all disagreements. Data abstraction was pilot-tested and approved by all authors. Data were examined for clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity with the aim of determining whether evidence synthesis using meta- analysis was possible. RESULTS: The search strategy retrieved 2894 citations. After removing duplicates and applying the exclusion criteria, 54 studies were selected for full-text review of which a total of 19 studies were considered eligible for further analysis. There were 10 retrospective and 9 prospective studies, including 1299 POEM procedures. No randomized control trial (RCT) was identified. Overall, the pre- and post-POEM Eckardt scores and LES pressure were significantly different. The most frequently reported complications were mucosal perforation, subcutaneous emphysema, pneumoperitoneum, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, pleural effusion, and pneumonia. The median follow-up was 13 months (range 3-24). CONCLUSION: POEM is a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of achalasia. However, only short-term follow-up data compared with LHM are available. RCTs and long-term follow-up studies are needed to establish the efficacy and safety of POEM in the management of patients with achalasia.

Referred molecular testing as a barrier to optimal treatment decision making in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: Experience at a tertiary academic institution in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Molecular testing is critical to guiding treatment approaches in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), with testing delays adversely impacting the timeliness of treatment decisions. Here, we aimed to evaluate the time from initial mNSCLC diagnosis to treatment decision (TTD) following implementation of in-house EGFR, ALK, and PD-L1 testing at our institution. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 165 patients (send-out testing, n = 92; in-house testing, n = 73) with newly diagnosed mNSCLC treated at our institution. Data were compared during the send-out (March 2017-May 2019) and in-house (July 2019-March 2021) testing periods. We performed a detailed workflow analysis to provide insight on the pre-analytic, analytic, and post-analytic intervals that constituted the total TTD. RESULTS: TTD was significantly shorter with in-house testing (10 days vs. 18 days, p < 0.0001), driven largely by decreased internal handling and specimen transit times (2 days vs. 3 days, p < 0.0001) and laboratory turnaround times (TAT, 3 days vs. 8 days, p < 0.0001), with 96% of in-house cases meeting the international guideline of a ≤ 10-day intra-laboratory TAT (vs. 74% send-out, p < 0.001). Eighty-eight percent of patients with in-house testing had results available at their first oncology consultation (vs. 52% send-out, p < 0.0001), and all patients with in-house testing had results available at the time of treatment decision (vs. 86% send-out, p = 0.57). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the advantages of in-house biomarker testing for mNSCLC at a tertiary oncology center. Incorporation of in-house testing may reduce barriers to offering personalized medicine by improving the time to optimal systemic therapy decision.

Oropharyngeal Cancer Staging Health Record Extraction Using Artificial Intelligence.

Importance: Accurate, timely, and cost-effective methods for staging oropharyngeal cancers are crucial for patient prognosis and treatment decisions, but staging documentation is often inaccurate or incomplete. With the emergence of artificial intelligence in medicine, data abstraction may be associated with reduced costs but increased efficiency and accuracy of cancer staging. Objective: To evaluate an algorithm using an artificial intelligence engine capable of extracting essential information from medical records of patients with oropharyngeal cancer and assigning tumor, nodal, and metastatic stages according to American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition guidelines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective diagnostic study was conducted among a convenience sample of 806 patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Medical records of patients with staged oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas who presented to a single tertiary care center between January 1, 2010, and August 1, 2020, were reviewed. A ground truth cancer stage dataset and comprehensive staging rule book consisting of 135 rules encompassing p16 status, tumor, and nodal and metastatic stage were developed. Subsequently, 4 distinct models were trained: model T (entity relationship extraction) for anatomical location and invasion state, model S (numerical extraction) for lesion size, model M (sequential classification) for metastasis detection, and a p16 model for p16 status. For validation, results were compared against ground truth established by expert reviewers, and accuracy was reported. Data were analyzed from March to November 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The accuracy of algorithm cancer stages was compared with ground truth. Results: Among 806 patients with oropharyngeal cancer (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [10.6] years; 651 males [80.8%]), 421 patients (52.2%) were positive for human papillomavirus. The artificial intelligence engine achieved accuracies of 55.9% (95% CI, 52.5%-59.3%) for tumor, 56.0% (95% CI, 52.5%-59.4%) for nodal, and 87.6% (95% CI, 85.1%-89.7%) for metastatic stages and 92.1% (95% CI, 88.5%-94.6%) for p16 status. Differentiation between localized (stages 1-2) and advanced (stages 3-4) cancers achieved 80.7% (95% CI, 77.8%-83.2%) accuracy. Conclusion and Relevance: This study found that tumor and nodal staging accuracies were fair to good and excellent for metastatic stage and p16 status, with clinical relevance in assigning optimal treatment and reducing toxic effect exposures. Further model refinement and external validation with electronic health records at different institutions are necessary to improve algorithm accuracy and clinical applicability.

Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Studies for Health Technology Management: Outcomes and Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration.

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a value assessment tool designed to help support complex decision-making by incorporating multiple factors and perspectives in a transparent, structured approach. We developed an MCDA rating tool, consisting of seven criteria evaluating the importance and feasibility of conducting potential real-world evidence (RWE) studies aimed at addressing uncertainties stemming from initial cancer drug funding recommendations. In collaboration with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's Provincial Advisory Group, a validation exercise was conducted to further evaluate the application of the rating tool using RWE proposals varying in complexity. Through this exercise, we aimed to gain insight into consensus building and deliberation processes and to identify efficiencies in the application of the rating tool. An experienced facilitator led a multidisciplinary committee, consisting of 11 Canadian experts, through consensus building, deliberation, and prioritization. A total of nine RWE proposals were evaluated and prioritized as low (n = 4), medium (n = 3), or high (n = 2) priority. Through an iterative process, efficiencies and recommendations to improve the rating tool and associated procedures were identified. The refined MCDA rating tool can help decision-makers prioritize important and feasible RWE studies for research and can enable the use of RWE for the life-cycle evaluation of cancer drugs.

Do female and male patients derive similar benefits from approved systemic oncology therapies? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The National Institutes of Health's policy for the inclusion of females in clinical research was a pivotal step towards the consideration of sex as a biological variable, which is of particular importance in oncology, given differential incidence and outcomes of cancer between the sexes, and known pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, and immunological differences. Therefore, we aim to investigate if such biological sex-based differences translate to clinically meaningful outcome differences from recently approved systemic oncology therapies. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized control trials (RCTs) cited in Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada approvals was conducted. Chemotherapy, targeted agents, and immunotherapy RCTs reporting sex-based sub-group analyses for overall/progression-free survival (OS/PFS) were considered. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized. Sensitivity analyses for survival endpoints, drug type, and cancer site were conducted. RESULTS: Ninety-nine RCTs were included, representing 62,384 patients (23,574 (38%) female). Pooled OS HRs [95% CIs] were 0.77 [0.72-0.81] and 0.76 [0.72-0.79] for females and males, respectively (P = 0.73), and 0.51 [0.47-0.56] and 0.57 [0.53-0.61] (P = 0.08) for PFS. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. No RCTs reported sex-based toxicity or quality-of-life (QOL) data. CONCLUSION: Female and male patients appear to derive comparable benefits from recently approved systemic oncology therapies. Future RCTs are encouraged to report sex-based toxicity and QOL data.

Nivolumab for Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Tertiary Centre's Real-World Experience.

Nivolumab, a PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor, was approved in Canada in 2017 for the treatment of recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) based on the phase 3 trial CHECKMATE-141. We aimed to examine the demographics and efficacy of nivolumab in a Canadian, real-world setting. A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who received nivolumab for R/M HNSCC from 2017 to 2020 at a high-volume cancer centre. Data were abstracted from 34 patients, based on physician notes and imaging reports. The median patient age at nivolumab initiation was 61, 24% were female, and 62% were current or former smokers. Prior to nivolumab, 44% of patients underwent surgery, 97% radiation, and 100% chemotherapy. Most (97%) therapies were for primary disease. Overall survival at 6 and 12 months following drug initiation was 38% and 23%, respectively. Progression-free survival at 6 and 12 months was 33% and 22%, respectively. Eighteen percent of patients experienced an immune-related adverse event, the most common of which was pneumonitis (3/8) and endocrine events (3/8). Seven out of eight of the immune adverse events were grade 1-2; 1/8 was grade 3. Nivolumab appears to have decreased survival rates in our single-centre Canadian population compared to CHECKMATE-141 and presented a manageable adverse event profile for R/M HNSCC.

Evaluating the impact of early identification of asymptomatic brain metastases in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BM) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been reported to be present in up to 25% of patients diagnosed with mRCC. There is limited published literature evaluating the role of routine intra-cranial imaging for the screening of asymptomatic BM in mRCC. AIMS: To evaluate the potential utility of routine intra-cranial imaging, a retrospective cohort study was conducted to characterize the outcomes of mRCC patients who presented with asymptomatic BM, as compared to symptomatic BM. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis) database was used to identify mRCC patients diagnosed with BM. This cohort was divided into two groups based on the presence or absence of BM symptoms. Details regarding patient demographics, disease characteristics, systemic treatments, BM characteristics and survival outcomes were extracted. Statistical analysis was through chi-square tests, analysis of variance, and Kaplan-Meier method to characterize survival outcomes. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses. A total of 267 mRCC patients with BM were identified of which 106 (40%) presented with asymptomatic disease. The majority of patients presented with multiple (i.e., >1) BM (75%) with no significant differences noted in number of BM or BM-directed therapy received in symptomatic, as compared to asymptomatic BM patients. Median [95% confidence interval (CI)] overall survival (OS) from mRCC diagnosis was 42 months (95% CI: 32-62) for patients with asymptomatic BM, and 39 months (95% CI: 29-48) with symptomatic BM (p = 0.10). OS from time of BM diagnosis was 28 months (95% CI: 18-42) for the asymptomatic BM group, as compared to 13 months (95% CI: 10-21) in the symptomatic BM group (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Given a substantial proportion of patients may present with asymptomatic BM, limiting intra-cranial imaging to patients with symptomatic BM, may be associated with a missed opportunity for timely diagnosis and treatment. The utility of routine intra-cranial imaging in patients with renal cell carcinoma, warrants further prospective evaluation.

Dyspnea in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: a population-based analysis of disease burden and patterns of care.

Background: Patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience significant morbidity with dyspnea being a common symptom with a prevalence of 70%. The objective of this study was to determine factors associated with a moderate-to-severe dyspnea score based on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), as well as resultant patterns of intervention and factors correlated to intervention receipt. Methods: Using health services administrative data, we conducted a population-based study of all patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC treated from January 2007 to September 2018 in the province of Ontario. The primary outcomes of interest are the prevalence of moderate-to-severe dyspnea scores, and the receipt of dyspnea-directed intervention. Differences in baseline characteristic between moderate-to-severe dyspnea and low dyspnea score cohorts were assessed by comparative statistics. Predictors of intervention receipt for patients with moderate-to-severe dyspnea scores were estimated using multivariable modified Poisson regression. Results: The initial study cohort included 13,159 patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC and of these, 9,434 (71.7%) reported a moderate-to-severe dyspnea score. Compared to patients who did not report moderate-to-severe dyspnea scores, those who reported a moderate-to-severe dyspnea score were more likely to complete a greater number of ESAS surveys, be male, have a higher Elixhauser comorbidity index (ECI) score, and receive subsequent systemic therapy after diagnosis. Most patients with a moderate-to-severe dyspnea score received intervention (96%), of which the most common were palliative care management (87%), thoracic radiotherapy (56%) and thoracentesis (37%). Multivariable regression identified older patients to be less likely to undergo pleurodesis. Thoracentesis was less common for patients living in rural and non-major urban areas, lower income areas, and earlier year of diagnosis. Receipt of thoracic radiotherapy was less common for older patients, females, those with ECI ≥4, patients living in major urban areas, and those with later year of diagnosis. Finally, palliative care referrals were less frequent for patients with ECI ≥4, age 60-69, residence outside of major urban areas, earlier year of diagnosis, and lower income areas. Conclusions: Dyspnea is a prevalent symptom amongst patients with metastatic NSCLC. Subpopulations of patients with moderate-to-severe dyspnea scores were in which inequities may exist in access to care that require further attention and evaluation.

Timeliness and Modality of Treatment for New Cancer Diagnoses During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Canada.

Importance: The impact of COVID-19 on the modality and timeliness of first-line cancer treatment is unclear yet critical to the planning of subsequent care. Objective: To explore the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with modalities of and wait times for first cancer treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective population-based cohort study using administrative data was conducted in Ontario, Canada, among adults newly diagnosed with cancer between January 3, 2016, and November 7, 2020. Participants were followed up from date of diagnosis for 1 year, until death, or until June 26, 2021, whichever occurred first, to ensure a minimum of 6-month follow-up time. Exposures: Receiving a cancer diagnosis in the pandemic vs prepandemic period, using March 15, 2020, the date when elective hospital procedures were halted. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was a time-to-event variable describing number of days from date of diagnosis to date of receiving first cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation) or to being censored. For each treatment modality, a multivariable competing-risk regression model was used to assess the association between time to treatment and COVID-19 period. A secondary continuous outcome was defined for patients who were treated 6 months after diagnosis as the waiting time from date of diagnosis to date of treatment. Results: Among 313 499 patients, the mean (SD) age was 66.4 (14.1) years and 153 679 (49.0%) were male patients. Those who were diagnosed during the pandemic were less likely to receive surgery first (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99) but were more likely to receive chemotherapy (sHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.23-1.30) or radiotherapy (sHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20) first. Among patients who received treatment within 6 months from diagnosis (228 755 [73.0%]), their mean (SD) waiting time decreased from 35.1 (37.2) days to 29.5 (33.6) days for surgery, from 43.7 (34.1) days to 38.4 (30.6) days for chemotherapy, and from 55.8 (41.8) days to 49.0 (40.1) days for radiotherapy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the pandemic was significantly associated with greater use of nonsurgical therapy as initial cancer treatment. Wait times were shorter in the pandemic period for those treated within 6 months of diagnosis. Future work needs to examine how these changes may have affected patient outcomes to inform future pandemic guideline development.