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.

The impact of oral hypoglycemics and statins on outcomes in myelodysplastic syndromes.

Observational studies suggest an anti-neoplastic effect associated with statins, metformin, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), while sulfonylureas may have a neutral or detrimental effect. We linked the Ontario subset of a prospective Canadian myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) registry with provincial administrative databases. We assessed the impact of statin/oral hypoglycemic medication exposure on overall survival (OS) using Cox regression analysis, controlling for comorbidities and sociodemographic factors. Five hundred thirty-three patients aged ≥ 66 years were included: 49.3% used statins, 18.9% used metformin, 9.0% used sulfonylureas, and 6.4% used DPP4i. Three hundred ninety-five patients were lower-risk based on the International Prognostic Scoring System. On univariate analysis, we identified a marginal improvement in OS in the lower-risk group using DPP4i (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, P = 0.05), while there was no impact on mortality for higher-risk DPP4i users (HR 1.03, CI 0.99-1.07, P = 0.21). There was no mortality difference for statins (HR 1.00, CI 1.00-1.01, P = 0.93), metformin (HR 1.00, CI 0.99-1.01, P = 0.81), or sulfonylureas (HR 1.00, CI 0.99-1.02, P = 0.43) in the entire cohort, as well as when stratified into lower/higher-risk groups. On multivariable analysis in the lower-risk group, there was no association between DPP4i and OS (HR 0.98, CI 0.95-1.00, P = 0.06). Prospective studies with larger cohorts of patients and longer follow-up are required to further study the impact of DPP4i in MDS.

The Cost of Patient Education Materials Development: Opportunities to Identify Value and Priorities.

The study aim was to evaluate the costs associated with developing and reviewing patient education materials (pamphlets) across Ontario cancer centers. While patient education often produces a positive return on investment, limited efforts have been dedicated to optimizing the personnel, time, and capital dedicated to this feat across healthcare systems. Patient education leaders at 14 cancer centers completed a survey measure, estimating the number of hours spent developing and reviewing pamphlets and identifying the personnel involved in each procedural step. The time expended per center in each step was then combined with average salary data for the identified personnel to derive total cost estimates. Cancer centers spend on average $5672 (SD = $3180) developing (M = $4560, SD = $2620) and reviewing (M = $1112, SD = $654) one pamphlet. This cumulates to an average per annum spending of $65,401 (SD = $75,494) for pamphlet development and $19,819 (SD = $28,524) for annual pamphlet review at each cancer center. The cost and number of hours spent developing and reviewing pamphlets varied substantially between cancer centers. While the security of budgets for patient education varies across cancer centers, opportunities to optimize human capital and monetary resources should be considered. Results of the study can be used to advocate for sustainable investment into cancer education programs, improve the coordination of educational materials production and review, and ensure that resource quality and access are consistent across the province.

Annual Mammographic Screening Reduces the Risk of Interval or Higher Stage Invasive Breast Cancers Among Postmenopausal Women in the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Purpose: In the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) annual screening improved breast cancer detection for women 50-74 years with a family/personal history compared to biennial, while detection was equivalent for women screened annually for mammographic density ≥75%. This study compares the risk of interval or higher stage invasive cancers among postmenopausal women screened annually vs biennially by age and estrogen use. Methods: A retrospective design identified 4247 invasive breast cancers diagnosed among concurrent cohorts of women 50-74 screened in the OBSP with digital mammography between 2011 and 2014, followed until 2016. Polytomous logistic regression estimated the risk of interval or higher stage breast cancers by age and estrogen use between women screened annually because of first-degree relative with breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer, or mammographic density ≥75%, and those screened biennially. Results: The risk of interval vs screen-detected cancers was significantly reduced in women screened annually for family/personal history (OR=.64; 95%CI:0.51-.80), particularly those 60-74 years (OR=.59; 95%CI:0.45-.77) or not currently using estrogen (OR=.66; 95%CI:0.52-.83) compared to those screened biennially. The risk of stage II-IV vs stage I tumors was also lower in women 60-74 years screened annually for family/personal history (OR=.79; 95%CI:0.64-.97) and in those screened annually for mammographic density ≥75% currently using estrogen (OR=.51; 95%CI:0.26-1.01) compared to women screened biennially. Conclusion: Postmenopausal women at increased risk screened annually had equivalent or reduced risks of interval or higher stage invasive breast cancers than those screened biennially, further supporting risk-based screening in this population.

Virtual care and health technology assessment considerations.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid adoption of virtual care. Virtual care existed before the pandemic for specific conditions and circumstances. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of virtual care evaluated clinical and cost-effectiveness to inform decisions about the optimal use prior to the pandemic but the necessary implementation of virtual care during the pandemic meant HTA was not feasible prior to adoption. The questions for HTA no longer focused on clinical or cost-effectiveness and focused on implementation considerations. Health technology assessment post-adoption of virtual care included questions such as the appropriate medical conditions for virtual care, training, billing, patient and clinician perspectives and experiences, and equity of access. Moving forward, it is important for HTA organizations to identify new and emerging virtual care technologies, explore early and other types of evidence, assess the potential impact on the healthcare system, and explore the operational considerations.

Real-world, population-based cohort study of toxicity and resource utilization of second-line ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma in Ontario, Canada.

Second-line ipilimumab has been publicly funded in Ontario for metastatic melanoma (MM) since September 2012. We examined real-world toxicity of second-line ipilimumab compared to standard second-line treatments prior to funding. MM patients who received systemic treatment from April 2005 to March 2015 were included. Patients receiving second-line ipilimumab after September 2012 were considered as cases, and those who received second-line treatment prior to the funding date were included as historical controls. Outcomes assessed include treatment-related mortality, any-cause hospital visits, ipilimumab-related hospital visits and specialist visits (eg, endocrinologists, ophthalmologists, gastroenterologists, rheumatologists and respirologists), which were captured from up to 30 and/or 90 days after end of second-line treatment. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for baseline differences between groups. Odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regressions and rate ratios (RRs) from rate regressions were used to assess differences between groups. We identified 329 MM patients who received second-line treatments (ipilimumab: 189; controls: 140). Ipilimumab was associated greater any-cause (60.1% vs 45.7%; OR = 1.81; P value = .019) and ipilimumab-related (47.2% vs 31.9%; OR = 1.91; P value = .011) hospital visits. Adjusting for different follow-up days, ipilimumab was associated with higher rates of all-cause (RR = 1.56 [95%CI: 1.12-2.16]), and ipilimumab-related (RR = 2.18 [95% CI: 1.45-3.27]) hospital visits. Patients receiving ipilimumab were more likely to visit specialist involved in immunotherapy toxicity management (23.5% vs 13.7%; P value = .04). Compared to historical second-line treatments, second-line ipilimumab was associated with more health service utilization (specifically hospital visits and specialist visits), suggestive of potentially increased toxicity in the real world.

Province-Wide Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In Ontario, Canada, patient-reported outcome (PRO) evaluation through the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) has been integrated into clinical workflow since 2007. As stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is associated with substantial disease and treatment-related morbidity, this province-wide study investigated moderate to severe symptom burden in this population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ESAS collected from patients with stage IV NSCLC diagnosed between 2007 and 2018 linked to the Ontario provincial health care system database were studied. ESAS acquired within 12 months following diagnosis were analyzed and the proportion reporting moderate to severe scores (ESAS ≥4) in each domain was calculated. Predictors of moderate to severe scores were identified using multivariable Poisson regression models with robust error variance. RESULTS: Of 22,799 patients, 13,289 (58.3%) completed ESAS (84,373 assessments) in the year following diagnosis. Patients with older age, with high comorbidity, and not receiving active cancer therapy had lower ESAS completion. The majority (94.4%) reported at least one moderate to severe symptom. The most prevalent were tiredness (84.1%), low well-being (80.7%), low appetite (71.7%), and shortness of breath (67.8%). Most symptoms peaked at diagnosis and, while declining, remained high in the following year. On multivariable analyses, comorbidity, low income, nonimmigrants, and urban residency were associated with moderate to severe symptoms. Moderate to severe scores in all ESAS domains aside from anxiety were associated with radiotherapy within 2 weeks prior, whereas drowsiness, low appetite and well-being, nausea, and tiredness were associated with systemic therapy within 2 weeks prior. CONCLUSION: This province-wide PRO analysis showed moderate to severe symptoms were prevalent and persistent among patients with metastatic NSCLC, underscoring the need to address supportive measures in this population especially around treatments. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In this largest study of lung cancer patient-reported outcomes (PROs), stage IV non-small cell lung cancer patients had worse moderate-to-severe symptoms than other metastatic malignancies such as breast or gastrointestinal cancers when assessed with similar methodology. Prevalence of moderate-to-severe symptoms peaked early and remained high during the first year of follow-up. Symptom burden was associated with recent radiation and systemic treatments. Early and sustained PRO collection is important to detect actionable symptom progression, especially around treatments. Vulnerable patients (e.g., older, high comorbidity) who face barriers in attending in-person clinic visits had lower PRO completion. Virtual PRO collection may improve completion.

Intracranial hemorrhage after head injury among older patients on anticoagulation seen in the emergency department: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) after head injury is a concern among older adult patients on anticoagulation. We evaluated the risk of ICH after an emergency department visit for head injury among patients 65 years and older taking warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) compared with patients not taking anticoagulants. We also evaluated risk of 30-day mortality and neurosurgical intervention among patients with ICH. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used population-based data of patients 65 years and older seen in an Ontario emergency department with a head injury. We matched patients on the propensity score to create 3 pairwise-matched cohorts based on anticoagulation status (warfarin v. DOAC, warfarin v. no anticoagulant, DOAC v. no anticoagulant). For each cohort, we calculated the relative risk of ICH at the index emergency department visit and 30-day mortality. We also calculated the hazard of neurosurgical intervention among patients with ICH. RESULTS: We identified 77 834 patients with head injury, including 64 917 (83.4%) who were not on anticoagulation, 9214 (11.8%) who were on DOACs and 3703 (4.8%) who were on warfarin. Of these, 5.9% of patients had ICH at the index emergency department visit. Patients on warfarin had an increased risk of ICH compared with matched patients on DOACs (relative risk [RR] 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-1.69) and patients not on anticoagulation (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.15-1.61). We did not observe a difference in ICH between patients on DOACs compared with matched patients not on anticoagulation. In patients with ICH, 30-day mortality did not differ by anticoagulation status or type. Patients on warfarin had an increased hazard of neurosurgery compared with patients not on anticoagulation. INTERPRETATION: Patients on warfarin seen in the emergency department with a head injury had higher relative risks of ICH than matched patients on a DOAC and patients not on anticoagulation, respectively. The risk of ICH for patients on a DOAC was not significantly different compared with no anticoagulation. Further research should confirm that older adults using warfarin are the only group at higher risk of ICH after head injury.

Phase-specific risks of outpatient visits, emergency visits, and hospitalizations during Children's Oncology Group-based treatment for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Therapy for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is associated with substantial health care utilization and burden on families. Little is known about health care utilization during specific treatment phases. PROCEDURES: We identified children with ALL diagnosed during 2002-2012 in Ontario, Canada and treated according to Children's Oncology Group (COG) protocols. Disease and treatment data were chart abstracted. Population-based health care databases identified all outpatient visits, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations. In addition to comparing standard and intensified versions of treatment phases, we compared patients receiving different steroids (dexamethasone vs. prednisone) and different versions of interim maintenance (IM) (Capizzi vs. high-dose methotrexate [HD-MTX]). RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-seven children met inclusion criteria. During intensified consolidation, 76.2% of patients were hospitalized at least once, compared to only 32.3% of patients receiving standard consolidation (p < .0001). Similarly, 72.9% of patients receiving intensified delayed intensification (DI) were hospitalized during this phase compared to 50.3% of patients receiving standard DI (p < .0001). Among patients receiving a four-drug induction, those receiving dexamethasone had an 85% higher rate of ED visits (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 1.85, 95th confidence interval [95CI] 1.14-3.00; p = .01) and a 44% higher rate of hospitalization (aRR 1.44, 95CI 1.24-1.68) compared to those receiving prednisone. Among high-risk B-ALL and T-ALL patients in IM, Capizzi MTX was not associated with an increased rate of ED visits versus HD-MTX. CONCLUSIONS: These results can be used to inform anticipatory guidance for families, particularly those undergoing intensified therapy. Our results also suggest that increased toxicity rates associated with dexamethasone during Induction seen in clinical trials reflect real-world practice.

Minimization of resource utilization data collected within cost-effectiveness analyses conducted alongside Canadian Cancer Trials Group phase III trials.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analyses embedded within randomized trials allow for evaluation of value alongside conventional efficacy outcomes; however, collection of resource utilization data can require considerable trial resources. METHODS: We re-analyzed the results from four phase III Canadian Cancer Trials Group trials that embedded cost-effectiveness analyses to determine the impact of minimizing potential cost categories on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. For each trial, we disaggregated total costs into component incremental cost categories and recalculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using (1) only the top 3 cost categories, (2) the top 5 cost categories, and (3) all cost components. Using individual trial-level data, confidence intervals for each incremental cost-effectiveness ratio simulation were generated by bootstrapping and descriptively presented with the original confidence intervals (and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) from the publications. RESULTS: Drug acquisition costs represented the highest incremental cost category in three trials, while hospitalization costs represented the other consistent cost driver and the top incremental cost category in the fourth trial. Recalculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on fewer cost components (top 3 and top 5) did not differ meaningfully from the original published results. Based on conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds (US$50,000-US$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year), none of the re-analyses would have changed the original perception of whether the experimental therapies were considered cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the collection of resource utilization data within cancer trials could be narrowed. Omission of certain cost categories that have minimal impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, such as routine laboratory investigations, could reduce the costs and undue burden associated with the collection of data required for cancer trial cost-effectiveness analyses.

Real-world comparative effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: For novel cancer treatments, effectiveness in clinical practice is not always aligned with clinical efficacy results. As such it is important to understand a treatment's real-world effectiveness. We examined real-world population-based comparative effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab versus non-ipilimumab treatments (chemotherapy or targeted treatments). METHODS: We used a cohort of melanoma patients receiving systemic treatment for advanced disease since April 2005 from Ontario, Canada. Patients were identified from provincial drug databases and the Ontario Cancer Registry who received second-line ipilimumab from 2012 to 2015 (treated) or second-line non-ipilimumab treatment prior to 2012 (historical controls). Historical controls were chosen, to permit the most direct comparison to pivotal trial findings. The cohort was linked to administrative databases to identify baseline characteristics and outcomes. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess overall survival (OS). Observed potential confounders were adjusted for using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). RESULTS: We identified 329 patients with metastatic melanoma (MM) who had received second-line treatments (189 treated; 140 controls). Patients receiving second-line ipilimumab were older (61.7 years vs 55.2 years) compared to historical controls. Median OS were 6.9 (95% CI: 5.4-8.3) and 4.95 (4.3-6.0) months for ipilimumab and controls, respectively. The crude 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year OS probabilities were 34.3% (27-41%), 20.6% (15-27%), and 15.2% (9.6-21%) for ipilimumab and 17.1% (11-23%), 7.1% (2.9-11%), and 4.7% (1.2-8.2%) for controls. Ipilimumab was associated with improved OS (IPTW HR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.49-0.78; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world analysis suggests second-line ipilimumab is associated with an improvement in OS for MM patients in routine practice.

High-Cost Patients and Preventable Spending: A Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Although high-cost (HC) patients make up a small proportion of patients, they account for most health system costs. However, little is known about HC patients with cancer or whether some of their care could potentially be prevented. This analysis sought to characterize HC patients with cancer and quantify the costs of preventable acute care (emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations). METHODS: This analysis examined a population-based sample of all HC patients in Ontario in 2013. HC patients were defined as those above the 90th percentile of the cost distribution; all other patients were defined as non-high-cost (NHC). Patients with cancer were identified through the Ontario Cancer Registry. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were examined and the costs of preventable acute care for both groups by category of visit/condition were estimated using validated algorithms. RESULTS: Compared with NHC patients with cancer (n=369,422), HC patients with cancer (n=187,770) were older (mean age 70 vs 65 years), more likely to live in low-income neighborhoods (19% vs 16%), sicker, and more likely to live in long-term care homes (8% vs 0%). Although most patients from both cohorts tended to be diagnosed with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer, those with multiple myeloma or pancreatic or liver cancers were overrepresented among the HC group. Moreover, HC patients were more likely to have advanced cancer at diagnosis and be in the initial or terminal phase of treatment compared with NHC patients. Among HC patients with cancer, 9% of spending stemmed from potentially preventable/avoidable acute care, whereas for NHC patients, this spending was approximately 30%. CONCLUSIONS: HC patients with cancer are a unique subpopulation. Given the type of care they receive, there seems to be limited scope to prevent acute care spending among this patient group. To reduce costs, other strategies, such as making hospital care more efficient and generating less costly encounters involving chemotherapy, should be explored.

Economic impacts of care by high-volume providers for non-curative esophagogastric cancer: a population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Esophagogastric cancer (EGC) is one of the deadliest and costliest malignancies to treat. Care by high-volume providers can provide better outcomes for patients with EGC. Cost implications of volume-based cancer care are unclear. We examined the cost-effectiveness of care by high-volume medical oncology providers for non-curative management of EGC. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of non-curative EGC over 2005-2017 by linking administrative datasets. High-volume was defined as ≥ 11 patients/provider/year. Healthcare costs ($USD/patient/month-survived) were computed from diagnosis to death or end of follow-up from the perspective of the healthcare system. Multivariable quantile regression examined the association between care by high-volume providers and costs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying costing horizons and high-volume definitions. RESULTS: Among 7011 non-curative EGC patients, median overall survival was superior with care by high-volume providers with 7.0 (IQR 3.3-13.3) compared to 5.9 (IQR 2.6-12.1) months (p < 0.001) for low-volume providers. Median costs/patient/month-lived were lower for high-volume providers ($5518 vs. $5911; p < 0.001), owing to lower inpatient acute care costs, despite higher medication-associated and radiotherapy costs. Care by high-volume providers was independently associated with a reduction of $599 per patient/month-lived (95% confidence interval - 966 to - 331) compared to low-volume providers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was - 393. Care by high-volume providers remained the dominant strategy when varying the costing horizon and the high-volume definition. CONCLUSION: Care by high-volume providers for non-curative EGC is associated with superior survival and lower healthcare costs, indicating a dominant strategy that may provide an opportunity to improve cost-effectiveness of care delivery.

Interrater Reliability, Accuracy, and Triage Time Pre- and Post-implementation of a Real-Time Electronic Triage Decision-Support Tool.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The electronic Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (eCTAS) is a real-time electronic triage decision-support tool designed to improve patient safety and quality of care by standardizing the application of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS). The objective of this study is to determine interrater agreement of triage scores pre- and post-implementation of eCTAS. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study conducted in 7 emergency departments (EDs), selected to represent a mix of triage documentation practices, hospital types, and patient volumes. A provincial CTAS auditor observed triage nurses in the ED pre- and post-implementation of eCTAS and assigned an independent CTAS score in real time. Research assistants independently recorded triage time. Interrater agreement was estimated with κ statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 1,491 individual triage assessments (752 pre-eCTAS, 739 post-implementation) were audited during 42 7-hour triage shifts (21 pre-eCTAS, 21 post-implementation). Exact modal agreement was achieved for 567 patients (75.4%) pre-eCTAS compared with 685 patients (92.7%) triaged with eCTAS. With the auditor's CTAS score as the reference, eCTAS significantly reduced the number of patients over-triaged (12.0% versus 5.1%; Δ 6.9; 95% CI 4.0 to 9.7) and under-triaged (12.6% versus 2.2%; Δ 10.4; 95% CI 7.9 to 13.2). Interrater agreement was higher with eCTAS (unweighted κ 0.89 versus 0.63; quadratic-weighted κ 0.93 versus 0.79). Median triage time was 312 seconds (n=3,808 patients) pre-eCTAS and 347 seconds (n=3,489 patients) with eCTAS (Δ 35 seconds; 95% CI 29 to 40 seconds). CONCLUSION: A standardized, electronic approach to performing triage assessments improves both interrater agreement and data accuracy without substantially increasing triage time.

Acceptability of Routine Evaluations Using Patient-Reported Outcomes of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Other Patient-Reported Symptom Outcome Tools in Cancer Outpatients: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Experience.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated improved outcomes with real-time patient-reported outcome questionnaires (PRO questionnaires) using questions adapted for patient use from the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Outside of the clinical trial setting, limited information exists on factors affecting the completion of PRO questionnaires in routine practice. The primary aim of this prospective cross-sectional study was to evaluate patient willingness to complete PRO questionnaires on a regular basis and to better understand responder biases to improve patient feedback. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients performing PRO-CTCAE toxicity and symptom PRO questionnaires in oncology clinics at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from 2013 to 2016 were assessed for their willingness to complete PRO questionnaires using a nine-item, tablet-based acceptability survey. Patient-reported characteristics (i.e., age, sex, language, marital status, education, occupation, etc.), cancer type, treatment modalities, and health metrics (i.e., Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) were also collected. Characteristics were evaluated by logistic regression (odds ratios [OR]) using the primary outcome with prespecified levels of significance for univariate (p ≤ .10), and additional multivariate (p ≤ .05) testing. RESULTS: A total of 1,792 patients (median age 60 years; range 18-97) with various cancer diagnoses were assessed. A greater proportion of female (56%) and white (74%) respondents with an annual household income of <$100,000 (69%) participated. More than half (58%) of respondents were willing to complete PRO questionnaires at every clinic visit, and a high proportion (77%) found utility in reporting physical and emotional feelings to clinicians using PRO questionnaires. In general, patients did not find that PRO questionnaires made clinic visits more difficult (93%). In uni- and multivariable testing, patients were more willing to complete sleep- and fatigue-related PRO questionnaires relative to chemotoxicity-based PRO questionnaires (OR 1.52; p = .012). Patients aged 40-65 versus 18-40 years were also more likely to report high PRO questionnaire acceptability (OR 1.49; p = .025). Additional patient characteristics such as white ethnicity (OR 1.76), Canada as country of birth (OR 1.66), and English language (OR 2.15) relative to other had higher acceptability on uni- (p < .001) and multivariable (p < .001) analyses. Patients reporting treatment intent as palliative (OR 0.69; p = .0013) or hematological (OR 0.73; p = .027) were less likely to report high PRO questionnaire acceptability on univariable analysis; however, only palliative patients (OR 0.72) maintained this effect on multivariable testing (p = .012). Patients reporting higher health utility scores (per change in .05) also had significantly increased PRO questionnaire acceptability in uni- (OR 1.06; p < .001) and multivariable (OR 1.05; p = .008) analyses. No significant differences in PRO questionnaire acceptability were seen between cancer types, education level, household income, employment status, or treatment modality. CONCLUSION: Routine assessment using PRO questionnaires is associated with moderate acceptability by patients with cancer. Specific patient characteristics are associated with higher completion willingness. Additional research is necessary to identify factors associated with low acceptability of PRO questionnaires and to develop site-, ethnicity-, and treatment-specific instruments to assess the value of PRO questionnaires for symptom monitoring in clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study will help to identify the clinical, demographic, and survey characteristics associated with willingness to complete patient-reported outcome questionnaires regularly in the cancer outpatient setting.

The Impact of Brain Metastases and Associated Neurocognitive Aspects on Health Utility Scores in EGFR Mutated and ALK Rearranged NSCLC: A Real World Evidence Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In lung cancer, brain metastases (BM) and their treatment are associated with high economic burden and inferior health-related quality of life. In the era of targeted therapy, real world evidence through health utility scores (HUS) is critical for economic analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective observational cohort study (2014-2016), outpatients with stage IV lung cancer completed demographic and EQ-5D-3L surveys (to derive HUS). Health states and clinicopathologic variables were obtained from chart abstraction. Patients were categorized by the presence or absence of BM; regression analyses identified factors that were associated with HUS. A subset of patients prospectively completed neurocognitive function (NCF) tests and/or the FACT-brain (FACT-Br) questionnaire, which were then correlated with HUS (Spearman coefficients; regression analyses). RESULTS: Of 519 patients with 1,686 EQ-5D-3L-derived HUS, 94 (18%) completed NCF tests and 107 (21%) completed FACT-Br; 301 (58%) never developed BM, 24 (5%) developed first BM during study period, and 194 (37%) had BM at study entry. The sample was enriched (46%) for EGFR mutations (EGFRm) and ALK-rearrangements (ALKr). There were no HUS differences by BM status overall and in subsets by demographics. In multivariable analyses, superior HUS was associated with having EGFRm/ALKr (p < .0001), no prior radiation for extracranial disease (p < .001), and both intracranial (p = .002) and extracranial disease control (p < .01). HUS correlated with multiple elements of the FACT-Br and tests of NCF. CONCLUSION: Having BM in lung cancer is not associated with inferior HUS in a population enriched for EGFRm and ALKr. Patients exhibiting disease control and those with oncogene-addicted tumors have superior HUS. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In the setting of EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangement non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a diagnosis of brain metastases no longer consigns the patient to an inferior health state suggesting that new economic analyses in NSCLC are needed in the era of targeted therapies. Additionally, the EQ-5D questionnaire is associated with measures of health-related quality of life and neurocognitive scores suggesting this tool should be further explored in prospective clinical studies.

Effect of PET/CT on the Management and Outcomes of Participants with Hodgkin and Aggressive Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Multicenter Registry.

Purpose To determine the relationship of PET/CT staging to the management and outcomes of participants with apparent limited-stage (LS) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) or aggressive non-HL (ANHL) treated with curative intent. Materials and Methods This prospective multicenter registry included 850 participants (467 men and 383 women; median age, 54.1 years) from nine centers who had LS HL or ANHL on the basis of clinical data and CT, or with equivocal CT for advanced stage, who were considered for curative-intent first-line therapy. Participants were recruited between May 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015. Pre-PET/CT treatment plan was compared with treatment provided. Survival and second-line therapy initiation were compared with an historical control pool staged by using CT alone. Administrative data sources were used to control for baseline characteristics. Outcomes were assessed by using adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching. Results PET/CT helped to upstage 150 of 850 participants (17.6%). There was a change in planned therapy in 224 of 580 (38.6%) of participants after PET/CT. There was a lower 1-year mortality for participants with ANHL in the PET/CT versus CT cohort (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval: 0.40, 1.0; P < .05) and for those with LS at PET/CT compared with those with LS at CT (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval: 0.21, 0.74; P = .004). For participants with HL, no 1-year outcome difference was found (P = .16). Conclusion PET/CT helped to upstage approximately 18% of participants and planned management was frequently altered. Participants with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma whose first-line therapy was guided by PET/CT had significantly better survival compared with participants whose treatment was guided by CT. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Scott in this issue.

Economic Analysis of Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Compared with Chemotherapy in Resected Pancreas Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Population-based survival and costs of pancreas adenocarcinoma patients receiving adjuvant chemoradiation and chemotherapy following pancreaticoduodenectomy are poorly understood. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used linked administrative and pathological datasets to identify all patients diagnosed with pancreas adenocarcinoma and undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy in Ontario between April 2004 and March 2014, who received postoperative chemoradiation or chemotherapy. Stage and margin status were defined by using pathology reports. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression survival analyses were used to determine associations between adjuvant treatment approach and survival, while stratifying by margin status. Median overall health system costs were calculated at 1 and 3 years for chemoradiation and chemotherapy, and differences were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Among 709 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreas cancer during the study period, the median survival was 21 months. Median survival was 19 months for chemoradiation and 22 months for chemotherapy. Patients receiving chemoradiation were more likely to have positive margins: 47.7% compared with 19.2% in chemotherapy. After stratifying by margin status and controlling for confounders, adjusted hazard ratio of death were not statistically different between chemotherapy and chemoradiation [margin positive, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.88-1.27; margin negative, HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-1.18]. Overall 1-year health system costs were significantly higher for chemoradiation (USD $70,047) than chemotherapy (USD $54,005) (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy and chemoradiation yielded similar survival, but chemoradiation resulted in higher costs. To create more sustainable healthcare systems, both the efficacy and costs of therapies should be considered.

Ambulatory Toxicity Management (AToM) in patients receiving adjuvant or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer - a pragmatic cluster randomized trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies suggest that emergency department visits and hospitalizations are common among patients receiving chemotherapy and that rates in routine practice are higher than expected from clinical trials. Chemotherapy-related toxicities are often predictable and, consequently, acute care visits may be preventable with adequate treatment planning and support between visits to the cancer centre. We will evaluate the impact of proactive telephone-based toxicity management on emergency department visits and hospitalizations in women with early stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: In this pragmatic covariate constraint-based cluster randomized trial, 20 centres in Ontario, Canada are randomly allocated to either proactive telephone toxicity management (intervention) or routine care (control). The primary outcome is the cluster-level mean number of ED + H visits per patient evaluated using Ontario administrative healthcare data. Participants are all patients with early stage (I-III) breast cancer commencing adjuvant or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy at participating institutions during the intervention period. At least 25 patients at each centre participate in a patient reported outcomes sub-study involving the collection of standardized questionnaires to measure: severity of treatment toxicities, self-care, self-efficacy, quality of life, and coordination of care. Patients participating in the patient reported outcomes (PRO) sub-study are asked to provide written consent to link their PRO data to administrative data. Unit costs will be applied to each per person resource utilized, and a total cost per population and patient will be generated. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis will be undertaken to compare the incremental costs and outcomes between the intervention and control groups from the health system perspective. DISCUSSION: This study evaluates the effectiveness of a proactive toxicity management intervention in a routine care setting. The use of administrative healthcare data to evaluate the primary outcome enables an evaluation in a real world setting and at a much larger scale than previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02485678. Registered 30 June 2015.

Advantages of the net benefit regression framework for trial-based economic evaluations of cancer treatments: an example from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group CO.17 trial.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations commonly accompany trials of new treatments or interventions; however, regression methods and their corresponding advantages for the analysis of cost-effectiveness data are not widely appreciated. METHODS: To illustrate regression-based economic evaluation, we review a cost-effectiveness analysis conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group's Committee on Economic Analysis and implement net benefit regression. RESULTS: Net benefit regression offers a simple option for cost-effectiveness analyses of person-level data. By placing economic evaluation in a regression framework, regression-based techniques can facilitate the analysis and provide simple solutions to commonly encountered challenges (e.g., the need to adjust for potential confounders, identify key patient subgroups, and/or summarize "challenging" findings, like when a more effective regimen has the potential to be cost-saving). CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations of patient-level data (e.g., from a clinical trial) can use net benefit regression to facilitate analysis and enhance results.