Are We Making a Difference? A Qualitative Study of Patient Engagement at the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review: Perspectives of Patient Groups.

OBJECTIVES: Despite wide support for patient involvement in health technology assessments (HTA), determining meaningful engagement is complex. This article explores experiences and perceptions among patient groups participating in the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)'s pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) process. METHODS: We created a qualitative interview study comprising 22 semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals representing 21 different patient groups registered with the pCODR process. The analysis used a qualitative descriptive approach employing techniques from grounded theory. RESULTS: Patient groups view the ability to make submissions to the pCODR process as a meaningful activity closely aligned with organizational priorities. Concurrently, they face substantial resource challenges to prepare submissions, including high opportunity costs and difficulty accessing needed literature and finding relevant patients. Although patient groups felt that CADTH is committed to transparency, they expressed considerable uncertainty around the direct impact of their submissions and desired additional avenues for engagement. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a strong commitment by patient groups to participate in the pCODR process despite uncertainty about how their submissions are used to inform HTA recommendations. Identifying opportunities to provide both financial and nonfinancial resources to patient groups is crucial to encouraging and supporting their meaningful participation in HTA processes.

Evaluation of the impact of patient involvement in health technology assessments: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: While involving patients in health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly common and important around the world, little is known about the optimal methods of evaluating patients' involvement (PI) in HTA. This scoping review was undertaken to provide an overview of currently available methods for the evaluation of PI, specifically the impact of PI on HTA recommendations. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using nine databases as well as a grey literature search of the websites of 26 organizations related to the conduct, practice or research of HTA to identify articles, reports and abstracts related to the evaluation of PI impact in HTA. RESULTS: We identified 1,248 unique citations, six of which met our eligibility criteria. These six records (five articles, and one report) were all published after 2012. Four assessed the impact of patient experience submissions on final HTA recommendations; one evaluated the impact of direct involvement on HTA committees, and one assessed impact of multiple forms of involvement. Methods of evaluation included quantitative analyses of reimbursement decisions, qualitative interviews with those directly involved in an assessment, surveys of patient groups and committee members, and the review of HTA reports. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative evaluation of PI based on associations with funding decisions may not be feasible or fully capture the relevant impact of PI in the assessment of health technologies. Rather, a combination of both qualitative and quantitative strategies may allow for the most comprehensive assessment of the impact of PI on HTA recommendations when possible.

Are Surrogate Endpoints Unbiased Metrics in Clinical Benefit Scores of the ASCO Value Framework?

BACKGROUND: Clinical benefit scores (CBS) are key elements of the ASCO Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and are weighted based on a hierarchy of efficacy endpoints: hazard ratio for death (HR OS), median overall survival (mOS), HR for disease progression (HR PFS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), and response rate (RR). When HR OS is unavailable, the other endpoints serve as "surrogates" to calculate CBS. CBS are computed from PFS or RR in 39.6% of randomized controlled trials. This study examined whether surrogate-derived CBS offer unbiased scoring compared with HR OS-derived CBS. METHODS: Using the ASCO-VF, CBS for advanced disease settings were computed for randomized controlled trials of oncology drug approvals by the FDA, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada in January 2006 through December 2017. Mean differences of surrogate-derived CBS minus HR OS-derived CBS assessed the tendency of surrogate-derived CBS to overestimate or underestimate clinical benefit. Spearman's correlation evaluated the association between surrogate- and HR OS-derived CBS. Mean absolute error assessed the average difference between surrogate-derived CBS relative to HR OS-derived CBS. RESULTS: CBS derived from mOS, HR PFS, mPFS, and RR overestimated HR OS-derived CBS in 58%, 68%, 77%, and 55% of pairs and overall by an average of 5.62 (n=90), 6.86 (n=110), 29.81 (n=101), and 3.58 (n=108), respectively. Correlation coefficients were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70-0.86), 0.38 (0.20-0.53), 0.20 (0.00-0.38), and 0.01 (-0.18 to 0.19) for mOS-, HR PFS-, mPFS-, and RR-derived CBS, respectively, and mean absolute errors were 11.32, 12.34, 40.40, and 18.63, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the ASCO-VF algorithm, HR PFS-, mPFS-, and RR-derived CBS are suboptimal surrogates, because they were shown to be biased and poorly correlated to HR OS-derived CBS. Despite lower weighting than OS in the ASCO-VF algorithm, PFS still overestimated CBS. Simple rescaling of surrogate endpoints may not improve their validity within the ASCO-VF given their poor correlations with HR OS-derived CBS.

The impact of cancer drug wastage on economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the impact of modeling cancer drug wastage in economic evaluations because wastage can result from single-dose vials on account of body surface area- or weight-based dosing. METHODS: Intravenous chemotherapy drugs were identified from the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) program as of January 2015. Economic evaluations performed by drug manufacturers and pCODR were reviewed. Cost-effectiveness analyses and budget impact analyses were conducted for no-wastage and maximum-wastage scenarios (ie, the entire unused portion of the vial was discarded at each infusion). Sensitivity analyses were performed for a range of body surface areas and weights. RESULTS: Twelve drugs used for 17 indications were analyzed. Wastage was reported (ie, assumptions were explicit) in 71% of the models and was incorporated into 53% by manufacturers; this resulted in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio increase of 6.1% (range, 1.3%-14.6%). pCODR reported and incorporated wastage for 59% of the models, and this resulted in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio increase of 15.0% (range, 2.6%-48.2%). In the maximum-wastage scenario, there was a mean increase in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 24.0% (range, 0.0%-97.2%), a mean increase in the 3-year total incremental budget costs of 26.0% (range, 0.0%-83.1%), and an increase in the 3-year total incremental drug budget cost of approximately CaD $102 million nationally. Changing the mean body surface area or body weight caused 45% of the drugs to have a change in the vial size and/or quantity, and this resulted in increased drug costs. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer drug wastage can increase drug costs but is not uniformly modeled in economic evaluations. Cancer 2017;123:3583-90. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety Analysis of Dual Antiplatelet Therapies Within an Integrated Delivery System.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy is a mainstay of care for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients; however, uncertainty exists in real-world practice about comparative effectiveness and safety outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of different oral P2Y12 inhibitors in PCI patients. METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients treated between July 1, 2010, and December 31, 2013. Patients received clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, or more than 1 antiplatelet (switch) during PCI. Outcomes were evaluated for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding at 1 year. Propensity score matching with Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to determine predictors of MACE and bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 8127 patients were included: clopidogrel (n = 6872), prasugrel (n = 605), ticagrelor (n = 181), and switch (n = 469). Treatment with prasugrel was associated with the lowest risk of MACE using multivariate regression (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.36-0.92; P = 0.02). In the propensity score-matched analysis, only the prasugrel group was associated with a lower risk of MACE compared with the clopidogrel group. Clopidogrel was associated with the lowest risk of major bleeding using multivariate regression (OR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.42-0.98; P = 0.042). Both ticagrelor (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.00; 95% CI = 1.11-3.59) and the switch groups (HR = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.09-2.50) were associated with a greater risk of major bleeding compared with clopidogrel. However, no differences were found in the propensity score-matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Dual antiplatelet therapies differed in both MACE and bleeds in a real-world setting of PCI. Prasugrel was associated with fewer MACE, whereas clopidogrel had fewer major bleeding events.

Is It Time to Commit to a Process to Re-Evaluate Oncology Drugs? A Descriptive Analysis of Systemic Therapies for Solid Tumour Indications Reviewed in Canada from 2017 to 2021.

We undertook an analysis of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)'s health technology assessments (HTAs) of systemic therapies for solid tumour indications to determine if a mechanism to re-evaluate HTA decisions is needed based on the level of certainty supporting the original recommendation. To measure the certainty in the evidence, we analysed if: (1) overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint in the pivotal trial, (2) median OS was available at the time of the recommendation, and (3) the expert review committee explicitly identified gaps in the evidence. There were 96 drugs approved by Health Canada that met our eligibility criteria between 1 January 2017 and 31 October 2021. Median OS was not estimable at the time of the recommendation in 57% of the positive recommendations, and the uncertainty in the magnitude of clinical benefit was identified by the expert review committee in 21% of the positive recommendations. There is uncertainty at the time of the HTA recommendation for many drugs, and thus a need to implement a process to re-evaluate drugs in Canada to allow patients timely access to promising therapies while ensuring long-term value of therapies to patients and the healthcare system.

An international comparative analysis of public reimbursement of orphan drugs in Canadian provinces compared to European countries.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian government has committed to developing a national strategy for drugs for rare diseases starting in 2022. Considering this announcement, we conducted a comparative analysis to examine patient access to therapies for rare disease in Canada relative to Europe and the U.S. METHODS: Given its similarity to the Canadian health care system, we used Europe as the reference point to analyze all of the therapies with an orphan drug designation approved by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) from 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2020. We then contrasted access to these drugs in Canada (Health Canada) and the U.S. (Food and Drug Administration, FDA). We focused on: (1) the number of therapies for rare diseases entering the Canadian market; (2) the percentage of these therapies that are publicly available to Canadians; and (3) the timelines for patients to access these therapies in Canada. RESULTS: Sixty-three approved therapies with an orphan drug designation from the EMA were identified. Fifty-three (84%) of these drugs had also been submitted to the FDA for approval, and 41 (65%) were submitted to Health Canada for approval. In Europe, Germany, Denmark, and the U.K. had the highest percentage of publicly reimbursed orphan drugs (84%, 70%, 68%, respectively). In comparison, Ontario (32%), Quebec (25%), and Alberta (25%) had the highest percentage of drugs reimbursed among the Canadian provinces. The shortest median duration (in months) from EMA approval to jurisdictional decision on reimbursement was in Austria (3.2), followed by Germany (4.1), and Finland (6.0). In Canada, the shortest median duration (in months) from regulatory approval to reimbursement was in British Columbia (17.3), Quebec (19.6) and Manitoba (19.6), while the longest duration was in P.E.I (38.5), followed by Nova Scotia (25.9), and Newfoundland (25.1). CONCLUSIONS: Our comparative analysis found that relative to the EU Canadians had less frequent and timely access to therapies for rare diseases. This highlights the need for a rare disease strategy in Canada that allows for clear identification and transparent tracking of the pathway for rare disease drugs, and ultimately optimizes the number of patients with access to these therapies.

Developing a framework to incorporate real-world evidence in cancer drug funding decisions: the Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Oncology therapy is becoming increasingly more expensive and challenging the affordability and sustainability of drug programmes around the world. When new drugs are evaluated, health technology assessment organisations rely on clinical trials to inform funding decisions. However, clinical trials are not able to assess overall survival and generalises evidence in a real-world setting. As a result, policy makers have little information on whether drug funding decisions based on clinical trials ultimately yield the outcomes and value for money that might be expected. OBJECTIVE: The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration, consisting of researchers, recommendation-makers, decision makers, payers, patients and caregivers, are developing and testing a framework for Canadian provinces to generate and use real-world evidence (RWE) for cancer drug funding in a consistent and integrated manner. STRATEGY: The CanREValue collaboration has established five formal working groups (WGs) to focus on specific processes in the generation and use of RWE for cancer drug funding decisions in Canada. The different RWE WGs are: (1) Planning and Drug Selection; (2) Methods; (3) Data; (4) Reassessment and Uptake; (5) Engagement. These WGs are acting collaboratively to develop a framework for RWE evaluation, validate the framework through the multiprovince RWE projects and help to integrate the final RWE framework into the Canadian healthcare system. OUTCOMES: The framework will enable the reassessment of cancer drugs, refinement of funding recommendations and use of novel funding mechanisms by decision-makers/payers across Canada to ensure the healthcare system is providing clinical benefits and value for money.

The impact of pricing strategy on the costs of oral anti-cancer drugs.

BACKGROUND: The soaring costs of anti-cancer drugs pose a threat to the sustainability of cancer care. The pricing strategy chosen by manufacturers can impact the costs of oral anti-cancer drugs during dose modifications, but this issue remains under-recognized in the literature. In general, with the flat pricing strategy, there is a single fixed price for each tablet regardless of dosage strength, whereas with linear pricing, the price of each tablet increases with its dose. We hypothesize that flat pricing will have increased drug costs compared to linear pricing during dose reductions since the cost remains fixed despite decreased dose requirements. This practice may have significant financial implications considering the high costs, extensive utilization, and frequent occurence of dose reductions with anti-cancer drugs.  METHODS: Oral anti-cancer drugs reviewed by the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review program between 2011 and 2018 were identified. The cost per mg and cost per 28-day cycle were calculated for dose levels -2 to +2. The percent change in cost per mg and cost per cycle during dose modifications from the standard dose were calculated. We conducted Mann-Whitney U and Fisher-exact tests to compare the association between drug costs during dose reductions and pricing strategy. RESULTS: In this study, 30 oral anti-cancer drugs for use in 41 indications were analyzed; 44% of drugs used linear pricing and 56% used flat pricing. Dose reductions increased the mean cost per mg for drugs with linear pricing by 14.7% (range: 0%-50%) at dose level -1 and 17.2% (range: 0%-50%) at dose level -2 and flat pricing by 60.8% (range: 19%-100%) at dose level -1 and 99.1% (range: 0%-300%) at dose level -2. The cost per mg was significantly increased in drugs using flat pricing compared to linear pricing when dose reduction to either level -1 (P = 0.010) or level -2 (P = 0.006) occurred. The mean cost per cycle was decreased for drugs using linear pricing by 20.9% (range: -40% to 0%) at dose level -1 and 48.7% (range: -60% to -25%) at dose level -2 and flat pricing by 0.8% (range -6% to 0%) at dose level -1 and 11.0% (range: -50% to 100%) at dose level -2. The cost per cycle was significantly decreased in drugs with linear pricing compared to flat pricing when the standard dose is reduced to either dose level -1 (P = 0.005) or dose level -2 (P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, flat pricing had significantly greater costs compared to linear pricing during dose reductions of anti-cancer drugs. While there is a general expectation that the cost of drugs should decrease with dose reduction, drugs with flat pricing were generally found to have increased cost per mg and no change in the cost per cycle. The resultant increased spending on drug acquisition (despite purchasing lower doses) lead to financial wastage, which has significant implications on cost-effectiveness considerations and budgets. Future economic evaluations should take into consideration the hidden costs associated with dose reductions of flat priced drugs.

What does meaningful look like? A qualitative study of patient engagement at the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review: perspectives of reviewers and payers.

Objectives While there is wide support for patient engagement in health technology assessment, determining what constitutes meaningful (as opposed to tokenistic) engagement is complex. This paper explores reviewer and payer perceptions of what constitutes meaningful patient engagement in the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review process. Methods Qualitative interview study comprising 24 semi-structured telephone interviews. A qualitative descriptive approach, employing the technique of constant comparison, was used to produce a thematic analysis. Results Submissions from patient advocacy groups were seen as meaningful when they provided information unavailable from other sources. This included information not collected in clinical trials, information relevant to clinical trade-offs and information about aspects of lived experience such as geographic differences and patient and carer priorities. In contrast, patient submissions that relied on emotional appeals or lacked transparency about their own methods were seen as detracting from the meaningfulness of patient engagement by conflating health technology assessment with other functions of patient advocacy groups such as fundraising or public awareness campaigns, and by failing to provide credible information relevant to deliberations. Conclusions This study suggests that misalignment of stakeholder expectations remains an issue even for a well-regarded health technology assessment process that has promoted patient engagement since its inception. Support for the technical capacity of patient groups to participate in health technology assessment is necessary but not sufficient to address this issue fully. There is a fundamental tension between the evidence-based nature of health technology assessment and the experientially oriented culture of patient advocacy. Divergent notions of what constitutes evidence and how it should be used must also be addressed.

Chemotherapy re-challenge response rate in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are few treatment options in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after progression on standard chemotherapy. Third and fourth line therapies typically consist of regorafenib or trifluridine-tipiracil, however, clinical benefit of these medications is limited, as progression free survival is approximately 1.9 months for regorafenib (Grothey et al. 2013) and 2.0 months for trifluridine-tipiracil (Mayer et al. 2015). Another choice in this setting may include the re-initiation of previously used chemotherapy, therefore in this study we assessed the efficacy and tolerability of chemotherapy re-challenge. METHODS: This was a retrospective, cohort study assessing patients with mCRC who were 18-89 years of age and treated with re-challenge chemotherapy. Re-challenge chemotherapy was defined as re-initiation of oxaliplatin or irinotecan-based regimens at least nine months from the end of initial exposure. A minimum of four chemotherapy cycles was required to qualify as initial exposure. The key endpoints of this study were clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as the proportion of patients with partial response or stable disease, and time to progression (TTP). RESULTS: A total of 67 chemotherapy re-challenges were accounted for in 51 patients. The overall CBR was 70.7%. Partial responses occurred in 50.7% cases. The TTP was 6.0 months. For the 51 cases of first re-challenge, the CBR was 75.5% and TTP was 6.5 months. Fourteen patients had a second re-challenge, and in these patients, the CBR was 61.5% and TTP was 4.1 months. CONCLUSIONS: Oxaliplatin or irinotecan-based re-challenge should be considered as a third or fourth line treatment option in select patients with mCRC. CBR and especially TTP compare favorably to approved third line therapies such as regorafenib or trifluridine-tipiracil.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for adults with malignant glioma: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examines the role of chemotherapy following surgery and external beam radiotherapy for adults with newly diagnosed malignant glioma. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to August 2006 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses. Proceedings from the 1997 to 2006 annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were also searched. RESULTS: Two RCTs reported a survival advantage in favour of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide compared with radiotherapy alone in patients with anaplastic astrocytoma or glioblastoma. Twenty-six RCTs and two meta-analyses detected either no advantage or a small survival advantage in favour of adjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Concomitant temozolomide during radiotherapy and post-radiation adjuvant temozolomide is recommended for all patients ages 18-70 with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme who are fit for radical therapy (ECOG 0-1). Temozolomide may be considered in other situations (i.e., ECOG 2, biopsy only, age > 70, intermediate grade glioma), but there is no high-level evidence to support this decision. Moreover, there are few data on long-term toxicities or quality of life with temozolomide. Adjuvant chemotherapy may be an option for younger patients with anaplastic (grade 3) astrocytoma and patients with pure or mixed oligodendroglioma. However, there is no evidence of a survival advantage from adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients, and treatment-related adverse effects and their impact upon quality of life are poorly studied. The combination of procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) is not recommended for patients with anaplastic oligodendroglioma and oligoastrocytoma.

Ontario cervical cancer screening clinical practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To develop clinical practice guidelines for cervical screening and the primary management of abnormal cytology in Ontario, using an established methodological process. DATA SOURCES: Primary data sources were relevant articles listed in the Medline (1998 to July 2004), Embase (1998 to July 2004), and Cochrane Library (2004, Issue 2) databases. STUDY SELECTION: Studies addressing quality or the optimization of cervical screening were considered eligible in the systematic review of the evidence. Specifically, clinical practice guidelines, technology assessments, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials were of primary interest. Given the variability of the data, other information sources were considered eligible if there was a demonstrated gap in the published literature. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were identified and extracted by a methodologist and reviewed by four authors. Results were reviewed and discussed by members of an expert working group consisting of a diverse group of health professionals with expertise in cervical cancer. Data audits were conducted by independent reviewers. DATA SYNTHESIS: recommendations with evidence ratings were developed through a review of the evidence with expert consensus and were approved by more than 80% of 40 external practitioners who reviewed the document and responded to a standardized survey. CONCLUSION: The development of comprehensive recommendations on cervical screening in Ontario was feasible using a rigorous methodological process. Recommendations for practice are provided.

Do the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Measure the Same Construct of Clinical Benefit?

Purpose Whether the ASCO Value Framework and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) measure similar constructs of clinical benefit is unclear. It is also unclear how they relate to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and funding recommendations in the United Kingdom and Canada. Methods Randomized clinical trials of oncology drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada between 2006 and August 2015 were identified and scored using the ASCO version 1 (v1) framework, ASCO version 2 (v2) framework, and ESMO-MCBS by at least two independent reviewers. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to assess construct (between frameworks) and criterion validity (against QALYs from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] and the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review [pCODR]). Associations between scores and NICE/pCODR recommendations were examined. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Results From 109 included randomized clinical trials, 108 ASCOv1, 111 ASCOv2, and 83 ESMO scores were determined. Correlation coefficients for ASCOv1 versus ESMO, ASCOv2 versus ESMO, and ASCOv1 versus ASCOv2 were 0.36 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.54), 0.17 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.37), and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.63), respectively. Compared with NICE QALYs, correlation coefficients were 0.45 (ASCOv1), 0.53 (ASCOv2), and 0.46 (ESMO); with pCODR QALYs, coefficients were 0.19 (ASCOv1), 0.20 (ASCOv2), and 0.36 (ESMO). None of the frameworks were significantly associated with NICE/pCODR recommendations. Inter-rater reliability was good for all frameworks. Conclusion The weak-to-moderate correlations of the ASCO frameworks with the ESMO-MCBS, as well as their correlations with QALYs and with NICE/pCODR funding recommendations, suggest different constructs of clinical benefit measured. Construct convergent validity with the ESMO-MCBS did not increase with the updated ASCO framework.

Systematic review of the diagnosis and management of malignant extradural spinal cord compression: the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative's Neuro-Oncology Disease Site Group.

PURPOSE: This systematic review describes the diagnosis and management of adult patients with a suspected or confirmed diagnosis of extradural malignant spinal cord compression (MSCC). METHODS: MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to January 2004 using the following terms: spinal cord compression, nerve compression syndromes, spinal cord neoplasms, clinical trial, meta-analysis, and systematic review. RESULTS: Symptoms for MSCC include sensory changes, autonomic dysfunction, and back pain; however, back pain was not predictive of MSCC. The sensitivity and specificity for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) range from 0.44 to 0.93 and 0.90 to 0.98, respectively, in the diagnosis of MSCC. The sensitivity and specificity for myelography range from 0.71 to 0.97 and 0.88 to 1.00, respectively. A randomized study detected higher ambulation rates in patients with MSCC who received high-dose dexamethasone before radiotherapy (RT) compared with patients who did not receive corticosteroids before RT (81% v 63% at 3 months, respectively; P = .046). There is no direct evidence that supports or refutes the type of surgery patients should have for the treatment of MSCC, whether surgical salvage should be attempted if patient is progressing on or shortly after RT, and whether patients with spinal instability should be treated with surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients with symptoms of MSCC should be managed to minimize treatment delay. MRI is the preferred imaging technique. Treatment for patients with MSCC should consider pretreatment ambulatory status, comorbidities, technical surgical factors, the presence of bony compression and spinal instability, potential surgical complications, potential RT reactions, and patient preferences.

Comparing assessment frameworks for cancer drugs between Canada and Europe: What can we learn from the differences?

The increasing burden of costs associated with novel cancer therapies is becoming untenable. In Europe and Canada, assessment frameworks have been developed to attribute value to novel therapies and ultimately facilitate access to cancer drug funding. A review of the two frameworks has not previously been undertaken. This review provides insight into the relative strengths and benefits of each approach, the various perspectives of value (patient, physician and societal) and how the frameworks relate to their unique context and core principles. Both frameworks assess the clinical benefit of a new cancer therapy. The European framework considers effectiveness, quality of life, and toxicity in its determination of benefit and has the advantage of providing a simple summary score to facilitate priority setting. The Canadian framework considers other elements including cost-effectiveness, patient preferences and adoption feasibility; its deliberative framework precludes a simple summative presentation of value but can address complex and nuanced drug funding considerations with flexibility. Both frameworks have evolved to meet the needs unique to their jurisdictions and offer potentially complementary tools in the assessment of new cancer drugs. Lessons learnt in both systems can be applied to future iterations of the frameworks, which remain works in progress.

The ZNF304-integrin axis protects against anoikis in cancer.

Ovarian cancer (OC) is a highly metastatic disease, but no effective strategies to target this process are currently available. Here, an integrative computational analysis of the Cancer Genome Atlas OC data set and experimental validation identifies a zinc finger transcription factor ZNF304 associated with OC metastasis. High tumoral ZNF304 expression is associated with poor overall survival in OC patients. Through reverse phase protein array analysis, we demonstrate that ZNF304 promotes multiple proto-oncogenic pathways important for cell survival, migration and invasion. ZNF304 transcriptionally regulates ß1 integrin, which subsequently regulates Src/focal adhesion kinase and paxillin and prevents anoikis. In vivo delivery of ZNF304 siRNA by a dual assembly nanoparticle leads to sustained gene silencing for 14 days, increased anoikis and reduced tumour growth in orthotopic mouse models of OC. Taken together, ZNF304 is a transcriptional regulator of ß1 integrin, promotes cancer cell survival and protects against anoikis in OC.

Can surveying practitioners about their practices help identify priority clinical practice guideline topics?

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements designed to assist in patient and physician clinical decision making for specific clinical circumstances. In order to establish which guideline topics are priorities, practitioners were surveyed regarding their current practice. METHODS: One hundred ninety-seven practitioners in Ontario, Canada were mailed a survey exploring their current practice or opinion regarding the prophylactic use of anticonvulsant drugs in patients with malignant glioma who had never had a seizure. The survey consisted of seven questions regarding the relevance of a guideline on the subject to the practitioner's practice, the proportion of clinical cases involving anticonvulsant use, knowledge of existing guidelines on this topic, interest in reviewing a completed practice guideline and three clinical scenarios. RESULTS: There were 122 respondents who returned the survey (62% rate of return). Eighty percent of the practitioners who responded indicated that less than 25% of their clinical cases involved the use of anticonvulsants; however, only 16% of respondents indicated that a practice guideline would be irrelevant to their practice. Eighty percent of respondents volunteered to review a draft version of a practice guideline on the use of anticonvulsants. The survey presented the practitioners with three scenarios where anticonvulsants in patients with brain tumours may be appropriate: peri-operatively in patients without seizures, postoperatively in patients currently using anticonvulsants, and thirdly in patients not currently using anticonvulsants or undergoing surgery. In contrast to the third situation, the first two situations yielded considerable variation in practitioner response. CONCLUSION: The survey established that there is some variation present in the current practice of anticonvulsant use in the patients with brain tumours. Whether there is an optimal treatment practice has yet to be determined. Practitioners do seem to feel that a guideline on anticonvulsant use in warranted, and most practitioners would be interested in being part of the guideline development process.

Screening postmenopausal women for ovarian cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess ovarian cancer screening in asymptomatic, general-risk postmenopausal women. Outcomes of interest were the screening tests assessed (predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity), the stage of screen-detected disease at diagnosis, psychological effects of screening, and survival. METHODS: MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to June 2003 using the terms "ovarian," "cancer," "neoplasms," "screening," "clinical trial," "meta-analysis," and "systematic review." Studies were included if they were clinical trials, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews that evaluated tests used to detect ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women in the general population. Studies investigating women at increased risk for ovarian cancer (e.g., family history) and those with symptoms suggestive of ovarian cancer were excluded. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Seventeen prospective cohort studies and 3 pilot randomized controlled trials were included in this review. Screening tests for cancer antigen 125 (CA125) and ultrasound had low positive predictive values, resulting in healthy women being recalled and a false-positive rate of 0.01% to 5.8%. Of every 10,000 women participating in an annual screening program with CA125 for 3 years, 800 will have an ultrasound scan because of an elevated CA125, 30 will undergo surgery because of an abnormal ultrasound, and 6 will have ovarian cancer detected at surgery (3 will be diagnosed at early-stage disease and have a chance of a cure). CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to support the introduction of screening for ovarian cancer in the asymptomatic general-risk postmenopausal population. Screening is associated with increased rates of surgery and patient anxiety.