Risk-based lung cancer screening performance in a universal healthcare setting.

Globally, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Previous trials demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening of high-risk individuals can reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% or more. Lung cancer screening has been approved by major guidelines in the United States, and over 4,000 sites offer screening. Adoption of lung screening outside the United States has, until recently, been slow. Between June 2017 and May 2019, the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot successfully recruited 7,768 individuals at high risk identified by using the PLCOm2012noRace lung cancer risk prediction model. In total, 4,451 participants were successfully screened, retained and provided with high-quality follow-up, including appropriate treatment. In the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot, the lung cancer detection rate and the proportion of early-stage cancers were 2.4% and 79.2%, respectively; serious harms were infrequent; and sensitivity to detect lung cancers was 95.3% or more. With abnormal scans defined as ones leading to diagnostic investigation, specificity was 95.5% (positive predictive value, 35.1%), and adherence to annual recall and early surveillance scans and clinical investigations were high (>85%). The Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot provides insights into how a risk-based organized lung screening program can be implemented in a large, diverse, populous geographic area within a universal healthcare system.

Evaluating the economic burden of acute myeloid leukemia in Canada.

Background Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) represents a significant burden for patients and their families, and to the healthcare system. This study estimated the total cost of illness associated with newly diagnosed AML patients in Canada. Methods The economic burden of AML was estimated using an incidence-based model, analyzing different types of AML cases in Canada. Direct and indirect costs were calculated using scientific literature and Canadian clinical experts' inputs. Patients were categorized depending on their eligibility for intensive chemotherapy (fit and unfit patients) as well as according to age and cytogenetic markers. Results The total average cost of AML per patient is estimated to be $178,073 with a cost of $210,983 and $145,163 for fit and unfit patients, respectively. The costs related to treatment represent half of the total average cost (52%), followed by hematopoietic stem cell transplant (23%), best supportive care (16%), productivity loss (6%) and wastage (4%) Conclusions For patients with AML, the costs associated with fit patients are higher than unfit patients. Hospitalization and best supportive care costs are key cost drivers for the total costs of fit and unfit patients, respectively. This study highlights that AML is associated with a significant economic burden in Canada.

Physician-brief advice for promoting smoking cessation among cancer patients on treatment in low and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Physician-brief advice has been utilized in high-income countries to promote smoking cessation among cancer patients. Empirical evidence on its effectiveness among cancer patients in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) is lacking. The gap could be due to inadequate training, and competing healthcare priorities, leading to insufficient implementation of targeted smoking cessation interventions in oncology settings. We undertook this scoping review to determine if physician-brief advice is effective in promoting smoking cessation among cancer patients in LMICs. METHODS: We conducted a literature search of all relevant articles across five databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Library (Tobacco Addiction Group trials), World Conference on Lung Cancer proceedings, PubMed, and Google Scholar up to November 2023, using pre-defined inclusion criteria and keywords. The study population was cancer survivors in LMICs, the intervention was smoking cessation advice by a physician in a clinic or oncology center during a consultation, and the outcome was the effect of smoking cessation programs in discontinuing smoking among cancer survivors in LMICs. RESULTS: Overall, out of every 10 cancer patients in LMICs, about seven were smokers, and one-half had received physician-brief advice for smoking cessation. Physician-brief advice was more likely to be delivered to patients with smoking-related cancer (Cohen's d = 0.396). This means that there is a noticeable difference between patients with smoking-related cancer compared to those with cancer unrelated to smoking. Smoking cessation failure was due to the inability to cope with the symptoms of withdrawal, missed smoking cessation clinic visits, mental health disorders, limited time and resources, and minimal patient-physician contact. CONCLUSION: There is very little literature on the frequency of use or the efficacy of physician-brief advice on smoking cessation in LMICs. The literature suggests that cancer patients in LMICs have low self-efficacy to quit smoking, and smoking cessation is rarely part of cancer care in LMICs. Physicians in LMICs should be trained to use motivational messages and good counseling techniques to improve smoking cessation among cancer patients. Policymakers should allocate the resources to implement physician-brief advice and design training programs for physicians focusing on physician-brief advice tailored to cancer patients.

Integrating Smoking Cessation Into Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening: Results of the Ontario, Canada Pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Low-dose computed tomography screening in high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality. To inform the implementation of a provincial lung cancer screening program, Ontario Health undertook a Pilot study, which integrated smoking cessation (SC). METHODS: The impact of integrating SC into the Pilot was assessed by the following: rate of acceptance of a SC referral; proportion of individuals who were currently smoking cigarettes and attended a SC session; the quit rate at 1 year; change in the number of quit attempts; change in Heaviness of Smoking Index; and relapse rate in those who previously smoked. RESULTS: A total of 7768 individuals were recruited predominantly through primary care physician referral. Of these, 4463 were currently smoking and were risk assessed and referred to SC services, irrespective of screening eligibility: 3114 (69.8%) accepted referral to an in-hospital SC program, 431 (9.7%) to telephone quit lines, and 50 (1.1%) to other programs. In addition, 4.4% reported no intention to quit and 8.5% were not interested in participating in a SC program. Of the 3063 screen-eligible individuals who were smoking at baseline low-dose computed tomography scan, 2736 (89.3%) attended in-hospital SC counseling. The quit rate at 1 year was 15.5% (95% confidence interval: 13.4%-17.7%; range: 10.5%-20.0%). Improvements were also observed in Heaviness of Smoking Index (p < 0.0001), number of cigarettes smoked per day (p < 0.0001), time to first cigarette (p < 0.0001), and number of quit attempts (p < 0.001). Of those who reported having quit within the previous 6 months, 6.3% had resumed smoking at 1 year. Furthermore, 92.7% of the respondents reported satisfaction with the hospital-based SC program. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these observations, the Ontario Lung Screening Program continues to recruit through primary care providers, to assess risk for eligibility using trained navigators, and to use an opt-out approach to referral for cessation services. In addition, initial in-hospital SC support and intensive follow-on cessation interventions will be provided to the extent possible.

Engaging Patients in the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Initiative: Processes and Lessons Learned.

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration established the Engagement Working Group (WG) to ensure that all key stakeholders had an opportunity to provide input into the development and implementation of the CanREValue Real-World Evidence (RWE) Framework. Two consultations were held in 2021 to solicit patient perspectives on key policy and data access issues identified in the interim policy and data WG reports. Over 30 individuals, representing patients, caregivers, advocacy leaders, and individuals engaged in patient research were invited to participate. The consultations provided important feedback and valuable lessons in patient engagement. Patient leaders actively shaped the process and content of the consultation. Breakout groups facilitated by patient advocacy leaders gave the opportunity for open and thoughtful contributions from all participants. Important recommendations were made: the RWE framework should not impede access to new drugs; it should be used to support conditional approvals; patient relevant endpoints should be captured in provincial datasets; access to data to conduct RWE should be improved; and privacy issues must be considered. The manuscript documents the CanREValue experience of engaging patients in a consultative process and the useful contributions that can be achieved when the processes to engage are guided by patients themselves.

Building a National Reassessment Process for Oncology Drugs: Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration through a Simulated Reassessment Exercise.

The CanREValue Collaboration established the Reassessment & Uptake Working Group to develop a preliminary process to reassess funded cancer drugs in Canada. A simulated exercise was conducted to evaluate the proposed reassessment process using a real-world case. We invited 32 attendees including representatives from Health Canada and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies, along with payers, clinicians, academics, and patient representatives. A case was developed using a real-world study on a publicly funded cancer drug. In facilitated group sessions, participants were asked to deliberate upon the evidence presented in the case to issue reassessment recommendations. Several themes were identified through the deliberation discussions. While the generalizability of real-world evidence (RWE) is perceived as a strength, trust in the RWE depends largely on the source of the real-world data. The attendees suggested several improvements to the proposed reassessment process including evidence requirement for reassessment, recommendation categories, and a priori study protocols. This exercise generated important insights on the evidence required for conducting reassessment and considerations for improvements of the proposed reassessment process. Building upon lessons from this exercise, future work would continue to refine the reassessment process as part of the overall CanREValue framework.

Identifying Best Implementation Practices for Smoking Cessation in Complex Cancer Settings.

BACKGROUND: In response to evidence about the health benefits of smoking cessation at time of cancer diagnosis, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) (OH-CCO) instructed Regional Cancer Centres (RCC) to implement smoking cessation interventions (SCI). RCCs were given flexibility to implement SCIs according to their context but were required to screen new patients for tobacco status, advise patients about the importance of quitting, and refer patients to cessation supports. The purpose of this evaluation was to identify practices that influenced successful implementation across RCCs. METHODS: A realist evaluation approach was employed. Realist evaluations examine how underlying processes of an intervention (mechanisms) in specific settings (contexts) interact to produce results (outcomes). A realist evaluation may thus help to generate an understanding of what may or may not work across contexts. RESULTS: The RCCs with the highest Tobacco Screening Rates used a centralized system. Regarding the process for advising and referring, three RCCs offered robust smoking cessation training, resulting in advice and referral rates between 80% and 100%. Five RCCs surpassed the target for Accepted Referral Rates; acceptance rates for internal referral were highest overall. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight factors that may influence successful SCI implementation.

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of integrating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening: a microsimulation model.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality in people at high risk; adding a smoking cessation intervention to screening could further improve screening program outcomes. This study aimed to assess the impact of adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening on clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Using the OncoSim-Lung mathematical microsimulation model, we compared the projected lifetime impact of a smoking cessation intervention (nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and 12 wk of counselling) in the context of annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in people at high risk to lung cancer screening without a cessation intervention in Canada. The simulated population consisted of Canadians born in 1940-1974; lung cancer screening was offered to eligible people in 2020. In the base-case scenario, we assumed that the intervention would be offered to smokers up to 10 times; each intervention would achieve a 2.5% permanent quit rate. Sensitivity analyses varied key model inputs. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with a lifetime horizon from the health system's perspective, discounted at 1.5% per year. Costs are in 2019 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: Offering a smoking cessation intervention in the context of lung cancer screening could lead to an additional 13% of smokers quitting smoking. It could potentially prevent 12 more lung cancers and save 200 more life-years for every 1000 smokers screened, at a cost of $22 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The results were most sensitive to quit rate. The intervention would cost over $50 000 per QALY gained with a permanent quit rate of less than 1.25% per attempt. INTERPRETATION: Adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening is likely cost-effective. To optimize the benefits of lung cancer screening, health care providers should encourage participants who still smoke to quit smoking.

Health system costs for cancer medications and radiation treatment in Ontario for the 4 most common cancers: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous costing and resource estimates for cancer have not been complete owing to lack of comprehensive data on cancer-related medication and radiation treatment. Our objective was to calculate the mean overall costs per patient of cancer-related medications and radiation, as well as by disease subtype and stage, in the first year after diagnosis for the 4 most prevalent cancers in Ontario. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using provincial health administrative databases to identify population health system resources and costs for all patients diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung or prostate cancer between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2015 in Ontario. The primary outcome measure was the overall average cost per patient in the 365 days after diagnosis for cancer-related medications and radiation treatment, calculated with the use of 2 novel costing algorithms. We determined the cost by disease, disease subtype and stage as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: There were 168 316 Ontarians diagnosed with cancer during the study period, 50 141 with breast cancer, 38 108 with colorectal cancer, 34 809 with lung cancer and 45 258 with prostate cancer. The mean per-patient cost for cancer-related medications was $8167 (95% confidence interval [CI] $8023-$8311), $6568 (95% CI $6446-$6691), $2900 (95% CI $2816-$2984) and $1211 (95% CI $1175-$1247) for breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancer, respectively. The corresponding mean radiation treatment costs were $18 529 (95% CI $18 415-$18 643), $15 177 (95% CI $14 899-$15 456), $10 818 (95% CI $10 669-$10 966) and $16 887 (95% CI $16 648-$17 125). In general, stage III and IV cancers were the most expensive stages for both medications and radiation across all 4 disease sites. INTERPRETATION: Our work updates previous costing estimates to help understand costs and resources critical to health care system planning in a single-payer system. More refined costing estimates are useful as inputs to allow for more robust health economic modelling and health care system planning.

Development, validation and results from the impact of treatment evolution in non-small cell lung cancer (iTEN) model.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment of advanced NSCLC (aNSCLC) is rapidly evolving, as new targeted and immuno-oncology (I-O) treatments become available. The iTEN model was developed to predict the cost and survival benefits of changing aNSCLC treatment patterns from a Canadian healthcare system perspective. This report describes iTEN model development and validation. MATERIALS & METHODS: A discrete event patient simulation of aNSCLC was developed. A modified Delphi process using Canadian clinical experts informed the development of treatment sequences that included commonly used, Health Canada approved treatments of aNSCLC. Treatment efficacy and the timing of progression and death were estimated from published Kaplan-Meier progression free and overall survival data. Costs (2018 CDN$) included were: drug acquisition and administration, imaging, monitoring, adverse events, physician visits, best supportive care, and end-of-life. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Clinical validity of the iTEN model was assessed by comparing model survival predictions to published real-world evidence (RWE). Four RWE studies that reported the overall survival of patients treated with a broad sampling of common aNSCLC treatment patterns were used for validation. The validation coefficient of determination was R2 = 0.95, with the model generally producing estimates that were neither optimistic nor conservative. The model estimated that current Canadian practice patterns yield a median survival of almost 13 months, a five-year survival rate of 3% and a life-time per-treated-patient cost of $110,806. Cost and survival estimates are presented and were found to vary by aNSCLC subtype. In conclusion, the iTEN model is a reliable tool for forecasting the impact on cost and survival of new treatments for aNSCLC.

Awareness of the Harms of Continued Smoking Among Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation is an integral part of cancer survivorship. To help improve survivorship education, clinicians need an understanding of patient awareness of the harms of continued smoking. METHODS: Cancer survivors from Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (Toronto, ON) were surveyed on their awareness of the harms of continued smoking on cancer-related outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed factors associated with awareness and whether awareness was associated with subsequent cessation among smokers at diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 1118 patients, 23% were current smokers pre-diagnosis and 54% subsequently quit; 25% had lung and 30% head and neck cancers. Many patients reported being unaware that continued smoking results in greater cancer surgical complications (53%), increased radiation side effects (62%), decreased quality of life during chemotherapy (51%), decreased chemotherapy or radiation efficacy (57%), increased risk of death (40%), and increased development of second primaries (38%). Being a current smoker was associated with greater lack of awareness of some of these smoking harms (aORs = 1.53-2.20, P < 0.001-0.02), as was exposure to any second-hand smoke (aORs = 1.45-1.53, P = 0.006-0.04) and being diagnosed with early stage cancer (aORs = 1.38-2.31, P < 0.001-0.06). Among current smokers, those with fewer pack-years, being treated for cure, or had a non-tobacco-related cancer were more likely unaware. Awareness that continued tobacco use worsen quality of life after chemotherapy was associated with subsequent cessation (aOR = 2.26, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Many cancer survivors are unaware that continued smoking can negatively impact cancer-related outcomes. The impact of educating patients about the potential harms of continued smoking when discussing treatment plans should be further evaluated.

Impact of smoking on health system costs among cancer patients in a retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Smoking is the main modifiable cancer risk factor. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of smoking on health system costs among newly diagnosed adult patients with cancer. Specifically, costs of patients with cancer who were current smokers were compared with those of non-smokers from a publicly funded health system perspective. METHODS: This population-based cohort study of patients with cancer used administrative databases to identify smokers and non-smokers (1 April 2014-31 March 2016) and their healthcare costs in the 12-24 months following a cancer diagnosis. The health services included were hospitalisations, emergency room visits, drugs, home care services and physician services (from the time of diagnosis onwards). The difference in cost (ie, incremental cost) between patients with cancer who were smokers and those who were non-smokers was estimated using a generalised linear model (with log link and gamma distribution), and adjusted for age, sex, neighbourhood income, rurality, cancer site, cancer stage, geographical region and comorbidities. RESULTS: This study identified 3606 smokers and 14 911 non-smokers. Smokers were significantly younger (61 vs 65 years), more likely to be male (53%), lived in poorer neighbourhoods, had more advanced cancer stage,and were more likely to die within 1 year of diagnosis, compared with non-smokers. The regression model revealed that, on average, smokers had significantly higher monthly healthcare costs ($5091) than non-smokers ($4847), p<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking status has a significant impact on healthcare costs among patients with cancer. On average, smokers incurred higher healthcare costs than non-smokers. These findings provide a further rationale for efforts to introduce evidence-based smoking cessation programmes as a standard of care for patients with cancer as they have the potential not only to improve patients' outcomes but also to reduce the economic burden of smoking on the healthcare system.

Implementing smoking cessation within cancer treatment centres and potential economic impacts.

BACKGROUND: Although the health benefits of smoking cessation in newly diagnosed cancer patients are well established, systematic efforts to help cancer patients stop smoking have rarely been implemented in cancer centres. METHODS: Starting in 2012, the 14 regional cancer centres overseen by Cancer Care Ontario in the province of Ontario, Canada began to screen ambulatory cancer patients for their smoking status, to provide smokers with advice on the health benefits of quitting and to offer referral to smoking cessation services. Multiple initiatives were undertaken to educate healthcare providers and patients on the health benefits of cessation. Critical to the success of the initiative was strong leadership from Cancer Care Ontario executives and regional vice presidents, advice from an advisory committee of smoking cessation experts, engagement of regional champions and support from a provincial secretariat. The quarterly review of performance metrics was an important driver of change. RESULTS: Most cancer centres now screen in excess of 75% of ambulatory patients but rates for the acceptance of a referral to smoking cessation services remain low (less than 25%). Introduction of an opt-out referral process appears to increase referral acceptance. Economic analyses suggest that smoking cessation is cost-effective in a cancer centre environment. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are barriers to the implementation of smoking cessation in cancer centres, it is possible to change the culture to one in which smoking cessation is considered part of high-quality treatment.

Sociodemographic characteristics associated with thyroid cancer risk in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Thyroid cancer incidence in Canada has increased rapidly over the past 25 years. This study examines thyroid cancer incidence and relative risk according to individual-level sociodemographic characteristics in two population-based cohorts. DATA AND METHODS: The analysis uses data from the 1991 and 2001 Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohorts (CanCHECs). Using nine years of cancer follow-up for both time periods, age-standardized incidence rates of thyroid cancer were estimated by sex-with sex-specific estimates produced by immigrant status, ethnicity, educational attainment and family income-and by histology type. All characteristics were included in sex-specific standard Cox proportional hazard models to examine the relative risk of thyroid cancer and the relative risk of papillary versus non-papillary thyroid cancer. RESULTS: A significant increase over time in thyroid cancer incidence was observed for both sexes, and across all characteristics. Immigrant status and ethnicity were each independently associated with the risk of thyroid cancer, with immigrant men and women and East and Southeast Asian women at higher risk. Men and women who had a postsecondary diploma or higher or who were in the highest income quintile were at increased risk of being diagnosed with papillary thyroid cancer, but not with non-papillary thyroid cancer. DISCUSSION: While increased detection has played a role in the rising incidence of thyroid cancer in Canada, it does not fully account for the greater relative risk among the immigrant population and certain ethnic groups. More research is needed to better understand the determinants of the increased risk in these populations.

Participant selection for lung cancer screening by risk modelling (the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer [PanCan] study): a single-arm, prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Results from retrospective studies indicate that selecting individuals for low-dose CT lung cancer screening on the basis of a highly predictive risk model is superior to using criteria similar to those used in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST; age, pack-year, and smoking quit-time). We designed the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer (PanCan) study to assess the efficacy of a risk prediction model to select candidates for lung cancer screening, with the aim of determining whether this approach could better detect patients with early, potentially curable, lung cancer. METHODS: We did this single-arm, prospective study in eight centres across Canada. We recruited participants aged 50-75 years, who had smoked at some point in their life (ever-smokers), and who did not have a self-reported history of lung cancer. Participants had at least a 2% 6-year risk of lung cancer as estimated by the PanCan model, a precursor to the validated PLCOm2012 model. Risk variables in the model were age, smoking duration, pack-years, family history of lung cancer, education level, body-mass index, chest x-ray in the past 3 years, and history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Individuals were screened with low-dose CT at baseline (T0), and at 1 (T1) and 4 (T4) years post-baseline. The primary outcome of the study was incidence of lung cancer. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00751660. FINDINGS: 7059 queries came into the study coordinating centre and were screened for PanCan risk. 15 were duplicates, so 7044 participants were considered for enrolment. Between Sept 24, 2008, and Dec 17, 2010, we recruited and enrolled 2537 eligible ever-smokers. After a median follow-up of 5·5 years (IQR 3·2-6·1), 172 lung cancers were diagnosed in 164 individuals (cumulative incidence 0·065 [95% CI 0·055-0·075], incidence rate 138·1 per 10 000 person-years [117·8-160·9]). There were ten interval lung cancers (6% of lung cancers and 6% of individuals with cancer): one diagnosed between T0 and T1, and nine between T1 and T4. Cumulative incidence was significantly higher than that observed in NLST (4·0%; p<0·0001). Compared with 593 (57%) of 1040 lung cancers observed in NLST, 133 (77%) of 172 lung cancers in the PanCan Study were early stage (I or II; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The PanCan model was effective in identifying individuals who were subsequently diagnosed with early, potentially curable, lung cancer. The incidence of cancers detected and the proportion of early stage cancers in the screened population was higher than observed in previous studies. This approach should be considered for adoption in lung cancer screening programmes. FUNDING: Terry Fox Research Institute and Canadian Partnership Against Cancer.