Oropharyngeal Cancer Staging Health Record Extraction Using Artificial Intelligence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Association between the COVID-19 pandemic and first cancer treatment modality: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Physicians were directed to prioritize using nonsurgical cancer treatment at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to quantify the impact of this policy on the modality of first cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy or no treatment). METHODS: In this population-based study using Ontario data from linked administrative databases, we identified adults diagnosed with cancer from January 2016 to November 2020 and their first cancer treatment received within 1 year postdiagnosis. Segmented Poisson regressions were applied to each modality to estimate the change in mean 1-year recipient volume per thousand patients (rate) at the start of the pandemic (the week of Mar. 15, 2020) and change in the weekly trend in rate during the pandemic (Mar. 15, 2020, to Nov. 7, 2020) relative to before the pandemic (Jan. 3, 2016, to Mar. 14, 2020). RESULTS: We included 321 535 people diagnosed with cancer. During the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic, the mean rate of receiving upfront surgery over the next year declined by 9% (rate ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.95), and chemotherapy and radiotherapy rates rose by 30% (rate ratio 1.30, 95% CI 1.23-1.36) and 13% (rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.19), respectively. Subsequently, the 1-year rate of upfront surgery increased at 0.4% for each week (rate ratio 1.004, 95% CI 1.002-1.006), and chemotherapy and radiotherapy rates decreased by 0.9% (rate ratio 0.991, 95% CI 0.989-0.994) and 0.4% (rate ratio 0.996, 95% CI 0.994-0.998), respectively, per week. Rates of each modality resumed to prepandemic levels at 24-31 weeks into the pandemic. INTERPRETATION: An immediate and sustained increase in use of nonsurgical therapy as the first cancer treatment occurred during the first 8 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario. Further research is needed to understand the consequences.

Development of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Rating Tool to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Questions for the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration.

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration developed an MCDA rating tool to assess and prioritize potential post-market real-world evidence (RWE) questions/uncertainties emerging from public drug funding decisions in Canada. In collaboration with a group of multidisciplinary stakeholders from across Canada, the rating tool was developed following a three-step process: (1) selection of criteria to assess the importance and feasibility of an RWE question; (2) development of rating scales, application of weights and calculating aggregate scores; and (3) validation testing. An initial MCDA rating tool was developed, composed of seven criteria, divided into two groups. Group A criteria assess the importance of an RWE question by examining the (1) drug's perceived clinical benefit, (2) magnitude of uncertainty identified, and (3) relevance of the uncertainty to decision-makers. Group B criteria assess the feasibility of conducting an RWE analysis including the (1) feasibility of identifying a comparator, (2) ability to identify cases, (3) availability of comprehensive data, and (4) availability of necessary expertise and methodology. Future directions include partnering with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health's Provincial Advisory Group for further tool refinement and to gain insight into incorporating the tool into drug funding deliberations.

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

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

Early survival for patients newly diagnosed with cancer during COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and early survival among newly diagnosed cancer patients. METHODS: This retrospective population-based cohort study used linked administrative datasets from Ontario, Canada. Adults (≥18 years) who received a cancer diagnosis between March 15 and December 31, 2020, were included in a pandemic cohort, while those diagnosed during the same dates in 2018/2019 were included in a pre-pandemic cohort. All patients were followed for one full year after the date of diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess survival in relation to the pandemic, patient characteristics at diagnosis, and the modality of first cancer treatment as a time-varying covariate. Interaction terms were explored to measure the pandemic association with survival for each cancer type. RESULTS: Among 179,746 patients, 53,387 (29.7%) were in the pandemic cohort and 37,741 (21.0%) died over the first post-diagnosis year. No association between the pandemic and survival was found when adjusting for patient characteristics at diagnosis (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.96-1.01]), while marginally better survival was found for the pandemic cohort when the modality of treatment was additionally considered (HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.95-0.99]). When examining each cancer type, only a new melanoma diagnosis was associated with a worse survival in the pandemic cohort (HR 1.25 [95% CI 1.05-1.49]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients able to receive a cancer diagnosis during the pandemic, one-year overall survival was not different than those diagnosed in the previous 2 years. This study highlights the complex nature of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on cancer care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incident Cancer Detection During Multiple Waves of COVID-19: The Tsunami After the Earthquake.

No population-based study exists to demonstrate the full-spectrum impact of COVID-19 on hindering incident cancer detection in a large cancer system. Building upon our previous publication in JNCCN, we conducted an updated analysis using 12 months of new data accrued in the pandemic era (extending the study period from September 26, 2020, to October 2, 2021) to demonstrate how multiple COVID-19 waves affected the weekly cancer incidence volume in Ontario, Canada, and if we have fully cleared the backlog at the end of each wave.

Cancer Patients First Treated with Chemotherapy: Are They More Likely to Receive Surgery in the Pandemic?

Due to the ramping down of cancer surgery in early pandemic, many newly diagnosed patients received other treatments first. We aimed to quantify the pandemic-related shift in rate of surgery following chemotherapy. This is a retrospective population-based cohort study involving adults diagnosed with cancer between 3 January 2016 and 7 November 2020 in Ontario, Canada who received chemotherapy as first treatment within 6-months of diagnosis. Competing-risks regression models with interaction effects were used to quantify the association between COVID-19 period (receiving a cancer diagnosis before or on/after 15 March 2020) and receipt of surgical reSection 9-months after first chemotherapy. Among 51,653 patients, 8.5% (n = 19,558) of them ultimately underwent surgery 9-months after chemotherapy initiation. Receipt of surgery was higher during the pandemic than before (sHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13). Material deprivation was independently associated with lower receipt of surgery (least vs. most deprived quintile: sHR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04-1.17), but did not change with the pandemic. The surgical rate increase was most pronounced for breast cancer (sHR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.20). These pandemic-related shifts in cancer treatment requires further evaluations to understand the long-term consequences. Persistent material deprivation-related inequity in cancer surgical access needs to be addressed.

Comparison of Use of Neoadjuvant Systemic Treatment for Breast Cancer and Short-term Outcomes Before vs During the COVID-19 Era in Ontario, Canada.

Importance: In response to an increase in COVID-19 infection rates in Ontario, several systemic treatment (ST) regimens delivered in the adjuvant setting for breast cancer were temporarily permitted for neoadjuvant-intent to defer nonurgent breast cancer surgical procedures. Objective: To examine the use and compare short-term outcomes of neoadjuvant-intent vs adjuvant ST in the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada. Patients with cancer starting selected ST regimens in the COVID-19 era (March 11, 2020, to September 30, 2020) were compared to those in the pre-COVID-19 era (March 11, 2019, to March 10, 2020). Patients were diagnosed with breast cancer within 6 months of starting systemic therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimates were calculated for the use of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant ST, the likelihood of receiving a surgical procedure, the rate of emergency department visits, hospital admissions, COVID-19 infections, and all-cause mortality between treatment groups over time. Results: Among a total of 10 920 patients included, 7990 (73.2%) started treatment in the pre-COVID-19 era and 7344 (67.3%) received adjuvant ST; the mean (SD) age was 61.6 (13.1) years. Neoadjuvant-intent ST was more common in the COVID-19 era (1404 of 2930 patients [47.9%]) than the pre-COVID-19 era (2172 of 7990 patients [27.2%]), with an odds ratio of 2.46 (95% CI, 2.26-2.69; P < .001). This trend was consistent across a range of ST regimens, but differed according to patient age and geography. The likelihood of receiving surgery following neoadjuvant-intent chemotherapy was similar in the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era (log-rank P = .06). However, patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant-intent hormonal therapy were significantly more likely to receive surgery in the COVID-19 era (log-rank P < .001). After adjustment, there were no significant changes in the rate of emergency department visits over time between patients receiving neoadjuvant ST, adjuvant ST, or ST only during the ST treatment period or postoperative period. Hospital admissions decreased in the COVID-19 era for patients who received neoadjuvant ST compared with adjuvant ST or ST alone (P for interaction = .01 for both) in either setting. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients were more likely to start neoadjuvant ST in the COVID-19 era, which varied across the province and by indication. There was limited evidence to suggest any substantial impact on short-term outcomes.

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

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

Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel vs FOLFIRINOX in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) and fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Although it is well known that RCT-based efficacy often does not translate to real-world effectiveness, there is limited literature investigating comparative cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC. We aimed to examine the real-world cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This study compared patients treated with first-line Gem-Nab or FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario from April 2015 to March 2019. Patients were linked to administrative databases. Using propensity scores and a stabilizing weights method, an inverse probability of treatment weighted cohort was developed. Mean survival and total costs were calculated over a 5-year time horizon, adjusted for censoring, and discounted at 1.5%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit were computed to estimate cost-effectiveness from the public health-care payer's perspective. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the propensity score matching method. RESULTS: A total of 1988 patients were identified (Gem-Nab: n = 928; FOLFIRINOX: n = 1060). Mean survival was lower for patients in the Gem-Nab than the FOLFIRINOX group (0.98 vs 1.26 life-years; incremental effectiveness = -0.28 life-years [95% confidence interval = -0.47 to -0.13]). Patients in the Gem-Nab group incurred greater mean 5-year total costs (Gem-Nab: $103 884; FOLFIRINOX: $101 518). Key cost contributors include ambulatory cancer care, acute inpatient hospitalization, and systemic therapy drug acquisition. Gem-Nab was dominated by FOLFIRINOX, as it was less effective and more costly. Results from the sensitivity analysis were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Gem-Nab is likely more costly and less effective than FOLFIRINOX and therefore not considered cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.

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

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

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

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

Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Pembrolizumab monotherapy has replaced chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥ 50%. The benefit of chemotherapy combined with pembrolizumab, as compared to pembrolizumab monotherapy, remains uncertain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare these therapies through a network of randomized controlled trials. Endpoints evaluated were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and restricted mean survival time (RMST) through reconstruction of individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier curves, and objective response rate and adverse events. Four trials were included. Through HR and RMST, combination therapy demonstrated longer PFS and similar OS as compared to pembrolizumab monotherapy. Combination therapy was associated with an increase in response rate and adverse events. Thus, combination therapy can be considered when rapid response or prevention of rapid progression is needed. Further evidence to directly compare these therapies is required.