The utility of H2 receptor antagonists in preventing infusion-related reactions to paclitaxel chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel has a risk of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) and despite no prospective evidence, is often given with premedication including a corticosteroid, H1 antagonist, and H2 antagonist (H2RA). Backorders impacted the supply of intravenous H2RAs at our center, and it was removed as routine premedication. The authors compared the incidence of IRR in patients treated without H2RA to patients receiving standard H2RA premedication. METHODS: The authors reviewed outpatients starting paclitaxel at the Ottawa Hospital from December 2019 to October 2021. Two cohorts were created: patients treated without H2RA premedication (intervention), and those receiving standard H2RA (control). Demographics, treatment, and IRR information were collected retrospectively. Primary end point was rate of grade ≥2 IRRs during first two doses of paclitaxel. RESULTS: A total of 182 patients were treated without H2RA premedication, compared to 184 control patients treated during non-backorder periods. Baseline characteristics included: median age, 63 years; 86% female; and primary tumor 52% breast/24% gynecologic/10% gastric/esophageal/8% lung/6% other. There were no significant differences between cohorts in baseline characteristics. There was no difference in the rate of grade ≥2 IRR between cohorts; 12.1% (22 of 182; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.7%-17.7%) for patients treated without H2RA, and 15.1% (28 of 185; 95% CI, 10.3%-21.1%) for control patients. The rate of grade ≥3 IRRs were also similar, 4.4% in intervention cohort versus 3.8% in control cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The removal of H2RAs from premedication for paclitaxel did not result in an increased incidence of IRRs. The use of H2RAs in preventing IRRs to paclitaxel should be re-evaluated.

Potential Life-Years Lost: The Impact of the Cancer Drug Regulatory and Funding Process in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Canada has an established publicly funded health care system with a complex drug approval and funding process. After proof of efficacy (POE; key publication/presentation) and before becoming publicly accessible, each drug undergoes a Health Canada approval process, a health technology assessment (HTA), a pricing negotiation, and finally individual provincial funding agreements. We quantified potential life-years lost during this process. METHODS: We analyzed drugs for advanced lung, breast, and colorectal cancer that underwent the HTA process between 2011 and 2016. Life-years lost were calculated by multiplying documented improvement in progression-free and overall survival, number of eligible patients, and time from POE to first public funding. For conservative calculation, we assumed all eligible patients in Canada had access at the time of first public funding, whereas in reality provinces fund at different time points. RESULTS: We analyzed 21 drugs. Of these, 15 have been funded publicly. The time from POE to first public funding ranged from 14.0 to 99.2 months (median 26.6 months). Total overall life-years lost from POE to first public funding were 39,067 (lung 32,367; breast 6,691). Progression-free life-years lost from POE to first public funding were 48,037 (lung 9,139, breast 15,827, colorectal 23,071). CONCLUSION: The number of potential life-years lost during the drug regulatory and funding process in Canada is substantial, largely driven by delays to funding of colorectal cancer drugs. Recognizing that interprovincial differences exist and that eligible patients may not all receive a given drug, if even a fraction does so, the impact of delays remains substantive. Collaborative national initiatives are required to address this major barrier to treatment access. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients may spend lengthy periods of time awaiting access to new and effective cancer drugs. Patients with private drug insurance or personal funds or who reside in certain Canadian provinces may obtain some drugs sooner than others, potentially creating a two-tiered access system. The cancer drug access and public funding system must be expedited to improve equity.

A prospective intervention to improve happiness and reduce burnout in oncologists.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data about effective interventions to improve happiness and reduce burnout in oncologists. Benjamin Franklin developed a 13-week program of "necessary activities" or "virtues" (temperance, silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity, and humility) to follow, in his attempt at self-improvement. In this pilot study, we explored whether using a modified version of this was associated with any discernable impact on physician happiness, burnout, or compliance with each of the virtues. METHODS: Self-reported happiness (Oxford happiness scores) and burnout (Abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory) were completed at baseline (pre-study), week 13, and 1 month after completion of the program. Each day during the 13-week program, oncologists were emailed a list of virtues to focus on and scored how they felt they were complying with them. The oncologist's spouses also assessed how they felt the oncologist was complying with the virtues. RESULTS: Thirteen physicians completed the baseline scores, 11 completed Maslach/Oxford scores at the end of the study, and 8 the 1-month post-study assessment. No significant improvements in happiness and burnout (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, personal accomplishment) scores were observed. Statistically significant changes in self-rated virtue scores were observed for temperance (p = 0.046), order (p = 0.049), and resolution (p = 0.014). Additionally, although not reaching statistical significance, 11 of 13 virtues (excepting sincerity and chastity) assessed by spouses indicated a positive change over time. CONCLUSION: In this hypothesis generating study, daily reflection on personal virtues was not associated with any statistically significant change in happiness or burnout scores. Alternative strategies should be considered.

Durvalumab as third-line or later treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIC): an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a new standard of care for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR tyrosine kinase or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genetic aberrations (EGFR-/ALK-), but clinical benefit in patients with EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements (EGFR+/ALK+) has not been shown. We assessed the effect of durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) treatment in three cohorts of patients with NSCLC defined by EGFR/ALK status and tumour expression of PD-L1. METHODS: ATLANTIC is a phase 2, open-label, single-arm trial at 139 study centres in Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients had advanced NSCLC with disease progression following at least two previous systemic regimens, including platinum-based chemotherapy (and tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy if indicated); were aged 18 years or older; had a WHO performance status score of 0 or 1; and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. Key exclusion criteria included mixed small-cell lung cancer and NSCLC histology; previous exposure to any anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibody; and any previous grade 3 or worse immune-related adverse event while receiving any immunotherapy agent. Patients in cohort 1 had EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC with at least 25%, or less than 25%, of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression. Patients in cohorts 2 and 3 had EGFR-/ALK- NSCLC; cohort 2 included patients with at least 25%, or less than 25%, of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression, and cohort 3 included patients with at least 90% of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression. Patients received durvalumab (10 mg/kg) every 2 weeks, via intravenous infusion, for up to 12 months. Retreatment was allowed for patients who benefited but then progressed after completing 12 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with increased tumour expression of PD-L1 (defined as ≥25% of tumour cells in cohorts 1 and 2, and ≥90% of tumour cells in cohort 3) who achieved an objective response, assessed in patients who were evaluable for response per independent central review according to RECIST version 1.1. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of durvalumab and for whom any post-dose data were available. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer open to accrual, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02087423. FINDINGS: Between Feb 25, 2014, and Dec 28, 2015, 444 patients were enrolled and received durvalumab: 111 in cohort 1, 265 in cohort 2, and 68 in cohort 3. Among patients with at least 25% of tumour cells expressing PD-L1 who were evaluable for objective response per independent central review, an objective response was achieved in 9 (12·2%, 95% CI 5·7-21·8) of 74 patients in cohort 1 and 24 (16·4%, 10·8-23·5) of 146 patients in cohort 2. In cohort 3, 21 (30·9%, 20·2-43·3) of 68 patients achieved an objective response. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 40 (9%) of 444 patients overall: six (5%) of 111 patients in cohort 1, 22 (8%) of 265 in cohort 2, and 12 (18%) of 68 in cohort 3. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were pneumonitis (four patients [1%]), elevated gamma-glutamyltransferase (four [1%]), diarrhoea (three [1%]), infusion-related reaction (three [1%]), elevated aspartate aminotransferase (two [<1%]), elevated transaminases (two [<1%]), vomiting (two [<1%]), and fatigue (two [<1%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 27 (6%) of 444 patients overall: five (5%) of 111 patients in cohort 1, 14 (5%) of 265 in cohort 2, and eight (12%) of 68 in cohort 3. The most common serious adverse events overall were pneumonitis (five patients [1%]), fatigue (three [1%]), and infusion-related reaction (three [1%]). Immune-mediated events were manageable with standard treatment guidelines. INTERPRETATION: In patients with advanced and heavily pretreated NSCLC, the clinical activity and safety profile of durvalumab was consistent with that of other anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 agents. Responses were recorded in all cohorts; the proportion of patients with EGFR-/ALK- NSCLC (cohorts 2 and 3) achieving a response was higher than the proportion with EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC (cohort 1) achieving a response. The clinical activity of durvalumab in patients with EGFR+ NSCLC with ≥25% of tumour cells expressing PD-L1 was encouraging, and further investigation of durvalumab in patients with EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC is warranted. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy for premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer (MONALEESA-7): a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In MONALEESA-2, ribociclib plus letrozole showed improved progression-free survival compared with letrozole alone as first-line treatment for postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer. MONALEESA-7 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy in premenopausal women with advanced, HR-positive breast cancer. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was done at 188 centres in 30 countries. Eligible patients were premenopausal women aged 18-59 years who had histologically or cytologically confirmed HR-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1; measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 criteria, or at least one predominantly lytic bone lesion; and had not received previous treatment with cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors. Endocrine therapy and chemotherapy in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting was permitted, as was up to one line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology to receive oral ribociclib (600 mg/day on a 3-weeks-on, 1-week-off schedule) or matching placebo with either oral tamoxifen (20 mg daily) or a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (letrozole 2·5 mg or anastrozole 1 mg, both oral, daily), all with goserelin (3·6 mg administered subcutaneously on day 1 of every 28-day cycle). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat, and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study treatment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. MONALEESA-7 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02278120 and is ongoing, but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2014, and Aug 1, 2016, 672 patients were randomly assigned: 335 to the ribociclib group and 337 to the placebo group. Per investigator's assessment, median progression-free survival was 23·8 months (95% CI 19·2-not reached) in the ribociclib group compared with 13·0 months (11·0-16·4) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·55, 95% CI 0·44-0·69; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported in more than 10% of patients in either group were neutropenia (203 [61%] of 335 patients in the ribociclib group and 12 [4%] of 337 in the placebo group) and leucopenia (48 [14%] and four [1%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 60 (18%) of 335 patients in the ribociclib group and 39 (12%) of 337 in the placebo group, of which 15 (4%) and six (2%), respectively, were attributed to the study regimen. 12 (4%) of 335 patients in the ribociclib group and ten (3%) of 337 in the placebo group discontinued treatment because of adverse events. No treatment-related deaths occurred. 11 deaths occurred (five [1%] in the ribociclib group and six [2%] in the placebo group) during or within 30 days after treatment, most of which were due to progression of the underlying breast cancer (three [1%] and six [2%]). The remaining two deaths in the ribociclib group were due to an intracranial haemorrhage in an anticoagulated patient, and a pre-existing wound haemorrhage in another patient. INTERPRETATION: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy improved progression-free survival compared with placebo plus endocrine therapy, and had a manageable safety profile in patients with premenopausal, HR-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer. The combination could represent a new first-line treatment option for these patients. FUNDING: Novartis.

Ribociclib with letrozole vs letrozole alone in elderly patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in the randomized MONALEESA-2 trial.

PURPOSE: Determine the efficacy and safety of first-line ribociclib plus letrozole in elderly patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer. METHODS: 668 postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer and no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease were enrolled in the Phase III MONALEESA-2 trial (NCT01958021); 295 patients were aged ≥ 65 years. Patients were randomized to ribociclib (600 mg/day; 3-weeks-on/1-week-off) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/day) or placebo plus letrozole until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, or treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was PFS, which was evaluated in elderly (≥ 65 years) and younger (< 65 years) patients. Secondary endpoints included response rates and safety. RESULTS: Ribociclib plus letrozole significantly improved PFS vs placebo plus letrozole in elderly (hazard ratio: 0.608; 95% CI 0.394-0.937) and younger patients (hazard ratio: 0.523; 95% CI 0.378-0.723). Overall response rates were numerically higher in the ribociclib vs placebo arm, regardless of age. Ribociclib plus letrozole was well tolerated in elderly patients, with the safety profile similar to the overall study population. Nausea, vomiting, alopecia, and diarrhea were > 10% more frequent in the ribociclib plus letrozole vs placebo plus letrozole arm in both subgroups; most events were grade 1/2. In elderly patients, grade 1/2 anemia and fatigue were > 10% more frequent in the ribociclib plus letrozole vs placebo plus letrozole arm and discontinuation rates were similar in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of ribociclib to letrozole is a valid therapeutic option for elderly patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer in the first-line setting.

Involvement of Palliative Care in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma Patients and Associations with Survival and End-of-Life Outcomes.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a rare, aggressive, and incurable cancer with a poor prognosis and high symptom burden. For these patients, little is known about the impact of palliative care consultation on outcomes such as mortality, hospital admissions, or emergency department visits. The aim of this study is to determine if referral to supportive and palliative care in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma is associated with survival and decreased hospital admissions and emergency department visits. This is a retrospective chart review. Study participants include all malignant pleural mesothelioma patients seen at The Ottawa Hospital-an acute care tertiary center-between January 2002 and March 2019. In total, 223 patients were included in the study. The mean age at diagnosis was 72.4 years and 82.5% were male. Of the patients diagnosed between 2002 and 2010, only 11 (9.6%) were referred to palliative care. By comparison, of those diagnosed between 2011 and 2019, 49 (45.4%) were referred to palliative care. Median time from diagnosis to referral was 4.1 months. There was no significant difference in the median survival of patients referred for palliative care compared to those who did not receive palliative care (p = 0.46). We found no association between receiving palliative care and the mean number of hospital admissions (1.04 vs. 0.91) from diagnosis to death, and an increase in mean number of emergency department visits in the palliative care group (2.30 vs. 1.18). Although there was increased utilization of palliative care services, more than half of the MPM patients did not receive palliative care despite their limited survival. There was an increase in emergency department visits in the palliative care group; this may represent an increase in the symptom burden (i.e., indication bias) in those referred to palliative care.

New Anticancer Drugs: Reliably Assessing "Value" While Addressing High Prices.

Countries face challenges in paying for new drugs. High prices are driven in part by exploding drug development costs, which, in turn, are driven by essential but excessive regulation. Burdensome regulation also delays drug development, and this can translate into thousands of life-years lost. We need system-wide reform that will enable less expensive, faster drug development. The speed with which COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS therapies were developed indicates this is possible if governments prioritize it. Countries also differ in how they value drugs, and generally, those willing to pay more have better, faster access. Canada is used as an example to illustrate how "incremental cost-effectiveness ratios" (ICERs) based on measures such as gains in "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs) may be used to determine a drug's value but are often problematic, imprecise assessments. Generally, ICER/QALY estimates inadequately consider the impact of patient crossover or long post-progression survival, therapy benefits in distinct subpopulations, positive impacts of the therapy on other healthcare or societal costs, how much governments willingly might pay for other things, etc. Furthermore, a QALY value should be higher for a lethal or uncommon disease than for a common, nonlethal disease. Compared to international comparators, Canada is particularly ineffective in initiating public funding for essential new medications. Addressing these disparities demands urgent reform.

Biomarker-directed targeted therapy plus durvalumab in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase 2 umbrella trial.

For patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors without currently targetable molecular alterations, standard-of-care treatment is immunotherapy with anti-PD-(L)1 checkpoint inhibitors, alone or with platinum-doublet therapy. However, not all patients derive durable benefit and resistance to immune checkpoint blockade is common. Understanding mechanisms of resistance-which can include defects in DNA damage response and repair pathways, alterations or functional mutations in STK11/LKB1, alterations in antigen-presentation pathways, and immunosuppressive cellular subsets within the tumor microenvironment-and developing effective therapies to overcome them, remains an unmet need. Here the phase 2 umbrella HUDSON study evaluated rational combination regimens for advanced NSCLC following failure of anti-PD-(L)1-containing immunotherapy and platinum-doublet therapy. A total of 268 patients received durvalumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody)-ceralasertib (ATR kinase inhibitor), durvalumab-olaparib (PARP inhibitor), durvalumab-danvatirsen (STAT3 antisense oligonucleotide) or durvalumab-oleclumab (anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody). Greatest clinical benefit was observed with durvalumab-ceralasertib; objective response rate (primary outcome) was 13.9% (11/79) versus 2.6% (5/189) with other regimens, pooled, median progression-free survival (secondary outcome) was 5.8 (80% confidence interval 4.6-7.4) versus 2.7 (1.8-2.8) months, and median overall survival (secondary outcome) was 17.4 (14.1-20.3) versus 9.4 (7.5-10.6) months. Benefit with durvalumab-ceralasertib was consistent across known immunotherapy-refractory subgroups. In ATM-altered patients hypothesized to harbor vulnerability to ATR inhibition, objective response rate was 26.1% (6/23) and median progression-free survival/median overall survival were 8.4/22.8 months. Durvalumab-ceralasertib safety/tolerability profile was manageable. Biomarker analyses suggested that anti-PD-L1/ATR inhibition induced immune changes that reinvigorated antitumor immunity. Durvalumab-ceralasertib is under further investigation in immunotherapy-refractory NSCLC.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03334617.

The impact of endocrine therapy on sexual dysfunction in postmenopausal women with early stage breast cancer: encouraging results from a prospective study.

The goal of this project was to investigate the contentious issue of a possible effect of endocrine therapy (ET) on sexual dysfunction (SD) in postmenopausal early stage breast cancer survivors. To date, few studies have assessed sexual functioning prior to initiating ET and none have taken sexual distress into account when reporting the prevalence of ET-induced SD. We report the findings of a study on the change in SD (defined as experiencing sexual problems causing distress) during the first 6 months of ET usage. Between January 2009 and May 2011, 118 patients entered the study and 66 completed questionnaires prior to initiation of ET and after 6 months of use. Sexual functioning (SF) was evaluated with the female sexual function index while sexual distress was assessed with the female sexual distress scale (FSDS-R). Gynecological symptoms were measured with the FACT-B ES subscale. Over time, the level of gynecological symptoms increased (p < 0.001), whereas no decline in SF was observed. The percentage of women who reported experiencing at least one sexual problem (85 %) and the percentage who were sexually distressed (30 %) remained the same across time. Importantly, the change in the prevalence of SD between baseline (24 %) and 6 months (29 %) was not statistically significant. Women experiencing SD at baseline were more likely to experience SD after 6 months of ET usage (OR = 7.4, 95 % CI = 1.5-36.9) than women who had no SD prior to initiating ET. The observation that SF remained stable across time is encouraging news. However, longer follow-up and the inclusion of women who were premenopausal at diagnosis are needed to determine the potential influence of extended duration of ET (e.g., at least 5 years) on SD. Further studies, including assessing the impact of early identification of patients at risk of developing SD and timely intervention, are warranted.

Prospective validation of a prediction tool for identifying patients at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Even with modern antiemetic regimens, up to 20% of cancer patients suffer from moderate to severe chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) (> or = grade 2). We previously developed chemotherapy cycle-based risk predictive models for > or = grade 2 acute and delayed CINV. In this study, the prospective validation of the prediction models and associated scoring systems is described. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to prospectively validate prediction models designed to identify patients at high risk for moderate to severe CINV. METHODS: Patients receiving chemotherapy were provided with CINV symptom diaries. Prior to each cycle of chemotherapy, the acute and delayed CINV scoring systems were used to stratify patients into low- and high-risk groups. Logistic regression was used to compare the occurrence of > or = grade 2 CINV between patients considered by the model to be at high vs low risk. The external validity of each system was assessed via an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: Outcome data were collected from 97 patients following 401 cycles of chemotherapy. The incidence of > or =grade 2 acute and delayed CINV was 13.5% and 21.4%, respectively. There was a significant correlation between the risk score and the probability of developing acute and delayed CINV following chemotherapy. Both the acute and delayed scoring systems had good predictive accuracy when applied to the validation sample (acute, AUROC = 0.70, 95% CI, 0.62-0.77; delayed, AUROC = 0.75, 95% CI, 0.69-0.80). Patients who were identified as high risk were 3.1 (P = .006) and 4.2 (P< .001) times more likely to develop - grade 2 acute and delayed CINV than were those identified as low risk. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the scoring systems are able to accurately identify patients at high risk for acute and delayed CINV.

Medical Assistance in Dying in Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was legalized in Canada in 2016. To date, patients with cancer account for 69% of MAiD deaths, yet little information is available about these patients. We reviewed disease and treatment characteristics of patients with cancer who underwent MAiD to better understand this population and identify gaps in our current system of care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with cancer who underwent MAiD through the Champlain Regional MAiD Network from June 2016 to November 2020 were reviewed. Baseline demographic, diagnostic, and treatment details were collected by retrospective review. RESULTS: During the study period, 255 patients with cancer underwent MAiD. At the time of MAiD, 201 patients (79%) had metastatic disease. Most prevalent solid organ tumors were gastrointestinal (30%), lung (18%) and genitourinary (14%). MAiD was primarily provided in the home (48%) or an acute inpatient facility (40%). One hundred eighty-nine (74%) patients were evaluated by medical oncology, 23 by gynecology oncology (9%), 11 by hematology oncology (4%), and 177 (69%) by radiation oncology. One hundred fifty-eight (62%) patients were not seen by oncology specialists in the 30 days prior to MAiD. One hundred fifty-nine patients (62%) had at least one line of systemic therapy, 138 patients (54%) received radiotherapy, and 61 patients (24%) did not receive cancer-directed treatment. Palliative care assessed at least 213 patients (84%). Common reasons for pursuing MaiD included disease-related symptoms (33%), fear of future suffering or disability (19%), and the ability to control the time and manner of death (17%). In 36% of cases, the reason was not documented. CONCLUSION: Although formal oncology consultation is not required before MAiD, with an ever-increasing number of novel cancer therapies, oncologists, cancer centers, and MAiD providers should consider collaborating to ensure a streamlined assessment process for patients.

Management of Very Early Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Canadian Survey Study.

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the standard of care for limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). Local therapy-surgery or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT)-with adjuvant chemotherapy may be appropriate for very early (T1-T2, N0) disease. There is variability in the management of these cases, which may lead to variability in patient outcomes. This study aimed to determine practice patterns for the management of very early LS-SCLC in Canada. A survey was developed and distributed to Canadian medical and radiation oncologists specialising in lung cancer. The survey consisted of three sections: (1) physician demographics, (2) general practice approach, and (3) preferred approach for three clinical scenarios (1: peripheral T1 lesion; 2: central T1 lesion; 3: peripheral T2 lesion). Responses were analysed to detect differences across cases and among physician groups. There were 77 respondents. In case 1, assuming medical operability, most respondents (73%) chose surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, with 19% choosing CRT. CRT was selected by a higher proportion in case 2 (48%) and case 3 (61%) (p < 0.05). If medically inoperable, most chose CRT over local therapy in all cases, with more choosing CRT in case 2 (84%) and case 3 (86%) than in case 1 (55%) (p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed a predilection towards CRT in Western Canada and among more experienced physicians, and towards SBRT in Ontario. There is variability in the management of very early LS-SCLC in Canada. CRT remains the most popular strategy in most cases, with surgery preferred for small peripheral lesions. Larger and more central tumours are more likely to be managed with CRT. Variation in practice is correlated with region and physician experience. Our study illustrates the variability in the management of very early LS-SCLC in Canada and highlights the need for more robust investigations into the ideal approach for these patients.

What Attributes Matter Most in Physicians? Exploratory Findings from a Single-Centre Survey of Stakeholder Priorities in Cancer Care at a Canadian Academic Cancer Centre.

BACKGROUND: Limited research exists regarding how healthcare stakeholders prioritize the importance of differing physician attributes in oncologists. Identifying these priorities can help ensure that Canadian cancer care continues to meet the needs of its patients. In our previous research, compassion and empathy were identified as important physician attributes, with answers like knowledge, professionalism or communication less common. We hypothesized that respondents may have been assuming other, underlying qualities in their oncologists when they prioritized "compassion" and "empathy". To test this, the current study asks respondents to rank important physician attributes. METHODS: With ethics approval, we asked healthcare stakeholders (physicians, nurses, patients, caregivers, medical students, and allied healthcare providers) to rank the eight most popular qualities or attributes. We identified differences between which characteristics each group valued most in physicians. RESULTS: 375 respondents participated in the survey. "Knowledge" and "competence" were the most popular answers in the current study among all groups except medical students. CONCLUSION: Previously, we identified compassion as a highly valued attribute; however, this survey suggests that this may be with the assumption that a physician is knowledgeable and competent. Future research will use semi-structured interviews to investigate respondents' rationales for making their choices and help interpret our findings in this study.

Real-World Immunotherapy Use and Effectiveness in Advanced NSCLC With Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Greater Than or Equal to 50% and Greater Than or Equal to 90.

Background: Immunotherapy has vastly changed the treatment landscape for patients with advanced NSCLC. With high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (tumor proportion score ≥50%), options include programmed cell death protein 1 or PD-L1 inhibitor with or without chemotherapy. A cut-point of greater than or equal to 50% defines PD-L1-high, but a more precise PD-L1 tumor proportion score may be an important predictor of outcomes. Methods: We reviewed all patients with PD-L1-high NSCLC who received pembrolizumab from June 2019 to June 2021. Demographic, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes data were collected retrospectively. The primary end point was a descriptive analysis of pembrolizumab prescribing patterns. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) by treatment choice and absolute PD-L1 expression. Results: Overall, 132 patients received pembrolizumab; 124 (94%) as monotherapy, and 8 (6%) with chemotherapy. Baseline characteristics include the following: (1) median age 70 years (50-89); (2) 55% men; (3) 79% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1; and (4) 96% current or former smokers. There were 39% who have PD-L1 greater than or equal to 90% versus 61% with PD-L1 of 50% to 89%. The median OS in the overall population was 14.4 months. The median OS in the pembrolizumab monotherapy cohort and combination cohort were 13.6 months and 16.6 months, respectively (p = 0.67). Within the monotherapy cohort, the median OS was longer for PD-L1 greater than or equal to 90% (19.8 mo) versus PD-L1 50% to 89% (11.9 mo, p = 0.039). The 24-month OS was 27.8% among patients with PD-L1 50% to 89% and 47.4% among patients with PD-L1 greater than or equal to 90%. Conclusions: Most patients with advanced PD-L1-high NSCLC received pembrolizumab monotherapy, among whom OS was strongly correlated with PD-L1 expression, with PD-L1 greater than or equal to 90% of patients experiencing substantially longer survival. PD-L1 expression level could be an important determinant in immunotherapy prescribing patterns and a predictor of success in advanced NSCLC.

Follow-Up Imaging Guidelines for Patients with Stage III Unresectable NSCLC: Recommendations Based on the PACIFIC Trial.

The PACIFIC trial showed a survival benefit with durvalumab through five years in stage III unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, optimal use of imaging to detect disease progression remains unclearly defined for this population. An expert working group convened to consider available evidence and clinical experience and develop recommendations for follow-up imaging after concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy (CRT). Voting on agreement was conducted anonymously via online survey. Follow-up imaging was recommended for all suitable patients after CRT completion regardless of whether durvalumab is received. Imaging should occur every 3 months in Year 1, at least every 6 months in Year 2, and at least every 12 months in Years 3-5. Contrast computed tomography was preferred; routine brain imaging was not recommended for asymptomatic patients. The medical oncologist should follow-up during Year 1 of durvalumab therapy, with radiation oncologist involvement if pneumonitis is suspected; medical and radiation oncologists can subsequently alternate follow-up. Some patients can transition to the family physician/community primary care team at the end of Year 2. In Years 1-5, patients should receive information regarding smoking cessation, comorbidity management, vaccinations, and general follow-up care. These recommendations provide guidance on follow-up imaging for patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC whether or not they receive durvalumab consolidation therapy.

Canadian Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive, neuroendocrine tumour with high relapse rates, and significant morbidity and mortality. Apart from advances in radiation therapy, progress in the systemic treatment of SCLC had been stagnant for over three decades despite multiple attempts to develop alternative therapeutic options that could improve responses and survival. Recent promising developments in first-line and subsequent therapeutic approaches prompted a Canadian Expert Panel to convene to review evidence, discuss practice patterns, and reach a consensus on the treatment of extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The literature search included guidelines, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials. Regular meetings were held from September 2022 to March 2023 to discuss the available evidence to propose and agree upon specific recommendations. The panel addressed biomarkers and histological features that distinguish SCLC from non-SCLC and other neuroendocrine tumours. Evidence for initial and subsequent systemic therapies was reviewed with consideration for patient performance status, comorbidities, and the involvement and function of other organs. The resulting consensus recommendations herein will help clarify evidence-based management of ES-SCLC in routine practice, help clinician decision-making, and facilitate the best patient outcomes.

Canadian Consensus Recommendations on the Management of KRAS G12C-Mutated NSCLC.

Activating mutations in Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS), in particular, a point mutation leading to a glycine-to-cysteine substitution at codon 12 (G12C), are among the most frequent genomic alterations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several agents targeting KRAS G12C have recently entered clinical development. Sotorasib, a first-in-class specific small molecule that irreversibly inhibits KRAS G12C, has since obtained Health Canada approval. The emergence of novel KRAS-targeted therapies warrants the development of evidence-based consensus recommendations to help clinicians better understand and contextualize the available data. A Canadian expert panel was convened to define the key clinical questions, review recent evidence, and discuss and agree on recommendations for the treatment of advanced KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC. The panel agreed that testing for KRAS G12C should be performed as part of a comprehensive panel that includes current standard-of-care biomarkers. Sotorasib, the only approved KRAS G12C inhibitor in Canada, is recommended for patients with advanced KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC who progressed on guideline-recommended first-line standard of care for advanced NSCLC without driver alterations (immune-checkpoint inhibitor(s) [ICIs] +/- chemotherapy). Sotorasib could also be offered as second-line therapy to patients who progressed on ICI monotherapy that are not candidates for a platinum doublet and those that received first-line chemotherapy with a contraindication to ICIs. Preliminary data indicate the activity of KRAS G12C inhibitors in brain metastases; however, the evidence is insufficient to make specific recommendations. Regular liver function monitoring is recommended when patients are prescribed KRAS G12C inhibitors due to risk of hepatotoxicity.