A scoping review to create a framework for the steps in developing condition-specific preference-based instruments de novo or from an existing non-preference-based instrument: use of item response theory or Rasch analysis

BACKGROUND

There is no widely accepted framework to guide the development of condition-specific preference-based instruments (CSPBIs) that includes both de novo and from existing non-preference-based instruments. The purpose of this study was to address this gap by reviewing the published literature on CSPBIs, with particular attention to the application of item response theory (IRT) and Rasch analysis in their development.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature covering the concepts of all phases of CSPBI development and evaluation was performed from MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, from inception to December 30, 2022.

RESULTS

The titles and abstracts of 1,967 unique references were reviewed. After retrieving and reviewing 154 full-text articles, data were extracted from 109 articles, representing 41 CSPBIs covering 21 diseases or conditions. The development of CSPBIs was conceptualized as a 15-step framework, covering four phases: 1) develop initial questionnaire items (when no suitable non-preference-based instrument exists), 2) establish the dimensional structure, 3) reduce items per dimension, 4) value and model health state utilities. Thirty-nine instruments used a type of Rasch model and two instruments used IRT models in phase 3.

CONCLUSION

We present an expanded framework that outlines the development of CSPBIs, both from existing non-preference-based instruments and de novo when no suitable non-preference-based instrument exists, using IRT and Rasch analysis. For items that fit the Rasch model, developers selected one item per dimension and explored item response level reduction. This framework will guide researchers who are developing or assessing CSPBIs.

Low RNA disruption during neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts pathologic complete response absence in patients with breast cancer

In previously reported retrospective studies, high tumor RNA disruption during neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicted for post-treatment pathologic complete response (pCR) and improved disease-free survival at definitive surgery for primary early breast cancer. The BREVITY (Breast Cancer Response Evaluation for Individualized Therapy) prospective clinical trial (NCT03524430) seeks to validate these prior findings. Here we report training set (Phase I) findings, including determination of RNA disruption index (RDI) cut points for outcome prediction in the subsequent validation set (Phase II; 454 patients). In 80 patients of the training set, maximum tumor RDI values for biopsies obtained during neoadjuvant chemotherapy were significantly higher in pCR responders than in patients without pCR post-treatment (P = .008). Moreover, maximum tumor RDI values ≤3.7 during treatment predicted for a lack of pCR at surgery (negative predictive value = 93.3%). These findings support the prospect that on-treatment tumor RNA disruption assessments may effectively predict post-surgery outcome, possibly permitting treatment optimization.

Developing the Breast Utility Instrument to Measure Health-Related Quality-of-Life Preferences in Patients with Breast Cancer: Selecting the Item for Each Dimension

Introduction. Generic preference-based instruments inadequately measure breast cancer (BrC) health-related quality-of-life preferences given advances in therapy. Our overall purpose is to develop the Breast Utility Instrument (BUI), a BrC-specific preference-based instrument. This study describes the selection of the BUI items. Methods. A total of 408 patients from diverse BrC health states completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR45 (breast module). For each of 10 dimensions previously assessed with confirmatory factor analysis, we evaluated data fit to the Rasch model based on global model and item fit, including threshold ordering, item residuals, infit and outfit, differential item functioning (age), and unidimensionality. Misfitting items were removed iteratively, and the model fit was reassessed. From items fitting the Rasch model, we selected 1 item per dimension based on high patient- and clinician-rated item importance, breadth of item thresholds, and clinical relevance. Results. Global model fit was good in 7 and borderline in 3 dimensions. Separation index was acceptable in 4 dimensions. Item selection criteria were maximized for the following items: 1) physical functioning (trouble taking a long walk), 2) emotional functioning (worry), 3) social functioning (interfering with social activities), 4) pain (having pain), 5) fatigue (tired), 6) body image (dissatisfied with your body), 7) systemic therapy side effects (hair loss), 8) sexual functioning (interest in sex), 9) breast symptoms (oversensitive breast), and 10) endocrine therapy symptoms (problems with your joints). Conclusions. We propose 10 items for the BUI. Our next steps include assessing the measurement properties prior to eliciting preference weights of the BUI.

Highlights

A previous confirmatory factor analysis established 10 dimensions of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its breast module (BR45). In this study, we selected 1 item per dimension based on fit to the Rasch model, patient- and clinician-rated item importance, breadth of item thresholds, and clinical relevance. These items form the core of the future Breast Utility Instrument (BUI). The future BUI will be a novel breast cancer–specific preference-based instrument that potentially will better reflect women’s preferences in clinical decision making and cost utility analyses.

The real-world experience of adjuvant docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) chemotherapy in HER-2 negative breast cancer

538

Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer (BC) substantially improves overall survival (OS) and the risk of recurrence. The short and long-term side effects of anthracycline, and its modest benefits in the adjuvant setting, led to controversy about its role in comparison with TC. We aim to compare the OS of TC with anthracycline-based regimens in Ontario, the most populous province in Canada. Methods: We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study using the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) database, involving females with stage I-III BC HER2-negative. Patients were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy between January 2009 to December 2017. The anthracycline regimens for comparison were as follows, FEC-D: Fluorouracil, Epirubicin, Cyclophosphamide, followed by Docetaxel; and ACT: Doxorubicin, Cyclophosphamide, followed by Docetaxel or Paclitaxel. Exclusion criteria included missing baseline characteristics, a prior history of malignancy or chemotherapy starting more than 120 days from breast surgery. The end of follow-up was March 31st, 2018. Adjusted analyses to compare OS by positive axillary lymph nodes (LN) and chemotherapy regimens were conducted with Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Of a total 10634 female patients with BC, 60% were ≥ 50 years-old, with 19.6% stage I, 61.1% stage II, and 19.3% stage III and 7130 (67%) women were classified as ER+ and 2379 (22.4%) as ER-. Among 5764 (54.2%) patients with positive LN, 4300 (40.4%) had LN 1-3 and 1464 (13.8%) had LN ≥ 4. There were 4945 (46.5%) high-grade cases. There were 2487 (23.5%) patients treated with TC, 2981 (28%) with ACT, and 5166 (48.5%) with FEC-D. With a median follow-up of 5.5 years, the OS comparison for the entire study population showed hazard ratio (HR) of TC vs ACT was 1.47 (95% CI 1.14 – 1.90), p = 0.0027 and TC vs FEC-D HR was 1.48 (95% CI 1.18 – 1.86), p = 0.0007. For ER+ patients treated with TC, the OS comparison of LN 1-3 and LN ≥ 4 vs. LN 0 showed HR 1.34 (95% CI 0.81 – 2.21), p = 0.26, and HR 4.29 (95% CI 2.09 – 8.79), p < 0.0001, respectively. For ER+ LN 0 patients, the OS HR of TC vs. ACT was 1.15 (95% CI 0.58 – 2.35), p = 0.67, and TC vs. FEC-D HR was 1.38 (95% CI 0.81 – 2.33), p = 0.23. For ER- patients treated with TC, the OS comparison of LN 1-3 and LN ≥ 4 vs. LN 0 showed HR 1.12 (95% CI 0.42 – 3.01), p = 0.82 and HR 4.41 (95% CI 1.33 – 14.59), p = 0.015, respectively. For ER- LN 0 patients, the OS HR for TC vs. ACT was 2.04 (95% CI 1.09 – 3.81), p = 0.025, and TC vs. FEC-D HR was 2.05 (95% CI 1.08 – 3.90), p = 0.028. Conclusions: Patients treated with adjuvant TC who had four or more axillary LN had significantly lower OS when compared to patients with LN 0. For women with ER- disease, TC demonstrated a significant unfavourable survival outcome when compared to anthracycline-based treatments.

Outcomes of patients with T1a,b N0 Her2-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant trastuzumab in a prospective registry in Ontario, Canada

533

Background: Multiple randomized trials of chemo +/- tras in early stage, Her 2 positive BrCa demonstrated improvement in survival, but patients (pts) with T1a,b N0 disease were mostly excluded. Given the uncertainty of benefit in this group and the toxicities of chemo + tras, treatment in Ontario was funded for these patients conditional upon data collection for toxicity and survival endpoints. We report the outcomes for 483 patients enrolled in this Evidence Building Program (EBP). Methods: Between 2011 and 2018, 483 eligible pts with Her 2 pos disease and adequate cardiac function were treated with chemo + tras in the EBP. Cardiac toxicity, febrile neutropenia (FN), event-free (EFS), and overall survival (OS) were determined for this cohort from administrative datasets, and compared retrospectively to controls of similar stage selected from the Ontario Cancer Registry who did not receive tras and/or chemo. For the EBP cohort, clinicians also reported changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Results: Pt characteristics are shown in the Table. EBP patients had improved OS when compared to controls who received no chemo or tras. The 3-year OS in the EBP pts was 99.1%, versus 96.9% in the controls [adjusted HR 0.59 (95% CI 0.29-1.20)]. Patients receiving EBP tras had a significantly longer EFS than controls with or without chemo [adjusted HR 0.54 (0.36-0.83), p=0.005]. Use of chemo + tras in EBP pts was associated with an increased risk of clinical congestive heart disease (CHD) and febrile neutropenia (FN). About 3.5% of pts experienced CHD during treatment with chemo + tras. About 6% of pts had an absolute reduction of LVEF >10% or reached LVEF <50%. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of CHD was higher in older pts [HR 1.06 (1.03-1.08) per 1-yr increase in age, p<0.0001) and for pts who received anthracyclines [HR 5.00 (1.71-14.7). In a matched analysis, the crude frequency of FN during treatment was 20% in EBP pts vs. 3% among controls who did not receive chemo or tras (p<0.001). Conclusions: Analysis of the Ontario EBP for pts with, T1a,b N0 HER2 pos BrCa revealed that the prognosis is excellent and is improved with the use of chemo + tras. The safety profile was expected and tolerable, especially when non anthracycline chemo was used. These results led to a funding policy change where prospective data collection has been discontinued and chemo + tras is now routinely funded in this population. [Table: see text]

Prediction of chemotherapy response in breast cancer patients at pre-treatment using second derivative texture of CT images and machine learning

•

Textural and second derivative textural features of CT images can be used in conjunction with machine learning models to predict breast cancer response to chemotherapy prior to the start of treatment.

•

The proposed predictive model separates the patients at pre-treatment into two cohorts (responders/non-responders) with significantly different survival.

•

The proposed methodology is a step forward towards the precision oncology paradigm for breast cancer patients.

Although neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is a crucial component of treatment for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC), only about 70% of patients respond to it. Effective adjustment of NAC for individual patients can significantly improve survival rates of those resistant to standard regimens. Thus, the early prediction of NAC outcome is of great importance in facilitating a personalized paradigm for breast cancer therapeutics. In this study, quantitative computed tomography (qCT) parametric imaging in conjunction with machine learning techniques were investigated to predict LABC tumor response to NAC. Textural and second derivative textural (SDT) features of CT images of 72 patients diagnosed with LABC were analysed before the initiation of NAC to quantify intra-tumor heterogeneity. These quantitative features were processed through a correlation-based feature reduction followed by a sequential feature selection with a bootstrap 0.632+ area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC0.632+) criterion. The best feature subset consisted of a combination of one textural and three SDT features. Using these features, an AdaBoost decision tree could predict the patient response with a cross-validated AUC0.632+ accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of 0.88, 85%, 88% and 75%, respectively. This study demonstrates, for the first time, that a combination of textural and SDT features of CT images can be used to predict breast cancer response NAC prior to the start of treatment which can potentially facilitate early therapy adjustments.

Efficacy of Neratinib Plus Capecitabine in the Subgroup of Patients with Central Nervous System Involvement from the NALA Trial

Background

Neratinib has efficacy in central nervous system (CNS) metastases from HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We report outcomes among patients with CNS metastases at baseline from the phase III NALA trial of neratinib plus capecitabine (N + C) versus lapatinib plus capecitabine (L + C).

Materials and Methods

NALA was a randomized, active‐controlled trial in patients who received two or more previous HER2‐directed regimens for HER2‐positive MBC. Patients with asymptomatic/stable brain metastases (treated or untreated) were eligible. Patients were assigned to N + C (neratinib 240 mg per day, capecitabine 750 mg/m² twice daily) or L + C (lapatinib 1,250 mg per day, capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² twice daily) orally. Independently adjudicated progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and CNS endpoints were considered.

Results

Of 621 patients enrolled, 101 (16.3%) had known CNS metastases at baseline (N + C, n = 51; L + C, n = 50); 81 had received prior CNS‐directed radiotherapy and/or surgery. In the CNS subgroup, mean PFS through 24 months was 7.8 months with N + C versus 5.5 months with L + C (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41–1.05), and mean OS through 48 months was 16.4 versus 15.4 months (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.59–1.38). At 12 months, cumulative incidence of interventions for CNS disease was 25.5% for N + C versus 36.0% for L + C, and cumulative incidence of progressive CNS disease was 26.2% versus 41.6%, respectively. In patients with target CNS lesions at baseline (n = 32), confirmed intracranial objective response rates were 26.3% and 15.4%, respectively. No new safety signals were observed.

Conclusion

These analyses suggest improved PFS and CNS outcomes with N + C versus L + C in patients with CNS metastases from HER2‐positive MBC.

Implications for Practice

In a subgroup of patients with central nervous system (CNS) metastases from HER2‐positive breast cancer after two or more previous HER2‐directed regimens, the combination of neratinib plus capecitabine was associated with improved progression‐free survival and CNS outcomes compared with lapatinib plus capecitabine. These findings build on previous phase II and III studies describing efficacy of neratinib in the prevention and treatment of CNS metastases, and support a role for neratinib as a systemic treatment option in the management of patients with HER2‐positive brain metastases following antibody‐based HER2‐directed therapies.

This article reports outcomes among HER2‐positive breast cancer patients with central nervous system metastases at baseline from the phase III NALA trial of neratinib plus capecitabine versus lapatinib plus capecitabine.

Dose escalation for mitigating diarrhea: Ranked tolerability assessment of anti-diarrheal regimens in patients receiving neratinib for early-stage breast cancer

536

Background: The primary tolerability concern with neratinib (NERLYNX®; N), an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is diarrhea. Data from the multi-cohort, open-label, phase 2 CONTROL trial [Barcenas et al. Ann Oncol 2020] demonstrated significant improvement in grade 3 diarrhea and diarrhea-related discontinuations vs the ExteNET trial, which did not mandate anti-diarrheal prophylaxis. We report a systematic analysis of tolerability in CONTROL and ExteNET. Methods: Patients (pts) ≥18y with stage I–IIIc HER2+ breast cancer received N (240 mg/d po for 1y) after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy and were enrolled sequentially into cohorts assessing different modalities to mitigate diarrhea. Cohorts with complete data were included: loperamide (L); L+budesonide (BL); L+colestipol (CL); CL as needed (CL-PRN); and N dose escalation (DE; 120 mg/d on d1–7, 160 mg/d on d8–14, and 240 mg/d thereafter). Integrated ranking (IR) analysis was performed on 13 endpoints in 4 domains (exposure, diarrhea, adverse events [AEs], quality of life [QoL]) identified with input from clinicians; cohorts were ranked from 1 (best) to 5 (worst). Index scores (IS) based on individual pt data from CONTROL were calculated as supportive analysis to confirm selection of the regimen with best overall tolerability, which was then compared with ExteNET. Results: Of the 5 CONTROL cohorts evaluated, DE ranked best for most endpoints. Average ranks per IR method: L 3.4; BL 3.2; CL 3.0; CL-PRN 3.3; DE 2.0. The IS analysis supported DE as the cohort with best overall tolerability. Comparison of CONTROL DE vs ExteNET showed improvement in tolerability in all domains (table). Conclusions: These analyses suggest superiority of weekly DE vs other anti-diarrheal strategies. A lower rate of grade 3 diarrhea was observed with CONTROL DE vs ExteNET (13.3 vs 39.9%, respectively), as well as a comparable or improved AE profile. The data also reveal greater compliance with N (fewer early discontinuations, longer treatment duration, higher cumulative dose) and reduced impact on QoL with DE, suggesting improved tolerability. Clinical trial information: NCT02400476. [Table: see text]

Real-world cost-effectiveness of pertuzumab (P) with trastuzumab + chemo (T+Chemo) in patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer (MBC): A population-based retrospective cohort study by the Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration

1048

Background: Addition of P to T+chemo for MBC pts has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) in a pivotal randomized trial (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.84) (Baselga et al., NEJM 2012). In Canada, the manufacturer submission to the health technology assessment agency estimated that P produced 0.64 life years gained (LYG) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $187,376/LYG over 10 years (CADTH-pCODR, 2013). This retrospective cohort analysis aims to determine the comparative real-world population-based effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of P among MBC pts in Ontario, Canada. Methods: MBC pts were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked to the New Drug Funding Program database to identify receipt of treatment between 1/1/2008 and 3/31/2018. Cases received P-T-chemo after universal public funding of P (Nov 2013) and controls received T-chemo before. Demographic (age, socioeconomic, rurality) and clinical (comorbidities, prior adjuvant treatments, prior breast cancer surgery, prior radiation, stage at diagnosis, ER/PR status) characteristics were identified from linked admin databases balanced between cases and controls using propensity score matching. Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regressions accounting for matched pairs were used to estimate median OS and HR. 5-year mean total costs from the public health system perspective were estimated from admin claims databases using established direct statistical methods and adjusted for censoring of both cost and effectiveness using inverse probability weighting. ICERs and 95% bootstrapped CIs were calculated, along with incremental net benefit (INB) at various willingness-to-pay values using net benefit regression. Results: We identified 1,823 MBC pts with 912 cases and 911 controls (mean age = 55 years), of which 579 pairs were matched. Cases had improved OS (HR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.57, 0.78), with median 3.4 years, compared to controls median OS of 2.1. P provided an additional 0.63 (95% CI: 0.48 – 0.84) LYG at an incremental cost of $196,622 (95% CI: $180,774, $219,172), with a mean ICER = $312,147/LYG (95% CI: $260,752, $375,492). At threshold of $100,000/LYG, the INB was -$133,632 (95% CI: -$151,525, -$115,739) with < 1% probability of being cost-effective. Key drivers of incremental cost increase between groups included drug and cancer clinic costs. Conclusions: The addition of P to T-chemo for MBC increased survival but at significant costs. The ICER based on direct real-world data was higher than the initial economic model due to higher total costs for pts receiving P. This study demonstrated feasibility to derive ICER from person-level real-world data to inform cancer drug life-cycle health technology reassessment.

Uptake of immunotherapy in patients with advanced cancer: A population-based study using health administrative data from Ontario, Canada

6529

Background: The introduction of immunotherapy (IO) in the treatment of patients with cancer has significantly improved clinical outcomes. Herein we report on IO uptake in Ontario, Canada, a publicly funded healthcare system. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using provincial health administrative data to: 1) assess IO uptake in adult patients with advanced melanoma, bladder, lung, head and neck (HN) and kidney cancers; and 2) identify predictors of IO usage between 2011 (pre-IO funding) and 2019. The datasets were linked using unique encoded identifiers and analyzed at ICES. IO uptake was captured between cancer diagnosis and last follow up and reported as a proportion of the entire cohort and by tumor site and drug type. A competing risk Fine and Gray regression model with death as competing risk was used to identify factors associated with IO use. Results: Among 59,510 patients with one of the five advanced cancers of interest, 7,660 (12.9%) received IO. Details of IO uptake are summarized in Table. IO uptake increased yearly from 2011 (2.7%) to 2019 (34.0%). Uptake was highest in melanoma (48.2%) and lowest in HN cancer (5.8%). The most commonly used drugs used were pembrolizumab (41.1%) and nivolumab (40.5%). In adjusted analysis, predictors of lower IO uptake included older age (hazard ratio (HR) 0.953, 95%CI 0.934-0.972 with every additional 10 years), female sex (HR 0.859, 95%CI 0.819-0.9), lower income quintile (HR 0.893, 95%CI 0.83-0.96), history of hospital admission (HR 0.768, 95%CI 0.734-0.805), female oncologist (HR 0.942, 95%CI 0.892-0.995), and de novo stage 4 cancer (HR 0.918, 95%CI 0.873-0.966). Predictors of higher IO uptake were low Charlson score (HR 1.118, 95%CI 1.01-1.236) and previous radiation therapy (HR 1.438, 95%CI 1.367-1.512). IO uptake was heterogeneous across cancer centres levels (1 to 4) and regions. Conclusions: While the use of IO for advanced cancer has steadily increased over time, uptake is associated with patient and physician characteristics, as well as system level factors. This variation suggests potential inequity in access to these potentially life-prolonging drugs and should be further investigated and addressed.[Table: see text]

Selection of Optimal Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Early Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

The aim of this work is to update key recommendations of the ASCO guideline adaptation of the Cancer Care Ontario guideline on the selection of optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer and adjuvant targeted therapy for breast cancer.

METHODS

An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review guided by a signals approach to identify new, potentially practice-changing data that might translate into revised guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

The Expert Panel reviewed abstracts from the literature review and identified one article for inclusion that reported results of the phase III, open-label KATHERINE trial. In the KATHERINE trial, patients with stage I to III human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer with residual invasive disease in the breast or axilla after completing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy were allocated to adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1; n = 743) or to trastuzumab (n = 743). Invasive disease-free survival was significantly higher in the T-DM1 group than in the trastuzumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.64; P < .001), and risk of distant recurrence was lower in patients who received T-DM1 than in patients who received trastuzumab (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.79). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 190 patients (25.7%) who received T-DM1 and in 111 patients (15.4%) who received trastuzumab.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Patients with HER2-positive breast cancer with pathologic invasive residual disease at surgery after standard preoperative chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy should be offered 14 cycles of adjuvant T-DM1, unless there is disease recurrence or unmanageable toxicity. Clinicians may offer any of the available and approved formulations of trastuzumab, including trastuzumab, trastuzumab and hyaluronidase-oysk, and available biosimilars.Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Assessing burnout among oncologists in Ontario, Canada

41

Background: Provider experience and physician burnout has been recognized as a critical issue in medicine. Ontario, Canada has a single payer cancer system run by Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) with a mandate covering system level planning and delivery of cancer services, funding, and quality improvement. As part of a larger provincial initiative to address clinician burnout, we examined the prevalence and drivers of burnout in practicing physician oncologists in Ontario. Methods: In November-December 2019, surgical, medical, hematological, and radiation oncologists in Ontario were invited to complete an anonymous online survey to assess burnout and its drivers. Burnout prevalence was assessed through the Maslach Burnout Inventory – Human Services Survey for Medical Personnel (MBI-HSS MP). Data on demographic, workplace, engagement, and practice profiles were collected. Logistic regression modeling was conducted to assess key variables associated with “high” burnout using a common definition of high scores on the MBI subscales of emotional exhaustion (EE) (> 27) and/or depersonalization (DP) (>10). Results: Response rate to the survey was 44% (n=418) with 72% reporting high levels of burnout. Mean scores for EE (30.7, SD 12.1) and DP (9.9, SD 6.7) were consistent with high burnout. Participants endorsed known drivers of burnout including: 1) a poor culture of wellness at work (e.g., not comfortable talking to leadership (72%), 2) inefficiencies of practice (e.g. feeling insufficient documentation time (67%)) and 3) personal resilience (e.g. not feeling they are contributing professionally in ways they value (21%)). Age (<45yrs) (OR: 2.15), poor/marginal control over workload (OR: 4.42), feeling used/unappreciated (OR: 2.63), working atmosphere that feels hectic/chaotic (OR: 2.68), and insufficient time for documentation requirements (OR: 2.52) significantly impacted the odds of high burnout in the regression model (p<0.05). Conclusions: The high rate of burnout among oncology physicians in a single payer public cancer system in Ontario is concerning for the wellbeing of providers, patients and system sustainability. Drivers important for maintaining a culture of wellness and efficiency of practice will require local, regional and provincial health policy to improve. Next steps will include raising awareness with provincial initiatives/policy to address key burnout drivers, and examining the impact of working under pandemic conditions (Covid-19) on oncologist burnout.

Reimbursement recommendations for cancer drugs supported by phase II evidence in Canada

Background

Phase ii data are increasingly being used as primary evidence for public reimbursement for oncologic drugs. We compared the frequency of reimbursement recommendations for phase ii and phase iii submissions and assessed for variables associated with a positive or conditional recommendation.

Methods

We identified submissions made to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review's Expert Review Committee (perc), of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, July 2011 to July 2019, that were supported only by phase ii data. We identified variables within the perc's deliberative framework, including clinical and economic factors, associated with the final reimbursement recommendation. We conducted a multivariable analysis with logistic regression for these variables: feasibility of phase iii study, hematologic indication, and unmet need.

Results

We identified 139 submissions with a perc final recommendation. In 27 instances (19%), the submission had only phase ii evidence, and a positive recommendation was issued for 63% of them (the positive recommendation rate was 82% for submissions with phase iii evidence). Clinical benefit (p < 0.001), unmet need (p = 0.047), and patient alignment (p = 0.015) were associated with a positive recommendation. If a future phase iii study was deemed feasible for submissions with only phase ii evidence, then in univariable (p = 0.040) and multivariable analysis (p = 0.024), the perc was less likely to recommend reimbursement (odds ratio: 0.132).

Conclusions

Although more than half the oncologic submissions with phase ii data were recommended for public reimbursement, compared with submissions having phase iii data, they were less likely to be recommended. A positive or conditional recommendation was more likely if clinical benefit and alignment with patient values was demonstrated. The perc was less likely to recommend reimbursement for submissions with phase ii evidence if a phase iii trial was deemed possible.

Neratinib Plus Capecitabine Versus Lapatinib Plus Capecitabine in HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated With ≥ 2 HER2-Directed Regimens: Phase III NALA Trial

PURPOSE

NALA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01808573) is a randomized, active-controlled, phase III trial comparing neratinib, an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), plus capecitabine (N+C) against lapatinib, a reversible dual TKI, plus capecitabine (L+C) in patients with centrally confirmed HER2-positive, metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with ≥ 2 previous HER2-directed MBC regimens.

METHODS

Patients, including those with stable, asymptomatic CNS disease, were randomly assigned 1:1 to neratinib (240 mg once every day) plus capecitabine (750 mg/m² twice a day 14 d/21 d) with loperamide prophylaxis, or to lapatinib (1,250 mg once every day) plus capecitabine (1,000 mg/m² twice a day 14 d/21 d). Coprimary end points were centrally confirmed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). NALA was considered positive if either primary end point was met (α split between end points). Secondary end points were time to CNS disease intervention, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), clinical benefit rate, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

RESULTS

A total of 621 patients from 28 countries were randomly assigned (N+C, n = 307; L+C, n = 314). Centrally reviewed PFS was improved with N+C (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.93; stratified log-rank P = .0059). The OS HR was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.07; P = .2098). Fewer interventions for CNS disease occurred with N+C versus L+C (cumulative incidence, 22.8% v 29.2%; P = .043). ORRs were N+C 32.8% (95% CI, 27.1 to 38.9) and L+C 26.7% (95% CI, 21.5 to 32.4; P = .1201); median DoR was 8.5 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74; P = .0004). The most common all-grade adverse events were diarrhea (N+C 83% v L+C 66%) and nausea (53% v 42%). Discontinuation rates and HRQoL were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

N+C significantly improved PFS and time to intervention for CNS disease versus L+C. No new N+C safety signals were observed.

Reimbursement recommendations for cancer drugs supported by phase II evidence in Canada

e14133

Background: Historically, pharmaceutical companies submitted phase III evidence for consideration of public reimbursement; however, phase II data is being more commonly used as primary evidence. Whether submissions with phase II data lead to similar rates of positive reimbursement recommendations as phase III data has not been comprehensively investigated. We compared frequency of reimbursement recommendations between phase II and phase III submissions for oncologic drugs and assessed for factors associated with a positive or conditional recommendation. Methods: We identified all submissions with phase II data from the CADTH pCODR’s expert review committee (pERC) recommendations from July 2011 to July 2019. We identified fourteen binary variables relating to clinical benefit, patient-based values, economic impact, and adoption feasibility. We used Fisher’s exact test to characterize associations between all variables and the final recommendation. We conducted multivariable analysis with logistic regression for three variables: feasibility of phase III study, hematologic indication, and unmet need. Results: We identified 139 submissions with a pERC final recommendation. Twenty-seven (19%) submissions were supported by phase II evidence, with 63% having a positive recommendation in comparison to 82% among submissions with phase III evidence. Clinical benefit (p < 0.001), gap in current treatment standards (p = 0.047), and patient alignment (p = 0.015) were associated with a positive recommendation, whereas the future feasibility of conducting a phase III study was associated with a negative recommendation (p = 0.040). No significant association was found between the recommendation and factors related to cost effectiveness or adoption feasibility. In multivariable analysis, only feasibility of a phase III study was significantly associated with a negative recommendation (p = 0.024, OR = 0.132). Conclusions: Oncologic submissions with phase II data were less likely to be recommended for public reimbursement than phase III studies. Positive or conditional recommendation was more likely if they demonstrated clinical benefit and aligned with patient values. pERC was less likely to recommend a submission with phase II if a phase III trial was either possible or already initiated.

Comparison of outcomes in a population-based cohort of metastatic breast cancer patients receiving anti-HER2 therapy with clinical trial outcomes

PURPOSE

Little data exist for comparing cardiac safety and survival outcomes of trastuzumab/pertuzumab or ado-T emtansine (TDM1) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients enrolled in randomized clinical trial (RCT) vs the real-world.

METHODS

This was a retrospective population-based cohort of all patients with MBC treated with trastuzumab/pertuzumab or TDM1 (2012-2017) in Ontario, Canada. Outcomes were incident heart failure (HF) and overall survival (OS). RCT data were obtained from digitizing survival curves and compared with cohort data using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Age-based comparison of outcomes was conducted for patients ≥ 65 years old vs younger than 65.

RESULTS

The two cohorts composed of 833 and 397 patients treated with trastuzumab/pertuzumab and TDM1, of whom 5.5% and 7.6% had baseline HF, respectively. Incident HF following trastuzumab/pertuzumab or TDM1 was low (trastuzumab/pertuzumab 1.8 events/100 person years; TDM1 0.02 events/100 person years). The median OS was 39.2 and 56.4 months in the trastuzumab/pertuzumab population-based cohort and CLEOPATRA, respectively. The median OS was 15.4 and 30.9 months in the TDM1 population-based cohort and EMILIA, respectively. Cohort OS was significantly worse than RCT OS (trastuzumab/pertuzumab HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.37-2.03, p < 0.0001; TDM1 HR 2.80, 95% CI 2.27-3.44, p < 0.0001). Older patients had worse OS than younger patients for trastuzumab/pertuzumab (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.19-2.16, p = 0.0018), but not for TDM1 (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81-1.66, p = 0.43).

CONCLUSION

HF incidence during trastuzumab/pertuzumab or TDM1 therapy in this real-world cohort was low. Survival in this cohort was worse compared to RCT, suggesting that recruitment of patients similar to the real-world population is required.

Gait Speed vs. VES-13: A Pilot Study Comparing Screening Tools to Determine the Need for a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Senior Women with Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Patients aged 70 years and older may be suboptimally treated with cancer therapy because of the lack of clinical trial data in this population. The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment can be time consuming, and access to geriatricians is limited. This study aims to determine whether gait speed (GS) analysis is equivalent to the widely accepted Vulnerable Elders Survey 13 (VES-13) in identifying vulnerable or frail patients in need of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment.

METHODS

A pilot prospective cohort study was carried out at a tertiary cancer centre in Toronto, Canada, in a radiation oncology breast follow-up clinic. GS analysis and VES-13 were completed by each patient at the same clinic visit. GS of <1 meter/second (m/s) and VES-13 score ≥3 were considered abnormal. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and Kappa characteristic were calculated for GS compared with VES-13.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Twenty-nine participants aged 70 years and older with any stage of breast cancer were included. The GS was 67% sensitive and 95% specific for abnormal VES-13 scores. The GS had an 86% positive predictive value and 86% negative predictive value for abnormal scores on VES-13. Overall, the GS showed a substantial strength of agreement with the VES-13 (kappa 0.66, P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

The GS analysis compared very well with VES-13 scores, and this may be a reasonable alternative to VES-13 screening. This pilot data warrant further study in a larger group of patients.

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

Background

Population-based studies suggest that emergency department visits and hospitalizations are common among patients receiving chemotherapy and that rates in routine practice are higher than expected from clinical trials. Chemotherapy-related toxicities are often predictable and, consequently, acute care visits may be preventable with adequate treatment planning and support between visits to the cancer centre. We will evaluate the impact of proactive telephone-based toxicity management on emergency department visits and hospitalizations in women with early stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.

Methods

In this pragmatic covariate constraint-based cluster randomized trial, 20 centres in Ontario, Canada are randomly allocated to either proactive telephone toxicity management (intervention) or routine care (control). The primary outcome is the cluster-level mean number of ED + H visits per patient evaluated using Ontario administrative healthcare data. Participants are all patients with early stage (I-III) breast cancer commencing adjuvant or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy at participating institutions during the intervention period. At least 25 patients at each centre participate in a patient reported outcomes sub-study involving the collection of standardized questionnaires to measure: severity of treatment toxicities, self-care, self-efficacy, quality of life, and coordination of care. Patients participating in the patient reported outcomes (PRO) sub-study are asked to provide written consent to link their PRO data to administrative data. Unit costs will be applied to each per person resource utilized, and a total cost per population and patient will be generated. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis will be undertaken to compare the incremental costs and outcomes between the intervention and control groups from the health system perspective.

Discussion

This study evaluates the effectiveness of a proactive toxicity management intervention in a routine care setting. The use of administrative healthcare data to evaluate the primary outcome enables an evaluation in a real world setting and at a much larger scale than previous studies.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02485678. Registered 30 June 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-6099-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

Background

The soaring costs of anti‐cancer drugs pose a threat to the sustainability of cancer care. The pricing strategy chosen by manufacturers can impact the costs of oral anti‐cancer drugs during dose modifications, but this issue remains under‐recognized in the literature. In general, with the flat pricing strategy, there is a single fixed price for each tablet regardless of dosage strength, whereas with linear pricing, the price of each tablet increases with its dose. We hypothesize that flat pricing will have increased drug costs compared to linear pricing during dose reductions since the cost remains fixed despite decreased dose requirements. This practice may have significant financial implications considering the high costs, extensive utilization, and frequent occurence of dose reductions with anti‐cancer drugs. 

Methods

Oral anti‐cancer drugs reviewed by the pan‐Canadian Oncology Drug Review program between 2011 and 2018 were identified. The cost per mg and cost per 28‐day cycle were calculated for dose levels −2 to +2. The percent change in cost per mg and cost per cycle during dose modifications from the standard dose were calculated. We conducted Mann‐Whitney U and Fisher‐exact tests to compare the association between drug costs during dose reductions and pricing strategy.

Results

In this study, 30 oral anti‐cancer drugs for use in 41 indications were analyzed; 44% of drugs used linear pricing and 56% used flat pricing. Dose reductions increased the mean cost per mg for drugs with linear pricing by 14.7% (range: 0%‐50%) at dose level −1 and 17.2% (range: 0%‐50%) at dose level −2 and flat pricing by 60.8% (range: 19%‐100%) at dose level −1 and 99.1% (range: 0%‐300%) at dose level −2. The cost per mg was significantly increased in drugs using flat pricing compared to linear pricing when dose reduction to either level ‐1 (P = 0.010) or level ‐2 (P = 0.006) occurred. The mean cost per cycle was decreased for drugs using linear pricing by 20.9% (range: −40% to 0%) at dose level −1 and 48.7% (range: −60% to −25%) at dose level −2 and flat pricing by 0.8% (range −6% to 0%) at dose level −1 and 11.0% (range: −50% to 100%) at dose level −2. The cost per cycle was significantly decreased in drugs with linear pricing compared to flat pricing when the standard dose is reduced to either dose level ‐1 (P = 0.005) or dose level ‐2 (P = 0.026).

Conclusions

Overall, flat pricing had significantly greater costs compared to linear pricing during dose reductions of anti‐cancer drugs. While there is a general expectation that the cost of drugs should decrease with dose reduction, drugs with flat pricing were generally found to have increased cost per mg and no change in the cost per cycle. The resultant increased spending on drug acquisition (despite purchasing lower doses) lead to financial wastage, which has significant implications on cost‐effectiveness considerations and budgets. Future economic evaluations should take into consideration the hidden costs associated with dose reductions of flat priced drugs.

Comparison of outcomes in a population-based cohort of women with metastatic breast cancer receiving anti-HER2 therapy with clinical trial outcomes

1037

Background: Little data exist for comparing cardiac safety and survival outcomes of anti-HER2 therapy with concurrent trastuzumab (T) and pertuzumab (P) or ado-T emtansine (TDM1) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients enrolled in randomized clinical trial (RCT) vs those in the real world. Furthermore, whether older patients have worse outcomes is unknown. Methods: This was a retrospective population-based cohort of all women with MBC treated with concurrent T with P or TDM1 in Ontario (between 2012 and 2017), identified from New Drug Funding Program and linked to Ontario Cancer Registry and other administrative datasets. Outcomes were incident heart failure (HF, defined as hospitalization or emergency room visit for HF) and overall survival (OS). RCT data were obtained from digitizing survival curves as per established methods and compared with cohort OS data using log-rank test. Age based comparison of outcomes was conducted for women ≥ 65 years old vs younger. Results: Our cohort composed of 833 (28% > 64 years old), and 397 (28% > 64 years old) women treated with P and TDM1, respectively, of which 46 and 30 had baseline HF, respectively. 49% and 99.5% of women received T prior to P and TDM1, respectively. Incident HF following P or TDM1 initiation was low (P 26 women, TDM1 8 women; Table). HF events was not more in women ≥ 65 years old compared to women < 65 treated with P (16 vs. 10, p = 0.23). Unadjusted OS was significantly worse than RCT OS (Table; P HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.37-2.03, p < 0.0001; TDM1 HR 2.80, 95% CI 2.27-3.44, p < 0.0001). Older women had worse OS than younger women for P (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.22-1.96, p = 0.0003), but not for TDM1 (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81-1.43, p = 0.62). Conclusions: HF incidence during P or TDM1 therapy in this real world cohort was relatively low. Survival in this cohort was significantly worse compared to RCT, particularly for older women, suggesting importance of evaluating effectiveness in an unselected patient population to facilitate informed decision-making based on real-world risks and survival outcomes.[Table: see text]

Neratinib + capecitabine versus lapatinib + capecitabine in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with ≥ 2 HER2-directed regimens: Findings from the multinational, randomized, phase III NALA trial

1002

Background: NALA (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01808573) is a multinational, randomized, open-label, phase III trial of neratinib (an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI]) + capecitabine (N+C) vs lapatinib (a reversible dual TKI) + capecitabine (L+C) in patients with stage IV HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had received ≥2 prior HER2-directed regimens for MBC. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to N (240 mg qd po) + C (750 mg/m2 bid po) or L (1250 mg qd po) + C (1000 mg/m2 bid po). Co-primary endpoints were centrally assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed PFS; objective response rate (ORR); duration of response (DoR); clinical benefit rate (CBR); time to intervention for symptomatic metastatic central nervous system (CNS) disease; safety; and patient-reported health outcomes. Results: 621 patients were randomized (307 to N+C; 314 to L+C). The risk of disease progression or death was reduced by 24% with N+C vs L+C (HR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.63–0.93; p = 0.006); 6- and 12-month PFS rates were 47.2% vs 37.8% and 28.8% vs 14.8% for N+C vs L+C, respectively. OS rates at 6 and 12 months were 90.2% vs 87.5% and 72.5% vs 66.7% for N+C vs L+C, respectively (HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.72–1.07; p = 0.2086). ORR in patients with measurable disease at screening was improved with N+C vs L+C (32.8% vs 26.7%; p = 0.1201), as was CBR (44.5% vs 35.6%; p = 0.0328) and DoR (HR = 0.50; 95% CI 0.33–0.74; p = 0.0004). Time to intervention for symptomatic CNS disease (overall cumulative incidence 22.8% vs 29.2%; p = 0.043) was delayed with N+C vs L+C. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar between arms, but there was a higher rate of grade 3 diarrhea with N+C vs L+C (24.4% vs 12.5%). TEAEs leading to neratinib/lapatinib discontinuation were lower with neratinib (10.9%) than with lapatinib (14.5%). Conclusions: N+C significantly improved PFS with a trend towards improved OS vs L+C. N+C also resulted in a delayed time to intervention for symptomatic CNS disease. Tolerability was similar between the two arms, with no new safety signals observed. Clinical trial information: NCT01808573.

Conditional approval of cancer drugs in Canada: accountability and impact on public funding

Background

We examined how conditional market approval of cancer pharmaceuticals by Health Canada (hc) affects public funding recommendations by the pan-Canadian Oncology Review (pcodr). We were also interested to see how often hc conditions are enforced.

Methods

Health Canada and pcodr databases for 2010-2017 were analyzed for patterns in hc conditional authorization and post-authorization reviews of cancer drugs and for correlation with pcodr reimbursement recommendations.

Results

Between 2010 and 2017, pcodr reviewed 105 unique drug-indication pairings; 21% (n = 22) had conditional hc authorization. In all cases, conditional authorization was given on the basis of preliminary data in a surrogate endpoint and was contingent on further data showing benefit in more robust outcome measures (for example, overall survival). Of those 22 drugs, 36% did not have updated data, 36% had updated data that met hc conditions, and 27% had data that met some, but not all, conditions. During the period considered, hc never revoked conditional authorization for failure to meet conditions. None of the 22 drugs was given an unconditional positive recommendation for public reimbursement by pcodr. A conditional recommendation was given to 11 of the drugs (50%), and reimbursement was not recommended for 6 drugs (27%) because of insufficient evidence.

Conclusions

One fifth of the cancer drugs reviewed for public reimbursement in Canada were conditionally authorized by hc based on preliminary data. Conditional authorization was associated with a recommendation against public funding by pcodr. No drugs had their conditional market authorization revoked for failure to meet conditions, suggesting that a more robust hc reappraisal framework is needed.

How nonrandomized trials (NRT) inform pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) expert review committee (pERC) recommendations in blood cancer

100

Background: In Canada, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health’s pERC makes reimbursement recommendations for cancer drugs based on pCODR reviews of best available evidence, which in some circumstances, is from Phase II NRTs. To date, the majority of pERC recommendations based on NRT evidence have been for blood cancers. Objective: To examine aspects of NRT evidence that may influence pERC reimbursement recommendations for blood cancers. Methods: Final pERC Recommendations on blood cancer reviews supported by NRTs were included (July 2011 to June 2018). Factors that influenced Final Recommendations, such as clinical benefit, alignment with patient values and cost-effectiveness, were extracted. Results: As of June 2018, 10 conditional and 6 negative decisions were made in 13 Final Recommendations. Among conditional reimbursement recommendations, substantial need for treatment options and poor prognosis with available therapies were commonly noted. Assessment of the feasibility of randomized controlled trials (RCT) varied. The magnitude of benefit was impressive or a substantial benefit was seen in subgroups with greater need. Some recommendations noted benefit above historical outcomes or consistent evidence with other indications or trials. Most recommendations reported an improvement in quality of life (QoL) and a manageable toxicity profile. Limitations included short trial follow-up. Factors affecting cost-effectiveness and alignment with patient values varied. Among negative recommendations, there was less certainty about burden of illness and need. Uncertainty about magnitude of clinical benefit was attributed to lack of direct or indirect comparison to available options, lack of long term data or comparison to historical evidence, limited QoL data, and variability in toxicity. All cases were not cost-effective and partially aligned with patient values. Conclusions: pERC may accept evidence from NRTs to make reimbursement recommendations for blood cancers when there is a high burden of illness, unmet need, reasonable demonstration of efficacy and manageable toxicities. Feasibility of RCT was not a consistent factor.

Underutilization of GnRH analogues (G) and exemestane (E) in young patients with early-stage breast cancer (BC) in Ontario

73

Background: In 2014-15, the randomized control trials SOFT and TEXT showed that premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, early stage BC treated with ovarian suppression (G or oophorectomy) in combination with E had improved outcomes compared to those treated with tamoxifen (T) alone. The largest benefit was observed in women younger than 35 ( < 35y). In Ontario, these regimens are not fully publicly funded for premenopausal women. We examined the utilization of adjuvant G + E for premenopausal BC patients in Ontario, as underutilization might reflect difficulty accessing these drugs. Methods: We determined the current utilization of adjuvant endocrine therapy for patients with BC through Ontario’s systemic therapy database. In particular, we examined the utilization of T, E and E + G in BC patients < 35y as these patients are expected to have the highest rates of uptake based on the outcomes of SOFT and TEXT. Results: In the first year following the publication of SOFT and TEXT, 20% of BC patients receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy received E + ovarian suppression (G or oophorectomy). This value was 14% in the following year, reflecting low uptake of the optimal treatment strategy. Conclusions: In Ontario, uptake of G + E is low in BC patients < 35y. One possible barrier to access is the lack of public funding for these drugs in this population. The low uptake may also reflect the toxicity associated with this treatment and the need for further knowledge translation. A 2017 provincial prioritization process ranked this unmet funding need as a high priority. Thus, a funding submission will be prepared to promote access to this evidence informed therapy. The submission will include a full evidence review and pharmacoeconomic analysis.[Table: see text]

An interprofessional pathway for patients initiating treatment with palbociclib: Optimization of toxicity monitoring

268

Background: CDK 4/6 Inhibitors such as palbociclib in combination with hormonal therapy are considered the new standard of care for eligible advanced breast cancer patients with ER positive, HER2 negative disease. These agents have toxicities warranting standardized monitoring algorithms. Methods: An interprofessional pathway was created for palbociclib that identified key patient milestones and responsibilities of different care providers. Blood work (BW) parameters for dose interruption/reduction were specified, with a minimum absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of 1 as the threshold for continuing therapy. A retrospective chart audit was conducted to assess adherence to the biweekly BW and toxicity assessment pathway. Toxicity results were compared to the PALOMA-2 trial. Results: Consecutive patients were assessed between June 2016 and August 2017. Median follow up was 193 days. Twenty five patients before and 24 patients post algorithm implementation were included. Median age was 59, and 80% had >2 lines of prior systemic treatment. Dose reductions were observed in 57% of patients, 84% for neutropenia (Table 1). This is higher than documented in PALOMA-2. Instances where BW and clinic assessment were indicated and completed went from 43% to 69% and 32% to 67% respectively. Conclusions: Our study included heavily pre-treated patients and used an ANC treatment continuation threshold of 1 as opposed to 0.5; this might explain the increased incidence of neutropenia and dose modifications. This algorithm, with defined provider roles and patient milestones, appears feasible and effective in standardizing follow up and optimizing patient care.[Table: see text]

A descriptive analysis of clinician input and feedback into the CADTH pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review process

42

Background: In Canada, through the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) process, CADTH conducts evaluations of clinical, economic, and patient evidence on cancer drugs to provide public reimbursement recommendations. The pCODR Expert Review Committee (pERC) makes these recommendations based on a drug’s overall clinical benefit, alignment with patient values, cost-effectiveness, and feasibility of adoption into the health system. Methods: In February 2016, pCODR launched a pilot process that allowed eligible clinicians (individually or as groups) not directly involved in the reviews to participate in the pCODR process, to provide: (1) input at the outset of a review; and, (2) feedback on the Initial Recommendation made by the pERC. Eligible clinicians are those who: (1) are actively practising physicians; (2) are members of a provincial cancer agency or similar body or a national cancer organization; and, (3) submit a declaration of conflict of interest. Results: As of March 31, 2018, 177 oncologists have registered to participate in the pCODR process. Of 43 submissions, 38 (88%) included clinician input. Fifteen submissions received individual input, and 33 received group input, the latter involving three to 13 clinicians or groups. Between April 2016 and March 2018, clinician input by tumour type was as follows: lung (n = 8), leukemia (n = 5), lymphoma (n = 5), gastrointestinal (n = 5), myeloma (n = 4), breast (n = 3), melanoma (n = 2), gynecological (n = 2), endocrine (n = 2), sarcoma (n = 1), and genitourinary (n = 1). Clinician input has answered several key questions, including current treatments, eligible patient populations, relevance to clinical practice, sequencing and priority of treatments, and companion diagnostic testing. Conclusions: Clinician engagement has provided value-added information on local issues from a practice perspective and insights into areas of unmet need. Continuous process improvement is important, however, and the pCODR program completed consultations in April 2018 to enhance clinician participation, proposing to: (1) customize the template that clinicians complete; and, (2) broaden the eligibility of clinicians to oncology pharmacists and oncology nurses.

Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR): A unique model to support harmonization of cancer drug funding decisions in Canada

41

Background: Unlike most other countries, Canada has a dedicated HTA process to review cancer drugs. pCODR, a program of CADTH, conducts thorough and objective evaluations of clinical and economic evidence; as well as considering clinician and patient perspectives, and using this information to make recommendations to the participating jurisdictions to guide their drug funding decisions. Previously, Canadian provinces had separate regional drug review processes to inform their local funding decisions. The pCODR process reduces duplication of effort by individual funders and ensures that reviews are done in a timely and consistent manner. Methods: In a retrospective review, we identified all anticancer drugs reviewed by pCODR from July 2011 to March 2018. Results: As of March 31, 2018, pCODR has issued 103 notifications to implement a final recommendation. Of note, 96% of the submissions include patient group input and 88% of the submissions include clinician input. The median time to complete a review is 146 business days. The pCODR Expert Review Committee has issued 21 negative recommendations, while the remainder were either positive recommendations (n = 10), or conditional recommendations (n = 72). The “condition” that must be addressed most frequently in the conditional recommendations is the cost-effectiveness of the drug. Over 75% of the 82 positive and conditional recommendations have received uptake from one or more participating jurisdictions. The concordance rates are as follows: Conclusions: With the implementation of the pCODR process, there is greater harmonization in cancer drug funding decisions and supports equitable access across Canada.[Table: see text]

Selection of Optimal Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Early Breast Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update

Purpose

To update key recommendations of the ASCO guideline adaptation of the Cancer Care Ontario guideline on the selection of optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer and adjuvant targeted therapy for breast cancer.

Methods

An Expert Panel conducted targeted systematic literature reviews guided by a signals approach to identify new, potentially practice-changing data that might translate to revised practice recommendations.

Results

The Expert Panel reviewed phase III trials that evaluated adjuvant capecitabine after completion of standard preoperative anthracycline- and taxane-based combination chemotherapy by patients with early-stage breast cancer HER2-negative breast cancer with residual invasive disease at surgery; the addition of 1 year of adjuvant pertuzumab to combination chemotherapy and trastuzumab for patients with early-stage, HER2-positive breast cancer; and the use of neratinib as extended adjuvant therapy for patients after combination chemotherapy and trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy with early-stage, HER2-positive breast cancer.

Recommendations

Patients with early-stage HER2-negative breast cancer with pathologic, invasive residual disease at surgery following standard anthracycline- and taxane-based preoperative therapy may be offered up to six to eight cycles of adjuvant capecitabine. Clinicians may add 1 year of adjuvant pertuzumab to trastuzumab-based combination chemotherapy in patients with high-risk, early-stage, HER2-positive breast cancer. Clinicians may use extended adjuvant therapy with neratinib to follow trastuzumab in patients with early-stage, HER2-positive breast cancer. Neratinib causes substantial diarrhea, and diarrhea prophylaxis must be used. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Factors associated with imaging in patients with early breast cancer after initial treatment

Background

Overuse of surveillance imaging in patients after curative treatment for early breast cancer (ebc) was recently identified as one of the Choosing Wisely Canada initiatives to improve the quality of cancer care. We undertook a population-level examination of imaging practices in Ontario as they existed before the launch of that initiative.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with ebc between 2006 and 2010 in Ontario were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Records were linked deterministically to provincial health care databases to obtain comprehensive follow-up. We identified all advanced imaging exams [aies: computed tomography (ct), bone scan, positron-emission tomography] and basic imaging exams (bies: ultrasonography, chest radiography) occurring within the first 2 years after curative treatment. Poisson regression was used to assess associations between patient or provider characteristics and the rate of aies.

Results

Of 30,006 women with ebc, 58.6% received at least 1 bie, and 30.6% received at least 1 aie in year 1 after treatment. In year 2, 52.7% received at least 1 bie, and 25.7% received at least 1 aie. The most common aies were chest cts and bone scans. The rate of aies increased with older age, higher disease stage, comorbidity, chemotherapy exposure, and prior staging investigations (p < 0.001). Imaging was ordered mainly by medical oncologists (38%), followed by primary care physicians (23%), surgeons (13%), and emergency room physicians (7%).

Conclusions

Despite recommendations against its use, imaging is common in ebc survivors. Understanding the factors associated with aie use helps to identify areas for further research and is required to lower imaging rates and to improve survivorship care.

Enzalutamide for the Treatment of Androgen Receptor-Expressing Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Purpose Studies suggest that a subset of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) have tumors that express the androgen receptor (AR) and may benefit from an AR inhibitor. This phase II study evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of enzalutamide in patients with locally advanced or metastatic AR-positive TNBC. Patients and Methods Tumors were tested for AR with an immunohistochemistry assay optimized for breast cancer; nuclear AR staining > 0% was considered positive. Patients received enzalutamide 160 mg once per day until disease progression. The primary end point was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 16 weeks. Secondary end points included CBR at 24 weeks, progression-free survival, and safety. End points were analyzed in all enrolled patients (the intent-to-treat [ITT] population) and in patients with one or more postbaseline assessment whose tumor expressed ≥ 10% nuclear AR (the evaluable subgroup). Results Of 118 patients enrolled, 78 were evaluable. CBR at 16 weeks was 25% (95% CI, 17% to 33%) in the ITT population and 33% (95% CI, 23% to 45%) in the evaluable subgroup. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.7 months) in the ITT population and 3.3 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 4.1 months) in the evaluable subgroup. Median overall survival was 12.7 months (95% CI, 8.5 months to not yet reached) in the ITT population and 17.6 months (95% CI, 11.6 months to not yet reached) in the evaluable subgroup. Fatigue was the only treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse event with an incidence of > 2%. Conclusion Enzalutamide demonstrated clinical activity and was well tolerated in patients with advanced AR-positive TNBC. Adverse events related to enzalutamide were consistent with its known safety profile. This study supports additional development of enzalutamide in advanced TNBC.

Abstract P1-07-34: Clinical outcomes of single versus double hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate and compare tumor response rates and survival outcomes between single and double hormone receptor (HR) positive (+) [Estrogen Receptor (ER+)/Progesterone Receptor (PR) negative (-) or ER-/PR+ versus ER+/PR+] breast cancer (BC) patients with any HER2 status treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy at a single institution

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted using the Sunnybrook “Biomatrix” database to identify eligible patients. A multivariable logistic regression analysis (MLR) was performed to assess the association between HR status (single or double HR+) and pathologic complete response (pCR) rates at surgery. A Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate Disease Free Survival (DFS) and a log-rank test was used to compare DFS between 3 subgroups of patients: single or double HR+ and HR negative patients

Results

Three hundred and four BC patients were identified and included in the analysis with a median follow up of 43.3months (Q1-Q3: 28.7-61.1) and a mean age of 49.7 years (Standard deviation 10.9). Forty seven percent (47/101), 31% (11/36) and 14% (24/167) of patients with HR negative, single HR+ and double HR+ disease achieved a pCR respectively (X2 test &lt;0.0001). In a MLR analysis, HR status and HER2 status were associated with pCR rates. Compared to HR negative patients, patients with double HR+ disease were less likely to achieve pCR (Odd ratio (OR):0.14, 95%CI 0.06-0.31, p&lt;0.0001) while single HR+ patients did not differ (OR:0.51, 95%CI 0.19-1.4). The association between HR+ status (single versus double HR+) and pCR rates compared to HR negative patients remained the same in subgroup analyses of HER2+ and HER2 negative patients separately. No difference in survival (DFS) was seen between the 3 subgroups of patients: HR negative, single and double HR+ patients.

Conclusion

BC patients with single HR+ disease behave differently than double HR+ patients in terms of likelihood of achieving pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and do not differ from HR negative patients. This difference does not translate into a difference in DFS. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings before considering different treatment strategies for these 2 subgroups of HR+ BC patients.

Citation Format: Raphael J, Nofech-Mozes S, Trudeau ME. Clinical outcomes of single versus double hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-07-34.

Abstract P4-10-14: Pilot data from the development of the Senior Women's Breast Cancer Clinic at Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre

Introduction: Women over 70 are a growing demographic of breast cancer patients with specific needs requiring individualized care plans. We developed the interdisciplinary Senior Women's Breast Cancer Clinic (SWBCC) to improve access to a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and allied health services such as social work, occupational therapy, and pharmacy assistance. After initiation of the SWBCC, we conducted a pilot study using the VES-13 (vulnerable elders survey-13) tool to screen all patients over 70 with the goal of focusing referrals for patients who may benefit most from a CGA. The VES-13 was developed for community-dwelling elders and is validated in oncology patients. The objective of this study is to examine the outcomes of VES-13 screening, determine the medical issues identified by the CGA, and describe the development of this clinic.

Methods: A retrospective review of the clinic from May 2015 - May 2017 was performed using the electronic medical records and paper screening forms. We separately describe the impact of the VES-13 to manage CGA referrals. A score of 3 or greater is a positive screen, and indicates the patient is at risk for death or decline. Non-parametric descriptive statistics were used for statistical analyses.

Results: A total of 25 patients have been seen in the SWBCC for CGA to date. Median age was 83, (range 67-97). A median of two (range 1-4) new medical issues were identified from the CGA for each patient. The most common new diagnoses or issues identified were cognitive impairment (15/25), falls (6/25), neuropathy (4/25), and pain (4/25). The geriatric day program and falls prevention program were common referrals. After the introduction of VES-13 screening, a total of 54 patients were screened. Median age in that group was 78.5 years (range 70-95). The median VES-13 score was 1 (range 0-10). Of the 21 patients screened positive on VES-13, 7 went on to have a CGA. Of the remaining screen-positive patients, 3/21 patients declined SWBCC referral, and the others were not referred at the discretion of the physician. None of the patients with negative VES-13 were referred for CGA. The SWBCC structure was developed to utilize breast cancer-specific resources, whereby geriatricians provide consultation within the oncology space, and the allied health providers were affiliated with the breast centre. Oncology and geriatric administrative staff organized bookings to better coordinate schedules between the two disciplines. The geriatricians supervised trainees for the CGA, and follow-ups took place at SWBCC or in the geriatric outpatient clinic. Clinic coordinators affixed the VES-13 tool to all new patient charts for those aged ≥70. Nursing resources were dedicated to assist patients with VES-13 if needed, and document scores in the electronic medical record.

Conclusions: A dedicated clinic for seniors with breast cancer providing geriatric assessment can identify important undiagnosed medical issues that warrant intervention or monitoring during breast cancer treatment. The VES-13 screening tool provides useful information to help manage resources for geriatrics referral. A prospective trial examining the role of CGA in decision-making for adjuvant chemotherapy is underway in this clinic.

Citation Format: Menjak IB, Trudeau ME, Mehta R, McCullock F, Bristow B, Wright F, Rice K, Gibson L, Pasetka M, Szumacher EF. Pilot data from the development of the Senior Women's Breast Cancer Clinic at Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-10-14.

Setting Quality Improvement Priorities for Women Receiving Systemic Therapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer by Using Population-Level Administrative Data

Purpose Routine evaluation of quality measures (QMs) can drive improvement in cancer systems by highlighting gaps in care. Targeting quality improvement at QMs that demonstrate substantial variation has the potential to make the largest impact at the population level. We developed an approach that uses both variation in performance and number of patients affected by the QM to set priorities for improving the quality of systemic therapy for women with early-stage breast cancer (EBC). Patients and Methods Patients with EBC diagnosed from 2006 to 2010 in Ontario, Canada, were identified in the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked deterministically to multiple health care databases. Individual QMs within a panel of 15 QMs previously developed to assess the quality of systemic therapy across four domains (access, treatment delivery, toxicity, and safety) were ranked on interinstitutional variation in performance (using interquartile range) and the number of patients who were affected; then the two rankings were averaged for a summative priority ranking. Results We identified 28,427 patients with EBC who were treated at 84 institutions. The use of computerized physician electronic order entry for chemotherapy, emergency room visits or hospitalizations during chemotherapy, and timely receipt of chemotherapy were identified as the QMs that had the largest potential to improve quality of care at a system level within this cohort. Conclusion A simple ranking system based on interinstitutional variation in performance and patient volume can be used to identify high-priority areas for quality improvement from a population perspective. This approach is generalizable to other health care systems that use QMs to drive improvement.

The impact of pricing strategy on the cost of oral anti-cancer drugs during dose reductions

e18312

Background: The pricing strategy of oral medications can affect their costs. The strategy of flat pricing per tablet may increase drug costs in the event of dose reductions requiring more tablets, as there is a single price for different tablet strengths, but the impact is largely unknown. With the strategy of linear pricing, the tablet price increases with its strength. We sought to determine the impact of pricing strategy on the cost of oral anti-cancer drugs during dose reductions. Methods: Oral anti-cancer drugs reviewed by the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review were identified between July 2011 to January 2015. The pricing strategy of these drugs was reviewed. We examined the percentage change in cost per mg and cost per 28 days as a result of dose reduction from dose level 0 to -1 and -2 for each drug. Results: Seventeen drugs for use in 20 indications were included in the analysis. There were 3 drugs for hematological malignancies and 14 drugs for solid cancers. Fifty-nine percent (10/17) of these drugs were available in multiple strengths; five of them utilized fixed pricing per tablet strategy and the other 5 utilized linear pricing. The remaining drugs (7/17) were available in a single strength tablet. Dose reductions generally increased the cost per mg for drugs using flat pricing per tablet, with a mean increase of 82% (range: 25%-200%) at dose level -1 and 100% (range: 0%-200%) at dose level -2. Dose reduction had no effect on the cost per mg of drug for drugs using linear pricing apart from lenalidomide, which had increased costs due to minimal price variation between the highest and lowest tablet strengths. In general, dose reduction did not decrease the cost per 28 days of drug for drugs using flat pricing per tablet, but was proportionally reduced in drugs using linear pricing. Conclusions: While there is a general expectation that the cost of drugs should decrease with dose reduction, oral anti-cancer drugs using flat pricing per tablet have increased cost per mg and no decrease in cost per 28 days despite dose reduction. Future economic evaluations should account for the impact of dose reductions for oral drugs using the flat pricing per tablet strategy on cost-effectiveness and budget.

Impact of intravenous cancer drug wastage on economic evaluations

6607

Background: Intravenous drugs administered through body-surface area (BSA) or weight-based dosing may cause wastage due to large and/or limited fixed vial sizes, and vial sharing restrictions. Drug wastage leads to incremental costs without incremental value to patients. Bach et al. (2016) estimated 10% of revenue ($1.8 billion) from cancer drugs would result from wastage in 2016. The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) committee provides recommendations on which drugs to publicly reimburse by reviewing clinical and economic evidence. There is considerable potential that drug wastage could impact the economic evaluations. We sought to determine the impact of modeling cancer drug wastage on the results of economic evaluations. Methods: Economic evaluations submitted by drug manufacturers and reviewed by the pCODR Economic Guidance Panel (EGP) were assessed for frequency of wastage reporting and modeling. Cost-effectiveness analyses and budget impact analyses were conducted for scenarios in which “no wastage” and “wastage” of drugs occurred. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the effects of BSA and weight variation. Results: 12 drugs for use in 17 indications were analyzed. Wastage was reported in 71% and incorporated in 53% of manufacturer’s models, resulting in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) increase of 6.1% (range: 1.3% to 14.6%). EGP reported and incorporated wastage for 59% of models, resulting in a mean ICER increase of 15.0% (2.6% to 48.2%). When maximum wastage (i.e. the entire unused portion of each vial is discarded) was incorporated in our independent analysis, the mean ICER increased by 24.0% (0.0% to 97.2%) and the mean 3-year total incremental costs increased by 26.0% (0.0% to 83.1%). Over a 3-year period, wastage can increase the total incremental drug budget cost by CAD $102 million nationally. Changing the mean BSA or body weight caused 45% of the drugs to use a different vial size (if available) and/or quantity, resulting in further increased drug costs. Conclusions: Wastage can have an under-recognized and significant impact on economic evaluations of intravenous chemotherapy drugs. Guidelines are needed to promote uniform and optimal modeling of drug wastage in economic evaluations.

Reliability of administrative data for evaluating quality of systemic cancer treatment

e18269

Background: There is ongoing interest in leveraging administrative data to examine quality but methodological concerns persist. We evaluated the reliability of a previously established panel of administrative data derived quality measures for systemic treatment. Methods: The cohort consisted of women diagnosed with early stage (stage I-III) breast cancer (ESBC) in Ontario, Canada, in 2010. Performance on 11 quality indicators evaluated using deterministically linked healthcare administrative databases has been reported previously. Sensitivity and specificity were examined using the chart as the gold standard. Results: The administrative cohort consisted of 6,795 women with ESBC from which a validation cohort of 705 patients was randomly selected from among patients who underwent cancer surgery at one of five hospitals chosen to balance feasibility and institutional characteristics.Sensitivity and specificity varied by indicator (Table 1). Reliability of some indicators may have been affected by suboptimal chart documentation in instances where care spanned multiple settings or the medical record was fragmented, or where the number of eligible patients for that indicator was low. Conclusions: Administrative data can be used to evaluate quality of systemic cancer therapy but understanding the reliability characteristics of individual indicators is essential to inform their appropriate use and interpretation. [Table: see text]

Overall survival (OS) in patients (Pts) with diagnostic positive (Dx+) breast cancer: Subgroup analysis from a phase 2 study of enzalutamide (ENZA), an androgen receptor (AR) inhibitor, in AR+ triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) treated with 0-1 prior lines of therapy

1089

Background: The AR may be a novel therapeutic target for pts with AR-driven TNBC. ENZA, a potent AR inhibitor approved in men with metastatic prostate cancer, was evaluated in this phase 2 study of pts with AR+ TNBC. A genomic signature associated with AR-driven biology was identified; updated OS results in pts treated with 0-1 prior lines of therapy are presented. Methods: This is an open-label, Simon two-stage study (NCT01889238) of ENZA monotherapy in advanced AR+ TNBC (AR > 0% by IHC). Bone-only disease and unlimited prior regimens were allowed; CNS metastases or seizure history were exclusionary. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate at 16 weeks (CBR16) in evaluable pts (AR > 10% and ≥1 postbaseline assessment). OS was an exploratory endpoint. Results in intent-to-treat (ITT) and evaluable pts were presented previously (Traina TA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1003). Results: 118 pts were enrolled (ITT). CBR16 in 78 evaluable pts was 33.3%. Of the 118 ITT pts, 56 were Dx+ and 62 were Dx–; ≥50% received 0-1 prior lines of therapy (28 Dx+, 37 Dx–). As of 26 Nov 2016 there were 83 deaths (median follow-up 28 mo); median OS (mOS) was 13 mo (95% CI; 8-18). In the Dx+ subgroup there were 32 deaths (mOS 20 mo [95% CI; 13-29]) vs 51 deaths in the Dx– subgroup (mOS 8 mo [95% CI; 5-11]). In pts with 0-1 prior lines of therapy, there were 13 deaths in the Dx+ subgroup (mOS 29 mo [95% CI; 19-not reached] vs 28 in the Dx– subgroup (mOS 10 mo [95% CI; 7-15]). The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue and nausea; fatigue was the only grade 3 related AE in > 5% of pts. A multi-covariate Cox analysis identified Dx status (+ vs –) and line of therapy (0-1 vs ≥2) as the only variables significantly associated with OS. Conclusions: In this study, the mOS of pts with Dx+ TNBC who received 0-1 prior lines of therapy appears longer than that of unselected historic controls. ENZA may represent a therapeutic option in pts with AR+ TNBC who would otherwise receive cytotoxic chemotherapy and is currently being evaluated in ENDEAR, a phase 3 study in pts with Dx+ advanced TNBC and 0-1 prior lines of therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01889238.

The impact of interruptions on physician workflow, productivity, and delivery of care

201

Background: Physician interruptions during clinic and non-clinic hours can lead to medical errors, provider fatigue, prolonged clinic times, reduced academic output and poor job satisfaction. Repetitive interruptions can hamper the ability of physicians to deliver high quality patient-centered care. This study aims to evaluate the type, frequency, duration and self-reported physician response interruptions physicians experience in clinic. Methods: A work observation study was conducted at the Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Canada. In-clinic data were collected from September 22 to October 6, 2016 using time-motion analyses by shadowing multiple oncologists in clinic. Interruption data were collected and categorized as follows: type of interruption, length of interruption, reason for interruption and role of interrupter. Physicians were asked to record and track themselves regarding interruptions they experienced during non-clinic hours using the same criteria. Results: Over a 2-week period, 5 medical oncology clinics (median 4 hours (hrs) per clinic), were observed and tracked. The clinic physicians averaged 22 interruptions per block, equating to 6 interruptions/hr (one interruption every 10 minutes (mins)). Over the 5 sessions, 112 data points were collected totaling over 1 hr 48 mins of interrupted time. Interruptions averaged 80 seconds (range of 4 to 517) in length with a positive skewed distribution. This calculates to approximately 30 mins of cumulative interrupted time per clinic session. Most interruptions were under 4 mins in length (4.1 at 95th percentile). The type of interruption varied but was most commonly in-person (67), email (24) and text message (10). Conclusions: Interruptions account for approximately 30 mins of physician time during a 4-hour clinic. An assessment of the type and frequency of requests proved highly variable, creating inconsistent ways messages are delivered to physicians. Interruptions potentially impact on patient care and disrupt the workflow of the clinic. These data provide future directions for exploring efficient clinic workflows and establishing standardized means of communicating with physicians during clinic hours.

The implementation of a streamlined process for biomarker testing in medical oncology

179

Background: Biomarker testing is increasingly becoming an essential part of standard care. At Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC) in Toronto, Canada, our Department of Molecular Services handles some internal biomarker tests, while some tests are referred to citywide labs. The Odette Cancer Centre (OCC) of SHSC is one of the largest cancer centres in Canada, serving over 12,000 new patients per year, of whom many rely on biomarker tests for personalized treatment. We aimed to describe the work systems at the OCC for biomarker testing and reporting, and to initiate system improvements. Methods: This quality improvement initiative occurred in three phases: qualitative descriptive analysis of the current process of biomarker testing, exploration of future state process using LEAN, and implementation of a streamlined process. In phase one, ten medical oncologists, two administrative assistants, and one pathologist were interviewed. A multidisciplinary team was then assembled to investigate and initiate improvements. Results: Tracking results from external labs was managed by individual physicians and hard copy results were submitted to medical records for filing in patient paper charts, compared to internal tests which are posted on the electronic record, making outside tests harder to retrieve later. The current process involved more than 150 different tests with only 44% of results appearing in the hospital electronic record. In June 2016, a standardized process was implemented where a designated laboratory assistant managed requisition forms, sent corresponding specimens to qualified labs, ensured the receipt of results through various electronic tracking tools and validated the subsequent upload to the electronic medical system. Over a four-month implementation period, there were 364 cases/patients with 467 tests requested; 100% of these test results are stored in the electronic record. Conclusions: The lack of standardization of biomarker testing and reporting can have negative implications on quality of care and patient safety. Therefore, streamlining this process and incorporating electronic tracking tools can improve the accessibility of test results to improve the quality of oncology care.

Reliability of administrative data for evaluating the quality of systemic treatment for cancer

208

Background: There is ongoing interest in leveraging administrative data to examine quality but methodological concerns persist. We evaluated the reliability of a previously established panel of administrative data derived quality measures for systemic cancer treatment. Methods: The study cohort consisted of women diagnosed with early stage (stage I-III) breast cancer (ESBC) in Ontario, Canada, in 2010. Performance on 11 quality indicators evaluated using deterministically linked healthcare administrative databases has been reported previously. The sensitivity and specificity of these 11 indicators were examined using the chart as the gold standard. Results: The administrative cohort consisted of 6,795 women with ESBC from which a validation cohort of 705 patients was randomly selected from among patients who underwent cancer surgery at one of five hospitals chosen to balance feasibility and institutional characteristics.Sensitivity and specificity varied by indicator (Table). Reliability of some indicators may have been affected by suboptimal chart documentation in instances where care spanned multiple settings or the medical record was fragmented, or where the number of eligible patients for that indicator was low. Conclusions: Administrative data can be used to evaluate quality of systemic cancer therapy but understanding the reliability characteristics of individual indicators is essential to inform their appropriate use and interpretation. [Table: see text]

Quantitative ultrasound assessment of breast tumor response to chemotherapy using a multi-parameter approach

PURPOSE

This study demonstrated the ability of quantitative ultrasound (QUS) parameters in providing an early prediction of tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC).

METHODS

Using a 6-MHz array transducer, ultrasound radiofrequency (RF) data were collected from 58 LABC patients prior to NAC treatment and at weeks 1, 4, and 8 of their treatment, and prior to surgery. QUS parameters including midband fit (MBF), spectral slope (SS), spectral intercept (SI), spacing among scatterers (SAS), attenuation coefficient estimate (ACE), average scatterer diameter (ASD), and average acoustic concentration (AAC) were determined from the tumor region of interest. Ultrasound data were compared with the ultimate clinical and pathological response of the patient's tumor to treatment and patient recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

Multi-parameter discriminant analysis using the κ-nearest-neighbor classifier demonstrated that the best response classification could be achieved using the combination of MBF, SS, and SAS, with an accuracy of 60 ± 10% at week 1, 77 ± 8% at week 4 and 75 ± 6% at week 8. Furthermore, when the QUS measurements at each time (week) were combined with pre-treatment (week 0) QUS values, the classification accuracies improved (70 ± 9% at week 1, 80 ± 5% at week 4, and 81 ± 6% at week 8). Finally, the multi-parameter QUS model demonstrated a significant difference in survival rates of responding and non-responding patients at weeks 1 and 4 (p=0.035, and 0.027, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated for the first time, using new parameters tested on relatively large patient cohort and leave-one-out classifier evaluation, that a hybrid QUS biomarker including MBF, SS, and SAS could, with relatively high sensitivity and specificity, detect the response of LABC tumors to NAC as early as after 4 weeks of therapy. The findings of this study also suggested that incorporating pre-treatment QUS parameters of a tumor improved the classification results. This work demonstrated the potential of QUS and machine learning methods for the early assessment of breast tumor response to NAC and providing personalized medicine with regards to the treatment planning of refractory patients.

End-of-life home care utilization and costs in patients with advanced colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine overall utilization and costs associated with home care services in Ontario, Canada by linking a home care database to a stage IV colorectal cancer cohort.

METHODS

The names of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer at time of diagnosis (diagnosed from 2005 through 2009) were extracted from the Ontario Cancer Registry. The study cohort comprised those who died before the end of the study. The terminal phase of care was the period of time between diagnosis and death, with a maximum value of 180 days (6 months). Patients were linked to home care services datasets. The type, frequency, and cost of home care services were determined. Regression analysis was used to examine factors associated with utilization and cost.

RESULTS

In all, 3,613 stage IV colorectal cancer patients (median age, 71 years) were diagnosed and died during the study's time horizon. During the terminal phase, 79.3% received at least 1 home care visit, and 58.0% had at least 1 palliative visit. Terminal metastatic colorectal cancer patients received an average of 8 home care visits at Canadian $800 within a 30-day time horizon. Home care costs were highest in the month before death. Male sex, a history of moderate or high utilization of health care services, and hospitalization were associated with lower home care costs.

LIMITATIONS

Administrative data do not reveal the purpose, efficiency, effectiveness/sufficiency, quality, or appropriateness of home care.

CONCLUSION

Patients with advanced colorectal cancer who were approaching death required a moderate level of home care support, resulting in costs of about $5,000 over the 6-month time horizon.

FUNDING

This study was conducted with the support of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and Cancer Care Ontario through funding provided by the government of Ontario. Data were provided by Cancer Care Ontario and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. The ICES also provided funding for the study from an annual grant by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care.