Can Chemotherapy-Related Acute Care Visits Be Accurately Identified in Administrative Data?

Construction and validation of the Emergency Oncology Scale (EMOnco), a risk rating protocol for the triage of cancer patients in acute care settings

BACKGROUND

Manfredini et al. demonstrate that the new rating protocol, EMOnco, can triage of cancer patients in acute care settings safely, considering their cancer type, stage and treatment histories and oncological emergencies, enabling the appropriate classification from high-risk patients to non-urgent patients.

BACKGROUND

■ EMOnco considers variables related to the cancer history and treatment.

BACKGROUND

■ Triages patients in the emergency care in less than three minutes.

BACKGROUND

■ Cancer patients need priority care regarding infection, and this protocol consider it.

BACKGROUND

■ EMOnco has shown to be a valid and reliable scale for the triage of oncological patients in the emergency room or acute care clinics.

OBJECTIVE

To validate a risk rating scale for triaging of cancer patients in emergency rooms that can identify individuals needing urgent care or in imminent worsening of the clinical condition.

METHODS

This is a health instrument validation study developed in the emergency care ward of a Brazilian hospital, a referral center for cancer and hematological diseases. We built the Emergency Oncology Scale (EMOnco) based on literature review and a Delphi survey with 20 experienced oncologists (physicians and nurses). We validated the scale by assessing its construct validity, interobserver agreement and reliability after applying them in a convenience sample of all consecutive patients with cancer who visited the ward between August 2017 and January 2018. We compared the EMOnco Scores with those from other scales, used by six trained nurses: the Emergency Severity Index, the Manchester Triage System, and the Karnofsky Performance Status. We also recorded socio-demographic and clinical features and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) results in the intensive care unit.

RESULTS

We included 250 patients with locally advanced or recurrent disease and undergoing chemotherapy. EMOnco screening took 2.24 (± 2.9) minutes in average. The interobserver correlation coefficient was 0.9. EMOnco was highly correlated with Emergency Severity Index (r=0.617) and also correlated with Karnofsky Performance Status (0.420) Manchester Triage System (0.491; p<0.001 for all).

CONCLUSION

EMOnco in Portuguese considers variables related to the cancer history and treatment and has proven to be a valid and reliable for the risk classification of oncological patients in emergency care services.

Real-World Outcomes of First-Line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Nationwide Population-Based Study in Korea

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

This nationwide population-based study investigated the overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) receiving first-line chemotherapy.

METHODS

Data from the National Health Insurance Service linked to the Korea Central Cancer Registry were used. Patients with mPC receiving first-line chemotherapy (2012-2019) were included and followed up until 2020. The gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) and FOLFIRINOX groups were matched according to age, sex, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

In total, 8652 patients with mPC were treated with chemotherapy. GnP and FOLFIRINOX have been administered since 2016 and 2017, respectively. The median OS increased annually from 6 months in 2012-2013 to 10 months in 2018-2019. The median OSs in the GnP and FOLFIRINOX groups were significantly longer than those in patients receiving gemcitabine ± erlotinib. A total of 1134 patients from both the GnP and FOLFIRINOX groups were selected using propensity score matching. Before matching, the median OS was longer in the FOLFIRINOX group than in the GnP group (p = 0.0029). After matching, however, there was no significant difference in the median OS between the two groups (11 vs. 11 months, respectively, p = 0.2438).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with mPC receiving chemotherapy have shown improved OS since the introduction of GnP and FOLFIRINOX. After matching, OS did not differ between the GnP and FOLFIRINOX groups.

Adjuvant Ovarian Function Suppression in Premenopausal Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer

Importance

Few oncology studies have assessed the effectiveness of adjuvant ovarian function suppression (OFS) in observational settings for premenopausal hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Target trial emulation is increasingly used for estimating treatment outcomes in observational cohorts.

Objectives

To describe hormone therapy and OFS treatment patterns (aim 1), examine the association between adding OFS to tamoxifen (TAM) or aromatase inhibitor (AI) and survival (aim 2), and examine the association between duration of hormone treatment (TAM or AI) plus OFS (H-OFS) and survival (aim 3).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based cohort study included all premenopausal, early-stage breast cancer diagnoses between 2010 and 2020 in Alberta, Canada. Target trial emulation was conducted. Eligibility criteria were directly modeled after the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) and Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT). Participants were followed up for a maximum of 5 years. Data were analyzed from July 2022 through March 2023.

Exposures

For aim 2, exposures were receiving the following baseline treatments for 2 years: AI + OFS (AI-OFS), TAM + OFS (T-OFS), and TAM alone. For aim 3, exposures were a 2-year or greater and a less than 2-year duration of H-OFS.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Recurrence-free survival was the primary outcome of interest. Marginal structural Cox models with inverse probability treatment and censoring weights were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), adjusted for baseline and time-varying confounding variables.

Results

Among 3434 female patients with premenopausal, early-stage breast cancer diagnoses (median [IQR] age, 45 [40-48] years), 2647 individuals satisfied SOFT and TEXT eligibility criteria. There were 2260 patients who initiated TAM, 232 patients who initiated T-OFS, and 155 patients who initiated AI-OFS; 192 patients received H-OFS for 2 or more years, and 195 patients received H-OFS for less than 2 years. The 5-year recurrence risks were not significantly lower in AI-OFS vs TAM (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.38-1.33) or T-OFS vs TAM (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.50-1.45) groups. Patients receiving H-OFS for 2 or more years had significantly better 5-year recurrence-free survival compared with those receiving H-OFS for less than 2 years (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found no significant reductions in recurrence risk for AI-OFS and T-OFS compared with TAM alone. H-OFS duration for at least 2 years was associated with significantly improved recurrence-free survival.

Indolent lymphoma care delivery and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada

The treatment pattern and outcomes in patients with indolent B-cell lymphoma treated during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period compared to the prepandemic period are unclear. This was a retrospective population-based study using administrative databases in Ontario, Canada (follow-up to 31 March 2022). The primary outcome was treatment pattern; secondary outcomes were death, toxicities, healthcare utilization (emergency department [ED] visit, hospitalization) and SARS-CoV-2 outcomes. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) from Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate associations. We identified 4143 patients (1079 pandemic, 3064 prepandemic), with a median age of 69 years. In both time periods, bendamustine (B) + rituximab (BR) was the most frequently prescribed regimen. During the pandemic, fewer patients received R maintenance or completed the full 2-year course (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.92, p = 0.001). Patients treated during the pandemic had less healthcare utilization (ED visit aHR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68, 0.88, p < 0.0001; hospitalization aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94, p = 0.0067) and complications (infection aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82, p < 0.0001; febrile neutropenia aHR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.94, p = 0.020), with no difference in death. Independent of vaccination, active rituximab use was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 complications. Despite similar front-line regimen use, healthcare utilization and admissions for infection were less in the pandemic cohort.

Outcomes of patients with indolent lymphoma treated with bendamustine plus rituximab compared to rituximab plus CVP or CHOP chemoimmunotherapy in Ontario

Bendamustine (B) with rituximab (R) has become the preferred regimen for patients with indolent lymphoma in Ontario, Canada, compared to R with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone (CVP) or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP). We conducted a propensity-matched retrospective cohort population-based study of patients treated with R-CVP/CHOP from 2005 to 2012 and patients treated with BR from 2013 to 2018. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS), and secondary outcomes included toxicities and healthcare utilization. The 5-year OS for patients treated with BR (n = 2023) and R-CVP/CHOP (n = 2023) was 80% and 75% respectively. Treatment with BR was associated with improved OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.91). During the first 9 months, patients treated with BR versus R-CVP/CHOP had a higher number of admissions for infection (22% compared to 17%, p < 0.01) and a higher number of mean ED visits (mean 1.01 ± 1.68 visits vs. 0.85 ± 1.51 visits, p < 0.01). This trend persisted for 3 years. The adjusted 5-year OS for patients 75 years and older did not differ based on treatment regimen (55.5% for BR vs. 55.4% for R-CVP/CHOP). Our study supports the use of BR for patients with indolent lymphoma requiring treatment but suggests increased risk of certain toxicities warranting careful patient selection.

The Association of Oxaliplatin-Containing Adjuvant Chemotherapy Duration with Overall and Cancer-Specific Mortality in Individuals with Stage III Colon Cancer: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Few studies have examined the relationship between duration of oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer and mortality in routine practice. We examined the association between treatment with 50% versus >85% of a maximal course of adjuvant therapy (eight cycles of CAPOX, twelve cycles of FOLFOX) and mortality in stage III colon cancer.

METHODS

Using linked databases, we identified Ontarians aged ≥18 years at diagnosis of stage III colon cancer between 2007 and 2019. In the primary comparison, we compared patients who received 50% or >85% of a maximal course of adjuvant therapy; in a secondary comparison, we evaluated a dose effect across patients who received FOLFOX in one-cycle increments from six to ten cycles against >85% (more than ten cycles) of a maximal course of FOLFOX. The main outcomes were overall and cancer-specific mortality. Follow-up began 270 days after adjuvant treatment initiation and terminated at the first of the outcome of interest, loss of eligibility for Ontario's Health Insurance Program, or study end. Overlap propensity score weights accounted for baseline between-group differences. We determined the hazard ratio, estimating the association between mortality and treatment. Non-inferiority was concluded in the primary comparison for either outcome if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI was ≤1.11, which is the margin used in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy Collaboration.

RESULTS

We included 3546 patients in the analysis of overall mortality; 486 (13.7%) received 50% and 3060 (86.3%) received >85% of a maximal course of therapy. Median follow-up was 5.4 years, and total follow-up was 20,510 person-years. There were 833 deaths. Treatment with 50% of a maximal course of adjuvant therapy was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.13 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.47) for overall mortality and a subdistribution hazard ratio of 1.31 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.87) for cancer-specific mortality versus >85% of a maximal course of therapy. In the secondary comparison, there was a trend toward higher overall mortality in patients treated with shorter durations of therapy, though confidence intervals overlapped considerably.

CONCLUSION

We could not conclude that treatment with 50% of a maximal course is non-inferior to >85% of a maximal course of adjuvant therapy for mortality in stage III colon cancer. Clinicians and patients engaging in decision-making around treatment duration in this context should carefully consider the trade-off between treatment effectiveness and adverse effects of treatment.

Outcomes Following Treatment with FOLFOX for Patients with Resectable or Potentially Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Population-based Cohort Study

AIMS

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of oxaliplatin-based combination chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) to extrahepatic sites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a population-based retrospective study examining the safety and effectiveness of perioperative oxaliplatin for resectable or potentially resectable colorectal metastases in Ontario, Canada. Outcomes were also compared with patients with liver-only metastases. Patients received oxaliplatin for mCRC between 1 January 2013 and 30 June 2020.

RESULTS

In total, 192 patients had extrahepatic metastases. Seventy per cent had R0 metastasectomy. The 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival were 62% and 79%, respectively; <4% of patients died within 60 days of metastasectomy and 74-90% of patients received treatment according to recommendations from a multidisciplinary setting. Compared with liver-only controls (n = 1306), patients had mCRC to the lung only (n = 115), lung and liver (n = 55) and liver with non-pulmonary site (n = 22). Extrahepatic metastases were more likely to be found for patients whose primary colorectal resection had positive margins (14% versus 7%, P = 0.005) and primary tumours located in the rectum [odds ratio 4.01 (2.31-6.97)]. After adjustment, there was no difference in overall survival between liver-only controls and patients with lung-only [hazard ratio 0.82 (0.59-1.15)] or liver and lung metastases [hazard ratio 1.26 (0.85-1.87)] (P = 0.24). In total, 79/115 (69%) of patients with lung-only metastases had a metastasectomy compared with 645/1306 (49%) and 15/55 (27%) of patients with liver-only and liver and lung metastases, respectively. Hospital visits were similar between patients with liver-only and extrahepatic metastases.

CONCLUSION

Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for patients with resectable or potentially resectable mCRC with extrahepatic metastases was safe and resulted in similar outcomes in appropriately selected patients when compared with patients with liver-only metastases.

Identification of cancer chemotherapy regimens and patient cohorts in administrative claims: challenges, opportunities, and a proposed algorithm

BACKGROUND

Real-world evidence is a valuable source of information in healthcare. This study describes the challenges and successes during algorithm development to identify cancer cohorts and multi-agent chemotherapy regimens from claims data to perform a comparative effectiveness analysis of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) use.

METHODS

Using the Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium's Distributed Research Network, we iteratively developed and tested a de novo algorithm to accurately identify patients by cancer diagnosis, then extract chemotherapy and G-CSF administrations for a retrospective study of prophylactic G-CSF.

RESULTS

After identifying patients with cancer and subsequent chemotherapy exposures, we observed only 12% of patients with cancer received chemotherapy, which is fewer than expected based on prior analyses. Therefore, we reversed the initial inclusion criteria to identify chemotherapy receipt, then prior cancer diagnosis, which increased the number of patients from 2,814 to 3,645, or 68% of patients receiving chemotherapy had diagnoses of interest. Additionally, we excluded patients with cancer diagnoses that differed from those of interest in the 183 days before the index date of G-CSF receipt, including early-stage cancers without G-CSF or chemotherapy exposure. By removing this criterion, we retained 77 patients who were previously excluded. Finally, we incorporated a 5-day window to identify all chemotherapy drugs administered (excluding oral prednisone and methotrexate, as these medications may be used for other non-malignant conditions) as patients may fill oral prescriptions days to weeks prior to infusion. This increased the number of patients with chemotherapy exposures of interest to 6,010. The final cohort of included patients, based on G-CSF exposure, increased from 420 from the initial algorithm to 886 using the final algorithm.

CONCLUSIONS

Medications used for multiple indications, sensitivity and specificity of administrative codes, and relative timing of medication exposure must all be evaluated to identify patient cohorts receiving chemotherapy from claims data.

Measuring variation in the quality of systemic anti-cancer therapy delivery across hospitals: A national population-based evaluation

AIM

To date, there has been little systematic assessment of the quality of care associated with systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) delivery across national healthcare systems. We evaluated hospital-level toxicity rates during SACT treatment as a means of identifying variation in care quality.

METHODS

All colorectal cancer (CRC) patients receiving SACT within 106 English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals between 2016 and 2019 were included. Severe acute toxicity rates were derived from hospital administrative data using a validated coding framework. Variation in hospital-level toxicity rates was assessed separately in the adjuvant and metastatic settings. Toxicity rates were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, performance status, tumour site, and TNM staging.

RESULTS

Eight thousand one hundred and seventy three patients received SACT in the adjuvant setting, and 7,683 patients in the metastatic setting. Adjusted severe acute toxicity rates varied between hospitals from 11% to 49% for the adjuvant cohort, and from 25% to 67% for the metastatic cohort. Compared to the national mean toxicity rate in the adjuvant cohort, six hospitals were more than two standard deviations (2SD) above, and four hospitals were more than 2SD below. In the metastatic cohort, six hospitals were more than 2SD above, and seven hospitals were more than 2SD below the national mean toxicity rate. Overall, 12 hospitals (12%) had toxicity rates more than 2SD above the national mean, and 11 (10%) had rates more than 2SD below.

CONCLUSION

There is substantial variation in hospital-level severe acute toxicity rates in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings, despite risk-adjustment. Ongoing reporting of this performance indicator can be used to focus further investigation of toxicity rates and stimulate quality improvement initiatives to improve care.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab Plus Chemotherapy vs Trastuzumab Plus Chemotherapy for Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer

IMPORTANCE

To date, limited studies have examined the comparative outcomes of pertuzumab treatment in the real-world setting. End-of-study analyses of the CLEOPATRA trial found median overall survival (OS) of 57.1 months in patients receiving pertuzumab compared with 40.8 months in control patients, a benefit of 16.3 months. However, studies examining the real-world use of pertuzumab have found conflicting results.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the real-world comparative effectiveness and safety of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer in Ontario, Canada.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A population-based retrospective comparative effectiveness research study was conducted. Patients receiving first-line treatments for metastatic breast cancer from January 1, 2008, to March 31, 2018, in Ontario were identified. Data analysis was performed from November 13, 2019, to August 1, 2021. Thirteen patients had received treatment before diagnosis or were not Ontario residents and were excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining 1823 patients identified, 912 received pertuzumab and 911 were control patients. Using propensity-score methods, 579 pairs of patients receiving pertuzumab were matched to those in the control group, resulting in a total of 1158 patients in the final cohort.

EXPOSURES

Patients in the case group received pertuzumab with trastuzumab and chemotherapy and those in the control group received trastuzumab and chemotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Overall survival (the primary outcome) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression methods. Secondary outcomes included cumulative incidence of safety end points including resource use and adverse events. Follow-up duration was up to 5 years from the start of therapy, with maximum follow-up to March 31, 2019.

RESULTS

Of the 1158 matched patients (579 pairs) receiving pertuzumab and controls, 1151 (99%) were women (mean [SD] age, 58.2 [12.97] years). The median OS was higher in patients receiving pertuzumab (40.2; 95% CI, 35.6-47.8 months) than in the control patients (25.3; 95% CI, 22.8-27.6 months), a median OS improvement of 14.9 months. Pertuzumab was associated with reduced mortality (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79). The cumulative incidence of direct hospitalization at 1 year was lower among patients receiving pertuzumab (11.7%) compared with the control patients (19.0%) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although the median OS in both the pertuzumab and control groups were shorter in this study than those observed in the CLEOPATRA trial, there appears to be a similar significant OS benefit with pertuzumab in the real-world setting.

Acute Care Use by Breast Cancer Patients on Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Alberta: Demonstrating the Importance of Measurement to Improving Quality

Breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy are at increased risk of acute care use. The incidence of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations (H) have been characterized in other provinces but never in Alberta. We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study using administrative data of women with stage I-III breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Rates of ED and H use in the 180 days following chemotherapy initiation were determined, and logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors. We found that 47% of women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy experienced ED or H, which compared favourably to other provinces. However, Alberta had the highest rate of febrile neutropenia-related ED visits, and among the highest chemotherapy-related ED visits. The incidence of acute care use increased over time, and there were significant institutional differences despite operating under a single provincial healthcare system. Our study demonstrates the need for systematic measurement and the importance of quality improvement programs to address this gap.

Real-world Safety of Bevacizumab with First-line Combination Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Population-based Retrospective Cohort Studies in Three Canadian Provinces

AIMS

To examine the real-world safety of adding bevacizumab to first-line irinotecan-based chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed with CRC in three Canadian provinces (Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia) who received publicly funded bevacizumab and/or irinotecan from 2000 to 2016 were identified from cancer registries. Propensity score 1:1 matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were performed to contemporaneous and historical controls, adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Safety end points evaluated during first-line treatment plus 30 days included mortality within 30 days and all-cause-, chemotherapy- and bevacizumab-related hospitalisations. Chemotherapy- and bevacizumab-related visits were defined as hospitalisations for specific conditions commonly associated with chemotherapy (e.g. infections) or bevacizumab (e.g. arteriovenous thromboembolism) using most responsible diagnosis codes. In PSM and IPTW-weighted cohorts, we assessed event frequencies using odds ratios from logistic regressions and event rate ratios using negative binomial regression models. The results from each province and comparison were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 16 250 mCRC patients who received first-line irinotecan-based treatment. In PSM cohorts, bevacizumab was associated with fewer deaths within 30 days of treatment compared with contemporaneous (pooled odds ratio = 0.62; 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.75) and historical controls (pooled odds ratio = 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.93). Hospitalisations were more frequent among patients treated with bevacizumab compared with historical controls but similar to contemporaneous controls. As patients receiving bevacizumab were exposed to a longer average treatment duration, across their full treatment duration, patients receiving bevacizumab had significantly lower rates of hospitalisations (contemporaneous pooled rate ratio = 0.56; 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.67; historical pooled rate ratio = 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.95). Similar trends were observed for chemotherapy- and bevacizumab-related hospitalisations and in IPTW-weighted cohorts.

DISCUSSION

We did not observe any increase in rates of hospitalisation or death within 30 days of treatment among mCRC patients treated with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone; these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the risk of residual confounding.

Predictors of Urgent Cancer Care Clinic and Emergency Department Visits for Individuals Diagnosed with Cancer

In 2013, CancerCare Manitoba (CCMB) launched an urgent cancer care clinic (UCC) to meet the needs of individuals diagnosed with cancer experiencing acute complications of cancer or its treatment. This retrospective cohort study compared the characteristics of individuals diagnosed with cancer that visited the UCC to those who visited an emergency department (ED) and determined predictors of use. Multivariable logistic mixed models were run to predict an individual’s likelihood of visiting the UCC or an ED. Scaled Brier scores were calculated to determine how greatly each predictor impacted UCC or ED use. We found that UCC visits increased up to 4 months after eligibility to visit and then decreased. ED visits were highest immediately after eligibility and then decreased. The median number of hours between triage and discharge was 2 h for UCC visits and 9 h for ED visits. Chemotherapy had the strongest association with UCC visits, whereas ED visits prior to diagnosis had the strongest association with ED visits. Variables related to socioeconomic status were less strongly associated with UCC or ED visits. Future studies would be beneficial to planning service delivery and improving clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

The association of continuity of care and cancer centre affiliation with outcomes among patients with cancer who require emergency department care

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer have complex care requirements and frequently use the emergency department. The purpose of this study was to determine whether continuity of care, cancer expertise of an institution or both affect outcomes in patients with cancer in the emergency setting.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative databases from Ontario, Canada, involving records of patients aged 20 years and older who received chemotherapy or radiation in the 30 days before a cancer-related visit to the emergency department between 2006 and 2011. Patients seen in an emergency department at an alternative hospital (not the site where cancer treatment was given) were matched based on propensity score to patients who visited their original hospital (site where cancer treatment was given). Next, patients seen at an alternative emergency department that was in a general hospital (i.e., not a cancer centre) were matched to patients who visited their original hospital or a cancer centre. Outcomes were admission to hospital at the index visit to the emergency department, 30-day mortality, having imaging with computed tomography and return visits to the emergency department.

RESULTS

We found 42 820 patients who were eligible for our study. Patients seen in the emergency departments at alternative hospitals were less likely to be admitted to hospital (odds ratio [OR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.83) and had higher hazards of return visits to the emergency department than matched patients at original hospitals (hazard ratio [HR] 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.11). In comparison, patients at alternative general hospitals also had lower odds of admission to hospital (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.88) and higher hazards of return visits to the emergency department (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.11) compared with matched counterparts; however, these patients had higher 30-day mortality (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.05-1.22) and lower odds of having CT imaging (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69-0.80).

INTERPRETATION

Cancer expertise of an institution rather than continuity of care may be an important predictor of outcomes following emergency treatment of patients with cancer.

Real-world outcomes of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in advanced pancreatic cancer: A population-based propensity score-weighted analysis

BACKGROUND

In Ontario, FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been publicly funded for first-line unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (uLAPC) or metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) since April 2015. We examined the real-world effectiveness and safety of FFX vs GnP for advanced pancreatic cancer, and in uLAPC and mPC.

METHODS

Patients receiving first-line FFX or GnP from April 2015 to March 2017 were identified in the New Drug Funding Program database. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were obtained through the Ontario Cancer Registry and other population-based databases. Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox proportional hazard models, weighted by the inverse propensity score adjusting for baseline characteristics. Weighted odds ratio (OR) for hospitalization and emergency department visits (EDV) were estimated from weighted logistic regression models.

RESULTS

For 1130 patients (632 FFX, 498 GnP), crude median OS was 9.6 and 6.1 months for FFX and GnP, respectively. Weighted OS was improved for FFX vs GnP (HR = 0.77, 0.70-0.85). Less frequent EDV and hospitalization were observed in FFX (EDV: 67.8%; Hospitalization: 49.2%) than GnP (EDV: 77.7%; Hospitalization: 59.3%). More frequent febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization was observed in FFX (5.8%) than GnP (3.3%). Risk of EDV and hospitalization were significantly lower for FFX vs GnP (EDV: OR = 0.68, P = .0001; Hospitalization: OR = 0.76, P = .002), whereas the risk of febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization was significantly higher (OR = 2.12, P = .001). Outcomes for uLAPC and mPC were similar.

CONCLUSION

In the real world, FFX had longer OS, less frequent all-cause EDV and all-cause hospitalization, but more febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization compared to GnP.

Development and Validation of a Score to Predict Acute Care Use After Initiation of Systemic Therapy for Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Emergency department visits and hospitalizations after starting systemic therapy for cancer are frequent, undesirable, and costly. A score to quantify the risk of needing acute care can inform decision-making and facilitate the development of preventive interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a score to predict early use of acute care after initiating systemic therapy for cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015. Patients with cancer were eligible if they started a new systemic therapy for cancer, regardless of line of therapy. A total of 12 162 patients in Southwestern Ontario, Canada, formed the development cohort and 15 845 patients in Northeastern Ontario formed the validation cohort. Data analysis was conducted from December 1, 2016, to August 10, 2019.

EXPOSURES

The Prediction of Acute Care Use During Cancer Treatment (PROACCT) score was created based on logistic regression in the development cohort. Combinations of cancer type and regimens were grouped into quintiles based on risk of needing acute care. The score was assessed in the validation cohort.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

At least 1 emergency department visit or hospitalization within 30 days after starting systemic therapy for cancer identified from administrative databases.

RESULTS

Among the 12 162 patients in the development cohort, 6903 were women and 5259 were men (mean [SD] age, 62.9 [12.6] years); among the 15 845 patients in the validation cohort, 9025 were women and 6820 were men (mean [SD] age, 62.9 [12.6] years). Use of acute care occurred within 30 days after initiation of systemic therapy in 3039 patients (25.0%) in the development cohort and 4212 patients (26.6%) in the validation cohort. Three characteristics predicted early use of acute care and formed the PROACCT score: combination of cancer type and treatment regimen, age, and emergency department visits in the prior year (C statistic, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.66-0.69; P < .001). Other characteristics including patient-reported symptoms did not improve performance. In the validation cohort, the PROACCT score was associated with use of acute care (odds ratio per point increase, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.20-1.24; P < .001), had a C statistic of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.60-0.62; P < .001), was reasonably calibrated, and provided net benefit in decision curve analysis.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The PROACCT score predicted the risk of early use of acute care in patients starting systemic treatment for cancer and could be incorporated at the point of care to select patients for preventive interventions. Future studies should validate the PROACCT score in other settings.

Cross-Canada differences in early-stage breast cancer treatment and acute-care use

Background

Chemotherapy has improved outcomes in early-stage breast cancer, but treatment practices vary, and use of acute care is common. We conducted a pan-Canadian study to describe treatment differences and the incidence of emergency department visits (edvs), edvs leading to hospitalization (edvhs), and direct hospitalizations (hs) during adjuvant chemotherapy.

Methods

The cohort consisted of women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer (stages i-iii) during 2007-2012 in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, or Nova Scotia who underwent curative surgery. Parallel provincial analyses were undertaken using linked clinical, registry, and administrative databases. The incidences of edvs, edvhs, and hs in the 6 months after treatment initiation were examined for patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results

The cohort consisted of 50,224 patients. The proportion of patients who received chemotherapy varied by province, with Ontario having the highest proportion (46.4%), and Nova Scotia, the lowest proportion (38.0%). Age, stage, receptor status, comorbidities, and geographic location were associated with receipt of chemotherapy in all provinces. Ontario had the highest proportion of patients experiencing an edv (36.1%), but the lowest proportion experiencing h (6.4%). Conversely, British Columbia had the lowest proportion of patients experiencing an edv (16.0%), but the highest proportion experiencing h (26.7%). The proportion of patients having an edvh was similar across provinces (13.9%-16.8%). Geographic location was associated with edvs, edvhs, and hs in all provinces.

Conclusions

Intra- and inter-provincial differences in the use of chemotherapy and acute care were observed. Understanding variations in care can help to identify gaps and opportunities for improvement and shared learnings.

Can Administrative Data Improve the Performance of Cancer Clinical Trial Economic Analyses?

PURPOSE

Trial economic analyses, such as cost-effectiveness analysis, often rely on trial-collected data, which are burdensome and expensive to collect and may be incomplete. In contrast, administrative databases systematically collect health system encounters. We investigated whether administrative data could improve the performance of cancer trial economic analysis.

METHODS

Health administrative data were probabilistically linked to Ontario patient data from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group CO.17 trial (n = 572), which evaluated cetuximab plus best supportive care (75 linked Ontario patients) versus best supportive care alone (73 patients) in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer. Trial-collected resource utilization data and vital status were compared with administrative data. Cost effectiveness in 2007 Canadian dollars was determined with bootstrap incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) CIs.

RESULTS

Up to trial date of last contact, administrative data vital status was concordant in more than 96%. Twenty-nine subsequent deaths occurred. Up to trial last contact, there were 50 net additional hospitalizations in administrative data and 33 net additional emergency department visits. Total costs were $3,023,034 for the cetuximab group and $1,191,118 for the control group up to trial last contact. The ICER was $211,128 per life-year gained (90% CI, $101,396 to $694,950) up to trial last contact and $164,378 (90% CI, -$138,260 to $644,555) up to administrative data last contact. ICER estimates were similar to the analysis using trial-collected data.

CONCLUSION

Administrative data were more complete than trial data for hospital encounters, a key cost driver in economic analysis. There was a longer follow-up. This demonstrates the potential of administrative data to relieve the burden of collecting key data in cancer trials, which represents a considerable effort and expense.

Real-world data: towards achieving the achievable in cancer care

The use of data from the real world to address clinical and policy-relevant questions that cannot be answered using data from clinical trials is garnering increased interest. Indeed, data from cancer registries and linked treatment records can provide unique insights into patients, treatments and outcomes in routine oncology practice. In this Review, we explore the quality of real-world data (RWD), provide a framework for the use of RWD and draw attention to the methodological pitfalls inherent to using RWD in studies of comparative effectiveness. Randomized controlled trials and RWD remain complementary forms of medical evidence; studies using RWD should not be used as substitutes for clinical trials. The comparison of outcomes between nonrandomized groups of patients who have received different treatments in routine practice remains problematic. Accordingly, comparative effectiveness studies need to be designed and interpreted very carefully. With due diligence, RWD can be used to identify and close gaps in health care, offering the potential for short-term improvement in health-care systems by enabling them to achieve the achievable.

Lessons Learned: It Takes a Village to Understand Inter-Sectoral Care Using Administrative Data across Jurisdictions

Cancer care is complex and exists within the broader healthcare system. The CanIMPACT team sought to enhance primary cancer care capacity and improve integration between primary and cancer specialist care, focusing on breast cancer. In Canada, all medically-necessary healthcare is publicly funded but overseen at the provincial/territorial level. The CanIMPACT Administrative Health Data Group's (AHDG) role was to describe inter-sectoral care across five Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. This paper describes the process used and challenges faced in creating four parallel administrative health datasets. We present the content of those datasets and population characteristics. We provide guidance for future research based on 'lessons learned'. The AHDG conducted population-based comparisons of care for breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2007-2011. We created parallel provincial datasets using knowledge from data inventories, our previous work, and ongoing bi-weekly conference calls. Common dataset creation plans (DCPs) ensured data comparability and documentation of data differences. In general, the process had to be flexible and iterative as our understanding of the data and needs of the broader team evolved. Inter-sectoral data inconsistencies that we had to address occurred due to differences in: 1) healthcare systems, 2) data sources, 3) data elements and 4) variable definitions. Our parallel provincial datasets describe the breast cancer diagnostic, treatment and survivorship phases and address ten research objectives. Breast cancer patient demographics reflect inter-provincial general population differences. Across provinces, disease characteristics are similar but underlying health status and use of healthcare services differ. Describing healthcare across Canadian jurisdictions assesses whether our provincial healthcare systems are delivering similar high quality, timely, accessible care to all of our citizens. We have provided a description of our experience in trying to achieve this goal and, for future use, we include a list of 'lessons learned' and a list of recommended steps for conducting this kind of work.

KEY FINDINGS

The conduct of inter-sectoral research using linked administrative health data requires a committed team that is adequately resourced and has a set of clear, feasible objectives at the start.Guiding principles include: maximization of sectoral participation by including single-jurisdiction expertise and making the most inclusive data decisions; use of living documents that track all data decisions and careful consideration about data quality and availability differences.Inter-sectoral research requires a good understanding of the local healthcare system and other contextual issues for appropriate interpretation of observed differences.