Patients with active cancer have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, which results in substantial morbidity, mortality, and health care expenditures. The Khorana score (range, 0 to 6, with ...higher scores indicating a higher risk of venous thromboembolism) has been validated to identify patients with cancer at elevated risk for this complication and may help select those who could benefit from thromboprophylaxis.
We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial assessing the efficacy and safety of apixaban (2.5 mg twice daily) for thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer who were at intermediate-to-high risk for venous thromboembolism (Khorana score, ≥2) and were initiating chemotherapy. The primary efficacy outcome was objectively documented venous thromboembolism over a follow-up period of 180 days. The main safety outcome was a major bleeding episode.
Of the 574 patients who underwent randomization, 563 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Venous thromboembolism occurred in 12 of 288 patients (4.2%) in the apixaban group and in 28 of 275 patients (10.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.26 to 0.65; P<0.001). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, major bleeding occurred in 10 patients (3.5%) in the apixaban group and in 5 patients (1.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.01 to 3.95; P = 0.046). During the treatment period, major bleeding occurred in 6 patients (2.1%) in the apixaban group and in 3 patients (1.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% CI, 0.39 to 9.24).
Apixaban therapy resulted in a significantly lower rate of venous thromboembolism than did placebo among intermediate-to-high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer who were starting chemotherapy. The rate of major bleeding episodes was higher with apixaban than with placebo. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance; AVERT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02048865.).
Adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy is well established in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, but such therapy is complicated by accelerated bone loss and increased ...fracture risk. We investigated the ability of denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand, to protect against aromatase inhibitor-induced bone loss.
Eligible women with hormone receptor-positive nonmetastatic breast cancer treated with adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy were stratified by duration of aromatase inhibitor therapy (< or = 6 v > 6 months), received supplemental calcium and vitamin D, and were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 125) or subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg (n = 127) every 6 months. At enrollment, all patients were required to have evidence of low bone mass, excluding osteoporosis. The primary end point was percentage change from baseline at month 12 in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD).
At 12 and 24 months, lumbar spine BMD increased by 5.5% and 7.6%, respectively, in the denosumab group versus placebo (P < .0001 at both time points). Increases were observed as early as 1 month and were not influenced by duration of aromatase inhibitor therapy. Increases in BMD were also observed at the total hip, total body, femoral neck, and the predominantly cortical one-third radius. Bone turnover markers decreased with denosumab treatment. Overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was similar between treatment groups.
In women with nonmetastatic breast cancer and low bone mass who were receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy, twice-yearly administration of denosumab led to significant increases in BMD over 24 months at trabecular and cortical bone, with overall AE rates similar to those of placebo.
In patients with hormone-dependent postmenopausal breast cancer, standard adjuvant therapy involves 5 years of the nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors anastrozole and letrozole. The steroidal inhibitor ...exemestane is partially non-cross-resistant with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors and is a mild androgen and could prove superior to anastrozole regarding efficacy and toxicity, specifically with less bone loss.
We designed an open-label, randomized, phase III trial of 5 years of exemestane versus anastrozole with a two-sided test of superiority to detect a 2.4% improvement with exemestane in 5-year event-free survival (EFS). Secondary objectives included assessment of overall survival, distant disease-free survival, incidence of contralateral new primary breast cancer, and safety.
In the study, 7,576 women (median age, 64.1 years) were enrolled. At median follow-up of 4.1 years, 4-year EFS was 91% for exemestane and 91.2% for anastrozole (stratified hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.18; P = .85). Overall, distant disease-free survival and disease-specific survival were also similar. In all, 31.6% of patients discontinued treatment as a result of adverse effects, concomitant disease, or study refusal. Osteoporosis/osteopenia, hypertriglyceridemia, vaginal bleeding, and hypercholesterolemia were less frequent on exemestane, whereas mild liver function abnormalities and rare episodes of atrial fibrillation were less frequent on anastrozole. Vasomotor and musculoskeletal symptoms were similar between arms.
This first comparison of steroidal and nonsteroidal classes of aromatase inhibitors showed neither to be superior in terms of breast cancer outcomes as 5-year initial adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal breast cancer by two-way test. Less toxicity on bone is compatible with one hypothesis behind MA.27 but requires confirmation. Exemestane should be considered another option as up-front adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.
The government of Canada now plans to bring into force new federal drug pricing regulations on 1 July 2022. We do not take issue with the goal of medication affordability, which is vital in ...healthcare the world over. Our concern is that the new guidelines are being implemented without due consideration for three major unintended consequences: regulatory changes will lower the number of clinical trials for new medications in Canada, fewer clinical trials will mean lower research and development investments, and changes will reduce patients' access to new medications. Access to effective medications is a cornerstone of healthcare for Canadian patients. As physicians, our duty to patient care demands that we tell the government to protect the right of Canadians to timely access to life-changing medicines.
Countries face challenges in paying for new drugs. High prices are driven in part by exploding drug development costs, which, in turn, are driven by essential but excessive regulation. Burdensome ...regulation also delays drug development, and this can translate into thousands of life-years lost. We need system-wide reform that will enable less expensive, faster drug development. The speed with which COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS therapies were developed indicates this is possible if governments prioritize it. Countries also differ in how they value drugs, and generally, those willing to pay more have better, faster access. Canada is used as an example to illustrate how "incremental cost-effectiveness ratios" (ICERs) based on measures such as gains in "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs) may be used to determine a drug's value but are often problematic, imprecise assessments. Generally, ICER/QALY estimates inadequately consider the impact of patient crossover or long post-progression survival, therapy benefits in distinct subpopulations, positive impacts of the therapy on other healthcare or societal costs, how much governments willingly might pay for other things, etc. Furthermore, a QALY value should be higher for a lethal or uncommon disease than for a common, nonlethal disease. Compared to international comparators, Canada is particularly ineffective in initiating public funding for essential new medications. Addressing these disparities demands urgent reform.
Patient access to new oncology drugs in Canada is only possible after navigating multiple sequential systemic checkpoints for national regulatory approval, health technology assessment (HTA) and ...collective government price negotiation. These steps delay access and prevent health care providers from being able to prescribe optimal therapy. Eighteen Canadian oncology clinicians from the medicine, nursing and pharmacy professions met to develop consensus recommendations for defining reasonable government performance standards around process and timeliness to improve Canadian cancer patients' access to best care. A modified Delphi methodology was used to identify consensus on 30 questions involving five themes: accountability, disparities, endpoints, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness. It was agreed that greater transparency is required across regulatory and HTA processes. Health professionals in oncology are frustrated for their patients because they are unable to deliver the modern guideline-supported therapies they want to provide due to delays in approval or funding. Canadian health care providers request improvements in timely access to life-saving therapeutics in line with other comparator countries. Clinicians expect urgent improvements in Canadian health systems to give our patients their best chance of survival.
This study aimed to determine the current state of oncology education in Canadian family medicine postgraduate medical education programs (FM PGME) and examine opinions regarding optimal oncology ...education in these programs.
A survey was designed to evaluate ideal and current oncology teaching, educational topics, objectives, and competencies in FM PGMEs. The survey was sent to Canadian family medicine (FM) residents and program directors (PDs).
In total, 150 residents and 17 PDs affiliated with 16 of 17 Canadian medical schools completed the survey. The majority indicated their programs do not have a mandatory clinical rotation in oncology (79% residents, 88% PDs). Low rates of residents (7%) and PDs (13%) reported FM residents being adequately prepared for their role in caring for cancer patients (p = 0.03). Residents and PDs believed the most optimal method of teaching oncology is through clinical exposure (65% residents, 80% PDs). Residents and PDs agreed the most important topics to learn (rated ≥4.7 on 5-point Likert scale) were: performing pap smears, cancer screening/prevention, breaking bad news, and approach to patient with increased cancer risk. According to residents, other important topics such as appropriate cancer patient referrals, managing cancer complications and post-treatment surveillance were only taught at frequencies of 52, 40 and 36%, respectively.
Current FM PGME oncology education is suboptimal, although the degree differs in the opinion of residents and PDs. This study identified topics and methods of education which could be focussed upon to improve FM oncology education.
Exemestane, a steroidal aromatase inhibitor, reduced invasive breast cancer incidence by 65% among 4,560 postmenopausal women randomly assigned to exemestane (25 mg per day) compared with placebo in ...the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) Clinical Trials Group MAP.3 (Mammary Prevention 3) trial, but effects on quality of life (QOL) were not fully described.
Menopause-specific and health-related QOL were assessed by using the four Menopause-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MENQOL) domains and the eight Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scales at baseline, 6 months, and yearly thereafter. MENQOL questionnaire completion was high (88% to 98%) in both groups at each follow-up visit. Change scores for each MENQOL and SF-36 scale, calculated at each assessment time relative to baseline, were compared by using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Clinically important worsened QOL was defined as a MENQOL change score increase of more than 0.5 (of 8) points and an SF-36 change score decrease of more than 5 (of 100) points from baseline.
Exemestane had small negative effects on women's self-reported vasomotor symptoms, sexual symptoms, and pain, which occurred mainly in the first 6 months to 2 years after random assignment. However, these changes represented only a small excess number of women being given exemestane with clinically important worsening of QOL at one time or another; specifically, 8% more in the vasomotor domain and 4% more each in the sexual domain and for pain. No other between-group differences were observed. Overall, slightly more women in the exemestane arm (32%) than in the placebo arm (28%) discontinued assigned treatment.
Exemestane given for prevention has limited negative impact on menopause-specific and health-related QOL in healthy postmenopausal women at risk for breast cancer.
Our institution operates a remote radiation oncology service in Northern Ontario, Canada. Since the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, this center has operated without radiation ...oncologists on site owing to safety precautions, and this study seeks to understand the effect of this shift.
Departmental level data reports were used to investigate differences in metrics between April to May of 2019 and April to May 2020. These metrics include the total number of referrals received, average wait time from referral to consult, the number of cases that underwent peer review before beginning treatment, the total number of fractions given over each period, patient-reported outcomes, and patient satisfaction. We also examined the importance of physical examinations and the use of SABR treatment.
There was an observed decrease in the number of referrals received, total number of fractions administered, and number of patients providing patient-reported outcomes. We observed no change in patient wait times, cases undergoing peer review before commencing treatment, or overall patient satisfaction. Challenges were identified in the collection of patient- reported outcomes and the conduction of physical examinations.
This paper provides proof of concept that a radiation clinic can function entirely virtually in the short term without sacrificing patient satisfaction, efficiency, or safety.
Osteoporosis-related fractures are a significant public health concern. Interventions that increase detection and treatment of osteoporosis are underutilized. This pragmatic randomised study was done ...to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted community-based care program aimed at optimizing evidence-based management in patients at risk for osteoporosis and fractures.
This was a 12-month randomized trial performed in Ontario, Canada. Eligible patients were community-dwelling, aged ≥55 years, and identified to be at risk for osteoporosis-related fractures. Two hundred and one patients were allocated to the intervention group or to usual care. Components of the intervention were directed towards primary care physicians and patients and included facilitated bone mineral density testing, patient education and patient-specific recommendations for osteoporosis treatment. The primary outcome was the implementation of appropriate osteoporosis management.
101 patients were allocated to intervention and 100 to control. Mean age of participants was 71.9 ± 7.2 years and 94% were women. Pharmacological treatment (alendronate, risedronate, or raloxifene) for osteoporosis was increased by 29% compared to usual care (56% 29/52 vs. 27% 16/60; relative risk RR 2.09, 95% confidence interval CI 1.29 to 3.40). More individuals in the intervention group were taking calcium (54% 54/101 vs. 20% 20/100; RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.74 to 4.12) and vitamin D (33% 33/101 vs. 20% 20/100; RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.65).
A multi-faceted community-based intervention improved management of osteoporosis in high risk patients compared with usual care.
This trial has been registered with clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT00465387).
PDF
