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

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

Building a National Reassessment Process for Oncology Drugs: Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration through a Simulated Reassessment Exercise

The CanREValue Collaboration established the Reassessment & Uptake Working Group to develop a preliminary process to reassess funded cancer drugs in Canada. A simulated exercise was conducted to evaluate the proposed reassessment process using a real-world case. We invited 32 attendees including representatives from Health Canada and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies, along with payers, clinicians, academics, and patient representatives. A case was developed using a real-world study on a publicly funded cancer drug. In facilitated group sessions, participants were asked to deliberate upon the evidence presented in the case to issue reassessment recommendations. Several themes were identified through the deliberation discussions. While the generalizability of real-world evidence (RWE) is perceived as a strength, trust in the RWE depends largely on the source of the real-world data. The attendees suggested several improvements to the proposed reassessment process including evidence requirement for reassessment, recommendation categories, and a priori study protocols. This exercise generated important insights on the evidence required for conducting reassessment and considerations for improvements of the proposed reassessment process. Building upon lessons from this exercise, future work would continue to refine the reassessment process as part of the overall CanREValue framework

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

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

Building a National Reassessment Process for Oncology Drugs: Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration through a Simulated Reassessment Exercise

The CanREValue Collaboration established the Reassessment & Uptake Working Group to develop a preliminary process to reassess funded cancer drugs in Canada. A simulated exercise was conducted to evaluate the proposed reassessment process using a real-world case. We invited 32 attendees including representatives from Health Canada and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies, along with payers, clinicians, academics, and patient representatives. A case was developed using a real-world study on a publicly funded cancer drug. In facilitated group sessions, participants were asked to deliberate upon the evidence presented in the case to issue reassessment recommendations. Several themes were identified through the deliberation discussions. While the generalizability of real-world evidence (RWE) is perceived as a strength, trust in the RWE depends largely on the source of the real-world data. The attendees suggested several improvements to the proposed reassessment process including evidence requirement for reassessment, recommendation categories, and a priori study protocols. This exercise generated important insights on the evidence required for conducting reassessment and considerations for improvements of the proposed reassessment process. Building upon lessons from this exercise, future work would continue to refine the reassessment process as part of the overall CanREValue framework

Considerations for Developing a Reassessment Process: Report from the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration’s Reassessment and Uptake Working Group

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration was established to develop a framework for generating and using real-world evidence (RWE) to inform the reassessment of cancer drugs following initial health technology assessment (HTA). The Reassessment and Uptake Working Group (RWG) is one of the five established CanREValue Working Groups. The RWG aims to develop considerations for incorporating RWE for HTA reassessment and strategies for using RWE to reassess drug funding decisions. Between February 2018 and December 2019, the RWG attended four teleconferences (with follow-up surveys) and two in-person meetings to discuss recommendations for the development of a reassessment process and potential barriers and facilitators. Modified Delphi methods were used to gather input. A draft report of recommendations (to December 2018) was shared for public consultation (December 2019 to January 2020). Initial considerations for developing a reassessment process were proposed. Specifically, reassessment can be initiated by diverse stakeholders, including decision makers from public drug plans or industry stakeholders. The reassessment process should be modelled after existing deliberation and recommendation frameworks used by HTA agencies. Proposed reassessment outcome categories include maintaining status quo, revisiting funding criteria, renegotiating price, or disinvesting. Overall, these initial considerations will serve as the basis for future advancements by the Collaboration

Assessing the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Emergency Department Use for Patients Undergoing Cancer-Directed Surgeries

Emergency department (ED) use is a concern for surgery patients, physicians and health administrators particularly during a pandemic. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the pandemic on ED use following cancer-directed surgeries. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing cancer-directed surgeries comparing ED use from 7 January 2018 to 14 March 2020 (pre-pandemic) and 15 March 2020 to 27 June 2020 (pandemic) in Ontario, Canada. Logistic regression models were used to (1) determine the association between pandemic vs. pre-pandemic periods and the odds of an ED visit within 30 days after discharge from hospital for surgery and (2) to assess the odds of an ED visit being of high acuity (level 1 and 2 as per the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale). Of our cohort of 499,008 cancer-directed surgeries, 468,879 occurred during the pre-pandemic period and 30,129 occurred during the pandemic period. Even though there was a substantial decrease in the general population ED rates, after covariate adjustment, there was no significant decrease in ED use among surgical patients (OR 1.002, 95% CI 0.957–1.048). However, the adjusted odds of an ED visit being of high acuity was 23% higher among surgeries occurring during the pandemic (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.14–1.33). Although ED visits in the general population decreased substantially during the pandemic, the rate of ED visits did not decrease among those receiving cancer-directed surgery. Moreover, those presenting in the ED post-operatively during the pandemic had significantly higher levels of acuity

Mapping Canadian Data Assets to Generate Real-World Evidence : Lessons Learned from Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration’s RWE Data Working Group

Canadian provinces routinely collect patient-level data for administrative purposes. These real-world data (RWD) can be used to generate real-world evidence (RWE) to inform clinical care and healthcare policy. The CanREValue Collaboration is developing a framework for the use of RWE in cancer drug funding decisions. A Data Working Group (WG) was established to identify data assets across Canada for generating RWE of oncology drugs. The mapping exercise was conducted using an iterative scan with informant surveys and teleconference. Data experts from ten provinces convened for a total of three teleconferences and two in-person meetings from March 2018 to September 2019. Following each meeting, surveys were developed and shared with the data experts which focused on identifying databases and data elements, as well as a feasibility assessment of conducting RWE studies using existing data elements and resources. Survey responses were compiled into an interim data report, which was used for public stakeholder consultation. The feedback from the public consultation was used to update the interim data report. We found that databases required to conduct real-world studies are often held by multiple different data custodians. Ninety-seven databases were identified across Canada. Provinces held on average 9 distinct databases (range: 8–11). An Essential RWD Table was compiled that contains data elements that are necessary, at a minimal, to conduct an RWE study. An Expanded RWD Table that contains a more comprehensive list of potentially relevant data elements was also compiled and the availabilities of these data elements were mapped. While most provinces have data on patient demographics (e.g., age, sex) and cancer-related variables (e.g., morphology, topography), the availability and linkability of data on cancer treatment, clinical characteristics (e.g., morphology and topography), and drug costs vary among provinces. Based on current resources, data availability, and access processes, data experts in most provinces noted that more than 12 months would be required to complete an RWE study. The CanREValue Collaboration’s Data WG identified key data holdings, access considerations, as well as gaps in oncology treatment-specific data. This data catalogue can be used to facilitate future oncology-specific RWE analyses across Canada