The Potential Clinical and Economic Value of Primary Tumour Identification in Metastatic Cancer of Unknown Primary Tumour: A Population-Based Retrospective Matched Cohort Study.

PurposeSeveral genomic tests have recently been developed to identify the primary tumour in cancer of unknown primary tumour (CUP). However, the value of identifying the primary tumour in clinical practice for CUP patients remains questionable and difficult to prove in randomized trials.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the clinical and economic value of primary tumour identification in CUP using a retrospective matched cohort study.MethodsWe used the Manitoba Cancer Registry to identify all patients initially diagnosed with metastatic cancer between 2002 and 2011. We defined patients as having CUP if their primary tumour was found 6 months or more after initial diagnosis or never found during the course of disease. Otherwise, we considered patients to have metastatic cancer from a known primary tumour (CKP). We linked all patients with Manitoba Health databases to estimate their direct healthcare costs using a phase-of-care approach. We used the propensity score matching technique to match each CUP patient with a CKP patient on clinicopathologic characteristics. We compared treatment patterns, overall survival (OS) and phase-specific healthcare costs between the two patient groups and assessed association with OS using Cox regression adjustment.ResultsOf 5839 patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer, 395 had CUP (6.8%); 1:1 matching created a matched group of 395 CKP patients. CUP patients were less likely to receive surgery, radiation, hormonal and targeted therapy and more likely to receive cytotoxic empiric chemotherapeutic agents. Having CUP was associated with reduced OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31; 95% confidence interval 1.1-1.58), but this lost statistical significance with adjustment for treatment differences. CUP patients had a significant increase in the mean net cost of initial diagnostic workup before diagnosis and a significant reduction in the mean net cost of continuing cancer care.ConclusionIdentifying the primary tumour in CUP patients might enable the use of more effective therapies, improve OS and allow more efficient allocation of healthcare resources

Cost-effectiveness of using a gene expression profiling test to aid in identifying the primary tumour in patients with cancer of unknown primary.

We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a 2000-gene-expression profiling (GEP) test to help identify the primary tumor site when clinicopathological diagnostic evaluation was inconclusive in patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP). We built a decision-analytic-model to project the lifetime clinical and economic consequences of different clinical management strategies for CUP. The model was parameterized using follow-up data from the Manitoba Cancer Registry, cost data from Manitoba Health administrative databases and secondary sources. The 2000-GEP-based strategy compared to current clinical practice resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $44,151 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. The total annual-budget impact was$36.2 million per year. A value-of-information analysis revealed that the expected value of perfect information about the test\u27s clinical impact was $4.2 million per year. The 2000-GEP test should be considered for adoption in CUP. Field evaluations of the test are associated with a large societal benefit.The Pharmacogenomics Journal advance online publication, 29 March 2016; doi:10.1038/tpj.2015.94

Identification and survival outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer of unknown primary in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Cancer of unknown primary origin (CUP) is defined by the presence of pathologically identified metastatic disease without clinical or radiological evidence of a primary tumour. Our objective was to identify incident cases of CUP in Ontario, Canada, and determine the influence of histology and sites of metastases on overall survival (OS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) and the Same-Day Surgery and Discharge Abstract Database (SDS/DAD) to identify patients diagnosed with CUP in Ontario between 1 January 2000, and 31 December 2005. Patient diagnostic information, including histology and survival data, was obtained from the OCR. We cross-validated CUP diagnosis and obtained additional information about metastasis through data linkage with the SDS/DAD database. OS was assessed using Cox regression models adjusting for histology and sites of metastases. RESULTS: We identified 3564 patients diagnosed with CUP. Patients without histologically confirmed disease (n = 1821) had a one-year OS of 10.9%, whereas patients with confirmed histology (n = 1743) had a one-year OS of 15.6%. The most common metastatic sites were in the respiratory or digestive systems (n = 1603), and the most common histology was adenocarcinoma (n = 939). Three-year survival rates were 3.5%, 5.3%, 41.6% and 3.6% among adenocarcinoma, unspecified carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and undifferentiated histology, respectively. Three-year survival rates were 40%, 2.4%, 8.0% and 4.6% among patients with metastases localised to lymph nodes, the respiratory or digestive systems, other specified sites, and unspecified sites, respectively. CONCLUSION: CUP patients in Ontario have a poor prognosis. Some subgroups may have better survival rates, such as patients with metastases localised to lymph nodes and patients with squamous cell histology

The clinical significance of occult gastrointestinal primary tumours in metastatic cancer: A population retrospective cohort study

© 2018 by the Korean Cancer Association. Purpose The purpose of this study was to estimate the incidence of occult gastrointestinal (GI) primary tumours in patients with metastatic cancer of uncertain primary origin and evaluate their influence on treatments and overall survival (OS). Materials and Methods We used population heath data from Manitoba, Canada to identify all patients initially diagnosed with metastatic cancer between 2002 and 2011. We defined patients to have occult primary tumour if the primary was found at least 6 months after initial diagnosis. Otherwise, we considered primary tumours as obvious. We used propensity-score methods to match each patient with occult GI tumour to four patients with obvious GI tumour on all known clinicopathologic features. We compared treatments and 2-year survival data between the two patient groups and assessed treatment effect on OS using Cox regression adjustment. Results Eighty-three patients had occult GI primary tumours, accounting for 17.6% of men and 14% of women with metastatic cancer of uncertain primary. A 1:4 matching created a matched group of 332 patients with obvious GI primary tumour. Occult cases compared to the matched group were less likely to receive surgical interventions and targeted biological therapy, and more likely to receive cytotoxic empiric chemotherapeutic agents. Having an occult GI tumour was associated with reduced OS and appeared to be a nonsignificant independent predictor of OS when adjusting for treatment differences. Conclusion GI tumours are the most common occult primary tumours in men and the second most common in women. Patients with occult GI primary tumours are potentially being undertreated with available GI site-specific and targeted therapies

The Clinical Significance of Occult Gynecologic Primary Tumours in Metastatic Cancer

Objective: We estimated the frequency of occult gynecologic primary tumours (GPTS) in patients with metastatic cancer from an uncertain primary and evaluated the effect on disease management and overall survival (OS). Methods: We used Manitoba administrative health databases to identify all patients initially diagnosed with metastatic cancer during 2002–2011. We defined patients as having an “occult” primary tumour if the primary was classified at least 6 months after the initial diagnosis. Otherwise, we considered patients to have “obvious” primaries. We then compared clinicopathologic and treatment characteristics and 2-year OS for women with occult and with obvious GPTS. We used Cox regression adjustment and propensity score methods to assess the effect on OS of having an occult GPT. Results: Among the 5953 patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer, occult primary tumours were more common in women (n = 285 of 2552, 11.2%) than in men (n = 244 of 3401, 7.2%). In women, GPTS were the most frequent occult primary tumours (n = 55 of 285, 19.3%). Compared with their counterparts having obvious GPTS, women with occult GPTS (n = 55) presented with similar histologic and metastatic patterns but received fewer gynecologic diagnostic examinations during diagnostic work-up. Women with occult GPTS were less likely to undergo surgery, waited longer for radiotherapy, and received a lesser variety of chemotherapeutic agents. Having an occult compared with an obvious gpt was associated with decreased OS (hazard ratio: 1.62; 95% confidence interval: 1.2 to 2.35). Similar results were observed in adjusted analyses. Conclusions: In women with metastatic cancer from an uncertain primary, GPTS constitute the largest clinical entity. Accurate diagnosis of occult GPTS early in the course of metastatic cancer might lead to more effective treatment decisions and improved survival outcomes

The Potential Clinical and Economic Value of Primary Tumour Identification in Metastatic Cancer of Unknown Primary Tumour: A Population-Based Retrospective Matched Cohort Study.

PurposeSeveral genomic tests have recently been developed to identify the primary tumour in cancer of unknown primary tumour (CUP). However, the value of identifying the primary tumour in clinical practice for CUP patients remains questionable and difficult to prove in randomized trials.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the clinical and economic value of primary tumour identification in CUP using a retrospective matched cohort study.MethodsWe used the Manitoba Cancer Registry to identify all patients initially diagnosed with metastatic cancer between 2002 and 2011. We defined patients as having CUP if their primary tumour was found 6 months or more after initial diagnosis or never found during the course of disease. Otherwise, we considered patients to have metastatic cancer from a known primary tumour (CKP). We linked all patients with Manitoba Health databases to estimate their direct healthcare costs using a phase-of-care approach. We used the propensity score matching technique to match each CUP patient with a CKP patient on clinicopathologic characteristics. We compared treatment patterns, overall survival (OS) and phase-specific healthcare costs between the two patient groups and assessed association with OS using Cox regression adjustment.ResultsOf 5839 patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer, 395 had CUP (6.8%); 1:1 matching created a matched group of 395 CKP patients. CUP patients were less likely to receive surgery, radiation, hormonal and targeted therapy and more likely to receive cytotoxic empiric chemotherapeutic agents. Having CUP was associated with reduced OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31; 95% confidence interval 1.1-1.58), but this lost statistical significance with adjustment for treatment differences. CUP patients had a significant increase in the mean net cost of initial diagnostic workup before diagnosis and a significant reduction in the mean net cost of continuing cancer care.ConclusionIdentifying the primary tumour in CUP patients might enable the use of more effective therapies, improve OS and allow more efficient allocation of healthcare resources