Challenges to Implementation of an Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Testing Strategy for Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer in a Publicly Funded Health Care System

Background:Data from seven recent randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that epidermal growth factor (EGFR) mutation status is predictive of improved progression-free survival and quality of life from first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. We examined barriers to the initial implementation of a national EGFR testing policy in Canada.Methods:Five laboratories across Canada underwent a validation and quality-control exercise for EGFR mutation testing using reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction with financial support from the pharmaceutical industry for the initial 12 months. Oncologists registered patients with nonquamous histology for EGFR mutation testing using a Web-based platform. Basic demographics were collected including age, histology, sex, smoking status, and ethnicity. The decision to prescribe gefitinib was subsequently registered on the system.Results:Between March and December 2010, 2104 requests were received for EGFR mutation testing. Demographic details are as follows: adenocarcinoma (91.6%); Asian ethnicity (13.9%); female (58%); light/never smoker (41.3%); stage IV disease (87.1%). The number of tests requested each month ranged from 200 to 250. Mutation testing was conducted in 1771 of 2104 requests (84%). The median turnaround time for EGFR testing was 18 days (standard deviation 9.7). Gefitinib was prescribed in 302 patients (17.1%). The number of test requests dropped to 50 to 100 per month at the end of the initial 12 months.Conclusion:There was rapid uptake of EGFR mutation testing into routine clinical practice in Canada. Uptake of EGFR mutation testing dropped substantially once funding from pharmaceutical industry was discontinued. There is a need for a national strategy to ensure resources are in place to implement molecular testing for new molecularly targeted agents

Patients' preferences for subcutaneous trastuzumab versus conventional intravenous infusion for the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer: final analysis of 488 patients in the international, randomized, two-cohort PrefHer study

PrefHer revealed compelling and consistent patient preference for subcutaneous (s.c.) trastuzumab, regardless of delivery by single-use injection device or hand-held syringe. s.c. trastuzumab was well-tolerated and safety data, including immunogenicity, were consistent with previous reports. No new safety signals were identified compared with the known intravenous trastuzumab profile in early breast cance

Access Denied? The Unintended Consequences of Pending Drug Pricing Rules

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

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: Review of the Evidence and Conditions That Facilitated Its Use during the Global Pandemic

Practice and behaviour change in healthcare is complex, and requires a set of critical steps that would be needed to implement and sustain the change. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer is traditionally used for locally advanced disease and is primarily advantageous for surgical downstaging purposes. However, it does also offer patients with certain biologic subtypes such as the triple negative or Her2 positive breast cancers the opportunity to improve survival, even in early stage disease. During the height of the pandemic, an opportunity and motivation for the increased use of neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer was identified. This paper describes the conditions that have supported this practice change at the provider and institutional levels. We also include our own institutional algorithm based on tumor biology and extent of disease that have guided our decisions on breast cancer management during the pandemic. Our processes can be adapted by other institutions and breast oncology practices in accordance with local conditions and resources, during and beyond the pandemic

Access to Neoadjuvant Pertuzumab for HER2 Positive Breast Cancer in Canada: A Dilemma Increasingly Difficult to Explain

The addition of pertuzumab to neoadjuvant trastuzumab and chemotherapy for women with early-stage, high-risk, HER2+ breast cancer has been observed to lead to higher pathologic complete response rates (pCR), and improved event-free survival compared to trastuzumab and chemotherapy alone. Based on available data, neoadjuvant pertuzumab is recommended by ESMO, ASCO, and NICE as well as by a Canadian Consensus Guideline Group. We discuss the implications for Canadian patients with HER2+ early breast cancer due to a second and final negative funding decision by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) related to neoadjuvant pertuzumab. This decision will have adverse impacts for up to 1 in 6 women receiving neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk HER2+ breast cancer, due to suboptimal pCR rates and higher risks of invasive breast cancer recurrent events, resulting in the need for more toxic adjuvant therapy

HR+/HER2– Advanced Breast Cancer Treatment in the First-Line Setting: Expert Review

The approval of CDK4/6 inhibitors has dramatically improved care for the treatment of HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer, but navigating the rapidly-expanding treatment evidence base is challenging. In this narrative review, we provide best-practice recommendations for the first-line treatment of HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer in Canada based on relevant literature, clinical guidelines, and our own clinical experience. Due to statistically significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival, ribociclib + aromatase inhibitor is our preferred first-line treatment for de novo advanced disease or relapse ≥12 months after completion of adjuvant endocrine therapy and ribociclib or abemaciclib + fulvestrant is our preferred first-line treatment for patients experiencing early relapse. Abemaciclib or palbociclib may be used when alternatives to ribociclib are needed, and endocrine therapy can be used alone in the case of contraindication to CDK4/6 inhibitors or limited life expectancy. Considerations for special populations—including frail and fit elderly patients, as well as those with visceral disease, brain metastases, and oligometastatic disease—are also explored. For monitoring, we recommend an approach across CDK4/6 inhibitors. For mutational testing, we recommend routinely performing ER/PR/HER2 testing to confirm the subtype of advanced disease at the time of progression and to consider ESR1 and PIK3CA testing for select patients. Where possible, engage a multidisciplinary care team to apply evidence in a patient-centric manner

Use of Systemic Therapies for Treatment of Psoriasis in Patients with a History of Treated Solid Tumours: Inference-Based Guidance from a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel

Abstract Background Patients with treated solid tumours (TSTs) are a highly heterogeneous population at an increased risk for malignancy compared with the general population. When treating psoriasis in patients with a history of TSTs, clinicians are concerned about the immunosuppressive nature of psoriasis therapies, the possibility of augmenting cancer recurrence/progression, and infectious complications. No direct, high-level evidence exists to address these concerns. Objectives We aim to provide a structured framework supporting healthcare professional and patient discussions on the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in patients with previously TSTs. Our goal was to address the clinically important question, “In patients with TSTs, does therapy with systemic agents used for psoriasis increase the risk of malignancy or malignancy recurrence?” Methods We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial and real-world data were absent. We reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in patients with TSTs. Recommendations on systemic psoriasis therapies in patients with TSTs were derived using an inferential heuristic. Results We identified five indirect indicators of iatrogenic immunosuppression informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) overall survival, (2) rate of malignancies with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (3) rate of infections with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (4) common disease biochemical pathways for solid tumours and systemic psoriasis therapies, and (5) solid organ transplant outcomes. On the basis of review of the totality of this data, we provided inference-based conclusions and ascribed level of support for each statement. Conclusions Prior to considering new therapies for psoriasis, an understanding of cancer prognosis should be addressed. Patients with TSTs and a good cancer prognosis will have similar outcomes to non-TST patients when treated with systemic psoriasis therapies. For patients with TSTs and a poor cancer prognosis, the quality-of-life benefits of treating psoriasis may outweigh the theoretical risks.Plain Language Summary Patients with previously treated cancer have a higher chance of cancer recurrence compared with the general population. With cancer incidence rising worldwide, doctors across medical specialities will need to treat other medical conditions, including inflammatory diseases such as psoriasis, in these patients. Effective systemic therapies for psoriasis reduce immune cell activity. Accordingly, there are concerns that treatments for psoriasis could worsen cancer recurrence/progression and infectious complications. There is not enough quality evidence to make broad recommendations for treating other inflammatory conditions in patients with a history of cancer. To guide patient and doctor discussions, we asked: what are effective and safe treatments when patients with treated solid tumours need systemic therapy (pills or injections) for their psoriasis? We focused on patients with solid tumours and excluded blood and skin cancers. Our panel of experts, including 12 dermatologists and 3 medical oncologists, reviewed direct and indirect evidence to answer this question. Considering the totality of evidence reviewed, the expert panel drafted and rated their level of support for opinion statements on important considerations in treating patients with psoriasis who have a history of solid tumours. By making inferences on systemic psoriasis therapies in this heterogeneous population, we take the onus off individual physicians to review the indirect data. This process may help answer questions in other disease populations where direct evidence is scarce or absent. To support treatment decisions, doctors should have a guided conversation with the patient and their family on a case-by-case basis about the risks and benefits of treatment

Access to Oncology Medicines in Canada: Consensus Forum for Recommendations for Improvement

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.Medicine, Faculty ofPharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty ofNon UBCMedicine, Department ofReviewedFacultyResearche