Key Points Question Did the delivery of services within a cancer system change during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic? Findings This population-based cohort study conducted in Ontario, Canada, found a total of 4 476 693 cancer care services during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with 5 644 105 services in the year prior, representing a reduction of 20.7% and suggesting a backlog of 1 167 412 cancer services during the first pandemic year. Limited change was observed in systemic treatments and emergency or urgent imaging examinations and surgical procedures, while major reductions were observed in cancer screening tests, biopsies, surgical treatments, and new consultations for systemic and radiation treatment. Meaning These findings provide evidence on the deficits in cancer care that occurred during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic that are likely to inform continued delivery of care, recovery, and future pandemic planning.

PURPOSE: Provider well-being has become the fourth pillar of the quadruple aim for providing quality care. Exacerbated by the global COVID-19 pandemic, provider well-being has become a critical issue for health care systems worldwide. We describe the prevalence and key system-level drivers of burnout in oncologists in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey study conducted in November-December 2019 of practicing cancer care physicians (surgical, medical, radiation, gynecologic oncology, and hematology) in Ontario, Canada. Ontario is Canada's largest province (with a population of 14.5 million), and has a single-payer publicly funded cancer system. The primary outcome was burnout experience assessed through the Maslach Burnout Inventory. RESULTS: A total of 418 physicians completed the questionnaire (response rate was 44% among confirmed oncologists). Seventy-three percent (n = 264 of 362) of oncologists had symptoms of burnout (high emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization scores). Significant drivers of burnout identified in multivariable regression modeling included working in a hectic or chaotic atmosphere (odds ratio [OR] = 15.5; 95% CI, 3.4 to 71.5; P < .001), feeling unappreciated on the job (OR = 7.9; 95% CI, 2.9 to 21.3; P < .001), reporting poor or marginal control over workload (OR = 7.9; 95% CI, 2.9 to 21.3; P < .001), and not being comfortable talking to peers about workplace stress (OR = 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.9; P < .001). Older age (≥ 56 years) was associated with lower odds of burnout (OR = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.4; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Nearly three quarters of participants met predefined standardized criteria for burnout. This number is striking, given the known impact of burnout on provider mental health, patient safety, and quality of care, and suggests Oncologists in Ontario may be a vulnerable group that warrants attention. Health care changes being driven by the COVID-19 pandemic provide an opportunity to rebuild new systems that address drivers of burnout. Creating richer peer-to-peer and leadership engagement opportunities among early- to mid-career individuals may be a worthwhile organizational strategy.

No abstract

Introduction Lower-dose ceritinib (450 mg) once-daily with food was approved in 2018 in Hong Kong (HK) for first-line treatment of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK +) advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study examined the cost-effectiveness of ceritinib vs. crizotinib in the first-line treatment of ALK + NSCLC from a HK healthcare service provider's or government's perspective. Methods Costs and effectiveness of first-line ceritinib vs. crizotinib over a 20-year time horizon was evaluated using a partitioned survival model with three health states (stable disease, progressed disease, and death). The efficacy data for ceritinib were obtained from a phase 3 trial comparing ceritinib with chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (ASCEND-4) and extrapolated using parametric survival models. Long-term survival associated with crizotinib were estimated using hazard ratio of crizotinib vs. ceritinib obtained from matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014 trials. Drug acquisition, administration, adverse events costs, and medical costs associated with each health state were obtained from public sources and converted to 2018 US Dollars. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) and life-year (LY) gained were estimated for ceritinib vs. crizotinib. Results The base case results showed that ceritinib was associated with 3.22 QALYs, 4.51 LYs, and total costs of $157,581 over 20 years. Patients receiving crizotinib had 2.68 QALYs, 3.85 LYs, and $150,424 total costs over the same time horizon. The incremental cost per QALY gained for ceritinib vs crizotinib was $13,343. Results were robust to deterministic sensitivity analyses in most scenarios. Conclusion Ceritinib offers a cost-effective option compared to crizotinib for previously untreated ALK + advanced NCSLC in HK.