Cancer prevention & control : CPC = Prevention & controle en cancerologie : PCC最新文献

Purpose: To compare the expenditures associated with single-agent paclitaxel (Taxol) with those of best supportive care as treatment for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: The primary data sets of 2 phase II trials of paclitaxel in advanced NSCLC were obtained. Paclitaxel delivery costs were estimated at the Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre using the mean paclitaxel dose from the 2 phase II trials, 214 mg/m2, a 3-week schedule and a median of 3 treatment cycles. Data regarding dosage, costs and survival were incorporated into the Statistics Canada POpulation HEalth Model (POHEM), which generated hypothetical cohorts of patients treated either with best supportive care or paclitaxel. The POHEM model assigned diagnostic workup, treatment, disease progression and survival characteristics to each of these cohorts and tabulated the costs associated with each.

Results: The total cost of administering 3 cycles of chemotherapy was Can$8143 per patient. The strategy of treating NSCLC patients with paclitaxel cost $3375 more per patient than best supportive care. On the basis of the difference in survival duration between stage IV patients treated in the best supportive care arm of a previous National Cancer Institute of Canada trial and those represented in the pooled phase II survival results, the cost per life-year saved was $4778. For sensitivity analyses, the days of hospitalization for terminal care, number of cycles given and survival benefit produced were varied. The sensitivity analysis produced a cost per life-year saved of up to $21,377 under the least favourable assumptions.

Conclusion: If large phase III trials confirm the survival benefits observed in the phase II trials, paclitaxel can be considered to be a cost-effective agent in the management of advanced NSCLC.

A review of family physician-assisted smoking cessation research indicates that the family practice setting affords an excellent opportunity to intervene with a large proportion of smokers, at a time when they are receptive to health promotion messages. Outcome data at 6- and 12-month follow-up intervals indicate the value of combining 3 key strategies in achieving optimal results: physician advice and support, nicotine replacement therapy, and cognitive-behavioural counselling. The authors' review identifies questions that need to be addressed in future research: How can barriers to program delivery be overcome in the family practice setting? What is the best way to ensure optimal integration of the 3 key strategies? Which follow-up intervals are appropriate (e.g., 6 months, 12 months, 18 months) given the finding that relapse is common and that most smokers make several quit attempts before stopping for good?

Guideline questions: Should patients with resected stage III colon cancer receive adjuvant therapy? If so, which therapy should be recommended?

Objective: To make recommendations regarding the use of adjuvant therapy in the treatment of resected stage III colon cancer.

Outcomes: Overall survival is the primary outcome of interest. Secondary outcomes are disease-free survival and adverse effects of the treatment regimens.

Perspective (values): Evidence was selected and reviewed by 4 members of the Gastrointestinal Disease Site Group (GI DSG) of the Ontario Cancer Treatment Practice Guidelines Initiative. Earlier drafts of the guideline were reviewed, discussed and approved by the GI DSG, which comprises medical and radiation oncologists, surgeons and epidemiologists. Community representatives did not participate in the development of this guideline but will participate in future guidelines development.

Quality of evidence: There are 3 meta-analyses, 33 published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 consensus statement. The GI DSG pooled data from 10 of the 33 RCTs that allowed for such an analysis.

Benefits: Two of 3 RCTs reported improved survival rates with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus semustine or mitomycin C (MMC) compared with no treatment (observation) after surgical resection. Three trials reported a benefit in both overall and disease-free survival with 5-FU plus levamisole compared with observation after surgery. In 2 trials, levamisole alone did not produce a survival benefit compared with observation. One trial reported improved disease-free, but not overall, survival rates with oral HCFU (1-hexylcarbamoyl-5-fluorouracil) compared with observation. In 3 trials of 5-FU plus leucovorin, disease-free and overall survival rates were improved compared with observation. Nine trials compared portal vein infusion (PVI) of 5-FU with observation after surgery. In 2 of the trials, for which data were available for stage III patients only, improved overall survival was reported. There was a trend in all studies favouring PVI. One trial reported a survival benefit for stage III and IV patients who received oral HCFU maintenance therapy for 1 year compared with no maintenance therapy. In a trial comparing MMC plus oral HCFU with MMC alone, a survival benefit was reported in the combined treatment group; however, the stages of cancer were unevenly distributed among the treatment groups. Only 1 study tested monoclonal antibody; a benefit was reported for both overall and disease-free survival. A meta-analysis of 10 trials comparing adjuvant therapy with observation in patients with stage III disease detected a significant reduction in the odds ratio (OR) for death (OR 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.85), with an absolute improvement in survival of 4% to 13%. When trials were separated according to the ty

This paper used the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) cancer control framework to review research on participation in breast cancer screening programs and identify areas for further study. Cancer Lit, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Sociofile, Health and the Public Affairs Information Service databases were searched for literature published from 1990 to 1995. Information was also obtained from provincial breast cancer screening programs and Health Canada. Interventions designed to promote participation in screening programs have not been effective. Involvement of the target community, however, increased success and sustainability. Barriers to initial participation within screening programs include alternative sources of screening and the lack of funds to screen all eligible women. Studies show that participation decreases with successive screening rounds. The priorities for study are development of: a theoretical framework for recruitment strategies, a method to capture all Canadian screening results including those performed through provincial health insurance plans and a mechanism to deliver screening to all eligible Canadian women.

Guideline questions: 1) What is the role of different schedules or doses of radiotherapy in patients with unresected, clinical or pathological, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)? 2) Does chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy provide improved survival compared with radiotherapy alone in patients with unresected NSCLC?

Objective: To make recommendations about the role of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of unresected stage III NSCLC.

Outcomes: Survival is the primary outcome of interest. Quality of life is a secondary outcome.

Perspective (values): Evidence was selected and reviewed by 5 members of the Provincial Lung Cancer Disease Site Group (Lung DSG) of the Ontario Cancer Treatment Practice Guidelines Initiative. The Lung DSG comprises medical and radiation oncologists, pathologists, surgeons, epidemiologists, a psychologist and a medical sociologist. No community representative participated in the development of this guideline.

Quality of evidence: Two meta-analyses were available for review. The specific analysis of interest examined the role of combined chemotherapy plus radiotherapy v. radiotherapy alone in locally advanced disease. The first meta-analysis included combined data from 22 randomized controlled (RCTs) involving a total of 3033 patients. The second included combined data from 14 RCTs involving a total of 2589 patients. Also reviewed were 4 RCTs of radiotherapy alone, 1 trial of combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy that was not included in the meta-analysis, 4 abstracts of studies of combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and 4 trials examining the role of hyperfractionated radiotherapy.

Benefits: In the first meta-analysis, an overall benefit was detected at 2 years for the use of combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy. A hazard ratio of 0.90 (p = 0.006), or a 10% reduction in the risk of death, translated into an absolute benefit of 3% at 2 years and 2% at 5 years. A subgroup analysis of cisplatin-based chemotherapy plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone demonstrated a 13% reduction in the risk of death in the combined treatment arm (pooled hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.96), for an absolute benefit of 4% at 2 years. In the second meta-analysis, there was a 13% reduction in the risk of death in the combined therapy arm at 2 years (pooled relative risk [RR] 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.94) and a 17% reduction at 3 years (pooled RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.90). Subgroup analysis of cisplatin-based chemotherapy plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone showed similar results: a 15% reduction in the risk of death in the combined therapy arm at 2 years (pooled RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.92) and a 19% reduction at 3 years (pooled RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.88).

Practice guideline: For patients with unresected stage III NSCLC, the combinati

Within the context of a framework for cancer control, this article reviews evidence and suggests research directions for 3 types of school-based smoking interventions: elementary school prevention, secondary school interventions and interventions linking community and school. Directions for smoking research in elementary schools include improving adoption through the provision of effectiveness criteria, tailoring interventions to schools and training. Monitoring at micro and macro levels may help planning and implementation, but clearer evidence is required of its feasibility. Fundamental research should explore new options to understand why youth do not start smoking. Smoking intervention research at the secondary school level is less well established, with only 1 effectiveness trial reported. We recommend testing models that involve youth in developing their own solutions and examining the interaction of various control measures. Sustainability issues have led researchers to embed school-based smoking interventions in community-wide activities. Intervention research of this sort still needs to determine how to apply approaches (e.g., comprehensive school health) and what the appropriate roles are (such as technical assistance) for community agencies. All research using these school-community approaches needs to include process measures to explain potential failures to obtain significant differences between components. In addition, we call for research on the training of educators and health personnel, to increase the priority given to smoking prevention and improve the implementation of existing programs. Research on policy initiatives that lead to effective training needs to be explored. Finally, we argue that application of the principles incorporated into the cancer control framework (e.g., through participatory research methods) strengthens the research process and results.

The framework project of the Advisory Committee on Cancer Control (ACOCC), National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC), was based on the NCIC/ACOCC conceptual framework for bridging the gap between research and action. The project was carried out under the auspices of the Sociobehavioural Cancer Research Network (SCRN) of the NCIC. It focused on 3 research areas of cancer control research: smoking control, palliative care and screening for breast cancer. In this introductory paper, the criteria and methodology used for the framework project are described, the main features of the framework are outlined and the definitions of terms used in the framework are summarized. It was expected that the framework project would lead to a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the NCIC/ACOCC conceptual framework. The project was also expected to assist the SCRN in its ongoing efforts to develop and refine an action-oriented research agenda.

Guideline questions: 1) Does erythropoietin (EPO) reduce the need for transfusion of red blood cells in patients receiving chemotherapy for a nonhematologic cancer? 2) Does the administration of EPO improve the quality of life of these cancer patients?

Objective: To make recommendations regarding the use of EPO to reduce the need for transfusion of red blood cells in patients receiving chemotherapy for a nonhematologic cancer.

Outcomes: First transfusion requirement from the start of chemotherapy is the main outcome of interest. Quality of life and costs are also considered.

Perspective (values): Evidence was selected and reviewed by 5 members of the Ontario Cancer Treatment Practice Guidelines Initiative (OCTPGI) and the Systemic Treatment Program Committee (STPC). Drafts of this document have been circulated to and reviewed by members of the STPC. The STPC comprises medical oncologists, pharmacists, supportive care personnel and administrators. No community representative participated in the development of this practice guideline.

Quality of evidence: Eleven randomized controlled trials (RCTs), most placebo-controlled, were available for review. A meta-analysis was performed with 8 trials that shared a clinically relevant outcome measure. Only 1 trial assessed quality of life.

Benefits: The meta-analysis showed a relative risk for transfusion among EPO patients of 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.53-0.78), which translates into a 36% relative reduction in the proportion of patients requiring transfusion (p = 0.00001). Reduction in transfusion requirements was similar across strata defined by methodological quality, EPO dose, hematologic status, tumour type at trial entry and chemotherapy regimen. In the 1 trial that assessed quality of life, EPO was associated with improved quality of life.

Harms: Hypertension has been noted rarely in EPO-treated cancer patients. The RCTs did not report adverse effects in EPO-treated patients compared with control patients during the follow-up period. Long-term adverse effects are unknown. EPO is more costly than transfusion, but formal cost-effectiveness studies are unavailable.

Practice guideline: For patients receiving chemotherapy for nonhematologic cancer in whom symptoms of anemia are expected and in whom transfusion of red blood cells is not considered an acceptable treatment option, EPO can be recommended as a safe, effective treatment alternative. The evidence in support of using EPO is stronger for patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy regimens that for those receiving non-platinum-based regimens. CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE DATE: Apr. 4, 1997.