Ambica Parmar

Dr. Ambica Parmar


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

8Years (2019-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
8 January 2020 in Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
CPCameron M. Phillips
Cameron M. Phillips
APAmbica Parmar
Ambica Parmar
HGHelen Guo
Helen Guo
DSDeborah Schwartz
Deborah Schwartz
WIWanrudee Isaranuwatchai
Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai
KCKelvin Chan
Kelvin Chan

20 March 2020 in Cancer Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MSMonica Shah
Monica Shah
APAmbica Parmar
Ambica Parmar
KCKelvin Chan
Kelvin Chan
Socioeconomic status (SES) has led to treatment and survival disparities; however, limited data exist for non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study investigates the impact of SES on NSCLC diagnostic imaging, treatment, and overall survival (OS), and describes temporal disparity trends. The Ontario Cancer Registry was used to identify NSCLC patients diagnosed between 2007 and 2016. Through linkage to administrative datasets, patients’ demographics, imaging, treatment, and survival were obtained. Based on median household neighborhood income, the Ontario population was divided into five income quintiles (Q1‐Q5; Q1 = lowest income). Multivariable regressions assessed SES association with OS, imaging, treatment receipt, and treatment delay, and their interaction with year of diagnosis to understand temporal trends. Endpoints were adjusted for demographics, stage and comorbidities, along with treatments and imaging for OS. A total of 50 542 patients were identified. Higher SES patients (Q5 vs. Q1) showed improved 5‐year OS (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87‐0.92; P < .0001) and underwent greater magnetic resonance imaging head (stages IA‐IV; odds ratio [OR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.16‐1.32; P < .0001), lung resection (IA‐IIIA; OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.43‐1.74; P < .0001), platinum‐based vinorelbine adjuvant chemotherapy (IB‐IIIA; OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.39‐1.92; P < .0001), palliative radiation (IV; OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05‐1.25; P = .023), and intravenous chemotherapy (IV; OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.32‐1.60; P < .0001). Lower SES patients underwent greater thoracic radiation (IA‐IIIB; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79‐0.94; P = .0003). Across 2007‐2016, socioeconomic disparities remain largely unchanged (interaction P > .05) despite widening income inequality.

23 March 2022 in Supportive Care in Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SUSuji Udayakumar
Suji Udayakumar
ESEden Solomon
Eden Solomon
WIWanrudee Isaranuwatchai
Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai
DRDanielle L. Rodin
Danielle L. Rodin
YKYoo-Joung Ko
Yoo-Joung Ko
APAmbica Parmar
Ambica Parmar

1 January 2020 in Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
APAmbica Parmar
Ambica Parmar
JCJorge Chaves-Porras
Jorge Chaves-Porras
RSRonak Saluja
Ronak Saluja
KPKaitlyn Perry
Kaitlyn Perry
ARAmanda P. Rahmadian
Amanda P. Rahmadian
KCKelvin Chan
Kelvin Chan

16 October 2021 in Current Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
WDWei Fang Fang Dai
Wei Fang Fang Dai
VAVanessa Arciero
Vanessa Arciero
ECErica Craig
Erica Craig
BFBrent Fraser
Brent Fraser
JAJessica Arias
Jessica Arias
OGon behalf of the CanREValue Collaboration Reassessment and Uptake Working Group
on behalf of the CanREValue Collaboration 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.

1 August 2020 in Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
APAmbica Parmar
Ambica Parmar
BSBeate Sander
Beate Sander
GBGeorg A. Bjarnason
Georg A. Bjarnason
KCKelvin Chan
Kelvin Chan