Introduction: Clinical trials, although academically accepted as the most effective treatment available for cancer patients, poor accrual to clinical trials remains a significant problem. A clinical trials navigator (CTN) program was piloted where patients and/or their healthcare professionals could request a search and provide a list of potential cancer clinical trials in which a patient may be eligible based on their current status and disease. Objectives: This study examined the outcomes of a pilot program to try to improve clinical trials accrual with a focus on patients at medium to small sized cancer programs. Outcomes examined included patient disposition (referral to and accrual to interventional trials), patient survival, sites of referral to the CTN program. Methods: One 0.5 FTE navigator was retained. Stakeholders referred to the CTN through the Canadian Cancer Clinical Trials Network. Demographic and outcomes data were recorded. Results: Between March 2019 and February 2020, 118 patients from across Canada used the program. Seven per cent of patients referred were enrolled onto treatment clinical trials. No available trial excluded 39% patients, and 28% had a decline in their health and died before they could be referred or enrolled onto a clinical trial. The median time from referral to death was 109 days in those that passed. Conclusion: This novel navigator pilot has the potential to increase patient accrual to clinical trials. The CTN program services the gap in the clinical trials system, helping patients in medium and small sized cancer centres identify potential clinical trials at larger centres.

Our research group advanced a health insurance theory to explain Canada’s cancer care advantages over America. The late Barbara Starfield theorized that Canada’s greater primary care-orientation also plays a critically protective role. We tested the resultant Starfield-Gorey theory by examining the effects of poverty, health insurance and physician supplies, primary care and specialists, on colon cancer care in Ontario and California. We analyzed registry data for people with non-metastasized colon cancer from Ontario (n = 2,060) and California (n = 4,574) diagnosed between 1996 and 2000 and followed to 2010. We obtained census tract-based socioeconomic data from population censuses and data on county-level physician supplies from national repositories: primary care physicians, gastroenterologists and other specialists. High poverty neighborhoods were oversampled and the criterion was 10 year survival. Hypotheses were explored with standardized rate ratios (RR) and tested with logistic regression models. Significant inverse associations of poverty (RR = 0.79) and inadequate health insurance (RR = 0.80) with survival were observed in the California, while they were non-significant or non-existent in Ontario. The direct associations of primary care physician (RRs of 1.32 versus 1.11) and gastroenterologist (RRs of 1.56 versus 1.15) supplies with survival were both stronger in Ontario than California. The supply of primary care physicians took precedence. Probably mediated through the initial course of treatment, it largely explained the Canadian advantage. Poverty and health insurance were more predictive in the USA, community physician supplies more so in Canada. Canada’s primary care protections were greatest among the most socioeconomically vulnerable. The protective effects of Canadian health care prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) clearly suggested the following. Notwithstanding the importance of insuring all, strengthening America’s system of primary care will probably be the best way to ensure that the ACA’s full benefits are realized. Finally, Canada’s strong primary care system ought to be maintained.

Many Americans diagnosed with colon cancer do not receive indicated chemotherapy. Certain unmarried women may be particularly disadvantaged. A 3-way interaction of the multiplicative disadvantages of being an unmarried and inadequately insured woman living in poverty was explored. California registry data were analyzed for 2,319 women diagnosed with stage II to IV colon cancer between 1996 and 2000 and followed until 2014. Socioeconomic data from the 2000 census classified neighborhoods as high poverty (≥30% of households poor), middle (5–29%) or low poverty (<5% poor). Primary health insurance was private, Medicare, Medicaid or none. Comparisons of chemotherapy rates used standardized rate ratios (RR). We respectively used logistic and Cox regression models to assess chemotherapy and survival. A statistically significant 3-way marital status by health insurance by poverty interaction effect on chemotherapy receipt was observed. Chemotherapy rates did not differ between unmarried (39.0%) and married (39.7%) women who lived in lower poverty neighborhoods and were privately insured. But unmarried women (27.3%) were 26% less likely to receive chemotherapy than were married women (37.1%, RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.58, 0.95) who lived in high poverty neighborhoods and were publicly insured or uninsured. When this interaction and the main effects of health insurance, poverty and chemotherapy were accounted for, survival did not differ by marital status. The multiplicative barrier to colon cancer care that results from being inadequately insured and living in poverty is worse for unmarried than married women. Poverty is more prevalent among unmarried women and they have fewer assets so they are probably less able to absorb the indirect and direct, but uncovered, costs of colon cancer care. There seem to be structural inequities related to the institutions of marriage, work and health care that particularly disadvantage unmarried women that policy makers ought to be cognizant of as future reforms of the American health care system are considered.

Introduction: CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are the standard first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2−) metastatic breast cancer. Landmark trials have demonstrated a comparable progression-free survival (PFS) across CDK4/6 inhibitors, but the overall survival (OS) outcomes have varied. This study aimed to evaluate the real-world PFS and OS for palbociclib and ribociclib when combined with AIs in patients with HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective chart review of adult patients with HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer treated at a single academic center between 1 January 2015 and 1 December 2022. The baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment details were extracted. A Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to estimate the PFS and OS, and differences between the treatment groups were assessed using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to adjust for confounding factors. Results: Seventy-five patients were included in the final analysis. The cohort was predominantly female (98.7%) and postmenopausal (77.3%), with 52.0% having de novo stage IV disease. Palbociclib was prescribed to 74.7% of the patients, and ribociclib to 25.3%. The patients receiving ribociclib were significantly younger (57.6 vs. 67.5 years, p = 0.013) and more likely to be premenopausal (42.1% vs. 5.4%, p < 0.001). The real-world median PFS and OS for palbociclib were 20.3 months (95% CI: 14.8–46) and 37.2 months (95% CI: 20.3–not reached [NR]), respectively. For ribociclib, the median PFS and OS were not reached. The Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age and menopausal status found no significant differences between ribociclib and palbociclib for the PFS (HR = 0.92, p = 0.86) or OS (HR = 0.95, p = 0.92). Conclusion: In this real-world analysis, palbociclib demonstrated a median PFS consistent with the results from landmark trials, although the observed OS was shorter. The ribociclib-treated patients had a numerically longer PFS and OS compared with those treated with palbociclib, but the differences were not statistically significant. The discontinuation rates were similar between the two groups.