Lung cancer kills more Canadians than breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers combined and confers a substantial burden of suffering on patients and their families, as well as cost to the health care system.¹ The number of lung cancer cases is expected to continue to rise in keeping with population growth and aging.^1,2

Background: Recruitment to clinical trials remains poor, and patient knowledge of clinical trials is one barrier to recruitment. To identify knowledge deficits, we conducted and compared surveys measuring actual patient knowledge and clinical trialist priorities for patient knowledge. Methods: Consenting patients at a tertiary cancer centre answered a survey that included (i) 2 opinion questions about their own knowledge and willingness to join a trial, and (ii) 22 knowledge questions. Clinical researchers at the centre were asked 13 questions about the importance of various trials factors. Results: Of 126 patients surveyed, 16% had joined a clinical trial, and 42% had a secondary school education or less. The mean correct response rate on the knowledge questions was 58%. Higher rates of correct responses were associated with lower age (p = 0.05), greater education (p = 0.006), prior trial participation (p < 0.001), agreement or strong agreement with perceived understanding of trials (p < 0.001), and willingness to join a clinical trial (p = 0.002). Trialists valued an understanding of the rationale for clinical trials and of randomization, placebo, and patient protection, but those particular topics were poorly understood by patients. Conclusions: Patient knowledge about clinical trials is poor, including knowledge of several concepts ranked important by clinical trialists. The findings suggest that when developing education interventions, emphasis should be placed on the topics most directly related to patient care, and factors such as age and education level should be considered.

Background: Low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality in people at high risk; adding a smoking cessation intervention to screening could further improve screening program outcomes. This study aimed to assess the impact of adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening on clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness. Methods: Using the OncoSim-Lung mathematical microsimulation model, we compared the projected lifetime impact of a smoking cessation intervention (nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and 12 wk of counselling) in the context of annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in people at high risk to lung cancer screening without a cessation intervention in Canada. The simulated population consisted of Canadians born in 1940–1974; lung cancer screening was offered to eligible people in 2020. In the base-case scenario, we assumed that the intervention would be offered to smokers up to 10 times; each intervention would achieve a 2.5% permanent quit rate. Sensitivity analyses varied key model inputs. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with a lifetime horizon from the health system’s perspective, discounted at 1.5% per year. Costs are in 2019 Canadian dollars. Results: Offering a smoking cessation intervention in the context of lung cancer screening could lead to an additional 13% of smokers quitting smoking. It could potentially prevent 12 more lung cancers and save 200 more life-years for every 1000 smokers screened, at a cost of $22 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The results were most sensitive to quit rate. The intervention would cost over $50 000 per QALY gained with a permanent quit rate of less than 1.25% per attempt. Interpretation: Adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening is likely cost-effective. To optimize the benefits of lung cancer screening, health care providers should encourage participants who still smoke to quit smoking.

CAPOX and FOLFOX are widely used chemotherapy regimens for colorectal cancer (CRC). The superiority of one regimen over the other in a real-world setting (RWE) could have significant clinical implications given their common use, but such RWE is limited. This study analyzed provincial database records of 13,461 Canadian patients treated from 2005 to 2017. The primary outcomes were rates of Emergency Department visits and/or hospitalizations (ED/H) and overall survival (OS). CAPOX was used less frequently (8.4%) than FOLFOX (91.6%), often in older patients (p < 0.003 for Stage I–III; p < 0.001 for Stage IV). CAPOX recipients had shorter treatment durations (median 15 vs. 20 weeks, p = 0.002) and higher unadjusted ED/H rates (60.8% vs. 50.9%, p < 0.001), though this difference was nonsignificant on multivariate analysis (MVA) (HR 1.05 (0.92, 1.20), p = 0.466). Patients receiving CAPOX had worse OS than those on FOLFOX, (5-year OS 70.1% vs. 77.2% (p < 0.001) non-metastatic; 16.6% vs. 33.2% (p < 0.001) metastatic). MVA confirmed inferior OS with CAPOX (HR 1.42, p < 0.001). Other predictors of shorter OS included older age, male sex, comorbidities, rural residence, and lower income. This administrative data is at risk of bias but highlights the need for careful patient selection and informed treatment decision making.