Piotr Czaykowski

The urgent cancer care (UCC) clinic at CancerCare Manitoba (CCMB) opened in 2013 to provide care to individuals diagnosed with cancer and serious blood disorders experiencing complications from the underlying disorder or its treatment. This study examined the impact of the UCC clinic on other health care utilization in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. An interrupted time series study design was used to compare the rates of emergency department (ED) visits, primary care clinician (PCC) visits, and hospitalizations from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2015. Rates of ED visits were also stratified by ED location, severity, and cancer type. We found a 6% (95% CI 1.00–1.13, p-value = 0.0389) increase in PCC visits, a 7% (95% CI 0.99–1.15, p-value = 0.0737) increase in hospitalizations, a 4% (95% CI 0.86–1.08, p-value = 0.5053) decrease in the rate of ED visits, and a 3% (95% CI 0.92–1.17, p-value = 0.5778) increase in the rate of ED visits during the UCC clinic hours after the UCC clinic opened. The implementation of the UCC clinic had minimal impact on health care utilization. Future work should examine the impact of the UCC clinic on other aspects of healthcare utilization (e.g., number of tests ordered and time spent waiting in CCMB’s main clinics) and patient quality of life and patient and health care provider experience.

CancerCare Manitoba (CCMB) introduced virtual visits at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to replace many in-person visits. This study examines the impact of virtual visits for cancer care on travel distance, travel time, and carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. We included all visits to CCMB for invasive and in situ cancers from 1 April 2020 to 31 December 2022. Data were extracted from CCMB’s electronic health record. The percentage of visits done virtually by month was reported by age, gender, cancer diagnosis, and regional health authority of residence. Postal codes for patients’ residences and clinic locations were converted into latitude and longitude values. Travel distance, travel time, and CO₂ emissions associated with travel were estimated. The percentage of virtual visits was highest during the months when COVID-19 restrictions were present in Manitoba and represent more than 50% of such monthly visits. Virtual visits increased with age, were highest among men with urogenital cancer, and were lowest among northern Manitoba residents. The median travel time per visit ranged from 30 min in Winnipeg to 15 h in the Northern Region. The estimated travel distance saved varied from 420,000 to 750,000 km per month. Estimated travel time saved varied from 5500 to 9600 h per month. Estimated CO₂ emissions prevented varied from 87 to 155 metric tons per month. Virtual care is an important tool for better supporting those living with cancer by substantially decreasing travel distance and time. Virtual care also contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Metastatic prostate cancer is a common diagnosis with a protracted but terminal course. Gastrointestinal (GI) tract involvement is extremely rare, and reportedly portends a poor prognosis. It can present years after the initial prostate cancer diagnosis. Only fifteen cases of prostate cancer metastasis to the stomach have been reported in the literature. We report a case of a 72-year-old man with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and extensive bony involvement. He presented a decade after the diagnosis of prostate cancer with signs of heartburn; a gastric biopsy was initially believed to represent primary gastric carcinoma, but subsequently a diagnosis of prostate cancer metastatic to the stomach was confirmed. This case highlights the importance of the provision of a pertinent clinical history and clinical differential diagnosis at the time of submission of surgical pathology specimens, as well as highlighting the need to have a low index of suspicion to pursue additional pathologic markers whenever a presumed second adenocarcinoma is noted in the context of a patient having a history of current or prior advanced-stage adenocarcinoma of another site. The correct diagnosis can shield the patient from the morbidity of inappropriate surgical or medical management.

Summary We assessed post-fracture mortality in a population-based cohort of 122,045 individuals with cancers. Major fractures (hip, vertebrae, humerus, and forearm) were associated with early and long-term increased all-cause mortality. Introduction Currently, there are no population-based data among cancer patients on post-fracture mortality risk across a broad range of cancer diagnoses. Our objective was to estimate the association of fracture with mortality in cancer survivors. Methods Using Manitoba Cancer Registry data from the province of Manitoba, Canada, we identified all women and men with cancer diagnosed between January 1, 1987, and March 31, 2014. We then linked cancer data to provincial healthcare administrative data and ascertained fractures after cancer diagnosis and mortality to March 31, 2015. Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in those with versus without fracture were estimated from time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for multiple covariates. Results The study cohort consisted of 122,045 cancer patients (median age 68 years, IQR 58–77, 49.2% female). During the median follow-up of 5.8 years from cancer diagnosis, we ascertained 7120 (5.8%) major fractures. All fracture sites, except for the forearm, were associated with increased mortality risk, even after multivariable adjustment. Excess mortality risk associated with a major fracture was greatest in the first year after fracture (HR 2.42, 95% CI 2.30–2.54) and remained significant > 5 years after fracture (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.50–1.70) and for fractures occurring > 10 years after cancer diagnosis (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.79–2.07). Conclusion Fractures among cancer patients are associated with increased all-cause mortality. This excess risk is greatest in the first year and persists more than 5 years post-fracture; increased risk is also noted for fractures occurring up to and beyond 10 years after cancer diagnosis.

Individuals with cancer are vulnerable to infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19. Physical distancing, the reallocation of health care resources, and the implementation of procedures to reduce the spread of COVID-19 may also have serious consequences for people with cancer. We evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on new cancer diagnoses and oncology care in Manitoba, Canada using an interrupted time series design and data from the Manitoba Cancer Registry and CancerCare Manitoba’s (CCMB) electronic medical record. In April 2020, there was a 23% decrease in new cancer diagnoses, a 21% decrease in pathology reports, and a 43% reduction in surgical resections. There was no difference in new cancer diagnoses by August 2020, surgery by July 2020, and pathology reports by September 2020. From April 2020 to June 2021, there was a 13% decrease in radiotherapy (RT) fractions, an 18% decrease in UCC visits, and a 52% decrease in in-person visits. There was no change in intravenous chemotherapy visits per month, first RT visits, or overall patient visits. The impact of COVID-19 on shifts in the stage at diagnosis and survival will be assessed in future analyses.

Summary Among 4238 cancer and 16,418 cancer-free individuals with incident major non-traumatic fractures (hip, clinical vertebral, forearm, humerus), post-fracture osteoporosis care was equally poor for both groups, whether assessed from bone mineral density (BMD) testing, initiation of osteoporosis therapy or either intervention (BMD testing and/or osteoporosis therapy). Introduction Most individuals sustaining a fracture do not undergo evaluation and/or treatment for osteoporosis. Cancer survivors are at increased risk for osteoporosis and fracture. Whether cancer survivors experience a similar post-fracture “care gap” is unclear. Using population-based databases, we assessed whether cancer patients are evaluated and/or treated for osteoporosis after a major fracture. Methods From the Manitoba Cancer Registry, we identified cancer cases (first cancer diagnosis between 1987 and 2013) and cancer-free controls with incident major non-traumatic fractures (from provincial physician billing claims and hospitalization databases). The outcomes were performance of BMD testing (from the BMD Registry), initiation of osteoporosis therapy (from drug dispensation database) or either intervention (BMD testing and/or osteoporosis therapy) in the 12 months post-fracture. Results There were 4238 cancer and 16,418 cancer-free individuals who sustained a fracture after the index date (cancer diagnosis) and were followed for at least 1 year post-fracture. Subsequent BMD testing was performed in 11.0% of cancer cases versus 11.5% non-cancer controls (P = 0.43), osteoporosis treatment in 22.9% cancer cases versus 21.8% non-cancer controls (P = 0.15), and either testing or treatment in 28.9% cancer cases versus 28.4% non-cancer controls (P = 0.53). Predictors of BMD testing and/or initiation of therapy were similar for non-cancer and cancer patients. Post-fracture interventions were consistently used more frequently among women, older patients (age 50 years or older), those who sustained fractures in a later calendar period, and (for treatment) after vertebral fracture. Cancer-specific variables (cancer type, years from cancer diagnosis to fracture, specialty of care provider) showed only weak and inconsistent effects. Conclusions A large care gap exists among cancer patients who sustain a fracture, similar to the general population, whereby the evaluation or treatment for osteoporosis is seldom conducted. Care maps may need to be developed for cancer populations to improve post-fracture care.

Background: Baseline symptom burden as measured using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), a patient-reported, validated, and reliable tool measuring symptom severity in 9 separate domains, might yield prognostic information in patients receiving treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) and might add to the existing prognostic models. Methods: In this retrospective single-centre cohort study, we included patients receiving first-line sunitinib therapy for MRCC between 2008 and 2012. Baseline variables included information relevant to the pre-existing prognostic models and pre-treatment ESAS summation scores (added together across all 9 domains), with higher scores representing greater symptom burden. We used Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox regression modelling to determine if symptom burden can provide prognostic information with respect to overall survival. Results: We identified 68 patients receiving first-line therapy for MRCC. Most had intermediate- or poor-risk disease based on both the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) models. The median baseline ESAS summation score was 16 (range: 6–57). In univariable analysis, the hazard ratio for overall survival was 1.270 (p = 0.0047) per 10-unit increase in summation ESAS. In multivariable analysis, the hazard ratio was 1.208 (p = 0.0362) when controlling for MSKCC risk group and 1.240 (p = 0.019) when controlling for IMDC risk group. Conclusions: Baseline symptom burden as measured by ESAS score appears to provide prognostic information for survival in patients with mrcc. Those results should encourage the investigation of patient-reported symptom scales as potential prognostic indicators for patients with advanced cancer.