We had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Gwynivere Davies, who is the first author and corresponding author of the Editor’s Choice Article published in Current Oncology (ISSN: 1718-7729). Here, she will share insights into their academic journey, research focus, and the motivation behind her recent work.

“Survival Outcomes for US and Canadian Patients Diagnosed with Hodgkin Lymphoma before and after Brentuximab Vedotin Approval for Relapsed/Refractory Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study”
by Gwynivere A. Davies, John E. Orav and Kristen D. Brantley
Curr. Oncol. 2024, 31(7), 3885-3894; https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31070287
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1718-7729/31/7/287

Dr. Gwynivere Davies obtained her BHSc (honors) and MD from the University of Calgary, Canada. She completed Internal Medicine and Hematology training followed by a Lymphoma Fellowship in 2017. From 2017 to 2020, Dr. Davies practiced general hematology with a focus on malignancies in northern Ontario where the witnessed health inequities in this underserviced area prompted her to complete a Master’s of Public Health in Epidemiology from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in 2020. The topic of her thesis is highlighted in the above article, examining differential outcomes related to the drug approval process in Canada, among other covariates. She decided to focus her practice academically on lymphoid malignancies at McMaster University starting in 2020, where she has become the Division Head for Malignant Hematology (circa 2024) and the Lymphoma Fellowship Director. She has led numerous ICES database and health education studies, in addition to acting as local PI for multiple studies examining bispecific antibodies and immunotherapies for frontline and relapsed disease.

The following is an interview with Dr. Davies:

1. Could you please briefly introduce the main research content of the published paper?

Our population-based study assessed whether delays in Canadian public funding of novel therapies affect survival in Hodgkin lymphoma, using Brentuximab vedotin as an example. Although BV was approved by the FDA in 2011, it was not publicly funded in Canada until 2014. Comparing outcomes before and after U.S. approval (2007–2010 vs. 2011–2014) in 12,003 U.S. and 4,210 Canadian patients within the SEER and Canadian Cancer Registries, survival improved significantly in the U.S. and similarly, though not significantly, in Canada.

Key findings:

• U.S. patients had better survival improvement over time (aHR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77–0.98);
• Canadian patients had a similar but non-significant improvement (aHR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69–1.03);
• In the U.S., uninsured and Medicaid patients had worse survival than privately insured and Canadian patients.

These findings suggest that while Canadian funding delays may affect timely access, disparities within the U.S. insurance system may have a greater impact on outcomes.

2. Could you tell us a little bit about your current research?

My current research primarily focuses on incorporating novel therapies including bispecific antibodies into the frontline and relapsed/refractory setting for patients with lymphoma. In addition, my colleagues and I have utilized population level data to look at treatment-related morbidity and outcomes for patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma identified within the Ontario Cancer Registry, most recently comparing secondary primary malignancy in patients receiving frontline bendamustine–rituximab vs. historical comparators.

3. How do you evaluate research trends in this field, and what advice would you give to early-career researchers who are interested in this research area?

While many meetings shifted to virtual during the pandemic and now offer hybrid options, making access to emerging evidence easier, there remains significant value in attending select conferences in person. Panel discussions, networking, and direct engagement with experts often highlight gaps in the evidence base and generate new research hypotheses—along with the future directions sections of key articles. Many of these meetings are multidisciplinary, which is critical for developing novel research ideas, particularly as studies increasingly incorporate NGS, MRD testing, and advanced imaging. For early-career researchers, I would emphasize the importance of reading editorials, listening to podcasts, and networking, as these are all essential to developing novel ides.

4. Why did you choose Current Oncology as a platform for publishing your work, and how was your experience? Would you consider publishing your future research in Current Oncology?

Current Oncology is well-known to me from the work of colleagues and frequently publishes articles addressing therapy and challenges within the Canadian landscape. My experience was smooth with valued feedback allowing for improvement of our final article, and I would definitely consider Current Oncology for future scholarly articles.

5. How do you think the open access way of publishing impacts authors?

It is important to recognize that many researchers, especially those not specifically attached to academic institutions or those in low- and middle-income countries, have limited access to journal articles, thus comprehensive literature review, gap analysis, etc., is hindered. Open access publishing allows for significantly improved access to existing literature to allow for evidence informed care and scholarship.

6. In your opinion, which research topics will be of particular interest to the research community in the coming years?

It is always interesting to look at differences in access and the resultant effects on patient outcomes with newly available drug therapies. The progress in malignant hematology has been immense and there are so many more options for our patients, even compared to a decade ago when I started independent practice, but the rising costs for treatment are threatening to overwhelm our universal healthcare system. While some progress has been made, there continue to be substantial delays in review, stakeholder engagement and funding within Canada, unfortunately. I think it will be important to look at impacts of quality-improvement initiatives on capacity and access, such as with subcutaneous delivery of immunotherapy or outpatient CAR-T delivery, along with selection method and impacts of programs like FAST within Ontario, an accelerated drug approval pilot program, to see if we can close the gap with other OECD countries against whom Canada often performs poorly.