Tyrosine kinase inhibitors significantly improved survival outcomes in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumour: a multi-institutional cohort study.

Background: The real-world impact of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (tkis) in clinical practice for gastrointestinal stromal tumour (gist) has not been extensively reported. We sought to assess how outcomes have changed over the eras and to evaluate the effect of access to imatinib and sunitinib on survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic gist in British Columbia. Methods: Patients with metastatic or unresectable gist were allocated to one of three eras: pre-2002, 2002-2007, and post-2007 based on treatment availability (pre-imatinib, post-imatinib, and post-sunitinib). Overall survival (os) and progression-free survival (pfs) were compared between eras. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the effects of tumour, patient, and treatment characteristics on survival outcomes. Results: Of 657 patients diagnosed with gist throughout British Columbia during 1996-2016, 196 had metastatic disease: 23 in the pre-imatinib era, 67 in the post-imatinib era, and 106 in the post-sunitinib era. A significant increase in os, by 53.6 months (p = 0.0007), and pfs, by 29.1 months (p = 0.044), was observed after the introduction of imatinib. The introduction of sunitinib did not significantly affect os or pfs. Conclusions: Implementation of tkis has drastically improved survival outcomes for patients with metastatic gist by up to 4.55 years in the real-world setting. Our study demonstrates that implementation of tkis in clinical practice has outperformed their benefit predicted in clinical trials.

Understanding the reasons for provincial discordance in cancer drug funding-a survey of policymakers.

Background: Cancer drug-funding decisions between provinces shows discordance. The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pcodr) was implemented in 2011 partly to address uneven drug coverage and lack of transparency in the various provincial cancer drug review processes in Canada. We evaluated the underlying reasons for ongoing provincial discordance since the implementation of pcodr. Methods: Participation in an online survey was solicited from participating provincial ministries of health (mohs) and cancer agencies (cas). The 4-question survey (with both multiple-choice and free-text responses) was administered between 4 March 2015 and 1 April 2015, inclusive. Anonymity was ensured. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate responses. Results: Data were available from 9 provinces (all Canadian provinces except Quebec), with a response rate of 100%. The 12 responses received each came from a senior policymaker with more than 5 years' experience in cancer drug funding decision-making (5 from mohs, 7 from cas). Responses for 3 provinces came from both a moh representative and a ca representative. The most common reason for funding a drug not recommended by pcodr was political pressure (64%). The most common reason not to fund a drug recommended by pcodr was budget constraints (91%). The most common reason for a province to fund a drug before completion of the pcodr review was also political pressure (57%). Conclusions: Political pressure and budgetary constraints continue to affect equity of access to cancer drugs for patients throughout Canada.

Impact of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review on provincial concordance with respect to cancer drug funding decisions and time to funding.

BACKGROUND: The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pcodr) was implemented in 2011 to address uneven drug coverage and lack of transparency with respect to the various provincial cancer drug review processes in Canada. We evaluated the impact of the pcodr on provincial decision concordance and time from Notice of Compliance (noc) to drug funding. METHODS: In a retrospective review, Health Canada's Drug Product Database was used to identify new indications for cancer drugs between January 2003 and May 2014, and provincial formulary listings for drug-funding dates and decisions between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2014 were retrieved. Multiple linear models and quantile regressions were used to evaluate changes in time to decision-making before and after the implementation of the pcodr. Agreement of decisions between provinces was evaluated using kappa statistics. RESULTS: Data were available from 9 provinces (all Canadian provinces except Quebec), identifying 88 indications that represented 51 unique cancer drugs. Two provinces lacked available data for all 88 indications at the time of data collection. Interprovincial concordance in drug funding decisions significantly increased after the pcodr's implementation (Brennan-Prediger coefficient: 0.54 pre-pcodr vs. 0.78 post-pcodr; p = 0.002). Nationwide, the median number of days from Health Canada's noc date to the date of funding significantly declined (to 393 days from 522 days, p < 0.001). Exploratory analyses excluding provinces with incomplete data did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: After the implementation of the pcodr, greater concordance in cancer drug funding decisions between provinces and decreased time to funding decisions were observed.

Provincial elections and timing of cancer drug funding.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised about the potential influence of political pressures on drug funding decisions. We evaluated the temporal relationship between cancer drug funding and provincial elections in 9 Canadian provinces. METHODS: New indications for cancer drugs between January 2003 and December 2012 were identified, and the dates of official provincial funding dates and election dates between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2014 were retrieved. The probability of drug funding announcements in the 60-day period preceding a provincial election was evaluated using binomial probability distribution analysis. RESULTS: Data from 9 provinces (all Canadian provinces except Quebec) were available. During the period of interest, 69 new indications for 39 individual drugs were identified. Variation in the availability of funding dates was identified. At the time of data collection, 2 provinces did not have data available for all 69 indications. For the 9 provinces, the number of funded indications during the 60-day period preceding an election ranged from 0 to 3; however, no differences in the proportion of indications funded pre-election were identified. Additional analyses also failed to demonstrate any significant associations with the 90-day period before an election, or the 60- and 90-day periods after an election. CONCLUSIONS: We observed no clear temporal relationship between provincial election dates and funding decisions in this recent Canadian sample of new indications for cancer drugs.

Evolution in the eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials for systemic cancer therapies.

BACKGROUND: Eligibility criteria in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reduce inter-patient heterogeneity, but may reduce generalizability of results. Here, we explore temporal changes in eligibility criteria of practice-changing RCTs for systemic cancer therapies and in the proportion of patients excluded from these trials after application of eligibility criteria. METHODS: An electronic search identified practice-changing RCTs published in six major journals between July 2010 and December 2012. Trial protocols were identified through journal websites and communication with authors or study sponsors. Eligibility criteria were extracted from protocols. The number of patients excluded after application of eligibility criteria was extracted from the CONSORT diagrams and text of publications. Changes in eligibility criteria over time were assessed by logistic regression and meta-regression was carried out to evaluate the impact of year of protocol on the proportion of patients who were excluded after screening. RESULTS: Eighty-six protocols written between 1987 and 2012 were included. Over time, there has been an increasing frequency of exclusion of patients with prior cerebrovascular events (OR 1.34, p=0.003), coagulation/bleeding disorders (OR 1.34, p=0.006), prior gastrointestinal bleeding (OR 1.33, p=0.01), cardiac co-morbidities (OR 1.24, p=0.004) and exclusion based on concurrent medication (OR 1.19, p=0.01). There has been a decrease in upper age limit usage (OR 0.83, p=0.01) and leukopenia (OR 0.83, p=0.009). The proportion of patients excluded from trials has increased from 9% prior to 2000 to 18% after 2010 (p-value for trend <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RCTs have become less representative of cancer patients treated in routine practice with increased use of organ-specific and co-morbidity-based exclusion criteria.