Evaluating the clinical benefit of pembrolizumab as a first-line agent in advanced solid tumors: A comprehensive review.

INTRODUCTION: The study evaluates the first-line application of pembrolizumab in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC), gastric cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Utilizing the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF), the analysis incorporates data from pivotal KEYNOTE trials. METHODS: The study systematically assessed the clinical benefit of pembrolizumab in advanced solid malignancies through nine randomized controlled trials, one of which comprised two experimental arms. Data extraction from primary sources was conducted from PubMed, ASCO, and ESMO publications. Utilizing ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF forms, the evaluation focused on clinical benefit, toxicity, and bonus points, with discrepancies resolved through consensus discussions. RESULTS: Nine first-line indications for pembrolizumab received Food and Drug Administration approval for metastatic solid tumors between 2018 and 2023. Notable distinctions in ESMO-MCBS grades revealed seven trials with substantial clinical benefit (grades 5 to 4) and three with moderate to negligible benefit (grades 3 to 1). Bonus points, primarily based on the tail of the curve, were allocated to three trials for overall survival, one for progression-free survival, and one for a significant improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation of pembrolizumab across diverse cancers, especially in mNSCLC and HNSCC, revealed varied outcomes and challenges in clinical benefit interpretation. The assessment of clinical benefit, incorporating quantitative and qualitative endpoints, underscores the need to consider survivorship outcomes and patient perspectives for a comprehensive understanding.

Evaluation of changes in the clinical benefits of oncology drugs over time following reimbursement using the ASCO-VF and the ESMO-MCBS.

PURPOSE: This study aims to estimate changes in the value of oncology drugs over time from initial data of the reimbursement decisions to subsequent publications in Korea, using two value frameworks. METHODS: We retrieved primary publications assessed for reimbursement between 2007 and July 2021 from the decision documents of Health Insurance Review and Assessment and subsequent publications made available following reimbursement decision from ClinicalTrials.Gov and PubMed databases. Changes in the clinical benefit scores were assessed using the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). A paired t test was performed to test whether there was a difference in the scores between primary and subsequent publications. RESULTS: Of 73 anticancer product/indication pairs, 45 (61.6%) had subsequent publications, of which 62.5% were released within 1 year of reimbursement decision. The mean ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF Net Health Benefit scores increased from primary to subsequent publications, although the differences were not significant. The mean ASCO-VF bonus score significantly increased from 15.91 to 19.09 (p = 0.05). The ESMO-MCBS and bonus scores increased by 0.25 and 0.21, respectively, and the bonus score had a greater impact on the ESMO-MCBS score than the preliminary score did. CONCLUSION: The value of drugs demonstrated in subsequent publications varies considerably among oncology drugs, depending on uncertainty associated with the initial evidence and the availability of updated evidence. As decision-making in the face of uncertainty becomes more prevalent, the value frameworks can serve as simple screening tools for re-evaluation in these cases.

Essential cancer medicines: adding feasibility to the magnitude of clinical benefit value chain.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a global public health problem, requiring efficient health system investments to deliver sustainable impact on population health. Access to medicines is a critical component of health systems, having a crucial role in delivering therapeutic benefits. Since 1977, the World Health Organization (WHO) has published a Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) that includes key health interventions for the prevention and control of conditions of public health relevance. Essential medicines are selected for inclusion in the EML based on the evidence of efficacy, safety, therapeutic value, and the potential to impact population health. With the rapid changes in the therapeutic landscape of cancer treatment with new medicine approvals, there is a critical need to select and prioritise specific cancer interventions based on their intrinsic value. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed a decisional methodology based on a threshold with a minimum set of technical specifications and a consensus-based procedure for decisions to select candidate cancer medicines to be submitted to the WHO for consideration for the WHO EML. RESULTS: ESMO recognises the WHO EML as an important reference guide for medicines that all countries should include in their national EMLs. Cancer medicines on the WHO EML are used in the treatment of the majority of cancers, and are recommended in the evidence-based ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines that medical oncologists use to treat patients. ESMO's submissions to the WHO EML in 2019 and 2021 and their respective outcomes are presented in the manuscript. CONCLUSION: Due to the rising costs associated with newly available therapies, structured, reproducible, and field-tested tools to evaluate the added clinical benefit from these therapies need to be implemented in pre-selecting potential candidate medicines to be included in the WHO EML. ESMO is proud to collaborate closely with WHO on this important global public health initiative.

Randomized controlled trial in gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma undergoing systemic therapy over two decades.

INTRODUCTION: The number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the systemic treatment of gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GA-RCTs) is increasing. We aimed to describe the characteristics and evaluate the clinical benefit of GA-RCTs over the past 20 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched for RCTs of systemic treatment in GA published in eight major journals between 2001 and 2020 in PubMed. From the included studies, the characteristics and results of GA-RCTs were extracted. Clinical benefit was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). RESULTS: About 93 RCTs with 38365 patients were included. Seventy-one (76.3%) studies received external funding, with an increase from 27.3% (2001-2005) to 94.1% (2016-2020). RCTs on targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy have also increased over time, but only 14 (41.2%) were restricted to specific biomarkers. Forty-four (47.3%) studies met their primary endpoint (defined as positive RCTs), but median overall survival has not improved over time. Moreover, only 16 (36.4%) studies met the ESMO-MCBS threshold. RCTs whose study design and results met the ESMO-MCBS thresholds has not increased over time (p = 0.827 and p = 0.733, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: GA-RCTs are increasingly focused on targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy, and are more likely to receive external funding. However, the effect size has not shown significant improvement in the past 20 years. Only a few RCTs with positive results met ESMO thresholds. Future RCTs should prioritize the clinical benefits and provide direct evidence to optimize and reform GA treatment practices.

Access to novel cancer medicines in four countries in Central and Eastern Europe in relation to clinical benefit.

BACKGROUND: Almost 100 novel cancer medicines have been approved in Europe over the last decade. Limited public health care resources in countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) call for a prioritization of access to effective medicines. We investigated how both reimbursement status and waiting time to reimbursement correlate with the magnitude of clinical benefit provided by novel medicines in four selected countries (Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 124 indications of 51 cancer medicines with marketing authorization by the European Medicines Agency in 2011-2020 were included and followed up until 2022. Data on reimbursement status and waiting time to reimbursement (i.e. time from marketing authorization to national reimbursement approval) were collected for each country. Data were analyzed in relation to clinical benefit status (i.e. substantial versus nonsubstantial clinical benefit) of indications according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). RESULTS: The degree of reimbursement differed between countries with 64% of indications with reimbursement in Czechia, 40% in Hungary, 51% in Poland, and 19% in Slovakia. In all countries, a significantly greater proportion of indications with a substantial clinical benefit was reimbursed (P < 0.05). The median waiting time to reimbursement ranged from 27 months in Poland to 37 months in Hungary. No significant differences in waiting time in relation to clinical benefit were observed in any country (P = 0.25-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer medicines with a substantial clinical benefit are more likely to be reimbursed in all four CEE countries. Waiting times to reimbursement are equally long for medicines with or without a substantial clinical benefit, indicating a lack of prioritization of fast access to medicines delivering a substantial benefit. Incorporation of the ESMO-MCBS in reimbursement assessments and decisions could aid in better utilization of limited resources to deliver more effective cancer care.

ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H) version 1.0.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) has been accepted as a robust tool to evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit reported in trials for oncological therapies. However, the ESMO-MCBS hitherto has only been validated for solid tumours. With the rapid development of novel therapies for haematological malignancies, we aimed to develop an ESMO-MCBS version that is specifically designed and validated for haematological malignancies. METHODS: ESMO and the European Hematology Association (EHA) initiated a collaboration to develop a version for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H). The process incorporated five landmarks: field testing of the ESMO-MCBS version 1.1 (v1.1) to identify shortcomings specific to haematological diseases, drafting of the ESMO-MCBS:H forms, peer review and revision of the draft based on re-scoring (resulting in a second draft), assessment of reasonableness of the scores generated, final review and approval by ESMO and EHA including executive boards. RESULTS: Based on the field testing results of 80 haematological trials and extensive review for feasibility and reasonableness, five amendments to ESMO-MCBS were incorporated in the ESMO-MCBS:H addressing the identified shortcomings. These concerned mainly clinical trial endpoints that differ in haematology versus solid oncology and the very indolent nature of nevertheless incurable diseases such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers presentation of mature data. In addition, general changes incorporated in the draft version of the ESMO-MCBS v2 were included, and specific forms for haematological malignancies generated. Here we present the final approved forms of the ESMO-MCBS:H, including instructions. CONCLUSION: The haematology-specific version ESMO-MCBS:H allows now full applicability of the scale for evaluating the magnitude of clinical benefit derived from clinical studies in haematological malignancies.

HTA and Reimbursement Status of Metastatic Hormone­Sensitive Prostate Cancer, Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer, and Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treatments in Europe: A Patient Access Landscape Review.

Background: Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men, with up to one-third of men being diagnosed in their lifetime. Recently, novel therapies have received regulatory approval with significant improvement in overall survival for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, and nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. To improve decision-making regarding the value of anticancer therapies and support standardized assessment for use by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed a Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS). Objective: This review aimed to map HTA status, reimbursement restrictions, and patient access for 3 advanced prostate cancer indications across 23 European countries during 2011-2021. Methods: HTA, country reimbursement lists, and ESMO-MCBS scorecards were reviewed for evidence and data across 26 European countries. Results: The analysis demonstrated that only in Greece, Germany, and Sweden was there full access across all included prostate cancer treatments. Treatments available for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were widely reimbursed, with both abiraterone and enzalutamide accessible in all countries. In 3 countries (Hungary, the Netherlands, and Switzerland), there was a statistically significant difference (P<.05) between status of reimbursement and ESMO-MCBS "substantial benefit" (score of 4 or 5) vs "no substantial benefit" (score <4). Conclusion: Overall, the impact of the ESMO-MCBS on reimbursement decisions in Europe is unclear, with significant variation across the countries included in this review.

Value assessment of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of oesophageal and gastrointestinal cancers.

Background: Evidence of efficacy and safety of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors in oesophageal cancer (EC), gastric cancer (GC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) was inconsistent, obscuring their clinical application and decision-making. The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the value of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in EC, GC and CRC to select valuable PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and to assess the association between the value and cost of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Methods: A comprehensive search of trials of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in EC, GC and CRC was performed in Chinese and English medical databases with a cut-off date of 1 July 2022. Two authors independently applied the ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS to assess the value of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to establish the predictive value of the ASCO-VF score to meet the threshold of the ESMO-MCBS grade. Spearman's correlation was used to calculate the relationship between the cost and value of drugs. Results: Twenty-three randomized controlled trials were identified: ten (43.48%) in EC, five (21.74%) in CRC, and eight (34.78%) in GC or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC). For advanced diseases, ASCO-VF scores ranged from -12.5 to 69, with a mean score of 26.5 (95% CI 18.4-34.6). Six (42.9%) therapeutic regimens met the ESMO-MCBS benefit threshold grade. The area under the ROC curve was 1.0 (p = 0.002). ASCO-VF scores and incremental monthly cost were negatively correlated (Spearman's ρ = -0.465, p = 0.034). ESMO-MCBS grades and incremental monthly cost were negatively correlated (Spearman's ρ = -0.211, p = 0.489). Conclusion: PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors did not meet valuable threshold in GC/GEJC. Pembrolizumab met valuable threshold in advanced microsatellite instability-high CRC. The value of camrelizumab and toripalimab may be more worth paying in EC.

Evaluation of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) has suggested using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) to grade the magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer therapies. This approach has not been applied to radiation therapy (RT) yet. We applied the ESMO-MCBS to experiences describing the use of RT to assess (1) the 'scoreability' of the data, (2) evaluate the reasonableness of the grades for clinical benefit and (3) identify potential shortcomings in the current version of the ESMO-MCBS in its applicability to RT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We applied the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 to a selection of studies in radiotherapy that had been identified as references in the development of American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based guidelines on whole breast radiation. Of the 112 cited references, we identified a subset of 16 studies that are amenable to grading using the ESMO-MCBS. RESULTS: Of the 16 studies reviewed, 3/16 were scoreable with the ESMO tool. Six of 16 studies could not be scored because of shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1: (1) in 'non-inferiority studies', there is no credit for improved patient convenience, reduced patient burden or improved cosmesis; (2) in 'superiority studies' evaluating local control as a primary endpoint, there is no credit for the clinical benefit such as reduced need for further interventions. In 7/16 studies, methodological deficiencies in the conduct and reporting were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents a first step in determining the utility of the ESMO-MCBS in the evaluation of clinical benefit in radiotherapy. Important shortcomings were identified that would need to be addressed in developing a version of the ESMO-MCBS that can be robustly applied to radiotherapy treatments. Optimization of the ESMO-MCBS instrument will proceed to enable assessment of value in radiotherapy.

Off-label despite high-level evidence: a clinical practice review of commonly used off-patent cancer medicines.

INTRODUCTION: Off-label use of medicines is generally discouraged. However, several off-patent, low-cost cancer medicines remain off-label for indications in which they are commonly used in daily practice, supported by high-level evidence based on results of phase III clinical trials. This discrepancy may generate prescription and reimbursement obstacles as well as impaired access to established therapies. METHODS: A list of cancer medicines that remain off-label in specific indications despite the presence of high-level evidence was generated and subjected to European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) expert peer review to assess for accountability of reasonableness. These medicines were then surveyed on approval procedures and workflow impact. The most illustrative examples of these medicines were reviewed by experts from the European Medicines Agency to ascertain the apparent robustness of the supporting phase III trial evidence from a regulatory perspective. RESULTS: A total of 47 ESMO experts reviewed 17 cancer medicines commonly used off-label in six disease groups. Overall, high levels of agreement were recorded on the off-label status and the high quality of data supporting the efficacy in the off-label indications, often achieving high ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores. When prescribing these medicines, 51% of the reviewers had to implement a time-consuming process associated with additional workload, in the presence of litigation risks and patient anxiety. Finally, the informal regulatory expert review identified only 2 out of 18 (11%) studies with significant limitations that would be difficult to overcome in the context of a potential marketing authorisation application without additional studies. CONCLUSIONS: We highlight the common use of off-patent essential cancer medicines in indications that remain off-label despite solid supporting data as well as generate evidence on the adverse impact on patient access and clinic workflows. In the current regulatory framework, incentives to promote the extension of indications of off-patent cancer medicines are needed for all stakeholders.

Value assessment of NMPA-approved new cancer drugs for solid cancer in China, 2016-2020.

Background: Whether the high cost of cancer drugs is commensurate with their value to patients, which has become the focus of public concern. We aimed to assess the value of new cancer drugs approved for solid cancer in China and to explore the association between price and value of drugs. Methods: We identified all new drugs for solid tumor that approved by the China's National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) between 2016 and 2020. The value of these drugs was assessed according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We calculated Cohen's κ statistic to describe agreement between the two frameworks. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between price and value of drugs. Results: Between 2016 and 2020, 37 new drugs were approved by the NMPA for solid tumor and we could evaluate the value of 28 drugs (76%). Eight (29%) of drugs were approved for non-small-cell lung cancer and 6 (21%) for breast cancer. ASCO-VF scores had a range of -20 to 110.1, and the median score was 43.3 (inter-quartile range 27.1-58.35). Only seven drugs (25%) met the ASCO-VF cutoff score. By the ESMO-MCBS, 13 drugs showed a meaningful value. Agreement between these two frameworks thresholds was only fair (κ = 0.515, P < 0.05). We found no statistically significant correlation between launch price of drugs and clinical benefit according to both frameworks. Conclusions: Not all NMPA-approved new cancer drugs had meaningful value as measured by ASCO-VF or ESMO-MCBS. There was no significant correlation between drug price and the level of clinical benefit.

The correlation between the costs and clinical benefits of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in malignant tumors: An evaluation based on ASCO and ESMO frameworks.

Background: Life expectancy for patients with malignant tumors has been significantly improved since the presence of the programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors in 2014, but they impose heavy financial burdens for patients, the healthcare system and the nations. The objective of this study was to determine the survival benefits, toxicities, and monetary of programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 inhibitors and quantify their values. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for malignant tumors were identified and clinical benefits were quantified by American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). The drug price in Micromedex REDBOOK was used to estimate monthly incremental drug costs (IDCs) and the correlation between clinical benefits and incremental drug costs of experimental and control groups in each randomized controlled trial, and the agreement between two frameworks were calculated. Results: Up to December 2022, 52 randomized controlled trials were included in the quantitative synthesis. All the randomized controlled trials were evaluated by American society of clinical oncology value framework, and 26 (50%) met the American society of clinical oncology value framework "clinical meaningful value." 49 of 52 randomized controlled trials were graded by European society for medical oncology magnitude of clinical benefit scale, and 30 (61.2%) randomized controlled trials achieved European Society for Medical Oncology criteria of meaningful value. p-values of Spearman correlation analyses between monthly incremental drug costs and American society of clinical oncology value framework/European society for medical oncology magnitude of clinical benefit scale scores were 0.9695 and 0.3013, respectively. In addition, agreement between two framework thresholds was fair (κ = 0.417, p = 0.00354). Conclusion: This study suggests that there might be no correlation between the cost and clinical benefit of programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 inhibitors in malignancy, and the same results were observed in subgroups stratified by drug or indication. The results should be a wake-up call for oncologists, pharmaceutical enterprises and policymakers, and meanwhile advocate the refining of American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology frameworks.

Methodological and reporting standards for quality-of-life data eligible for European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) credit.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) has been developed to grade clinical benefit of cancer therapies. Improvement in quality of life (QoL) is considered relevant, especially in the non-curative setting. This is reflected by an upgrade of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score if QoL is improved compared to the control arm or a downgrade if an improvement in progression-free survival is not paralleled by an improvement in QoL or overall survival. Given the importance of QoL for the final score, a need to ensure the robustness of QoL data was recognised. DESIGN: A checklist was created based on existing guidelines for QoL research. Field testing was carried out using clinical trials that either received an adjustment of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score based on QoL or had QoL as the primary endpoint. Several rounds of revision and re-testing of the checklist were undertaken until a final consensus was reached. RESULTS: The final checklist consists of four items and can be applied if three prerequisites are met: (i) QoL is at least a secondary endpoint, (ii) evidence of reliability and validity of the instrument is provided, and (iii) a statistically and clinically significant improvement in QoL is observed. The four items on the checklist pertain to the (i) hypothesis, (ii) compliance and missing data, (iii) presentation of the results, and (iv) statistical and clinical relevance. Field testing revealed that a clear QoL hypothesis and correction for multiple testing were mostly lacking, while the main statistical method was always described. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ESMO-MCBS QoL checklist will facilitate objective and transparent decision making on QoL data within the ESMO-MCBS scoring process. Trials published until 1 January 2025 will have to meet the prerequisites and at least two items for crediting QoL benefit in the final ESMO-MCBS score. Trials published thereafter will have to meet all four items.

The value measurement of emerging therapeutics in renal cell carcinoma: ASCO value framework and ESMO-MCBS.

PURPOSE: Rapid development of novel therapeutics in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has led to financial burden for patients and society. Value including clinical benefit, toxicity affecting quality of life and cost-effectiveness are a concern, prompting the need for tools to facilitate value assessment of therapeutics. This study reviews the value assessment tools, and evaluates the value of emerging therapeutics in RCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two medical oncologists used American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework (ASCO VF) v2.0 and European Society for Medical Oncology-magnitude of clinical benefit scale (ESMO-MCBS) v1.1 to phase 3 trials evaluating first-line therapy in patients with metastatic RCC. Follow-up (FU) reports and extended survival data were included. Equivocal aspects and limitations of the tools were discussed. RESULTS: Six trials (COMPARZ, CheckMate 214, JAVELIN renal 101, Keynote 426, CLEAR, and CheckMate 9ER) were assessed. The control arm was standard-of-care sunitinib in all trials. ASCO VF's net health benefit, calculated as clinical benefit, toxicity and other bonus point was 11 in pazopanib, 41.9 in nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 22.4 in axitinib plus avelumab, 48.7 in axitinib plus pembrolizumab, 35.2 in lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, and 50.8 in cabozantinib plus nivolumab. A higher score means a greater treatment benefit. ESMO-MCBS gave grade 5 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 4 to pazopanib, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and cabozantinib plus nivolumab, 3 to axitinib plus avelumab or pembrolizumab. Both tools had unclear aspects to be applied to clinical practice, and should be more clearly defined, such as endpoint for determining survival benefits or how to standardize quality of life and toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: ASCO VF and ESMO-MCBS were applied to evaluate the newly emerging drugs in RCC and assessed their value. In-depth discussion by experts in various fields is required for appropriate clinical application in a real-world setting.

Prioritising systemic cancer therapies applying ESMO's tools and other resources to assist in improving cancer care globally: the Kazakh experience.

BACKGROUND: In Kazakhstan, cancer is the second leading cause of death with a major public health and economic burden. In the last decade, cancer care and cancer medicine costs have significantly increased. To improve the efficiency and efficacy of cancer care expenditure and planning, the Kazakhstan Ministry of Health requested assistance from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) to review its systemic cancer treatment protocols and essential medicines list and identify high-impact, effective regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ESMO developed a four-phase approach to review Kazakhstan cancer treatment protocols: (i) perform a systematic analysis of the country's cancer medicines and treatment protocols; (ii) cross-reference the country's cancer protocols with the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale and the European Medicines Agency's medicine availability and indications database; (iii) extract treatment recommendations from the ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines; (iv) expert review for all cancer medicines not on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines and the country treatment protocols. RESULTS: This ESMO four-phase approach led to the update of the Kazakhstan national essential cancer medicines list and the list of cancer treatment protocols. This review has led to the withdrawal of several low-value or non-evidence-based medicines and a budget increase for cancer care to include all essential and highly effective medicines and treatment options. CONCLUSION: When applied effectively, this four-phase approach can improve access to medicines, efficiency of expenditure and sustainability of cancer systems. The WHO-ESMO collaboration illustrated how, by sharing best practices, tools and resources, we can address access to cancer medicines and positively impact patient care.

Clinical benefit of systemic therapies for recurrent ovarian cancer-ESMO-MCBS scores.

BACKGROUND: Licensed systemic treatment options for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer are platinum-based chemotherapy and maintenance treatment with bevacizumab and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. For platinum-resistant disease, several non-platinum options are available. We aimed to assess the clinical benefit of these treatments according to the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed search was carried out including all studies evaluating systemic treatment of recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer, from 1990 onwards. Randomised trials with an adequate comparator and design showing a statistically significant benefit of the study arm were independently scored by two blinded observers using the ESMO-MCBS. RESULTS: A total of 1127 papers were identified, out of which 61 reported results of randomised trials of sufficient quality. Nineteen trials showed statistically significant results and the studied treatments were graded according to ESMO-MCBS. Only three treatments showed substantial benefit (score of 4 on a scale of 1-5) according to the ESMO-MCBS: platinum-based chemotherapy with paclitaxel in the platinum-sensitive setting and the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in the platinum-resistant setting. The WEE1 inhibitor adavosertib (not licensed) also scores a 4, based on a recent small phase II study. Assessment of quality-of-life data and toxicity using the ESMO-MCBS showed to be complex, which should be taken into account in using this score for clinical decision making. CONCLUSION: Only a few licensed systemic therapies for recurrent ovarian cancer show substantial clinical benefit based on ESMO-MCBS scores. Trials demonstrating overall survival benefit are sparse.