Cost and value of cancer medicines in a single-payer public health system in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The financial impact of cancer medicines on health systems is not well known. We describe temporal trends in expenditure on cancer medicines within the single-payer health system of Ontario, Canada, and the extent of clinical benefit these treatments offer. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we identified cancer medicines and expenditures from formularies and costing databases (the New Drug Funding Program, Ontario Drug Benefit Program, and The High-Cost Therapy Funding Program) during 10 consecutive years (April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2022) in Ontario, Canada. For intravenous medicines, we applied the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) to identify expenditures associated with substantial clinical benefit. We also identified treatments associated with improved overall survival or quality of life. FINDINGS: 69 intravenous and 98 oral or injectable medicines were funded during 2012-22. Annual expenditure on cancer medicines increased by approximately 15% per year during 2012-22; the increase was more rapid in the most recent 4 years. Total expenditure on cancer medicines in the 2021-22 financial year was CA$1·7 billion. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were the single biggest expense by class ($284 million), representing 17% of the entire cancer medicine annual budget. Drugs with the highest individual costs were lenalidomide ($178 million) and pembrolizumab ($163 million), each accounting for around 10% of the entire budget. 29 (76%) of 38 indications eligible for ESMO-MCBS scoring met the threshold for substantial clinical benefit. Eight (21%) indications had no randomised trial evidence of improved overall survival, and only four (11%) were associated with improved QOL. $346 million (67% of the expenditure on intravenous cancer medicines) was spent on drugs that improved median overall survival by more than 6 months, $82 million (16%) was spent on medicines with overall survival gains of 3-6 months, and $32 million (6%) was spent on medicines with overall survival gains of less than 3 months. $53 million (10%) was spent on medicines with no established improvement in overall survival. INTERPRETATION: Costs of cancer medicines to the Canadian health system are increasing rapidly. Most funded indications met thresholds for substantial clinical benefit and two-thirds of the expenditure were for medicines that improve survival by more than 6 months. Whether this cost trajectory can be maintained in a sustainable, equitable, high-quality health system is unclear. Efforts are needed to ensure the price of medicines with substantial benefit is affordable and funding of treatments with very modest benefit might need to be re-assessed, particularly when alternative supportive and palliative therapies are available. FUNDING: None.

Measuring prognostic awareness in patients with advanced cancer: a scoping review and interpretive synthesis of the impact of hope.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of prognostic awareness (PA) in patients with advanced cancer is challenging because patient responses often indicate their hopes. The objectives of this scoping review were to summarize studies that measured PA in patients with advanced cancer and to synthesize data about how PA was measured and whether hope was incorporated into the measurement. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception to December 14, 2021. Data regarding the impact of hope on assessment of PA were extracted when studies reported on patients' beliefs about prognosis and patients' beliefs about their doctor's opinion about prognosis. An interpretive synthesis approach was used to analyze the data and to generate a theory regarding the incorporation of hope into the assessment of PA. RESULTS: In total, 52 studies representing 23 766 patients were included. Most were conducted in high-income countries and measured PA based on the goal of treatment (curable vs incurable). Five studies incorporated hope into the assessment of PA and reported that among patients who responded that their treatment goal was a cure, an average of 30% also acknowledged that their doctors were treating them with palliative intent. Interpretive synthesis of the evidence generated a trinary conceptualization of PA patients who are aware and accepting of their prognosis; aware and not accepting; and truly unaware. Each of these groups will benefit from different types of interventions to support their evolving PA. CONCLUSION: The trinary conceptualization of PA may promote understanding of the impact of hope in the assessment of PA and guide future research.

Patients' attitudes and preferences toward delayed disease progression in the absence of improved survival.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients' attitudes toward progression-free survival (PFS) gains offered by treatment are not well understood, particularly in the absence of overall survival (OS) gains. The objectives were to describe patients' willingness to accept treatment that offers PFS gains without OS gains, to compare these findings with treatments offering OS gains, and to qualitatively summarize patients' reasons for their preferences. METHODS: A multicenter, cross-sectional, convergent mixed-methods study design recruited patients who had received at least 3 months of systemic therapy for incurable solid tumors. A treatment trade-off exercise determined the gains in imaging PFS that patients require to prefer additional systemic treatment for a scenario of a newly diagnosed, asymptomatic, incurable abdominal tumor. A qualitative, descriptive, thematic analysis explored factors influencing patients' decisions, and a narrative method integrated the quantitative and qualitative findings. RESULTS: In total, 100 patients participated (63% were older than 60 years of age). If additional treatment with added toxicity offered no OS advantage, 17% would prefer it for no PFS benefit; 26% for some PFS benefit (range, 3-9 months), whereas 51% would decline it regardless of PFS benefit. Similarly, 71% preferred additional treatment offering a 6-month OS advantage dependent on described toxicity levels (P = .03). A spectrum of reasons for these preferences reflected the complexity of participants' attitudes and values. CONCLUSIONS: Prolongation of time to progression was not universally valued. Most patients did not prefer treatments that negatively affect quality of life for PFS gains alone. Implications for individual decision making, policy, and trials research are discussed.

Coping during COVID-19: a mixed methods study of older cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Older cancer survivors are among the most vulnerable to the negative effects of COVID-19 and may need specific survivorship supports that are unavailable/restricted during the pandemic. The objective of this study was to explore how older adults (≥ 60 years) who were recently (≤ 12 months) discharged from the care of their cancer team were coping during the pandemic. METHODS: We used a convergent mixed method design (QUAL+quan). Quantitative data were collected using the Brief-COPE questionnaire. Qualitative data were collected using telephone interviews to explore experiences and strategies for coping with cancer-related concerns. RESULTS: The mean sample age (n = 30) was 72.1 years (SD 5.8, range 63-83) of whom 57% identified as female. Participants' Brief-COPE responses indicated that they commonly used acceptance (n = 29, 96.7%), self-distraction (n = 28, 93.3%), and taking action (n = 28, 93.3%) coping strategies. Through our descriptive thematic analysis, we identified three themes: (1) drawing on lived experiences, (2) redeploying coping strategies, and (3) complications of cancer survivorship in a pandemic. Participants' coping strategies were rooted in experiences with cancer, other illnesses, life, and work. Using these strategies during the pandemic was not new-they were redeployed and repurposed-although using them during the pandemic was sometimes complicated. These data were converged to maximize interpretation of the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings may inform the development or enhancement of cancer and non-cancer resources to support coping, particularly using remote delivery methods within and beyond the pandemic. Clinicians can engage a strengths-based approach to support older cancer survivors as they draw from their experiences, which contain a repository of potential coping skills.

Patient perspectives of value of delayed disease progression on imaging (imaging PFS). A treatment trade-off experiment.

BACKGROUND: Progression-free survival (PFS) is often used as a clinical trials outcome for evaluating new therapies for solid tumors. While PFS is a validated surrogate for overall survival (OS) or quality of life (QOL) in some settings, it is increasingly used in contexts where surrogacy is not established. PFS is a composite endpoint of survival, symptomatic progression, and imaging-only progression. The intrinsic value of asymptomatic (imaging-only) progression from the patient perspective is not known. METHODS: Patients with advanced metastatic cancer (lung, colorectal, or ovarian) participated in a discrete choice experiment, with a structured treatment choice trade-off exercise. The interview guide and visual aids were developed by a multidisciplinary team including patient representatives. Participants were provided with a hypothetical clinical scenario and treatment options resulting in the same OS duration. A sliding scale was used for duration of delay in imaging progression to determine each patient's willingness to trade longer time for a given level of toxicity. RESULTS: 20 (11 M, 9 F) patients participated. 85 % (n = 17) of patients chose treatment with less toxicity and shorter duration even if associated with a shorter time to worsening imaging. Two patients chose a trade-off for a more toxic treatment with an increase in imaging PFS by 18 months and 24 months respectively. One patient chose to always opt for most aggressive treatment irrespective of PFS benefit and toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with metastatic cancer currently being treated with palliative chemotherapy considered delayed imaging progression in the absence of OS gain to be of low value. POLICY STATEMENT: PFS should not be assumed to have intrinsic value to patients in the absence of surrogacy for OS or QOL when making drug treatment and policy decisions.

Older survivors of cancer in the COVID-19 pandemic: Reflections and recommendations for future care.

PURPOSE: Although the year after cancer treatment is challenging for all cancer survivors, older adults (≥60 years) face additional challenges due to age-related decline and high rates of comorbidity. There is a paucity of research on how health service interruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted the experience of older cancer survivors. In this study we explore older cancer survivors' reflections on the pandemic and their suggestions for future care delivery when traditionally offered resources are not available. METHODS: We conducted 1:1 telephone interviews with adults 60 years and older previously diagnosed with breast and colorectal cancer and recently (≤12 months) discharged from their cancer care team. We analyzed the data using descriptive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The mean sample (n = 30) age was 72.1 years (SD 5.8, Range 63-83) of whom 57% identified as female. Participants described personal and societal implications of the pandemic. that affected their ability to navigate social support, and public and clinical landscapes. These reflections informed their suggestions for future health care delivery, such as how they could have been better prepared to self-manage their post-cancer treatment journey. Participants recommendations were grouped into four sub-themes: 1) enhanced baseline information; 2) facilitate caregiver support and engagement; 3) greater technology integration; and 4) sustained use and public appreciation of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Older cancer survivors appreciate the needed shift to virtual appointments and services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specific strategies to bolster older adults existing strengths and improve their readiness to engage in these measures are critical.