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.

Efficacy-effectiveness gaps in oncology: Looking beyond survival.

The efficacy-effectiveness (EE) gap describes the differences in survival seen in clinical trials and routine clinical practice, where patients in real-world practice often have inferior outcomes compared to trial populations. However, EE gaps may exist beyond survival outcomes, including gaps in quality of life, toxicity, cost-effectiveness, and patient time, and these EE gaps should also influence patient and clinician treatment decisions. Failure to clearly acknowledge these EE gaps may cause patients, clinicians, and health care systems to have unrealistic expectations of the benefits of therapy across a range of important clinical and economic domains. In this commentary, the authors review the evidence supporting the existence of EE gaps in quality of life, time toxicity, cost and toxicities, and urge for further research into this important topic.

Meta-analysis of sex and racial subgroup participation rates and differential treatment effects for trials in solid tumor malignancies leading to US Food and Drug Administration registration between 2010 and 2021.

BACKGROUND: The lack of sociodemographic diversity in clinical trials limits the generalizability of results. The authors examined participation rates and effect modification by sex and race in oncology trials. METHODS: The authors extracted outcome data stratified by sex and race for registration trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval (2010-2021). Effect modification by race and sex was examined using quantitative and qualitative methods. A random-effects meta-analysis and pairwise comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes was conducted by sex and race. RESULTS: Ninety-five trials with 123 end points and 54,365 patients provided information on sex. Trial patients were more often male (n = 35,482; 65% vs. 56% male patients in US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] data), although the proportion of male patients was similar after adjusting by tumor type (60% in FDA data vs. 58% in SEER data). There was no difference in pooled outcomes among male versus female patients (PFS: hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.07; p = .89; OS: hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.07; p = .90). In total, 111 trials including 74,217 patients provided information on race, and 68% of patients identified as White, compared with 72.3% in US SEER incidence data. Black patients were under-represented compared with US SEER incidence data, although ethnicity was poorly reported throughout the data set. In the authors' network meta-analysis by race, there were no statistically significant differences in PFS or OS outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in PFS or OS outcomes were identified when the analyses were stratified by sex or race. Certain racial minorities remain under-represented, and clearer reporting of race and ethnicity is needed. Representation of female patients in FDA trials is similar to that in SEER data after adjusting for tumor type.

Clinical benefit and fragility evaluation of systemic therapy trials for advanced soft tissue sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit of systemic anticancer therapies can be unclear despite positive trials, and outcomes may not translate to real-world practice. This study evaluated the benefit of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) treatments using the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) v1.1 and measured the robustness of STS trial results using Fragility Index (FI). METHODS: Database searches for adult phase II or III trials in advanced STS (January 1998-December 2023) were performed. Therapies with trial outcomes that met the criteria for MCBS were scored 1-5 (≥4 represents substantial clinical benefit). For randomized clinical trials with positive time-to-event endpoints, the number of additional events that would render results nonsignificant, FI, was calculated and expressed as a proportion of the experimental arm size (fragility quotient [FQ]). Higher FI/FQ implies more robust results. RESULTS: Among 194 trials, 19 (9.8%) were phase III. Most phase II trials (146/175; 83.4%) had single-arm or non-comparative design. Trials that were eligible for MCBS scoring (n = 78; 40.2%) evaluated 56 different agents/regimens. Median MCBS score was 2. Only three agents/regimens (all cytotoxic therapies) had an MCBS score ≥4. Among 47 randomized clinical trials, 16 (8 phase II; 8 phase III) trials had positive outcomes. Median FI was 7 (range, 2-52) and 10 trials (62.5%) had an FQ < 10%, with median of 7% (range, 1%-59%). CONCLUSIONS: Most systemic therapies in STS trials did not confer substantial clinical benefit per European Society of Medical Oncology-MCBS. Additionally, positive randomized trials were often fragile. Novel STS therapy trials should use clinically meaningful endpoints and real-world efficacy confirmation is essential, especially for less robust trials.

Financial Toxicity: Unveiling the Burden of Cancer Care on Patients in Rwanda.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer is a major public health problem in Rwanda and other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While there have been some improvements in access to cancer treatment, the cost of care has increased, leading to financial toxicity and treatment barriers for many patients. This study explores the financial toxicity of cancer care in Rwanda. METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at 3 referral hospitals in Rwanda, which deliver most of the country's cancer care. Data were collected over 6 months from June 1 to December 1, 2022 by trained research assistants (RAs) using a modified validated data collection tool. RAs interviewed consecutive eligible patients with breast cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who were on active systemic therapy. The study aimed to identify sources of financial burden. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 239 patients were included; 75% (n = 180/239) were female and mean age was 51 years. Breast, cervix, and colorectal cancers were the most common diagnoses (42%, 100/239; 24%, 58/239; and 24%, 57/239, respectively) and 54% (n = 129/239) were diagnosed with advanced stage (stages III-IV). Financial burden was high; 44% (n = 106/239) of respondents sold property, 29% (n = 70/239) asked for charity from public, family, or friends, and 16% (n = 37/239) took loans with interest to fund cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: Despite health insurance which covers many elements of cancer care, a substantial proportion of patients on anti-cancer treatment in Rwanda experience major financial toxicity. Novel health financing solutions are needed to ensure accessible and affordable cancer care.

Global application of National Comprehensive Cancer Network resource-stratified guidelines for systemic treatment of colon cancer: a population-based, customisable model for cost, demand, and procurement.

BACKGROUND: Resource-stratified guidelines (RSGs) can inform systemic treatment decisions in the face of limited resources. The objective of this study was to develop a customisable modelling tool to predict the demand, cost, and drug procurement needs of delivering National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) RSG-based systemic treatment for colon cancer. METHODS: We developed decision trees for first-course systemic therapy for colon cancer based on the NCCN RSGs. Decision trees were merged with data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results programme, the International Agency for Research on Cancer's GLOBOCAN 2020 national estimates for colon cancer incidence, country-level income data, and data on drug costs from Redbook (USA), the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (Australia), and the Management Sciences for Health 2015 International Medical Products price guide to estimate global treatment needs and costs, and forecast drug procurement. Simulations and sensitivity analyses were used to explore the effect of scaling up services globally and the effect of alternative stage distributions on treatment demand and cost. We generated a customisable model, in which estimates can be tailored to local incidence, epidemiological, and costing data. FINDINGS: First-course systemic therapy is indicated in 608 314 (53·6%) of 1 135 864 colon cancer diagnoses in 2020. Indications for first-course systemic therapy are projected to rise to 926 653 in 2040; the indications in 2020 might be as high as 826 123 (72·7%), depending on stage distribution assumptions. Adhering to NCCN RSGs, patients with colon cancer in low-income and middle income countries (LMICs) would constitute 329 098 (54·1%) of 608 314 global systemic therapy demands, but only 10% of global expenditure on systemic therapies. The total cost of NCCN RSG-based first-course systemic therapy for colon cancer in 2020 would be between about US$4·2 and about $4·6 billion, depending on stage distribution. If all patients with colon cancer in 2020 were treated according to maximal resources, global expenditure on systemic therapy for colon cancer would rise to around $8·3 billion. INTERPRETATION: We have developed a customisable model that can be applied at global, national, and subnational levels to estimate systemic treatment needs, forecast drug procurement, and calculate expected drug costs on the basis of local data. This tool can be used to plan resource allocation for colon cancer globally. FUNDING: None.

Differential treatment effect between younger and older adults for new cancer therapies in solid tumors supporting US Food and Drug Administration approval between 2010 and 2021.

BACKGROUND: Over one half of cancer diagnoses occur in patients aged 65 and older. The authors quantified how treatment effects differ between older and younger patients in oncology registration trials. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of registration trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration approval of cancer drugs (from January 2010 to December 2021). The primary outcome was differential treatment effect by age (younger than 65 years vs. 65 years or older) for progression-free survival and overall survival. Random effects meta-analysis and a pairwise comparison of outcomes by age group also were performed. RESULTS: Among 263 trials that met the inclusion criteria, 120 trials with 153 end points and 83,152 patients presented age-specific outcome data. Among the included randomized patients, 38% were aged 65 years and older compared with an incidence proportion of 55% in data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Studies evaluating prostate cancer had the highest representation of patients aged 65 years or older (73%), whereas breast cancer studies had the lowest (20%). There were no changes in the proportion of patients aged 65 years or older over time (p = .86). Only 7% of end points showed a statistically significant interaction between outcome and age group. In a pooled analysis, there was an association between treatment effect and age for progression-free survival that approached but did not meet significance (hazard ratio, 0.95; p = .06), and there was no difference for overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.97; p = .79). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults remain under-represented in oncology registration trials. Significant differences in outcomes by age group were uncommon in individual trials and pooled analyses. However, clinical trial participants differ from real-world patients older than 65 years, and increased enrollment and ongoing research into differential treatment effects by age are needed.

The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy and systemic therapy in the management of tumour thrombus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and tumour thrombus remain poor. Recent data suggest limited role for cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) and data on thrombus response to systemic therapy (ST) is scarce. Here, we describe response and survival of patients with de novo mRCC and thrombi treated with ST with or without CN. METHODS: Demographics, disease characteristics and survival of patients with de novo mRCC were collected. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in months (m) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method (log-rank). RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2019, 226 patients with mRCC were identified, 64 (28.3%) had tumour thrombus out of which 18 (28.1%) received only ST. Among 12 evaluable patients, thrombus response, stability and progression were seen in 3 (25%), 6 (50%) and 3 (25%) patients, respectively. Median OS was similar for patients with and without tumour thrombus treated with systemic therapy alone [OS: 12.1 m (8.8-27.7) vs. 13.9 m (7.9-21.5), p = 0.87]. CN predicted for better OS in patients with tumour thrombus [OS: 29.4 m (17.4-48.9) vs. 12.1 m (8.8-27.7), p = 0.01]. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective series of patients with mRCC and tumour thrombus, addition of CN to ST improved outcomes. Validation of these findings with contemporary regimens is needed.

Perceived guideline clarity impacts guideline-concordant care for breast cancer screening in women age 40-49.

BACKGROUND: Canadian and US Task Forces recommend against routine mammography screening for women age 40-49 at average breast cancer risk as harms outweigh benefits. Both suggest individualized decisions based on the relative value women place on potential screening benefits and harms. Population-based data reveal variation in primary care professionals (PCPs) mammography rates in this age group after adjusting for sociodemographic factors, highlighting the need to explore PCP screening perspectives and how this informs clinical behaviours. Results from this study will inform interventions that can improve guideline concordant breast screening for this age group. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were performed with PCPs in Ontario, Canada. Interviews were structured using the theoretical domains framework (TDF) to explore determinants of breast cancer screening best-practice behaviours: (1) risk assessment; (2) discussion regarding benefits and harms; and (3) referral for screening. ANALYSIS: Interviews were transcribed and analyzed iteratively until saturation. Transcripts were coded deductively by behaviour and TDF domain. Data that did not fit within a TDF code were coded inductively. The research team met repeatedly to identify potential themes that influenced or were important consequences of the screening behaviours. The themes were tested against further data, disconfirming cases, and different PCP demographics. RESULTS: Eighteen physicians were interviewed. The theme of perceived guideline clarity (a lack of clarity on guideline-concordant practices) influenced all behaviours and moderated the extent to which the risk assessment and discussion occurred. Many were unaware of how risk-assessment factored into the guidelines and/or did not perceive that a shared-care discussion was guideline-concordant. Deferral to patient preference (screening referral without a complete discussion of benefits and harms) occurred when the PCPs had low knowledge regarding harms and/or if they experienced regret (TDF domain: emotion) resulting from prior clinical experiences. Older providers described patient's influence impacting their decisions and physicians trained outside Canada, practicing in higher-resourced areas, and female physicians described being influenced by beliefs about consequences of benefits of screening. CONCLUSION: Perceived guideline clarity is an important driver of physician behaviour. Improving guideline concordant care should start by clarifying the guideline itself. Thereafter, targeted strategies include building skills in identifying and overcoming emotional factors and communication skills important for evidence-based screening discussions.

Resource stratified guidelines for cancer: Are they all the same? Interguideline concordance for systemic treatment recommendations.

A number of organizations are producing resource stratified guidelines (RSGs) for cancer. Despite using similar definitions of resource levels, systemic treatment recommendations often differ between organizations. We systematically searched for RSGs focusing on solid tumors. We qualitatively compared the methods used to generate guidelines using the AGREE-II appraisal tool. We extracted systemic treatment recommendations and assessed interguideline concordance using the Gwet AC1 coefficient, stratified by resource level, treatment setting and cancer type. We identified 69 RSGs cancer covering 15 solid tumors produced by four organizations. Despite using common resource-level definitions (Basic, Core/Limited, Enhanced and Maximal), recommendations differed between organizations. Concordance for chemotherapy recommendations was poor in Basic (58.3%, Gwet 0.20), fair in Core (58.3%, Gwet 0.32) and excellent in Enhanced (92.4%, Gwet 0.92) and Maximal settings (95.4%, Gwet 0.95). Concordance rates for endocrine therapy were good in Basic (80% Gwet 0.61), and excellent in Core (90%, Gwet 0.87), Enhanced (90%, Gwet 0.89) and Maximal settings (90%, Gwet 0.89). There was moderate to excellent concordance in targeted therapy recommendations across all resource levels. Differences in recommendations appeared driven by different opinions among the chosen panel of experts regarding what is resource appropriate. Overall, we found that countries looking to base treatment and health-policy on RSGs will find conflicting information depending on which guidelines are used, particularly for chemotherapy in Basic and Core settings. Improved transparency regarding the methods used to determine the value of a therapy for a given resource level is needed.

Breast cancer immune microenvironment: from pre-clinical models to clinical therapies.

The breast cancer tumour microenvironment (BC-TME) is characterized by significant cellular and spatial heterogeneity that has important clinical implications and can affect response to therapy. There is a growing need to develop methods that reliably quantify and characterize the BC-TME and model its composition and functions in experimental systems, in the hope of developing new treatments for patients. In this review, we examine the role of immune-activating cells (including tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and natural killer cells) and immune inhibitory cells (including T regulatory cells, tumour-associated macrophages and myeloid-derived suppressor cells) in the BC-TME. We summarize methods being used to characterize the microenvironment, with specific attention to pre-clinical models including co-cultures, organoids, and genetically modified and humanized mouse models. Finally, we explore the implications and applications of existing preclinical data for drug development and highlight several drugs designed to alter the BC-TME in order to improve treatment outcomes for patients.

Regional Variations in Clinical Trial Outcomes in Oncology.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown how often regional differences in oncology trials are observed. Based on our study findings, we quantified regional variation in registration studies in oncology and developed a question guide to help clinicians evaluate regional differences. METHODS: Using FDA archives, we identified registration studies in solid tumor malignancies from 2010 to 2020. We extracted the baseline study characteristics and participating countries and determined whether the primary publication reported a regional subgroup analysis. For studies presenting outcomes stratified by region, we extracted the stratified hazard ratios (HRs) and extracted or calculated the test for heterogeneity. We performed a random effects meta-analysis and a pairwise comparison to determine whether outcomes differed between high-income versus mixed-income regions. RESULTS: We included 147 studies in our final analysis. Studies supporting FDA drug approval have become increasingly multinational over time (ß = 0.5; P=.04). The median proportion of countries from high-income groups was 81.2% (range, 44%-100%), with no participation from low-income countries in our cohort. Regional subgroup analysis was presented for 78 studies (53%). Regional heterogeneity was found in 17.8% (8/45) and 18% (8/44) of studies presenting an overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival endpoint, respectively. After grouping regions by income level, we found no difference in OS outcomes in high-income regions compared with mixed-income regions (n=20; HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.84-1.07). To determine whether regional variation is genuine, clinicians should evaluate the data according to the following 5 questions: (1) Are the regional groupings logical? (2) Is the regional difference on an absolute or relative scale? (3) Is the regional difference consistent and plausible? (4) Is the regional difference statistically significant? (5) Is there a clinical explanation? CONCLUSIONS: As registration studies in oncology become increasingly international, regional variations in trial outcomes may be detected. The question guide herein will help clinicians determine whether regional variations are likely to be clinically meaningful or statistical anomalies.

Global demand for cancer surgery and an estimate of the optimal surgical and anaesthesia workforce between 2018 and 2040: a population-based modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The growing demand for cancer surgery has placed a global strain on health systems. In-depth analyses of the global demand for cancer surgery and optimal workforce requirements are needed to plan service provision. We estimated the global demand for cancer surgery and the requirements for an optimal surgical and anaesthesia workforce, using benchmarks based on clinical guidelines. METHODS: Using models of benchmark surgical use based on clinical guidelines, we estimated the proportion of cancer cases with an indication for surgery across 183 countries, stratified by income group. These proportions were multiplied by age-adjusted national estimates of new cancer cases using GLOBOCAN 2018 data and then aggregated to obtain the estimated number of surgical procedures required globally. The numbers of cancer surgical procedures in 44 high-income countries were divided by the actual number of surgeons and anaesthetists in the respective countries to calculate cancer procedures per surgeon and anaesthetist ratios. Using the median (IQR) of these ratios as benchmarks, we developed a three-tiered optimal surgical and anaesthesia workforce matrix, and the predictions were extrapolated up to 2040. FINDINGS: Our model estimates that the number of cancer cases globally with an indication for surgery will increase by 5 million procedures (52%) between 2018 (9 065 000) and 2040 (13 821 000). The greatest relative increase in surgical demand will occur in 34 low-income countries, where we also observed the largest gaps in workforce requirements. To match the median benchmark for high-income countries, the surgical workforce in these countries would need to increase by almost four times and the anaesthesia workforce by nearly 5·5 times. The greatest increase in optimal workforce requirements from 2018 to 2040 will occur in low-income countries (from 28 000 surgeons to 58 000 surgeons; 107% increase), followed by lower-middle-income countries (from 166 000 surgeons to 277 000 surgeons; 67% increase). INTERPRETATION: The global demand for cancer surgery and the optimal workforce are predicted to increase over the next two decades and disproportionately affect low-income countries. These estimates provide an appropriate framework for planning the provision of surgical services for cancer worldwide. FUNDING: University of New South Wales Scientia Scholarship and UK Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund.

Patient and provider determinants of breast cancer screening among Ontario women aged 40-49: a population-based retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Canadian breast cancer screening guidelines state that mammography screening for women 40-49 should be individualized based on risk assessment and preferences. This retrospective cohort study describes the frequency of screening in women aged 40-49 and identifies patient and provider-level associations with screening. METHODS: Administrative databases were linked. The overall cohort included Ontario women aged 40-49 between April 1, 2009 and March 31, 2019. Subgroups were created: the "screen" group included women who received a mammogram defined as screening (using a set of exclusion criteria) and the "routine screen" group included women with three or more screening mammograms. A multivariable multilevel logistic regression model accounting for patient and provider characteristics was fit to determine characteristics associated with routine screening. The intracluster correlation co-efficient was used to quantify the degree of variation across providers. RESULTS: Of approximately 2 million eligible women, there were 532,596 (25.5%) in the screen group and 90,651 (4.3%) the routine screen group. There was an average of 0.30 and 0.52 screening mammograms per woman year, in the screen and routine screen groups, respectively. Routine screening was associated with periodic health exams (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.20-1.22), receiving pap smears (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.37-1.39), and fee-for-service models of care (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.27-1.36). Over 20% of the variation in screening was due to systematic between-provider differences. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 4.3% of women aged 40-49 in Ontario received routine breast cancer screening with substantial variation across providers. Routine screening is associated with periodic health examinations, receipt of pap smears, and fee-for-service models of care.

Accelerating drug access from advanced to early breast cancer: the special case of oral selective estrogen receptor degraders.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: For hormone receptor positive breast cancer, the development of endocrine resistance commonly occurs, presenting as either disease progression in the metastatic setting or recurrence during or following adjuvant endocrine therapy. Various mechanisms of resistance have been described. In order to reduce or overcome endocrine resistance, there has been substantial interest in developing potent and orally bioavailable selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) for metastatic disease and select patients with early-stage estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: At least 11 oral SERDs have entered clinical development. We review current studies in both the metastatic and neoadjuvant/adjuvant setting and present the available evidence of benefit and toxicity for these novel agents. Further characterization of changes to tissue-based biomarkers such as estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and Ki67 expression and blood-based biomarkers such as ctDNA and estrogen receptor 1 mutation may help to refine therapeutic strategies, combinations, and patient selection to identify women who are most likely to benefit from these novel endocrine agents. SUMMARY: Although SERDs have clear therapeutic potential based on nonclinical studies and have demonstrated early signs of activity in phase I and II studies in the metastatic setting, ongoing research is needed to clarify when and in whom these agents may have greatest clinical benefit.

Quantifying Withdrawal of Consent, Loss to Follow-Up, Early Drug Discontinuation, and Censoring in Oncology Trials.

BACKGROUND: Censoring due to early drug discontinuation (EDD) or withdrawal of consent or loss to follow-up (WCLFU) can result in postrandomization bias. In oncology, censoring rules vary with no defined standards. In this study, we sought to describe the planned handling and transparency of censoring data in oncology trials supporting FDA approval and to compare EDD and WCLFU in experimental and control arms. METHODS: We searched FDA archives to identify solid tumor drug approvals and their associated trials between 2015 and 2019, and extracted the planned handling and reporting of censored data. We compared the proportion of WCLFU and EDD between the experimental and control arms by using generalized estimating equations, and performed logistic regression to identify trial characteristics associated with WCLFU occurring more frequently in the control group. RESULTS: Censoring rules were defined adequately in 48 (59%) of 81 included studies. Only 14 (17%) reported proportions of censored participants clearly. The proportion of WCLFU was higher in the control group than in the experimental group (mean, 3.9% vs 2.5%; ß-coefficient, -2.2; 95% CI, -3.1 to -1.3; P<.001). EDD was numerically higher in the experimental arm in 61% of studies, but there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of EDD between the experimental and control groups (mean, 21.6% vs 19.9%, respectively; ß-coefficient, 0.27; 95% CI, -0.32 to 0.87; P=.37). The proportion of EDD due to adverse effects (AEs) was higher in the experimental group (mean, 13.2% vs 8.5%; ß-coefficient, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.57-2.45; P=.002). WCLFU was higher in the control group in studies with an active control group (odds ratio [OR], 10.1; P<.001) and in open label studies (OR, 3.00; P=.08). CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in WCLFU and EDD for AEs between the experimental and control arms in oncology trials. This may introduce postrandomization bias. Trials should improve the reporting and handling of censored data so that clinicians and patients are fully informed regarding the expected benefits of a treatment.

The views of pregnant women in New Zealand on vaginal seeding: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Vaginal seeding is the administration of maternal vaginal bacteria to babies following birth by caesarean section (CS), intended to mimic the microbial exposure that occurs during vaginal birth. Appropriate development of the infant gut microbiome assists early immune development and might help reduce the risk of certain health conditions later in life, such as obesity and asthma. We aimed to explore the views of pregnant women on this practice. METHODS: We conducted a sequential mixed-methods study on the views of pregnant women in New Zealand (NZ) on vaginal seeding. Phase one: brief semi-structured interviews with pregnant women participating in a clinical trial of vaginal seeding (n = 15); and phase two: online questionnaire of pregnant women throughout NZ (not in the trial) (n = 264). Reflexive thematic analysis was applied to interview and open-ended questionnaire data. Closed-ended questionnaire responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Six themes were produced through analysis of the open-ended data: "seeding replicates a natural process", "microbiome is in the media", "seeding may have potential benefits", "seeking validation by a maternity caregiver", "seeding could help reduce CS guilt", and "the unknowns of seeding". The idea that vaginal seeding replicates a natural process was suggested by some as an explanation to help overcome any initial negative perceptions of it. Many considered vaginal seeding to have potential benefit for the gut microbiome, while comparatively fewer considered it to be potentially beneficial for specific conditions such as obesity. Just under 30% of questionnaire respondents (n = 78; 29.5%) had prior knowledge of vaginal seeding, while most (n = 133; 82.6%) had an initially positive or neutral reaction to it. Few respondents changed their initial views on the practice after reading provided evidence-based information (n = 60; 22.7%), but of those who did, most became more positive (n = 51; 86.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Given its apparent acceptability, and if shown to be safe and effective for the prevention of early childhood obesity, vaginal seeding could be a non-stigmatising approach to prevention of this condition among children born by CS. Our findings also highlight the importance of lead maternity carers in NZ remaining current in their knowledge of vaginal seeding research.

The value of first-line chemotherapy and targeted therapy in the treatment of breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the value (survival benefit and cost) of first-line chemotherapy and targeted therapy in breast cancer at a population level. METHODS: Based on guideline recommendations, a model of optimal utilisation was constructed for first-line chemotherapy and targeted therapy in breast cancer, calculating the survival benefit and average cost of all regimens recommended for each treatment indication at 5 years and at 10 years. RESULTS: Survival benefits from chemotherapy and targeted therapy differ markedly depending on the treatment indications. The cost per life-year gained at 5 years is $38,044 for stages I and II, $33,749 for stage III and $ 151,668 for patients presenting with stage IV breast cancer. The cost per life-year gained at 10 years is $ 13,587 for early breast cancer. The most expensive chemotherapy indication in breast cancer is the treatment of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer costing $330,978 per LYG for a survival benefit of 11% at 5 years falling to zero survival benefit at 10 years. CONCLUSION: There are large differences in value between the different indications for first-course chemotherapy and targeted therapy in the treatment of breast cancer that should be considered when pricing cancer drugs.

The effect of antibiotics on clinical outcomes in immune-checkpoint blockade: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

PURPOSE: Pre-clinical and early clinical data suggests the microbiome plays an important role in oncogenesis and influences response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether antibiotics affect overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) in patients with solid malignancies treated with ICB. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE and conference proceedings was conducted for observational studies examining the effect of antibiotics on ICB. A random effects study-level meta-analysis was performed with pooling of the hazards ratio (HR) for OS and PFS. Meta-regression was used to determine the impact of the timing of antibiotic exposure on OS. RESULTS: 766 studies were identified, and 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the 2889 patients included, 826 (28.6%) were exposed to antibiotics. The most common malignancies were lung (59%), renal cell carcinoma (RCC) or urothelial carcinoma (16.3%) and melanoma (18.7%). OS was prolonged in those without antibiotic exposure (pooled HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.37-2.68, p < 0.001). The effect of antibiotics on OS was greater in studies defining antibiotic exposure as 42 days prior to initiation of ICB (HR 3.43, 95% CI 2.29-5.14, p < 0.0001). PFS was also longer in patients who did not receive antibiotics (pooled HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.3-2.1, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In patients receiving ICB, OS and PFS are longer in patients who are not exposed to antibiotics. Antibiotic use in the 42 days before starting ICB appears to be most detrimental to outcome.

Estimates of global chemotherapy demands and corresponding physician workforce requirements for 2018 and 2040: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of cancer (excluding non-melanomatous skin cancers) is projected to rise from 17·0 million to 26·0 million between 2018 and 2040. A large proportion of these patients would be likely to derive benefit from chemotherapy, but no studies so far have quantified current and projected global chemotherapy demands. We aimed to estimate changes in national, regional, and global demands for first-course chemotherapy and the cancer physician workforce between 2018 and 2040 if all patients were treated according to best-practice evidence-based guidelines. METHODS: Data for the incidence of 29 types of cancer in 183 countries in 2018, and projections of incidence in 2040, were obtained from GLOBOCAN 2018. Optimal chemotherapy utilisation from evidence-based guidelines was applied to these incidence data to generate the number of new patients requiring first-course chemotherapy in 2018 and 2040. We then estimated the corresponding cancer physician workforce required to deliver this chemotherapy (on the basis of physicians seeing 150 new patients requiring chemotherapy per year). We did sensitivity analyses to investigate how cancer stage at presentation affected chemotherapy demands. We also did sensitivity analyses to explore changes to workforce requirements if each physician was seeing 100 new patients requiring chemotherapy per year or 300 new patients requiring chemotherapy per year. FINDINGS: Between 2018 and 2040, the number of patients requiring first-course chemotherapy annually will increase from 9·8 million to 15·0 million, a relative increase of 53%. The estimated proportion of patients needing chemotherapy who reside in low-income or middle-income countries was 63% (6 162 240 of 9 782 783) in 2018, and will be 67% (10 071 049 of 14 984 560) in 2040. The most common indications for chemotherapy worldwide in 2040 will be lung cancer (accounting for 2 455 137 [16·4%] of 14 984 560 cases eligible for chemotherapy), breast cancer (1 898 740 [12·7%]), and colorectal cancer (1 678 153 [11·1%]). We estimated that, in 2018, 65 000 cancer physicians were required worldwide to deliver optimal chemotherapy-a figure that we estimate will rise to 100 000 by 2040 (with estimates ranging from from 50 000 to 150 000, depending on workload). INTERPRETATION: Strategic investments in chemotherapy service provision and cancer physicians are needed to meet the projected increased demand for chemotherapy in 2040. FUNDING: None.