System dynamics simulation for evaluating implementation strategies of genomic sequencing: tutorial and conceptual model.

INTRODUCTION: Precision Medicine (PM), especially in oncology, involve diagnostic and complex treatment pathways that are based on genomic features. To conduct evaluation and decision analysis for PM, advanced modeling techniques are needed due to its complexity. Although System Dynamics (SD) has strong modeling power, it has not been widely used in PM and individualized treatment. AREAS COVERED: We explained SD tools using examples in cancer context and the rationale behind using SD for genomic testing and personalized oncology. We compared SD with other Dynamic Simulation Modelling (DSM) methods and listed SD's advantages. We developed a conceptual model using Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) for strategic decision-making in Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) implementation. EXPERT OPINION: The paper demonstrates that SD is well-suited for health policy evaluation challenges and has useful tools for modeling precision oncology and genomic testing. SD's system-oriented modeling captures dynamic and complex interactions within systems using feedback loops. SD models are simple to implement, utilize less data and computational resources, and conduct both exploratory and explanatory analyses over time. If the targeted system has complex interactions and many components, deals with lack of data, and requires interpretability and clinicians' input, SD offers attractive advantages for modeling and evaluating scenarios.

Cost Effectiveness of Molecular Diagnostic Testing Algorithms for the Treatment Selection of Frontline Ibrutinib for Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Clinical indications for ibrutinib reimbursement in Australia should consider the inclusion of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) harboring prognostically unfavorable TP53/IGHV genomic aberrations. This study assessed the cost effectiveness of five first-line treatment strategies in CLL for young (aged ≤ 65 years), fit patients without significant comorbidities: (1) no testing (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab [FCR] for all), (2) test for del(17p) only, (3) test for TP53 gene mutation status, (4) test for TP53 and IGHV gene mutation status and (5) no testing (ibrutinib for all). METHOD: A decision analytic model (decision tree and partitioned survival model) was developed from the Australian healthcare system perspective with a lifetime horizon. Comparative treatment effects were estimated from indirect treatment comparisons and survival analysis using several studies. Costs, utility and adverse events were derived from public literature sources. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the impact of modeling uncertainties on outcomes. RESULTS: Strategy 1 was associated with 5.69 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost 458,836 Australian dollars (AUD). All other strategies had greater effectiveness but were more expensive than Strategy 1. At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 100,000 AUD per QALY gained, Strategy 1 was most cost effective with an estimated probability of 68.8%. Strategy 4 was cost effective between thresholds 155,000-432,300 AUD per QALY gained, and Strategy 5 >432,300 AUD per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Population targeting using mutation testing for TP53 and IGHV when performed with del(17p) testing specifically in the context of frontline ibrutinib choice does not make a cost-ineffective treatment into a cost-effective treatment.

Comparing modeling strategies combining changes in multiple serum tumor biomarkers for early prediction of immunotherapy non-response in non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are at risk of adverse events (AEs) even though not all patients will benefit. Serum tumor markers (STMs) are known to reflect tumor activity and might therefore be useful to predict response, guide treatment decisions and thereby prevent AEs. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare a range of prediction methods to predict non-response using multiple sequentially measured STMs. METHODS: Nine prediction models were compared to predict treatment non-response at 6-months (n = 412) using bi-weekly CYFRA, CEA, CA-125, NSE, and SCC measurements determined in the first 6-weeks of therapy. All methods were applied to six different biomarker combinations including two to five STMs. Model performance was assessed based on sensitivity, while model training aimed at 95% specificity to ensure a low false-positive rate. RESULTS: In the validation cohort, boosting provided the highest sensitivity at a fixed specificity across most STM combinations (12.9% -59.4%). Boosting applied to CYFRA and CEA achieved the highest sensitivity on the validation data while maintaining a specificity >95%. CONCLUSIONS: Non-response in NSCLC patients treated with ICIs can be predicted with a specificity >95% by combining multiple sequentially measured STMs in a prediction model. Clinical use is subject to further external validation.

Willingness to participate in combination screening for lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease in four European countries.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer screening (LCS), using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), can be more efficient by simultaneously screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), the Big-3 diseases. This study aimed to determine the willingness to participate in (combinations of) Big-3 screening in four European countries and the relative importance of amendable participation barriers. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey aimed at (former) smokers aged 50-75 years elicited the willingness of individuals to participate in Big-3 screening and used analytical hierarchy processing (AHP) to determine the importance of participation barriers. RESULTS: Respondents were from France (n = 391), Germany (n = 338), Italy (n = 399), and the Netherlands (n = 342), and consisted of 51.2% men. The willingness to participate in screening was marginally influenced by the diseases screened for (maximum difference of 3.1%, for Big-3 screening (73.4%) vs. lung cancer and COPD screening (70.3%)) and by country (maximum difference of 3.7%, between France (68.5%) and the Netherlands (72.3%)). The largest effect on willingness to participate was personal perceived risk of lung cancer. The most important barriers were the missed cases during screening (weight 0.19) and frequency of screening (weight 0.14), while diseases screened for (weight 0.11) ranked low. CONCLUSIONS: The difference in willingness to participate in LCS showed marginal increase with inclusion of more diseases and limited variation between countries. A marginal increase in participation might result in a marginal additional benefit of Big-3 screening. The amendable participation barriers are similar to previous studies, and the new criterion, diseases screened for, is relatively unimportant. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Adding diseases to combination screening modestly improves participation, driven by personal perceived risk. These findings guide program design and campaigns for lung cancer and Big-3 screening. Benefits of Big-3 screening lie in long-term health and economic impact, not participation increase. KEY POINTS: • It is unknown whether or how combination screening might affect participation. • The addition of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease to lung cancer screening resulted in a marginal increase in willingness to participate. • The primary determinant influencing individuals' engagement in such programs is their personal perceived risk of the disease.

Quantifying hospital-associated costs, and accompanying travel costs and productivity losses, before and after withdrawing tumour necrosis factor-alfa inhibitors in juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify differences in hospital-associated costs, and accompanying travel costs and productivity losses, before and after withdrawing TNFi in JIA patients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from electronic medical records of paediatric JIA patients treated with TNFi, which were either immediately discontinued, spaced (increased treatment interval) or tapered (reduced subsequent doses). Costs of hospital-associated resource use (consultations, medication, radiology procedures, laboratory testing, procedures under general anaesthesia, hospitalisation) and associated travel costs and productivity losses were quantified during clinically inactive disease until TNFi withdrawal (pre-withdrawal period) and compared with costs during the first and second year after withdrawal initiation (first and second year post-withdrawal). RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included of whom 26 immediately discontinued TNFi, 30 spaced and zero tapered. Mean annual costs were €9,165/patient on active treatment (pre-withdrawal) and decreased significantly to €5,063/patient (-44.8%) and €6,569/patient (-28.3%) in the first and second year post-withdrawal, respectively (p< 0.05). Of these total annual costs, travel costs plus productivity losses were €834/patient, €1,180/patient, and €1,320/patient, in the three periods respectively. Medication comprised 80.7%, 61.5% and 72.4% of total annual costs in the pre-withdrawal, first, and second year post-withdrawal period, respectively. CONCLUSION: In the first two years after initiating withdrawal, the total annual costs are decreased compared with the pre-withdrawal period. However, cost reductions were lower in the second year compared with the first year post-withdrawal, primarily due to restarting or intensifying biologics. To support biologic withdraw decisions, future research should assess the full long-term societal cost impacts, and include all biologics.

Developing and validating a multi-criteria decision analytic tool to assess the value of cancer clinical trials: evaluating cancer clinical trial value.

BACKGROUND: Demonstrating safety and efficacy of new medical treatments requires clinical trials but clinical trials are costly and may not provide value proportionate to their costs. As most health systems have limited resources, it is therefore important to identify the trials with the highest value. Tools exist to assess elements of a clinical trial such as statistical validity but are not wholistic in their valuation of a clinical trial. This study aims to develop a measure of clinical trials value and provide an online tool for clinical trial prioritisation. METHODS: A search of the academic and grey literature and stakeholder consultation was undertaken to identify a set of criteria to aid clinical trial valuation using multi-criteria decision analysis. Swing weighting and ranking exercises were used to calculate appropriate weights of each of the included criteria and to estimate the partial-value function for each underlying metric. The set of criteria and their respective weights were applied to the results of six different clinical trials to calculate their value. RESULTS: Seven criteria were identified: 'unmet need', 'size of target population', 'eligible participants can access the trial', 'patient outcomes', 'total trial cost', 'academic impact' and 'use of trial results'. The survey had 80 complete sets of responses (51% response rate). A trial designed to address an 'Unmet Need' was most commonly ranked as the most important with a weight of 24.4%, followed by trials demonstrating improved 'Patient Outcomes' with a weight of 21.2%. The value calculated for each trial allowed for their clear delineation and thus a final value ranking for each of the six trials. CONCLUSION: We confirmed that the use of the decision tool for valuing clinical trials is feasible and that the results are face valid based on the evaluation of six trials. A proof-of-concept applying this tool to a larger set of trials with an external validation is currently underway.

Implementing competing risks in discrete event simulation: the event-specific probabilities and distributions approach.

Background: Although several strategies for modelling competing events in discrete event simulation (DES) exist, a methodological gap for the event-specific probabilities and distributions (ESPD) approach when dealing with censored data remains. This study defines and illustrates the ESPD strategy for censored data. Methods: The ESPD approach assumes that events are generated through a two-step process. First, the type of event is selected according to some (unknown) mixture proportions. Next, the times of occurrence of the events are sampled from a corresponding survival distribution. Both of these steps can be modelled based on covariates. Performance was evaluated through a simulation study, considering sample size and levels of censoring. Additionally, an oncology-related case study was conducted to assess the ability to produce realistic results, and to demonstrate its implementation using both frequentist and Bayesian frameworks in R. Results: The simulation study showed good performance of the ESPD approach, with accuracy decreasing as sample sizes decreased and censoring levels increased. The average relative absolute error of the event probability (95%-confidence interval) ranged from 0.04 (0.00; 0.10) to 0.23 (0.01; 0.66) for 60% censoring and sample size 50, showing that increased censoring and decreased sample size resulted in lower accuracy. The approach yielded realistic results in the case study. Discussion: The ESPD approach can be used to model competing events in DES based on censored data. Further research is warranted to compare the approach to other modelling approaches for DES, and to evaluate its usefulness in estimating cumulative event incidences in a broader context.

A tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines.

BACKGROUND: Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government's pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement. METHOD: Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type. RESULTS: The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation. CONCLUSION: Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective. POLICY SUMMARY: Since HS is of global interest, our example provides a reproducible blueprint for adaptation to other healthcare settings that integrates consumer input and priorities.

Assessing neuro-oncology clinical trial impact and value: Testing a novel multi-criteria decision analysis app.

BACKGROUND: Many clinical trials are conducted globally, creating challenges in deciding which trial outcomes deserve a clinician's focus and where to direct limited resources. Determining the 'value' of a clinical trial relative to others could be useful in this context. The aim of this study was to test a novel web-based application using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to rank clinical trial value. METHODS: The MCDA tool combines seven metrics: unmet need; target population size; access; outcomes; cost; academic impact and use of results. Clinical trials were ranked according to their calculated 'value' - meaning the importance or worth of a trial. We determined face validity of the app using a set of ten published Phase 3 neuro-oncology clinical trials. A survey of neuro-oncology clinicians asked them to rank the same ten clinical trials, and to rank the seven metrics in terms of importance. RESULTS: The two highest app-ranked trials were in concordance with that of the survey respondents, and consistent with the two studies that have had the most impact on routine clinical practice in neuro-oncology. Of the seven metrics, surveyed clinicians considered patient outcomes and unmet need to be the most important when determining clinical trial value. CONCLUSIONS: The metrics app was able to rank and produce a numerical 'value' for existing phase 3 neuro-oncology clinical trials. In the future, a related app to prospectively rank future trials at the startup stage could be developed to help centers determine which should be prioritized to be conducted at their site.

Patient and healthcare professional acceptability of pharmacogenetic screening for DPYD and UGT1A1: A cross sectional survey.

This study explored the acceptability of a novel pharmacist-led pharmacogenetics (PGx) screening program among patients with cancer and healthcare professionals (HCPs) taking part in a multicenter clinical trial of PGx testing (PACIFIC-PGx ANZCTR:12621000251820). Medical oncologists, oncology pharmacists, and patients with cancer from across four sites (metropolitan/regional), took part in an observational, cross-sectional survey. Participants were recruited from the multicenter trial. Two study-specific surveys were developed to inform implementation strategies for scaled and sustainable translation into routine clinical care: one consisting of 21 questions targeting HCPs and one consisting of 17 questions targeting patients. Responses were collected from 24 HCPs and 288 patients. The 5-to-7-day PGx results turnaround time was acceptable to HCP (100%) and patients (69%). Most HCPs (92%) indicated that it was appropriate for the PGx clinical pharmacist to provide results to patients. Patients reported equal preference for receiving PGx results from a doctor/pharmacist. Patients and HCPs highly rated the pharmacist-led PGx service. HCPs were overall accepting of the program, with the majority (96%) willing to offer PGx testing to their patients beyond the trial. HCPs identified that lack of financial reimbursements (62%) and lack of infrastructure (38%) were the main reasons likely to prevent/slow the implementation of PGx screening program into routine clinical care. Survey data have shown overall acceptability from patients and HCPs participating in the PGx Program. Barriers to implementation of PGx testing in routine care have been identified, providing opportunity to develop targeted implementation strategies for scaled translation into routine practice.

The effect of time before diagnosis and treatment on colorectal cancer outcomes: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate existing evidence on the relationship between diagnostic and treatment intervals and outcomes for colorectal cancer. METHODS: Four databases were searched for English language articles assessing the role of time before initial treatment in colorectal cancer on any outcome, including stage and survival. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and data were synthesised narratively. A dose-response meta-analysis was performed to examine the association between treatment interval and survival. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty papers were included in the systematic review, eight were included in the meta-analysis. Forty-five different intervals were considered in the time from first symptom to treatment. The most common finding was of no association between the length of intervals on any outcome. The dose-response meta-analysis showed a U-shaped association between the treatment interval and overall survival with the nadir at 45 days. CONCLUSION: The review found inconsistent, but mostly a lack of, association between interval length and colorectal cancer outcomes, but study design and quality were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis suggests survival becomes increasingly poorer for those commencing treatment more than 45 days after diagnosis. REGISTRATION: This review was registered, and the protocol is available, in PROSPERO, the international database of systematic reviews, with the registration ID CRD42021255864.

Withdrawing biologics in non-systemic JIA: what matters to pediatric rheumatologists?

OBJECTIVE: Approximately one third of children with JIA receive biologic therapy, but evidence on biologic therapy withdrawal is lacking. This study aims to increase our understanding of whether and when pediatric rheumatologists postpone a decision to withdraw biologic therapy in children with clinically inactive non-systemic JIA. METHODS: A survey containing questions about background characteristics, treatment patterns, minimum treatment time with biologic therapy, and 16 different patient vignettes, was distributed among 83 pediatric rheumatologists in Canada and the Netherlands. For each vignette, respondents were asked whether they would withdraw biologic therapy at their minimum treatment time, and if not, how long they would continue biologic therapy. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, logistic and interval regression analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-three pediatric rheumatologists completed the survey (40% response rate). Pediatric rheumatologists are most likely to postpone the decision to withdraw biologic therapy when the child and/or parents express a preference for continuation (OR 6.3; p < 0.001), in case of a flare in the current treatment period (OR 3.9; p = 0.001), and in case of uveitis in the current treatment period (OR 3.9; p < 0.001). On average, biologic therapy withdrawal is initiated 6.7 months later when the child or parent prefer to continue treatment. CONCLUSION: Patient's and parents' preferences were the strongest driver of a decision to postpone biologic therapy withdrawal in children with clinically inactive non-systemic JIA and prolongs treatment duration. These findings highlight the potential benefit of a tool to support pediatric rheumatologists, patients and parents in decision making, and can help inform its design.

An evidence-base for the implementation of hospital-based palliative care programs in routine cancer practice: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite global support, there remain gaps in the integration of early palliative care into cancer care. The methods of implementation whereby evidence of benefits of palliative care is translated into practice deserve attention. AIM: To identify implementation frameworks utilised in integrated palliative care in hospital-based oncology services and to describe the associated enablers and barriers to service integration. DESIGN: Systematic review with a narrative synthesis including qualitative, mixed methods, pre-post and quasi experimental designs following the guidance by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (PROSPERO registration CRD42021252092). DATA SOURCES: Six databases searched in 2021: EMBASE, EMCARE, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Ovid MEDLINE searched in 2023. Included were qualitative or quantitative studies, in English language, involving adults >18 years, and implementing hospital-based palliative care into cancer care. Critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality and rigour. RESULTS: Seven of the 16 studies explicitly cited the use of frameworks including those based on RE-AIM, Medical Research Council evaluation of complex interventions and WHO constructs of health service evaluation. Enablers included an existing supportive culture, clear introduction to the programme across services, adequate funding, human resources and identification of advocates. Barriers included a lack of communication with the patients, caregivers, physicians and palliative care team about programme goals, stigma around the term 'palliative', a lack of robust training, or awareness of guidelines and undefined staff roles. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation science frameworks provide a method to underpin programme development and evaluation as palliative care is integrated within the oncology setting.

Health Economic Evidence and Modeling Challenges for Liquid Biopsy Assays in Cancer Management: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-derived material circulating in the bloodstream and other bodily fluids, referred to as liquid biopsies (LBs), has become an appealing adjunct or alternative to tissue biopsies, showing vital promise in several clinical applications. PURPOSE: A systematic literature review was conducted to (1) summarize the current health economic evidence for LB assays and (2) identify and analyze the studies addressed or reported on the challenges of health economic modeling in precision medicine. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified in the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and the University of Melbourne Full Text Journal databases from 1 January 2013 to 16 September 2022. Included papers were selected if they were economic evaluations and/or budget impact analyses. RESULTS: A total of 24 studies were included and analyzed, with the majority being full economic evaluations (n = 19, 79.2%). Four studies (16.7%) were health and budget impact analyses, and one study (4.1%) incorporated both an economic evaluation and a budget impact analysis. Cohort-level modeling techniques were the most common approach (n = 16; 80%). LB technologies were cost-effective in 15 studies (75%) considering different biomarkers, cancer types and stages, and economic analyses. These studies evaluated LBs for screening and early detection (66.7%), treatment selection (26.7%), and monitoring treatment response (6.6%). Budget impact analysis results were varied among included studies, with the majority of studies (n = 4; 80%) reporting either cost savings, minimal, or modest budget impact, while one study (20%) reported LBs as an efficient strategy. The reviewed studies often inadequately reported or addressed modeling challenges, such as patient-level processes, the combination of tests and treatments, preferences, and uncertainty. CONCLUSION: LBs could provide a cost-effective approach for treatment selection in lung cancer and aid in the screening and early detection of other cancers, including colorectal, gastric, breast, and brain cancers. This is in comparison with various alternatives, such as the standard of care (SOC) and no screening scenario. However, it is important to mention that in some comparisons, LBs were used in combination with SOC instead of replacing it. Importantly, few studies have pointed toward LBs' cost-effectiveness for monitoring treatment response. Most health and budget impact analyses, especially those focused on lung cancer, suggest potential cost savings or a minimal-to-moderate budget impact. Nevertheless, additional research is needed to ascertain their effectiveness across various stages of lung and colorectal cancer, as well as to address potential modeling challenges. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022307939.

What matters most to pediatric rheumatologists in deciding whether to discontinue biologics in a child with juvenile idiopathic arthritis? A best-worst scaling survey.

OBJECTIVES: Care for JIA patients has been transformed in the biologics era; however, biologics carry important (although rare) risks and are costly. Flares after biological withdrawal are seen frequently, yet there is little clinical guidance to identify which patients in clinical remission can safely have their biologic discontinued (by stopping or tapering). We examined what characteristics of the child or their context are important to pediatric rheumatologists when making the decision to discuss withdrawal of biologics. METHODS: We conducted a survey including a best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise in pediatric rheumatologists who are part of the UCAN CAN-DU network to assess the relative importance of 14 previously identified characteristics. A balanced incomplete block design was used to generate choice tasks. Respondents evaluated 14 choice sets of 5 characteristics of a child with JIA and identified for each set which was the most and least important in the decision to offer withdrawal. Results were analyzed using conditional logit regression. RESULTS: Fifty-one (out of 79) pediatric rheumatologists participated (response rate 65%). The three most important characteristics were how challenging it was to achieve remission, history of established joint damage, and time spent in remission. The three least important characteristics were history of temporomandibular joint involvement, accessibility of biologics, and the patient's age. CONCLUSIONS: These findings give quantitative insight about factors important to pediatric rheumatologists' decision-making about biologic withdrawal. In addition to high quality clinical evidence, further research is needed to understand the perspective of patients and families to inform shared decision-making about biologic withdrawal for JIA patients with clinically inactive disease. Key Points ● What is already known on this topic-there is limited clinical guidance for pediatric rheumatologists in making decisions about biologic withdrawal for patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis who are in clinical remission. ● What this study adds-this study quantitatively examined what characteristic of the child in clinical remission, or of their context, are most important to pediatric rheumatologists in deciding whether to offer withdrawal of biologics. ● How this study might affect research, practice or policy-understanding of these characteristics can provide useful information to other pediatric rheumatologists in making their decisions, and may guide areas to focus on for future research.

Systematic review of NTRK 1/2/3 fusion prevalence pan-cancer and across solid tumours.

NTRK gene fusions are rare somatic mutations found across cancer types with promising targeted therapies emerging. Healthcare systems face significant challenges in integrating these treatments, with uncertainty in prevalence and optimal testing methods to identify eligible patients. We performed a systematic review of NTRK fusion prevalence to inform efficient diagnostic screening and scale of therapeutic uptake. We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases on 31/03/2021. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting fusion rates in solid tumours, English language, post-2010 publication and minimum sample size. Critical appraisal was performed using a custom 11-item checklist. Rates were collated by cancer type and pooled if additional synthesis criteria were met. 160 studies were included, with estimates for 15 pan-cancer and 429 specific cancer types (63 paediatric). Adult pan-cancer estimates ranged 0.03-0.70%, with higher rates found in RNA-based assays. In common cancers, rates were consistently below 0.5%. Rare morphological subtypes, colorectal microsatellite instability, and driver mutation exclusion cancers had higher rates. Only 35.6% of extracted estimates used appropriate methods and sample size to identify NTRK fusions. NTRK fusion-positive cancers are rare and widely distributed across solid tumours. Small-scale, heterogeneous data confound prevalence prediction. Further large-scale, standardised genomic data are needed to characterise NTRK fusion epidemiology.

Health economic evidence for adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III colon cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study was to appraise the health economic evidence for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) strategies in stage II and III colon cancer (CC) and identify gaps in the available evidence that might inform further research. METHOD: A systematic review of published economic evaluations was undertaken. Four databases were searched and full-text publications in English were screened for inclusion. A narrative synthesis was performed to summarise the evidence. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were identified and stratified by cancer stage and AC strategy. The majority (89%) were full economic evaluations considering both health outcomes, usually measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs. AC was found to be cost-effective compared to no AC for both stage II and III CC. Oral and oxaliplatin-based AC was cost-effective for stage III. Three months of CAPOX was cost-effective compared to 6-month in high-risk stage II and stage III CC. Preliminary evidence suggests that biomarker approaches to AC selection in stage II can reduce costs and improve health outcomes. Notably, assessment of QALYs were predominantly reliant on a small number of non-contemporary health-utility studies. Only 32% of studies considered societal costs such as travel and time off work. CONCLUSIONS: Published economic evaluations consistently supported the use of AC in stage II and III colon cancer. Biomarker-driven approaches to patient selection have great potential to be cost-effective, but more robust clinical and economic evidence is warranted. Patient surveys embedded into clinical trials may address critical knowledge gaps regarding accurate assessment of QALYs and societal costs in the modern era.

Population-Based Screening Using Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Chest low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a promising technology for population-based screening because it is non-invasive, relatively inexpensive, associated with low radiation and highly sensitive to lung cancer. To improve the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening, simultaneous screening for other diseases could be considered. This systematic review was conducted to analyse studies that published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of chest LDCT screening programs for different diseases. METHODS: Scopus and PubMed were searched for English publications (1 January 2011-22 July 2022) using search terms related to screening, computed tomography and cost-effectiveness. An additional search specifically searched for the cost-effectiveness of screening for lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiovascular disease. Included publications should present a full health economic evaluation of population screening with chest LDCT. The extracted data included the disease screened for, model type, country context of screening, inclusion of comorbidities or incidental findings, incremental costs, incremental effects and the resulting cost-effectiveness ratio amongst others. Reporting quality was assessed using the 2022 Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. RESULTS: The search yielded 1799 unique papers, of which 43 were included. Most papers focused on lung cancer screening (n = 40), and three were on coronary calcium scoring. Microsimulation was the most commonly applied modelling type (n = 16), followed by life table analysis (n = 10) and Markov cohort models (n = 10). Studies reflected the healthcare context of the US (n = 15), Canada (n = 4), the UK (n = 3) and 13 other countries. The reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from US$10,000 to US$90,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for lung cancer screening compared to no screening and was US$15,900/QALY-US$45,300/QALY for coronary calcium scoring compared to no screening. DISCUSSION: Almost all health economic evaluations of LDCT screening focused on lung cancer. Literature regarding the health economic benefits of simultaneous LDCT screening for multiple diseases is absent. Most studies suggest LDCT screening is cost-effective for current and former smokers aged 55-74 with a minimum of 30 pack-years of smoking history. Consequently, more evidence on LDCT is needed to support further cost-effectiveness analyses. Preferably evidence on simultaneous screening for multiple diseases is needed, but alternatively, on single-disease screening. REGISTRATION OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews registration CRD42021290228 can be accessed https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=290228 .

A systematic review of methodological considerations in time to diagnosis and treatment in colorectal cancer research.

Research focusing on timely diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer is necessary to improve outcomes for people with cancer. Previous attempts to consolidate research on time to diagnosis and treatment have noted varied methodological approaches and quality, limiting the comparability of findings. This systematic review was conducted to comprehensively assess the scope of methodological issues in this field and provide recommendations for future research. Eligible articles had to assess the role of any interval up to treatment, on any outcome in colorectal cancer, in English, with no limits on publication time. Four databases were searched (Ovid Medline, EMBASE, EMCARE and PsycInfo). Papers were screened by two independent reviewers using a two-stage process of title and abstract followed by full text review. In total, 130 papers were included and had data extracted on specific methodological and statistical features. Several methodological problems were identified across the evidence base. Common issues included arbitrary categorisation of intervals (n = 107, 83%), no adjustment for potential confounders (n = 65, 50%), and lack of justification for included covariates where there was adjustment (n = 40 of 65 papers that performed an adjusted analysis, 62%). Many articles introduced epidemiological biases such as immortal time bias (n = 37 of 80 papers that used survival as an outcome, 46%) and confounding by indication (n = 73, 56%), as well as other biases arising from inclusion of factors outside of their temporal sequence. However, determination of the full extent of these problems was hampered by insufficient reporting. Recommendations include avoiding artificial categorisation of intervals, ensuring bias has not been introduced due to out-of-sequence use of key events and increased use of theoretical frameworks to detect and reduce bias. The development of reporting guidelines and domain-specific risk of bias tools may aid in ensuring future research can reliably contribute to recommendations regarding optimal timing and strengthen the evidence base.

Real-world clinical outcomes and cost estimates of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment: does sequencing of taxanes and androgen receptor-targeted agents matter?

INTRODUCTION: Health economic outcomes of real-world treatment sequencing of androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA) and docetaxel (DOC) remain unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from the electronic Castration-resistant Prostate cancer Australian Database (ePAD) were analyzed including median overall survival (mOS) and median time-to-treatment failure (mTTF). Mean total costs (mTC) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of treatment sequences were estimated using the average sample method and Zhao and Tian estimator. RESULTS: Of 752 men, 441 received ARTA, 194 DOC, and 175 both sequentially. Of participants treated with both, first-line DOC followed by ARTA was the more common sequence (n = 125, 71%). mOS for first-line ARTA was 8.38 years (95% CI: 3.48, not-estimated) vs. 3.29 years (95% CI: 2.92, 4.02) for DOC. mTTF was 15.7 months (95% CI: 14.2, 23.7) for the ARTA-DOC sequence and 18.2 months (95% CI: 16.2, 23.2) for DOC-ARTA. In first-line, ARTA cost an additional $13,244 per mTTF month compared to DOC. In second-line, ARTA cost $6726 per mTTF month. The DOC-ARTA sequence saved $2139 per mTTF compared to ARTA-DOC, though not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: ICERs show ARTA had improved clinical benefit compared to DOC but at higher cost. There were no significant cost differences between combined sequences.