The financial impact of cancer care on renal cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION Advances in novel treatment options may render renal cell cancer (RCC) patients susceptible to the financial toxicity (FT) of cancer treatment, and the factors associated with FT are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old and had a diagnosis of stage IV RCC for at least 3 months. Patients were recruited from Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre (Toronto, Canada). FT was assessed using the validated Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) instrument, a 12-question survey scored from 0-44, with lower scores reflecting worse FT. Patient and treatment characteristics, out-of-pocket costs (OOP) and private insurance coverage (PIC) were collected. Factors associated with worse FT (COST score < 21) were determined. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were approached and 80% agreed to participate (n = 52). The median age was 62 (44-88); 20% were female (n = 10); 43% were age ≥ 65 (n = 22); 63% were Caucasian (n = 31). Median COST score was 20.5 (3-44). Factors associated with worse FT were age < 65 (OR 9.5, p = 0.007), high OOP (OR 4.4, p = 0.04) and receiving treatment off clinical trial (in comparison to being on surveillance or on clinical trial) (OR 5.9, p = 0.03), when adjusting for other factors in multivariable logistic regression. However, there was no correlation between annual income or PIC and FT. CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity in the RCC population is more significant in younger patients and those on treatment outside of a clinical trial. Financial aid should be offered to these at-risk patients to optimize adherence to life prolonging RCC treatments.

Value assessment of oncology drugs using a weighted criterion-based approach.

BACKGROUND: Globally, the rising cost of anticancer therapy has motivated efforts to quantify the overall value of new cancer treatments. Multicriteria decision analysis offers a novel approach to incorporate multiple criteria and perspectives into value assessment. METHODS: The authors recruited a diverse, multistakeholder group who identified and weighted key criteria to establish the drug assessment framework (DAF). Construct validity assessed the degree to which DAF scores were associated with past pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) funding recommendations and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS; version 1.1) scores. RESULTS: The final DAF included 10 criteria: overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, quality of life, toxicity, unmet need, equity, feasibility, disease severity, and caregiver well-being. The first 5 clinical benefit criteria represent approximately 64% of the total weight. DAF scores ranged from 0 to 300, reflecting both the expected impact of the drug and the quality of supporting evidence. When the DAF was applied to the last 60 drugs (with reviewers blinded) reviewed by pCODR (2015-2018), those drugs with positive pCODR funding recommendations were found to have higher DAF scores compared with drugs not recommended (103 vs 63; Student t test P = .0007). DAF clinical benefit criteria mildly correlated with ESMO-MCBS scores (correlation coefficient, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.009-0.59). Sensitivity analyses that varied the criteria scores did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: Using a structured and explicit approach, a criterion-based valuation framework was designed to provide a transparent and consistent method with which to value and prioritize cancer drugs to facilitate the delivery of affordable cancer care.

The Evolution of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Clinical Trials: Application of the ASCO Framework for Assessing Value.

Background: Phase III trials in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have collectively led to progressive advancements in patient outcomes over the past decades. This study characterizes the evolution of mCRC phase III trials through assessing the value of cancer therapy, as measured by the ASCO Value Framework. Methods: Phase III trial results of systemic therapy for mCRC published between 1980 and 2015 were identified, and their outcome, statistical significance, journal impact factor, and citation by the 2016 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for CRC were recorded. For each trial, the net health benefit (NHB) score was calculated using the June 2015 (original) and May 2016 (revised) ASCO Value Framework: Advanced Disease. Results: There were 114 mCRC phase III trials eligible for calculation of the NHB score. Using the revised framework, the median NHB score was 4.6 (range, -30 to 43.5); 12% of trials received bonus points. Trials with statistically significant results had higher NHB scores compared with nonsignificant trials (median NHB score, 21.6 vs 2.9; P<.0001). Clinical trials cited in the NCCN Guidelines had higher NHB scores than those not cited (median score, 8.0 vs 0.3; P=.02). In multivariate linear regression analysis, the only significant predictor of high NHB score was statistically significant studies. Conclusions: The median NHB score for mCRC phase III trials was 4.6. Higher NHB scores are associated with statistically significant studies and are cited in the NCCN Guidelines, a surrogate for practice-changing trials. The 2016 ASCO Value Framework may not fully capture the benefits on an individual patient level.

Comparison of oncology drug approval between Health Canada and the US Food and Drug Administration.

BACKGROUND: The drug approval timeline is a lengthy process that often varies between countries. The objective of this study was to delineate the Canadian drug approval timeline for oncology drugs and to compare the time to drug approval between Health Canada (HC) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS: In total, 54 antineoplastic drugs that were approved by the FDA between 1989 and 2012 were reviewed. For each drug, the following milestones were determined: the dates of submission and approval for both the FDA and HC and the dates of availability on provincial drug formularies in Canadian provinces and territories. The time intervals between the aforementioned milestones were calculated. RESULTS: Of 54 FDA-approved drugs, 49 drugs were approved by HC at the time of the current study. The median time from submission to approval was 9 months (interquartile range [IQR], 6-14.5 months) for the FDA and 12 months (IQR, 10-21.1 months) for HC (P < .0006). The time from HC approval to the placement of a drug on a provincial drug formulary was a median of 16.7 months (IQR, 5.9-27.2 months), and there was no interprovincial variability among the 5 Canadian provinces that were analyzed (P = .5). CONCLUSIONS: The time from HC submission to HC approval takes 3 months longer than the same time interval for the FDA. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first documentation of the time required to bring an oncology drug from HC submission to placement on a provincial drug formulary.

Impact of Oncology Drug Review Times on Public Funding Recommendations.

New oncology drugs undergo detailed review prior to public funding in a single-payer healthcare system. The aim of this study was to assess how cancer drug review times impact funding recommendations. Drugs reviewed by the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) between the years 2012 and 2020 were included. Data were collected including Health Canada approval dates, initial and final funding recommendations, treatment intent, drug class, clinical indications, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to determine the association between funding recommendations and review times. Of the 164 applications submitted, 130 received a positive final recommendation. Median time from Health Canada (HC) approval to final recommendation was longer for drugs indicated for the treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) and lung cancer compared to breast, genitourinary (GU), and other tumours (205 vs. 198 vs. 111 vs. 129 vs. 181 days, respectively; Kruskal-Wallis p = 0.0312). Drugs with longer review times were more likely to receive a negative pCODR recommendation, even when adjusting for tumour type, drug class, and intent of therapy (157 vs. 298 days; Wilcoxon p = 0.0003, OR 1.002 95% CI [1.000-1.004].). There was no association between funding recommendation and tumour type or class of drug. The exploration of factors associated with variance in review times will be important in ensuring timely patient access to cancer drugs.

The economic value of liquid biopsy for genomic profiling in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Background: Liquid biopsy (LB) can detect actionable genomic alterations in plasma circulating tumor circulating tumor DNA beyond tissue testing (TT) alone in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of adding LB to TT in the Canadian healthcare system. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision analytic Markov model from the Canadian public payer (Ontario) perspective and a 2-year time horizon in patients with treatment-naïve stage IV non-squamous NSCLC and ⩽10 pack-year smoking history. LB was performed using the comprehensive genomic profiling Guardant360™ assay. Standard of care TT for each participating institution was performed. Costs and outcomes of molecular testing by LB + TT were compared to TT alone. Transition probabilities were calculated from the VALUE trial (NCT03576937). Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess uncertainty in the model. Results: Use of LB + TT identified actionable alterations in more patients, 68.5 versus 52.7% with TT alone. Use of the LB + TT strategy resulted in an incremental cost savings of $3065 CAD per patient (95% CI, 2195-3945) and a gain in quality-adjusted life-years of 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.02) versus TT alone. More patients received chemo-immunotherapy based on TT with higher overall costs, whereas more patients received targeted therapy based on LB + TT with net cost savings. Major drivers of cost-effectiveness were drug acquisition costs and prevalence of actionable alterations. Conclusion: The addition of LB to TT as initial molecular testing of clinically selected patients with advanced NSCLC did not increase system costs and led to more patients receiving appropriate targeted therapy.

An Arm and a Leg: The Rising Cost of Cancer Drugs and Impact on Access.

Increasing cancer drug prices present global challenges to treatment access and cancer outcomes. Substantial variability exists in drug pricing across countries. In countries without universal health care, patients are responsible for treatment costs. Low- or middle-income countries are heavily impacted, with limited patient access to novel cancer treatments. Financial toxicity is seen across cancer types, countries, and health care systems. Those at highest risk include younger patients, new immigrants, visible minority groups, and those without private health coverage. Currently, cancer drug pricing does not correlate with value or clinical benefit. Value-based pricing of oncology drugs may incentivize development of higher-value medicines and eliminate excess spending on drugs that yield little benefit. Generics and biosimilars in oncology can also improve affordability and patient access, offering dramatic reductions in drug spending while maintaining patient benefit. Oncologists can promote value-based care by following evidence-based clinical guidelines that avoid low-value treatments. Researchers can also engage in value-based research that critically explores optimal cancer drug dosing, schedules, and treatment duration and defines patient populations most likely to benefit (e.g., through biomarker selection). Cancer Groundshot proposes that we improve outcomes for today's patients with cancer, including broader global access for high-value treatments, promotion of affordable cancer control strategies, and reduction of cancer morbidity and mortality through low-cost prevention and screening initiatives. Moving forward, major oncology societies recommend promoting uniform global access to essential cancer medicines and avoiding financial harm for patients as key principles in addressing the affordability of cancer drugs.

Reflex ROS1 IHC Screening with FISH Confirmation for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer-A Cost-Efficient Strategy in a Public Healthcare System.

ROS1 rearrangements are identified in 1-2% of lung adenocarcinoma cases, and reflex testing is guideline-recommended. We developed a decision model for population-based ROS1 testing from a Canadian public healthcare perspective to determine the strategy that optimized detection of true-positive (TP) cases while minimizing costs and turnaround time (TAT). Eight diagnostic strategies were compared, including reflex single gene testing via immunohistochemistry (IHC) screening, fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH), next-generation sequencing (NGS), and biomarker-informed (EGFR/ALK/KRAS wildtype) testing initiated by pathologists and clinician-initiated strategies. Reflex IHC screening with FISH confirmation of positive cases yielded the best results for TAT, TP detection rate, and cost. IHC screening saved CAD 1,000,000 versus reflex FISH testing. NGS was the costliest reflex strategy. Biomarker-informed testing was cost-efficient but delayed TAT. Clinician-initiated testing was the least costly but resulted in long TAT and missed TP cases, highlighting the importance of reflex testing. Thus, reflex IHC screening for ROS1 with FISH confirmation provides a cost-efficient strategy with short TAT and maximizes the number of TP cases detected.

Real-World Adherence to Guideline-Recommended Treatment for Small Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to quantify the treatment patterns and outcomes for limited-stage (LS) and extensive-stage (ES) small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in a real-world setting. METHODS: A review was conducted using the Glans-Look Research Database of patients with SCLC managed at a tertiary cancer center in Canada from 2010 to 2016. Adherence was defined as the commencement of planned SCLC treatment. Rate of compliance with the Alberta Health Services, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network SCLC treatment guidelines was evaluated. Outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 404 patients met our inclusion criteria, 31% were LS. The median age at first treatment receipt was 67 years. LS treatment consisted mostly of chemoradiation (62%). Chemoradiation and surgery±adjuvant predicted better survival (median, 32 and 40 mo, respectively) compared with no treatment. ES treatment consisted mostly of chemotherapy (90%). Chemotherapy and thoracic radiotherapy correlated with longer overall survival (13 vs. 9 mo, respectively) compared with chemotherapy alone. Prophylactic cranial irradiation receipt in LS (50%) and ES (20%) predicted favorable survivals than none (LS: hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29-0.79; ES: hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.70). Approximately a quarter of relapsed LS and ES had second-line chemotherapy; improved survival with second line was observed only in ES (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights high rates of guideline-recommended first treatment among the real-world LS and ES patients but it also revealed important outcome differences in relapsed LS and ES patients treated with second-line chemotherapy.

Financial Burden Among Patients With Lung Cancer in a Publically Funded Health Care System.

INTRODUCTION: Financial distress has been established as a clinically relevant patient-reported outcome associated with worse mortality and quality of life. Our goal was to define factors associated with financial burden (FB) in a public health care system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced lung cancer were recruited from outpatient clinics at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (Toronto, Canada). FB was measured with the validated Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) instrument, a 12-item survey scored from 0 to 44, with lower scores reflecting worse financial well-being. Data on patient and treatment characteristics, total out-of-pocket costs (OOP), and private insurance coverage were collected. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit for COST score and each variable, to determine factors associated with greater FB (COST < 21). RESULTS: Of 251 patients approached, 200 (80%) participated. The median age of the cohort was 65 years; 56% were female. The median total OOP ranged between $1000 and $5000 CAD. The median COST score was 21 (range, 0-44). FB was associated with age, with patients < 65 years reporting greater FB than older patients (COST, 18.0 vs. 24.0; P < .0001). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, younger age was associated with greater FB, when adjusting for income, employment status, OOP, and private insurance coverage (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-9.1; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Age is significantly associated with FB in the Canadian (Ontario) public health care system, with younger patients with lung cancer reporting greater financial distress. This study highlights priority patient populations where FB should be routinely assessed and appropriate resources for support offered.

Economic analysis of osimertinib in previously untreated EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Osimertinib improves progression-free survival in previously untreated EGFR-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, with marked intracranial response rates. However, its cost-effectiveness in a publically funded health care system has not been established. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of first-line osimertinib from the public payer perspective in the Canadian health care system. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to project the outcomes and direct medical costs of initial treatment with osimertinib or current standard-of-care (SoC) EGFR TKIs, gefinitib or afatinib, in patients with previously untreated EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC. Clinical and cost input estimates were informed from the available literature. Model outcomes included costs (in 2018 Canadian dollars), life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the cost utility of osimertinib compared to SoC EGFR TKI, or incremental cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: Initial treatment with osimertinib was associated with a gain of 0.79 QALY [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74 to 0.83] at an incremental cost of $176,394 CAD (95% CI, 176,383 to 176,405) vs. SoC EGFR TKI (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: $223,133/QALY gained; 95%CI, 198,144 to 252,805). Osimertinib had a 0% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of osimertinib had the largest impact on ICER results. CONCLUSION: At the current marketed price, first-line osimertinib therapy in patients with advanced EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinoma is not cost-effective in Canada. Reduction of osimertinib cost, for example by 25%, can significantly improve the cost-effectiveness profile.