A call to action to harmonize patient-reported outcomes evidence requirements across key European HTA bodies in oncology.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are increasingly being included in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) submissions for oncology drugs. This study aims to provide differences in PRO evidence requirements in oncology across key HTA bodies and calls for its harmonization. Method guidance provided by HTA bodies in Germany, France and the UK, and analysis of HTA reports of 20 oncology case studies were evaluated in this review. Differences exist between HTA bodies regarding guidance on how PRO data should be collected, reported and analyzed as well as how the data are reviewed and considered in oncology HTAs. HTA bodies can play a key role to harmonize PRO method guidance in collaboration with regulators and sponsors.

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are information provided directly by the person who is experiencing a disease or undergoing a treatment, without additional interpretation by a clinician or caregiver. Along with other outcome measures, PROs may be included in the body of evidence used by health technology assessment bodies in their review. In this article, the authors summarize the guidance documents published by key health technology assessment agencies and reviewed 20 past cancer drug case studies to understand how different agencies use PROs when deciding on recommendations for new cancer treatments.

Trends in real-world biomarker testing and overall survival in US patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background: Trends/outcomes associated with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-recommended biomarker testing to guide advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treatment were assessed. Methods: Patients initiating first-line aNSCLC treatment were included using a nationwide electronic health record-derived database (1/1/2015-10/31/2021). Trends in pre-first-line biomarker testing (PD-L1, major genomic aberrations), factors associated with testing and associations between testing and outcomes were assessed. Results: PD-L1/genomic aberration testing rates increased from 33% (2016) to 81% (2018), then plateaued. Certain clinical and demographic factors were associated with a greater likelihood of PD-L1 testing. Patients tested for PD-L1 or genomic aberrations had longer overall survival (OS). Conclusion: Biomarker testing may be associated with improved OS in aNSCLC, though not all patients had equal access to testing.

Molecular diagnostics play a critical role in precision medicine. Treatment guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommend that patients newly diagnosed with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) undergo molecular testing for PD-L1 and genomic aberrations to guide treatment choices. Based on the results of such biomarker testing, physicians can select optimal treatments for individual patients. The aim of this study was to describe the latest trends and disparities in real-world biomarker testing with a focus on PD-L1 and to explore the impact of biomarker testing on outcomes in first-line treatment of aNSCLC in the United States. Patients initiating first-line aNSCLC treatment were identified in the Flatiron Health database (1/1/2015­10/31/2021; N = 30,631). Annual trends in pre-first-line biomarker testing (PD-L1, major genomic aberrations), demographic and clinical factors associated with PD-L1 testing, and associations between PD-L1 and/or ≥1 genomic aberration testing and outcomes (e.g., overall survival [OS], time-to-next treatment [TTNT]) were assessed. Biomarker testing in patients receiving first-line treatment for aNSCLC increased between 2015 and 2017 and plateaued between 2018 and 2021. By 2021, approximately 20% of patients did not receive PD-L1 testing before first-line treatment and not all patients had equal access to testing. Both PD-L1 and genomic aberration testing were associated with improved OS and TTNT. This is likely due to enhanced treatment decisions leading to optimal treatment selection. Future research is warranted to understand interventions to improve biomarker testing and reduce disparities between different patient populations to improve treatment outcomes.

DNA damage repair gene mutation testing and genetic counseling in men with/without prostate cancer: a systematic review.

Background: Ongoing clinical trials are investigating PARP inhibitors to target the DNA damage repair (DDR) pathway in prostate cancer. DDR mutation screening will guide treatment strategy and assess eligibility for clinical trials. Materials & methods: This systematic review estimated the rate of DDR mutation testing or genetic counseling among men with or at risk of prostate cancer. Results: From 6856 records, one study fulfilled the inclusion criteria and described men undiagnosed with prostate cancer with a family history of BRCA1/2 mutation who received DDR mutation testing. Conclusion: With only one study included in this first systematic review of DDR mutation testing or genetic counseling in men with or at risk of prostate cancer, more research is warranted.

Effect of DNA damage response mutations on prostate cancer prognosis: a systematic review.

The prognosis of men with prostate cancer (PC) with mutations in DNA damage response (DDR) genes undergoing different treatments is unclear. This systematic review compared clinical outcomes in PC patients with DDR mutations (DDR+) versus no mutations (DDR-). 14 resources plus gray literature were searched for studies in PC and subgroups (castration-resistant PC, metastatic PC and metastatic castration-resistant PC) by DDR gene (ATM, ATR, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, FANCA, MLH1, MRE11A, NBN, PALB2, RAD51C) mutation status. From 11,648 records, 26 studies were included. For mCRPC, six studies reported comparative efficacy for key outcomes. Improvements in several clinical outcomes were observed for DDR+ (vs DDR-) after PARP inhibitor therapy or immunotherapy. DDR+ PC patients may have improved outcomes depending on the treatment they undergo.

Payer perceptions on the use of patient-reported outcomes in oncology decision making.

BACKGROUND: In oncology, especially with accelerated regulatory approvals and niche populations, US payers appreciate all evidence that can help support formulary decision making, including evidence beyond traditional safety and efficacy data from clinical trials. Research suggests payers incorporate patient-reported outcome (PRO) evidence in their decision making and expect the importance of PRO evidence to grow. Greater understanding on payers' use of PRO information in oncology is needed. OBJECTIVE: To assess US payer perceptions regarding the use of PRO evidence in informing oncology formulary decision making. METHODS: A multidisciplinary steering committee involving a measurement specialist, health economics and outcomes research experts, and payers developed a survey containing single-answer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions. The pilot survey was tested at a mini-advisory board with 5 US payers and revised based on feedback. In February 2020, the survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the AMCP Market Insights program and 10 additional payer panelists who were invited to discuss and contextualize the survey results. Results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and evaluated by plan size, type of health plan, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in categorical data responses were compared using Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact tests. Two-tailed values are reported and a P value less than or equal to 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 106 of 231 payers (45.9%) completed the survey; 45.5% represented small plans (< 1 million lives), and 54.5% represented large plans (≥ 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), with 55.6% of all respondents indicating their job was pharmacy administrator. The majority of payers (60.0% of small health plans and 57.8% of large plans) felt PRO evidence from clinical trials is useful. Similarly, the majority of payers (57.8% of small plans and 51.9% of large plans) felt PRO evidence from real-world studies is useful. Almost half (47.1%) suggested formulary review would be influenced by a lack of PRO evidence from oncology clinical trials either somewhat, much, or a great deal. Most payers (78.2%) thought PRO evidence is useful for providing additional context for safety of oncology therapies. More than one-third of payers (34.3%) valued PRO evidence when comparing 2 similar therapies, and 51.5% felt PRO evidence may help in measuring value for value-based agreements. Panelists indicated PRO evidence can be useful for developing treatment pathways for addressing health-related quality of life, informing provider-patient dialogues, and defining progression-free survival length and quality. CONCLUSIONS: US payers view PRO evidence from both clinical trials and real-world studies as useful for supplementing traditional clinical trial data when making oncology formulary decisions and for refining treatment pathways and care delivery models. Manufacturers of oncology therapies should collect and consider leveraging PRO evidence from both settings when engaging with US payers. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and employees of Pfizer contributed to the development of the survey instrument, were involved in the interpretation of the data, and contributed to the discussion and output as authors. Biskupiak, Oderda, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project. Arondekar, Deal, and Niyazov are employees of Pfizer and own Pfizer stock. Qwek was an employee of Pfizer at the time of this project and owns Pfizer stock.

A systematic review of international guidelines and recommendations for the genetic screening, diagnosis, genetic counseling, and treatment of BRCA-mutated breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of international guidelines on screening and management of patients with BRCA-mutated breast cancer (BC). METHODS: Major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Embase; N=8) and gray literature sources were searched (January 2007 to February 2018). Latest guideline recommendations on genetic screening, counseling, and BC treatment of BRCA mutation carriers were summarized. Guidelines specific to germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutation were captured where available. RESULTS: A total of 3,775 records were retrieved and 32 guidelines were included; Europe (n=16), USA (n=11), Canada (n=3), Australia (n=1), and Japan (n=1) were included. Across and within guidelines, genetic counseling was recommended at multiple points in the care pathway, though the format was not always clearly defined. US guidelines emphasized that BRCA mutation testing should occur after specialized genetic counseling; other European guidelines are less prescriptive. BRCA testing eligibility criteria differed, with some guidelines being less restrictive; US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) BC guidelines specified that HER2-negative BC patients eligible for single-agent therapy are eligible for gBRCA testing. Fast-track BRCA testing is recommended in the Netherlands if treatment choice will affect survival, but in the UK only as part of clinical trials. More recent European (European School of Oncology-European Society for Medical Oncology 3rd International Consensus Guidelines for Breast Cancer in Young Women 2017, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie 2017 in Germany) and US (NCCN) guidelines have updated recommendations regarding gBRCA-targeted poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy in BC. CONCLUSION: Regional and organizational guidelines differ for genetic screening, counseling, and treatment of patients with BRCA-mutated BC. Guideline harmonization would optimize identification and management of these patients.

A systematic review of the international prevalence of BRCA mutation in breast cancer.

A systematic review was conducted, summarizing international BRCA 1 or 2 (BRCA1/2) mutation prevalence in breast cancer. Databases (eg, Medline and Embase; N=7) and conferences were searched (January 2012 to December 2017). From 17,872 records, 70 studies were included. In 58 large (N>100) studies, BRCA1/2 mutation prevalence varied widely from 1.8% (Spain) in sporadic breast cancer to 36.9% (United States) in estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor low+ (1-9% on immunohistochemistry/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative [HER2-]) breast cancer. In 2 large studies unselected for family history, ethnicity, sex, or age and no/unclear selection by breast cancer stage or hormone receptor (HR) status, germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutation prevalence was 2.9% (Italy) to 3.0% (South Korea). In the 4 large unselected triple-negative breast cancer studies, gBRCA mutation prevalence varied from 9.3% (Australia) to 15.4% (United States). gBRCA mutation prevalence in 1 large unselected HR positive/HER2- early breast cancer study was 5% (United States). In 2 large unselected metastatic breast cancer studies, gBRCA mutation prevalence was 2.7% (France) and 4.3% (Germany). Locally advanced breast cancer studies were small and not in unselected populations. Poor reporting of gBRCA status and basis of selection implies a need for further large well-reported BRCA mutation prevalence studies in breast cancer.

Productivity losses associated with cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: People with cardiovascular disease (CVD) often require time off work to recover from illness or surgery; for example, following a myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke. These individuals incur income losses, work-related productivity is reduced for employers, and output is reduced for the wider economy. Productivity impacts to the economy also arise due to CVD-related mortality. Areas covered: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and collate studies that report the magnitude of work-related productivity losses associated with CVD generally or specific cardiovascular (CV) events or conditions (coronary heart disease, MI, stroke, transient ischemic attack, angina, heart failure, peripheral artery disease, coronary revascularization). The search was conducted using Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Google to find studies published from January 2004 to January 2015. In total, 60 studies were identified, including 20 studies conducted in the USA, 25 studies conducted in Europe, and 18 studies conducted in other countries (three studies were conducted in multiple regions). The studies differed by the scope of losses assessed (absenteeism, presenteeism, early retirement, premature mortality) and CVD conditions/events included. Studies reported either average patient or population losses, and generally used a human capital rather than friction cost method. Outcomes were standardized and adjusted to 2015 US dollars where possible. Expert commentary: The review demonstrates that CVD imposes substantial morbidity- and mortality-related productivity costs. The studies identified in the review may be used to inform and populate societal economic evaluations in CVD, with the most appropriate source study being that most closely matching the context of the evaluation.