State insurance mandates and off-label use of chemotherapy.

Access to cancer drugs used off-label is important to cancer patients but may drive up healthcare costs with little evidence of clinical benefit. We hypothesized that state health insurance mandates for private insurers to provide coverage for off-label use of cancer drugs cause higher rates of off-label use. We used Truven MarketScan data from 1999 to 2007 on utilization of 35 infused chemotherapy drugs in private health plans in the United States, covering the period when eight states implemented off-label coverage laws. We studied trends in off-label use of drugs, distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate off-label use according to drug compendia, and estimated difference-in-difference regressions of the effect of state laws on off-label use. We estimate 41% of utilization was off-label, including 17% of use conservatively defined as inappropriate. Trends show gradual declines in off-label use over time. We also find no discernable effect of state laws mandating coverage of off-label use of cancer drugs on utilization patterns under multiple empirical specifications. Our conclusion is that policymakers should consider shifting away from mandating coverage as a way to ensure access to drugs off-label and towards incentivizing adherence to clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality and value of off-label use.

Measuring financial toxicity as a clinically relevant patient-reported outcome: The validation of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST).

BACKGROUND: Cancer and its treatment lead to increased financial distress for patients. To the authors' knowledge, to date, no standardized patient-reported outcome measure has been validated to assess this distress. METHODS: Patients with AJCC Stage IV solid tumors receiving chemotherapy for at least 2 months were recruited. Financial toxicity was measured by the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) measure. The authors collected data regarding patient characteristics, clinical trial participation, health care use, willingness to discuss costs, psychological distress (Brief Profile of Mood States [POMS]), and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General (FACT-G) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QOL questionnaires. Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and validity of the COST measure were assessed using standard-scale construction techniques. Associations between the resulting factors and other variables were assessed using multivariable analyses. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients with advanced cancer were approached, 233 of whom (62.1%) agreed to participate. The COST measure demonstrated high internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Factor analyses revealed a coherent, single, latent variable (financial toxicity). COST values were found to be correlated with income (correlation coefficient [r] = 0.28; P<.001), psychosocial distress (r = -0.26; P<.001), and HRQOL, as measured by the FACT-G (r = 0.42; P<.001) and by the EORTC QOL instruments (r = 0.33; P<.001). Independent factors found to be associated with financial toxicity were race (P = .04), employment status (P<.001), income (P = .003), number of inpatient admissions (P = .01), and psychological distress (P = .003). Willingness to discuss costs was not found to be associated with the degree of financial distress (P = .49). CONCLUSIONS: The COST measure demonstrated reliability and validity in measuring financial toxicity. Its correlation with HRQOL indicates that financial toxicity is a clinically relevant patient-centered outcome. Cancer 2017;123:476-484. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

The development of a financial toxicity patient-reported outcome in cancer: The COST measure.

BACKGROUND: Considering patients' experience is essential for optimal decision-making. However, despite increasing recognition of the impact of costs on oncology care, there is no patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that specifically describes the financial distress experienced by patients. METHODS: The content for a comprehensive score for financial toxicity (COST) was developed with a stepwise approach: step 1) a literature review and semistructured, qualitative interviews with patients for content generation; step 2) patients' assessment of the items for importance to their quality of life; step 3) pilot testing assessing interitem (IIC) and item-total (ITC) correlations to identify redundancy (Spearman rho, > 0.7) and statistically unrelated content (P > .05); and step 4) exploratory factor analysis. Sociodemographic data were collected. RESULTS: In total, 155 patients with advanced cancer who were receiving treatment (20 patients in step 1, 35 patients in step 2, and 100 patients in steps 3 and 4) participated in the PROM development. In step 1, the literature was reviewed, and 20 patients generated 147 items, which were reduced to 58 items because of redundancy. In step 2, 35 patients rated the 58 items on importance, and 30 items were retained. In step 3, 46 patients assessed the 30 items, 14 items were excluded because of high IIC, and 3 were excluded because of nonsignificant ITC. In step 4, 2 items were discarded because of poor loadings in a factor analysis of 100 patients, resulting in an 11-item PROM. CONCLUSIONS: The content for a financial toxicity PROM was developed in 155 patients. The provisional COST measure demonstrated face and content validity as well as internal consistency and should be validated in larger samples.

Pharmacoeconomic issues in head and neck oncology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite medical advances, the global incidence, morbidity and mortality associated with head and neck cancer remain high. Pharmacoeconomic analyses of chemotherapeutic options commonly used by head and neck oncologists are reviewed in context with current clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: From the British health system perspective, cetuximab with radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck was found to be cost-effective compared to single modality radiotherapy in patients with a good performance status, and in whom platinum agents are contraindicated. Induction chemotherapy with the three-drug regimen docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil is considered cost-effective when compared to the doublet cisplatin-5-fluorouracil from the British and Italian perspectives. However, it is unclear whether induction chemotherapy per se is effective when compared to chemoradiotherapy. Cetuximab with chemotherapy is not recommended from a British health perspective for patients with metastatic/recurrent disease, whereas it is the preferred regimen in commonly used guidelines in the US, where economic evaluations are not incorporated in the drug approval process. SUMMARY: The critical assessment and utilization of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, always in context with current clinical practice, should be further performed and promoted in head and neck oncology.

Value-based insurance design: aligning incentives, benefits, and evidence in oncology.

When everyone is required to pay the same out-of-pocket amount for oncology services for which benefits depend on patient characteristics and clinical indication, there is enormous potential for both under- and overutilization. Unlike most current health plan designs, the value-based insurance design (V-BID) explicitly acknowledges and responds to patient heterogeneity across the entire continuum of cancer care. By adding "clinical nuance" to benefit design, V-BID encourages the use of services when the clinical benefits exceed the cost, and likewise discourages the use of services when the benefits do not justify the expenditure. This manuscript further describes the concept of V-BID, creates a framework for its development in oncology, and outlines how this concept aligns with ongoing research, care delivery, and payment reform initiatives.

Unsupported off-label chemotherapy in metastatic colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Newer systemic therapies have the potential to decrease morbidity and mortality from metastatic colorectal cancer, yet such therapies are costly and have side effects. Little is known about their non-evidence-based use. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using commercial insurance claims from UnitedHealthcare, and identified incident cases of metastatic colon cancer (mCC) from July 2007 through April 2010. We evaluated the use of three regimens with recommendations against their use in the National Comprehensive Cancer Center Network Guidelines, a commonly used standard of care: 1) bevacizumab beyond progression; 2) single agent capecitabine as a salvage therapy after failure on a fluoropyridimidine-containing regimen; 3) panitumumab or cetuximab after progression on a prior epidermal growth factor receptor antibody. We performed sensitivity analyses of key assumptions regarding cohort selection. Costs from a payer perspective were estimated using the average sales price for the entire duration and based on the number of claims. RESULTS: A total of 7642 patients with incident colon cancer were identified, of which 1041 (14%) had mCC. Of those, 139 (13%) potentially received at least one of the three unsupported off-label (UOL) therapies; capecitabine was administered to 121 patients and 49 (40%) likely received it outside of clinical guidelines, at an estimated cost of $718,000 for 218 claims. Thirty-eight patients received panitumumab and six patients (16%) received it after being on cetuximab at least two months, at an estimated cost of $69,500 for 19 claims. Bevacizumab was administered to 884 patients. Of those, 90 (10%) patients received it outside of clinical guidelines, at an estimated costs of $1.34 million for 636 claims. CONCLUSIONS: In a large privately insured mCC cohort, a substantial number of patients potentially received UOL treatment. The economic costs and treatment toxicities of these therapies warrant increased efforts to stem their use in settings lacking sufficient scientific evidence.

Role of molecular markers in the management of head and neck cancers.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is the fifth most common cancer worldwide. Despite advances in treatment, the prognosis remains poor. HNSCC comprise a wide spectrum of neoplasms with different tumor biologies, prognosis and response to therapies. Current tumor classification is based on morphology and anatomic distribution, which leads to a homogeneous treatment for different diseases. Moreover, traditional diagnostic methods such as clinical assessment, histopathological examination, and imaging techniques are limited in their capacity to provide information on prognosis and decision making. RECENT FINDINGS: Molecular markers have increased the understanding of the pathogenesis of head and neck cancer because they give increasing insight into tumor biology, prognosis, and response to therapy. The practical application of these discoveries is beginning to assist greatly in the evaluation and treatment of HNSCC to achieve a more personalized and effective approach. SUMMARY: This article focuses on the molecular markers that have already been extensively studied such as epidermal growth factor receptor and human papillomavirus as well as those that offer potential for personalized therapy such as HIF-1 and ERCC-1. The ideal biomarker should be assayed accurately and easily, highly specific, and cost effective. Thus, a validation is required before their implementation into clinical guidelines.

A phase I trial adding poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor veliparib to induction carboplatin-paclitaxel in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Alliance A091101.

OBJECTIVES: We report the results of this phase I study to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and safety of veliparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel induction chemotherapy (IC) for locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 3 + 3 cohort design, patients with stage IVA-B human papillomavirus-negative HNSCC received 2 cycles of carboplatin (AUC 6, day 1), paclitaxel (100 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15) and veliparib (days 1-7) every 21 days followed by standard curative-intent chemoradiotherapy. Primary endpoint: MTD and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) as determined by the first IC cycle. RESULTS: Twenty patients enrolled. Two withdrew before treatment; 18 patients were analyzed. Median age was 63 years. Primary disease sites included hypopharynx (n = 5), larynx (n = 5), oral cavity (n = 4), oropharynx (n = 3), and nasal cavity (n = 1). Through all of IC, the most common grade 3 + adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (33%), thrombocytopenia (33%), anemia (11%), and white blood cell decrease (11%). One patient experienced a hematologic DLT at 350 mg BID. The RP2D for veliparib combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel is 350 mg BID. With 40.9 month median follow-up across dose levels for all patients, the 24-month overall and progression free survival was 77.8% (95% CI 60.8-99.6%) and 66.7% (95% CI 48.1-92.4%), respectively. Medians have not been reached. CONCLUSION: Addition of veliparib to carboplatin and paclitaxel IC was well tolerated in patients with advanced HNSCC. Hematologic toxicities were the most common AEs.

Incorporating Value-Based Care Into Oncology.

Value-based care within insurance design utilizes evidence-based medicine as a means of defining high-value versus low-value diagnostics and treatments. The goals of value-based care are to shift spending and coverage toward high-value care and reduce the use of low-value practices. Within oncology, several value-based methods have been proposed and implemented. We review value-based care being used within oncology, including defining the value of oncology drugs through frameworks, clinical care pathways, alternative payment models including the Oncology Care Model, value-based insurance design, and reducing low-value care including the Choosing Wisely initiatives.

Moderate renal function impairment does not affect outcomes of reduced-intensity conditioning with fludarabine and melphalan for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Nonrelapse mortality (NRM) after reduced-intensity allogeneic transplants is likely to be influenced by abnormalities in renal function. We studied 141 patients diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) (n = 131) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) (n = 10) who underwent allogeneic transplantation with fludarabine (Flu)/melphalan (Mel)-based regimens and hypothesized that moderate to mild renal function impairment increases NRM in this setting. Flu dose consisted of 25-30 mg/m(2) for 4 days and Mel dose was 100-180 mg/m(2). Donors were HLA-compatible siblings (n = 69) and matched unrelated donors (n = 72). Disease status at transplantation was complete remission (n = 56, 40%) or active disease (n = 85, 60%). The influence of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) measured before transplantation on outcomes was analyzed. GFR was estimated by both the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) and the modified diet in renal disease (MDRD) equations, using the creatinine value obtained prior to starting chemotherapy. Evaluated outcomes were overall survival (OS), NRM, and treatment-related mortality (TRM) at day 100 and 1-year posttransplantation. Median age was 55 years (range: 21-74 years); 59% of the patients were male. Estimated GFR by CG was > or =90 for 45 (32%), 60-89 for 78 (55%), and <60 for 18 (13%) patients. When estimated by MDRD, GFR was > or =90 for 65 (46%), 60-89 from 66 (47%), and <60 for 10 (7%) patients. The majority of patients by both estimations had a GFR between 60 and 89 (n = 78 by CG and n = 66 by MDRD) with no difference in the evaluated outcomes between this group and the subgroup of patients with a GFR <60 (P > .05). There were no differences in OS and NRM at day 100 and 1-year posttransplantation in the 3 groups by any GFR estimation method. In conclusion, a mild to moderate decrease in GFR was not associated with an increase in NRM.

Determinants of Patient-Centered Financial Stress in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: To prospectively estimate patient-centered financial stress and its relationship with health care utilization in patients with head and neck cancer. This was a survey-based, longitudinal, prospective study of treatment-naïve patients with stage III, IVa, or IVb locally advanced head and neck cancer at a single-institution tertiary care hospital from May 2013 to November 2014. With 121 patients approached, 73 (60%) agreed to participate. METHODS: Self-reported data were collected on demographics, income, wealth, cost-coping strategies, out-of-pocket costs, supportive medication compliance, and perceived social isolation. Health care utilization was measured by hospital admissions and outpatient appointments on a 6-month timeline. Logistic regression models were constructed to identify factors associated with use of cost-coping strategies. Covariates included all demographics, measures of income, wealth, out-of-pocket costs, indirect costs, and perceived social isolation. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (69%) relied on at least one coping strategy. On multivariable analysis, Medicaid patients were more likely than privately insured patients to use cost-coping strategies (odds ratio, 42.3; P = .0042). Decreased wealth ( P = .002) and higher total out-of-pocket costs ( P = .003) were independently associated with using cost-coping strategies. Patients with high perceived social isolation were also more likely to use cost-coping strategies (odds ratio, 11.5; P = .01). Patients with high perceived social isolation were more likely to report nonadherence to supportive medications (21.4 v 5.45 days over 6 months; P = .0278) and missed appointments (seven v three; P = .0077). CONCLUSION: A majority of patients used at least one cost-coping strategy during their treatment, highlighting the financial stress that patients experience. Perceived social isolation is an important social determinant of increased medication nonadherence, missed appointments, and use of cost-coping strategies. Interventions should be investigated in at-risk patients who may suffer from financial stress.

Challenges in the Clinical Application of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework: A Medicare Cost-Benefit Analysis in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

PURPOSE: The ASCO Value Framework calculates the value of cancer therapies. Given costly novel therapeutics for chronic lymphocytic leukemia, we used the framework to compare net health benefit (NHB) and cost within Medicare of all regimens listed in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. METHODS: The current NCCN guidelines for chronic lymphocytic leukemia were reviewed. All referenced studies were screened, and only randomized controlled prospective trials were included. The revised ASCO Value Framework was used to calculate NHB. Medicare drug pricing was used to calculate the cost of therapies. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were screened. The following observations were made: only 10 studies (20%) could be evaluated; when comparing regimens studied against the same control arm, ranking NHB scores were comparable to their preference in guidelines; NHB scores varied depending on which variables were used, and there were no clinically validated thresholds for low or high values; treatment-related deaths were not weighted in the toxicity scores; and six of the 10 studies used less potent control arms, ranked as the least-preferred NCCN-recommended regimens. CONCLUSION: The ASCO Value Framework is an important initial step to quantify value of therapies. Essential limitations include the lack of clinically relevant validated thresholds for NHB scores and lack of incorporation of grade 5 toxicities/treatment-related mortality into its methodology. To optimize its application for clinical practice, we urge investigators/sponsors to incorporate and report the required variables to calculate the NHB of regimens and encourage trials with stronger comparator arms to properly quantify the relative value of therapies.

Cabozantinib As Salvage Therapy for Patients With Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: Results of a Multicenter Phase II International Thyroid Oncology Group Trial.

Purpose Sorafenib and lenvatinib are oral multikinase inhibitors targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and approved for radioiodine (RAI)-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). However, there are no approved second- or third-line therapies. MET is implicated in resistance to VEGFR inhibitors. Cabozantinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting MET in addition to VEGFR and is approved for medullary thyroid cancer. In a phase I study of cabozantinib, five of eight patients with DTC previously treated with a VEGFR-targeted therapy had an objective response to cabozantinib. Patients and Methods Patients with RAI-refractory disease with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST) measurable disease and evidence of progression on prior VEGFR-targeted therapy were enrolled in this single-arm phase II study. The cabozantinib starting dose was 60 mg/day orally but could be escalated to 80 mg if the patient did not experience a response. Patients underwent tumor assessment according to RECIST v1.1 every 8 weeks. In this study, if at least five of 25 response-evaluable patients had an objective response, cabozantinib would be considered a promising agent in this patient population. Results Twenty-five patients were enrolled. The median age was 64 years, and 64% of patients were men. Twenty-one patients had received only one prior VEGFR-targeted therapy (sorafenib, pazopanib, or cediranib), and four patients had received two such therapies. The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, weight loss, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, and hypertension. One drug-related death was noted. Of the 25 patients, 10 (40%) had a partial response, 13 (52%) had stable disease, and two (8%) had nonevaluable disease. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 12.7 months and 34.7 months, respectively. Conclusion Cabozantinib demonstrated clinically significant, durable objective response activity in patients with RAI-refractory DTC who experienced disease progression while taking prior VEGFR-targeted therapy.

Pilot Study of 99mTc-labeled Ethylene Dicysteine Deoxyglucose SPECT-CT Imaging in Treatment Response Evaluation in Patients with Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to describe the preliminary findings of 99mTc-labeled ethylene dicysteine deoxyglucose (99mTc-EC-DG) performed four weeks after chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS: Review of nine patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas imaged with 99mTc-EC-DG single photon emission computed tomography-computed tomography (SPECT-CT) at baseline before treatment and at four weeks after treatment completion was performed. RESULTS: At four weeks post-treatment, five patients had either decreased activity or no significant activity on 99mTc-EC-DG SPECT-CT and were considered to have responded to treatment, whereas four patients did not have significantly decreased uptake on 99mTc-EC-DG SPECT-CT and were considered to have not adequately responded to treatment. Among the five patients considered to have treatment response at four weeks, all were free of disease (true-negative). Among the four patients considered to have stable activity on 99mTc-EC-DG SPECT-CT at four weeks, two were designated as having no response or incomplete response (true-positive), and two were designated as having complete response (false-positive) on subsequent composite assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot data is promising but warrants further investigation of 99mTc-EC-DG SPECT-CT for the assessment of locoregional treatment response at four weeks in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas.

Financial toxicity in cancer care.

The cost of cancer care is increasing, with important implications for the delivery of high-quality, patent-centered care. In the clinical setting, patents and physicians express a desire to discuss out-of-pocket costs. Nevertheless, both groups feel inadequately prepared to participate in these discussions, and perhaps not surprisingly, the integration of these discussions into clinical practice seems to be the exception rather than the rule. The resulting neglect of financial issues has the potential to cause unnecessary suffering for oncology patents. In this paper, we review the most relevant literature on financial toxicity in cancer care. In addition, we discuss potential predictors of financial toxicity, and the recent development of instruments to help clinicians and researchers quantify financial burden.

Global Health Equity: Cancer Care Outcome Disparities in High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries.

Breakthroughs in our global fight against cancer have been achieved. However, this progress has been unequal. In low- and middle-income countries and for specific populations in high-income settings, many of these advancements are but an aspiration and hope for the future. This review will focus on health disparities in cancer within and across countries, drawing from examples in Kenya, Brazil, and the United States. Placed in context with these examples, the authors also draw basic recommendations from several initiatives and groups that are working on the issue of global cancer disparities, including the US Institute of Medicine, the Global Task Force on Expanded Access to Cancer Care and Control in Developing Countries, and the Union for International Cancer Control. From increasing initiatives in basic resources in low-income countries to rapid learning systems in high-income countries, the authors argue that beyond ethics and equity issues, it makes economic sense to invest in global cancer control, especially in low- and middle-income countries.