Cost and value of cancer medicines in a single-payer public health system in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The financial impact of cancer medicines on health systems is not well known. We describe temporal trends in expenditure on cancer medicines within the single-payer health system of Ontario, Canada, and the extent of clinical benefit these treatments offer. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we identified cancer medicines and expenditures from formularies and costing databases (the New Drug Funding Program, Ontario Drug Benefit Program, and The High-Cost Therapy Funding Program) during 10 consecutive years (April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2022) in Ontario, Canada. For intravenous medicines, we applied the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) to identify expenditures associated with substantial clinical benefit. We also identified treatments associated with improved overall survival or quality of life. FINDINGS: 69 intravenous and 98 oral or injectable medicines were funded during 2012-22. Annual expenditure on cancer medicines increased by approximately 15% per year during 2012-22; the increase was more rapid in the most recent 4 years. Total expenditure on cancer medicines in the 2021-22 financial year was CA$1·7 billion. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were the single biggest expense by class ($284 million), representing 17% of the entire cancer medicine annual budget. Drugs with the highest individual costs were lenalidomide ($178 million) and pembrolizumab ($163 million), each accounting for around 10% of the entire budget. 29 (76%) of 38 indications eligible for ESMO-MCBS scoring met the threshold for substantial clinical benefit. Eight (21%) indications had no randomised trial evidence of improved overall survival, and only four (11%) were associated with improved QOL. $346 million (67% of the expenditure on intravenous cancer medicines) was spent on drugs that improved median overall survival by more than 6 months, $82 million (16%) was spent on medicines with overall survival gains of 3-6 months, and $32 million (6%) was spent on medicines with overall survival gains of less than 3 months. $53 million (10%) was spent on medicines with no established improvement in overall survival. INTERPRETATION: Costs of cancer medicines to the Canadian health system are increasing rapidly. Most funded indications met thresholds for substantial clinical benefit and two-thirds of the expenditure were for medicines that improve survival by more than 6 months. Whether this cost trajectory can be maintained in a sustainable, equitable, high-quality health system is unclear. Efforts are needed to ensure the price of medicines with substantial benefit is affordable and funding of treatments with very modest benefit might need to be re-assessed, particularly when alternative supportive and palliative therapies are available. FUNDING: None.

Large numbers of patients are needed to obtain additional approvals for new cancer drugs: A retrospective cohort study.

Patients endure risk and uncertainty when they participate in clinical trials. We previously estimated that 12,217 patient-participants are required to bring a new cancer drug to market. However, many development efforts are aimed at extending the label of already approved drugs. Herein, we estimate the number of patients required to extend the indication of an FDA approved cancer drug. We identified all anti-cancer drugs approved by the FDA 2012 to 2015. We searched clinicaltrials.gov to identify all drug development trajectories (i.e., a series of one or more clinical trials testing a unique drug-indication pairing) launched after FDA approval for each drug. We identified which trajectories produced the following milestones: secondary FDA approvals, secondary FDA approvals achieving substantial clinical benefit in ESMO-MCBS, and recommendations in NCCN clinical practice guidelines. Using the total enrollment, we estimated the number of patients needed to reach each milestone. Forty-two drugs were approved by the FDA between 2012 and 2015, leading to 451 post-approval trajectories enrolling 129,548 patients. Fourteen secondary FDA approvals were identified, of which 4 met the ESMO-MCBS definition of substantial clinical benefit. Fourteen NCCN off-label recommendations were obtained. A total of 9253, 32,387 and 4627 patients were needed to attain an FDA approval, an approval with substantial clinical benefit on ESMO-MCBS, and an NCCN guideline recommendation, respectively. The number of patients needed to obtain a first secondary FDA approval was 16,596. Large numbers of patients are needed to extend the label of prior FDA approved drugs. Label extension after approval entails lower marginal costs for developers. However, extra knowledge available to researchers about a drug's safety and pharmacology after FDA approval does not appear to translate into reduced patient numbers required for developing new cancer applications.

Bypassing phase 2 in cancer drug development erodes the risk/benefit balance in phase 3 trials.

OBJECTIVES: Drug developers sometimes launch phase 3 (P3) trials without supporting evidence from phase 2 (P2) trials. We call this practice "P2 bypass." The aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of P2 bypass and to compare the safety and efficacy results for P3 trials that bypassed with those that did not. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We created a sample of P3 solid tumor trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with primary completion dates between 2013 and 2019. We then attempted to match each with a supporting P2 trial using strict and broad criteria. P3 outcomes were meta-analyzed using a random effects model with subgroup contrast between trials that bypassed and those that did not. RESULTS: 129 P3 trial arms met eligibility and nearly half involved P2 bypass. P3 trials involving P2 bypass produced significantly and nonsignificantly worse pooled efficacy estimates using broad and strict matching criteria, respectively. We did not observe significant differences in safety outcomes between P3 trials that bypassed P2 and those that did not. CONCLUSION: The risk/benefit balance of P3 trials that bypassed P2 is less favourable than for trials supported by P2.

Randomized Controlled Trials in Lung, Gastrointestinal, and Breast Cancers: An Overview of Global Research Activity.

Background: In this study, we compared and contrasted design characteristics, results, and publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in gastrointestinal (GI), lung, and breast cancer. Methods: A PUBMED search identified phase III RCTs of anticancer therapy in GI, lung, and breast cancer published globally during the period 2014−2017. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and the Kruskal−Wallis test were used to compare RCT design, results, and output across the cancer sites. Results: A total of 352 RCTs were conducted on GI (36%), lung (29%), and breast (35%) cancer. Surrogate endpoints were used in 55% of trials; this was most common in breast trials (72%) compared to GI (47%) and lung trials (43%, p < 0.001). Breast trials more often met their primary endpoint (54%) than GI (41%) and lung trials (41%) (p = 0.024). When graded with the ESMO-MCBS, lung cancer trials (50%, 15/30) were more likely to meet the threshold for substantial benefit. GI trials were published in journals with a substantially lower impact factor (IF; median IF 13) than lung (median IF 21) and breast cancer trials (median IF 21) (p = 0.038). Conclusions: Important differences in RCT design and output exist between the three major cancer sites. Use of surrogate endpoints and the magnitude of benefit associated with new treatments vary substantially across cancer sites.

Cancer, Clinical Trials, and Canada: Our Contribution to Worldwide Randomized Controlled Trials.

Canada has a long tradition of leading practice-changing clinical trials in oncology. Here, we describe methodology, results, and interpretation of oncology RCTs with Canadian involvement compared to RCTs from other high-income countries (HICs). A literature search identified all RCTs evaluating anti-cancer therapies published 2014-2017. RCTs were classified based on the country affiliation of first authors. The study cohort included 636 HIC-led RCTs; 155 (24%) had Canadian authors. Three-quarters (112/155, 72%) of Canadian RCTs were conducted in the palliative setting, compared to two thirds (299/481, 62%) of RCTs from other HICs (p = 0.022). Canadian RCTs were more likely than those from other HICs to be supported by industry (85% vs. 69%, p < 0.001). The proportion of positive Canadian trials that met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit was comparable to RCTs without Canadian authors (29% vs. 32%, p = 0.137). Thirteen percent (20/155) of all Canadian trials were affiliated with the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG). Canada plays a meaningful role in the global cancer research ecosystem but is overly reliant on industry support. The very low proportion of trials that identify a new treatment with substantial clinical benefit is worrisome. A renewed investment in cancer clinical trials is needed in Canada.

Application of Value Frameworks to the Design of Clinical Trials: The Canadian Cancer Trials Group Experience.

BACKGROUND: Use of value framework thresholds in the design of clinical trials may increase the proportion of randomized controlled trials that identify clinically meaningful advances for patients. Existing frameworks have not been applied to the research output of a cooperative cancer trials group. We apply value frameworks to the randomized controlled trial output of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG). METHODS: Statistical design, study characteristics, and results of all published phase III trials of CCTG were abstracted. We applied the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) and American Society of Clinical Oncology Net Health Benefit to study results and the statistical power calculations to identify the proportion of all trials that were designed to detect a substantial clinical benefit. RESULTS: During 1979 to 2017, CCTG published 113 phase III trials; 52.2% (59 of 113) of these trials were positive. One-half (50.4%, 57 of 113) of the trials were conducted in the palliative setting. In 37.2% (42 of 113) of trials, the primary endpoint was overall survival; disease-free survival or progression-free survival was used in 38.9% (44 of 113) of trials. The ESMO-MCBS could be applied to the power calculation for 69 trials; 73.9% (51 of 69) of these trials were designed to detect an effect size that could meet ESMO-MCBS thresholds for substantial benefit. Among the 51 positive trials for which the ESMO-MCBS could be applied, 41.1% (21 of 51) met thresholds for substantial benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Most CCTG phase III trials were designed to detect clinically meaningful differences in outcome, although less than one-half of positive trials met the threshold for substantial benefit. Application of value frameworks to the design of clinical trials is practical and may improve research efficiency and treatment options for patients.

Evolution of the Randomized Clinical Trial in the Era of Precision Oncology.

IMPORTANCE: The randomized clinical trial (RCT) in oncology has evolved since its widespread adoption in the 1970s. In recent years, concerns have emerged regarding the use of putative surrogate end points, such as progression-free survival (PFS), and marginal effect sizes. OBJECTIVE: To describe contemporary trends in oncology RCTs and compare these findings with earlier eras of RCT design and output. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of systemic therapy RCTs in breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancer published in 7 major journals between 2010 and 2020. This strategy replicates prior work and allows for comparison of trends with RCTs published between 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Data on RCT design, funding, results, and reporting were extracted from the published RCT report. Findings from the current period (2010-2020) were compared with data from RCTs published from 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to analyze temporal trends. RESULTS: The cohort included 298 RCTs (132 [44%] breast, 111 [37%] non-small cell lung cancer, 55 [19%] colorectal cancer). Experimental treatment included molecular inhibitor (171 of 298 [57%]), cytotoxic (83 of 298 [28%]), hormone (15 of 298 [5%]), and immune (24 of 298 [8%]) therapies. Sixty-nine percent (206 of 298) of RCTs were of palliative intent. The most common primary end point is now PFS; this has increased substantially over time (from 0% [0 of 167] to 18% [25 of 137] to 42% [125 of 298]; P < .001). Of 298 RCTs, 265 (89%) are now funded by industry (previously 95 of 167 [57%] and 107 of 137 [78%]; P < .001). Fifty-eight percent (173 of 298) of trials met their primary end point. Among positive trials, median improvement in overall survival and PFS was 3.4 and 2.9 months, respectively. More than one-third (117 of 298 [39%]) of reports used a professional medical writer; this increased substantially during the study period (from 3 of 27 [11%] in 2010 to 12 of 18 [67%] in 2020; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cohort study suggests that contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate end points and are almost exclusively funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The increasing role of medical writers warrants attention. To demonstrate that new cancer treatments are high value, the oncology community needs to consider the extent to which study end points and target effect size provide meaningful benefit to patients.

An Analysis of Contemporary Oncology Randomized Clinical Trials From Low/Middle-Income vs High-Income Countries.

IMPORTANCE: The burden of cancer falls disproportionally on low-middle-income countries (LMICs). It is not well known how novel therapies are tested in current clinical trials and the extent to which they match global disease burden. OBJECTIVES: To describe the design, results, and publication of oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the extent to which trials match global disease burden and how trial methods and results differ across economic settings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this retrospective cohort study, a literature search identified all phase 3 RCTs evaluating anticancer therapies published from 2014 to 2017. Randomized clinical trials were classified based on World Bank economic classification. Descriptive statistics were used to compare RCT design and results from high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Statistical analysis was conducted in January 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Differences in the design, results, and output of RCTs between HICs and LMICs. RESULTS: The study cohort included 694 RCTs: 636 (92%) led by HICs and 58 (8%) led by LMICs. A total of 601 RCTs (87%) tested systemic therapy and 88 RCTs (13%) tested radiotherapy or surgery. The proportion of RCTs relative to global deaths was higher for breast cancer (121 RCTs [17%] and 7% of deaths) but lower for gastroesophageal cancer (38 RCTs [6%] and 14% of deaths), liver cancer (14 RCTs [2%] and 8% of deaths), pancreas cancer (14 RCTs [2%] and 5% of deaths), and cervical cancer (9 RCTs [1%] and 3% of deaths). Randomized clinical trials in HICs were more likely than those in LMICs to be funded by industry (464 [73%] vs 24 [41%]; P < .001). Studies in LMICs were smaller than those in HICs (median, 219 [interquartile range, 137-363] vs 474 [interquartile range, 262-743] participants; P < .001) and more likely to meet their primary end points (39 of 58 [67%] vs 286 of 636 [45%]; P = .001). The observed median effect size among superiority trials was larger in LMICs compared with HICs (hazard ratio, 0.62 [interquartile range, 0.54-0.76] vs 0.84 [interquartile range, 0.67-0.97]; P < .001). Studies from LMICs were published in journals with lower median impact factors than studies from HICs (7 [interquartile range, 4-21] vs 21 [interquartile range, 7-34]; P < .001). Publication bias persisted when adjusted for whether a trial was positive or negative (median impact factor: LMIC negative trial, 5 [interquartile range, 4-6] vs HIC negative trial, 18 [interquartile range, 6-26]; LMIC positive trial, 9 [interquartile range, 5-25] vs HIC positive trial, 25 [interquartile range, 10-48]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study suggests that oncology RCTs are conducted predominantly by HICs and do not match the global burden of cancer. Randomized clinical trials from LMICs are more likely to identify effective therapies and have a larger effect size than RCTs from HICs. This study suggests that there is a funding and publication bias against RCTs led by LMICs. Policy makers, research funders, and journals need to address this issue with a range of measures including building capacity and capability in RCTs.

The fragility of phase 3 trials supporting FDA-approved anticancer medicines: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The fragility index of trial results-ie, the minimum number of changes from non-events to events resulting in loss of statistical significance-can provide a measure of confidence that a positive effect reported in a randomised controlled trial is real. We aimed to calculate the fragility index of randomised controlled trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved anticancer drugs. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of phase 3, randomised, controlled trials supporting anticancer drugs that were approved by the FDA between Jan 1, 2014, and Dec 31, 2018. Two-arm studies with 1:1 randomisation and significant positive results for a time-to-event outcome were eligible for the fragility index calculation, which involves the iterative addition of an event to the experimental group (defined as the group with the smaller number of events in positive trials) and concomitant subtraction of a non-event from that group, until positive significance (defined as p<0·05 by Fisher's exact test) is lost. FINDINGS: We identified 36 phase 3 randomised controlled trials, of which 17 (47%) were included in the fragility index analysis. The median fragility index was 2 (IQR 0-27). The fragility index was 2 or less in nine (53%) of 17 trials; for these trials, the fragility index was 1% or less of the total sample size. In five (29%) of 17 trials, the number lost to follow-up was more than the fragility index. INTERPRETATION: Many phase 3 randomised controlled trials supporting FDA-approved anticancer drugs have a low fragility index, challenging confidence for concluding their superiority over control treatments. Although not a measure of effect, the fragility index might provide an additional means of assessing the robustness of clinical trial data. FUNDING: None.

Reliability of Oncology Value Framework Outputs: Concordance Between Independent Research Groups.

Research groups are increasingly utilizing value frameworks, but little is known of their reliability. To assess framework concordance and interrater reliability between two major value frameworks currently in use, we identified all previously published datasets containing both scores from the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and grades from the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess interrater reliability. Four eligible studies contained drugs evaluated by both value frameworks, resulting in a dataset of 39 grades/scores for discrete drug indications. ICC was 0.82 (95% confidence interval = 0.70 to 0.90) for ASCO-VF and 0.88 (95% confidence interval = 0.80 to 0.93) for ESMO-MCBS. Absolute concordance was found to be 5% for ASCO-VF and 44% for ESMO-MCBS, increasing to 74% and 80% when deviations within 20 points and 1 grade were considered, respectively. Interrater reliability of ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS is, therefore, near perfect, while absolute concordance is poor. This has implications when considering framework outputs in drug funding or treatment decision making.

Magnitude of Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Background: It is uncertain whether drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have clinically meaningful benefit as determined by validated scales such as the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Methods: We searched the Drugs@FDA website for applications of anticancer drugs from January 2006 to December 2016. Study characteristics, outcomes, and regulatory pathways were collected from drug labels and reports of registration trials. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs), ESMO-MCBS grades were applied. Meaningful benefit was defined as a grade of A or B for (neo)adjuvant intent and 4 or 5 for palliative intent. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: We identified 63 individual drugs for 118 indications. These were supported by 135 studies, among which were 105 RCTs for which ESMO-MCBS could be applied. Only 46 (43.8%) met the ESMO-MCBS meaningful benefit threshold (100% of (neo)adjuvant trials and 38.8% of palliative trials). In palliative therapy trials, meaningful ESMO-MCBS grades were associated with phase III trials (compared with phase II; odds ratio [OR] = 38.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.27 to 452.00, P = .004), those with overall survival as their primary end point (compared with intermediate end points; OR = 8.28, 95% CI = 2.49 to 27.50, P = .001) and trials of targeted drugs with companion diagnostics (OR = 11.62, 95% CI = 2.95 to 45.78, P < .001). Over time, there has been an increase in the number of trials meeting the ESMO-MCBS threshold (Ptrend = .04). There were insufficient (neo)adjuvant studies to perform statistical analysis. Conclusions: The number of trials meeting the ESMO-MCBS threshold for clinical benefit has improved over time. However, fewer than half of RCTs supporting FDA approval meet the threshold for clinically meaningful benefit.

Delivery of meaningful cancer care: a retrospective cohort study assessing cost and benefit with the ASCO and ESMO frameworks.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) have developed frameworks that quantify survival gains in light of toxicity and quality of life to assess the benefits of cancer therapies. We applied these frameworks to a cohort of contemporary randomised controlled trials to explore agreement between the two approaches and to assess the relation between treatment benefit and cost. METHODS: We identified all randomised controlled trials of systemic therapies in non-small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and pancreatic cancer published between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2015, and assessed their abstracts and methods. Trials were eligible for inclusion in our cohort if significant differences favouring the experimental group in a prespecified primary or secondary outcome were reported (secondary outcomes were assessed only if primary outcomes were not significant). We assessed trial endpoints with the ASCO and ESMO frameworks at two timepoints 3 months apart to confirm intra-rater reliability. Cohen's κ statistic was calculated to establish agreement between the two frameworks on the basis of the median ASCO score, which was used as an arbitrary threshold of benefit, and the framework-recommended ESMO threshold. Differences in monthly drug cost between the experimental and control groups of each randomised controlled trial (ie, incremental drug cost) were derived from 2016 average wholesale prices. FINDINGS: 109 randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion, 42 (39%) in non-small-cell lung cancer, 36 (33%) in breast cancer, 25 (23%) in colorectal cancer, and six (6%) in pancreatic cancer. ASCO scores ranged from 2 to 77; median score was 25 (IQR 16-35). 41 (38%) trials met the benefit thresholds in the ESMO framework. Agreement between the two frameworks was fair (κ=0·326). Among the 100 randomised controlled trials for which drug costing data were available, ASCO benefit score and monthly incremental drug costs were negatively correlated (ρ=-0·207; p=0·039). Treatments that met ESMO benefit thresholds had a lower median incremental drug cost than did those that did not meet benefit thresholds (US$2981 [IQR 320-9059] vs $8621 [1174-13 930]; p=0·018). INTERPRETATION: There is only fair correlation between these two major value care frameworks, and negative correlations between framework outputs and drug costs. Delivery of optimal cancer care in a sustainable health system will necessitate future oncologists, investigators, and policy makers to reconcile the disconnect between drug cost and clinical benefit. FUNDING: None.

Disturbances in blood flow and 'medicine's greatest imitator'.

First described in 1959, intravascular lymphoma (IVL) remains one of the most clinically challenging diagnoses due to its diverse and non-specific clinical manifestations and evasiveness in detection by standard investigations. Indeed, IVL deserves the title of 'medicine's greatest imitator'. We highlight a case of IVL where the diagnosis came too late in the clinical course, detected by random skin biopsy. Clinicians should strongly consider this diagnosis in presentations with persistent symptomatology despite appropriate interventions.

A mitochondrial redox oxygen sensor in the pulmonary vasculature and ductus arteriosus.

The mammalian homeostatic oxygen sensing system (HOSS) initiates changes in vascular tone, respiration, and neurosecretion that optimize oxygen uptake and tissue oxygen delivery within seconds of detecting altered environmental or arterial PO2. The HOSS includes carotid body type 1 cells, adrenomedullary cells, neuroepithelial bodies, and smooth muscle cells (SMCs) in pulmonary arteries (PAs), ductus arteriosus (DA), and fetoplacental arteries. Hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction (HPV) optimizes ventilation-perfusion matching. In utero, HPV diverts placentally oxygenated blood from the non-ventilated lung through the DA. At birth, increased alveolar and arterial oxygen tension dilates the pulmonary vasculature and constricts the DA, respectively, thereby transitioning the newborn to an air-breathing organism. Though modulated by endothelial-derived relaxing and constricting factors, O2 sensing is intrinsic to PASMCs and DASMCs. Within the SMC's dynamic mitochondrial network, changes in PO2 alter the reduction-oxidation state of redox couples (NAD(+)/NADH, NADP(+)/NADPH) and the production of reactive oxygen species, ROS (e.g., H2O2), by complexes I and III of the electron transport chain (ETC). ROS and redox couples regulate ion channels, transporters, and enzymes, changing intracellular calcium [Ca(2+)]i and calcium sensitivity and eliciting homeostatic responses to hypoxia. In PASMCs, hypoxia inhibits ROS production and reduces redox couples, thereby inhibiting O2-sensitive voltage-gated potassium (Kv) channels, depolarizing the plasma membrane, activating voltage-gated calcium channels (CaL), increasing [Ca(2+)]i, and causing vasoconstriction. In DASMCs, elevated PO2 causes mitochondrial fission, increasing ETC complex I activity and ROS production. The DASMC's downstream response to elevated PO2 (Kv channel inhibition, CaL activation, increased [Ca(2+)]i, and rho kinase activation) is similar to the PASMC's hypoxic response. Impaired O2 sensing contributes to human diseases, including pulmonary arterial hypertension and patent DA.