Using non-randomized trials to assess the clinical benefit of systemic anti-cancer treatments: Viable or not?

BACKGROUND: The Dutch Committee for the Evaluation of Oncological Agents (cieBOM) assesses the clinical benefit of systemic anti-cancer treatments (SACTs). For SACTs tested in non-randomized trials (NRTs), cieBOM primarily utilizes response-related thresholds as assessment criteria. As sufficiency of NRT-based evidence for benefit assessments is questionable, this study investigated whether and how NRTs can be used to assess the clinical benefit of new SACTs initially appraised by cieBOM based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Using the RCTs underpinning cieBOM recommendations issued between 2015 and 2017, we searched for matching NRTs and applied the NRT-related assessment criteria by cieBOM to them. We then compared the assessment outcomes to the respective RCT-based cieBOM recommendations. Further, we investigated how the assessments would change when applying different response-related thresholds and adding a progression-free survival (PFS) threshold. RESULTS: For 13 of the 37 eligible recommendations, a matching NRT was found. Two treatments were assessed positively and six negatively; five treatments were non-assessable. Two positive recommendations matched a positive NRT-based assessment; one matching negative assessment was found, and one treatment could not be assessed based on either trial results. Adding a > 6 months PFS threshold decreased the number of non-assessable NRTs (five to two). CONCLUSIONS: Limited publications and inconsistent data reporting hampered the viability of NRTs for clinical benefit assessments of SACTs beyond the scope of rare indications. Further, response-related assessment criteria alone might not fully grasp the clinical benefit of novel SACTs. NRT-based assessments should be considered with caution due to uncertainty of the trial results.

Applying a cost-based pricing model for innovative cancer treatments subject to indication expansion: A case study for pembrolizumab and daratumumab.

BACKGROUND: Expanding the indication of already approved immuno-oncology drugs presents treatment opportunities for patients but also strains healthcare systems. Cost-based pricing models are discussed as a possibility for cost containment. This study focuses on two drugs, pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and daratumumab (Darzalex), to explore the potential effect of indication broadening on the estimated price when using the cost-based pricing (CBP) model proposed by Uyl-de Groot and Löwenberg (2018). METHODS: The model was used to calculate cumulative yearly prices, cumulative prices per indication, and non-cumulative indication-based prices using inputs such as research and development (R&D) costs, manufacturing costs, eligible patient population, and a profit margin. A deterministic stepwise analysis and scenario analysis were conducted to examine how sensitive the estimated price is to the different input assumptions. RESULTS: The yearly cumulative cost-based prices (CBPs) ranged from €52 to €885 for pembrolizumab per vial and €823 to €31,941 for daratumumab per vial. Prices were higher in initial years or indications due to smaller patient populations, decreased over time or after additional indications. Sensitivity analysis showed that the number of eligible patients had the most significant impact on the estimated price. In the scenario analysis the profit margin contributed most to a higher CBPs for both drugs. Lower estimates resulted from assumed lower R&D costs. DISCUSSION: The estimated CBPs are consistently lower than Dutch list prices for pembrolizumab (€2,861), mainly resulting from larger patient populations in registered indications. However, daratumumab's list prices fall within the range of modeled CBPs depending on the year or indication (€4,766). Both CBPs decrease over time or with additional indications. The number of eligible patients and initial R&D costs have the most significant influence on the CBPs. These findings contribute to the ongoing discussions on pharmaceutical pricing, especially concerning cancer drugs with expanding indications.

Trends in survival and costs in metastatic melanoma in the era of novel targeted and immunotherapeutic drugs.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate trends in survival and health care costs in metastatic melanoma in the era of targeted and immunotherapeutic drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on survival and health care resource use were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival. Health care costs and budget impact were computed by applying unit costs to individual patient resource use. All outcomes were stratified by year of diagnosis. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were balanced across cohort years. The percentage of patients receiving systemic treatment increased from 73% in 2013 to 90% in 2018. Patients received on average 1.85 [standard deviation (SD): 1.14] lines of treatment and 41% of patients received at least two lines of treatment. Median survival increased from 11.8 months in 2013 [95% confidence interval (CI): 10.7-13.7 months] to 21.1 months in 2018 (95% CI: 18.2 months-not reached). Total mean costs were €100 330 (SD: €103 699); systemic treatments accounted for 84% of the total costs. Costs for patients who received systemic treatment [€118 905 (SD: €104 166)] remained reasonably stable over the years even after the introduction of additional (combination of) novel drugs. From mid-2013 to 2018, the total budget impact for all patients was €452.79 million. CONCLUSION: Our study shows a gain in survival in the era of novel targeted and immunotherapeutic drugs. These novel drugs came, however, along with substantial health care costs. Further insights into the cost-effectiveness of the novel drugs are crucial for ensuring value for money in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma.

Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant systemic therapies for patients with high-risk melanoma in Europe: a model-based economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of adjuvant systemic treatment has significantly improved recurrence-free survival in patients with resectable high-risk melanoma. Adjuvant treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy, however, substantially impacts health care budgets, while the number of patients with melanoma who are treated in the adjuvant setting is still increasing. To evaluate the socioeconomic impact of the three adjuvant treatments, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was carried out. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from the three pivotal registration phase III clinical trials on the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected high-risk stage III in melanoma (KEYNOTE-054, CheckMate 238, and COMBI-AD). For this CEA, a Markov model with three health states (no evidence of disease, recurrent/progressive disease, and death) was applied. From a societal perspective, different adjuvant strategies were compared according to total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. To evaluate model uncertainty, sensitivity analyses (deterministic and probabilistic) were carried out. RESULTS: In the adjuvant setting, total costs (per patient) were €168 826 for nivolumab, €194 529 for pembrolizumab, and €211 110 for dabrafenib-trametinib. These costs were mainly determined by drug acquisition costs, whereas routine surveillance costs varied from €126 096 to €134 945. Compared with routine surveillance, LYs improved by approximately 1.41 for all therapies and QALYs improved by 2.02 for immune checkpoint inhibitors and 2.03 for targeted therapy. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €21 153 (nivolumab), €33 878 (pembrolizumab), and €37 520 (dabrafenib-trametinib) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: This CEA compared the three EMA-approved adjuvant systemic therapies for resected stage III melanoma. Adjuvant treatment with nivolumab was the most cost-effective, followed by pembrolizumab. Combination therapy with dabrafenib-trametinib was the least cost-effective. With the increasing number of patients with high-risk melanoma who will be treated with adjuvant treatment, there is an urgent need to reduce drug costs while developing better prognostic and predictive tools to identify patients who will benefit from adjuvant treatment.

The effects of new life-prolonging drugs for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients in a real-world population.

BACKGROUND: In 2004 docetaxel was the first life-prolonging drug (LPD) registered for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. Between 2011 and 2014 new LPDs for mCRPC (cabazitaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and radium-223) were introduced in the Netherlands. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of the introduction of new LPDs on treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) over time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CRPC patients diagnosed in the years 2010-2016 in the observational, retrospective CAPRI registry (20 hospitals) were included and followed up to 2018. Two subgroups were analyzed: treatment-naïve patients (subgroup 1, n = 3600) and post-docetaxel patients (subgroup 2, n = 1355). RESULTS: In both subgroups, the use of any LPD increased: from 57% (2010-2011) to 69% (2014-2015) in subgroup 1 and from 65% (2011-2012) to 79% (2015-2016) in subgroup 2. Chemotherapy as first mCRPC-treatment (i.e., docetaxel) and first post-docetaxel treatment (i.e., cabazitaxel or docetaxel rechallenge) decreased (46-29% and 20-9% in subgroup 1 and 2, respectively), while the use of androgen-receptor targeting treatments (ART) increased from 11% to 39% and 46% to 64% in subgroup 1 and 2, respectively. In subgroup 1, median OS (mOS) from diagnosis CRPC increased from 28.5 months to 31.0 months (p = 0.196). In subgroup 2, mOS from progression on docetaxel increased from 7.9 months to 12.5 months (p < 0.001). After multiple imputations of missing values, in multivariable cox-regression analysis with known prognostic parameters, the treatment period was independent significant for OS in subgroup 1 (2014-2015 vs. 2010-2011 with HR 0.749, p < 0.001) and subgroup 2 (2015-2016 vs. 2011-2012 with HR 0.811, p = 0.037). CONCLUSION: Since 2010, a larger proportion of mCRPC patients was treated with LPDs, which was related to an increased mOS.

Selecting the optimal position of CDK4/6 inhibitors in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer - the SONIA study: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Combining cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors with endocrine therapy is an effective strategy to improve progression-free survival in hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. There is a lack of comparative data to help clinicians decide if CDK4/6 inhibitors can best be added to first- or second-line endocrine therapy. Improvement in median progression-free survival in first-line studies is larger than in second-line studies, but CDK4/6 inhibitors have not consistently shown to improve overall survival or quality of life. They do come with added toxicity and costs, and many patients have lasting disease remission on endocrine therapy alone. No subgroup has been identified to select patients who are most likely to benefit from the addition of CDK4/6 inhibition in any line of treatment. Altogether, these factors make that the optimal strategy for using CDK4/6 inhibitors in clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: The SONIA study is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized phase III study in patients with HR+/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Patients are randomly assigned to receive either strategy A (first-line treatment with a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor combined with CDK4/6 inhibition, followed on progression by fulvestrant) or strategy B (first-line treatment with a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor, followed on progression by fulvestrant combined with CDK4/6 inhibition). The primary objective is to test whether strategy A is more effective than strategy B. The primary endpoint is time from randomization to second objective progression (PFS2). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, safety, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Five-hundred seventy-four events yield 89% power to show that strategy A has statistically significant, clinically meaningful superior PFS2 (according to ESMO-MCBS) in a log-rank test at the two-sided 95% confidence level. Given an accrual period of 42 months and an additional 18 months follow-up, inclusion of 1050 evaluable patients is required. DISCUSSION: This study design represents daily clinical practice, and the results will aid clinicians in deciding when adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to endocrine therapy will benefit their patients most. Additional biomarker analyses may help to optimize patient selection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03425838 (8 February 2018). EudraCT-number: 2017-002334-23 (29 September 2017).

Treatment of sporadic Burkitt lymphoma in adults, a retrospective comparison of four treatment regimens.

Burkitt lymphoma is an aggressive B cell malignancy accounting for 1-2% of all adult lymphomas. Treatment with dose-intensive, multi-agent chemotherapy is effective but associated with considerable toxicity. In this observational study, we compared real-world efficacy, toxicity, and costs of four frequently employed treatment strategies for Burkitt lymphoma: the Lymphome Malins B (LMB), the Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster (BFM), the HOVON, and the CODOX-M/IVAC regimens. We collected data from 147 adult patients treated in eight referral centers. Following central pathology assessment, 105 of these cases were accepted as Burkitt lymphoma, resulting in the following treatment groups: LMB 36 patients, BFM 19 patients, HOVON 29 patients, and CODOX-M/IVAC 21 patients (median age 39 years, range 14-74; mean duration of follow-up 47 months). There was no significant difference between age, sex ratio, disease stage, or percentage HIV-positive patients between the treatment groups. Five-year progression-free survival (69%, p = 0.966) and 5-year overall survival (69%, p = 0.981) were comparable for all treatment groups. Treatment-related toxicity was also comparable with only hepatotoxicity seen more frequently in the CODOX/M-IVAC group (p = 0.004). Costs were determined by the number of rituximab gifts and the number of inpatients days. Overall, CODOX-M/IVAC had the most beneficial profile with regards to costs, treatment duration, and percentage of patients completing planned treatment. We conclude that the four treatment protocols for Burkitt lymphoma yield nearly identical results with regards to efficacy and safety but differ in treatment duration and costs. These differences may help guide future choice of treatment.

Health-related quality of life and its determinants in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Based on improvements of progression-free survival (PFS), new agents for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been approved. It is assumed that one of the benefits is a delay in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) deterioration as a result of a delay in progression of disease. However, little data are available supporting this relationship. This study aims to provide insight into the most important determinants of HRQoL (including progression of disease) of patients with mRCC. METHODS: A patient registry (PERCEPTION) was created to evaluate treatment of patients with (m)RCC in the Netherlands. HRQoL was measured, using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L, every 3 months in the first year of participation in the study, and every 6 months in the second year. Participation started as soon as possible following a diagnosis of (m)RCC. Random effects models were used to study associations between HRQoL and patient and disease characteristics, symptoms and treatment. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients with mRCC completed 304 questionnaires. The average EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status was 69 (SD, 19) before progression and 61 (SD, 22) after progression of disease. Similarly, the average EQ-5D utility was 0.75 (SD, 0.19) before progression and 0.66 (SD, 0.30) after progression of disease. The presence of fatigue, pain, dyspnoea, and the application of radiotherapy were associated with significantly lower EQ-5D utilities. CONCLUSIONS: Key drivers for reduced HRQoL in mRCC are disease symptoms. Since symptoms increase with progression of disease, targeted therapies that increase PFS are expected to postpone reductions in HRQoL in mRCC.

Potential health gains for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in daily clinical practice: A real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential first- and second-line treatments.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials have shown that targeted therapies like sunitinib are effective in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Little is known about the current use of these therapies, and their associated costs and effects in daily clinical practice. We estimated the real-world cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies comprising one or more sequentially administered drugs. METHODS: Analyses were performed using patient-level data from a Dutch population-based registry including patients diagnosed with primary mRCC from January 2008 to December 2010 (i.e., treated between 2008 and 2013). The full disease course of these patients was estimated using a patient-level simulation model based on regression analyses of the registry data. A healthcare sector perspective was adopted; total costs included healthcare costs related to mRCC. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in cost per life-year and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate the overall uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In current daily practice, 54% (336/621) of all patients was treated with targeted therapies. Most patients (84%; 282/336) received sunitinib as first-line therapy. Of the patients receiving first-line therapy, 30% (101/336) also received second-line therapy; the majority was treated with everolimus (40%, 40/101) or sorafenib (28%, 28/101). Current treatment practice (including patients not receiving targeted therapy) led to 0.807 QALYs; mean costs were €58,912. This resulted in an additional €105,011 per QALY gained compared to not using targeted therapy at all. Forty-six percent of all patients received no targeted therapy; of these patients, 24% (69/285) was eligible for sunitinib. If these patients were treated with first-line sunitinib, mean QALYs would improve by 0.062-0.076 (where the range reflects the choice of second-line therapy). This improvement is completely driven by the health gain seen amongst patients eligible to receive sunitinib but did not receive it, who gain 0.558-0.684 QALYs from sunitinib. Since additional costs would be €7,072-9,913, incremental costs per QALY gained are €93,107-111,972 compared to current practice. DISCUSSION: Health can be gained if more treatment-eligible patients receive targeted therapies. Moreover, it will be just as cost-effective to treat these patients with sunitinib as current treatment practice.

Cost-effectiveness of capecitabine and bevacizumab maintenance treatment after first-line induction treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer.

AIM: Capecitabine and bevacizumab (CAP-B) maintenance therapy has shown to be more effective compared with observation in metastatic colorectal cancer patients achieving stable disease or better after six cycles of first-line capecitabine, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab treatment in terms of progression-free survival. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CAP-B maintenance treatment. METHODS: Decision analysis with Markov modelling to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CAP-B maintenance compared with observation was performed based on CAIRO3 study results (n = 558). An additional analysis was performed in patients with complete or partial response. The primary outcomes were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) defined as the additional cost per life year (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, calculated from EQ-5D questionnaires and literature and LYs gained. Univariable sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the influence of input parameters on the ICER, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis represents uncertainty in model parameters. RESULTS: CAP-B maintenance compared with observation resulted in 0.21 QALYs (0.18LYs) gained at a mean cost increase of €36,845, yielding an ICER of €175,452 per QALY (€204,694 per LY). Varying the difference in health-related quality of life between CAP-B maintenance and observation influenced the ICER most. For patients achieving complete or partial response on capecitabine, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab induction treatment, an ICER of €149,300 per QALY was calculated. CONCLUSION: CAP-B maintenance results in improved health outcomes measured in QALYs and LYs compared with observation, but also in a relevant increase in costs. Despite the fact that there is no consensus on cost-effectiveness thresholds in cancer treatment, CAP-B maintenance may not be considered cost-effective.

Variation in use of targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from a Dutch population-based registry.

BACKGROUND: For patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), targeted therapies have entered the market since 2006. The aims of this study were to evaluate the uptake and use of targeted therapies for mRCC in The Netherlands, examine factors associated with the prescription of targeted therapies in daily clinical practice and study their effectiveness in terms of overall survival (OS). METHODS: Two cohorts from PERCEPTION, a population-based registry of mRCC patients, were used: a 2008-2010 Cohort (n = 645) and a 2011-2013 Cohort (n = 233). Chi-squared tests for trend were used to study time trends in the use of targeted therapy. Patients were grouped based on the eligibility criteria of the SUTENT trial, the trial that led to sunitinib becoming standard of care, to investigate the use of targeted therapies amongst patients fulfilling those criteria. Multi-level logistic regression was used to identify patient subgroups that are less likely to receive targeted therapies. RESULTS: Approximately one-third of patients fulfilling SUTENT trial eligibility criteria did not receive any targeted therapy (29 % in the 2008-2010 Cohort; 35 % in the 2011-2013 Cohort). Patients aged 65+ years were less likely to receive targeted therapy in both cohorts and different risk groups (odds ratios range between 0.84-0.92); other factors like number of metastatic sites were of influence in some subgroups. Amongst treated patients, there was a decreasing trend in sunitinib use over time (p = 0.0061), and an increasing trend in pazopanib use (p = 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted therapies have largely replaced interferon-alfa as first-line standard of care. Nevertheless, many eligible patients in Dutch daily practice did not receive targeted therapies despite their ability to improve survival. Reasons for their apparent underutilisation should be examined more carefully.

Costs of non-small cell lung cancer in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: Real-world resource use and cost data on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are scarce. This data is needed to inform health-economic modelling to assess the impact of new diagnostic and/or treatment technologies. This study provides detailed insight into real-world medical resource use and costs of stage I-IV NSCLC in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A random sample of patients newly diagnosed with NSCLC (2009-2011) was selected from four Dutch hospitals. Data was retrospectively collected from patient charts. This data included patient characteristics, tumour characteristics, treatment details, adverse events, survival and resource use. Resource use was multiplied by Dutch unit costs expressed in EUR 2012. Total mean costs were corrected for censoring using the Bang and Tsiatis weighted complete-case estimator. Furthermore, costs of adverse events, costs per phase of NSCLC management and costs of second opinions are presented. RESULTS: Data was collected on 1067 patients. Total mean costs for NSCLC diagnosis, treatment and follow-up are €28,468 during the study period and €33,143 when corrected for censoring. Adverse events were recorded in the patient charts for 369 patients (41%) and 82 patients (9%) experienced an adverse event of grade III or higher. For these patients, adverse event-related hospital admissions cost on average €2,091. Mean total costs are €1,725 for the diagnostic period, €17,296 for first treatment line, and €13,236 for each later treatment line. Costs of providing a second opinion are €2,580 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Total mean hospital costs per NSCLC patient are €33,143 for the total duration of the disease. Ignoring censoring in our data underestimates these costs by 14%. Main limitations of the study relate to the short follow-up time, staging difficulties and missing data. Its main strength is that it provides highly detailed, real-world data on the costs of NSCLC.

Quality of life of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in the Netherlands: results of a longitudinal multicentre study.

PURPOSE: To describe the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of an unselected population of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) including untreated patients. METHODS: HRQoL was measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 including the CLL16 module, EQ-5D, and VAS in an observational study over multiple years. All HRQoL measurements per patient were connected and analysed using area under the curve analysis over the entire study duration. The total patient group was compared with the general population, and three groups of CLL patients were described separately, i.e. patients without any active treatment ("watch and wait"), chlorambucil treatment only, and patients with other treatment(s). RESULTS: HRQoL in the total group of CLL patients was compromised when compared with age- and gender-matched norm scores of the general population. CLL patients scored statistically worse on the VAS and utility score of the EQ-5D, all functioning scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30, and the symptoms of fatigue, dyspnoea, sleeping disturbance, appetite loss, and financial difficulties. In untreated patients, the HRQoL was slightly reduced. In all treatment stages, HRQoL was compromised considerably. Patients treated with chlorambucil only scored worse on the EORTC QLQ-C30 than patients who were treated with other treatments with regard to emotional functioning, cognitive functioning, bruises, uncomfortable stomach, and apathy. CONCLUSIONS: CLL patients differ most from the general population on role functioning, fatigue, concerns about future health, and having not enough energy. Once treatment is indicated, HRQoL becomes considerably compromised. This applies to all treatments, including chlorambucil, which is considered to be a mild treatment.

Real-world resource use and costs of adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer.

Since the generalisability of trial-based economic evaluations may be limited, there is an increasing focus on real-world cost-effectiveness. Real-world studies involve evaluating the effects and costs of treatments in daily clinical practice. This study reports on the real-world resource use and costs of adjuvant treatments of stage III colon cancer in a population-based observational study. Analyses were based on a detailed retrospective medical chart review which was conducted for 206 patients with colon cancer treated in 2005 and 2006 in the Netherlands. Mean total costs per patient were €9681 for 5-FU/LV, €9736 for capecitabine, €32,793 for FOLFOX and €18,361 for CAPOX. Drug costs and the costs related to hospitalisations for chemotherapy administration were the main cost drivers. We identified a potential for substantial cost-savings when the 48 h administration of 5FU/LV in the FOLFOX regimen were to take place in an outpatient setting or be replaced by oral capecitabine as in the CAPOX regimen. This analysis based on detailed real-life data clearly indicates that clinical choices made in oncology based on efficacy of therapy have economic consequences. Considering today's reality of finite healthcare resources, these economic consequences deserve a formal role in clinical decision making, for instance in guideline development.

Access to expensive cancer drugs in Dutch daily practice: should we be concerned?

BACKGROUND: To investigate whether equal access to bortezomib has been achieved under the Dutch policy regulations that guarantee equal access to expensive inpatient drugs. METHODS: We investigated accessibility to bortezomib treatment at national and regional levels by (i) conducting interviews with stakeholders in the Dutch healthcare system to explore prescription barriers and (ii) tabulating sales data from 2004-2009 and trial participation rates. RESULTS: Interviews revealed awareness of the high treatment costs, although prescription barriers were not encountered. National use of bortezomib increased slowly (treating 2% of patients in 2004 to 17% in 2009), indicating a long adjustment period. Furthermore, use remains below the rate estimated by the professional association of haematologists (27%). Regional differences were found for both daily practice use (e.g. ranging from 13-27% in 2009) and clinical trial participation (e.g. ranging from 1-12% in 2006). CONCLUSION: Our results were somewhat conflicting: interviews did not reveal any prescription barriers, but quantitative methods showed regional differences, signs of underutilisation, and access inequality. Investigating use and accessibility, based on data triangulation, provides valuable feedback which can enhance evidence-based decision making for both physicians and policymakers. This could improve appropriate and efficient use and ensure equal access to expensive drugs.

Cetuximab in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: generalizability of EMR 062202-006 trial results.

In a randomized controlled trial in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA SCCHN), treatment with RT plus cetuximab resulted in improved survival compared to treatment with RT alone. Uncertainty exists about the generalizability of the trial results for the Dutch healthcare setting due to possible discrepancies in treatment allocation. Retrospective patient chart review was performed for 141 patients treated with first line RT plus cetuximab or RT alone, diagnosed in 2007-2010 in two head and neck treatment centers. Combined with aggregated population-based data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and patient level clinical trial data, use of cetuximab in Dutch daily practice was assessed through comparison of patient characteristics, treatment characteristics and treatment outcomes between trial and daily practice. 61 daily practice patients fulfilled the selection criteria. In line with Dutch guidelines, RT plus cetuximab is prescribed in patients requiring combined therapy unfit to receive traditional platinum-based chemotherapeutics. These patients have unfavorable baseline characteristics, due to selection on--amongst others--high age of the patients. Beyond 1 year after treatment start, patients treated with RT plus cetuximab in daily practice died earlier than patients treated with RT plus cetuximab in the trial. Selective treatment allocation in daily practice limits generalizability of EMR 062202-006 trial results. Evidence is needed about the effectiveness of RT plus cetuximab compared to other treatments for patients with unfavorable clinical baseline characteristics.