Impact on costs and outcomes of multi-gene panel testing for advanced solid malignancies: a cost-consequence analysis using linked administrative data.

Background: To date, economic analyses of tissue-based next generation sequencing genomic profiling (NGS) for advanced solid tumors have typically required models with assumptions, with little real-world evidence on overall survival (OS), clinical trial enrollment or end-of-life quality of care. Methods: Cost consequence analysis of NGS testing (555 or 161-gene panels) for advanced solid tumors through the OCTANE clinical trial (NCT02906943). This is a longitudinal, propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada using linked administrative data. Patients enrolled in OCTANE at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from August 2016 until March 2019 were matched with contemporary patients without large gene panel testing from across Ontario not enrolled in OCTANE. Patients were matched according to 19 patient, disease and treatment variables. Full 2-year follow-up data was available. Sensitivity analyses considered alternative matched cohorts. Main Outcomes were mean per capita costs (2019 Canadian dollars) from a public payer's perspective, OS, clinical trial enrollment and end-of-life quality metrics. Findings: There were 782 OCTANE patients with 782 matched controls. Variables were balanced after matching (standardized difference <0.10). There were higher mean health-care costs with OCTANE ($79,702 vs. $59,550), mainly due to outpatient and specialist visits. Publicly funded drug costs were less with OCTANE ($20,015 vs. $24,465). OCTANE enrollment was not associated with improved OS (restricted mean survival time [standard error]: 1.50 (±0.03) vs. 1.44 (±0.03) years, log-rank p = 0.153), varying by tumor type. In five tumor types with ≥35 OCTANE patients, OS was similar in three (breast, colon, uterus, all p > 0.40), and greater in two (ovary, biliary, both p < 0.05). OCTANE was associated with greater clinical trial enrollment (25.4% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.001) and better end-of-life quality due to less death in hospital (10.2% vs. 16.4%, p = 0.003). Results were robust in sensitivity analysis. Interpretation: We found an increase in healthcare costs associated with multi-gene panel testing for advanced cancer treatment. The impact on OS was not significant, but varied across tumor types. OCTANE was associated with greater trial enrollment, lower publicly funded drug costs and fewer in-hospital deaths suggesting important considerations in determining the value of NGS panel testing for advanced cancers. Funding: T.P H holds a research grant provided by the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research through funding provided by the Government of Ontario (#IA-035 and P.HSR.158) and through funding of the Canadian Network for Learning Healthcare Systems and Cost-Effective 'Omics Innovation (CLEO) via Genome Canada (G05CHS).

Implementing geriatric assessment and management for older Canadians with cancer: Adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention, results of the 5C study.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) is recommended by professional organizations and recently several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits in multiple health outcomes. GAM typically leads to one or more recommendations for the older adult on how to optimize their health. However, little is known about how well recommendations are adhered to. Understanding these issues is vital to designing GAM trials and clinical programs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the number of GAM recommendations made and adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention in a multicentre RCT of GAM for older adults with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 5C study was a two-group parallel RCT conducted in eight hospitals across Canada. Each centre kept a detailed recruitment and retention log. The intervention teams documented adherence to their recommendations. Medical records were also reviewed to assess which recommendations were adhered to. Twenty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 members of the intervention teams and 11 oncology team members to assess implementation of the study and the intervention. RESULTS: Of the 350 participants who were enrolled, 173 were randomized to the intervention arm. Median number of recommendations was seven. Mean adherence to recommendations based on the GAM was 69%, but it varied by type of recommendation, ranging from 98% for laboratory tests to 28% for psychosocial/psychiatry oncology referrals. There was no difference in the number of recommendations or non-adherence to recommendations by sex, level of frailty, or functional status. Oncologists and intervention team members were satisfied with the study implementation and intervention delivery. DISCUSSION: Adherence to recommendations was variable. Adherence to laboratory investigations and further imaging were generally high but much lower for recommendations regarding psychosocial support. Further collaborative work with older adults with cancer is needed to understand how to optimize the intervention to be consistent with patient goals, priorities, and values to ensure maximal impact on health outcomes.

Impact of Geriatric Assessment and Management on Quality of Life, Unplanned Hospitalizations, Toxicity, and Survival for Older Adults With Cancer: The Randomized 5C Trial.

PURPOSE: American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends that older adults with cancer being considered for chemotherapy receive geriatric assessment (GA) and management (GAM), but few randomized controlled trials have examined its impact on quality of life (QOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The 5C study was a two-group parallel 1:1 single-blind multicenter randomized controlled trial of GAM for 6 months versus usual oncologic care. Eligible patients were age 70+ years, diagnosed with a solid tumor, lymphoma, or myeloma, referred for first-/second-line chemotherapy or immunotherapy or targeted therapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. The primary outcome QOL was measured with the global health scale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL questionnaire and analyzed with a pattern mixture model using an intent-to-treat approach (at 6 and 12 months). Secondary outcomes included functional status, grade 3-5 treatment toxicity; health care use; satisfaction; cancer treatment plan modification; and overall survival. RESULTS: From March 2018 to March 2020, 350 participants were enrolled. Mean age was 76 years and 40.3% were female. Fifty-four percent started treatment with palliative intent. Eighty-one (23.1%) patients died. GAM did not improve QOL (global QOL of 4.4 points [95% CI, 0.9 to 8.0] favoring the control arm). There was also no difference in survival, change in treatment plan, unplanned hospitalization/emergency department visits, and treatment toxicity between groups. CONCLUSION: GAM did not improve QOL. Most intervention group participants received GA on or after treatment initiation per patient request. Considering recent completed trials, GA may have benefit if completed before treatment selection. The COVID-19 pandemic may have affected our QOL outcome and intervention delivery for some participants.

The impact of radiological assessment schedules on progression-free survival in metastatic breast cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of interval of restaging on the observed magnitude of benefit of progression-free survival (PFS) is undefined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating anti-neoplastic drugs for metastatic breast cancer which reported the restaging interval and hazard ratio (HR) for PFS were included. Data on study design and study population were collected. HRs and 95% confidence intervals for PFS and OS (overall survival) were pooled in a meta-analysis. Studies were categorized according to short (<9 weeks) or long (≥9 weeks) restaging interval. The differences in PFS and OS effect between trials employing short and long restaging intervals were assessed as subgroup analyses. Analyses were repeated for pre-specified subgroups. RESULTS: Eighty-nine studies comprising 95 comparisons and 44,901 patients were included. The magnitude of PFS benefit was larger in trials which employed short compared to long restaging intervals, but this difference did not reach the pre-defined threshold for statistical significance (HR = 0.79 vs. 0.86, P = 0.15). Short restaging interval was associated with significantly higher magnitude of effect on PFS in pre-specified subgroups including non-first line trials (HR = 0.78 vs. 0.92, P = 0.04), trials with drugs replacing standard treatment (HR = 0.86 vs. 1.04, P = 0.02) and studies performed in exclusively human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive disease (HR = 0.72 vs. 0.90, P = 0.02). The magnitude of OS benefit was similar with short and long restaging intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Shorter restaging intervals are associated with a higher magnitude of effect on PFS, but not OS. Awareness of the impact of the restaging interval on quantification of PFS is important for the design and interpretation of RCTs.

Are NCCN Resource-Stratified Guidelines for Breast Cancer Systemic Therapy Achievable? A Population-Based Study of Global Need and Economic Impact.

PURPOSE: Resource-stratified guidelines (RSG) for cancer provide a hierarchy of interventions, based on resource availability. We quantify treatment need and cost if National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) RSGs for breast cancer (BC) are adopted globally. METHODS: We developed decision trees for first-course systemic therapy, merged with SEER and Global Cancer Observatory 2018 incidence data to estimate treatment need and cost if NCCN RSG are implemented globally based on country-level income. Simulations were used to quantify need and cost of globally scaling up services to Maximal. RESULTS: Based on NCCN RSG, first-course chemotherapy is indicated in 0% (Basic), 87% (Core), and 86% (Enhanced) but declined to 50% (Maximal) because of incorporation of genomic profiling. First-course endocrine therapy (ET) is indicated in 80% in all settings. In 2018, treatment need was 1.4 million people for chemotherapy, 183,943 for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies and 1.6 million for ET. The cost per person for chemotherapy or HER2 or immunotherapy increased by 17-fold from Core to Maximal ($1,278-$22,313 Australian dollars [AUD]). The cost of ET per person rose eight-fold from Basic to Maximal ($1,236-$9,809 AUD). If all patients with BC globally were treated with Maximal resources, the need for chemotherapy would decline by 28%, whereas cost of first-course treatment would rise by 1.8-fold ($21-$37 billion AUD) because of more costly therapies. CONCLUSION: NCCN RSGs for BC could result in chemotherapy overtreatment in Core and Enhanced settings. The absence of chemotherapy in Basic settings should be reconsidered, and future iterations of RSG should perform cross-tumor comparisons to ensure equitable resource distribution and maximize population-level outcomes. Our model is flexible and can be tailored to the costs, population attributes, and resource availability of any institution or country for health-services planning.

Clinical benefit and cost of breakthrough cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit and pricing of breakthrough-designated cancer drugs are uncertain. This study compares the magnitude of the clinical benefit and monthly price of new and supplemental breakthrough-designated and non-breakthrough-designated cancer drug approvals. METHODS: A cross-sectional cohort comprised approvals of cancer drugs for solid tumors from July 2012 to December 2017. For each indication, the clinical benefit from the pivotal trials was scored via validated frameworks: the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF), the American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Research Committee (ASCO-CRC), the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks. A high clinical benefit was defined as scores ≥ 45 for the ASCO-VF, overall survival gains ≥ 2.5 months or progression-free survival gains ≥ 3 months for all cancer types for the ASCO-CRC criteria, a grade of A or B for trials of curative intent and a grade of 4 or 5 for trials of noncurative intent for the ESMO-MCBS, and scores of 4 and 5 and a combined score ≥ 16 for the NCCN Evidence Blocks. Monthly Medicare drug prices were calculated with Medicare prices and DrugAbacus. RESULTS: This study identified 106 trials supporting approval of 52 drugs for 96 indications. Forty percent of these indications received the breakthrough designation. Among the included trials, 33 (43%), 46 (73%), 35 (34%), and 67 (69%) met the thresholds established by the ASCO-VF, ASCO-CRC, ESMO-MCBS, and NCCN, respectively. In the metastatic setting, there were higher odds of clinically meaningful grades in trials supporting breakthrough drugs with the ASCO-VF (odds ratio [OR], 3.69; P = .022) and the NCCN Evidence Blocks (OR, 5.80; P = .003) but not with the ASCO-CRC (OR, 3.54; P = .11) or version 1.1 (v1.1) of the ESMO-MCBS (OR, 1.22; P = .70). The median costs of breakthrough therapy drugs were significantly higher than those of nonbreakthrough therapies (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In advanced solid cancers, drugs that received the breakthrough therapy designation were more likely than nonbreakthrough therapy drugs to be scored as providing a high clinical benefit with the ASCO-VF and the NCCN Evidence Blocks but not with the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 or the ASCO-CRC scale.

Assessment of frequency and reporting of design changes among clinical drug trials published in influential medical journals.

BACKGROUND: Modifications of primary outcome measures after trial initiation can undermine their scientific validity. We aimed to quantify these changes and to characterize potential predictors in clinical drug trials published in high impact factor general medicine journals. METHODS: The study cohort included all prospective, adult drug clinical trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and Lancet between June 2017 and May 2018. The matching ClinicalTrials.gov entries effective at trial initiation were compared with those effective on July 2018, thereby identifying amendments to primary outcome definitions and assessment timeframes and the planned sample size (defined as >10% change). The primary publications were reviewed for reporting of these amendments. Associations between identified changes and trial characteristics were explored using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 147 included trials, modifications to primary outcome measures were identified in 80 (54%). Primary outcome definitions, outcome assessment timeframes and the planned sample size were modified in 28 (19%), 12 (8%) and 65 (45%) of registry entries, respectively; of which 21 (75%), 11 (92%), and 33 (51%), respectively, were not reported in the related publications. There were no significant associations between modifications in registry entries and study characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of trials published in influential medical journals present changes to the design while patient accrual is ongoing, and two thirds of them are unreported. Justification for such modifications should be reported more clearly. Reviewers, editors and readers should consult ClinicalTrials.gov for a more comprehensive report of the evolution of key study methods.

Undisclosed Financial Conflicts of Interest of Authors of Clinical Drug Trials Published in Influential Medical Journals: A Cohort Study.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors requires authors to disclose all financial conflicts of interest (COI) that can be perceived as influencing the related trials. Undisclosed financial COI may influence the perception of the authors' scientific impartiality and erode the public trust in the reported results. Data regarding completeness of COI disclosure in high-impact-factor general medicine journals are limited. We compared payments disclosed by US-based physicians who were first or last authors of clinical drug trials published between August 2016 and August 2018 in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and Lancet, to payments reported by industry to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database. Of 247 included authors, 198 (80%) have not disclosed some or all received payments. The median undisclosed sum was $8409 (US Dollars) (interquartile range [IQR] $123 to $44,890). Most authors (n=170, 69%) have received more than $10,000 per year (median $120,403, IQR $58,905 to $242,014). The median undisclosed sum for these authors was $26,530 (IQR $7462 to $71,562). Median undisclosed sums for authors of papers from studies performed with and without industry funding were $20,899 (IQR $4191 to $59,883) and $149 (IQR $0 to $3276), respectively. In 10 (8%) of 125 industry-funded trials, the first or last author had not disclosed personal payments from the study sponsor (median $9741, IQR $4508 to $101,484). These findings could raise concerns about the authors' equipoise toward the trial results and influence the public perception of the credibility of reported data. Health care professionals, reviewers, and journal editors should demand more transparent reporting of financial COI.

Assessment of Prognostic Value of Left Ventricular Global Longitudinal Strain for Early Prediction of Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Echocardiographic left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS) detects early subclinical ventricular dysfunction and can be used in patients receiving potentially cardiotoxic chemotherapy. A meta-analysis of the prognostic value of GLS for cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) has not been performed, to our knowledge. Objective: To explore the prognostic value of GLS for the prediction of CTRCD. Data Sources: Systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases from database inception to June 1, 2018. Study Selection: Cohort studies assessing the prognostic or discriminatory performance of GLS before or during chemotherapy for subsequent CTRCD. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Random-effects meta-analysis and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves (HSROCs) were used to summarize the prognostic and discriminatory performance of different GLS indices. Publication bias was assessed using the Egger test, and meta-regression was performed to assess sources of heterogeneity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was CTRCD, defined as a clinically significant change in left ventricular ejection fraction with or without new-onset heart failure symptoms. Results: Analysis included 21 studies comprising 1782 patients with cancer, including breast cancer, hematologic malignancies, or sarcomas, treated with anthracyclines with or without trastuzumab. The incidence of CTRCD ranged from 9.3% to 43.8% over a mean follow-up of 4.2 to 23.0 months (pooled incidence, 21.0%). For active treatment absolute GLS (9 studies), the high-risk cutoff values ranged from -21.0% to -13.8%, with worse GLS associated with a higher CTRCD risk (odds ratio, 12.27; 95% CI, 7.73-19.47; area under the HSROC, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89). For relative changes vs a baseline value (9 studies), cutoff values ranged from 2.3% to 15.9%, with a greater decrease linked to a 16-fold higher risk of CTRCD (odds ratio, 15.82; 95% CI, 5.84-42.85; area under the HSROC, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89). Both indices showed significant publication bias. Meta-regression identified differences in sample size and CTRCD definition but not GLS cutoff value as significant sources of interstudy heterogeneity. Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis, measurement of GLS after initiation of potentially cardiotoxic chemotherapy with anthracyclines with or without trastuzumab had good prognostic performance for subsequent CTRCD. However, risk of bias in the original studies, publication bias, and limited data on the incremental value of GLS and its optimal cutoff values highlight the need for larger prospective multicenter studies.

Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest among authors of American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are crucial to the practice of evidence-based medicine. Declared author financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) are common in CPGs and have been associated with endorsement of treatment. Less is known about undeclared FCOIs. METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) website was searched to identify all CPGs for systemic therapy published between August 2013 and June 2018. Data on self-reported author FCOIs and funding sources were extracted. The Open Payments database was then searched to identify compensation to CPG authors. Concordance between declared and undeclared but verified FCOIs was assessed with Cohen's κ. RESULTS: For 26 CPGs, 314 nonduplicate authors were identified; 184 of these authors (59%) disclosed FCOIs. Among the remaining 130 authors, data in Open Payments were unavailable for 71 authors (non-US residents or authors affiliated with a nonprofit organization). Among the 59 authors who declared no FCOIs and for whom Open Payments data were available, 55 (93%) had received payment from industry. The κ value for agreement between disclosed and verified FCOIs was 0.092. Among the 243 authors with FCOIs verifiable via Open Payments, 239 (98%) received payment from industry. Thirty-four authors (62%) received more than $1000 in nonresearch funding, and 19 (35%) received more than $5000. Among the 52 first and last authors, 44 (85%) received payment from industry; 14 of these payments (32%) were not declared. CONCLUSIONS: FCOIs among authors of ASCO CPGs are common and are not disclosed by a substantial proportion of authors with Open Payments data. Improved transparency of FCOIs should become standard practice among CPG authors. Professional societies and journal editors need to create a mechanism to verify self-reported FCOIs.

Patient-Centered Cancer Drug Development: Clinical Trials, Regulatory Approval, and Value Assessment.

Historically, patient experience, including symptomatic toxicities, physical function, and disease-related symptoms during treatment or their perspectives on clinical trials, has played a secondary role in cancer drug development. Regulatory criteria for drug approval require that drugs are safe and effective, and almost all drug approvals have been based only on efficacy endpoints rather than on quality-of-life (QoL) assessments. In contrast to Europe, information regarding the impact of drugs on patients' QoL is rarely included in oncology drug labeling in the United States. Until recently, patient input and preferences have not been incorporated into the design and conduct of clinical trials. In recent years, a more in-depth understanding of cancer biology, as well as regulatory changes focused on expediting cancer drug development and approval, has allowed earlier access to novel therapeutic agents. Understanding the implications of these expedited programs is important for oncologists and patients, given the rapid expansion of these programs. In this article, we provide an overview of the role of QoL in the regulatory drug-approval process, key issues regarding trial participation from the patient perspective, and the implications of key expedited approval programs that are increasingly being used by regulatory bodies for cancer care.

The Impact of Big Data Research on Practice, Policy, and Cancer Care.

The concept of "big data" research-the aggregation and analysis of biologic, clinical, administrative, and other data sources to drive new advances in biomedical knowledge-has been embraced by the cancer research enterprise. Although much of the conversation has concentrated on the amalgamation of basic biologic data (e.g., genomics, metabolomics, tumor tissue), new opportunities to extend potential contributions of big data to clinical practice and policy abound. This article examines these opportunities through discussion of three major data sources: aggregated clinical trial data, administrative data (including insurance claims data), and data from electronic health records. We will discuss the benefits of data use to answer key oncology practice and policy research questions, along with limitations inherent in these complex data sources. Finally, the article will discuss overarching themes across data types and offer next steps for the research, practice, and policy communities. The use of multiple sources of big data has the promise of improving knowledge and providing more accurate data for clinicians and policy decision makers. In the future, optimization of machine learning may allow for current limitations of big data analyses to be attenuated, thereby resulting in improved patient care and outcomes.

Clinical and Cost-effectiveness of a Comprehensive geriatric assessment and management for Canadian elders with Cancer-the 5C study: a study protocol for a randomised controlled phase III trial.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment and management is recommended for older adults with cancer referred for chemotherapy but no randomised controlled trial has been completed of this intervention in the oncology setting. TRIAL DESIGN: A two-group parallel single blind multi-centre randomised trial with a companion trial-based economic evaluation from both payer and societal perspectives with process evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 350 participants aged 70+, diagnosed with a solid tumour, lymphoma or myeloma, referred for first/second line chemotherapy, who speak English/French, have an Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group Performance Status 0-2 will be recruited. All participants will be followed for 12 months. INTERVENTION: Geriatric assessment and management for 6 months. The control group will receive usual oncologic care. All participants will receive a monthly healthy ageing booklet for 6 months. OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical and cost-effectiveness of geriatric assessment and management in optimising outcomes compared with usual oncology care. RANDOMISATION: Participants will be allocated to one of the two arms in a 1:1 ratio. The randomisation will be stratified by centre and treatment intent (palliative vs other). OUTCOME: Quality of life. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: (1) Cost-effectiveness, (2) functional status, (3) number of geriatric issues successfully addressed, (4) grades3-5 treatment toxicity, (5) healthcare use, (6) satisfaction, (7) cancer treatment plan modification and (8) overall survival. PLANNED ANALYSIS: For the primary outcome we will use a pattern mixture model using an intent-to-treat approach (at 3, 6 and12 months). We will conduct a cost-utility analysis alongside this clinical trial. For secondary outcomes 2-4, we will use a variety of methods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our study has been approved by all required REBs. We will disseminate our findings to stakeholders locally, nationally and internationally and by publishing the findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03154671.

Anticancer drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration for gastrointestinal malignancies: Clinical benefit and price considerations.

BACKGROUND: The cost of new anticancer drugs is rising. We aimed to assess the clinical benefit and price of anti-cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for advanced gastrointestinal cancers. METHODS: Drugs approved between 2006 and 2017 for advanced GI malignancies were identified from FDA.gov, and their updated supporting trial data were searched. Incremental clinical benefit was quantified by using ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (grade 0-5) and ASCO Value Framework version 2 (score range -20 to 180). Higher scores indicate larger net benefit, and substantial benefit was defined as score 4 or 5 by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). The Micromedex REDBOOK was used to estimate the monthly average wholesale price (AWP) and total drug price (TDP) over the median treatment duration per patient. Clinical benefit, AWP and TDP of each drug class were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 16 GI cancer drugs received FDA approval for 24 indications, including five monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), five oral targeted therapies (TT), two immunotherapeutics (IO), three cytotoxic chemotherapies (CT), and one recombinant fusion protein (aflibercept). Most supporting trials (82%) reported overall survival benefit of less than 3 months and no significant improvement in quality of life. Only five agents (including one TT and one IO) with 21% the of approved indications met the ESMO's threshold of substantial clinical benefit. Median incremental benefit scores of TT and IO were comparable to other drug classes. However their median TDP was much higher at $153 402 and $98 208, respectively, compared to $30 330 USD per patient for CT. The estimated TDP did not correlate with clinical benefit scores. CONCLUSION: Most FDA-approved gastrointestinal cancer drugs do not meet the ESMO threshold of substantial clinical benefit. TT and IO are estimated to carry significant drug costs, and further cost analysis of these drugs is urgently needed.

Health status, emergency department visits, and oncologists' feedback: An analysis of secondary endpoints from a randomized phase II geriatric assessment trial.

PURPOSE: Geriatric Assessment (GA) can help uncover previously unknown health issues and recommend tailored interventions to optimize outcomes; however, no completed randomized trial has examined the impact of GA on utility-based health status, healthcare use, and oncologists' opinions about GA. We examined these secondary outcomes of a randomized phase II trial. METHODS: A planned analysis of secondary outcomes of a two-group parallel single-blind randomized phase II trial of GA (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02222259) recruited patients ≥ age 70, diagnosed with stage II-IV breast/gastrointestinal/genitourinary cancer within six weeks of beginning chemotherapy at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada. Descriptive analyses using intent-to-treat were conducted for health status (EuroQol EQ-5D-3L) and healthcare utilization (patient self-report). Oncologist opinions were captured via open-ended interviews and summarized. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients who met the inclusion criteria were approached; 61 of them consented (64%). For health status, at all time-points, there were no significant differences between the two groups. The number of emergency department and family physician visits was low overall; there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups at any time point. All interviewed oncologists (eight of fourteen invited) were satisfied with the intervention, but wanted more straightforward recommendations and earlier GA results. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in terms of relationships between GA and utility-based health status or GA and healthcare use. Underreporting of healthcare use was possible. Oncologists welcome GA feedback and prefer to receive it in pre-treatment decision context. Larger trials with earlier GA are warranted.

A randomized phase II trial of geriatric assessment and management for older cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) can identify current health issues and recommend interventions to optimize well-being of older adults, but no randomized trial has yet been completed in oncology. Therefore, a randomized phase 2 trial was conducted. METHODS: A two-group parallel single-blinded randomized phase II trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02222259) enrolled patients aged ≥70 years, diagnosed with stage 2-4 gastrointestinal, genitourinary, or breast cancer within 6 weeks of commencing chemotherapy at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. The coprimary feasibility outcomes were the proportion of eligible patients enrolled and retained. The coprimary clinical outcomes were quality of life (QOL) (EORTC QLQ C30) and modification of cancer treatment. Descriptive and regression analyses using intent-to-treat analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Sixty-one persons (64%) agreed to participate (31 allocated to intervention arm and 30 to control group). In the control group, more participants died and refused follow-up. The benefit of intervention over control on QOL at 3 months was greater for those who survived 6 months (difference 9.28; 95% CI -10.35 to 28.91) versus those who survived only 3 months (difference 6.55; 95% CI -9.63 to 22.73). CONCLUSIONS: This trial showed that it was feasible to recruit and retain older adults for a GAM study. Those who survived at least 6 months seemed to receive a greater QOL benefit than those who died or withdrew.

Incidence, Diagnosis, and Management of QT Prolongation Induced by Cancer Therapies: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular complications of cancer therapeutics are the focus of the burgeoning field of cardio-oncology. A common challenge in this field is the impact of cancer drugs on cardiac repolarization (ie, QT prolongation) and the potential risk for the life-threatening arrhythmia torsades de pointes. Although QT prolongation is not a perfect marker of arrhythmia risk, this has become a primary safety metric among oncologists. Cardiologists caring for patients receiving cancer treatment should become familiar with the drugs associated with QT prolongation, its incidence, and appropriate management strategies to provide meaningful consultation in this complex clinical scenario. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this article, we performed a systematic review (using Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines) of commonly used cancer drugs to determine the incidence of QT prolongation and clinically relevant arrhythmias. We calculated summary estimates of the incidence of all and clinically relevant QT prolongation as well as arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. We then describe strategies to prevent, identify, and manage QT prolongation in patients receiving cancer therapy. We identified a total of 173 relevant publications. The weighted incidence of any corrected QT (QTc) prolongation in our systematic review in patients treated with conventional therapies (eg, anthracyclines) ranged from 0% to 22%, although QTc >500 ms, arrhythmias, or sudden cardiac death was extremely rare. The risk of QTc prolongation with targeted therapies (eg, small molecular tyrosine kinase inhibitors) ranged between 0% and 22.7% with severe prolongation (QTc >500 ms) reported in 0% to 5.2% of the patients. Arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death were rare. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review demonstrates that there is variability in the incidence of QTc prolongation of various cancer drugs; however, the clinical consequence, as defined by arrhythmias or sudden cardiac death, remains rare.

Efficacy, safety, tolerability and price of newly approved drugs in solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: New anti-cancer drugs utilize diverse mechanisms of action. Here we evaluate their differential efficacy, safety, tolerability and price. METHODS: Drugs approved for solid tumor treatment between 2000 and 2015 were identified and analyzed in subgroups: agents targeting oncogenes (group 1), anti-angiogenics (group 2), immunotherapy (group 3), and chemotherapy (group 4). Hazard ratios (HRs) were extracted from the registration trials and pooled in a meta-analysis. Odds ratios for toxic death, treatment discontinuation and grade 3-4 toxicity were compared to control groups. The Micromedex Red Book was used to calculate the monthly price. RESULTS: Analysis included 74 studies comprising 48,527 patients. Progression-free survival (PFS) was improved to a greater degree with groups 1 and 2 than with groups 3 and 4, (pooled HR: 0.54, 0.56, 0.63, and 0.76 for groups 1-4 respectively, p for difference <0.001). Compared to PFS, there was a lower magnitude of improvement overall survival in all groups and the degree of benefit was less for group 4 than for other groups (pooled HR: 0.77, 0.78, 0.68, and 0.83 for groups 1-4 respectively, p for difference=0.007). Compared to control groups in individual trials, immunotherapy was associated with better safety and tolerability than other groups. Drug prices have increased over time with no significant difference between groups. There was no meaningful correlation between pricing and efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to control groups, immunotherapeutics and drugs targeting oncogenes or angiogenesis improve efficacy to a greater degree than chemotherapy. Immunotherapy appears to have better safety and tolerability profile compared to other cancer therapies. Market price of drugs is not related to efficacy.