A tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines.

BACKGROUND: Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government's pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement. METHOD: Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type. RESULTS: The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation. CONCLUSION: Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective. POLICY SUMMARY: Since HS is of global interest, our example provides a reproducible blueprint for adaptation to other healthcare settings that integrates consumer input and priorities.

Imaging Assessment of Interval Metastasis from Melanoma.

Interval metastasis is a particular metastatic category of metastatic localizations in the lymph nodes in patients with melanoma. Interval nodes are generally located at nonregional lymphatic stations placed along the pathway of the spread of melanoma, such as the epitrochlear lymph node station, the popliteal fossa, and the retroareolar station. Imaging techniques for evaluation of patients with interval metastasis from melanoma diseases include ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), lymphoscintigraphy (LS), and positron emission tomography (PET). A literature review was conducted through a methodical search on the Pubmed and Embase databases. The evaluation of lymph node metastases represents a critical phase in the staging and follow-up of melanoma patients. Therefore, a thorough knowledge of the imaging methods available and the interactions between the clinician and the radiologist are essential for making the correct choice for individual patients, for a better management, and to improve treatment and survival.

Adverse events associated with encorafenib plus binimetinib in the COLUMBUS study: incidence, course and management.

BACKGROUND: Dual inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway with BRAF/MEK inhibitor (BRAFi/MEKi) therapy is a standard treatment for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma and has historically been associated with grade III pyrexia or photosensitivity depending on the combination used. The objective of this study was to fully describe adverse events from the COLUMBUS study evaluating the most recent BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination encorafenib+binimetinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma were randomised to receive encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, encorafenib 300 mg once daily or vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Adverse events that represent known effects of available BRAFi and/or MEKi were evaluated. RESULTS: The safety population included a total of 570 patients (encorafenib+binimetinib = 192; encorafenib = 192; vemurafenib = 186). Median duration of exposure was longer with encorafenib+binimetinib (51 weeks) than with encorafenib (31 weeks) or vemurafenib (27 weeks). Common BRAFi/MEKi toxicities with encorafenib+binimetinib were generally manageable, reversible and infrequently associated with discontinuation. Pyrexia was less frequent with encorafenib+binimetinib (18%) and encorafenib (16%) than with vemurafenib (30%) and occurred later in the course of therapy with encorafenib+binimetinib (median time to first onset: 85 days versus 2.5 days and 19 days, respectively). The incidence of photosensitivity was lower with encorafenib+binimetinib (5%) and encorafenib (4%) than with vemurafenib (30%). The incidence of serous retinopathy was higher with encorafenib+binimetinib (20%) than with encorafenib (2%) or vemurafenib (2%), but no patients discontinued encorafenib+binimetinib because of this event. CONCLUSION: Encorafenib+binimetinib is generally well tolerated and has a low discontinuation rate in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma, with a distinct safety profile as compared with other anti-BRAF/MEK targeted therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01909453) and with EudraCT (number 2013-001176-38).

The impact of patient characteristics and disease-specific factors on first-line treatment decisions for BRAF-mutated melanoma: results from a European expert panel study.

Treatment decisions for advanced melanoma are increasingly complex and guidelines provide limited advice on how to choose between immunotherapy and targeted therapy for first-line treatment. A Delphi study was carried out to understand which patient characteristics and disease-related factors inform clinicians' choices of first-line treatment for BRAF-mutated melanoma. Twelve European melanoma specialists experienced in using immunotherapies and targeted agents participated in a double-blind two-phase Delphi study. In phase 1, participants completed a questionnaire developed after reviewing patient characteristics and disease-related factors reported in trials, clinical guidelines, and health technology assessments. Phase 2 was an expert panel meeting to explore outstanding issues from phase 1 and seek consensus, defined as 80% agreement. Twenty patient-related and disease-related characteristics were considered. There was consensus that tumor burden (83% of clinicians) and disease tempo (83%) are very or extremely important factors when selecting first-line treatment. Several components were deemed important when assessing tumor burden: brain metastases (82% of clinicians) and location of metastases (89%). There was consensus that disease tempo can be quantified in clinical practice, but not on a formal classification applicable to all patients. Lactate dehydrogenase level is a component of both tumor burden and disease tempo; all clinicians considered lactate dehydrogenase important when choosing first-line treatment. The majority (92%) did not routinely test programmed death ligand-1 status in patients with melanoma. Clinicians agreed that choosing a first-line treatment for advanced melanoma is a complex, multifactorial process and that clinical judgment remains the most important element of decision-making until research can provide clinicians with better scientific parameters and tools for first-line decision-making.

Assessment of quality of life using Skindex-16 in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma treated with vismodegib in the STEVIE study.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data are limited in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma. To report HRQoL outcomes based on STEVIE (NCT01367665), a phase 2 study of vismodegib safety in patients with metastatic BCC or locally advanced BCC that is unsuitable for surgery or radiotherapy. Skindex-16 and MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) questionnaires were completed at baseline and at three subsequent visits. Clinically meaningful improvement was defined as a ≥10-point decrease from baseline (Skindex-16) or improvement of at least 3 points from baseline (MDASI). HRQoL-evaluable patients with locally advanced BCC (n = 730) had ≥10-point improvements in Skindex-16 emotion domain scores at all time points. Changes in symptom and function scores in these patients or in any domain scores at any time point in patients with metastatic BCC (n = 10) were not clinically meaningful. Of 10 patients with symptomatic metastatic BCC at baseline, six had ≥3-point improvements in MDASI symptom severity. Skindex-16 and MDASI showed improvement in HRQoL in vismodegib-treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic BCC or BCC.

Who benefits most from adjuvant interferon treatment for melanoma?

Metastatic melanoma has a poor prognosis; the median survival for patients with stage IV melanoma ranges from 8 to 18 months after diagnosis. Interferon-α provides significant improvement in disease-free survival at the cost of poor tolerability. Identifying patients who benefit the most may improve the cost:benefit ratio. In addition, no data exist for the role of adjuvant therapy in noncutaneous melanoma. Molecular profiles may help to identify patients who benefit the most from adjuvant interferon therapy. In this review, the American Joint Commission on Cancer 2009 staging criteria and emerging biomarker data to guide adjuvant treatment decisions will be discussed. Several criteria to guide selection of patients are discussed in detail. These include Breslow thickness, number of positive lymph nodes, whether or not the primary lesion has ulcerated, immunologic markers, and cytokine profiles. Substantial progress has been made in deciding which patients benefit from interferon-α adjuvant therapy. Interferon-α is the only agent currently approved for the adjuvant treatment of this deadly disease, despite its side effect profile. More effective drugs with better tolerability are needed.

Adjuvant treatment of malignant melanoma: where are we?

To date, no standard adjuvant therapy have increased overall survival in patients with malignant melanoma (MM). The effect of interferon alpha as a single agent or in combination has been widely explored in clinical trials. Critical reading of the major international randomised trials showed that response to interferon (IFN) in terms of improvement of overall survival (OS) may not be strictly correlated with the used dosage and that duration of therapy may impact disease-free survival (DFS) but not OS. Patients' heterogeneity could be an explanation for the discordant data of the international literature. Indeed, majority of these studies started in late 1980s or early 1990s, when accurate staging procedure were not available yet. The adequate surgical treatment should be considered as an independent variable in the analysis of MM adjuvant protocols. Considering the treatment cost, which is the main goal: DFS, OS or quality of life? Answering these questions is difficult, but some considerations must be taken to put order in this field. Putting together data from all different studies, IFN therapy seems to protect MM patients from recurrences during the entire treatment period and a prolonged IFN therapy seems to improve DFS. The only positive result on OS was demonstrated for high-dose IFN (HD-IFN) in a single study (presenting a relatively short follow-up median) and not confirmed in a subsequent study from the same authors. Considering that low-dose interferon (LD-IFN) is tolerated much better than HD-IFN (about 10% versus more than 70% of cases with grade 3-4 toxicity, respectively), a prolonged LD-IFN (more than 2 years) may represent a reasonable opportunity for MM patients, also considering its advantageous cost-effectiveness. Conversely, considering the improvement of OS as the main target of MM adjuvant therapy, the "wait and watch" attitude remains the only approach to be pursued at present. It is a physician's choice.

Assessment of genetic instability in melanocytic skin lesions through microsatellite analysis of benign naevi, dysplastic naevi, and primary melanomas and their metastases.

Microsatellite instability (MSI) is caused by replication errors due to deficient DNA mismatch repair and has been associated with tumour progression in various types of cancer. Controversial results have been reported concerning the frequency and significance of MSI in malignant melanoma. In this study, the time of onset and relative incidence of MSI were determined during the progression of melanocytic tumours, starting with benign melanocytic naevi. MSI was studied at 13 loci containing single, di- or trinucleotide repeat sequences and mapping to five different chromosomal locations. Tumours were classified as being low frequency MSI (L-MSI+) or high frequency MSI (H-MSI+) when either one or at least two marker loci, respectively, displayed mutant alleles in tumour DNA compared with the corresponding normal tissue DNA. None of the eight melanocytic naevi studied showed MSI, whereas a moderate frequency of H-MSI was detected in dysplastic naevi (one out of 11; 9%) and primary melanomas (six out of 56; 11%). The incidence of H-MSI was increased in melanoma metastases from the same patients (nine out of 42; 21%). In contrast to previously reported data showing higher rates of MSI in melanoma, genetic instability seems to be present in a minority of malignant melanoma lesions. However, our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that MSI may be sequentially induced during malignant evolution, contributing to the progression of a subset of melanocytic tumours.