Impact of socioeconomic status on survival for patients with anal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although outcomes for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) have improved, the gains in benefit may not be shared uniformly among patients of disparate socioeconomic status. In the current study, the authors investigated whether area-based median household income (MHI) is predictive of survival among patients with SCCA. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with SCCA from 2004 through 2013 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry were included. Socioeconomic status was defined by census-tract MHI level and divided into quintiles. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regression were used to study predictors of survival and radiotherapy receipt. RESULTS: A total of 9550 cases of SCCA were included. The median age of the patients was 58 years, 63% were female, 85% were white, and 38% were married. In multivariable analyses, patients living in areas with lower MHI were found to have worse overall survival and cancer-specific survival (CSS) compared with those in the highest income areas. Mortality hazard ratios for lowest to highest income were 1.32 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.18-1.49), 1.31 (95% CI, 1.16-1.48), 1.19 (95% CI, 1.06-1.34), and 1.16 (95% CI, 1.03-1.30). The hazard ratios for CSS similarly ranged from 1.34 to 1.22 for lowest to highest income. Older age, black race, male sex, unmarried marital status, an earlier year of diagnosis, higher tumor grade, and later American Joint Committee on Cancer stage of disease also were associated with worse CSS. Income was not found to be associated with the odds of initiating radiotherapy in multivariable analysis (odds ratio of 0.87 for lowest to highest income level; 95% CI, 0.63-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: MHI appears to independently predict CSS and overall survival in patients with SCCA. Black race was found to remain a predictor of SCCA survival despite controlling for income. Further study is needed to understand the mechanisms by which socioeconomic inequalities affect cancer care and outcomes. Cancer 2018;124:1791-7. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Exploration of the ASCO and ESMO Value Frameworks for Antineoplastic Drugs.

PURPOSE: In 2015, both ASCO and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) proposed frameworks to quantify the benefit of antineoplastic drugs in the face of rising costs. We applied these frameworks to drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration over the past 12 years and examined relationships between costs and benefits. METHODS: We searched FDA.gov for drugs that received initial approval for solid tumors from 2004 to 2015 and calculated the ASCO Net Health Benefit version 2016 (NHB16) and 2015 (NHB15) and the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale scores for each drug. We calculated descriptive statistics and explored correlations and associations among benefit scores, cost, and independent variables. RESULTS: We identified 55 drug approvals supported by phase II (18.2%) and III (81.8%) trials, with primary outcomes of overall survival (36.4%), progression-free survival (43.6%), or response rate (20.0%). No significant association was found between NHB16 and year of approval ( P = .81), organ system ( P = .20), or trial comparator arm ( P = .17), but trials with progression-free survival outcomes were associated with higher scores ( P = .007). Both NHB15 and Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale scores were approximately normally distributed, but only a moderate correlation existed between them ( r = 0.40, P = .006). No correlation between benefit score and cost (NHB16, r = 0.19; ESMO, r = -0.07) was found. Before 2010, two (15.3%) of 13 approved drugs exceeded $500/NHB point × month compared with 10 (25.0%) of 40 drugs subsequently approved. CONCLUSION: Our analysis of the ASCO and ESMO value frameworks illuminates the heterogeneous benefit of new medications and highlights challenges in constructing a unified concept of drug value. Drug benefit does not correlate with cost, and the number of high cost/benefit outliers has increased.

Impact of oncology drug shortages on patient therapy: unplanned treatment changes.

PURPOSE: Cancer drug shortages have increased considerably over the past 5 years, but quantitative analyses of the scope and effects are limited. We assessed the effects of drug shortages on outpatient medication use in a single New York City university hospital. METHODS: We examined pharmacy records for drug shortages, as defined by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. We assessed outpatient records for all patients with cancer treated with infusional antineoplastic medications from April 2010 to September 2010 and April 2011 to September 2011. RESULTS: Twelve medications were in shortage in 2010 and 22 in 2011. Drugs in shortage were used for 170 patients (50.8%) in 2010 and 241 patients (63.6%) in 2011 (P < .001). Of 235 patients treated in August-September 2011, there were 23(9.8%) documented therapy changes due to shortages, compared with zero changes in August-September 2010 (P < .001). Among patients treated in August-September 2010, 24 (11.4%) received paclitaxel and 19 (9.0%) received docetaxel. Among patients treated in August-September 2011, 11 (4.7%) received paclitaxel and 38 (16.2%) received docetaxel, a 69% decrease for paclitaxel and 80% increase for docetaxel from 1 year prior (P = .009, and P = .024, respectively). The estimated cost of a single treatment with paclitaxel for one patient with body-surface area 1.75 was $47.59 versus $858.39 for docetaxel, a 1,704% increase. Surveyed physicians frequently reported lower level evidence (30.4%) and increased risk of toxicity (34.8%) with alternative therapy in drug shortage cases. CONCLUSION: Oncology drug shortages affected the majority of patients in our center and increased at an alarming rate. Drug shortages have substantial economic costs and mandate treatment changes that may affect efficacy and toxicity.