Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter.

While some recent drug treatments have been transformative for patients with cancer, many treatments offer small benefits despite high clinical toxicity, time toxicity and financial toxicity. Moreover, treatments that do provide substantial clinical benefits are not available to many patients globally due to issues with availability and affordability. The Common Sense Oncology's vision is that patients will have access to treatments that provide meaningful improvements in outcomes that matter, regardless of where they live. In recognition of the growing challenges in the field of oncology, Common Sense Oncology seeks to achieve this vision by improving evidence generation, evidence interpretation and evidence communication.

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.

Financial Toxicity: Unveiling the Burden of Cancer Care on Patients in Rwanda.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer is a major public health problem in Rwanda and other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While there have been some improvements in access to cancer treatment, the cost of care has increased, leading to financial toxicity and treatment barriers for many patients. This study explores the financial toxicity of cancer care in Rwanda. METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at 3 referral hospitals in Rwanda, which deliver most of the country's cancer care. Data were collected over 6 months from June 1 to December 1, 2022 by trained research assistants (RAs) using a modified validated data collection tool. RAs interviewed consecutive eligible patients with breast cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who were on active systemic therapy. The study aimed to identify sources of financial burden. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 239 patients were included; 75% (n = 180/239) were female and mean age was 51 years. Breast, cervix, and colorectal cancers were the most common diagnoses (42%, 100/239; 24%, 58/239; and 24%, 57/239, respectively) and 54% (n = 129/239) were diagnosed with advanced stage (stages III-IV). Financial burden was high; 44% (n = 106/239) of respondents sold property, 29% (n = 70/239) asked for charity from public, family, or friends, and 16% (n = 37/239) took loans with interest to fund cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: Despite health insurance which covers many elements of cancer care, a substantial proportion of patients on anti-cancer treatment in Rwanda experience major financial toxicity. Novel health financing solutions are needed to ensure accessible and affordable cancer care.

Efficacy-effectiveness gaps in oncology: Looking beyond survival.

The efficacy-effectiveness (EE) gap describes the differences in survival seen in clinical trials and routine clinical practice, where patients in real-world practice often have inferior outcomes compared to trial populations. However, EE gaps may exist beyond survival outcomes, including gaps in quality of life, toxicity, cost-effectiveness, and patient time, and these EE gaps should also influence patient and clinician treatment decisions. Failure to clearly acknowledge these EE gaps may cause patients, clinicians, and health care systems to have unrealistic expectations of the benefits of therapy across a range of important clinical and economic domains. In this commentary, the authors review the evidence supporting the existence of EE gaps in quality of life, time toxicity, cost and toxicities, and urge for further research into this important topic.

Breast Cancer-Related Financial Toxicity in Sri Lanka: Insights From a Lower Middle-Income Country With Free Universal Public Healthcare.

Financial toxicity (FT) describes either objective or perceived excess financial strain due to a cancer diagnosis on the well-being of patients, families, and society. The consequences of FT have been shown to span countries of varied economic tiers and diverse healthcare models. This study attempts to describe FT and its effects in a lower- to middle-income country delivering predominantly public nonfee-levying healthcare. This was a cross-sectional study involving 210 patients with breast cancer of any stage (I to IV), interviewed between 6 and 18 months from the date of diagnosis. Financial toxicity was highly prevalent with 81% reporting 3 or more on a scale of 1 to 5. Costs incurred for travelling (94%), out-of-hospital investigations (87%), and consultation fees outside the public system (81%) were the most common contributors to FT. Daily compromises for food and education were made by 30% and 20%, respectively, with loss of work seen in over one-third. Greater FT was seen with advanced cancer stage and increasing distance to the nearest radiotherapy unit (P = .008 and .01, respectively). Family and relatives were the most common form of financial support (77.6%). In conclusion, FT is substantial in our group, with many having to make daily compromises for basic needs. Many opt to visit the fee-levying private sector for at least some part of their care, despite the availability of an established public nonfee-levying healthcare.

Quality indicators for systemic anticancer therapy services: a systematic review of metrics used to compare quality across healthcare facilities.

PURPOSE: The number of systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) regimens has expanded rapidly over the last decade. There is a need to ensure quality of SACT delivery across cancer services and systems in different resource settings to reduce morbidity, mortality, and detrimental economic impact at individual and systems level. Existing literature on SACT focuses on treatment efficacy with few studies on quality or how SACT is delivered within routine care in comparison to radiation and surgical oncology. METHODS: Systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched and handsearching was undertaken to identify literature on existing quality indicators (QIs) that detect meaningful variations in the quality of SACT delivery across different healthcare facilities, regions, or countries. Data extraction was undertaken by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: This review identified 63 distinct QIs from 15 papers. The majority were process QIs (n = 55, 87.3%) relating to appropriateness of treatment and guideline adherence (n = 28, 44.4%). There were few outcome QIs (n = 7, 11.1%) and only one structural QI (n = 1, 1.6%). Included studies solely focused on breast, colorectal, lung, and skin cancer. All but one studies were conducted in high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review highlight a significant lack of research on SACT QIs particularly those appropriate for resource-constrained settings in low- and middle-income countries. This review should form the basis for future work in transforming performance measurement of SACT provision, through context-specific QI SACT development, validation, and implementation.

Leveraging national and global political determinants of health to promote equity in cancer care.

Health and politics are deeply intertwined. In the context of national and global cancer care delivery, political forces-the political determinants of health-influence every level of the cancer care continuum. We explore the "3-I" framework, which structures the upstream political forces that affect policy choices in the context of actors' interests, ideas, and institutions, to examine how political determinants of health underlie cancer disparities. Borrowing from the work of PA Hall, M-P Pomey, CJ Ho, and other thinkers, interests are the agendas of individuals and groups in power. Ideas represent beliefs or knowledge about what is or what should be. Institutions define the rules of play. We provide examples from around the world: Political interests have helped fuel the establishment of cancer centers in India and have galvanized the 2022 Cancer Moonshot in the United States. The politics of ideas underlie global disparities in cancer clinical trials-that is, in the distribution of epistemic power. Finally, historical institutions have helped perpetuate disparities related to racist and colonialist legacies. Present institutions have also been used to improve access for those in greatest need, as exemplified by the Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence in Rwanda. In providing these global examples, we demonstrate how interests, ideas, and institutions influence access to cancer care across the breadth of the cancer continuum. We argue that these forces can be leveraged to promote cancer care equity nationally and globally.

The Changing Medical Publishing Industry: Economics, Expansion, and Equity.

Medical journal publishing has changed dramatically over the past decade. The shift from print to electronic distribution altered the industry's economic model. This was followed by open access mandates from funding organizations and the subsequent imposition of article processing charges on authors. The medical publishing industry is large and while there is variation across journals, it is overall highly profitable. As journals have moved to digital dissemination, advertising revenues decreased and publishers shifted some of the losses onto authors by way of article processing charges. The number of open access journals has increased substantially in recent years. The open access model presents an equity paradox; while it liberates scientific knowledge for the consumer, it presents barriers to those who produce research. This emerging "pay-to-publish" system offers advantages to authors who work in countries and at institutes with more resources. Finally, the medical publishing industry represents an unusual business model; the people who provide both the content and the external peer review receive no payment from the publisher, who generates revenue from the content. The very unusual economic model of this industry makes it vulnerable to disruptive change. The economic model of medical publishing is rapidly evolving and this will lead to disruption of the industry. These changes will accelerate dissemination of science and may lead to a shift away from lower-impact journals towards pre-print servers.

Global application of National Comprehensive Cancer Network resource-stratified guidelines for systemic treatment of colon cancer: a population-based, customisable model for cost, demand, and procurement.

BACKGROUND: Resource-stratified guidelines (RSGs) can inform systemic treatment decisions in the face of limited resources. The objective of this study was to develop a customisable modelling tool to predict the demand, cost, and drug procurement needs of delivering National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) RSG-based systemic treatment for colon cancer. METHODS: We developed decision trees for first-course systemic therapy for colon cancer based on the NCCN RSGs. Decision trees were merged with data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results programme, the International Agency for Research on Cancer's GLOBOCAN 2020 national estimates for colon cancer incidence, country-level income data, and data on drug costs from Redbook (USA), the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (Australia), and the Management Sciences for Health 2015 International Medical Products price guide to estimate global treatment needs and costs, and forecast drug procurement. Simulations and sensitivity analyses were used to explore the effect of scaling up services globally and the effect of alternative stage distributions on treatment demand and cost. We generated a customisable model, in which estimates can be tailored to local incidence, epidemiological, and costing data. FINDINGS: First-course systemic therapy is indicated in 608 314 (53·6%) of 1 135 864 colon cancer diagnoses in 2020. Indications for first-course systemic therapy are projected to rise to 926 653 in 2040; the indications in 2020 might be as high as 826 123 (72·7%), depending on stage distribution assumptions. Adhering to NCCN RSGs, patients with colon cancer in low-income and middle income countries (LMICs) would constitute 329 098 (54·1%) of 608 314 global systemic therapy demands, but only 10% of global expenditure on systemic therapies. The total cost of NCCN RSG-based first-course systemic therapy for colon cancer in 2020 would be between about US$4·2 and about $4·6 billion, depending on stage distribution. If all patients with colon cancer in 2020 were treated according to maximal resources, global expenditure on systemic therapy for colon cancer would rise to around $8·3 billion. INTERPRETATION: We have developed a customisable model that can be applied at global, national, and subnational levels to estimate systemic treatment needs, forecast drug procurement, and calculate expected drug costs on the basis of local data. This tool can be used to plan resource allocation for colon cancer globally. FUNDING: None.

Pharmaceutical industry relationships with oncologists in sub-Saharan Africa.

Health-care systems in sub-Saharan Africa are considered to be new markets for pharmaceutical companies. This perception is particularly relevant within oncology, as the pharmaceutical industry has changed strategic priorities in the past 10 years to focus on cancer. Since the 1930s, pharmaceutical companies have used advertisements, sample drugs, gifts, paid speaking engagements, advisory boards, and trips to conferences to influence clinical practice and policy. A large amount of literature describes the commonness of these practices and their effects on the behaviour of doctors. However, these data come almost exclusively from high-income countries. Industry-doctor relationships are increasingly common in sub-Saharan Africa and other low-income and middle-income countries. Although there are undoubtedly risks of industry engagement in low-income and middle-income countries, many programmes with educational, research, and clinical value would not occur in these countries without industry support. Thus, what is known about these relationships in high-income countries will not necessarily apply in low-income and middle-income countries. There is a need for widespread discussion about industry-oncologist interactions across the African continent and context-specific data to understand the potential risks and benefits of these relationships.

The unequal burden of time toxicity.

Many cancer treatments impose large time investments on patients. We have termed these time burdens 'time toxicity' and have urged their consideration as adverse events of treatment. Here, we discuss time toxicity measures while considering inequitable access to healthcare, time as a resource, and patterns of time toxicity.

The least costly pharmacy for cancer supportive care medications over time: the logistic toxicity of playing catch up.

PURPOSE: No single pharmacy in an urban zip code is consistently the least expensive across medications. If medication prices change differently across pharmacies, patients and clinicians will face challenges accessing affordable medications when refilling medications. This is especially pertinent to people with cancer with multiple fills of supportive care medications over time. We evaluated if the lowest-priced pharmacy for a formulation remains the lowest-priced over time. METHODS: We compiled generic medications used to manage nausea/vomiting (14 formulations) and anorexia/cachexia (12 formulations). We extracted discounted prices in October 2021 and again in March 2022 for a typical fill at 8 pharmacies in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA (zip code 55,414) using GoodRx.com. We examined how prices changed across formulations and pharmacies over time. RESULTS: Data were available for all 208 possible pharmacy-formulation combinations (8 pharmacies × 26 formulations). For 172 (83%) of the 208 pharmacy-formulation combinations, the March 2022 price was within 20% of the October 2021 price. Across pharmacy-formulation combinations, the price change over time ranged from - 76 to + 292%. For 12 (46%) of the 26 formulations, at least one pharmacy with the lowest price in October 2021 no longer was the least costly in March 2022. For one formulation (dronabinol tablets), the least expensive pharmacy became the most expensive, with an absolute and relative price increase of a fill of $22 and 85%. CONCLUSION: For almost half of formulations studied, at least one pharmacy with the lowest price was no longer the least costly a few months later. The lowest price for a formulation (across pharmacies) could also change considerably. Thus, even if a patient accesses the least expensive pharmacy for a medication, they may need to re-check prices across all pharmacies with each subsequent fill to access the lowest prices. In addition to safety concerns, directing medications to and accessing medications at multiple pharmacies can add time and logistic toxicity to patients with cancer, their care partners, prescribers, and pharmacy teams.

Evaluation of Medicare Coverage and Estimated Out-of-Pocket Costs for Generic Abiraterone Products.

This cross-sectional study evaluates the association of generic competition and changes in product coverage and cost-sharing by using Medicare data and estimated out-of-pocket costs for the oral specialty drug abiraterone.

Price Comparison of Human and Veterinary Formulations of Common Medications.

This cross-sectional study compares prices of commonly prescribed medications used to treat both humans and pets.

Choosing Wisely-Barriers and Solutions to Implementation in Low and Middle-Income Countries.

Globally, there is increasing emphasis on value-based cancer care. Rising healthcare costs and reduced health care spending and budgets, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), call for patients, providers, and healthcare systems to apply the Choose Wisely (CW) approach. This approach seeks to advance a dialogue on avoiding unnecessary medical tests, treatments, and procedures. Several factors have been described as barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Choosing Wisely recommendations in high-income countries but none for LMICs. In this review, we attempt to classify potential barriers to the Choose Wisely implementation relative to the sources of behavior and potential intervention functions that can be implemented in order to reduce these barriers.

Cancer Medicines: What Is Essential and Affordable in India?

PURPOSE: The WHO essential medicines list (EML) guides selection of drugs for national formularies. Here, we evaluate which medicines are considered highest priority by Indian oncologists and the extent to which they are available in routine practice. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of an electronic survey developed by the WHO EML Cancer Medicine Working Group. The survey was distributed globally using a hierarchical snowball method to physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy. The survey captured the 10 medicines oncologists considered highest priority for population health and their availability in routine practice. RESULTS: The global study cohort included 948 respondents from 82 countries; 98 were from India and 67 were from other low- and middle-income countries. Compared with other low- and middle-income countries, the Indian cohort was more likely to be medical oncologist (70% v 31%, P < .001) and work exclusively in the private health system (52% v 17%, P < .001). 14/20 most commonly selected medicines were conventional cytotoxic drugs. Universal access to these medicines was reported by a minority of oncologists; risks of significant out-of-pocket expenditures for each medicine were reported by 19%-58% of oncologists. Risk of catastrophic expenditure was reported by 58%-67% of oncologists for rituximab and trastuzumab. Risks of financial toxicity were substantially higher within the private health system compared with the public system. CONCLUSION: Most high-priority cancer medicines identified by Indian oncologists are generic chemotherapy agents that provide substantial improvements in survival and are already included in WHO EML. Access to these treatments remains limited by major financial burdens experienced by patients. This is particularly acute within the private health system. Strategies are urgently needed to ensure that high-quality cancer care is affordable and accessible to all patients in India.

Industry Relationships With Medical Oncologists: Who Are the High-Payment Physicians?

PURPOSE: Many oncologists have relationships with industry. Previous work has shown that these payments are usually modest; however, there exist a subset of medical oncologists who receive more than $100,000 US dollars (USD) annually. Here, we describe the characteristics of these physicians. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the Open Payments data set to identify all US-based medical oncologists/hematologists who received $100,000+ USD in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018. Open Payments and a web-based search were used to identify physician characteristics, demographics, research profile, and leadership positions. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine medical oncologists received > $100,000 USD in general payments. The median payment was $154,613 USD, and the total payment was $24.2 million USD. These high-payment physicians represent 1% of all US medical oncologists (N = 10,620) yet account for 37% of all industry payments in 2018. Sixty percent (84 of 139) and 21% (29 of 139) of these high-payment physicians hold hospital and specialty association leadership roles, respectively. One quarter (24%, 33 of 139) serve on journal editorial boards, and 10% (14 of 139) have authored clinical practice guidelines; 72% (100 of 139) hold faculty appointments. CONCLUSION: A small number of medical oncologists receive very high payments from the pharmaceutical industry. These physicians hold major leadership roles within oncology. Further work is needed to understand the extent to which these conflicts of interest may shape clinical practice and policy.

Rising Healthcare Costs and Utilization among Young Adults with Cirrhosis in Ontario: A Population-Based Study.

Objectives: Chronic diseases account for the majority of healthcare spending. Cirrhosis is a chronic disease whose burden is rising, especially in young adults. This study aimed at describing the direct healthcare costs and utilization in young adults with cirrhosis compared to other chronic diseases common to this age group. Methods: Retrospective population-based study of routinely collected healthcare data from Ontario for the fiscal years 2007-2016 and housed at ICES. Young adults (aged 18-40 years) with cirrhosis, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and asthma were identified based on validated case definitions. Total and annual direct healthcare costs and utilization were calculated per individual across multiple healthcare settings and compared based on the type of chronic disease. For cirrhosis, the results were further stratified by etiology and decompensation status. Results: Total direct healthcare spending from 2007 to 2016 increased by 84% for cirrhosis, 50% for IBD, and 41% for asthma. On a per-patient basis, annual costs were the highest for cirrhosis ($6,581/year) compared to IBD ($5,260/year), and asthma ($2,934/year) driven by acute care in cirrhosis and asthma, and drug costs in IBD. Annual costs were four-fold higher in patients with decompensated versus compensated cirrhosis ($20,651/year vs. $5,280/year). Patients with cirrhosis had greater use of both ICU and mental health services. Conclusion: Healthcare costs in young adults with cirrhosis are rising and driven by the use of acute care. Strategies to prevent the development of cirrhosis and to coordinate healthcare in this population through the development of chronic disease prevention and management strategies are urgently needed.

Trends in drug revenue among major pharmaceutical companies: A 2010-2019 cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 2 decades there has been a substantial increase in the number of new cancer medicines; this has been accompanied by a dramatic rise in drug costs. It is unknown how these trends impact the revenue of the pharmaceutical sector. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study to characterize temporal trends of revenue generated from cancer medicines as a proportion of total drug revenue among 10 large pharmaceutical companies from 2010 to 2019. Itemized product-sales data publicly available through company websites or annual filings were used to identify annual drug revenue. Revenue data were adjusted for inflation and converted to 2019 US dollars. RESULTS: During the study period, cumulative annual revenue generated from cancer drugs increased by 70%: from $55.8 billion to $95.1 billion, while cumulative revenue from nononcology drugs decreased 18%: from $342.2 billion to $281.5 billion. The proportion of total drug revenue generated from oncology drugs increased substantially over the study period: from 14% in 2010 to 25% in 2019 (τ = 1.0, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among 10 of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, revenues generated from the sale of cancer drugs have increased by 70% over the past decade, while revenues from other medicines have decreased by 18%. Revenues from cancer drugs now account for one-quarter of the net revenues from these companies. Further work is needed to understand if this increase in sales revenue reflects industry profit, and to what extent increased spending has translated into improvements in patient and population outcomes.

Real-world Use of and Spending on New Oral Targeted Cancer Drugs in the US, 2011-2018.

Importance: Launch prices of new cancer drugs in the US have substantially increased in recent years despite growing concerns about the quantity and quality of evidence supporting their approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Objective: To assess the use of and spending on new oral targeted cancer drugs among US residents with employer-sponsored insurance between 2011 and 2018, stratified by the strength of available evidence of benefit. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, dispensing claims for oral targeted cancer drugs first approved by the FDA between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, were analyzed. The number of patients with drugs dispensed and the total payment for all claims were aggregated by calendar year, and these outcomes were arrayed according to evidence underlying FDA approvals, including pivotal study design (availability of randomized clinical trials) and overall survival (OS) benefit, as documented in drug labels. This study was conducted from July 17, 2019, to July 23, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual and cumulative numbers of patients who had dispensing events, and annual and cumulative sums of payment for eligible drugs. Results: Of 37 348 patients who had at least 1 of the 44 new oral targeted drugs dispensed between 2011 and 2018, 21 324 were men (57.1%); mean (SD) age was 64.1 (13.1) years. Most individuals (36 246 [97.0%]) received drugs for which evidence from randomized clinical trials existed; however, a growing share of patients received drugs without documented OS benefit during the study period: from 12.7% in 2011 to 58.8% in 2018. Cumulative spending on all sample drugs totaled $3.5 billion by the end of 2018, of which 96.8% was spent on drugs that were approved based on a pivotal randomized clinical trial. Cumulative spending on drugs without documented OS benefit ($1.8 billion [51.6%]) surpassed that on drugs with documented OS benefit ($1.7 billion [48.4%]) by the end of 2018. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that drugs used for treatment of cancer without documented OS benefits are adopted in the health system and account for substantial spending.