No Geographical Inequalities in Survival for Sarcoma Patients in France: A Reference Networks' Outcome?

The national reference network NETSARC+ provides remote access to specialized diagnosis and the Multidisciplinary Tumour Board (MTB) to improve the management and survival of sarcoma patients in France. The IGéAS research program aims to assess the potential of this innovative organization to address geographical inequalities in cancer management. Using the IGéAS cohort built from the nationwide NETSARC+ database, the individual, clinical, and geographical determinants of the 3-year overall survival of sarcoma patients in France were analyzed. The survival analysis was focused on patients diagnosed in 2013 (n = 2281) to ensure sufficient hindsight to collect patient follow-up. Our study included patients with bone (16.8%), soft-tissue (69%), and visceral (14.2%) sarcomas, with a median age of 61.8 years. The overall survival was not associated with geographical variables after adjustment for individual and clinical factors. The lower survival in precarious population districts [HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.48] in comparison to wealthy metropolitan areas (HR = 1) found in univariable analysis was due to the worst clinical presentation at diagnosis of patients. The place of residence had no impact on sarcoma patients' survival, in the context of the national organization driven by the reference network. Following previous findings, this suggests the ability of this organization to go through geographical barriers usually impeding the optimal management of cancer patients.

Determinants of the access to remote specialised services provided by national sarcoma reference centres.

BACKGROUND: Spatial inequalities in cancer management have been evidenced by studies reporting lower quality of care or/and lower survival for patients living in remote or socially deprived areas. NETSARC+ is a national reference network implemented to improve the outcome of sarcoma patients in France since 2010, providing remote access to specialized diagnosis and Multidisciplinary Tumour Board (MTB). The IGéAS research program aims to assess the potential of this innovative organization, with remote management of cancers including rare tumours, to go through geographical barriers usually impeding the optimal management of cancer patients. METHODS: Using the nationwide NETSARC+ databases, the individual, clinical and geographical determinants of the access to sarcoma-specialized diagnosis and MTB were analysed. The IGéAS cohort (n = 20,590) includes all patients living in France with first sarcoma diagnosis between 2011 and 2014. Early access was defined as specialised review performed before 30 days of sampling and as first sarcoma MTB discussion performed before the first surgery. RESULTS: Some clinical populations are at highest risk of initial management without access to sarcoma specialized services, such as patients with non-GIST visceral sarcoma for diagnosis [OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.78 to 2.15] and MTB discussion [OR 3.56, 95% CI 3.16 to 4.01]. Social deprivation of the municipality is not associated with early access on NETSARC+ remote services. The quintile of patients furthest away from reference centres have lower chances of early access to specialized diagnosis [OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.31] and MTB discussion [OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.40] but this influence of the distance is slight in comparison with clinical factors and previous studies on the access to cancer-specialized facilities. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of national organization driven by reference network, distance to reference centres slightly alters the early access to sarcoma specialized services and social deprivation has no impact on it. The reference networks' organization, designed to improve the access to specialized services and the quality of cancer management, can be considered as an interesting device to reduce social and spatial inequalities in cancer management. The potential of this organization must be confirmed by further studies, including survival analysis.

Assessment of the efficacy of successive endocrine therapies in hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a real-life multicentre national study.

BACKGROUND: For luminal metastatic breast cancer (MBC), endocrine therapy (ET) is the recommended initial treatment before chemotherapy. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of multiple ET lines in a real-life study. METHODS: The Breast Cancer Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) project analysed data from all patients with systemic treatment for MBC initiated between 2008 and 2014 in one of the 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centres. The primary end-point was the successive progression-free survival (PFS) evaluation. RESULTS: The ESME research programme included 9921 patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative (HER2-) MBC. Before any chemotherapy, 4195 (43.4%), 1252 (29.8%) and 279 (6.6%) patients received one, two or three ET ± targeted therapy, respectively. The median PFS for first-, second- and third-line ET ± targeted therapy was 11.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.8-12.1), 5.8 (95% CI, 5.3-6.1) and 5.5 (95% CI, 4.6-6.3) months, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, time from diagnosis to metastatic recurrence (P < 0.0001), presence of symptoms at metastatic relapse (P = 0.01), number of metastatic sites (P = 0.0003) and their localisation (P < 0.0001) were prognostic factors for PFS1. Duration of previous PFS was the only prognostic factor for subsequent PFS (10% threshold). Ten percent of the patients showed long-term response to ET, with a total treatment duration before chemotherapy ≥43.6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Median PFS in our HR+/HER2- real-life cohort is similar to median first-line PFS reported in clinical trials, regardless of ET used as second- and third-line treatment. Despite the international consensus on early initiation of ET, the latter is not prescribed in most of the cases. Patients with a low tumour burden may achieve prolonged response on ET.

Geographical Accessibility of the Referral Networks in France. Intermediate Results from the IGéAS Research Program.

Rare cancer patients face lower survival and experience delays in diagnosis and therapeutic mismanagement. Considering the specificities of rare cancers, referral networks have been implemented in France to improve the management and survival of patients. The IGéAS research program aims to assess the networks' ability to reduce inequalities. Data analysis of the IGéAS cohort (n = 20,590, sarcoma diagnosed between 2011 and 2014) by gathering medical data and geographical index will identify risk factors associated with the belated access to expertise or with no access to expertise. Intermediate results show that referral networks give sarcoma patients access to sarcoma expertise despite the remoteness of some of them. Regional expert centers mostly receive requests from within their area while national referral centers receive requests from the whole country. Delays in the access to expertise may be reduced by making outside practitioners more sensitive to the issues of rare cancers. The perception and involvement of outside practitioners in this device will be assessed using a qualitative survey. All the results are discussed and will contribute to design guidelines to improve early access to expertise and reduce inequalities. Results of the IGéAS research program may contribute to the assessment of referral sarcoma networks and provide some useful lessons to improve cancer care management.

Optimizing drug development in oncology by clinical trial simulation: Why and how?

In therapeutic research, the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products are necessarily tested on humans via clinical trials after an extensive and expensive preclinical development period. Methodologies such as computer modeling and clinical trial simulation (CTS) might represent a valuable option to reduce animal and human assays. The relevance of these methods is well recognized in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics from the preclinical phase to postmarketing. However, they are barely used and are poorly regarded for drug approval, despite Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency recommendations. The generalization of CTS could be greatly facilitated by the availability of software for modeling biological systems, by clinical trial studies and hospital databases. Data sharing and data merging raise legal, policy and technical issues that will need to be addressed. Development of future molecules will have to use CTS for faster development and thus enable better patient management. Drug activity modeling coupled with disease modeling, optimal use of medical data and increased computing speed should allow this leap forward. The realization of CTS requires not only bioinformatics tools to allow interconnection and global integration of all clinical data but also a universal legal framework to protect the privacy of every patient. While recognizing that CTS can never replace 'real-life' trials, they should be implemented in future drug development schemes to provide quantitative support for decision-making. This in silico medicine opens the way to the P4 medicine: predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory.

Cost-utility analysis of maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib vs observation with predefined second-line treatment after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC: IFCT-GFPC 0502-Eco phase III study.

BACKGROUND: The IFCT-GFPC 0502 phase III study reported prolongation of progression-free survival with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance vs. observation after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This analysis was undertaken to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of these strategies for the global population and pre-specified subgroups. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis evaluated the ICER of gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy vs. observation, from randomization until the end of follow-up. Direct medical costs (including drugs, hospitalization, follow-up examinations, second-line treatments and palliative care) were prospectively collected per patient during the trial, until death, from the primary health-insurance provider's perspective. Utility data were extracted from literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The ICERs for gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy were respectively 76,625 and 184,733 euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Gemcitabine continuation maintenance therapy had a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (52,213 €/QALY), in responders to induction chemotherapy (64,296 €/QALY), regardless of histology (adenocarcinoma, 62,292 €/QALY, non adenocarcinoma, 83,291 €/QALY). Erlotinib maintenance showed a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (94,908 €/QALY), in patients with adenocarcinoma (97,160 €/QALY) and in patient with objective response to induction (101,186 €/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in patients with PS =1, in patients with non-adenocarcinoma or with stable disease after induction chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine- or erlotinib-maintenance therapy had ICERs that varied as a function of histology, PS and response to first-line chemotherapy.

Revisiting the level of evidence in randomized controlled clinical trials: A simulation approach.

BACKGROUND: The Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) paradigm requires that results from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) must be assessed for validity before being assimilated. However, evaluating available evidence is often still based on intuitive processes rather than on rigorous scientific analysis. OBJECTIVE: To establish a hierarchy among the different factors influencing the level of evidence of RCT results, using a Monte Carlo simulation. METHODS: The complete RCT model involved three submodels: i) the input-output submodel for the prediction of events (using the sigmoid dose-response relationship as the basic model), ii) the execution submodel for deviations from a randomized, controlled two-arm parallel trial related to either patient-specific or investigator-specific elements or both: placebo or nocebo effect, errors of measurement, effect of concomitant therapy, regression to the mean phenomenon, blinding process, loss to follow-up and randomization process, iii) the covariate distribution submodel. RESULTS: The most important factors influencing discrepancies in the true-to-observed odds ratio were the blinding process, the measurement errors (affecting either the therapeutic or the adverse effects), the placebo effect, the effect of concomitant therapies and to a less extent the randomization process. Whereas the randomization process remained the only relevant factor in double-blinded trials, the hierarchy of other factors was modified according to the type of blinding. CONCLUSION: In RCTs, the hierarchy of confounding factors differs according to the type of blinding and the current short list of components of the strength of evidence (poorly concealed randomization and lack of blinding) appears to be incomplete.

Clinical trial simulation using therapeutic effect modeling: application to ivabradine efficacy in patients with angina pectoris.

Ivabradine is a new bradycardic agent with a potential indication for stable angina pectoris. To investigate the best compromise between efficacy, safety, drug regimen, and number of patients to include in a phase III study, we conducted Monte Carlo simulations using a full therapeutic model. The binary clinical outcome, chest pain, was simulated using a physiologic model in which the coronary reserve was derived from the heart rate. Safety was defined as being heart rate dependent. Using real data to build a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model controlling drug effect (i.e., heart rate decrease), and resampling heart rate profiles from the database, 100 clinical trials (N = 200) were simulated for five oral doses (2.5, 5, 10, 20, and 40 mg QD or BID) of ivabradine. Only 25% of the simulated trials showed a significant effect of ivabradine with doses up to 10 mg QD, and 48 and 55% of the trials with doses of 10 mg BID and 20 mg QD, respectively, and more than 80% of the trials with a 40 mg daily dose. For safety, 4% of patients had at least one adverse event in the untreated group, and from 5 to 13% in the treated groups for the lowest to the highest dose, respectively. The number of subjects to include in a future trial to obtain a 15% decrease in chest pain under the assumption of a 68% base risk, is 239 subjects per group with 10 mg BID or 196 with 20 mg QD. These results illustrate how clinical trial simulations including a PK/PD model as well as a physiopathologic mechanistic model, describing the relationship between the intermediate and clinical endpoint, and the resampling of real patients from a large database can help in designing future phase III trials.