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.

Evolution of the Randomized Clinical Trial in the Era of Precision Oncology.

IMPORTANCE: The randomized clinical trial (RCT) in oncology has evolved since its widespread adoption in the 1970s. In recent years, concerns have emerged regarding the use of putative surrogate end points, such as progression-free survival (PFS), and marginal effect sizes. OBJECTIVE: To describe contemporary trends in oncology RCTs and compare these findings with earlier eras of RCT design and output. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of systemic therapy RCTs in breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancer published in 7 major journals between 2010 and 2020. This strategy replicates prior work and allows for comparison of trends with RCTs published between 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Data on RCT design, funding, results, and reporting were extracted from the published RCT report. Findings from the current period (2010-2020) were compared with data from RCTs published from 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to analyze temporal trends. RESULTS: The cohort included 298 RCTs (132 [44%] breast, 111 [37%] non-small cell lung cancer, 55 [19%] colorectal cancer). Experimental treatment included molecular inhibitor (171 of 298 [57%]), cytotoxic (83 of 298 [28%]), hormone (15 of 298 [5%]), and immune (24 of 298 [8%]) therapies. Sixty-nine percent (206 of 298) of RCTs were of palliative intent. The most common primary end point is now PFS; this has increased substantially over time (from 0% [0 of 167] to 18% [25 of 137] to 42% [125 of 298]; P < .001). Of 298 RCTs, 265 (89%) are now funded by industry (previously 95 of 167 [57%] and 107 of 137 [78%]; P < .001). Fifty-eight percent (173 of 298) of trials met their primary end point. Among positive trials, median improvement in overall survival and PFS was 3.4 and 2.9 months, respectively. More than one-third (117 of 298 [39%]) of reports used a professional medical writer; this increased substantially during the study period (from 3 of 27 [11%] in 2010 to 12 of 18 [67%] in 2020; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cohort study suggests that contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate end points and are almost exclusively funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The increasing role of medical writers warrants attention. To demonstrate that new cancer treatments are high value, the oncology community needs to consider the extent to which study end points and target effect size provide meaningful benefit to patients.

Delivery of meaningful cancer care: a retrospective cohort study assessing cost and benefit with the ASCO and ESMO frameworks.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) have developed frameworks that quantify survival gains in light of toxicity and quality of life to assess the benefits of cancer therapies. We applied these frameworks to a cohort of contemporary randomised controlled trials to explore agreement between the two approaches and to assess the relation between treatment benefit and cost. METHODS: We identified all randomised controlled trials of systemic therapies in non-small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and pancreatic cancer published between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2015, and assessed their abstracts and methods. Trials were eligible for inclusion in our cohort if significant differences favouring the experimental group in a prespecified primary or secondary outcome were reported (secondary outcomes were assessed only if primary outcomes were not significant). We assessed trial endpoints with the ASCO and ESMO frameworks at two timepoints 3 months apart to confirm intra-rater reliability. Cohen's κ statistic was calculated to establish agreement between the two frameworks on the basis of the median ASCO score, which was used as an arbitrary threshold of benefit, and the framework-recommended ESMO threshold. Differences in monthly drug cost between the experimental and control groups of each randomised controlled trial (ie, incremental drug cost) were derived from 2016 average wholesale prices. FINDINGS: 109 randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion, 42 (39%) in non-small-cell lung cancer, 36 (33%) in breast cancer, 25 (23%) in colorectal cancer, and six (6%) in pancreatic cancer. ASCO scores ranged from 2 to 77; median score was 25 (IQR 16-35). 41 (38%) trials met the benefit thresholds in the ESMO framework. Agreement between the two frameworks was fair (κ=0·326). Among the 100 randomised controlled trials for which drug costing data were available, ASCO benefit score and monthly incremental drug costs were negatively correlated (ρ=-0·207; p=0·039). Treatments that met ESMO benefit thresholds had a lower median incremental drug cost than did those that did not meet benefit thresholds (US$2981 [IQR 320-9059] vs $8621 [1174-13 930]; p=0·018). INTERPRETATION: There is only fair correlation between these two major value care frameworks, and negative correlations between framework outputs and drug costs. Delivery of optimal cancer care in a sustainable health system will necessitate future oncologists, investigators, and policy makers to reconcile the disconnect between drug cost and clinical benefit. FUNDING: None.