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.

Factors Explaining Socio-Economic Inequalities in Survival from Colon Cancer: A Causal Mediation Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Socio-economic inequalities in colon cancer survival exist in high-income countries, but the reasons are unclear. We assessed the mediating effects of stage at diagnosis, comorbidities, and treatment (surgery and intravenous chemotherapy) on survival from colon cancer. METHODS: We identified 2,203 people aged 15 to 79 years with first primary colon cancer diagnosed in Victoria, Australia, between 2008 and 2011. Colon cancer cases were identified through the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR), and clinical information was obtained from hospital records. Deaths till December 31, 2016 (n = 807), were identified from Victorian and national death registries. Socio-economic disadvantage was based on residential address at diagnosis. For stage III disease, we decomposed its total effect into direct and indirect effects using interventional mediation analysis. RESULTS: Socio-economic inequalities in colon cancer survival were not explained by stage and were greater for men than women. For men with stage III disease, there were 161 [95% confidence interval (CI), 67-256] additional deaths per 1,000 cases in the 5 years following diagnosis for the most disadvantaged compared with the least disadvantaged. The indirect effects through comorbidities and intravenous chemotherapy explained 6 (95% CI, -10-21) and 15 (95% CI, -14-44) per 1,000 of these additional deaths, respectively. Surgery did not explain the observed gap in survival. CONCLUSIONS: Disadvantaged men have lower survival from stage III colon cancer that is only modestly explained by having comorbidities or not receiving chemotherapy after surgery. IMPACT: Future studies should investigate the potential mediating role of factors occurring beyond the first year following diagnosis, such as compliance with surveillance for recurrence and supportive care services.

3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk stage II and III colorectal cancer: 3-year follow-up of the SCOT non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy administered over 6 months is the standard adjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk stage II or III colorectal cancer. However, the regimen is associated with cumulative toxicity, characterised by chronic and often irreversible neuropathy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of 3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer and to compare the toxicity, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the durations. DESIGN: An international, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, Phase III, parallel-group trial. SETTING: A total of 244 oncology clinics from six countries: UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years who had undergone curative resection for high-risk stage II or III adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum. INTERVENTIONS: The adjuvant treatment regimen was either oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil or oxaliplatin and capecitabine, randomised to be administered over 3 or 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Overall survival, adverse events, neuropathy and health-related quality of life were also assessed. The main cost categories were chemotherapy treatment and hospitalisation. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through incremental cost comparisons and quality-adjusted life-year gains between the options and was reported as net monetary benefit using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year per patient. RESULTS: Recruitment is closed. In total, 6088 patients were randomised (3044 per group) between 27 March 2008 and 29 November 2013, with 6065 included in the intention-to-treat analyses (3-month analysis, n = 3035; 6-month analysis, n = 3030). Follow-up for the primary analysis is complete. The 3-year disease-free survival rate in the 3-month treatment group was 76.7% (standard error 0.8%) and in the 6-month treatment group was 77.1% (standard error 0.8%), equating to a hazard ratio of 1.006 (95% confidence interval 0.909 to 1.114; p-value for non-inferiority = 0.012), confirming non-inferiority for 3-month adjuvant chemotherapy. Frequent adverse events (alopecia, anaemia, anorexia, diarrhoea, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, sensory neuropathy, neutropenia, pain, rash, altered taste, thrombocytopenia and watery eye) showed a significant increase in grade with 6-month duration; the greatest difference was for sensory neuropathy (grade ≥ 3 was 4% for 3-month vs.16% for 6-month duration), for which a higher rate of neuropathy was seen for the 6-month treatment group from month 4 to ≥ 5 years (p < 0.001). Quality-of-life scores were better in the 3-month treatment group over months 4-6. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed 3-month treatment to cost £4881 less over the 8-year analysis period, with an incremental net monetary benefit of £7246 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The study achieved its primary end point, showing that 3-month oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy is non-inferior to 6 months of the same regimen; 3-month treatment showed a better safety profile and cost less. For future work, further follow-up will refine long-term estimates of the duration effect on disease-free survival and overall survival. The health economic analysis will be updated to include long-term extrapolation for subgroups. We expect these analyses to be available in 2019-20. The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study translational samples may allow the identification of patients who would benefit from longer treatment based on the molecular characteristics of their disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59757862 and EudraCT 2007-003957-10. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This research was supported by the Medical Research Council (transferred to NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre - Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; grant reference G0601705), the Swedish Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK Core Clinical Trials Unit Funding (funding reference C6716/A9894).

Patients diagnosed with bowel cancer are likely to have surgery to remove the tumour. Patients diagnosed with a more advanced stage of the disease are then likely to be offered what is known as adjuvant chemotherapy ­ chemotherapy to kill any cancer cells that have already spread but cannot be seen. Adjuvant chemotherapy is usually given over 6 months using two medicines known as oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine. This chemotherapy has side effects of diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, and it reduces the numbers of cells in the blood. It can also damage nerves, which causes discomfort, numbness and tingling; in some cases, this can go on for years. These side effects are more likely to develop with longer treatment. This study looked at whether or not shortening the time over which patients were given oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy reduced its effectiveness. In this large study of over 6000 patients, half of the patients were allocated by chance to be treated for 3 months and the other half to be treated for 6 months. Reducing the time that patients had chemotherapy from 6 months to 3 months did not make the treatment less effective. When patients treated with chemotherapy over 3 months were compared with those treated over 6 months, 77% of patients in both groups were well with no detectable disease 3 years after surgery. Patients were less likely to get side effects with 3-month chemotherapy. In particular, the chance of persistent long-term nerve damage was lower, resulting in patients with 3-month chemotherapy having better health-related quality of life. Overall, the study showed that 3-month adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with bowel cancer is as effective as 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy and causes fewer side effects.

The effect of socioeconomic status on survival from colorectal cancer in the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study.

Previous research relating lower socioeconomic status (SES) with poorer survival from colorectal cancer has varied in adjustment for confounding factors and in the use of individual-level or aggregate-level indicators of SES. We investigated the effect of SES and country of birth on survival from colorectal cancers diagnosed in participants of the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study. A total of 526 colorectal cancer cases diagnosed since baseline were followed from diagnosis to 1 June 2006 or death. Information on tumour site and stage, and treatments given were obtained from systematic medical record review. SES at diagnosis was assigned using both an area-based measure of social disadvantage and individual level of educational attainment. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios associated with socioeconomic disadvantage, educational attainment, and country of birth. During an average follow-up of 5.6 years from diagnosis, 230 deaths occurred, 197 from colorectal cancer. After adjusting for age, sex, tumour stage, waist circumference and adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy, the hazard ratios of dying from all causes and from colorectal cancer associated with living in the least disadvantaged areas compared with most disadvantaged areas were 0.73 (95% CI 0.53-1.00, p for trend=0.06) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.57-1.12, p for trend=0.22) respectively. Further adjustment for hospital case-load, tumour characteristics, and lifestyle factors did not change the estimates materially. Level of educational attainment and country of birth were not independent predictors of the risk of dying from colorectal cancer. Despite a universal health care system in Australia, socioeconomic inequalities in survival from colorectal cancer exist, and an enduring challenge is to ensure that improvements in colorectal cancer survival are shared equally across the population.