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.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of a melanoma prevention program using genomic risk information compared with standard prevention advice in Australia.

PURPOSE: Evidence indicates that a melanoma prevention program using personalized genomic risk provision and genetic counseling can affect prevention behaviors, including reducing sunburns in adults with no melanoma history. This analysis evaluated its longer-term cost-effectiveness from an Australian health system perspective. METHODS: The primary outcome was incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of genomic risk provision (intervention) compared with standard prevention advice. A decision-analytic Markov model was developed using randomized trial data to simulate lifetime cost-effectiveness. All costs were presented in 2018/19 Australian dollars (AUD). The intervention effect on reduced sunburns was stratified by sex and traditional risk, which was calculated through a validated prediction model. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken for robustness checks. RESULTS: The per participant cost of intervention was AUD$189. Genomic risk provision targeting high-traditional risk individuals produced an ICER of AUD$35,254 (per quality-adjusted life year gained); sensitivity analyses indicated the intervention would be cost-effective in more than 50% of scenarios. When the intervention was extended to low-traditional risk groups, the ICER was AUD$43,746 with a 45% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Genomic risk provision targeted to high-traditional melanoma risk individuals is likely a cost-effective strategy for reducing sunburns and will likely prevent future melanomas and keratinocyte carcinomas.

Cost-Effectiveness of PET/CT Surveillance Schedules to Detect Distant Recurrence of Resected Stage III Melanoma.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of three surveillance imaging strategies using whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) with computed tomography (CT) (PET/CT) in a follow-up program for adults with resected stage III melanoma. METHODS: An analytic decision model was constructed to estimate the costs and benefits of PET/CT surveillance imaging performed 3-monthly, 6-monthly, or 12-monthly compared with no surveillance imaging. RESULTS: At 5 years, 3-monthly PET/CT surveillance imaging incurred a total cost of AUD 88,387 per patient, versus AUD 77,998 for 6-monthly, AUD 52,560 for 12-monthly imaging, and AUD 51,149 for no surveillance imaging. When compared with no surveillance imaging, 12-monthly PET/CT imaging was associated with a 4% increase in correctly diagnosed and treated distant disease; a 0.5% increase with 6-monthly imaging and 1% increase with 3-monthly imaging. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 12-monthly PET/CT surveillance imaging was AUD 34,362 for each additional distant recurrence correctly diagnosed and treated, compared with no surveillance imaging. For the outcome of cost per diagnostic error avoided, the no surveillance imaging strategy was the least costly and most effective. CONCLUSION: With the ICER for this strategy less than AUD 50,000 per unit of health benefit, the 12-monthly surveillance imaging strategy is considered good value for money.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of PET/CT surveillance imaging to detect systemic recurrence in resected stage III melanoma: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: In the new era of effective systemic therapies for advanced melanoma, early detection of lower volume recurrent disease using surveillance imaging can improve survival. However, intensive imaging follow-up strategies are likely to increase costs to health systems and may pose risks to patients. The objective of this study is to estimate from the Australian health system perspective the cost-effectiveness of four follow-up strategies in resected stage III melanoma over a 5-year period following surgical treatment with curative intent. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A decision-analytic model will be built to estimate the costs and benefits of (1) 12 monthly, (2) 6 monthly, (3) 3-4 monthly positron emission tomography/CT imaging for 5 years, compared with (4) no imaging follow-up. The model will be populated with probabilities of disease recurrence, test performance measures using data from >1000 consecutive resected stage III melanoma patients from Melanoma Institute Australia diagnosed between 2000 and 2017. Healthcare resource use, including surveillance imaging, doctor's visits, subsequent tests and procedures to investigate suspicious findings, will be quantified from detailed patient records and valued using Australian reference pricing. Economic outcomes include cost per new distant melanoma recurrence detected and cost per diagnostic error avoided, for no imaging compared with the other strategies.Deterministic sensitivity analyses will examine the robustness of model results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Sydney Local Health District, Sydney Local Health District Ethics Review Committee (RPAH Zone), AU/1/830638 and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (EO2019-1-454). The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed medical and health economics journals and will inform melanoma management guidelines.

Preferences for Immunotherapy in Melanoma: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy improves overall survival for patients with metatstatic melanoma and improves recurrence-free survival in the adjuvant setting, but is costly and has adverse effects. Little is known about the preferences of patients and clinicians regarding immunotherapy. This study aimed to identify factors important to patients and clinicians when deciding about immunotherapy for stages 2-4 melanoma. METHODS: This study searched the Medline, EMBASE, ECONLIT, PsychINFO, and COCHRANE Systematic Reviews databases from inception to June 2018 for immunotherapy choice and preference studies. Findings were tabulated and summarized, and study reporting was assessed against recommended checklists. RESULTS: This investigation identified eight studies assessing preferences for melanoma treatment; four studies regarding nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab; and four studies regarding interferon conducted in the United States, Germany, and Australia. The following 10 factors were important to decision-making: overall survival, recurrence-free survival, treatment side effects, dosing regimen, patient or payer cost, patient age, clinician or family/friend treatment recommendation, quality of life, and psychosocial effects. Overall survival was the most important factor for all respondents. The patients judged severe toxicities to be tolerable for small survival gains. The description of information about treatment harms and benefits was limited in most studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival was of primary importance to patients and clinicians considering immunotherapy. Impaired quality of life due to adverse effects appeared to be a second-order consideration. Future research is required to determine preferences for contemporary combination therapies, extended treatment durations, and avoidance of chronic side effects. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018095899.

Incidence, features and management of radionecrosis in melanoma patients treated with cerebral radiotherapy and anti-PD-1 antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Brain radiotherapy is used in the management of melanoma brain metastases (MBM) and can result in radionecrosis. Anti-PD-1 is active in the brain and may increase the risk of radionecrosis when combined with radiotherapy. We studied the incidence, associated factors and management of radionecrosis in longer-term survivors with MBM treated with this combination. METHODS: Patients with MBM treated with radiotherapy and anti-PD-1 who survived >1 year were identified to determine radionecrosis incidence (Cohort A, n = 135). Cohort A plus additional radionecrosis cases were examined for factors associated with radionecrosis and management (Cohort B, n = 148). RESULTS: From Cohort A, 17% developed radionecrosis, with a cumulative incidence at 2 years of 18%. Using Cohort B, multivariable analysis confirmed an association between radionecrosis and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (p = 0.0496) and prior treatment with ipilimumab (p = 0.0319). Radionecrosis was diagnosed based on MRI (100%), symptoms (69%) and pathology (56%). Treatment included corticosteroids, bevacizumab and neurosurgery. CONCLUSIONS: Radionecrosis is a significant toxicity in longer-term melanoma survivors with MBM treated with anti-PD-1 and radiotherapy. Identification of those at risk of radionecrosis who may avoid radiotherapy is required.

The spectrum, incidence, kinetics and management of endocrinopathies with immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic melanoma.

OBJECTIVE: Endocrine immune-related adverse events (endocrinopathies) are increasingly prevalent with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of metastatic melanoma and other malignancies. There are no evidence-based guidelines for the screening or management of such patients. To describe the spectrum, incidence, kinetics and management of endocrinopathies with immune checkpoint inhibitors. DESIGN: A prospective study conducted at Melanoma Institute Australia between April 2014 and October 2015. METHODS: A total of 177 patients were treated with (a) ipilimumab (n = 15), (b) anti-PD-1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab) (n = 103) or (c) combination ipilimumab and anti-PD-1 (n = 59) and were screened and managed for the subsequent endocrinopathies. The main outcome measures were the incidence and kinetics of endocrinopathy by immunotherapy drug class. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients (18%) developed an endocrine immune-related adverse event (thyroid dysfunction: 14%, hypophysitis: 6% and autoimmune diabetes: 0.6%). Combination immunotherapy was more likely to result in a single or multiple endocrinopathy compared to anti-PD-1 monotherapy (27% vs 9% and 7% vs 0% respectively, P < 0.01). Endocrinopathies occurred after a median of 8 weeks from treatment commencement (range: 12-225 days), with combination immunotherapy resulting in significantly earlier onset compared to ipilimumab (median: 30 vs 76 days, P = 0.046). The majority of endocrinopathies were identified in asymptomatic patients with hormonal screening. There were no baseline predictors for endocrinopathy. CONCLUSIONS: Combination immunotherapy has a greater risk of development of endocrinopathy compared to anti-PD-1 monotherapy. Regular biochemical profiling of patients, particularly within the first twelve weeks, results in early detection of endocrinopathy to minimise morbidity.