MouseBytes, an open-access high-throughput pipeline and database for rodent touchscreen-based cognitive assessment.

Open Science has changed research by making data accessible and shareable, contributing to replicability to accelerate and disseminate knowledge. However, for rodent cognitive studies the availability of tools to share and disseminate data is scarce. Automated touchscreen-based tests enable systematic cognitive assessment with easily standardised outputs that can facilitate data dissemination. Here we present an integration of touchscreen cognitive testing with an open-access database public repository (mousebytes.ca), as well as a Web platform for knowledge dissemination (https://touchscreencognition.org). We complement these resources with the largest dataset of age-dependent high-level cognitive assessment of mouse models of Alzheimer's disease, expanding knowledge of affected cognitive domains from male and female mice of three strains. We envision that these new platforms will enhance sharing of protocols, data availability and transparency, allowing meta-analysis and reuse of mouse cognitive data to increase the replicability/reproducibility of datasets.

Paclitaxel as Albumin-Bound Nanoparticles with Gemcitabine for Untreated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Celgene Ltd to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for paclitaxel as albumin-bound nanoparticles (Nab-Pac) in combination with gemcitabine (Nab-Pac + Gem) for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The STA was a review of NICE's 2015 guidance (TA360) in which Nab-Pac + Gem was not recommended for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The review was prompted by a proposed Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discount on the price of Nab-Pac and new evidence that might lead to a change in the guidance. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission for Nab-Pac + Gem, and the Appraisal Committee (AC) decision. The final scope issued by NICE listed three comparators: gemcitabine monotherapy (Gem), gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine (Gem + Cap), and a combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin and fluorouracil (FOLFIRINOX). Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was from the phase III CA046 randomized controlled trial. Analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) showed statistically significant improvement for patients treated with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus FOLFIRINOX and versus Gem + Cap was derived from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results of the NMA did not indicate a statistically significant difference in OS or PFS for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus either Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The ERG's main concerns with the clinical effectiveness evidence were difficulties in identifying the patient population for whom treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem is most appropriate, and violation of the proportional hazards (PH) assumption in the CA046 trial. The ERG highlighted methodological issues in the cost-effectiveness analysis pertaining to the modelling of survival outcomes, estimation of drug costs and double counting of adverse-event disutilities. The AC accepted all the ERG's amendments to the company's cost-effectiveness model; however, these did not make important differences to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The company's base-case ICER was £46,932 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem was dominated both by treatment with Gem + Cap and with FOLFIRINOX in the company's base case. The AC concluded that the most plausible ICER for treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was in the range of £41,000-£46,000 per QALY gained. The AC concluded that Nab-Pac + Gem was not cost effective compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX, and accepted that treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem met the end-of-life criteria versus Gem but did not consider Nab-Pac + Gem to meet the end-of-life criteria compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The AC also concluded that although patients who would receive Nab-Pac + Gem rather than FOLFIRINOX or Gem + Cap were difficult to distinguish, they were identifiable in clinical practice. The AC recommended treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer for whom other combination chemotherapies were unsuitable and who would otherwise receive Gem.

Pegylated Liposomal Irinotecan Hydrochloride Trihydrate for Treating Pancreatic Cancer After Gemcitabine: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Shire Pharmaceuticals) of pegylated liposomal irinotecan hydrochloride trihydrate (liposomal irinotecan) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for its use in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and folic acid/leucovorin (LV) for treating patients with pancreatic cancer following prior treatment with gemcitabine as part of the institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents a summary of the company's evidence, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance (TA440), issued on 26 April 2017. Clinical evidence for liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus 5-FU/LV was derived from 236 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in the multinational, open-label, randomised controlled NAPOLI-1 trial. Results from analyses of progression-free survival and overall survival showed statistically significant improvements for patients treated with liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV compared with those treated with 5-FU/LV. However, 5-FU/LV alone is rarely used in National Health Service clinical practice for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine. The company, ERG and Appraisal Committee (AC) all agreed that oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV is the most commonly used treatment. Oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV was compared with 5-FU/LV in two trials identified by the company. However, the company and the ERG both considered attempts to compare the efficacy of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV with oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV to be methodologically flawed; not only was there heterogeneity between trials and their populations but also the proportional hazards assumption required to conduct a robust indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was violated. Nonetheless, data derived from an ITC were used to inform the company's economic model. Using the discounted patient access scheme price for liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV, the company reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £54,412 for the comparison with oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV. The ERG considered that the company's base-case cost-effectiveness results for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV were underestimates and should be interpreted with extreme caution. Following implementation of a number of model amendments, the ERG's modified exploratory ICER for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV was £106,898 per QALY gained. The AC accepted the majority of the ERG's amendments to the model, and also highlighted that the total QALYs for oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV were lower than for 5-FU/LV in the company's model, which the AC considered to be clinically implausible. The AC therefore considered results from exploratory analyses, undertaken by the ERG, which included altering the QALY difference between liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV and oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV by ± 10%. These analyses resulted in ICERs for the comparison of liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV versus oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV of between £201,019 per QALY gained to liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV being dominated by oxaliplatin + 5-FU/LV. Therefore, despite uncertainty around the clinical-effectiveness evidence and cost-effectiveness results, the AC was confident that the ICER was in excess of £50,000 per QALY gained. The final guidance issued by NICE is that liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV is not recommended within its marketing authorisation for treating metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas in adults whose disease has progressed after gemcitabine-based therapy.

Advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma outcomes with transition from devolved to centralised care in a regional Cancer Centre.

BACKGROUND: Previous observations suggest suboptimal 'real world' survival outcomes for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We hypothesized that centralisation of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma management would improve chemotherapy treatment and survival from the disease. METHODS: The data was prospectively collected on all cases of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma reviewed through Clatterbridge Cancer Centre according to two groups; 1 October 2009-31st Dec 2010 (devolved care) or 1 January 2013-31 March 2014 (centralised care). Analysis included treatment received, 30-day chemotherapy mortality rate and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: More patients received chemotherapy with central care (67.0% (n=115) vs 43.0% (n=121); P=2.2 × 10-4) with no difference in 30-day mortality (20.8% vs 25%; P=0.573) but reduced time to commencement of chemotherapy (18 vs 28 days, P=1.0 × 10-3). More patients received second-line chemotherapy with central care (23.4% vs 1.9%, P=1.4 × 10-4), while OS was significantly increased with central care (median: Five vs three months, HR 0.785, P=0.045). Exploratory analysis suggested that it was those with a poorer performance status, elderly or with metastatic disease who benefited the most from transition to central care. CONCLUSIONS: A centralised clinic model for advanced pancreatic cancer management resulted in prompt, safe and higher use of chemotherapy compared with devolved care. This was associated with a modest survival benefit. Prospective studies are required to validate the findings reported and the basis for improved survival with centralised care.

Assessment of liver function in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a new evidence-based approach-the ALBI grade.

PURPOSE: Most patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have associated chronic liver disease, the severity of which is currently assessed by the Child-Pugh (C-P) grade. In this international collaboration, we identify objective measures of liver function/dysfunction that independently influence survival in patients with HCC and then combine these into a model that could be compared with the conventional C-P grade. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We developed a simple model to assess liver function, based on 1,313 patients with HCC of all stages from Japan, that involved only serum bilirubin and albumin levels. We then tested the model using similar cohorts from other geographical regions (n = 5,097) and other clinical situations (patients undergoing resection [n = 525] or sorafenib treatment for advanced HCC [n = 1,132]). The specificity of the model for liver (dys)function was tested in patients with chronic liver disease but without HCC (n = 501). RESULTS: The model, the Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade, performed at least as well as the C-P grade in all geographic regions. The majority of patients with HCC had C-P grade A disease at presentation, and within this C-P grade, ALBI revealed two classes with clearly different prognoses. Its utility in patients with chronic liver disease alone supported the contention that the ALBI grade was indeed an index of liver (dys)function. CONCLUSION: The ALBI grade offers a simple, evidence-based, objective, and discriminatory method of assessing liver function in HCC that has been extensively tested in an international setting. This new model eliminates the need for subjective variables such as ascites and encephalopathy, a requirement in the conventional C-P grade.

Impact of restricting access to high-cost medications for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer death globally, and its incidence is increasing in the West, including the UK, with the increasing burden of chronic liver disease. Until recently, systemic treatment options for advanced disease were limited. However, randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib prolongs survival in appropriately selected patients, and this drug has become the standard of care for patients with advanced HCC. However, a single-technology appraisal by the NICE recommended that the UK National Health Service should not fund sorafenib on the grounds of cost-effectiveness. A number of other novel agents and combinations are currently in clinical trials, the results of which may further expand the treatment options and indications for systemic therapy in HCC. This review discusses the impact of restricting access to high-cost medications for patients with HCC in the UK, and describes potential strategies and future directions that may improve the cost-effectiveness of such drugs. It also describes the potential impact, pending national guidance, of variations in local funding decision-making on patient outcomes.