ESMO management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era: colorectal cancer.

COVID-19 pandemic challenges health system capacities in many countries. National healthcare services have to manage unexpected shortage of healthcare resources that have to be reallocated according to the principles of fair and ethical prioritisation, in order to maintain the highest levels of care to all patients, ensure the safety of patients and healthcare workers and save as many lives as possible. Beyond that, cancer care services have to pursue restructuring, following the same evidence-based dispositions. In this article, we propose guidance to the management of colorectal cancer during the pandemic, prioritised according to a three-tiered framework, based on expert clinical judgement and magnitude of benefit expected from specific interventions. Since the availability of resources for diagnostic procedures, surgery and postoperative care, systemic therapy and radiotherapy may differ, authors did separate prioritisation analyses. The impact of postponing or abrogating cancer interventions on outcomes according to a high, medium or low priority scale, is outlined and discussed. The implementation of healthcare services using telemedicine is explored: it reveals itself as functional and effective for limiting patients' need to travel to centres and thereby has the potential to reduce diffusion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Colorectal cancer demands a considerable amount of medical resources. Therefore, the redefinition of its diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms with a rigorous method is crucial in order to ensure the highest quality of continuum of care in the broader context of the pandemic and the challenged healthcare systems.

Comparative Assessment of Clinical Benefit Using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Version 1.1 and the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit Score.

PURPOSE: To better understand the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) and the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit score version 2 (ASCO-NHB v2), ESMO and ASCO collaborated to evaluate the concordance between the frameworks when used to assess clinical benefit attributable to new therapies. METHODS: The 102 randomized controlled trials in the noncurative setting already evaluated in the field testing of ESMO-MCBS v1.1 were scored using ASCO-NHB v2 by its developers. Measures of agreement between the frameworks were calculated and receiver operating characteristic curves used to define thresholds for the ASCO-NHB v2 corresponding to ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. Studies with discordant scoring were identified and evaluated to understand the reasons for discordance. RESULTS: The correlation of the 102 pairs of scores for studies in the noncurative setting is estimated to be 0.68 (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient; overall survival, 0.71; progression-free survival, 0.67). Receiver operating characteristic curves identified thresholds for ASCO-NHB v2 for facilitating comparisons with ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. After applying pragmatic threshold scores of 40 or less (ASCO-NHB v2) and 2 or less (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for low benefit and 45 or greater (ASCO-NHB v2) and 4 to 5 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for substantial benefit, 37 discordant studies were identified. Major factors that contributed to discordance were different approaches to evaluation of relative and absolute gain for overall survival and progression-free survival, crediting tail of the curve gains, and assessing toxicity. CONCLUSION: The agreement between the frameworks was higher than observed in other studies that sought to compare them. The factors that contributed to discordant scores suggest potential approaches to improve convergence between the scales.

Economic evaluation of trifluridine and tipiracil hydrochloride in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Greece.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine and tipiracil hydrochloride (FTD/TPI) compared with best supportive care (BSC) or regorafenib for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who have been previously treated with or are not considered candidates for available therapies including fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapies, anti-VEGF agents and anti-EGFR agents in Greece. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was locally adapted from a third-party payer perspective over a 10 year time horizon. Efficacy data and utility values were extracted from published studies. Resource consumption data were obtained from local experts using a questionnaire developed for the purpose of the study and was combined with unit costs obtained from official sources. All costs reflect the year 2017 in euros. Primary outcomes were patients' life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY and LYs gained. RESULTS: Total life time cost per patient for FTD/TPI, BSC and regorafenib was estimated to be €10,087, €1,879 and €10,850, respectively. In terms of health outcomes, FTD/TPI was associated with 0.25 and 0.11 increment in LYs compared with BSC and regorafenib, respectively. Furthermore, FTD/TPI was associated with 0.17, and 0.07 increment in QALYs compared with BSC and regorafenib, resulting in ICERs of €32,759 per LY gained and €49,326 per QALY gained versus BSC. Moreover, FTD/TPI was a dominant alternative over regorafenib. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that FTD/TPI may represent a cost-effective treatment option compared with other alternative therapies as a third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Greece.

Detailed statistical assessment of the characteristics of the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) threshold rules.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), a tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit from new cancer therapies. Grading is guided by a dual rule comparing the relative benefit (RB) and the absolute benefit (AB) achieved by the therapy to prespecified threshold values. The ESMO-MCBS v1.0 dual rule evaluates the RB of an experimental treatment based on the lower limit of the 95%CI (LL95%CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) along with an AB threshold. This dual rule addresses two goals: inclusiveness: not unfairly penalising experimental treatments from trials designed with adequate power targeting clinically meaningful relative benefit; and discernment: penalising trials designed to detect a small inconsequential benefit. METHODS: Based on 50 000 simulations of plausible trial scenarios, the sensitivity and specificity of the LL95%CI rule and the ESMO-MCBS dual rule, the robustness of their characteristics for reasonable power and range of targeted and true HRs, are examined. The per cent acceptance of maximal preliminary grade is compared with other dual rules based on point estimate (PE) thresholds for RB. RESULTS: For particularly small or particularly large studies, the observed benefit needs to be relatively big for the ESMO-MCBS dual rule to be satisfied and the maximal grade awarded. Compared with approaches that evaluate RB using the PE thresholds, simulations demonstrate that the MCBS approach better exhibits the desired behaviour achieving the goals of both inclusiveness and discernment. CONCLUSIONS: RB assessment using the LL95%CI for HR rather than a PE threshold has two advantages: it diminishes the probability of excluding big benefit positive studies from achieving due credit and, when combined with the AB assessment, it increases the probability of downgrading a trial with a statistically significant but clinically insignificant observed benefit.

Systemic treatment-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: incidence, clinical presentation and management.

The toxicity of cancer chemotherapy is among the most important factors limiting its use. Clear delineation and communication of benefits and risks is an essential component of treatment decisions. Gastrointestinal toxicity during chemotherapy is frequent and contributes to dose reductions, delays and cessation of cancer treatment. The development of intervention strategies that could eliminate an expected side effect of chemotherapy is vital. Physiologic changes that can increase the toxicity of chemotherapy are decreased stem cell reserves, decreased ability to repair cell damage, progressive loss of body protein, and accumulation of body fat. Symptoms only arise when physiological functions are altered. The gastrointestinal symptoms arising during cancer chemotherapy can often be cured if newly acquired, and if gastrointestinal physiological deficits are identified. Developing new chemotherapy regimens with similar efficacy but less toxicity should be a priority for future research.

"Juvenile" oncology--a missing subspecialty. The experience of a reference cancer centre.

INTRODUCTION: Despite unique tumor epidemiology and a higher cancer incidence compared to pediatric patients, adolescents and young adults have not been receiving specialized, multidisciplinary, centralized care. In an effort to emphasize this need, we present outcome and toxicity data from a reference centre. METHODS: Cohort of 150 patients aged 15-30 treated for malignant tumors of lymphoid and solid organs from 1986 to 2002. RESULTS: Patients aged 15-19 commonly had lymphomas, germ cell tumors and pediatric sarcomas, whereas those aged 20-30 experienced germ cell tumors, lymphomas, melanomas and epithelial tumors more often. Overall 5- and 10-year survival was 80%, whereas 5-year and 10-year time to treatment failure was 68% and 43.5% respectively. 24% of patients experienced persistent, late treatment-related toxicities that interfered with their normal lifestyle. CONCLUSION: Despite the need for specialized care, psychosocial support and enrollment in clinical trials, youngsters have not been recognized as a patient group with distinct needs. Development of "Juvenile" oncology is required.