Extended pleurectomy decortication and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for pleural mesothelioma (MARS 2): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Extended pleurectomy decortication for complete macroscopic resection for pleural mesothelioma has never been evaluated in a randomised trial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after extended pleurectomy decortication plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. METHODS: MARS 2 was a phase 3, national, multicentre, open-label, parallel two-group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK. The trial took place across 26 hospitals (21 recruiting only, one surgical only, and four recruiting and surgical). Following two cycles of chemotherapy, eligible participants with pleural mesothelioma were randomly assigned (1:1) to surgery and chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone using a secure web-based system. Individuals aged 16 years or older with resectable pleural mesothelioma and adequate organ and lung function were eligible for inclusion. Participants in the chemotherapy only group received two to four further cycles of chemotherapy, and participants in the surgery and chemotherapy group received pleurectomy decortication or extended pleurectomy decortication, followed by two to four further cycles of chemotherapy. It was not possible to mask allocation because the intervention was a major surgical procedure. The primary outcome was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation to death from any cause. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population for all outcomes, unless specified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02040272, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between June 19, 2015, and Jan 21, 2021, of 1030 assessed for eligibility, 335 participants were randomly assigned (169 to surgery and chemotherapy, and 166 to chemotherapy alone). 291 (87%) participants were men and 44 (13%) women, and 288 (86%) were diagnosed with epithelioid mesothelioma. At a median follow-up of 22·4 months (IQR 11·3-30·8), median survival was shorter in the surgery and chemotherapy group (19·3 months [IQR 10·0-33·7]) than in the chemotherapy alone group (24·8 months [IQR 12·6-37·4]), and the difference in restricted mean survival time at 2 years was -1·9 months (95% CI -3·4 to -0·3, p=0·019). There were 318 serious adverse events (grade ≥3) in the surgery group and 169 in the chemotherapy group (incidence rate ratio 3·6 [95% CI 2·3 to 5·5], p<0·0001), with increased incidence of cardiac (30 vs 12; 3·01 [1·13 to 8·02]) and respiratory (84 vs 34; 2·62 [1·58 to 4·33]) disorders, infection (124 vs 53; 2·13 [1·36 to 3·33]), and additional surgical or medical procedures (15 vs eight; 2·41 [1·04 to 5·57]) in the surgery group. INTERPRETATION: Extended pleurectomy decortication was associated with worse survival to 2 years, and more serious adverse events for individuals with resectable pleural mesothelioma, compared with chemotherapy alone. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (15/188/31), Cancer Research UK Feasibility Studies Project Grant (A15895).

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.

Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatments for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Illustration of an Aggregate Analysis and its Key Drivers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) facilitates quantitative assessments of how health effects and costs are distributed among population subgroups, and of potential trade-offs between health maximisation and equity. Implementation of DCEA is currently explored by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England. Recent research conducted an aggregate DCEA on a selection of NICE appraisals; however, significant questions remain regarding the impact of the characteristics of the patient population (size, distribution by the equity measure of interest) and methodologic choices on DCEA outcomes. Cancer is the indication most appraised by NICE, and the relationship between lung cancer incidence and socioeconomic status is well established. We aimed to conduct an aggregate DCEA of two non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatments recommended by NICE, and identify key drivers of the analysis. METHODS: Subgroups were defined according to socioeconomic deprivation. Data on health benefits, costs, and target populations were extracted from two NICE appraisals (atezolizumab versus docetaxel [second-line treatment following chemotherapy to represent a broad NSCLC population] and alectinib versus crizotinib [targeted first-line treatment to represent a rarer mutation-positive NSCLC population]). Data on disease incidence were derived from national statistics. Distributions of population health and health opportunity costs were taken from the literature. A societal welfare analysis was conducted to assess potential trade-offs between health maximisation and equity. Sensitivity analyses were conducted, varying a range of parameters. RESULTS: At an opportunity cost threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), alectinib improved both health and equity, thereby increasing societal welfare. Second-line atezolizumab involved a trade-off between improving health equity and maximising health; it improved societal welfare at an opportunity cost threshold of £50,000/QALY. Increasing the value of the opportunity cost threshold improved the equity impact. The equity impact and societal welfare impact were small, driven by the size of the patient population and per-patient net health benefit. Other key drivers were the inequality aversion parameters and the distribution of patients by socioeconomic group; skewing the distribution to the most (least) deprived quintile improved (reduced) equity gains. CONCLUSION: Using two illustrative examples and varying model parameters to simulate alternative decision problems, this study suggests that key drivers of an aggregate DCEA are the opportunity cost threshold, the characteristics of the patient population, and the level of inequality aversion. These drivers raise important questions in terms of the implications for decision making. Further research is warranted to examine the value of the opportunity cost threshold, capture the public's views on unfair differences in health, and estimate robust distributional weights incorporating the public's preferences. Finally, guidance from health technology assessment organisations, such as NICE, is needed regarding methods for DCEA construction and how they would interpret and incorporate those results in their decision making.

Hyperglycaemia following immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy-Incidence, aetiology and assessment.

AIMS: We systematically studied the presence of hyperglycaemia during treatment with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICPI) for cancer, in those with and without diabetes at baseline, and determined the cause of new-onset hyperglycaemia, METHODS: Retrospective review of electronic records of those receiving an ICPI for melanoma, lung or renal cancer. RESULTS: Overall, 959 participants were included. In this study, 103 had diabetes at baseline (10.7%). Those with lung cancer had the highest frequency of diabetes; 131 people had hyperglycaemia (defined as at least one glucose ≥11.1 mmol/L) in the year after starting an ICPI. The incidence was 55% in those with diabetes at baseline, and 8.6% in those without baseline diabetes. Among 74 with new-onset hyperglycaemia (without pre-existing diabetes) 76% was attributable to steroid induced diabetes, with 9.5% due to ICPI Induced diabetes resembling type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperglycaemia is common in persons receiving an ICPI for cancer, including 8.6% of those without known diabetes. While much of this is due to glucocorticoid use, care is needed to avoid missing those with ICPI-induced diabetes who are at risk of diabetic ketoacidosis, which is a medical emergency.

Transportability of Overall Survival Estimates From US to Canadian Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Implications for Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment.

Importance: The external validity of survival outcomes derived from clinical practice data from US patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known and is of potential importance because it may be used to support regulatory decision-making and health technology assessment outside of the US. Objective: To evaluate whether overall survival (OS) estimates for a selected group of patients with advanced NSCLC from a large US clinical practice database are transportable to Canadian patients receiving the same systemic therapies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective multicenter cohort study used transportability analysis to assess whether adjustment for pretreatment characteristics of eligible patient cohorts could reliably approximate OS estimated from US-based samples to Canadian populations. A total of 17 432 eligible adult patients who were diagnosed de novo with advanced NSCLC on or after January 1, 2011, were included in the analysis and followed up until September 30, 2020. Because data on race and ethnicity were available in the US database but not the Canadian database and because racial and ethnic distribution was likely to be similar between US and Canadian patients, these characteristics were not analyzed. Exposures: Initiation of platinum-doublet chemotherapy or pembrolizumab monotherapy as first-line systemic treatment for advanced NSCLC. Main Outcomes and Measures: OS measured from the time of initiation of the respective treatment regimen. Results: Among 17 432 eligible patients, 15 669 patients from the US and 1763 patients from Canada were included in the analysis. Of those, 11 863 patients (sample size-weighted estimates of mean [SD] age, 68.0 [9.3] years; 6606 [55.7%] male; 10 100 from the US and 1763 from Canada) were included in the subset of patients with complete data for baseline covariates. A total of 13 532 US patients received first-line chemotherapy, and 2137 received first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy. Of those, 8447 patients (62.4%) in the first-line chemotherapy group and 1653 patients (77.3%) in the first-line pembrolizumab group had complete data on baseline covariates for outcome model estimation. A total of 1476 Canadian patients who received first-line chemotherapy and 287 patients who received first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy were identified from the target population. After standardization to baseline patient covariates in the Canadian cohorts, transported OS estimates revealed a less than 5% mean absolute difference from the observed OS in the target population (0.56% over 60 months of follow-up in the first-line chemotherapy group and 4.54% over 30 months of follow-up in the first-line pembrolizumab group). Negative control analysis using a mismatched outcome model revealed a 6.64% discrepancy and an incompatible survival curve shape. The results were robust to assumptions of random missingness for baseline covariates, to unadjusted differences in baseline metastases and comorbidities, and to differences in the standard of care between the US and Canada related to administration of second-line anti-programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 immunotherapy for patients who initiated first-line chemotherapy. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study suggest that, under specific circumstances, OS estimates from US clinical practice data can be adjusted using baseline clinical characteristics to closely approximate OS in selected groups of Canadian patients with advanced NSCLC. These results may have implications for regulatory decision-making and health technology assessment in target populations outside of the US.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor and Radiotherapy-Related Pneumonitis: An Informatics Approach to Determine Real-World Incidence, Severity, Management, and Resource Implications.

Pneumonitis is a well-described, potentially life-threatening adverse effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and thoracic radiotherapy. It can require additional investigations, treatment, and interruption of cancer therapy. It is important for clinicians to have an awareness of its incidence and severity, however real-world data are lacking and do not always correlate with findings from clinical trials. Similarly, there is a dearth of information on cost impact of symptomatic pneumonitis. Informatics approaches are increasingly being applied to healthcare data for their ability to identify specific patient cohorts efficiently, at scale. We developed a Structured Query Language (SQL)-based informatics algorithm which we applied to CT report text to identify cases of ICI and radiotherapy pneumonitis between 1/1/2015 and 31/12/2020. Further data on severity, investigations, medical management were also acquired from the electronic health record. We identified 248 cases of pneumonitis attributable to ICI and/or radiotherapy, of which 139 were symptomatic with CTCAE severity grade 2 or more. The grade ≥2 ICI pneumonitis incidence in our cohort is 5.43%, greater than the all-grade 1.3-2.7% incidence reported in the literature. Time to onset of ICI pneumonitis was also longer in our cohort (mean 4.5 months, range 4 days-21 months), compared to the median 2.7 months (range 9 days-19.2 months) described in the literature. The estimated average healthcare cost of symptomatic pneumonitis is £3932.33 per patient. In this study we use an informatics approach to present new real-world data on the incidence, severity, management, and resource burden of ICI and radiotherapy pneumonitis. To our knowledge, this is the first study to look at real-world incidence and healthcare resource utilisation at the per-patient level in a UK cancer hospital. Improved management of pneumonitis may facilitate prompt continuation of cancer therapy, and improved outcomes for this not insubstantial cohort of patients.

Y disruption, autosomal hypomethylation and poor male lung cancer survival.

Lung cancer is the most frequent cause of cancer death worldwide. It affects more men than women, and men generally have worse survival outcomes. We compared gene co-expression networks in affected and unaffected lung tissue from 126 consecutive patients with Stage IA-IV lung cancer undergoing surgery with curative intent. We observed marked degradation of a sex-associated transcription network in tumour tissue. This disturbance, detected in 27.7% of male tumours in the discovery dataset and 27.3% of male tumours in a further 123-sample replication dataset, was coincident with partial losses of the Y chromosome and extensive autosomal DNA hypomethylation. Central to this network was the epigenetic modifier and regulator of sexually dimorphic gene expression, KDM5D. After accounting for prognostic and epidemiological covariates including stage and histology, male patients with tumour KDM5D deficiency showed a significantly increased risk of death (Hazard Ratio [HR] 3.80, 95% CI 1.40-10.3, P = 0.009). KDM5D deficiency was confirmed as a negative prognostic indicator in a further 1100 male lung tumours (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.4-2.0, P = 1.2 × 10-10). Our findings identify tumour deficiency of KDM5D as a prognostic marker and credible mechanism underlying sex disparity in lung cancer.