Impact of Prior Authorization on Patient Access to Cancer Care.

Prior authorization (PA) is a type of utilization review that health insurers apply to control service delivery, payments, and reimbursements of health interventions. The original stated intent of PA was to ensure high-quality standards in treatment delivery while encouraging evidence-based and cost-effective therapeutic choices. However, as currently implemented in clinical practice, PA has been shown to affect the health workforce, adding administrative burden to authorize needed health interventions for patients and often requiring time-consuming peer-to-peer reviews to challenge initial denials. PA is presently required for a wide range of interventions, including supportive care medicines and other essential cancer care interventions. Patients who are denied coverage are commonly forced to receive second-choice options, including less effective or less tolerable options, or are exposed to financial toxicity because of substantial out-of-pocket expenditures, affecting patient-centric outcomes. The development of tools informed by national clinical guidelines to identify standard-of-care interventions for patients with specific cancer diagnoses and the implementation of evidence-based clinical pathways as part of quality improvement efforts of cancer centers have improved patient outcomes and may serve to establish new payment models for health insurers, thereby also reducing administrative burden and delays. The definition of a set of essential interventions and guidelines- or pathways-driven decisions could facilitate reimbursement decisions and thus reduce the need for PAs. Structural changes in how PA is applied and implemented, including a redefinition of its real need, are needed to optimize patient-centric outcomes and support high-quality care of patients with cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of palbociclib in early breast cancer patients with a high risk of relapse: Results from the PENELOPE-B trial.

Background: Patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who have residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) are at a high risk of relapse. PENELOPE-B was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial that investigated adding palbociclib (PAL) for thirteen 28-day cycles to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) in these patients. Clinical results showed no significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival with PAL. Methods: We performed a pre-planned cost-effectiveness analysis of PAL within PENELOPE-B from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance. Health-related quality of life scores, collected in the trial using the EQ-5D-3L instrument, were converted to utilities based on the German valuation algorithm. Resource use was valued using German price weights. Outcomes were discounted at 3% and modeled with mixed-level linear models to adjust for attrition, repeated measurements, and residual baseline imbalances. Subgroup analyses were performed for key prognostic risk factors. Scenario analyses addressed data limitations and evaluated the robustness of the estimated cost-effectiveness of PAL to methodological choices. Results: The effects of PAL on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were marginal during the active treatment phase, increasing thereafter to 0.088 (95% confidence interval: -0.001; 0.177) QALYs gained over the 4 years of follow-up. The incremental costs were dominated by PAL averaging EUR 33,000 per patient; costs were higher in the PAL arm but not significantly different after the second year. At an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 380,000 per QALY gained, PAL was not cost-effective compared to the standard-of-care ET. Analyses restricted to Germany and other subgroups were consistent with the main results. Findings were robust in the scenarios evaluated. Conclusions: One year of PAL added to ET is not cost-effective in women with residual invasive disease after NACT in Germany.

A Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Trial for Early Breast Cancer is Impacted by COVID-19: Addressing Vaccination and Cancer Trials Through Education, Equity, and Outcomes.

While COVID-19 vaccine distribution has addressed vulnerabilities related to age and comorbidities, there is a need to ensure vaccination of patients with cancer receiving experimental and routine treatment, where interruption of treatment by infection is likely to result in inferior outcomes. Among patients with cancer, those undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) or adjuvant chemotherapy (Adj chemo) for early breast cancer (EBC) are at particularly high risk for inferior outcomes, in part, because optimal timing of chemotherapy is essential for promoting distant disease-free survival. COVID-19 data from the ongoing multicenter I-SPY 2 trial of NAC for EBC provides a window into the magnitude of the problem of treatment interruption, not only for the trial itself but also for routine Adj chemo. In the I-SPY 2 trial, 4.5% of patients had disruption of therapy by COVID-19, prior to wide vaccine availability, suggesting that nationally up to 5,700 patients with EBC were at risk for adverse outcomes from COVID-19 infection in 2020. To address this problem, vaccine education and public engagement are essential to overcome hesitancy, while equity of distribution is needed to address access. To accomplish these goals, healthcare organizations (HCO) need to not only call out disinformation but also engage the public with vaccine education and find common ground for vaccine acceptance, while partnering with state/local governments to improve efficiency of vaccine distribution. These approaches are important to improve trial access and to reduce susceptibility to COVID-19, as the pandemic could continue to impact access to clinical trials and routine cancer treatment.

Planning for post-pandemic cancer care delivery: Recovery or opportunity for redesign?

The delivery of cancer care has never changed as rapidly and dramatically as we have seen with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. During the early phase of the pandemic, recommendations for the management of oncology patients issued by various professional societies and government agencies did not recognize the significant regional differences in the impact of the pandemic. California initially experienced lower than expected numbers of cases, and the health care system did not experience the same degree of the burden that had been the case in other parts of the country. In light of promising trends in COVID-19 infections and mortality in California, by late April 2020, discussions were initiated for a phased recovery of full-scale cancer services. However, by July 2020, a surge of cases was reported across the nation, including in California. In this review, the authors share the response and recovery planning experience of the University of California (UC) Cancer Consortium in an effort to provide guidance to oncology practices. The UC Cancer Consortium was established in 2017 to bring together 5 UC Comprehensive Cancer Centers: UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC Irvine Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, and the UC San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. The interventions implemented in each of these cancer centers are highlighted, with a focus on opportunities for a redesign in care delivery models. The authors propose that their experiences gained during this pandemic will enhance pre-pandemic cancer care delivery.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Hematopoietic Growth Factors, Version 1.2020.

Management of febrile neutropenia (FN) is an integral part of supportive care for patients undergoing cancer treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors provide suggestions for appropriate evaluation, risk determination, prophylaxis, and management of FN. These NCCN Guidelines are intended to guide clinicians in the appropriate use of growth factors for select patients undergoing treatment of nonmyeloid malignancies. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight important updates to the NCCN Guidelines regarding the incorporation of newly FDA-approved granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars for the prevention and treatment of FN.

Early assessment with magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer: Results from the phase III BrighTNess trial.

INTRODUCTION: The ability of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to predict pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) varies across biological subtypes. We sought to determine how well breast MRI findings following initial treatment on the phase III BrighTNess trial correlated with pCR in patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS: Baseline and mid-treatment imaging and pathologic response data were available in 519 patients with stage II-III TNBC who underwent NST as per protocol. MRI complete response (mCR) was defined as disappearance of all target lesion(s) and MRI partial response (mPR) as a ≥50% reduction in the largest tumor diameter. RESULTS: Overall, mCR was demonstrated in 116 patients (22%), whereas 166 (32%) had mPR and 237 (46%) had stable/progressive disease (SD/PD). The positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, and overall accuracy of the mid-treatment MRI for pCR were 78%, 56%, and 61%, respectively; accuracy did not differ significantly between gBRCA mutation carriers and non-carriers (52% vs. 63%, p = 0.10). When compared to patients with SD/PD, those with mPR or mCR were 3.35-fold (95% CI 2.07-5.41) more likely to have pCR at surgery. MRI response during NST was significantly associated with eligibility for breast-conserving surgery following completion of treatment (93.1% for mCR vs. 81.6% for SD/PD, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Complete response on mid-treatment MRI in the BrighTNess trial had a PPV of 78% for demonstration of pCR after completion of NST in TNBC. However, a substantial proportion of patients with mPR or SD/PD also achieved a pCR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02032277.

Identifying tests related to breast cancer care in claims data.

To develop a method for calculating rates of testing for breast cancer recurrence in patients who have already undergone initial treatment for breast cancer, we calculated rates in a cohort of Medicare breast cancer patients and an age-matched noncancer cohort. We first used only tests with claims including diagnosis codes indicating invasive breast cancer and then used all tests regardless of diagnosis code. For each method, we calculated testing rates in the breast cancer cohort above the background rate in the noncancer population. The two methods provided similar estimates of testing prevalence and frequency, with exception of prevalence of CT.

Geographic Variation in Postoperative Imaging for Low-Risk Breast Cancer.

Background: The objective of this study was to examine the presence and magnitude of US geographic variation in use rates of both recommended and high-cost imaging in young patients with early-stage breast cancer during the 18 month period after surgical treatment of their primary tumor. Methods: Using the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Database, a descriptive analysis was conducted of geographic variation in annual rates of dedicated breast imaging and high-cost body imaging of 36,045 women aged 18 to 64 years treated with surgery for invasive unilateral breast cancer between 2010 and 2012. Multivariate hierarchical analysis examined the relationship between likelihood of imaging and patient characteristics, with metropolitan statistical area (MSA) serving as a random effect. Patient characteristics included age group, BRCA1/2 carrier status, family history of breast cancer, combination of breast surgery type and radiation therapy, drug therapy, and payer type. All MSAs in the United States were included, with areas outside MSAs within a given state aggregated into a single area for analytic purposes. Results: Descriptive analysis of rates of imaging use and intensity within MSA regions revealed wide geographic variation, irrespective of treatment cohort or age group. Increased probability of recommended postoperative dedicated breast imaging was primarily associated with age and treatment including both surgery and radiation therapy, followed by MSA region (odds ratio, 1.42). Increased probability of PET use-a high-cost imaging modality for which postoperative routine use is not recommended in the absence of specific clinical findings-was primarily associated with surgery type followed by MSA region (odds ratio, 1.82). Conclusions: In patients with breast cancer treated for low-risk disease, geography has effects on the rates of posttreatment imaging, suggesting that some patients are not receiving beneficial dedicated breast imaging, and high-cost nonbreast imaging may not be targeted to those groups most likely to benefit.

Feasibility Assessment of Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Multicenter Cancer Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: In cancer clinical trials, symptomatic adverse events (AEs), such as nausea, are reported by investigators rather than by patients. There is increasing interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is unclear whether it is feasible to implement this approach in multicenter trials. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patients are willing and able to report their symptomatic AEs in multicenter trials. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 361 consecutive patients enrolled in any 1 of 9 US multicenter cancer treatment trials were invited to self-report 13 common symptomatic AEs using a PRO adaptation of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visits. Patient adherence was tracked with reasons for missed self-reports. Agreement with clinician AE reports was analyzed with weighted κ statistics. Patient and investigator perspectives were elicited by survey. The study was conducted from March 15, 2007, to August 11, 2011. Data analysis was performed from August 9, 2013, to March 21, 2014. RESULTS: Of the 361 patients invited to participate, 285 individuals enrolled, with a median age of 57 years (range, 24-88), 202 (74.3%) female, 241 (85.5%) white, 73 (26.8%) with a high school education or less, and 176 (64.7%) who reported regular internet use (denominators varied owing to missing data). Across all patients and trials, there were 1280 visits during which patients had an opportunity to self-report (ie, patients were alive and enrolled in a treatment trial at the time of the visit). Self-reports were completed at 1202 visits (93.9% overall adherence). Adherence was highest at baseline and declined over time (visit 1, 100%; visit 2, 96%; visit 3, 95%; visit 4, 91%; and visit 5, 85%). Reasons for missing PROs included institutional errors in 27 of 48 (56.3%) of the cases (eg, staff forgetting to bring computers to patients at visits), patients feeling "too ill" in 8 (16.7%), patient refusal in 8 (16.7%), and internet connectivity problems in 5 (10.4%). Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms (most κ < 0.05), with investigators reporting fewer AEs than patients across symptoms. Most patients believed that the system was easy to use (234 [93.2%]) and useful (230 [93.1%]), and investigators thought that the patient-reported AEs were useful (133 [94.3%]) and accurate (119 [83.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participants in multicenter cancer trials are willing and able to report their own symptomatic AEs at most clinic visits and report more AEs than investigators. This approach may improve the precision of AE reporting in cancer trials.

TBCRC009: A Multicenter Phase II Clinical Trial of Platinum Monotherapy With Biomarker Assessment in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: The identification of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) who are expected to benefit from platinum-based chemotherapy is of interest. We conducted a single-arm phase II clinical trial of single-agent platinum for mTNBC with biomarker correlates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mTNBC received first- or second-line cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) or carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve 6) by physician's choice once every 3 weeks. Coprimary end points were objective response rate (RR) and response prediction by p63/p73 gene expression. Secondary and exploratory end points included toxicity assessment, RR in cisplatin versus carboplatin, and RR in molecularly defined subgroups, including BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. RESULTS: Patients (N = 86; 69 as first-line therapy) received cisplatin (n = 43) or carboplatin (n = 43). RR was 25.6% (95% CI, 16.8% to 36%) and was numerically higher with cisplatin (32.6%) than with carboplatin (18.7%). RR was 54.5% in patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations (n = 11). In patients without BRCA1/2 mutations (n = 66), exploratory analyses showed that a BRCA-like genomic instability signature (n = 32) discriminated responding and nonresponding tumors (mean homologous recombination deficiency-loss of heterozygosity/homologous recombination deficiency-large-scale state transitions [HRD-LOH/HRD-LST] scores were 12.68 and 5.11, respectively), whereas predefined analysis by p63/p73 expression status (n = 61), p53 and PIK3CA mutation status (n = 53), or PAM50 gene expression subtype (n = 55) did not. Five of the six long-term responders alive at a median of 4.5 years lacked germline BRCA1/2 mutations, and two of them had increased tumor HRD-LOH/HRD-LST scores. CONCLUSION: Platinum agents are active in mTNBC, especially in patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations. A measure of tumor DNA repair function may identify patients without mutations who could benefit from platinum therapy agents. Prospective controlled confirmatory trials are warranted.

Time to adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions.

BACKGROUND: High-quality care must be not only appropriate but also timely. We assessed time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer as well as factors associated with delay to help identify targets for future efforts to reduce unnecessary delays. METHODS: Using data from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Outcomes Database, we assessed the time from pathological diagnosis to initiation of chemotherapy (TTC) among 6622 women with stage I to stage III breast cancer diagnosed from 2003 through 2009 and treated with adjuvant chemotherapy in nine NCCN centers. Multivariable models were constructed to examine factors associated with TTC. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Mean TTC was 12.0 weeks overall and increased over the study period. A number of factors were associated with a longer TTC. The largest effects were associated with therapeutic factors, including immediate postmastectomy reconstruction (2.7 weeks; P < .001), re-excision (2.1 weeks; P < .001), and use of the 21-gene reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction assay (2.2 weeks; P < .001). In comparison with white women, a longer TTC was observed among black (1.5 weeks; P < .001) and Hispanic (0.8 weeks; P < .001) women. For black women, the observed disparity was greater among women who transferred their care to the NCCN center after diagnosis (P (interaction) = .008) and among women with Medicare vs commercial insurance (P (interaction) < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Most observed variation in TTC was related to use of appropriate therapeutic interventions. This suggests the importance of targeted efforts to minimize potentially preventable causes of delay, including inefficient transfers in care or prolonged appointment wait times.

Cost comparison of capecitabine in patients with breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Capecitabine may have a higher acquisition cost compared with other select chemotherapy agents; however, its use is not associated with many of the costs typically encountered with intravenous chemotherapy, such as costs incurred through administration procedures and the management of subsequent tolerability issues. This study compared the cost of capecitabine- and taxane-based regimens in the treatment of breast cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Thomson Reuters MarketScan, a US employer claims database, was used to identify patients with a breast cancer diagnosis between 2000 and 2005 and at least one chemotherapy claim or hormone treatment in 2004 or 2005. METHODS: Cost data for treatment administration and management of selected chemotherapy-related adverse events were collected. Multivariate analyses were performed to adjust for differences in patient demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: A total of 3630 patients were included in this analysis; 4216 treatment episodes were recorded. Mean unadjusted total monthly expenditures were lowest for capecitabine regimens compared with taxane plus anthracycline or other taxane regimens ($8445 vs. $13,295 and $12,323, respectively; P < 0.0001). The adjusted total monthly cost for capecitabine regimens was lower than the cost for taxane plus anthracycline regimen ($10,895 vs. $13,115) and other taxane regimens ($9253 vs. $12,116). Adjusted complication costs for taxane treatment episodes were almost double than those seen with capecitabine ($5509 for anthracycline plus taxane vs. $2940, and $3829 for other taxane regimens vs. $1750). CONCLUSIONS: Lower complication-related expenditures with capecitabine therapy accounted for majority of the cost differential seen in comparison with taxane-based therapy.