Three Versus Six Months of Adjuvant Doublet Chemotherapy for Patients With Colorectal Cancer: A Multi-Country Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Short Course Oncology Treatment (SCOT) trial demonstrated non-inferiority, less toxicity, and cost-effectiveness from a UK perspective of 3 versus 6 months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for patients with colorectal cancer. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of shorter treatment and the budget impact of implementing trial findings from the perspectives of all countries recruited to SCOT: Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual cost-utility analyses were performed from the perspective of each country. Resource, quality of life, and survival estimates from the SCOT trial (N = 6065) were used. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and subgroup analyses were undertaken. Using undiscounted costs from these cost-utility analyses, the impact on country-specific healthcare budgets of implementing the SCOT trial findings was calculated over a 5-year period. The currency used was US dollars (US$), and 2019 was the base year. One-way and scenario sensitivity analysis addressed uncertainty within the budget impact analysis. RESULTS: Three months of treatment were cost saving and cost-effective compared to 6 months from the perspective of all countries. The incremental net monetary benefit per patient ranged from US$8972 (Spain) to US$13,884 (Denmark). The healthcare budget impact over 5 years for the base-case scenario ranged from US$3.6 million (New Zealand) to US$61.4 million (UK) and totaled over US$150 million across all countries. CONCLUSION: This study has widened the transferability of results from the SCOT trial, showing that shorter treatment is cost-effective from a multi-country perspective. The vast savings from implementation could fully justify the investment in conducting the SCOT trial.

Development of a Multicriteria Decision Analysis Framework for Evaluating and Positioning Oncologic Treatments in Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: Several frameworks have been developed to define and quantify the value of oncologic therapies and to support decision making; however, they define treatment value mainly in terms of clinical benefit. As part of its mission to improve oncologic care, the ECO Foundation (Excellence and Quality in Oncology) directed this pilot study aimed at developing a reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA)-based framework for evaluating and positioning oncologic drugs in the clinical setting. METHODS: The framework was developed following Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision-Making methodology, and literature was reviewed to identify relevant criteria. The selected criteria were then presented to a group of experts composed of 9 clinical oncologists who assessed each criterion for inclusion in the framework and suggested modifications in their definition and/or response scale. The framework was tested in 2 case studies (abemaciclib for advanced or metastatic hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer and TAS-102 for metastatic colorectal cancer) to validate the proposed framework; this was followed by a discussion of the results. RESULTS: Eight of the 15 criteria presented to the experts were included in the framework: disease severity, unmet needs, comparative efficacy, comparative safety/tolerability, treatment intent, comparative treatment cost, comparative other medical costs, and quality of evidence. Framework validation in 2 drug cases resulted in similar value scores, although they were based on different contributing criteria and resulted in different clinical recommendations. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated a reflective MCDA framework for the assessment and positioning of oncologic therapies in Spain. Additional work is needed to create a manual for practical decision making in the clinical setting.

Factors Predicting Adherence to a Tailored-Dose Adjuvant Treatment on the Basis of Geriatric Assessment in Elderly People With Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Selecting elderly people with colorectal cancer (CRC) for adjuvant chemotherapy is challenging. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) can help by classifying them according to their frailty profile. The supposed benefit of chemotherapy is on the basis of the rate of treatment adherence. In this study we evaluated tolerance and adherence to tailored-dose adjuvant therapy on the basis of CGA in a cohort of older patients with high-risk stage II and stage III CRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective study in 193 consecutive patients aged 75 years or older. On the basis of CGA results, we classified patients as fit, medium fit, or unfit, administering standard therapy, adjusted treatment, and best supportive care, respectively. We recorded planned chemotherapy, toxicity, and completion of the treatment. A logistic multivariate analysis was carried out. RESULTS: Seventeen (15%) of the 141 candidates for chemotherapy (n = 86 fit and n = 55 medium fit) refused treatment; associated factors included polypharmacy (odds ratio [OR], 5.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-18.40) and rectal location (OR, 5.61; 94% CI, 1.45-21.49). Of the 105 (74%) patients receiving chemotherapy, 20 (27%) fit and 4 (13%) medium fit patients experienced Grade 3 to 4 toxicity (P = .11) without association to explanatory variables. Approximately 55% of patients treated with chemotherapy received at least 80% of the planned dose (55% fit and 58% medium fit patients; P = .7). Factors associated with completion of chemotherapy were the absence of toxicity (OR, 7.67; 95% CI, 2.41-24.43) and social support (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 0.08-1.04). CONCLUSION: CGA is useful for selecting elderly patients for adjuvant chemotherapy, adapting the dose to their frailty profile, and identifying adherence-related factors amenable to modification through CGA-based interventions.

Geriatric Assessment Predicts Survival and Competing Mortality in Elderly Patients with Early Colorectal Cancer: Can It Help in Adjuvant Therapy Decision-Making?

BACKGROUND: The challenge when selecting elderly patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) for adjuvant therapy is to estimate the likelihood that death from other causes will preclude cancer events from occurring. The aim of this paper is to evaluate whether comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) can predict survival and cancer-specific mortality in elderly CRC patients candidates for adjuvant therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred ninety-five consecutive patients aged ≥75 with high-risk stage II and stage III CRC were prospectively included from May 2008 to May 2015. All patients underwent CGA, which evaluated comorbidity, polypharmacy, functional status, geriatric syndromes, mood, cognition, and social support. According to CGA results, patients were classified into three groups-fit, medium-fit, and unfit-to receive standard therapy, adjusted treatment, and best supportive care, respectively. We recorded survival and cause of death and used the Fine-Gray regression model to analyze competing causes of death. RESULTS: Following CGA, 85 (43%) participants were classified as fit, 57 (29%) as medium-fit, and 53 (28%) as unfit. The univariate 5-year survival rates were 74%, 52%, and 27%. Sixty-one (31%) patients died due to cancer progression (53%), non-cancer-related cause (46%), and unknown reasons (1%); there were no toxicity-related deaths. Fit and medium-fit participants were more likely to die due to cancer progression, whereas patients classified as unfit were at significantly greater risk of non-cancer-related death. CONCLUSION: CGA showed efficacy in predicting survival and discriminating between causes of death in elderly patients with high-risk stage II and stage III resected CRC, with potential implications for shaping the decision-making process for adjuvant therapies. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Adjuvant therapy in elderly patients with colorectal cancer is controversial due to the high risk for competing events among these patients. In order to effectively select older patients for adjuvant therapy, we have to weigh the risk of cancer-related mortality and the potential survival benefits with treatment against the patient's life expectancy, irrespective of cancer. This prospective study focused on the prognostic value of geriatric assessment for survival using a competing-risk analysis approach, providing an important contribution on the treatment decision-making process and helping clinicians to identify elderly patients who might benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy among those who will not.

A Delphic consensus assessment: imaging and biomarkers in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor disease management.

The complexity of the clinical management of neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN) is exacerbated by limitations in imaging modalities and a paucity of clinically useful biomarkers. Limitations in currently available imaging modalities reflect difficulties in measuring an intrinsically indolent disease, resolution inadequacies and inter-/intra-facility device variability and that RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria are not optimal for NEN. Limitations of currently used biomarkers are that they are secretory biomarkers (chromogranin A, serotonin, neuron-specific enolase and pancreastatin); monoanalyte measurements; and lack sensitivity, specificity and predictive capacity. None of them meet the NIH metrics for clinical usage. A multinational, multidisciplinary Delphi consensus meeting of NEN experts (n = 33) assessed current imaging strategies and biomarkers in NEN management. Consensus (>75%) was achieved for 78% of the 142 questions. The panel concluded that morphological imaging has a diagnostic value. However, both imaging and current single-analyte biomarkers exhibit substantial limitations in measuring the disease status and predicting the therapeutic efficacy. RECIST remains suboptimal as a metric. A critical unmet need is the development of a clinico-biological tool to provide enhanced information regarding precise disease status and treatment response. The group considered that circulating RNA was better than current general NEN biomarkers and preliminary clinical data were considered promising. It was resolved that circulating multianalyte mRNA (NETest) had clinical utility in both diagnosis and monitoring disease status and therapeutic efficacy. Overall, it was concluded that a combination of tumor spatial and functional imaging with circulating transcripts (mRNA) would represent the future strategy for real-time monitoring of disease progress and therapeutic efficacy.

Cisplatin plus weekly CPT-11/docetaxel in advanced esophagogastric cancer: a phase I study with pharmacogenetic assessment of XPD, XRCC3 and UGT1A1 polymorphisms.

PURPOSE: A multicenter phase I trial to establish the recommended dose of CPT-11/docetaxel plus cisplatin in advanced esophagogastric cancer patients and to correlate the efficacy and toxicity with genetic polymorphisms in DNA repair genes (XPD and XRCC3) and the UGT1A1 gene. METHODS: Four dose levels with a fixed dose of cisplatin (60 mg/m(2)), day 1, and dose-escalation of CPT-11 (50-70 mg/m(2)) and docetaxel (25-30 mg/m(2)), days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks were planned. Polymorphisms of XPD (Asp312Asn and Lys751Gln), XRCC3 (Thr241Met) and UGT1A1*28 were examined in baseline peripheral blood. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were included at three different dose levels. Dose-limiting toxicities were febrile neutropenia and diarrhea; the recommended dose was established at CPT-11 60 mg/m(2) and docetaxel 25 mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 60 mg/m(2). Objective response was observed in 13 patients (50%). Median time to progression was 6.6 months, and median survival was 11.3 months. Median time to progression was 9.7 months for patients harboring the XRCC3 Met241Met genotype versus 8.4 months for patients with Thr241Met and 3.1 months for those with Thr241Thr (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: CPT-11/docetaxel plus cisplatin is active in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. XRCC3 Met241Thr polymorphisms could be a useful marker to predict prognosis in patients treated with a cisplatin-based chemotherapy. However, these results are required to be confirmed with a great number of patients.