External validation and clinical utility assessment of PREDICT breast cancer prognostic model in young, systemic treatment-naïve women with node-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The validity of the PREDICT breast cancer prognostic model is unclear for young patients without adjuvant systemic treatment. This study aimed to validate PREDICT and assess its clinical utility in young women with node-negative breast cancer who did not receive systemic treatment. METHODS: We selected all women from the Netherlands Cancer Registry who were diagnosed with node-negative breast cancer under age 40 between 1989 and 2000, a period when adjuvant systemic treatment was not standard practice for women with node-negative disease. We evaluated the calibration and discrimination of PREDICT using the observed/expected (O/E) mortality ratio, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), respectively. Additionally, we compared the potential clinical utility of PREDICT for selectively administering chemotherapy to the chemotherapy-to-all strategy using decision curve analysis at predefined thresholds. RESULTS: A total of 2264 women with a median age at diagnosis of 36 years were included. Of them, 71.2% had estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors and 44.0% had grade 3 tumors. Median tumor size was 16 mm. PREDICT v2.2 underestimated 10-year all-cause mortality by 33% in all women (O/E ratio:1.33, 95%CI:1.22-1.43). Model discrimination was moderate overall (AUC10-year:0.65, 95%CI:0.62-0.68), and poor for women with ER-negative tumors (AUC10-year:0.56, 95%CI:0.51-0.62). Compared to the chemotherapy-to-all strategy, PREDICT only showed a slightly higher net benefit in women with ER-positive tumors, but not in women with ER-negative tumors. CONCLUSIONS: PREDICT yields unreliable predictions for young women with node-negative breast cancer. Further model updates are needed before PREDICT can be routinely used in this patient subset.

[Clinical efficiency research with expensive drugs: doing more with less investment]. / Doelmatigheidsonderzoek naar dure geneesmiddelen.

Novel innovative drugs have improved disease control, survival and quality of life for many patients. The costs of these drugs, however, are extremely high and threaten the long-term affordability of our health care system. Efficient use of existing drugs can decrease drug expenditure whilst improving patients' quality of life at the same time. Efficiency adjustments should not compromise treatment efficacy and therefore, clinical research on the matter is crucial. In this article, we demonstrate that efficiency research is feasible, as exemplified by the SONIA study. We make the case for a 'revolving fund' in which savings from one study are used to fund a next one. A revolving fund thus stimulates efficiency research and capitalizes research investments in the interest of both patients and society.

Pre-approval and post-approval availability of evidence and clinical benefit of conditionally approved cancer drugs in Europe: A comparison with standard approved cancer drugs.

AIMS: Cancer drugs are increasingly approved through expedited regulatory pathways including the European conditional marketing authorization (CMA). Whether, when taking CMA post-approval confirmatory trials into account, the level of evidence and clinical benefit between CMA and standard approved (SMA) drugs differs remains unknown. METHODS: We identified all CMA cancer indications converted to SMA in 2006-2020 and compared these to similar SMA indications with regard to pivotal trial and CMA post-approval confirmatory trial design, outcomes and demonstrated clinical benefit (per the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale). We tested for differences in clinical benefit and whether substantial clinical benefit was demonstrated. To account for the clinical benefit of unconverted CMA indications, we performed sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: We included 15 SMA and 15 converted CMA cancer indications (17 remained unconverted). Approval of 11 SMA (73%) and four CMA indications (27%) was supported by a controlled trial. Improved overall survival (OS) was demonstrated for four SMA indications (27%). Improved quality of life (QoL) was demonstrated for three SMA (20%) and one CMA indication(s) (7%). Of subsequent CMA post-approval confirmatory trials, 11 were controlled (79%), one demonstrated improved OS (7%) and five improved QoL (36%). After conversion, CMA indications were associated with similar clinical benefit (P = .31) and substantial clinical benefit as SMA indications (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 0.57-3.4). CONCLUSION: While CMA cancer indications are initially associated with less comprehensive evidence than SMA indications, levels of evidence and clinical benefit are similar after conversion from CMA to SMA.

Minimally Invasive Complete Response Assessment of the Breast After Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy for Early Breast Cancer (MICRA trial): Interim Analysis of a Multicenter Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The added value of surgery in breast cancer patients with pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) is uncertain. The accuracy of imaging identifying pCR for omission of surgery, however, is insufficient. We investigated the accuracy of ultrasound-guided biopsies identifying breast pCR (ypT0) after NST in patients with radiological partial (rPR) or complete response (rCR) on MRI. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, prospective single-arm study in three Dutch hospitals. Patients with T1-4(N0 or N +) breast cancer with MRI rPR and enhancement ≤ 2.0 cm or MRI rCR after NST were enrolled. Eight ultrasound-guided 14-G core biopsies were obtained in the operating room before surgery close to the marker placed centrally in the tumor area at diagnosis (no attempt was made to remove the marker), and compared with the surgical specimen of the breast. Primary outcome was the false-negative rate (FNR). RESULTS: Between April 2016 and June 2019, 202 patients fulfilled eligibility criteria. Pre-surgical biopsies were obtained in 167 patients, of whom 136 had rCR and 31 had rPR on MRI. Forty-three (26%) tumors were hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative, 64 (38%) were HER2-positive, and 60 (36%) were triple-negative. Eighty-nine patients had pCR (53%; 95% CI 45-61) and 78 had residual disease. Biopsies were false-negative in 29 (37%; 95% CI 27-49) of 78 patients. The multivariable associated with false-negative biopsies was rCR (FNR 47%; OR 9.81, 95% CI 1.72-55.89; p = 0.01); a trend was observed for HR-negative tumors (FNR 71% in HER2-positive and 55% in triple-negative tumors; OR 4.55, 95% CI 0.95-21.73; p = 0.058) and smaller pathological lesions (6 mm vs 15 mm; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87-1.00; p = 0.051). CONCLUSION: The MICRA trial showed that ultrasound-guided core biopsies are not accurate enough to identify breast pCR in patients with good response on MRI after NST. Therefore, breast surgery cannot safely be omitted relying on the results of core biopsies in these patients.

Applying Risk-Based Follow-Up Strategies on the Dutch Breast Cancer Population: Consequences for Care and Costs.

OBJECTIVES: An important aim of follow-up after primary breast cancer treatment is early detection of locoregional recurrences (LRR). This study compares 2 personalized follow-up scheme simulations based on LRR risk predictions provided by a time-dependent prognostic model for breast cancer LRR and quantifies their possible follow-up efficiency. METHODS: Surgically treated early patients with breast cancer between 2003 and 2008 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The INFLUENCE nomogram was used to estimate the 5-year annual LRR. Applying 2 thresholds, they were defined according to Youden's J-statistic and a predefined follow-up sensitivity of 95%, respectively. These patient's risk estimations served as the basis for scheduling follow-up visits; 2 personalized follow-up schemes were simulated. The number of potentially saved follow-up visits and corresponding cost savings for each follow-up scheme were compared with the current Dutch breast cancer guideline recommendation and the observed utilization of follow-up on a training and testing cohort. RESULTS: Using LRR risk-predictions for 30 379 Dutch patients with breast cancer from 2003 to 2006 (training cohort), 2 thresholds were calculated. The threshold according to Youden's approach yielded a follow-up sensitivity of 62.5% and a potential saving of 62.1% of follow-up visits and €24.8 million in 5 years. When the threshold corresponding to 95% follow-up sensitivity was used, 17% of follow-up visits and €7 million were saved compared with the guidelines. Similar results were obtained by applying these thresholds to the testing cohort of 11 462 patients from 2007 to 2008. Compared with the observed utilization of follow-up, the potential cost-savings decline moderately. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized follow-up schemes based on the INFLUENCE nomogram's individual risk estimations for breast cancer LRR could decrease the number of follow-up visits if one accepts a limited risk of delayed LRR detection.

Cost Effectiveness of Interval Cytoreductive Surgery With Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Stage III Ovarian Cancer on the Basis of a Randomized Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: In the randomized open-label phase III OVHIPEC trial, the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS) improved recurrence-free and overall survival in patients with stage III ovarian cancer. We studied the cost effectiveness of the addition of HIPEC to interval CRS in patients with ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We constructed a Markov health-state transition model to measure costs and clinical outcomes. Transition probabilities were derived from the OVHIPEC trial by fitting survival distributions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as euros per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), was calculated from a Dutch societal perspective, with a time horizon of 10 years. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the decision uncertainty. RESULTS: Total health care costs were €70,046 (95% credibility interval [CrI], €64,016 to €76,661) for interval CRS compared with €85,791 (95% CrI, €78,766 to €93,935) for interval CRS plus HIPEC. The mean QALY in the interval CRS group was 2.12 (95% CrI, 1.66 to 2.64 QALYs) and 2.68 (95% CrI, 2.11 to 3.28 QALYs) in the interval CRS plus HIPEC group. The ICER amounted to €28,299/QALY. In univariable sensitivity analysis, the utility of recurrence-free survival and the number of days in the hospital affected the calculated ICER most. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the trial data, treatment with interval CRS and HIPEC in patients with stage III ovarian cancer was accompanied by a substantial gain in QALYs. The ICER is below the willingness-to-pay threshold in the Netherlands, indicating interval CRS and HIPEC is cost effective for this patient population. These results lend additional support for reimbursing the costs of treating these patients with interval CRS and HIPEC in countries with comparable health care systems.

Global cancer control: responding to the growing burden, rising costs and inequalities in access.

The cancer burden is rising globally, exerting significant strain on populations and health systems at all income levels. In May 2017, world governments made a commitment to further invest in cancer control as a public health priority, passing the World Health Assembly Resolution 70.12 on cancer prevention and control within an integrated approach. In this manuscript, the 2016 European Society for Medical Oncology Leadership Generation Programme participants propose a strategic framework that is in line with the 2017 WHO Cancer Resolution and consistent with the principle of universal health coverage, which ensures access to optimal cancer care for all people because health is a basic human right. The time for action is now to reduce barriers and provide the highest possible quality cancer care to everyone regardless of circumstance, precondition or geographic location. The national actions and the policy recommendations in this paper set forth the vision of its authors for the future of global cancer control at the national level, where the WHO Cancer Resolution must be implemented if we are to reduce the cancer burden, avoid unnecessary suffering and save as many lives as possible.

Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of physical exercise during adjuvant chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: A home-based, low-intensity physical activity program (Onco-Move) and a supervised, moderate-to-high intensity, combined resistance and aerobic exercise program (OnTrack) have proven to be effective in maintaining physical fitness and reducing fatigue among breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. This study evaluated the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of Onco-Move and OnTrack. METHODS: A total of 230 patients were randomized to Onco-Move, OnTrack, or usual care (UC). Health outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), general and physical fatigue, and physical fitness measured at baseline, end of chemotherapy, and 6-month follow-up. Societal costs included professional and informal health care, work absenteeism, and unpaid productivity costs. Cost data were based on 3-monthly questionnaires, supplemented by medication data obtained from pharmacies. RESULTS: Onco-Move is not likely to be cost-effective due to the relatively high willingness-to-pay necessary to reach reasonable probabilities of cost-effectiveness (QALY, general and physical fatigue). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for OnTrack compared to UC were €26,916/QALY, €788/1-point decrease in general fatigue and €1402/1-point decrease in physical fatigue. The probability of OnTrack being cost-effective ranged from 31% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of €0-79% at a WTP of €80,000/QALY, 97% at a WTP of €15,000/1-point decrease in general fatigue, and 86% at a WTP of €24,000/1-point decrease in physical fatigue. Both interventions had a low probability of being cost-effective for physical fitness. The probability of cost-effectiveness for both interventions was greater among compliant participants. CONCLUSIONS: Onco-Move is not likely to be cost-effective. Depending on the decision-makers' willingness-to-pay, OnTrack could be considered cost-effective in comparison with UC. Trial registration Clinical trial registration number of the Netherlands Trial Register-NTR2159.

Design of the Physical exercise during Adjuvant Chemotherapy Effectiveness Study (PACES): a randomized controlled trial to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physical exercise in improving physical fitness and reducing fatigue.

BACKGROUND: Cancer chemotherapy is frequently associated with a decline in general physical condition, exercise tolerance, and muscle strength and with an increase in fatigue. While accumulating evidence suggests that physical activity and exercise interventions during chemotherapy treatment may contribute to maintaining cardiorespiratory fitness and strength, the results of studies conducted to date have not been consistent. Additional research is needed to determine the optimal intensity of exercise training programs in general and in particular the relative effectiveness of supervised, outpatient (hospital- or physical therapy practice-based) versus home-based programs. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, randomized trial will evaluate the effectiveness of a low to moderate intensity, home-based, self-management physical activity program, and a high intensity, structured, supervised exercise program, in maintaining or enhancing physical fitness (cardiorespiratory fitness and muscle strength), in minimizing fatigue and in enhancing the health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast or colon cancer (n = 360) are being recruited from twelve hospitals in the Netherlands, and randomly allocated to one of the two treatment groups or to a 'usual care' control group. Performance-based and self-reported outcomes are assessed at baseline, at the end of chemotherapy and at six month follow-up. DISCUSSION: This large, multicenter, randomized clinical trial will provide additional empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of physical exercise during adjuvant chemotherapy in enhancing physical fitness, minimizing fatigue, and maintaining or enhancing patients' quality of life. If demonstrated to be effective, exercise intervention programs will be a welcome addition to the standard program of care offered to patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR 2159).