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.

A Prospective Observational Study for Assessment and Outcome Association of Circulating Endothelial Cells in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Who Show Initial Benefit from First-line Treatment. The CIRCLES (CIRCuLating Endothelial cellS) Study (SOGUG-CEC-2011-01).

BACKGROUND: Markers able to predict the response to antiangiogenics in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) are not available. The development of new treatment options like immunotherapy are reaching the clinic; therefore, predictors of benefit from these different available treatments are increasingly needed. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we prospectively assessed the association of circulating endothelial cells (CECs) in peripheral blood with long-term benefit from first-line treatment in ccRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective observational study was designed involving 13 institutions of the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group. Adult patients diagnosed with advanced ccRCC who had achieved response or disease stabilization after 3 mo on first-line therapy were eligible. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: CECs were isolated from peripheral blood, captured with ferrofluids coated with monoclonal antibodies directed against the CD146 antigen, and assessed centrally with an automated standardized system. CECs were defined as 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole+, CD105+, and CD45-. Blood samples were systematically taken every 6 wk for 15 mo or until tumor progression, whichever occurred first. Clinical data were externally monitored at all centers. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: From August 9, 2011, to January 17, 2013, 75 patients were enrolled in the study. Patients with baseline CECs above the median showed a significantly longer progression-free survival than those with low CECs (22.2 mo vs 12.2 mo) with a hazard ratio of 2.5 (95% confidence interval: 1.2-5.3, p=0.016). There was no difference between CEC levels at baseline and at tumor progression (medians of 50 CECs/4ml and 52 CECs/4ml, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Under antiangiogenic treatment, the detection of higher CEC levels is associated with clinical benefit in terms of progression-free survival in ccRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Antiangiogenics are the cornerstone of treatment in kidney cancer. Since they target endothelial rather than tumor cells, we studied the correlation between levels of circulating endothelial cells in peripheral blood and long-term benefit in patients on antiangiogenic therapy. Higher levels were associated with long-term benefit, suggesting that this determination could help to separate best responders from those who could require a more intensive approach.

Equity, barriers and cancer disparities: study of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology on the access to oncologic drugs in the Spanish Regions.

PURPOSE: The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) has conducted a study on the access to oncologic drugs across the 17 Spanish Regions with the aim of identifying potential heterogeneities and making proposals for eliminating the barriers identified at the different levels. METHODS: An Expert Panel made up of medical oncologists designed a survey on certain indications approved for 11 drugs in the approach of breast cancer, melanoma, lung cancer, prostate cancer and support treatment. This survey was sent to 144 National Health System (NHS) hospitals. RESULTS: 77 hospitals answered the survey. The information modules analysed were: scope of the Commission that establishes binding decisions related to drug access; conditions, stages and periods of drug application, approval and administration processes; barriers to accessing drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows variability in drug access. The SEOM makes proposals addressed to reducing the differences identified and homogenizing drug access conditions.