[Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency screening for management of patients receiving a fluoropyrimidine: Results of two national practice surveys addressed to clinicians and biologists]. / Intérêts et limites de la recherche du déficit en dihydropyrimidine déshydrogénase dans le suivi des patients traités par fluoropyrimidines : résultats de deux enquêtes nationales de pratiques réalisées auprès des médecins et des biologistes.

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency is the main cause of early severe toxicities induced by fluoropyrimidines (FP). The French Group of Clinical Oncopharmacology (GPCO)-Unicancer and the French Pharmacogenetics Network (RNPGx) initiated two surveys, one addressed to oncologists, the other to biologists, in order to evaluate routine practices regarding DPD deficiency screening at national level, as well as compliance, motivations and obstacles for implementation of these tests. These anonymized online surveys were performed with the logistic assistance of the Francophone Federation of Digestive Oncology (FFCD) and the support of numerous medical and biological societies. The surveys were conducted in 2016-2017 before the creation of the French INCa/HAS expert panel, which contributed to the drafting of rules and recommendations for DPD deficiency screening published in December 2018. In all, 554 questionnaires from clinicians were analyzed (23% participation) and 35 from biologists. The main arguments raised by clinicians for justifying the limited practice of DPD deficiency screening were: the lack of recommendations from medical societies or Health Authorities, delays in obtaining results, and the lack of adequate reimbursement by the health insurance system. The goal of these surveys was to provide the French Health Authorities with an overview on nationwide DPD-deficiency screening practices and thus help to design recommendations for the standardization and improvement of the management and safety of cancer patients receiving FP-based chemotherapy.

Everolimus, lutetium-177 DOTATATE and sunitinib for advanced, unresectable or metastatic neuroendocrine tumours with disease progression: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a group of heterogeneous cancers that develop in cells in the diffuse neuroendocrine system. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness of three interventions [everolimus (Afinitor®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), lutetium-177 DOTATATE (177Lu-DOTATATE) (Lutathera®; Imaging Equipment Ltd, Radstock, UK) and sunitinib (Sutent®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA)] for treating unresectable or metastatic NETs with disease progression and establish the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched from inception to May 2016: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily, Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. REVIEW METHODS: We systematically reviewed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature on everolimus, 177Lu-DOTATATE and sunitinib for treating advanced, unresectable or metastatic progressive NETs. The following NET locations were considered separately: pancreas, gastrointestinal (GI) tract and lung, and GI tract (midgut only). We wrote a survival partition cohort-based economic evaluation in Microsoft Excel® 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) from the UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. This comprised three health states: (1) progression-free survival (PFS), (2) progressed disease and (3) death. RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RADIANT-3 [RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Third Trial; pancreatic NETs (pNETs): everolimus vs. best supportive care (BSC)], A6181111 (pNETs: sunitinib vs. BSC) and RADIANT-4 (RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Fourth Trial; GI and lung NETs: everolimus vs. BSC), met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness systematic review. The risk of bias was low. Although the NETTER-1 (Neuroendocrine Tumors Therapy) RCT, of 177Lu-DOTATATE plus 30 mg of octreotide (Sandostatin®, Novartis) compared with 60 mg of octreotide, was excluded from the review, we nonetheless present the results of this trial, as it informs our estimate of the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-DOTATATE. The pNETs trials consistently found that the interventions improved PFS and overall survival (OS) compared with BSC. Our indirect comparison found no significant difference in PFS between everolimus and sunitinib. Estimates of OS gain were confounded because of high rates of treatment switching. After adjustment, our indirect comparison suggested a lower, but non-significant, hazard of death for sunitinib compared with everolimus. In GI and lung NETs, everolimus significantly improved PFS compared with BSC and showed a non-significant trend towards improved OS compared with BSC. Adverse events were more commonly reported following treatment with targeted interventions than after treatment with BSC. In the base case for pNETs, assuming list prices, we estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for everolimus compared with BSC of £45,493 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and for sunitinib compared with BSC of £20,717 per QALY. These ICERs increased substantially without the adjustment for treatment switching. For GI and lung NETs, we estimated an ICER for everolimus compared with BSC of £44,557 per QALY. For GI (midgut) NETs, the ICERs were £199,233 per QALY for everolimus compared with BSC and £62,158 per QALY for a scenario analysis comparing 177Lu-DOTATATE with BSC. We judge that no treatment meets the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) end-of-life criteria, although we cannot rule out that sunitinib in the A6181111 trial does. LIMITATIONS: A RCT with included comparators was not identified for 177Lu-DOTATATE. The indirect treatment comparison that our economic analysis was based on was of a simple Bucher type, unadjusted for any differences in the baseline characteristics across the two trials. CONCLUSIONS: Given NICE's current stated range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY for the cost-effectiveness threshold, based on list prices, only sunitinib might be considered good value for money in England and Wales. FUTURE WORK: Further analysis of individual patient data from RADIANT-3 would allow assessment of the robustness of our findings. The data were not made available to us by the company sponsoring the trial. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041303. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

[Home anti-cancer therapy with a venous port].

Home anti-cancer chemotherapy and palliation in the terminal stage were performed for patients with advanced cancer of the digestive system, using a venous port implanted beneath the skin via the subclavian vein. Patients under 75 years of age (5 with esophageal, 61 gastric, 59 colorectal, 5 cholangio, 5 pancreatic, 1 hepatic and 1 ileal cancer) were treated. With two portable balloon pumps, continuous intravenous infusion of 5-FU (300 or 400 mg/body/day) combined low-dose injection of cisplatin (5 mg/body/day) was continued for 10 days, and repeated 3 times for 6 weeks. The response rate was 17.9% in 78 patients according to valuation of the tumor mass. In 119 patients also undergoing a tumor marker evaluation, an effect was seen in 26.1%. No severe side effects such as renal dysfunction or bone marrow suppression were seen, and no special infusion was needed. Therefore, such treatment can be continued for a long time. Use of a venous port should make easy the switchover to HPN and the amelioration of the symptoms of the terminal stage, such as pain, and helps patients cope with the worry. Therefore, the present technique is useful in a series of cancer treatments including surgery, chemotherapy and the amelioration of symptoms.