Cancer Biomarkers in the era of precision oncology: Addressing the needs of patients and health systems.

Cancer Biomarkers are the key to unlocking the promise of precision oncology, selecting which patients will respond to a more personalised treatment while sparing non-responders the therapy-related toxicity. In this paper, we highlight the primacy of cancer biomarkers, but focus on their importance to patients and to health systems. We also highlight how cancer biomarkers represent value for money. We emphasise the need for cancer biomarkers infrastructure to be embedded into European health systems. We also highlight the need to deploy multiple biomarker testing to deliver the optimal benefit for patients and health systems and consider cancer biomarkers from the perspective of cost, value and regulation. Cancer biomarkers must also be situated in the context of the upcoming In Vitro Diagnostics Regulation, which may pose certain challenges (e.g. non-compliance of laboratory developed tests, leading to cancer biomarker shortages and increased costs) that need to be overcome. Cancer biomarkers must be embedded in the real world of oncology delivery and testing must be implemented across Europe, with the intended aim of narrowing, not widening the inequity gap for patients. Cancer patients must be placed firmly at the centre of a cancer biomarker informed precision oncology care agenda.

The genetics and screening of familial hypercholesterolaemia.

Familial Hypercholesterolaemia is an autosomal, dominant genetic disorder that leads to elevated blood cholesterol and a dramatically increased risk of atherosclerosis. It is perceived as a rare condition. However it affects 1 in 250 of the population globally, making it an important public health concern. In communities with founder effects, higher disease prevalences are observed.We discuss the genetic basis of familial hypercholesterolaemia, examining the distribution of variants known to be associated with the condition across the exons of the genes LDLR, ApoB, PCSK9 and LDLRAP1. We also discuss screening programmes for familial hypercholesterolaemia and their cost-effectiveness. Diagnosis typically occurs using one of the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DCLN), Simon Broome Register (SBR) or Make Early Diagnosis to Prevent Early Death (MEDPED) criteria, each of which requires a different set of patient data. New cases can be identified by screening the family members of an index case that has been identified as a result of referral to a lipid clinic in a process called cascade screening. Alternatively, universal screening may be used whereby a population is systematically screened.It is currently significantly more cost effective to identify familial hypercholesterolaemia cases through cascade screening than universal screening. However, the cost of sequencing patient DNA has fallen dramatically in recent years and if the rate of progress continues, this may change.

Delivering the precision oncology paradigm: reduced R&D costs and greater return on investment through a companion diagnostic informed precision oncology medicines approach.

BACKGROUND: Precision oncology medicines represent a paradigm shift compared to non-precision oncology medicines in cancer therapy, in some situations delivering more clinical benefit, and potentially lowering healthcare costs. We determined whether employing a companion diagnostic (CDx) approach during oncology medicines development delivers effective therapies that are within the cost constraints of current health systems. R&D costs of developing a medicine are subject to debate, with average estimates ranging from $765 million (m) to $4.6 billion (b). Our aim was to determine whether precision oncology medicines are cheaper to bring from R&D to market; a secondary goal was to determine whether precision oncology medicines have a greater return on investment (ROI). METHOD: Data on oncology medicines approved between 1997 and 2020 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were analysed from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings. Data were compiled from 10-K, 10-Q, and 20-F financial performance filings on medicines' development costs through their R&D lifetime. Clinical trial data were split into clinical trial phases 1-3 and probability of success (POS) of trials was calculated, along with preclinical costs. Cost-of-capital (CoC) approach was applied and, if appropriate, a tax rebate was subtracted from the total. RESULTS: Data on 42 precision and 29 non-precision oncology medicines from 56 companies listed by the National Cancer Institute which had complete data available were analysed. Estimated mean cost to deliver a new oncology medicine was $4.4b (95% CI, $3.6-5.2b). Costs to bring a precision oncology medicine to market were $1.1b less ($3.5b; 95% CI, $2.7-4.5b) compared to non-precision oncology medicines ($4.6b; 95% CI, $3.5-6.1b). The key driver of costs was POS of clinical trials, accounting for a difference of $591.3 m. Additional data analysis illustrated that there was a 27% increase in return on investment (ROI) of precision oncology medicines over non-precision oncology medicines. CONCLUSION: Our results provide an accurate estimate of the R&D spend required to bring an oncology medicine to market. Deployment of a CDx at the earliest stage substantially lowers the cost associated with oncology medicines development, potentially making them available to more patients, while staying within the cost constraints of cancer health systems.

Spend less to achieve more: Economic analysis of intermittent versus continuous cetuximab in KRAS wild-type patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, the COIN-B clinical trial demonstrated that intermittent cetuximab (IC) was a safe alternative to continuous cetuximab (CC), with less cytotoxic chemotherapy, in first-line treatment for KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Cetuximab has been available for this indication in England since 2015, but treatment breaks beyond 6 weeks were prohibited, despite real-world evidence that therapy de-escalation maintains equivalent disease control, but with superior Quality-of-Life (QoL). We performed health economic analyses of IC versus CC and used this evidence to help underpin policy change and guide clinical practice through reduction in unnecessary treatment for mCRC patients. METHODS: Employing cost-minimization analysis, we conducted partitioned survival modelling (PSM) and Markov Chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) simulation to determine costs and quality-adjusted-life-years for IC versus CC. RESULTS: IC reduced costs by £â€¯35,763 (PSM; p < 0.001) or £â€¯30,189 (MCMC) per patient annually, while preserving treatment efficacy and enhancing QoL. Extrapolating to all mCRC patients eligible for cetuximab therapy would have generated cost savings of ~£â€¯1.2 billion over this cohort's lifetime. These data helped underpin a request to NHS England to remove treatment break restrictions in first-line mCRC therapy, which has been adopted as an interim treatment option policy in colorectal cancer during the Covid-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight substantial cost savings achievable by treatment de-escalation, while also reinforcing the importance of therapy breaks to potentially increase tumour responsiveness and reduce treatment toxicity. Our study also highlights how health economic evidence can influence health policy, championing reduced treatment intensity approaches without compromising patient outcomes, which is of particular relevance when addressing the reduced capacity and treatment backlogs experienced during the pandemic.

Cost-effectiveness of precision diagnostic testing for precision medicine approaches against non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review.

Precision diagnostic testing (PDT) employs appropriate biomarkers to identify cancer patients that may optimally respond to precision medicine (PM) approaches, such as treatments with targeted agents and immuno-oncology drugs. To date, there are no published systematic appraisals evaluating the cost-effectiveness of PDT in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To address this gap, we conducted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses searches for the years 2009-2019. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards were employed to screen, assess and extract data. Employing base costs, life years gained or quality-adjusted life years, as well as willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for each country, net monetary benefit was calculated to determine cost-effectiveness of each intervention. Thirty-seven studies (50%) were included for analysis; a further 37 (50%) were excluded, having failed population-, intervention-, comparator-, outcomes- and study-design criteria. Within the 37 studies included, we defined 64 scenarios. Eleven scenarios compared PDT-guided PM with non-guided therapy [epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), n = 5; programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), n = 6]. Twenty-eight scenarios compared PDT-guided PM with chemotherapy alone (anaplastic lymphoma kinase, n = 3; EGFR, n = 17; PD-L1, n = 8). Twenty-five scenarios compared PDT-guided PM with chemotherapy alone, while varying the PDT approach. Thirty-four scenarios (53%) were cost-effective, 28 (44%) were not cost-effective, and two were marginal, dependent on their country's WTP threshold. When PDT-guided therapy was compared with a therapy-for-all patients approach, all scenarios (100%) proved cost-effective. Seven of 37 studies had been structured appropriately to assess PDT-PM cost-effectiveness. Within these seven studies, all evaluated scenarios were cost-effective. However, 81% of studies had been poorly designed. Our systematic analysis implies that more robust health economic evaluation could help identify additional approaches towards PDT cost-effectiveness, underpinning value-based care and enhanced outcomes for patients with NSCLC.

The economic burden of colorectal cancer across Europe: a population-based cost-of-illness study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer morbidity and mortality in Europe. We aimed to ascertain the economic burden of colorectal cancer across Europe using a population-based cost-of-illness approach. METHODS: In this population-based cost-of-illness study, we obtained 2015 activity and costing data for colorectal cancer in 33 European countries (EUR-33) from global and national sources. Country-specific aggregate data were acquired for health-care, mortality, morbidity, and informal care costs. We calculated primary, outpatient, emergency, and hospital care, and systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) costs, as well as the costs of premature death, temporary and permanent absence from work, and unpaid informal care due to colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer health-care costs per case were compared with colorectal cancer survival and colorectal cancer personnel, equipment, and resources across EUR-33 using univariable and multivariable regression. We also compared hospital care and SACT costs against 2009 data for the 27 EU countries. FINDINGS: The economic burden of colorectal cancer across Europe in 2015 was €19·1 billion. The total non-health-care cost of €11·6 billion (60·6% of total economic burden) consisted of loss of productivity due to disability (€6·3 billion [33·0%]), premature death (€3·0 billion [15·9%]), and opportunity costs for informal carers (€2·2 billion [11·6%]). The €7·5 billion (39·4% of total economic burden) of direct health-care costs consisted of hospital care (€3·3 billion [43·4%] of health-care costs), SACT (€1·9 billion [25·6%]), and outpatient care (€1·3 billion [17·7%]), primary care (€0·7 billion [9·3%]), and emergency care (€0·3 billion [3·9%]). The mean cost for managing a patient with colorectal cancer varied widely between countries (€259-36 295). Hospital-care costs as a proportion of health-care costs varied considerably (24·1-84·8%), with a decrease of 21·2% from 2009 to 2015 in the EU. Overall, hospital care was the largest proportion (43·4%) of health-care expenditure, but pharmaceutical expenditure was far higher than hospital-care expenditure in some countries. Countries with similar gross domestic product per capita had widely varying health-care costs. In the EU, overall expenditure on pharmaceuticals increased by 213·7% from 2009 to 2015. INTERPRETATION: Although the data analysed include non-homogenous sources from some countries and should be interpreted with caution, this study is the most comprehensive analysis to date of the economic burden of colorectal cancer in Europe. Overall spend on health care in some countries did not seem to correspond with patient outcomes. Spending on improving outcomes must be appropriately matched to the challenges in each country, to ensure tangible benefits. Our results have major implications for guiding policy and improving outcomes for this common malignancy. FUNDING: Department for Employment and Learning of Northern Ireland, Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Health Data Research UK, and DATA-CAN.

Molecular biomarkers and precision medicine in colorectal cancer: a systematic review of health economic analyses.

An increased understanding of the biology of colorectal cancer (CRC) has fuelled identification of biomarkers with potential to drive a stratified precision medicine care approach in this common malignancy. We conducted a systematic review of health economic assessments of molecular biomarkers (MBMs) and their employment in patient stratification in CRC. Our analysis revealed scenarios where health economic analyses have been applied to evaluate the cost effectiveness of MBM-guided clinical interventions: (i) evaluation of Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene (DPYD) status to identify patients susceptible to 5-Fluouracil toxicity; (ii) determination of Uridine 5'-diphospho- glucuronosyltransferase family 1 member A1 gene (UGT1A1) polymorphism status to help guide irinotecan treatment; (iii) assessment of RAS/RAF mutational status to stratify patients for chemotherapy or Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) therapy and (iv) multigene expression analysis (Oncotype Dx) to identify and spare non-responders the debilitating effects of particular chemotherapy interventions. Our findings indicate that Oncotype Dx is cost-effective in high income settings within specific price points, by limiting treatment toxicity in CRC patients. DPYD status testing may also be cost effective in certain settings to avoid specific 5-FU toxicities post treatment. In contrast, current research does not support UGT1A1 polymorphism status as a cost-effective guide to irinotecan dosing, while the health economic evidence to support testing of KRAS/NRAS mutational status and chemo/EGFR therapy choice was inconclusive, despite its widespread adoption in CRC treatment management. However, we also show that there is a paucity of high-quality cost-effectiveness studies to support clinical application of precision medicine approaches in CRC.

Shooting for the Moon or Flying Too Near the Sun? Crossing the Value Rubicon in Precision Cancer Care.

In his last two State of the Union addresses, President Barack Obama has focused on the need to deliver innovative solutions to improve human health, through the Precision Medicine Initiative in 2015 and the recently announced Cancer Moonshot in 2016. Precision cancer care has delivered clear patient benefit, but even for high-impact medicines such as imatinib mesylate (Glivec) in chronic myeloid leukaemia, the excitement at the success of this practice-changing clinical intervention has been somewhat tempered by the escalating price of this 'poster child' for precision cancer medicine (PCM). Recent studies on the costs of cancer drugs have revealed significant price differentials, which are a major causative factor behind disparities in the access to new generations of immunological and molecularly targeted agents. In this perspective, we will discuss the benefits of PCM to modern cancer control, but also emphasise how increasing costs are rendering the current approaches to integrating the paradigm of PCM unsustainable. Despite the ever increasing pressure on cancer and health care budgets, innovation will and must continue. Value-based frameworks offer one of the most rational approaches for policymakers committed to improving cancer outcomes through a public health approach.