Cancer diagnosis and treatment in working-age adults: Implications for employment, health insurance coverage, and financial hardship in the United States.

The rising costs of cancer care and subsequent medical financial hardship for cancer survivors and families are well documented in the United States. Less attention has been paid to employment disruptions and loss of household income after a cancer diagnosis and during treatment, potentially resulting in lasting financial hardship, particularly for working-age adults not yet age-eligible for Medicare coverage and their families. In this article, the authors use a composite patient case to illustrate the adverse consequences of cancer diagnosis and treatment for employment, health insurance coverage, household income, and other aspects of financial hardship. They summarize existing research and provide nationally representative estimates of multiple aspects of financial hardship and health insurance coverage, benefit design, and employee benefits, such as paid sick leave, among working-age adults with a history of cancer and compare them with estimates among working-age adults without a history of cancer from the most recently available years of the National Health Interview Survey (2019-2021). Then, the authors identify opportunities for addressing employment and health insurance coverage challenges at multiple levels, including federal, state, and local policies; employers; cancer care delivery organizations; and nonprofit organizations. These efforts, when informed by research to identify best practices, can potentially help mitigate the financial hardship associated with cancer.

Time to add screening for financial hardship as a quality measure?

Cancer treatment is associated with financial hardship for many patients and families. Screening for financial hardship and referrals to appropriate resources for mitigation are not currently part of most clinical practices. In fact, discussions regarding the cost of treatment occur infrequently in clinical practice. As the cost of cancer treatment continues to rise, the need to mitigate adverse consequences of financial hardship grows more urgent. The introduction of quality measurement and reporting has been successful in establishing standards of care, reducing disparities in receipt of care, and improving other aspects of cancer care outcomes within and across providers. The authors propose the development and adoption of financial hardship screening and management as an additional quality metric for oncology practices. They suggest relevant stakeholders, conveners, and approaches for developing, testing, and implementing a screening and management tool and advocate for endorsement by organizations such as the National Quality Forum and professional societies for oncology care clinicians. The confluence of increasingly high-cost care and widening disparities in ability to pay because of underinsurance and lack of health insurance coverage makes a strong argument to take steps to mitigate the financial consequences of cancer.

The Affordable Care Act and access to care across the cancer control continuum: A review at 10 years.

Lack of health insurance coverage is strongly associated with poor cancer outcomes in the United States. The uninsured are less likely to have access to timely and effective cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life care than their counterparts with health insurance coverage. On March 23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law, representing the largest change to health care delivery in the United States since the introduction of the Medicare and Medicaid programs in 1965. The primary goals of the ACA are to improve health insurance coverage, the quality of care, and patient outcomes, and to maintain or lower costs by catalyzing changes in the health care delivery system. In this review, we describe the main components of the ACA, including health insurance expansions, coverage reforms, and delivery system reforms, provisions within these components, and their relevance to cancer screening and early detection, care, and outcomes. We then highlight selected, well-designed studies examining the effects of the ACA provisions on coverage, access to cancer care, and disparities throughout the cancer control continuum. Finally, we identify research gaps to inform evaluation of current and emerging health policies related to cancer outcomes.

Minimizing the burden of cancer in the United States: Goals for a high-performing health care system.

Between 1991 and 2015, the cancer mortality rate declined dramatically in the United States, reflecting improvements in cancer prevention, screening, treatment, and survivorship care. However, cancer outcomes in the United States vary substantially between populations defined by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, health insurance coverage, and geographic area of residence. Many potentially preventable cancer deaths occur in individuals who did not receive effective cancer prevention, screening, treatment, or survivorship care. At the same time, cancer care spending is large and growing, straining national, state, health insurance plans, and family budgets. Indeed, one of the most pressing issues in American medicine is how to ensure that all populations, in every community, derive the benefit from scientific research that has already been completed. Addressing these questions from the perspective of health care delivery is necessary to accelerate the decline in cancer mortality that began in the early 1990s. This article, part of the Cancer Control Blueprint series, describes challenges with the provision of care across the cancer control continuum in the United States. It also identifies goals for a high-performing health system that could reduce disparities and the burden of cancer by promoting the adoption of healthy lifestyles; access to a regular source of primary care; timely access to evidence-based care; patient-centeredness, including effective patient-provider communication; enhanced coordination and communication between providers, including primary care and specialty care providers; and affordability for patients, payers, and society.

The financial burden and distress of patients with cancer: Understanding and stepping-up action on the financial toxicity of cancer treatment.

"Financial toxicity" has now become a familiar term used in the discussion of cancer drugs, and it is gaining traction in the literature given the high price of newer classes of therapies. However, as a phenomenon in the contemporary treatment and care of people with cancer, financial toxicity is not fully understood, with the discussion on mitigation mainly geared toward interventions at the health system level. Although important, health policy prescriptions take time before their intended results manifest, if they are implemented at all. They require corresponding strategies at the individual patient level. In this review, the authors discuss the nature of financial toxicity, defined as the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress of patients with cancer, as a result of treatments using innovative drugs and concomitant health services. They discuss coping with financial toxicity by patients and how maladaptive coping leads to poor health and nonhealth outcomes. They cover management strategies for oncologists, including having the difficult and urgent conversation about the cost and value of cancer treatment, availability of and access to resources, and assessment of financial toxicity as part of supportive care in the provision of comprehensive cancer care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:153-165. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

A blueprint for the primary prevention of cancer: Targeting established, modifiable risk factors.

In the United States, it is estimated that more than 1.7 million people will be diagnosed with cancer, and more than 600,000 will die of the disease in 2018. The financial costs associated with cancer risk factors and cancer care are enormous. To substantially reduce both the number of individuals diagnosed with and dying from cancer and the costs associated with cancer each year in the United States, government and industry and the public health, medical, and scientific communities must work together to develop, invest in, and implement comprehensive cancer control goals and strategies at the national level and expand ongoing initiatives at the state and local levels. This report is the second in a series of articles in this journal that, together, describe trends in cancer rates and the scientific evidence on cancer prevention, early detection, treatment, and survivorship to inform the identification of priorities for a comprehensive cancer control plan. Herein, we focus on existing evidence about established, modifiable risk factors for cancer, including prevalence estimates and the cancer burden due to each risk factor in the United States, and established primary prevention recommendations and interventions to reduce exposure to each risk factor.

It's diagnostics, stupid.

To stem the spiraling cost of cancer treatment, a concerted effort is urgently needed to develop molecular diagnostics to better identify the patients that respond to expensive targeted therapies. Opportunities and obstacles in the development of such drug response biomarkers are discussed here.

Clinical benefit, reimbursement outcomes, and prices of FDA-approved cancer drugs reviewed through Project Orbis in the USA, Canada, England, and Scotland: a retrospective, comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Project Orbis is a global initiative that aims to streamline regulatory review processes across international regulators in the USA, Canada, Australia, UK, Israel, Brazil, Singapore, and Switzerland to bring promising cancer drugs to patients earlier. We explored the clinical benefit, time to regulatory approval and health technology assessment recommendations, reimbursement outcomes, and monthly treatment prices of cancer drugs reviewed through this initiative. METHODS: For this retrospective, comparative analysis, we identified cancer drug approvals reviewed through Project Orbis in the USA, Canada, and the UK between May 1, 2019, and Nov 1, 2023. Approvals of cancer drugs reviewed Project Orbis were extracted from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Oncology Centre of Excellence and all other FDA approvals from the Drugs@FDA database. The co-primary outcomes were time of regulatory review, time from regulatory approval to health technology assessment recommendation (England, Scotland, and Canada), reimbursement outcomes, clinical benefit (defined as median gains in progression-free survival and overall survival) between cancer drug approvals reviewed by Project Orbis and other FDA approval processes, and monthly treatment prices. The Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's Exact tests were used to examine statistical significance between approvals reviewed through Project Orbis and other FDA approvals during the same period. FINDINGS: Between May 1, 2019 and Nov 1, 2023, 81 (33%) of 244 cancer drugs approved by the FDA were reviewed through Project Orbis. The median overall survival gains were 4·1 months (IQR 3·3-5·1) compared with 2·7 months (2·1-3·9) for other FDA approvals. Similarly, progression-free survival gains were 2·6 months (IQR 1·7-4·9) for Project Orbis compared with 2·6 months (0·6-5·1) for other FDA approvals. Neither overall survival (p=0·11) nor progression-free survival (p=0·44) gains were significantly different between the two cohorts of approvals. Of the 14 UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approvals reviewed by the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), the agency gave positive recommendations for all 14 (100%). Of the 15 MHRA approvals reviewed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the agency gave positive recommendations for six (40%). Of the 49 approvals reviewed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), the agency conditionally recommended 44 (90%). The time between regulatory approval to NICE recommendation increased from a median of 137 days (IQR 102-172) in 2021 to 302 days (184-483) in 2023, SMC recommendation increased from 185 days (in 2021 for one drug only) to 368 days (IQR 313-476) in 2023, and CADTH decision increased from 97 days (in 2020 for one drug only) to 202 days (IQR 153-304) in 2023. The median monthly price of approvals reviewed through Project Orbis was US$20 000 per month (IQR 13 000-37 000). INTERPRETATION: Clinical outcomes of Project Orbis were no different than other FDA approvals during the same time, and access, after a successful health technology assessment, was considerably delayed or absent, raising questions about whether Project Orbis participation translates into faster patient access to medicines with high clinical benefit and sustainable costs. Although future challenges might benefit from regulatory harmonisation, the advantages are currently unclear. FUNDING: None.

Revolutionizing cancer treatment in India: Evaluating the unmet need, economics, and a roadmap for project implementation of particle therapy.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to quantitatively assess eligible patients and project the demand for particle therapy facilities in India from 2020 to 2040. In addition, an economic analysis evaluates the financial feasibility of implementing this technology. The study also examines the prospective benefits and challenges of adopting this technology in India. METHODOLOGY: Cancer incidence and projected trends were analyzed for pediatric patients using the Global Childhood Cancer microsimulation model and adult patients using the Globocan data. Economic cost evaluation is performed for large-scale combined particle (carbon and proton-three room fixed-beam), large-scale proton (one gantry and two fixed-beam), and small-scale proton (one gantry) facility. RESULTS: By 2040, the estimated number of eligible patients for particle therapy is projected to reach 161,000, including approximately 14,000 pediatric cases. The demand for particle therapy facilities is projected to rise from 81 to 97 in 2020 to 121 to 146 by 2040. The capital expenditure is estimated to be only 3.7 times that of a standard photon linear accelerator over a 30-year period. Notably, the treatment cost can be reduced to USD 400 to 800 per fraction, substantially lower than that in high-income countries (USD 1000 to 3000 per fraction). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that, in the Indian scenario, all particle therapy models are cost-beneficial and feasible, with large-scale proton therapy being the most suitable. Despite challenges such as limited resources, space, a skilled workforce, referral systems, and patient affordability, it offers substantial benefits. These include the potential to treat many patients and convenient construction and operational costs. An iterative phased implementation strategy can effectively overcome these challenges, paving the way for the successful adoption of particle therapy in India. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: In India, the number of eligible patients benefiting from high-precision particle therapy technology is projected to rise till 2040. Despite high upfront costs, our study finds the long-term feasibility of all particle therapy models, potentially offering a substantial reduction in treatment cost compared to high-income countries. Despite challenges, India can succeed with an iterative phased approach.

Health-related social needs, medical financial hardship, and mortality risk among cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors may face challenges affording food, housing, and other living necessities, which are known as health-related social needs (HRSNs). However, little is known about the associations of HRSNs and mortality risk among adult cancer survivors. METHODS: Adult cancer survivors were identified from the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and linked with the NHIS Mortality File with vital status through December 31, 2019. HRSNs, measured by food insecurity, and nonmedical financial worries (e.g., housing costs), was categorized as severe, moderate, and minor/none. Medical financial hardship, including material, psychological, and behavioral domains, was categorized as 2-3, 1, or 0 domains. Using age as the time scale, the associations of HRSNs and medical financial hardship and mortality risk were assessed with weighted adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among cancer survivors 18-64 years old (n = 5855), 25.5% and 18.3% reported moderate and severe levels of HRSNs, respectively; among survivors 65-79 years old (n = 5918), 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate and severe levels of HRSNs, respectively. Among cancer survivors 18-64 years old, severe HRSNs was associated with increased mortality risk (hazards ratio [HR], 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-2.93, p < .001; reference = minor/none) in adjusted analyses. Among cancer survivors 65-79 years old, 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship was associated with increased mortality risk (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.13-2.20, p = .007; reference = 0 domain). CONCLUSIONS: HSRNs and financial hardship are associated with increased mortality risk among cancer survivors; comprehensive assessment of HRSN and financial hardship connecting patients with relevant services can inform efforts to mitigate adverse consequences of cancer.

Association of Hospital Market Competition with Outcomes of Complex Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The association of hospital market competition, financial costs, and quality of oncologic care has not been well-defined. This study sought to evaluate variations in patient outcomes and financial expenditures after complex cancer surgery across high- and low-competition markets. METHODS: Medicare 100% Standard Analytic Files were used to identify patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary, or colorectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2018 and 2021. Data were merged with the annual hospital survey database, and the hospital market Herfindahl-Hirschman index was used to categorize hospitals into low- and high-concentration markets. Multi-level, multivariable regression models adjusting for patient characteristics (i.e., age, sex, comorbidities, and social vulnerability), year of procedure, and hospital factors (i.e., case volume, nurse-bed ratio, and teaching status) were used to assess the association between hospital market competition and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 117,641 beneficiaries who underwent complex oncologic surgery, the mean age was 73.8 ± 6.1 years, and approximately one-half of the cohort was male (n = 56,243, 47.8%). Overall, 63.8% (n = 75,041) of the patients underwent care within a high-competition market. Notably, there was marked geographic variation relative to market competition. High versus low market-competition hospitals were more likely to be in high social vulnerability areas (35.1 vs 27.5%; p < 0.001), as well as care for racial/ethnic minority individuals (13.8 vs 7.7%; p < 0.001), and patients with more comorbidities (≥ 2 Elixhauser comorbidities: 63.1 vs 61.1%; p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, treatment at hospitals in high- versus low-competition markets was associated with lower odds of achieving a textbook outcome (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.99; p = 0.009). Patients at high-competition hospitals had greater mean index hospitalization costs ($19,462.2 [16211.9] vs $18,844.7 [14994.7]) and 90-day post-discharge costs ($7807.8 [15431.3] vs $7332.8 [14038.2]) (both p < 0.001) than individuals at low-competition hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital market competition was associated with poor achievement of an optimal postoperative outcome and greater hospitalization costs.

Payer-Negotiated Price Variation and Relationship to Surgical Outcomes for the Most Common Cancers at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: Federal rules mandate that hospitals publish payer-specific negotiated prices for all services. Little is known about variation in payer-negotiated prices for surgical oncology services or their relationship to clinical outcomes. We assessed variation in payer-negotiated prices associated with surgical care for common cancers at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and determined the effect of increasing payer-negotiated prices on the odds of morbidity and mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 63 NCI-designated cancer center websites was employed to assess variation in payer-negotiated prices. A retrospective cohort study of 15,013 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing surgery for colon, pancreas, or lung cancers at an NCI-designated cancer center between 2014 and 2018 was conducted to determine the relationship between payer-negotiated prices and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the effect of median payer-negotiated price on odds of a composite outcome of 30 days mortality and serious postoperative complications for each cancer cohort. RESULTS: Within-center prices differed by up to 48.8-fold, and between-center prices differed by up to 675-fold after accounting for geographic variation in costs of providing care. Among the 15,013 patients discharged from 20 different NCI-designated cancer centers, the effect of normalized median payer-negotiated price on the composite outcome was clinically negligible, but statistically significantly positive for colon [aOR 1.0094 (95% CI 1.0051-1.0138)], lung [aOR 1.0145 (1.0083-1.0206)], and pancreas [aOR 1.0080 (1.0040-1.0120)] cancer cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Payer-negotiated prices are statistically significantly but not clinically meaningfully related to morbidity and mortality for the surgical treatment of common cancers. Higher payer-negotiated prices are likely due to factors other than clinical quality.

Longitudinal economic burden of incident complications among metabolic syndrome populations.

BACKGROUND: This study quantifies the longitudinal economic burden for a wide spectrum of incident complications, metabolic syndrome (MS)-related risk factors, and comorbidities in patients with MS. METHODS: This retrospective study utilized linked data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey and the 2012-2021 National Health Insurance Research Database to identify MS individuals and their characteristics. The incidence rate of each complication was calculated as the number of complication events in the study period divided by the total person-years during follow-up. The healthcare costs of complications were analyzed using a generalized estimating equation model to determine the cost impact of complications after adjustment for patients' characteristics. Sensitivity analyses on variables with high missing rates (i.e., cause of death, body mass index) were performed. RESULTS: Among 837 identified MS individuals over 8.28 (± 1.35) years of follow-up, the most frequent complications were microvascular diseases (incidence rate for nephropathy/retinopathy/neuropathy: 6.49/2.64/2.08 events per 100 person-years), followed by cardiovascular diseases (2.47), peripheral vascular diseases (2.01), and cancers (1.53). Death was the costliest event (event-year cost per person: USD 16,429) and cancers were the most expensive complications (USD 9,127-11,083 for non-MS- and MS-related cancers). Developing non-MS/MS-related cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and obesity-related medical conditions increased annual costs by 273% (95% CI: 181-397%)/175% (105-269%), 159% (118-207%), and 140% (84-214%), respectively. Microvascular diseases had the lowest cost impact on annual costs (i.e., 27% [17-39%]/27% [11-46%]/24% [11-37%] increases for nephropathy/neuropathy/retinopathy, respectively). Having existing comorbidities increased annual costs by 20% (osteoarthritis) to 108% (depression). Having morbid obesity (i.e., body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m2) increased annual costs by 58% (30-91%). CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden from costly incident complications (i.e., cardiovascular diseases, peripheral vascular diseases, cancers), MS-related risk factors (i.e., morbid obesity), and comorbidities (i.e., depression) highlight the urgent need for early intervention to prevent MS and its progression. The comprehensive cost estimates reported in this study can facilitate the parameterization of economic analyses to identify cost-effective interventions for these patients.

Analysis of hospitalization expenses and influencing factors for elderly cancer patients in a tertiary hospital in Dalian, China: a five­year retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Because the proportion of elderly individuals and the incidence of cancer worldwide are continually increasing, medical costs for elderly inpatients with cancer are being significantly increasing, which puts tremendous financial pressure on their families and society. The current study described the actual direct medical costs of elderly inpatients with cancer and analyzed the influencing factors for the costs to provide advice on the prevention and control of the high medical costs of elderly patients with cancer. METHOD: A retrospective descriptive analysis was performed on the hospitalization expense data of 11,399 elderly inpatients with cancer at a tier-3 hospital in Dalian between June 2016 and June 2020. The differences between different groups were analyzed using univariate analysis, and the influencing factors of hospitalization expenses were explored by multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: The hospitalization cost of elderly cancer patients showed a decreasing trend from 2016 to 2020. Specifically, the top 3 hospitalization costs were material costs, drug costs and surgery costs, which accounted for greater than 10% of all cancers according to the classification: colorectal (23.96%), lung (21.74%), breast (12.34%) and stomach cancer (12.07%). Multiple linear regression analysis indicated that cancer type, surgery, year and length of stay (LOS) had a common impact on the four types of hospitalization costs (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: There were significant differences in the four types of hospitalization costs for elderly cancer patients according to the LOS, surgery, year and type of cancer. The study results suggest that the health administration department should enhance the supervision of hospital costs and elderly cancer patient treatment. Measures should be taken by relying on the hospital information system to strengthen the cost management of cancer diseases and departments, optimize the internal management system, shorten elderly cancer patients LOS, and reasonably control the costs of disease diagnosis, treatment and department operation to effectively reduce the economic burden of elderly cancer patients.

Health Care Lobbying and Oncology.

BACKGROUND: The health care industry spends more on lobbying than any other industry, with more than $700 million spent in 2022. However, health care lobbying related to cancer has not been characterized. In this study, we sought to describe overall health sector lobbying spending and oncology-related lobbying spending across patient and clinician organizations. METHODS: We obtained lobbying data from OpenSecrets.org and the Federal Election Commission. Overall health sector lobbying spending was categorized by OpenSecrets into 4 groups: pharmaceuticals/health products, health services/health maintenance organizations (HMOs), hospitals/nursing homes, and health professionals. We then identified and categorized 4 oncology-related lobbying groups: oncology physician professional organizations (OPPOs), prospective payment system (PPS)-exempt cancer hospitals, patient advocacy organizations, and provider networks (eg, US Oncology Network). We described temporal trends in lobbying spending from 2014 to 2022, in both overall dollar value (inflation-adjusted 2023 dollars) and in per-physician spending (using American Association of Medical Colleges [AAMC] data for number of hematologists/oncologists) using a Mann-Kendall trend test. RESULTS: Among the overall health sector lobbying, pharmaceuticals/health products had the greatest increase in lobbying spending, with an increase from $294 million in 2014 to >$376 million in 2022 (P=.0006). In contrast, lobbying spending by health professionals did not change, remaining at $96 million (P=.35). Regarding oncology-related lobbying, OPPOs and PPS-exempt cancer hospitals had a significant increase of 170% (P=.016) and 62% (P=.009), respectively. Per-physician spending also demonstrated an increase from $60 to $134 for OPPOs and from $168 to $226 for PPS-exempt cancer hospitals. Overall, OPPO lobbying increased as a percentage of overall physician lobbying from 1.16% in 2014 to 3.76% in 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall health sector lobbying has increased, physician/health professional lobbying has remained relatively stable in recent years, spending for lobbying by OPPOs has increased. Continued efforts to understand the utility and value of lobbying in health care and across oncology are needed as the costs of care continue to increase.

Breakthrough Therapy Cancer Drugs and Indications With FDA Approval: Development Time, Innovation, Trials, Clinical Benefit, Epidemiology, and Price.

BACKGROUND: The breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) facilitates the development of drugs with a large preliminary benefit in treating serious or life-threatening diseases. This study analyzes the FDA approval, trials, benefits, unmet needs, and pricing of breakthrough and nonbreakthrough therapy cancer drugs and indications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 355 cancer indications with FDA approval (2012-2022). Breakthrough and nonbreakthrough indications were compared regarding their FDA approval, innovativeness, clinical trials, epidemiology, and price. Data were extracted from FDA labels, the Global Burden of Disease study, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and relative risk (RR) of tumor response were meta-analyzed across randomized controlled trials. Objective response rates (ORRs) were meta-analyzed for single-arm trials. RESULTS: We identified 137 breakthrough and 218 nonbreakthrough cancer indications. The median clinical development time was 3.2 years shorter for breakthrough drugs than for nonbreakthrough drugs (5.6 vs 8.8 years; P=.002). The BTD was more frequently granted to biomarker-directed indications (46% vs 34%; P=.025) supported by smaller trials (median, 149 vs 326 patients; P<.001) of single-arm (53% vs 27%; P<.001) and phase I or II design (61% vs 31%; P<.001). Breakthrough indications offered a greater OS (HR, 0.69 vs 0.74; P=.031) and tumor response (RR, 1.48 vs 1.32; P=.006; ORR, 52% vs 40%; P=.004), but not a PFS benefit (HR, 0.53 vs 0.58; P=.212). Median improvements in OS (4.8 vs 3.2 months; P=.002) and PFS (5.4 vs 3.3 months; P=.005) but not duration of response (8.7 vs 4.7 months; P=.245) were higher for breakthrough than for nonbreakthrough indications. The BTD was more frequently granted to first-in-class drugs (42% vs 28%; P=.001) and first-in-indication treatments (43% vs 29%; P<.001). There were no differences in treatment and epidemiologic characteristics between breakthrough and nonbreakthrough drugs. Breakthrough drugs were more expensive than nonbreakthrough drugs (mean monthly price, $38,971 vs $22,591; P=.0592). CONCLUSIONS: The BTD expedites patient access to effective and innovative, but also expensive, new cancer drugs and indications.

Tackling Challenges in Assessing the Economic Value of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab as a Case Study.

OBJECTIVES: Assessing the value of tumor-agnostic drugs (TAD) is challenging given the potential variability in treatment effects, trials with small sample sizes, different standards of care (SoC), and lack of comparative data from single-arm basket trials. Our study developed and applied novel methods to assess the value of pembrolizumab compared with SoC to inform coverage decisions. METHODS: We developed a partitioned survival model to evaluate the cost-utility of pembrolizumab for previously treated patients with 8 advanced or metastatic microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient cancers from a US commercial payer perspective. Efficacy of pembrolizumab was based on data from trials directly or with adjustment using Bayesian hierarchical models. Eight chemotherapy-based external control arms were constructed from the TriNetX electronic health record databases. Tumor-specific health-state utility values were applied. All costs were adjusted to 2022 US dollars. RESULTS: At a lifetime horizon, pembrolizumab was associated with increased effectiveness compared with chemotherapies in colorectal (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]: +0.64, life years [LYs]: +0.64), endometrial (QALYs: +3.79, LYs: +5.47), and small intestine cancers (QALYs: +1.73, LYs: +2.48), but not for patients with metastatic gastric, cholangiocarcinoma, pancreatic, ovarian, and brain cancers. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios varied substantially across tumor types. Pembrolizumab was found to be cost-effective in treating colorectal and endometrial cancers (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios: $121 967 and $139 257, respectively), and not cost-effective for other assessed cancers at a $150 000 willingness-to-pay/QALY threshold, compared with SoC chemotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of TADs can vary by cancers. Using analytic tools such as external controls and Bayesian hierarchical models can tackle several challenges in assessing the value of TADs and uncertainties from basket trials.

Economic Evaluations of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapies for Hematologic and Solid Malignancies: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically review evidence on the cost-effectiveness of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies for patients with cancer. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched in October 2022 and updated in September 2023. Systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and economic evaluations that compared costs and effects of CAR-T therapy in patients with cancer were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, synthesized results, and critically appraised studies using the Philips checklist. Cost data were presented in 2022 US dollars. RESULTS: Our search yielded 1809 records, 47 of which were included. Most of included studies were cost-utility analysis, published between 2018 and 2023, and conducted in the United States. Tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, idecabtagene vicleucel, ciltacabtagene autoleucel, lisocabtagene maraleucel, brexucabtagene autoleucel, and relmacabtagene autoleucel were compared with various standard of care chemotherapies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CAR-T therapies ranged from $9424 to $4 124 105 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in adults and from $20 784 to $243 177 per QALY in pediatric patients. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were found to improve over longer time horizons or when an earlier cure point was assumed. Most studies failed to meet the Philips checklist due to a lack of head-to-head comparisons and uncertainty surrounding CAR-T costs and curative effects. CONCLUSIONS: CAR-T therapies were more expensive and generated more QALYs than comparators, but their cost-effectiveness was uncertain and dependent on patient population, cancer type, and model assumptions. This highlights the need for more nuanced economic evaluations and continued research to better understand the value of CAR-T therapies in diverse patient populations.