A model for an undergraduate research experience program in quantitative sciences.

We developed a summer research experience program within a freestanding comprehensive cancer center to cultivate undergraduate students with an interest in and an aptitude for quantitative sciences focused on oncology. This unconventional location for an undergraduate program is an ideal setting for interdisciplinary training in the intersection of oncology, statistics, and epidemiology. This paper describes the development and implementation of a hands-on research experience program in this unique environment. Core components of the program include faculty-mentored projects, instructional programs to improve research skills and domain knowledge, and professional development activities. We discuss key considerations such as effective partnership between research and administrative units, recruiting students, and identifying faculty mentors with quantitative projects. We describe evaluation approaches and discuss post-program outcomes and lessons learned. In its initial two years, the program successfully improved students' perception of competence gained in research skills and statistical knowledge across several knowledge domains. The majority of students also went on to pursue graduate degrees in a quantitative field or work in oncology-centric academic research roles. Our research-based training model can be adapted by a variety of organizations motivated to develop a summer research experience program in quantitative sciences for undergraduate students.

Association of Hospital Costs With Complications Following Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Adenocarcinoma.

IMPORTANCE: Postoperative complications are associated with increased hospital costs following major surgery, but the mechanism by which they increase cost and the categories of care that drive this increase are poorly described. OBJECTIVE: To describe the association of postoperative complications with hospital costs following total gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected gastric cancer surgery database at a single National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center included all patients undergoing curative-intent total gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma between January 2009 and December 2012 and was conducted in 2015 and 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Ninety-day normalized postoperative costs. Hospital accounting system costs were normalized to reflect Medicare reimbursement levels using the ratio of hospital costs to Medicare reimbursement and categorized into major cost categories. Differences between costs in Medicare proportional dollars (MP $) can be interpreted as the amount that would be reimbursed to an average hospital by Medicare if it paid differentially based on types and extent of postoperative complications. RESULTS: In total, 120 patients underwent curative-intent total gastrectomy for stage I through III gastric adenocarcinoma between 2009 and 2012. Of these, 79 patients (65.8%) were men, and the median (interquartile range) age was 64 (52-70) years. The 51 patients (42.5%) who underwent an uncomplicated total gastrectomy had a mean (SD) normalized cost of MP $12 330 (MP $2500), predominantly owing to the cost of surgical care (mean [SD] cost, MP $6830 [MP $1600]). The 34 patients (28.3%) who had a major complication had a mean (SD) normalized cost of MP $37 700 (MP $28 090). Surgical care was more expensive in these patients (mean [SD] cost, MP $8970 [MP $2750]) but was a smaller contributor to total cost (24%) owing to increased costs from room and board (mean [SD] cost, MP $11 940 [MP $8820]), consultations (mean [SD] cost, MP $3530 [MP $2410]), and intensive care unit care (mean [SD] cost, MP $7770 [MP $14 310]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Major complications were associated with tripled normalized costs following curative-intent total gastrectomy. Most of the excess costs were related to the treatment of complications. Interventions that decrease the number or severity of postoperative complications could result in substantial cost savings.

Measuring the Value of New Drugs: Validity and Reliability of 4 Value Assessment Frameworks in the Oncology Setting.

BACKGROUND: Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the convergent validity and interrater reliability of 4 value frameworks to understand the extent to which these tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology. METHODS: Eight panelists used the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) frameworks to conduct value assessments of 15 drugs for advanced lung and breast cancers and castration-refractory prostate cancer. Panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments, assigning each drug a numeric or letter score. Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance for Ranks (Kendall's W) was used to measure convergent validity by cancer type among the 4 frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to measure interrater reliability for each framework across cancers. Panelists were surveyed on their experiences. RESULTS: Kendall's W across all 4 frameworks for breast, lung, and prostate cancer drugs was 0.560 (P= 0.010), 0.562 (P = 0.010), and 0.920 (P < 0.001), respectively. Pairwise, Kendall's W for breast cancer drugs was highest for ESMO-ICER and ICER-NCCN (W = 0.950, P = 0.019 for both pairs) and lowest for ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.300, P = 0.748). For lung cancer drugs, W was highest pairwise for ESMO-ICER (W = 0.974, P = 0.007) and lowest for ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.218, P = 0.839); for prostate cancer drugs, pairwise W was highest for ICER-NCCN (W = 1.000, P < 0.001) and lowest for ESMO-ICER and ESMO-NCCN (W = 0.900, P = 0.052 for both pairs). When ranking drugs on distinct framework subdomains, Kendall's W among breast cancer drugs was highest for certainty (ICER, NCCN: W = 0.908, P = 0.046) and lowest for clinical benefit (ASCO, ESMO, NCCN: W = 0.345, P = 0.436). Among lung cancer drugs, W was highest for toxicity (ASCO, ESMO, NCCN: W = 0. 944, P < 0.001) and lowest for certainty (ICER, NCCN: W = 0.230, P = 0.827); and among prostate cancer drugs, it was highest for quality of life (ASCO, ESMO: W = 0.986, P = 0.003) and lowest for toxicity (ASCO, ESMO, NCCN: W = 0.200, P = 0.711). ICC (95% CI) for ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN were 0.800 (0.660-0.913), 0.818 (0.686-0.921), 0.652 (0.466-0.834), and 0.153 (0.045-0.371), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0-100, NCCN provided the narrowest band of scores. When asked about their experiences using the ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks, panelists generally agreed that the frameworks were logically organized and reasonably easy to use, with NCCN rated somewhat easier. CONCLUSIONS: Convergent validity among the ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks was fair to excellent, increasing with clinical benefit subdomain concordance and simplicity of drug trial data. Interrater reliability, highest for ASCO and ESMO, improved with clarity of instructions and specificity of score definitions. Continued use, analyses, and refinements of these frameworks will bring us closer to the ultimate goal of using value-based treatment decisions to improve patient care and outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded by Eisai Inc. Copher and Knoth are employees of Eisai Inc. Bentley, Lee, Zambrano, and Broder are employees of Partnership for Health Analytic Research, a health services research company paid by Eisai Inc. to conduct this research. For this study, Cohen, Huynh, and Neville report fees from Partnership for Health Analytic Research. Outside of this study, Cohen receives grants and direct consulting fees from various companies that manufacture and market pharmaceuticals. Mei reports a grant from Eisai Inc. during this study. The other authors have no disclosures to report. Study concept and design were contributed by Bentley and Broder, with assistance from Elkin and Cohen. Bentley took the lead in data collection, along with Elkin, Huynh, Mukherjea, Neville, Mei, Popescu, Lee, and Zambrano. Data interpretation was performed by Bentley and Broder, along with Elkin, Cohen, Copher, and Knoth. The manuscript was written primarily by Bentley, along with Elkin and Broder, and revised by Bentley, Broder, Elkin, Cohen, Copher, and Knoth. Select components of this work's methods were presented at ISPOR 19th Annual European Congress held in Vienna, Austria, October 29-November 2, 2016, and Society for Medical Decision Making 38th Annual North American Meeting held in Vancouver, Canada, October 23-26, 2016.

Validity and Reliability of Value Assessment Frameworks for New Cancer Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. These organizations include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). OBJECTIVES: To understand the extent to which these four tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology. METHODS: In this pilot study, eight panelists conducted value assessments of five advanced lung cancer drugs using the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. The panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments. Published NCCN framework scores were abstracted. The Kendall's W coefficient was used to measure convergent validity among the four frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to measure inter-rater reliability among the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Drugs were ranked similarly by the four frameworks, with Kendall's W of 0.703 (P = 0.006) across all the four frameworks. Pairwise, Kendall's W was the highest for ESMO-ICER (W = 0.974; P = 0.007) and ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.944; P = 0.022) and the lowest for ICER-NCCN (W = 0.647; P = 0.315) and ESMO-NCCN (W = 0.611; P = 0.360). Intraclass correlation coefficients (confidence interval [CI]) for the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks were 0.786 (95% CI 0.517-0.970), 0.804 (95% CI 0.545-0.973), and 0.281 (95% CI 0.055-0.799), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0 to 100, the ICER framework provided the narrowest band of scores. CONCLUSIONS: The ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks demonstrated convergent validity, despite differences in conceptual approaches used. The ASCO inter-rater reliability was high, although potentially at the cost of user burden. The ICER inter-rater reliability was poor, possibly because of its failure to distinguish differential value among the sample of drugs tested. Refinements of all frameworks should continue on the basis of further testing and stakeholder feedback.

Adherence to surveillance guidelines after radical cystectomy: a population-based analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Surveillance after radical cystectomy is recommended to detect tumor recurrence and treatment complications. We evaluated adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines using a large population-based database. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was used to identify patients aged ≥66 years diagnosed with nonmetastatic bladder cancer who had undergone radical cystectomy between 2000 and 2007. Medicare claims information identified recommended surveillance tests for 2 years after cystectomy as outlined in the NCCN guidelines. Adherence was defined as receipt of urine cytology and imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis in each year. We evaluated the effect of patient and provider characteristics on adherence, controlling for demographic and disease characteristics. RESULTS: Of 3,757 patients who had undergone radical cystectomy, 2,990 (80%) were alive after 2 years. Adherence to all recommended investigations was 17% for the first and the second years following surgery. Among patients surviving 2 years, only 9% had complete surveillance in both years. In either year, adherence was less likely in patients with advanced pathologic stage (III/IV) (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.60-0.91) and unmarried patients (AOR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.99). Adherence was more likely in patients treated by high-volume surgeons (AOR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.70-2.36) and those who saw a medical oncologist (AOR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.27-1.82). We also observed significant geographic variability in adherence. CONCLUSION: Patterns of surveillance after radical cystectomy deviate considerably from NCCN recommendations. Despite increased utilization of radiographic imaging investigations, the omission of urine cytology significantly contributed to the low rate of overall adherence to surveillance guidelines. Uniform adherence to surveillance guidelines was observed in patients treated by high-volume surgeons. This suggests an important opportunity for quality improvement in bladder cancer care.

Cost effectiveness of fracture prevention in postmenopausal women who receive aromatase inhibitors for early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) increase the risk of osteoporosis and related fractures in postmenopausal women who receive adjuvant AIs for hormone receptor (HR) -positive early breast cancer (EBC). We compared the cost effectiveness of alternative screening and treatment strategies for fracture prevention. METHODS: We developed a Markov state transition model to simulate clinical practice and outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of women age 60 years with HR-positive EBC starting a 5-year course of AI therapy after primary surgery for breast cancer. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We compared the following strategies: no intervention; one-time bone mineral density (BMD) screening and selective bisphosphonate therapy in women with osteoporosis or osteopenia; annual BMD screening and selective bisphosphonate therapy in women with osteoporosis or osteopenia; and universal bisphosphonate therapy. RESULTS: ICERs for annual BMD screening followed by oral bisphosphonates for those with osteoporosis, annual BMD screening followed by oral bisphosphonates for those with osteopenia, and universal treatment with oral bisphosphonates were $87,300, $129,300, and $283,600 per QALY gained, respectively. One-time BMD screening followed by oral bisphosphonates for those with osteoporosis or osteopenia was dominated. Our results were sensitive to age at the initiation of AI therapy, type of bisphosphonates, post-treatment residual effect of bisphosphonates, and a potential adjuvant benefit of intravenous bisphosphonates. CONCLUSION: In postmenopausal women receiving adjuvant AIs for HR-positive EBC, a policy of baseline and annual BMD screening followed by selective treatment with oral bisphosphonates for those diagnosed with osteoporosis is a cost-effective use of societal resources.

Cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention in men who receive androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) increases the risk for fractures in patients with prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of measuring bone mineral density (BMD) before initiating ADT followed by alendronate therapy in men with localized prostate cancer. DESIGN: Markov state-transition model simulating the progression of prostate cancer and the incidence of hip fracture. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: A hypothetical cohort of men aged 70 years with locally advanced or high-risk localized prostate cancer starting a 2-year course of ADT after radiation therapy. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: No BMD test or alendronate therapy, a BMD test followed by selective alendronate therapy for patients with osteoporosis, or universal alendronate therapy without a BMD test. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured by cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The ICERs for the strategy of a BMD test and selective alendronate therapy for patients with osteoporosis and universal alendronate therapy without a BMD test were $66,800 per QALY gained and $178,700 per QALY gained, respectively. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES: The ICER for universal alendronate therapy without a BMD test decreased to $100,000 per QALY gained, assuming older age, a history of fractures, lower mean BMD before ADT, or a lower cost of alendronate. LIMITATIONS: No evidence shows that alendronate reduces actual fracture rates in patients with prostate cancer who receive ADT. The model predicted fracture rates by using data on the surrogate BMD end point. CONCLUSION: In patients starting adjuvant ADT for locally advanced or high-risk localized prostate cancer, a BMD test followed by selective alendronate for those with osteoporosis is a cost-effective use of resources. Routine use of alendronate without a BMD test is justifiable in patients at higher risk for hip fractures.

HER-2 testing and trastuzumab therapy for metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: Trastuzumab therapy has been shown to benefit metastatic breast cancer patients whose tumors exhibit HER-2 protein overexpression or gene amplification. Several tests of varying accuracy and cost are available to identify candidates for trastuzumab. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of alternative HER-2 testing and trastuzumab treatment strategies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a decision analysis using a state-transition model to simulate clinical practice in a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old metastatic breast cancer patients. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Interventions included testing with the HercepTest (DAKO, Carpinteria, CA) immunohistochemical assay alone, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) alone, and both tests, followed by trastuzumab and chemotherapy for patients with positive test results and chemotherapy alone for patients with negative test results. RESULTS: In the base case, initial HercepTest with FISH confirmation of all positive results had an ICER of $125,000 per QALY gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness of initial FISH was $145,000 per QALY gained. Other strategies yielded the same or poorer effectiveness at a higher cost, or lower effectiveness at a lower cost, but with a less favorable ICER. These findings persisted under a range of assumptions, and only changes in test characteristics substantially altered results. CONCLUSION: It is more cost-effective to use FISH alone or as confirmation of all positive HercepTest results, rather than using FISH to confirm only weakly positive results or using HercepTest alone. When multiple tests are available to identify treatment candidates, test characteristics may have a substantial impact on the aggregate costs and effectiveness of treatment.