Reassessing the Net Benefit of Cancer Drugs With Evolution of Evidence Using the ASCO Value Framework.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory approval of oncology drugs is often based on interim data or surrogate endpoints. However, clinically relevant data, such as long-term overall survival and quality of life (QoL), are often reported in subsequent publications. This study evaluated the ASCO-Value Framework (ASCO-VF) net health benefit (NHB) at the time of approval and over time as further evidence arose. METHODS: FDA-approved oncology drug indications from January 2006 to December 2016 were reviewed to identify clinical trials scorable using the ASCO-VF. Subsequent publications of clinical trials relevant for scoring were identified (until December 2019). Using ASCO-defined thresholds (≤40 for low and ≥45 for substantial benefit), we assessed changes in classification of benefit at 3 years postapproval. RESULTS: Fifty-five eligible indications were included. At FDA approval, 40.0% were substantial, 10.9% were intermediate, and 49.1% were low benefit. We then identified 90 subsequent publications relevant to scoring, including primary (28.9%) and secondary endpoint updates (47.8%), safety updates (31.1%), and QoL reporting (47.8%). There was a change from initial classification of benefit in 27.3% of trials (10.9% became substantial, 9.1% became low, and 7.3% became intermediate). These changes were mainly due to updated hazard ratios (36.4%), toxicities (56.4%), new tail-of-the-curve bonus (9.1%), palliation bonus (14.5%), or QoL bonus (18.2%). Overall, at 3 years postapproval, 40.0% were substantial, 9.1% were intermediate, and 50.9% were low benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Because there were changes in classification for more than one-quarter of indications, in either direction, reassessing the ASCO-VF NHB as more evidence becomes available may be beneficial to inform clinical shared decision-making. On average, there was no overall improvement in the ASCO-VF NHB with longer follow-up and evolution of evidence.

Are Surrogate Endpoints Unbiased Metrics in Clinical Benefit Scores of the ASCO Value Framework?

BACKGROUND: Clinical benefit scores (CBS) are key elements of the ASCO Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and are weighted based on a hierarchy of efficacy endpoints: hazard ratio for death (HR OS), median overall survival (mOS), HR for disease progression (HR PFS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), and response rate (RR). When HR OS is unavailable, the other endpoints serve as "surrogates" to calculate CBS. CBS are computed from PFS or RR in 39.6% of randomized controlled trials. This study examined whether surrogate-derived CBS offer unbiased scoring compared with HR OS-derived CBS. METHODS: Using the ASCO-VF, CBS for advanced disease settings were computed for randomized controlled trials of oncology drug approvals by the FDA, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada in January 2006 through December 2017. Mean differences of surrogate-derived CBS minus HR OS-derived CBS assessed the tendency of surrogate-derived CBS to overestimate or underestimate clinical benefit. Spearman's correlation evaluated the association between surrogate- and HR OS-derived CBS. Mean absolute error assessed the average difference between surrogate-derived CBS relative to HR OS-derived CBS. RESULTS: CBS derived from mOS, HR PFS, mPFS, and RR overestimated HR OS-derived CBS in 58%, 68%, 77%, and 55% of pairs and overall by an average of 5.62 (n=90), 6.86 (n=110), 29.81 (n=101), and 3.58 (n=108), respectively. Correlation coefficients were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70-0.86), 0.38 (0.20-0.53), 0.20 (0.00-0.38), and 0.01 (-0.18 to 0.19) for mOS-, HR PFS-, mPFS-, and RR-derived CBS, respectively, and mean absolute errors were 11.32, 12.34, 40.40, and 18.63, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the ASCO-VF algorithm, HR PFS-, mPFS-, and RR-derived CBS are suboptimal surrogates, because they were shown to be biased and poorly correlated to HR OS-derived CBS. Despite lower weighting than OS in the ASCO-VF algorithm, PFS still overestimated CBS. Simple rescaling of surrogate endpoints may not improve their validity within the ASCO-VF given their poor correlations with HR OS-derived CBS.

Do older and younger patients derive similar survival benefits from novel oncology drugs? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: older patients are commonly believed to derive less benefit from cancer drugs, even if they fulfil clinical trial eligibility [Talarico et al. (2004, J Clin Oncol, 22(22):4626-31)]. We aim to examine if novel oncology drugs provide differential age-based treatment outcomes for patients on clinical trials. Methods: a systematic review of randomised control trials (RCTs) cited for clinical efficacy evidence in novel oncology drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and Health Canada between 2006 and 2017 was conducted. Studies reporting age-based subgroup analyses for overall or progression-free survival (OS/PFS) were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) for age-based subgroups were extracted. Meta-analyses with random effects were conducted, examining patient subgroups <65 and ≥65 years separately and pooled HRs of studies primary endpoints (OS or PFS) compared to examine if differences existed between age-based subgroups. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for cancer type, primary endpoint and systemic treatment. Results: one-hundred-two RCTs, including 65,122 patients, met the inclusion criteria. One study reported age-based toxicity and none reported age-based quality of life (QOL) results. Pooled HRs [95% CIs] for patients <65 and ≥65 years were 0.61 [0.57-0.65] and 0.65 [0.61-0.70], respectively, with no difference between them (P = 0.14). Sensitivity analyses revealed similar results. Conclusion: our results suggest that older and young patients, who fulfil clinical trial eligibility, may derive similar relative survival benefits from novel oncology drugs. There is, however, a need to report age-based toxicity and QOL results to support patient discussions regarding the balance of treatment benefit and harm, to encourage informed decision-making.

Do female and male patients derive similar benefits from approved systemic oncology therapies? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The National Institutes of Health's policy for the inclusion of females in clinical research was a pivotal step towards the consideration of sex as a biological variable, which is of particular importance in oncology, given differential incidence and outcomes of cancer between the sexes, and known pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, and immunological differences. Therefore, we aim to investigate if such biological sex-based differences translate to clinically meaningful outcome differences from recently approved systemic oncology therapies. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized control trials (RCTs) cited in Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada approvals was conducted. Chemotherapy, targeted agents, and immunotherapy RCTs reporting sex-based sub-group analyses for overall/progression-free survival (OS/PFS) were considered. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized. Sensitivity analyses for survival endpoints, drug type, and cancer site were conducted. RESULTS: Ninety-nine RCTs were included, representing 62,384 patients (23,574 (38%) female). Pooled OS HRs [95% CIs] were 0.77 [0.72-0.81] and 0.76 [0.72-0.79] for females and males, respectively (P = 0.73), and 0.51 [0.47-0.56] and 0.57 [0.53-0.61] (P = 0.08) for PFS. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. No RCTs reported sex-based toxicity or quality-of-life (QOL) data. CONCLUSION: Female and male patients appear to derive comparable benefits from recently approved systemic oncology therapies. Future RCTs are encouraged to report sex-based toxicity and QOL data.

Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Pembrolizumab monotherapy has replaced chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥ 50%. The benefit of chemotherapy combined with pembrolizumab, as compared to pembrolizumab monotherapy, remains uncertain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare these therapies through a network of randomized controlled trials. Endpoints evaluated were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and restricted mean survival time (RMST) through reconstruction of individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier curves, and objective response rate and adverse events. Four trials were included. Through HR and RMST, combination therapy demonstrated longer PFS and similar OS as compared to pembrolizumab monotherapy. Combination therapy was associated with an increase in response rate and adverse events. Thus, combination therapy can be considered when rapid response or prevention of rapid progression is needed. Further evidence to directly compare these therapies is required.

Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel vs FOLFIRINOX in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) and fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Although it is well known that RCT-based efficacy often does not translate to real-world effectiveness, there is limited literature investigating comparative cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC. We aimed to examine the real-world cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This study compared patients treated with first-line Gem-Nab or FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario from April 2015 to March 2019. Patients were linked to administrative databases. Using propensity scores and a stabilizing weights method, an inverse probability of treatment weighted cohort was developed. Mean survival and total costs were calculated over a 5-year time horizon, adjusted for censoring, and discounted at 1.5%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit were computed to estimate cost-effectiveness from the public health-care payer's perspective. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the propensity score matching method. RESULTS: A total of 1988 patients were identified (Gem-Nab: n = 928; FOLFIRINOX: n = 1060). Mean survival was lower for patients in the Gem-Nab than the FOLFIRINOX group (0.98 vs 1.26 life-years; incremental effectiveness = -0.28 life-years [95% confidence interval = -0.47 to -0.13]). Patients in the Gem-Nab group incurred greater mean 5-year total costs (Gem-Nab: $103 884; FOLFIRINOX: $101 518). Key cost contributors include ambulatory cancer care, acute inpatient hospitalization, and systemic therapy drug acquisition. Gem-Nab was dominated by FOLFIRINOX, as it was less effective and more costly. Results from the sensitivity analysis were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Gem-Nab is likely more costly and less effective than FOLFIRINOX and therefore not considered cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Assessment of Food and Drug Administration- and European Medicines Agency-Approved Systemic Oncology Therapies and Clinically Meaningful Improvements in Quality of Life: A Systematic Review.

Importance: For patients with cancer treated with palliative intent, quality of life (QOL) is a critical aspect of treatment decision-making, alongside survival. However, regulatory approval can be based solely on survival measures or antitumor activities, without QOL evidence. Objective: To investigate whether recently approved oncology therapies demonstrate clinically meaningful improvements in QOL. Evidence Review: This systematic review study identified oncology drug indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) from January 2006 to December 2017 and supporting clinical trials (QOL publications identified to October 2019). Indications were evaluated for the presence of published QOL evidence; QOL benefits according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2.0 (ASCO-VF) and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS) QOL bonus criteria; and clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences. Hematology trials were not evaluated by ESMO-MCBS. Associations between QOL evidence and approval year were examined using logistic regression models. Findings: In total, 214 FDA-approved (77 [36%] hematological) and 170 EMA-approved (52 [31%] hematological) indications were included. QOL evidence was published for 40% and 58% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. QOL bonus criterion for ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS was met in 13% and 17% of FDA-approved and 21% and 24% of EMA-approved indications, respectively. Clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences were noted in 6% and 11% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. Availability of published QOL evidence at the time of approval increased over time for EMA (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; P = .03), however not for FDA (OR, 1.10; P = .12). Over time, no increase in awarded QOL bonuses or clinically meaningful improvements in QOL were found. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this systematic review suggest that approved systemic oncology therapies often do not have published evidence to suggest QOL improvement, despite its recognized importance. Of indications with evidence of statistical improvement, few have demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements.

Considerations for Developing a Reassessment Process: Report from the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration's Reassessment and Uptake Working Group.

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration was established to develop a framework for generating and using real-world evidence (RWE) to inform the reassessment of cancer drugs following initial health technology assessment (HTA). The Reassessment and Uptake Working Group (RWG) is one of the five established CanREValue Working Groups. The RWG aims to develop considerations for incorporating RWE for HTA reassessment and strategies for using RWE to reassess drug funding decisions. Between February 2018 and December 2019, the RWG attended four teleconferences (with follow-up surveys) and two in-person meetings to discuss recommendations for the development of a reassessment process and potential barriers and facilitators. Modified Delphi methods were used to gather input. A draft report of recommendations (to December 2018) was shared for public consultation (December 2019 to January 2020). Initial considerations for developing a reassessment process were proposed. Specifically, reassessment can be initiated by diverse stakeholders, including decision makers from public drug plans or industry stakeholders. The reassessment process should be modelled after existing deliberation and recommendation frameworks used by HTA agencies. Proposed reassessment outcome categories include maintaining status quo, revisiting funding criteria, renegotiating price, or disinvesting. Overall, these initial considerations will serve as the basis for future advancements by the Collaboration.

Population-Based Analysis Of The Use Of Radium-223 For Bone-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer In Ontario, And Of Factors Associated With Treatment Completion And Outcome.

INTRODUCTION: Radium-223 (Ra223) prolongs the survival and improves the quality of life of men with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) to bones. However, compared to other mCRPC therapies, using Ra223 comes with its unique challenges. Hence, we aimed to identify Ra223 utilization patterns under real-world conditions, as well as factors predicting treatment completion and outcome. METHODS: In this retrospective chart analysis, 198 mCRPC patients were identified that had received Ra223 outside of clinical trials or access programs from January 2015 to October 2016 at four cancer centres in Ontario. The main outcomes studied were Ra223 completion rate, reasons for early treatment discontinuation, overall survival, and survival differences in patients completing Ra223 therapy versus patients receiving <6 cycles of Ra223. In addition, patient and disease characteristics were analysed to identify predictors of treatment completion and survival. RESULTS: In this cohort of patients mostly pretreated with abiraterone and/or enzalutamide (92.4%), almost half of which had also received docetaxel (48.5%), the Ra223 completion rate was 46.5%, and the actuarial median survival was 13.3 months. The main reason for early Ra223 discontinuation was disease progression, and Ra223 non-completion was associated with poorer outcome (median survival 8.1 months [6.0-12.2] versus 18.7 months [15.3-22.3] in men completing Ra223, p<0.0001). Lymph node metastases and a high baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were independent predictors of early treatment discontinuation. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models revealed early Ra223 discontinuation, baseline anemia, high PSA, prior skeletal-related events, visceral metastases, and being referred to another centre for Ra223 therapy as predictors of worse outcome. CONCLUSION: Despite a lower completion rate than observed under clinical trial conditions, the real-world results achieved with Ra223 are encouraging. If prospectively validated, predictive patient and disease characteristics identified in our cohort might become instrumental to identify mCRPC patients likely to complete and to most benefit from Ra223 therapy.

Examining Trends in Cost and Clinical Benefit of Novel Anticancer Drugs Over Time.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if clinical benefits of novel anticancer drugs, measured by the ASCO Value Framework and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, have increased over time in parallel with increasing costs. METHODS: Anticancer drugs from phase III randomized controlled trials cited for clinical efficacy evidence in drug approvals between January 2006 to December 2015 were identified and scored using both frameworks. For each drug, the monthly price and incremental anticancer drug costs were calculated. Relationships between cost and year of approval were examined using generalized linear regressions models. Ordinary least square models were used to evaluate relationships between ASCO and ESMO scores and year of approval. Spearman correlation coefficients between costs and clinical benefit scores were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 42 randomized controlled trials were included. Both monthly prices and incremental anticancer drug costs were significantly associated with year of approval and showed an average annual increase of 9% and 21%, respectively. The predicted mean incremental anticancer drug cost increased from $30,447 in 2006 to $161,141 in 2015 (greater than five-fold increase). Both ASCO and ESMO scores were not statistically associated with year of approval or correlated with monthly prices or incremental anticancer drug costs. CONCLUSION: Over the past decade, costs of novel oncology drugs have increased, while clinical benefits of these medications have not experienced a proportional positive change. The incremental anticancer drug costs have increased at a much greater rate than monthly prices, indicating that the increase in anticancer drug costs may be higher than commonly reported.

Do the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Measure the Same Construct of Clinical Benefit?

Purpose Whether the ASCO Value Framework and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) measure similar constructs of clinical benefit is unclear. It is also unclear how they relate to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and funding recommendations in the United Kingdom and Canada. Methods Randomized clinical trials of oncology drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada between 2006 and August 2015 were identified and scored using the ASCO version 1 (v1) framework, ASCO version 2 (v2) framework, and ESMO-MCBS by at least two independent reviewers. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to assess construct (between frameworks) and criterion validity (against QALYs from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] and the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review [pCODR]). Associations between scores and NICE/pCODR recommendations were examined. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Results From 109 included randomized clinical trials, 108 ASCOv1, 111 ASCOv2, and 83 ESMO scores were determined. Correlation coefficients for ASCOv1 versus ESMO, ASCOv2 versus ESMO, and ASCOv1 versus ASCOv2 were 0.36 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.54), 0.17 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.37), and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.63), respectively. Compared with NICE QALYs, correlation coefficients were 0.45 (ASCOv1), 0.53 (ASCOv2), and 0.46 (ESMO); with pCODR QALYs, coefficients were 0.19 (ASCOv1), 0.20 (ASCOv2), and 0.36 (ESMO). None of the frameworks were significantly associated with NICE/pCODR recommendations. Inter-rater reliability was good for all frameworks. Conclusion The weak-to-moderate correlations of the ASCO frameworks with the ESMO-MCBS, as well as their correlations with QALYs and with NICE/pCODR funding recommendations, suggest different constructs of clinical benefit measured. Construct convergent validity with the ESMO-MCBS did not increase with the updated ASCO framework.