Essential cancer medicines: adding feasibility to the magnitude of clinical benefit value chain.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a global public health problem, requiring efficient health system investments to deliver sustainable impact on population health. Access to medicines is a critical component of health systems, having a crucial role in delivering therapeutic benefits. Since 1977, the World Health Organization (WHO) has published a Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) that includes key health interventions for the prevention and control of conditions of public health relevance. Essential medicines are selected for inclusion in the EML based on the evidence of efficacy, safety, therapeutic value, and the potential to impact population health. With the rapid changes in the therapeutic landscape of cancer treatment with new medicine approvals, there is a critical need to select and prioritise specific cancer interventions based on their intrinsic value. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed a decisional methodology based on a threshold with a minimum set of technical specifications and a consensus-based procedure for decisions to select candidate cancer medicines to be submitted to the WHO for consideration for the WHO EML. RESULTS: ESMO recognises the WHO EML as an important reference guide for medicines that all countries should include in their national EMLs. Cancer medicines on the WHO EML are used in the treatment of the majority of cancers, and are recommended in the evidence-based ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines that medical oncologists use to treat patients. ESMO's submissions to the WHO EML in 2019 and 2021 and their respective outcomes are presented in the manuscript. CONCLUSION: Due to the rising costs associated with newly available therapies, structured, reproducible, and field-tested tools to evaluate the added clinical benefit from these therapies need to be implemented in pre-selecting potential candidate medicines to be included in the WHO EML. ESMO is proud to collaborate closely with WHO on this important global public health initiative.

ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H) version 1.0.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) has been accepted as a robust tool to evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit reported in trials for oncological therapies. However, the ESMO-MCBS hitherto has only been validated for solid tumours. With the rapid development of novel therapies for haematological malignancies, we aimed to develop an ESMO-MCBS version that is specifically designed and validated for haematological malignancies. METHODS: ESMO and the European Hematology Association (EHA) initiated a collaboration to develop a version for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H). The process incorporated five landmarks: field testing of the ESMO-MCBS version 1.1 (v1.1) to identify shortcomings specific to haematological diseases, drafting of the ESMO-MCBS:H forms, peer review and revision of the draft based on re-scoring (resulting in a second draft), assessment of reasonableness of the scores generated, final review and approval by ESMO and EHA including executive boards. RESULTS: Based on the field testing results of 80 haematological trials and extensive review for feasibility and reasonableness, five amendments to ESMO-MCBS were incorporated in the ESMO-MCBS:H addressing the identified shortcomings. These concerned mainly clinical trial endpoints that differ in haematology versus solid oncology and the very indolent nature of nevertheless incurable diseases such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers presentation of mature data. In addition, general changes incorporated in the draft version of the ESMO-MCBS v2 were included, and specific forms for haematological malignancies generated. Here we present the final approved forms of the ESMO-MCBS:H, including instructions. CONCLUSION: The haematology-specific version ESMO-MCBS:H allows now full applicability of the scale for evaluating the magnitude of clinical benefit derived from clinical studies in haematological malignancies.

Evaluation of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) has suggested using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) to grade the magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer therapies. This approach has not been applied to radiation therapy (RT) yet. We applied the ESMO-MCBS to experiences describing the use of RT to assess (1) the 'scoreability' of the data, (2) evaluate the reasonableness of the grades for clinical benefit and (3) identify potential shortcomings in the current version of the ESMO-MCBS in its applicability to RT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We applied the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 to a selection of studies in radiotherapy that had been identified as references in the development of American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based guidelines on whole breast radiation. Of the 112 cited references, we identified a subset of 16 studies that are amenable to grading using the ESMO-MCBS. RESULTS: Of the 16 studies reviewed, 3/16 were scoreable with the ESMO tool. Six of 16 studies could not be scored because of shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1: (1) in 'non-inferiority studies', there is no credit for improved patient convenience, reduced patient burden or improved cosmesis; (2) in 'superiority studies' evaluating local control as a primary endpoint, there is no credit for the clinical benefit such as reduced need for further interventions. In 7/16 studies, methodological deficiencies in the conduct and reporting were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents a first step in determining the utility of the ESMO-MCBS in the evaluation of clinical benefit in radiotherapy. Important shortcomings were identified that would need to be addressed in developing a version of the ESMO-MCBS that can be robustly applied to radiotherapy treatments. Optimization of the ESMO-MCBS instrument will proceed to enable assessment of value in radiotherapy.

Off-label despite high-level evidence: a clinical practice review of commonly used off-patent cancer medicines.

INTRODUCTION: Off-label use of medicines is generally discouraged. However, several off-patent, low-cost cancer medicines remain off-label for indications in which they are commonly used in daily practice, supported by high-level evidence based on results of phase III clinical trials. This discrepancy may generate prescription and reimbursement obstacles as well as impaired access to established therapies. METHODS: A list of cancer medicines that remain off-label in specific indications despite the presence of high-level evidence was generated and subjected to European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) expert peer review to assess for accountability of reasonableness. These medicines were then surveyed on approval procedures and workflow impact. The most illustrative examples of these medicines were reviewed by experts from the European Medicines Agency to ascertain the apparent robustness of the supporting phase III trial evidence from a regulatory perspective. RESULTS: A total of 47 ESMO experts reviewed 17 cancer medicines commonly used off-label in six disease groups. Overall, high levels of agreement were recorded on the off-label status and the high quality of data supporting the efficacy in the off-label indications, often achieving high ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores. When prescribing these medicines, 51% of the reviewers had to implement a time-consuming process associated with additional workload, in the presence of litigation risks and patient anxiety. Finally, the informal regulatory expert review identified only 2 out of 18 (11%) studies with significant limitations that would be difficult to overcome in the context of a potential marketing authorisation application without additional studies. CONCLUSIONS: We highlight the common use of off-patent essential cancer medicines in indications that remain off-label despite solid supporting data as well as generate evidence on the adverse impact on patient access and clinic workflows. In the current regulatory framework, incentives to promote the extension of indications of off-patent cancer medicines are needed for all stakeholders.

Methodological and reporting standards for quality-of-life data eligible for European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) credit.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) has been developed to grade clinical benefit of cancer therapies. Improvement in quality of life (QoL) is considered relevant, especially in the non-curative setting. This is reflected by an upgrade of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score if QoL is improved compared to the control arm or a downgrade if an improvement in progression-free survival is not paralleled by an improvement in QoL or overall survival. Given the importance of QoL for the final score, a need to ensure the robustness of QoL data was recognised. DESIGN: A checklist was created based on existing guidelines for QoL research. Field testing was carried out using clinical trials that either received an adjustment of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score based on QoL or had QoL as the primary endpoint. Several rounds of revision and re-testing of the checklist were undertaken until a final consensus was reached. RESULTS: The final checklist consists of four items and can be applied if three prerequisites are met: (i) QoL is at least a secondary endpoint, (ii) evidence of reliability and validity of the instrument is provided, and (iii) a statistically and clinically significant improvement in QoL is observed. The four items on the checklist pertain to the (i) hypothesis, (ii) compliance and missing data, (iii) presentation of the results, and (iv) statistical and clinical relevance. Field testing revealed that a clear QoL hypothesis and correction for multiple testing were mostly lacking, while the main statistical method was always described. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ESMO-MCBS QoL checklist will facilitate objective and transparent decision making on QoL data within the ESMO-MCBS scoring process. Trials published until 1 January 2025 will have to meet the prerequisites and at least two items for crediting QoL benefit in the final ESMO-MCBS score. Trials published thereafter will have to meet all four items.

Prioritising systemic cancer therapies applying ESMO's tools and other resources to assist in improving cancer care globally: the Kazakh experience.

BACKGROUND: In Kazakhstan, cancer is the second leading cause of death with a major public health and economic burden. In the last decade, cancer care and cancer medicine costs have significantly increased. To improve the efficiency and efficacy of cancer care expenditure and planning, the Kazakhstan Ministry of Health requested assistance from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) to review its systemic cancer treatment protocols and essential medicines list and identify high-impact, effective regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ESMO developed a four-phase approach to review Kazakhstan cancer treatment protocols: (i) perform a systematic analysis of the country's cancer medicines and treatment protocols; (ii) cross-reference the country's cancer protocols with the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale and the European Medicines Agency's medicine availability and indications database; (iii) extract treatment recommendations from the ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines; (iv) expert review for all cancer medicines not on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines and the country treatment protocols. RESULTS: This ESMO four-phase approach led to the update of the Kazakhstan national essential cancer medicines list and the list of cancer treatment protocols. This review has led to the withdrawal of several low-value or non-evidence-based medicines and a budget increase for cancer care to include all essential and highly effective medicines and treatment options. CONCLUSION: When applied effectively, this four-phase approach can improve access to medicines, efficiency of expenditure and sustainability of cancer systems. The WHO-ESMO collaboration illustrated how, by sharing best practices, tools and resources, we can address access to cancer medicines and positively impact patient care.

Biases in study design, implementation, and data analysis that distort the appraisal of clinical benefit and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scoring.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated, widely used tool developed to score the clinical benefit from cancer medicines reported in clinical trials. ESMO-MCBS scores assume valid research methodologies and quality trial implementation. Studies incorporating flawed design, implementation, or data analysis may generate outcomes that exaggerate true benefit and are not generalisable. Failure to either indicate or penalise studies with bias undermines the intention and diminishes the integrity of ESMO-MCBS scores. This review aimed to evaluate the adequacy of the ESMO-MCBS to address bias generated by flawed design, implementation, or data analysis and identify shortcomings in need of amendment. METHODS: As part of a refinement of the ESMO-MCBS, we reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results. For each issue of concern, we reviewed the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 approach against standards derived from Helsinki guidelines for ethical human research and guidelines from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, the Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and European Network for Health Technology Assessment. RESULTS: Six design, two implementation, and two data analysis and interpretation issues were evaluated and in three, the ESMO-MCBS provided adequate protections. Seven shortcomings in the ability of the ESMO-MCBS to identify and address bias were identified. These related to (i) evaluation of the control arm, (ii) crossover issues, (iii) criteria for non-inferiority, (iv) substandard post-progression treatment, (v) post hoc subgroup findings based on biomarkers, (vi) informative censoring, and (vii) publication bias against quality-of-life data. CONCLUSION: Interpretation of the ESMO-MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials to understand caveats in trial design, implementation, and data analysis that may have biased results and conclusions. These will be addressed in future iterations of the ESMO-MCBS.

ESMO International Consortium Study on the availability, out-of-pocket costs and accessibility of antineoplastic medicines in countries outside of Europe.

BACKGROUND: The availability and affordability of safe, effective, high-quality, affordable anticancer therapies are a core requirement for effective national cancer control plans. METHOD: Online survey based on a previously validated approach. The aims of the study were to evaluate (i) the availability on national formulary of licensed antineoplastic medicines across the globe, (ii) patient out-of-pocket costs for the medications, (iii) the actual availability of the medication for a patient with a valid prescription, (iv) information relating to possible factors adversely impacting the availability of antineoplastic agents and (v) the impact of the country's level of economic development on these parameters. A total of 304 field reporters from 97 countries were invited to participate. The preliminary set of data was posted on the ESMO website for open peer review and amendments have been incorporated into the final report. RESULTS: Surveys were submitted by 135 reporters from 63 countries and additional peer-review data were submitted by 54 reporters from 19 countries. There are substantial differences in the formulary availability, out-of-pocket costs and actual availability for many anticancer medicines. The most substantial issues are in lower-middle- and low-income countries. Even among medications on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) the discrepancies are profound and these relate to high out-of-pocket costs (in low-middle-income countries 32.0% of EML medicines are available only at full cost and 5.2% are not available at all, and for low-income countries, the corresponding figures are even worse at 57.7% and 8.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide global variation in formulary availability, out-of-pocket expenditures and actual availability for most licensed anticancer medicines. Low- and low-middle-income countries have significant lack of availability and high out-of-pocket expenditures for cancer medicines on the WHO EML, with much less availability of new, more expensive targeted agents compared with high-income countries.

ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1.

BACKGROUND: The ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) version 1.0 (v1.0) was published in May 2015 and was the first version of a validated and reproducible tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit from new cancer therapies. The ESMO-MCBS was designed to be a dynamic tool with planned revisions and updates based upon recognition of expanding needs and shortcomings identified since the last review. METHODS: The revision process for the ESMO-MCBS incorporates a nine-step process: Careful review of critiques and suggestions, and identification of problems in the application of v1.0; Identification of shortcomings for revision in the upcoming version; Proposal and evaluation of solutions to address identified shortcomings; Field testing of solutions; Preparation of a near-final revised version for peer review for reasonableness by members of the ESMO Faculty and Guidelines Committee; Amendments based on peer review for reasonableness; Near-final review by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board; Final amendments; Final review and approval by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board. RESULTS: Twelve issues for revision or amendment were proposed for consideration; proposed amendments were formulated for eight identified shortcomings. The proposed amendments are classified as either structural, technical, immunotherapy triggered or nuanced. All amendments were field tested in a wide range of studies comparing scores generated with ESMO-MCBS v1.0 and version 1.1 (v1.1). CONCLUSIONS: ESMO-MCBS v1.1 incorporates 10 revisions and will allow for scoring of single-arm studies. Scoring remains very stable; revisions in v1.1 alter the scores of only 12 out of 118 comparative studies and facilitate scoring for single-arm studies.