Developing a risk assessment tool for cancer-related venous thrombosis in China: a modified Delphi-analytic hierarchy process study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a Risk Assessment Tool for Cancer-related Venous Thrombosis in China. METHODS: A modified two-round Delphi method was employed to establish consensus within a field to reach an agreement via a questionnaire or by interviewing a multidisciplinary panel of experts by collecting their feedback to inform the next round, exchanging their knowledge, experience, and opinions anonymously, and resolving uncertainties. Furthermore, The AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) was used to determine the final quality indicators' relative importance. RESULTS: The expert's positive coefficient was 85.19% in the first round and 82.61% in the second round, with authoritative coefficients of 0.89 and 0.92 in the respective surveys. The P-value of Kendall's W test was all less than 0.001 for each round, and the W-value for concordance at the end of the two rounds was 0.115. The final Risk Assessment Tool for Cancer-related Venous Thrombosis consisted of three domains, ten subdomains, and 39 indicators, with patient factors weighing 0.1976, disease factors weighing 0.4905, and therapeutic factors weighing 0.3119. CONCLUSION: The tool is significantly valid and reliable with a strong authority and coordination degree, and it can be used to assess the risk of cancer-related VTE and initiate appropriate thrombophylactic interventions in China.

The sound and surprise: overlapping meta-analyses on the topic of safety and efficacy of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To analyze the characteristics of overlapping meta-analyses based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which reported PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in non-small cell cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Meta-analyses were identified from English and Chinese databases until January 1, 2022. Differences in characteristics of overlapping meta-analyses that conducted in China and other countries were compared to assess their publication propensity. The corrected covered area (CCA) and coverage of relevant RCTs were analyzed for subtopics according to detailed intervention types. The waste and redundancy of evidence were assessed in the case of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy for second-line treatment for NSCLC. RESULTS: Fifty-nine meta-analyses published in English and 17 meta-analyses published in Chinese reporting 26 RCTs were identified. Fifty-three (69.74%) meta-analyses were conducted in China. The overlapping meta-analyses in China were more likely to be from hospitals, supported by government funding, integrate first and second-line therapies. Five of the six subtopics had overlapping meta-analyses according to specific types of interventions. The CCA of overlapping meta-analyses ranged from 33.33 to 63.19%, and the coverage of relevant RCTs ranged from 63.64 to 100%. All the conclusions of overlapping meta-analyses have been consistent in the subtopic of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy for second-line treatment since 2017. CONCLUSION: Overlapping meta-analyses of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in NSCLC hints that meta-analyses under this topic probably exist serious redundancy. Future research should focus on prospective registration of protocols for systematic reviews/meta-analyses, scientific designed PICO, and cumulative meta-analysis to reduce redundant and wasted studies. Journals should strengthen the requirement for reviewing previously published evidence in manuscript review.

Advancing perspectives on the off-label use of anticancer drugs: an updated classification and exploration of categories.

To date, the definition that the off-label usage of drugs refers to the unapproved use of approved drugs, which covers unapproved indications, patient populations, doses, and/or routes of administration, has been in existence for many years. Currently, there is a limited frequency and prevalence of research on the off-label use of antineoplastic drugs, mainly due to incomplete definition and classification issues. It is time to embrace new categories for the off-label usage of anticancer drugs. This review provided an insight into an updated overview of the concept and categories of the off-label use of anticancer drugs, along with illustrating specific examples to establish the next studies about the extent of the off-label usage of anticancer drugs in the oncology setting. The scope of the off-label use of current anticancer drugs beyond the previous definitions not only includes off-label uses in terms of indications, patient populations, doses, and/or routes of administration but also off-label use in terms of medication course, combination, sequence of medication, clinical purpose, contraindications scenarios, etc. In addition, the definition of the off-label usage of anticancer drugs should be added to the condition at a given time, and it varies from approval authorities. We presented a new and relatively comprehensive classification, providing extensive analysis and illustrative examples of the off-label usage of antineoplastic drugs for the first time. Such a classification has the potential to promote practical adoption and enhance management strategies for the off-label use of antitumor drugs.

Value assessment of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of oesophageal and gastrointestinal cancers.

Background: Evidence of efficacy and safety of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors in oesophageal cancer (EC), gastric cancer (GC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) was inconsistent, obscuring their clinical application and decision-making. The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the value of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in EC, GC and CRC to select valuable PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and to assess the association between the value and cost of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Methods: A comprehensive search of trials of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in EC, GC and CRC was performed in Chinese and English medical databases with a cut-off date of 1 July 2022. Two authors independently applied the ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS to assess the value of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to establish the predictive value of the ASCO-VF score to meet the threshold of the ESMO-MCBS grade. Spearman's correlation was used to calculate the relationship between the cost and value of drugs. Results: Twenty-three randomized controlled trials were identified: ten (43.48%) in EC, five (21.74%) in CRC, and eight (34.78%) in GC or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC). For advanced diseases, ASCO-VF scores ranged from -12.5 to 69, with a mean score of 26.5 (95% CI 18.4-34.6). Six (42.9%) therapeutic regimens met the ESMO-MCBS benefit threshold grade. The area under the ROC curve was 1.0 (p = 0.002). ASCO-VF scores and incremental monthly cost were negatively correlated (Spearman's ρ = -0.465, p = 0.034). ESMO-MCBS grades and incremental monthly cost were negatively correlated (Spearman's ρ = -0.211, p = 0.489). Conclusion: PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors did not meet valuable threshold in GC/GEJC. Pembrolizumab met valuable threshold in advanced microsatellite instability-high CRC. The value of camrelizumab and toripalimab may be more worth paying in EC.

Value assessment of NMPA-approved new cancer drugs for solid cancer in China, 2016-2020.

Background: Whether the high cost of cancer drugs is commensurate with their value to patients, which has become the focus of public concern. We aimed to assess the value of new cancer drugs approved for solid cancer in China and to explore the association between price and value of drugs. Methods: We identified all new drugs for solid tumor that approved by the China's National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) between 2016 and 2020. The value of these drugs was assessed according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We calculated Cohen's κ statistic to describe agreement between the two frameworks. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between price and value of drugs. Results: Between 2016 and 2020, 37 new drugs were approved by the NMPA for solid tumor and we could evaluate the value of 28 drugs (76%). Eight (29%) of drugs were approved for non-small-cell lung cancer and 6 (21%) for breast cancer. ASCO-VF scores had a range of -20 to 110.1, and the median score was 43.3 (inter-quartile range 27.1-58.35). Only seven drugs (25%) met the ASCO-VF cutoff score. By the ESMO-MCBS, 13 drugs showed a meaningful value. Agreement between these two frameworks thresholds was only fair (κ = 0.515, P < 0.05). We found no statistically significant correlation between launch price of drugs and clinical benefit according to both frameworks. Conclusions: Not all NMPA-approved new cancer drugs had meaningful value as measured by ASCO-VF or ESMO-MCBS. There was no significant correlation between drug price and the level of clinical benefit.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in Patients With Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Objective: This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of different poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in patients with ovarian cancer through a network meta-analysis to support clinical treatment choices. Methods: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Chongqing VIP (CQVIP), and Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM) were searched with a cutoff date of 14 January 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov was also checked for supplementary data. Phase II or III randomized controlled trials that compared a PARP inhibitor with a placebo in patients with relapsed or newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer were included. The hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival and overall survival and odds ratios (ORs) for grade 3 or higher adverse events were analyzed. The network meta-analysis was conducted in a Bayesian framework based on the Markov Chain Monte Carlo model in the R gemtc package (version 4.0.3). Results: Eight eligible articles reporting six trials with a total of 2,801 patients were incorporated in this network meta-analysis. Three trials compared olaparib with placebo. Two trials compared niraparib with placebo. One trial compared rucaparib with placebo. The network meta-analysis failed to show significant differences in progression-free survival among the three PARP inhibitors: HR of 0.64, 95% confidence interval of 0.3 to 1.42 for olaparib versus niraparib, and olaparib versus rucaparib (0.86; 0.33 to 2.33). The comparison between niraparib and rucaparib also did not express a statistical difference (1.34; 0.47 to 3.72). Subgroup analysis bybreast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) status showed no obvious difference in progression-free survival among the three PARP inhibitors regardless of BRCA mutation status. Olaparib had fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events than niraparib (OR, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.13 to 0.55) and rucaparib (0.34; 0.14 to 0.86). However, the analysis failed to show a significant difference between niraparib and rucaparib (1.27; 0.49 to 3.27). Conclusion: Current evidence indicates that there is no significant difference observed in efficacy among olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib. However, olaparib might have fewer grade 3 or higher adverse events.

Safety and Efficacy of Programmed Cell Death 1 and Programmed Death Ligand-1 Inhibitors in the Treatment of Cancer: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Background: An influx of systematic reviews (SRs) of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors in cancer treatment with or without meta-analysis and with different methodological quality and inconsistent results have been published, confusing clinical decision making. The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate and summarize the current evidence of PD-(L)1 inhibitors in the treatment of cancer. Methods: A comprehensive search of SRs, which included meta-analyses of PD-(L)1 inhibitors on cancer, was performed on eight databases with a cutoff date of 1 January 2022. Two authors independently identified SRs, extracted data, assessed the report quality according to the guidance of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, evaluated the methodological quality by the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), and appraised the quality of evidence by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: A total of 172 SRs with meta-analysis met the inclusion criteria. The report quality of included SRs was quite good, with 128 (74.42%) SRs of high quality and 44 (25.58%) of moderate quality. The methodological quality was alarming, as only one (0.58%) SR had high quality, five (2.91%) SRs had low quality, and the other 166 (96.51%) SRs had critically low quality. For GRADE, 38 (3.77%) outcomes had high-quality evidence, 288 (28.57%) moderate, 545 (54.07%) low, and 137 (13.59%) critically low-quality evidence. Current evidence indicated that treatment with PD-(L)1 inhibitors were significantly effective in non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, malignant melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and urothelial carcinoma, breast cancer, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with PD-L1 expression level≥1%, whereas the evidence in gastroesophageal and colorectal tumors is still controversial. Monotherapy with PD-(L)1 inhibitors was associated with a lower frequency of any grade and high-grade adverse events (AEs). The incidence of any grade and high-grade AEs caused by PD-(L)1 inhibitors in combination with other therapies was no lower than the controls. However, PD-(L)1 inhibitors were associated with a higher frequency of any grade and high-grade immune-related AEs. Conclusions: PD-(L)1 inhibitors appeared to be effective and safe for cancer treatment, except for gastrointestinal tumors; however, the quality of the evidence is not convincing. Future studies should improve methodological quality and focus on the sequential trial analysis of subgroups and safety. Systematic Review Registration: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42020194260.