Comparison of the Real-World Reporting of Symptoms and Well-Being for the HER2-Directed Trastuzumab Biosimilar Ogivri With Registry Data for Herceptin in the Treatment of Breast Cancer: Prospective Observational Study (OGIPRO) of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab has had a major impact on the treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC). Anti-HER2 biosimilars such as Ogivri have demonstrated safety and clinical equivalence to trastuzumab (using Herceptin as the reference product) in clinical trials. To our knowledge, there has been no real-world report of the side effects and quality of life (QoL) in patients treated with biosimilars using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs). OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this prospective observational study (OGIPRO study) was to compare the ePRO data related to treatment side effects collected with the medidux app in patients with HER2-positive BC treated with the trastuzumab biosimilar Ogivri (prospective cohort) to those obtained from historical cohorts treated with Herceptin alone or combined with pertuzumab and/or chemotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02004496 and NCT03578731). METHODS: Patients were treated with Ogivri alone or combined with pertuzumab and/or chemotherapy and hormone therapy in (neo)adjuvant and palliative settings. Patients used the medidux app to dynamically record symptoms (according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE]), well-being (according to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status scale), QoL (using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire), cognitive capabilities, and vital parameters over 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the mean CTCAE score. Key secondary endpoints included the mean well-being score. Data of this prospective cohort were compared with those of the historical cohorts (n=38 patients; median age 51, range 31-78 years). RESULTS: Overall, 53 female patients with a median age of 54 years (range 31-87 years) were enrolled in the OGIPRO study. The mean CTCAE score was analyzed in 50 patients with available data on symptoms, while the mean well-being score was evaluated in 52 patients with available data. The most common symptoms reported in both cohorts included fatigue, taste disorder, nausea, diarrhea, dry mucosa, joint discomfort, tingling, sleep disorder, headache, and appetite loss. Most patients experienced minimal (grade 0) or mild (grade 1) toxicities in both cohorts. The mean CTCAE score was comparable between the prospective and historical cohorts (29.0 and 30.3, respectively; mean difference -1.27, 95% CI -7.24 to 4.70; P=.68). Similarly, no significant difference was found for the mean well-being score between the groups treated with the trastuzumab biosimilar Ogivri and Herceptin (74.3 and 69.8, respectively; mean difference 4.45, 95% CI -3.53 to 12.44; P=.28). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of patients with HER2-positive BC with the trastuzumab biosimilar Ogivri resulted in equivalent symptoms, adverse events, and well-being as found for patients treated with Herceptin as determined by ePRO data. Hence, integration of an ePRO system into research and clinical practice can provide reliable information when investigating the real-world tolerability and outcomes of similar therapeutic compounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05234021; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05234021.

Characteristics of nausea and its impact on health-related quality of life in cisplatin-treated patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing prophylaxis: an analysis of the LUNG-NEPA study.

PURPOSE: We investigated the intensity and duration of nausea as well as its impact on health-related quality of life among cisplatin-treated patients who participated in a study of dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens based on NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron). METHODS: This retrospective analysis included chemo-naive patients from a trial evaluating non-inferiority of DEX on day 1 (DEX1 arm) combined with NEPA, compared with the same regimen with DEX administered on days 1-4 (DEX4; reference arm) following cisplatin (≥ 70 mg/m2) administration. Nausea intensity was self-rated using a four-point Likert scale. Extended nausea duration was considered ≥ 3 days within the 5 days post-chemotherapy. Patients completed the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on day 6. RESULTS: In the DEX1 arm, more patients (20/76) experienced acute nausea, influencing the outcome of delayed nausea (38/76). During days 1 to 5, 51.3% (39/76) and 39.5% (30/76) of patients experienced nausea in the DEX1 and DEX4 arms, respectively (P = 0.192). Of these, 43.6% and 60% reported moderate-to-severe nausea, respectively, in the DEX1 and DEX4 arms (P = 0.200), while 74.4% and 56.7% of patients experienced extended nausea duration (P = 0.122). Similar between-arm rates of nauseated patients reported an impact on daily life (79.5% vs. 70%; P = 0.408). In analyses stratified for antiemetic regimen, moderate-to-severe nausea or extended nausea duration was associated with an impact on daily life (P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite the higher incidence, there was no suggestion of any strong adverse effect of NEPA plus single-dose DEX on the characteristics of nausea as well as its impact on daily life in patients with cisplatin-induced nausea. Further prospective controlled study is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019.

Filgrastim biosimilar (EP2006): A review of 15 years' post-approval evidence.

Filgrastim is approved for several indications, including reduction of the incidence and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and for stem cell mobilization. The filgrastim biosimilar, EP2006, has been available in Europe since 2009, and in the United States since 2015. In this time, preclinical and clinical data used to support the approval of EP2006 have been published. These data established the biosimilarity of EP2006 to reference filgrastim in terms of structure, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Additional real-world evidence studies have also demonstrated equivalent efficacy and safety of EP2006 compared with reference filgrastim, both in the reduction of neutropenia and in stem cell mobilization in clinical practice. This review summarizes these preclinical, clinical, and real-world data, as well as the available cost-effectiveness data, for EP2006 since its approval 15 years ago.

Leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars in Europe - part 2: how payers can safeguard the future of a healthy biosimilar market environment.

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilars have improved access to biologic medicines; however, historical thinking may jeopardize the viability of future markets. AREAS COVERED: An expert panel of eight diverse European stakeholders provided insights about rethinking biosimilars and cost-savings, reducing patient access inequalities, increasing inter-market equity, and improving education. The insights reported here (Part 2) follow a study that provides perspectives on leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars for market sustainability based on independent survey results and telephone interviews of stakeholders from diverse biosimilar markets (Part 1). Directional recommendations are provided for payers. EXPERT OPINION: The panel's market maturity framework for biosimilars has three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand' and 'Harvest.' Across market stages, re-thinking the benefits of biosimilars beyond cost-savings, considering earlier or expanded access/new indications, product innovations, and re-investment of biosimilar-generated cost-savings should be communicated to stakeholders to promote further engagement. During 'Expand' and 'Harvest' stages, development of efficient, forward-looking procurement systems and mechanisms that drive uptake and stabilize competition between manufacturers are key. Future biosimilars will target various therapy areas beyond those targeted by existing biosimilars. To ensure a healthy, accessible future market, stakeholders must align their objectives, communicate, collaborate, and coordinate via education, incentivization, and procurement, to maximize the totality of benefits.

Capturing the holistic value of biosimilars in Europe - part 1: a historical perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Approved biosimilars exhibit comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to reference products. This report provides perspectives on the societal value of biosimilars within Europe and potential factors that have influenced market dynamics. METHODS: An independent, self-administered survey or one-on-one in-depth interview was used to collect viewpoints about the impact of biosimilar medicines within European markets. Key insights were also sought from an expert panel of European stakeholders. RESULTS: Survey respondents were clinicians, pharmacists, and payers from Europe (N = 103). Perceived benefits of biosimilars included increased access to innovative medicines (73% of respondents) or biologic treatments (66%). Biosimilar competition was thought to expand access to biologics (~50% of respondents) or drug combinations (~36%) and reduce biologic access time (34%). Key drivers of biologic access after biosimilar competition included increased biologic awareness (51%) and changes to prescribing guidelines (37%) and/or treatment paradigms (28%). The expert panel developed a market maturity framework of biosimilar adoption/opportunities comprising three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand,' and 'Harvest.' Findings were supported by published literature. CONCLUSIONS: In Europe, the perceptions of well-informed survey/interview respondents are that biosimilars have improved patient outcomes via increased access to biologics and innovative biologic products, contributing to earlier and longer treatment of a broader population.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus recommendations: Prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetic risk antineoplastic agents.

PURPOSE: Review the literature to update the MASCC guidelines from 2015 for controlling nausea and vomiting with systemic cancer treatment of moderate emetic potential. METHODS: A systematic literature review was completed using Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases. The literature search was done from June 2015 to January 2023 of the management of antiemetic prophylaxis for anticancer therapy of moderate emetic potential. RESULTS: Of 342 papers identified, 19 were relevant to update recommendations about managing antiemetic prophylaxis for systemic cancer treatment regimens of moderate emetic potential. Important practice changing updates include the use of emetic prophylaxis based on a triple combination of neurokinin (NK)1 receptor antagonist, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and steroids for patients undergoing carboplatin (AUC ≥ 5) and women < 50 years of age receiving oxaliplatin-based treatment. A double combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and steroids remains the recommended prophylaxis for other MEC. Based on the data in the literature, it is recommended that the administration of steroids should be limited to day 1 in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, due to the demonstration of non-inferiority between the different regimens. More data is needed on the emetogenicity of new agents at moderate emetogenic risk. Of particular interest would be antiemetic studies with the agents sacituzumab-govitecan and trastuzumab-deruxtecan. Experience to date with these agents indicate an emetogenic potential comparable to carboplatin > AUC 5. Future studies should systematically include patient-related risk assessment in order to define the risk of emesis with MEC beyond the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy and improve the guidelines for new drugs. CONCLUSION: This antiemetic MASCC-ESMO guideline update includes new recommendations considering individual risk factors and the optimization of supportive anti-emetic treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk regimens (in those with additional patient risk factors). Previous studies have examined G-CSF cost-effectiveness by cancer type in patients with a high baseline risk of FN. This study evaluated patients with breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving therapy who were at intermediate risk for FN and compared primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) using biosimilar filgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim in Austria, France, and Germany. METHODS: A Markov cycle tree-based model was constructed to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL receiving therapy over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that using biosimilar filgrastim as PP compared to SP resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below the most commonly accepted WTP threshold of €30,000. Across all three countries, PP in NSCLC had the lowest cost per QALY, and in France, PP was both cheaper and more effective than SP. Similar results were found using biosimilar pegfilgrastim, with ICERs generally higher than those for filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis are cost-effective approaches to avoid FN events in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL at intermediate risk for FN in Austria, France, and Germany.

Single-dose NEPA versus an aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Non-inferiority of NEPA (fixed combination of NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron) versus an aprepitant regimen was previously shown in a pragmatic study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In the MEC group a numerically higher complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue) rate was seen for NEPA during the overall 0-120 h phase (NEPA 76.1% vs. 63.1% aprepitant). As NEPA exhibits long-lasting efficacy, this study evaluated a prolonged period up to 144 h, beyond the traditional 120 h post-chemotherapy. In this post-hoc analysis we explore the comparative efficacy of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen in the MEC group up to 144 h, while also assessing the impact of risk factors on CINV prevention. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, prospective study. Oral NEPA was administered as a single dose on day 1, while aprepitant was given on days 1-3 + ondansetron on day 1; all patients were to receive dexamethasone on days 1-4. Patients were chemotherapy-naïve and receiving MEC, with a subset evaluation of those with a risk factor for developing CINV (i.e., female, male <60 years, male ≥60 years who received carboplatin, or male ≥60 years with anxiety). CR rates were compared during the extended overall (0-144 h) phase. RESULTS: The MEC group included 211 patients; of these 181 were in the risk factor subset. Significantly higher CR rates were seen for NEPA than aprepitant during the extended overall phase for the total MEC group (NEPA 77.1%, aprepitant 57.8%, p = 0.003) and also in the subset of patients with CINV risk factors (NEPA 73.9%, aprepitant 56.2%, p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: A single dose of NEPA, administered on day 1 only, was more effective than a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV for an extended duration in patients receiving MEC and in those with emetic risk factors.

Dexamethasone-sparing regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in older patients (>65 years) fit for cisplatin: A sub-analysis from a phase 3 study.

INTRODUCTION: We recently demonstrated the non-inferiority of two dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens with an oral fixed-combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) versus the guideline-recommended DEX use for cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Since prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is critical in older patients, we retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of the DEX-sparing regimens in this subset. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chemo-naive patients aged >65 years treated with high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2) were eligible. Patients received NEPA and DEX on day 1 and were randomized to receive either (1) no further DEX (DEX1), (2) oral low-dose DEX (4 mg) on days 2-3 (DEX3), or (3) the guideline-recommended standard DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2-4 (DEX4). The primary efficacy endpoint of the parent study was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1-5). No significant nausea (NSN; none or mild nausea) and the proportion of patients reporting no impact on daily life (NIDL) which was evaluated by the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire on day 6 (overall combined score > 108), were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Among the 228 patients in the parent study, 107 were > 65 years. Similar CR rates [95% confidence intervals (CI)] were observed in patients over 65 years across treatment groups [DEX1: 75% (59.7-86.8%); DEX3: 80.6% (62.5-92.6%); DEX4: 75% (56.6-88.5%)] as well as versus the total study population. NSN rates were also similar in the older-patients across treatment groups (p = 0.480) but were higher compared with the total population. Similar rates of NIDL (95% CI) were reported in the older-patient subset across treatment groups [DEX1: 61.5% (44.6-76.6%); DEX3: 64.3% (44.1-81.4%); DEX4: 62.1% (42.3-79.3%); p = 1.0] during the overall phase, as well as versus total population. A similar proportion of older patients across treatment groups experienced DEX-related side effects. DISCUSSION: This analysis shows that older-patients who are fit for cisplatin benefit from a simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX with neither loss in antiemetic efficacy nor the adverse impact on patient daily functioning. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04201769) on 17/12/2019 (retrospectively registered).

Overcoming barriers to timely recognition and treatment of cancer cachexia: Sharing Progress in Cancer Care Task Force Position Paper and Call to Action.

Cachexia is a life-threatening disorder affecting an estimated 50-80% of cancer patients. The loss of skeletal muscle mass in patients with cachexia is associated with an increased risk of anticancer treatment toxicity, surgical complications and reduced response. Despite international guidelines, the identification and management of cancer cachexia remains a significant unmet need owing in part to the lack of routine screening for malnutrition and suboptimal integration of nutrition and metabolic care into clinical oncology practice. In June 2020, Sharing Progress in Cancer Care (SPCC) convened a multidisciplinary task force of medical experts and patient advocates to examine the barriers preventing the timely recognition of cancer cachexia, and provide practical recommendations to improve clinical care. This position paper summarises the key points and highlights available resources to support the integration of structured nutrition care pathways.

European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average 10-year survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.

Epoetin alfa biosimilar (HX575): A review of 15 years' post-approval clinical experience.

Biosimilars offer the potential to expand patient access and reduce healthcare costs. Therefore, it is of importance that clinicians and patients are reassured about their efficacy and safety in practice. In 2007, Binocrit® (HX575; Sandoz GmbH, Kundl, Austria) was the first epoetin alfa biosimilar approved for use in chemotherapy induced anaemia (CIA), chronic renal failure (CRF), and more recently myelodysplastic (MDS) anaemia. Since its approval, there has been a plethora of data demonstrating the well-tolerated safety profile of HX575. This review will outline the safety results collected from key studies that have added to the extensive HX575 (Binocrit® unless otherwise stated) clinical experience. With a focus on all approved indications, we will review the safety data collected across a range of study types, to further consolidate the reassurance for the use of HX575 in these indications.

Current challenges and unmet needs in treating patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced breast cancer.

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 oncogene (HER2-positive) overexpression/amplification occurs in less than 20% of breast cancers and has traditionally been associated with poor prognosis. Development of therapies that target HER2 has significantly improved outcomes for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC). Currently available HER2-targeted agents include the monoclonal antibodies trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and margetuximab, the small-molecule inhibitors lapatinib, tucatinib, neratinib, and pyrotinib, as well as the antibody-drug conjugates trastuzumab emtansine and trastuzumab deruxtecan. Optimal sequencing of these agents in the continuum of the disease is critical to maximize treatment outcomes. The large body of clinical evidence generated over the past 2 decades aids clinicians in treatment decision-making. However, patients with HER2-positive ABC and specific disease characteristics and/or comorbidities, such as leptomeningeal disease, brain metastases, or cardiac dysfunction, are generally excluded from large randomized clinical trials, and elderly or frail patients are often underrepresented. In addition, there is great inequality in the accessibility of approved drugs across countries. This article addresses various challenging clinical situations when treating patients with HER2-positive ABC. The objective is to provide guidance to clinicians on how and when HER2-targeted therapies and additional treatments can be best implemented in routine clinical practice, on the basis of existing clinical evidence and expert opinion where needed.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an international perspective.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of oral netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.5 mg), compared to available treatments in Spain after aprepitant generic introduction in the market, and to discuss results in previously performed analyses in different wordwide settings. METHODS: A Markov model including three health states, complete protection, complete response at best and incomplete response, was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA versus common treatment options in Spain during 5 days after chemotherapy. Incremental costs including treatment costs and treatment failure management cost as well as incremental effects including quality adjusted life days (QALDs) and emesis-free days were compared between NEPA and the comparator arms. The primary outcomes were cost per avoided emetic event and cost per QALDs gained. RESULTS: NEPA was dominant (more effective and less costly) against aprepitant combined with palonosetron, and fosaprepitant combined with granisetron, while, compared to generic aprepitant plus ondansetron, NEPA showed an incremental cost per avoided emetic event of €33 and cost per QALD gained of €125. CONCLUSION: By most evaluations, NEPA is a dominant or cost-effective treatment alternative to current antiemetic standards of care in Spain during the first 5 days of chemotherapy treatment in cancer patients, despite the introduction of generics. These results are in line with previously reported analyses throughout different international settings.

Efficacy of the dexamethasone-sparing triplet regimen for preventing cisplatin-induced emesis: a combined analysis.

Aim: To further evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of single-dose versus multiple-dose dexamethasone (DEX) against nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin. Materials & methods: Two similar non-inferiority studies were pooled. Patients were randomized to single-day DEX or multiple-day DEX plus palonosetron and neurokinin-1 receptor-antagonists (NK-1RAs). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) during the overall phase. Results: The combined analysis included 242 patients. The absolute risk difference between single day versus multi-day DEX for CR was -2% (95% CI, -14 to 9%). Conclusion: Administration of single-dose DEX offers comparable antiemetic control to multiple-day DEX when combined with palonosetron and an NK-1RA in the setting of single-day cisplatin.

We aimed at further evaluating how well the corticosteroid, dexamethasone (DEX), works as measured in two similar clinical studies of single-day versus multiple-day DEX for the prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin, a cell-killing drug, which has high potential of triggering nausea and vomiting. In both studies, cancer patients were randomly assigned to 1-day DEX or multiple-day DEX (3­4 days) in combination with palonosetron (this antagonist attaches to a specific receptor for serotonin without triggering nausea and vomiting), and neurokinin-1 receptor-antagonists (NK-1RAs; they attach to the NK-1 receptor without triggering nausea and vomiting). The combined analysis of the two studies, which includes 242 patients, showed that a single dose of DEX is as effective as multiple-day DEX in terms of the number of patients achieving complete response (defined as no vomiting and no 'as-needed' use of antiemetics) during the 5 days after cisplatin administration. Therefore, administration of single-dose DEX offers comparable antiemetic control to multiple-day DEX when combined with palonosetron and an NK-1RA in patients undergoing single-day cisplatin.

How to improve efficiency in cancer care: Dimensions, methods, and areas of evaluation.

Efficiency in healthcare is crucial since available resources are scarce, and the cost of inefficient allocation is measured in prior outcomes. This is particularly relevant for cancer. The aim of this paper is to gain a comprehensive overview of the areas and dimensions to improve efficiency, and establish the indicators, different methods, perspectives, and areas of evaluation, to provide recommendations for how to improve efficiency and measure gains in cancer care. METHODS: We conducted a two-phase design. First, a comprehensive scoping literature review was conducted, searching four databases. Studies published between 2000 and 2021 were included if they described experiences and cases of efficiency in cancer care or methods to evaluate efficiency. The results of the literature review were then discussed during two rounds of online consultation with a panel of 15 external experts invited to provide insight and comments to deliberate policy recommendations. RESULTS: 46 papers met the inclusion criteria. Based on the papers retrieved we identified six areas for achieving efficiency gains throughout the entire care pathway and, for each area of efficiency, we categorized the methods and outcomes used to measure efficiency gain. CONCLUSION: This is the first attempt to systemize a scattered body of literature on how to improve efficiency in cancer care and identify key areas of improvement. POLICY SUMMARY: There are many opportunities to improve efficiency in cancer care. We defined seven policy recommendations on how to improve efficiency in cancer care throughout the care pathway and how to improve the measurement of efficiency gains.