A tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines.

BACKGROUND: Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government's pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement. METHOD: Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type. RESULTS: The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation. CONCLUSION: Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective. POLICY SUMMARY: Since HS is of global interest, our example provides a reproducible blueprint for adaptation to other healthcare settings that integrates consumer input and priorities.

Dataset of a retrospective multicenter cohort study on characteristics of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced encephalitis and comparison with HSV-1 and anti-LGI1 encephalitis.

Over the past decade, cancer immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has significantly improved the outcome of many malignancies. However, with the broad use of ICIs, neurological immune related adverse events (irAE) are increasingly recognized. ICI-induced encephalitis (ICI-iE) is a particularly severe irAE, often leading to treatment termination, long-term sequalae or death. Despite its high morbidity and mortality, data on clinical features and diagnostic criteria are limited. We aimed to define clinical, radiologic and laboratory characteristics of ICI-iE and identify factors that discriminate it from anti-leucine-rich glioma-inactivated (anti-LGI)-1 encephalitis and herpes simplex virus (HSV)-1 encephalitis - two alternative causes of encephalitis - to increase the awareness of ICI-iE and improve its diagnosis and management. To that end, we retrospectively collected 30 cases of ICI-iE that were reported to the Side Effect Registry Immuno-Oncology (SERIO) and 46 cases of anti-LGI1 encephalitis or herpes simplex virus (HSV)-1 encephalitis that presented to a large German neurological referral center (Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin) between January 2015 and September 2021. Signs and symptoms, imaging and electroencephalogram features, laboratory findings and outcome measures were assessed using standardized case report forms as well as patients' medical records and compared between the groups. The data reported here represents the largest primary cohort of patients with ICI-iE to date and the first comparison with other types of encephalitis. As all three disorders - ICI-iE, HSV-1 encephalitis and anti-LGI1 encephalitis - are rare neurological entities, this dataset can be used as a reference in future clinical studies on ICI-induced neurotoxicity, neurological autoimmune disorders, and central nervous system infections.

Characteristics of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced encephalitis and comparison with HSV-1 and anti-LGI1 encephalitis: A retrospective multicentre cohort study.

AIM: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced encephalitis (ICI-iE) is a rare but life-threatening toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. We aim to identify the characteristics of ICI-iE and describe factors that discriminate it from herpes simplex virus (HSV)-1 encephalitis and anti-leucine-rich glioma-inactivated 1 (anti-LGI1) encephalitis, as two alternative entities of encephalitis. METHODS: In this retrospective multicentre cohort study, we collected patients with ICI-iE reported to the Side Effect Registry Immuno-Oncology from January 2015 to September 2021 and compared their clinical features and outcome with 46 consecutive patients with HSV-1 or anti-LGI1 encephalitis who were treated at a German neurological referral centre. RESULTS: Thirty cases of ICI-iE, 25 cases of HSV-1 encephalitis and 21 cases of anti-LGI1 encephalitis were included. Clinical presentation of ICI-iE was highly variable and resembled that of HSV-1 encephalitis, while impairment of consciousness (66% vs. 5%, p = .007), confusion (83% vs. 43%; p = .02), disorientation (83% vs. 29%; p = .007) and aphasia (43% vs. 0%; p = .007) were more common in ICI-iE than in anti-LGI1 encephalitis. Antineuronal antibodies (17/18, 94%) and MRI (18/30, 60%) were mostly negative in ICI-iE, but cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) showed pleocytosis and/or elevated protein levels in almost all patients (28/29, 97%). Three patients (10%) died of ICI-iE. Early immunosuppressive treatment was associated with better outcome (r = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: ICI-iE is a heterogeneous entity without specific clinical features. CSF analysis has the highest diagnostic value, as it reveals inflammatory changes in most patients and enables the exclusion of infection. Early treatment of ICI-iE is essential to prevent sequelae and death.

Combined ipilimumab and nivolumab first-line and after BRAF-targeted therapy in advanced melanoma.

The combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab is a highly active systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma but can cause significant toxicity. We explore the safety and efficacy of this treatment in routine clinical practice, particularly in the setting of serine/threonine-protein kinase B-Raf (BRAF)-targeted therapy. Consecutive patients with unresectable stage IIIC/IV melanoma commenced on ipilimumab and nivolumab across 10 tertiary melanoma institutions in Australia were identified retrospectively. Data collected included demographics, response and survival outcomes. A total of 152 patients were included for analysis, 39% were treatment-naïve and 22% failed first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 67% of patients, grade 3-5 in 38%. The overall objective response rate was 41%, 57% in treatment-naïve and 21% in BRAF/MEK failure patients. Median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.0-6.0) in the whole cohort, 11.0 months (95% CI, 6.0-NR) in treatment-naïve and 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.4-4.6) in BRAF/MEK failure patients. The combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab can be used safely and effectively in a real-world population. While first-line efficacy appears comparable to trial populations, BRAF-mutant patients failing prior BRAF/MEK inhibitors show less response.

Exploring the spectrum of late effects following radical orchidectomy for stage I testicular seminoma: a systematic review of the literature.

PURPOSE: Testicular seminomas occur in young men and are highly curable. Toxicities following treatment for men with extensive stage II-III seminomas may cause long-term morbidities. However, it is not clear whether the risk of late effects also increases following surgery for testis-confined seminoma. In this systematic review, we examined the available literature regarding the incidence of late effects in our target population of patients with stage I seminoma treated with orchidectomy alone. METHOD: Publications were identified through an electronic literature search using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsychInfo databases, identifying cohorts treated for stage I seminoma. Data on late effects were collected and classified as physical or psychological. RESULTS: Six hundred and four articles were screened to identify 100 studies. In the target population, available evidence suggests no increased risk of cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, or renal dysfunction compared to the general population. Sperm counts were initially lower than an age-matched cohort; however, counts normalised when re-assessed 5 years later. Data were not specifically reported for the target population regarding bone health, second malignancy, hypogonadism, fertility and all psychological domains. Heterogeneity of study design and reporting methods contributed to uncertainty regarding the true incidence and clinical significance of late effects. CONCLUSIONS: The curability of stage I seminoma and the wide range of potential late effects of treatment suggest the need for long-term monitoring alongside standard cancer surveillance. Important data are needed on the prevalence of late effects, specifically related to testicular cancer survivors undergoing surveillance following orchidectomy. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Awareness and screening for relevant late effects may prevent further morbidity in men treated for stage I seminoma.