Immune-Related Adverse Events and Survival Among Patients With Metastatic NSCLC Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Importance: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) secondary to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy reportedly improve overall survival (OS) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, studies have been small and the association between irAE severity and OS remains poorly defined. Objective: To examine the association between irAEs and their severity with OS in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC receiving ICIs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective observational cohort study included patients with NSCLC receiving ICIs between March 1, 2014, and November 30, 2021, with follow-up until March 31, 2023. Data analysis was completed April 26, 2023. The Alberta Immunotherapy Database, a provincial, multicenter cohort, was used to capture data from patients receiving ICIs in Alberta, Canada. Participants included 803 patients 18 years or older who received at least 1 cycle of ICI (alone or with chemotherapy), agnostic to treatment line. Exposure: Developing an irAE mandating delay or discontinuation of ICI therapy and/or systematic corticosteroids for management of toxic effects (hereinafter referred to as clinically meaningful irAEs). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was association between irAEs and OS according to Kaplan-Meier analysis. Clinically meaningful irAEs were identified. Patients with poor prognosis (survival <3 months) who may have died prior to irAE development were excluded from OS analysis, mitigating immortal time bias. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression analyses ascertained variables associated with OS. Results: Among the 803 patients included in the analysis, the median age of patients with irAEs was 69.7 (IQR, 63.1-75.2) years and the median age of those without irAEs was 67.5 (IQR, 60.4-73.3) years, with comparable sex distribution (139 of 295 men [47.1%] and 156 of 295 women [52.9%] with irAEs vs 254 of 505 men [50.3%] and 251 of 505 women [49.7%] without irAEs). Mitigating immortal time bias (n = 611), irAEs were associated with OS (median OS with irAEs, 23.7 [95% CI, 19.3-29.1] months; median OS without irAEs, 9.8 [95% CI, 8.7-11.4] months; P < .001). No OS difference was associated with treatment in hospital vs as outpatients for an irAE (median OS, 20.8 [95% CI, 11.7-30.6] vs 25.6 [95% CI, 20.1-29.8] months; P = .33). Developing irAEs remained associated with OS in the total cohort after Cox proportional hazards regression with known prognostic characteristics (hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.40-0.70]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of 803 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC receiving ICIs, developing a clinically meaningful irAE was associated with improved OS. This association was not compromised by hospitalization for severe toxic effects. Whether and how ICI therapy resumption after an irAE is associated with OS warrants further study.

Characteristics of clinician input in Canadian funding decisions for cancer drugs: a cross-sectional study based on CADTH reimbursement recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To examine characteristics of clinician input to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) for cancer drug funding recommendations from 2016 to 2020. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Descriptive, cross-sectional study including 62 reimbursement decisions from pCODR from 2016 to 2020. INTERVENTIONS: pCODR recommendations were analysed for the number of clinicians consulted on each submission, affiliation, number of submissions per clinician, declared financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs), randomisation, type of blinding, primary endpoint, study phase, and whether the study demonstrated improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was clinician support for the initial funding recommendation. Secondary outcome measures were the association between clinician FCOIs and clinical benefit in positive recommendations. RESULTS: The study consisted of 62 submissions, in which 48 included clinician input. A total of 129 unique clinicians provided 342 consultations. The majority (59%) provided input on less than 5 submissions; however, a small proportion (4%) consulted on over 10. Nearly all clinicians were physicians (125; 96%). From the 342 consultations, 228 declared financial conflicts (67%). The most common conflicts were payments for advisory roles (51%) and honorariums (23%). Of the 48 cancer drugs under review, clinicians recommended funding 46 (96%). Only 12 (25%) demonstrated substantial benefit, according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale score. Drugs recommended for funding were more likely to have improved PFS and OS data. However, most cancer drugs supported by clinicians demonstrated no change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), including one that demonstrated worsened HRQoL. There was no statistically significant difference between FCOI status and recommending drugs with health gains. CONCLUSION: Clinicians offer crucial information on funding decisions. However, we found clinicians strongly supported funding nearly all cancer drugs under review, despite most not offering substantial benefit to patients nor gains in quality of life. While these drugs might be helpful options in clinical practice, funding numerous cancer drugs may be unsustainable for public health systems.

Impact of Performance Status on Survival Outcomes and Health Care Utilization in Patients With Advanced NSCLC Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Introduction: Landmark trials testing immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced NSCLC are difficult to extrapolate to real-world practice given the exclusion of patients with poor (i.e., ≥2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS). We sought to evaluate the impact of ECOG PS on clinical outcomes and health care utilization in patients with NSCLC treated with ICIs in real-world practice. Methods: Patients with advanced NSCLC who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or nivolumab were retrospectively identified from the Alberta Immunotherapy Database. The primary outcome was median overall survival, as stratified by ECOG PS. Secondary outcomes included median time-to-treatment failure and metrics of health care utilization, including emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death in hospital. Results: A total of 790 patients were included, with 29.2% having poor ECOG PS at initiation of ICI. These patients had significantly lower median overall survival (3.3 versus 13.4 mo) and median time-to-treatment failure (1.4 versus 4.9 mo) compared with those with favorable ECOG PS (p < 0.0001 for both outcomes). Patients with poor ECOG PS were also more likely to present to the emergency department, be admitted to the hospital, and die in the hospital during their first admission (risk ratio = 1.6, 2.3-2.7, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Patients with NSCLC with poor ECOG PS treated with ICI had significantly worse survival outcomes and were significantly more likely to use health care services than those with favorable ECOG PS. The large proportion of patients with poor ECOG PS further justifies the urgent need for randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of ICI in this high-risk population.

Development and Validation of a Prognostic Risk Model for Patients with Advanced Melanoma Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification tools for patients with advanced melanoma (AM) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are lacking. We identified a new prognostic model associated with overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 318 treatment naïve patients with AM receiving ICI were collected from a multi-centre retrospective cohort study. LASSO Cox regression identified independent prognostic factors associated with OS. Model validation was carried out on 500 iterations of bootstrapped samples. Harrel's C-index was calculated and internally validated to outline the model's discriminatory performance. External validation was carried out in 142 advanced melanoma patients receiving ICI in later lines. RESULTS: High white blood cell count (WBC), high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), low albumin, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≥1, and the presence of liver metastases were included in the model. Patients were parsed into 3 risk groups: favorable (0-1 factors) OS of 52.9 months, intermediate (2-3 factors) OS 13.0 months, and poor (≥4 factors) OS 2.7 months. The C-index of the model from the discovery cohort was 0.69. External validation in later-lines (N = 142) of therapy demonstrated a c-index of 0.65. CONCLUSIONS: Liver metastases, low albumin, high LDH, high WBC, and ECOG≥1 can be combined into a prognostic model for AM patients treated with ICI.

Lung Immune Therapy Evaluation (LITE) Risk, a Novel Prognostic Model for Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Immune Checkpoint Blockade.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to identify baseline characteristics, that are prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in patients with NSCLC treated with ICI monotherapy, in order to derive the Lung Immune Therapy Evaluation (LITE) risk, a prognostic model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multi-center observational cohort study of patients with advanced NSCLC that received ≥1 dose of ICI monotherapy. The training set (n=342) consisted of patients with NSCLC who received first line ICI. The test set (n=153) used for external validation was a discrete cohort of patients who received second line ICI. 20 candidate prognostic factors were examined. Penalized Cox regression was used for variable selection. Multiple imputation was used to address missingness. RESULTS: Three baseline characteristics populated the final model: ECOG (0, 1 or ≥2), lactate dehydrogenase>upper limit of normal, and derived neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio ≥3. Patients were parsed into 3 risk groups; favorable (n=146, risk score 0-1), intermediate (n=101, risk score 2) and poor (n=95, risk score ≥3). The c-statistic of the training cohort was 0.702 and 0.694 after bootstrapping. The test cohort c-statistic was 0.664. The median OS for favorable, intermediate and poor LITE risk were; 28.3 months, 9.1 months and 2.1 months respectively. Improving LITE risk group was associated with improved OS, intermediate vs favorable HR 2.08 (95%CI 1.46-2.97, P < .001); poor vs favorable HR 5.21 (95%CI 3.69-7.34, P < .001). CONCLUSION: A simple prognostic model, utilizing accessible clinical data, can discriminate survival outcomes in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Association of Immune-Related Adverse Events, Hospitalization, and Therapy Resumption With Survival Among Patients With Metastatic Melanoma Receiving Single-Agent or Combination Immunotherapy.

Importance: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) due to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) have been shown to be positively associated with survival. Among patients with metastatic melanoma, evidence supporting this association has been conflicting, while ipilimumab-nivolumab combination ICB has been examined only in small clinical cohorts. Objective: To examine the association between irAEs and survival among patients with metastatic melanoma, in particular for those receiving combination ICB. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort of 492 consecutive patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ICB at 2 tertiary and 4 regional cancer centers in Alberta, Canada, from August 1, 2013, to May 31, 2020, was observed. Patients were aged 18 years or older with metastatic melanoma agnostic to primary site, who received 1 or more doses of an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 agent as single or combination ICB. Clinically significant irAEs requiring systemic corticosteroids and/or treatment delay were captured. To minimize immortal time bias, only patients surviving 12 weeks after ICB initiation were included in survival analyses. Statistical analysis was conducted on December 10, 2021. Exposures: Development of irAEs requiring systemic corticosteroids and/or treatment delay. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), with the association of irAE development with OS assessed via Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. The association of hospitalization for irAEs and ICB resumption after irAE with OS was examined. Results: Among 492 patients, the median age of those with irAEs was 61.8 years (IQR, 52.9-72.1 years), and the median age of those without irAEs was 65.5 years (IQR, 56.5-76.9 years), while sex distribution was comparable (137 of 198 men [69.2%] with irAEs vs 183 of 294 men [62.2%] without irAEs). There was an association between irAEs and OS both in the overall cohort (with irAEs: median OS, 56.3 months [95% CI, 38.2 months to not evaluable] vs without irAEs: median OS, 18.5 months [95% CI, 14.4-23.2 months]; P < .001) and in the 124 patients (25.2%) receiving combination ICB (with irAEs: median OS, 56.2 months [95% CI, 52.2 months to not evaluable] vs without irAEs: median OS, 19.0 months [95% CI, 6.6 months to not evaluable]; P < .001). Hospitalization for irAE did not alter this positive association with OS compared with outpatient treatment (median OS, not evaluable [95% CI, 31.5 months to not evaluable] vs median OS, 52.2 months [95% CI, 35.2 months to not evaluable]; P = .53), while resumption of ICB was associated with longer OS than not resuming ICB (median, 56.3 months [95% CI, 40.8 months to not evaluable] vs 31.5 months [95% CI, 21.0 months to not evaluable]; P = .009). A favorable independent association of irAEs with OS was confirmed in multivariable analysis (hazard ratio for death, 0.382 [95% CI, 0.254-0.576]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests an association between irAEs and OS for patients with metastatic melanoma, including those treated with combination ICB and those with severe irAEs requiring hospitalization. The potential benefit associated with ICB resumption after irAEs warrants further investigation.

Clinical Factors Associated with Long-Term Survival in Metastatic Melanoma Treated with Anti-PD1 Alone or in Combination with Ipilimumab.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treatment of metastatic melanoma (MM) offer lasting overall survival (OS) benefit in a subset of patients. However, outcomes remain poor for non-responders. Clinical predictors of long-term survival remain elusive. We utilized the Alberta Immunotherapy Database to investigate the association of host and disease characteristics, and treatment factors with overall survival (OS) greater than 3 years. We identified patients treated between August 2013 and May 2020 with single-agent anti-PD1 or combination (anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4) ICI regimens. A logistic regression model was used to assess for independent association between clinical factors captured and survival greater than 3 years. Statistically significant factors on univariable analysis were assessed using multivariable analysis. In total, 284 of 460 patients were identified to have short-term (<1 year) or long-term (>3 years) survival with 186 surviving <1 year and 98 surviving >3 years. The median age was 64 and 18.4% of patients were ECOG ≥ 2. On logistic regression, Breslow's Depth ≤ 4 mm, normal serum LDH, normal serum albumin and M-stage 1a/b were associated with OS > 3 years on univariable and multivariable analysis. ECOG < 2, dNLR ≤ 3, normal hemoglobin were only associated with survival on the univariable analysis but not in the multivariable analysis. The objective response rate in long-term survivors was 83.7% compared to 7.5% in the short-term survivors. Our study identifies four easily accessible predictors of long-term survival in a large real-world MM cohort treated with ICI.

Industry Relationships With Medical Oncologists: Who Are the High-Payment Physicians?

PURPOSE: Many oncologists have relationships with industry. Previous work has shown that these payments are usually modest; however, there exist a subset of medical oncologists who receive more than $100,000 US dollars (USD) annually. Here, we describe the characteristics of these physicians. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the Open Payments data set to identify all US-based medical oncologists/hematologists who received $100,000+ USD in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018. Open Payments and a web-based search were used to identify physician characteristics, demographics, research profile, and leadership positions. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine medical oncologists received > $100,000 USD in general payments. The median payment was $154,613 USD, and the total payment was $24.2 million USD. These high-payment physicians represent 1% of all US medical oncologists (N = 10,620) yet account for 37% of all industry payments in 2018. Sixty percent (84 of 139) and 21% (29 of 139) of these high-payment physicians hold hospital and specialty association leadership roles, respectively. One quarter (24%, 33 of 139) serve on journal editorial boards, and 10% (14 of 139) have authored clinical practice guidelines; 72% (100 of 139) hold faculty appointments. CONCLUSION: A small number of medical oncologists receive very high payments from the pharmaceutical industry. These physicians hold major leadership roles within oncology. Further work is needed to understand the extent to which these conflicts of interest may shape clinical practice and policy.

Trends in drug revenue among major pharmaceutical companies: A 2010-2019 cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 2 decades there has been a substantial increase in the number of new cancer medicines; this has been accompanied by a dramatic rise in drug costs. It is unknown how these trends impact the revenue of the pharmaceutical sector. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study to characterize temporal trends of revenue generated from cancer medicines as a proportion of total drug revenue among 10 large pharmaceutical companies from 2010 to 2019. Itemized product-sales data publicly available through company websites or annual filings were used to identify annual drug revenue. Revenue data were adjusted for inflation and converted to 2019 US dollars. RESULTS: During the study period, cumulative annual revenue generated from cancer drugs increased by 70%: from $55.8 billion to $95.1 billion, while cumulative revenue from nononcology drugs decreased 18%: from $342.2 billion to $281.5 billion. The proportion of total drug revenue generated from oncology drugs increased substantially over the study period: from 14% in 2010 to 25% in 2019 (τ = 1.0, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among 10 of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, revenues generated from the sale of cancer drugs have increased by 70% over the past decade, while revenues from other medicines have decreased by 18%. Revenues from cancer drugs now account for one-quarter of the net revenues from these companies. Further work is needed to understand if this increase in sales revenue reflects industry profit, and to what extent increased spending has translated into improvements in patient and population outcomes.

The Role of Immunotherapy in the Treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive malignancy arising from mesothelial cells that line the serous membranes of the body. Cytotoxic chemotherapy has been a mainstay of therapy, resulting in a modest improvement in overall survival, but toxicity limits the eligible patient population. Few targeted agents beyond bevacizumab have demonstrated superior efficacy compared to placebos. With an improved understanding of the relationship between the immune system and cancer progression, immunotherapies are playing a greater role in the treatment of many cancers. Several early- and late-phase trials in malignant pleural mesothelioma, including assessments of the first-line efficacy of combination ipilimumab/nivolumab treatment, have now demonstrated promising results for both immune checkpoint inhibition and cell-based therapies. These immune therapies are likely to play a central role in the treatment of this disease going forward.

Effectiveness and Safety of First-Line Pembrolizumab in Older Adults with PD-L1 Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study of the Alberta Immunotherapy Database.

The emergence of immunotherapy revolutionized the treatment of non-small-cell-lung cancer (NSCLC), with multiple landmark clinical trials establishing the efficacy of these agents. However, many patients who receive immunotherapy in clinical practice would be considered clinical trial ineligible. One such population that is often under-represented in clinical trials is older adults. In the current study, we evaluated clinical and safety outcomes in this population. Overall, older adults (>70 years of age) and younger adults had comparable clinical outcomes with an equivalent objective response rate (ORR), time to treatment failure (TTF), and median overall survival (p = 0.67, p = 0.98, and p = 0.91, respectively). Furthermore, the safety outcomes were equivalent between the cohorts with similar rates of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), irAE-related hospitalizations, and all-cause hospitalization (p = 0.99, p = 0.63, and p = 0.74, respectively). While older age was not found to impact overall survival, multivariant analysis revealed that a poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, low body-mass-index (BMI), and poor/intermediate lung immune prognostic index (LIPI) were all associated with worse survival. In conclusion, age does not impact the efficacy or safety of pembrolizumab in NSCLC, and therefore advanced age should not be a deterrent for treating these patients with pembrolizumab. Physicians and care providers can thus focus on other factors that may influence therapeutic outcomes.

Outcomes of patients with solid tumour malignancies treated with first-line immuno-oncology agents who do not meet eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Immuno-oncology (IO)-based therapies have been approved based on randomised clinical trials, yet a significant proportion of real-world patients are not represented in these trials. We sought to compare the outcomes of trial-ineligible vs. -eligible patients with advanced solid tumours treated with first-line (1L) IO therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Database Consortium and the Alberta Immunotherapy Database, patients with advanced RCC, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or melanoma treated with 1L PD-(L)1 inhibition-based therapy were included. Trial eligibility was retrospectively determined as per commonly used exclusion criteria. The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), treatment duration (TD) and time to next treatment (TTNT). RESULTS: A total of 395 of 1241 (32%) patients were deemed trial-ineligible. The main reasons for ineligibility based on preselected exclusion criteria were Karnofsky performance status <70%/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >1 (40%, 158 of 395), brain metastases (32%, 126 of 395), haemoglobin < 9 g/dL (16%, 63 of 395) and estimated glomerular filtration rate <40 mL/min (15%, 61 of 395). Between the ineligible vs. eligible groups, the median OS, ORR, median TD and median TTNT were 10.2 vs. 39.7 months (p < 0.01), 36% vs. 47% (p < 0.01), 2.7 vs. 6.9 months (p < 0.01) and 6.0 vs. 16.8 months (p < 0.01), respectively. Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant inferior OS, TD and TTNT for trial-ineligible vs. -eligible patients across all tumour types. Adjusted hazard ratios for death in RCC, NSCLC and melanoma were 1.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-2.77), 2.21 (95% CI 1.58-3.11) and 1.82 (95% CI 1.21-2.74), respectively.. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-two percent of real-world patients treated with contemporary 1L IO-based therapies were ineligible for clinical trials. Although one-third of the trial-ineligible patients responded to treatment, the overall trial-ineligible population had inferior outcomes than trial-eligible patients. These data may guide patient counselling and temper expectations of benefit.

Evaluation of the modified immune prognostic index to prognosticate outcomes in metastatic uveal melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM) is associated with poor survival and inferior response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy when compared with metastatic cutaneous melanoma. Currently, prognostic biomarkers are lacking to guide treatment decisions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study using a centralized, province-wide cancer database in Alberta, Canada. We identified 37 patients with histologically confirmed MUM who received at least one dose of single-agent pembrolizumab or nivolumab, or combination therapy nivolumab and ipilimumab. A modified immune prognostic index (IPI), based on the previously reported lung immune prognostic index, was used to stratify patients into favorable and poor IPI groups. Survival analyses were conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for baseline age (≥60) and ECOG performance status, to assess the associations between IPI and overall survival (OS). Time to treatment failure (TTF) was also assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The association between IPI and objective response rate was examined using chi-squared tests. Logistic regression was used to determine the association between IPI and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). RESULTS: Median OS was 15.6 (range 0.6-57.6) months with 45.9% 1-year survival rate at a median follow-up of 11.8 months. We found that a favorable IPI was significantly associated with OS [median 30.5 (12.0-not reached) months in the favorable IPI group compared with 4.6 (2.1-16.0) months in the poor IPI group (p = 0.001)] (HR=4.81, 95% CI; 1.64-14.10, p = 0.004), TTF [median 5.1 (95% CI; 2.1-10.4) months in the favorable IPI group compared with 3.7 (95% CI; 1.4-6.4) months in the poor IPI group (p = 0.0191)], and irAE (HR=6.67, 95% CI; 1.32-33.69, p = 0.0220). CONCLUSIONS: The modified IPI may be a useful tool in clinical practice for identifying MUM patients who are more likely to experience irAEs and realize a survival benefit from ICI treatment.

Evaluation of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Submitted for Reimbursement Recommendation Decisions in Canada.

Importance: Cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration have come under scrutiny for marginal clinical benefits; however, the clinical benefits of cancer drugs recommended for reimbursement in Canada have not been adequately studied. Objective: To assess the differences in the clinical evidence and benefit of cancer drugs that received a positive vs a negative recommendation for provincial reimbursement in Canada. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study obtained publicly available regulatory documents from the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) and corresponding clinical trial documentation. All cancer drugs with a solid tumor indication that were submitted from the inception of the pCODR (July 2011) to February 2020 were evaluated. To be included, submissions had to have a final reimbursement recommendation; submissions that were incomplete, were withdrawn, or had a pending decision were excluded. Exposures: A completed reimbursement recommendation decision from the pCODR. Main Outcomes and Measures: Final reimbursement recommendation (positive vs negative); trial characteristics; and relevant clinical outcomes (ie, overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS]), including the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores available at the time of pCODR assessment. Results: Between 2011 and 2020, the pCODR issued 104 reimbursement recommendation decisions for cancer drugs with a solid tumor indication. Among these drug submissions, 78 (75.0%) received a positive recommendation, of which 72 (92.3%) were conditional. Drugs that received a positive recommendation compared with those with a negative recommendation were more likely to have phase 3 randomized clinical trial design (92.3% [72 of 78] vs 53.8% [14 of 26]; P < .001) and have substantial benefit according to the ESMO-MCBS scores (61.5% [48 of 78] vs 19.2% [5 of 26]; P < .001). The most common primary end points associated with the successful submissions were PFS (53.9%) and OS (32.1%). Overall, 39 of 78 submissions (50.0%) that received a positive recommendation had shown OS benefit, with median (interquartile range) OS gains of 3.7 (2.7-6.5) months. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that, although the pCODR takes into account the magnitude of clinical benefit, only half of the cancer drugs that received a positive recommendation had evidence of improved OS and the survival gains were usually modest. These results suggest that, although the pCODR helps filter out some cancer drugs with low quality of evidence and low magnitude of benefit, cancer drugs without meaningful patient benefit continue to enter the Canadian market; these findings are important for making reimbursement policy decisions globally.

Challenges with sex-specific subgroup analyses in oncology clinical trials for drug approvals between 2015-2020.

INTRODUCTION: Women continue to be underrepresented in oncology clinical trials, leading to poor, underpowered subgroup analyses that cannot be generalized to cancer patients in practice. In 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released an Action Plan, which included actions to improve the quality and reporting of demographic subgroup data. We sought to evaluate the five-year progress since the release of this report by assessing the credibility of sex-specific subgroup analyses in oncology clinical trials. METHODS: We reviewed the FDA Hematology/Oncology Approvals website for New Molecular Entities (NMEs) that were approved for adults from 2015 to 2020. Publications and their supplementary indexes were reviewed by two authors (K.J. & A.R.) against ten criteria that gauge the credibility of subgroup analyses by assessing factors related to study design, analysis, and context. One point was awarded for each criteria met, for a maximum score of 10. RESULTS: We identified a total of 73 NMEs approved for cancer treatment between 2015-2020, of which 61 met our eligibility criteria. Of these, 32 studies (52 %) reported a subgroup analysis by sex and were included in our analysis. Phase 2 (41 %) and Phase 3 (53 %) studies represented most studies. No study met ≥3 credibility criteria. CONCLUSION: Only half the studies included in our analysis reported outcomes by sex, which suggests the activities stipulated in the 2014 US FDA Action Plan might be ineffective. This is concerning as uncredible sex-specific subgroup analyses can lead to wrongful clinical decision-making and poor patient outcomes. POLICY SUMMARY: Our findings suggest sex-specific subgroup analyses in oncology are not credible and users of these data should interpret results with caution. Regulatory bodies, such as the US FDA, ought to mandate subgroup analyses by demographic groups in drug applications. Peer-reviewed journals could ensure investigators disclose study results by sex as a condition for publication.

Industry payments to US physicians for cancer therapeutics: An analysis of the 2016-2018 open payments datasets.

BACKGROUND: Many oncologists who lead guidelines and clinical trials have financial conflicts of interest (fCOI) with industry. However, the extent to which fCOI reaches all cancer care providers is not known. Here we describe industry payments across all cancer care specialties by specific drug. METHODS: This observational, retrospective cohort study used Open Payments to describe general payments (i.e. consulting fees, meals, travel) to all US physicians for any cancer medicine during 2016-2018. Endpoints included number and value of payments by specialty, drug, and year. RESULTS: During 2016-2018, industry made general payments to 52 441 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs. Annual number of payments (465 655 in 2018) and total value ($98.5 million in 2018) increased over the study period (20 % and 31 % increase since 2016). Medical/hematologic oncologists, surgical oncologists and radiologists received the highest total value of payments, accounting for $65.7 million (67 % of total), $13.4 million (14 % of total) and $10.8 million (11 % of total) in 2018. In 2018, 5 % of physicians (n = 1660) received >$10 000 in annual payments and 0.6 % (n = 209) received >$100 000. Pembrolizumab and Nivolumab, were associated with the highest total payment in each year, accounting for 12 % and 6 % (2018) of total value, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: While prior work has identified fCOIs among oncology leaders, these data suggest that payments extend across the cancer system. POLICY SUMMARY: Pre-existing data suggest a strong relationship between industry payments and physician prescribing. The current study demonstrates that fCOIs among oncology prescribers are pervasive. The oncology community must consider the extent to which these relationships influence clinical practice and regulatory policies.

Oncology education for family medicine residents: a national needs assessment survey.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the current state of oncology education in Canadian family medicine postgraduate medical education programs (FM PGME) and examine opinions regarding optimal oncology education in these programs. METHODS: A survey was designed to evaluate ideal and current oncology teaching, educational topics, objectives, and competencies in FM PGMEs. The survey was sent to Canadian family medicine (FM) residents and program directors (PDs). RESULTS: In total, 150 residents and 17 PDs affiliated with 16 of 17 Canadian medical schools completed the survey. The majority indicated their programs do not have a mandatory clinical rotation in oncology (79% residents, 88% PDs). Low rates of residents (7%) and PDs (13%) reported FM residents being adequately prepared for their role in caring for cancer patients (p = 0.03). Residents and PDs believed the most optimal method of teaching oncology is through clinical exposure (65% residents, 80% PDs). Residents and PDs agreed the most important topics to learn (rated ≥4.7 on 5-point Likert scale) were: performing pap smears, cancer screening/prevention, breaking bad news, and approach to patient with increased cancer risk. According to residents, other important topics such as appropriate cancer patient referrals, managing cancer complications and post-treatment surveillance were only taught at frequencies of 52, 40 and 36%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Current FM PGME oncology education is suboptimal, although the degree differs in the opinion of residents and PDs. This study identified topics and methods of education which could be focussed upon to improve FM oncology education.