Assessing Bias and Limitations of Clinical Validation Studies of Molecular Diagnostic Tests for Indeterminate Thyroid Nodules: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Molecular tests for thyroid nodules with indeterminate fine needle aspiration results are increasingly used in clinical practice; however, true diagnostic summaries of these tests are unknown. A systematic review and meta-analysis were completed to (1) evaluate the accuracy of commercially available molecular tests for malignancy in indeterminate thyroid nodules and (2) quantify biases and limitations in studies that validate those tests. Summary: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were systematically searched through July 2021. English language articles that reported original clinical validation attempts of molecular tests for indeterminate thyroid nodules were included if they reported counts of true-negative, true-positive, false-negative, and false-positive results. We performed screening and full-text review, followed by assessment of eight common biases and limitations, extraction of diagnostic and histopathological information, and meta-analysis of clinical validity using a bivariate linear mixed-effects model. Forty-nine studies were included. Meta-analysis of Afirma Gene expression classifiers (GEC; n = 38 studies) revealed a sensitivity of 0.92 (confidence interval: 0.90-0.94), specificity of 0.26 (0.20-0.32), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.32 (0.23-0.44), positive LR+ of 1.24 (1.15-1.35), and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.83 (0.74-0.89). Afirma Genomic Sequencing Classifier (GSC; n = 10) had a sensitivity of 0.94 (0.89-0.96), specificity of 0.38 (0.27-0.50), LR- of 0.18 (0.10-0.30), LR+ of 1.52 (1.28-1.87), and AUC of 0.91 (0.62-0.92). ThyroSeq v1 and v2 (n = 10) had a sensitivity of 0.86 (0.82-0.90), specificity of 0.74 (0.59-0.85), LR- of 0.19 (0.13-0.26), LR+ of 3.52 (2.08-5.92), and AUC of 0.86 (0.81-0.90). ThyroSeq v3 (n = 6) had a sensitivity of 0.92 (0.86-0.95), specificity of 0.41 (0.18-0.69), LR- of 0.24 (0.09-0.62), LR+ of 1.67 (1.09-2.98), and AUC of 0.90 (0.63-0.92). Fourteen percent of studies conducted a blinded histopathologic review of excised thyroid nodules, and 8% made the decision to go to surgery blind to molecular test results. Conclusions: Meta-analyses reveal a high diagnostic accuracy of molecular tests for thyroid nodule assessment of malignancy risk; however, these studies are subject to several limitations. Limitations and their potential clinical impacts must be addressed and, when feasible, adjusted for using valid statistical methodologies.

Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Vs Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the US.

Importance: Checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy represents a major advance in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Pembrolizumab-axitinib and nivolumab-ipilimumab have become standard of care options after demonstrating clinical efficacy against sunitinib in separate phase 3 trials. The cost-effectiveness of these regimens is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab-axitinib and nivolumab- ipilimumab in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a primary microsimulation model was developed and run between August and December 2019. Separate analyses were conducted for an intermediate- and poor-risk patient population (base case) and a favorable-risk population (exploratory analysis) because prognosis is known to differ between risk groups; 100 000 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were simulated in each treatment arm. Survival, treatment regimens, and other relevant conditions were based on data from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 and CheckMate214 clinical trials. The study perspective was the US health care sector. Main Outcomes and Measures: An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for each of the 2 analyses and compared with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: Pembrolizumab-axitinib was estimated to add 0.60 QALYs compared with nivolumab-ipilimumab in the base case analysis (3.66 vs 3.05 QALYs) and 0.25 QALYs compared with nivolumab-ipilimumab in the exploratory analysis (4.55 vs 4.30 QALYs), and was more costly (base case analysis: $562 927 vs $458 961; exploratory analysis: $589 035 vs $470 403). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $172 532 per QALY in the base case analysis and $468 682 per QALY in the exploratory analysis. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the base case model was most sensitive to first-line drug prices (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at upper limit of nivolumab price and lower limits of axitinib and pembrolizumab prices: $89 983, $102 287, and $114 943 per QALY, respectively). The exploratory analysis model was most sensitive to overall survival rates (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at lower limit of pembrolizumab-axitinib rate and upper limit of nivolumab-ipilimumab rate: $278 644 and $285 684 per QALY, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that pembrolizumab-axitinib treatment is associated with greater QALYs compared with nivolumab/ipilimumab treatment in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma but may not be cost-effective. Price reductions may make the cost of pembrolizumab-axitinib proportional to its clinical value and less financially burdensome to the US health care system.

Racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer treatment utilization and phase-specific costs, 2000-2014.

BACKGROUND: Our study analyzed disparities in utilization and phase-specific costs of care among older colorectal cancer patients in the United States. We also estimated the phase-specific costs by cancer type, stage at diagnosis, and treatment modality. METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database to identify patients aged 66 or older diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer between 2000-2013, with follow-up to death or December 31, 2014. We divided the patient's experience into separate phases of care: staging or surgery, initial, continuing, and terminal. We calculated total, cancer-attributable, and patient-liability costs. We fit logistic regression models to determine predictors of treatment receipt and fit linear regression models to determine relative costs. All costs are reported in 2019 US dollars. RESULTS: Our cohort included 90,023 colon cancer patients and 25,581 rectal cancer patients. After controlling for patient and clinical characteristics, Non-Hispanic Blacks were less likely to receive treatment but were more likely to have higher cancer-attributable costs within different phases of care. Overall, in both the colon and rectal cancer cohorts, mean monthly cost estimates were highest in the terminal phase, next highest in the staging phase, decreased in the initial phase, and were lowest in the continuing phase. CONCLUSIONS: Racial/ethnic disparities in treatment utilization and costs persist among colorectal cancer patients. Additionally, colorectal cancer costs are substantial and vary widely among stages and treatment modalities. This study provides information regarding cost and treatment disparities that can be used to guide clinical interventions and future resource allocation to reduce colorectal cancer burden.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with varying comorbidity burden.

OBJECTIVES: While previous cost-effectiveness studies on pembrolizumab in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have found these regimens to be cost-effective, their reliance on randomized controlled trial (RCT) data with strict inclusion criteria limits generalizability to patients with comorbidities. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of first-line pembrolizumab for patients with various comorbidities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In our base case analysis, we studied pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (pembrolizumab combination therapy) versus chemotherapy alone. In a secondary analysis, we considered only patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 50% (PD-L1-high) and evaluated pembrolizumab monotherapy, pembrolizumab combination therapy, and chemotherapy alone. Microsimulation models were developed for the base case and the PD-L1-high analyses. To estimate outcomes of patients with differing comorbidities, we combined survival data from patients with few or no comorbidities from the RCTs with estimates from the general population obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Comorbidity burden level was divided into three groups based on the Charlson score (equal to 0, 1, or 2+); patients with various other specific comorbidities were also analyzed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were compared to a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: In the Charlson 0, Charlson 1, and Charlson 2+ patient populations, estimated ICERs for pembrolizumab combination therapy in the base case model were $173,919/QALY, $175,165/QALY, and $181,777/QALY, respectively, compared to chemotherapy. In the PD-L1-high model, the Charlson 0, Charlson 1, and Charlson 2+ patients had ICERs of $147,406/QALY, $149,026/QALY, and $154,521/QALY with pembrolizumab combination therapy versus chemotherapy. Pembrolizumab monotherapy was weakly dominated for each comorbidity group in the PD-L1-high model. CONCLUSION: For patients with stage IV NSCLC and varying comorbidity burden, first-line treatment with pembrolizumab does not represent a cost-effective strategy compared to chemotherapy. Resources should be focused on collecting immunotherapy survival data for more representative NSCLC patient populations.

Cost and Utilization of Lung Cancer End-of-Life Care Among Racial-Ethnic Minority Groups in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The end-of-life period is a crucial time in lung cancer care. To have a better understanding of the racial-ethnic disparities in health care expenditures, access, and quality, we evaluated these disparities specifically in the end-of-life period for patients with lung cancer in the U.S. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database to analyze characteristics of lung cancer care among those diagnosed between the years 2000 and 2011. Linear and logistic regression models were constructed to measure racial-ethnic disparities in end-of-life care cost and utilization among non-Hispanic (NH) Asian, NH black, Hispanic, and NH white patients while controlling for other risk factors such as age, sex, and SEER geographic region. RESULTS: Total costs and hospital utilization were, on average, greater among racial-ethnic minorities compared with NH white patients in the last month of life. Among patients with NSCLC, the relative total costs were 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.33) for NH black patients, 1.36 (95% CI, 1.25-1.49) for NH Asian patients, and 1.21 (95% CI, 1.07-1.38) for Hispanic patients. Additionally, the odds of being admitted to a hospital for NH black, NH Asian, and Hispanic patients were 1.22 (95% CI, 1.15-1.30), 1.47 (95% CI, 1.32-1.63), and 1.18 (95% CI, 1.01-1.38) times that of NH white patients, respectively. Similar results were found for patients with SCLC. CONCLUSION: Minority patients with lung cancer have significantly higher end-of-life medical expenditures than NH white patients, which may be explained by a greater intensity of care in the end-of-life period. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study investigated racial-ethnic disparities in the cost and utilization of medical care among lung cancer patients during the end-of-life period. Compared with non-Hispanic white patients, racial-ethnic minority patients were more likely to receive intensive care in their final month of life and had statistically significantly higher end-of-life care costs. The findings of this study may lead to a better understanding of the racial-ethnic disparities in end-of-life care, which can better inform future end-of-life interventions and help health care providers develop less intensive and more equitable care, such as culturally competent advanced care planning programs, for all patients.

Pancreatic cancer treatment costs, including patient liability, by phase of care and treatment modality, 2000-2013.

OBJECTIVES: Our study provides phase-specific cost estimates for pancreatic cancer based on stage and treatment. We compare treatment costs between the different phases and within the stage and treatment modality subgroups. METHODS: Our cohort included 20,917 pancreatic cancer patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database diagnosed between 2000 and 2011. We allocated costs into four phases of care-staging (or surgery), initial, continuing, and terminal- and calculated the total, cancer-attributable, and patient-liability costs in 2018 US dollars. We fit linear regression models using log transformation to determine whether costs were predicted by age and calendar year. RESULTS: Monthly cost estimates were high during the staging and surgery phases, decreased over the initial and continuing phases, and increased during the three-month terminal phase. Overall, the linear regression models showed that cancer-attributable costs either remained stable or increased by year, and either were unaffected by age or decreased with older age; continuing phase costs for stage II patients increased with age. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates demonstrate that pancreatic cancer costs can vary widely by stage and treatment received. These cost estimates can serve as an important baseline foundation to guide resource allocation for cancer care and research in the future.

Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Combination Therapy for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the United States.

Importance: Immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy has recently become the standard of care for first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. The implications of these first-line treatments are considerable, given the potential population of patients eligible to receive them and their high cost. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel as a first-line treatment strategy for patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a primary microsimulation model was developed to assess atezolizumab combination vs bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel alone in the first line (base case 1). A secondary model was developed to assess these treatments along with pembrolizumab combination and platinum doublet chemotherapy (base case 2). Treatment strategies and other simulated conditions were based on those from the IMpower150 and KEYNOTE-189 clinical trials. The study perspective was the US health care sector. One million patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer were simulated for each treatment group. This study was performed from February 2019 through May 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were compared with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: In base case 1, in which 1 million patients were simulated, treating with bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel in the first line was associated with a mean cost of $112 551 (95% CI, $112 450-$112 653) and a mean survival of 1.48 QALYs (95% CI, 1.47-1.48 QALYs) per patient. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel was associated with a mean cost of $244 166 (95% CI, $243 864-$244 468) and a mean survival of 2.13 QALYs (95% CI, 2.12-2.13 QALYs) per patient, for an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $201 676 per QALY (95% CI, $198 105-$205 355 per QALY). In base case 2, in which 1 million patients were simulated, pembrolizumab combination therapy was associated with a mean cost of $226 282 (95% CI, $226 007-$226 557) and a mean survival of 2.45 QALYs (95% CI, 2.44-2.46 QALYs) per patient. Pembrolizumab combination dominated atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $116 698 per QALY (95% CI, $115 088-$118 342 per QALY) between pembrolizumab combination and bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel. Atezolizumab combination was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Conclusions and Relevance: In this simulated model economic analysis, atezolizumab combination was not cost-effective compared with bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel and provided suboptimal incremental benefit compared with cost vs pembrolizumab combination for first-line treatment. Although atezolizumab combination therapy provides clinical benefits, price reductions may be necessary for this treatment strategy to become cost-effective.

A simulation study of the effect of lung cancer screening in China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea.

More than 50% of the world's lung cancer cases occur in Asia and more than 20% of cancer deaths in Asia are attributable to lung cancer. The U.S. National Lung Screening Trial has shown that lung cancer screening with computed tomography (CT) can reduce lung cancer deaths. Using the Lung Cancer Policy Model-Asia (LCPM-Asia), we estimated the potential mortality reduction achievable through the implementation of CT-based lung cancer screening in China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. The LCPM-Asia was calibrated to the smoking prevalence of each of the aforementioned countries based on published national surveys and to lung cancer mortality rates from the World Health Organization. The calibrated LCPM-Asia was then used to simulate lung cancer deaths under screening and no-screening scenarios for the four countries. Using screening eligibility criteria recommended by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which are based on age and smoking history, we estimated the lung cancer mortality reduction from screening through year 2040. By 2040, lung cancer screening would result in 91,362 life-years gained and 4.74% mortality reduction in South Korea; 290,325 life-years gained and 4.33% mortality reduction in Japan; 3,014,215 life-years gained and 4.22% mortality reduction in China; and 8,118 life-years gained and 3.76% mortality reduction in Singapore. As for mortality reduction by smoker type, current smokers would have the greatest mortality reduction in each country, ranging from 5.56% in Japan to 6.86% in Singapore. Among the four countries, lung cancer screening under CMS eligibility criteria was most effective in South Korea and least effective in Singapore. Singapore's low smoking prevalence and South Korea's aging population and higher smoking prevalence may partially explain the discrepancy in effectiveness. CT screening was shown to be promising as a means of reducing lung cancer mortality in the four countries.

Esophageal cancer treatment costs by phase of care and treatment modality, 2000-2013.

BACKGROUND: Detailed cost estimates are not widely available for esophageal cancer. Our study estimates phase-specific costs for esophageal cancer by age, year, histology, stage, and treatment for older patients in the United States and compares these costs within stage and treatment modalities. METHODS: We identified 8061 esophageal cancer patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database for years 1998-2013. Total, cancer-attributable, and patient-liability costs were calculated based on separate phases of care-staging (or surgery), initial, continuing, and terminal. We estimated costs by treatment modality within stage and phase for esophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma separately. We fit linear regression models using log transformation to determine cost by age and calendar year. All costs are reported in 2018 US dollars. RESULTS: Overall, mean (95% CI) monthly total cost estimates were high during the staging ($8953 [$8385-$9485]) and initial phases ($7731 [$7492-$7970]), decreased over the continuing phase ($2984 [$2814-$3154]), and increased substantially during the 6-month terminal phase ($18 150 [$17 211-$19 089]). This pattern of high staging and initial phase costs, decreasing continuing phase costs, and increasing terminal phase costs was seen in all stages. The highest staging costs were in stages III ($9249, $8025-$10 474) and II ($9171, $7642-$10 699). The highest initial phase cost was in stage IV, $9263 ($8758-49 768), the lowest continuing phase cost was in stage I, $2338 ($2160-$2517), and the highest terminal phase costs were in stages II ($20 533, $17 772-$23 293) and III ($20 599, $18 268-$22 929). The linear regression models showed that cancer-attributable costs remained stable over the study period and were unaffected by age for most histology, stage, and treatment modality subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates demonstrate that esophageal cancer costs can vary widely by histology, stage, and treatment. These cost estimates can be used to guide future resource allocation for esophageal cancer care and research.

Vegetative and minimally conscious states: serial assessment approaches in diagnosis and management.

Assessment of vegetative (VS) and minimally conscious state (MCS) patients presents clinicians with inherent difficulties (Royal College of Physicians, 2003) in terms of the reliable detection of potential signs of awareness given that all current assessment tools rely on observed behaviour. Recently developed measures such as SMART (Gill-Thwaites & Munday, 1999) and WHIM (Shiel et al., 2000), employing structured operational defined behavioural observations can facilitate the serial assessment of patient awareness, progress and appropriate goal setting particularly as one-off bedside assessments are more likely to be inaccurate. The use of sensitive tailored approaches involving experienced multidisciplinary teams is strongly advocated (Royal College of Physicians and British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine, 2003), notwithstanding clinicians should carefully consider potential confounding clinical factors, which may deleteriously influence patient arousal or ability to respond. Finally, areas for future development and recommendations regarding multidisciplinary assessment approaches with VS and MCS patients are outlined.