Access to Oncology Medicines in Canada: Consensus Forum for Recommendations for Improvement.

Patient access to new oncology drugs in Canada is only possible after navigating multiple sequential systemic checkpoints for national regulatory approval, health technology assessment (HTA) and collective government price negotiation. These steps delay access and prevent health care providers from being able to prescribe optimal therapy. Eighteen Canadian oncology clinicians from the medicine, nursing and pharmacy professions met to develop consensus recommendations for defining reasonable government performance standards around process and timeliness to improve Canadian cancer patients' access to best care. A modified Delphi methodology was used to identify consensus on 30 questions involving five themes: accountability, disparities, endpoints, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness. It was agreed that greater transparency is required across regulatory and HTA processes. Health professionals in oncology are frustrated for their patients because they are unable to deliver the modern guideline-supported therapies they want to provide due to delays in approval or funding. Canadian health care providers request improvements in timely access to life-saving therapeutics in line with other comparator countries. Clinicians expect urgent improvements in Canadian health systems to give our patients their best chance of survival.

Impact of Systemic Delays for Patient Access to Oncology Drugs on Clinical, Economic, and Quality of Life Outcomes in Canada: A Call to Action.

Canada has one of the most complex and rigorous drug approval and public reimbursement processes and is, unfortunately, one of the countries with the longest delays in drug access. To assess the overall impact of systemic delays in access to cancer therapy, a targeted literature review (TLR) was performed to identify studies associated with the clinical, economic, and quality of life impacts of delayed access to oncology drugs. Using MEDLINE/PubMed databases and snowballing, four unique records met the eligibility criteria. Results revealed that clinical outcomes were the most impacted by systemic delays in access to oncology drugs (e.g., life years lost, overall survival, and progression-free survival). The four articles retrieved by the TLR specifically illustrated that a substantial number of life years could potentially be saved by increasing systemic efficiency regarding the development, approval, and reimbursement processes of new drugs for advanced malignancies. It is imperative that initiatives are put in place to improve the performance and speed of Canadian drug regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) processes, especially for new cancer therapeutics. The proposed solutions in this paper include better coordination between HTA and Canadian payers to harmonize coverage decisions, international collaborations, information sharing, and national standards for timeliness in oncology drug access.

Targeting HER2-low in metastatic breast cancer: an evolving treatment paradigm.

The results of the Phase III DESTINY-Breast04 trial of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) are leading to a shift in both the classification and treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer. In this trial, T-DXd was associated with a substantial survival benefit among patients with hormone receptor-positive and hormone receptor-negative disease and low expression of HER2, a biomarker previously considered unactionable in this treatment setting. Herein, we discuss the evolving therapeutic pathway for HER2-low disease, ongoing clinical trials, and the potential challenges and evidence gaps arising with treatment of this patient population.

HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer Treatment in the First-Line Setting: Expert Review.

The approval of CDK4/6 inhibitors has dramatically improved care for the treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer, but navigating the rapidly-expanding treatment evidence base is challenging. In this narrative review, we provide best-practice recommendations for the first-line treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer in Canada based on relevant literature, clinical guidelines, and our own clinical experience. Due to statistically significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival, ribociclib + aromatase inhibitor is our preferred first-line treatment for de novo advanced disease or relapse ≥12 months after completion of adjuvant endocrine therapy and ribociclib or abemaciclib + fulvestrant is our preferred first-line treatment for patients experiencing early relapse. Abemaciclib or palbociclib may be used when alternatives to ribociclib are needed, and endocrine therapy can be used alone in the case of contraindication to CDK4/6 inhibitors or limited life expectancy. Considerations for special populations-including frail and fit elderly patients, as well as those with visceral disease, brain metastases, and oligometastatic disease-are also explored. For monitoring, we recommend an approach across CDK4/6 inhibitors. For mutational testing, we recommend routinely performing ER/PR/HER2 testing to confirm the subtype of advanced disease at the time of progression and to consider ESR1 and PIK3CA testing for select patients. Where possible, engage a multidisciplinary care team to apply evidence in a patient-centric manner.

Reply to Trudeau, M.; Fraser, B. The CADTH pCODR Expert Review Committee Process Explained. Comment on "Rayson et al. Access to Neoadjuvant Pertuzumab for HER2 Positive Breast Cancer in Canada: A Dilemma Increasingly Difficult to Explain. Curr. Oncol. 2022, 29, 9891-9895".

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the comment [...].

Use of Systemic Therapies for Treatment of Psoriasis in Patients with a History of Treated Solid Tumours: Inference-Based Guidance from a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel.

BACKGROUND: Patients with treated solid tumours (TSTs) are a highly heterogeneous population at an increased risk for malignancy compared with the general population. When treating psoriasis in patients with a history of TSTs, clinicians are concerned about the immunosuppressive nature of psoriasis therapies, the possibility of augmenting cancer recurrence/progression, and infectious complications. No direct, high-level evidence exists to address these concerns. OBJECTIVES: We aim to provide a structured framework supporting healthcare professional and patient discussions on the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in patients with previously TSTs. Our goal was to address the clinically important question, "In patients with TSTs, does therapy with systemic agents used for psoriasis increase the risk of malignancy or malignancy recurrence?" METHODS: We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial and real-world data were absent. We reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in patients with TSTs. Recommendations on systemic psoriasis therapies in patients with TSTs were derived using an inferential heuristic. RESULTS: We identified five indirect indicators of iatrogenic immunosuppression informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) overall survival, (2) rate of malignancies with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (3) rate of infections with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (4) common disease biochemical pathways for solid tumours and systemic psoriasis therapies, and (5) solid organ transplant outcomes. On the basis of review of the totality of this data, we provided inference-based conclusions and ascribed level of support for each statement. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to considering new therapies for psoriasis, an understanding of cancer prognosis should be addressed. Patients with TSTs and a good cancer prognosis will have similar outcomes to non-TST patients when treated with systemic psoriasis therapies. For patients with TSTs and a poor cancer prognosis, the quality-of-life benefits of treating psoriasis may outweigh the theoretical risks.

Patients with previously treated cancer have a higher chance of cancer recurrence compared with the general population. With cancer incidence rising worldwide, doctors across medical specialities will need to treat other medical conditions, including inflammatory diseases such as psoriasis, in these patients. Effective systemic therapies for psoriasis reduce immune cell activity. Accordingly, there are concerns that treatments for psoriasis could worsen cancer recurrence/progression and infectious complications. There is not enough quality evidence to make broad recommendations for treating other inflammatory conditions in patients with a history of cancer. To guide patient and doctor discussions, we asked: what are effective and safe treatments when patients with treated solid tumours need systemic therapy (pills or injections) for their psoriasis? We focused on patients with solid tumours and excluded blood and skin cancers. Our panel of experts, including 12 dermatologists and 3 medical oncologists, reviewed direct and indirect evidence to answer this question. Considering the totality of evidence reviewed, the expert panel drafted and rated their level of support for opinion statements on important considerations in treating patients with psoriasis who have a history of solid tumours. By making inferences on systemic psoriasis therapies in this heterogeneous population, we take the onus off individual physicians to review the indirect data. This process may help answer questions in other disease populations where direct evidence is scarce or absent. To support treatment decisions, doctors should have a guided conversation with the patient and their family on a case-by-case basis about the risks and benefits of treatment.

Access to Neoadjuvant Pertuzumab for HER2 Positive Breast Cancer in Canada: A Dilemma Increasingly Difficult to Explain.

The addition of pertuzumab to neoadjuvant trastuzumab and chemotherapy for women with early-stage, high-risk, HER2+ breast cancer has been observed to lead to higher pathologic complete response rates (pCR), and improved event-free survival compared to trastuzumab and chemotherapy alone. Based on available data, neoadjuvant pertuzumab is recommended by ESMO, ASCO, and NICE as well as by a Canadian Consensus Guideline Group. We discuss the implications for Canadian patients with HER2+ early breast cancer due to a second and final negative funding decision by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) related to neoadjuvant pertuzumab. This decision will have adverse impacts for up to 1 in 6 women receiving neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk HER2+ breast cancer, due to suboptimal pCR rates and higher risks of invasive breast cancer recurrent events, resulting in the need for more toxic adjuvant therapy.

Access Denied? The Unintended Consequences of Pending Drug Pricing Rules.

The government of Canada now plans to bring into force new federal drug pricing regulations on 1 July 2022. We do not take issue with the goal of medication affordability, which is vital in healthcare the world over. Our concern is that the new guidelines are being implemented without due consideration for three major unintended consequences: regulatory changes will lower the number of clinical trials for new medications in Canada, fewer clinical trials will mean lower research and development investments, and changes will reduce patients' access to new medications. Access to effective medications is a cornerstone of healthcare for Canadian patients. As physicians, our duty to patient care demands that we tell the government to protect the right of Canadians to timely access to life-changing medicines.

Is It Time to Commit to a Process to Re-Evaluate Oncology Drugs? A Descriptive Analysis of Systemic Therapies for Solid Tumour Indications Reviewed in Canada from 2017 to 2021.

We undertook an analysis of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)'s health technology assessments (HTAs) of systemic therapies for solid tumour indications to determine if a mechanism to re-evaluate HTA decisions is needed based on the level of certainty supporting the original recommendation. To measure the certainty in the evidence, we analysed if: (1) overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint in the pivotal trial, (2) median OS was available at the time of the recommendation, and (3) the expert review committee explicitly identified gaps in the evidence. There were 96 drugs approved by Health Canada that met our eligibility criteria between 1 January 2017 and 31 October 2021. Median OS was not estimable at the time of the recommendation in 57% of the positive recommendations, and the uncertainty in the magnitude of clinical benefit was identified by the expert review committee in 21% of the positive recommendations. There is uncertainty at the time of the HTA recommendation for many drugs, and thus a need to implement a process to re-evaluate drugs in Canada to allow patients timely access to promising therapies while ensuring long-term value of therapies to patients and the healthcare system.

Perceptions around bone-modifying agent use in patients with bone metastases from breast and castration resistant prostate cancer: a patient survey.

BACKGROUND: Optimal use of bone-modifying agent (BMA) therapy in patients with bone metastases from breast and castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is evolving. METHODS: Patients receiving BMA for bone metastases from breast or CRPC were surveyed. Information was collected on patient and disease characteristics, BMA treatments and perceptions regarding BMA benefits and side effects. Interest in participation in trials of de-escalated BMA therapy was also gauged. RESULTS: Of 220 patients contacted, 172 eligible patients responded (response rate 78%). Median age was 67 (range: 21-91); 137 (80%) had breast cancer and 35 (20%) CRPC. Symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) occurred prior to starting BMAs in 61% (84/137) of breast and 48% (17/35) of CRPC patients. Among breast cancer patients, 47, 33 and 13% received zoledronate, pamidronate and denosumab, respectively. Eighty-five percent (30/35) of CRPC patients received denosumab. De-escalation of therapy was more common among breast cancer patients. Although most patients correctly reported the goals of BMA therapy were to "help stop fractures" (62%) and "[improve] quality of life" (63%), 46.5% felt it prolonged survival and 54% felt it reduced bone progression. Most respondents (102/129, 79%) were comfortable with de-escalating to 6-monthly treatment after 2 years of BMA therapy. Patients considered the most important endpoints of de-escalation studies to be "stability of bone metastases" (45%), "quality of life" (22%) and "SSE rates" (14%). CONCLUSION: Twelve weekly BMA was more common in breast than in prostate cancer. There remain misconceptions about the benefits of BMAs, highlighting potential gaps in patient education. Patients were interested in further BMA de-escalation after 2 years of prior BMA and provided study endpoints that were most important to them.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: Review of the Evidence and Conditions That Facilitated Its Use during the Global Pandemic.

Practice and behaviour change in healthcare is complex, and requires a set of critical steps that would be needed to implement and sustain the change. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer is traditionally used for locally advanced disease and is primarily advantageous for surgical downstaging purposes. However, it does also offer patients with certain biologic subtypes such as the triple negative or Her2 positive breast cancers the opportunity to improve survival, even in early stage disease. During the height of the pandemic, an opportunity and motivation for the increased use of neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer was identified. This paper describes the conditions that have supported this practice change at the provider and institutional levels. We also include our own institutional algorithm based on tumor biology and extent of disease that have guided our decisions on breast cancer management during the pandemic. Our processes can be adapted by other institutions and breast oncology practices in accordance with local conditions and resources, during and beyond the pandemic.

Adjuvant bisphosphonate use in patients with early stage breast cancer: Patient perspectives on treatment acceptability and potential de-escalation.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing use of adjuvant bisphosphonates for early stage breast cancer (EBC), little is known about the patient experience with such treatments. A patient survey was performed to identify current prescribing practices, perceptions around the role of treatment, the impact of treatment on patients' quality of life, and future trial designs. METHODS: EBC patients who had either completed or were currently receiving adjuvant bisphosphonates were sent an anonymized survey. The survey collected information on patient and disease characteristics, bisphosphonate scheduling, compliance, and tolerance. Questions also assessed patient interest in trials of de-escalated bisphosphonate therapy. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients were contacted, with 164 eligible respondents (eligible response rate 164/255, 64.3%). Median patient age was 52 years (range 28 to 82 years). The majority (111/163, 68.1%) were postmenopausal at the time of diagnosis, 23.3% (38/163) were premenopausal, and 7.4% (12/163) were perimenopausal. Most patients (78%) had received chemotherapy. Zoledronate was the most commonly used bisphosphonate (92%), with the majority receiving treatment every 6 months for 3 years (73%). While 66% (107/161) of respondents had experienced side effects with treatment, most had, or expected to, complete treatment (154/163, 94%). Provided there was no detriment in breast cancer outcomes, there was strong interest in future studies of de-escalating adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy. CONCLUSION: While most patients tolerate their treatment, there is interest in performing trials of de-escalation of these agents.

Controversial issues in the management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: Results from a Canadian consensus forum.

INTRODUCTION: The management of advanced prostate cancer (PCa) continues to evolve with the emergence of new diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. As a result, there are multiple areas in this landscape with a lack of high-level evidence to guide practice. Consensus initiatives are an approach to establishing practice guidance in areas where evidence is unclear. We conducted a Canadian-based consensus forum to address key controversial areas in the management of advanced PCa. METHODS: As part of a modified Delphi process, a core scientific group of PCa physicians (n=8) identified controversial areas for discussion and developed an initial set of questions, which were then reviewed and finalized with a larger group of 29 multidisciplinary PCa specialists. The main areas of focus were non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), oligometastatic prostate cancer, genetic testing in prostate cancer, and imaging in advanced prostate cancer. The predetermined threshold for consensus was set at 74% (agreement from 20 of 27 participating physicians). RESULTS: Consensus participants included uro-oncologists (n=13), medical oncologists (n=10), and radiation oncologists (n=4). Of the 64 questions, consensus was reached in 30 questions (n=5 unanimously). Consensus was more common for questions related to biochemical recurrence, sequencing of therapies, and mCRPC. CONCLUSIONS: A Canadian consensus forum in PCa identified areas of agreement in nearly 50% of questions discussed. Areas of variability may represent opportunities for further research, education, and sharing of best practices. These findings reinforce the value of multidisciplinary consensus initiatives to optimize patient care.

Does integration of Magee equations into routine clinical practice affect whether oncologists order the Oncotype DX test? A prospective randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: The three Magee Equations provide an estimate of the Oncotype DX recurrence score using commonly available clinicopathologic information (tumour size, grade, oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER2, and Ki67). We assessed whether integration of Magee Equations into routine clinical practice affected the frequency of Oncotype DX requests. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed, node negative, hormone receptor positive, and HER2 negative invasive breast cancer were randomized to undergo a Magee calculation or not. At the first clinic assessment, the oncologist was provided with all routinely available clinicopathologic information (including Ki67) either with or without the results of Magee Equations. Primary outcome was frequency of Oncotype DX ordering. Secondary outcomes included frequency of chemotherapy use, time to commencement of radiotherapy, or systemic therapy. Physician comfort with systemic therapy choices and the use of Ki67 and Magee Equations was also assessed. RESULTS: Data from 175 randomized patients was available, 84 patients (48%) with and 91 (52%) without calculated Magee Equations. Oncotype DX was ordered in 10 (12.05%) and 13 (14.44%) (RR 0.83, 0.39-1.80; P = 0.64) in the Magee and no Magee groups, respectively. There were no statistically or clinically significant differences between the randomized groups for any of the secondary outcomes. Availability of both Ki67 and Magee Equations was associated with increased physician comfort around systemic treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: In a practice where Ki67 is routinely available, addition of Magee Equations into routine clinic practice was not associated with a reduction in Oncotype DX use. Availability of both Ki67 and Magee Equations did however increase physician comfort with systemic therapy decisions.

Sunitinib toxicity management - a practical approach.

This article summarizes the adverse events (AEs) of sunitinib that are commonly encountered in a community oncology practice, and provides practical recommendations for their management based on the available literature and on the author's own experience.

Challenges to implementation of an epidermal growth factor receptor testing strategy for non-small-cell lung cancer in a publicly funded health care system.

BACKGROUND: Data from seven recent randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that epidermal growth factor (EGFR) mutation status is predictive of improved progression-free survival and quality of life from first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. We examined barriers to the initial implementation of a national EGFR testing policy in Canada. METHODS: Five laboratories across Canada underwent a validation and quality-control exercise for EGFR mutation testing using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction with financial support from the pharmaceutical industry for the initial 12 months. Oncologists registered patients with nonquamous histology for EGFR mutation testing using a Web-based platform. Basic demographics were collected including age, histology, sex, smoking status, and ethnicity. The decision to prescribe gefitinib was subsequently registered on the system. RESULTS: Between March and December 2010, 2104 requests were received for EGFR mutation testing. Demographic details are as follows: adenocarcinoma (91.6%); Asian ethnicity (13.9%); female (58%); light/never smoker (41.3%); stage IV disease (87.1%). The number of tests requested each month ranged from 200 to 250. Mutation testing was conducted in 1771 of 2104 requests (84%). The median turnaround time for EGFR testing was 18 days (standard deviation 9.7). Gefitinib was prescribed in 302 patients (17.1%). The number of test requests dropped to 50 to 100 per month at the end of the initial 12 months. CONCLUSION: There was rapid uptake of EGFR mutation testing into routine clinical practice in Canada. Uptake of EGFR mutation testing dropped substantially once funding from pharmaceutical industry was discontinued. There is a need for a national strategy to ensure resources are in place to implement molecular testing for new molecularly targeted agents.

Health-related quality of life with adjuvant docetaxel- and trastuzumab-based regimens in patients with node-positive and high-risk node-negative, HER2-positive early breast cancer: results from the BCIRG 006 Study.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to describe and compare health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with node-positive and high-risk node-negative HER2-positive early breast cancer receiving adjuvant docetaxel and trastuzumab-based or docetaxel-based regimens alone. METHODS: Eligible patients (n = 3,222) were randomly assigned to either four cycles of adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by four cycles of docetaxel (AC→T) or one of two trastuzumab-containing regimens: adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel plus trastuzumab administered for 1 year (AC→TH) or six cycles of docetaxel plus carboplatin combined with trastuzumab administered for 1 year (TCH). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and BR-23 were administered at baseline, the start of cycle 4 (mid), and the end of chemotherapy (EOC), as well as at 6, 12, and 24 months after chemotherapy. RESULTS: Compliance rates for the EORTC questionnaires were acceptable at 72%-93% of eligible patients out to the 12-month assessment. Systemic side effect (SE) change scores were significantly improved for TCH-treated patients compared with AC→TH and AC→T at EOC, suggesting improved tolerability. Physical functioning (PF) was only slightly worse at midpoint for those receiving TCH, compared with patients who were just starting on taxane in an AC→TH regimen, but was otherwise similar between arms. All treatment arms recovered from the deterioration in SE, PF, and Global Health Scale scores by 1 year and median future perspective change scores continued to improve throughout treatment and follow-up. CONCLUSION: HRQL outcomes for adjuvant docetaxel and trastuzumab-based regimens are favorable and support TCH as a more tolerable treatment option.

Phase III study of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide with concomitant versus sequential docetaxel as adjuvant treatment in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-normal, node-positive breast cancer: BCIRG-005 trial.

PURPOSE: Anthracyclines, taxanes, and alkylating agents are among the most active agents in treatment of adjuvant breast cancer (BC), but the optimal schedule for their administration is unknown. We performed an adjuvant trial to compare the sequential regimen of doxorubicin with cyclophosphamide (AC) followed by docetaxel (ie, AC>T) with the combination regimen of TAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with node-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-nonamplified, operable BC were stratified by number of axillary nodes and hormone receptor status and were randomly assigned to adjuvant chemotherapy with six cycles of TAC (75/50/500 mg/m² every 3 weeks) or four cycles of AC (60/600 mg/m² every 3 weeks) followed by four doses of docetaxel at 100 mg/m² every 3 weeks (AC>T). After completion of chemotherapy, radiation therapy was given as indicated, and patients with hormone receptor (HR) -positive disease received adjuvant hormonal therapy with tamoxifen and/or aromatase inhibitors. RESULTS: In 30 months, 3,298 patients were enrolled (n = 1,649 in each arm). The major baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups. At a median follow-up of 65 months, estimated 5-year disease-free survival rates were 79% in both groups (log-rank P = .98; hazard ratio [HR], 1.0; 95%CI, 0.86 to 1.16), and 5-year overall survival rates for both arms were 88% and 89%, respectively (log-rank P = .37; HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.11). TAC was associated with more febrile neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, and AC>T was associated with more sensory neuropathy, nail changes, and myalgia. The incidence of neutropenic infection was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: The sequential and combination regimens incorporating three drugs were equally effective but differed in toxicity profile.