Comparison of internal and external reference populations for occupational cancer surveillance in a cohort drawn from a diverse workforce.

OBJECTIVES: Prior analyses of the Occupational Disease Surveillance System (ODSS) have compared cancer rates using internal referent groups. As an exploratory analysis, we sought to estimate cancer risk using general population reference rates to evaluate the impact that the comparison population has on findings from our surveillance program. METHODS: A cohort of approximately 2.3 million workers in Ontario, Canada with an accepted lost-time workers' compensation claim were followed for all cancer diagnoses between 1983 and 2018. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for workers in specific occupational groups using (1) all other workers in the ODSS cohort, and (2) the general population of Ontario. RESULTS: SIRs using the general population reference group were generally equal to or modestly lower compared to SIRs using the internal reference group. Within occupation groups, SIRs had a discordant direction of association (increased rate in the internal comparison and decreased in the external comparison) for some cancer sites including urinary, prostate, and colorectal. CONCLUSIONS: Findings emphasize the importance of the choice of reference group when evaluating cancer risks in large occupational surveillance cohorts. Importantly, the magnitude of confounding and the healthy worker hire bias may depend on the occupation group and cancer site of interest.

Power and sample size calculation for incremental net benefit in cost effectiveness analyses with applications to trials conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group.

BACKGROUND: Historically, a priori power and sample size calculations have not been routinely performed cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA), partly because the absence of published cost and effectiveness correlation and variance data, which are essential for power and sample size calculations. Importantly, the empirical correlation between cost and effectiveness has not been examined with respect to the estimation of value-for-money in clinical literature. Therefore, it is not well established if cost-effectiveness studies embedded within randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) are under- or over-powered to detect changes in value-for-money. However, recently guidelines (such as those from ISPOR) and funding agencies have suggested sample size and power calculations should be considered in CEAs embedded in clinical trials. METHODS: We examined all RCTs conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group with an embedded cost-effectiveness analysis. Variance and correlation of effectiveness and costs were derived from original-trial data. The incremental net benefit method was used to calculate the power of the cost-effectiveness analysis, with exploration of alternative correlation and willingness-to-pay values. RESULTS: We identified four trials for inclusion. We observed that a hypothetical scenario of correlation coefficient of zero between cost and effectiveness led to a conservative estimate of sample size. The cost-effectiveness analysis was under-powered to detect changes in value-for-money in two trials, at willingness-to-pay of $100,000. Based on our observations, we present six considerations for future economic evaluations, and an online program to help analysts include a priori sample size and power calculations in future clinical trials. CONCLUSION: The correlation between cost and effectiveness had a potentially meaningful impact on the power and variance of value-for-money estimates in the examined cost-effectiveness analyses. Therefore, the six considerations and online program, may facilitate a priori power calculations in embedded cost-effectiveness analyses in future clinical trials.

Parametric Survival Extrapolation of Early Survival Data in Economic Analyses: A Comparison of Projected Versus Observed Updated Survival.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the value of cancer drugs by cost-effectiveness analysis, lifetime parametric survival extrapolations are often fitted to early data. Recent literature suggests that the benefit of cancer agents in primary publications is often different compared with updated data. This study aimed to examine the projected survival based on parametric extrapolations compared with observed survival based on updated data. METHODS: US Food and Drug Administration oncology approvals from January 2006 to December 2015 were reviewed to identify randomized controlled trials, with updated overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) data within 5 years. Individual patient data were reconstructed using established methods on initial and updated publications. Projected survival was calculated as the best-fit parametric restricted mean survival time (RMST) based on extrapolated initial Kaplan-Meier curves whereas observed survival was calculated as observed RMST based on updated Kaplan-Meier curves. Mean deviations, mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error, and linear regressions were conducted to examine the relationship between projected and observed survival. RESULTS: In total, 32 randomized controlled trials were included. The MAE between the projected RMST and observed RMST was 3.18 months (OS) and 2.84 months (PFS) and absolute percentage error of 100% (OS) and 23% (PFS), suggesting substantial imprecision of the projected RMST in predicting the updated RMST. The linear regression indicated MAE increased as time extrapolated and as the percentage of censored patients increased. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated substantial difference in projected survival between initial and updated publications. Health technology assessment committees need to be aware of the potential uncertainty of incremental effectiveness and resultant value-for-money assessment when making reimbursement decisions based on initial publications with immature survival data.

Validating Restricted Mean Survival Time Estimates From Reconstructed Kaplan-Meier Data Against Original Trial Individual Patient Data From Trials Conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group.

OBJECTIVES: The development of novel cancer therapies, including immuno-oncology agents, has increased interest in reconstructed individual patient data (IPD) based restricted mean survival time (RMST) analyses. Additionally, reconstructed IPD-based RMST is recommended in cost-effectiveness analyses when original trial IPD are not available. Nevertheless, recently concerns regarding potential bias of reconstructed-IPD RMST have been presented, because reconstructed-IPD RMSTs have not been validated and previous validation endpoints may not capture the entire Kaplan-Meier (KM) curve, especially the "tail." Our study aims to validate the recommended method of IPD reconstruction by comparing reconstructed IPD- and original trial IPD-based RMST. METHODS: Canadian Cancer Trials Group trials from 1990 to 2017 were included. Overall survival and progression-free survival IPD were reconstructed based on published KM curves using the Guyot method. Analysts were blinded to original trial IPD. RMST was calculated at 1 year and over the entire KM curve. Reconstructed-IPD and original trial-IPD (gold-standard) RMSTs were compared for accuracy and predictive error via mean deviation, mean absolute error (MAE), mean percentage bias, and Bland-Altman plots and across KM curve quality (vector traced or bitmapped). RESULTS: We identified 39 trials. The mean deviation, MAE, and mean percentage bias of RMST between the reconstructed IPD and original trial IPD were small. In particular, the mean deviation was -0.01 months and -0.04 months, MAE was 0.19 months and 0.24 months, and mean percentage bias was 0.82% and 0.84% in overall survival KM curves in control and experimental arms, respectively. Accuracy was generally not associated with KM curve quality. CONCLUSIONS: RMST derived from reconstructed IPD displayed excellent accuracy and predictive error compared with the gold standard. Reconstructed IPD could be used to calculate RMST in lieu of original trial IPD, to facilitate decision making for clinicians, researchers, and policy makers.

Reassessing the Net Benefit of Cancer Drugs With Evolution of Evidence Using the ASCO Value Framework.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory approval of oncology drugs is often based on interim data or surrogate endpoints. However, clinically relevant data, such as long-term overall survival and quality of life (QoL), are often reported in subsequent publications. This study evaluated the ASCO-Value Framework (ASCO-VF) net health benefit (NHB) at the time of approval and over time as further evidence arose. METHODS: FDA-approved oncology drug indications from January 2006 to December 2016 were reviewed to identify clinical trials scorable using the ASCO-VF. Subsequent publications of clinical trials relevant for scoring were identified (until December 2019). Using ASCO-defined thresholds (≤40 for low and ≥45 for substantial benefit), we assessed changes in classification of benefit at 3 years postapproval. RESULTS: Fifty-five eligible indications were included. At FDA approval, 40.0% were substantial, 10.9% were intermediate, and 49.1% were low benefit. We then identified 90 subsequent publications relevant to scoring, including primary (28.9%) and secondary endpoint updates (47.8%), safety updates (31.1%), and QoL reporting (47.8%). There was a change from initial classification of benefit in 27.3% of trials (10.9% became substantial, 9.1% became low, and 7.3% became intermediate). These changes were mainly due to updated hazard ratios (36.4%), toxicities (56.4%), new tail-of-the-curve bonus (9.1%), palliation bonus (14.5%), or QoL bonus (18.2%). Overall, at 3 years postapproval, 40.0% were substantial, 9.1% were intermediate, and 50.9% were low benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Because there were changes in classification for more than one-quarter of indications, in either direction, reassessing the ASCO-VF NHB as more evidence becomes available may be beneficial to inform clinical shared decision-making. On average, there was no overall improvement in the ASCO-VF NHB with longer follow-up and evolution of evidence.

Quantifying the Survival Benefits of Oncology Drugs With a Focus on Immunotherapy Using Restricted Mean Survival Time.

BACKGROUND: Restricted mean survival time (RMST) overcomes limitations of current measures of survival benefits because it directly captures information of the entire area under Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Using RMST difference (absolute survival benefit) and RMST ratio (relative survival benefit), we quantified the magnitude of survival benefits of recent oncology drugs and compared immunotherapies with nonimmunotherapies. METHODS: Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted from phase II/III randomized controlled trials used by the FDA for oncology drug approvals from January 2011 through November 2017 with overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) as primary endpoints. RMST differences, ratios, and their 95% confidence intervals were meta-analyzed to estimate absolute and relative survival benefits of contemporary oncology drugs and to compare immunotherapies with nonimmunotherapies. Meta-regression was conducted to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: Ninety-four trials with a total of 51,639 patients were included. Overall absolute survival benefits (RMST differences) were 1.55 months for OS (95% CI, 1.32-1.77) and 2.99 months for PFS (95% CI, 2.65-3.33). Overall relative survival benefits (RMST ratios) were 1.11 for OS (95% CI, 1.09-1.13) and 1.42 for PFS (95% CI, 1.36-1.48). Immunotherapy absolute PFS benefit was less than that of nonimmunotherapy (1.56 vs 3.23 months), whereas immunotherapy absolute OS benefit was larger than that of nonimmunotherapy by 0.59 months (2.02 vs 1.43 months). Adjusted OS RMST difference was 0.91 months greater for immunotherapy than for nonimmunotherapy after adjusting for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute survival benefits of recent oncology drugs are modest. Survival benefits of immunotherapies are not dramatically superior to those of nonimmunotherapies. Routine reporting and use of RMST may help patients, physicians, and payers make more informed and responsible decisions regarding the care of patients with cancer.

Leukemia Incidence by Occupation and Industry: A Cohort Study of 2.3 Million Workers from Ontario, Canada.

Although a significant body of evidence has attributed certain occupational exposures with leukemia, such as benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and ionizing radiation, more research is needed to identify work environments at increased risk for this disease. Our study aimed to identify occupational and industry groups associated with an elevated incidence of leukemia using a diverse cohort of workers' compensation claimants from Ontario, Canada. A total of 2,363,818 workers in the Occupational Disease Surveillance System (ODSS) cohort, with claims between 1983-2019, were followed for malignant leukemia diagnoses up to 31 December 2019. We used a Cox proportional-hazards model to estimate the relative incidence of leukemia in specific occupation and industry groups. After adjusting for age and birth year, males in protective services (HR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.02-1.35), metal machining (HR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.07-1.41), transport (HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.06-1.25), and mining occupations (HR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.02-1.60) had elevated risks of leukemia compared to other workers in the ODSS, with comparable findings by industry. Among female workers, slight risk elevations were observed among product fabricating, assembling, and repairing occupations, with other increased risks seen in furniture and fixture manufacturing, storage, and retail industries. These findings underscore the need for exposure-based studies to better understand occupational hazards in these settings.

Experiences of gender-diverse youth during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: A longitudinal qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased existing health challenges experienced by transgender (trans) and non-binary people. Additionally, COVID-19 has also negatively impacted youth mental health. However, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with respect to the intersection of youth and trans and non-binary populations is currently not well established. The present longitudinal qualitative study aimed to examine the evolving challenges experienced by trans and non-binary youth during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Gender-diverse youth, defined as participants who did not identify as cisgender in April 2020, were invited to participate from among the participant pool of a COVID-19 cohort study in Canada. Qualitative interviews were conducted in August 2020, January 2021, and August 2021, during the first year and a half of the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative themes were identified based on reflexive thematic analysis and plot-line narrative inquiry. RESULTS: Ten participants aged 18 to 28 were included in the present analysis, yielding 29 transcripts. We identified themes of (1) losses of connection to gender-diverse communities, (2) changes in gender identity, affirmation, and self-reflection, (3) a dual burden of trans and non-binary specific health and service access challenges as well as COVID-19 pandemic related health challenges, and (4) virtually rebuilding gender-diverse communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Gender-diverse youth may experience unique challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. The losses with gender-diverse communities may further isolate queer people from access to healthcare, housing, and employment. Public health policy targeted at gender-diverse youth may consider addressing "upstream" disparities in healthcare and housing in order to support the rebuilding of queer and gender-diverse communities by gender-diverse people.

Examining the association between oncology drug clinical benefit and the time to public reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: We examined if oncology drug indications with high clinical benefit, as measured by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), received public reimbursement status faster than those with lower clinical benefit from the time of pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) recommendation. METHODS: Oncology drug indications submitted to pCODR between July 2011 and October 2018 were examined. Included indications had a regulatory approval date, completed the pCODR review process, received a positive pCODR recommendation, and been funded by at least one province. Trials cited for clinical efficacy were used to determine the clinical benefit (per ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS) of drug indications. RESULTS: Eighty-four indications were identified, yielding 65 ASCO-VF and 50 ESMO-MCBS scores. The mean ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS scores were 44.9 (SD = 21.1) and 3.3 (SD = 1.0), respectively. The mean time to provincial reimbursement from pCODR recommendation was 13.2 months (SD = 9.3 months). Higher ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS scores had low correlation with shorter time to reimbursement, (ρ = -0.21) and (ρ = 0.24), respectively. In the multivariable analyses, ASCO-VF (p = 0.40) and ESMO-MCBS (p = 0.31) scores were not significantly associated with time to reimbursement. Province and year of pCODR recommendation were associated with time to reimbursement in both ASCO and ESMO models. CONCLUSIONS: Oncology drug indications with higher clinical benefit do not appear to be reimbursed faster than those with low clinical benefit. This suggests the need to prioritize oncology drug indications based on clinical benefit to ensure quicker access to oncology drugs with the greatest benefits.

Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Pembrolizumab monotherapy has replaced chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥ 50%. The benefit of chemotherapy combined with pembrolizumab, as compared to pembrolizumab monotherapy, remains uncertain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare these therapies through a network of randomized controlled trials. Endpoints evaluated were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and restricted mean survival time (RMST) through reconstruction of individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier curves, and objective response rate and adverse events. Four trials were included. Through HR and RMST, combination therapy demonstrated longer PFS and similar OS as compared to pembrolizumab monotherapy. Combination therapy was associated with an increase in response rate and adverse events. Thus, combination therapy can be considered when rapid response or prevention of rapid progression is needed. Further evidence to directly compare these therapies is required.

Assessment of Food and Drug Administration- and European Medicines Agency-Approved Systemic Oncology Therapies and Clinically Meaningful Improvements in Quality of Life: A Systematic Review.

Importance: For patients with cancer treated with palliative intent, quality of life (QOL) is a critical aspect of treatment decision-making, alongside survival. However, regulatory approval can be based solely on survival measures or antitumor activities, without QOL evidence. Objective: To investigate whether recently approved oncology therapies demonstrate clinically meaningful improvements in QOL. Evidence Review: This systematic review study identified oncology drug indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) from January 2006 to December 2017 and supporting clinical trials (QOL publications identified to October 2019). Indications were evaluated for the presence of published QOL evidence; QOL benefits according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2.0 (ASCO-VF) and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS) QOL bonus criteria; and clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences. Hematology trials were not evaluated by ESMO-MCBS. Associations between QOL evidence and approval year were examined using logistic regression models. Findings: In total, 214 FDA-approved (77 [36%] hematological) and 170 EMA-approved (52 [31%] hematological) indications were included. QOL evidence was published for 40% and 58% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. QOL bonus criterion for ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS was met in 13% and 17% of FDA-approved and 21% and 24% of EMA-approved indications, respectively. Clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences were noted in 6% and 11% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. Availability of published QOL evidence at the time of approval increased over time for EMA (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; P = .03), however not for FDA (OR, 1.10; P = .12). Over time, no increase in awarded QOL bonuses or clinically meaningful improvements in QOL were found. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this systematic review suggest that approved systemic oncology therapies often do not have published evidence to suggest QOL improvement, despite its recognized importance. Of indications with evidence of statistical improvement, few have demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements.

Application of the ASCO Value Framework and ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale to Assess the Value of Abiraterone and Enzalutamide in Advanced Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: As novel hormonal therapies, such as abiraterone and enzalutamide, move into earlier stages of treatment of advanced prostate cancer, there are significant cost implications. We used the ASCO Value Framework (AVF) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) to quantify and compare the incremental clinical benefit and costs of these agents in the metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) settings. METHODS: We searched PubMed for randomized phase III trials of abiraterone and enzalutamide in mCRPC and mCSPC. Incremental clinical benefit was quantified using the AVF and ESMO-MCBS by 2 independent assessors. Incremental drug costs were calculated using average wholesale prices (AWPs) from the RED BOOK Online. RESULTS: In mCRPC, 2 abiraterone trials (COU-AA-301 and COU-AA-302) and 2 enzalutamide trials (AFFIRM and PREVAIL) met search criteria. AVF scores ranged from 46.3 to 66.6, suggesting clinical benefit; ESMO-MCBS scores ranged from 3 to 5, with lower clinical benefit in the mCRPC predocetaxel setting. The overall incremental AWP ranged from $83,460.94 to $205,128.85. In mCSPC, 4 trials met criteria (LATITUDE, STAMPEDE, ENZAMET, and ARCHES; AVF scores were 79.8, 33.3, 59, and 17, respectively). All of the studies showed benefit except ARCHES. By ESMO-MCBS, both LATITUDE and STAMPEDE showed benefit (score for 4 for both studies); ENZAMET and ARCHES were not evaluable. The overall cost of treatment was significantly higher in the mCSPC setting. CONCLUSION: The AVF and ESMO-MCBS frameworks generated slightly different results but suggested that abiraterone and enzalutamide show clinical benefit in both mCRPC and mCSPC but trended to lower clinical benefit and increased costs in earlier disease stages. Further refinement of the AVF and ESMO-MCBS is needed to facilitate their use and their ability to inform clinical practice in a rapidly changing treatment landscape.

Comparison of Long-term Survival Benefits in Trials of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor vs Non-Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Anticancer Agents Using ASCO Value Framework and ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale.

Importance: Recently, anticancer agents have generated excitement owing to their capacity to preserve long-term durable survival in some patients who are represented by a tail of the survival curve. However, because traditional measures of clinical benefit may not accurately capture durable survival, amendments to various valuation frameworks have been proposed to capture this benefit. Objectives: To determine how frequently immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) anticancer agents vs non-ICI anticancer agents displayed trends of long-term durable survival, as defined by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2 (ASCO-VF v2) and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1), as well as to further analyze the degree of agreement between ASCO and ESMO frameworks. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, anticancer agents from phase 2 or 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) cited for clinical efficacy evidence in drug approval by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 2011 and March 2018 were identified. Data required for the ASCO-VF v2 tail-of-the-curve bonus and the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 immunotherapy-triggered long-term plateau adjustments were extracted from relevant RCTs. Frequency and difference in proportions were calculated to determine how often survival benefits were awarded to anticancer agents overall and to ICI and non-ICI anticancer agents individually. Main Outcomes and Measures: American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework v2 tail-of-the-curve bonuses and ESMO-MCBS v1.1 immunotherapy-triggered long-term plateau adjustments. Results: In total, 247 RCTs were identified, and 100 RCTs involving 57 164 patients were included, with 14 examining ICI agents (1 ipilimumab, 5 pembrolizumab, 5 nivolumab, 2 atezolizumab, and 1 durvalumab) and 86 examining non-ICI agents (74 targeted therapy, 8 chemotherapy, 3 hormone therapy, and 1 radiopharmaceutical). Randomized clinical trials were awarded ASCO-VF v2 tail-of-the-curve bonuses more often than ESMO-MCBS v1.1 immunotherapy-triggered long-term plateau adjustments (ASCO-VF v2, 45.0% [8 of 14 ICI RCTs and 37 of 86 non-ICI RCTs] vs ESMO-MCBS v1.1, 2.6% [1 of 12 ICI RCTs and 1 of 66 non-ICI RCTs). Randomized clinical trials for ICIs were not more likely to receive an ASCO-VF v2 bonus or ESMO-MCBS v1.1 adjustment than non-ICI RCTs (ASCO-VF: risk difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.42; P = .32; ESMO-MCBS: risk difference, 0.07; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.23; P = .40). Poor agreement was found between the framework algorithms in identifying long-term survival benefits from RCTs (κ = 0.01; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.22; P = .50). Conclusions and Relevance: The ASCO-VF v2 and ESMO-MCBS v1.1 may require additional refinement to accurately capture the benefit of durable long-term survival, or ICI agents may not preserve long-term survival as conventionally thought.

Assessment of Whether the American Society of Clinical Oncology's Value Framework and the European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Measure Absolute or Relative Clinical Survival Benefit: An Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) have independently published value frameworks. To date, whether the clinical benefit scoring algorithms from these framework were intended to measure absolute or relative survival benefit remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To empirically examine the measurement characteristics of these frameworks by comparing their survival efficacy components (ASCO clinical benefit score [CBS] and ESMO preliminary magnitude of clinical benefit grade [PMCBG]) with established measures of absolute (median survival difference and restricted mean survival time [RMST] difference) and relative (hazard ratios [HRs]) survival benefit. DATA SOURCES: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Hematology and Oncology Approvals and Safety Notifications database was retrospectively reviewed to identify phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cited for clinical efficacy evidence in oncology drug approvals from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers searched the database for initial trials cited for approval. Phase 3 trials with overall survival, progression-free survival, and/or time to progression as their primary or coprimary end points were included. Notifications for noncancer indications or presenting label changes and trials that did not report HRs for the required end points and/or did not publish survival curves with number-at-risk data were excluded. Of 269 notifications initially identified, 107 met the selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Sensitivity analyses were conducted by calculating the scores using (1) the framework-defined end point, including tail-of-curve bonus points (ASCO) or long-term plateau adjustments (ESMO) (framework-defined end point plus tail-of-curve bonus), (2) overall survival data only, and (3) progression-free survival data only. For primary and sensitivity analyses, Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the relationships between (1) ASCO-CBS or ESMO-PMCBG and RMST difference, (2) ASCO-CBS or ESMO-PMCBG and median survival difference, and (3) ASCO-CBS or ESMO-PMCBG and HR. Data were analyzed from January 7 through April 30, 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In the primary analysis, ASCO-CBSs and ESMO-PMCBGs were calculated for the included trials using the framework-defined end point. RESULTS: Compared with measures of absolute survival benefit, ESMO-PMCBGs showed low to moderate correlations with RMST difference (ρ = 0.44) and moderate to high correlations with median survival difference (ρ = 0.64). ASCO-CBSs showed low to moderate correlations with both measures of absolute benefit (ρ = 0.43 for RMST difference; ρ = 0.44 for median survival). Compared with a relative measure of survival (HRs), ESMO-PMCBGs showed a low correlation (ρ = 0.47) and ASCO-CBSs showed a higher correlation (ρ = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Neither framework consistently performed as an absolute measure of survival benefit. The incorporation of a direct measure of absolute clinical benefit, such as RMST difference, into the survival efficacy components of their algorithms should be considered.

Anticancer drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration for gastrointestinal malignancies: Clinical benefit and price considerations.

BACKGROUND: The cost of new anticancer drugs is rising. We aimed to assess the clinical benefit and price of anti-cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for advanced gastrointestinal cancers. METHODS: Drugs approved between 2006 and 2017 for advanced GI malignancies were identified from FDA.gov, and their updated supporting trial data were searched. Incremental clinical benefit was quantified by using ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (grade 0-5) and ASCO Value Framework version 2 (score range -20 to 180). Higher scores indicate larger net benefit, and substantial benefit was defined as score 4 or 5 by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). The Micromedex REDBOOK was used to estimate the monthly average wholesale price (AWP) and total drug price (TDP) over the median treatment duration per patient. Clinical benefit, AWP and TDP of each drug class were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 16 GI cancer drugs received FDA approval for 24 indications, including five monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), five oral targeted therapies (TT), two immunotherapeutics (IO), three cytotoxic chemotherapies (CT), and one recombinant fusion protein (aflibercept). Most supporting trials (82%) reported overall survival benefit of less than 3 months and no significant improvement in quality of life. Only five agents (including one TT and one IO) with 21% the of approved indications met the ESMO's threshold of substantial clinical benefit. Median incremental benefit scores of TT and IO were comparable to other drug classes. However their median TDP was much higher at $153 402 and $98 208, respectively, compared to $30 330 USD per patient for CT. The estimated TDP did not correlate with clinical benefit scores. CONCLUSION: Most FDA-approved gastrointestinal cancer drugs do not meet the ESMO threshold of substantial clinical benefit. TT and IO are estimated to carry significant drug costs, and further cost analysis of these drugs is urgently needed.