Comparison of tumor-agnostic and tumor-specific clinical oncology trial designs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aim: To examine whether tumor-specific and tumor-agnostic oncology trials produce comparable estimates of objective response rate (ORR) in BRAF-altered cancers. Materials & methods: Electronic database searches were performed to identify phase I-III clinical trials testing tyrosine kinase inhibitors from 2000 to 2021. A random-effects model was used to pool ORRs. A total of 22 cohorts from five tumor-agnostic trials and 41 cohorts from 27 tumor-specific trials had published ORRs. Results: There was no significant difference between pooled ORRs from either trial design for multitumor analyses (37 vs 50%; p = 0.05); thyroid cancer (57 vs 33%; p = 0.10); non-small-cell lung cancer (39 vs 53%; p = 0.18); or melanoma (55 vs 51%; p = 0.58). Conclusion: For BRAF-altered advanced cancers, tumor-agnostic trials do not yield substantially different results from tumor-specific trials.

Two types of studies were sought, including studies that measured health outcomes in patients who were selected to receive medicine based on the location of their cancer (tumor), called tumor-specific studies; and studies that measured health outcomes in patients who were selected to receive cancer medicine regardless of the location of their cancer (tumor), called tumor-agnostic studies. From the studies found, only the studies that tested a specific type of cancer medicine (called tyrosine kinase inhibitors) on cancers with a specific genetic alteration (called BRAF-altered cancers) were identified. These studies were included in the analysis. The goal of the analysis was to determine if the two types of studies gave similar estimates of response rate, which is a type of trial outcome that measures whether the cancer shrinks or disappears. To do this, the results from the tumor-specific studies were combined with the results of the tumor-agnostic studies. No meaningful differences in the results from the tumor-specific studies compared with the tumor-agnostic studies were found. This suggests that tumor-specific studies do not yield very different results from tumor-agnostic studies.

Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower130): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab (a monoclonal antibody against PD-L1), which restores anticancer immunity, improved overall survival in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer and also showed clinical benefit when combined with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. IMpower130 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: IMpower130 was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 131 centres across eight countries (the USA, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Israel). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, and had histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and received no previous chemotherapy for stage IV disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1; permuted block [block size of six] with an interactive voice or web response system) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy (carboplatin [area under the curve 6 mg/mL per min every 3 weeks] plus nab-paclitaxel [100 mg/m2 intravenously every week]) or chemotherapy alone for four or six 21-day cycles followed by maintenance therapy. Stratification factors were sex, baseline liver metastases, and PD-L1 tumour expression. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat wild-type (ie, EGFRwt and ALKwt) population. The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02367781. FINDINGS: Between April 16, 2015, and Feb 13, 2017, 724 patients were randomly assigned and 723 were included in the intention-to-treat population (one patient died before randomisation, but was assigned to a treatment group; this patient was excluded from the intention-to-treat population) of the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group (483 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 451 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population) or the chemotherapy group (240 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 228 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population). Median follow-up in the intention-to-treat wild-type population was similar between groups (18·5 months [IQR 15·2-23·6] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 19·2 months [15·4-23·0] in the chemotherapy group). In the intention-to-treat wild-type population, there were significant improvements in median overall survival (18·6 months [95% CI 16·0-21·2] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 13·9 months [12·0-18·7] in the chemotherapy group; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·64-0·98]; p=0·033) and median progression-free survival (7·0 months [95% CI 6·2-7·3] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 5·5 months [4·4-5·9] in the chemotherapy group; stratified HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·54-0·77]; p<0·0001]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (152 [32%] of 473 in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group vs 65 [28%] of 232 in the chemotherapy group), anaemia (138 [29%] vs 47 [20%]), and decreased neutrophil count (57 [12%] vs 19 [8%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 112 (24%) of 473 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 30 (13%) of 232 patients in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related (any treatment) deaths occurred in eight (2%) of 473 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and one (<1%) of 232 patients in the chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: IMpower130 showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival and a significant improvement in progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and no ALK or EGFR mutations. No new safety signals were identified. This study supports the benefit of atezolizumab, in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

Pembrolizumab plus Abiraterone Acetate and Prednisone in Patients with Chemotherapy-naïve Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Results from KEYNOTE-365 Cohort D.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Abiraterone acetate (abiraterone) plus prednisone is approved for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus abiraterone in mCRPC. METHODS: In cohort D of the phase 1b/2 KEYNOTE-365 study (NCT02861573), patients were chemotherapy-naïve, had disease progression ≤6 mo before screening, and had either not received prior next-generation hormonal agents for mCRPC or had received prior enzalutamide for mCRPC and had disease progression or became intolerant to enzalutamide. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus abiraterone 1000 mg orally once daily and prednisone 5 mg orally twice daily. The primary endpoints were safety, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate, and objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) according to Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3-modified RECIST v1.1 by BICR and overall survival (OS). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: For the 103 patients who were treated, median follow-up was 28 mo (interquartile range 26-31). The confirmed PSA response rate was 56% (58/103 patients). The ORR for patients with RECIST v1.1-measurable disease was 16% (6/37 patients). Median rPFS was 15 mo (95% confidence interval 9.2-22) and median OS was 30 mo (95% confidence interval 23-not reached); the estimated 24-mo OS rate was 58%. In total, 91% of patients experienced treatment-related adverse events, and 39% experienced grade 3-5 events. Grade 3/4 elevation of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) was observed in 12% and 6.8% of patients, respectively. One patient died due to treatment-related myasthenic syndrome. Study limitations include the single-arm design. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab plus abiraterone and prednisone demonstrated antitumor activity and acceptable safety in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Higher incidence of grade 3/4 elevated ALT/AST occurred than was reported for the individual agents. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with metastatic castratation-resistant prostate cancer, the drug combination of pembrolizumab plus abiraterone and prednisone showed antitumor activity and acceptable safety.

Pembrolizumab and Enzalutamide in Patients with Abiraterone Acetate-Pretreated Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Cohort C of the Phase 1b/2 KEYNOTE-365 Study.

BACKGROUND: Limited responses have been observed in patients treated with enzalutamide after disease progression on abiraterone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but androgen receptor signaling impacts T-cell function. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide in mCRPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients in cohort C of the phase 1b/2 KEYNOTE-365 study, who received ≥4 wk of treatment with abiraterone acetate in the prechemotherapy mCRPC state and experienced treatment failure or became drug-intolerant, were included. INTERVENTION: Pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once daily. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoints were safety, the confirmed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate, and the objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 on blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) on BICR and overall survival (OS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 102 patients received pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide. Median follow-up was 51 mo (interquartile range 37-56). The confirmed PSA response rate was 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] 16-33%). The confirmed ORR was 11% (95% CI 2.9-25%; 4/38 patients; two complete responses). Median rPFS was 6.0 mo (95% CI 4.1-6.3). Median OS was 20 mo (95% CI 17-24). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 94 patients (92%); grade 3-5 TRAEs occurred in 44 patients (43%). The incidence of treatment-related rash was higher with combination therapy than expected from the safety profile of each drug. One patient (1.0%) died of a TRAE (cause unknown). Study limitations include the single-arm design. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide had limited antitumor activity in patients who received prior abiraterone treatment without previous chemotherapy for mCRPC, with a safety profile consistent with the individual profiles of each agent. PATIENT SUMMARY: Pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide showed limited antitumor activity and manageable safety in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The KEYNOTE-365 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02861573.

A Guide to Implementing Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors within a Cancer Program: Experience from a Large Canadian Community Centre.

The increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors across cancer programs has created the need for standardized patient assessment, education, monitoring, and management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). At William Osler Health System in Brampton, Ontario, a practical step-wise approach detailing the implementation of cancer immunotherapy in routine practice was developed. The approach focuses on four key steps: (1) identification of patient educators; (2) development of patient education materials; (3) development of patient monitoring tools; (4) involvement and education of multidisciplinary teams. Here, we provide an in-depth description of what was included in each step and how we integrated the different elements of the program. For each step, resources, tools, and materials that may be useful for patients, healthcare providers, and multidisciplinary teams were developed or modified based on existing materials. At our centre, the program led to improved patient comprehension of irAEs, the ability to act on symptoms (patient self-efficacy), and low rates of emergency room visits at first presentation for irAEs. We recognize that centres may need to tailor the approaches to their institutional policies and encourage centres to adapt and modify the forms and tools according to their needs and requirements.

Pembrolizumab Plus Docetaxel and Prednisone in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Long-term Results from the Phase 1b/2 KEYNOTE-365 Cohort B Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) frequently receive docetaxel after they develop resistance to abiraterone or enzalutamide and need more efficacious treatments. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus docetaxel and prednisone in patients with mCRPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The trial included patients with mCRPC in the phase 1b/2 KEYNOTE-365 cohort B study who were chemotherapy naïve and who experienced failure of or were intolerant to ≥4 wk of abiraterone or enzalutamide for mCRPC with progressive disease within 6 mo of screening. INTERVENTION: Pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously (IV) every 3 wk (Q3W), docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV Q3W, and prednisone 5 mg orally twice daily. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoints were safety, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate, and the objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included time to PSA progression; the disease control rate (DCR) and duration of response (DOR) according to RECIST v1.1 by BICR; ORR, DCR, DOR, and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3-modified RECIST v1.1 by BICR; and overall survival (OS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 104 treated patients, 52 had measurable disease. The median time from allocation to data cutoff (July 9, 2020) was 32.4 mo, during which 101 patients discontinued treatment, 81 (78%) for disease progression. The confirmed PSA response rate was 34% and the confirmed ORR (RECIST v1.1) was 23%. Median rPFS and OS were 8.5 mo and 20.2 mo, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 100 patients (96%). Grade 3-5 TRAEs occurred in 46 patients (44%). Seven AE-related deaths (6.7%) occurred (2 due to treatment-related pneumonitis). Limitations of the study include the single-arm design and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab plus docetaxel and prednisone demonstrated antitumor activity in chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide for mCRPC. Safety was consistent with profiles for the individual agents. Further investigation is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab combined with the chemotherapy drug docetaxel and the steroid prednisone for patients with metastatic prostate cancer resistant to androgen deprivation therapy , and who never received chemotherapy. The combination showed antitumor activity and manageable safety in this patient population. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02861573.

Management algorithms for metastatic prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer poses a significant lifetime risk to Canadian men. Treatment for metastatic prostatic cancer (mPCa) is an area of ongoing research with a lack of up-to-date clinical guidance. The multidisciplinary Canadian Genitourinary Research Consortium (GURC) determined that additional guidance focusing on management of mPCa was warranted. METHODS: The most up-to-date guidelines, consensus statements, and emerging phase 3 trials were identified and used to inform development of algorithms by a multidisciplinary genitourinary oncology panel outlining recommendations for the management of mPCa. RESULTS: A single pan-Canadian guideline and five national and international guidelines or consensus statements published since 2015 were identified, along with two new phase 3 trials and one additional randomized comparison. Iterative GURC discussions led to the development of two mPCa algorithms: the first addressing management of newly diagnosed metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) patients and the second addressing treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). For newly diagnosed mCSPC patients with high-volume/high-risk disease, either docetaxel or abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is recommended. The addition of radiotherapy to ADT is suggested for those with low-volume disease and/or AAP to ADT for low-volume or low-risk disease. For first-line mCRPC, androgen receptor-axis-targeted (ARAT) therapy is recommended for most patients, while sequencing with docetaxel, radium-223, ARAT therapy, and/or cabazitaxel is recommended for later lines of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Two treatment algorithms were developed for the management of mPC and can be used by multidisciplinary specialist teams to guide treatment.

Atezolizumab in Combination With Carboplatin and Nab-Paclitaxel in Advanced Squamous NSCLC (IMpower131): Results From a Randomized Phase III Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cytotoxic agents have immunomodulatory effects, providing a rationale for combining atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [anti-PD-L1]) with chemotherapy. The randomized phase III IMpower131 study (NCT02367794) evaluated atezolizumab with platinum-based chemotherapy in stage IV squamous NSCLC. METHODS: A total of 1021 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive atezolizumab+carboplatin+paclitaxel (A+CP) (n = 338), atezolizumab+carboplatin+nab-paclitaxel (A+CnP) (n = 343), or carboplatin+nab-paclitaxel (CnP) (n = 340) for four or six 21-day cycles; patients randomized to the A+CP or A+CnP arms received atezolizumab maintenance therapy until progressive disease or loss of clinical benefit. The coprimary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. The secondary end points included PFS and OS in PD-L1 subgroups and safety. The primary PFS (January 22, 2018) and final OS (October 3, 2018) for A+CnP versus CnP are reported. RESULTS: PFS improvement with A+CnP versus CnP was seen in the ITT population (median, 6.3 versus 5.6 mo; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60-0.85; p = 0.0001). Median OS in the ITT population was 14.2 and 13.5 months in the A+CnP and CnP arms (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.73-1.05; p = 0.16), not reaching statistical significance. OS improvement with A+CnP versus CnP was observed in the PD-L1-high subgroup (HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.29-0.81), despite not being formally tested. Treatment-related grade 3 and 4 adverse events and serious adverse events occurred in 68.0% and 47.9% (A+CnP) and 57.5% and 28.7% (CnP) of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Adding atezolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy significantly improved PFS in patients with first-line squamous NSCLC; OS was similar between the arms.

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.

Disparity in public funding of therapies for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer across Canadian provinces.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment using abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel, and radium-223 (Ra-223) improves overall survival (OS) and quality of life for patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Despite their proven benefits, access to these therapies is not equal across Canada. METHODS: We describe provincial differences in access to approved mCRPC therapies. Data sources include the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review database, provincial cancer care resources, and correspondence with pharmaceutical companies. RESULTS: Both androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapies (ARATs), abiraterone acetate plus prednisone and enzalutamide, are funded by provinces in the pre-and post-chemotherapy setting, however, sequential ARAT use is not funded. "Sandwich" therapy, where one ARAT is used pre-chemotherapy and a second is used upon progression on chemotherapy, is funded in six provinces: Ontario (ON), Alberta, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island (PEI), Nova Scotia (NS), and Newfoundland and Labrador. Ra-223 is funded in five provinces: ON, Quebec (QC), British Columbia (BC), Saskatchewan, and Manitoba to varying degrees; ON allows Ra-223 either pre- or post-chemo (not both); QC allows Ra-223 post-chemo unless chemo is not tolerated; BC allows Ra-223 if other life-prolonging mCRPC therapies have been received or ineligible. Cabazitaxel is funded in all provinces post-docetaxel, except QC and PEI. Cabazitaxel is not funded as fist-line treatment for mCPRC or in combination with other agents. In ON, BC, QC, and PEI, cabazitaxel is not funded after progression on an ARAT in the post-chemotherapy setting. CONCLUSIONS: While all provinces have access to docetaxel and ARATs, sandwiching sequential ARATs with docetaxel is funded only in select provinces. Ra-223 and cabazitaxel access is not ubiquitous across Canada. Such inequalities in access to life-prolonging therapies could lead to disparities in survival and quality of life among patients with mCRPC. Further research should quantify interprovincial variation in outcomes and cost that may result from variable access.

Overlapping systematic reviews of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing hamstring autograft with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: why are they different?

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews published on the same topic during a similar period of time (i.e., overlapping reviews) on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction complicate the choice between bone-patellar tendon-bone or hamstring tendon autograft. We aimed to evaluate reasons for differences among the overlapping systematic reviews and to assess the quality of reporting and internal validity. METHODS: We performed a search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and EMBASE to identify systematic reviews in which bone-patellar tendon-bone graft was compared with hamstring tendon autograft for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. We evaluated cross-citations among the overlapping reviews and the authors' rationale for repeating the review. The quality of reporting was assessed with the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) statement, and the internal validity was assessed with the Oxman and Guyatt index for methodological quality by at least two assessors. Assessor agreement was evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients. We evaluated the sensitivity analysis that had been performed in the reviews. RESULTS: We identified eleven overlapping systematic reviews. Three reviews favored the patellar tendon graft for stability, and one favored the hamstring graft. Six reviews favored the hamstring graft to prevent anterior knee pain, and the rest were inconclusive. Only six reviews cited previously published systematic reviews on the same topic, and only two of these reviews cited all available systematic reviews that were available at that time. The quality of reporting ranged from 5 to 18 (median, 12; maximum score, 18). The internal validity ranged from 1 to 7 (median, 2; maximum score, 7). Reviewers reached almost perfect agreement (intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.83 and 0.94). Formal sensitivity analysis was utilized infrequently. The highest-quality review favored hamstring grafts to prevent anterior knee pain and showed weak evidence that bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts yielded better stability. CONCLUSIONS: When overlapping or discordant systematic reviews are encountered, each review must be appraised on the basis of its methodological quality before it can be used to guide clinical decision-making or policy making. The currently available best evidence, derived from a methodologically sound meta-analysis, suggests that hamstring tendon autografts are superior for preventing anterior knee pain, and there is limited evidence that bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts provide better stability.

Adult versus Pediatric Neuroblastoma: The M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Experience.

Background. Staging and treatment of adult neuroblastoma has yet to be formalized. We sought to determine the utility of the pediatric classification system in adults and determine the efficacy of different treatment modalities. Methods. Medical records of 118 adults (patients >17 years old) and 112 pediatric patients (ages 2-17), who were treated for neuroblastoma at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center from January 1994 to September 2012, were reviewed. International neuroblastoma risk group (INRG) variables were abstracted. The primary outcome of interest was actuarial progression-free survival. Results. Median age of pediatric patients was 5 years (range 3-16) and 47 years (range 18-82) for adult patients. There were no differences in PFS or OS between stage-matched risk categories between pediatric and adult patients (L1-P = 0.40, L2-P = 0.54, and M-P = 0.73). In the treatment of L1 disease, median PFS for adults treated with surgery and radiation was 11.1 months compared with single modality local treatment ± chemotherapy (6.4 and 5.1 months, resp.; P = 0.07). Median PFS in L2 adult patients was 5.2 months with local therapy and 4 months with the addition of chemotherapy (P = 0.23). Conclusions. Adult and pediatric patients with neuroblastoma achieve similar survival outcomes. INRG classification should be employed to stratify adult neuroblastoma patients and help select treatment.

Wise Investment? Modeling Industry Profitability and Risk of Targeted Chemotherapy for Incurable Solid Cancers.

PURPOSE: Pharmaceutical development involves substantial financial risk. This risk, rising development costs, and the promotion of continued research and development have been cited as major drivers in the progressive increase in drug prices. Currently, cost-effective analyses are being used to determine the value of treatment. However, cost-effective analyses practically function as a threshold for value and do not directly address the rationale for drug prices. We set out to create a functional model for industry price decisions and clarify the minimum acceptable profitability of new drugs. METHODS: Assuming that industry should only invest in profitable ventures, we employed a linear cost-volume-profit breakeven analysis to equate initial capital investment and risk and post-drug-approval profits, where drug development represents the bulk of investment. A Markov decision analysis model was also used to define the relationships between investment events risk. A systematic literature search was performed to determine event probabilities, clinical trial costs, and total expenses as inputs into the model. Disease-specific inputs, current market size across regions, and lengths of treatment for cancer types were also included. RESULTS: With development of single novel chemotherapies costing from $802 to $1,042 million (2002 US dollars), pharmaceutical profits should range from $4.3 to $5.2 billion, with an expected rate of return on investment of 11% annually. However, diversification across cancer types for chemotherapy can reduce the minimum required profit to less than $3 billion. For optimal diversification, industry should study four tumor types per drug; however, nonprofit organizations could tolerate eight parallel development tracks to minimize the risk of development failure. Assuming that pharmaceutical companies hold exclusive rights for drug sales for only 5 years after market approval, the minimum required profit per drug per month per patient ranges from $294 for end-stage lung cancer to $3,231 for end-stage renal cell carcinoma. CONCLUSION: Pharmaceutical development in oncology is costly, with substantial risk, but is also highly profitable. Minimum acceptable profits per drug per month of treatment per patient vary with prevalence of disease, but they should be less than $5,000 per month of treatment in the developed world. Minimum acceptable profits may be lower for treatments with additional efficacy in the earlier stages of a tumor type. However, this type of event could not be statistically modeled.

Twenty years of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: has quality kept up with quantity?

BACKGROUND: As the number of studies in the literature is increasing, orthopaedic surgeons highly depend on meta-analyses as their primary source of scientific evidence. The objectives of this review were to assess the scientific quality and number of published meta-analyses on orthopaedics-related topics over time. METHODS: We conducted, in duplicate and independently, a systematic review of published meta-analyses in orthopaedics in the years 2005 and 2008 and compared them with a previous systematic review of meta-analyses from 1969 to 1999. A search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) was performed to identify meta-analyses published in 2005 and 2008. We searched bibliographies and contacted content experts to identify additional relevant studies. Two investigators independently assessed the quality of the studies, using the Oxman and Guyatt index, and abstracted relevant data. RESULTS: We included forty-five and forty-four meta-analyses from 2005 and 2008, respectively. While the number of meta-analyses increased fivefold from 1999 to 2008, the mean quality score did not change significantly over time (p = 0.067). In the later years, a significantly lower proportion of meta-analyses had methodological flaws (56% in 2005 and 68% in 2008) compared with meta-analyses published prior to 2000 (88%) (p = 0.006). In 2005 and 2008, respectively, 18% and 30% of the meta-analyses had major to extensive flaws in their methodology. Studies from 2008 with positive conclusions used and described appropriate criteria for the validity assessment less often than did those with negative results. The use of random-effects and fixed-effects models as pooling methods became more popular toward 2008. CONCLUSIONS: Although the methodological quality of orthopaedic meta-analyses has increased in the past twenty years, a substantial proportion continues to show major to extensive flaws. As the number of published meta-analyses is increasing, a routine checklist for scientific quality should be used in the peer-review process to ensure methodological standards for publication.