The quality of chemotherapy and its quality assurance

Budget impact analysis of trilaciclib for decreasing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression, which commonly manifests as neutropenia, anemia, and/or thrombocytopenia, is a frequent and severe complication of standard treatment regimens for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Trilaciclib is a first-in-class myeloprotective therapy indicated to decrease the incidence of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression when administered prior to a platinum-/etoposide-containing regimen or topotecan-containing regimen for ES-SCLC. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy to manage chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in adults with ES-SCLC from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of introducing trilaciclib to a hypothetical 1 million-member health insurance plan. The model compared 2 market scenarios: a current scenario of standard treatments for ES-SCLC without trilaciclib, and an alternative scenario of standard treatment plus trilaciclib. Population, clinical, and cost inputs were derived from published literature and trilaciclib clinical trial data. Model outcomes included the number of myelosuppressive adverse events (AEs), costs of treatment, costs of AE management, total cost, and per-member per-month (PMPM) costs. The budget impact of trilaciclib was calculated as the difference in cost (2021 US dollars) between the 2 scenarios over a 1- to 5-year time horizon. Scenario and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty around key model inputs. RESULTS: An estimated total of 301 patients were eligible for treatment with trilaciclib over a 5-year period. The use of trilaciclib was estimated to reduce the number of myelosuppressive AEs over a 5-year period (events avoided included 108 for neutropenia, 7 for febrile neutropenia, 23 for anemia, and 46 for thrombocytopenia) compared with the scenario without trilaciclib. The adoption of trilaciclib was associated with a cost saving of $801,254 ($0.013 PMPM) over 5 years. The acquisition cost for trilaciclib ($3,704,199) was offset by the reduction in AE management cost ($4,282,748) and reduction in prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use ($222,704). The cost savings associated with trilaciclib began in year 1 (total $34,388; $0.003 PMPM) and accrued over time. CONCLUSIONS: The acquisition cost of trilaciclib is projected to be offset by a reduction in the costs of managing AEs related to myelosuppression when added to standard chemotherapy regimens for ES-SCLC. The net budget impact of trilaciclib is estimated to be a cost saving. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by G1 Therapeutics, Inc., and implemented by ZS Associates, an independent consultancy that collated the model inputs and performed the budget impact analysis. The study sponsor was involved in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. The journal open access fee was funded by G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Moran, Chioda, and Huang are employed by G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Chioda and Huang report stocks and stock options for G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Goyal and Deniz are employed by ZS Associates. Goyal reports consulting fees from G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Abraham reports consulting fees from Coherus, G1 Therapeutics, Inc. (unrelated to this study and manuscript), Mylan/Viatris, and Sandoz and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for G1 Therapeutics, Inc. MacDonald reports consulting fees from Coherus, G1 Therapeutics, Inc. (unrelated to this study and manuscript), Mylan/Viatris, and Sandoz. Deniz reports no disclosures. A synopsis of the current study was presented in poster format at the Virtual AMCP Annual Meeting, April 12-16, 2021.

A Decade of Research on the Quality of Systemic Cancer Therapy in Routine Care: What Aspects of Quality Are We Measuring?

Most studies evaluating quality of systemic cancer therapy have focused on access to cytotoxic chemotherapy in early-stage disease. Studies on other aspects of quality and in different clinical settings are needed.

[Quality assurance in head and neck medical oncology]

In medical oncology, how can we be sure that the right drug is being administered to the right patient at the right time? The implementation of quality assurance criteria is important in medical oncology, in order to ensure that the patient receives the best treatment safely. There is very little literature about quality assurance in medical oncology, as opposed to radiotherapy or cancer surgery. Quality assurance must cover the entire patient care process, from the diagnosis, to the therapeutic decision and drug distribution, including its selection, its preparation and its delivery to the patient (administration and dosage), and finally the potential side effects and their management. The dose-intensity respect is crucial, and its reduction can negatively affect overall survival rates, as shown in breast and testis cancers for example. In head and neck medical oncology, it is essential to respect the few well-standardized recommendations and the dose-intensity, in a population with numerous comorbidities. We will first review quality assurance criteria for the general medical oncology organization and then focus on head and neck medical oncology. We will then describe administration specificities of head and neck treatments (chemoradiation, radiation plus cetuximab, postoperative chemoradiation, induction and palliative chemotherapy) as well as their follow-up. Lastly, we will offer some recommendations to improve quality assurance in head and neck medical oncology.

Quality assurance and quality control for radiotherapy/medical oncology in Europe: guideline development and implementation

The past two decades have brought tremendous changes to the practice of radiation oncology and medical oncology. To manage all the complexities related to the new technologies and the new drugs, the radiation and medical oncologists have to enhance their clinical action and professional skill profile. To accomplish this they have to find reliable tools in the quality of their medical practice and in future research activities. Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) for radiation and medical oncologists mean to clarify the different components of the clinical decision, to supervise with proper methodology the required steps needed to accomplish the agreed outcomes and to control them. Quality for radiation and medical oncology means to supervise each clinical and technical component of the whole process to guarantee that all steps together will arrive at the final and best possible outcome. Key components are guidelines, specialization and a multidisciplinary approach. The research of global quality could represent a further complexity, but it is the best tool to give a perspective and a chance to further improvements of our disciplines and to promote better outcome in all cancer patients.

[Quality criteria for treatment of colorectal cancer. From a surgeon's viewpoint]

The surgeon is the key "prognosis factor" for colorectal cancer. For this reason quality criteria were recently established (including minimum numbers) in order to treat patients who are entitled to the best quality of care and to improve the prognosis. The aim of this study was to critically discuss the existing demands on the surgeon based on the current literature and our own results and to formulate evidence-based quality criteria for surgical clinics. After reviewing the current literature criteria were compiled, discussed and finally presented in a summarized form. These are based on current developments on the diagnostic and therapy of large intestine and colorectal carcinoma. New developments of the German Cancer Society for planning of organ centers are incorporated. The quintessence of our study is that the number of cases alone is not decisive for the success of therapy. Important are the application of the correct surgical-oncology operation procedure, adherence to standards and the training of surgeons. Following the S3 guidelines stage-oriented therapy should additionally be carried out in a structured sequence. This includes an interdisciplinary decision making on the diagnostic and therapy strategy (tumor board). The organization structure of the hospital (teams, tumor board, emergency care with intensive care unit, emergency diagnostic and options for interventional measures) can be more important than the hospital case numbers alone. These demands which have been evaluated from published data and own results are designed to raise the therapy of colorectal cancer to the best possible level of quality and to effect a further improvement in the prognosis.