A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS)

Distinguishing Clinical From Statistical Significances in Contemporary Comparative Effectiveness Research

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of clinical significance reporting in contemporary comparative effectiveness research (CER).

BACKGROUND

In CER, a statistically significant difference between study groups may or may not be clinically significant. Misinterpreting statistically significant results could lead to inappropriate recommendations that increase health care costs and treatment toxicity.

METHODS

CER studies from 2022 issues of the Annals of Surgery , Journal of the American Medical Association , Journal of Clinical Oncology , Journal of Surgical Research , and Journal of the American College of Surgeons were systematically reviewed by 2 different investigators. The primary outcome of interest was whether the authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in the "Methods."

RESULTS

Of 307 reviewed studies, 162 were clinical trials and 145 were observational studies. Authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in 26 studies (8.5%). Clinical significance was defined using clinically validated standards in 25 studies and subjectively in 1 study. Seven studies (2.3%) recommended a change in clinical decision-making, all with primary outcomes achieving statistical significance. Five (71.4%) of these studies did not have clinical significance defined in their methods. In randomized controlled trials with statistically significant results, sample size was inversely correlated with effect size ( r = -0.30, P = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

In contemporary CER, most authors do not specify what they consider to be a clinically significant difference in study outcome. Most studies recommending a change in clinical decision-making did so based on statistical significance alone, and clinical significance was usually defined with clinically validated standards.

Guiding Principles for Community Building in Global Oncology

With the escalating incidence and prevalence of cancer worldwide disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries, there is an urgent need for the global oncology community to foster bidirectional partnerships and an equitable exchange of knowledge, resources, and expertise. A dedicated Global Oncology Community of Practice (CoP) can serve as a self-organizing, grassroots approach for members, with common goals and values, to coordinate efforts, maximize impact, and ensure sustainable outcomes. It is imperative, however, when outlining goals and priorities to adhere to an ethical and appropriate framework during community building efforts to avoid perpetuating inequities and power imbalances. This article reviews the core guiding principles for ASCO's Global Oncology CoP which includes responsibility, amplification, accessibility, sustainability, and decolonization.

Health-related quality of life with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs placebo plus chemotherapy for advanced triple-negative breast cancer: KEYNOTE-355

BACKGROUND

In KEYNOTE-355 (NCT02819518), the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy led to statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer with tumor programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score of at least 10. We report patient-reported outcomes from KEYNOTE-355.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus investigator's choice chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine plus carboplatin). The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), Breast Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, and EuroQol 5-Dimension questionnaire visual analog scale were prespecified. Patient-reported outcomes were analyzed for patients who received at least 1 dose of study treatment and completed at least 1 patient-reported outcome assessment. Changes in patient-reported outcome scores from baseline were assessed at week 15 (latest time point at which completion and compliance rates were at least 60% and at least 80%, respectively). Time to deterioration in patient-reported outcomes was defined as time to first onset of at least a 10-point worsening in score from baseline.

RESULTS

Patient-reported outcome analyses included 317 patients with tumor PD-L1 combined positive score of at least 10 (pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy: n = 217; placebo plus chemotherapy: n = 100). There were no between-group differences in change from baseline to week 15 in QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (QOL; least-squares mean difference = -1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -6.92 to 3.30), emotional functioning (least-squares mean difference = -1.43, 95% CI = -7.03 to 4.16), physical functioning (least-squares mean difference = -1.05, 95% CI = -6.59 to 4.50), or EuroQol 5-Dimension questionnaire visual analog scale (least-squares mean difference = 0.18, 95% CI = -5.04 to 5.39) and no between-group difference in time to deterioration in QLQ-C30 global health status/QOL, emotional functioning, or physical functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Together with the efficacy and safety findings, patient-reported outcome results from KEYNOTE-355 support pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a standard of care for patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer with tumor PD-L1 expression (combined positive score ≥10).

Evaluating the clinical benefit of pembrolizumab as a first-line agent in advanced solid tumors: A comprehensive review

INTRODUCTION

The study evaluates the first-line application of pembrolizumab in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC), gastric cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Utilizing the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF), the analysis incorporates data from pivotal KEYNOTE trials.

METHODS

The study systematically assessed the clinical benefit of pembrolizumab in advanced solid malignancies through nine randomized controlled trials, one of which comprised two experimental arms. Data extraction from primary sources was conducted from PubMed, ASCO, and ESMO publications. Utilizing ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF forms, the evaluation focused on clinical benefit, toxicity, and bonus points, with discrepancies resolved through consensus discussions.

RESULTS

Nine first-line indications for pembrolizumab received Food and Drug Administration approval for metastatic solid tumors between 2018 and 2023. Notable distinctions in ESMO-MCBS grades revealed seven trials with substantial clinical benefit (grades 5 to 4) and three with moderate to negligible benefit (grades 3 to 1). Bonus points, primarily based on the tail of the curve, were allocated to three trials for overall survival, one for progression-free survival, and one for a significant improvement in quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Our evaluation of pembrolizumab across diverse cancers, especially in mNSCLC and HNSCC, revealed varied outcomes and challenges in clinical benefit interpretation. The assessment of clinical benefit, incorporating quantitative and qualitative endpoints, underscores the need to consider survivorship outcomes and patient perspectives for a comprehensive understanding.

Assessing the clinical benefit of systemic anti-cancer treatments in the Netherlands: The impact of different thresholds for effectiveness

BACKGROUND

In the Netherlands, the clinical benefit of systemic anti-cancer treatments (SACTs) is assessed by the Committee for the Evaluation of Oncological Agents (cieBOM). For non-curative SACTs, the assessment is based on the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival and/or overall survival (OS), and the difference in median survival. We evaluated the impact of different thresholds for effectiveness by reassessing the clinical benefit of SACTs.

METHODS

We reassessed SACTs that were initially assessed by cieBOM between 2015 and 2017. Four scenarios were formulated: replacing an "OR" approach (initial assessment) by an "AND" approach (used in all scenarios), changing the HR threshold from < 0.70 (initial assessment) to < 0.60, changing the threshold for the difference in median survival from > 12 weeks (initial assessment) to > 16 weeks, and including thresholds for OS rates. The outcomes of these scenarios were compared to the outcomes of the initial assessment.

RESULTS

Reassessments were conducted for 41 treatments. Replacing the "OR" approach by an "AND" approach substantially decreased the number of positive assessments (from 33 to 22), predominantly affecting immunotherapies. This number further decreased (to 21 and 19, respectively) in case more restrictive thresholds for the HR and difference in median survival were used. Including thresholds for OS rates slightly mitigated the impact of applying an "AND" approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The scenario-specific thresholds had a substantial impact; the number of negative assessments more than doubled. Since this was not limited to treatments with marginal survival benefits, understanding the potential challenges that may arise from applying more restrictive thresholds is essential.

Clinical Value of Molecular Targets and FDA-Approved Genome-Targeted Cancer Therapies

Importance

The number of new genome-targeted cancer drugs has increased, offering the possibility of personalized therapy, often at a very high cost.

Objective

To assess the validity of molecular targets and therapeutic benefits of US Food and Drug Administration-approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on the outcomes of their corresponding pivotal clinical trials.

Design and Settings

In this cohort study, all genome-targeted cancer drugs that were FDA-approved between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022, were analyzed. From FDA drug labels and trial reports, key characteristics of pivotal trials were extracted, including the outcomes assessed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit for their approved indications was evaluated using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Substantial clinical benefit was defined as a grade of A or B for curative intent and 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. Molecular targets qualifying for ESCAT category level I-A and I-B associated with substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS were rated as high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

Results

A total of 50 molecular-targeted drugs covering 84 indications were analyzed. Forty-five indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or phase 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials, and 48 (57%) were approved on the basis of subgroup analyses. By each indication, 46 of 84 primary end points (55%) were overall response rate (median [IQR] overall response rate, 57% [40%-69%]; median [IQR] duration of response, 11.1 [9.2-19.8] months). Among the 84 pivotal trials supporting these 84 indications, 38 trials (45%) had I-A ESCAT targetability, and 32 (38%) had I-B targetability. Overall, 24 of 84 trials (29%) demonstrated substantial clinical benefit via ESMO-MCBS. Combining these ratings, 24 of 84 indications (29%) were associated with high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this cohort study demonstrate that among recently approved molecular-targeted cancer therapies, fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial patient benefits at approval. Benefit frameworks such as ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT can help physicians, patients, and payers identify therapies with the greatest clinical potential.

Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials of systemic therapy for advanced soft tissue sarcomas in adults: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

This systematic review evaluates reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search from January 2000 - August 2022 was conducted for phase II/III RCTs evaluating systemic treatments in adult patients with advanced STS. Quality of PRO reporting was assessed using the CONSORT PRO extension.

RESULTS

Out of 7294 abstracts, 59 articles were included; comprising 43 RCTs. Only 15 RCTs (35%) included PROs, none as primary endpoints. Only 10 of these RCTs reported PROs, either in the primary (6/10) or secondary publication (1/10) or in both (3/10), with a median time interval of 23 months. The median CONSORT PRO adherence score was 5.5/14, with higher scores in publications focusing exclusively on PROs.

CONCLUSION

These results highlight the need for improved and more consistent PRO reporting to inform patient care in the setting of advanced STS.

A Comparison of Additional Benefit Assessment Methods for Time-to-Event Endpoints Using Hazard Ratio Point Estimates or Confidence Interval Limits by Means of a Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

For time-to-event endpoints, three additional benefit assessment methods have been developed aiming at an unbiased knowledge about the magnitude of clinical benefit of newly approved treatments. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) defines a continuous score using the hazard ratio point estimate (HR-PE). The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) developed methods with an ordinal outcome using lower and upper limits of the 95% HR confidence interval (HR-CI), respectively. We describe all three frameworks for additional benefit assessment aiming at a fair comparison across different stakeholders. Furthermore, we determine which ASCO score is consistent with which ESMO/IQWiG category.

METHODS

In a comprehensive simulation study with different failure time distributions and treatment effects, we compare all methods using Spearman's correlation and descriptive measures. For determination of ASCO values consistent with categories of ESMO/IQWiG, maximizing weighted Cohen's Kappa approach was used.

RESULTS

Our research depicts a high positive relationship between ASCO/IQWiG and a low positive relationship between ASCO/ESMO. An ASCO score smaller than 17, 17 to 20, 20 to 24, and greater than 24 corresponds to ESMO categories. Using ASCO values of 21 and 38 as cutoffs represents IQWiG categories.

LIMITATIONS

We investigated the statistical aspects of the methods and hence implemented slightly reduced versions of all methods.

CONCLUSIONS

IQWiG and ASCO are more conservative than ESMO, which often awards the maximal category independent of the true effect and is at risk of overcompensating with various failure time distributions. ASCO has similar characteristics as IQWiG. Delayed treatment effects and underpowered/overpowered studies influence all methods in some degree. Nevertheless, ESMO is the most liberal one.

HIGHLIGHTS

For the additional benefit assessment, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) uses the hazard ratio point estimate (HR-PE) for their continuous score. In contrast, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) use the lower and upper 95% HR confidence interval (HR-CI) to specific thresholds, respectively. ESMO generously assigns maximal scores, while IQWiG is more conservative.This research provides the first comparison between IQWiG and ASCO and describes all three frameworks for additional benefit assessment aiming for a fair comparison across different stakeholders. Furthermore, thresholds for ASCO consistent with ESMO and IQWiG categories are determined, enabling a comparison of the methods in practice in a fair manner.IQWiG and ASCO are the more conservative methods, while ESMO awards high percentages of maximal categories, especially with various failure time distributions. ASCO has similar characteristics as IQWiG. Delayed treatment effects and under/-overpowered studies influence all methods. Nevertheless, ESMO is the most liberal one. An ASCO score smaller than 17, 17 to 20, 20 to 24, and greater than 24 correspond to the categories of ESMO. Using ASCO values of 21 and 38 as cutoffs represents categories of IQWiG.

Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Studies for Health Technology Management: Outcomes and Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a value assessment tool designed to help support complex decision-making by incorporating multiple factors and perspectives in a transparent, structured approach. We developed an MCDA rating tool, consisting of seven criteria evaluating the importance and feasibility of conducting potential real-world evidence (RWE) studies aimed at addressing uncertainties stemming from initial cancer drug funding recommendations. In collaboration with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's Provincial Advisory Group, a validation exercise was conducted to further evaluate the application of the rating tool using RWE proposals varying in complexity. Through this exercise, we aimed to gain insight into consensus building and deliberation processes and to identify efficiencies in the application of the rating tool. An experienced facilitator led a multidisciplinary committee, consisting of 11 Canadian experts, through consensus building, deliberation, and prioritization. A total of nine RWE proposals were evaluated and prioritized as low (n = 4), medium (n = 3), or high (n = 2) priority. Through an iterative process, efficiencies and recommendations to improve the rating tool and associated procedures were identified. The refined MCDA rating tool can help decision-makers prioritize important and feasible RWE studies for research and can enable the use of RWE for the life-cycle evaluation of cancer drugs.

Envisioning Academic Global Oncologists: Proposed Competencies for Global Oncology Training From ASCO

Recognizing the rising incidence, prevalence, and mortality of cancer in low- and middle-resource settings, as well as the increasingly international profile of its membership, ASCO has committed to expanding its engagement at a global level. In 2017, the ASCO Academic Global Oncology Task Force sought to define the potential role for ASCO in supporting global oncology as an academic field. A set of recommendations to advance the status of global oncology as an academic discipline were created through a consensus-based process involving participation by a diverse group of global oncology and global health practitioners; these recommendations were then published. The recommendations included developing a set of global oncology competencies for trainees and faculty interested in a career in academic global oncology. Here, we describe the global oncology competencies developed by this task force. These competencies consist of knowledge and skills needed in general global health as well as cancer-specific care and research, including understanding global cancer health disparities, defining unique resources and needs in low- and middle-resource settings, and promoting international collaboration. Although the competencies were originally developed for US training programs, they are intended to be widely applicable globally. By formalizing the training of oncologists and supporting career pathways in the field of global oncology, we can make progress in achieving global equity in cancer care and control.

Cost and value of cancer medicines in a single-payer public health system in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The financial impact of cancer medicines on health systems is not well known. We describe temporal trends in expenditure on cancer medicines within the single-payer health system of Ontario, Canada, and the extent of clinical benefit these treatments offer.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we identified cancer medicines and expenditures from formularies and costing databases (the New Drug Funding Program, Ontario Drug Benefit Program, and The High-Cost Therapy Funding Program) during 10 consecutive years (April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2022) in Ontario, Canada. For intravenous medicines, we applied the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) to identify expenditures associated with substantial clinical benefit. We also identified treatments associated with improved overall survival or quality of life.

FINDINGS

69 intravenous and 98 oral or injectable medicines were funded during 2012-22. Annual expenditure on cancer medicines increased by approximately 15% per year during 2012-22; the increase was more rapid in the most recent 4 years. Total expenditure on cancer medicines in the 2021-22 financial year was CA$1·7 billion. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were the single biggest expense by class ($284 million), representing 17% of the entire cancer medicine annual budget. Drugs with the highest individual costs were lenalidomide ($178 million) and pembrolizumab ($163 million), each accounting for around 10% of the entire budget. 29 (76%) of 38 indications eligible for ESMO-MCBS scoring met the threshold for substantial clinical benefit. Eight (21%) indications had no randomised trial evidence of improved overall survival, and only four (11%) were associated with improved QOL. $346 million (67% of the expenditure on intravenous cancer medicines) was spent on drugs that improved median overall survival by more than 6 months, $82 million (16%) was spent on medicines with overall survival gains of 3-6 months, and $32 million (6%) was spent on medicines with overall survival gains of less than 3 months. $53 million (10%) was spent on medicines with no established improvement in overall survival.

INTERPRETATION

Costs of cancer medicines to the Canadian health system are increasing rapidly. Most funded indications met thresholds for substantial clinical benefit and two-thirds of the expenditure were for medicines that improve survival by more than 6 months. Whether this cost trajectory can be maintained in a sustainable, equitable, high-quality health system is unclear. Efforts are needed to ensure the price of medicines with substantial benefit is affordable and funding of treatments with very modest benefit might need to be re-assessed, particularly when alternative supportive and palliative therapies are available.

FUNDING

None.

Evaluation of changes in the clinical benefits of oncology drugs over time following reimbursement using the ASCO-VF and the ESMO-MCBS

PURPOSE

This study aims to estimate changes in the value of oncology drugs over time from initial data of the reimbursement decisions to subsequent publications in Korea, using two value frameworks.

METHODS

We retrieved primary publications assessed for reimbursement between 2007 and July 2021 from the decision documents of Health Insurance Review and Assessment and subsequent publications made available following reimbursement decision from ClinicalTrials.Gov and PubMed databases. Changes in the clinical benefit scores were assessed using the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). A paired t test was performed to test whether there was a difference in the scores between primary and subsequent publications.

RESULTS

Of 73 anticancer product/indication pairs, 45 (61.6%) had subsequent publications, of which 62.5% were released within 1 year of reimbursement decision. The mean ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF Net Health Benefit scores increased from primary to subsequent publications, although the differences were not significant. The mean ASCO-VF bonus score significantly increased from 15.91 to 19.09 (p = 0.05). The ESMO-MCBS and bonus scores increased by 0.25 and 0.21, respectively, and the bonus score had a greater impact on the ESMO-MCBS score than the preliminary score did.

CONCLUSION

The value of drugs demonstrated in subsequent publications varies considerably among oncology drugs, depending on uncertainty associated with the initial evidence and the availability of updated evidence. As decision-making in the face of uncertainty becomes more prevalent, the value frameworks can serve as simple screening tools for re-evaluation in these cases.

Is the "P-value" Alone a Sufficient Metric for the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit and Which Clinical Trial Is Actually Positive, KEYNOTE-394 or KEYNOTE-240?

This commentary asks if, when determining the target P -value in a clinical study, it is sufficient to evaluate the study as “negative” or “positive” based on the target P -value alone, or whether this could lead to illusions.

Analysis of oncological drugs authorised in Spain in the last decade: association between clinical benefit and reimbursement

BACKGROUND

Our study aimed to assess whether there was a relationship between clinical benefits and reimbursement decisions as well as the inclusion of economic evaluations in  therapeutic positioning reports (IPTs) and to explore factors influencing reimbursement decisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed all anti-cancer drugs approved in Spain from 2010 to September 2022. The clinical benefit of each drug were evaluated using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) 1.1. The characteristics of these drugs were obtained from the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices. Reimbursement status information was obtained using BIFIMED, a web resource available in Spanish and consulted the agreements of the Interministerial Committee on Pricing of Medicines (CIPM).

RESULTS

In total, 73 drugs were included involving 197 indications. Almost half of the indications had substantial clinical benefit (49.8% yes vs. 50.3% no). Of the 153 indications with a reimbursement decision, 61 (56.5%) reimbursed indications had substantial clinical benefit compared to 14 (31.1%) of the non-reimbursed (p < 0.01). The median gain of overall survival was 4.9 months (2.8-11.2) for reimbursed indications and 2.9 months (1.7-5) in non-reimbursed (p < 0.05). Only six (3%) indications had an economic evaluation in the IPT.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed that there is a relationship between substantial clinical benefit and the reimbursement decision in Spain. However, we also found that the overall survival gain was modest, and a significant proportion of the reimbursed indications had no substantial clinical benefit. Economic evaluations in IPTs are infrequent and cost-effectiveness analysis is not provided by CIPM.

The Origin of First-in-Class Drugs: Innovation Versus Clinical Benefit

First-in-class (FIC) designation became a hallmark of innovation, however, even at the marketing authorization stage, little is known about the clinical benefits these products deliver. We identified the provenance of the FIC drugs that entered the French market from 2008 to 2018 and matched these medicines to the clinical benefit grading by Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) and Prescrire. Analyses were performed using descriptive statistics to present our findings by drug origin and therapeutic area and to establish the degree of concordance between HAS and Prescrire. Of the 135 FIC drugs identified, 71.1% (n = 96) originated from the industry, 16.3% (n = 22) from academia, and 12.6% (n = 17) from joint partnerships. Three therapeutic areas accounted for most FIC medications: antineoplastic (25.9%, N = 35), anti-infective (14.1%, N = 19), and metabolic (11.1%, N = 15) agents. HAS and Prescrire agreed on 60.74% of clinical benefit gradings. According to HAS, only 5% of all FIC drugs had substantial added benefit, and only 3%, according to Prescrire. HAS and Prescrire graded 45.9% and 68.2%, respectively, of FIC drugs as no clinical benefit and 48.9% and 28.9%, respectively, as some clinical benefit. FIC-designated drugs are primarily of industry (> 70%) rather than academic origin. We found that 55% of FIC medicines that entered the French market over the 10-year period deliver no additional clinical benefit. Whereas FIC medicines may represent important scientific advancements in drug development, in > 50% of cases, the new mode of action does not translate into additional clinical benefits for patients.

Measuring financial toxicity in head and neck cancer: a systematic review

Objective

The current study systematically reviews the literature about financial toxicity (FT) in head and neck cancer patients. Three databases were reviewed: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science.

Methods

Full text English papers published from 2000 to 2022 reporting on quantitative results about FT in head and neck cancer survivors collected through structured questionnaires or interviews were included.

Results

Twenty-seven articles were included. Most of the articles were published after 2015 and from United States. There was a slight prevalence of papers dealing with oropharyngeal cancer, squamous-cell carcinoma and locally advanced head and neck cancer. Measures of FT were obtained through validated questionnaires like COST, FIT and FDQ. Collected data were mostly referrable to financial spending, financial resources, psychosocial aspect, support seeking, coping care and coping lifestyle subdomain. FT scores by COST were found to be worse in the COVID era. Financial counseling and adequate information about the costs of treatment were two effective strategies to mitigate FT.

Conclusions

FT is a relatively new challenge in head and neck cancer treatment, whose expenses are higher than therapies for other cancers. A universal method to assess FT and a unified guideline for the administration of questionnaires are needed to mitigate FT and to improve patient outcomes.

Paclitaxel plus Eftilagimod Alpha, a Soluble LAG-3 Protein, in Metastatic, HR+ Breast Cancer: Results from AIPAC, a Randomized, Placebo Controlled Phase IIb Trial

PURPOSE

Eftilagimod alpha (efti), a soluble lymphocyte activation gene (LAG-3) protein and MHC class II agonist, enhances innate and adaptive immunity. Active Immunotherapy PAClitaxel (AIPAC) evaluated safety and efficacy of efti plus paclitaxel in patients with predominantly endocrine-resistant, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (ET-resistant HR+ HER2- MBC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Women with HR+ HER2- MBC were randomized 1:1 to weekly intravenous paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) and subcutaneous efti (30 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks for six 4-week cycles, then monthly subcutaneous efti (30 mg) or placebo maintenance. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, and quality of life. Exploratory endpoints included cellular biomarkers.

RESULTS

114 patients received efti and 112 patients received placebo. Median age was 60 years (91.6% visceral disease, 84.1% ET-resistant, 44.2% with previous CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment). Median PFS at 7.3 months was similar for efti and placebo. Median OS was not significantly improved for efti (20.4 vs. 17.5 months; HR, 0.88; P = 0.197) but became significant for predefined exploratory subgroups. EORTC QLQC30-B23 global health status was sustained for efti but deteriorated for placebo. Efti increased absolute lymphocyte, monocyte and secondary target cell (CD4, CD8) counts, plasma IFNγ and CXCL10 levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the primary endpoint, PFS, was not met, AIPAC confirmed expected pharmacodynamic effects and demonstrated excellent safety profile for efti. OS was not significantly improved globally (2.9-month difference), but was significantly improved in exploratory biomarker subgroups, warranting further studies to clarify efti's role in patients with ET-resistant HER2- MBC.

Prediction of Subclinical and Clinical Multiple Organ Failure Dysfunction in Breast Cancer Patients-A Review Using AI Tools

This review explores the interconnection between precursor lesions of breast cancer (typical ductal hyperplasia, atypical ductal/lobular hyperplasia) and the subclinical of multiple organ failure syndrome, both representing early stages marked by alterations preceding clinical symptoms, undetectable through conventional diagnostic methods. Addressing the question "Why patients with breast cancer exhibit a tendency to deteriorate", this study investigates the biological progression from a subclinical multiple organ failure syndrome, characterized by insidious but indisputable lesions, to an acute (clinical) state resembling a cascade akin to a waterfall or domino effect, often culminating in the patient's demise. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases in October 2023, employing keywords such as "MODS", "SIRS", "sepsis", "pathophysiology of MODS", "MODS in cancer patients", "multiple organ failure", "risk factors", "cancer", "ICU", "quality of life", and "breast cancer". Supplementary references were extracted from the retrieved articles. This study emphasizes the importance of early identification and prevention of the multiple organ failure cascade at the inception of the malignant state, aiming to enhance the quality of life and extend survival. This pursuit contributes to a deeper understanding of risk factors and viable therapeutic options. Despite the existence of the subclinical multiple organ failure syndrome, current diagnostic methodologies remain inadequate, prompting consideration of AI as an increasingly crucial tool for early identification in the diagnostic process.

The Weighted Toxicity Score: Confirmation of a Simple Metric to Communicate Toxicity in Randomized Trials of Systemic Cancer Therapy

INTRODUCTION

FDA's Project Optimus was developed in part to better identify appropriate dose and schedule of cancer therapeutics. The tabular method to summarize patients' maximum toxicity in a clinical trial does not allow for ready comparison to the treatment's benefit. In this manuscript, we apply a simple tool, the weighted toxicity score (WTS), to trials involving lung cancer immunotherapy and chemotherapy, as well as those cited in a recent publication as examples of trials that represent successful reduction of the appropriate dose of anti-cancer agents.

METHODS

PubMed was queried for randomized controlled trials of therapy involving immune checkpoint inhibitors in lung cancer. Trial data from studies highlighting initial success with dose adjustments after FDA approval also were assembled and analyzed according to the WTS procedure described previously, compared to clinical outcomes data.

RESULTS

The WTS provided, with the clinical outcome(s), a data pair that leads to easy interpretation of the expected benefit versus relative toxicity of studies involving immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy in lung cancers. The WTS was consistent with the conclusions of the primary studies, helping to quantitate the toxicity difference between treatments in a previously unavailable way.

CONCLUSION

The WTS provides a tool to show the cost in toxicity of therapy in a randomized clinical trial, with applicability to studies involving chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or kinase-directed therapy. Inclusion of a running tally of WTS during conduct of a trial could serve as one means to adjust dosing or to provide feedback during data safety monitoring of a clinical trial.

VOLY: The Monetary Value of a Life-Year at the End of Patients' Lives

OBJECTIVE

We explored the monetary value of the end-of-life (EoL) health gains, that is, the value of a life-year (VOLY) gained at the end of a patient's life in Croatia. We tested whether the nature of the illness under valuation (cancer and/or rare disease) is a factor in the valuation of EoL-VOLYs. The aim was for our results to contribute to the health and longevity valuation literature and more particularly to the debate on the appropriate cost-effectiveness threshold for EoL treatments as well as to provide input into the debate on the justifiability of a cancer and/or a rare disease premium when evaluating therapies.

METHODS

A contingent valuation was conducted in an online survey using a representative sample of the Croatian population (n = 1500) to calculate the willingness to pay for gains in the remaining life expectancy at the EoL, from the social-inclusive-individual perspective, using payment scales and an open-ended payment vehicle. Our approach mimics the actual decision-making problem of deciding whether to reimburse therapies targeting EoL conditions such as metastatic cancer whose main purpose is to extend life (and not add quality to life).

RESULTS

Average EoL-VOLY across all scenarios was estimated at €67,000 (median €40,000). In scenarios that offered respondents 1 full year of life extension, EoL-VOLY was estimated at €33,000 (median €22,000). Our results show that the type of illness is irrelevant for EoL-VOLY evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

The pressure to reimburse expensive therapies targeting EoL conditions will continue to increase. Delivering "value for money" in healthcare, both in countries with relatively higher and lower budget restrictions, requires the valuation of different types of health gains, which should, in turn, affect our ability to evaluate their cost effectiveness.

Provenance and Clinical Benefit of Medicines Introduced to the French Market, 2008 to 2018

Importance

Both the commercial sector and academia play a vital role in medicine development. Ongoing debates exist on their contribution and the value of medicinal products entering the market.

Objective

To identify the provenance and clinical benefit of medicines that entered the French market between 2008 and 2018.

Design and Setting

In this cross-sectional study, the provenance of each medicine in the French market was established via a review of multiple sources documenting at least 2 matching findings per product. The clinical benefit was assigned using the matched scale developed from the Prescrire and Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) gradings. The χ2 test was used to analyze the proportions and frequencies of medicines graded by Prescrire and HAS by origin, therapeutic category, and clinical benefit.

Main outcomes and measures

The origins and therapeutic categories of medicines. Clinical benefit based on Prescrire and HAS grading. Concordance of Prescrire and HAS grading.

Results

Of the 632 medicines that entered the French market between 2008 and 2018, 464 originated (73%) in the commercial sector, and 168 originated (27%) in the academic setting or in collaboration with commercial enterprises. Prescrire graded psychotropic agents (13/14 [93%]), whereas HAS graded respiratory agents (24/25 [96%]) as the highest percentage of medicines that provided no added benefit. Prescrire graded 360 medicines (77.6%) that originated in the industry and 108 medicines (64.3%) that originated in the academic setting (P = .001) to have no added clinical benefit. HAS assigned such grading to 331 ([71.3%] industry) vs 104 ([61.9%] academia) (P = .02). Based on the Prescrire grading, academia invented more medicines delivering some added benefit 57 (33.9%) vs 98 (21.1%) invented by industry (P = .001). HAS grading on some added benefit 51 ([30.4%] academia) vs 121 ([26.1%] industry) did not reach statistical significance (P = .29). However, HAS grading on substantial added clinical benefit reached statistical significance in favor of academia (13 [7.7%] vs 12 [2.6%] in the industry; P = .003), whereas Prescrire grading did not (1.8% academia vs 1.3% industry; P = .64).

Conclusions and Relevance

More than 70% of medicines that entered the French market during the 10-year period originated in the commercial sector. Although most medicines were not graded as providing clinical benefit, medicines originating in the academic setting were more likely to be graded as conferring clinical benefit than those originating in the commercial setting.

Defining 'therapeutic value' of medicines: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

In recent years, discussions on the importance and scope of therapeutic value of new medicines have intensified, stimulated by the increase of prices and number of medicines entering the market. This study aims to perform a scoping review identifying factors contributing to the definition of the therapeutic value of medicines.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Business Source Premier, EconLit, Regional Business News, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scope and Pool databases through December 2020 in English, German, French, Italian and Spanish.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies that included determinants for the definition of therapeutic value of medicines were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted using the mentioned data sources. Two reviewers independently screened and analysed the articles. Data were analysed from April 2021 to May 2022.

RESULTS

Of the 1883 studies screened, 51 were selected and the identified factors contributing to the definition of therapeutic value of medicines were classified in three categories: patient perspective, public health perspective and socioeconomic perspective. More than three-quarters of the included studies were published after 2014, with the majority of the studies focusing on either cancer disorders (14 of 51, 27.5%) or rare diseases (11 of 51, 21.6%). Frequently mentioned determinants for value were quality of life, therapeutic alternatives and side effects (all patient perspective), prevalence/incidence and clinical endpoints (all public health perspective), and costs (socioeconomic perspective).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple determinants have been developed to define the therapeutic value of medicines, most of them focusing on cancer disorders and rare diseases. Considering the relevance of value of medicines to guide patients and physicians in decision-making as well as policymakers in resource allocation decisions, a development of evidence-based factors for the definition of therapeutic value of medicines is needed across all therapeutic areas.

Adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma

Immune-oncology-based regimens have shown efficacy in advanced HCC and have been implemented as standard of care as first-line therapy. Their efficacy, including high response rates, and safety justify their evaluation in earlier disease stages. Following negative results for adjuvant sorafenib in the global STORM trial in 2015, 4 global phase 3 trials, featuring different immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations, entered in parallel the race in the adjuvant setting. The IMbrave050 trial, comparing adjuvant atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab to active surveillance following curative-intent resection or ablation, was the first to report, fast-tracking the results of the first interim analysis and demonstrating an improvement in recurrence-free survival. The trial has provoked a discussion on the horizon of expectations from adjuvant treatment and the clinical relevance of efficacy endpoints. Moreover, major pathological responses reported from early phase 2 data in the neoadjuvant setting provide a strong rationale for the evaluation of these concepts in phase 3 trials. In this review, we summarize current evidence and outline future directions for systemic therapies in early-stage HCC.

Systematic review of adoption, reporting and impact of health-related quality of life in phase III non-inferiority trials of systemic oncology treatments

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QoL) assessment and patient-reported outcomes appear to be crucial in the rationale and interpretation of non-inferiority (NI) trials. The aim of this study was to assess the inclusion of QoL among endpoints in phase III NI oncology trials and the relevance of QoL results in the reporting and interpretation of these studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

By PubMed search and hand-search of 11 selected journals, we identified phase III NI trials in adult patients affected by solid tumours, published between 2012 and 2021. Trials were classified according to 4 NI strategies: (1) different drugs; (2) alternative drug administration routes; (3) shorter treatment duration; (4) "deintensification" of treatment schedule. Three main endpoints were: (1) the proportion of publications including QoL among endpoints; (2) the proportion of primary publications reporting QoL results; (3) the proportion of trials with available QoL results actually favoring the experimental treatment out of trials declaring NI.

RESULTS

106 publications were eligible. QoL was included among endpoints in 59 studies (55.7%), and QoL results were available in 40 primary publications (37.7%). In the 73 trials testing the NI of different drugs, QoL was included in 43 trials (58.9%) and QoL results were present in 31 publications (42.5%). Among the 74 trials formally demonstrating NI, only 19 trials (25.7%) had QoL results actually supporting the experimental treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In many NI trials in oncology, assessment and reporting of QoL are deficient. Furthermore, most trials formally claiming NI cannot count on QoL results actually supporting the experimental arm.

Assessing neuro-oncology clinical trial impact and value: Testing a novel multi-criteria decision analysis app

BACKGROUND

Many clinical trials are conducted globally, creating challenges in deciding which trial outcomes deserve a clinician's focus and where to direct limited resources. Determining the 'value' of a clinical trial relative to others could be useful in this context. The aim of this study was to test a novel web-based application using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to rank clinical trial value.

METHODS

The MCDA tool combines seven metrics: unmet need; target population size; access; outcomes; cost; academic impact and use of results. Clinical trials were ranked according to their calculated 'value' - meaning the importance or worth of a trial. We determined face validity of the app using a set of ten published Phase 3 neuro-oncology clinical trials. A survey of neuro-oncology clinicians asked them to rank the same ten clinical trials, and to rank the seven metrics in terms of importance.

RESULTS

The two highest app-ranked trials were in concordance with that of the survey respondents, and consistent with the two studies that have had the most impact on routine clinical practice in neuro-oncology. Of the seven metrics, surveyed clinicians considered patient outcomes and unmet need to be the most important when determining clinical trial value.

CONCLUSIONS

The metrics app was able to rank and produce a numerical 'value' for existing phase 3 neuro-oncology clinical trials. In the future, a related app to prospectively rank future trials at the startup stage could be developed to help centers determine which should be prioritized to be conducted at their site.

Impact of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy on Quality of Life in Patients With Advanced Melanoma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) were approved to treat advanced melanoma (AM) because of meaningful clinical benefit. These early data reported that ICI therapy is generally well tolerated, and despite symptoms, patients reported a high global health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

OBJECTIVE

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are widely used in the oncology community; the aim of this systematic review was to evaluate current data on ICI therapy and its impact on HRQOL of patients with AM.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed during this systematic review to identify and select studies from the PubMed, OVID, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Selected studies were downloaded into Covidence and analyzed for trends in how ICI therapy impacts HRQOL in patients with AM. Multiple tools were used to assess the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

The 16 studies included 12 quantitative, 2 qualitative, and 2 mixed-methods studies. The quality of the studies was moderate (n = 7) or strong (n = 9). Symptoms that impacted HRQOL were fatigue, endocrine dysfunction, rash, diarrhea, cognitive impairment, emotional impact (anxiety and depression), and financial toxicity. Suicidal ideation and 1 attempt were reported in 2 studies, which had not been previously published.

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported symptoms due to ICI negatively impacted HRQOL. Anxiety and depression are prevalent. Current QOL instruments do not capture the entire patient experience.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Patients need to be asked if their symptoms are impacting their HRQOL. Further prospective research is needed to develop or adjust current patient-reported outcome instruments to adequately capture the impact of ICIs on HRQOL.

Publicly Funded Cancer Care: Are Adjuvant Therapies Prioritized Over Treatment of Metastatic Cancer? The Israeli Experience

PURPOSE

In Israel, a public committee advises which new medications should be reimbursed subject to an annual budget allocation. The committee considers clinical trial outcomes, professional societies' preferences, projected budget impacts, and other social and ethical aspects. The Israeli oncologists' society places a strong emphasis on prioritizing adjuvant therapies because of their potential to advance cure. In 2023, several novel adjuvant therapies were suggested for national funding. Our objective was to ascertain whether Israeli decision makers have embraced the practice of prioritizing budgets for therapies with curative intent over late-disease therapy.

METHODS

We collected data on all proposed cancer therapies for the 2023 update: indications, treatment settings, European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) score, and whether accepted for reimbursement. The rates of acceptance were compared between drugs in curative and noncurative settings. Data were extracted from the official Israeli Ministry of Health publications and ESMO-MCBS website.

RESULTS

Seven of the eight proposed therapies with curative intent received reimbursement approval (88%), in contrast to 11 of the 55 therapies for advanced/metastatic stages (20%). Among all advanced disease therapies with a high ESMO-MCBS score of 4, only four of 16 (25%) secured reimbursement approval.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis revealed that during the 2023 reimbursement deliberations, Israeli policymakers embraced the prioritization of potentially curative therapies over treatments for incurable cancers, including several interventions that have demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival and/or quality of life. Introducing objective cost-effectiveness measures as a guiding framework for comparing competing medications may offer some resolution to this complex challenge.

Curcumin as a hepatoprotective agent against chemotherapy-induced liver injury

Despite significant advances in cancer therapeutics, chemotherapy remains the cornerstone of treatment for many tumors. Importantly, however, chemotherapy-induced toxicity, including hepatotoxicity, can lead to the interruption or discontinuation of potentially effective therapy. In recent years, special attention has been paid to the search for complementary therapies to mitigate chemotherapy-induced toxicity. Although there is currently a lack of specific interventions to mitigate or prevent hepatotoxicity in chemotherapy-treated patients, the polyphenol compound curcumin has emerged as a potential strategy to overcome this adverse effect. Here we review, firstly, the molecular and physiological mechanisms and major risk factors of chemotherapy-induced hepatotoxicity. We then present an overview of how curcumin has the potential to mitigate hepatotoxicity by targeting specific molecular mechanisms. Hepatotoxicity is a well-described side effect of cytotoxic drugs that can limit their clinical application. Inflammation and oxidative stress are the most common mechanisms involved in hepatotoxicity. Several studies have shown that curcumin could prevent and/or palliate chemotherapy-induced liver injury, mainly due to its anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antifibrotic and hypolipidemic properties. Further clinical investigation using bioavailable curcumin formulations is warranted to demonstrate its efficacy as an hepatoprotective agent in cancer patients.

Clinical Outcomes of First-line Therapies for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review of Trials Published Between 2010 and 2020

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the evolution of clinical outcomes derived from clinical trials on first-line therapies for advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) published between 2010 and 2020, focusing on how these outcomes impact survival rates and management of patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of phase III and pivotal phase II clinical trials was conducted by a structured search on Medline and Embase. A comprehensive set of variables was collected to assess their influence on survival rates. We also estimated the clinical benefit by applying the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 and extracted the authors' conclusions.

RESULTS

Sixty-six studies involving 34,951 patients were included. Best survival outcomes were found for nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (OS and progression-free survival medians: 19.4 and 10.2 mo) and for those expressing molecular targets (OS and progression-free survival medians: 23.8 and 11.0 mo). No significant influence on survival rates was observed for industry funding and disease stage (IIIB/IV vs. IV). ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was applied in 45 positive studies and resulted in a meaningful clinical benefit score in 37.8%. Quality of life (QoL) was reported in 57.6% of the original publications and showed statistical significance favoring the experimental arm in 33.3%. Positive authors' conclusions (75.7% of trials) were based on OS and/or QoL in 34% and on surrogate endpoints in 66%.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended survival times and a steady improvement in QoL have been observed. However, there were more than twice as many studies reporting positive authors' conclusions as studies meeting the ESMO threshold for meaningful clinical benefit.

Randomized controlled trial in gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma undergoing systemic therapy over two decades

INTRODUCTION

The number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the systemic treatment of gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GA-RCTs) is increasing. We aimed to describe the characteristics and evaluate the clinical benefit of GA-RCTs over the past 20 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched for RCTs of systemic treatment in GA published in eight major journals between 2001 and 2020 in PubMed. From the included studies, the characteristics and results of GA-RCTs were extracted. Clinical benefit was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).

RESULTS

About 93 RCTs with 38365 patients were included. Seventy-one (76.3%) studies received external funding, with an increase from 27.3% (2001-2005) to 94.1% (2016-2020). RCTs on targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy have also increased over time, but only 14 (41.2%) were restricted to specific biomarkers. Forty-four (47.3%) studies met their primary endpoint (defined as positive RCTs), but median overall survival has not improved over time. Moreover, only 16 (36.4%) studies met the ESMO-MCBS threshold. RCTs whose study design and results met the ESMO-MCBS thresholds has not increased over time (p = 0.827 and p = 0.733, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

GA-RCTs are increasingly focused on targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy, and are more likely to receive external funding. However, the effect size has not shown significant improvement in the past 20 years. Only a few RCTs with positive results met ESMO thresholds. Future RCTs should prioritize the clinical benefits and provide direct evidence to optimize and reform GA treatment practices.

Essential cancer medicines: adding feasibility to the magnitude of clinical benefit value chain

BACKGROUND

Cancer is a global public health problem, requiring efficient health system investments to deliver sustainable impact on population health. Access to medicines is a critical component of health systems, having a crucial role in delivering therapeutic benefits. Since 1977, the World Health Organization (WHO) has published a Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) that includes key health interventions for the prevention and control of conditions of public health relevance. Essential medicines are selected for inclusion in the EML based on the evidence of efficacy, safety, therapeutic value, and the potential to impact population health. With the rapid changes in the therapeutic landscape of cancer treatment with new medicine approvals, there is a critical need to select and prioritise specific cancer interventions based on their intrinsic value.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed a decisional methodology based on a threshold with a minimum set of technical specifications and a consensus-based procedure for decisions to select candidate cancer medicines to be submitted to the WHO for consideration for the WHO EML.

RESULTS

ESMO recognises the WHO EML as an important reference guide for medicines that all countries should include in their national EMLs. Cancer medicines on the WHO EML are used in the treatment of the majority of cancers, and are recommended in the evidence-based ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines that medical oncologists use to treat patients. ESMO's submissions to the WHO EML in 2019 and 2021 and their respective outcomes are presented in the manuscript.

CONCLUSION

Due to the rising costs associated with newly available therapies, structured, reproducible, and field-tested tools to evaluate the added clinical benefit from these therapies need to be implemented in pre-selecting potential candidate medicines to be included in the WHO EML. ESMO is proud to collaborate closely with WHO on this important global public health initiative.

ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H) version 1.0

BACKGROUND

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) has been accepted as a robust tool to evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit reported in trials for oncological therapies. However, the ESMO-MCBS hitherto has only been validated for solid tumours. With the rapid development of novel therapies for haematological malignancies, we aimed to develop an ESMO-MCBS version that is specifically designed and validated for haematological malignancies.

METHODS

ESMO and the European Hematology Association (EHA) initiated a collaboration to develop a version for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H). The process incorporated five landmarks: field testing of the ESMO-MCBS version 1.1 (v1.1) to identify shortcomings specific to haematological diseases, drafting of the ESMO-MCBS:H forms, peer review and revision of the draft based on re-scoring (resulting in a second draft), assessment of reasonableness of the scores generated, final review and approval by ESMO and EHA including executive boards.

RESULTS

Based on the field testing results of 80 haematological trials and extensive review for feasibility and reasonableness, five amendments to ESMO-MCBS were incorporated in the ESMO-MCBS:H addressing the identified shortcomings. These concerned mainly clinical trial endpoints that differ in haematology versus solid oncology and the very indolent nature of nevertheless incurable diseases such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers presentation of mature data. In addition, general changes incorporated in the draft version of the ESMO-MCBS v2 were included, and specific forms for haematological malignancies generated. Here we present the final approved forms of the ESMO-MCBS:H, including instructions.

CONCLUSION

The haematology-specific version ESMO-MCBS:H allows now full applicability of the scale for evaluating the magnitude of clinical benefit derived from clinical studies in haematological malignancies.

Evaluation of the relevance of the growth modulation index (GMI) from the FFCD 0307 randomized phase III trial comparing the sequence of two chemotherapeutic regimens

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine trials disrupted the paradigm of randomized controlled trials in large populations. Patient selection may be based on molecular alterations rather than on primary tumor location. In small patient populations, the growth modulation index (GMI) has been developed to evaluate treatment efficacy by using each patient as its own control. The FFCD 0307 randomized phase III trial compared two sequences of chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer, which represents a unique opportunity to evaluate the relevance of the GMI.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In the FFCD 0307 trial, patients with advanced gastric cancer were randomized between two chemotherapy sequences [ECX followed by FOLFIRI at disease progression (arm A) versus FOLFIRI followed by ECX (arm B)]. GMI was defined as the ratio of the progression-free survival on second treatment (PFS2) to the time to progression on first treatment (TTP1). Sequence benefit was defined as a GMI exceeding 1.3 (GMI-high). GMI was correlated with overall survival (OS). OS1 and OS2 were measured from first randomization and second-line failure to death.

RESULTS

Four hundred and sixteen patients were randomized (209 in arm A, 207 in arm B). One hundred and seventy-five patients (42%) received the two sequences and were assessable for GMI (97 in arm A, 79 in arm B). The median GMI was higher in arm A than in arm B (0.62 versus 0.47, P = 0.04). Patients with a high GMI had a longer OS1 (median 14.9 versus 11.5 months, NS). Median OS2 was doubled in the GMI-high group (3.4 versus 1.6 months, NS).

CONCLUSION

GMI analyses suggest that ECX followed by FOLFIRI might represent a better therapeutic strategy than FOLFIRI followed by ECX. High GMI was associated with prolonged survival.

Access to novel cancer medicines in four countries in Central and Eastern Europe in relation to clinical benefit

BACKGROUND

Almost 100 novel cancer medicines have been approved in Europe over the last decade. Limited public health care resources in countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) call for a prioritization of access to effective medicines. We investigated how both reimbursement status and waiting time to reimbursement correlate with the magnitude of clinical benefit provided by novel medicines in four selected countries (Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 124 indications of 51 cancer medicines with marketing authorization by the European Medicines Agency in 2011-2020 were included and followed up until 2022. Data on reimbursement status and waiting time to reimbursement (i.e. time from marketing authorization to national reimbursement approval) were collected for each country. Data were analyzed in relation to clinical benefit status (i.e. substantial versus nonsubstantial clinical benefit) of indications according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).

RESULTS

The degree of reimbursement differed between countries with 64% of indications with reimbursement in Czechia, 40% in Hungary, 51% in Poland, and 19% in Slovakia. In all countries, a significantly greater proportion of indications with a substantial clinical benefit was reimbursed (P < 0.05). The median waiting time to reimbursement ranged from 27 months in Poland to 37 months in Hungary. No significant differences in waiting time in relation to clinical benefit were observed in any country (P = 0.25-0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer medicines with a substantial clinical benefit are more likely to be reimbursed in all four CEE countries. Waiting times to reimbursement are equally long for medicines with or without a substantial clinical benefit, indicating a lack of prioritization of fast access to medicines delivering a substantial benefit. Incorporation of the ESMO-MCBS in reimbursement assessments and decisions could aid in better utilization of limited resources to deliver more effective cancer care.

Real-world treatment outcomes of medicines used in special situations (off-label and compassionate use) in oncology and hematology: A retrospective study from a comprehensive cancer institution

PURPOSE

Medicines in special situations (MSS) refer to off-label or to unlicensed drugs under investigation (compassionate use). Our objectives were to evaluate characteristics and to estimate overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), and the duration of treatment (DT) of MSS used for cancer treatment at a multicentre comprehensive cancer institution.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study on adult cancer patients for whom an MSS treatment was requested (January 2011-December 2020). A descriptive analysis was performed and median OS and EFS and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Survival curves were stratified by type of tumor, ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status (PS), age, sex, treatment stage and type of drug (mechanism of action and target).

RESULTS

Treatment was initiated in 2092 episodes (1930 patients) out of 2377 MSS episodes (2189 patients) requested, 33% for hematological treatment and 87% for advanced stage cancer. Median OS (months) was 21.1 (95% CI 19.4-22.7), median EFS was 5.6 (95% CI 5.1-6.0) months, and median DT was 4.5 [0.0; 115.3] months. OS and EFS statistically significantly favored female patients, ECOG PS ≥2 episodes showed worse OS and EFS outcomes (p < 0.0001). Statistically significant differences in survival were found within solid and hematological cancer, disease stage, drug mechanism of action, and type of cancer (p < 0.001) but not for age. Survival outcomes by tumor subtype and drug are presented both globally and separately based on disease stage.

CONCLUSION

MSS uses are practiced across almost all cancer types, mostly for advanced disease. ECOG PS ≥2, along with advanced disease, was related to worse survival. Information about real-world outcomes is valuable and contributes to better decision-making regarding MSS and our experience in this field could be of interest for other colleagues.

Delivering the precision oncology paradigm: reduced R&D costs and greater return on investment through a companion diagnostic informed precision oncology medicines approach

BACKGROUND

Precision oncology medicines represent a paradigm shift compared to non-precision oncology medicines in cancer therapy, in some situations delivering more clinical benefit, and potentially lowering healthcare costs. We determined whether employing a companion diagnostic (CDx) approach during oncology medicines development delivers effective therapies that are within the cost constraints of current health systems. R&D costs of developing a medicine are subject to debate, with average estimates ranging from $765 million (m) to $4.6 billion (b). Our aim was to determine whether precision oncology medicines are cheaper to bring from R&D to market; a secondary goal was to determine whether precision oncology medicines have a greater return on investment (ROI).

METHOD

Data on oncology medicines approved between 1997 and 2020 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were analysed from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings. Data were compiled from 10-K, 10-Q, and 20-F financial performance filings on medicines' development costs through their R&D lifetime. Clinical trial data were split into clinical trial phases 1-3 and probability of success (POS) of trials was calculated, along with preclinical costs. Cost-of-capital (CoC) approach was applied and, if appropriate, a tax rebate was subtracted from the total.

RESULTS

Data on 42 precision and 29 non-precision oncology medicines from 56 companies listed by the National Cancer Institute which had complete data available were analysed. Estimated mean cost to deliver a new oncology medicine was $4.4b (95% CI, $3.6-5.2b). Costs to bring a precision oncology medicine to market were $1.1b less ($3.5b; 95% CI, $2.7-4.5b) compared to non-precision oncology medicines ($4.6b; 95% CI, $3.5-6.1b). The key driver of costs was POS of clinical trials, accounting for a difference of $591.3 m. Additional data analysis illustrated that there was a 27% increase in return on investment (ROI) of precision oncology medicines over non-precision oncology medicines.

CONCLUSION

Our results provide an accurate estimate of the R&D spend required to bring an oncology medicine to market. Deployment of a CDx at the earliest stage substantially lowers the cost associated with oncology medicines development, potentially making them available to more patients, while staying within the cost constraints of cancer health systems.

Analysis of phase III clinical trials in metastatic NSCLC to assess the correlation between QoL results and survival outcomes

BACKGROUND

In addition to improving survival outcomes, new oncology treatments should lead to amelioration of patients' quality of life (QoL). Herein, we examined whether QoL results correlated with PFS and OS outcomes in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating new systemic treatments in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

The systematic search of PubMed was conducted in October 2022. We identified 81 RCTs testing novel drugs in metastatic NSCLC and published in the English language in a PubMed-indexed journal between 2012 and 2021. Only trials reporting QoL results and at least one survival outcome between OS and PFS were selected. For each RCT, we assessed whether global QoL was "superior," "inferior," or with "non-statistically significant difference" in the experimental arm compared to the control arm.

RESULTS

Experimental treatments led to superior QoL in 30 (37.0%) RCTs and inferior QoL in 3 (3.7%) RCTs. In the remaining 48 (59.3%) RCTs, a statistically significant difference between the experimental and control arms was not found. Of note, we found a statistically significant association between QoL and PFS improvements (X² = 3.93, p = 0.0473). In more detail, this association was not significant in trials testing immunotherapy or chemotherapy. On the contrary, in RCTs testing target therapies, QoL results positively correlated with PFS outcomes (p = 0.0196). This association was even stronger in the 32 trials testing EGFR or ALK inhibitors (p = 0.0077). On the other hand, QoL results did not positively correlate with OS outcomes (X² = 0.81, p = 0.368). Furthermore, we found that experimental treatments led to superior QoL in 27/57 (47.4%) trials with positive results and in 3/24 (12.5%) RCTs with negative results (p = 0.0028). Finally, we analyzed how QoL data were described in publications of RCTs in which QoL outcomes were not improved (n = 51). We found that a favorable description of QoL results was associated with sponsorship by industries (p = 0.0232).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study reveals a positive association of QoL results with PFS outcomes in RCTs testing novel treatments in metastatic NSCLC. This association is particularly evident for target therapies. These findings further emphasize the relevance of an accurate assessment of QoL in RCTs in NSCLC.

Value elements and methods of value-based pricing for drugs in Japan: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Value-based pricing (VBP) can be a promising tool for optimizing drug prices. However, there is no consensus on the specific value elements and pricing method that should be used for VBP.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a systematic review and narrative synthesis to investigate the value elements and pricing method for VBP. The main inclusion criterion was that value elements, VBP method, and estimated prices for actual drugs were reported. We performed a search in MEDLINE and ICHUSHI Web. Eight articles met the selection criteria. Four studies adopted the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) approach and the others used different approaches. The CEA approach included the value elements of productivity, value of hope, real option value, disease severity, insurance value in addition to costs and quality-adjusted life years. The other approaches used efficacy, toxicity, novelty, rarity, research and development costs, prognosis, population health burden, unmet needs, and effectiveness. Each study used individual methods to quantify these broader value elements.

EXPERT OPINION

Both conventional and broader value elements are used for VBP. To allow VBP to be widely applied to various diseases, a simple, versatile method is preferable. Further research is needed to establish VBP method which enables to incorporate broader values.

How to create value with constrained budgets in oncological care? A narrative review

INTRODUCTION

As a result of an increasing focus on patient-centered care within oncology and more pressure on the sustainability of health-care systems, the discussion on what exactly constitutes value re-appears. Policymakers seek to improve patient values; however, funding all values is not sustainable.

AREAS COVERED

We collect available evidence from scientific literature and reflect on the concept of value, the possible incorporation of a wide spectrum of values in reimbursement decisions, and alternative strategies to increase value in oncological care.

EXPERT OPINION

We state that value holds many different aspects. For reimbursement decisions, we argue that it is simply not feasible to incorporate all patient values because of the need for efficient resource allocation. We argue that we should shift the value debate from the individual perspective of patients to creating value for the cancer population at large. The different strategies we address are as follows: (1) shared decision-making; (2) biomarkers and molecular diagnostics; (3) appropriate evaluation, payment and use of drugs; (4) supportive care; (5) cancer prevention and screening; (6) monitoring late effect; (7) concentration of care and oncological networking; and (8) management of comorbidities. Important preconditions to support these strategies are strategic planning, consistent cancer policies and data availability.

Evaluation of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) has suggested using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) to grade the magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer therapies. This approach has not been applied to radiation therapy (RT) yet. We applied the ESMO-MCBS to experiences describing the use of RT to assess (1) the 'scoreability' of the data, (2) evaluate the reasonableness of the grades for clinical benefit and (3) identify potential shortcomings in the current version of the ESMO-MCBS in its applicability to RT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We applied the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 to a selection of studies in radiotherapy that had been identified as references in the development of American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based guidelines on whole breast radiation. Of the 112 cited references, we identified a subset of 16 studies that are amenable to grading using the ESMO-MCBS.

RESULTS

Of the 16 studies reviewed, 3/16 were scoreable with the ESMO tool. Six of 16 studies could not be scored because of shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1: (1) in 'non-inferiority studies', there is no credit for improved patient convenience, reduced patient burden or improved cosmesis; (2) in 'superiority studies' evaluating local control as a primary endpoint, there is no credit for the clinical benefit such as reduced need for further interventions. In 7/16 studies, methodological deficiencies in the conduct and reporting were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents a first step in determining the utility of the ESMO-MCBS in the evaluation of clinical benefit in radiotherapy. Important shortcomings were identified that would need to be addressed in developing a version of the ESMO-MCBS that can be robustly applied to radiotherapy treatments. Optimization of the ESMO-MCBS instrument will proceed to enable assessment of value in radiotherapy.

Precision medicine applied to metastatic colorectal cancer using tumor-derived organoids and in-vitro sensitivity testing: a phase 2, single-center, open-label, and non-comparative study

BACKGROUND

Patients with colorectal metastatic disease have a poor prognosis, limited therapeutic options, and frequent development of resistance. Strategies based on tumor-derived organoids are a powerful tool to assess drug sensitivity at an individual level and to suggest new treatment options or re-challenge. Here, we evaluated the method's feasibility and clinical outcome as applied to patients with no satisfactory treatment options.

METHODS

In this phase 2, single-center, open-label, non-comparative study (ClinicalTrials.gov, register NCT03251612), we enrolled 90 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer following progression on or after standard therapy. Participants were 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, adequate organ function, and metastasis available for biopsy. Biopsies from the metastatic site were cultured using organoids model. Sensitivity testing was performed with a panel of drugs with proven activity in phase II or III trials. At the discretion of the investigator considering toxicity, the drug with the highest relative activity was offered. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive without disease progression at two months per local assessment.

RESULTS

Biopsies available from 82 to 90 patients were processed for cell culture, of which 44 successfully generated organoids with at least one treatment suggested. The precision cohort of 34 patients started treatment and the primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS) at two months was met in 17 patients (50%, 95% CI 32-68), exceeding the pre-defined level (14 of 45; 31%). The median PFS was 67 days (95% CI 51-108), and the median overall survival was 189 days (95% CI 103-277).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-derived organoids and in-vitro sensitivity testing were feasible in a cohort of metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary endpoint was met, as half of the patients were without progression at two months. Cancer patients may benefit from functional testing using tumor-derived organoids.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, register NCT03251612.

Improving the Understanding and Managing of the Quality of Life of Patients With Lung Cancer With Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are essential to clinical practice and research. The growth of eHealth technologies has provided unprecedented opportunities to collect information systematically through ePROMs. Although they are widely used in scientific research, more evidence is needed to determine their use and implementation in daily clinical practice. For example, when diagnosed, patients with lung cancer are at an advanced stage of the disease. This entails tremendous burden because of high mortality and losses in the different dimensions of the human being. In this case, monitoring symptoms and other outcomes help improve the patient's quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

ePROMs offered unprecedented opportunities to collect information systematically. Our goal was to demonstrate that ePROMs are more useful in controlling patient symptoms, lung cancer, and overall survival than their alternatives, such as nonelectronic PROMs.

METHODS

This exploratory review considered articles published between 2017 and 2022 identified through searches of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. We found 5097 articles; after removing the duplicates, we reduced them to 3315. After reading the summary, we were left with 56. Finally, after applying the exclusion criteria, we reviewed 12. The 5-step framework by Arksey and O'Malley was used to refine the initial search results with the following research questions: Do ePROMs help physician-patient communication? To what extent do they improve decision-making? Are institutions and their digitization policies barriers to or facilitators of this process? and What else is needed for routine implementation?

RESULTS

This review included 12 articles. We found that ePROMs are an integrative and facilitative communication tool, highlighting their importance in the relationship between palliative care and medical oncology. ePROMs help assess patient symptoms and functionality more accurately and facilitate clinical decision-making. In addition, it allows for more precise predictions of overall patient survival and the adverse effects of their treatments. The main institutional obstacles are the initial investment, which can be costly, and the data protection policy. However, enablers included better funding through the development of telemedicine, support from institutional leaders to overcome resistance to change, and transparent policies to ensure the safe and secure use of ePROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine collection of remote ePROMs is an effective and valuable strategy for providing real-time clinical feedback. In addition, it provides satisfaction to patients and professionals. Optimizing ePROMs in patients with lung cancer leads to a more accurate view of health outcomes and ensures quality patient follow-up. It also allows us to stratify patients based on their morbidity, creating specific follow-ups for their needs. However, data privacy and security are concerns when using ePROMs to ensure compliance with local entities. At least four barriers were identified: cost, complex programming within health systems, safety, and social and health literacy.

Single-arm trials supporting the approval of anticancer medicinal products in the European Union: contextualization of trial results and observed clinical benefit

BACKGROUND

Single-arm trials (SATs) can sometimes be used to support marketing authorization of anticancer medicinal products in the European Union. The level and durability of antitumor activity of the product as well as context are important aspects to determine the relevance of trial results. The aim of this study is to provide details on the contextualization of trial results and to evaluate the magnitude of benefit of medicinal products approved based on SATs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We focused on anticancer medicinal products for solid tumors approved on the basis of SAT results (2012-2021). Data were retrieved from European public assessment reports and/or published literature. The benefit of these medicinal products was evaluated via the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS).

RESULTS

Eighteen medicinal products were approved based on 21 SATs-few medicinal products were supported by >1 SAT. For the majority of clinical trials, a clinically relevant treatment effect was (pre)specified (71.4%) and most often an accompanying sample size calculation was provided. For 10 studies, each testing a different medicinal product, a justification for the threshold for a clinically relevant treatment effect could be identified. At least 12 out of 18 applications included information to facilitate the contextualization of trial results, including six supportive studies. Of the pivotal SATs analyzed (n = 21), three were assigned an ESMO-MCBS score of 4, which corresponds to 'substantial' benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical relevance of the treatment effects shown by medicinal products for solid tumors tested in SATs is dependent on the effect size and context. To better facilitate regulatory decision making, prespecifying and motivating a clinically relevant effect and aligning the sample size to that effect is important. External controls may facilitate in the contextualization process, but the associated limitations must be addressed.

Methodological and reporting standards for quality-of-life data eligible for European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) credit

BACKGROUND

The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) has been developed to grade clinical benefit of cancer therapies. Improvement in quality of life (QoL) is considered relevant, especially in the non-curative setting. This is reflected by an upgrade of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score if QoL is improved compared to the control arm or a downgrade if an improvement in progression-free survival is not paralleled by an improvement in QoL or overall survival. Given the importance of QoL for the final score, a need to ensure the robustness of QoL data was recognised.

DESIGN

A checklist was created based on existing guidelines for QoL research. Field testing was carried out using clinical trials that either received an adjustment of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score based on QoL or had QoL as the primary endpoint. Several rounds of revision and re-testing of the checklist were undertaken until a final consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The final checklist consists of four items and can be applied if three prerequisites are met: (i) QoL is at least a secondary endpoint, (ii) evidence of reliability and validity of the instrument is provided, and (iii) a statistically and clinically significant improvement in QoL is observed. The four items on the checklist pertain to the (i) hypothesis, (ii) compliance and missing data, (iii) presentation of the results, and (iv) statistical and clinical relevance. Field testing revealed that a clear QoL hypothesis and correction for multiple testing were mostly lacking, while the main statistical method was always described.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the ESMO-MCBS QoL checklist will facilitate objective and transparent decision making on QoL data within the ESMO-MCBS scoring process. Trials published until 1 January 2025 will have to meet the prerequisites and at least two items for crediting QoL benefit in the final ESMO-MCBS score. Trials published thereafter will have to meet all four items.

Time to reimbursement of novel anticancer drugs in Europe: a case study of seven European countries

BACKGROUND

Time to reimbursement (TTR) of new anticancer medicines differs between countries and contributes to unequal access. We aimed to investigate TTR of new anticancer medicines and explore factors influencing the reimbursement process in seven high-income European countries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out a retrospective case study of anticancer medicines with European Union Market Access (EU-MA) and a positive Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use opinion from 2016 until 2021 with subsequent national reimbursement approval (NRA). The National Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and reimbursement websites of Germany, France, UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and Switzerland were used to identify TTR, defined as time from EU-MA to NRA. Additionally, we investigated medication-, country-, indication- and pharma-related factors potentially influencing TTR.

RESULTS

Thirty-five medicines were identified for which TTR ranged from -81 days to 2320 days (median 407 days). At data cut-off, 16 (46%) were reimbursed in all seven countries. Overall, the shortest TTR was in Germany (median 3 days, all medicines reimbursed <5 days). The time limit for reimbursement of 180 days stated by the Council of European Communities after the EU-MA (EU Transparency Directive) was met for 100% of included medicines in Germany, 51% in France, 29% in the UK and the Netherlands, 14% in Switzerland, 6% in Norway and 3% in Belgium. The TTR was significantly different between countries (P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, factors associated with shorter TTR were higher gross domestic product (GDP), absence of a pre-assessment procedure and submission by a big pharmaceutical company.

CONCLUSIONS

TTR of anticancer medicines varies significantly between seven high-income European countries and leads to inequality in access. Among explored medication-, country-, indication- and pharma-related factors we found that a high GDP, the absence of a pre-assessment procedure and submission by big pharmaceutical companies were associated with shorter TTR.