A Canadian Prospective Study of Linkage of Randomized Clinical Trial to Cancer and Mortality Registry Data

Contact Days Associated With Cancer Treatments in the CCTG LY.12 Trial

BACKGROUND

When cancer treatments have similar oncologic outcomes, the number of days with in-person healthcare contact (""contact days'') can help contextualize expected time use with each treatment. We assessed contact days in a completed randomized clinical trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of the CCTG LY.12 RCT that evaluated 2-3 cycles of gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin (GDP) vs. dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin (DHAP) in 619 patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma prior to stem cell transplant. Primary analyses reported similar response rates and survival. We calculated patient-level "contact days" by analyzing trial forms. The study period was from assignment to progression or transplant. Days without healthcare contact were considered "home days''. We compared measures of contact days across arms.

RESULTS

The study period was longer in the GDP arm (median 50, vs. 47 days, P = .007). Contact days were comparable in both arms (median 18 vs 19, P = 0.79), but home days were higher in the GDP arm (median 33 vs 28, P < .001). The proportion of contact days was lower in the GDP arm (34%, vs. 38%, P = .009). The GDP arm experienced more contact days related to planned outpatient chemotherapy (median, 10 vs. 8 days), but the DHAP arm experienced many more inpatient contact days (median, 11 vs. 0 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Measures of time use, such as contact days, can be extracted from RCTs. In LY.12, despite comparable oncologic outcomes, GDP was associated with fewer contact days. Such information can guide decision-making for patients with hematological cancers, who already face significant healthcare contact.

The Past, Present, and Future of Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine at the Committee for Economic Analyses of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group

Precision medicine in oncology poses unique challenges to the generation of clinical and economic evidence used for cost-effectiveness analyses that can inform health technology assessment. The conduct of randomized controlled trials for biomarker-specific therapies targeted towards small populations has limitations in regard to feasibility, timeliness, and cost. These limitations result in associated challenges for groups involved in the generation of economic evidence to inform treatment-related decision making, including the Committee of Economic Analysis (CEA) at the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG). We provide a high-level description and vision about the new paradigm of clinical trial design, generation of economic evidence, and novel approaches to economic evaluations necessary in the space of precision medicine in oncology in Canada. The CEA's previous approach to precision medicine, including master protocol designs and single-arm studies, is reviewed. Methods and approaches currently under consideration by the CEA and national collaborators, such as the role of real-world and clinical trial evidence in enabling life-cycle assessment of therapies, are explored. Finally, future initiatives being planned in the space of precision medicine at CCTG, such as the incorporation of correlative studies to identify and test high-performing biomarkers in trials, are discussed.