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

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.

Application of Value Framework to Phase III Trials of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Esophageal and Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent trials testing immune-checkpoint inhibitors in esophago-gastric malignancies have shown mixed results. We aim to assess key subgroups using the ASCO Net Health Benefit Score (NHBS) and ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search for phase III trials of FDA-approved anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 drugs in esophago-gastric cancer trials was identified using www.clinicaltrials.gov. These published studies were scored using the ASCO NHBS and ESMO MCBS. The ASCO NHBS scores were compared by primary site of cancer (esophageal vs gastric) and PD-L1 expression using the Mann-Whitney test and the ESMO-MCBS grading, by Fisher's Exact test.

RESULTS

Fifteen of 45 clinical trials were included. Of them, 6 were primarily esophageal cancer trials, and 9 were primarily gastric cancer trials. Ten stratified their analysis based on PD-L1 expression. The ASCO NHBS score was higher (mean 40, range 20 to 56.6 vs. mean 12, range -1.1 to 18.4, P < .01) for esophageal cancer than gastric cancer. No difference was observed in survival and response endpoints between the 2 groups. Similarly, the ESMO MCBS scored higher for esophageal cancer group than gastric cancer (P < .05). Additionally, the scores were higher in those with high PD-L1 expression vs. low PD-L1 (mean 36, range 11.2-66.6 vs. mean 14, range -19.5 to 43.6, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The ASCO NHB and ESMO scores were consistently higher among esophageal cancer trials than gastric cancer trials and in those with high PD-L1 expression than low expression. Histology and PD-L1 expression should be considered when discussing value of immunotherapy to patients.

An urgent call to raise the bar in oncology

Important breakthroughs in medical treatments have improved outcomes for patients suffering from several types of cancer. However, many oncological treatments approved by regulatory agencies are of low value and do not contribute significantly to cancer mortality reduction, but lead to unrealistic patient expectations and push even affluent societies to unsustainable health care costs. Several factors that contribute to approvals of low-value oncology treatments are addressed, including issues with clinical trials, bias in reporting, regulatory agency shortcomings and drug pricing. With the COVID-19 pandemic enforcing the elimination of low-value interventions in all fields of medicine, efforts should urgently be made by all involved in cancer care to select only high-value and sustainable interventions. Transformation of medical education, improvement in clinical trial design, quality, conduct and reporting, strict adherence to scientific norms by regulatory agencies and use of value-based scales can all contribute to raising the bar for oncology drug approvals and influence drug pricing and availability.