Verification of the correlation between progression-free survival and overall survival considering magnitudes of survival post- progression in the treatment of four types of cancer

Perspectives to mitigate payer uncertainty in health technology assessment of novel oncology drugs

Reimbursement decisions on new oncology drugs are now often made while uncertainty remains about a drug's risk-benefit profile. One consequence of this is a delay in patient access to valuable new medicines. We share our perspectives on strategies to mitigate sources of uncertainty in the health technology assessment process. These include flexible approaches for evaluating the additional benefit, such as better use of surrogate endpoints and health-related quality of life data, and renewed research efforts to define the optimal target population and generate real-world evidence post-authorisation.

Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?-lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund

BACKGROUND

The NHS Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) was established in 2010 to reduce delays and improve access to cancer drugs, including those that had been previously appraised but not approved by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). After 1.3 billion GBP expenditure, a UK parliamentary review in 2016 rationalized the CDF back into NICE.

METHODS

This paper analyses the potential value delivered by the CDF according to six value criteria. This includes validated clinical benefits scales, cost-effectiveness criteria as defined by NICE and an assessment of real-world data. The analysis focuses on 29 cancer drugs approved for 47 indications that could be prescribed through the CDF in January 2015.

RESULTS

Of the 47 CDF approved indications, only 18 (38%) reported a statistically significant OS benefit, with an overall median survival of 3.1 months (1.4-15.7 months). When assessed according to clinical benefit scales, only 23 (48%) and 9 (18%) of the 47 drug indications met ASCO and ESMO criteria, respectively. NICE had previously rejected 26 (55%) of the CDF approved indications because they did not meet cost-effectiveness thresholds. Four drugs-bevacizumab, cetuximab, everolimus and lapatinib-represented the bulk of CDF applications and were approved for a total of 18 separate indications. Thirteen of these indications were subsequently delisted by the CDF in January 2015 due to insufficient evidence for clinical benefit-data which were unchanged since their initial approval.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude the CDF has not delivered meaningful value to patients or society. There is no empirical evidence to support a 'drug only' ring fenced cancer fund relative to concomitant investments in other cancer domains such as surgery and radiotherapy, or other noncancer medicines. Reimbursement decisions for all drugs and interventions within cancer care should be made through appropriate health technology appraisal processes.

Clinical significance of post-progression survival in lung cancer

Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) are two common endpoints in cancer trials. OS is usually preferred, because it is reliable, precise, meaningful, and can easily be documented. However, subsequent lines of therapy might confound the effects of first-line treatment on OS. Whether PFS or OS is the more appropriate endpoint in clinical trials of metastatic cancer remains controversial. Previous reports on lung cancer have shown that an increase in PFS does not necessarily result in an increase in OS; however, post-progression survival (PPS) is strongly associated with OS after early-line treatment. The significance of PPS after first and second-line therapy at the individual level in patients with advanced lung cancer has also recently been reported. Findings of previous reports indicate that PPS is highly associated with OS after first and second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer, whereas PFS is only moderately associated with OS. Therefore, subsequent treatment after disease progression following early-line treatments may greatly influence OS. This review demonstrates that even in advanced lung cancer, PPS, rather than PFS, has become more strongly associated with OS over the years, potentially because of intensive post-study treatments. As a result of the increasing impact of PPS on OS, a PFS-related advantage does not necessarily indicate an OS-related advantage. Thus, the prolongation of PPS might limit the classical role of OS for assessing true efficacy derived from early-line chemotherapy in future clinical trials.

Timing and extent of response in colorectal cancer: critical review of current data and implication for future trials

The identification of new surrogate endpoints for advanced colorectal cancer is becoming crucial and, along with drug development, it represents a research field increasingly studied. Although overall survival (OS) remains the strongest trial endpoint available, it requires larger sample size and longer periods of time for an event to happen. Surrogate endpoints such as progression free survival (PFS) or response rate (RR) may overcome these issues but, as such, they need to be prospectively validated before replacing the real endpoints; moreover, they often bear many other limitations. In this narrative review we initially discuss the role of time-to-event endpoints, objective response and response rate as surrogates of OS in the advanced colorectal cancer setting, discussing also how such measures are influenced by the tumor assessment criteria currently employed. We then report recent data published about early tumor shrinkage and deepness of response, which have recently emerged as novel potential endpoint surrogates, discussing their strengths and weaknesses and providing a critical comment. Despite being very compelling, the role of such novel response measures is yet to be confirmed and their surrogacy with OS still needs to be further investigated within larger and well-designed trials.