Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: ASCO and CCO Joint Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based recommendations on the treatment of multiple myeloma to practicing physicians and others.

METHODS

ASCO and Cancer Care Ontario convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, surgery, radiation oncology, and advocacy experts to conduct a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and some phase II studies published from 2005 through 2018. Outcomes of interest included survival, progression-free survival, response rate, and quality of life. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 124 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Evidence-based recommendations were developed for patients with multiple myeloma who are transplantation eligible and those who are ineligible and for patients with relapsed or refractory disease.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Ibrutinib and Rituximab Plus Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, and Prednisone in Non-Germinal Center B-Cell Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

PURPOSE

Ibrutinib has shown activity in non-germinal center B-cell diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). This double-blind phase III study evaluated ibrutinib and rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in untreated non-germinal center B-cell DLBCL.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to ibrutinib (560 mg per day orally) plus R-CHOP or placebo plus R-CHOP. The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and the activated B-cell (ABC) DLBCL subgroup. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 838 patients were randomly assigned to ibrutinib plus R-CHOP (n = 419) or placebo plus R-CHOP (n = 419). Median age was 62.0 years; 75.9% of evaluable patients had ABC subtype disease, and baseline characteristics were balanced. Ibrutinib plus R-CHOP did not improve EFS in the ITT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.934) or ABC (HR, 0.949) population. A preplanned analysis showed a significant interaction between treatment and age. In patients age younger than 60 years, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP improved EFS (HR, 0.579), PFS (HR, 0.556), and OS (HR, 0.330) and slightly increased serious adverse events (35.7% v 28.6%), but the proportion of patients receiving at least six cycles of R-CHOP was similar between treatment arms (92.9% v 93.0%). In patients age 60 years or older, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP worsened EFS, PFS, and OS, increased serious adverse events (63.4% v 38.2%), and decreased the proportion of patients receiving at least six cycles of R-CHOP (73.7% v 88.8%).

CONCLUSION

The study did not meet its primary end point in the ITT or ABC population. However, in patients age younger than 60 years, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP improved EFS, PFS, and OS with manageable safety. In patients age 60 years or older, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP was associated with increased toxicity, leading to compromised R-CHOP administration and worse outcomes. Further investigation is warranted.

Conditional approval of cancer drugs in Canada: accountability and impact on public funding

Background

We examined how conditional market approval of cancer pharmaceuticals by Health Canada (hc) affects public funding recommendations by the pan-Canadian Oncology Review (pcodr). We were also interested to see how often hc conditions are enforced.

Methods

Health Canada and pcodr databases for 2010-2017 were analyzed for patterns in hc conditional authorization and post-authorization reviews of cancer drugs and for correlation with pcodr reimbursement recommendations.

Results

Between 2010 and 2017, pcodr reviewed 105 unique drug-indication pairings; 21% (n = 22) had conditional hc authorization. In all cases, conditional authorization was given on the basis of preliminary data in a surrogate endpoint and was contingent on further data showing benefit in more robust outcome measures (for example, overall survival). Of those 22 drugs, 36% did not have updated data, 36% had updated data that met hc conditions, and 27% had data that met some, but not all, conditions. During the period considered, hc never revoked conditional authorization for failure to meet conditions. None of the 22 drugs was given an unconditional positive recommendation for public reimbursement by pcodr. A conditional recommendation was given to 11 of the drugs (50%), and reimbursement was not recommended for 6 drugs (27%) because of insufficient evidence.

Conclusions

One fifth of the cancer drugs reviewed for public reimbursement in Canada were conditionally authorized by hc based on preliminary data. Conditional authorization was associated with a recommendation against public funding by pcodr. No drugs had their conditional market authorization revoked for failure to meet conditions, suggesting that a more robust hc reappraisal framework is needed.

Reliability of Oncology Value Framework Outputs: Concordance Between Independent Research Groups

Research groups are increasingly utilizing value frameworks, but little is known of their reliability. To assess framework concordance and interrater reliability between two major value frameworks currently in use, we identified all previously published datasets containing both scores from the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and grades from the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess interrater reliability. Four eligible studies contained drugs evaluated by both value frameworks, resulting in a dataset of 39 grades/scores for discrete drug indications. ICC was 0.82 (95% confidence interval = 0.70 to 0.90) for ASCO-VF and 0.88 (95% confidence interval = 0.80 to 0.93) for ESMO-MCBS. Absolute concordance was found to be 5% for ASCO-VF and 44% for ESMO-MCBS, increasing to 74% and 80% when deviations within 20 points and 1 grade were considered, respectively. Interrater reliability of ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS is, therefore, near perfect, while absolute concordance is poor. This has implications when considering framework outputs in drug funding or treatment decision making.

Improved survival in overweight and obese patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma treated with rituximab-containing chemotherapy for curative intent

The association between obesity and survival in non-Hodgkin lymphoma is unclear. Using the Ontario Cancer Registry we conducted a retrospective analysis of incident cases of aggressive-histology B-cell lymphoma treated with a rituximab-containing regimen with curative intent between 2008-2016. 6246 patients were included. On multivariable analysis the rate of all-cause mortality was lower for the overweight body mass index (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m²) (HR 0.85; 95%CI 0.77-0.95) and obese BMI (≥30 kg/m²) (HR 0.75; 95%CI 0.67-0.85) groups compared to the normal weight group (18.5-24.9 kg/m²). Binomial logistic regression analysis revealed a lower odds ratio (OR) of admission to hospital during treatment in the overweight (OR 0.84; 95%CI 0.75-0.95) compared to normal weight BMI group. In the largest cohort to date of aggressive-histology B-cell lymphoma patients treated with rituximab, increased BMI is associated with a survival advantage, and the magnitude of this effect increases from overweight to obese BMI.

A phase I study of romidepsin, gemcitabine, dexamethasone and cisplatin combination therapy in the treatment of peripheral T-cell and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; the Canadian cancer trials group LY.15 study†

We investigated GDP (gemcitabine, 1000 mg/m² IV d1, d8; dexamethasone, 40 mg po d1-4; cisplatin, 75 mg/m² IV d1) combined with romidepsin on days 1 and 8 every 21 days to a maximum of six cycles in a standard 3 + 3, phase I dose escalation trial for patients with relapsed/refractory peripheral T-cell (PTCL) or diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) lymphoma (NCT01846390). After treating four patients, gemcitabine and romidepsin were given on days 1 and 15 every 28 days. On the 21-day schedule at 6 mg/m² romidepsin, there were three dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) among four patients. On the 28-day schedule, there were no DLTs at the 6, 8, or 10 mg/m² dose. At 12 mg/m², there were four observed grade 3 DLTs among six evaluable patients. Full doses of GDP can be combined with a recommended phase II romidepsin dose of 10 mg/m² if given on a day 1, 15 every 28 days schedule.

Screening for a new primary cancer in patients with existing metastatic cancer: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening aims to detect malignant disease early in its natural history when interventions might improve patient outcomes. Such benefits are unclear when screening occurs for patients with an existing high risk of death. Our aim was to study the extent of routine cancer screening for a new primary cancer in patients with existing metastatic cancer.

METHODS

We used administrative databases from Ontario to identify a retrospective cohort of adults of eligible screening age (≥ 50 yr) who had a diagnosis of stage IV (metastatic) colorectal, lung, breast or prostate cancer between 2007 and 2012. We calculated the cumulative incidence of cancer screening over time for colorectal and breast cancer.

RESULTS

Among the 20 992 patients with metastatic lung, breast or prostate cancer, 2.9%, 6.3% and 13.3% of patients, respectively, underwent testing for colorectal cancer within 1 year of cancer diagnosis. Within 3 years of diagnosis, rates reached 4.1%, 12.3% and 27.5%, respectively (8.5% of all patients). Incidence of colorectal cancer testing was higher among patients who received their diagnoses more recently compared with patients with diagnoses from earlier time periods (p = 0.0143). Among the 10 034 women with metastatic lung or colorectal cancer, 8.7% and 8.0% of patients, respectively, underwent breast cancer screening within 1 year of cancer diagnosis. Within 3 years of diagnosis, screening rates reached 10.2% and 13.1%, respectively.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings indicate excessive rates of cancer screening among patients with metastatic cancer who are unlikely to benefit. Further studies are warranted to identify predictors for screening, resource implications, potential and real harms borne by patients, and the impact of a recent Choosing Wisely statement recommending against the practice.

Effect of interferon alpha and cyclosporine treatment separately and in combination on Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) replication in a human in-vitro and ex-vivo culture model

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) has emerged as a coronavirus infection of humans in the past 5 years. Though confined to certain geographical regions of the world, infection has been associated with a case fatality rate of 35%, and this mortality may be higher in ventilated patients. As there are few readily available animal models that accurately mimic human disease, it has been a challenge to ethically determine what optimum treatment strategies can be used for this disease. We used in-vitro and human ex-vivo explant cultures to investigate the effect of two immunomodulatory agents, interferon alpha and cyclosporine, singly and in combination, on MERS-CoV replication. In both culture systems the combined treatment was more effective than either agent used alone in reducing MERS-CoV replication. PCR SuperArray analysis showed that the reduction of virus replication was associated with a greater induction of interferon stimulated genes. As these therapeutic agents are already licensed for clinical use, it may be relevant to investigate their use for therapy of human MERS-CoV infection.

•

The effect of interferon-α and/or cyclosporine on MERS-CoV replication was evaluated with a human ex-vivo culture model.

•

All treatments were able to reduce MERS-CoV replication.

•

The combined treatment was more effective than either agent used alone in reducing MERS-CoV replication.

•

The effect of the combined treatment group was associated with a greater induction of interferon stimulated genes.

Management of newly diagnosed high-risk and intermediate-risk follicular lymphoma with 90 Y ibritumomab tiuxetan in a phase II study

Five-year overall survival for high-risk Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index follicular lymphoma is only approximately 50% compared with 90% for low risk. To evaluate an approach to improve upon this poor outcome, we completed an exploratory phase II trial of intensified treatment for patients with intermediate and high-risk follicular lymphoma. Front-line treatment with chemo-immunotherapy consisting of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and prednisone was followed by radio- immunotherapy with 90-Yttrium ibritumomab tiuxetan consolidation, and 2 years of rituximab maintenance. The 5-year overall survival for intermediate and high-risk patients was 88% and 83%, respectively. Of 33 enrolled patients, 3 were off study before receiving radio-immunotherapy. Three months post radio-immunotherapy, 28/33 (85%) patients had achieved complete response including 6 patients who had only a partial response to chemo-immunotherapy and converted to complete response after radio-immunotherapy. The 5-year progression-free survival for intermediate and high risk was 79% and 58%, respectively. Nine of 19 patients with molecular markers patients remain in molecular and clinical complete remission with a median follow-up of 48 months (range 3-84 months). Post radio-immunotherapy, hematologic toxicities were mostly grade 1 and 2. However, asymptomatic grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia occurred in 11%-36% and 10%-24% of patients, respectively. Myelodysplastic syndrome occurred in 1 patient 4 years post treatment. Whereas many patients had prolonged B-cell reduction and low immunoglobulin levels post treatment, previous immunities to rubella were maintained. More aggressive upfront approaches such as this may benefit higher risk follicular lymphoma, but confirmatory trials are required. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01446562.

Examining Trends in Cost and Clinical Benefit of Novel Anticancer Drugs Over Time

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine if clinical benefits of novel anticancer drugs, measured by the ASCO Value Framework and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, have increased over time in parallel with increasing costs.

METHODS

Anticancer drugs from phase III randomized controlled trials cited for clinical efficacy evidence in drug approvals between January 2006 to December 2015 were identified and scored using both frameworks. For each drug, the monthly price and incremental anticancer drug costs were calculated. Relationships between cost and year of approval were examined using generalized linear regressions models. Ordinary least square models were used to evaluate relationships between ASCO and ESMO scores and year of approval. Spearman correlation coefficients between costs and clinical benefit scores were calculated.

RESULTS

In total, 42 randomized controlled trials were included. Both monthly prices and incremental anticancer drug costs were significantly associated with year of approval and showed an average annual increase of 9% and 21%, respectively. The predicted mean incremental anticancer drug cost increased from $30,447 in 2006 to $161,141 in 2015 (greater than five-fold increase). Both ASCO and ESMO scores were not statistically associated with year of approval or correlated with monthly prices or incremental anticancer drug costs.

CONCLUSION

Over the past decade, costs of novel oncology drugs have increased, while clinical benefits of these medications have not experienced a proportional positive change. The incremental anticancer drug costs have increased at a much greater rate than monthly prices, indicating that the increase in anticancer drug costs may be higher than commonly reported.

Impact of Immigration Status on Cancer Outcomes in Ontario, Canada

Background:

Prior studies have documented inferior health outcomes in vulnerable populations, including racial minorities and those with disadvantaged socioeconomic status. The impact of immigration on cancer-related outcomes is less clear.

Methods:

Administrative databases were linked to create a cohort of incident cancer cases (colorectal, lung, prostate, head and neck, breast, and hematologic malignancies) from 2000 to 2012 in Ontario, Canada. Cancer patients who immigrated to Canada (from 1985 onward) were compared with those who were Canadian born (or immigrated before 1985). Patients were followed from diagnosis until death (cancer-specific or all-cause). Cox proportional hazards models were estimated to determine the impact of immigration on mortality after adjusting for explanatory variables. Additional adjusted models studied the relationship of time since immigration and cancer-specific and overall mortality.

Results:

From 2000 to 2012, 11,485 cancer cases were diagnosed in recent immigrants (0 to 10 years in Canada), 17,844 cases in nonrecent immigrants (11 to 25 years), and 416,118 cases in nonimmigrants. After adjustment, the hazard of mortality was lower for recent immigrants (hazard ratio [HR], 0.843; 95% CI, 0.814 to 0.873) and nonrecent immigrants (HR, 0.902; 95% CI, 0.876 to 0.928) compared with nonimmigrants. Cancer-specific mortality was also lower for recent immigrants (HR, 0.857; 95% CI, 0.823 to 0.893) and nonrecent immigrants (HR, 0.907; 95% CI, 0.875 to 0.94). Among immigrants, each year from the original landing was associated with increased mortality (HR, 1.004; 95% CI, 1.000 to 1.009) and a trend to increased cancer-specific mortality (HR, 1.005; 95% CI, 0.999 to 1.010).

Conclusion:

Immigrants demonstrate a healthy immigrant effect, with lower cancer-specific mortality compared with Canadian-born individuals. This benefit seems to diminish over time, as the survival of immigrants from common cancers potentially converges with the Canadian norm.

Financial Impact of Cancer Drug Wastage and Potential Cost Savings From Mitigation Strategies

Purpose:

Cancer drug wastage occurs when a parenteral drug within a fixed vial is not administered fully to a patient. This study investigated the extent of drug wastage, the financial impact on the hospital budget, and the cost savings associated with current mitigation strategies.

Methods:

We conducted a cross-sectional study in three University of Toronto–affiliated hospitals of various sizes. We recorded the actual amount of drug wasted over a 2-week period while using current mitigation strategies. Single-dose vial cancer drugs with the highest wastage potentials were identified (14 drugs). To calculate the hypothetical drug wastage with no mitigation strategies, we determined how many vials of drugs would be needed to fill a single prescription.

Results:

The total drug costs over the 2 weeks ranged from $50,257 to $716,983 in the three institutions. With existing mitigation strategies, the actual drug wastage over the 2 weeks ranged from $928 to $5,472, which was approximately 1% to 2% of the total drug costs. In the hypothetical model with no mitigation strategies implemented, the projected drug cost wastage would have been $11,232 to $149,131, which accounted for 16% to 18% of the total drug costs. As a result, the potential annual savings while using current mitigation strategies range from 15% to 17%.

Conclusion:

The financial impact of drug wastage is substantial. Mitigation strategies lead to substantial cost savings, with the opportunity to reinvest those savings. More research is needed to determine the appropriate methods to minimize risk to patients while using the cost-saving mitigation strategies.

Do the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Measure the Same Construct of Clinical Benefit?

Purpose Whether the ASCO Value Framework and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) measure similar constructs of clinical benefit is unclear. It is also unclear how they relate to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and funding recommendations in the United Kingdom and Canada. Methods Randomized clinical trials of oncology drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada between 2006 and August 2015 were identified and scored using the ASCO version 1 (v1) framework, ASCO version 2 (v2) framework, and ESMO-MCBS by at least two independent reviewers. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to assess construct (between frameworks) and criterion validity (against QALYs from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] and the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review [pCODR]). Associations between scores and NICE/pCODR recommendations were examined. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Results From 109 included randomized clinical trials, 108 ASCOv1, 111 ASCOv2, and 83 ESMO scores were determined. Correlation coefficients for ASCOv1 versus ESMO, ASCOv2 versus ESMO, and ASCOv1 versus ASCOv2 were 0.36 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.54), 0.17 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.37), and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.63), respectively. Compared with NICE QALYs, correlation coefficients were 0.45 (ASCOv1), 0.53 (ASCOv2), and 0.46 (ESMO); with pCODR QALYs, coefficients were 0.19 (ASCOv1), 0.20 (ASCOv2), and 0.36 (ESMO). None of the frameworks were significantly associated with NICE/pCODR recommendations. Inter-rater reliability was good for all frameworks. Conclusion The weak-to-moderate correlations of the ASCO frameworks with the ESMO-MCBS, as well as their correlations with QALYs and with NICE/pCODR funding recommendations, suggest different constructs of clinical benefit measured. Construct convergent validity with the ESMO-MCBS did not increase with the updated ASCO framework.

The impact of pricing strategy on the cost of oral anti-cancer drugs during dose reductions

e18312

Background: The pricing strategy of oral medications can affect their costs. The strategy of flat pricing per tablet may increase drug costs in the event of dose reductions requiring more tablets, as there is a single price for different tablet strengths, but the impact is largely unknown. With the strategy of linear pricing, the tablet price increases with its strength. We sought to determine the impact of pricing strategy on the cost of oral anti-cancer drugs during dose reductions. Methods: Oral anti-cancer drugs reviewed by the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review were identified between July 2011 to January 2015. The pricing strategy of these drugs was reviewed. We examined the percentage change in cost per mg and cost per 28 days as a result of dose reduction from dose level 0 to -1 and -2 for each drug. Results: Seventeen drugs for use in 20 indications were included in the analysis. There were 3 drugs for hematological malignancies and 14 drugs for solid cancers. Fifty-nine percent (10/17) of these drugs were available in multiple strengths; five of them utilized fixed pricing per tablet strategy and the other 5 utilized linear pricing. The remaining drugs (7/17) were available in a single strength tablet. Dose reductions generally increased the cost per mg for drugs using flat pricing per tablet, with a mean increase of 82% (range: 25%-200%) at dose level -1 and 100% (range: 0%-200%) at dose level -2. Dose reduction had no effect on the cost per mg of drug for drugs using linear pricing apart from lenalidomide, which had increased costs due to minimal price variation between the highest and lowest tablet strengths. In general, dose reduction did not decrease the cost per 28 days of drug for drugs using flat pricing per tablet, but was proportionally reduced in drugs using linear pricing. Conclusions: While there is a general expectation that the cost of drugs should decrease with dose reduction, oral anti-cancer drugs using flat pricing per tablet have increased cost per mg and no decrease in cost per 28 days despite dose reduction. Future economic evaluations should account for the impact of dose reductions for oral drugs using the flat pricing per tablet strategy on cost-effectiveness and budget.

Do the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale measure the same construct of clinical benefit?

6509

Background: Whether the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) measure similar constructs of clinical benefit is unclear. It is also unclear how they relate to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and funding recommendations in the UK and Canada. Methods: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of oncology drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and Health Canada between January 2006 and August 2015 were identified and scored using the ASCO version 1 (v1) framework (August 10, 2015), ASCO version 2 (v2) framework (May 31, 2016) and ESMO-MCBS (May 30, 2015) by at least two independent reviewers. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to assess construct (between frameworks) and criterion validity (against incremental QALYs from the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR)). Associations between scores and NICE/pCODR recommendations were examined by logistic regression models. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients. Results: From 109 included RCTs, 108 ASCOv1, 111 ASCOv2 and 83 ESMO scores were determined. Correlation coefficients for ASCOv1 vs. ESMO, ASCOv2 vs. ESMO, and ASCOv1 vs. ASCOv2 were 0.36 (95% CI 0.15-0.54), 0.17 (95% CI -0.06-0.37) and 0.50 (95% CI 0.35-0.63), respectively. Compared with NICE QALYs, correlation coefficients were 0.45 (ASCOv1), 0.53 (ASCOv2) and 0.46 (ESMO); with pCODR QALYs, coefficients were 0.19 (ASCOv1), 0.20 (ASCOv2) and 0.36 (ESMO). None of the frameworks were significantly associated with NICE/pCODR recommendations. Inter-rater reliability was good for all frameworks. Conclusions: The weak-to-moderate correlations between the ASCO frameworks and ESMO-MCBS, with QALYs, and with NICE/pCODR funding recommendations suggest different constructs of clinical benefit measured. Construct convergent validity with the ESMO-MCBS in fact did not increase with the updated ASCO framework.

Impact of intravenous cancer drug wastage on economic evaluations

6607

Background: Intravenous drugs administered through body-surface area (BSA) or weight-based dosing may cause wastage due to large and/or limited fixed vial sizes, and vial sharing restrictions. Drug wastage leads to incremental costs without incremental value to patients. Bach et al. (2016) estimated 10% of revenue ($1.8 billion) from cancer drugs would result from wastage in 2016. The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) committee provides recommendations on which drugs to publicly reimburse by reviewing clinical and economic evidence. There is considerable potential that drug wastage could impact the economic evaluations. We sought to determine the impact of modeling cancer drug wastage on the results of economic evaluations. Methods: Economic evaluations submitted by drug manufacturers and reviewed by the pCODR Economic Guidance Panel (EGP) were assessed for frequency of wastage reporting and modeling. Cost-effectiveness analyses and budget impact analyses were conducted for scenarios in which “no wastage” and “wastage” of drugs occurred. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the effects of BSA and weight variation. Results: 12 drugs for use in 17 indications were analyzed. Wastage was reported in 71% and incorporated in 53% of manufacturer’s models, resulting in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) increase of 6.1% (range: 1.3% to 14.6%). EGP reported and incorporated wastage for 59% of models, resulting in a mean ICER increase of 15.0% (2.6% to 48.2%). When maximum wastage (i.e. the entire unused portion of each vial is discarded) was incorporated in our independent analysis, the mean ICER increased by 24.0% (0.0% to 97.2%) and the mean 3-year total incremental costs increased by 26.0% (0.0% to 83.1%). Over a 3-year period, wastage can increase the total incremental drug budget cost by CAD $102 million nationally. Changing the mean BSA or body weight caused 45% of the drugs to use a different vial size (if available) and/or quantity, resulting in further increased drug costs. Conclusions: Wastage can have an under-recognized and significant impact on economic evaluations of intravenous chemotherapy drugs. Guidelines are needed to promote uniform and optimal modeling of drug wastage in economic evaluations.

Are surrogate endpoints unbiased metrics compared to hazard ratio for death? An evaluation of clinical benefit scores (CBS) in the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) value framework

6600

Background: Clinical benefit scores (CBS) are a key element of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) value framework's Net Health Benefit valuation of cancer therapies. CBS are assigned based on a hierarchy of efficacy endpoints, from hazard ratio for death (HR OS), to median overall survival (mOS), HR for disease progression (HR PFS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), and response rate (RR). When HR OS is unavailable, other endpoints in the hierarchy are used as "surrogates" to calculate CBS via their scaling factors. We aim to examine whether surrogate-derived CBS offer unbiased scoring of clinical benefit compared to HR OS-derived CBS. Methods: CBS for advanced-disease settings were computed for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of oncology drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada, between 2006 and August 2015. Spearman's correlation assessed association between CBS derived from surrogates and HR OS. Mean bias (surrogate-derived CBS minus HR OS-derived CBS) evaluated the tendency for surrogate-derived CBS to over- or under- estimate clinical benefit. Mean absolute error (MAE), a measure of average deviation, assessed precision of surrogate-derived CBS in relation to HR OS-derived CBS. Results: Scored RCTs (n=104) yielded 69, 93, 88, and 89 paired CBS between HR OS and mOS, HR PFS, mPFS, and RR, respectively. See table for results. Restricting to RCTs reporting all endpoints (n=59) and RCTs without OS as primary endpoint (n=68) showed similar results. Conclusions: Findings suggest HR PFS-, mPFS-, and RR-derived CBS are poor "surrogates" as they are imprecise and weakly correlated to HR OS-derived CBS. HR PFS and particularly mPFS exhibit bias to overestimate CBS. [Table: see text]

Examining the relationship between cost of novel oncology drugs and their clinical benefit over time

6598

Background: The average launch price of oncology drugs has increased by 10% annually from 1995 to 2013. The purpose of this study was to determine if the clinical benefit of novel oncology drugs has increased proportionally over time and is correlated with launch price. Methods: Novel oncology drugs fromrandomized controlled trials (RCTs) cited for clinical efficacy evidence in drug approvals between January 2006 and August 2015 were identified. For each drug, only the first FDA approved indication was included. To determine clinical benefit, all included RCTs were scored using the ASCO Value Framework and the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. The launch price for the FDA approval year of each drug was extracted from RedBook. Each drug’s 28-day cost was determined using the dosage schedule outlined in the respective RCT and was adjusted to 2015 USD using the consumer price index. The relationships between 28-day drug cost and FDA approval year, and between incremental drug cost (difference in total drug cost between experimental and control arms accounting for treatment duration) and FDA approval year were examined using generalized linear regression models (gamma distribution and log link). Ordinary least square models were used to evaluate the relationship between ASCO/ESMO scores and FDA approval year. Spearman’s correlation coefficients between 28-day/incremental drug costs and ASCO/ESMO scores were also calculated. Results: Forty RCTs were included in this analysis. The 28-day drug cost was significantly associated with FDA approval year (p = 0.04), with an average increase of 8.5% per year. Incremental drug cost was also significantly associated with FDA approval year (p < 0.001) with an increase of 28.6% per year. The mean ASCO and ESMO scores were 26 and 3, respectively. Both scores were not statistically associated with FDA approval year (p = 0.73 and p = 0.86, respectively) and were also not correlated with 28-day or incremental drug costs (all rho < = 0.2). Conclusions: Novel oncology drugs are not priced according to their clinical benefit. The rising cost of novel oncology drugs over time is not associated with an increase in their clinical benefit, suggesting a decrease in their value over time.

The impact of interruptions on physician workflow, productivity, and delivery of care

201

Background: Physician interruptions during clinic and non-clinic hours can lead to medical errors, provider fatigue, prolonged clinic times, reduced academic output and poor job satisfaction. Repetitive interruptions can hamper the ability of physicians to deliver high quality patient-centered care. This study aims to evaluate the type, frequency, duration and self-reported physician response interruptions physicians experience in clinic. Methods: A work observation study was conducted at the Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Canada. In-clinic data were collected from September 22 to October 6, 2016 using time-motion analyses by shadowing multiple oncologists in clinic. Interruption data were collected and categorized as follows: type of interruption, length of interruption, reason for interruption and role of interrupter. Physicians were asked to record and track themselves regarding interruptions they experienced during non-clinic hours using the same criteria. Results: Over a 2-week period, 5 medical oncology clinics (median 4 hours (hrs) per clinic), were observed and tracked. The clinic physicians averaged 22 interruptions per block, equating to 6 interruptions/hr (one interruption every 10 minutes (mins)). Over the 5 sessions, 112 data points were collected totaling over 1 hr 48 mins of interrupted time. Interruptions averaged 80 seconds (range of 4 to 517) in length with a positive skewed distribution. This calculates to approximately 30 mins of cumulative interrupted time per clinic session. Most interruptions were under 4 mins in length (4.1 at 95th percentile). The type of interruption varied but was most commonly in-person (67), email (24) and text message (10). Conclusions: Interruptions account for approximately 30 mins of physician time during a 4-hour clinic. An assessment of the type and frequency of requests proved highly variable, creating inconsistent ways messages are delivered to physicians. Interruptions potentially impact on patient care and disrupt the workflow of the clinic. These data provide future directions for exploring efficient clinic workflows and establishing standardized means of communicating with physicians during clinic hours.