Prevalence of off-label use and spending in 2010 among patent-protected chemotherapies in a population-based cohort of medical oncologists

The landscape of use of NCCN-guideline chemotherapy regimens in stage I-IIIA breast cancer in an integrated healthcare delivery system

PURPOSE

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend a variety of drug combinations with specific administration schedules for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer, allowing physicians to deliver treatments recognizing individual patient complexities, including comorbidities, and patient-physician preference. While use of guideline regimens has shifted over time, there is little data to describe changes in how treatment for early-stage breast cancer has evolved over time.

METHODS

In a cohort of 34,109 women treated for stage I-IIIA breast cancer between 2006-2019 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Kaiser Permanente Washington, we present the changes in chemotherapy regimens over time, and explore use of NCCN-guideline regimens (GR), guideline regimens used when said regimens were not included in guidelines, referred to as time-discordant regimens (TDR), and non-guideline regimens (NGR). Results are presented by drug combination and over time.

RESULTS

Among 12,506 women receiving chemotherapy, 77.4% (n = 9681) received GRs, 9.1% (n = 1140) received TDRs, and 13.5% (n = 1685) received NGRs. In 2006, AC-T (cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin, paclitaxel) was the most common regimen, with TC (cyclophosphamide-docetaxel) becoming the most prevalent by 2019. NGRs were more common in cyclophosphamide-methotrexate-5-fluorouracil (CMF); cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-paclitaxel-trastuzumab (ACTH); and paclitaxel-trastuzumab (TH). The use of GR has increased over time (p-trend < 0.001), while use of NGR (both in terms of administration schedule and drug combination) and TDR have decreased, although patterns vary by drug combination.

CONCLUSION

Chemotherapy delivery has changed markedly over time, with a move toward more use of GR. These data are important for understanding the landscape of chemotherapy delivery in community healthcare settings.

Patient Characteristics Associated with Intended Nonguideline Chemotherapy in Women with Stage I to IIIA Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Guidelines informing chemotherapy regimen selection are based on clinical trials with participants who do not necessarily represent general populations with breast cancer. Understanding who receives nonguideline regimens is important for understanding real-world chemotherapy administration and how it relates to patient outcomes.

METHODS

Using data from the Optimal Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Dosing (OBCD) study, based at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (2006-2019) and Kaiser Permanente Washington (2004-2015), we use logistic regression to examine the associations between patient characteristics and receipt of nonguideline chemotherapy regimens among 11,293 women with primary stage I to IIIA breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The use of nonguideline regimens was strongly associated with several factors, including older age [≥80 vs. 18-39 years: OR, 5.25; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.06-9.00; P-trend = 0.002] and HER2 status (HER2+ vs. HER2-: OR, 3.44; 95% CI, 3.06-3.87) and was less likely in women with larger tumor size (>5 cm vs. 0.1 to ≤0.5 cm: OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87; P-trend = 0.01) and diagnosed in later years (2012-2019 vs. 2005-2011: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90). Factors associated varied by type of nonguideline regimens. For example, women with comorbidity and older age were more likely to receive nonguideline drug combinations in particular, whereas women with larger tumor size were less likely to receive nonguideline administration schedules.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonguideline chemotherapy regimens are more likely in certain patient populations.

IMPACT

These associations highlight that vulnerable patient populations may be less likely to receive guideline care, and thus, real-world studies are essential for understanding how the use of nonguideline regimens impacts patient outcomes in these groups.

Clinical value of guideline recommended molecular targets and genome targeted cancer therapies: cross sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical benefit and actionability of molecular targets for genome targeted cancer drugs recommended for clinical practice by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

DESIGN

Cross sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS/SETTING

Genome targeted cancer drugs recommended by NCCN guidelines in the advanced setting.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Molecular target actionability was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit of genome targeted oncology therapies was evaluated using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Molecular targets at ESCAT category level I associated with studies showing substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS (grades 4-5) were designated as high benefit, and those linked to studies achieving an ESMO-MCBS grade of 3 were categorized as being of promising but unproven benefit.

RESULTS

411 recommendations related to 74 genome targeted drugs targeting 50 driver alterations were examined. Most recommendations (346/411; 84%) were associated with clinical trials of various phases, but 16% (65/411) relied on only case reports or pre-clinical studies. However, clinical trials mostly comprised phase I or phase II (271/346; 78%), single arm (262/346; 76%) studies. The primary endpoint assessed in most trials was overall response rate (271/346; 78%) rather than survival. ESCAT tier I targetability encompassed 60% (246/411) of target recommendations, 35% (142/411) were classified as tier II or III, and 6% (23/411) had their relevance yet to be determined (tiers IV to X). When ESMO-MCBS was applied to 267 scorable trials, only 12% (32/267) showed substantial clinical benefit (grades 4-5) and 45% (121/267) were grade 3. When both frameworks were combined, 12% (32/267) of trials supported a determination of high benefit and 33% (88/267) indicated promising but unproven benefit. Of the 118 interventions endorsed by NCCN authors as preferred, 62 (53%) applied to treatments with high or promising but unproven benefit.

CONCLUSION

According to the ESCAT and ESMO-MCBS frameworks, about one eighth of genome based treatments for solid cancer were rated as likely to offer a high benefit to patients, whereas around a third were identified as offering a promising but unproven substantial benefit. Ensuring that NCCN recommendations are aligned with expected clinical benefits is crucial for promoting informed, evidence based, genomic guided treatment decisions.

Clinical Benefit and Regulatory Outcomes of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval

Importance

The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) accelerated approval pathway allows approval of investigational drugs treating unmet medical needs based on changes to surrogate measures considered "reasonably likely" to predict clinical benefit. Postapproval clinical trials are then required to confirm whether these drugs offer clinical benefit.

Objective

To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately demonstrate clinical benefit and to evaluate the basis of conversion to regular approval.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study, publicly available FDA data were used to identify cancer drugs granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Demonstrated improvement in quality of life or overall survival in accelerated approvals with more than 5 years of follow-up, as well as confirmatory trial end points and time to conversion for drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval.

Results

A total of 129 cancer drug-indication pairs were granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Among 46 indications with more than 5 years of follow-up (approved 2013-2017), approximately two-thirds (29, 63%) were converted to regular approval, 10 (22%) were withdrawn, and 7 (15%) remained ongoing after a median of 6.3 years. Fewer than half (20/46, 43%) demonstrated a clinical benefit in confirmatory trials. Time to withdrawal decreased from 9.9 years to 3.6 years, and time to regular approval increased from 1.6 years to 3.6 years. Among 48 drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval, 19 (40%) were converted based on overall survival, 21 (44%) on progression-free survival, 5 (10%) on response rate plus duration of response, 2 (4%) on response rate, and 1 (2%) despite a negative confirmatory trial. Comparing accelerated and regular approval indications, 18 of 48 (38%) were unchanged, while 30 of 48 (63%) had different indications (eg, earlier line of therapy).

Conclusions and Relevance

Most cancer drugs granted accelerated approval did not demonstrate benefit in overall survival or quality of life within 5 years of accelerated approval. Patients should be clearly informed about the cancer drugs that use the accelerated approval pathway and do not end up showing benefits in patient-centered clinical outcomes.

Use of pembrolizumab among older adults with cancer in the United States, before and after FDA approval of its tumor-agnostic indication

INTRODUCTION

Pembrolizumab, an anticancer immunotherapy agent, has received multiple approvals since its first approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014. Limited data exist on its real-world use and shifts post tumor-agnostic approval in 2017 for the treatment of patients with any microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) solid tumors. This study analyzes pembrolizumab's pre and post-tumor-agnostic approval use among older U.S. adults, revealing its evolving role in oncology practice.

METHODS

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data (2014-2019), we examined the cancer sites of pembrolizumab recipients before and after tumor-agnostic approval. Cancer sites were classified based on the timing of site-specific approvals (before/after tumor-agnostic approval) or no site-specific approval, and inclusion in MSI-H/dMMR clinical trials.

RESULTS

The total number of pembrolizumab recipients increased from 4221 in the pre-agnostic period to 20 479 in the post-agnostic period. Pembrolizumab was used for a broad range of cancer types, including cancers that had no FDA-approved site-specific indications at the time of use (25.8% in pre- and 24.6% in post-agnostic periods). The proportion of pembrolizumab recipients receiving pembrolizumab for cancers with site-specific approvals before tumor-agnostic approval decreased from 77.3% to 70.8%. The proportion of pembrolizumab recipients receiving pembrolizumab for cancers that gained site-specific approvals following tumor-agnostic approval almost doubled (6.8% to 13.0%). The proportion of pembrolizumab recipients with cancers included in MSI-H/dMMR trials also doubled (12.3% to 25.5%) following tumor-agnostic approval.

CONCLUSIONS

Pembrolizumab use has expanded over time among older adults with cancer, extending beyond those with FDA-approved site-specific indications.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guideline Recommendations of Cancer Drugs With Accelerated Approval

Importance

Many cancer drugs are approved under the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval pathway based on preliminary evidence. It is unclear how this limited evidence is integrated into the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, which are common references for clinicians and are used by public and private payers to determine reimbursement for oncology treatments.

Objective

To analyze the NCCN guidelines' assessments for cancer drug indications that received FDA accelerated approval compared with cancer drug indications that received FDA regular approval.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study analyzes FDA-approved indications for cancer drugs that were granted accelerated approval from program inception in 1992 to June 30, 2022. For each drug, the FDA-approved labeling was reviewed to identify all indications. All analyses were performed at the drug-indication level.

Exposure

The exposure was FDA regulatory status as of October 2022, including regular approval, accelerated approval, accelerated approval converted to regular approval, and withdrawn accelerated approval.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The level of evidence and consensus (category 1, 2A, 2B, and 3) and treatment preference (preferred, alternative preferred, other recommended, and useful in certain circumstances) ratings assigned by NCCN committees as of February 2023.

Results

A total of 315 oncology indications for 100 drugs were analyzed. These indications included 156 (50%) with regular approval, 60 (38%) with accelerated approval, 78 (49%) with accelerated approval that was converted to regular approval, and 21 (13%) with withdrawn accelerated approvals. Among all indications, 105 (33%) were rated by the NCCN as having category 1 evidence, 185 (59%) with category 2A, 6 (2%) with category 2B, and 2 (1%) with category 3 evidence. Compared with indications with regular approval, those with accelerated approval were less frequently assigned category 1 evidence (47% vs 3%; P < .001) and were less often listed as preferred treatment options (58% vs 40%; P = .008). Among the 21 withdrawn accelerated approval indications, 8 (38%) remained in the NCCN guidelines, with most having level 2A evidence ratings.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that cancer drug indications with accelerated approval were less likely to be assigned high-level evidence ratings and preferred status in the NCCN guidelines compared with indications with regular approval; most accelerated and regular approval drugs had low-quality evidence ratings but high levels of consensus among oncologists on NCCN committees. Greater clarity on the thresholds and definitions of evidence levels would make the NCCN guidelines more useful to clinicians, patients, and payers.

Off-label use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of solid tumors: analysis of a nationwide patient sample

PURPOSE

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become an indispensable part of clinical practice; however, off-label use of these agents is unknown. We aimed to define the patterns of off-label use of ICIs in a nationwide sample of patients.

METHODS

The online database (Reçetem) was retrospectively searched for off-label use cases related to ICIs approved during a 6-month period. Adult patients with metastatic solid tumors were included. Ethics approval was obtained. Reasons for off-label use were recorded in eight categories and cases were assessed for adherence to current guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed with GNU PSPP version 1.5.3.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventy-seven reasons for use were recorded for 538 cases related to 527 patients (67.5% male). Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (35.9%) was the most common cancer type. Nivolumab (49%), pembrolizumab (25.5%), and atezolizumab (25%) were commonly used. The top reason for off-label use was lack of approval for the cancer type (37.1%), followed by use beyond the approved treatment line (21%). Nivolumab was more frequently used than atezolizumab and/or pembrolizumab in patients with malignant melanoma, kidney cancer, head and neck cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma (Chi-square goodness-of-fit test, p < 0.001). The guideline adherence rate was 60.5%.

CONCLUSION

Off-label use of ICIs was primarily related to (NSCLC), and most patients were treatment-naïve in contrast to the acceptance that off-label use results from exhausted treatment options. Lack of approval is a significant reason for the off-label use of ICIs.

Nab-Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Ampullary Adenocarcinoma with a Novel R-Spondin2 RNA Fusion and NTRK3 Mutation

Ampullary adenocarcinoma is a rare malignancy that lacks standard systemic treatment. We describe a case of recurrent metastatic ampullary adenocarcinoma of the pancreaticobiliary subtype treated with nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel and gemcitabine as first-line treatment. This report also highlights the molecular profile of the ampullary adenocarcinoma and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). This is a case of pancreaticobiliary ampullary adenocarcinoma in a 67-year-old woman who initially presented with painless jaundice. Endoscopic and imaging evaluation revealed biliary ductal dilation secondary to an ampullary mass. Pathology confirmed the diagnosis of ampullary adenocarcinoma of the pancreaticobiliary subtype. She underwent surgical resection of the tumor, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine and capecitabine. The tumor subsequently recurred in the liver. She received palliative chemotherapy with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine, resulting in an objective tumor response for 14 months. Molecular profiling of the tumor and ctDNA revealed a novel MATN2-RSPO RNA fusion and a novel NTRK3 mutation, respectively. Our report suggests that long-term durable response can be achieved in metastatic pancreaticobiliary ampullary adenocarcinoma using nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. Molecular profiling of the tumor identified a novel R-Spondin2 RNA fusion and NTRK3 mutation that can be potentially targeted for treatment.

The effect of RCTs on drug demand: Evidence from off-label cancer drugs

This paper investigates the effect of scientific information from randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) on the demand for off-label uses of cancer drugs. This is a unique setting where demand for a drug for a specific use is observable both before and after the first RCT results are released. Using variation in the timing of RCTs across off-label uses of drugs, I find that demand responds asymmetrically to the trial results based on the statistical significance of the clinically relevant endpoint. When this endpoint is statistically significant, there is a large and immediate increase in demand. When this end point is not statistically significant, physicians are relatively slow to abandon use of the drug.

A multinational, drug utilization study of lipegfilgrastim use in real-world setting in Europe

PURPOSE

Lipegfilgrastim (Lonquex, Teva Pharma B.V.) is approved for reduction in neutropenia duration and febrile neutropenia incidence. In the framework of lipegfilgrastim regulatory approval in the EU, the Health Authorities requested a drug utilization study. This study was conducted to characterize prescribing patterns of lipegfilgrastim and quantify the extent of on- and off-label use of lipegfilgrastim in real-world setting in Europe.

METHODS

Information on lipegfilgrastim use between January 2014 and March 2020 was abstracted from medical records in hospital and outpatient clinical settings. Indication for lipegfilgrastim was classified either as on-label or off-label use according to pre-determined criteria. The primary endpoint was the extent of lipegfilgrastim off-label use based on the most recent lipegfilgrastim cycle.

RESULTS

Records of 481 patients were obtained from five European countries. Lipegfilgrastim was most commonly prescribed for prevention of neutropenia by oncologists and hematologists. Patients who were administered lipegfilgrastim were primarily ≥ 55 years old (65.1%) and female (65.7%). The most frequent underlying diagnosis was breast cancer (38.3%). For the most recent lipegfilgrastim cycle, on-label use was recorded in 452/459 patients with no missing data (98.5%), while off-label use was recorded in 7/459 patients (1.5%). The majority of off-label use was attributed to use with non-cytotoxic chemotherapy (57.1%). Off-label use of lipegfilgrastim across all treatment cycles with no missing data was 11/1547 cycles (0.7%).

CONCLUSION

Using real-world data, these findings confirm the low rate of lipegfilgrastim off-label use as reported in a preceding feasibility study, indicating very high adherence to the approved indication.

Characteristics and survival of patients with cancer with intended off-label use-a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the characteristics and the survival of patients with cancer with intended off-label use (OLU) cancer treatment and reimbursement request.

DESIGN

Cohort study using medical record data.

SETTING

Three major cancer centres in Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

519 patients with cancer and a reimbursement request for OLU between January 2015 and July 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Characteristics of patients with cancer with and without access to intended OLU. Characteristics included the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) which includes C reactive protein and albumin and discriminates prognostic groups.

RESULTS

OLU was intended for 519 (17%) of 3046 patients with cancer, as first-line treatment in 51% (n=264) and second-line in 31% (n=162). Of the 519 patients, 63% (n=328) were male, 63% (n=329) had solid cancer and 21% (n=111) had a haematological malignancy. Their median overall survival was 23.6 months (95% CI: 19.0 to 32.5). Access to OLU had 389 (75%) patients who were compared with patients without access on average 4.9 years younger (mean; 95% CI: 1.9 to 7.9 years), had a better overall prognosis according to the GPS (51% with GPS of 0 vs 39%; OR: 1.62 (95% CI: 1.01 to 2.59)), had less frequently solid cancer (62% vs 71%; OR: 0.66 (95% CI: 0.41 to 1.05)) and advanced stage cancer (53% vs 70%; OR: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.75)), were more frequently treatment-naive (53% vs 43%; OR: 1.55 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.39)) and were more frequently in an adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment setting (14% vs 5%; OR: 3.39 (95% CI: 1.45 to 9.93)). Patients with access to OLU had a median OS of 31.1 months versus 8.7 months for patients without access (unadjusted HR: 0.54; (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.70)).

CONCLUSION

Contrary to the common assumption, OLU in oncology is typically not primarily intended for patients with exhausted treatment options. Patient characteristics largely differ between patients with and without access to intended OLU. More systematic evaluations of the benefits and harms of OLU in cancer care and the regulation of its access is warranted.

Liquid Biopsy and Artificial Intelligence as Tools to Detect Signatures of Colorectal Malignancies: A Modern Approach in Patient's Stratification

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most frequently diagnosed type of cancer and a major worldwide public health concern. Despite the global efforts in the development of modern therapeutic strategies, CRC prognosis is strongly correlated with the stage of the disease at diagnosis. Early detection of CRC has a huge impact in decreasing mortality while pre-lesion detection significantly reduces the incidence of the pathology. Even though the management of CRC patients is based on robust diagnostic methods such as serum tumor markers analysis, colonoscopy, histopathological analysis of tumor tissue, and imaging methods (computer tomography or magnetic resonance), these strategies still have many limitations and do not fully satisfy clinical needs due to their lack of sensitivity and/or specificity. Therefore, improvements of the current practice would substantially impact the management of CRC patients. In this view, liquid biopsy is a promising approach that could help clinicians screen for disease, stratify patients to the best treatment, and monitor treatment response and resistance mechanisms in the tumor in a regular and minimally invasive manner. Liquid biopsies allow the detection and analysis of different tumor-derived circulating markers such as cell-free nucleic acids (cfNA), circulating tumor cells (CTCs), and extracellular vesicles (EVs) in the bloodstream. The major advantage of this approach is its ability to trace and monitor the molecular profile of the patient's tumor and to predict personalized treatment in real-time. On the other hand, the prospective use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine holds great promise in oncology, for the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis prediction of disease. AI has two main branches in the medical field: (i) a virtual branch that includes medical imaging, clinical assisted diagnosis, and treatment, as well as drug research, and (ii) a physical branch that includes surgical robots. This review summarizes findings relevant to liquid biopsy and AI in CRC for better management and stratification of CRC patients.

Factors Associated With Off-Label Oncology Prescriptions: The Role of Cost and Financing in a Universal Healthcare System

Purpose: Various solutions have been put forward for prescribing and reimbursing treatments outside their registered indications within universal healthcare systems. However, most off-label oncology prescriptions are not reimbursed by health funds. This study characterized the financing sources of off-label oncology use and the predictors of the decision to forego treatment.

Materials and Methods: All 708 off-label oncology requests submitted for approval in a large tertiary cancer center in Israel between 2016 and 2018 were examined for disease and patient sociodemographic characteristics, costs and financing sources, and the factors predicting actual off-label drug administration using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results: The mean monthly cost of a planned off-label treatment was ILS54,703 (SD = ILS61,487, median = ILS39,928) (approximately US$ 15,500). The main sources of funding were private health insurance (25%) and expanded access pharma company plans (30%). Approximately one third (31%) of the requests did not have a financing source at the time of approval. Of the 708 requests, 583 (or 82%) were filled and treatment was initiated. Predictors for forgoing treatment were the impossibility of out-of-pocket payments or the lack of a financing solution (OR = 0.407; p = 0.005 and OR = 0.400; p < 0.0005).

Conclusion: Although off-label recommendations are widespread and institutional approval is often granted, a large proportion of these prescriptions are not filled. In a universal healthcare system, the financing sources for off-label treatments are likely to influence access.

Characterization of the Early Years of Bevacizumab Use for First-Line Treatment of Ovarian Cancer in the United States

PURPOSE

To quantify early dissemination patterns, factors influencing use, and costs of bevacizumab (BEV) for the treatment of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (OC) in the United States before its regulatory approval for this indication (off-label use).

METHODS

We identified women 18-65 years of age with newly diagnosed OC treated with surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy from 2008 to 2016 through the MarketScan database (N = 8,109). The proportion of women receiving BEV over time was calculated, multivariate logistic regression used to determine factors associated with BEV use, and total costs per cycle of chemotherapy with and without BEV abstracted.

RESULTS

BEV utilization rose 1.8-fold during the study period, from 4.1% (2008) to 7.4 % (2016). BEV was used with non-platinum/taxane regimens over a third of the time (37.2%). Physician specialty (medical oncology v gyn oncology) and geography (southeast region) were significantly associated with higher rates of use. Clinical factors associated with BEV use were metastatic disease and presence of ascites. The median cost of one cycle of platinum/taxane chemotherapy plus BEV was $10,897 in US dollars (USD) (interquartile range $7,573-$18,133 USD), compared with $1,629 USD (interquartile range, $683.0-$4,461 USD) for platinum/taxane alone.

CONCLUSION

Off-label use of BEV for newly diagnosed OC was rare (< 10%), but doubled following presentation of phase II and III data at international meetings. Both clinical (ascites, metastatic disease, and age) and nonclinical (specialty and region) factors were associated with BEV use, and its use was accompanied by a six-fold increase in the cost of one cycle of treatment.

Childhood cancer drugs in China: An overview and comparison of regulatory approvals in China and the United States

Different from less developed countries, 80% of children with cancers in the United States are cured. Traditional chemotherapy drugs are the mainstay of therapies; new targeted medications have become available recently. Using publicly available data, we created a database of cancer drugs with paediatric malignancy indications approved by 31 October 2020 in China and the United States. We compared numbers, type, indications and listing on the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (WHO EMLc) between the two countries, assessed the correlation between paediatric indications and cancer incidences, and described evidence supporting approvals of targeted medications in the two settings. Our study showed that by 31 October 2020, 31 and 39 cancer drugs available in China and the United States were approved for use in children, corresponding to 137 and 102 paediatric cancer indications, respectively. About half of these drugs (17 in China and 18 in the United States) were listed on the WHO EMLc. The correlation between indications and burden of disease was higher in the United States (r = 0.68) than China (r = 0.59). More traditional chemotherapy drugs were approved in China (n = 27) than the United States (n = 19). Of 20 targeted childhood anticancer medicines approved in the United States, mainly on the basis of single arm trials (27/32 indications, 84.4%), only four were approved for paediatric indications in China, at a median of 2.8 years after US Food and Drug Administration approval. A harmonised, evidence-based regulatory framework is needed to ensure approvals of needed, safe and efficacious childhood cancer drugs across the world.

Adherence to and determinants of guideline-recommended biomarker testing and targeted therapy in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: Insights from routine practice

BACKGROUND

Anti human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (anti-HER2) therapy with trastuzumab improves overall survival in patients with advanced, HER2-positive gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) and is now incorporated into national guidelines. However, little is known about adherence to and determinants of timely HER2 testing and trastuzumab initiation in routine practice.

METHODS

The authors performed a cross-sectional study of patients who had advanced GEA diagnosed between January 2011 and June 2019 in a nationwide electronic health record-derived database. The annual prevalences of both timely HER2 testing (defined within 21 days after advanced diagnosis) and timely trastuzumab initiation (defined within 14 days after a positive HER2 result) were calculated. Log-binomial regressions estimated adjusted prevalence ratios comparing timely HER2 testing and trastuzumab initiation by patient and tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

In total, the cohort included 6032 patients with advanced GEA of whom 1007 were HER2-positive. Between 2011 and 2019, timely HER2 testing increased from 22.4% to 44.5%, whereas timely trastuzumab initiation remained stable at 16.3%. No appreciable differences in timely testing or trastuzumab initiation were noted by age, sex, race, or insurance status. Compared with patients who had metastatic disease at diagnosis, patients who had early stage GEA who did not undergo surgery were less likely to receive timely HER2 testing and trastuzumab initiation (testing prevalence ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.75; treatment prevalence ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-0.56), as were patients with early stage disease who subsequently developed a distant recurrence (testing prevalence ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47-0.65; treatment prevalence ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.24-1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with advanced GEA, guideline-recommended HER2 testing and anti-HER2 therapy remain underused. Uptake may improve with universal HER2 testing regardless of stage.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Uptake in Real-World Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

INTRODUCTION

Since the July 2017 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) guideline revision recommended second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), studies have suggested a greater response to ICI among patients with nonepithelioid MPM. Nevertheless, little is known regarding adoption of ICI in routine practice and if uptake differs by histologic subtype. Our objectives were to evaluate the real-world uptake of second-line ICI among patients with MPM and to reveal its association with histologic subtype.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of real-world patients with MPM receiving at least two lines of systemic therapy between 2011 and 2019. We found the uptake of second-line ICI over time and evaluated the association between histologic subtype and ICI use, adjusting for relevant patient demographic and clinical factors.

RESULTS

Among the 426 patients with MPM in our cohort, 310 had epithelioid and 116 nonepithelioid histologic subtype. The median age was 73 years (interquartile range: 67-78). Overall, 144 patients (33.8%) received second-line ICI and 282 (66.2%) traditional chemotherapy. ICI uptake began in early 2015 before the NCCN guideline revision and increased rapidly to 2019. After the 2017 NCCN guideline revision, patients with nonepithelioid MPM histologic subtypes had more than 3 times the odds of receiving second-line ICI (OR = 3.26; 95% confidence interval: 1.41-7.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Among real-world patients with MPM, second-line ICI uptake began over two years before the 2017 NCCN guideline recommendations and was associated with nonepithelioid histologic subtype after contemporary studies suggested increased clinical benefit in this population, reflecting prompt integration of scientific discovery into clinical practice.

Predictive biomarkers and clinical evidence

Predictive biomarkers play an important role in our efforts to individualize pharmacotherapy, and within recent years, a number of different types of assays have been introduced. These biomarkers may potentially support the selection and dosage of specific drugs in order to maximize efficacy and minimize adverse reactions in the individual patient. However, in many instances, the scientific and clinical evidence is insufficient to support the prescribing decision. When predictive biomarkers are used to guide pharmacotherapy, it is important to secure that decisions are based on solid clinical evidence. Here, the regulatory authorities, especially the FDA, have been at the forefront in relation to regulate this type of biomarker assay in order to secure patient safety. The approval process for companion diagnostics is an example of this effort, where the scientific validity of the biomarker and assay is in focus. With the approaching implementation of the new IVD Regulation, greater attention will also be paid to analytical and clinical validity of biomarker assays in the EU. For any type of predictive biomarker assay, including pharmacogenetic and tumour profiling tests, the clinical evidence needs to be in place before they are used routinely in the clinic.

Association of Supporting Trial Evidence and Reimbursement for Off-Label Use of Cancer Drugs

IMPORTANCE

In many health systems, access to off-label drug use is controlled through reimbursement restrictions by health insurers, especially for expensive cancer drugs.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether evidence from randomized clinical trials is associated with reimbursement decisions for requested off-label use of anticancer drugs in the Swiss health system.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study used reimbursement requests from routinely collected health records of 5809 patients with drug treatment for cancer between January 2015 and July 2018 in 3 major cancer centers, covering cancer care of approximately 5% of the Swiss population, to identify off-label drug use. For each off-label use indication with 3 or more requests, randomized clinical trial evidence on treatment benefits was systematically identified for overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). Data were analyzed from August 2018 to December 2020.

EXPOSURES

Available randomized clinical trial evidence on benefits for OS or PFS for requested off-label use indications.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was the association between evidence for treatment benefit (expressed as improved OS or PFS) and reimbursement in multivariable regression models.

RESULTS

Among 3046 patients with cancer, 695 off-label use reimbursement requests in 303 different indications were made for 598 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 64 [53-73] years; 420 [60%] men). Off-label use was intended as first-line treatment in 311 requests (45%). Reimbursement was accepted in 446 requests (64%). For 71 indications, including 431 requests for 376 patients, there were 3 or more requests. Of these, 246 requests (57%) had no supporting evidence for OS or PFS benefit. Reimbursement was granted in 162 of 246 requests without supporting evidence (66%). Of 117 requests supported by OS benefit, 79 (67%) were reimbursed, and of 68 requests supported by PFS benefit alone, 54 (79%) were reimbursed. Evidence of OS benefit from randomized clinical trials was not associated with a higher chance of reimbursement (odds ratio, 0.76, 95% CI, 0.45-1.27).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that in a health care system enabling access to off-label use, it was frequently intended as a first-line treatment in cancer care. Availability of randomized clinical trial evidence showing survival benefit was not associated with reimbursement decisions for off-label anticancer drug treatment in Switzerland. A transparent process with criteria considering clinical evidence is needed for evidence-based reimbursement decisions to ensure fair access to cancer treatments.

National comprehensive cancer network recommendations for drugs without US food and drug administration approval in metastatic breast cancer: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines can include recommendations for off-label use of anti-cancer drugs. Here, we evaluate NCCN recommendations not supported by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and explore associations with such recommendations.

METHODS

All NCCN recommendations for MBC and their supporting data were identified. Drug labels were reviewed to determine whether recommendations are FDA approved. Logistic regression was used to compare FDA approved and off-label recommendations for pre-specified categories, including drug type, tumor subtype, level of recommendation and line of therapy.

RESULTS

Of 124 recommendations identified, 68 (55%) were off-label. Chemotherapy and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) targeted drugs were associated with lower odds of FDA approval (OR = 0.28, p = 0.001 and OR = 0.29, 95% p = 0.005, respectively). Recommendations for endocrine therapy (OR = 3.44, p = 0.009) and non-HER2 targeted treatment (OR = 10.0, p < 0.001) were more commonly FDA approved indications. Compared to combination therapies, monotherapies were more likely to be FDA approved (OR = 3.45, p = 0.001) as were category 1 (OR = 7.63, p = 0.001) and preferred NCCN recommendations (OR = 4.07, p < 0.001). Compared to off-label recommendations, NCCN recommendations of approved drugs were based on significantly higher sample size (mean 477 vs. 342 patients, p = 0.02) and were non-significantly associated with availability of randomized data (OR = 2.0, 95% CI 0.89-4.49, p = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

More than half of all NCCN recommendations for MBC are off-label, mostly involving chemotherapy containing regimes for HER2 negative disease and combinations which include HER2-targeted drugs. Improved transparency of NCCN guidelines may result from reporting of the strength of the evidence supporting recommendations for MBC.

Changes in PBM Business Practices in 2019: True Innovation or More of the Same?

In 2019, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) responded to intense public criticism with business model changes described as movements toward full transparency and innovation to reduce costs for benefit plan sponsors. We critically analyze these changes in light of key challenges in specialty drug management: pharmaceutical manufacturer practices (price increases driven by coverage mandates and lack of price control, intensive and sometimes misleading advertising, patent extensions), FDA changes (increased reliance on manufacturer funding, weakened evidentiary base for drug approvals), and provider prescribing patterns (lag from evidence to routine practice, manufacturer influences on the knowledge base, direct manufacturer payments to frequent prescribers). The persistence of controversial PBM practices suggests that business model changes were mostly cosmetic, without altering key marketplace dysfunctions. Examples include "spread" pricing, in which PBMs pay pharmacies less than employer-paid amounts; rebate-influenced formulary development; and shifting of prescription volume to PBM-owned pharmacies. Spread in Medicaid was estimated at $224.8 million in Ohio and $123.5 million in Kentucky in 1-year periods and is the subject of an ongoing federal investigation. Rebate influence on formulary development is suggested by slow biosimilar adoption and a study documenting little association between brand exclusions and clinical or cost-effectiveness. Even in 100% passthrough arrangements, the price differential between rebated products and lower-cost alternatives may far exceed revenues returned to the payer. Shifting of business to PBM-owned pharmacies was identified in Florida managed Medicaid in 2018, where the state's 5 largest specialty pharmacies, all owned by managed care organizations or PBMs, collected 28% of prescription drug profit despite dispensing only 0.4% of claims. Finally, contract provisions and terms typically limit the ability of plan sponsors to monitor PBM performance. These include "offsetting," changes in definitions (e.g., "single-source generic") during the contract term, restrictions on audit rights, and exclusion of some pharmaceutical manufacturer revenues from "100%" passthroughs. We conclude that ostensibly positive changes in PBM practices have been offset by undisclosed business arrangements, shifts to alternative revenue sources, and opaque contractual terms. Establishing and maintaining a sustainable benefit will require fundamental alterations to this dysfunctional market DISCLOSURES: This work was funded solely by Archimedes, with no external funding. Motheral is the CEO of Archimedes, a specialty drug management company, and EpiphanyRx, a PBM that provides alternatives to the business models described in this article. Fairman is a consultant to Archimedes.

Safety and Evidence of Off-Label Use of Approved Drugs at the National Cancer Center Hospital in Japan

PURPOSE

In Japan, for pharmaceutical products to be covered by public medical insurance, their efficacy and safety must first be confirmed in clinical trials. To our knowledge, this study is the first investigation into the off-label use of pharmaceutical products at a high-volume cancer treatment center in Japan. The objective of this study is to explore the framework necessary for future pharmaceutical development and regulatory approval in the field of oncology by surveying the frequency of and indications for off-label use of pharmaceutical products at the National Cancer Center Hospital in Tokyo, Japan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The pharmaceutical products used off-label in daily practice from 2003 to 2015 at the National Cancer Center Hospital were retrospectively examined based on applications that had been submitted to an internal review committee requesting off-label use.

RESULTS

A total of 1,390 applications were submitted during the study period. The most frequently used supporting documents were the results of phase II trials, followed by case series and phase III trials. The cancer most frequently treated with off-label drugs was sarcoma (15.1%), followed by urologic cancer (9.2%) and GI cancer (7.6%).

CONCLUSION

As reported in previous studies, pharmaceutical products were generally used off-label for the treatment of rare cancers, for which large-scale clinical trials are difficult to conduct. Continued discussion of the types of frameworks that are needed to guide pharmaceutical development is necessary.

Off-label prescribing of targeted anticancer therapy at a large pediatric cancer center

Background

Off‐label drug prescribing is common in pediatric clinical medicine, though the extent and impact of this practice in pediatric oncology has not yet been characterized.

Methods

We completed a retrospective single‐institution cohort study evaluating prevalence, characteristics, and clinical outcomes of off‐label prescribing of 108 FDA‐approved targeted anticancer drugs in patients < 30 years old treated for cancer from 2007 to 2017. Dosing strategies were adjusted for body size and compared to FDA‐approved adult dosing regimen. A composite toxicity endpoint was defined as a patient having unplanned clinic visits, emergency department visits, or unplanned hospital admissions that were at least possibly related to the off‐label treatment.

Results

The overall prevalence of off‐label use of targeted therapies was 9.2% (n = 374 patients). The prevalence increased significantly over the study period (P < .0001). Patients treated off‐label were more likely to have neuro‐oncology diagnoses compared to patients not treated off‐label (46% vs 29%; P < .0001). Of the 108 potential agents, 38 (35%) were used by at least one patient. The median starting dose was below the FDA‐approved normalized dose for 44.4% of agents. Fifteen percent of patients had a complete response while receiving off‐label therapy, 38% experienced toxicity as defined, and 13% discontinued off‐label therapy due to toxicity.

Conclusions

In this real‐world evaluation of prescribing at a large pediatric cancer center, off‐label prescribing of FDA‐approved targeted therapies was common, increasing in prevalence, encompassed a broad sample of targeted agents, and was tolerable. Clinicians commonly start dosing below the equivalent FDA‐approved dose.

Pharmacokinetics of gemcitabine and its amino acid ester prodrug following intravenous and oral administrations in mice

Gemcitabine is an intravenously administered anti-cancer nucleoside analogue. Systemic exposure following oral administration of gemcitabine is limited by extensive first-pass metabolism via cytidine deaminase (CDA) and potentially by saturation of nucleoside transporter-mediated intestinal uptake. An amino acid ester prodrug of gemcitabine, 5'-l-valyl-gemcitabine (V-Gem), was previously shown to be a substrate of the intestinally expressed peptide transporter 1 (PEPT1) and stable against CDA-mediated metabolism. However, preliminary studies did not evaluate the in vivo oral performance of V-Gem as compared to parent drug. In the present study, we evaluated the pharmacokinetics and in vivo oral absorption of gemcitabine and V-Gem following intravenous and oral administrations in mice. These studies revealed that V-Gem undergoes rapid systemic elimination (half-life < 1 min) and has a low oral bioavailability (<1%). Most importantly, the systemic exposure of gemcitabine was not different following oral administration of equimolar doses of gemcitabine (gemcitabine bioavailability of 18.3%) and V-Gem (gemcitabine bioavailability of 16.7%). Single-pass intestinal perfusions with portal blood sampling in mice revealed that V-Gem undergoes extensive activation in intestinal epithelial cells and that gemcitabine undergoes first-pass metabolism in intestinal epithelial cells. Thus, formulation of gemcitabine as the prodrug V-Gem does not increase systemic gemcitabine exposure following oral dosing, due, in part, to the instability of V-Gem in intestinal epithelial cells.

A Review of Precision Oncology Knowledgebases for Determining the Clinical Actionability of Genetic Variants

The increased availability of tumor genetic testing and targeted cancer therapies contributes to the advancement of precision medicine in the field of oncology. Precision oncology knowledgebases provide a way of organizing clinically relevant genetic information in a way that is easily accessible for both oncologists and patients, facilitating the genetic-based clinical decision making. Many organizations and companies have built precision oncology knowledgebases, intended for multiple users. In general, these knowledgebases offer information on cancer-related genetic variants as well as their associated diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications, but they often differ in their information curations, designs, and user experiences. It is advisable that oncologists use multiple knowledgebases during their practice to have them complement each other. In the future, convergence toward common standards and formats is needed to ensure that the comprehensive knowledge across all sources can be unified to bring the oncology community closer to the achievement of the goal of precision oncology.

Chemotherapy Near the End of Life in Onco-Hematological Adult Patients

OBJECTIVE

The use of chemotherapy near the end of life is not advisable. There are scarce data in Europe but shows signs of aggressiveness. We designed this study to analyze the proportion of onco-hematological patients receiving chemotherapy within their last 2 weeks of life as well as starting a new chemotherapy regimen in the 30 days prior to death.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary hospital. Adults who died of an onco-hematological neoplasia while hospitalized between April 2017 and March 2018 were included. We assessed the use of chemotherapy over the course of the last 14 days of life, defined as the administration of at least one dose of chemotherapy. We also examined the proportion of patients starting a new chemotherapy regimen in the last 30 days of life.

RESULTS

A total of 298 inpatients died in the Hematology and Oncology units. During the last 14 days, 28.2% (n = 11) of hematological and 26.3% (n = 68) of oncological patients received chemotherapy; the overall rate was 26.5% (n = 79). Furthermore, the proportion of patients starting a new chemotherapy regimen in the last 30 days of life was high (20.5% and 20.8%, respectively). Female gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18-3.35) and age <45 (OR = 2.68, 95% CI = 1.05-6.88) were associated with higher rates of chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life was high, as well as the proportion of patients starting a new regimen in their last 30 days. This was indicative of excessive aggressiveness at the end-of-life care.

Association of Physician Peer Influence With Subsequent Physician Adoption and Use of Bevacizumab

IMPORTANCE

Understanding adoption of new cancer therapies may help identify opportunities to increase use for high-value indications.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether use of bevacizumab in 2005 to 2006 by oncologists' peers was associated with greater bevacizumab use among oncologists in 2007 to 2010.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study of physicians and their patients took place in 51 randomly selected hospital referral regions in the United States. Participants were 44 012 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with cancers of the colorectum, lung, breast, kidney, brain, or ovary treated by 3261 oncologists in 2005 to 2010 and assigned to one of 252 communities. Data were analyzed in 2017 to 2018.

EXPOSURES

Among patients treated with chemotherapy during 2007 to 2010 by an oncologist who had not treated patients with bevacizumab in 2005 to 2006, models assessed the association of bevacizumab use with rates of bevacizumab use in their physician's community of connected physicians in 2005 to 2006. Models adjusted for patient and physician characteristics and physician, practice, and community random effects.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Receipt of bevacizumab.

RESULTS

A total of 34 750 patients (14 126 [40.6%] aged ≥75 years; 21 321 [61.4%] female) with cancers of the colorectum, lung, breast, kidney, brain, and ovary were treated with chemotherapy in 2005 to 2006 in the 51 hospital referral regions. Among 9262 patients treated in 2007 to 2010 by 829 physicians whose patients did not use bevacizumab in 2005 to 2006, 3654 (39.5%) were aged 75 years or older and 6227 (67.2%) were female. The rate of bevacizumab use relative to other chemotherapy in 2007 to 2010 by tertile of use (bevacizumab for <4.4%, 4.4%-6.2%, and >6.2% of all patients receiving chemotherapy) among their physician's peers in 2005 to 2006 was 10.0%, 9.5%, and 13.6%, respectively. After adjustment, use of bevacizumab in 2007 to 2010 was greater among physicians in communities with the highest rates of bevacizumab use in 2005 to 2006 compared with those whose peers were in the lowest tertile of bevacizumab use in 2005 to 2006 (adjusted odds ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.20-2.25).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that an increase in oncologists' adoption and use of bevacizumab in the years after its approval was associated with their peer physicians being earlier adopters. As organizations seek to provide better care at lower costs, interventions that leverage physician ties may help to promote adoption of high-value use of new cancer treatments and deimplementation of low-value therapies.

Drug Selection via Joint Push and Learning to Rank

Selecting the right drugs for the right patients is a primary goal of precision medicine. In this article, we consider the problem of cancer drug selection in a learning-to-rank framework. We have formulated the cancer drug selection problem as to accurately predicting 1) the ranking positions of sensitive drugs and 2) the ranking orders among sensitive drugs in cancer cell lines based on their responses to cancer drugs. We have developed a new learning-to-rank method, denoted as pLETORg, that predicts drug ranking structures in each cell line via using drug latent vectors and cell line latent vectors. The pLETORg method learns such latent vectors through explicitly enforcing that, in the drug ranking list of each cell line, the sensitive drugs are pushed above insensitive drugs, and meanwhile the ranking orders among sensitive drugs are correct. Genomics information on cell lines is leveraged in learning the latent vectors. Our experimental results on a benchmark cell line-drug response dataset demonstrate that the new pLETORg significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art method in prioritizing new sensitive drugs.

Secretome profiling identifies neuron-derived neurotrophic factor as a tumor-suppressive factor in lung cancer

Clinical and preclinical studies show tissue-specific differences in tumorigenesis. Tissue specificity is controlled by differential gene expression. We prioritized genes that encode secreted proteins according to their preferential expression in normal lungs to identify candidates associated with lung cancer. Indeed, most of the lung-enriched genes identified in our analysis have known or suspected roles in lung cancer. We focused on the gene encoding neuron-derived neurotrophic factor (NDNF), which had not yet been associated with lung cancer. We determined that NDNF was preferentially expressed in the normal adult lung and that its expression was decreased in human lung adenocarcinoma and a mouse model of this cancer. Higher expression of NDNF was associated with better clinical outcome of patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Purified NDNF inhibited proliferation of lung cancer cells, whereas silencing NDNF promoted tumor cell growth in culture and in xenograft models. We determined that NDNF is downregulated through DNA hypermethylation near CpG island shores in human lung adenocarcinoma. Furthermore, the lung cancer-related DNA hypermethylation sites corresponded to the methylation sites that occurred in tissues with low NDNF expression. Thus, by analyzing the tissue-specific secretome, we identified a tumor-suppressive factor, NDNF, which is associated with patient outcomes in lung adenocarcinoma.

Indication of Measures of Uncertainty for Statistical Significance in Abstracts of Published Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

There is growing consensus that reliance on P values, particularly a cutoff level of .05 for statistical significance, is a factor in the challenges in scientific reproducibility. Despite this consensus, publications describing clinical trial results with P values near .05 anecdotally use declarative statements that do not express uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify uncertainty expression in abstracts describing the results of cancer randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with P values between .01 and .10 and examine whether trial features are associated with uncertainty expression.

DATA SOURCES

A total of 5777 prospective trials indexed on HemOnc.org, as of September 15, 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Two-arm RCTs with a superiority end point with P values between .01 and .10.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Abstracts were evaluated based on an uncertainty expression algorithm. Ordinal logistic regression modeling with multiple imputation was performed to identify whether characteristics of study design, results, trial authors, and context P values were normalized by dividing by prespecified α value.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Uncertainty expression in abstracts as determined by the algorithm and its association with trial and publication characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 5777 trials screened, 556 met analysis criteria. Of these, 222 trials (39.9%) did not express uncertainty, 161 trials (29.0%) expressed some uncertainty, and 173 trials (31.1%) expressed full uncertainty. In ordinal logistic regression with multiple imputation, trial features with statistically significant associations with uncertainty expression included later year of publication (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.24-2.32; P < .001), normalized P value (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.11-1.67; P = .003), noncooperative group studies (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.12-2.63; P = .01), and reporting an end point other than overall survival (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.01-1.96; P = .047). Funding source, number of authors, journal impact tier, author nationality, study of unapproved drugs, abstract word count, whether the marginal end point was a primary or coprimary end point, and effect size (in subgroup analysis) did not have statistically significant associations with uncertainty expression.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Published oncology articles with marginally significant results may often incompletely convey uncertainty. Although it appears that more uncertainty is expressed in recent abstracts, full uncertainty expression remains uncommon, and seemingly is less common when reporting overall survival, results with P values lower than α levels, and cooperative group studies.

The Off-Label Use of Antineoplastics in Oncology Is Limited But Has Notable Scientific Support in a University Hospital Setting

Purpose: The off-label (OL) use of antineoplastic drugs for the treatment of various types of tumors in patients of different disease stages is becoming a common occurrence. The objective of this study was to analyze these patterns by quantification and characterization of the OL use of antineoplastic drugs and their level of scientific evidence in a medium/high-complexity Spanish general university hospital. Method: All oncology patients who underwent OL treatment with one or several antineoplastics during the 10 years from 2002 to 2012 were retrospectively selected. The use of these drugs was considered OL if they were used for indications, stages, lines of treatment, or chemotherapy schemes not reflected in the summary of product characteristics published by the European Medicines Agency at the time of prescription. To calculate the prevalence of patients who received one or more OL treatments during the study period, all patients whose primary or secondary diagnosis had been coded with the diagnoses included in the study were selected through the minimum basic data set (MBDS). This database was cross-referenced with that of the Farmatools® program (Dominion®), which collects information on all patients receiving chemotherapy to obtain the total number of patients who received chemotherapy in the hospital during this period. Results: In total, 684 patients and 866 OL treatments were included. The prevalence of patients undergoing OL treatment with antineoplastics was 6%. OL treatments were used mainly for breast, gynecological, lung, and gastric tumors. The most often-used antineoplastic was paclitaxel, followed by gemcitabine, carboplatin, vinorelbine, and capecitabine, which were used mainly in monotherapy and with palliative intent. A total of 56.1% of the OL schemes used had a level of evidence of 2A according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and 55.3% had a level of evidence of 2B according to Micromedex®. Conclusion: The OL use of antineoplastics in oncology patients is limited; their use is mainly focused in a small group of tumors and at advanced stages of disease. OL use of antineoplastics occurs under palliative therapeutic strategies with a limited number of drugs, preferably off-patent drugs. In addition, these OL treatments have high levels of clinical evidence.

Level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines beyond Food and Drug Administration approvals

BACKGROUND

A previous analysis of 113 National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) recommendations reported that NCCN frequently recommends beyond Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications (44 off-label recommendations) and claimed that the evidence for these recommendations was weak.

METHODS

In order to determine the strength of the evidence, we carried out an in-depth re-analysis of the 44 off-label recommendations listed in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®).

RESULTS

Of the 44 off-label recommendations, 14 were later approved by the FDA and/or are supported by randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. In addition, 13 recommendations were either very minor extrapolations from the FDA label (n = 8) or were actually on-label (n = 5). Of the 17 remaining extrapolations, 8 were for mechanism-based agents applied in rare cancers or subsets with few available treatment options (median response rate = 43%), 7 were based on non-RCT data showing significant efficacy (>50% response rates), and 2 were later removed from the NCCN Guidelines because newer therapies with better activity and/or safety became available.

CONCLUSION

Off-label drug use is a frequent component of care for patients with cancer in the United States. Our findings indicate that when the NCCN recommends beyond the FDA-approved indications, the strength of the evidence supporting such recommendations is robust, with a significant subset of these drugs later becoming FDA approved or supported by RCT. Recommendations without RCT data are often for mechanism-based drugs with high response rates in rare cancers or subsets without effective therapies.

Profiling off-label prescriptions in cancer treatment using social health networks

Objectives

To investigate using patient posts in social media as a resource to profile off-label prescriptions of cancer drugs.

Methods

We analyzed patient posts from the Inspire health forums (www.inspire.com) and extracted mentions of cancer drugs from the 14 most active cancer-type specific support groups. To quantify drug-disease associations, we calculated information component scores from the frequency of posts in each cancer-specific group with mentions of a given drug. We evaluated the results against three sources: manual review, Wolters-Kluwer Medi-span, and Truven MarketScan insurance claims.

Results

We identified 279 frequently discussed and therefore highly associated drug-disease pairs from Inspire posts. Of these, 96 are FDA approved, 9 are known off-label uses, and 174 do not have records of known usage (potentially novel off-label uses). We achieved a mean average precision of 74.9% in identifying drug-disease pairs with a true indication association from patient posts and found consistent evidence in medical claims records. We achieved a recall of 69.2% in identifying known off-label drug uses (based on Wolters-Kluwer Medi-span) from patient posts.

Prescribing patterns from medical chart abstraction of patients administered lipegfilgrastim: a pilot study in Europe

Purpose: The objective of this pilot study was to explore the feasibility of conducting a drug utilization study of lipegfilgrastim in Europe using medical records and to examine the pattern of lipegfilgrastim on-label and off-label use.

Methods: Data on lipegfilgrastim use between September 2014 and April 2017 were abstracted from medical records by two independent medical abstractors. Lipegfilgrastim indication was categorized either as on-label or as one of four types of off-label (I–IV) according to pre-defined criteria. An inter-rater reliability analysis was conducted to measure the degree of abstractor agreement for on-label and off-label use.

Results: Information from 46 medical records was abstracted. Lipegfilgrastim use during the first chemotherapy treatment cycle was mostly indicated for prevention of neutropenia (82.6% of patients). On-label use was documented in 42 patients (91.3%), while off-label use was documented in two patients (4.3%); all events of off-label use were attributed to use with non-cytotoxic drugs. The remaining two patients (4.3%) had missing data. Overall agreement between the abstractors was high (91.6%). For three types (Types I–III) of off-label use, the kappa values suggested a perfect agreement (κ = 1). For Type IV off-label use (use in patients treated with non-cytotoxic drugs), κ = 0, suggesting a poor agreement.

Conclusions: While recruitment was challenging, the results of this pilot study confirm the feasibility and availability of medical records and the use of pharmacists as abstractors to assess on- and off-label use of lipegfilgrastim. Lipegfilgrastim was mainly prescribed according to the approved indications.

Key points

Findings from this pilot study confirm the feasibility and availability of medical records and the use of pharmacists as abstractors to assess on-label and off-label use of lipegfilgrastim in routine clinical practice.

Lipegfilgrastim was mainly prescribed according to the approved indications, and the proportion of off-label use was low.

The high inter-rater agreement between the two abstractors suggests that one abstractor is sufficient for conducting chart abstraction of on- and off-label use.

Additional data abstraction sources other than pharmacists will need to be identified to improve response rate and center recruitment.

Findings from this pilot study are important for the successful planning and execution of subsequent drug utilization studies.

Off-label versus on-label prescribing of oral oncology agents on time to receipt of medication in patients with soft tissue sarcoma

PURPOSE

Off-label prescribing of oral oncology agents has been explored in the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma. The time for a prior authorization approval or rejection for an off-label use can be lengthy. The purpose of this study is to capture this burden by comparing the time it takes for patients to receive off-label versus on-label treatment for their soft tissue sarcoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective chart review study, patients aged 18 and older who received a new prescription for an oral oncology agent for soft tissue sarcoma from one of three sarcoma providers at Oregon Health & Science University oncology clinics between March 2014 and February 2016 were included. Objectives included comparing the effect of off-label to on-label prescribing of oral oncology agents on time to receipt of medication and patient copays for a 30-day supply of oral chemotherapy agent(s).

RESULTS

The time to receipt of medication (median (IQR)) for the off-label group (N = 26) was 12.5 (3.3 to 30.8) days compared to the on-label group (N = 29), which was 8.0 (4.0 to 15.0) days (p = 0.327). The patient cost was $0.00 ($0.00 to $20.00) for the off-label group (N = 18) compared to $3.00 ($0.00 to $68.80) for the on-label group (N = 18) (p = 0.467).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no differences in the time to receipt of medication or patient cost between off-label and on-label prescriptions in soft tissue sarcoma patients. Despite lack of statistical significance, these results are meaningful to patient care and require further study to investigate these findings.

Identification, Prioritization, and Treatment of Mutations Identified by Next-Generation Sequencing

Many targeted therapies-and, more recently, immunotherapies-have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with companion diagnostic tests. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms are now approved to screen for many of these abnormalities, and they are increasingly being applied to guide therapeutic decision-making outside of these intended uses. The results provided by NGS testing can vary significantly based on the exact test performed and the analysis of the sequencing data. Given the complexities associated with interpreting NGS test results and acting on them, academic and community molecular tumor boards have been developed to provide multidisciplinary expertise for this endeavor. NGS test results may identify FDA-approved therapies, guide clinical trial recommendations, or prompt consideration of expanded access to investigational agents or off-label use of therapies approved for other indications. Many clinical trials now include NGS testing to assign treatments to patients based on the molecular profiles of their tumors. Although NGS testing may eventually help realize the development of individualized treatment regimens based on combinations of targeted therapies, the use of unproven and nonapproved combinations can be toxic and expensive. Given the increasing reliance on genetic biomarkers to guide therapeutic recommendations for FDA-approved therapies or enrollment into clinical trials, NGS will remain an integral part of the evolving medical oncology practice.

Frequency and level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines beyond approvals of the US Food and Drug Administration: retrospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the differences between recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCNN) guidelines and Food and Drug Administration approvals of anticancer drugs, and the evidence cited by the NCCN to justify recommendations where differences exist.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

National Comprehensive Cancer Network and FDA.

PARTICIPANTS

47 new molecular entities approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2015.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparison of all FDA approved indications (new and supplemental) with all NCCN recommendations as of 25 March 2016. When the NCCN made recommendations beyond the FDA's approvals, the recommendation was classified and the cited evidence noted.

RESULTS

47 drugs initially approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2015 for adult hematologic or solid cancers were examined. These 47 drugs were authorized for 69 FDA approved indications, whereas the NCCN recommended these drugs for 113 indications, of which 69 (62%) overlapped with the 69 FDA approved indications and 44 (39%) were additional recommendations. The average number of recommendations beyond the FDA approved indications was 0.92. 23% (n=10) of the additional recommendations were based on evidence from randomized controlled trials, and 16% (n=7) were based on evidence from phase III studies. During 21 months of follow-up, the FDA granted approval to 14% (n=6) of the additional recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The NCCN frequently recommends beyond the FDA approved indications even for newer, branded drugs. The strength of the evidence cited by the NCCN supporting such recommendations is weak. Our findings raise concern that the NCCN justifies the coverage of costly, toxic cancer drugs based on weak evidence.

New Anticancer Drugs Associated With Large Increases In Costs And Life Expectancy

Spending on anticancer drugs has risen rapidly over the past two decades. A key policy question is whether new anticancer drugs offer value, given their high cost. Using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, we assessed the value of new cancer treatments in routine clinical practice for patients with metastatic breast, lung, or kidney cancer or chronic myeloid leukemia in the periods 1996-2000 and 2007-11. We found that there were large increases in medical costs, but also large gains in life expectancy. For example, among patients with breast cancer who received physician-administered drugs, lifetime costs-including costs for outpatient and inpatient care-increased by $72,000 and life expectancy increased by thirteen months. Changes in life expectancy and costs were much smaller among patients who did not receive these drugs.

State insurance mandates and off-label use of chemotherapy

Access to cancer drugs used off-label is important to cancer patients but may drive up healthcare costs with little evidence of clinical benefit. We hypothesized that state health insurance mandates for private insurers to provide coverage for off-label use of cancer drugs cause higher rates of off-label use. We used Truven MarketScan data from 1999 to 2007 on utilization of 35 infused chemotherapy drugs in private health plans in the United States, covering the period when eight states implemented off-label coverage laws. We studied trends in off-label use of drugs, distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate off-label use according to drug compendia, and estimated difference-in-difference regressions of the effect of state laws on off-label use. We estimate 41% of utilization was off-label, including 17% of use conservatively defined as inappropriate. Trends show gradual declines in off-label use over time. We also find no discernable effect of state laws mandating coverage of off-label use of cancer drugs on utilization patterns under multiple empirical specifications. Our conclusion is that policymakers should consider shifting away from mandating coverage as a way to ensure access to drugs off-label and towards incentivizing adherence to clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality and value of off-label use.

Diffusion of Bevacizumab Across Oncology Practices: An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Technological advances can improve care and outcomes but are a primary driver of health care spending growth. Understanding diffusion and use of new oncology therapies is important, given substantial increases in prices and spending on such treatments.

OBJECTIVES

Examine diffusion of bevacizumab, a novel (in 2004) and high-priced biologic cancer therapy, among US oncology practices during 2005-2012 and assess variation in use across practices.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Population-based observational study.

SETTING

A total of 2329 US practices providing cancer chemotherapy.

PARTICIPANTS

Random 20% sample of 236,304 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged above 65 years in 2004-2012 undergoing infused chemotherapy for cancer.

MEASURES

Diffusion of bevacizumab (cumulative time to first use and 10% use) in practices, variation in use across practices overall and by higher versus lower-value use. We used hierarchical models with practice random effects to estimate the between-practice variation in the probability of receiving bevacizumab and to identify factors associated with use.

RESULTS

We observed relatively rapid diffusion of bevacizumab, particularly in independent practices and larger versus smaller practices. We observed substantial variation in use; the adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of bevacizumab use was 2.90 higher (2.73-3.08) for practices 1 SD above versus one standard deviation below the mean. Variation was less for higher-value [odds ratio=2.72 (2.56-2.89)] than lower-value uses [odds ratio=3.61 (3.21-4.06)].

CONCLUSIONS

Use of bevacizumab varied widely across oncology practices, particularly for lower-value indications. These findings suggest that interventions targeted to practices have potential for decreasing low-value use of high-cost cancer therapies.

Application of the FDA Biosimilar Extrapolation Framework to Make Off-Label Determinations

BACKGROUND

The FDA's extrapolation framework allows for a biosimilar to obtain licensure for indications that were not explicitly studied in the context of a clinical trial by extending conclusions from studies in 1 population to make inferences in other populations. Within routine clinical care, drugs and biologics are routinely used for medically accepted off-label indications. The appropriateness of these products for off-label indications are typically curated by compendia and guidelines, which have established processes and criteria for reviewing and evaluating the evidence to make such determinations. The evidence paradigm for biosimilars is different from originator biologics and is one of comparability to a reference product, not to reestablish clinical benefit. Thus, this paradigm shift can be applied to the exercise of making off-label determinations for biosimilars, and the FDA's framework of extrapolation can be used by clinicians and coverage policy decision makers to determine appropriate off-label indications for biosimilars.

OBJECTIVE

To highlight how the FDA's biosimilar extrapolation framework can be used to make off-label policy decisions, using to 2 approved biosimilars for filgrastim and infliximab as case studies.

METHODS

This study describes the FDA extrapolation framework for evaluating whether there are any differences in the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics/biosdistribution, immunogenicity, and toxicity between on-label and off-label indications. Two case studies are presented that evaluate the biosimilars filgrastim-sndz and infliximab-dyyb for the offlabel indications of treating symptomatic anemia in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes and immune-mediated colitis, respectively. The analytical, nonclinical, and clinical pharmacology, along with clinical studies demonstrating that filgrastim-sndz and infliximab-dyyb are biosimilar to their respective reference products, are reviewed and discussed in context with the extrapolation framework to ascertain whether use of the biosimilar within the off-label indications is scientifically justified.

RESULTS

The mechanism of action of filgrastim and infliximab between their FDA-approved and off-label indications are the same. In addition, there is a high degree of similarity with the analytical and nonclinical characteristics of filgrastim-sndz and infliximab-dyyb and their respective reference products. There is no expectation of differences in safety and immunogenicity across the patient populations. Thus, some decision makers may determine that filgrastim-sndz and infliximab-dyyb be used for the off-label indications of treating symptomatic anemia in patients with myelodysplasia and immune-mediated colitis, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In some cases, the use of biosimilars for off-label indications can be scientifically justified. Since coverage policy decisions are intimately tied to compendia and guideline listings, it is incumbent upon these groups to conduct formal assessments of biosimilar off-label indications using the FDA extrapolation framework.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. Li discloses that he has received honoraria and/or paid travel expenses as an advisory board and speaker's bureau participant for Pfizer; for speaking on behalf of Mylan and Apobiologix; and for participating on advisory boards for Eli Lilly and Mylan. Lobaina has nothing to disclose. Li was responsible for study design and manuscript revision. Li took the lead in data collection and interpretation and manuscript preparation, along with Lobaina.