Application of the ASCO Value Framework and ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale to Assess the Value of Abiraterone and Enzalutamide in Advanced Prostate Cancer

Association between oral targeted cancer drug net health benefit, uptake, and spending

BACKGROUND

Targeted cancer drugs (TCDs) have revolutionized oncology but vary in clinical benefit and patient out-out-pocket (OOP) costs. The ASCO Value Framework uses survival, toxicity, and symptom palliation data to quantify the net health benefit (NHB) of cancer drugs. We evaluated associations between NHB, uptake, and spending on oral TCDs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 18-64 years with an incident oral TCD pharmacy claim in 2012-2020 in a nationwide de-identified commercial claims dataset. TCDs were categorized as having high (>60), medium (40-60), and low (<40) NHB scores. We plotted the uptake of TCDs by NHB category and used standard descriptive statistics to evaluate patient OOP and total spending. Generalized linear models evaluated the relationship between spending and TCD NHB, adjusted for cancer indication.

RESULTS

We included 8,524 patients with incident claims for eight oral TCDs with nine first-line indications in advanced melanoma, breast, lung, and pancreatic cancer. Medium- and high-NHB TCDs accounted for most TCD prescriptions. Median OOP spending was $18.78 for the first 28-day TCD supply (IQR $0.00-$87.57); 45% of patients paid $0 OOP. Median total spending was $10,118.79 (IQR $6,365.95-$10,600.37) for an incident 28-day TCD supply. Total spending increased $1,083.56 for each 10-point increase in NHB score (95% CI $1,050.27-$1,116.84, p < .01 for H0=$0).

CONCLUSION

Low-NHB TCDs were prescribed less frequently than medium- and high-NHB TCDs. Total spending on oral TCDs was high and positively associated with NHB. Commercially insured patients were largely shielded from high OOP spending on oral TCDs.

Evaluation of changes in the clinical benefits of oncology drugs over time following reimbursement using the ASCO-VF and the ESMO-MCBS

PURPOSE

This study aims to estimate changes in the value of oncology drugs over time from initial data of the reimbursement decisions to subsequent publications in Korea, using two value frameworks.

METHODS

We retrieved primary publications assessed for reimbursement between 2007 and July 2021 from the decision documents of Health Insurance Review and Assessment and subsequent publications made available following reimbursement decision from ClinicalTrials.Gov and PubMed databases. Changes in the clinical benefit scores were assessed using the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). A paired t test was performed to test whether there was a difference in the scores between primary and subsequent publications.

RESULTS

Of 73 anticancer product/indication pairs, 45 (61.6%) had subsequent publications, of which 62.5% were released within 1 year of reimbursement decision. The mean ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF Net Health Benefit scores increased from primary to subsequent publications, although the differences were not significant. The mean ASCO-VF bonus score significantly increased from 15.91 to 19.09 (p = 0.05). The ESMO-MCBS and bonus scores increased by 0.25 and 0.21, respectively, and the bonus score had a greater impact on the ESMO-MCBS score than the preliminary score did.

CONCLUSION

The value of drugs demonstrated in subsequent publications varies considerably among oncology drugs, depending on uncertainty associated with the initial evidence and the availability of updated evidence. As decision-making in the face of uncertainty becomes more prevalent, the value frameworks can serve as simple screening tools for re-evaluation in these cases.

Progression-directed therapy in patients with oligoprogressive castration-resistant prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Oligoprogressive lesions are observed in a subset of patients who progress to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), while other lesions remain controlled by systemic therapy. This study evaluates the impact of progression-directed therapy (PDT) on these oligoprogressive lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 40 patients diagnosed with oligoprogressive CRPC. PDT was performed for treating all progressive sites using radiotherapy. Fifteen patients received PDT using radiotherapy for all progressive sites (PDT group) while 25 had additional first-line systemic treatments (non-PDT group). In PDT group, 7 patients underwent PDT and unchanged systemic therapy (PDT-A group) and 8 patients underwent PDT with additional new line of systemic therapy on CRPC (PDT-B group). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

The prostate specific antigen (PSA) nadir was significantly lower in PDT group compare to non-PDT group (p=0.007). A 50% PSA decline and complete PSA decline were observed in 13 patients (86.7%) and 10 patients (66.7%) of PDT group and in 18 patients (72.0%) and 11 patients (44.0%) of non-PDT group, respectively. The PSA-progression free survival of PDT-B group was significantly longer than non-PDT group. The median time to failure of first-line systemic therapy on CRPC was 30.2 months in patients in PDT group and 14.9 months in non-PDT group (p=0.014). PDT-B group showed a significantly longer time to progression than non-PDT group (p=0.025). Minimal PDT-related adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

PDT can delay progression of disease and enhance treatment efficacy with acceptable tolerability in oligoprogressive CRPC.

Multimodal Nanoplatform with ROS Amplification to Overcome Multidrug Resistance in Prostate Cancer via Targeting P-Glycoprotein and Ferroptosis

Chemotherapy remains the most essential treatment for prostate cancer, but multidrug resistance (MDR) contributes to chemotherapy failure and tumor-related deaths. The overexpression of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) is one of the main mechanisms behind MDR. Here, this work reports a multimodal nanoplatform with a reactive oxygen species (ROS) cascade for gas therapy/ferroptosis/chemotherapy in reversing MDR. The nanoplatform disassembles when responding to intracellular ROS and exerts three main functions: First, nitric oxide (NO) targeted delivery can reverse MDR by downregulating P-gp expression and inhibiting mitochondrial function. Second, ferrocene-induced ferroptosis breaks the redox balance in the tumor intracellular microenvironment and synergistically acts against the tumor. Third, the release of paclitaxel (PTX) is precisely controlled in situ in the tumor for chemotherapy that avoids damage to normal tissues. Excitingly, this multimodal nanoplatform is a promising weapon for reversing MDR and may provide a pioneering paradigm for synergetic cancer therapy.

The cost burden of metastatic prostate cancer in the US populations covered by employer-sponsored health insurance

BACKGROUND

Recent advancements in the clinical management of metastatic prostate cancer include several costly therapies and diagnostic tests. The objective of this study was to provide updated information on the cost to payers attributable to metastatic prostate cancer among men aged 18 to 64 years with employer-sponsored health plans and men aged 18 years or older covered by employer-sponsored Medicare supplement insurance.

METHODS

By using Merative MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental data for 2009-2019, the authors calculated differences in spending between men with metastatic prostate cancer and their matched, prostate cancer-free controls, adjusting for age, enrollment length, comorbidities, and inflation to 2019 US dollars.

RESULTS

The authors compared 9011 patients who had metastatic prostate cancer and were covered by commercial insurance plans with a group of 44,934 matched controls and also compared 17,899 patients who had metastatic prostate cancer and were covered by employer-sponsored Medicare supplement plans with a group of 87,884 matched controls. The mean age of patients with metastatic prostate cancer was 58.5 years in the commercial samples and 77.8 years in the Medicare supplement samples. Annual spending attributable to metastatic prostate cancer was $55,949 per person-year (95% confidence interval [CI], $54,074-$57,825 per person-year) in the commercial population and $43,682 per person-year (95% CI, $42,022-$45,342 per person-year) in the population covered by Medicare supplement plans, both in 2019 US dollars.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost burden attributable to metastatic prostate cancer exceeds $55,000 per person-year among men with employer-sponsored health insurance and $43,000 among those covered by employer-sponsored Medicare supplement plans. These estimates can improve the precision of value assessments of clinical and policy approaches to the prevention, screening, and treatment of prostate cancer in the United States.

Value elements and methods of value-based pricing for drugs in Japan: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Value-based pricing (VBP) can be a promising tool for optimizing drug prices. However, there is no consensus on the specific value elements and pricing method that should be used for VBP.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a systematic review and narrative synthesis to investigate the value elements and pricing method for VBP. The main inclusion criterion was that value elements, VBP method, and estimated prices for actual drugs were reported. We performed a search in MEDLINE and ICHUSHI Web. Eight articles met the selection criteria. Four studies adopted the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) approach and the others used different approaches. The CEA approach included the value elements of productivity, value of hope, real option value, disease severity, insurance value in addition to costs and quality-adjusted life years. The other approaches used efficacy, toxicity, novelty, rarity, research and development costs, prognosis, population health burden, unmet needs, and effectiveness. Each study used individual methods to quantify these broader value elements.

EXPERT OPINION

Both conventional and broader value elements are used for VBP. To allow VBP to be widely applied to various diseases, a simple, versatile method is preferable. Further research is needed to establish VBP method which enables to incorporate broader values.

Cancer Groundshot: Building a Robust Cancer Control Platform in Addition To Launching the Cancer Moonshot

Cancer Groundshot is a philosophy that calls for prioritization of strategies in global cancer control. The underlying principle of Cancer Groundshot is that one must ensure access to interventions that are already proven to work before focusing on the development of new interventions. In this article, we discuss the philosophy of Cancer Groundshot as it pertains to priorities in cancer care and research in low- and middle-income countries and the utility of technology in addressing global cancer disparities; we also address disparities seen in high-income countries. The oncology community needs to realign our priorities and focus on improving access to high-value cancer control strategies, rather than allocating resources primarily to the development of technologies that provide only marginal gains at a high cost. There are several "low-hanging fruit" actions that will improve access to quality cancer care in low- and middle-income countries and in high-income countries. Worldwide, cancer morbidity and mortality can be averted by implementing highly effective, low-cost interventions that are already known to work, rather than investing in the development of resource-intensive interventions to which most patients will not have access (i.e., we can use Cancer Groundshot to first save more lives before we focus on the "moonshots").

The Health Economics of Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive and Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer—A Systematic Literature Review with Application to the Canadian Context

Background: Health economic evaluations are needed to assess the impact on the healthcare system of emerging treatment patterns for advanced prostate cancer. The objective of this study is to review the scientific literature identifying cost-effectiveness and cost analyses that are assessing treatments for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). Methods: On 29 June 2021, we searched the scientific (MEDLINE, Embase, and EBSCO) and grey literature for health economic studies targeting mHSPC and nmCRPC. We used the CHEC-extended checklist and the Welte checklist for risk-of-bias assessment and transferability analysis, respectively. Results: We retained 20 cost-effectiveness and 4 cost analyses in the mHSPC setting, and 14 cost-effectiveness and 6 cost analyses in the nmCRPC setting. Docetaxel in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was the most cost-effective treatment in the mHSPC setting. Apalutamide, darolutamide, and enzalutamide presented similar results vs. ADT alone and were identified as cost-effective treatments for nmCRPC. An increase in costs as patients transitioned from nmCRPC to mCRPC was noted. Conclusions: We concluded that there is an important unmet need for health economic evaluations in the mHSPC and nmCRPC setting incorporating real-world data to support healthcare decision making.

Characterizing Out-of-Pocket Payments and Financial Assistance for Patients Prescribed Abiraterone and Enzalutamide at an Academic Cancer Center Specialty Pharmacy

PURPOSE

Abiraterone and enzalutamide are commonly used oral cancer therapies for patients with prostate cancer, both with potentially high out-of-pocket costs for patients. We investigated the prevalence of financial assistance mechanisms used to alleviate out-of-pocket costs and the association of these mechanisms with timing of treatment initiation of abiraterone or enzalutamide.

METHODS

Using data from the medical center's specialty pharmacy, we identified first prescriptions for abiraterone or enzalutamide between January 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019. Prescriptions dispensed at an external pharmacy or that were discontinued for reasons unrelated to cost were excluded. Patient demographics, insurance coverage, out-of-pocket cost, and number of days between prescribed date and pill-to-mouth date were collected.

RESULTS

Among 220 prescriptions in our final cohort, 185 were filled through our internal specialty pharmacy, 23 through a manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance program (PAP), and 12 were never filled because of cost. One third of the prescriptions in our final cohort (n = 66) were filled with financial assistance: PAP (10%), copay cards (9%), and grants (11%). The median amount of assistance received for the first fill was $2,860 US dollars (USD) (interquartile range $1,856-$10,717 USD). Prescriptions with an out-of-pocket cost < $100 USD were filled in the shortest time (median 5 days), whereas those filled through a PAP had the longest time to initiation (median 30.5 days).

CONCLUSION

Among patients prescribed oral therapies for prostate cancer at a single institution, one third of patients received financial assistance. Although receiving assistance is likely to improve financial toxicity, waiting for assistance may lead to longer time to initiation of medication.

Efficacy of PSMA PET-Guided Radiotherapy for Oligometastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Purpose

To assess the outcome of radiotherapy (RT) to all PSMA ligand positive metastases for patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

Patients and methods

A total of 42 patients developed oligometastatic mCRPC and received PSMA PET-guided RT of all metastases. The main outcome parameters were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), and second-line systemic treatment free survival (SST-FS).

Results

A total of 141 PSMA ligand-positive metastases were irradiated. The median follow-up time was 39.0 months (12-58 months). During the follow-up five out of 42 (11.9%) patients died of progressive mPCa. Five out of 42 (11.9%) patients showed no biochemical responses and presented with a PSA level ≥10% of the baseline PSA at first PSA level measurement after RT and were classified as non-responders. The median PSA level before RT was 4.79 ng/mL (range, 0.4-46.1), which decreased significantly to a median PSA nadir level of 0.39 ng/mL (range, <0.07-32.8; p=0.002). The median PSA level at biochemical progression after PSMA ligand-based RT was 2.75 ng/mL (range, 0.27-53.0; p=0.24) and was not significantly different (p=0.29) from the median PSA level (4.79 ng/mL, range, 0.4-46.1) before the PSMA ligand-based RT. The median bPFS was 12.0 months after PSMA ligand PET-based RT (95% CI, 11.2-15.8) and the median SST-FS was 15.0 months (95% CI, 14.0-21.5).

Conclusion

In well-informed and closely followed-up patients, PSMA PET-guided RT represents a viable treatment option for patients with oligometastatic mCRPC to delay further systemic therapies.

Assessment of Food and Drug Administration- and European Medicines Agency-Approved Systemic Oncology Therapies and Clinically Meaningful Improvements in Quality of Life: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

For patients with cancer treated with palliative intent, quality of life (QOL) is a critical aspect of treatment decision-making, alongside survival. However, regulatory approval can be based solely on survival measures or antitumor activities, without QOL evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether recently approved oncology therapies demonstrate clinically meaningful improvements in QOL.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review study identified oncology drug indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) from January 2006 to December 2017 and supporting clinical trials (QOL publications identified to October 2019). Indications were evaluated for the presence of published QOL evidence; QOL benefits according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2.0 (ASCO-VF) and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS) QOL bonus criteria; and clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences. Hematology trials were not evaluated by ESMO-MCBS. Associations between QOL evidence and approval year were examined using logistic regression models.

FINDINGS

In total, 214 FDA-approved (77 [36%] hematological) and 170 EMA-approved (52 [31%] hematological) indications were included. QOL evidence was published for 40% and 58% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. QOL bonus criterion for ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS was met in 13% and 17% of FDA-approved and 21% and 24% of EMA-approved indications, respectively. Clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences were noted in 6% and 11% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. Availability of published QOL evidence at the time of approval increased over time for EMA (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; P = .03), however not for FDA (OR, 1.10; P = .12). Over time, no increase in awarded QOL bonuses or clinically meaningful improvements in QOL were found.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this systematic review suggest that approved systemic oncology therapies often do not have published evidence to suggest QOL improvement, despite its recognized importance. Of indications with evidence of statistical improvement, few have demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements.

Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening and Recent Increases in Advanced Prostate Cancer

Recent studies show decreasing prostate-specific antigen utilization and increasing incidence of metastatic prostate cancer in the United States after national recommendations against screening in 2012. Yet, whether the increasing incidence of metastatic prostate cancer is consistent in magnitude with the expected impact of decreased screening is unknown. We compared observed incidence of metastatic prostate cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program and published effects of continued historical screening and discontinued screening starting in 2013 projected by 2 models of disease natural history, screening, and diagnosis. The observed rate of new metastatic prostate cancer cases in 2017 was 44%-60% of the projected increase under discontinued screening relative to continued screening. Thus, the observed increase in incident metastatic prostate cancer is consistent with the expected impact of reduced screening. Although this comparison does not establish a causal relationship, it highlights the plausible role of decreased screening in the observed trend.

Applying the ASCO and European Society for Medical Oncology Value Frameworks to Nasopharyngeal Cancer Treatments: Is Adding Induction Chemotherapy or Adjuvant Chemotherapy to Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Worthwhile?

PURPOSE

To determine and compare the incremental clinical benefit (ICB) and costs of induction chemotherapy (IC) when added to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), concurrent chemotherapy (CC) when added to radiotherapy (RT), and CC plus adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) when added to RT for locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer (LA-NPC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported overall survival benefit with the use of IC, CC, and CC + AC in LA-NPC. We quantified the ICB using the ASCO and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) value frameworks. We calculated the incremental drug costs in US dollars using the lowest average wholesale price reported in the Lexicomp drug database.

RESULTS

We identified three RCTs on IC, three RCTs on CC, and four RCTs on CC + AC. The ICB was judged to be grade A based on the ESMO framework. The ASCO Net Health Benefit score ranged from 17.43 to 57.39. The incremental drug costs ranged from $133.46 to $626.14. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean Net Health Benefit scores (39.37 for IC v 37.61 for CC v 33.98 for CC + AC; P = .89) and costs ($383 for IC v $253 for CC v $460 for CC + AC; P = .27) between the three approaches. There was no statistically significant correlation between ICB and costs.

CONCLUSION

The magnitudes of ICB and incremental drug costs of adding of IC to CCRT, CC to RT, and CC + AC to RT for LA-NPC are not significantly different.