Use of High-Cost Cancer Treatments in Academic and Nonacademic Practice

Does Real Option Value Influence Oncologists' Treatment Recommendations? A Survey of US Oncologists

OBJECTIVES

Survival benefit from anticancer treatments, even if modest, improves a patient's chances of accessing future innovations, thereby creating real option value. There is no empirical evidence on the impact of potential future innovations on oncologists' treatment recommendations.

METHODS

We conducted a national online survey of practicing medical and hematological oncologists. We presented a hypothetical metastatic cancer patient with median survival of 6 months under 4 decision-making scenarios with varying expected efficacy and time to arrival of future innovations. We assessed the likelihood of discussing future innovations with their patients and the likelihood that future innovations would influence their current treatment recommendation, as well as factors associated with these 2 outcomes using multivariate logistic regressions.

RESULTS

A total of 201 oncologists completed the survey. When future innovations were expected to improve survival by 6 months and be available in 6 months, 76% of oncologists were likely or very likely to discuss the innovations with their patients, and 68% reported they would influence their current treatment recommendations. A 1-month increase in the expected survival improvement of future innovation was associated with a 1.17 greater odds (95% CI 1.1-1.25) of reporting likely or very likely to discuss future innovations with their patients, whereas a 1-month increase in the expected time to arrival was associated with a 0.91 lower odds (95% CI 0.88-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Given that potential future innovations seem to influence oncologists' treatments recommendations, evidence to inform clinical guidelines and value assessments should consider data on real option value impacts to support informed treatment decision making.

Commercial Versus Medicaid Insurance and Use of High-Priced Anticancer Treatments

BACKGROUND

Because the markups on cancer drugs vary by payor, providers' financial incentive to use high-price drugs is differential according to each patient's insurance type. We evaluated the association between patient insurer (commercial vs Medicaid) and the use of high-priced cancer treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We linked cancer registry, administrative claims, and demographic data for individuals diagnosed with cancer in North Carolina from 2004 to 2011, with either commercial or Medicaid insurance. We selected cancers with multiple FDA-approved, guideline-recommended chemotherapy options and large price differences between treatment options: advanced colorectal, lung, and head and neck cancer. The outcome was a receipt of a higher-priced option, and the exposure was insurer: commercial versus Medicaid. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for the association between insurer and higher-priced treatment using log-binomial models with inverse probability of exposure weights.

RESULTS

Of 812 patients, 209 (26%) had Medicaid. The unadjusted risk of receiving higher-priced treatment was 36% (215/603) for commercially insured and 27% (57/209) for Medicaid insured (RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.02-1.67). After adjustment for confounders the association was attenuated (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.81-1.65). Exploratory subgroup analysis suggested that commercial insurance was associated with increased receipt of higher-priced treatment among patients treated by non-NCI-designated providers (RR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.14-2.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with Medicaid and commercial insurance received high-priced treatments in similar proportion, after accounting for differences in case mix. However, modification by provider characteristics suggests that insurance type may influence treatment selection for some patient groups. Further work is needed to determine the relationship between insurance status and newer, high-price drugs such as immune-oncology agents.

Financial Toxicity Intervention Improves Outcomes in Patients With Hematologic Malignancy

PURPOSE:

Patients with hematologic malignancies are extremely vulnerable to financial toxicity (FT) because of the high costs of treatment and health care utilization. This pilot study identified patients at high risk because of FT and attempted to improve clinical outcomes with comprehensive intervention.

METHODS:

All patients who presented to the Levine Cancer Institute's Leukemia Clinic between May 26, 2019, and March 10, 2020, were screened for inclusion by standardized two question previsit survey. Patients screening positive were enrolled in the comprehensive intervention that used nurse navigators, clinical pharmacists, and community pro bono financial planners. Primary outcomes were defined as improvement in mental and physical quality of life in all patients and improvement in overall survival in the high-risk disease group.

RESULTS:

One hundred seven patients completed comprehensive intervention. Patients experiencing FT had increased rates of noncompliance including to prescription (16.8%) and over-the-counter medications (15.9%). The intervention resulted in statistically significantly higher quality of life when measured by using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical (12.5 ± 2.2 v 13.7 ± 1.8) and mental health scores (11.4 ± 2.2 v 12.4 ± 2.2; all P < .001). In patients with high-risk disease (as determined by using disease-specific scoring systems), risk of death in those receiving the intervention was 0.44 times the risk of death in those without the intervention after adjusting for race, and treatment with stem-cell transplant, oral chemotherapy, or immunotherapy (95% CI, 0.21 to 0.94; P = .034).

CONCLUSION:

Screening and intervention on FT for patients with hematologic malignancies is associated with increased quality of life and survival.

Treatment patterns for relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma in a community oncology setting

There is little data about treatment practices for relapsed/refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) in nonacademic settings. We describe sequential treatments and outcomes among HL patients who experienced treatment failure in an integrated community-oncology setting. We performed a retrospective cohort study among patients ≥12 years diagnosed with Stage II-IV HL from 2007 to 2012 at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC). Of 463 HL patients, 75 (16.1%) experienced treatment failure. Patients with failure received between 1 and 8 salvage therapies; 28% received ≥4 lines of therapy. Fifty-nine of 75 (79%) were initially salvaged with ifosfamide-based therapy, 44 of whom underwent hematopoietic cell transplant. Ultimately, 47% of patients died, with most deaths due to HL. Survival was shorter with increasing age at diagnosis (p = 0.02) and with greater number of lines of therapy (p = 0.02). In a community oncology setting, HL patients received multiple lines of salvage. Despite extensive treatment, nearly half of patients died of HL following relapsed/refractory disease.

Real-World Use of Bone Modifying Agents in Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Bone modifying agent (BMA) therapy is recommended for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) but not metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). BMA treatment in mCSPC may therefore constitute overuse.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, we included patients diagnosed with stage IV prostate adenocarcinoma from 2007-2015, who were age ≥66 years at diagnosis and received androgen deprivation or antiandrogen therapy. We excluded patients who had previously received BMAs or had existing osteoporosis, osteopenia, hypercalcemia, or prior bone fracture. The primary outcome was receipt of BMA (zoledronic acid or denosumab) within 180 days of diagnosis (emergence of CRPC within this time frame is unlikely). Secondary outcome was BMA within 90 days. Exposures of interest included practice location (physician office vs. hospital outpatient) and specialty (medical oncologist vs. urologist) of treating physician.

RESULTS

Our sample included 2,627 patients, of which 52.9% were treated by medical oncologists and 47.1% by urologists; 77.7% and 22.3% received care in physician office and hospital outpatient locations, respectively. Overall, 23.6% received a BMA within 180 days; 18.4% did within 90 days. BMA therapy was more common among patients treated by oncologists (odds ratio = 8.23, 95% confidence interval = 6.41 to 10.57) and in physician office locations (odds ratio = 1.33, 95% confidence interval = 1.06 to 1.69). Utilization has increased: 17.3% of patients received BMAs from 2007-2009 (17.3% zoledronic acid, 0% denosumab), and 28.1% from 2012-2015 (8.4% zoledronic acid, 20.3% denosumab).

CONCLUSIONS

Among mCSPC patients who had no evidence of high osteoporotic fracture risk, over one-quarter received BMAs in recent years. This overuse may lead to excess costs and toxicity.

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in adults: disparities in treatment intervention based on access to treatment facility

Adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is associated with poor outcomes. We evaluated differences by facility type in the parameters of 6766 adult ALL patients ≥ 40 years of age diagnosed from 2004 to 2015 in the National Cancer DataBase (NCDB) and survival outcomes using two-sample t-tests or chi-square tests and Cox proportional hazards models. Those treated in academic facilities were younger (mean 58.5 versus 61.7 years, p < 0.001), Black (8.1% versus 5.6%, p < 0.001), had private insurance (50.9% versus 44.0%, p < 0.001), and more likely to receive chemotherapy (93.2% versus 81.4%, p < 0.001), any radiotherapy (14.9% versus 7.3%, p < 0.001), stem cell transplant (9.4% versus 2.5%, p < 0.001), or total body irradiation (TBI) (11.3% versus 4.3%, p < 0.001). Patients treated at an academic facility had a higher hazard of death (p<.05) while those that received any chemotherapy or TBI or CNS radiation had a lower risk of death (all p < 0.05). These parameters should be evaluated in future studies.

Navigating Ethical Practices in the Era of High Cost Hematology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review article, we will highlight ethical issues faced by hematologists due to a growing constellation of expensive diagnostics and therapeutics in hematology. We outline the important issues surrounding this topic including stakeholders, cost considerations, and various ethical challenges surrounding access to care, communication about costs, and individual vs. societal responsibilities. We review available tools to navigate these ethical themes and offer potential solutions.

RECENT FINDINGS

We identified several gaps in the literature on the topic of ethical issues in hematology treatment and supplement by non-hematological cancer and general medical literature. We propose proactive solutions to address these problems to include cost transparency, utilization of evidence-based decision making tools, application of the four quadrant approach to ethical care, and advanced systems-based practice curriculum for physician trainees.

Influence of hospital teaching status on the chance to achieve a textbook outcome after hepatopancreatic surgery for cancer among Medicare beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Assessing composite measures of quality such as textbook outcome may be superior to focusing on individual parameters when evaluating hospital performance. The aim of the current study was to assess the impact of teaching hospital status on the occurrence of a textbook outcome after hepatopancreatic surgery.

METHODS

The Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files were used to identify patients undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery from 2013 to 2015 for a malignant indication. Stratified and multivariable regression analyses were performed to determine the relationship between teaching hospital status, hospital surgical volume and textbook outcome.

RESULTS

Among 8,035 Medicare patients (hepatectomy; 41.8%, pancreatectomy; 58.2%), 6,196 (77.1%) patients underwent surgery at a major teaching hospital, whereas 1,839 (22.9%) patients underwent surgery at a minor teaching hospital. Patients undergoing surgery for pancreatic cancer at a major teaching hospital had a greater likelihood of achieving a textbook outcome compared with patients treated at a minor teaching hospital (minor teaching hospital: 456, 40% versus major teaching hospital: 1,606, 45.4%; P = .002). The likelihood of textbook outcome was also greater among patients undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery at high-volume centers (pancreas, low volume: 875, 40.5% versus high volume: 1,187, 47.1% P < .001; liver, low volume: 608, 41.8% versus high volume: 886, 46.6%; P = .005). When examining only major teaching hospitals, patients undergoing a pancreatectomy at a high-volume center had 29% greater odds of achieving a textbook outcome (odds ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.49). In contrast, among patients undergoing pancreatic resection at high-volume centers, the odds of achieving a textbook outcome was comparable among major versus minor teaching hospital (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.89-1.53).

CONCLUSION

The odds of achieving a textbook outcome after pancreatic and hepatic surgery was greater at major versus minor teaching hospitals; however, this effect was largely mediated by hepatopancreatic procedural volume. Patients and payers should focus on regionalization of pancreatic and liver resection to high-volume centers in an effort to optimize the chances of achieving a textbook outcome.