Organization of head and neck cancer rehabilitation care: a national survey among healthcare professionals in Dutch head and neck cancer centers

PURPOSE

Head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment often leads to physical and psychosocial impairments. Rehabilitation can overcome these limitations and improve quality of life. The aim of this study is to obtain an overview of rehabilitation care for HNC, and to investigate factors influencing rehabilitation provision, in Dutch HNC centers, and to some extent compare it to other countries.

METHODS

An online survey, covering five themes: organizational structure; rehabilitation interventions; financing; barriers and facilitators; satisfaction and future improvements, among HNC healthcare- and financial professionals of Dutch HNC centers.

RESULTS

Most centers (86%) applied some type of rehabilitation care, with variations in organizational structure. A speech language therapist, physiotherapist and dietitian were available in all centers, but other rehabilitation healthcare professionals in less than 60%. Facilitators for providing rehabilitation services included availability of a contact person, and positive attitude, motivation, and expertise of healthcare professionals. Barriers were lack of reimbursement, and patient related barriers including comorbidity, travel (time), low health literacy, limited financial capacity, and poor motivation.

CONCLUSION

Although all HNC centers included offer rehabilitation services, there is substantial practice variation, both nationally and internationally. Factors influencing rehabilitation are related to the motivation and expertise of the treatment team, but also to reimbursement aspects and patient related factors. More research is needed to investigate the extent to which practice variation impacts individual patient outcomes and how to integrate HNC rehabilitation into routine clinical pathways.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Survivorship Care for Survivors of Hodgkin Lymphoma (INSIGHT Study): Protocol for a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study With a Quasi-Experimental Design

BACKGROUND

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) occurs at young ages, with the highest incidence between 20 and 40 years. While cure rates have improved to 80%-90% over the past decades, survivors of HL are at substantial risk of late treatment-related complications, such as cardiovascular diseases, breast cancer, severe infections, and hypothyroidism. To reduce morbidity and mortality from late treatment effects, the Dutch Better care after lymphoma, Evaluation of long-term Treatment Effects and screening Recommendations (BETER) consortium developed a survivorship care program for 5-year survivors of HL that includes risk-based screening for and treatment of (risk factors for) late adverse events. Even though several cancer survivorship care programs have been established worldwide, there is a lack of knowledge about their effectiveness in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The Improving Nationwide Survivorship care Infrastructure and Guidelines after Hodgkin lymphoma Treatment (INSIGHT) study evaluates whether Dutch BETER survivorship care for survivors of HL decreases survivors' burden of disease from late adverse events after HL treatment and associated health care costs and improves their quality of life.

METHODS

The INSIGHT study is a multicenter retrospective cohort study with a quasi-experimental design and prospective follow-up, embedded in the national BETER survivorship care infrastructure. The first BETER clinics started in 2013-2016 and several other centers started or will start BETER clinics in 2019-2024. This allows us to compare survivors who did and those who did not receive BETER survivorship care in the last decade. Survivors in the intervention group are matched to controls (n=450 per group) based on sex, age at diagnosis (±5 years), age in 2013 (±5 years), and treatment characteristics. The primary outcome is the burden of disease in disability-adjusted life years from cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, severe infections, and hypothyroidism. In a cost-effectiveness analysis, we will assess the cost of BETER survivorship care per averted or gained disability-adjusted life year and quality-adjusted life year. Secondary outcomes are BETER clinic attendance, adherence to screening guidelines, and knowledge and distress about late effects among survivors of HL. Study data are collected from a survivor survey, a general practitioner survey, medical records, and through linkages with national disease registries.

RESULTS

The study was funded in November 2020 and approved by the institutional review board of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in July 2021. We expect to finalize recruitment by October 2024, data collection by early 2025, and data analysis by May 2025.

CONCLUSIONS

INSIGHT is the first evaluation of a comprehensive survivorship program using real-world data; it will result in new information on the (cost-)effectiveness of survivorship care in survivors of HL in clinical practice. The results of this study will be used to improve the BETER program where necessary and contribute to more effective evidence-based long-term survivorship care for lymphoma survivors.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/55601.

Exploring the Cost Effectiveness of a Whole-Genome Sequencing-Based Biomarker for Treatment Selection in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer Ineligible for Targeted Therapy

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to perform an early cost-effectiveness analysis of using a whole-genome sequencing-based tumor mutation burden (WGS-TMB), instead of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), for immunotherapy treatment selection in patients with non-squamous advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer ineligible for targeted therapy, from a Dutch healthcare perspective.

METHODS

A decision-model simulating individual patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer was used to evaluate diagnostic strategies to select first-line immunotherapy only or the immunotherapy plus chemotherapy combination. Treatment was selected using PD-L1 [A, current practice], WGS-TMB [B], and both PD-L1 and WGS-TMB [C]. Strategies D, E, and F take into account a patient's disease burden, in addition to PD-L1, WGS-TMB, and both PD-L1 and WGS-TMB, respectively. Disease burden was defined as a fast-growing tumor, a high number of metastases, and/or weight loss. A threshold of 10 mutations per mega-base was used to classify patients into TMB-high and TMB-low groups. Outcomes were discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and healthcare costs measured from the start of first-line treatment to death. Healthcare costs includes drug acquisition, follow-up costs, and molecular diagnostic tests (i.e., standard diagnostic techniques and/or WGS for strategies involving TMB). Results were reported using the net monetary benefit at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY. Additional scenario and threshold analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Strategy B had the lowest QALYs (1.84) and lowest healthcare costs (€120,800). The highest QALYs and healthcare costs were 2.00 and €140,400 in strategy F. In the base-case analysis, strategy A was cost effective with the highest net monetary benefit (€27,300), followed by strategy B (€26,700). Strategy B was cost effective when the cost of WGS testing was decreased by at least 24% or when immunotherapy results in an additional 0.5 year of life gained or more for TMB high compared with TMB low. Strategies C and F, which combined TMB and PD-L1 had the highest net monetary benefit (≥ €76,900) when the cost of WGS testing, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy acquisition were simultaneously reduced by at least 47%, 39%, and 43%, respectively. Furthermore, strategy C resulted in the highest net monetary benefit (≥ €39,900) in a scenario where patients with both PD-L1 low and TMB low were treated with chemotherapy instead of immunotherapy plus chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of WGS-TMB is not cost effective compared to PD-L1 for immunotherapy treatment selection in non-squamous metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the Netherlands. WGS-TMB could become cost effective provided there is a reduction in the cost of WGS testing or there is an increase in the predictive value of WGS-TMB for immunotherapy effectiveness. Alternatively, a combination strategy of PD-L1 testing with WGS-TMB would be cost effective if used to support the choice to withhold immunotherapy in patients with a low expected benefit of immunotherapy.

The socioeconomic impact of cancer on patients and their relatives: Organisation of European Cancer Institutes task force consensus recommendations on conceptual framework, taxonomy, and research directions

Loss of income and out-of-pocket expenditures are important causes of financial hardship in many patients with cancer, even in high-income countries. The far-reaching consequences extend beyond the patients themselves to their relatives, including caregivers and dependents. European research to date has been limited and is hampered by the absence of a coherent theoretical framework and by heterogeneous methods and terminology. To address these shortages, a task force initiated by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) produced 25 recommendations, including a comprehensive definition of socioeconomic impact from the perspective of patients and their relatives, a conceptual framework, and a consistent taxonomy linked to the framework. The OECI task force consensus statement highlights directions for future research with a view towards policy relevance. Beyond descriptive studies into the dimension of the problem, individual severity and predictors of vulnerability should be explored. It is anticipated that the consensus recommendations will facilitate and enhance future research efforts into the socioeconomic impact of cancer and cancer care, providing a crucial reference point for the development and validation of patient-reported outcome instruments aimed at measuring its broader effects.

Differences in time to patient access to innovative cancer medicines in six European countries

Patients across Europe face inequity regarding access to anticancer medicines. While access is typically evaluated through reimbursement status or sales data, patients can receive first access through early access programs (EAPs) or off-label use. This study aims to assess the time to patient access at the hospital level, considering different indications and countries. (Pre-)registered access to six innovative medicines (Olaparib, Niraparib, Ipilimumab, Osimeritinib, Nivolumab and Ibritunib) was measured using a cross-sectional survey. First patient access to medicines and indications were collected using the hospital databases. Nineteen hospitals from Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and France participated. Analysis showed that some hospitals achieved patient access before national reimbursement, primarily through EAPs. The average time from EMA-approval to patient access for these medicines was 2.1 years (Range: -0.9-7.1 years). Hospitals in Italy and France had faster access compared to Hungary and Belgium. Variation was also found within countries, with specialized hospitals (x̄: -0.9 years; SD: 2.0) more likely to provide patient access prior to national reimbursement than general hospitals (x̄: 0.4 years; SD: 2.9). Contextual differences were observed, with EAPs or off-label use being more prevalent in Switzerland than Hungary. Recent EMA-approved indications and drug combinations reached patients at a later stage. Substantial variation in patient access time was observed between and within countries. Improving pricing and reimbursement timelines, fostering collaboration between national health authorities and market authorization holders, and implementing nationally harmonized, data-generating EAPs can enhance timely and equitable patient access to innovative cancer treatments in Europe.

Early Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer Patients with Limited Peritoneal Carcinomatosis

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival of 10 months when treated with systemic chemotherapy only. Cohort studies showed that cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) might improve the prognosis for gastric cancer patients with limited PC. Besides generating trial data on clinical effectiveness, it is crucial to timely collect information on economic aspects to guide the reimbursement decision-making process. No previous data have been published on the cost(-effectiveness) of CRS/HIPEC in this group of patients. Therefore, we performed an early model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of CRS/HIPEC for gastric cancer patients with limited PC in the Dutch setting.

METHODS

We constructed a two-state (alive-dead) Markov transition model to evaluate costs and clinical outcomes from a Dutch healthcare perspective. Clinical outcomes, transition probabilities and utilities were derived from literature and verified by clinical experts in the field. Costs were measured using two available representative cohorts (2010-2017): one 'systemic chemotherapy only' cohort and one 'CRS/HIPEC' cohort (n = 10 each). Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were expressed as Euros per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). We performed probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity, scenario, and value-of-information analyses using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €80,000/QALY, which reflects the Dutch norm for severe diseases.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, CRS/HIPEC yielded more QALYs (increment of 0.68) and more costs (increment of €34,706) compared with systemic chemotherapy only, resulting in an ICUR of €50,990/QALY. The probability that CRS/HIPEC was cost effective compared with systemic chemotherapy alone was 64%. To reduce uncertainty, the expected value of perfect information amounted to €4,021,468. The scenario analyses did not alter the results and showed that treatment costs, lifetime health-related quality of life and overall survival had the largest influence on the model.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented early cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that adding CRS/HIPEC to systemic chemotherapy for gastric cancer patients with limited PC has a good chance of being cost-effectiveness compared with systemic chemotherapy alone when using a WTP of €80,000/QALY. However, there is substantial uncertainty in view of the current available data on effectiveness. Results from the ongoing phase III PERISCOPE II trial are therefore crucial for further decisions on treatment policy and its cost-effectiveness.

A scenario-drafting study to explore potential future implementation pathways of circulating tumor DNA testing in oncology

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) detection has multiple promising applications in oncology, but the road toward implementation in clinical practice is unclear. We aimed to support the implementation process by exploring potential future pathways of ctDNA testing. To do so, we studied four ctDNA-testing applications in two cancer types and elicited opinions from 30 ctDNA experts in the Netherlands. Our results showed that the current available evidence differed per application and cancer type. Tumor profiling and monitoring treatment response were found most likely to be implemented in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) within 5 years. For colorectal cancer, applications of ctDNA testing were found to be at an early stage in the implementation process. Demonstrating clinical utility was found a key aspect for successful implementation, but there was no consensus regarding the evidence requirements. The next step toward implementation is to define how clinical utility of biomarkers should be evaluated. Finally, these data indicate that specific challenges for each clinical application and tumor type should be appropriately addressed in a deliberative process involving all stakeholders to ensure implementation of ctDNA testing and timely access for patients.

Health state utility and health-related quality of life measures in patients with advanced ovarian cancer

Purpose

Measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in ovarian cancer patients is critical to understand the impact of disease and treatment. Preference-based HRQoL measures, called health state utilities, are used specifically in health economic evaluations. Real-world patient-reported data on HRQoL and health state utilities over the long-term course of ovarian cancer are limited. This study aims to determine HRQoL and health state utilities in different health states of ovarian cancer.

Methods

This cross-sectional, multicenter study included patients with stage III-IV ovarian cancer in six health states: at diagnosis, during chemotherapy, after cytoreductive surgery (CRS), after chemotherapy, in remission, and at first recurrence. HRQoL was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire C30, and the ovarian cancer-specific module OV28. Health state utilities were assessed using the EuroQol five-dimension five-level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire. Descriptive analyses were performed for each health state.

Results

Two hundred thirty-two patients participated, resulting in 319 questionnaires. Median age was 66 years. The lowest HRQoL was observed during chemotherapy and shortly after CRS. Physical and role functioning were most affected and the highest symptom prevalence was observed in the fatigue, nausea, pain, dyspnea, gastrointestinal, neuropathy, attitude, and sexuality domains. Patients in remission had the best HRQoL. Mean utility values ranged from 0.709 (±0.253) at diagnosis to 0.804 (±0.185) after chemotherapy.

Conclusions

This study provides clinicians with a valuable resource to aid in patient counseling and clinical decision-making. The utilities, in particular, are crucial for researchers conducting economic analyses to inform policy decisions.

Health-state utilities in long-term advanced melanoma survivors comparable with the general population

BACKGROUND

Checkpoint inhibitors have been shown to substantially improve the survival of patients with advanced melanoma. With this growing group of survivors treated with immunotherapies, assessing their health-state utilities is essential and can be used for the calculation of quality-adjusted life years and for cost-effectiveness analyses. Therefore, we evaluated the health-state utilities in long-term advanced melanoma survivors.

METHODS

Health-state utilities were evaluated in a cohort of advanced melanoma survivors 24-36 months (N = 37) and 36-plus months (N = 47) post-ipilimumab monotherapy. In addition, the health-state utilities of the 24-36 months survivor group were assessed longitudinally, and utilities of the combined survival groups (N = 84) were compared with a matched control population (N = 168). The EQ-5D was used to generate health-state utility values, and quality-of-life questionnaires were used to establish correlations and influencing factors of utility scores.

RESULTS

Health-state utility scores were similar between the 24-36 months'- and the 36-plus months' survival group (0.81 vs 0.86; p = .22). In survivors, lower utility scores were associated with symptoms of depression (β = - .82, p = .022) and fatigue burden (β = - .29, p = .007). Utility scores did not significantly change after 24-36 months of survival, and the utilities of survivors were comparable to the matched control population (0.84 vs 0.87; p = .07).

DISCUSSION

Our results show that long-term advanced melanoma survivors treated with ipilimumab monotherapy experience relatively stable and high health-state utility scores.

"One more chance to survive": the experiences of patients with advanced melanoma and their partners with tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy-a qualitative study and recommendations for future care

PURPOSE

Patients with advanced melanoma refractory to first-line treatment have a need for effective second-line treatment options. A recent phase 3 trial showed promising results for adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) as second-line therapy in patients with advanced melanoma. However, it remains unknown how patients and their partners experience TIL therapy, which is key to evaluate and improve the quality of care.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews about the experience of TIL therapy were conducted with patients with advanced melanoma and their partners 2-4 weeks post-treatment (short term) and >6 months after treatment (long term).

RESULTS

In total, 25 interviews were conducted with advanced melanoma patients treated with TIL (n=13) and their partners (n=12), with the majority being short-term interviews (n=17). Overall, patients and partners experienced TIL therapy as intense (uncertainty of successful TIL culture, multiple treatment-related toxicities, and extensive hospitalization). Patients and partners with young children or other caregiving responsibilities encountered the most challenges during TIL therapy. All patients, however, reported a recovery of all treatment-related toxicities within 2-4 weeks (except fatigue).

CONCLUSION

Clinical data justify the role of TIL therapy in the treatment of advanced melanoma. With the distinct nature of TIL therapy compared to the current standard of care, we have provided patient-centered recommendations that will further enhance the quality of TIL therapy.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

As more patients with advanced melanoma are expected to receive TIL therapy in the future, our findings could be incorporated into survivorship care plans for this novel group of advanced melanoma survivors treated with TIL.

Targeted combination therapies in oncology: challenging regulatory frameworks designed for monotherapies in Europe

The pharmaceutical value chain, including clinical trials, pricing, access, and reimbursement, is designed for classical monotherapies. Although there has been a paradigm shift that increases the relevance of targeted combination therapies (TCTs), regulation and common practice have been slow to adapt. We explored access to 23 TCTs for advanced melanoma and lung cancer as reported by 19 specialists from 17 leading cancer institutions in nine European countries. We find heterogeneous patient access to TCTs between countries, differences in country-specific regulations, and differences in the clinical practice of melanoma and lung cancer. Regulation that is better tailored to the context of combinational therapies can increase equity in access across Europe and promote an evidence-based and authorized use of combinations.

Surveillance Imaging after Primary Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ

Background Guidelines recommend annual surveillance imaging after diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Guideline adherence has not been characterized in a contemporary cohort. Purpose To identify uptake and determinants of surveillance imaging in women who underwent treatment for DCIS. Materials and Methods A stratified random sample of women who underwent breast-conserving surgery for primary DCIS between 2008 and 2014 was retrospectively selected from 1330 facilities in the United States. Imaging examinations were recorded from date of diagnosis until first distant recurrence, death, loss to follow-up, or end of study (November 2018). Imaging after treatment was categorized into 10 12-month periods starting 6 months after diagnosis. Primary outcome was per-period receipt of asymptomatic surveillance imaging (mammography, MRI, or US). Secondary outcome was diagnosis of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. Multivariable logistic regression with repeated measures and generalized estimating equations was used to model receipt of imaging. Rates of diagnosis with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer were compared between women who did and those who did not undergo imaging in the 6-18-month period after diagnosis using inverse probability-weighted Kaplan-Meier estimators. Results A total of 12 559 women (median age, 60 years; IQR, 52-69 years) were evaluated. Uptake of surveillance imaging was 75% in the first period and decreased over time (P < .001). Across the first 5 years after treatment, 52% of women participated in consistent annual surveillance. Surveillance was lower in Black (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.88; P < .001) and Hispanic (OR, 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.94; P = .004) women than in White women. Women who underwent surveillance in the first period had a higher 6-year rate of diagnosis of invasive cancer (1.6%; 95% CI: 1.3, 1.9) than those who did not (1.1%; 95% CI: 0.7, 1.4; difference: 0.5%; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.0; P = .03). Conclusion Half of women did not consistently adhere to imaging surveillance guidelines across the first 5 years after treatment, with racial disparities in adherence rates. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Rahbar and Dontchos in this issue.

Therapeutic drug monitoring guided dosing versus standard dosing of alectinib in advanced ALK positive non-small cell lung cancer patients: Study protocol for an international, multicenter phase IV randomized controlled trial (ADAPT ALEC)

Background

Alectinib is first-line therapy in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and an anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion. A shorter median progression-free survival (mPFS) was observed when alectinib minimum plasma concentrations during steady state (Cmin,SS) were below 435 ng/mL. This may suggest that patients should have an alectinib Cmin,SS ≥ 435 ng/mL for a more favorable outcome. This potential target could be attained by using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), i.e. adjusting the dose based on measured plasma trough concentrations. Hypothetically, this will increase mPFS, but this has not yet been evaluated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Therefore, the ADAPT ALEC trial is designed, with the primary objective to prolong mPFS in NSCLC patients treated with alectinib by using TDM.

Methods

ADAPT ALEC is a multicenter, phase IV RCT, in which patients aged ≥ 18 years with advanced ALK positive (+) NSCLC eligible for alectinib in daily care are enrolled. Participants will be randomized (1:1 ratio) into intervention arm A (TDM) or B (control), stratified by brain metastases and prior ALK treatments. Starting dose in both arms is the approved flat fixed dose of alectinib 600 mg taken twice daily with food. In case of alectinib Cmin,SS &lt; 435 ng/mL, arm A will receive increased doses of alectinib till Cmin,SS ≥ 435 ng/mL when considered tolerable. The primary outcome is mPFS, where progressive disease is defined according to RECIST v1.1 or all-cause death and assessed by CT-scans and MRI brain. Secondary endpoints are feasibility and tolerability of TDM, patient and physician adherence, overall response rate, median overall survival, intracranial PFS, quality of life, toxicity, alectinib-M4 concentrations and cost-effectiveness of TDM. Exploratory endpoints are circulating tumor DNA and body composition.

Discussion

The ADAPT ALEC will show whether treatment outcomes of patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC improve when using TDM-guided dosing of alectinib instead of fixed dosing. The results will provide high quality evidence for deciding whether TDM should be implemented as standard of care and this will have important consequences for the prescribing of alectinib.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05525338.

EffectiveNess of a multimodal preHAbilitation program in patieNts with bladder canCEr undergoing radical cystectomy: protocol of the ENHANCE multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard treatment for patients with non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer, as well as for patients with therapy refractory high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. However, 50-65% of patients undergoing RC experience perioperative complications. The risk, severity and impact of these complications is associated with a patient's preoperative cardiorespiratory fitness, nutritional and smoking status and presence of anxiety and depression. There is emerging evidence supporting multimodal prehabilitation as a strategy to reduce the risk of complications and improve functional recovery after major cancer surgery. However, for bladder cancer the evidence is still limited. The aim of this study is to investigate the superiority of a multimodal prehabilitation programme versus standard-of-care in terms of reducing perioperative complications in patients with bladder cancer undergoing RC.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This multicentre, open label, prospective, randomised controlled trial, will include 154 patients with bladder cancer undergoing RC. Patients are recruited from eight hospitals in The Netherlands and will be randomly (1:1) allocated to the intervention group receiving a structured multimodal prehabilitation programme of approximately 3-6 weeks, or to the control group receiving standard-of-care. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who develop one or more grade ≥2 complications (according to the Clavien-Dindo classification) within 90 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes include cardiorespiratory fitness, length of hospital stay, health-related quality of life, tumour tissue biomarkers of hypoxia, immune cell infiltration and cost-effectiveness. Data collection will take place at baseline, before surgery and 4 and 12 weeks after surgery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Medical Ethics Committee NedMec (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) under reference number 22-595/NL78792.031.22. Results of the study will be published in international peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05480735.

High-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue to treat stage III homologous deficient breast cancer: factors influencing clinical implementation

BACKGROUND

High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue (HDCT) is a promising treatment for patients with stage III, HER2-negative, homologous recombination deficient (HRD) breast cancer. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are currently under investigation in an international multicenter randomized controlled trial. To increase the chance of successful introduction of HDCT into daily clinical practice, we aimed to identify relevant factors for smooth implementation using an early comprehensive assessment framework.

METHODS

This is a qualitative, multi-stakeholder, exploratory research using semi-structured interviews guided by the Constructive Technology Assessment model, which evaluates the quality of a novel health technology by clinical, economic, patient-related, and organizational factors. Stakeholders were recruited by purposeful stratified sampling and interviewed until sufficient content saturation was reached. Two researchers independently created themes, categories, and subcategories by following inductive coding steps, these were verified by a third researcher.

RESULTS

We interviewed 28 stakeholders between June 2019 and April 2021. In total, five overarching themes and seventeen categories were identified. Important findings for optimal implementation included the structural identification and referral of all eligible patients, early integration of supportive care, multidisciplinary collaboration between- and within hospitals, (de)centralization of treatment aspects, the provision of information for patients and healthcare professionals, and compliance to new regulation for the BRCA1-like test.

CONCLUSIONS

In anticipation of a positive reimbursement decision, we recommend to take the highlighted implementation factors into consideration. This might expedite and guide high-quality equitable access to HDCT for patients with stage III, HER2-negative, HRD breast cancer in the Netherlands.

Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Future Developments With Whole-Genome Sequencing for Patients With Lung Cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness, budget impact (BI), and impact of uncertainty of future developments concerning whole-genome sequencing (WGS) as a clinical diagnostic test compared with standard of care (SoC) in patients with locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

METHODS

A total of 3 likely scenarios to take place within 5 years (according to experts) were simulated using a previously developed, peer reviewed, and published decision model. The scenarios concerned "WGS results used for treatment selection" (scenario 1), "WGS-based biomarker for immunotherapy" (scenario 2), and "off-label drug approval for WGS results" (scenario 3). Two diagnostic strategies of the original model, "SoC" and "WGS as a diagnostic test" (base model), were used to compare our scenarios with. Outcomes were reported for the base model, all scenarios separately, combined (combined unweighted), and weighted by likelihood (combined weighted). Cost-effectiveness, BI, and value of information analyses were performed for WGS compared with SoC.

RESULTS

Total costs and quality-adjusted life-years for SoC in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer were €149 698 and 1.235. Incremental outcomes of WGS were €1529/0.002(base model), -€222/0.020(scenario 1), -€2576/0.023(scenario 2), €388/0.024(scenario 3), -€5041/0.060(combined unweighted), and -€1715/0.029(combined weighted). The annual BI for adopting WGS for this population in The Netherlands ranged between €682 million (combined unweighted) and €714 million (base model). The consequences of uncertainty amounted to €3.4 million for all scenarios (combined weighted) and to €699 000 for the diagnostic yield of WGS alone (combined weighted).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that it is likely for WGS to become cost-effective within the near future if it identifies more patients with actionable targets and show the impact of uncertainty regarding its diagnostic yield. Modeling future scenarios can be useful to consider early adoption of WGS while timely anticipating on unforeseen developments before final conclusions are reached.

Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocyte Therapy or Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma, but approximately half these patients will not have a durable benefit. Phase 1-2 trials of adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have shown promising responses, but data from phase 3 trials are lacking to determine the role of TILs in treating advanced melanoma.

METHODS

In this phase 3, multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma in a 1:1 ratio to receive TIL or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 therapy (ipilimumab at 3 mg per kilogram of body weight). Infusion of at least 5×10⁹ TILs was preceded by nonmyeloablative, lymphodepleting chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide plus fludarabine) and followed by high-dose interleukin-2. The primary end point was progression-free survival.

RESULTS

A total of 168 patients (86% with disease refractory to anti-programmed death 1 treatment) were assigned to receive TILs (84 patients) or ipilimumab (84 patients). In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2 to 13.1) in the TIL group and 3.1 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.3) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.72; P<0.001); 49% (95% CI, 38 to 60) and 21% (95% CI, 13 to 32) of the patients, respectively, had an objective response. Median overall survival was 25.8 months (95% CI, 18.2 to not reached) in the TIL group and 18.9 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 32.6) in the ipilimumab group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in all patients who received TILs and in 57% of those who received ipilimumab; in the TIL group, these events were mainly chemotherapy-related myelosuppression.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with advanced melanoma, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received TIL therapy than among those who received ipilimumab. (Funded by the Dutch Cancer Society and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02278887.).

Ten-year follow-up of the observational RASTER study, prospective evaluation of the 70-gene signature in ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative, early breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Prognostic gene expression signatures can be used in combination with classical clinicopathological factors to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. However, long-term outcome data after introduction of genomic testing in the treatment decision-making process are limited.

METHODS

In the prospective RASTER study, the tumours of 427 patients with cTanyN0M0 breast cancer were tested to assess the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint). The results were provided to their treating physician to be incorporated in the decision-making on adjuvant systemic therapy. Here, we report the long-term outcome of the 310 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative tumours by clinical and genomic risk categories at a median follow-up of 10.3 years.

RESULTS

Among the clinically high-risk patients, 45 (49%) were classified as genomically low risk. In this subgroup, at 10 years, distant recurrence free interval (DRFI) was similar between patients treated with (95.7% [95% CI 87.7-100]) and without (95.5% [95% CI 87.1-100]) chemotherapy. Within the group of clinically low-risk patients, 56 (26%) were classified as genomically high risk. Within the clinically low-risk group, beyond 5 years, a difference emerged between the genomically high- and low-risk subgroup resulting in a 10-year DRFI of 84.3% (95% CI 74.8-95.0) and 93.4% (95% CI 89.5-97.5), respectively. Interestingly, genomic ultralow-risk patients have a 10-year DRFI of 96.7% (95% CI 90.5-100), largely (79%) without systemic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

These data confirm that clinically high-risk, genomically low-risk tumours have an excellent outcome in the real-world setting of shared decision-making. Together with the updated results of the MINDACT trial, these data support the use of the MammaPrint, in ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative, clinically high-risk breast cancer patients.

REGISTRY

ISRCTN71917916.

Cost-utility analysis on robot-assisted and laparoscopic prostatectomy based on long-term functional outcomes

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) is one of the standard treatment options for prostate cancer. However, controversy still exists on its added value. Based on a recent large-sample retrospective cluster study from the Netherlands showing significantly improved long-term urinary functioning after RARP compared to Laparoscopic RP (LRP), we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of RARP compared to LRP. A decision tree was constructed to measure the costs and effects from a Dutch societal perspective over a ~ 7 year time-horizon. The input was based on the aforementioned study, including patient-reported consumption of addition care and consumed care for ergonomic issues reported by surgeons. Intervention costs were calculated using a bottom-up costing analysis in 5 hospitals. Finally, a probabilistic-, one-way sensitivity- and scenario analyses were performed to show possible decision uncertainty. The intervention costs were €9964 for RARP and €7253 for LRP. Total trajectory costs were €12,078 for RARP and €10,049 for LRP. RARP showed higher QALYs compared to LRP (6.17 vs 6.11). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was €34,206 per QALY gained, in favour of RARP. As a best-case scenario, when RARP is being centralized (> 150 cases/year), total trajectory costs decreased to €10,377 having a higher utilization, and a shorter procedure time and length of stay resulting in an ICUR of €3495 per QALY gained. RARP showed to be cost-effective compared to LRP based on data from a population-based, large scale study with 7 years of follow-up. This is a clear incentive to fully reimburse RARP, especially when hospitals provide RARP centralized.

[Clinical efficiency research with expensive drugs: doing more with less investment]

Novel innovative drugs have improved disease control, survival and quality of life for many patients. The costs of these drugs, however, are extremely high and threaten the long-term affordability of our health care system. Efficient use of existing drugs can decrease drug expenditure whilst improving patients' quality of life at the same time. Efficiency adjustments should not compromise treatment efficacy and therefore, clinical research on the matter is crucial. In this article, we demonstrate that efficiency research is feasible, as exemplified by the SONIA study. We make the case for a 'revolving fund' in which savings from one study are used to fund a next one. A revolving fund thus stimulates efficiency research and capitalizes research investments in the interest of both patients and society.

Affordable Prices Without Threatening the Oncological R&D Pipeline-An Economic Experiment on Transparency in Price Negotiations

The high prices of innovative medicines endanger access to care worldwide. Sustainable prices need to be affordable while sufficiently incentivizing research and development (R&D) investments. A proposed solution is increased transparency. Proponents argue that price and R&D cost confidentiality are drivers of high prices. On the contrary, supporters of confidentiality claim that confidentiality enables targeted discounts which make treatments affordable; moreover, pharmaceutical companies argue that R&D investments would suffer with more transparency. Despite the political relevance, limited empirical evidence exists on the effects of transparency regulations. We contribute to fill this gap with an experiment where we replicate the EU pharmaceutical market in a laboratory setting. In a randomized controlled study, we analyzed how participants, 400 students located in four European countries, negotiated in the current system of Price Secrecy in comparison with innovative bargaining settings where either prices only (Price Transparency) or prices and R&D costs (Full Transparency) were made transparent to buyers. We found that Price transparency had no statistically significant effect on average prices or number of patients treated and made R&D investments significantly smaller (-16.86%; P: 0.0024). On the other hand, Full Transparency reduced prices (-26%; P: 0.0004) and held the number of patients constant at the level of Price Secrecy. It produced price convergence between countries with low and high health budgets, and, despite lower prices, had no effect on R&D investments. Our findings provide novel evidence that combining price and R&D cost transparency could be an effective policy to contribute to sustainable medicine prices. See related article by Franzen et al. (Cancer Discov 2022;12:299-302).

Improving the Affordability of Anticancer Medicines Demands Evidence-Based Policy Solutions

he high cost of many new anticancer medicines significantly impedes breakthrough discoveries from reaching patients. A commonly heard refrain is that high prices are necessary to compensate for the high costs of research and development (R&D). Yet, there are promising policy proposals aimed at improving affordability without compromising innovation. In seeking new policy solutions, we argue for a shift away from entrenched opinion toward an evidence-based discourse that is grounded in experiments and real-world pilot studies. We offer a novel perspective and practical recommendations on how empirical evidence could and should be gathered to inform evidence-based policy interventions that lead to sustainable medicine prices in oncology.See related article by Franzen et al. (Cancer Res Commun 2022;2:39-47).

Early Cost Effectiveness of Whole-Genome Sequencing as a Clinical Diagnostic Test for Patients with Inoperable Stage IIIB,C/IV Non-squamous Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbours many genetic aberrations that can be targeted with systemic treatments. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) can simultaneously detect these (and possibly new) molecular targets. However, the exact added clinical value of WGS is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the early cost effectiveness of using WGS in diagnostic strategies compared with currently used molecular diagnostics for patients with inoperable stage IIIB,C/IV non-squamous NSCLC from a Dutch healthcare perspective.

METHODS

A decision tree represented the diagnostic pathway, and a cohort state transition model represented disease progression. Three diagnostic strategies were modelled: standard of care (SoC) alone, WGS as a diagnostic test, and SoC followed by WGS. Treatment effectiveness was based on a systematic review. Probabilistic cost-effectiveness analyses were performed, and threshold analyses (using €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) was used to explore the early cost effectiveness of WGS.

RESULTS

WGS as a diagnostic test resulted in more QALYs (0.002) and costs (€1534 [incremental net monetary benefit -€1349]), and SoC followed by WGS resulted in fewer QALYs (-0.002) and more costs (€1059 [-€1194]) compared with SoC alone. WGS as a diagnostic test was only cost effective if it was priced at €2000 per patient and identified 2.7% more actionable patients than SoC alone. Treating these additional identified patients with new treatments costing >€4069 per month decreased the probability of cost effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that providing WGS as a diagnostic test is cost effective compared with SoC followed by WGS and SoC alone if costs for WGS decrease and additional patients with actionable targets are identified. This cost-effectiveness model can be used to incorporate new findings iteratively and to support ongoing decision making regarding the use of WGS in this rapidly evolving field.

Preferences of Treatment Strategies among Women with Low-Risk DCIS and Oncologists

As ongoing trials study the safety of an active surveillance strategy for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), there is a need to explain why particular choices regarding treatment strategies are made by eligible women as well as their oncologists, what factors enter the decision process, and how much each factor affects their choice. To measure preferences for treatment and surveillance strategies, women with newly-diagnosed, primary low-risk DCIS enrolled in the Dutch CONTROL DCIS Registration and LORD trial, and oncologists participating in the Dutch Health Professionals Study were invited to complete a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The relative importance of treatment strategy-related attributes (locoregional intervention, 10-year risk of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC), and follow-up interval) were discerned using conditional logit models. A total of n = 172 patients and n = 30 oncologists completed the DCE. Patient respondents had very strong preferences for an active surveillance strategy with no surgery, irrespective of the 10-year risk of iIBC. Extensiveness of the locoregional treatment was consistently shown to be an important factor for patients and oncologists in deciding upon treatment strategies. Risk of iIBC was least important to patients and most important to oncologists. There was a stronger inclination toward a twice-yearly follow-up for both groups compared to annual follow-up.

Micro-costing diagnostics in oncology: from single-gene testing to whole- genome sequencing

Purpose: Predictive diagnostics play an increasingly important role in personalized medicine for cancer treatment. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS)-based treatment selection is expected to rapidly increase worldwide. This study aimed to calculate and compare the total cost of currently used diagnostic techniques and of WGS in treatment of non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), melanoma, colorectal cancer (CRC), and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) in the Netherlands.Methods: The activity-based costing (ABC) method was conducted to calculate total cost of included diagnostic techniques based on data provided by Dutch pathology laboratories and the Dutch-centralized cancer WGS facility. Costs were allocated to four categories: capital costs, maintenance costs, software costs, and operational costs.Results: The total cost per cancer patient per technique varied from € 58 (Sanger sequencing, three amplicons) to € 2925 (paired tumor-normal WGS). The operational costs accounted for the vast majority (over 90%) of the total per cancer patient technique costs.Conclusion: This study outlined in detail all costing aspects and cost prices of current and new diagnostic modalities used in treatment of NSCLC, melanoma, CRC, and GIST in the Netherlands. Detailed cost differences and value comparisons between these diagnostic techniques enable future economic evaluations to support decision-making.

Whole genome sequencing in oncology: using scenario drafting to explore future developments

Background

In oncology, Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) is not yet widely implemented due to uncertainties such as the required infrastructure and expertise, costs and reimbursements, and unknown pan-cancer clinical utility. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate possible future developments facilitating or impeding the use of WGS as a molecular diagnostic in oncology through scenario drafting.

Methods

A four-step process was adopted for scenario drafting. First, the literature was searched for barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of WGS. Second, they were prioritized by international experts, and third, combined into coherent scenarios. Fourth, the scenarios were implemented in an online survey and their likelihood of taking place within 5 years was elicited from another group of experts. Based on the minimum, maximum, and most likely (mode) parameters, individual Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) probability density functions were determined. Subsequently, individual opinions were aggregated by performing unweighted linear pooling, from which summary statistics were extracted and reported.

Results

Sixty-two unique barriers and facilitators were extracted from 70 articles. Price, clinical utility, and turnaround time of WGS were ranked as the most important aspects. Nine scenarios were developed and scored on likelihood by 18 experts. The scenario about introducing WGS as a clinical diagnostic with a lower price, shorter turnaround time, and improved degree of actionability, scored the highest likelihood (median: 68.3%). Scenarios with low likelihoods and strong consensus were about better treatment responses to more actionable targets (26.1%), and the effect of centralizing WGS (24.1%).

Conclusions

Based on current expert opinions, the implementation of WGS as a clinical diagnostic in oncology is heavily dependent on the price, clinical utility (both in terms of identifying actionable targets as in adding sufficient value in subsequent treatment), and turnaround time. These aspects and the optimal way of service provision are the main drivers for the implementation of WGS and should be focused on in further research. More knowledge regarding these factors is needed to inform strategic decision making regarding the implementation of WGS, which warrants support from all relevant stakeholders.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08214-8.

Treating (low-risk) DCIS patients: What can we learn from real-world cancer registry evidence?

PURPOSE

Results from active surveillance trials for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) will not be available for > 10 years. A model based on real-world data (RWD) can demonstrate the comparative impact of non-intervention for women with low-risk features.

METHODS

Multi-state models were developed using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) data for three treatment strategies (no local treatment, breast conserving surgery [BCS], BCS + radiotherapy [RT]), and for women with DCIS low-risk features. Eligible cases included women aged ≥ 40 years, diagnosed with primary DCIS between 1992 and 2016. Five mutually exclusive health states were modelled: DCIS, ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC) ≤ 5 years and > 5 years post-DCIS diagnosis, contralateral IBC, death preceded by and death not preceded by IBC. Propensity score-weighted Cox models assessed effects of treatment, age, diagnosis year, grade, ER status, and race.

RESULTS

Data on n = 85,982 women were used. Increased risk of iIBC ≤ 5 years post-DCIS was demonstrated for ages 40-49 (Hazard ratio (HR) 1.86, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.34-2.57 compared to age 50-69), grade 3 lesions (HR 1.42, 95%CI 1.05-1.91) compared to grade 2, lesion size ≥ 2 cm (HR 1.66, 95%CI 1.23-2.25), and Black race (HR 2.52, 95%CI 1.83-3.48 compared to White). According to the multi-state model, propensity score-matched women with low-risk features who had not died or experienced any subsequent breast event by 10 years, had a predicted probability of iIBC as first event of 3.02% for no local treatment, 1.66% for BCS, and 0.42% for BCS+RT.

CONCLUSION

RWD from the SEER registry showed that women with primary DCIS and low-risk features demonstrate minimal differences by treatment strategy in experiencing subsequent breast events. There may be opportunity to de-escalate treatment for certain women with low-risk features: Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women aged 50-69 at diagnosis, with ER+, grade 1 + 2, < 2 cm DCIS lesions.

Study protocol: Whole genome sequencing Implementation in standard Diagnostics for Every cancer patient (WIDE)

BACKGROUND

'Precision oncology' can ensure the best suitable treatment at the right time by tailoring treatment towards individual patient and comprehensive tumour characteristics. In current molecular pathology, diagnostic tests which are part of the standard of care (SOC) only cover a limited part of the spectrum of genomic changes, and often are performed in an iterative way. This occurs at the expense of valuable patient time, available tissue sample, and interferes with 'first time right' treatment decisions. Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) captures a near complete view of genomic characteristics of a tumour in a single test. Moreover, WGS facilitates faster implementation of new treatment relevant biomarkers. At present, WGS mainly has been applied in study settings, but its performance in a routine diagnostic setting remains to be evaluated. The WIDE study aims to investigate the feasibility and validity of WGS-based diagnostics in clinical practice.

METHODS

1200 consecutive patients in a single comprehensive cancer centre with (suspicion of) a metastasized solid tumour will be enrolled with the intention to analyse tumour tissue with WGS, in parallel to SOC diagnostics. Primary endpoints are (1) feasibility of implementation of WGS-based diagnostics into routine clinical care and (2) clinical validation of WGS by comparing identification of treatment-relevant variants between WGS and SOC molecular diagnostics. Secondary endpoints entail (1) added clinical value in terms of additional treatment options and (2) cost-effectiveness of WGS compared to SOC diagnostics through a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) analysis. Furthermore, the (3) perceived impact of WGS-based diagnostics on clinical decision making will be evaluated through questionnaires. The number of patients included in (experimental) therapies initiated based on SOC or WGS diagnostics will be reported with at least 3 months follow-up. The clinical efficacy is beyond the scope of WIDE. Key performance indicators will be evaluated after every 200 patients enrolled, and procedures optimized accordingly, to continuously improve the diagnostic performance of WGS in a routine clinical setting.

DISCUSSION

WIDE will yield the optimal conditions under which WGS can be implemented in a routine molecular diagnostics setting and establish the position of WGS compared to SOC diagnostics in routine clinical care.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of using the heat and moisture exchangers compared with alternative stoma covers in laryngectomy rehabilitation: US perspective

BACKGROUND

This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) vs alternative stoma covers (ASCs) following laryngectomy in the United States.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis were conducted including uncertainty analyses using real-world survey data with pulmonary events and productivity loss.

RESULTS

HME use was more effective and less costly compared with ASCs. Quality-adjusted life years were slightly higher for HME-users. Total costs per patient (lifetime) were $59 362 (HME) and $102 416 (ASC). Pulmonary events and productivity loss occurred more frequently in the ASC-users. Annual budget savings were up to $40 183 593. Costs per pulmonary event averted were $3770.

CONCLUSIONS

HME utilization in laryngectomy patients was cost-effective. Reimbursement of HME devices is thus recommended. Utilities may be underestimated due to the generic utility instrument used and sample size. Therefore, we recommend development of a disease-specific utility tool to incorporate in future analyses.

Cost-Effectiveness of Surgery Versus Organ Preservation in Advanced Laryngeal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

Treatment decision-making for patients with laryngeal cancer consists of a complex trade-off between survival and quality of life. For decision makers on coverage and guidelines, costs come in addition to this equation. Our aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of surgery (laryngectomy with or without radiotherapy) versus organ preservation (OP: radiotherapy, chemo- and/or bioradiation) in advanced laryngeal cancer patients from a healthcare perspective.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model. For each modality, data on survival and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were sourced from relevant articles in agreement with experts, and national benchmark cost prices were included regarding treatment, follow-up, adverse events, and rehabilitation.

RESULTS

Total QALYs of the surgical approach (6.59) were substantially higher compared to the OP approach (5.44). Total lifetime costs were higher for the surgical approach compared to the OP approach, namely €95,881 versus €47,233. The surgical approach was therefore more effective and more costly compared to OP, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €42,383/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Based on current literature, surgical treatment was cost-effective compared to OP in advanced laryngeal cancer within most willingness-to-pay thresholds. The study provides information on the survival adjusted for quality of life in combination with costs of two different approaches for advanced laryngeal cancer, relevant for patients, physicians, and policy makers. As financial toxicity is a relevant aspect in this population, collection of real-world data on country-specific costs and utilities is strongly recommended to enable further generalization.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A. Laryngoscope, 131:E509-E517, 2021.

Design of the PROstate cancer follow-up care in Secondary and Primary hEalth Care study (PROSPEC): a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based follow-up of localized prostate cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

In its 2006 report, From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition, the U.S. Institute of Medicine raised the need for a more coordinated and comprehensive care model for cancer survivors. Given the ever increasing number of cancer survivors, in general, and prostate cancer survivors, in particular, there is a need for a more sustainable model of follow-up care. Currently, patients who have completed primary treatment for localized prostate cancer are often included in a specialist-based follow-up care program. General practitioners already play a key role in providing continuous and comprehensive health care. Studies in breast and colorectal cancer suggest that general practitioners could also consider to provide survivorship care in prostate cancer. However, empirical data are needed to determine whether follow-up care of localized prostate cancer survivors by the general practitioner is a feasible alternative.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority study will compare specialist-based (usual care) versus general practitioner-based (intervention) follow-up care of prostate cancer survivors who have completed primary treatment (prostatectomy or radiotherapy) for localized prostate cancer. Patients are being recruited from hospitals in the Netherlands, and randomly (1:1) allocated to specialist-based (N = 195) or general practitioner-based (N = 195) follow-up care. This trial will evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based follow-up, in comparison to usual care, in terms of adherence to the prostate cancer surveillance guideline for the timing and frequency of prostate-specific antigen assessments, the time from a biochemical recurrence to retreatment decision-making, the management of treatment-related side effects, health-related quality of life, prostate cancer-related anxiety, continuity of care, and cost-effectiveness. The outcome measures will be assessed at randomization (≤6 months after treatment), and 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment.

DISCUSSION

This multicenter, prospective, randomized study will provide empirical evidence regarding the (cost-) effectiveness of specialist-based follow-up care compared to general practitioner-based follow-up care for localized prostate cancer survivors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Registry, Trial NL7068 (NTR7266). Prospectively registered on 11 June 2018.

GERiatric Screening in the treatment of elderly patients with Ovarian Carcinoma (GERSOC): study protocol for a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

Approximately 40% of the newly diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer are aged 70 years or older. Standard treatment for advanced disease consists of cytoreductive surgery and combination chemotherapy. In older patients, standard treatment is often withheld or prematurely stopped due to suspected frailty. It remains challenging to distinguish fit elderly patients who can endure standard therapy from frail patients who may benefit from an adapted treatment strategy. As a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) can contribute to the identification of frail patients and improve tailored therapy in this population, screening tests were developed to select those who may benefit from a CGA. However, the use of these geriatric screening tests has rarely been compared with usual clinical care. The GERSOC-trial will evaluate whether geriatric screening in elderly patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer improves treatment completion and quality of life.

Methods

This pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted at a minimum of 20 hospitals in the Netherlands. Hospitals are randomly assigned to geriatric screening care (in which a geriatric screening comprised of the G8 questionnaire and the Timed Up and Go test is performed), or care as usual (in which current usual care is continued). A total of 320 patients aged ≥ 70 years with primary, advanced-stage ovarian carcinoma will be included. Patients considered fit on geriatric screening will receive standard treatment; patients who are considered unfit will be referred to a geriatrician for analysis and treatment advice. The primary outcome is the percentage difference in completed standard and adapted therapies between the two study arms. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, cost-effectiveness and survival.

Discussion

This trial aims to gather evidence for the use of geriatric screening in treatment decision-making in elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer. If proven feasible, beneficial and cost-effective, geriatric screening may be implemented in routine clinical practice.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Registry, ID: NL6745. Registered on 2 August 2017.

Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-H&N35 to the EQ-5D for head and neck cancer: Can disease-specific utilities be obtained?

Introduction

Innovations in head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment are often subject to economic evaluation prior to their reimbursement and subsequent access for patients. Mapping functions facilitate economic evaluation of new treatments when the required utility data is absent, but quality of life data is available. The objective of this study is to develop a mapping function translating the EORTC QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D-derived utilities for HNC through regression modeling, and to explore the added value of disease-specific EORTC QLQ-H&N35 scales to the model.

Methods

Data was obtained on patients with primary HNC treated with curative intent derived from two hospitals. Model development was conducted in two phases: 1. Predictor selection based on theory- and data-driven methods, resulting in three sets of potential predictors from the quality of life questionnaires; 2. Selection of the best out of four methods: ordinary-least squares, mixed-effects linear, Cox and beta regression, using the first set of predictors from EORTC QLQ-C30 scales with most correspondence to EQ-5D dimensions. Using a stepwise approach, we assessed added values of predictors in the other two sets. Model fit was assessed using Akaike and Bayesian Information Criterion (AIC and BIC) and model performance was evaluated by MAE, RMSE and limits of agreement (LOA).

Results

The beta regression model showed best model fit, with global health status, physical-, role- and emotional functioning and pain scales as predictors. Adding HNC-specific scales did not improve the model. Model performance was reasonable; R² = 0.39, MAE = 0.0949, RMSE = 0.1209, 95% LOA of -0.243 to 0.231 (bias -0.01), with an error correlation of 0.32. The estimated shrinkage factor was 0.90.

Conclusions

Selected scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 can be used to estimate utilities for HNC using beta regression. Including EORTC QLQ-H&N35 scales does not improve the mapping function. The mapping model may serve as a tool to enable cost-effectiveness analyses of innovative HNC treatments, for example for reimbursement issues. Further research should assess the robustness and generalizability of the function by validating the model in an external cohort of HNC patients.

Barriers and facilitators of patient access to medical devices in Europe: A systematic literature review

A large number of medical devices (MDs) is available in Europe. Procedures for market approval and reimbursement have been adopted over recent years to promote accelerating patient access to innovative MDs. However, there remains uncertainty and non-transparency regarding these procedures. We provide a structured overview of market approval and reimbursement procedures and practices regarding access to MDs in the EU. Market approval procedures were found to be uniformly described. Data on reimbursement procedures and practices was both heterogeneous and incomplete. Time to MD access was mainly determined by reimbursement procedures. The influence of the patient on time to access was not reported. Prescription practices varied among device types. Barriers to and facilitators of early patient access that set the agenda for policy implications were also analyzed. Barriers were caused by unclear European legislation, complex market approval procedures, lack of data collection, inconsistency in evidence requirements between countries, regional reimbursement and provision, and factors influencing physicians' prescription including the device costs, waiting times and hospital-physician relationships. Facilitators were: available evidence that meets country-specific requirements for reimbursement, diagnosis-related groups, additional payments and research programs. Further research needs to focus on creating a complete overview of reimbursement procedures and practices by extracting further information from sources such as grey literature and interviews with professionals, and defining clear criteria to objectify time to access.

Treatment With Tumor-infiltrating Lymphocytes in Advanced Melanoma: Evaluation of Early Clinical Implementation of an Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL)-therapy in advanced melanoma is an advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) which, despite promising results, has not been implemented widely. In a European setting, TIL-therapy has been in use since 2011 and is currently being evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. As clinical implementation of ATMPs is challenging, this study aims to evaluate early application of TIL-therapy, through the application of a constructive technology assessment (CTA). First the literature on ATMP barriers and facilitators in clinical translation was summarized. Subsequently, application of TIL-therapy was evaluated through semistructured interviews with 26 stakeholders according to 6 CTA domains: clinical, economic, patient-related, organizational, technical, and future. In addition, treatment costs were estimated. A number of barriers to clinical translation were identified in the literature, including: inadequate financial support, lack of regulatory knowledge, risks in using live tissues, and the complex path to market approval. Innovative reimbursement procedures could particularly facilitate translation. The CTA survey of TIL-therapy acknowledged these barriers, and revealed the following facilitators: the expected effectiveness resulting in institutional support for an internal pilot, the results of which led to the inclusion of TIL-therapy in a national coverage with evidence development program, the availability of an in-house pharmacist, quality assurance expertise and a TIL-skilled technician. Institutional and national implementation of TIL-therapy remains complex. The promising clinical effectiveness is expected to facilitate the adoption of TIL-therapy, especially when validated through a randomized controlled trial. Innovative and conditional reimbursement procedures, together with the organization of knowledge transfer, could support and improve clinical translation of TIL and ATMPs.

Cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for breast cancer survivors with treatment-induced menopausal symptoms

Purpose

Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT), with and without therapist support, is effective in reducing treatment-induced menopausal symptoms and perceived impact of hot flushes and night sweats (HF/NS) in breast cancer survivors. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of both iCBT formats compared to a waiting list control group from the Dutch healthcare perspective.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed with a 5-year time horizon. Costs and health outcomes were measured alongside a randomized controlled clinical trial and included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), overall levels of menopausal symptoms, and perceived impact of HF/NS. Uncertainty was examined using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses, together with a scenario analysis incorporating a different perspective.

Results

iCBT was slightly more expensive than the waiting list control, but also more effective, resulting in incremental cost-utility ratios of €23,331/QALY and €11,277/QALY for the guided and self-managed formats, respectively. A significant reduction in overall levels of menopausal symptoms or perceived impact of HF/NS resulted in incremental costs between €1460 and €1525 for the guided and €500–€753 for the self-managed format. The estimated annual budget impact for the Netherlands was €192,990 for the guided and €74,592 for the self-managed format.

Conclusion

Based on the current trial data, the results indicate that both guided and self-managed iCBT are cost-effective with a willingness-to-pay threshold of well below €30,000/QALY. Additionally, self-managed iCBT is the most cost-effective strategy and has a lower impact on healthcare budgets.

The impact of an online patient decision aid for women with breast cancer considering immediate breast reconstruction: study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background

Most breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy are candidates for breast reconstruction. Deciding about breast reconstruction is complex and the preference-sensitive nature of this decision requires an approach of shared decision making between patient and doctor. Women considering breast reconstruction have expressed a need for decision support. We developed an online patient decision aid (pDA) to support decision making in women considering immediate breast reconstruction. The primary aim of this study is to assess the impact of the pDA in reducing decisional conflict, and more generally, on the decision-making process and the decision quality. Additionally, we will investigate the pDA’s impact on health outcomes, explore predictors, and assess its cost-effectiveness.

Methods

A multicenter, two-armed randomized controlled trial (1:1) will be conducted. Women with breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ who will undergo a mastectomy and are eligible for immediate breast reconstruction will be invited to participate. The intervention group will receive access to the online pDA, whereas the control group will receive a widely available free information leaflet on breast reconstruction. Participants will complete online questionnaires at: baseline (T0), 1 week after consultation with a plastic surgeon (T1), and 3 (T2) and 12 months (T3) after surgery. The primary outcome is decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes include other measures reflecting the decision-making process and decision quality (e.g., decision regret), patient-reported health outcomes (e.g., satisfaction with the breasts) and costs.

Discussion

This study will provide evidence about the impact of an online pDA for women who will undergo mastectomy and are deciding about breast reconstruction. It will contribute to the knowledge on how to optimally support women in making this difficult decision.

Trial registration

This study is retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03791138).

Study protocol of a prospective multicenter study comparing (cost-)effectiveness of a tailored interdisciplinary head and neck rehabilitation program to usual supportive care for patients treated with concomitant chemo- or bioradiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Since 2011, a tailored, interdisciplinary head and neck rehabilitation (IHNR) program, covered by the basic healthcare insurance, is offered to advanced head and neck cancer (HNC) patients in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). This program is developed to preserve or restore patients' functioning, and to optimize health-related quality of life (HRQoL). It applies an integrated approach to define patients' individual goals and provide rehabilitation care throughout the cancer care continuum. The aim of the current study is to assess the (cost-) effectiveness of the IHNR approach compared to usual supportive care (USC) consisting of monodisciplinary and multidisciplinary care in advanced HNC patients.

METHODS

This multicenter prospective observational study is designed to compare (cost-)effectiveness of the IHNR to USC for advanced HNC patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or bioradiotherapy (BRT). The primary outcome is HRQoL represented in the EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score. Functional HRQoL, societal participation, utility values, return to work (RTW), unmet needs (UN), patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes are secondary outcomes, assessed using the EORTC QLQ-H&N35, USER-P, EQ-5D-5 L, and study-specific questionnaires, respectively. Both patient groups (required sample size: 64 per arm) are requested to complete the questionnaires at: diagnosis (baseline; T0), 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2), 9 months (T3) and 12 months (T4) after start of medical treatment. Differences in outcomes between the intervention and control group will be analyzed using mixed effects models, Chi-square test and descriptive statistics. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be performed by means of a Markov decision model. The CEA will be performed using a societal perspective of the Netherlands.

DISCUSSION

This prospective multicenter study will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of IHNR compared to USC. RTW and societal participation, included as secondary outcomes, have not been studied sufficiently yet in cancer rehabilitation. Interdisciplinary rehabilitation has not yet been implemented as usual care in all centers, which offers the opportunity to perform a controlled clinical study. If demonstrated to be (cost-)effective, national provision of the program can probably be advised.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study has been retrospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry on April 24th 2018 ( NTR7140 ).

Cost Effectiveness of Interval Cytoreductive Surgery With Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Stage III Ovarian Cancer on the Basis of a Randomized Phase III Trial

PURPOSE

In the randomized open-label phase III OVHIPEC trial, the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS) improved recurrence-free and overall survival in patients with stage III ovarian cancer. We studied the cost effectiveness of the addition of HIPEC to interval CRS in patients with ovarian cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We constructed a Markov health-state transition model to measure costs and clinical outcomes. Transition probabilities were derived from the OVHIPEC trial by fitting survival distributions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as euros per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), was calculated from a Dutch societal perspective, with a time horizon of 10 years. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the decision uncertainty.

RESULTS

Total health care costs were €70,046 (95% credibility interval [CrI], €64,016 to €76,661) for interval CRS compared with €85,791 (95% CrI, €78,766 to €93,935) for interval CRS plus HIPEC. The mean QALY in the interval CRS group was 2.12 (95% CrI, 1.66 to 2.64 QALYs) and 2.68 (95% CrI, 2.11 to 3.28 QALYs) in the interval CRS plus HIPEC group. The ICER amounted to €28,299/QALY. In univariable sensitivity analysis, the utility of recurrence-free survival and the number of days in the hospital affected the calculated ICER most.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the trial data, treatment with interval CRS and HIPEC in patients with stage III ovarian cancer was accompanied by a substantial gain in QALYs. The ICER is below the willingness-to-pay threshold in the Netherlands, indicating interval CRS and HIPEC is cost effective for this patient population. These results lend additional support for reimbursing the costs of treating these patients with interval CRS and HIPEC in countries with comparable health care systems.

Impact of organ-on-a-chip technology on pharmaceutical R&D costs

Healthcare systems are faced with the challenge of providing innovative treatments, while shouldering high drug costs that pharmaceutical companies justify by the high costs of R&D. An emergent technology that could transform R&D efficiency is organ-on-a-chip. The technology bridges the gap between preclinical testing and human trials through better predictive models, significantly impacting R&D costs. Here, we present an expert survey on the future role of organ-on-a-chip in drug discovery and its potential quantitative impact. We find that the technology has the potential to reduce R&D costs significantly, driven by changes in direct costs, success rates and the length of the R&D process. Finally, we discuss regulatory challenges to efficiency improvements.

Abstract P5-15-08: Economic Impact of MammaPrint (70-gene signature) in a clinical high risk population: A 10yr Markov model, 6,000-patient retrospective analysis of US claim data

Background: MINDACT provided evidence that MammaPrint (MP) can identify patients (pts) with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) who can safely forego adjuvant chemotherapy (CT). As a result, 46% of clinicopathologically high-risk pts were spared from unnecessary CT toxicities. This study investigates direct and indirect costs for pts and payers during ESBC treatment regimens. The study objective was to quantify average cost of care and savings in a clinical high-risk group where the value of CT is unclear, and MP demonstrates economic and clinical impact. Methods: Risk assessment was based on 6,000 MP tests performed on BCBS members (2016-17). CT claims were retrospectively analyzed utilizing a Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) member database (January-December 2016). Case data was restricted to HR+HER2- ESBC and filtered by authorization for the MP test. All CT claims were including, but not limited to standard of care (SOC) systemic drugs such as cyclophosphamide, docetaxel, paclitaxel and doxorubicin. HCPCS codes were utilized to filter member CT claims. Exclusion criteria: &lt;3 SOC CT claims and previous history of BC. A hybrid decision tree-Markov model was used to estimate cost effectiveness of MP compared to modified Adjuvant Online (mAOL) from a US healthcare payer perspective over a 10yr timeframe. Overall, distant metastasis free survival, and test-utility scores were collected from MINDACT for HR+HER2- pts, and costs derived from the BCBS registry and literature (2016 US dollars). Two scenarios were modelled (1) all women classified as high-risk received CT plus endocrine therapy (ET) while low-risk pts received ET; (2) MP guided treatment was modelled based on the IMPACT study (91% MP Low Risk pts received ET and 83% MP High Risk pts received CT). Outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: The majority, 3,540 (59.0%) pts were Low Risk or could safely forgo CT; 2,460 (41.0%) were High Risk. The primary driver for cost differences was whether all services were performed in a physician office ($4.6M) or an outpatient setting ($2M). Including provider settings (inpatient, outpatient, emergency), SOC CT regimens and related services the final average amount authorized was $39,675 per patient. In the first scenario, MP guided treatment was associated with a 0.06 QALY gain (0.05 in scenario 2) compared to mAOL. For cost savings and QALY gain MP was dominant over mAOL in both scenarios. Budget impact analysis estimated cost savings of 88.2- 96.6 million dollars based on BCBS registry data. Given the new cases of BC that are expected to be diagnosed in women in the U.S. annually, pts covered in this population by BCBS (˜30%) and MP eligible cohort (˜36K pts), projected cost savings are estimated at 529.2-644.3 million dollars per annum for the health insurer. Conclusions: CT was associated with significant annual costs from both patient and payer perspectives. As demonstrated in MINDACT, less treatment for some pts is optimal without risk to safety or survival. These findings suggest that MP is cost effective and provides substantial value by sparing pts from toxicities, both therapeutic and financial.

Citation Format: Blumencranz LE, Høst-Ragab A, Retèl VP, Garlich H, Hwang C, Neijenhuis S, Habibi M, Audeh W. Economic Impact of MammaPrint (70-gene signature) in a clinical high risk population: A 10yr Markov model, 6,000-patient retrospective analysis of US claim data [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-15-08.

(Cost-)effectiveness of an internet-based physical activity support program (with and without physiotherapy counselling) on physical activity levels of breast and prostate cancer survivors: design of the PABLO trial

BACKGROUND

Higher levels of physical activity (PA) after treatment are associated with beneficial effects on physical and psychosocial functioning of cancer survivors. However, survivors often do not meet the recommended levels of PA. In order to promote PA, we developed a closed internet-based program. The aim of the study is to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of an internet-based PA-promotion program, alone or combined with physiotherapy counselling, compared to usual care, on PA-levels of breast or prostate cancer survivors. In this multicenter randomised controlled trial (RCT), breast or prostate cancer survivors who completed their primary treatment 3-12 months earlier, will be randomised to either 6-months access to a fully-automated internet-based intervention alone, an internet-based intervention plus remote support by a physiotherapist, or a control group. The intervention is based on the Transtheoretical Model and includes personalized feedback, information, video's and assignments. Additionally, in a second arm, physiotherapy counselling is provided through monthly scheduled and on-demand telephone calls. The control group will receive usual care and a leaflet with PA guidelines.

METHODS

At baseline, 6 and 12 months, the primary outcome (PA) will be measured during 7 consecutive days by accelerometers. Secondary outcomes are self-reported PA, fatigue, mood, health-related quality of life, and costs. The group differences for primary and secondary outcomes will be analyzed using linear mixed models.

DISCUSSION

If proven to be (cost)effective, this internet-based intervention, either alone or in combination with telephone support, will be a welcome addition to previous RCT's.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands trial register (NTR6911), Date of trial registration: December 21, 2017.

Early cost-effectiveness of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) for second line treatment in advanced melanoma: a model-based economic evaluation

Background

An emerging immunotherapy is infusion of tumor infiltrating Lymphocytes (TIL), with objective response rates of around 50% versus 19% for ipilimumab. As an Advanced Therapeutic Medicinal Products (ATMP), TIL is highly personalized and complex therapy. It requests substantial upfront investments from the hospital in: expensive lab-equipment, staff expertise and training, as well as extremely tight hospital logistics. Therefore, an early health economic modelling study, as part of a Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) program, was performed.

Methods

We used a Markov decision model to estimate the expected costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years; QALYs) for TIL versus ipilimumab for second line treatment in metastatic melanoma patients from a Dutch health care perspective over a life long time horizon. Three mutually exclusive health states (stable disease (responders)), progressive disease and death) were modelled. To inform further research prioritization, Value of Information (VOI) analysis was performed.

Results

TIL is expected to generate more QALYs compared to ipilimumab (0.45 versus 0.38 respectively) at lower incremental cost (presently €81,140 versus €94,705 respectively) resulting in a dominant ICER (less costly and more effective). Based on current information TIL is dominating ipilimumab and has a probability of 86% for being cost effective at a cost/QALY threshold of €80,000. The Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) amounted to €3 M.

Conclusions

TIL is expected to have the highest probability of being cost-effective in second line treatment for advanced melanoma compared to ipilimumab. To reduce decision uncertainty, a clinical trial investigating e.g. costs and survival seems most valuable. This is currently being undertaken as part of a CED program in the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with Denmark.

Abstract P4-12-01: MammaPrint is cost-effective compared to clinical risk assessment in early stage breast cancer

Rationale: The 70-gene signature (MammaPrint®, MP) is a prognostic test which guides treatment decisions in patients with early breast cancer. After level 1A evidence for clinical utility of MP has been proven, cost-effectiveness data is important to inform reimbursement.

Research objectives: To compare cost-effectiveness of adding MP to clinical risk assessment versus clinical risk assessment alone for the US and EU. Clinical risk was assessed by Adjuvant Online! (AOL) as described in Cardoso et al. NEJM 2016. We used prospective survival data from the large randomized phase 3 trial 'Microarray In Node-negative and 1 to 3 positive lymph node Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy' (MINDACT).

Methods: We used a Markov decision model to estimate the expected costs and outcomes (quality adjusted life years; QALYs) for MP versus AOL in early breast cancer patients from a payers perspective in the US and a societal perspective in the EU over a 5 year time horizon. Five year breast cancer overall- and distant metastasis free survival was calculated based on the MINDACT population (n=6,693). Utility scores were collected by means of the EuroQol-5D in the pilot phase of MINDACT(the first n=800 MINDACT patients). Cost data were for the US based on published insurance claim data, for the EU on published health care- and societal costs. The cost-effectiveness was calculated for: (1) total early stage breast cancer population, (2) clinical high risk population and (3) clinical high risk group in the ER+/HER2- population. Finally, budget impact for a high-low range of different countries was calculated, as the application and costs of chemotherapy can be highly variable between countries.

Results: For all groups (1,2,and 3) in the US, using MINDACT survival data and insurance claim data, adding MP to AOL saved costs and gained more QALYs compared to AOL alone (total costs per patient $42,223 vs $45,566 and 4.035 vs 4.031 QALYs respectively). Thus, a small difference in quality adjusted life years (0,0041) was observed, whereas a large difference in costs ($3,342) renders MP a highly cost-effective test (less costly & more effective in 64% of the cases). The largest cost-benefit effect was seen for group 3. The cut-off point for MP being cost-effective in the total population (group 1) is when the chemotherapy costs (and consequences) together are above $30,000. In the US, with approximately 250,000 new breast cancer patients per year, and a cost saving of $3,342, annual budget savings are expected to be $836M. Similar results for the Netherlands (15,000 breast cancer patients per year), reveal a cost difference of $300 per patient, and overall annual budget savings are expected to be $4,5M.

Conclusion: Adding MP to clinical risk assessment is highly cost-effective compared to clinical risk assessment alone, based on the MINDACT survival data and US insurance claim data, for all above mentioned groups. When costs for chemotherapy (and consequences) exceed $30,000, MP is cost-effective for the total early breast cancer population. When costs for chemotherapy (and consequences) are below $30,000, the MP is cost-effective for the clinical high risk early breast cancer group. The separate results for EU countries will follow.

Citation Format: Retèl VP, Joore MA, van 't Veer LJ, Cardoso F, Piccart MJ, Rutgers EJ, Tryfonidis K, Poncet C, van Harten WH. MammaPrint is cost-effective compared to clinical risk assessment in early stage breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-12-01.

Early Phase Technology Assessment of Nanotechnology in Oncology

To perform early Technology Assessment (TA) of nanotechnology in oncology. The possibilities of nanotechnology for detection (imaging), diagnosis and treatment of cancer are subject of different research programs where major investments are concerned. As a range of bio- nanotechnologies is expected to enter the oncology field it is relevant to consider the various aspects involved in especially early TA. This article provides two cases of early assessment of (predecessors of) nanotechnologies: Microarray Analysis and Photodynamic Therapy implementation, which methodology can be extrapolated to other nanotechnologies in oncology.

Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) is used for the introduction of technologies that are still in a dynamic phase of development or in an early stage of diffusion. The selection of studied aspects in CTA is based on: clinical aspects (safety, efficacy, and effectiveness), economic (cost-effectiveness), patient related (QoL, ethical/juridical and psychosocial), organizational aspects (diffusion and adoption) and scenario drafting. The features of the technology and the phase of implementation are decisive for choices and timing of the specific aspects to be studied. A framework was drafted to decide on the relevant aspects. In the first case, early implementation of Microarray Analysis; clinical effectiveness, logistics, patient centeredness and scenario drafting were given priority. Related to the diffusion-phase of Photodynamic Therapy however other aspects were evaluated, such as early cost-effectiveness analysis for possible reimbursement. Often CTA will result in a mixed method design. Especially scenario drafting is a powerful instrument to predict possible developments that can be anticipated upon in the assessment.

CTA is appropriate for the study of early implementation of new technologies in oncology. In early TA small series often necessitate a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods. The features of nanotechnology involved are decisive for the selection of CTA aspects, most likely: safety -especially possible interactions with other technologies-, ethics, cost-effectiveness and patient centeredness.

Close cooperation with Health Technology Assessment expertise is crucial for implementation and ultimately reimbursement of innovations in oncology

The Organisation of European Cancer Institutes OECI working group on Health Economics and Cost Benefit in Oncology suggests four actions that are needed to improve alignment and integration between clinicians, researchers, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) experts and agencies: 1) HTA expertise is necessary close to or within the comprehensive cancer centres (CCC); 2) HTA expertise should be physically present throughout the translational research process; 3) Appropriate knowledge is necessary within the research staff; 4) Close cooperation between translational researchers, clinicians, and health economists guarantees clinical ownership.

Fulfilling these conditions may help the translational research field in oncology to interact with agencies and efficiently move innovative technologies through the translational research stages into that of implementation and diffusion. This brings innovative treatments faster to the patient with a greater chance of reimbursement.

Next-generation sequencing in NSCLC and melanoma patients: a cost and budget impact analysis

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has reached the molecular diagnostic laboratories. Although the NGS technology aims to improve the effectiveness of therapies by selecting the most promising therapy, concerns are that NGS testing is expensive and that the ‘benefits’ are not yet in relation to these costs. In this study, we give an estimation of the costs and an institutional and national budget impact of various types of NGS tests in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma patients within The Netherlands. First, an activity-based costing (ABC) analysis has been conducted on the costs of two examples of NGS panels (small- and medium-targeted gene panel (TGP)) based on data of The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). Second, we performed a budget impact analysis (BIA) to estimate the current (2015) and future (2020) budget impact of NGS on molecular diagnostics for NSCLC and melanoma patients in The Netherlands. Literature, expert opinions, and a data set of patients within the NKI (n = 172) have been included in the BIA. Based on our analysis, we expect that the NGS test cost concerns will be limited. In the current situation, NGS can indeed result in higher diagnostic test costs, which is mainly related to required additional tests besides the small TGP. However, in the future, we expect that the use of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) will increase, for which it is expected that additional tests can be (partly) avoided. Although the current clinical benefits are expected to be limited, the research potentials of NGS are already an important advantage.