Comparative Effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX Versus Gemcitabine and Nab-paclitaxel in Initially Unresectable Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Population-based Study to Assess Subsequent Surgical Resection and Overall Survival

AIMS

First-line FOLFIRINOX (FOLinic acid, Fluorouracil, IRINotecan, and OXaliplatin) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been publicly funded for patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (uLAPC) in Ontario, Canada. We examined the overall survival and surgical resection rate after first-line FOLFIRINOX or GnP and determined the association between resection and overall survival in patients with uLAPC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective population-based study including patients with uLAPC who received first-line treatment FOLFIRINOX or GnP from April 2015 to March 2019. The cohort was linked to administrative databases to ascertain demographic and clinical characteristics. Propensity score methods were used to balance differences between FOLFIRINOX and GnP. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate overall survival. Cox regression was used to determine the association between receipt of treatment and overall survival, adjusting for time-dependent surgical resections.

RESULTS

We identified 723 patients with uLAPC (mean age = 65.8, 43.5% female) who received FOLFIRINOX (55.2%) or GnP (44.8%). The median overall survival and 1-year overall survival probability were higher for FOLFIRINOX (13.7 months, 54.6%) than for GnP (8.7 months, 34.0%). Post-chemotherapy surgical resection occurred in 89 (12.3%) patients (FOLFIRINOX: 74 [18.5%] versus GnP: 15 [4.6%]), with no difference in survival since surgery between FOLFIRINOX and GnP (P = 0.29). After adjusting time-dependent post-treatment surgical resection, FOLFIRINOX (inverse probability treatment weighting hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.61, 0.84) was independently associated with improved overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world population-based study of patients with uLAPC, FOLFIRINOX was associated with improved survival and higher resection rates. FOLFIRINOX was associated with improved survival in patients with uLAPC after accounting for the effect of post-chemotherapy surgical resection, suggesting the benefit of FOLFIRINOX was not solely due to improving resectability.

Real-world Safety of Bevacizumab with First-line Combination Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Population-based Retrospective Cohort Studies in Three Canadian Provinces

AIMS

To examine the real-world safety of adding bevacizumab to first-line irinotecan-based chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed with CRC in three Canadian provinces (Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia) who received publicly funded bevacizumab and/or irinotecan from 2000 to 2016 were identified from cancer registries. Propensity score 1:1 matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were performed to contemporaneous and historical controls, adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Safety end points evaluated during first-line treatment plus 30 days included mortality within 30 days and all-cause-, chemotherapy- and bevacizumab-related hospitalisations. Chemotherapy- and bevacizumab-related visits were defined as hospitalisations for specific conditions commonly associated with chemotherapy (e.g. infections) or bevacizumab (e.g. arteriovenous thromboembolism) using most responsible diagnosis codes. In PSM and IPTW-weighted cohorts, we assessed event frequencies using odds ratios from logistic regressions and event rate ratios using negative binomial regression models. The results from each province and comparison were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 16 250 mCRC patients who received first-line irinotecan-based treatment. In PSM cohorts, bevacizumab was associated with fewer deaths within 30 days of treatment compared with contemporaneous (pooled odds ratio = 0.62; 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.75) and historical controls (pooled odds ratio = 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.93). Hospitalisations were more frequent among patients treated with bevacizumab compared with historical controls but similar to contemporaneous controls. As patients receiving bevacizumab were exposed to a longer average treatment duration, across their full treatment duration, patients receiving bevacizumab had significantly lower rates of hospitalisations (contemporaneous pooled rate ratio = 0.56; 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.67; historical pooled rate ratio = 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.95). Similar trends were observed for chemotherapy- and bevacizumab-related hospitalisations and in IPTW-weighted cohorts.

DISCUSSION

We did not observe any increase in rates of hospitalisation or death within 30 days of treatment among mCRC patients treated with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone; these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the risk of residual confounding.

Impact of a novel prioritization framework on clinician-led oncology drug submissions

Background

In Canada, requests for public reimbursement of cancer drugs are predominately initiated by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Clinician-led submissions provide a mechanism to initiate the drug funding process when industry does not submit a request for funding consideration. Although such requests are resource-intensive to produce, Cancer Care Ontario (cco) has the capacity to facilitate clinician-led submissions. In 2014, cco began developing a cancer drug prioritization framework that allocates resources to systematically address a growing number of clinician-identified funding gaps with clinician-led submissions.

Methods

Cancer site-specific drug advisory committees established by cco consist of health care practitioners whose roles include identifying and prioritizing funding gaps. The committees submit their identified gaps to a cross-cancer-site prioritization exercise in which the requests are ranked based on a set of guiding principles derived from health technology assessment. The requests are then sequentially allocated the resources needed to meet submission requirements. Whether the funding gap is of provincial or pan-Canadian relevance determines where the submission is filed for assessment.

Results

Since its inception, the cco framework has identified 17 funding gaps in 9 cancer sites. In 4 prioritizations, the framework supported 6 submissions. As of June 2018, the framework had contributed to the eventual funding of more than 9 new drug-indication pairs, with more awaiting funding consideration.

Conclusions

The cco prioritization framework has enabled clinicians to effectively and systematically identify, prioritize, and fill funding gaps not addressed by industry. Ultimately, the framework helps to ensure that patients can access evidence-informed and cost-effective therapies. The framework will continue to evolve as it encounters new challenges, including funding requests for rare indications.

International variability in the reimbursement of cancer drugs by publically funded drug programs

PURPOSE

Evaluate inter-country variability in the reimbursement of publically funded cancer drugs, and identify factors such as cost containment measures that may contribute to variability.

METHODS

As of February 28, 2010, licensed indications for 10 cancer drugs (bevacizumab, bortezomib, cetuximab, erlotinib, imatinib, pemetrexed, rituximab, sorafenib, sunitinib, and trastuzumab) were obtained from the drug registries of 6 licensing authorities corresponding to 13 countries or regions: Australia, Canada (Ontario), England, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States (Medicare Parts B and D). Number of licensed indications reimbursed by public payers and the use of cost containment measures were obtained by survey of health authorities involved in reimbursement and through public documents.

RESULTS

The 48 identified licensed indications varied between agencies (range: 36-44 indications). Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, and the United States reimbursed the highest percentage of indications (range: 90%-100%). Canada (54%), Australia (46%), Scotland (40%), England (38%), and New Zealand (25%) reimbursed the least. All 5 countries with the lowest rate of reimbursement incorporated a cost-effectiveness analysis into reimbursement decisions and rejected submissions for reimbursement mainly because of lack of cost effectiveness; in New Zealand, lack of cost effectiveness was the second leading cause of rejection after excessive cost. In 9 countries, risk-sharing agreements were used to contain costs. Indications initially not recommended for reimbursement (9 in Australia, 5 in Canada, and 3 in England, New Zealand, and Scotland) were subsequently approved with risk-sharing agreements or special pricing arrangements.

CONCLUSIONS

Reimbursement of publically funded cancer drugs varies globally. The cause is multifactorial.