Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of immunotherapy in metastatic solid tumours in Austria by applying the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) version 1.1.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) treatment is a breakthrough in managing metastatic solid tumours, but its use is associated with a high financial burden for public health care systems. Validated tools such as the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) are frameworks that might help to better assess the clinical benefit of these novel innovative cancer drugs.

Methods

Here, we systematically analysed the number of European Medicines Agency-approved ICIs labels with an ESMO-MCBS grade <4 and the impact of the ICIs on incremental costs, gain of life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in the Austrian population.

Results

Of 23 ICIs treatment settings, we identified three clinical scenarios in metastatic solid cancers with an ESMO-MCBS grade <4 with no otherwise approved alternatives. In triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the addition of first-line atezolizumab increased QALYs by 0.33 compared with nab-paclitaxel only, with an incremental cost per QALY of €143 853. In small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), the addition of first-line atezolizumab increased the QALY by 0.09, with an incremental cost per QALY of €373 256, and the addition of first-line durvalumab increased the QALYs by 0.11, with an incremental cost per QALY of €589 527.

Conclusions

Overall, most of the approved ICIs carry significant clinical benefit (≥4). Although TNBC and SCLC are challenging treatment scenarios, currently approved ICIs with an ESMO-MCBS grade <4 substantially increase the cost of medical treatment, and under a willingness-to-pay threshold of €100 000, they do not have a cost-effective comparative benefit.

SUBMITTER: Pichler M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8253953 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Click here to listen to the Podcast BACKGROUND: Form 1 of the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) serves to grade therapies with curative intent. Hitherto only few trials with curative intent have been field tested using form 1. We aimed to evaluate the applicability of the scale and to assess the reasonableness of the generated scores in early colon cancer, in order to identify shortcomings that may be rectified in future amendments.MethodsAdjuvant studies were identified in PubMed, Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency registration sites, as well as ESMO and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were graded using form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 and field tested by ESMO Colorectal Cancer Faculty. Shortcomings of the scale were identified and evaluated.ResultsEighteen of 57 trials and 7 out of 14 meta-analyses identified met criteria for ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 grading. In stage III colon cancer, randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses of modulated 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) based chemotherapy versus surgery scored ESMO-MCBS grade A and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses comprising oxaliplatin added to this 5-FU backbone showed a more modest additional overall survival benefit (grade A and B). For stage II colon cancer, the findings are less consistent. The fluoropyrimidine trials in stage II were graded 'no evaluable benefit' but the most recent meta-analysis demonstrated a 5.4% survival advantage after 8 years follow-up (grade A). RCTs and a meta-analysis adding oxaliplatin demonstrated no added benefit. Exploratory toxicity evaluation and annotation was problematic given inconsistent toxicity reporting and limited results of late toxicity. Field testers (n=37) reviewed the scores, 25 confirmed their reasonableness, 12 found them mostly reasonable. Moreover, they identified the inability of crediting improved convenience in non-inferiority trials as a shortcoming.ConclusionForm 1 of the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 provided very reasonable grading for adjuvant colon cancer studies.

Project description:Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a hereditary tumor that exhibits autosomal dominant inheritance. LFS develops in individuals with a pathogenic germline variant of the cancer-suppressor gene, TP53 (individuals with TP53 pathogenic variant). The number of individuals with TP53 pathogenic variant among the general population is said to be 1 in 500 to 20,000. Meanwhile, it is found in 1.6% (median value, range of 0-6.7%) of patients with pediatric cancer and 0.2% of adult patients with cancer. LFS is diagnosed by the presence of germline TP53 pathogenic variants. However, patients can still be diagnosed with LFS even in the absence of a TP53 pathogenic variant if the familial history of cancers fit the classic LFS diagnostic criteria. It is recommended that TP53 genetic testing be promptly performed if LFS is suspected. Chompret criteria are widely used for the TP53 genetic test. However, as there are a certain number of cases of LFS that do not fit the criteria, if LFS is suspected, TP53 genetic testing should be performed regardless of the criteria. The probability of individuals with TP53 pathogenic variant developing cancer in their lifetime (penetrance) is 75% for men and almost 100% for women. The LFS core tumors (breast cancer, osteosarcoma, soft tissue sarcoma, brain tumor, and adrenocortical cancer) constitute the majority of cases; however, various types of cancers, such as hematological malignancy, epithelial cancer, and pediatric cancers, such as neuroblastoma, can also develop. Furthermore, approximately half of the cases develop simultaneous or metachronous multiple cancers. The types of TP53 pathogenic variants and factors that modify the functions of TP53 have an impact on the clinical presentation, although there are currently no definitive findings. There is currently no cancer preventive agent for individuals with TP53 pathogenic variant. Surgical treatments, such as risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy warrant further investigation. Theoretically, exposure to radiation could induce the onset of secondary cancer; therefore, imaging and treatments that use radiation should be avoided as much as possible. As a method to follow-up LFS, routine cancer surveillance comprising whole-body MRI scan, brain MRI scan, breast MRI scan, and abdominal ultrasonography (US) should be performed immediately after the diagnosis. However, the effectiveness of this surveillance is unknown, and there are problems, such as adverse events associated with a high rate of false positives, overdiagnosis, and sedation used during imaging as well as negative psychological impact. The detection rate of cancer through cancer surveillance is extremely high. Many cases are detected at an early stage, and treatments are low intensity; thus, cancer surveillance could contribute to an improvement in QOL, or at least, a reduction in complications associated with treatment. With the widespread use of genomic medicine, the diagnosis of LFS is unavoidable, and a comprehensive medical care system for LFS is necessary. Therefore, clinical trials that verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the program, comprising LFS registry, genetic counseling, and cancer surveillance, need to be prepared.

Project description:ImportanceRecently, anticancer agents have generated excitement owing to their capacity to preserve long-term durable survival in some patients who are represented by a tail of the survival curve. However, because traditional measures of clinical benefit may not accurately capture durable survival, amendments to various valuation frameworks have been proposed to capture this benefit.ObjectivesTo determine how frequently immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) anticancer agents vs non-ICI anticancer agents displayed trends of long-term durable survival, as defined by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2 (ASCO-VF v2) and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1), as well as to further analyze the degree of agreement between ASCO and ESMO frameworks.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cohort study, anticancer agents from phase 2 or 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) cited for clinical efficacy evidence in drug approval by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 2011 and March 2018 were identified. Data required for the ASCO-VF v2 tail-of-the-curve bonus and the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 immunotherapy-triggered long-term plateau adjustments were extracted from relevant RCTs. Frequency and difference in proportions were calculated to determine how often survival benefits were awarded to anticancer agents overall and to ICI and non-ICI anticancer agents individually.Main outcomes and measuresAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework v2 tail-of-the-curve bonuses and ESMO-MCBS v1.1 immunotherapy-triggered long-term plateau adjustments.ResultsIn total, 247 RCTs were identified, and 100 RCTs involving 57 164 patients were included, with 14 examining ICI agents (1 ipilimumab, 5 pembrolizumab, 5 nivolumab, 2 atezolizumab, and 1 durvalumab) and 86 examining non-ICI agents (74 targeted therapy, 8 chemotherapy, 3 hormone therapy, and 1 radiopharmaceutical). Randomized clinical trials were awarded ASCO-VF v2 tail-of-the-curve bonuses more often than ESMO-MCBS v1.1 immunotherapy-triggered long-term plateau adjustments (ASCO-VF v2, 45.0% [8 of 14 ICI RCTs and 37 of 86 non-ICI RCTs] vs ESMO-MCBS v1.1, 2.6% [1 of 12 ICI RCTs and 1 of 66 non-ICI RCTs). Randomized clinical trials for ICIs were not more likely to receive an ASCO-VF v2 bonus or ESMO-MCBS v1.1 adjustment than non-ICI RCTs (ASCO-VF: risk difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.42; P = .32; ESMO-MCBS: risk difference, 0.07; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.23; P = .40). Poor agreement was found between the framework algorithms in identifying long-term survival benefits from RCTs (κ = 0.01; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.22; P = .50).Conclusions and relevanceThe ASCO-VF v2 and ESMO-MCBS v1.1 may require additional refinement to accurately capture the benefit of durable long-term survival, or ICI agents may not preserve long-term survival as conventionally thought.

Project description:BackgroundPrecision and matched cancer medicine has the potential to complement the existing biomarker approaches in cancer treatment. However, despite their promising potential, certain negative results have highlighted their limitations in molecular biology-driven treatment strategies. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical benefits of precision therapies.Materials and methodsThree reviewers independently identified and assessed precision and matched cancer treatment studies published between January 2015 and December 2020. Clinical benefits of the treatments included in our cohort were assessed using two established frameworks; the European Society of Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework.ResultsOf the 290 eligible studies, 130 were for lung cancer, 51 for solid tumors, 24 for melanoma, and 24 for breast cancer. The common targets were: epidermal growth factor receptor (N = 66), serine/threonine-protein kinase B-Raf (N = 40), anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) (N = 34), breast cancer protein (N = 26), phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase/protein kinase B/phosphatase and tensin homolog (PI3K/AKT/PTEN) pathway (N = 19), receptor tyrosine-protein kinase erbB-2 (HER2) (N = 19), mitogen-activated protein kinase (RAS/RAF/MAPK) pathway (N = 18), programmed death-ligand 1 (N = 12), fibroblast growth factor receptor (N = 8), and others (N = 43). The ESMO-MCBS scales ranged from 0 to 4. Based on the clinical benefit values, tumor mutational burden/mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high for immunotherapy, anaplastic lymphoma kinase, and neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase therapeutic targets were considered high, whereas RAS/RAF/MAPK and PI3K/AKT/PTEN were considered low. Additionally, we found a significant difference between each average score (P < 0.001).ConclusionsThis study showed that precision and matched cancer therapies require further improvement. This is consistent with the views of the tumor board and of clinicians that precision strategies need to be revised to improve their therapeutic effects.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of next-generation sequencing technologies has enabled the rapid identification of non-synonymous somatic mutations in cancer cells. Neoantigens are mutated peptides derived from somatic mutations not present in normal tissues that may result in the presentation of tumour-specific peptides capable of eliciting antitumour T-cell responses. Personalised neoantigen-based cancer vaccines and adoptive T-cell therapies have been shown to prime host immunity against tumour cells and are under clinical trial development. However, the optimisation and standardisation of neoantigen identification, as well as its delivery as immunotherapy are needed to increase tumour-specific T-cell responses and, thus, the clinical efficacy of current cancer immunotherapies.MethodsIn this recommendation article, launched by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), we outline and discuss the available framework for neoantigen prediction and present a systematic review of the current scientific evidence.ResultsA number of computational pipelines for neoantigen prediction are available. Most of them provide peptide major histocompatibility complex (MHC) binding affinity predictions, but more recent approaches incorporate additional features like variant allele fraction, gene expression, and clonality of mutations. Neoantigens can be predicted in all cancer types with high and low tumour mutation burden, in part by exploiting tumour-specific aberrations derived from mutational frameshifts, splice variants, gene fusions, endogenous retroelements and other tumour-specific processes that could yield more potently immunogenic tumour neoantigens. Ongoing clinical trials will highlight those cancer types and combinations of immune therapies that would derive the most benefit from neoantigen-based immunotherapies.ConclusionsImproved identification, selection and prioritisation of tumour-specific neoantigens are needed to increase the scope of benefit from cancer vaccines and adoptive T-cell therapies. Novel pipelines are being developed to resolve the challenges posed by high-throughput sequencing and to predict immunogenic neoantigens.