Search

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration developed an MCDA rating tool to assess and prioritize potential post-market real-world evidence (RWE) questions/uncertainties emerging from public drug funding decisions in Canada. In collaboration with a group of multidisciplinary stakeholders from across Canada, the rating tool was developed following a three-step process: (1) selection of criteria to assess the importance and feasibility of an RWE question; (2) development of rating scales, application of weights and calculating aggregate scores; and (3) validation testing. An initial MCDA rating tool was developed, composed of seven criteria, divided into two groups. Group A criteria assess the importance of an RWE question by examining the (1) drug’s perceived clinical benefit, (2) magnitude of uncertainty identified, and (3) relevance of the uncertainty to decision-makers. Group B criteria assess the feasibility of conducting an RWE analysis including the (1) feasibility of identifying a comparator, (2) ability to identify cases, (3) availability of comprehensive data, and (4) availability of necessary expertise and methodology. Future directions include partnering with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health’s Provincial Advisory Group for further tool refinement and to gain insight into incorporating the tool into drug funding deliberations.

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration was established to develop a framework for generating and using real-world evidence (RWE) to inform the reassessment of cancer drugs following initial health technology assessment (HTA). The Reassessment and Uptake Working Group (RWG) is one of the five established CanREValue Working Groups. The RWG aims to develop considerations for incorporating RWE for HTA reassessment and strategies for using RWE to reassess drug funding decisions. Between February 2018 and December 2019, the RWG attended four teleconferences (with follow-up surveys) and two in-person meetings to discuss recommendations for the development of a reassessment process and potential barriers and facilitators. Modified Delphi methods were used to gather input. A draft report of recommendations (to December 2018) was shared for public consultation (December 2019 to January 2020). Initial considerations for developing a reassessment process were proposed. Specifically, reassessment can be initiated by diverse stakeholders, including decision makers from public drug plans or industry stakeholders. The reassessment process should be modelled after existing deliberation and recommendation frameworks used by HTA agencies. Proposed reassessment outcome categories include maintaining status quo, revisiting funding criteria, renegotiating price, or disinvesting. Overall, these initial considerations will serve as the basis for future advancements by the Collaboration.

ObjectivesThe pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) evaluates new cancer drugs for public funding recommendations. While pCODR's deliberative framework evaluates overall clinical benefit and includes considerations for exceptional circumstances, rarity of indication is not explicitly addressed. Given the high unmet need that typically accompanies these indications, we explored the impact of rarity on oncology HTA recommendations and funding decisions.MethodsWe examined pCODR submissions with final recommendations from 2012 to 2017. Incidence rates were calculated using pCODR recommendation reports and statistics from the Canadian Cancer Society. Indications were classified as rare if the incidence rate was lower than 1/100,000 diagnoses, a definition referenced by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Each pCODR final report was examined for the funding recommendation/justification, level of supporting evidence (presence of a randomized control trial [RCT]), and time to funding (if applicable).ResultsOf the ninety-six pCODR reviews examined, 16.6 percent were classified as rare indications per above criteria. While the frequency of positive funding recommendations were similar between rare and nonrare indication (78.6 vs. 75 percent), rare indications were less likely to be presented with evidence from RCT (50 vs. 90 percent). The average time to funding did not differ significantly across provinces.ConclusionRare indications appear to be associated with weaker clinical evidence. There appears to be no association between rarity, positive funding recommendations, and time to funding. Further work will evaluate factors associated with positive recommendations and the real-world utilization of funded treatments for rare indications.

Background Although increasing evidence has suggested that an efficacy-effectiveness gap exists between clinical trial (CT) and real-world evidence (RWE), to the authors' knowledge, the magnitude of this difference remains undercharacterized. The objective of the current study was to quantify the magnitude of survival and toxicity differences between CT and RWE for contemporary cancer systemic therapies. Methods Patients receiving cancer therapies funded under Cancer Care Ontario's New Drug Funding Program (NDFP) were identified. Landmark CTs with data regarding survival and adverse events (AEs) for each drug indication were identified. RWE for survival and hospitalization rates during treatment were ascertained through Canadian population-based databases. The efficacy-effectiveness gap for each drug indication was calculated as the difference between RWE and CT data for median overall survival (OS), 1-year OS, and generated hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs from Kaplan-Meier OS curves. Toxicity differences were calculated as the difference between RWE of hospitalization rates and CT serious AE rates. Results Twenty-nine indications from 20 systemic therapies were included. Twenty-eight of 29 indications (97%) demonstrated worse survival in RWE, with a median OS difference of 5.2 months (interquartile range, 3.0-12.1 months). Lower effectiveness in RWE also was demonstrated through a meta-analysis of an OS hazard ratio of 1.58 (95% CI, 1.39-1.80). The median difference between RWE for hospitalization rates and CT serious AEs was 14% (95% CI, 9%-22%). Conclusions An efficacy-effectiveness gap exists for contemporary cancer systemic therapies, with a 5.2-month lower median OS observed in RWE compared with CT data. These data supports the use of RWE to better inform real-world decision making regarding the use of cancer systemic therapies.

Introduction While no direct comparative data exist for crizotinib in ROS1+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), studies have suggested clinical benefit with this targeted agent. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of crizotinib compared to standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy for first-line treatment of ROS1+ advanced NSCLC. Methods A Markov model was developed with a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of the Canadian publicly-funded health care system. Health states included progression-free survival (PFS), up to two further lines of therapy post-progression, palliation and death. Given a lack of comparative data and small study samples, crizotinib or chemotherapy studies with advanced ROS1+ NSCLC patients were identified and time-to-event data from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves were collected to pool PFS data. Costs of drugs, treatment administration, monitoring, adverse events and palliative care were included in 2018 Canadian dollars, with 1.5% discounting. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated probabilistically using 5000 simulations. Results In the base-case probabilistic analysis, crizotinib produced additional 0.885 life-years and 0.772 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $238,077, producing an ICER of $273,286/QALY gained. No simulations were found to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained. A scenario analysis assuming efficacy equivalent to the ALK+ NSCLC population showed a slightly more favorable cost-effectiveness profile for crizotinib. Conclusions Available data appear to support superior activity of crizotinib compared to chemotherapy in ROS1+ advanced NSCLC. At the list price, crizotinib was not cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds across a wide range of sensitivity analyses.

Background Advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) patients often have substantial symptom burden. In Ontario, patients routinely complete the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), which screens for nine symptoms (scale: 0‐10), in cancer clinics. We explored the association between baseline patient‐reported outcomes, via ESAS, and overall survival (OS). Methods Advanced pancreatic cancer patients with ESAS records prior to receiving publicly funded drugs from November 2008 to March 2016 were retrospectively identified from Cancer Care Ontario's administrative databases. We examined three composite ESAS scores: total symptom distress score (TSDS: 9 symptoms), physical symptom score (PHS: 6/9 symptoms), and psychological symptom score (PSS: 2/9 symptoms); Composite scores greater than defined thresholds (TSDS ≥36, PHS ≥24, PSS ≥8) were considered as high symptom burden. Crude OS was assessed using Kaplan‐Meier method. Hazard ratios (HRs) were assessed using multivariable Cox models. Analysis was repeated in a sub‐cohort with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status and metastasis. Results We identified 2199 APC patients (mean age 64 years, 55% male) with ESAS records prior to receiving chemotherapy. Crude median survival was 4.5 and 7.3 months for high and low TSDS, respectively. High TSDS was associated with lower OS (HR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.33, 1.63). In the sub‐cohort (n = 393) with ECOG status and metastasis, high TSDS was also associated with lower OS (HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.73). Similar trends were observed for PHS and PSS. Conclusions Higher burden of patient‐reported outcome was associated with reduced OS among APC patients. The effect was prominent after adjusting for ECOG status., In a cohort of advanced pancreatic cancer patients, we observed that higher burden of patient‐reported symptoms at baseline is associated with reduced overall survival. The association remained significant after accounting for performance status and type of treatment.

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.

Cabazitaxel is used to treat patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. It is prepackaged in 60 mg single-dose vials, a quantity much higher than the average prescribed dose, which leads to, substantial drug wastage (DW) and associated costs. To minimize DW we implemented a cost-saving, cohorting strategy where multiple patients scheduled to receive cabazitaxel (at a dose of 20mg/m2 every 3 wks) were cohorted and treated on a single weekday whenever possible. Excess drug from each vial was then saved and used for subsequent patients treated on the same day. The drug cost with cohorting was calculated from the actual number of vials used, and the drug cost without cohorting was estimated by assumingthat one vial was used per treatment. The cost of DW was determined based on the amount of drug that was discarded. All cost calculations also accounted for the discount incentives offered by Sanofi-Aventis. Over a 3-yr period, 74 patients received 402 treatments of cabazitaxel. Multiple patients were treated on 67.4% of the treatment days, and grouping of three patients on one day saved one vial. The estimated total drug cost saved was $394 536 CAD (21.1%). Pending further studies on safety and efficacy, this strategy could potentially be adopted to mitigate DW for cabazitaxel and similarly for other oncology drugs. This would significantly decrease the overall financial burden on patients, institutions, and stakeholders. PATIENT SUMMARY: Cabazitaxel chemotherapy is associated with substantial drug wastage and associated costs. By cohorting patients scheduled to receive cabazitaxel on a single weekday, the total drug cost was decreased by $394 536 CAD (21.1%) over a 3-yr period. Similar strategies could be considered to overcome the prohibitory costs associated with drug wastage for cabazitaxel and other cancer drugs.

Background For novel cancer treatments, effectiveness in clinical practice is not always aligned with clinical efficacy results. As such it is important to understand a treatment’s real-world effectiveness. We examined real-world population-based comparative effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab versus non-ipilimumab treatments (chemotherapy or targeted treatments). Methods We used a cohort of melanoma patients receiving systemic treatment for advanced disease since April 2005 from Ontario, Canada. Patients were identified from provincial drug databases and the Ontario Cancer Registry who received second-line ipilimumab from 2012 to 2015 (treated) or second-line non-ipilimumab treatment prior to 2012 (historical controls). Historical controls were chosen, to permit the most direct comparison to pivotal trial findings. The cohort was linked to administrative databases to identify baseline characteristics and outcomes. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess overall survival (OS). Observed potential confounders were adjusted for using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results We identified 329 patients with metastatic melanoma (MM) who had received second-line treatments (189 treated; 140 controls). Patients receiving second-line ipilimumab were older (61.7 years vs 55.2 years) compared to historical controls. Median OS were 6.9 (95% CI: 5.4–8.3) and 4.95 (4.3–6.0) months for ipilimumab and controls, respectively. The crude 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year OS probabilities were 34.3% (27–41%), 20.6% (15–27%), and 15.2% (9.6–21%) for ipilimumab and 17.1% (11–23%), 7.1% (2.9–11%), and 4.7% (1.2–8.2%) for controls. Ipilimumab was associated with improved OS (IPTW HR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.49–0.78; p Conclusions This real-world analysis suggests second-line ipilimumab is associated with an improvement in OS for MM patients in routine practice.

Key Points Question Are drug-funding reimbursement decisions associated with uptake of new therapies and survival outcomes for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer? Findings In this population-based cohort study of 5465 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy within a universal health care system, reimbursement decisions were associated with uptake of new treatment options over time. Uptake of both FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine combined with nab-paclitaxel were associated with improvements in survival for patients with pancreatic cancer. Meaning These findings suggest that drug-funding reimbursement decisions are associated with uptake of new cancer therapies and improvements in survival for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer., This cohort study investigates whether there is an association of sequential drug-funding approvals and overall survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer., Importance Gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel (GEMNAB) and fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) both improve survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer when compared with single-agent gemcitabine in clinical trials. Objective To describe changes in the survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer associated with sequential drug-funding approvals and to determine if there exist distinct patient populations for whom GEMNAB and FOLFIRINOX are associated with survival benefit. Design, Setting, and Participants This population-based, retrospective cohort study examined all incident cases of advanced pancreatic cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada (2008-2018) that were identified from the Cancer Care Ontario (Ontario Health) New Drug Funding Program database. Statistical analysis was performed from October 2020 to January 2021. Exposures First-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcomes were the proportion of patients treated with each chemotherapy regimen over time and overall survival for each regimen. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare overall survival between treatment regimens after adjustment for confounding variables, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and matching. Results From 2008 to 2018, 5465 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada. The median (range) age of patients was 66.9 (27.8-93.4) years; 2447 (45%) were female; 878 (16%) had prior pancreatic resection, and 328 (6%) had prior adjuvant gemcitabine. During the time period when only gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX were funded (2011-2015), 49% (929 of 1887) received FOLFIRINOX. When GEMNAB was subsequently funded (2015-2018), 9% (206 of 2347) received gemcitabine, 44% (1034 of 2347) received FOLFIRINOX, and 47% (1107 of 2347) received GEMNAB. The median overall survival increased from 5.6 months (95% CI, 5.1-6.0 months) in 2008 to 2011 to 6.9 months (95% CI, 6.5-7.4 months) in 2011 to 2015 to 7.6 months (95% CI, 7.1-8.0 months) in 2015 to 2018. Patients receiving FOLFIRINOX were younger and healthier than patients receiving GEMNAB. After adjustment and weighting, FOLFIRINOX was associated with better overall survival than GEMNAB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69-0.81]). In analyses comparing patients treated with GEMNAB and gemcitabine, GEMNAB was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78-0.94]). Conclusions and Relevance This cohort study of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving first-line palliative chemotherapy within a universal health care system found that drug funding decisions were associated with increased uptake of new treatment options over time and improved survival. Both FOLFIRINOX and GEMNAB were associated with survival benefits in distinct patient populations.

In evaluating new oncology medicines, two common modeling approaches are state transition (e.g., Markov and semi-Markov) and partitioned survival. Partitioned survival models have become more prominent in oncology health technology assessment processes in recent years. Our experience in conducting and evaluating models for economic evaluation has highlighted many important and practical pitfalls. As there is little guidance available on best practices for those who wish to conduct them, we provide guidance in the form of 'Key steps for busy analysts,' who may have very little time and require highly favorable results. Our guidance highlights the continued need for rigorous conduct and transparent reporting of economic evaluations regardless of the modeling approach taken, and the importance of modeling that better reflects reality, which includes better approaches to considering plausibility, estimating relative treatment effects, dealing with post-progression effects, and appropriate characterization of the uncertainty from modeling itself.

The International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group-32 (IELSG32) randomized patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) for induction treatment with methotrexate-cytarabine, methotrexate-cytarabine-rituximab, or methotrexate-cytarabine-thiotepa-rituximab (MATRix) and reported significantly improved complete remission with the MATRix regimen. This study assessed cost-effectiveness among these three induction strategies for PCNSL. A Markov model was developed based on the IELSG32 trial over a 20 year time horizon from the Canadian health care system perspective. Costs for induction, consolidation, inpatient treatment administration, follow-up, adverse events, relapsed disease, and palliative care were included. Methotrexate-cytarabine-rituximab was subject to extended dominance by the other two strategies. The MATRix regimen compared to methotrexate-cytarabine produced 3.05 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains at added costs of $75,513, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $24,758/QALY gained. The MATRix regimen was the optimal strategy in the majority of simulations (98% probability at willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALY gained) and results appeared robust across sensitivity analyses.

The aim of this study was to use Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software to fit parametric survival distributions. We also explain the differences between individual patient data (IPD) and survival data reconstructed in Excel and SAS. Three sets of patient data on overall survival were compared using different methods: ‘original’ IPD, ‘reconstructed SAS’, and ‘reconstructed Excel’. The best-fit distribution was selected using visual observation, supported by linear plots of predicted probabilities, goodness-of-fit coefficients, and the sum of squared error of prediction. Outcomes included the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net benefit (INB), incremental cost, and life-years gained over short-term and lifetime horizons. These were compared for different data sets. In this example, log-normal, log-logistic, and Weibull distributions showed best-fit with the visual tests and goodness-of-fit statistics. Weibull and exponential distributions showed significant differences compared with IPD data. Data on short-term (5 years) time horizons produced by different data re-creation methods showed closeness with data reconstructed from SAS. The ICER and INB results were dependent on the time horizon and selected parametric distribution from the model. Different approaches used in fitting parametric survival distributions yielded predicted probabilities that substantially differed from those using original IPD. Our study highlights the importance of following guidelines for economic evaluations with a systematic approach to parametric survival analysis techniques in order to select best fitting parametric survival distributions.

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. Cancer site&ndash, 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. 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&ndash, indication pairs, with more awaiting funding consideration. 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.

1048 Background: Addition of P to T+chemo for MBC pts has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) in a pivotal randomized trial (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.84) (Baselga et al., NEJM 2012). In Canada, the manufacturer submission to the health technology assessment agency estimated that P produced 0.64 life years gained (LYG) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $187,376/LYG over 10 years (CADTH-pCODR, 2013). This retrospective cohort analysis aims to determine the comparative real-world population-based effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of P among MBC pts in Ontario, Canada. Methods: MBC pts were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked to the New Drug Funding Program database to identify receipt of treatment between 1/1/2008 and 3/31/2018. Cases received P-T-chemo after universal public funding of P (Nov 2013) and controls received T-chemo before. Demographic (age, socioeconomic, rurality) and clinical (comorbidities, prior adjuvant treatments, prior breast cancer surgery, prior radiation, stage at diagnosis, ER/PR status) characteristics were identified from linked admin databases balanced between cases and controls using propensity score matching. Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regressions accounting for matched pairs were used to estimate median OS and HR. 5-year mean total costs from the public health system perspective were estimated from admin claims databases using established direct statistical methods and adjusted for censoring of both cost and effectiveness using inverse probability weighting. ICERs and 95% bootstrapped CIs were calculated, along with incremental net benefit (INB) at various willingness-to-pay values using net benefit regression. Results: We identified 1,823 MBC pts with 912 cases and 911 controls (mean age = 55 years), of which 579 pairs were matched. Cases had improved OS (HR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.57, 0.78), with median 3.4 years, compared to controls median OS of 2.1. P provided an additional 0.63 (95% CI: 0.48 – 0.84) LYG at an incremental cost of $196,622 (95% CI: $180,774, $219,172), with a mean ICER = $312,147/LYG (95% CI: $260,752, $375,492). At threshold of $100,000/LYG, the INB was -$133,632 (95% CI: -$151,525, -$115,739) with < 1% probability of being cost-effective. Key drivers of incremental cost increase between groups included drug and cancer clinic costs. Conclusions: The addition of P to T-chemo for MBC increased survival but at significant costs. The ICER based on direct real-world data was higher than the initial economic model due to higher total costs for pts receiving P. This study demonstrated feasibility to derive ICER from person-level real-world data to inform cancer drug life-cycle health technology reassessment.

The association between obesity and survival in non-Hodgkin lymphoma is unclear. Using the Ontario Cancer Registry we conducted a retrospective analysis of incident cases of aggressive-histology B-cell lymphoma treated with a rituximab-containing regimen with curative intent between 2008-2016. 6246 patients were included. On multivariable analysis the rate of all-cause mortality was lower for the overweight body mass index (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m

PharmacoEconomics DOI 10.1007/s40273-015-0278-7 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Does it Matter Whether Canada’s Separate Health Technology Assessment Process for Cancer Drugs has an Economic Rationale? Jeffrey S. Hoch 1,2,3,4 • Jaclyn Beca 1,2,3 • Mona Sabharwal 5 • Scott W. Livingstone 6 Anthony L. A. Fields 7 The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com ‘‘What our health-care systems need to do with their limited budgets is maximize value and no dimensions of health … will be a good measure of value because people consider other aspects in their evaluations … We must back out of the dead end that is pursuing overall efficiency’’ [1]. 1 Introduction We are grateful for the opportunity to comment on the results of McDonald et al. [2]. In this note, we summarize their findings, build on their interpretations, and suggest future directions for researchers interested in improving a health technology assessment (HTA) process. 2 Summary of the Findings McDonald et al. searched for reasons why Canada and other countries might separate their cancer drug HTA process. They appraised whether any of the rationales they & Jeffrey S. Hoch jeffrey.hoch@utoronto.ca Pharmacoeconomics Research Unit, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada Jaclyn Beca becaj@smh.ca Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (ARCC), Toronto, ON, Canada Mona Sabharwal monas@cadth.ca Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Scott W. Livingstone scott.livingstone@saskcancer.ca Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR), Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Toronto, ON, Canada Saskatchewan Cancer Agency, Saskatoon, SK, Canada University of Alberta, 11560 University Ave NW, Edmonton, AB T6G 1Z2, Canada Anthony L. A. Fields afields@ualberta.ca found were derived from the assumption commonly made by health economists that ‘‘the goal of society or decision makers is to maximize the total aggregate health benefit conferred to a population for a given level of resources’’. They found that this rationale was not used by Canada or any country to support the use of a separate HTA process for cancer drugs. The researchers were also not able to find another country besides Canada that had a separate cancer drug HTA process. These findings may seem surprising: Canada is the only country in the world that has a separate cancer drug HTA process; and McDonald et al. could find no justification based in economic theory for a separate process. To be clear, the authors reported that other countries (e.g. Den- mark, Belgium, the UK) set aside a separate budget for cancer drugs, and the authors found several ‘‘non-eco- nomic’’ rationales for Canada’s separate HTA process. There are two potential interpretations of these search re- sults: (1) the search missed something or (2) there really is no economic rationale in print for a separate cancer drug HTA process. Although their study might not be Centre for Excellence in Economic Analysis Research (CLEAR), Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

Purpose ALK-targeted therapy with crizotinib offers significant improvement in clinical outcomes for the treatment of EML4-ALK fusion–positive non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We estimated the cost effectiveness of EML4-ALK fusion testing in combination with targeted first-line crizotinib treatment in Ontario. Patients and Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model from the Canadian Public health (Ontario) perspective and a lifetime horizon in patients with stage IV NSCLC with nonsquamous histology. Transition probabilities and mortality rates were calculated from the Ontario Cancer Registry and Cancer Care Ontario New Drug Funding Program (CCO NDFP). Costs were obtained from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative, CCO NDFP, University Health Network, and literature. Results Molecular testing with first-line targeted crizotinib treatment in the population with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC resulted in a gain of 0.011 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with standard care. The incremental cost was Canadian $2,725 per patient, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $255,970 per QALY gained. Among patients with known EML4-ALK–positive advanced NSCLC, first-line crizotinib therapy provided 0.379 additional QALYs, cost an additional $95,043 compared with standard care, and produced an ICER of $250,632 per QALY gained. The major driver of cost effectiveness was drug price. Conclusion EML4-ALK fusion testing in stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC with crizotinib treatment for ALK-positive patients is not cost effective in the setting of high drug costs and a low biomarker frequency in the population.

Cost-effectiveness evidence is increasingly considered in the reimbursement decisions of pharmaceuticals. In some jurisdictions such as the UK and Canada, pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to submit economic evaluations when seeking reimbursement. Our objectives were to describe the role of economic evidence in the cancer drug review process in Canada, and to investigate the nature of problems encountered in the review and interpretation of economic evidence used in the process. We conducted a retrospective review of cancer drug review meeting minutes and reviewers’ comments on pharmacoeconomic studies submitted to the oncology drug review process in Canada. We used pharmacoeconomic reviewers’ reports and relevant cancer drug review expert advisory committee meeting minutes during the first year of the review process (April 2007 to March 2008). Fifteen economic submissions were reviewed. One-third of the studies had flaws significant enough that the advisory committee could not determine the cost effectiveness of the drugs from the results. The common issues outlined by the reviewers and committee were related to the uncertainty of comparative clinical benefits, quality of life and costs. The reviewers felt that few analyses provided sufficient sensitivity analyses around key variables to assess the robustness of results. Most problems identified by reviewers are simple to fix and do not involve advanced methods. Canada has a separate review process for making cancer drug funding recommendations, and this process uses both clinical and economic evidence. The committee could not determine the value for money of the drugs from several of the submitted pharmacoeconomic analyses. Transparent analyses and detailed critique of evidence are crucial to the use of economic evidence in reimbursement decisions. Rigorous evaluation is resource intensive and may benefit from a shared drug review process among several jurisdictions.

205 Background: Advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) patients often have a substantial symptom burden. In Ontario, patients visiting cancer clinics routinely complete the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), which screens for 9 symptoms (scale: 0-10). Using ESAS, we explored the association between baseline patient-reported outcomes and overall survival (OS). Methods: APC Patients with ESAS records prior to receiving publicly-funded drugs from November 2008 to March 2016 were identified from Cancer Care Ontario’s New Drug Funding Program and Symptom Management databases. We examined 3 baseline composite ESAS scores: Total Symptom Distress Score (TSDS: all 9 symptoms), Physical Symptom Score (PHS: 6/9 symptoms), and Psychological Symptom Score (PSS: 2/9 symptoms); Composite scores greater than a threshold (defined as number of symptoms in composite score multiplied by clinically relevant score (≥4)) were categorized as High Symptom Burden (TSDS ≥ 36, PHS ≥ 24, PSS ≥ 8). The primary endpoint, OS, was assessed using Kaplan-Meier. Multivariable Cox models were used to adjust for age, gender, income, prior therapies (surgery, adjuvant gemcitabine, radiation), and Charlson's comorbidity. Analysis was repeated in a sub-cohort with identifiable ECOG status and stage. Results: We identified 2,199 APC patients (mean age 64 years, 55% male) with ESAS records prior to receiving gemcitabine (54%), FOLFIRINOX (40%) or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (6%). Crude median survival was 4.5 and 7.3 months for patients with high and low TSDS burden, respectively (HR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.36, 1.66). After adjustment with multivariable Cox model, high TSDS burden was associated with lower OS (HR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.33, 1.63). Similar trends were observed for PHS and PSS. When adjusting for both PHS and PSS in a Cox model, only the effect of PHS remained significant. In the sub-cohort (n = 393), high TSDS burden (HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.73) was associated with lower OS, after adjusting for ECOG and stage. Conclusions: Among APC patients, a higher burden of patient-reported symptoms, via ESAS, at baseline was associated with reduced OS. The effect was prominent for physical symptoms, even after adjusting for treatment, stage and ECOG.

103 Title: Impact Of Novel Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Drugs On Public Spending Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a common hematologic malignancy that mainly affects the elderly. Over the past five years, the treatment pathway for CLL has dramatically changed with the emergence of multiple novel agents. In Ontario, Canada, the Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) program and the New Drug Funding Program (NDFP) primarily provide public coverage for CLL drugs. Given advances in treatment, we evaluated utilization trends for publicly-funded CLL drugs over a five year period (fiscal years 2012/13 to 2016/17). Methods: Drugs with primary CLL indications funded under the two public funding programs (i.e., ODB and NDFP) by 16/17 were included (n = 6). Claims and costs data were obtained from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and Cancer Care Ontario‘s datasets. Results: Over five years, expenditures on CLL drugs have increased approximately ten-fold (1000 percent), reaching nearly CAD 43 million (i.e., USD 32.8 million) in 16/17. In the front-line setting, spending on rituximab remained consistent over the five years. Spending on single agent bendamustine decreased with the introduction of obinutuzumab which became the main cost driver by 16/17. In the previously-treated CLL population, ibrutinib has dominated expenditures since it was funded in July 2015. By 16/17, ibrutinib accounted for approximately ninety eight percent of spending in the previously-treated population. Conclusions: In the past five years, public spending on CLL drugs increased rapidly and substantially with the introduction of four novel agents, and may continue to evolve as Canadian provinces consider funding additional indications or newer agents. These findings warrant exploring whether the incremental spending is providing survival benefit or improvement in patients’ quality of life in a real-world setting. Declaration of funding: None

6581Background: Often, when counseling patients on therapy, we utilize CT survival and toxicity data to help inform decision-making. While it is commonly believed CT data, derived from highly selec...

327 Background: FOLFIRINOX (FFX), gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel (GnP) and gemcitabine monotherapy (Gem)) are universally funded as first-line chemotherapy regimens for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) in Ontario, Canada. However, there is scarce real-world data on factors that may influence choice of chemotherapy regimens in APC. Methods: Patients who received first-line chemotherapy for APC between April 2015-March 2016 in Ontario were identified from CCO’s New Drug Funding Program database and linked to the Ontario Cancer Registry and other provincial databases to ascertain baseline factors. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to examine the associations between the prescribed chemotherapy regimen and baseline factors. Results: 546 patients were identified, with a mean age of 65 and 43.6% female. 9.9% and 9.7% had received adjuvant gemcitabine and radiation treatment respectively. 17.6% had previous pancreatic resection. 68.3% had zero Charlson score and 30.6% had ECOG performance status (PS) of 0. 72.7% had metastatic disease. The majority of the patients received FFX (52.4%) compared to GnP (35.7%) and Gem (11.9%). Age and ECOG PS were strongly associated with choice of chemotherapy regimens. (See Table) Conclusions: In Ontario, increased patient age and worse ECOG PS are strongly associated with choice of Gem compared to GnP and FFX. Previous treatments and stage of disease also impact chemotherapy choice. Understanding how providers choose chemotherapy in APC aids in comprehending our practices. Odds ratio (OR) and p value from multinomial logistic regressions. [Table: see text]

375 Background: FFX has been universally publicly funded in Ontario, Canada, for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) and unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (uLAPC) since 11/2011 and 04/2015, respectively. GnP has been publicly funded for uLAPC and mPC (APC) since 04/2015. We examined the real world comparative effectiveness and safety of implementing funding of FFX and GnP for patients with APC. Methods: Patients with APC who received first-line FFX, GnP, or G from 01/2008-03/2016 were identified in CCO’s New Drug Funding Program database and divided into 3 periods: 01/2008-10/2011 (P1), 11/2011-03/2015 (P2), and 04/2015-03/2016 (P3). Data were linked with the Ontario Cancer Registry and others to ascertain demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes. Matching weights of propensity score to simultaneously compare three periods were generated using multinomial logistic regression. Crude and adjusted survival analyses were conducted to assess overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox regression methods.Weighted negative binomial models were used to estimate rate ratios (RR) for all-cause hospitalization (H) and ED visits. Results: We identified 3696 patients (1250 in P1, 1891 in P2, 555 in P3) (overall mean age 65, female 46%). In P2, 49% received FFX. In P3, 53% received FFX and 35% received GnP. Median OS was 5.7, 7.0, and 7.5 months for P1, P2, and P3, respectively. Median OS for FFX and GnP in mPC were 8.8 and 5.5 months, respectively. OS was improved in P2 vs. P1 (HR = 0.84, 0.78-0.90) and in P3 vs. P2 (HR = 0.82, 0.73-0.92). ED visits were similar compared P2 vs. P1 (RR=1.02, p = 0.75) and P3 vs. P2 (RR=1.04, p = 0.48), and H was reduced in P2 vs. P1 (RR = 0.86, p = 0.01), but similar in P3 vs. P2 (RR = 0.98, p = 0.78). H for febrile neutropenia (FN) was increased in P2 vs. P1 (RR = 2.18, p = 0.04) but not in P3 vs. P2 (RR = 1.32, p = 0.45). Conclusions: Implementation of universal public funding of FFX for mPC improved OS and reduced the rates H overall, but increased FN-related H. Funding of FFX for uLAPC and GnP for APC improved OS without increased in ER and H.

Background: Aromatase inhibitor (ai) therapy has been subjected to numerous cost-effectiveness analyses. However, with most ais having reached the end of patent protection and with maturation of the clinical trials data, a re-analysis of ai cost-effectiveness and a consideration of ai use as part of sequential therapy is desirable. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the 5-year upfront and sequential tamoxifen (tam) and ai hormonal strategies currently used for treating patients with estrogen receptor (er)–positive early breast cancer. Methods: The cost-effectiveness analysis used a Markov model that took a Canadian health system perspective with a lifetime time horizon. The base case involved 65-year-old women with tam-positive early breast cancer. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to incorporate parameter uncertainties. An expected-value-of-perfect-information test was performed to identify future research directions. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) and costs. Results: The sequential tam–ai strategy was less costly than the other strategies, but less effective than upfront ai and more effective than upfront tam. Upfront ai was more effective and less costly than upfront tam because of less breast cancer recurrence and differences in adverse events. In an exploratory analysis that included a sequential ai–tam strategy, ai–tam dominated based on small numerical differences unlikely to be clinically significant; that strategy was thus not used in the base-case analysis. Conclusions: In postmenopausal women with er-positive early breast cancer, strategies using ais appear to provide more benefit than strategies using tam alone. Among the ai-containing strategies, sequential strategies using tam and an ai appear to provide benefits similar to those provided by upfront ai, but at a lower cost.

394 Background: Data regarding the benefits of FFX and GnP in patients (pts) with initially uLAPC is limited. FFX and GnP have been universally publicly funded for first-line uLAPC in Ontario, Canada, since April 2015. The aims of this study are to determine (1) the overall survival (OS) of pts receiving FFX and GnP, (2) the surgical conversion rate of FFX and GnP, and (3) whether resection is associated with better OS in pts with uLAPC in an unselected, real world population. Methods: All pts in Ontario who started first-line FFX, GnP or gemcitabine (G) for uLAPC between April 2015 and March 2016 were identified in Cancer Care Ontario’s New Drug Funding Program database. They were linked to the Ontario Cancer Registry and other population-based databases to ascertain baseline characteristics (age, sex, performance status (PS), locating of tumor, income quintile, and rural residence) and outcomes (pancreatic cancer resection and vital status). Crude and adjusted models of OS were generated using Kaplan-Meier the method and Cox regression. Surgical resection was modelled as a time-dependent variable to examine its association with OS. Results: We identified 147 pts with uLAPC (mean age = 65, 44% female, 31% ECOG PS 0, 61% PS 1, 60% pancreatic head). Ninety (61.2%), 40 (27.2%) and 17 (11.6%) patients were treated with FFX, GnP and G, respectively. With a median follow-up of 7.5 months, median OS was not reached. The 6-month OS rate was 87.8%, 75.1% and 76.4% for FFX, GnP and G, respectively (p = 0.33). Resection occurred in 12 (8.2%) patients, with 10 (11.1%) and 2 (5.0%) treated with FFX and GnP, respectively ( p= 0.34). Surgical resection after initial chemotherapy was not associated with better OS in multivariable analysis (HR 0.26, 95%CI 0.03-1.98, p= 0.19). Conclusions: Pts with uLAPC treated with FFX and GnP appeared to have a reasonable OS in the real world, with > 75% of pts alive at 6 months. Surgical conversion rate in this unselected population appeared to be less than other single institutional studies. The current findings do not appear to show an early surgical benefit, but longer follow-up will be required to assess the potential long-term benefit of surgery.

Background Current treatment of diffuse-large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) includes rituximab, an expensive drug, combined with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) chemotherapy. Economic models have predicted rituximab plus CHOP (RCHOP) to be a cost-effective alternative to CHOP alone as first-line treatment of DLBCL, but it remains unclear what its real-world costs and cost-effectiveness are in routine clinical practice. Methods We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study from 1997 to 2007, using linked administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, to evaluate the costs and cost-effectiveness of RCHOP compared to CHOP alone. A historical control cohort (n = 1,099) with DLBCL who received CHOP before rituximab approval was hard-matched on age and treatment intensity and then propensity-score matched on sex, comorbidity, and histology to 1,099 RCHOP patients. All costs and outcomes were adjusted for censoring using the inverse probability weighting method. The main outcome measure was incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG). Results Rituximab was associated with a life expectancy increase of 3.2 months over 5 years at an additional cost of $16,298, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $61,984 (95% CI $34,087‒$135,890) per LYG. The probability of being cost-effective was 90% if the willingness-to-pay threshold was $100,000/LYG. The cost-effectiveness ratio was most favourable for patients less than 60 years old ($31,800/LYG) but increased to $80,600/LYG for patients 60–79 years old and $110,100/LYG for patients ≥80 years old. We found that post-market survival benefits of rituximab are similar to or lower than those reported in clinical trials, while the costs, incremental costs and cost-effectiveness ratios are higher than in published economic models and differ by age. Conclusions Our results showed that the addition of rituximab to standard CHOP chemotherapy was associated with improvement in survival but at a higher cost, and was potentially cost-effective by standard thresholds for patients

We congratulate Amdahl et al.1 on publishing their paper about the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc) in Canada. The article reports an analysis similar to the one submitted to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review to support the funding request for pazopanib in mrcc, updated with final overall survival (os) data from the pivotal trial2. Economic evaluations in oncology are increasingly important to guide both policy and practice. We commend the efforts of these authors to put their submitted analyses into the public domain for transparency and to support and inform future research. The base-case analysis (using the list prices of pazopanib and sunitinib) by Amdahl et al.1 found that, compared with sunitinib, which is the standard of care for first-line therapy in mrcc, first-line pazopanib is likely cost-saving. The base case analysis also suggested that pazopanib might be slightly more effective than sunitinib numerically, with an incremental gain of 0.057 life-years and 0.059 quality-adjusted life-years. Before concluding that pazopanib is dominant (that is, it provides more benefit for a lower cost) with respect to sunitinib, it is important to review the clinical data comparing pazopanib and sunitinib in mrcc to assess the comparative efficacy and preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (hrqol) associated with those agents—that is, their health utilities—to examine the face validity of the economic model in its base case. The efficacy differences between the pazopanib and sunitinib in the comparz study3 were not statistically significant, median progression-free survival for pazopanib and sunitinib being 8.4 months [95% confidence interval (ci): 8.3 to 10.9 months] and 9.5 months (95% ci: 8.3 to 11.1 months) respectively, with a hazard ratio of 1.05 (95% ci: 0.90 to 1.22). The study met its primary endpoint of non-inferiority in progression-free survival. No os difference was observed in the comparz study, in which median os was 28.4 months for pazopanib (95% ci: 26.2 to 35.6 months) and 29.3 months for sunitinib (95% ci: 25.3 to 32.5 months), with a hazard ratio of 0.91 (95% ci: 0.76 to 1.08). At the updated analysis, os was similar in the two groups (hazard ratio for pazopanib vs. sunitinib: 0.92; 95% ci: 0.79 to 1.06; p = 0.24)2. With similar survival results for pazopanib and sunitinib based on the comparz study, one might ask, “How did the model project an incremental gain of 0.057 life-years in favour of pazopanib?” The model actually projected a shorter life expectancy while patients were taking pazopanib than while their counterparts were taking sunitinib (0.013 life-years lost in the progression-free state). However, the model also projected that, after patients progressed and stopped taking pazopanib, their life expectancy was longer than it was for patients who received sunitinib (0.070 life-years gained in the post-progression state). Together, the loss and the gain resulted in a net gain in life expectancy for pazopanib, implying that the survival benefit of pazopanib acted only after progression, when patients were no longer taking pazopanib. There is no biologic basis for that phenomenon, and it likely simply reflects small numerical differences between the pazopanib and sunitinib progression-free survival and os curves, without accounting for uncertainty. Interestingly, the model also predicted that pazopanib would be more effective in at least 80% (or possibly all) of the simulations despite the nonsignificant result. Although the comparz study3 collected some hrqol measures, it did not collect preference-based measures of hrqol to allow for the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years for the purpose of economic evaluation. The pisces study4—a randomized, double-blind trial with a crossover design (that is, pazopanib→sunitinib vs. sunitinib→pazopanib)—had, as its primary endpoint, an examination of patient preference for either pazopanib or sunitinib, which suggested that patients preferred pazopanib over sunitinib. However, the study had a few limitations5, including a relatively high proportion of the randomly assigned patients (33%) not being evaluable for the primary endpoint, and the analysis of the pazopanib preference being based on a “modified” intention-to-treat population. The EQ-5D (EuroQoL Group, Rotterdam, Netherlands) was also collected as the preference-based measure of hrqol in the pisces study4, but the EQ-5D results would have been subject to similar limitations. The data from the pisces study were used in the submission to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. In the updated analysis1, the authors conducted a regression based on patients in a trial comparing pazopanib with placebo6, assuming that the effect of adverse events (aes) were driving the differences in hrqol, regardless of actual treatment received. For the analysis, the aes were grouped by severity and whether the aes were more commonly occurring in the sunitinib or the pazopanib group of the comparz trial. Using that approach, the regression model found that the health utility decrement was larger for the group of aes more commonly occurring in patients who used sunitinib than for the remaining aes more frequently occurring in patients who used pazopanib in the comparz trial. The results of the regression model were combined with the incidence and duration of aes in each treatment arm to derive the mean utility values used in the model, producing mean utility values of 0.7089 (standard error: 0.0193) for pazopanib and 0.6832 (standard error: 0.0236) for sunitinib, an incremental difference of 0.0257 in the progression-free period1. Given that the comparz trial demonstrated similar efficacy and a more favourable toxicity profile for pazopanib, it is not unreasonable that the point estimate of the utility score could slightly favour the pazopanib group. However, these mean utility values were not directly derived and might be neither statistically nor clinically different, especially because the difference was smaller than the reported estimates of minimal important differences for health utilities (which are in the range of 0.05–0.08 for the EQ-5D)7,8. Thus, it is somewhat difficult to conclude from those data that pazopanib is associated with better utility than sunitinib. It might be reasonable to conservatively expect that the utilities of pazopanib and sunitinib are fairly similar given the size of the standard errors of the two utilities, subject to a reasonable amount of uncertainty9,10. Given that clinical trials did not demonstrate a statistically significant survival benefit or EQ-5D health utility benefit for pazopanib over sunitinib, we feel that an appropriate interpretation could be that the study findings suggest similar efficacy and health utility for the two drugs. Reasonably, the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review’s Expert Review Committee also concluded that it is reasonable to assume similar efficacy and to focus on the cost comparison between pazopanib and sunitinib in this setting11. We appreciate that the sensitivity analyses by Amdahl et al.1 address all the considerations discussed here, including the importance of the relative price of the two drugs. The authors demonstrate as part of their additional analyses that—assuming similar efficacy, health utility, and daily price of the two therapies—only minor cost differences remain. Thus, interpreting the analyses in light of the evidence, it appears that these two options for first-line therapy in mrcc might be largely similar and, taking into account the relative prices of the two drugs, the hope would be that, after confidential negotiations, they will also be similar in cost. In that case, having both drugs available would give patients the option to choose based on individual preference and side effect profile, especially in the case of intolerance to one of the drugs, and would ensure that health care resources are being efficiently used. The generalizability of the study findings remains to be seen in practice. Verification from experience is needed to know whether the comparative outcomes as laid out will be realized. In Canada, jurisdictions have an important opportunity and challenge to evaluate the real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of therapies in clinical practice after drugs are funded. Moreover, post-market research can provide valuable insights into practice patterns when two alternatives are funded and can possibly inform continued uncertainties such as sequencing and long-term adverse effects. We applaud the approach of the authors to share their analyses with the broader clinical and research communities, and we encourage more authors of economic evaluations created and submitted to review bodies (for example, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review) to follow suit. We expect that this activity will build on the principle of transparency being increasingly championed by the review organizations and will improve the rigour of the economic evidence used to inform policy. Finally, we call on the community to continue to pursue both academic merit and clinical and policy relevance by supporting the availability of peer-reviewed publications of economic evaluations to inform the reimbursement review process. Ideally, it would be helpful if economic evaluations were to be published before decision-making so as to engage more stakeholders in the discussion12. In doing so, the clinical and economic evidence bases supporting the health technology assessment processes in Canada might be brought into better alignment, improving the robustness of decision-making and ultimately helping health care systems in Canada to provide effective and appropriate care to patients.

242 Background: There is uncertainty regarding the optimal systemic treatment for patients with SBA and AA due to the limited available evidence for these uncommon malignancies and conflicting recommendations in existing guidelines. However, on the basis of biologic similarities between SBA, AA and colorectal cancer (CRC), common practice is to use the same systemic therapies as for CRC. We compared the utilization of chemotherapeutic agents for SBA and AA to that of CRC patients in Ontario, Canada. Methods: The provincial tumour registry in Ontario, Canada was used to identify patients diagnosed with SBA, AA or CRC from 2010-2014. Subsequent chemotherapy utilization and costs were captured from single-payer government administrative databases. We studied the use of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, capecitabine, bevacizumab, cetuximab, panitumumab, and raltitrexed, which are funded for CRC treatment. Patients were excluded if they had multiple primary cancer sites, morphology codes inconsistent with adenocarcinomas, or missing identification data. Statistical analyses were used to report and test patterns of utilization and average costs per patient. Results: Our cohort consisted of 30,946 patients over a 5-year period. On average, 160 and 80 patients were diagnosed annually in Ontario with SBA and AA, respectively, together representing less than 4% of the total diagnoses each year. Among SBA and AA patients, 30-40% initiated therapy with the selected systemic therapies, similar to the proportion in CRC. SBA and AA patients were less likely to receive adjuvant oxaliplatin (SBA 9%, AA 13%) compared to CRC (18%) patients, but more likely to use first and second-line oxaliplatin or irinotecan for metastatic disease. Bevacizumab was added to first-line therapy for SBA and AA patients in fewer cases than CRC (SBA 29%, 45% AA, 72% CRC). Third-line EGFR inhibitors panitumumab and cetuximab were used infrequently in all groups ( < 2% of those diagnosed). Average per patient costs were similar across disease sites (p > 0.05). Conclusions: On a population level, SBA and AA patients appear to be managed similarly to CRC patients and at similar cost. Future research will evaluate survival outcomes.

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of genetic screening for the apolipoprotein (APOE) e4 allele in combination with preventive donepezil treatment in comparison with the standard of care for amnestic mild cognitive impairment (AMCI) patients in Canada. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model with a societal perspective and a time horizon of 30 years. For each strategy, we calculated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using utilities from the literature. Costs were also based on the literature and, when appropriate, Ontario sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Expected value of perfect information (EVPI) analysis was conducted to explore the value of future research. The base case results in our exploratory study suggest that the combination of genetic testing and preventive donepezil treatment resulted in a gain of 0.027 QALYs and an incremental cost of $1,015 (in 2009 Canadian dollars [Can$]), compared with the standard of care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the base case was Can$38,016 per QALY. The ICER was sensitive to the effectiveness of donepezil in slowing the rate of progression to Alzheimer’s disease (AD), utility in AMCI patients, and AD and donepezil treatment costs. EVPI analysis showed that additional information on these parameters would be of value. Using presently available clinical evidence, this exploratory study illustrates that genetic testing combined with preventive donepezil treatment for AMCI patients may be economically attractive. Since our results were based on a secondary post hoc analysis, our study alone is insufficient to warrant recommending APOE genotyping in AMCI patients. Future research on the effectiveness of preventive donepezil as a targeted therapy is recommended.

Aims To compare the costs and effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) for the radical treatment of localised prostate cancer at elevated doses (>70 Gy). Materials and methods A cost-effectiveness analysis model was developed using clinical effectiveness estimates from a systematic review. The base case analysis assumes equal biochemical survival for IMRT and 3DCRT, but lower frequency of gastrointestinal toxicity for IMRT. The costs of IMRT and 3DCRT were estimated through activity-based costing, incorporating input from radiation oncologists, physicists and treatment planners. Results The delivery of IMRT produced 0.023 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) than 3DCRT at an additional cost of $621 (QALY and costs discounted at 5% per year), yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $26 768 per QALY gained. The treatment cost of IMRT was $1019 more than 3DCRT, but IMRT resulted in less frequent gastrointestinal toxicity, thus avoiding $402 in the treatment of toxicity. In the scenario that compared a higher dose of IMRT (75.6 Gy) to 3DCRT (68.4 Gy), IMRT improved disease control with equal toxicity incidence, and the IMRT strategy dominated (less costly and more effective). In the base case scenario (no survival difference), the cost-effectiveness of IMRT was most sensitive to the treatment cost difference between IMRT and 3DCRT. Conclusion For radical radiation treatment (>70 Gy) of prostate cancer, IMRT seems to be cost-effective when compared with an equivalent dose of 3DCRT.

Aims Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is an advanced radiation technique that is particularly suited to treating head and neck cancers because it can conform a high dose to the target volume while preserving the tissue function of neighbouring structures. The objective of this study was to compare the cost and effectiveness of IMRT with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) for the treatment of locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer. Materials and methods We developed a Markov model to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by IMRT from the perspective of the Ministry of Health. The costs of IMRT and 3DCRT were estimated through activity-based costing, incorporating input from radiation oncologists, physicists and radiation therapists. We obtained clinical effectiveness estimates from published studies and calculated the number needed to treat to avoid a case of severe long-term xerostomia using data from a randomised controlled trial. Results The delivery of IMRT produced 0.48 more QALYs than 3DCRT at an additional cost of $2447 (QALY and costs discounted at 5% a year), yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5084 per QALY gained. The cost-effectiveness of IMRT was sensitive to the costs of radiotherapy and the effect of IMRT on health-related quality of life. The cost of IMRT will probably decrease with the addition of volumetric modulated arc therapy, an increasingly used technology, because volumetric modulated arc therapy reduces treatment time. We need to treat less than two patients with IMRT to avoid a case of severe, long-term xerostomia (dry mouth), and the incremental cost to avoid a case of severe, long-term xerostomia was $4532. Conclusions In the treatment of locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma, the IMRT strategy appears to be cost-effective when compared with 3DCRT.

Discussion “Continuing benefits” may overestimate and “observed benefits” underestimate effects of new treatment. Many ways to model “diminishing benefits”: • Equal hazard rates? • Look for equal time in progressed state? Other questions: How and when do risks change? Changing risk of progression as well as death? Difference Variable PFS Progressed OS Survival curves Exponential -Lognormal New drug cost $6,000 $1,500 -Comparator cost $2,000 $1,500 -Utility 0.8 0.5