Search

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in single-arm cancer studies. We reviewed 60 papers published between 2018 and 2021 of single-arm studies of cancer treatment with PRO data for current practice on design, analysis, reporting, and interpretation. We further examined the studies’ handling of potential bias and how they informed decision making. Most studies (58; 97%) analysed PROs without stating a predefined research hypothesis. 13 (22%) of the 60 studies used a PRO as a primary or co-primary endpoint. Definitions of PRO objectives, study population, endpoints, and missing data strategies varied widely. 23 studies (38%) compared the PRO data with external information, most often by using a clinically important difference value; one study used a historical control group. Appropriateness of methods to handle missing data and intercurrent events (including death) were seldom discussed. Most studies (51; 85%) concluded that PRO results supported treatment. Conducting and reporting of PROs in cancer single-arm studies need standards and a critical discussion of statistical methods and possible biases. These findings will guide the Setting International Standards in Analysing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data in Cancer Clinical Trials–Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) in developing recommendations for the use of PRO-measures in single-arm studies.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, functioning, and other health-related quality-of-life concepts are gaining a more prominent role in the benefit–risk assessment of cancer therapies. However, varying ways of analysing, presenting, and interpreting PRO data could lead to erroneous and inconsistent decisions on the part of stakeholders, adversely affecting patient care and outcomes. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) Consortium builds on the existing SISAQOL work to establish recommendations on design, analysis, presentation, and interpretation for PRO data in cancer clinical trials, with an expanded set of topics, including more in-depth recommendations for randomised controlled trials and single-arm studies, and for defining clinically meaningful change. This Policy Review presents international stakeholder views on the need for SISAQOL-IMI, the agreed on and prioritised set of PRO objectives, and a roadmap to ensure that international consensus recommendations are achieved.

Some patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have no response to initial treatment or have a response that is subsequently lost. Follow-on treatment options after that initial stage are limited, especially for patients who are not able to have intensive therapy, such as chemotherapy, due to age, physical or cognitive function, existing comorbidities or symptoms. This study aimed to review the published literature to identify data associated with treatments that are licensed for use in patients ineligible for intensive therapy who do not maintain a response from their initial therapy. The study found that the drug gilteritinib was an option for the subgroup of AML patients with FLT3-mutated disease with an average life expectancy just under 1 year, while gemtuzumab ozogamicin was an option for a wider group of AML patients with a life expectancy just over 1 year. Between a fifth and a quarter of patients went on to receive a stem-cell transplant after treatment with one of these. With limited options, this patient group needs further attention; however, the availability of the previously mentioned treatments is promising.

Background and Objective The phase III ALFA-0701 study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) versus standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy (daunorubicin and cytarabine) for the treatment of adult patients with de novo CD33+ acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). This study analysed the cost-effectiveness of GO from the perspective of the UK health care payer. Methods A cohort state-transition model was developed to estimate direct health care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a lifetime time horizon from AML diagnosis to death using monthly cycles. Data on complete remission, overall survival, relapse-free survival (RFS), haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, and adverse events for GO plus SOC versus SOC were obtained from the ALFA-0701 study. Overall survival and RFS were extrapolated beyond the trial horizon using mixture cure models. Unit costs were obtained from standard national sources. Utilities were identified in a systematic literature review. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Analyses were performed for the base-case population, excluding patients with an unfavourable cytogenetic profile, and the overall population. Results For the base-case and overall populations respectively, incremental per-patient costs (£13,456 and £14,773) and QALYs (0.99 and 0.68) for GO plus SOC versus SOC resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £13,561 and £21,819 per QALY gained. The mean probabilistic ICERs were £14,217 and £23,245, respectively. Univariate sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the results. Conclusions The ICERs for both populations met NICE’s £20,000–£30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold for medicines and supported the current approval for GO. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-021-00278-3.

BACKGROUND Adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) report substantial disease- and treatment-related impacts on their health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Patient-reported information (PRI) shared on social media may provide a distinct opportunity to understand the patient experience outside of formal research contexts and help inform the development of novel therapies. OBJECTIVE This qualitative social media review aimed to assess PRI shared on social media websites to gain a better understanding of the symptom, HRQOL, and treatment impacts on individuals with ALL. METHODS We identified English-language posts on 3 patient advocacy websites (Patient Power, The Patient Story, and Leukaemia Care) and YouTube that included PRI about experiences with ALL or ALL treatments shared by adults (aged ≥18 years) with a self-reported ALL diagnosis. Patients’ demographic and disease characteristics were extracted from posts (where available), and the posts were analyzed thematically. A network analysis was conducted to delineate possible associations among ALL symptoms, HRQOL impacts, and treatment-related symptoms and impacts. RESULTS Of the 935 social media posts identified, 63 (7%) met the review criteria, including 40 (63%) videos, 5 (8%) comments posted in response to videos, and 18 (29%) blog posts. The 63 posts were contributed by 41 patients comprised of 21 (51%) males, 18 females (44%), and 2 (5%) whose gender was not reported. Among the patients, 13 (32%) contributed >1 source of data. Fatigue (n=20, 49%), shortness of breath (n=13, 32%), and bruising (n=12, 29%) were the symptoms prior to treatment most frequently discussed by patients. Patients also reported impacts on personal relationships (n=26, 63%), psychological and emotional well-being (n=25, 61%), and work (n=16, 39%). Although inpatient treatment reportedly restricted patients’ independence and social functioning, it also provided a few patients with a sense of safety. Patients frequently relied on their doctors to drive their treatment decisions but were also influenced by family members. The network analysis indicated that disease-related symptoms were primarily associated with patients’ physical functioning, activities of daily living, and ability to work, while treatment-related symptoms were primarily associated with emotional well-being. CONCLUSIONS This social media review explored PRI through a thematic analysis of patient-contributed content on patient advocacy websites and YouTube to identify and contextualize emergent themes in patient experiences with ALL and its treatments. To our knowledge, this is the first study to leverage this novel tool to generate new insights into patients’ experiences with ALL. Patients’ social media posts suggest that inpatient care for ALL is associated with restricted independence and social functioning. However, inpatient care also provided a sense of safety for some patients. Studies such as this one that capture patients’ experiences in their own words are valuable tools to further our knowledge of patient outcomes with ALL.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a life-threatening malignancy that is more prevalent in the elderly. Because the patient population is heterogenous and advanced in age, choosing the optimal therapy can be challenging. There is strong evidence supporting antileukemic therapy, including standard intensive induction chemotherapy (IC) and non-intensive chemotherapy (NIC), for older patients with AML, and guidelines recommend treatment selection based on a patient’s individual and disease characteristics as opposed to age alone. Nonetheless, historic evidence indicates that a high proportion of patients who may be candidates for NIC receive no active antileukemic treatment (NAAT), instead receiving only best supportive care (BSC). We conducted a focused literature review to assess current real-world patterns of undertreatment in AML. From a total of 25 identified studies reporting the proportion of patients with AML receiving NAAT, the proportion of patients treated with NAAT varied widely, ranging from 10 to 61.4% in the US and 24.1 to 35% in Europe. Characteristics associated with receipt of NAAT included clinical factors such as age, poor performance status, comorbidities, and uncontrolled concomitant conditions, as well as sociodemographic factors such as female sex, unmarried status, and lower income. Survival was diminished among patients receiving NAAT, with reported median overall survival values ranging from 1.2 to 4.8 months compared to 5 to 14.4 months with NIC. These findings suggest a proportion of patients who are candidates for NIC receive NAAT, potentially forfeiting the survival benefit of active antileukemic treatment.

e19009 Background: B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) represents the majority of ALL cases. The INO-VATE and TOWER trials demonstrated that adult patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) B-cell precursor ALL treated with inotuzumab ozogamicin (ino, anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody [mAb]) and blinatumomab (blin, CD19-directed CD3 T-cell engager mAb), respectively, had improved clinical outcomes over chemotherapy. Real-world data on older RR ALL patients initiating CD-targeted therapy is limited. We describe characteristics, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), costs for Medicare beneficiaries with RR ALL initiating ino, blin, or other (chemotherapeutic, tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI], or mAb) therapies. Methods: Retrospective study utilizing Medicare enrollment/claims data. Eligible study patients diagnosed with RR ALL 1/1/2017-6/30/2019 and initiated ino, blin, or other at/after diagnosis (first observed treatment = index date). Claims for ino/other patients only visible in outpatient/pharmacy settings; proportion who received inpatient administration prior to outpatient unknown. Blin identifiable in inpatient + outpatient settings. B/T-cell status not captured; patients receiving T-ALL therapy (nelarabine) excluded. Measures included characteristics/HRU during 6 months pre-index and HRU/costs per patient per month (PPPM; costs in 2021 USD) during variable follow-up period (≥3 months until death, disenrollment, or study end). Results: Of 15,586 Medicare beneficiaries with RR ALL, 2,306 (< 15%) initiated an ALL treatment; 1,329 qualified for study inclusion: 55 (4%) received ino, 209 (16%) blin (73% initiated blin during hospital stay), 1,065 (80%) other. Mean age of ino/blin was 62; other 66. Larger proportion of ino cohort qualified for Medicare with non-age-related factors (disability) than blin/other. Treatment groups comparable by sex/race. Ino cohort had higher prevalence of congestive heart, pulmonary, and renal diseases (35%, 31%, 38%) than blin (19%, 25%, 19%), other (23%, 30%, 21%), respectively; diabetes prevalence was lower for ino than for blin/other (20%, 34%, 36%, respectively). Over 6 months pre-index, there was variability in exposure to cytotoxic chemotherapies, mAbs, TKIs by cohort;76% each of ino/blin cohorts, 66% of other cohort were hospitalized for any reason. Follow-up time (months) varied by cohort: 8.0 ino, 12.8 blin, 17.8 other, during which blin patients had higher PPPM rates of hospital stays, longer stays (9.3 days blin, 6.0 ino, 3.9 other), and higher mean (SD) total cost of care: $65,437 ($155,664) blin, $55,995 ($36,688) ino, $17,520 ($22,720) other. Conclusions: During 2017-2019, < 15% of Medicare beneficiaries with RR ALL received ALL treatment, of which 1 in 5 received CD-targeted therapy. Costs were highest for blin followed by ino then other.

Introduction: AML, a life-threatening malignancy, is most common in older adults. Due to the advanced age and heterogeneity of the patient population, selecting appropriate therapy presents a challenge for clinicians. Studies have demonstrated that regardless of age, patients with AML benefit from receiving antileukemic therapy, including standard intensive induction and non-intensive chemotherapy, and current guidelines recommend that treatment selection be based on individual patient and disease characteristics, e.g., performance status (PS), cytogenetic risk, comorbidity burden, and age. Nevertheless, historic data suggest that a high proportion of patients with AML who are candidates for non-intensive therapy receive no leukemia treatment. This literature review aimed to assess current real-world patterns of undertreatment in AML. Methods: A strategic literature review was conducted using the pearl growing/snowball method, wherein core publications were identified using an initial Pubmed search strategy with the MeSH heading "Acute Myeloid Leukemia" and the search terms "treatment pattern", "treatment decision", "treatment utilization". Results were limited to English-language publications dated January 2010 to May 2020. A total of 831 initial results were retrieved. Nine core publications were used to establish keywords and for bibliographic and prospective citation searches to identify additional relevant publications. Results: Thirty studies reported the proportion of patients with AML receiving no antileukemic therapy among a total of 65,989 patients. The majority of studies were from the US; the EU, UK, Japan, Brazil, India, Israel, and Serbia were also represented. Ten studies were single center, while the rest were multicenter or analyzed registries; the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program database; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' claims; or commercially available claims databases. In the US, the percentage of patients who received no antileukemic therapy ranged from 10% to 61.4%, with a pooled average of 38%. In the EU, between 24.1% and 35% of patients received only best supportive care (BSC). Most studies reported an association between increased age and decreased likelihood of receiving leukemia therapy. Patients who did not receive antileukemic therapy tended to have higher comorbidity burden and poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) or Karnofsky PS than those who received non-intensive treatment (e.g., hypomethylating agent or reduced intensity chemotherapy regimen) or standard intensive induction chemotherapy. Sociodemographic characteristics associated with increased likelihood of not receiving antileukemic therapy included female sex, unmarried status, and Black race. Four studies described rationales for selecting BSC only. Among these, three cited poor PS and uncontrolled concomitant medical conditions such as diabetes and severe cardiovascular disease, and three included patient refusal of treatment. Patients who did not receive antileukemic treatment experienced diminished overall survival (OS). Across all studies reporting survival outcomes, median OS for patients receiving BSC only ranged from 11 days to 4.8 months versus 7 months to over 14 months for patients who received antileukemic therapy. Conclusions: This literature review found that on average, nearly a third of patients with AML do not receive antileukemic therapy. In identified studies reporting survival outcomes, any leukemia treatment provided survival benefits compared with no anticancer treatment. Though patients who received BSC only tended to be older with more comorbidities and poorer PS, other variables may influence treatment decisions. With the availability of effective, less intensive treatments for AML, there may be a proportion of patients who could benefit from antileukemic therapy but do not receive it. Increased understanding of prognostic factors, disparities in access to healthcare, and patient preferences, as well as the development of a consensus on eligibility for active non-intensive treatment, will help maximize treatment options and ensure appropriate care of patients with AML. The information identified in this strategic literature review supports clinicians in considering antileukemic therapy for patients who otherwise may have received only BSC. Disclosures Hubscher: Pfizer: Consultancy. Sikirica:Pfizer: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bell:Pfizer: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Brown:Pfizer: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Welch:Pfizer: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Russell-Smith:Pfizer: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. D'Amico:Pfizer: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Context For patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML), adding fractionated dosing of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) to standard chemotherapy (SC) has resulted in improved outcomes. Such combination therapies may be perceived to increase the hospitalization burden (i.e., increasing either hospital admissions or length-of-hospital-stay [LOS]). Objective To evaluate whether adding GO to SC is associated with an increased hospitalization burden. Design In this phase 3 open-label trial, patients were enrolled between January 2008 and November 2010, and randomized 1:1 to GO+SC or SC alone. Data shown are for the safety reporting period (up to 28 days after last dose of study treatment). Setting Multicenter study conducted in France. Patients Patients were aged 50-70 years, had treatment-naive AML, and received fractionated-dose GO+SC (n=131) or SC alone (n=137) in the ALFA-0701 trial ( NCT00927498 ). Interventions Induction: 3+7 daunorubicin+cytarabine with/without GO 3 mg/m2 on days 1,4, 7. Consolidation: 2 courses with/without GO 3 mg/m2 on day 1. Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were previously published. In this post hoc analysis, we compared number of hospital admissions (planned or unplanned) and LOS with GO+SC vs SC, in the as-treated population and by treatment phase (induction vs consolidation). Results The mean number of hospital admissions was identical for GO+SC vs SC (2.9), with no significant difference in mean LOS (10.9 vs 10.0 weeks, p=0.16). Similarly, the mean number of intensive care unit admissions was 1.1 vs 1.0 for GO+SC vs SC, with mean LOS 1.25 vs 1.54 weeks, p=0.71. For patients receiving induction chemotherapy (including second induction/salvage), no significant difference was seen in LOS between GO+SC vs SC (mean 6.1 vs 5.6 weeks, p=0.64). For patients receiving consolidation chemotherapy (n=97 in each treatment arm), no significant difference was seen in mean LOS (6.5 vs 6.1 weeks for GO+SC vs SC, p=0.42). Conclusions This analysis shows that, in the ALFA-0701 trial, adding GO to SC for frontline AML did not significantly alter the associated hospitalization burden. Adding GO to SC is therefore not expected to increase healthcare resource utilization or related costs. Sponsor Pfizer.

Introduction: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) represent the standard of care for patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML). The emergence and availability of second-generation TKIs (dasatinib, nilotinib and bosutinib) has led to increased choice for patients and physicians, with data from randomized clinical trials indicating improved efficacy of such therapies compared to the first-generation TKI (imatinib). Differences in the efficacy of second-generation TKIs are negligible; however, all have distinct dosing instructions and safety profiles. Understanding the patient perspective is invaluable for optimizing healthcare decisions, with interest in information regarding patient preferences growing among a wide variety of stakeholders, including regulatory agencies, reimbursement bodies and prescribers. However, evidence is lacking regarding treatment preferences and priorities for patients with CP-CML. The aim of this study was to explore attributes of currently-licensed TKI therapies that are relevant and important to patients with CP-CML. This research represents the first step in the conduct of a discrete choice experiment (DCE), or conjoint analysis, to explore treatment preferences more broadly among CP-CML patients. Patient-guided design is crucial to ensuring attributes of investigation are meaningful. Hence the qualitative insights will advise and validate attribute and level selection for inclusion in the forthcoming DCE. Methods: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 12 US-based patients with a clinician-confirmed diagnosis of CP-CML. The sample included 10 females and 2 males (median age 46 years) who were diagnosed 2 years (n=3), 4-7 years (n=5), 10-12 years (n=3) and 16.5 years (n=1) prior to interview. Ten patients had received a second-generation TKI. Current treatments were dasatinib (n=8), bosutinib (n=1) and imatinib (n=3). Previous treatments included imatinib (n=6), nilotinib (n=3) and dasatinib (n=1). The interviews utilized concept elicitation techniques to capture attributes of importance in both TKI treatment experience and TKI treatment selection. Transcripts were thematically analyzed using Atlas.ti. Results: Open-ended questioning elicited an array of attributes related to TKI treatments. It was important to all patients to ensure that a CP-CML treatment was effective. Treatment efficacy was conveyed with multiple descriptors; most commonly "BCR-ABL" (n=7) or major molecular response "MMR", polymerase chain reaction "PCR" and "remission" (each n=3). Eight patients discussed the importance of dose frequency, specifically the burden of scheduling self-administration of oral tablets (n=5). Seven patients conveyed the difficulty of taking a TKI with specific meal requirements, most notably when fasting is required prior to and post-administration (n=4). A multitude of important treatment side effects were elicited at investigation into the patient TKI treatment experience. Fatigue was reported by 11 patients (n=10 spontaneous) and considered by most patients (n=8/11) to be directly attributable to treatment versus the CML itself. Four patients considered fatigue an inevitable component of TKI treatment. Nausea was elicited by 7 patients (n=5 spontaneous) and some patients (n=5/9) considered it to be influential in treatment selection. Muscle pain was reported by 6 patients (n=4 spontaneous), while skin rash was reported by 5 patients and bone pain by 4 patients (all spontaneous). Diarrhea was reported by 4 patients (n=3 spontaneous). Additional symptoms reported by ≤2 patients are presented in Figure 1. Spontaneously elicited concepts were ranked by importance. All patients considered efficacy within the top three most important attributes. Six patients considered fatigue to be either of second or third most-importance. The rankings in Figure 2 serve to portray the varied perspectives and experiences of patients on TKI treatments. Conclusions: The TKI treatment experience for CP-CML patients is multifaceted. This type of study - the first that we know of - supplies valuable insight into the patient perspectives of TKI treatment to establish a foundation to better inform relevant decisions in the field. The qualitative findings will provide the input necessary to inform attribute and level selection to characterize treatment profiles ahead of an upcoming patient-preference DCE. Disclosures Mason: Adelphi Values: Employment; Pfizer: Consultancy. Mamolo:Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Johnson:Pfizer Inc: Consultancy; Adelphi Values Ltd: Employment. Viqueira:Pfizer Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gater:Pfizer Inc: Consultancy; Adelphi Values Ltd: Employment. Russell-Smith:Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Tatlock:Adelphi Values: Employment. Shah:Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cappelleri:Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Background: Bosutinib is approved at a starting dose of 500 mg once daily (QD) in patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) who are resistant or intolerant to prior treatment and at a starting dose of 400 mg QD in newly diagnosed patients with chronic phase (CP) CML. Approval of bosutinib after prior therapy was based on a phase 1/2 study in patients previously treated with imatinib ± dasatinib and/or nilotinib. After long-term follow-up (≥4 years), durable responses and maintenance of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were seen in patients after prior imatinib (CP CML second-line [CP2L] cohort [n=284]) or prior imatinib + dasatinib and/or nilotinib (CP CML third/fourth-line [CP3L/CP4L] cohort [n=115/4]). As a post-authorization commitment to the European Medicines Agency, the BYOND study is providing additional safety and efficacy data for bosutinib in patients with CML after failure of prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment. Cumulative confirmed major cytogenetic response rate by 1 year (primary endpoint; not powered) in evaluable patients with CP CML was 75.8% after 1 or 2 prior TKIs (n=99) and 62.2% after 3 prior TKIs (n=45). Cumulative complete cytogenetic response rate anytime on treatment was 86.0%, 83.9%, and 73.3% in the CP2L, CP3L, and CP4L cohorts, respectively. Patients had high rates of molecular responses across all lines of treatment. Evaluation of HRQoL through patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures is an exploratory objective of BYOND. Methods: BYOND (NCT02228382) is an ongoing, phase 4, single-arm, open-label study of bosutinib at a starting dose of 500 mg QD in patients with CML and resistance/intolerance to prior treatment. At baseline and during treatment, patients were asked to complete the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia (FACT-Leu v4) instrument, a 44-item, valid assessment of HRQoL in patients with leukemia. Each item was scored on a scale from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating better HRQoL. Changes in HRQoL that are clinically meaningful to a patient have been defined as the minimal important difference (MID) for most FACT-Leu domains. We report PRO results at Month 12 of bosutinib treatment in the CP CML cohorts; for comparison, we present PRO data at Month 12 from the CP CML cohorts of the phase 1/2 study of bosutinib in previously treated patients. Results: At baseline, most FACT-Leu scores were similar (5% differences seen for physical and emotional well-being compared with the CP2L cohort, and for physical, social, and functional well-being, FACT-General (FACT-G) total, FACT-Leu total, and trial outcome index (TOI) FACT-Leu compared with the CP3L cohort. At Month 12, no mean change in a FACT-Leu domain score met the MID (Figure), indicating preservation of baseline HRQoL across all cohorts. Mean changes in FACT-Leu scores from baseline to Month 12 were similar in the CP2L cohorts of the BYOND study and the phase 1/2 study. HRQoL trends were also generally similar in the CP3L cohort of BYOND and the CP3L/4L cohort of the phase 1/2 study, in which 97% of patients received third-line bosutinib. Conclusions: HRQoL was maintained from baseline in patients with CP CML following 12 months of bosutinib treatment in the BYOND study. HRQoL changes at Month 12 were comparable to those observed in previously treated patients in the initial phase 1/2 study of bosutinib, wherein long-term efficacy and HRQoL stability were subsequently reported. In addition, FACT-G scores in the BYOND study were consistent with those previously reported for general populations as well as patients with various cancers. Maintenance of HRQoL is important for patients with CP CML who potentially will receive lifelong TKI treatment, and the PRO results from BYOND suggest bosutinib is a well-tolerated treatment option, thus providing further support for its use in patients with CP CML resistant/intolerant to prior TKIs. Relationships between molecular response and HRQoL in the BYOND study are being explored. Disclosures Brümmendorf: University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen: Employment; Merck: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gambacorti-Passerini:Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Abboud:Jazz Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Member on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees (Ended 12/30/2017), Research Funding; Agios: Other: Member on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees (Ended 12/30/2017); Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; NKarta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Watts:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosti:BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Russell-Smith:Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Viqueira:Pfizer Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Reisman:Pfizer Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Giles:Actuate Therapeutics Inc: Employment; Epigene Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Other: leadership, stock/other ownership ; Novartis: Consultancy. Hochhaus:MSD: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding.

Introduction: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), is a novel anti-CD22 antibody-calicheamicin conjugate approved in R/R B-ALL due to its high hematologic remission rate (81%) based on the phase 3 INO-VATE trial comparing to investigators choice (IC). The TOWER trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of blinatumomab (Blina) for treatment of Ph- B-ALL versus IC. The relative effectiveness of InO versus Blina was investigated by applying indirect treatment comparison (ITC) methods. A UK-based cost-effectiveness model (CEM) submitted to the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) explored the impact of treatment differences with regard to mean life years (LY) gained and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Methods: As R/R ALL is a terminal disease if left untreated, achievement of complete response/complete response with incomplete count recovery (CR/CRi) in conjunction with stem cell transplant (SCT) is essential for long-term survival. The three most important outcomes related to treatment are thus the level of response determined by CR/CRi, the rate of SCT, and overall survival (OS). Without potentially curative therapy such as SCT, there is no evidence to suggest long-term survival is possible. Therefore, to compare InO to Blina, comparisons of these outcomes were explored using patient-level data from the INO-VATE ALL trial and aggregate data from the TOWER trial. The CEM structure contained four health states categorising patients based on 'No CR/CRi & no SCT', 'CR/CRi and no SCT' and patients receiving SCT ('SCT/Post SCT') - with progression-free survival (PFS) and OS modelled within these states. States were clinically validated as relevant to treatment of the disease. Death was the fourth health state. Different methods were incorporated to allocate Blina patients to the respective health-states. For levels of response (CR/CRi) and SCT a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and a Bucher ITC were explored. As CR/CRi and SCT rates are not mutually exclusive, a multinomial ITC was also conducted. Once allocated into respective health states, OS and PFS were modelled. Three ITC methods were used to compare OS; a simulated treatment comparison (STC), MAIC and a standard network meta-analysis. In the absence of PFS data for Blina, PFS was assumed to have the same relative treatment effect as OS. Quality of life data within the model for the 'No CR/CRi & no SCT' and 'CR/CRi and no SCT' were informed from InO trial data, while SCT quality of life was informed from the literature with time-varying utilities. Costs were incorporated from a UK perspective using 2017 sources and were those submitted to the SMC. Results were annually discounted at 3.5%. Results: Health state proportions for Ph- InO patients were used as the basis to estimate corresponding Blina proportions and show 49.3% of patients treated with InO reach SCT. With higher odds for CR/CRi and SCT for InO, the ITC results consistently indicate Blina leads to lower proportions of patients receiving SCT (19.1-22.5%) and CR/CRi (25.2-33.3%). ITCs comparing OS outcomes for InO versus blinatumomab show negligible differences between treatments, consistently across the three methods. All combinations of the various methods were explored using the list price for both treatments. The results of the CEM ranged from 0.91-1.14 incremental QALYs for InO versus Blina, while LYs ranged from 2.03-2.59 resulting from higher rates of SCT. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranged from £3,700 to £7,010 for InO versus Blina. Extensive scenario analysis indicates that InO is a cost-effective option compared to Blina at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY. The SMC recommended InO as a cost-effective use of resources citing an ICER of £6,754 in the CEM when using the MAIC; InO was associated with a mean survival gain of >29 months over Blina corresponding to this ICER. Conclusions: Outcomes from the ITC indicate that InO provides patients with a greater probability of achieving CR/CRi and/or receiving a subsequent SCT versus Blina. As CR/CRi followed by SCT are essential for long-term survival and potential cure, the mean OS gain in the model cited in the SMC recommendation is intuitive as it aligns with the superior CR/CRi and SCT odds ratios associated with InO. Further research is required to determine the long-term PFS and OS following SCT in R/R B-ALL, beyond what can be reliably captured within clinical trials. Disclosures Critchlow: BresMed Health Solutions Ltd.: Consultancy. Cooper:BresMed Health Solutions Ltd.: Consultancy. van Oostrum:Ingress Health: Employment; Pfizer: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Welch:Pfizer Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Russell-Smith:Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership.