Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For advanced pancreatic cancer, many regimens have been compared with gemcitabine (G) as the standard arm in randomized controlled trials. Few regimens have been directly compared with each other in randomized controlled trials and the relative efficacy and safety among them remains unclear. Methods: A systematic review was performed through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ASCO meeting abstracts up to May 2013 to identify randomized controlled trials that included advanced pancreatic cancer comparing the following regimens: G, G+5-fluorouracil, G+ capecitabine, G+S1, G+ cisplatin, G+ oxaliplatin, G+ erlotinib, G+ nab-paclitaxel, and FOLFIRINOX. Overall survival and progression-free survival with 95% credible regions were extracted using the Parmar method. A Bayesian multiple treatment comparisons was performed to compare all regimens simultaneously. Results: Twenty-two studies were identified and 16 were included in the meta-analysis. Median overall survival, progression free survival, and response rates for G arms from all trials were similar, suggesting no significant clinical heterogeneity. For overall survival, the mixed treatment comparisons found that the probability that FOLFIRINOX was the best regimen was 83%, while it was 11% for G+ nab-paclitaxel and 3% for G+ S1 and G+ erlotinib, respectively. The overall survival hazard ratio for FOLFIRINOX versus G+ nab-paclitaxel was 0.79 [0.50–1.24], with no obvious difference in toxicities. The hazard ratios from direct pairwise comparisons were consistent with the mixed treatment comparisons results. Conclusions: FOLFIRINOX appeared to be the best regimen for advanced pancreatic cancer probabilistically, with a trend towards improvement in survival when compared with other regimens by indirect comparisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate Canadian medical oncologists' perspectives on how barriers to accessing new expensive cancer drugs have affected their practice and their opinions on the drug approval and funding processes. Methods: Canadian medical oncologists treating colorectal cancer (CRC) were surveyed by means of a self-administered, cross-sectional survey. Results: Of the 164 eligible oncologists, there were 68 respondents (41.4% response rate). Only 29.4% of physicians felt they had been using the ideal first-line chemotherapy regimen for patients with metastatic CRC. Although all considered bevacizumab to be a component of the ideal first-line regimen, only 18% could use bevacizumab routinely, and less than half (44.8%) always discussed its role with their patients. In terms of accessing unfunded drugs, most physicians agreed that private payment should be allowed for drugs to be delivered at their own centers (76.1%) or private infusion clinics (52.2%). Ninety-seven percent of physicians reported major concerns about the drug approval and funding processes, and 85% of physicians supported the establishment of a national drug formulary. Conclusions: Canadian medical oncologists are struggling to provide optimal cancer care for their patients with metastatic CRC as a result of nonuniform access to preferred therapeutic drugs. In face of these challenges, physicians have had to use clinical trials and private infusion clinics and, at times, may avoid discussing drugs with limited access. Many oncologists are dissatisfied with the existing funding mechanism and approval processes and support private payment for unfunded drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is one of the most malignant tumors and typically presents at an advanced and rapidly fatal stage. To better understand the role of genetics in the etiology and prevention of ESCC and to identify potential susceptibility genes as well as early detection markers, we previously compared tumor and matched normal tissues from ESCC patients from a high-risk area of China using cDNA expression microarrays and identified 41 differentially-expressed genes (13 over-expressed and 28 under-expressed). Methods: In the current study, we validated and quantitated differential mRNA expression in a sample of nine of these 41 genes, including four that were over-expressed (SPARC, FADD, Fascin, COL7A1), and five that were under-expressed (CK4, TGM3, ECM1, PPL, EVPL), in 75 new ESCC patients using quantitative Real-time RT-PCR and the 2-ΔΔCT method to examine both tumor and matched normal tissue. In addition, we examined expression patterns for these genes by selected demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Four previously over-expressed (tumor ≥2-fold normal) genes were all increased in the majority of new ESCC patients: SPARC was increased in 71% of patients, Fascin in 70%, FADD in 63%, and COL7A1 in 57%. Five previously under-expressed (tumor ≤0.5-fold normal) genes similarly showed decreased mRNA expression in two-thirds or more of patients: CK4 was decreased in 83% of patients, TGM3 in 77%, ECM1 in 73%, and PPL and EVPL in 67% each. In subset analyses, associations with age (for COL7A1), family history (for PPL and ECM1), and alcohol use (for SPARC and Fascin) were also noted. Conclusion: These data indicate that these nine genes have consistent differential mRNA expression, validating results of our previous cDNA array results, and affirming their potential role in the early detection of ESCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ontario publicly funds reference trastuzumab (Herceptin) and four biosimilar trastuzumab products for adjuvant treatment of HER2+ breast cancer. We assessed the real-world safety and effectiveness of biosimilar trastuzumab compared to Herceptin for adjuvant treatment of patients with HER2+ breast cancer. Methods: This was a population-based, retrospective study comparing the safety and effectiveness of biosimilar trastuzumab and Herceptin for neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment of HER2+ breast cancer from 2016 to 2021. Treatment patients started biosimilar trastuzumab from November 2019 to June 2021; historical comparator patients started Herceptin from June 2016 to October 2019. Safety outcomes death within 30 days of last dose of trastuzumab, direct hospitalization, emergency department visit leading to hospitalization, early treatment discontinuation, and in-patient admission for congestive heart failure were measured using logistic/negative binomial regression. Overall survival (OS) was measured using Kaplan–Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression. Propensity score matching was applied. Results: From June 2016 to 2021, 5071 patients with breast cancer were treated with neoadjuvant/adjuvant trastuzumab. The rate of direct hospitalization (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.74–0.98, p-value: 0.032) was significantly lower in biosimilar compared to Herceptin patients. OS (log-rank test p = 0.98) and risk of mortality (HR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.72–2.30, p-value = 0.39) did not significantly differ between treatment groups. Conclusions: Biosimilar trastuzumab demonstrated similar safety and effectiveness to Herceptin. The findings can help improve confidence in and use of biosimilars and demonstrate the value of real-world evidence generation for supporting biosimilar implementations and reassessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The National Institutes of Health's policy for the inclusion of females in clinical research was a pivotal step towards the consideration of sex as a biological variable, which is of particular importance in oncology, given differential incidence and outcomes of cancer between the sexes, and known pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, and immunological differences. Therefore, we aim to investigate if such biological sex-based differences translate to clinically meaningful outcome differences from recently approved systemic oncology therapies. Methods: A systematic review of randomized control trials (RCTs) cited in Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada approvals was conducted. Chemotherapy, targeted agents, and immunotherapy RCTs reporting sex-based sub-group analyses for overall/progression-free survival (OS/PFS) were considered. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized. Sensitivity analyses for survival endpoints, drug type, and cancer site were conducted. Results: Ninety-nine RCTs were included, representing 62,384 patients (23,574 (38%) female). Pooled OS HRs [95% CIs] were 0.77 [0.72–0.81] and 0.76 [0.72–0.79] for females and males, respectively (P = 0.73), and 0.51 [0.47–0.56] and 0.57 [0.53–0.61] (P = 0.08) for PFS. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. No RCTs reported sex-based toxicity or quality-of-life (QOL) data. Conclusion: Female and male patients appear to derive comparable benefits from recently approved systemic oncology therapies. Future RCTs are encouraged to report sex-based toxicity and QOL data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and early survival among newly diagnosed cancer patients. Methods: This retrospective population-based cohort study used linked administrative datasets from Ontario, Canada. Adults (=18 years) who received a cancer diagnosis between March 15 and December 31, 2020, were included in a pandemic cohort, while those diagnosed during the same dates in 2018/2019 were included in a pre-pandemic cohort. All patients were followed for one full year after the date of diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess survival in relation to the pandemic, patient characteristics at diagnosis, and the modality of first cancer treatment as a time-varying covariate. Interaction terms were explored to measure the pandemic association with survival for each cancer type. Results: Among 179,746 patients, 53,387 (29.7%) were in the pandemic cohort and 37,741 (21.0%) died over the first post-diagnosis year. No association between the pandemic and survival was found when adjusting for patient characteristics at diagnosis (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.96-1.01]), while marginally better survival was found for the pandemic cohort when the modality of treatment was additionally considered (HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.95-0.99]). When examining each cancer type, only a new melanoma diagnosis was associated with a worse survival in the pandemic cohort (HR 1.25 [95% CI 1.05-1.49]). Conclusions: Among patients able to receive a cancer diagnosis during the pandemic, one-year overall survival was not different than those diagnosed in the previous 2 years. This study highlights the complex nature of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The efficacy-effectiveness gap between randomized trial and real-world evidence regarding the clinical benefit of ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma (MM) has been well characterized by previous literature, consistent with initial concerns raised by health technology assessment agencies (HTAs). As these differences can significantly impact cost-effectiveness, it is critical to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab versus non-ipilimumab treatments for MM. Methods: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study of patients who received second-line non-ipilimumab therapies between 2008 and 2012 versus ipilimumab treatment between 2012 and 2015 (after public reimbursement) for MM in Ontario. Using a 5-year time horizon, censor-adjusted and discounted (1.5%) costs (from the public payer's perspective in Canadian dollars) and effectiveness were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in life-years gained (LYGs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with bootstrapping to capture uncertainty. Varying the discount rate and reducing the price of ipilimumab were done as sensitivity analyses. Results: In total, 329 MM were identified (Treated: 189; Controls: 140). Ipilimumab was associated with an incremental effectiveness of 0.59 LYG, incremental cost of $91,233, and ICER of $153,778/LYG. ICERs were not sensitive to discounting rate. Adjusting for quality of life using utility weights resulted in an ICER of $225,885/QALY, confirming the original HTA estimate prior to public reimbursement. Reducing the price of ipilimumab by 100% resulted in an ICER of $111,728/QALY. Conclusion: Despite its clinical benefit, ipilimumab as second-line monotherapy for MM patients is not cost-effective in the real world as projected by HTA under conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether sex- and gender-based analyses and proper sex and gender terminology were used in oncology trials leading to regulatory drug approval.Methods: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Hematology/Oncology Approvals and Safety Notifications page was used to identify all anticancer therapies that received FDA approval between 2012 and 2019. The trials used to support FDA drug approval were collected along with all available supplemental tables and study protocols. Documents were reviewed to determine if there was a plan to analyze results according to sex and gender and to determine if consistent sex and gender terminology were used.Results: We identified 128 randomized, controlled trials corresponding to a cancer medicine, which received FDA approval. No study specified how sex and gender were collected or analyzed. No study reported any information on the gender of participants. Sex and gender terminology were used inconsistently at least once in 76% (97 of 128) of studies. Among the 102 trials for nonsex-specific cancer sites, 89% (91 of 102) presented disaggregated survival outcome data by sex. No study presented disaggregated toxicity data by sex or gender.Conclusion: The majority of pivotal clinical trials in oncology fail to account for the important distinction between sex and gender and conflate sex and gender terminology. More rigor in designing clinical trials to include sex- and gender-based analyses and more care in using sex and gender terms in the cancer literature are needed. These efforts are essential to improve the reproducibility, generalizability, and inclusiveness of cancer research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The development of novel cancer therapies, including immuno-oncology agents, has increased interest in reconstructed individual patient data (IPD) based restricted mean survival time (RMST) analyses. Additionally, reconstructed IPD-based RMST is recommended in cost-effectiveness analyses when original trial IPD are not available. Nevertheless, recently concerns regarding potential bias of reconstructed-IPD RMST have been presented, because reconstructed-IPD RMSTs have not been validated and previous validation endpoints may not capture the entire Kaplan-Meier (KM) curve, especially the "tail." Our study aims to validate the recommended method of IPD reconstruction by comparing reconstructed IPD- and original trial IPD-based RMST.Methods: Canadian Cancer Trials Group trials from 1990 to 2017 were included. Overall survival and progression-free survival IPD were reconstructed based on published KM curves using the Guyot method. Analysts were blinded to original trial IPD. RMST was calculated at 1 year and over the entire KM curve. Reconstructed-IPD and original trial-IPD (gold-standard) RMSTs were compared for accuracy and predictive error via mean deviation, mean absolute error (MAE), mean percentage bias, and Bland-Altman plots and across KM curve quality (vector traced or bitmapped).Results: We identified 39 trials. The mean deviation, MAE, and mean percentage bias of RMST between the reconstructed IPD and original trial IPD were small. In particular, the mean deviation was -0.01 months and -0.04 months, MAE was 0.19 months and 0.24 months, and mean percentage bias was 0.82% and 0.84% in overall survival KM curves in control and experimental arms, respectively. Accuracy was generally not associated with KM curve quality.Conclusions: RMST derived from reconstructed IPD displayed excellent accuracy and predictive error compared with the gold standard. Reconstructed IPD could be used to calculate RMST in lieu of original trial IPD, to facilitate decision making for clinicians, researchers, and policy makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasingly, cancer drugs are being approved based on surrogate measurements of efficacy. Clinically meaningful data, such as overall survival (OS) and quality of life, are often only presented in subsequent publications. We examined if the clinical benefit of cancer drugs, as measured by the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), improves post-European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval as more data emerges. Cancer drug indications approved by the EMA from January 2006 to December 2016 were reviewed and trials cited for efficacy were identified. Primary and subsequent publications (up to December 2019) of scorable trials were included. Changes in benefit over time were measured using ESMO-MCBS thresholds for non-curative (≥4 for substantial, =3 for intermediate and ≤2 for low benefit) and curative intent (A or B for major benefit) scoring. Fifty-five non-curative and two curative intent trials were included. At approval, 29.1% of non-curative trials were substantial, 45.5% intermediate and 25.5% low benefit. For curative intent trials, one displayed major benefit and one displayed no major benefit. We identified 82 subsequent publications for reassessment. A change in ESMO-MCBS classification was seen in 34.5% of non-curative trials (11 raised and 8 lowered). At 3-year reassessment, 36.4% of non-curative trials were substantial, 34.5% intermediate and 29.1% low benefit. Both curative trials showed no major benefit at reassessment. As over a third of trials changed classification, in either direction, reassessing the ESMO-MCBS score of approved cancer drugs may help to inform patients and ensure ongoing relevance of regulatory and reimbursement decisions. • When reassessed, most cancer drugs did not exhibit substantial benefit. • Over a third of drug trials changed benefit classification at 3-year reassessment. • However, a nearly equal number of trials increased and decreased their benefit. • Thus, it may be useful to regularly reassess the benefit of approved cancer drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To determine the magnitude of difference between manufacturer-submitted and pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental cost (DC), and incremental effectiveness (DE); to examine whether there is a significant difference in the proportion of ICERs deemed cost-effective; to evaluate trends in the ICERs over time; and to identify methodological issues in manufacturer-submitted economic models. Methods: Economic guidance reports for all drug indications submitted from July 2011-November 2018 were extracted from the pCODR database. Cumulative distribution plots were constructed to compare the manufacturer-submitted economic values with both the pCODR lowerand upper-reanalyzed estimates. The proportion of drug reviews considered cost-effective at varying willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds by the manufacturer and pCODR were calculated. Manufacturer changes in ICERs over time from 2012 to 2018 were determined. Recurring methodological issues with manufacturer submissions were tallied. Results: There were 73 unique indications that were included. Manufacturer-submitted ICERs were consistently lower than pCODR estimates for most indications. Manufacturer-submitted ICERs were generally more cost-effective over a range of WTP thresholds. From 2012 to 2018, manufacturer and economic guidance panel (EGP) lower limit reanalyzed ICERs did not change significantly over time. However, EGP upper limit re-analyses did show decreasing cost-effectiveness (increasing ICERs). The two most common issues identified in the manufacturer-submitted models were related to survival time horizon and utility estimates. Conclusions: Manufacturers tend to overestimate the cost-effectiveness of their therapies when submitting economic models to pCODR. Although certain methodological issues are still common in manufacturer-submitted models, revision rates are high for most issues raised by pCODR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Despite wide support for patient involvement in health technology assessments (HTA), determining meaningful engagement is complex. This article explores experiences and perceptions among patient groups participating in the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)'s pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) process.Methods: We created a qualitative interview study comprising 22 semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals representing 21 different patient groups registered with the pCODR process. The analysis used a qualitative descriptive approach employing techniques from grounded theory.Results: Patient groups view the ability to make submissions to the pCODR process as a meaningful activity closely aligned with organizational priorities. Concurrently, they face substantial resource challenges to prepare submissions, including high opportunity costs and difficulty accessing needed literature and finding relevant patients. Although patient groups felt that CADTH is committed to transparency, they expressed considerable uncertainty around the direct impact of their submissions and desired additional avenues for engagement.Conclusions: This study suggests a strong commitment by patient groups to participate in the pCODR process despite uncertainty about how their submissions are used to inform HTA recommendations. Identifying opportunities to provide both financial and nonfinancial resources to patient groups is crucial to encouraging and supporting their meaningful participation in HTA processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Globally, the rising cost of anticancer therapy has motivated efforts to quantify the overall value of new cancer treatments. Multicriteria decision analysis offers a novel approach to incorporate multiple criteria and perspectives into value assessment.Methods: The authors recruited a diverse, multistakeholder group who identified and weighted key criteria to establish the drug assessment framework (DAF). Construct validity assessed the degree to which DAF scores were associated with past pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) funding recommendations and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS; version 1.1) scores.Results: The final DAF included 10 criteria: overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, quality of life, toxicity, unmet need, equity, feasibility, disease severity, and caregiver well-being. The first 5 clinical benefit criteria represent approximately 64% of the total weight. DAF scores ranged from 0 to 300, reflecting both the expected impact of the drug and the quality of supporting evidence. When the DAF was applied to the last 60 drugs (with reviewers blinded) reviewed by pCODR (2015-2018), those drugs with positive pCODR funding recommendations were found to have higher DAF scores compared with drugs not recommended (103 vs 63; Student t test P = .0007). DAF clinical benefit criteria mildly correlated with ESMO-MCBS scores (correlation coefficient, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.009-0.59). Sensitivity analyses that varied the criteria scores did not change the results.Conclusions: Using a structured and explicit approach, a criterion-based valuation framework was designed to provide a transparent and consistent method with which to value and prioritize cancer drugs to facilitate the delivery of affordable cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Quitting smoking after a diagnosis of cancer results in greater response to treatment and decreased risk of disease recurrence and second primary cancers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential cost‐effectiveness of two smoking cessation approaches: the current basic smoking cessation program consisting of screening for tobacco use, advice, and referral; and a best practice smoking cessation program that includes the current basic program with the addition of pharmacological therapy, counseling, and follow‐up. A Markov model was constructed that followed 65‐year‐old smokers with cancer over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities and mortality estimates were obtained from the published literature. Costs were obtained from standard costing sources in Ontario and reports. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address parameter uncertainties. For smokers with cancer, the best practice smoking cessation program was more effective and more costly than the basic smoking cessation program. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio of the best practice smoking cessation program compared to the basic smoking cessation program was $3367 per QALY gained and $5050 per LY gained for males, and $2050 per QALY gained and $4100 per LY gained for females. Results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of mortality for former and current smokers, the probability of quitting smoking through participation in the program and smoking‐attributable costs. The study results suggested that a best practice smoking cessation program could be a cost‐effective option. These findings can support and guide implementation of smoking cessation programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background older patients are commonly believed to derive less benefit from cancer drugs, even if they fulfil clinical trial eligibility [Talarico et al. (2004, J Clin Oncol, 22(22):4626–31)]. We aim to examine if novel oncology drugs provide differential age-based treatment outcomes for patients on clinical trials. Methods a systematic review of randomised control trials (RCTs) cited for clinical efficacy evidence in novel oncology drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and Health Canada between 2006 and 2017 was conducted. Studies reporting age-based subgroup analyses for overall or progression-free survival (OS/PFS) were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) for age-based subgroups were extracted. Meta-analyses with random effects were conducted, examining patient subgroups <65 and ≥65 years separately and pooled HRs of studies primary endpoints (OS or PFS) compared to examine if differences existed between age-based subgroups. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for cancer type, primary endpoint and systemic treatment. Results one-hundred-two RCTs, including 65,122 patients, met the inclusion criteria. One study reported age-based toxicity and none reported age-based quality of life (QOL) results. Pooled HRs [95% CIs] for patients <65 and ≥65 years were 0.61 [0.57–0.65] and 0.65 [0.61–0.70], respectively, with no difference between them (P = 0.14). Sensitivity analyses revealed similar results. Conclusion our results suggest that older and young patients, who fulfil clinical trial eligibility, may derive similar relative survival benefits from novel oncology drugs. There is, however, a need to report age-based toxicity and QOL results to support patient discussions regarding the balance of treatment benefit and harm, to encourage informed decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) presentation is heterogeneous necessitating a variety of therapeutic interventions with varying efficacies and associated prognoses. Poor prognostic patients often undergo non-curative palliative interventions including transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), sorafenib, chemotherapy, or purely supportive care. The decision to pursue one of many palliative interventions for HCC is complex and an economic evaluation comparing these interventions has not been done. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of non-curative palliative treatment strategies such as TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib, sorafenib alone, and non-sorafenib chemotherapy compared with no treatment or best supportive care (BSC) among patients diagnosed with HCC between 2007 and 2010 in a Canadian setting. Using person-level data, we estimated effectiveness in life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) along with total health care costs (2013 US dollars) from the health care payer’s perspective (3% annual discount). A net benefit regression approach accounting for baseline covariates with propensity score adjustment was used to calculate incremental net benefit to generate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and uncertainty measures. Among 1,172 identified patients diagnosed with HCC, 4.5%, 7.9%, and 5.6%, received TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib, sorafenib, and non-sorafenib chemotherapy clone, respectively. Compared with no treatment or BSC (81.9%), ICER estimates for TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib was $6,665/QALY (additional QALY: 0.47, additional cost: $3,120; 95% CI: -$18,800-$34,500/QALY). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve demonstrated that if the relevant threshold was $50,000/QALY, TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib, non-sorafenib chemotherapy, and sorafenib alone, would have a cost-effectiveness probability of 99.7%, 46.6%, and 5.5%, respectively. Covariates associated with the incremental net benefit of treatments are age, sex, comorbidity, and cancer stage. Findings suggest that TACE with or without sorafenib is currently the most cost-effective active non-curative palliative treatment approach to HCC. Further research into new combination treatment strategies that afford the best tumor response is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]