Search

Background: Advances in targeted therapy development and tumor sequencing technology are reclassifying cancers into smaller biomarker-defined diseases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often impractical in rare diseases, leading to calls for single-arm studies to be sufficient to inform clinical practice based on a strong biological rationale. However, without RCTs, favorable outcomes are often attributed to therapy but may be due to a more indolent disease course or other biases. When the clinical benefit of targeted therapy in a common cancer is established in RCTs, this benefit may extend to rarer cancers sharing the same biomarker. However, careful consideration of the appropriateness of extending the existing trial evidence beyond specific cancer types is required. A framework for extrapolating evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies to rare cancers is needed to support transparent decision-making. Objectives: To construct a framework outlining the breadth of criteria essential for extrapolating evidence for a biomarker-targeted therapy generated from RCTs in common cancers to different rare cancers sharing the same biomarker. Design: A series of questions articulating essential criteria for extrapolation. Methods: The framework was developed from the core topics for extrapolation identified from a previous scoping review of methodological guidance. Principles for extrapolation outlined in guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, and Australia’s Medical Services Advisory Committee were incorporated. Results: We propose a framework for assessing key assumptions of similarity of the disease and treatment outcomes between the common and rare cancer for five essential components: prognosis of the biomarker-defined cancer, biomarker test analytical validity, biomarker actionability, treatment efficacy, and safety. Knowledge gaps identified can be used to prioritize future studies. Conclusion: This framework will allow systematic assessment, standardize regulatory, reimbursement and clinical decision-making, and facilitate transparent discussions between key stakeholders in drug assessment for rare biomarker-defined cancers.

Introduction: ALK–rearranged advanced NSCLC (aNSCLC) represents 4% of all NSCLCs, and multiple ALK-targeted therapies (ALK-inhibitors) are now available for use. Little is known about changes in treatment patterns, or how prognostic factors and sequence of therapy may impact overall survival in the real-world setting. We aim to describe initial and subsequent treatments used, survival outcomes, prognostic factors, and the impact of treatment on overall survival in the largest (N = 739) real-world cohort of patients with ALK+ aNSCLC reported in the literature. Methods: Retrospective observational cohort study with data drawn from a U.S.-based electronic health record–derived, deidentified database. Eligible patients were diagnosed with ALK+ aNSCLC between 2011-2020 and were treated in multiple different cancer clinics and across multiple geographic regions throughout the United States. Results: From a cohort of 63,667 patients with aNSCLC, 739 patients with ALK+ NSCLC were eligible for analysis, median age was 63 years, 54% patients were female, and 85% were managed in community setting. More than 168 different treatment sequences were observed, and treatment utilization changed over time. Cohort median overall survival was 37 months (95% confidence interval: 33–45). Positive prognostic factors were as follows: never-smoking history, younger age, treatment in an academic setting, and initial early stage at diagnosis. Initial treatment with a second-generation ALK-inhibitor was associated with improved survival compared with chemotherapy. Conclusions: For people with ALK+ aNSCLC, this study has identified several important clinical prognostic factors and is practice affirming; first-line treatment with a second-generation ALK-inhibitor improves survival compared with chemotherapy.

Abstract Background Prostate cancer is the most common internal malignancy in Australian men, and although most patients have good survival outcomes, treatment toxicities can impair function, leading to diminished quality of life for prostate cancer survivors. Socioeconomic disadvantage and geographical remoteness have been shown to be related to worse oncologic outcomes, and it is expected that they would similarly influence functional outcomes in prostate cancer. Methods Using data from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (n = 10,924), we investigated functional outcomes as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) following prostate cancer treatment, focusing on associations with socioeconomic status and geographical remoteness and controlling for clinicopathologic characteristics. A single composite score was developed from the five separate EPIC-26 domains for use in geo-mapping. Results A total of 7690 patients had complete EPIC-26 data, allowing mapping hotspots of poor function using our composite score. These hotspots were observed to relate to areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. Significant heterogeneity in outcomes was seen in urban areas, with hotspots of good and poor function. Both socioeconomic disadvantage and geographical remoteness were found to predict for worse functional outcomes, although only the former is significant on multivariate analysis. Conclusions Geo-mapping of functional outcomes in prostate cancer has the potential to guide health care service provision and planning. A nuanced policy approach is required so as not to miss disadvantaged patients who live in urban areas. We have demonstrated the potential of geo-mapping to visualise population-level outcomes, potentially allowing targeted interventions to address inequities in quality of care.

Objectives To report clinician-perceived changes to cancer service delivery in response to COVID-19.Design Multidisciplinary Australasian cancer clinician survey in collaboration with the European Society of Medical Oncology.Setting Between May and June 2020 clinicians from 70 countries were surveyed; majority from Europe (n=196; 39%) with 1846 COVID-19 cases per million people, Australia (AUS)/New Zealand (NZ) (n=188; 38%) with 267/236 per million and Asia (n=75; 15%) with 121 per million at time of survey distribution.Participants Medical oncologists (n=372; 74%), radiation oncologists (n=91; 18%) and surgical oncologists (n=38; 8%).Results Eighty-nine per cent of clinicians reported altering clinical practices; more commonly among those with versus without patients diagnosed with COVID-19 (n=142; 93% vs n=225; 86%, p=0.03) but regardless of community transmission levels (p=0.26). More European clinicians (n=111; 66.1%) had treated patients diagnosed with COVID-19 compared with Asia (n=20; 27.8%) and AUS/NZ (n=8; 4.8%), p