Search

Abstract Background The aim of this study is to develop a method we call “cost mining” to unravel cost variation and identify cost drivers by modelling integrated patient pathways from primary care to the palliative care setting. This approach fills an urgent need to quantify financial strains on healthcare systems, particularly for colorectal cancer, which is the most expensive cancer in Australia, and the second most expensive cancer globally. Methods We developed and published a customized algorithm that dynamically estimates and visualizes the mean, minimum, and total costs of care at the patient level, by aggregating activity-based healthcare system costs (e.g. DRGs) across integrated pathways. This extends traditional process mining approaches by making the resulting process maps actionable and informative and by displaying cost estimates. We demonstrate the method by constructing a unique dataset of colorectal cancer pathways in Victoria, Australia, using records of primary care, diagnosis, hospital admission and chemotherapy, medication, health system costs, and life events to create integrated colorectal cancer patient pathways from 2012 to 2020. Results Cost mining with the algorithm enabled exploration of costly integrated pathways, i.e. drilling down in high-cost pathways to discover cost drivers, for 4246 cases covering approx. 4 million care activities. Per-patient CRC pathway costs ranged from $10,379 AUD to $41,643 AUD, and varied significantly per cancer stage such that e.g. chemotherapy costs in one cancer stage are different to the same chemotherapy regimen in a different stage. Admitted episodes were most costly, representing 93.34% or $56.6 M AUD of the total healthcare system costs covered in the sample. Conclusions Cost mining can supplement other health economic methods by providing contextual, sequence and timing-related information depicting how patients flow through complex care pathways. This approach can also facilitate health economic studies informing decision-makers on where to target care improvement or to evaluate the consequences of new treatments or care delivery interventions. Through this study we provide an approach for hospitals and policymakers to leverage their health data infrastructure and to enable real time patient level cost mining.

Abstract PACIFIC‐PGx evaluated the feasibility of implementing pharmacogenetics (PGx) screening in Australia and the impact of DPYD/UGT1A1 genotype‐guided dosing on severe fluoropyrimidine (FP) and irinotecan‐related toxicities and hospitalizations, compared to historical controls. This prospective single arm trial enrolled patients starting FP/irinotecan for any cancer between 7 January 2021 and 25 February 2022 from four Australian hospitals (one metropolitan, three regional). During the accrual period, 462/487 (95%) consecutive patients screened for eligibility for DPYD and 50/109 (46%) for UGT1A1 were enrolled and genotyped (feasibility analysis), with 276/462 (60%) for DPYD and 30/50 (60%) for UGT1A1 received FP/irinotecan (safety analysis). DPYD genotyping identified 96% (n = 443/462) Wild‐Type, 4% (n = 19/462) Intermediate Metabolizers (50% dose reduction), and 0% Poor Metabolizers. UGT1A1 genotyping identified 52% (n = 26/50) Wild‐Type, 40% (n = 20/50) heterozygous, and 8% (n = 4/50) homozygous (30% dose reduction). Key demographics for the FP/irinotecan safety cohorts included: age range 23–89/34–74 years, male 56%/73%, Caucasian 83%/73%, lower gastrointestinal cancer 50%/57%. Genotype results were reported prior to cycle‐1 (96%), average 5–7 days from sample collection. PGx‐dosing for DPYD variant allele carriers reduced high‐grade toxicities compared to historic controls (7% vs. 39%; OR = 0.11, 95% CI 0.01–0.97, p = 0.024). High‐grade toxicities among Wild‐Type were similar (14% vs. 14%; OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.64–1.54, p = 0.490). PGx‐dosing reduced FP‐related hospitalizations (−22%) and deaths (−3.7%) compared to controls. There were no high‐grade toxicities or hospitalizations for UGT1A1*28 homozygotes. PGx screening and prescribing were feasible in routine oncology care and improved patient outcomes. Findings may inform expanded PGx programs within cancer and other disease settings.

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 This study explored the acceptability of a novel pharmacist‐led pharmacogenetics (PGx) screening program among patients with cancer and healthcare professionals (HCPs) taking part in a multicenter clinical trial of PGx testing (PACIFIC‐PGx ANZCTR:12621000251820). Medical oncologists, oncology pharmacists, and patients with cancer from across four sites (metropolitan/regional), took part in an observational, cross‐sectional survey. Participants were recruited from the multicenter trial. Two study‐specific surveys were developed to inform implementation strategies for scaled and sustainable translation into routine clinical care: one consisting of 21 questions targeting HCPs and one consisting of 17 questions targeting patients. Responses were collected from 24 HCPs and 288 patients. The 5‐to‐7‐day PGx results turnaround time was acceptable to HCP (100%) and patients (69%). Most HCPs (92%) indicated that it was appropriate for the PGx clinical pharmacist to provide results to patients. Patients reported equal preference for receiving PGx results from a doctor/pharmacist. Patients and HCPs highly rated the pharmacist‐led PGx service. HCPs were overall accepting of the program, with the majority (96%) willing to offer PGx testing to their patients beyond the trial. HCPs identified that lack of financial reimbursements (62%) and lack of infrastructure (38%) were the main reasons likely to prevent/slow the implementation of PGx screening program into routine clinical care. Survey data have shown overall acceptability from patients and HCPs participating in the PGx Program. Barriers to implementation of PGx testing in routine care have been identified, providing opportunity to develop targeted implementation strategies for scaled translation into routine practice.

Abstract Background Demonstrating safety and efficacy of new medical treatments requires clinical trials but clinical trials are costly and may not provide value proportionate to their costs. As most health systems have limited resources, it is therefore important to identify the trials with the highest value. Tools exist to assess elements of a clinical trial such as statistical validity but are not wholistic in their valuation of a clinical trial. This study aims to develop a measure of clinical trials value and provide an online tool for clinical trial prioritisation. Methods A search of the academic and grey literature and stakeholder consultation was undertaken to identify a set of criteria to aid clinical trial valuation using multi-criteria decision analysis. Swing weighting and ranking exercises were used to calculate appropriate weights of each of the included criteria and to estimate the partial-value function for each underlying metric. The set of criteria and their respective weights were applied to the results of six different clinical trials to calculate their value. Results Seven criteria were identified: ‘unmet need’, ‘size of target population’, ‘eligible participants can access the trial’, ‘patient outcomes’, ‘total trial cost’, ‘academic impact’ and ‘use of trial results’. The survey had 80 complete sets of responses (51% response rate). A trial designed to address an ‘Unmet Need’ was most commonly ranked as the most important with a weight of 24.4%, followed by trials demonstrating improved ‘Patient Outcomes’ with a weight of 21.2%. The value calculated for each trial allowed for their clear delineation and thus a final value ranking for each of the six trials. Conclusion We confirmed that the use of the decision tool for valuing clinical trials is feasible and that the results are face valid based on the evaluation of six trials. A proof-of-concept applying this tool to a larger set of trials with an external validation is currently underway.

Abstract NTRK gene fusions are rare somatic mutations found across cancer types with promising targeted therapies emerging. Healthcare systems face significant challenges in integrating these treatments, with uncertainty in prevalence and optimal testing methods to identify eligible patients. We performed a systematic review of NTRK fusion prevalence to inform efficient diagnostic screening and scale of therapeutic uptake. We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases on 31/03/2021. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting fusion rates in solid tumours, English language, post-2010 publication and minimum sample size. Critical appraisal was performed using a custom 11-item checklist. Rates were collated by cancer type and pooled if additional synthesis criteria were met. 160 studies were included, with estimates for 15 pan-cancer and 429 specific cancer types (63 paediatric). Adult pan-cancer estimates ranged 0.03–0.70%, with higher rates found in RNA-based assays. In common cancers, rates were consistently below 0.5%. Rare morphological subtypes, colorectal microsatellite instability, and driver mutation exclusion cancers had higher rates. Only 35.6% of extracted estimates used appropriate methods and sample size to identify NTRK fusions. NTRK fusion-positive cancers are rare and widely distributed across solid tumours. Small-scale, heterogeneous data confound prevalence prediction. Further large-scale, standardised genomic data are needed to characterise NTRK fusion epidemiology.

Abstract Objective The aims of this study was to appraise the health economic evidence for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) strategies in stage II and III colon cancer (CC) and identify gaps in the available evidence that might inform further research. Method A systematic review of published economic evaluations was undertaken. Four databases were searched and full-text publications in English were screened for inclusion. A narrative synthesis was performed to summarise the evidence. Results Thirty-eight studies were identified and stratified by cancer stage and AC strategy. The majority (89%) were full economic evaluations considering both health outcomes, usually measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs. AC was found to be cost-effective compared to no AC for both stage II and III CC. Oral and oxaliplatin-based AC was cost-effective for stage III. Three months of CAPOX was cost-effective compared to 6-month in high-risk stage II and stage III CC. Preliminary evidence suggests that biomarker approaches to AC selection in stage II can reduce costs and improve health outcomes. Notably, assessment of QALYs were predominantly reliant on a small number of non-contemporary health-utility studies. Only 32% of studies considered societal costs such as travel and time off work. Conclusions Published economic evaluations consistently supported the use of AC in stage II and III colon cancer. Biomarker-driven approaches to patient selection have great potential to be cost-effective, but more robust clinical and economic evidence is warranted. Patient surveys embedded into clinical trials may address critical knowledge gaps regarding accurate assessment of QALYs and societal costs in the modern era.

Abstract Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved in the USA for tumours exhibiting mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR), microsatellite instability (MSI), or high tumour mutational burden (TMB), with regulatory and reimbursement applications in multiple other countries underway. As the estimated budget impacts of future reimbursements depend on the size of the potential target population, we performed a scoping review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of these pan-tumour biomarkers in different cancers. We systematically searched Medline/Embase and included studies reporting the prevalence of dMMR/MSI/high TMB in solid tumours published 01/01/2018–31/01/2021. Meta-analyses were performed separately for the pan-cancer prevalence of each biomarker, and by cancer type and stage where possible. The searches identified 3890 papers, with 433 prevalence estimates for 32 different cancer types from 201 studies included in meta-analyses. The pooled overall prevalence of dMMR, MSI and high TMB (≥ 10 mutations/Mb) in pan-cancer studies was 2.9%, 2.7% and 14.0%, respectively. The prevalence profiles of dMMR/MSI and high TMB differed across cancer types. For example, endometrial, colorectal, small bowel and gastric cancers showed high prevalence of both dMMR and MSI (range: 8.7–26.8% and 8.5–21.9%, respectively) and high TMB (range: 8.5–43.0%), while cervical, esophageal, bladder/urothelial, lung and skin cancers showed low prevalence of dMMR and MSI (

Abstract Background This study shows how dynamic simulation modeling can be applied in the context of the nationwide implementation of Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to inform organizational decisions regarding the use of complex and disruptive health technologies and how these decisions affect their potential value. Methods Using the case of the nationwide implementation of WGS into clinical practice in lung cancer in the Dutch healthcare system, we developed a simulation model to show that including service delivery features across the diagnostic pathway can provide essential insight into the affordability and accessibility of care at the systems level. The model was implemented as a hybrid Agent-Based Model and Discrete-Event Simulation model in AnyLogic and included 78 hospital agents, 7 molecular tumor board agents, 1 WGS facility agent, and 5313 patient agents each year in simulation time. Results The model included patient and provider heterogeneity, including referral patterns, capacity constraints, and diagnostic workflows. Patient preference and adoption by healthcare professionals were also modeled. The model was used to analyze a scenario in which only academic hospitals have implemented WGS. To prevent delays in the diagnostic pathway, the capacity to sequence at least 1600 biopsies yearly should be present. There is a two-fold increase in mean diagnostic pathway duration between no patients referred or all patients referred for further diagnostics. Conclusions The systems model can complement conventional health economic evaluations to investigate how the organization of the workflow can influence the actual use and impact of WGS. Insufficient capacity to provide WGS and referral patterns can substantially impact the duration of the diagnostic pathway and thus should be considered in the implementation of WGS.

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.

Abstract Background Current international consensus is that ‘early’ referral to palliative care services improves cancer patient and family carer outcomes. In practice, however, these referrals are not routine. An approach which directly addresses identified barriers to early integration of palliative care is required. This protocol details a trial of a standardized model of early palliative care (Care Plus) introduced at key defined, disease-specific times or transition points in the illness for people with cancer. Introduced as a ‘whole of system’ practice change for identified advanced cancers, the key outcomes of interest are population health service use change. The aims of the study are to examine the effect of Care Plus implementation on (1) acute hospitalisation days in the last 3 months of life; (2) timeliness of access to palliative care; (3) quality and (4) costs of end of life care; and (5) the acceptability of services for people with advanced cancer. Methods Multi-site stepped wedge implementation trial testing usual care (control) versus Care Plus (practice change). The design stipulates ‘control’ periods when usual care is observed, and the process of implementing Care Plus which includes phases of planning, engagement, practice change and evaluation. During the practice change phase, all patients with targeted advanced cancers reaching the transition point will, by default, receive Care Plus. Health service utilization and unit costs before and after implementation will be collated from hospital records, and state and national health service administrative datasets. Qualitative data from patients, consumers and clinicians before and after practice change will be gathered through interviews and focus groups. Discussion The study outcomes will detail the impact and acceptability of the standardized integration of palliative care as a practice change, including recommendations for ongoing sustainability and broader implementation. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN 12619001703190 . Registered 04 December 2019.

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

Introduction Nearly one quarter of a million Australian workers experience a work injury annually and make a benefit claim through one of the nation’s eleven workers’ compensation (WC) systems. The total cost to Australian society has most recently been estimated at $61.8 billion or 4.1% of GDP. The disaggregation of legislative responsibility between jurisdictions has contributed to a lack of common data standards, and thus minimal understanding of the efficiency or effectiveness of service provision in the Australian WC sector. Objectives and Approach This project developed a new multi-jurisdictional work disability database including detailed information on work disability duration, health and social care service provision. Service level payment data contained in structured WC insurance claims datasets held by five large WC jurisdictions with >60% coverage of the Australian labour force was collected for all cases of work-related low back pain, fractures and limb soft tissue disease over between 2010 and 2015. Database development involved creation and coding of harmonised service-level indicators for individual episodes of healthcare provision and weekly periods of wage replacement. Results A total of 253,000 cases and 10.7 million service episodes are included in the database. Initial exploratory analyses focused on the frequency, prevalence, timing, intensity and continuity of General Practitioner (GP) services to each of the injury groups. Regression modelling examined occupational, injury, demographic and jurisdictional factors affecting GP service use outcomes. As anticipated, service patterns varied by injury type, age, gender and occupational group. Significant differences in service use between WC jurisdictions were observed. Conclusion / Implications This exploratory study demonstrates the feasibility of developing a population-based service level database for monitoring health service delivery to injured Australian workers. Future studies will examine the impact of jurisdictional policy differences on service delivery, and the relationship between service delivery and outcomes such as disability duration.