Search

Background: Following an early-stage cancer diagnosis, recurrences can occur. To quantify financial impacts of a first recurrence, we surveyed patients and caregivers., Methods: The survey was self-administered online to patients ( N  = 202) with early-stage bladder, gastric, head and neck, melanoma, non-small cell lung, renal cell, and triple-negative breast cancers that recurred and caregivers ( N  = 100) of such patients. Work productivity and financial impacts were explored., Results: Negative impacts on work productivity, employment, finances, and healthcare resource use were identified, with significant differences seen across cancer types, between locoregional and distant/metastatic recurrences, and from pre-recurrence to post-recurrence., Conclusions: The financial burden to patients, caregivers, healthcare systems, and society following early-stage cancer recurrence is substantial. Treatments that decrease recurrences can reduce this burden.

Background: While patients with cancer have traditionally received oncology treatments through intravenous (IV) administration, some therapies are becoming available via alternative modes of administration, such as subcutaneous (SC). This study aimed to evaluate IV versus SC therapy administration from the perspectives of the patient, healthcare provider (HCP), and healthcare system., Methods: A systematic review was conducted, searching MEDLINE and Embase databases from 2000 to 2022. This was supplemented with grey literature searches of additional sources such as conference proceedings. Observational studies and clinical trials were included if they assessed adult patients with any cancer type who were treated with pharmacologic therapies administered via IV or SC and included patient- or HCP-reported outcomes or healthcare system perspectives on the mode of administration. Records identified by the literature search were screened by two independent reviewers. Included studies were data extracted by a single reviewer and validated by a second reviewer and synthesized using a narrative approach., Results: After screening, 33 unique studies were included in the systematic review. Patients and HCPs reported substantially more favorable preference rates for SC over IV treatment. Additionally, from the patient perspective there were reductions in treatment time and economic burden for SC compared with IV therapy. From the HCP's perspective, treatment time was consistently reduced by SC compared with IV treatment administration. Although information on the impact of SC and IV treatments for oncology on healthcare systems was limited, the use of SC formulations showed consistent cost savings (direct costs) and time savings from this perspective considering various uptake scenarios compared with IV administration., Conclusion: Compared with IV administration, SC oncology treatment is a preferred option by patients and HCPs, increasing optionality and reducing treatment time while simultaneously increasing capacity and reducing the financial burden on healthcare systems., (© 2024. Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and its affiliates & Iain Fotheringham, Lalith Mittal, Smit Pathak.)

Aim: To compare pembrolizumab with competing interventions for previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer. Method: Trials were identified via a systematic literature review and synthesized using a Bayesian network meta-analysis with time-varying hazard ratios (HRs). Results: Using intention-to-treat data, HRs for overall survival were generally in favor of pembrolizumab but not statistically significant; however, statistical significance was reached versus all comparators by month 16 when accounting for crossover. Estimated HRs for progression-free survival significantly favored pembrolizumab versus all comparators by month 12. Pembrolizumab was also superior to all comparators in terms of grade ≥3 adverse events. Conclusion: These analyses suggest that pembrolizumab is a highly efficacious and safe treatment in this population.

Aims: To assess the accuracy of standard parametric survival models, spline models, and mixture cure models (MCMs) fitted to overall survival (OS) data available at the time of submission in the NICE HTA process compared with data subsequently made available., Methods: Standard parametric distributions, spline models, and MCMs were fitted to OS data presented in single technology appraisals (TAs) for immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer. For each TA, the estimated survival from the fitted models was compared with Kaplan-Meier (KM) data that were made available following the HTA submission using differences between point estimates and restricted area under the curve (AUC) at both the midpoint and the end of additional follow-up. Differences in interval AUC values (calculated for each 6-month period) were also assessed., Results: Standard parametric survival models and spline models were more likely to underestimate longer-term survival, irrespective of the measure used to assess model accuracy. MCMs were more likely to overestimate survival; however, this was improved in some cases by applying an additional hazard of mortality for "statistically cured" patients., Limitations: The accuracy of the models was assessed based on much shorter OS data than the period for which extrapolation is needed, which may impact conclusions regarding the most accurate models. The most recent TAs for ICIs have not been captured., Conclusions: There are no definitive findings that unquestionably support the use of one specific extrapolation technique. Rather, each has the potential to provide accurate or inaccurate extrapolation to longer-term data in certain circumstances, but the added flexibility of more complex models can be justified for treatments, like ICIs, that have extended survival for patients across disease areas. The use of mortality adjustments for "statistically cured" patients allows decision-makers to explore more conservative scenarios in the face of high decision uncertainty.