Search

ObjectivesThe pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) evaluates new cancer drugs for public funding recommendations. While pCODR's deliberative framework evaluates overall clinical benefit and includes considerations for exceptional circumstances, rarity of indication is not explicitly addressed. Given the high unmet need that typically accompanies these indications, we explored the impact of rarity on oncology HTA recommendations and funding decisions.MethodsWe examined pCODR submissions with final recommendations from 2012 to 2017. Incidence rates were calculated using pCODR recommendation reports and statistics from the Canadian Cancer Society. Indications were classified as rare if the incidence rate was lower than 1/100,000 diagnoses, a definition referenced by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Each pCODR final report was examined for the funding recommendation/justification, level of supporting evidence (presence of a randomized control trial [RCT]), and time to funding (if applicable).ResultsOf the ninety-six pCODR reviews examined, 16.6 percent were classified as rare indications per above criteria. While the frequency of positive funding recommendations were similar between rare and nonrare indication (78.6 vs. 75 percent), rare indications were less likely to be presented with evidence from RCT (50 vs. 90 percent). The average time to funding did not differ significantly across provinces.ConclusionRare indications appear to be associated with weaker clinical evidence. There appears to be no association between rarity, positive funding recommendations, and time to funding. Further work will evaluate factors associated with positive recommendations and the real-world utilization of funded treatments for rare indications.

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., In a cohort of advanced pancreatic cancer patients, we observed that higher burden of patient‐reported symptoms at baseline is associated with reduced overall survival. The association remained significant after accounting for performance status and type of treatment.

In response to an increase in COVID-19 infection rates in Ontario, several systemic treatment (ST) regimens delivered in the adjuvant setting for breast cancer were temporarily permitted for neoadjuvant-intent to defer nonurgent breast cancer surgical procedures.To examine the use and compare short-term outcomes of neoadjuvant-intent vs adjuvant ST in the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era.This was a retrospective population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada. Patients with cancer starting selected ST regimens in the COVID-19 era (March 11, 2020, to September 30, 2020) were compared to those in the pre-COVID-19 era (March 11, 2019, to March 10, 2020). Patients were diagnosed with breast cancer within 6 months of starting systemic therapy.Estimates were calculated for the use of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant ST, the likelihood of receiving a surgical procedure, the rate of emergency department visits, hospital admissions, COVID-19 infections, and all-cause mortality between treatment groups over time.Among a total of 10 920 patients included, 7990 (73.2%) started treatment in the pre-COVID-19 era and 7344 (67.3%) received adjuvant ST; the mean (SD) age was 61.6 (13.1) years. Neoadjuvant-intent ST was more common in the COVID-19 era (1404 of 2930 patients [47.9%]) than the pre-COVID-19 era (2172 of 7990 patients [27.2%]), with an odds ratio of 2.46 (95% CI, 2.26-2.69; P .001). This trend was consistent across a range of ST regimens, but differed according to patient age and geography. The likelihood of receiving surgery following neoadjuvant-intent chemotherapy was similar in the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era (log-rank P = .06). However, patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant-intent hormonal therapy were significantly more likely to receive surgery in the COVID-19 era (log-rank P .001). After adjustment, there were no significant changes in the rate of emergency department visits over time between patients receiving neoadjuvant ST, adjuvant ST, or ST only during the ST treatment period or postoperative period. Hospital admissions decreased in the COVID-19 era for patients who received neoadjuvant ST compared with adjuvant ST or ST alone (P for interaction = .01 for both) in either setting.In this cohort study, patients were more likely to start neoadjuvant ST in the COVID-19 era, which varied across the province and by indication. There was limited evidence to suggest any substantial impact on short-term outcomes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has a significant impact on cancer patients and the delivery of cancer care. To allow clinicians to adapt treatment plans for patients, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) issued a series of interim funding measures for the province’s New Drug Funding Program (NDFP), which covers the cost of most hospital-delivered cancer drugs. To assess the utility of the measures and the need for their continuation, we conducted an online survey of Ontario oncology clinicians. The survey was open 3–25 September 2020 and generated 105 responses. Between April and June 2020, 46% of respondents changed treatment plans for more than 25% of their cancer patients due to the pandemic. Clinicians report broad use of interim funding measures. The most frequently reported strategies used were treatment breaks for stable patients (62%), extending dosing intervals (59%), and deferring routine imaging (56%). Most clinicians anticipate continuing to use these interim funding measures in the coming months. The survey showed that adapting cancer drug funding policies has supported clinical care in Ontario during the pandemic.

60 Background: Multiple myeloma represents less than 1.5% of new cancer cases in Canada. Currently, the estimated median overall survival is at least 5-6 years, primarily driven by therapeutic advances over the past decade. As treatment protocols routinely use doublet and triplet combinations, there are increasing concerns about the ability of health systems to afford growing costs of treatment. To inform system planning in Ontario, we examined trends in costs and utilization of myeloma drugs funded by Ontario’s New Drug Funding Program (NDFP) and the Ontario Drug Benefit program (ODB). Methods: NDFP primarily funds IV cancer drugs while ODB funds take-home cancer drugs (THCD). Treatment volumes and government costs, including drug costs and pharmacy fees where applicable, were obtained from ODB and NDFP claims data. Based on the available data, trends were examined from the 2010/11 to the second quarter of the 2019/20 fiscal year. Results: A total of 7 myeloma drugs (3-IV cancer drugs, 4-THCD) were examined. Over 9 years (2010/11 - 2018/19), spending on publicly-funded myeloma drugs increased by 303% while treatment volumes increased by 116%. Between 2014/15 and 2018/19, bortezomib spending decreased by 72%, largely due to generic pricing policies, while lenalidomide spending increased by 158%, likely due to new indications. By 2018/19, these 7 drugs accounted for 17% of the total cancer drug costs under Ontario's publicly funded programs. NDFP spending on IV cancer drugs by the second quarter of 2019/20 has surpassed the annual expenditures in 2018/19 due to the addition of daratumumab. Conclusions: Since 2010/11, growth in Ontario's public expenditures on myeloma drugs has outpaced savings from pricing policies and this growth is mainly driven by the high cost of the novel agents.

205 Background: Advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) patients often have a substantial symptom burden. In Ontario, patients visiting cancer clinics routinely complete the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), which screens for 9 symptoms (scale: 0-10). Using ESAS, we explored the association between baseline patient-reported outcomes and overall survival (OS). Methods: APC Patients with ESAS records prior to receiving publicly-funded drugs from November 2008 to March 2016 were identified from Cancer Care Ontario’s New Drug Funding Program and Symptom Management databases. We examined 3 baseline composite ESAS scores: Total Symptom Distress Score (TSDS: all 9 symptoms), Physical Symptom Score (PHS: 6/9 symptoms), and Psychological Symptom Score (PSS: 2/9 symptoms); Composite scores greater than a threshold (defined as number of symptoms in composite score multiplied by clinically relevant score (≥4)) were categorized as High Symptom Burden (TSDS ≥ 36, PHS ≥ 24, PSS ≥ 8). The primary endpoint, OS, was assessed using Kaplan-Meier. Multivariable Cox models were used to adjust for age, gender, income, prior therapies (surgery, adjuvant gemcitabine, radiation), and Charlson's comorbidity. Analysis was repeated in a sub-cohort with identifiable ECOG status and stage. Results: We identified 2,199 APC patients (mean age 64 years, 55% male) with ESAS records prior to receiving gemcitabine (54%), FOLFIRINOX (40%) or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (6%). Crude median survival was 4.5 and 7.3 months for patients with high and low TSDS burden, respectively (HR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.36, 1.66). After adjustment with multivariable Cox model, high TSDS burden was associated with lower OS (HR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.33, 1.63). Similar trends were observed for PHS and PSS. When adjusting for both PHS and PSS in a Cox model, only the effect of PHS remained significant. In the sub-cohort (n = 393), high TSDS burden (HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.73) was associated with lower OS, after adjusting for ECOG and stage. Conclusions: Among APC patients, a higher burden of patient-reported symptoms, via ESAS, at baseline was associated with reduced OS. The effect was prominent for physical symptoms, even after adjusting for treatment, stage and ECOG.

103 Title: Impact Of Novel Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Drugs On Public Spending Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a common hematologic malignancy that mainly affects the elderly. Over the past five years, the treatment pathway for CLL has dramatically changed with the emergence of multiple novel agents. In Ontario, Canada, the Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) program and the New Drug Funding Program (NDFP) primarily provide public coverage for CLL drugs. Given advances in treatment, we evaluated utilization trends for publicly-funded CLL drugs over a five year period (fiscal years 2012/13 to 2016/17). Methods: Drugs with primary CLL indications funded under the two public funding programs (i.e., ODB and NDFP) by 16/17 were included (n = 6). Claims and costs data were obtained from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and Cancer Care Ontario‘s datasets. Results: Over five years, expenditures on CLL drugs have increased approximately ten-fold (1000 percent), reaching nearly CAD 43 million (i.e., USD 32.8 million) in 16/17. In the front-line setting, spending on rituximab remained consistent over the five years. Spending on single agent bendamustine decreased with the introduction of obinutuzumab which became the main cost driver by 16/17. In the previously-treated CLL population, ibrutinib has dominated expenditures since it was funded in July 2015. By 16/17, ibrutinib accounted for approximately ninety eight percent of spending in the previously-treated population. Conclusions: In the past five years, public spending on CLL drugs increased rapidly and substantially with the introduction of four novel agents, and may continue to evolve as Canadian provinces consider funding additional indications or newer agents. These findings warrant exploring whether the incremental spending is providing survival benefit or improvement in patients’ quality of life in a real-world setting. Declaration of funding: None