Omer Ben-Aharon1, Racheli Magnezi1, Moshe Leshno2, Daniel A Goldstein3. 1. Department of Management, Health System Management Program, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. 2. Coller School of Management, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tiqva, Israel.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Modern immuno-oncology agents have generated great excitement because of their potential to provide durable survival for some patients. However, there is concern regarding the cost of cancer care, and multiple frameworks have been developed to assess value. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) framework awards bonus points if substantial durable survival is demonstrated. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether modern immuno-oncology agents reach defined efficacy thresholds in value frameworks. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this analysis, all US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for immuno-oncology agents between March 2011 and August 2017 were reviewed. Data required for the ASCO framework were collected, specifically improvement in proportion of patients alive with the test regimen and survival rate with standard treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Awarding of bonus points for durable survival based on the ASCO criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-three metastatic indications for 6 immuno-oncology agents (ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab) were approved by the FDA from March 2011 to August 2017. Ten (43%) of the approvals were based on survival end points, while 13 (57%) were based on response rates. Only 3 drug indications fulfilled the threshold defined for the survival rate of patients receiving standard care (minimum 20%). Nine indications achieved the required level of improvement in proportion to patients alive in the test regimen compared with the standard (above 50%). There was overlap between these 2 criteria for 3 drug indications, allowing them to gain the durable survival bonus points awarded by the ASCO framework. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Durable survival and response rates of modern immuno-oncology agents are rarely recognized as significant by current oncology value frameworks. This may be due to insufficient demonstration of efficacy of such agents or inappropriately calibrated value frameworks.
IMPORTANCE: Modern immuno-oncology agents have generated great excitement because of their potential to provide durable survival for some patients. However, there is concern regarding the cost of cancer care, and multiple frameworks have been developed to assess value. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) framework awards bonus points if substantial durable survival is demonstrated. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether modern immuno-oncology agents reach defined efficacy thresholds in value frameworks. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this analysis, all US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for immuno-oncology agents between March 2011 and August 2017 were reviewed. Data required for the ASCO framework were collected, specifically improvement in proportion of patients alive with the test regimen and survival rate with standard treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Awarding of bonus points for durable survival based on the ASCO criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-three metastatic indications for 6 immuno-oncology agents (ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab) were approved by the FDA from March 2011 to August 2017. Ten (43%) of the approvals were based on survival end points, while 13 (57%) were based on response rates. Only 3 drug indications fulfilled the threshold defined for the survival rate of patients receiving standard care (minimum 20%). Nine indications achieved the required level of improvement in proportion to patients alive in the test regimen compared with the standard (above 50%). There was overlap between these 2 criteria for 3 drug indications, allowing them to gain the durable survival bonus points awarded by the ASCO framework. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Durable survival and response rates of modern immuno-oncology agents are rarely recognized as significant by current oncology value frameworks. This may be due to insufficient demonstration of efficacy of such agents or inappropriately calibrated value frameworks.
Authors: N I Cherny; R Sullivan; U Dafni; J M Kerst; A Sobrero; C Zielinski; E G E de Vries; M J Piccart Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-05-30 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Tanguy Y Seiwert; Barbara Burtness; Ranee Mehra; Jared Weiss; Raanan Berger; Joseph Paul Eder; Karl Heath; Terrill McClanahan; Jared Lunceford; Christine Gause; Jonathan D Cheng; Laura Q Chow Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Lowell E Schnipper; Nancy E Davidson; Dana S Wollins; Douglas W Blayney; Adam P Dicker; Patricia A Ganz; J Russell Hoverman; Robert Langdon; Gary H Lyman; Neal J Meropol; Therese Mulvey; Lee Newcomer; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Blase Polite; Derek Raghavan; Gregory Rossi; Leonard Saltz; Deborah Schrag; Thomas J Smith; Peter P Yu; Clifford A Hudis; Julie M Vose; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael A Postow; Jason Chesney; Anna C Pavlick; Caroline Robert; Kenneth Grossmann; David McDermott; Gerald P Linette; Nicolas Meyer; Jeffrey K Giguere; Sanjiv S Agarwala; Montaser Shaheen; Marc S Ernstoff; David Minor; April K Salama; Matthew Taylor; Patrick A Ott; Linda M Rollin; Christine Horak; Paul Gagnier; Jedd D Wolchok; F Stephen Hodi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jonathan E Rosenberg; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Tom Powles; Michiel S van der Heijden; Arjun V Balar; Andrea Necchi; Nancy Dawson; Peter H O'Donnell; Ani Balmanoukian; Yohann Loriot; Sandy Srinivas; Margitta M Retz; Petros Grivas; Richard W Joseph; Matthew D Galsky; Mark T Fleming; Daniel P Petrylak; Jose Luis Perez-Gracia; Howard A Burris; Daniel Castellano; Christina Canil; Joaquim Bellmunt; Dean Bajorin; Dorothee Nickles; Richard Bourgon; Garrett M Frampton; Na Cui; Sanjeev Mariathasan; Oyewale Abidoye; Gregg D Fine; Robert Dreicer Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Caroline Robert; Antoni Ribas; Jedd D Wolchok; F Stephen Hodi; Omid Hamid; Richard Kefford; Jeffrey S Weber; Anthony M Joshua; Wen-Jen Hwu; Tara C Gangadhar; Amita Patnaik; Roxana Dronca; Hassane Zarour; Richard W Joseph; Peter Boasberg; Bartosz Chmielowski; Christine Mateus; Michael A Postow; Kevin Gergich; Jeroen Elassaiss-Schaap; Xiaoyun Nicole Li; Robert Iannone; Scot W Ebbinghaus; S Peter Kang; Adil Daud Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Hossein Borghaei; Luis Paz-Ares; Leora Horn; David R Spigel; Martin Steins; Neal E Ready; Laura Q Chow; Everett E Vokes; Enriqueta Felip; Esther Holgado; Fabrice Barlesi; Martin Kohlhäufl; Oscar Arrieta; Marco Angelo Burgio; Jérôme Fayette; Hervé Lena; Elena Poddubskaya; David E Gerber; Scott N Gettinger; Charles M Rudin; Naiyer Rizvi; Lucio Crinò; George R Blumenschein; Scott J Antonia; Cécile Dorange; Christopher T Harbison; Friedrich Graf Finckenstein; Julie R Brahmer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ravi B Parikh; Eun Jeong Min; E Paul Wileyto; Fauzia Riaz; Cary P Gross; Roger B Cohen; Rebecca A Hubbard; Qi Long; Ronac Mamtani Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Howard L Kaufman; Michael B Atkins; Prasun Subedi; James Wu; James Chambers; T Joseph Mattingly; Jonathan D Campbell; Jeff Allen; Andrea E Ferris; Richard L Schilsky; Daniel Danielson; J Leonard Lichtenfeld; Linda House; Wendy K D Selig Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 13.751
Authors: Di Maria Jiang; Kelvin K W Chan; Raymond W Jang; Christopher Booth; Geoffrey Liu; Eitan Amir; Robert Mason; Louis Everest; Elena Elimova Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 4.452