Emerson Y Chen1, Madeline Cook2, Christopher Deig3, Asad Arastu4, Vinay Prasad5, Nima Nabavizadeh3, Charles D Lopez1, Adel Kardosh1. 1. Division of Hematology Oncology, Oregon Health & Science University, Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, OR. 2. School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR. 3. Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR. 4. Division of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Determination of the comparative efficacy of one therapy over another for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be challenging. Application of a recognized value framework to published studies could objectively compare the potential benefit across available therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An umbrella review of phase III trials for HCC therapies was performed. ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit Score version 2 (ASCO-NHB v2) scores, the primary analysis, and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 scores, the secondary analysis, were computed using selected drug registration trials. Both scores were compared between drugs that were Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved by 2020 and those that were not. RESULTS: Of the 22 studies identified, nine were FDA-approved and 13 were not. Across 22 trials, the median overall survival (OS) was 9.2 months (range, 1.9-16.4 months), with a median gain of 0.35 month (range, 2.3-3.3 months). HCC therapies that were FDA-approved showed longer OS (median 10.7 v 7.9 months, P < .01) and higher ASCO NHB scores (+18.4 v -5.7 scores, P < .01). The median gain in OS was 2.2 months in the approved treatments compared with -0.3 months in the unapproved group, with no difference in progression-free survival between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The nine FDA-approved therapies for HCC have higher mean NHB score than those that were not FDA-approved. The application of ASCO-NHB v2 and other proposed value frameworks could examine data of future therapies for HCC through a patient-oriented approach.
BACKGROUND: Determination of the comparative efficacy of one therapy over another for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be challenging. Application of a recognized value framework to published studies could objectively compare the potential benefit across available therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An umbrella review of phase III trials for HCC therapies was performed. ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit Score version 2 (ASCO-NHB v2) scores, the primary analysis, and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 scores, the secondary analysis, were computed using selected drug registration trials. Both scores were compared between drugs that were Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved by 2020 and those that were not. RESULTS: Of the 22 studies identified, nine were FDA-approved and 13 were not. Across 22 trials, the median overall survival (OS) was 9.2 months (range, 1.9-16.4 months), with a median gain of 0.35 month (range, 2.3-3.3 months). HCC therapies that were FDA-approved showed longer OS (median 10.7 v 7.9 months, P < .01) and higher ASCO NHB scores (+18.4 v -5.7 scores, P < .01). The median gain in OS was 2.2 months in the approved treatments compared with -0.3 months in the unapproved group, with no difference in progression-free survival between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The nine FDA-approved therapies for HCC have higher mean NHB score than those that were not FDA-approved. The application of ASCO-NHB v2 and other proposed value frameworks could examine data of future therapies for HCC through a patient-oriented approach.