European Society For Medical Oncology Magnitude Of Clinical Benefit Scale Research Articles

List prices and clinical value of anticancer drugs in China, Japan, and South Korea: a retrospective comparative study

High prices of anticancer drugs have raised concerns due to their financial impact on patients and healthcare systems. This study aimed to assess the initial and latest list prices and clinical value of reimbursed anticancer drugs in China, Japan, and South Korea. We identified anticancer drugs newly approved by the National Medical Products Administration of China from January 2012 to June 2022, and by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency of Japan and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of South Korea up until June 2022. We compared initial and latest treatment prices between countries and assessed clinical value using patients' survival, quality of life (QoL), and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We calculated Spearman rank correlation coefficients of treatment prices with clinical value for individual countries and employed regression analyses to investigate whether the relationship between prices and clinical value was modified by the country setting. Our cohort included 91 anticancer drug indications, with 60 listed for reimbursement in China, 91 in Japan, and 87 in South Korea. Median treatment prices were highest in Japan, followed by South Korea, and lowest in China, both for initial prices (US$64082 vs. US$45529 vs. US$19144, p<0.0001) and latest prices (US$50859 vs. US$31611 vs. US$18666, p<0.0001). Over time, China (β=-0.047, p<0.0001) and South Korea (β=-0.049, p<0.0001) witnessed more significant price reductions compared to Japan (β=-0.013, p=0.011). The correlations between both initial and latest treatment prices and clinical value (QoL and ESMO-MCBS) were more significant and stronger in China and South Korea than in Japan, although Japan exhibited slightly stronger correlations in terms of survival compared to China and South Korea. The relationship between clinical value and treatment prices may not be modified by the country setting. In comparison, South Korea's list prices and their correlations with clinical value appear reasonable. Policymakers in Japan could enhance efficiency by controlling prices and aligning them with clinical value, while China would need to take substantial steps to expand anticancer drug coverage. National Natural Science Foundation of China (72374149 and 72074163), and China Center for South Asian Studies, Sichuan University.

Evaluating the clinical benefit of pembrolizumab as a first-line agent in advanced solid tumors: A comprehensive review.

The study evaluates the first-line application of pembrolizumab in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC), gastric cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. Utilizing the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF), the analysis incorporates data from pivotal KEYNOTE trials. The study systematically assessed the clinical benefit of pembrolizumab in advanced solid malignancies through nine randomized controlled trials, one of which comprised two experimental arms. Data extraction from primary sources was conducted from PubMed, ASCO, and ESMO publications. Utilizing ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF forms, the evaluation focused on clinical benefit, toxicity, and bonus points, with discrepancies resolved through consensus discussions. Nine first-line indications for pembrolizumab received Food and Drug Administration approval for metastatic solid tumors between 2018 and 2023. Notable distinctions in ESMO-MCBS grades revealed seven trials with substantial clinical benefit (grades 5 to 4) and three with moderate to negligible benefit (grades 3 to 1). Bonus points, primarily based on the tail of the curve, were allocated to three trials for overall survival, one for progression-free survival, and one for a significant improvement in quality of life. Our evaluation of pembrolizumab across diverse cancers, especially in mNSCLC and HNSCC, revealed varied outcomes and challenges in clinical benefit interpretation. The assessment of clinical benefit, incorporating quantitative and qualitative endpoints, underscores the need to consider survivorship outcomes and patient perspectives for a comprehensive understanding.

Abstract PO5-10-08: Clinical Value of Molecular Targets and Genome-Targeted Cancer Therapies Recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for Advanced Breast Cancer

Abstract Background: Genomic testing has expanded the possibilities of precision cancer medicine, particularly for advanced, treatment-resistant breast cancer cases. However, the clinical significance of most genetic alterations remains uncertain, potentially overestimating tailored therapies. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are evidence-based cancer-specific recommendations used in clinical practice and that are often determinative for insurance coverage. In this study, we assessed the validity of the targets and the clinical benefit of genome-targeted cancer drugs recommended in the NCCN guidelines for metastatic breast cancer. Methods: We identified genome-targeted oncology therapies supporting advanced breast cancer recommendations in the most recent NCCN breast cancer guideline (version 4.2023). Genome-targeted drugs were defined as involving use of a genomic test in which the drug targeted a genomic alteration. We analyzed data from trials supporting advanced genome-targeted breast cancer drugs recommendations. When multiple (or overlapping) articles for the same study were identified, the most recent publication was included. We extracted key details of each trial, including trial design, blinding, phase of clinical trial and primary efficacy end points. We cross-referenced the FDA-approved indications as of 30 June 2023 with the NCCN recommendations for each drug. Strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability was evaluated using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit for genome-targeted oncology therapies was assessed using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We considered a substantial clinical benefit as a grade of 4 or 5. Molecular targets qualifying for ESCAT category level I-A and I-B associated with substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS were rated as high-benefit genomic-targeted breast cancer treatments. Results: We identified 47 recommendations supporting 17 genome-targeted drugs, which targeted 11 driver alterations. Out of these recommendations, 29 (62%) aligned with the FDA indications. We associated 47 trials with these recommendations, most randomized (24, 51%), phase 3 (23, 49%) and open-label (42, 89%). The most common primary endpoint (22, 47%) was overall response rate, followed by progression-free survival/time to progression (21, 45%). Twenty-four trials (51%) had a I-A ESCAT targetability, 7 (15%) had a I-B targetability, 6 (13%) had a I-C targetability score and 10 (21%) were categorized as II-B. ERBB2 amplification, germline BRCA1/2 mutations, PIK3CA mutations, and ESR1 mutation were mainly classified as tier I-A based on randomized trials demonstrating the effectiveness of approved targeted therapies in patients with these alterations. By contrast, RET fusions, NTRK fusions, high-tumor mutational burden and microsatellite instability were ranked as tier I-C and somatic BRCA mutations, germline PALB2 mutations and HER-2 mutations as II-B. Six trials (14%, 6/42) supporting drug approval demonstrated substantial ESMO-MCBS clinical benefit. Overall, 6 recommendations (14%) had high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments. Conclusions: Fewer than one-fifth of molecular-targeted cancer therapies recommended in NCCN guidelines for metastatic breast cancer demonstrated substantial patient benefits. Value frameworks like ESCAT and ESMO-MCBS can help stakeholders identify therapies with the greatest potential. Citation Format: Ariadna Tibau, Thomas J. Hwang, Jerry Avorn, Aaron Kesselheim. Clinical Value of Molecular Targets and Genome-Targeted Cancer Therapies Recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for Advanced Breast Cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO5-10-08.

Abstract PO4-10-12: Value of Molecular Targets and Genome-Targeted Therapies FDA-Approved for Metastatic Breast Cancer, 2006-2023

Abstract Title: Value of Molecular Targets and Genome-Targeted Therapies FDA-Approved for Metastatic Breast Cancer, 2006-2023 Background: The number of FDA-approved genome-targeted cancer drugs for metastatic breast cancer has increased, providing the potential for personalized therapy. To help physicians, patients, and policymakers differentiate meaningful from trivial innovation in this field, we assessed the validity of the targets and value of the outcomes used in the pivotal trials supporting approval. Methods: We analyzed trials supporting genome-targeted breast cancer drugs FDA-approved between 2006-2023, defined as those using a genomic test in which the drug targeted a given genomic alteration. From FDA drug labels and trial reports, we extracted characteristics of pivotal trials. For Accelerated Approvals—a special FDA program allowing approval based on unvalidated surrogate measures—if the drug later received traditional approval based on a confirmatory trial, only the latter was analyzed. Strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability was evaluated using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit for approved indications was assessed using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Molecular targets qualifying for ESCAT category level I-A or I-B associated with ESMO-MCBS grade 4 or 5 were rated as high-benefit genomic-targeted breast cancer treatments. Results: Fifteen genome-targeted drugs covered 17 indications and targeted 8 driver alterations. Among the 17 pivotal trials supporting these indications, most were randomized (11, 65%), phase 3 (11, 65%) and open-label (14, 82%). The most common primary endpoint leading to approval (10, 59%) was progression-free survival. Eleven trials (65%) had a I-A ESCAT targetability, 5 (29%) had a I-C targetability score and 1 (6%) was categorized as II-A. ERBB2 amplification, germline BRCA1/2 mutations, PIK3CA mutations, and ESR1 mutation were classified as tier I-A due to randomized trials demonstrating the effectiveness of approved targeted therapies in patients with these alterations. RET fusions, NTRK fusions, and microsatellite instability were classified as tier I-C, while high-tumor mutational burden was categorized as tier II-A. Eighteen percent of trials (3/17) demonstrated ESMO-MCBS grades 4-5. Overall, 3 of 17 (18%) indications had high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments. Conclusions: Among molecular-targeted cancer therapies approved for metastatic breast cancer, fewer than a fifth demonstrated substantial patient benefits at approval. Benefit frameworks like ESCAT and ESMO-MCBS can help stakeholders identify therapies with the greatest potential. Citation Format: Ariadna Tibau, Thomas J. Hwang, Consolacion Molto Valiente, Jerry Avorn, Aaron Kesselheim. Value of Molecular Targets and Genome-Targeted Therapies FDA-Approved for Metastatic Breast Cancer, 2006-2023 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO4-10-12.

Clinical Value of Molecular Targets and FDA-Approved Genome-Targeted Cancer Therapies

The number of new genome-targeted cancer drugs has increased, offering the possibility of personalized therapy, often at a very high cost. To assess the validity of molecular targets and therapeutic benefits of US Food and Drug Administration-approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on the outcomes of their corresponding pivotal clinical trials. In this cohort study, all genome-targeted cancer drugs that were FDA-approved between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022, were analyzed. From FDA drug labels and trial reports, key characteristics of pivotal trials were extracted, including the outcomes assessed. The strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit for their approved indications was evaluated using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Substantial clinical benefit was defined as a grade of A or B for curative intent and 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. Molecular targets qualifying for ESCAT category level I-A and I-B associated with substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS were rated as high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments. A total of 50 molecular-targeted drugs covering 84 indications were analyzed. Forty-five indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or phase 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials, and 48 (57%) were approved on the basis of subgroup analyses. By each indication, 46 of 84 primary end points (55%) were overall response rate (median [IQR] overall response rate, 57% [40%-69%]; median [IQR] duration of response, 11.1 [9.2-19.8] months). Among the 84 pivotal trials supporting these 84 indications, 38 trials (45%) had I-A ESCAT targetability, and 32 (38%) had I-B targetability. Overall, 24 of 84 trials (29%) demonstrated substantial clinical benefit via ESMO-MCBS. Combining these ratings, 24 of 84 indications (29%) were associated with high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments. The results of this cohort study demonstrate that among recently approved molecular-targeted cancer therapies, fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial patient benefits at approval. Benefit frameworks such as ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT can help physicians, patients, and payers identify therapies with the greatest clinical potential.

Cost and value of cancer medicines in a single-payer public health system in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional study

The financial impact of cancer medicines on health systems is not well known. We describe temporal trends in expenditure on cancer medicines within the single-payer health system of Ontario, Canada, and the extent of clinical benefit these treatments offer. In this cross-sectional study, we identified cancer medicines and expenditures from formularies and costing databases (the New Drug Funding Program, Ontario Drug Benefit Program, and The High-Cost Therapy Funding Program) during 10 consecutive years (April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2022) in Ontario, Canada. For intravenous medicines, we applied the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) to identify expenditures associated with substantial clinical benefit. We also identified treatments associated with improved overall survival or quality of life. 69 intravenous and 98 oral or injectable medicines were funded during 2012-22. Annual expenditure on cancer medicines increased by approximately 15% per year during 2012-22; the increase was more rapid in the most recent 4 years. Total expenditure on cancer medicines in the 2021-22 financial year was CA$1·7 billion. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were the single biggest expense by class ($284 million), representing 17% of the entire cancer medicine annual budget. Drugs with the highest individual costs were lenalidomide ($178 million) and pembrolizumab ($163 million), each accounting for around 10% of the entire budget. 29 (76%) of 38 indications eligible for ESMO-MCBS scoring met the threshold for substantial clinical benefit. Eight (21%) indications had no randomised trial evidence of improved overall survival, and only four (11%) were associated with improved QOL. $346 million (67% of the expenditure on intravenous cancer medicines) was spent on drugs that improved median overall survival by more than 6 months, $82 million (16%) was spent on medicines with overall survival gains of 3-6 months, and $32 million (6%) was spent on medicines with overall survival gains of less than 3 months. $53 million (10%) was spent on medicines with no established improvement in overall survival. Costs of cancer medicines to the Canadian health system are increasing rapidly. Most funded indications met thresholds for substantial clinical benefit and two-thirds of the expenditure were for medicines that improve survival by more than 6 months. Whether this cost trajectory can be maintained in a sustainable, equitable, high-quality health system is unclear. Efforts are needed to ensure the price of medicines with substantial benefit is affordable and funding of treatments with very modest benefit might need to be re-assessed, particularly when alternative supportive and palliative therapies are available. None.

Evaluation of changes in the clinical benefits of oncology drugs over time following reimbursement using the ASCO-VF and the ESMO-MCBS

PurposeThis study aims to estimate changes in the value of oncology drugs over time from initial data of the reimbursement decisions to subsequent publications in Korea, using two value frameworks.MethodsWe retrieved primary publications assessed for reimbursement between 2007 and July 2021 from the decision documents of Health Insurance Review and Assessment and subsequent publications made available following reimbursement decision from ClinicalTrials.Gov and PubMed databases. Changes in the clinical benefit scores were assessed using the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). A paired t test was performed to test whether there was a difference in the scores between primary and subsequent publications.ResultsOf 73 anticancer product/indication pairs, 45 (61.6%) had subsequent publications, of which 62.5% were released within 1 year of reimbursement decision. The mean ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF Net Health Benefit scores increased from primary to subsequent publications, although the differences were not significant. The mean ASCO-VF bonus score significantly increased from 15.91 to 19.09 (p = 0.05). The ESMO-MCBS and bonus scores increased by 0.25 and 0.21, respectively, and the bonus score had a greater impact on the ESMO-MCBS score than the preliminary score did.ConclusionThe value of drugs demonstrated in subsequent publications varies considerably among oncology drugs, depending on uncertainty associated with the initial evidence and the availability of updated evidence. As decision-making in the face of uncertainty becomes more prevalent, the value frameworks can serve as simple screening tools for re-evaluation in these cases.

611P ESMO-magnitude of clinical benefit scale (MCBS) scores for phase III trials of adjuvant and curative therapies at the 2022 ASCO annual meeting (ASCO22)

611P ESMO-magnitude of clinical benefit scale (MCBS) scores for phase III trials of adjuvant and curative therapies at the 2022 ASCO annual meeting (ASCO22)

Overall survival benefits of cancer drugs in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, 2015–2021

IntroductionWe examined overall survival (OS) benefits for targeted cancer drugs recommended for List of Essential Medicines (EMLs) since 2015. We assessed consistency of decisions in 2019 and 2021 with more...

Randomized controlled trial in gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma undergoing systemic therapy over two decades

IntroductionThe number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the systemic treatment of gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GA-RCTs) is increasing. We aimed to describe the characteristics and evaluate the clinical benefit of GA-RCTs over the past 20 years. Materials and methodsWe searched for RCTs of systemic treatment in GA published in eight major journals between 2001 and 2020 in PubMed. From the included studies, the characteristics and results of GA-RCTs were extracted. Clinical benefit was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). ResultsAbout 93 RCTs with 38365 patients were included. Seventy-one (76.3%) studies received external funding, with an increase from 27.3% (2001–2005) to 94.1% (2016–2020). RCTs on targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy have also increased over time, but only 14 (41.2%) were restricted to specific biomarkers. Forty-four (47.3%) studies met their primary endpoint (defined as positive RCTs), but median overall survival has not improved over time. Moreover, only 16 (36.4%) studies met the ESMO-MCBS threshold. RCTs whose study design and results met the ESMO-MCBS thresholds has not increased over time (p = 0.827 and p = 0.733, respectively). ConclusionsGA-RCTs are increasingly focused on targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy, and are more likely to receive external funding. However, the effect size has not shown significant improvement in the past 20 years. Only a few RCTs with positive results met ESMO thresholds. Future RCTs should prioritize the clinical benefits and provide direct evidence to optimize and reform GA treatment practices.

Access to novel cancer medicines in four countries in Central and Eastern Europe in relation to clinical benefit

Almost 100 novel cancer medicines have been approved in Europe over the last decade. Limited public health care resources in countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) call for a prioritization of access to effective medicines. We investigated how both reimbursement status and waiting time to reimbursement correlate with the magnitude of clinical benefit provided by novel medicines in four selected countries (Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia). A total of 124 indications of 51 cancer medicines with marketing authorization by the European Medicines Agency in 2011-2020 were included and followed up until 2022. Data on reimbursement status and waiting time to reimbursement (i.e. time from marketing authorization to national reimbursement approval) were collected for each country. Data were analyzed in relation to clinical benefit status (i.e. substantial versus nonsubstantial clinical benefit) of indications according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). The degree of reimbursement differed between countries with 64% of indications with reimbursement in Czechia, 40% in Hungary, 51% in Poland, and 19% in Slovakia. In all countries, a significantly greater proportion of indications with a substantial clinical benefit was reimbursed (P < 0.05). The median waiting time to reimbursement ranged from 27 months in Poland to 37 months in Hungary. No significant differences in waiting time in relation to clinical benefit were observed in any country (P= 0.25-0.84). Cancer medicines with a substantial clinical benefit are more likely to be reimbursed in all four CEE countries. Waiting times to reimbursement are equally long for medicines with or without a substantial clinical benefit, indicating a lack of prioritization of fast access to medicines delivering a substantial benefit. Incorporation of the ESMO-MCBS in reimbursement assessments and decisions could aid in better utilization of limited resources to deliver more effective cancer care.

Evaluation of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer

The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) has suggested using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) to grade the magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer therapies. This approach has not been applied to radiation therapy (RT) yet. We applied the ESMO-MCBS to experiences describing the use of RT to assess (1) the 'scoreability' of the data, (2) evaluate the reasonableness of the grades for clinical benefit and (3) identify potential shortcomings in the current version of the ESMO-MCBS in its applicability to RT. We applied the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 to a selection of studies in radiotherapy that had been identified as references in the development of American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based guidelines on whole breast radiation. Of the 112 cited references, we identified a subset of 16 studies that are amenable to grading using the ESMO-MCBS. Of the 16 studies reviewed, 3/16 were scoreable with the ESMO tool. Six of 16 studies could not be scored because of shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1: (1) in 'non-inferiority studies', there is no credit for improved patient convenience, reduced patient burden or improved cosmesis; (2) in 'superiority studies' evaluating local control as a primary endpoint, there is no credit for the clinical benefit such as reduced need for further interventions. In 7/16 studies, methodological deficiencies in the conduct and reporting were identified. This study represents a first step in determining the utility of the ESMO-MCBS in the evaluation of clinical benefit in radiotherapy. Important shortcomings were identified that would need to be addressed in developing a version of the ESMO-MCBS that can be robustly applied to radiotherapy treatments. Optimization of the ESMO-MCBS instrument will proceed to enable assessment of value in radiotherapy.

Analysis of oncological drugs authorised in Spain in the last decade: association between clinical benefit and reimbursement.

Our study aimed to assess whether there was a relationship between clinical benefits and reimbursement decisions as well as the inclusion of economic evaluations in therapeutic positioning reports (IPTs) and to explore factors influencing reimbursement decisions. We analysed all anti-cancer drugs approved in Spain from 2010 to September 2022. The clinical benefit of each drug were evaluated using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) 1.1. The characteristics of these drugs were obtained from the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices. Reimbursement status information was obtained using BIFIMED, a web resource available in Spanish and consulted the agreements of the Interministerial Committee on Pricing of Medicines (CIPM). In total, 73 drugs were included involving 197 indications. Almost half of the indications had substantial clinical benefit (49.8% yes vs. 50.3% no). Of the 153 indications with a reimbursement decision, 61 (56.5%) reimbursed indications had substantial clinical benefit compared to 14 (31.1%) of the non-reimbursed (p < 0.01). The median gain of overall survival was 4.9months (2.8-11.2) for reimbursed indications and 2.9months (1.7-5) in non-reimbursed (p < 0.05). Only six (3%) indications had an economic evaluation in the IPT. Our study revealed that there is a relationship between substantial clinical benefit and the reimbursement decision in Spain. However, we also found that the overall survival gain was modest, and a significant proportion of the reimbursed indications had no substantial clinical benefit. Economic evaluations in IPTs are infrequent and cost-effectiveness analysis is not provided by CIPM.

Value assessment of NMPA-approved new cancer drugs for solid cancer in China, 2016-2020.

Whether the high cost of cancer drugs is commensurate with their value to patients, which has become the focus of public concern. We aimed to assess the value of new cancer drugs approved for solid cancer in China and to explore the association between price and value of drugs. We identified all new drugs for solid tumor that approved by the China's National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) between 2016 and 2020. The value of these drugs was assessed according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We calculated Cohen's κ statistic to describe agreement between the two frameworks. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between price and value of drugs. Between 2016 and 2020, 37 new drugs were approved by the NMPA for solid tumor and we could evaluate the value of 28 drugs (76%). Eight (29%) of drugs were approved for non-small-cell lung cancer and 6 (21%) for breast cancer. ASCO-VF scores had a range of -20 to 110.1, and the median score was 43.3 (inter-quartile range 27.1-58.35). Only seven drugs (25%) met the ASCO-VF cutoff score. By the ESMO-MCBS, 13 drugs showed a meaningful value. Agreement between these two frameworks thresholds was only fair (κ = 0.515, P < 0.05). We found no statistically significant correlation between launch price of drugs and clinical benefit according to both frameworks. Not all NMPA-approved new cancer drugs had meaningful value as measured by ASCO-VF or ESMO-MCBS. There was no significant correlation between drug price and the level of clinical benefit.

The correlation between the costs and clinical benefits of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in malignant tumors: An evaluation based on ASCO and ESMO frameworks.

Background: Life expectancy for patients with malignant tumors has been significantly improved since the presence of the programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors in 2014, but they impose heavy financial burdens for patients, the healthcare system and the nations. The objective of this study was to determine the survival benefits, toxicities, and monetary of programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 inhibitors and quantify their values. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for malignant tumors were identified and clinical benefits were quantified by American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). The drug price in Micromedex REDBOOK was used to estimate monthly incremental drug costs (IDCs) and the correlation between clinical benefits and incremental drug costs of experimental and control groups in each randomized controlled trial, and the agreement between two frameworks were calculated. Results: Up to December 2022, 52 randomized controlled trials were included in the quantitative synthesis. All the randomized controlled trials were evaluated by American society of clinical oncology value framework, and 26 (50%) met the American society of clinical oncology value framework "clinical meaningful value." 49 of 52 randomized controlled trials were graded by European society for medical oncology magnitude of clinical benefit scale, and 30 (61.2%) randomized controlled trials achieved European Society for Medical Oncology criteria of meaningful value. p-values of Spearman correlation analyses between monthly incremental drug costs and American society of clinical oncology value framework/European society for medical oncology magnitude of clinical benefit scale scores were 0.9695 and 0.3013, respectively. In addition, agreement between two framework thresholds was fair (κ = 0.417, p = 0.00354). Conclusion: This study suggests that there might be no correlation between the cost and clinical benefit of programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 inhibitors in malignancy, and the same results were observed in subgroups stratified by drug or indication. The results should be a wake-up call for oncologists, pharmaceutical enterprises and policymakers, and meanwhile advocate the refining of American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology frameworks.

Application of Value Framework to Phase III Trials of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Esophageal and Gastric Cancer.

Recent trials testing immune-checkpoint inhibitors in esophago-gastric malignancies have shown mixed results. We aim to assess key subgroups using the ASCO Net Health Benefit Score (NHBS) and ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS). A search for phase III trials of FDA-approved anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 drugs in esophago-gastric cancer trials was identified using www.clinicaltrials.gov. These published studies were scored using the ASCO NHBS and ESMO MCBS. The ASCO NHBS scores were compared by primary site of cancer (esophageal vs gastric) and PD-L1 expression using the Mann-Whitney test and the ESMO-MCBS grading, by Fisher's Exact test. Fifteen of 45 clinical trials were included. Of them, 6 were primarily esophageal cancer trials, and 9 were primarily gastric cancer trials. Ten stratified their analysis based on PD-L1 expression. The ASCO NHBS score was higher (mean 40, range 20 to 56.6 vs. mean 12, range -1.1 to 18.4, P < .01) for esophageal cancer than gastric cancer. No difference was observed in survival and response endpoints between the 2 groups. Similarly, the ESMO MCBS scored higher for esophageal cancer group than gastric cancer (P < .05). Additionally, the scores were higher in those with high PD-L1 expression vs. low PD-L1 (mean 36, range 11.2-66.6 vs. mean 14, range -19.5 to 43.6, P < .05). The ASCO NHB and ESMO scores were consistently higher among esophageal cancer trials than gastric cancer trials and in those with high PD-L1 expression than low expression. Histology and PD-L1 expression should be considered when discussing value of immunotherapy to patients.

Methodological and reporting standards for quality-of-life data eligible for European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) credit

The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) has been developed to grade clinical benefit of cancer therapies. Improvement in quality of life (QoL) is considered relevant, especially in the non-curative setting. This is reflected by an upgrade of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score if QoL is improved compared to the control arm or a downgrade if an improvement in progression-free survival is not paralleled by an improvement in QoL or overall survival. Given the importance of QoL for the final score, a need to ensure the robustness of QoL data was recognised. A checklist was created based on existing guidelines for QoL research. Field testing was carried out using clinical trials that either received an adjustment of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score based on QoL or had QoL as the primary endpoint. Several rounds of revision and re-testing of the checklist were undertaken until a final consensus was reached. The final checklist consists of four items and can be applied if three prerequisites are met: (i) QoL is at least a secondary endpoint, (ii) evidence of reliability and validity of the instrument is provided, and (iii) a statistically and clinically significant improvement in QoL is observed. The four items on the checklist pertain to the (i) hypothesis, (ii) compliance and missing data, (iii) presentation of the results, and (iv) statistical and clinical relevance. Field testing revealed that a clear QoL hypothesis and correction for multiple testing were mostly lacking, while the main statistical method was always described. Implementation of the ESMO-MCBS QoL checklist will facilitate objective and transparent decision making on QoL data within the ESMO-MCBS scoring process. Trials published until 1 January 2025 will have to meet the prerequisites and at least two items for crediting QoL benefit in the final ESMO-MCBS score. Trials published thereafter will have to meetall four items.

Off-label despite high-level evidence: a clinical practice review of commonly used off-patent cancer medicines

Off-label use of medicines is generally discouraged. However, several off-patent, low-cost cancer medicines remain off-label for indications in which they are commonly used in daily practice, supported by high-level evidence based on results of phase III clinical trials. This discrepancy may generate prescription and reimbursement obstacles as well as impaired access to established therapies. A list of cancer medicines that remain off-label in specific indications despite the presence of high-level evidence was generated and subjected to European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) expert peer review to assess for accountability of reasonableness. These medicines were then surveyed on approval procedures and workflow impact. The most illustrative examples of these medicines were reviewed by experts from the European Medicines Agency to ascertain the apparent robustness of the supporting phase III trial evidence from a regulatory perspective. A total of 47 ESMO experts reviewed 17 cancer medicines commonly used off-label in six disease groups. Overall, high levels of agreement were recorded on the off-label status and the high quality of data supporting the efficacy in the off-label indications, often achieving high ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores. When prescribing these medicines, 51% of the reviewers had to implement a time-consuming process associated with additional workload, in the presence of litigation risks and patient anxiety. Finally, the informal regulatory expert review identified only 2 out of 18 (11%) studies with significant limitations that would be difficult to overcome in the context of a potential marketing authorisation application without additional studies. We highlight the common use of off-patent essential cancer medicines in indications that remain off-label despite solid supporting data as well as generate evidence on the adverse impact on patient access and clinic workflows. In the current regulatory framework, incentives to promote the extension of indications of off-patent cancer medicines are needed for all stakeholders.

1313O Assessment of investigational new drugs (INDs) approved in USA and Europe after early phase trials using the ESMO-magnitude of clinical benefit scale (ESMO-MCBS)

Increasingly regulatory approval for novel agents is sought following early phase single-arm trials. However, many countries’ governmental agencies require value assessment of new agents to determine reimbursement. The ESMO-MCBS provides an evaluation framework based on treatment efficacy, response duration, adverse events, quality of life, and phase 4 data scored from 1-5 with scores >4 indicating substantial benefit worthy of reimbursement.

The value measurement of emerging therapeutics in renal cell carcinoma: ASCO value framework and ESMO-MCBS

PurposeRapid development of novel therapeutics in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has led to financial burden for patients and society. Value including clinical benefit, toxicity affecting quality of life and cost-effectiveness are a concern, prompting the need for tools to facilitate value assessment of therapeutics. This study reviews the value assessment tools, and evaluates the value of emerging therapeutics in RCC.Materials and methodsTwo medical oncologists used American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework (ASCO VF) v2.0 and European Society for Medical Oncology-magnitude of clinical benefit scale (ESMO-MCBS) v1.1 to phase 3 trials evaluating first-line therapy in patients with metastatic RCC. Follow-up (FU) reports and extended survival data were included. Equivocal aspects and limitations of the tools were discussed.ResultsSix trials (COMPARZ, CheckMate 214, JAVELIN renal 101, Keynote 426, CLEAR, and CheckMate 9ER) were assessed. The control arm was standard-of-care sunitinib in all trials. ASCO VF’s net health benefit, calculated as clinical benefit, toxicity and other bonus point was 11 in pazopanib, 41.9 in nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 22.4 in axitinib plus avelumab, 48.7 in axitinib plus pembrolizumab, 35.2 in lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, and 50.8 in cabozantinib plus nivolumab. A higher score means a greater treatment benefit. ESMO-MCBS gave grade 5 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 4 to pazopanib, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and cabozantinib plus nivolumab, 3 to axitinib plus avelumab or pembrolizumab. Both tools had unclear aspects to be applied to clinical practice, and should be more clearly defined, such as endpoint for determining survival benefits or how to standardize quality of life and toxicity.ConclusionsASCO VF and ESMO-MCBS were applied to evaluate the newly emerging drugs in RCC and assessed their value. In-depth discussion by experts in various fields is required for appropriate clinical application in a real-world setting.