Charting the future of cancer health disparities research: A position statement from the American Association for Cancer Research, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the National Cancer Institute

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138314/1/caac21404_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138314/2/caac21404.pd

Addition of abiraterone to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): Model to estimate long-term survival, quality-adjusted survival, and cost-effectiveness

Background: Results from randomised trials show adding abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) to standard of care (SOC) improves disease-free and overall survival in men with prostate cancer (PC) starting long-term hormone therapy for first time. Formal assessment is required of whether funding AAP here shows appropriate use of resources. This cost-effectiveness decision model tests if giving AAP to these patients is cost-effective using costs from English National Health Service, the largest nation where STAMPEDE recruited. / Methods: Health outcomes and costs were modelled using patient data from AAP comparison of STAMPEDE (recruitment 2011-14). This included 1917 men with high-risk, locally advanced metastatic or recurrent PC starting 1st-line hormone therapy. SOC was hormone therapy for ≥2 years with radiotherapy in pre-selected patients. If allocated to research group, AAP (AA 1000mg/day, P 5mg/day) was added to SOC. The model makes lifetime predictions of survival, costs and quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs), with costs and QALYs discounted at 3.5% annually. Sensitivity analyses were performed. / Results: The model predicted AAP would extend survival (discounted quality-adjusted survival) by 2.68y (1.46 QALYs) for metastatic patients and 0.30y (0.29 QALYs) for non-metastatic. The cost of AAP means it is not currently cost-effective in this setting, including with Patient Access Scheme costs for AAP and enzalutamide and similar reductions for cabazitaxel and Ra. If AAP’s price reduces after patent expiry as expected (90% reduction on BNF cost), it would be cost-effective in both patient groups, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below £10,000 (US$12,665) per QALY. AAP could also dominate in non-metastatic patients (i.e. lower costs and higher QALYs than SOC alone). / Conclusions: AAP could be cost-effective for patients with non-metastatic and metastatic disease with expected future pricing and may be cost-saving in the former. Policymakers should encourage license submissions and generic price reductions to facilitate use of AAP given cost-saving potential in addition to improving survival. / Clinical trial information: NCT00268476

Cost-utility analysis of adding abiraterone acetate plus prednisone/prednisolone to long-term hormone therapy in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer in England: Lifetime decision model based on STAMPEDE trial data

Adding abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisolone (P) to standard of care (SOC) improves survival in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer (PC) patients starting hormone therapy. Our objective was to determine the value for money to the English National Health Service (NHS) of adding AAP to SOC. We used a decision analytic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of providing AAP in the English NHS. Between 2011-2014, the STAMPEDE trial recruited 1917 men with high-risk localised, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic PC starting first-line androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and they were randomised to receive SOC plus AAP, or SOC alone. Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using STAMPEDE trial data supplemented with literature data where necessary, adjusting for baseline patient and disease characteristics. British National Formulary (BNF) prices (£98/day) were applied for AAP. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%/year. AAP was not cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £149,748/QALY gained in the non-metastatic (M0) subgroup, with 2.4% probability of being cost-effective at NICE's £30,000/QALY threshold; and the metastatic (M1) subgroup had an ICER of £47,503/QALY gained, with 12.0% probability of being cost-effective. Scenario analysis suggested AAP could be cost-effective in M1 patients if priced below £62/day, or below £28/day in the M0 subgroup. AAP could dominate SOC in the M0 subgroup with price below £11/day. AAP is effective for non-metastatic and metastatic disease but is not cost-effective when using the BNF price. AAP currently only has UK approval for use in a subset of M1 patients. The actual price currently paid by the English NHS for abiraterone acetate is unknown. Broadening AAP's indication and having a daily cost below the thresholds described above is recommended, given AAP improves survival in both subgroups and its cost-saving potential in M0 subgroup

Accumulation of copy number alterations and clinical progression across advanced prostate cancer

Background: Genomic copy number alterations commonly occur in prostate cancer and are one measure of genomic instability. The clinical implication of copy number change in advanced prostate cancer, which defines a wide spectrum of disease from high-risk localised to metastatic, is unknown. Methods: We performed copy number profiling on 688 tumour regions from 300 patients, who presented with advanced prostate cancer prior to the start of long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), in the control arm of the prospective randomised STAMPEDE trial. Patients were categorised into metastatic states as follows; high-risk non-metastatic with or without local lymph node involvement, or metastatic low/high volume. We followed up patients for a median of 7 years. Univariable and multivariable Cox survival models were fitted to estimate the association between the burden of copy number alteration as a continuous variable and the hazard of death or disease progression. Results: The burden of copy number alterations positively associated with radiologically evident distant metastases at diagnosis (P=0.00006) and showed a non-linear relationship with clinical outcome on univariable and multivariable analysis, characterised by a sharp increase in the relative risk of progression (P=0.003) and death (P=0.045) for each unit increase, stabilising into more modest increases with higher copy number burdens. This association between copy number burden and outcome was similar in each metastatic state. Copy number loss occurred significantly more frequently than gain at the lowest copy number burden quartile (q=4.1 × 10−6). Loss of segments in chromosome 5q21-22 and gains at 8q21-24, respectively including CHD1 and cMYC occurred more frequently in cases with higher copy number alteration (for either region: Kolmogorov–Smirnov distance, 0.5; adjusted P<0.0001). Copy number alterations showed variability across tumour regions in the same prostate. This variance associated with increased risk of distant metastases (Kruskal-Wallis test P=0.037). Conclusions: Copy number alteration in advanced prostate cancer associates with increased risk of metastases at diagnosis. Accumulation of a limited number of copy number alterations associates with most of the increased risk of disease progression and death. The increased likelihood of involvement of specific segments in high copy number alteration burden cancers may suggest an order underlying the accumulation of copy number changes

Abiraterone in “high-” and “low-risk” metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Elsevier in European Urology on 23/08/2019, available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0302283819306207?via%3Dihub The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Background Abiraterone acetate received licencing for use in only “high-risk” metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer (mHNPC) following the LATITUDE trial findings. However, a “risk”-related effect was not seen in the STAMPEDE trial. There remains uncertainty as to whether men with LATITUDE “low-risk” M1 disease benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with abiraterone acetate and prednisolone (AAP). Objective Evaluation of heterogeneity of effect between LATITUDE high- and low-risk M1 prostate cancer patients receiving ADT + AAP in the STAMPEDE trial. Design, setting, and participants A post hoc subgroup analysis of the 2017 STAMPEDE “abiraterone comparison”. Staging scans for M1 patients contemporaneously randomised to ADT or ADT + AAP within the STAMPEDE trial were evaluated centrally and blind to treatment assignment. Stratification was by risk according to the criteria set out in the LATITUDE trial. Exploratory subgroup stratification incorporated the CHAARTED criteria. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS) and the secondary outcome measure was failure-free survival (FFS). Further exploratory analysis evaluated clinical skeletal-related events, progression-free survival (PFS), and prostate cancer-specific death. Standard Cox-regression and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were employed for analysis. Results and limitations A total of 901 M1 STAMPEDE patients were evaluated after exclusions. Of the patients, 428 (48%) were identified as having a low risk and 473 (52%) a high risk. Patients receiving ADT + AAP had significantly improved OS (low-risk hazard ratio [HR]: 0.66, 95% confidence interval or CI [0.44–0.98]) and FFS (low-risk HR: 0.24, 95% CI [0.17–0.33]) compared with ADT alone. Heterogeneity of effect was not seen between low- and high-risk groups for OS or FFS. For OS benefit in low risk, the number needed to treat was four times greater than that for high risk. However, this was not observed for the other measured endpoints. Conclusions Men with mHNPC gain treatment benefit from ADT + AAP irrespective of risk stratification for “risk” or “volume”. Patient summary Coadministration of abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with prolonged overall survival and disease control, compared with ADT alone, in all men with metastatic disease starting hormone therapy for the first time.This study was supported by Cancer Research U.K., Medical Research Council, Astellas Pharma, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi Aventis.Published versio

Radiotherapy to the prostate for men with metastatic prostate cancer in the UK and Switzerland: Long-term results from the STAMPEDE randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: STAMPEDE has previously reported that radiotherapy (RT) to the prostate improved overall survival (OS) for patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer with low metastatic burden, but not those with high-burden disease. In this final analysis, we report long-term findings on the primary outcome measure of OS and on the secondary outcome measures of symptomatic local events, RT toxicity events, and quality of life (QoL). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Patients were randomised at secondary care sites in the United Kingdom and Switzerland between January 2013 and September 2016, with 1:1 stratified allocation: 1,029 to standard of care (SOC) and 1,032 to SOC+RT. No masking of the treatment allocation was employed. A total of 1,939 had metastatic burden classifiable, with 42% low burden and 58% high burden, balanced by treatment allocation. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses used Cox regression and flexible parametric models (FPMs), adjusted for stratification factors age, nodal involvement, the World Health Organization (WHO) performance status, regular aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use, and planned docetaxel use. QoL in the first 2 years on trial was assessed using prospectively collected patient responses to QLQ-30 questionnaire. Patients were followed for a median of 61.3 months. Prostate RT improved OS in patients with low, but not high, metastatic burden (respectively: 202 deaths in SOC versus 156 in SOC+RT, hazard ratio (HR) = 0·64, 95% CI 0.52, 0.79, p &lt; 0.001; 375 SOC versus 386 SOC+RT, HR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.96, 1.28, p = 0·164; interaction p &lt; 0.001). No evidence of difference in time to symptomatic local events was found. There was no evidence of difference in Global QoL or QLQ-30 Summary Score. Long-term urinary toxicity of grade 3 or worse was reported for 10 SOC and 10 SOC+RT; long-term bowel toxicity of grade 3 or worse was reported for 15 and 11, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate RT improves OS, without detriment in QoL, in men with low-burden, newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer, indicating that it should be recommended as a SOC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00268476, ISRCTN.com ISRCTN78818544

Cost-utility analysis of adding abiraterone acetate plus prednisone/prednisolone to long-term hormone therapy in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer in England: Lifetime decision model based on STAMPEDE trial data

© 2022 The Authors. Published by PLoS. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269192Adding abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisolone (P) to standard of care (SOC) improves survival in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer (PC) patients starting hormone therapy. Our objective was to determine the value for money to the English National Health Service (NHS) of adding AAP to SOC. We used a decision analytic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of providing AAP in the English NHS. Between 2011–2014, the STAMPEDE trial recruited 1917 men with high-risk localised, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic PC starting first-line androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and they were randomised to receive SOC plus AAP, or SOC alone. Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using STAMPEDE trial data supplemented with literature data where necessary, adjusting for baseline patient and disease characteristics. British National Formulary (BNF) prices (£98/day) were applied for AAP. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%/year. AAP was not cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £149,748/QALY gained in the non-metastatic (M0) subgroup, with 2.4% probability of being cost-effective at NICE’s £30,000/QALY threshold; and the metastatic (M1) subgroup had an ICER of £47,503/QALY gained, with 12.0% probability of being cost-effective. Scenario analysis suggested AAP could be cost-effective in M1 patients if priced below £62/day, or below £28/day in the M0 subgroup. AAP could dominate SOC in the M0 subgroup with price below £11/day. AAP is effective for non-metastatic and metastatic disease but is not cost-effective when using the BNF price. AAP currently only has UK approval for use in a subset of M1 patients. The actual price currently paid by the English NHS for abiraterone acetate is unknown. Broadening AAP’s indication and having a daily cost below the thresholds described above is recommended, given AAP improves survival in both subgroups and its cost-saving potential in M0 subgroup.This cost-effectiveness analysis was supported by Cancer Research UK (https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/) (awarded to CSC and RMH) and the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (https://www.mrcctu.ucl.ac.uk) as an add-on to CRUK/06/019 (awarded to NDJ). STAMPEDE grant codes: CRUK_A12459; Medical Research Council (https://mrc.ukri.org), MRC_MC_UU_12023/25 (awarded to NDJ). STAMPEDE is registered on http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00268476; first posted: 22 December 2005) (http://www.stampedetrial.org).Published onlin

Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

Based on previous findings, we hypothesised that radiotherapy to the prostate would improve overall survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer, and that the benefit would be greatest in patients with a low metastatic burden. We aimed to compare standard of care for metastatic prostate cancer, with and without radiotherapy.This article is freely available via Open Access

Lancet

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the second cycle of the CONCORD programme established global surveillance of cancer survival as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems and to inform global policy on cancer control. CONCORD-3 updates the worldwide surveillance of cancer survival to 2014. METHODS: CONCORD-3 includes individual records for 37.5 million patients diagnosed with cancer during the 15-year period 2000-14. Data were provided by 322 population-based cancer registries in 71 countries and territories, 47 of which provided data with 100% population coverage. The study includes 18 cancers or groups of cancers: oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, liver, pancreas, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, prostate, and melanoma of the skin in adults, and brain tumours, leukaemias, and lymphomas in both adults and children. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were rectified by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. FINDINGS: For most cancers, 5-year net survival remains among the highest in the world in the USA and Canada, in Australia and New Zealand, and in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. For many cancers, Denmark is closing the survival gap with the other Nordic countries. Survival trends are generally increasing, even for some of the more lethal cancers: in some countries, survival has increased by up to 5% for cancers of the liver, pancreas, and lung. For women diagnosed during 2010-14, 5-year survival for breast cancer is now 89.5% in Australia and 90.2% in the USA, but international differences remain very wide, with levels as low as 66.1% in India. For gastrointestinal cancers, the highest levels of 5-year survival are seen in southeast Asia: in South Korea for cancers of the stomach (68.9%), colon (71.8%), and rectum (71.1%); in Japan for oesophageal cancer (36.0%); and in Taiwan for liver cancer (27.9%). By contrast, in the same world region, survival is generally lower than elsewhere for melanoma of the skin (59.9% in South Korea, 52.1% in Taiwan, and 49.6% in China), and for both lymphoid malignancies (52.5%, 50.5%, and 38.3%) and myeloid malignancies (45.9%, 33.4%, and 24.8%). For children diagnosed during 2010-14, 5-year survival for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia ranged from 49.8% in Ecuador to 95.2% in Finland. 5-year survival from brain tumours in children is higher than for adults but the global range is very wide (from 28.9% in Brazil to nearly 80% in Sweden and Denmark). INTERPRETATION: The CONCORD programme enables timely comparisons of the overall effectiveness of health systems in providing care for 18 cancers that collectively represent 75% of all cancers diagnosed worldwide every year. It contributes to the evidence base for global policy on cancer control. Since 2017, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has used findings from the CONCORD programme as the official benchmark of cancer survival, among their indicators of the quality of health care in 48 countries worldwide. Governments must recognise population-based cancer registries as key policy tools that can be used to evaluate both the impact of cancer prevention strategies and the effectiveness of health systems for all patients diagnosed with cancer. FUNDING: American Cancer Society; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Swiss Re; Swiss Cancer Research foundation; Swiss Cancer League; Institut National du Cancer; La Ligue Contre le Cancer; Rossy Family Foundation; US National Cancer Institute; and the Susan G Komen Foundation