Cost-Effectiveness of Parallel Versus Sequential Testing of Genetic Aberrations for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the Netherlands

PURPOSE: A large number of targeted treatment options for stage IV nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer with specific genetic aberrations in tumor DNA is available. It is therefore important to optimize diagnostic testing strategies, such that patients receive adequate personalized treatment that improves survival and quality of life. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy (including diagnostic costs, turnaround time (TAT), unsuccessful tests, percentages of correct findings, therapeutic costs, and therapeutic effectiveness) of parallel next generation sequencing (NGS)–based versus sequential single-gene–based testing strategies routinely used in patients with metastasized non–small-cell lung cancer in the Netherlands. METHODS: A diagnostic microsimulation model was developed to simulate 100,000 patients with prevalence of genetic aberrations, extracted from real-world data from the Dutch Pathology Registry. These simulated patients were modeled to undergo different testing strategies composed of multiple tests with different test characteristics including single-gene and panel tests, test accuracy, the probability of an unsuccessful test, and TAT. Diagnostic outcomes were linked to a previously developed treatment model, to predict average long-term survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of parallel versus sequential testing. RESULTS: NGS-based parallel testing for all actionable genetic aberrations is on average €266 cheaper than single-gene–based sequential testing, and detects additional relevant targetable genetic aberrations in 20.5% of the cases, given a TAT of maximally 2 weeks. Therapeutic costs increased by €8,358, and 0.12 QALYs were gained, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €69,614/QALY for parallel versus sequential testing. CONCLUSION: NGS-based parallel testing is diagnostically superior over single-gene–based sequential testing, as it is cheaper and more effective than sequential testing. Parallel testing remains cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 69,614 €/QALY upon inclusion of therapeutic costs and long-term outcomes

Modeling Personalized Adjuvant TreaTment in EaRly stage coloN cancer (PATTERN)

Aim To develop a decision model for the population-level evaluation of strategies to improve the selection of stage II colon cancer (CC) patients who benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods A Markov cohort model with a one-month cycle length and a lifelong time horizon was developed. Five health states were included; diagnosis, 90-day mortality, death other causes, recurrence and CC death. Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were used to parameterize the model. Transition probabilities were estimated using parametric survival models including relevant clinical and pathological covariates. Subsequently, biomarker status was implemented using external data. Treatment effect was incorporated using pooled trial data. Model development, data sources used, parameter estimation, and internal and external validation are described in detail. To illustrate the use of the model, three example strategies were evaluated in which allocation of treatment was based on (A) 100% adherence to the Dutch guidelines, (B) observed adherence to guideline recommendations and (C) a biomarker-driven strategy. Results Overall, the model showed good internal and external validity. Age, tumor growth, tumor sidedness, evaluated lymph nodes, and biomarker status were included as covariates. For the example strategies, the model predicted 83, 87 and 77 CC deaths after 5 years in a cohort of 1000 patients for strategies A, B and C, respectively. Conclusion This model can be used to evaluate strategies for the allocation of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II CC patients. In future studies, the model will be used to estimate population-level long-term health gain and cost-effectiveness of biomarker-based selection strategies.Financial support for this study was provided by a grant from ZonMw (Grant number: 848015007). ZonMw had no role in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing the manuscript, and publishing the report

Development and validation of a decision model for the evaluation of novel lung cancer treatments in the Netherlands

Recent discoveries in molecular diagnostics and drug treatments have improved the treatment of patients with advanced (inoperable) non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from solely platinum-based chemotherapy to more personalized treatment, including targeted therapies and immunotherapies. However, these improvements come at considerable costs, highlighting the need to assess their cost-effectiveness in order to optimize lung cancer care. Traditionally, cost-effectiveness models for the evaluation of new lung cancer treatments were based on the findings of the randomized control trials (RCTs). However, the strict RCT inclusion criteria make RCT patients not representative of patients in the real-world. Patients in RCTs have a better prognosis than patients in a real-world setting. Therefore, in this study, we developed and validated a diagnosis-treatment decision model for patients with advanced (inoperable) non-squamous NSCLC based on real-world data in the Netherlands. The model is a patient-level microsimulation model implemented as discrete event simulation with five health events. Patients are simulated from diagnosis to death, including at most three treatment lines. The base-model (non-personalized strategy) was populated using real-world data of patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy between 2008 and 2014 in one of six Dutch teaching hospitals. To simulate personalized care, molecular tumor characteristics were incorporated in the model based on the literature. The impact of novel targeted treatments and immunotherapies was included based on published RCTs. To validate the model, we compared survival under a personalized treatment strategy with observed real-world survival. This model can be used for health-care evaluation of personalized treatment for patients with advanced (inoperable) NSCLC in the Netherlands

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands: a comparative modelling study

Background: Colorectal cancer screening programmes worldwide have been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to estimate the impact of hypothetical disruptions to organised faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening programmes on short-term and long-term colorectal cancer incidence and morta

Does delay in diagnosing colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients affect tumor stage and survival? A population-based observational study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Diagnosing colorectal cancer (CRC) at an early stage improves survival. To what extent any delay affects outcome once patients are symptomatic is still unclear.</p> <p>Our objectives were to evaluate the association between diagnostic delay and survival in symptomatic patients with early stage CRC and late stage CRC.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Prospective population-based observational study evaluating daily clinical practice in Northern Holland. Diagnostic delay was determined through questionnaire-interviews. Dukes' stage was classified into two groups: early stage (Dukes A or B) and late stage (Dukes C or D) cancer. Patients were followed up for 3.5 years after diagnosis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In total, 272 patients were available for analysis. Early stage CRC was present in 136 patients while 136 patients had late stage CRC. The mean total diagnostic delay (SE) was 31 (1.5) weeks in all CRC patients. No significant difference was observed in the mean total diagnostic delay in early versus late stage CRC (<it>p </it>= 0.27).</p> <p>In early stage CRC, no difference in survival was observed between patients with total diagnostic delay shorter and longer than the median (Kaplan-Meier, log-rank <it>p </it>= 0.93).</p> <p>In late stage CRC, patients with a diagnostic delay shorter than the median had a shorter survival than patients with a diagnostic delay longer than the median (log-rank <it>p </it>= 0.01). In the multivariate Cox regression model with survival as dependent variable and median delay, age, open access endoscopy, number and type of symptoms as independent variables, the odd's ratio for survival in patients with long delay (>median) versus short delay (≤median) was 1.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 3.0; <it>p </it>= 0.01). Tumor-site was not associated with patient survival. When separating late stage CRC in Dukes C and Dukes D tumors, a shorter delay was associated with a shorter survival in Dukes D tumors only and not in Dukes C tumors.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In symptomatic CRC patients, a longer diagnostic and therapeutic delay in routine clinical practice was not associated with an adverse effect on survival. The time to CRC diagnosis and initiation of treatment did not differ between early stage and late stage colorectal cancer.</p

Double sampling of a faecal immunochemical test is not superior to single sampling for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a colonoscopy controlled prospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A single sampled faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has moderate sensitivity for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. Repeated FIT sampling could improve test sensitivity. The aim of the present study is to determine whether any of three different strategies of double FIT sampling has a better combination of sensitivity and specificity than single FIT sampling.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Test performance of single FIT sampling in subjects scheduled for colonoscopy was compared to double FIT sampling intra-individually. Test positivity of double FIT sampling was evaluated in three different ways: 1) "one of two FITs+" when at least one out of two measurements exceeded the cut-off value, 2) "two of two FITs+" when both measurements exceeded the cut-off value, 3) "mean of two FITs+" when the geometric mean of two FITs exceeded the cut-off value. Receiver operator curves were calculated and sensitivity of single and the three strategies of double FIT sampling were compared at a fixed level of specificity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 124 of 1096 subjects, screen relevant neoplasia (SRN) were found (i.e. early stage CRC or advanced adenomas). At any cut-off, "two of two FITs+" resulted in the lowest and "one of two FITs+" in the highest sensitivity for SRN (range 35-44% and 42%-54% respectively). ROC's of double FIT sampling were similar to single FIT sampling. At specificities of 85/90/95%, sensitivity of any double FIT sampling strategy did not differ significantly from single FIT (p-values 0.07-1).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>At any cut off, "one of two FITs+" is the most sensitive double FIT sampling strategy. However, at a given specificity level, sensitivity of any double FIT sampling strategy for SRN is comparable to single FIT sampling at a different cut-off value. None of the double FIT strategies has a superior combination of sensitivity and specificity over single FIT.</p

Nationwide comprehensive gastro-intestinal cancer cohorts: the 3P initiative

Background: The increasing sub-classification of cancer patients due to more detailed molecular classification of tumors, and limitations of current trial designs, require innovative research designs. We present the design, governance and current standing of three comprehensive nationwide cohorts including pancreatic, esophageal/gastric, and colorectal cancer patients (NCT02070146). Multidisciplinary collection of clinical data, tumor tissue, blood samples, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures with a nationwide coverage, provides the infrastructure for future and novel trial designs and facilitates research to improve outcomes of gastrointestinal cancer patients. Material and methods: All patients aged ≥18 years with pancreatic, esophageal/gastric or colorectal cancer are eligible. Patients provide informed consent for: (1) reuse of clinical data; (2) biobanking of primary tumor tissue; (3) collection of blood samples; (4) to be informed about relevant newly identified genomic aberrations; (5) collection of longitudinal PROs; and (6) to receive information on new interventional studies and possible participation in cohort multiple randomized controlled trials (cmRCT) in the future. Results: In 2015, clinical data of 21,758 newly diagnosed patients were collected in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Additional clinical data on the surgical procedures were registered in surgical audits for 13,845 patients. Within the first two years, tumor tissue and blood samples were obtained from 1507 patients; during this period, 1180 patients were included in the PRO registry. Response rate for PROs was 90%. The consent rate to receive information on new interventional studies and possible participation in cmRCTs in the future was >85%. The number of hospitals participating in the cohorts is steadily increasing. Conclusion: A comprehensive nationwide multidisciplinary gastrointestinal cancer cohort is feasible and surpasses the limitations of classical study designs. With this initiative, novel and innovative studies can be performed in an efficient, safe, and comprehensive setting