How valuable is a cancer therapy? It depends on who you ask.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "How valuable is a cancer therapy? It depends on who you ask."

Transcription

1 How valuable is a cancer therapy? It depends on who you ask. Comparing and contrasting the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale with the ASCO Value Framework in Cancer Ram Subramanian Kevin Schorr December 2015

2 Overview Earlier this year, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) published a tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit for cancer therapies the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). The tool allows one to derive a relative ranking of the magnitude of clinically meaningful benefit that can be expected from a cancer therapy based on published data from randomized clinical trials. Shortly after ESMO-MCBS v1.0 was published, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) published its Value Framework in Cancer. The ASCO framework enables comparisons of a new treatment regimen with the prevailing standard of care for a specific clinical cancer indication based on data derived from a prospective randomized clinical trial. With two value assessment tools available, the natural questions are how these tools compare and what the implications for manufacturers of cancer therapies are. This article will answer the following questions: What are the ESMO-MCBS and the ASCO Value framework in cancer? How do the two approaches differ in evaluating a cancer therapy? What are the implications for manufacturers of cancer therapies? The ESMO and ASCO value frameworks for cancer therapies The ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.0) is a tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit for cancer medicines that uses a structured approach to derive a relative ranking of the magnitude of clinically meaningful benefit that can be expected from a cancer therapy. 1 Figures 1, 2a, 2b, and 2c illustrate the algorithm used to calculate the ESMO Clinical Benefit grade. The ASCO value framework is a physician-guided tool to help the physician and patient with shared decision-making. 2 It enables a comparison of a new treatment regimen with the prevailing standard of care for a specific clinical cancer indication based on data derived from a prospective randomized clinical trial. The framework calculates a net health benefit (NHB) score by awarding (or subtracting) points for clinical benefit and toxicity. The NHB is juxtaposed with the direct cost of treatment, to provide an overall summary assessment. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the algorithm used to calculate the NHB. 1 Cherny et al. Annals of Oncology, May A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) 2 Schnipper et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology, June ASCO Statement: A conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. 2

3 Differences in approach and implications for manufacturers 1. ESMO scores are likely to play a larger role than ASCO scores in payer evaluations of solid cancers There appears to be a difference in the intent between the two frameworks. The ESMO framework explicitly states that the tool is a first step to addressing the critical public policy issue of value in cancer care, helping to frame the appropriate use of limited public and personal resources to deliver cost-effective and affordable cancer care. The authors of ESMO-MCBS v1.0 state that drugs or treatment interventions that obtain the highest scores on the scale will be emphasized in the ESMO guidelines, with the hope that they will be rapidly endorsed by health authorities across the European Union. ASCO has characterized its framework as a tool to help physicians and patients with shared decision-making. The emphasis appears to be more on educating the oncologist about the importance of discussing costs associated with recommended treatments and empowering patients to ask questions pertaining to the anticipated costs of their treatment options. While ASCO acknowledges that ultimately their framework may end up influencing policy positions, it does not seem that influencing public policy is the primary intent for now. Breakthrough therapies or therapies on an accelerated approval pathway that are being evaluated based on single-arm studies cannot be compared across both frameworks. While ESMO-MCBS v1.0 has only been developed for solid cancers, the ASCO framework applies to all types of cancers. 2. Breakthrough therapies or therapies on an accelerated approval pathway that are being evaluated based on single-arm studies cannot be compared across both frameworks The ESMO-MCBS v1.0 can only be applied to comparative research outcomes and is, therefore, not applicable when evidence of benefit derives from single-arm studies. ESMO acknowledges that this limits its utility in the uncommon situation in which registration is granted on the basis of outcomes reported from single-arm studies. ASCO, on the other hand, allows for the evaluation of therapies that have been approved based on single-arm studies by using response rate (RR) to evaluate the therapy. 3. Differences in the rigor of clinical trial design and performance of the control arm are likely to be reflected in the ESMO score to a greater extent than in the ASCO framework While ASCO considers a hazard ratio (HR) threshold in the assessment of curative therapies, it does not do so in the palliative setting. In contrast, ESMO considers HR when evaluating therapies in the palliative setting (non-curative therapies). ESMO-MCBS v1.0 relies on HR thresholds in the evaluation instead of percent change in median OS/PFS. 3

4 ESMO-MCBS v1.0 takes into account the absolute performance of the control arm when evaluating non-curative therapies. Form 2a is stratified by median OS of the control arm 12 and >12 months. Similarly, Form 2b is stratified by median duration of PFS of the control arm 6 and >6 months. The ASCO framework does not account for such absolute performance of the control arm. 4. Curative therapies that lack mature survival data will require re-evaluation in the ESMO framework While both the ASCO value framework and ESMO-MCBS v1.0 consider upgrades in score based on non-efficacy measures, only the EMO-MCBS v1.0 accepts improvements in QoL in their grading criteria. The ASCO framework intentionally excludes QoL measurements, which are commonly derived from patient-reported outcomes, as they consider that these measures can be subjective as well as sometimes inconsistent. While ESMO-MCBS v1.0 allows for evaluation of curative therapies based on early data demonstrating high disease-free survival (DFS) in the absence of mature survival data, the evaluation is considered temporary. ESMO states that the therapy will need to be re-evaluated when mature survival data become available. The ASCO framework does not call for a re-evaluation when the initial assessment is made on DFS. 5. Therapies that show late survival gains will benefit from the ESMO evaluation While the ASCO framework is based on an evaluation of median survival gains, ESMO-MCBS v1.0 also allows for an evaluation of non-curative therapies based on a late survival advantage. It does this by looking at HR which captures the reduction in risk across the entire patient timeline (including late responders) and not just improvements in medians. 6. Therapies that show improvements in quality of life (QoL) will benefit in the ESMO evaluation While both the ASCO value framework and ESMO-MCBS v1.0 consider upgrades in score based on non-efficacy measures, only the ESMO-MCBS v1.0 accepts improvements in QoL in their grading criteria. The ASCO framework intentionally excludes QoL measurements, which are commonly derived from patient-reported outcomes, as they consider these measures to be subjective and sometimes inconsistent. In contrast, if a clinical trial includes a QoL improvement as a secondary endpoint, the ESMO score can be upgraded. Additionally, if QoL is reported as a secondary measure, but does not demonstrate improvement, an ESMO score may be downgraded. 7. Reported treatment toxicities are accounted for differently between the ASCO and ESMO scales Although both the ASCO value framework and ESMO-MCBS v1.0 take into account reductions in treatment toxicity, the two scales utilize significantly different methods for incorporating toxicity data into their respective treatment ratings. The ASCO framework toxicity bonus is calculated based upon the relative number of grade 3-5 toxicity categories reported. In con- 4

5 trast, the ESMO-MCBS v1.0 will evaluate toxicity based upon the number of grade 3-5 adverse events reported within a category. Therefore, a treatment which reduces the frequency of a grade 3-5 toxicity without eliminating it as a reported category may result in a positive score adjustment on the ESMO-MCBS v1.0, but may not be reflected in the ASCO framework toxicity bonus. Additionally, the ESMO-MCBS v1.0 may downgrade a score if the treatment is associated with a particularly severe toxi-city including toxic death, cardiovascular ischemia, hospitalization, congestive heart failure, neurotoxicity, or other irreversible toxicities. 8. The role of acquisition cost is limited to the ASCO evaluation only Acquisition cost is part of the ASCO Value assessment framework. While cost does not influence the score of the therapy, it is information that is required to be provided as part of the assessment. ESMO-MCBS v1.0 does not call for any cost-related information to be considered as part of the evaluation. Overall impressions of the ASCO and ESMO rating scales 1. The ASCO Value framework appears to apply more stringent evaluation criteria than its ESMO counterpart A comparative evaluation of the two oncology treatment rating scales suggests it is more difficult to obtain a score within the upper range of the ASCO framework when compared to the ESMO-MCBS v1.0 for the advanced disease setting (Figure 5). Among the 74 non-curative oncology treatments tested through this analysis, the highest ASCO NHB score produced was found to be a 64 out of 130. In contrast, many of the same treatments when evaluated by the ESMO-MCBS v1.0 received a clinical benefit grade of 4 out of 5, and in several cases 5 out of 5 ratings. Therefore, it is important to consider when using the ASCO framework that the entirety of the rating scale is rarely applied, and that a rating which appears to be in the mid-range of the 130-point scale may in fact have an excellent treatment rating relative to other oncology products. The implications of this finding are particularly important when considering that the ASCO Value framework is intended as a physician and patient shared decision-making tool. It is important that physicians understand the scaling of the ASCO framework grading system, since impressions of a score in the mid-range of the ASCO rating scale will not be interpreted appropriately without the knowledge that the upper range of the scale is rarely applicable. 2. ESMO score adjustments are more frequently applied than ASCO bonuses Due to the fact that the ASCO framework intentionally excludes QoL metrics or patient-reported data, it is far less likely that a treatment will receive a 5

6 palliation bonus under the ASCO evaluation criteria than a QoL score adjustment under the ESMO-MCBS v1.0 evaluation criteria. Additionally, given the fact that it is more likely to reduce the number of adverse events within a grade 3-5 toxicity than to eliminate a grade 3-5 toxicity as a category, a treatment is also more likely to receive a toxicity bonus under the ESMO rating scale than under the ASCO framework. Of the 74 oncology assesments in the advanced cancer setting using both frameworks, 22 assessments included some form of QoL or toxicity bonus under the ESMO-MCBS v1.0 rating scale whereas only 4 assessments included a palliation or toxicity bonus under the ASCO framework. 3. The score a treatment receives on the ESMO rating scale is not While the treatment ratings generated under the ASCO framework are generally positively correlated with the corresponding treatment ratings calculated using the ESMO-BCBS v1.0 evaluation system, neither scale is predictive of the other. predictive of the score the same treatment will receive under the ASCO framework, or vice versa While the treatment ratings generated under the ASCO framework are generally positively correlated with the corresponding treatment ratings calculated using the ESMO-BCBS v1.0 evaluation system, neither scale is entirely predictive of the other in an analysis of 45 unique cancer treatments in the advanced cancer setting (74 assessments in total due to multiple indications, sub-indications, and, in some cases, comparisons against multiple controls). Treatments which earned an ESMO clinical benefit grade of 1 were found to have an NHB score between 11 and 33 out of 130 using the ASCO framework. Similarly, treatments with an ESMO grade of 2 were found to have an ASCO NHB score between 6 and 55 while treatments with an ESMO grade of 3 were found to range in ASCO NHB score from 16 to 55. Treatments with ESMO grades of 4 and 5 ranged on the ASCO NHB scale from 0 to 64 and 16 to 48, respectively. This wide range of overlap between treatment scores indicates that the ESMO rating is by no means predictive of that individual treatment s ASCO score (or vice versa) which may vary widely depending upon the individual treatment characteristics. Figure 5 compares the ASCO Net Health Benefit Score with the corresponding ESMO Clinical Benefit Grade for several oncology therapies. One particular example of this potential scoring disparity between the ASCO and ESMO grading criteria comes in the form of the lung cancer treatment Alimta (pemetrexed) produced by Eli Lilly. Under the ASCO framework, this treatment originally received a net health benefit score of a 0 for failing to demonstrate superior overall survival outcomes to the standard of care utilized in the trial, cisplatin and gemcitabine. At the urging of the manufacturer, the treatment was re-evaluated under the ASCO framework using trial data specific to patients with non-squamous cancers, the target patient population for the treatment according to the FDA label (as opposed to overall patient population used in the trial which included squamous and non-squamous cases). Using the overall survival statistics specif- 6

7 ic to non-squamous patients, the treatment was now found to earn a score of 16 out of 130 on the ASCO framework scale. 3 However, even with this score adjustment, the ASCO NHB score for Alimta still varied significantly from the grade earned under the ESMO-BCBS v1.0; Alimta earned a clinical benefit grade of a 4 out of 5 on the ESMO-MCBS v1.0 evaluation system. According to ESMO-MCBS v1.0, this treatment earned a preliminary grade of 3 as the two-year survival rate of patients on Alimta improved between 5% and 10% compared to the standard of care. Additionally, the treatment received a toxicity score adjustment which increased the final grade to 4, as Alimta was found to cause significantly fewer cases of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. This toxicity bonus was not reflected under the ASCO framework which only provides a toxicity bonus for fully eliminating a toxicity. In the case of Alimta, some grade 3 to 4 cases of these toxicities still occurred in patients using the treatment, even if they occurred at a significantly lower rate. ESMO and ASCO have taken steps to guide the medical community in assessing the value of oncology therapies by releasing their value assessment frameworks. However, the frameworks are not identical and there are several instances where therapies appear to be valued differently. The substantial difference in scores for Alimta, a 16 out of 130 on the ASCO framework as opposed to a 4 out of 5 on the ESMO-MCBS v1.0, is illustrative of the notion that the differences between the evaluation criteria of the two frameworks can result in considerably different assessments of value. Conclusion With increasing budget constraints and the need to make trade-offs in health spending, assessing the value of cancer medications has taken center stage in the discussion of drugs and drug prices. ESMO and ASCO have taken steps to guide the medical community in assessing the value of oncology therapies by releasing their value assessment frameworks. However, the frameworks are not identical, and there are several instances where therapies appear to be valued differently. As manufacturers and the medical community get more familiar with these frameworks and start to implement them, it is important to know the details of each framework and the resulting implications. 3 7

8 Figure 1: ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale v1.0 Form 1: For new approaches to adjuvant therapy or new potentially curative therapies Grade A >5% improvement of survival at 3years follow-up Improvements in DFS alone (primary endpoint) (HR <0.65) in studies without mature survival data Grade B 3% but 5% improvement at 3% years follow-up Improvements in DFS alone (primary endpoint) (HR < ) without mature survival data Non inferior OS or DFS with reduced treatment toxicity or improved Quality of Life (with validated scales) Non inferior OS or DFS with reduced treatment cost as reported study outcome (with equivalent outcomes and risks) Grade C <3% improvement of survival at 3% years follow-up Improvements in DFS alone (primary endpoint) (HR >0.8) in studies without mature survival data Mark with X if relevant Magnitude of clinical benefit grade (highest grade scored) A B C Source: Cherny et al. Annals of Oncology, May A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) Figure 2a: ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale v1.0 Form 2a: For therapies that are not likely to be curative with primary endpoint of OS IF median OS with the standard treatment is 1 year Grade 4 HR 0.65 AND Gain 3 months Increase in 2 year survival alone 10% Grade 3 HR 0.65 AND Gain months Increase in 2 year survival alone 5 - <10% Grade 2 Mark with X if relevant HR > OR Gain months Increase in 2 year survival alone 3 - <5% Grade 1 HR >0.70 OR Gain <1.5 months Increase in 2 year survival alone <3% Preliminary magnitude of clinical benefit grade (highest grade scored) Quality of Life (QoL)assessment/grade 3-4 toxicities assessment* Does secondary endpoint quality of life show improvement Are there statistically significantly less grade 3-4 toxicities impacting on daily well-being* *This does not include alopecia, myelosuppression, but rather chronic nausea, diarrhoea, fatigue, etc. 8

9 Adjustments Upgrade 1 level if improved quality of life and/or less grade 3-4 toxicities impacting daily well-being are shown Final adjusted magnitude of clinical benefit grade IF median OS with the standard treatment is >1 year Grade 4 HR 0.70 AND Gain 5 months Increase in 3 year survival alone 10% Grade 3 HR 0.70 AND Gain months Increase in 3 year survival alone 5 - <10% Mark with X if relevant Grade 2 HR > OR Gain months Increase in 3 year survival alone 3 - <5% Grade 1 HR >0.75 OR Gain <1.5 months Increase in 3 year survival alone <3% Preliminary magnitude of clinical benefit grade (highest grade scored) QoL assessment/grade 3-4 toxicities assessment* Does secondary endpoint quality of life show improvement Are there statistically significantly less grade 3-4 toxicities impacting on daily well-being* *This does not include alopecia, myelosuppression, but rather chronic nausea, diarrhoea, fatigue, etc. Adjustments Upgrade 1 level if improved quality of life and/or less grade 3-4 toxicities impacting daily well-being are shown Final adjusted magnitude of clinical benefit grade Source: Cherny et al. Annals of Oncology, May A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) 9

10 Figure 2b: ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale v1.0 Form 2b: For therapies that are not likely to be curative with primary endpoint of PFS IF median PFS with standard treatment 6months Grade 3 HR 0.65 AND Gain 1.5 months Grade 2 HR 0.65 AND Gain <1.5 months Grade 1 HR >0.65 Mark with X if relevant Preliminary magnitude of clinical benefit grade (highest grade scored) Toxicity assessment Is the new treatment associated with a statistically significant incremental rate of: toxic death >2% cardiovascular Ischemia >2% hospitalization for toxicity >10% excess rate of severe CHF >4% grade 3 neurotoxicity >10% severe other irreversible or long lasting toxicity >2% please specify: Mark with X if relevant (Incremental rate refers to the comparison versus standard therapy in the control arm) Quality of Life (QoL)/grade 3-4 toxicities assessment* Was QoL evaluated as secondary outcome Does secondary endpoint QoL show improvement Are there statistically significantly less grade 3-4 toxicities impacting on daily well-being* *This does not include alopecia, myelosuppression, but rather chronic nausea, diarrhoea, fatigue, etc. Adjustments a) Downgrade 1 level if there is one or more of the above incremental toxicities associated with the new drug b) Upgrade 1 level if improved QoL or if less grade 3-4 toxicities that bother patients are demonstrated c) When OS as secondary endpoint shows improvement, it will prevail and the new scoring will be done according to form 2a d) Downgrade 1 level if the drug ONLY leads to improved PFS and QoL assessment does not demonstrate improved QoL Final, toxicity and QoL adjusted, magnitude of clinical benefit grade Source: Cherny et al. Annals of Oncology, May A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) 10

11 IF median PFS with standard treatment >6months Grade 3 HR 0.65 AND Gain 3 months Grade 2 HR 0.65 AND Gain <3 months Grade 1 HR >0.65 Mark with X if relevant Preliminary magnitude of clinical benefit grade (highest grade scored) Toxicity assessment Is the new treatment associated with a statistically significant incremental rate of: toxic death >2% cardiovascular Ischemia >2% hospitalization for toxicity >10% excess rate of severe CHF >4% grade 3 neurotoxicity >10% severe other irreversible or long lasting toxicity >2% please specify: Mark with X if relevant (Incremental rate refers to the comparison versus standard therapy in the control arm) Quality of Life (QoL)/grade 3-4 toxicities assessment* Was QoL evaluated as secondary outcome Does secondary endpoint QoL show improvement Are there statistically significantly less grade 3-4 toxicities impacting on daily well-being* *This does not include alopecia, myelosuppression, but rather chronic nausea, diarrhoea, fatigue, etc. Adjustments a) Downgrade 1 level if there is one or more of the above incremental toxicities associated with the new drug b) Upgrade 1 level if improved QoL or if less grade 3-4 toxicities that bother patients are demonstrated c) When OS as secondary endpoint shows improvement, it will prevail and the new scoring will be done according to form 2a d) Downgrade 1 level if the drug ONLY leads to improved PFS and QoL assessment does not demonstrate improved QoL Final, toxicity and QoL adjusted, magnitude of clinical benefit grade Highest magnitude clinic benefit grade that can be achieved is Grade 4. Source: Cherny et al. Annals of Oncology, May A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) 11

12 Figure 2c: ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale v1.0 Form 2c: For therapies that are not likely to be curative with primary endpoint other than OS or PFS or equivalence studies Primary outcome is Toxicity or Quality of Life (QoL) AND Non-inferiority Studies Grade 4 Reduced toxicity or improved QoL (using validated scale) with evidence for statistical non inferiority or superiority in PFS/OS Mark with X if relevant Grade 3 Improvement in some symptoms (using validated scale) BUT without evidence of improved overall QoL Primary outcome is Response Rate Grade 2 RR is increased 20% but no improvement in toxicity/qol/pfs/os Grade 1 R is increased <20% but no improvement in toxicity/qol/pfs/os Final magnitude of clinical benefit grade Source: Cherny et al. Annals of Oncology, May A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) 12

13 Figure 3: Simplified schematic of ASCO Value Framework for adjuvant setting (early stage disease) 1 Determine the regimen s CLINICAL BENEFIT 2 Determine the regimen s TOXICITY YES x 16 = OS Score 1A Assign an HR Score Hazard Ratio (HR) for death reported? NO 1B YES x 15 = DFS Score Disease-Free - Survival (DFS) reported? Assign a DFS Score Assign a toxicity score by comparing the sum of grade 3-5 toxicities for each regimen Toxicity Score Improvement Substantially less well tolerated Less well tolerated Toxicity is the same Better tolerated Substantially better tolerated The toxicity score is based on the difference in toxicity between the two regiments. If there are unresolved symptomatic treatmentrelated toxicities at 1 year after completion of treatment, 5 points are subtracted. Clinical Benefit Score = OS Score or DFS Score or RR Score (max. allowable points are 80) Toxicity Score (max. allowable toxicity points are 20) 3 Calculate the regiment s NET HEALTH BENEFIT = 1 CLINICAL BENEFIT Score + 2 TOXICITY Score 4 Determine the Cost (entire course of regimen): Drug Acquisition Cost (DAC): regimen s COST = Patient Co-Pay: 5 SUMMARY 1 Clinical Benefit 2 Toxicity 3 Net Health Benefit 4 Cost ASSESSMENT /80 /20 /100 DAC: Patient Payment: Source: Schnipper et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology, June ASCO Statement: A conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. Figure 4: Simplified schematic of ASCO Value Framework for advanced disease 1 Determine the 2 Determine the 3 Determine the regimen s regimen s regimen s CLINICAL BENEFIT TOXICITY BONUS POINTS YES Assign an OS Score x 16 = OSScore 1A Overall Survival (OS) reported? YES x 11 = PFSScore NO Progression - free 1B Survival (PFS) reported? Assign a PFS Score NO Response 1C Rate (RR) reported? YES Assign a RR Score x 8 = RRScore Clinical Benefit Score = OS Score or PFS Score or RR Score (max. allowable points are 80) Assign a toxicity score by comparing the sum of grade 3-5 toxicities for each regimen Substantially Less well less well tolerated tolerated Toxicity is the same Better tolerated Substantially better tolerated The toxicity score is based on the difference in toxicity between the two regiments. Toxicity Score (max. allowable toxicity points are 20) YES Award 10 Palliation Bonus Points Are data related to the palliation 3A of symptoms reported? YES NO Toxicity Score Improvement Assign Treatment-Free Interval Bonus Points Bonus Points % >0%- 20%- 36%- 50%- 75% Change 19% 35% 49% 74% Are data related to 3B treatment-free interval reported? Total Bonus Points = Palliation Bonus Points + Treatment Free Interval Bonus Points (max. allowable points are 30) NO 3C Calculate Total Bonus Points 4 Calculate the regiment s NET HEALTH BENEFIT = 1 CLINICAL 2 TOXICITY 3 BONUS BENEFIT Score + Score + POINTS Score 5 Determine the Cost(per month) : regimen s = Drug Acquisition Cost (DAC): COST Patient Co-Pay: 1 6 Clinical Benefit Net Health 5 Toxicity Bonus Points Cost (per month) SUMMARY Benefit ASSESSMENT /80 /20 /30 /130 DAC: Patient Payment: Source: Schnipper et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology, June ASCO Statement: A conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. 13

14 Figure 5: Comparison of ASCO Net Health Benefit Score with corresponding ESMO Clinical Benefit Grade for several oncology therapies ASCO Net Health Benefit Score ESMO Clinical Benefit Grade Source: Simon-Kucher & Partners analysis 14

15 About the authors Ram Subramanian is a Director in the life sciences practice of Simon-Kucher & Partners based in Boston. He advises pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies on commercialization of new products across the globe. : : Kevin Schorr is a Consultant in the life science division of Simon-Kucher & Partners in Boston. He has worked on a wide variety of projects, including pricing and market access, commercialization strategy, and value messaging across numerous product lines within the life sciences sector. : : About Simon-Kucher Simon-Kucher & Partners is a global consulting firm with 800 professionals in 29 offices worldwide focusing on TopLine Power. Founded in 1985, the company has 30 years of experience providing strategy and marketing consulting, and is regarded as the world s leading pricing advisor. 15

16 Boston One Canal Park Cambridge, MA Tel Fax

Clinical Trial Design. Sponsored by Center for Cancer Research National Cancer Institute

Clinical Trial Design. Sponsored by Center for Cancer Research National Cancer Institute Clinical Trial Design Sponsored by Center for Cancer Research National Cancer Institute Overview Clinical research is research conducted on human beings (or on material of human origin such as tissues,

More information

Maintenance therapy in in Metastatic NSCLC. Dr Amit Joshi Associate Professor Dept. Of Medical Oncology Tata Memorial Centre Mumbai

Maintenance therapy in in Metastatic NSCLC. Dr Amit Joshi Associate Professor Dept. Of Medical Oncology Tata Memorial Centre Mumbai Maintenance therapy in in Metastatic NSCLC Dr Amit Joshi Associate Professor Dept. Of Medical Oncology Tata Memorial Centre Mumbai Definition of Maintenance therapy The U.S. National Cancer Institute s

More information

Prior Authorization Guideline

Prior Authorization Guideline Prior Authorization Guideline Guideline: PS Inj - Alimta Therapeutic Class: Antineoplastic Agents Therapeutic Sub-Class: Antifolates Client: PS Inj Approval Date: 8/2/2004 Revision Date: 12/5/2006 I. BENEFIT

More information

Guidance for Industry FDA Approval of New Cancer Treatment Uses for Marketed Drug and Biological Products

Guidance for Industry FDA Approval of New Cancer Treatment Uses for Marketed Drug and Biological Products Guidance for Industry FDA Approval of New Cancer Treatment Uses for Marketed Drug and Biological Products U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation

More information

Guidance for Industry

Guidance for Industry Guidance for Industry Cancer Drug and Biological Products Clinical Data in Marketing Applications U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and

More information

January 2013 LONDON CANCER NEW DRUGS GROUP RAPID REVIEW. Summary. Contents

January 2013 LONDON CANCER NEW DRUGS GROUP RAPID REVIEW. Summary. Contents LONDON CANCER NEW DRUGS GROUP RAPID REVIEW Paclitaxel albumin (Abraxane ) as a substitute for docetaxel/paclitaxel for cancer Paclitaxel albumin (Abraxane ) as a substitute for docetaxel/ paclitaxel for

More information

NATIONAL CANCER DRUG FUND PRIORITISATION SCORES

NATIONAL CANCER DRUG FUND PRIORITISATION SCORES NATIONAL CANCER DRUG FUND PRIORITISATION SCORES Drug Indication Regimen (where appropriate) BORTEZOMIB In combination with dexamethasone (VD), or with dexamethasone and thalidomide (VTD), is indicated

More information

Background. t 1/2 of 3.7 4.7 days allows once-daily dosing (1.5 mg) with consistent serum concentration 2,3 No interaction with CYP3A4 inhibitors 4

Background. t 1/2 of 3.7 4.7 days allows once-daily dosing (1.5 mg) with consistent serum concentration 2,3 No interaction with CYP3A4 inhibitors 4 Abstract No. 4501 Tivozanib versus sorafenib as initial targeted therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Results from a Phase III randomized, open-label, multicenter trial R. Motzer, D.

More information

Activity of pemetrexed in thoracic malignancies

Activity of pemetrexed in thoracic malignancies Activity of pemetrexed in thoracic malignancies Results of phase III clinical studies of pemetrexed in malignant pleural mesothelioma and non-small cell lung cancer show benefit P emetrexed (Alimta) is

More information

REPORT ASCO 2002 ORLANDO : LUNG CANCER Johan F. Vansteenkiste, MD, PhD, Univ. Hospital and Leuven Lung Cancer Group

REPORT ASCO 2002 ORLANDO : LUNG CANCER Johan F. Vansteenkiste, MD, PhD, Univ. Hospital and Leuven Lung Cancer Group REPORT ASCO 2002 ORLANDO : LUNG CANCER Johan F. Vansteenkiste, MD, PhD, Univ. Hospital and Leuven Lung Cancer Group In the 2002 edition of the ASCO meeting, a total of 315 abstracts in the field of respiratory

More information

Ovarian Cancer and Modern Immunotherapy: Regulatory Strategies for Drug Development

Ovarian Cancer and Modern Immunotherapy: Regulatory Strategies for Drug Development Ovarian Cancer and Modern Immunotherapy: Regulatory Strategies for Drug Development Sanjeeve Bala, MD, MPH Ovarian Cancer Endpoints Workshop FDA White Oak September 3, 2015 Overview Immune agents from

More information

Chemotherapy in Ovarian Cancer. Dr R Jones Consultant Medical Oncologist South Wales Gynaecological Oncology Group

Chemotherapy in Ovarian Cancer. Dr R Jones Consultant Medical Oncologist South Wales Gynaecological Oncology Group Chemotherapy in Ovarian Cancer Dr R Jones Consultant Medical Oncologist South Wales Gynaecological Oncology Group Adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage EOC Fewer than 30% women present with FIGO stage

More information

DECISION AND SUMMARY OF RATIONALE

DECISION AND SUMMARY OF RATIONALE DECISION AND SUMMARY OF RATIONALE Indication under consideration Clinical evidence Clofarabine in the treatment of relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) The application was for clofarabine to remain in

More information

DECISION AND SUMMARY OF RATIONALE

DECISION AND SUMMARY OF RATIONALE DECISION AND SUMMARY OF RATIONALE Indication under consideration Clinical evidence Crizotinib as 2nd line treatment for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) positive lung cancer Score The application

More information

Introduction Objective Methods Results Conclusion

Introduction Objective Methods Results Conclusion Introduction Objective Methods Results Conclusion 2 Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is the most common form of mesothelioma a rare cancer associated with long latency period (i.e. 20 to 40 years),

More information

Mesothelioma. Information for Patients and Families. identifying and evaluating experimental

Mesothelioma. Information for Patients and Families. identifying and evaluating experimental Mesothelioma CLINICAL TRIALS Information for Patients and Families identifying and evaluating experimental treatments table of contents Pg. 2... Phases of a Clinical Trial Pg. 3... Mesothelioma and Clinical

More information

Clinical Trial Endpoints for Regulatory Approval First-Line Therapy for Advanced Ovarian Cancer

Clinical Trial Endpoints for Regulatory Approval First-Line Therapy for Advanced Ovarian Cancer Clinical Trial Endpoints for Regulatory Approval First-Line Therapy for Advanced Ovarian Cancer Elizabeth Eisenhauer MD FRCPC Options for Endpoints First-Line Trials in Advanced OVCA Overall Survival:

More information

Summary 1. Comparative-effectiveness

Summary 1. Comparative-effectiveness Cost-effectiveness of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol (Sativex ) as add-on treatment, for symptom improvement in patients with moderate to severe spasticity due to MS who have not responded adequately

More information

Van Cutsem E et al. Proc ASCO 2009;Abstract LBA4509.

Van Cutsem E et al. Proc ASCO 2009;Abstract LBA4509. Efficacy Results from the ToGA Trial: A Phase III Study of Trastuzumab Added to Standard Chemotherapy in First-Line HER2- Positive Advanced Gastric Cancer Van Cutsem E et al. Proc ASCO 2009;Abstract LBA4509.

More information

Understanding Clinical Trials

Understanding Clinical Trials Understanding Clinical Trials HR =.6 (CI :.51.7) p

More information

EVIDENCE IN BRIEF OVERALL CLINICAL BENEFIT

EVIDENCE IN BRIEF OVERALL CLINICAL BENEFIT perc also deliberated on the alignment of bendamustine with patient values. perc noted that bendamustine has a progression-free survival advantage, may be less toxic than currently available therapies

More information

Trials in Elderly Melanoma Patients (with a focus on immunotherapy)

Trials in Elderly Melanoma Patients (with a focus on immunotherapy) Trials in Elderly Melanoma Patients (with a focus on immunotherapy) Where we were Immunotherapy Trials: past and present Relevance for real world practice Where we are SIOG October 2012 James Larkin FRCP

More information

Everolimus plus exemestane for second-line endocrine treatment of oestrogen receptor positive metastatic breast cancer

Everolimus plus exemestane for second-line endocrine treatment of oestrogen receptor positive metastatic breast cancer LONDON CANCER NEWS DRUGS GROUP RAPID REVIEW Everolimus plus exemestane for second-line endocrine treatment of oestrogen receptor positive metastatic breast cancer Everolimus plus exemestane for second-line

More information

2. Background This was the fourth submission for everolimus requesting listing for clear cell renal carcinoma.

2. Background This was the fourth submission for everolimus requesting listing for clear cell renal carcinoma. PUBLIC SUMMARY DOCUMENT Product: Everolimus, tablets, 5 mg and 10 mg, Afinitor Sponsor: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia Pty Ltd Date of PBAC Consideration: November 2011 1. Purpose of Application To

More information

Endpoints and quality of life

Endpoints and quality of life Endpoints and quality of life PFS, OS, quality of life and medico-economic assessment in oncology Isabelle Durand-Zaleski, Jérôme Garnier, Mira Pavlovic, and participants of roundtable n 3 Pascal Bilbault,

More information

IMMUNOMEDICS, INC. February 2016. Advanced Antibody-Based Therapeutics. Oncology Autoimmune Diseases

IMMUNOMEDICS, INC. February 2016. Advanced Antibody-Based Therapeutics. Oncology Autoimmune Diseases IMMUNOMEDICS, INC. Advanced Antibody-Based Therapeutics Oncology Autoimmune Diseases February 2016 Forward-Looking Statements This presentation, in addition to historical information, contains certain

More information

Patient Reported Outcomes in Ovarian Cancer Clinical Trials - Missed Opportunities and Lessons Learned

Patient Reported Outcomes in Ovarian Cancer Clinical Trials - Missed Opportunities and Lessons Learned Patient Reported Outcomes in Ovarian Cancer Clinical Trials - Missed Opportunities and Lessons Learned Michael Friedlander 1, Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber 2,3 and Madeleine King 2,3 1.Director of Research ANZGOG

More information

Scottish Medicines Consortium

Scottish Medicines Consortium Scottish Medicines Consortium pemetrexed 500mg infusion (Alimta ) No. (192/05) Eli Lilly 8 July 2005 The Scottish Medicines Consortium has completed its assessment of the above product and advises NHS

More information

Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Non- Small Cell Lung Cancer Drugs and Biologics Guidance for Industry

Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Non- Small Cell Lung Cancer Drugs and Biologics Guidance for Industry Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Non- Small Cell Lung Cancer Drugs and Biologics Guidance for Industry U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug

More information

Basic Results Database

Basic Results Database Basic Results Database Deborah A. Zarin, M.D. ClinicalTrials.gov December 2008 1 ClinicalTrials.gov Overview and PL 110-85 Requirements Module 1 2 Levels of Transparency Prospective Clinical Trials Registry

More information

18.5 Percent Overall Response Rate Observed in Pembrolizumab-Treated Patients with this Aggressive Form of Breast Cancer

18.5 Percent Overall Response Rate Observed in Pembrolizumab-Treated Patients with this Aggressive Form of Breast Cancer News Release Media Contacts: Annick Robinson Investor Contacts: Joseph Romanelli (514) 837-2550 (908) 740-1986 Stephanie Lyttle NATIONAL Public Relations (514) 843-2365 Justin Holko (908) 740-1879 Merck

More information

What is the Optimal Front-Line Treatment for mrcc? Michael B. Atkins, MD Deputy Director, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center

What is the Optimal Front-Line Treatment for mrcc? Michael B. Atkins, MD Deputy Director, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center What is the Optimal Front-Line Treatment for mrcc? Michael B. Atkins, MD Deputy Director, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center The Case for Immunotherapy in mrcc 1. Achieves patient s goal 2.

More information

Adjuvant Therapy Non Small Cell Lung Cancer. Sunil Nagpal MD Director, Thoracic Oncology Jan 30, 2015

Adjuvant Therapy Non Small Cell Lung Cancer. Sunil Nagpal MD Director, Thoracic Oncology Jan 30, 2015 Adjuvant Therapy Non Small Cell Lung Cancer Sunil Nagpal MD Director, Thoracic Oncology Jan 30, 2015 No Disclosures Number of studies Studies Per Month 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3

More information

Efficacy analysis and graphical representation in Oncology trials - A case study

Efficacy analysis and graphical representation in Oncology trials - A case study Efficacy analysis and graphical representation in Oncology trials - A case study Anindita Bhattacharjee Vijayalakshmi Indana Cytel, Pune The views expressed in this presentation are our own and do not

More information

PRINCIPLES ON RESPONSIBLE SHARING OF TRUTHFUL AND NON-MISLEADING INFORMATION ABOUT MEDICINES WITH HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS AND PAYERS

PRINCIPLES ON RESPONSIBLE SHARING OF TRUTHFUL AND NON-MISLEADING INFORMATION ABOUT MEDICINES WITH HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS AND PAYERS PRINCIPLES ON RESPONSIBLE SHARING OF TRUTHFUL AND NON-MISLEADING INFORMATION ABOUT MEDICINES WITH HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS AND PAYERS INTRODUCTION In the era of data-driven medicine, where all parties

More information

Gemcitabine, Paclitaxel, and Trastuzumab in Metastatic Breast Cancer

Gemcitabine, Paclitaxel, and Trastuzumab in Metastatic Breast Cancer Gemcitabine, Paclitaxel, and Trastuzumab in Metastatic Breast Cancer Review Article [1] December 01, 2003 By George W. Sledge, Jr, MD [2] Gemcitabine (Gemzar) and paclitaxel show good activity as single

More information

Cancer Treatments Subcommittee of PTAC Meeting held 18 September 2015. (minutes for web publishing)

Cancer Treatments Subcommittee of PTAC Meeting held 18 September 2015. (minutes for web publishing) Cancer Treatments Subcommittee of PTAC Meeting held 18 September 2015 (minutes for web publishing) Cancer Treatments Subcommittee minutes are published in accordance with the Terms of Reference for the

More information

Avastin in breast cancer: Summary of clinical data

Avastin in breast cancer: Summary of clinical data Avastin in breast cancer: Summary of clinical data Worldwide, over one million people are diagnosed with breast cancer every year 1. It is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women 1,2, and the leading

More information

DECISION AND SUMMARY OF RATIONALE

DECISION AND SUMMARY OF RATIONALE DECISION AND SUMMARY OF RATIONALE Indication under consideration Clinical evidence Everolimus in combination with exemestane hormone therapy for oestrogen receptor positive locally advanced or metastatic

More information

Simplifying the measurement of co-morbidities and their influence on chemotherapy toxicity

Simplifying the measurement of co-morbidities and their influence on chemotherapy toxicity Simplifying the measurement of co-morbidities and their influence on chemotherapy toxicity Dr Rajesh Sinha BSc MBBS MRCP, Clinical Research Fellow in Medical Oncology Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals

More information

Advances In Chemotherapy For Hormone Refractory Prostate Cancer. TAX 327 study results & SWOG 99-16 study results presented at ASCO 2004

Advances In Chemotherapy For Hormone Refractory Prostate Cancer. TAX 327 study results & SWOG 99-16 study results presented at ASCO 2004 Ronald de Wit Rotterdam Cancer Institute The Netherlands Advances In Chemotherapy For Hormone Refractory Prostate Cancer TAX 327 study results & SWOG 99-16 study results presented at Slide 1 Prostate Cancer

More information

New Treatment Options for Breast Cancer

New Treatment Options for Breast Cancer New Treatment Options for Breast Cancer Brandon Vakiner, PharmD., BCOP Clinical Pharmacy Specialist - Oncology The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Assistant Professor (Clinical) University of

More information

Putting Patients at the Heart of what Value Means

Putting Patients at the Heart of what Value Means November 19, 2015 Robert Carlson, MD Chief Executive Officer National Comprehensive Cancer Network 275 Commerce Drive, Suite 300 Fort Washington, PA 19034 Dear Dr. Carlson, The undersigned organizations

More information

Oncology Medical Home: Strategies for Changing What and How We Pay for Oncology Care

Oncology Medical Home: Strategies for Changing What and How We Pay for Oncology Care Oncology Medical Home: Strategies for Changing What and How We Pay for Oncology Care John Fox, MD MHA Senior Medical Director Priority Health 1 Cancer Care is the Leading Edge of Medical Cost Trend for

More information

Anticancer Drug Clinical Trial Guideline. (version 2.0)

Anticancer Drug Clinical Trial Guideline. (version 2.0) Anticancer Drug Clinical Trial Guideline (version 2.0) May, 2007 1 Table of Contents 1. Introduction... 4 2. The Overall Consideration of Clinical Trial... 4 2.1 The Selection of Patients... 4 2.2 Dose

More information

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

U.S. Food and Drug Administration U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDA s website for reference purposes only. It was current when produced, but is no longer maintained

More information

OI PARP ΑΝΑΣΤΟΛΕΙΣ ΣΤΟΝ ΚΑΡΚΙΝΟ ΤΟΥ ΜΑΣΤΟΥ ΝΙΚΟΛΑΙΔΗ ΑΔΑΜΑΝΤΙΑ ΠΑΘΟΛΟΓΟΣ-ΟΓΚΟΛΟΓΟΣ Β ΟΓΚΟΛΟΓΙΚΗ ΚΛΙΝΙΚΗ ΝΟΣ. ΜΗΤΕΡΑ

OI PARP ΑΝΑΣΤΟΛΕΙΣ ΣΤΟΝ ΚΑΡΚΙΝΟ ΤΟΥ ΜΑΣΤΟΥ ΝΙΚΟΛΑΙΔΗ ΑΔΑΜΑΝΤΙΑ ΠΑΘΟΛΟΓΟΣ-ΟΓΚΟΛΟΓΟΣ Β ΟΓΚΟΛΟΓΙΚΗ ΚΛΙΝΙΚΗ ΝΟΣ. ΜΗΤΕΡΑ OI PARP ΑΝΑΣΤΟΛΕΙΣ ΣΤΟΝ ΚΑΡΚΙΝΟ ΤΟΥ ΜΑΣΤΟΥ ΝΙΚΟΛΑΙΔΗ ΑΔΑΜΑΝΤΙΑ ΠΑΘΟΛΟΓΟΣ-ΟΓΚΟΛΟΓΟΣ Β ΟΓΚΟΛΟΓΙΚΗ ΚΛΙΝΙΚΗ ΝΟΣ. ΜΗΤΕΡΑ Study Overview Inhibition of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase

More information

If several different trials are mentioned in one publication, the data of each should be extracted in a separate data extraction form.

If several different trials are mentioned in one publication, the data of each should be extracted in a separate data extraction form. General Remarks This template of a data extraction form is intended to help you to start developing your own data extraction form, it certainly has to be adapted to your specific question. Delete unnecessary

More information

Should we use Docetaxel in hormone- naïve prostate cancer? Karim Fizazi, MD, PhD Institut Gustave Roussy Villejuif, France

Should we use Docetaxel in hormone- naïve prostate cancer? Karim Fizazi, MD, PhD Institut Gustave Roussy Villejuif, France Should we use Docetaxel in hormone- naïve prostate cancer? Karim Fizazi, MD, PhD Institut Gustave Roussy Villejuif, France Disclosure Participation to advisory boards/honorarium from: Amgen, Astellas,

More information

Evaluation of Treatment Pathways in Oncology: An Example in mcrpc

Evaluation of Treatment Pathways in Oncology: An Example in mcrpc Evaluation of Treatment Pathways in Oncology: An Example in mcrpc Sonja Sorensen, MPH United BioSource Corporation Bethesda, MD 1 Objectives Illustrate selection of modeling approach for evaluating pathways

More information

ASCO Initiatives in Personalized Medicine. Richard L. Schilsky, MD, FACP, FASCO Chief Medical Officer American Society of Clinical Oncology

ASCO Initiatives in Personalized Medicine. Richard L. Schilsky, MD, FACP, FASCO Chief Medical Officer American Society of Clinical Oncology ASCO Initiatives in Personalized Medicine Richard L. Schilsky, MD, FACP, FASCO Chief Medical Officer American Society of Clinical Oncology Financial Disclosures No financial relationships to disclose.

More information

Komorbide brystkræftpatienter kan de tåle behandling? Et registerstudie baseret på Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group

Komorbide brystkræftpatienter kan de tåle behandling? Et registerstudie baseret på Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group Komorbide brystkræftpatienter kan de tåle behandling? Et registerstudie baseret på Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group Lotte Holm Land MD, ph.d. Onkologisk Afd. R. OUH Kræft og komorbiditet - alle skal

More information

Treatment of Low Risk MDS. Overview. Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS)

Treatment of Low Risk MDS. Overview. Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) Overview Amy Davidoff, Ph.D., M.S. Associate Professor Pharmaceutical Health Services Research Department, Peter Lamy Center on Drug Therapy and Aging University of Maryland School of Pharmacy Clinical

More information

POLICY A. INDICATIONS

POLICY A. INDICATIONS Alimta (pemetrexed) Line(s) of Business: HMO; PPO; QUEST Integration Akamai Advantage Original Effective Date: 09/01/2007 Current Effective Date: 10/01/2015 POLICY A. INDICATIONS The indications below

More information

Guidance for Industry Determining the Extent of Safety Data Collection Needed in Late Stage Premarket and Postapproval Clinical Investigations

Guidance for Industry Determining the Extent of Safety Data Collection Needed in Late Stage Premarket and Postapproval Clinical Investigations Guidance for Industry Determining the Extent of Safety Data Collection Needed in Late Stage Premarket and Postapproval Clinical Investigations DRAFT GUIDANCE This guidance document is being distributed

More information

Transgene Presents Additional Positive Clinical Data from Phase 2b Part of TIME Trial with TG4010 at ESMO

Transgene Presents Additional Positive Clinical Data from Phase 2b Part of TIME Trial with TG4010 at ESMO Transgene Presents Additional Positive Clinical Data from Phase 2b Part of TIME Trial with TG4010 at ESMO Statistically significant difference in progression-free survival continues to be seen in non-squamous

More information

Clinical Trial Designs for Firstline Hormonal Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer

Clinical Trial Designs for Firstline Hormonal Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer Clinical Trial Designs for Firstline Hormonal Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer Susan Honig, M.D. Patricia Cortazar, M.D. Rajeshwari Sridhara, Ph.D. Acknowledgements John Johnson Alison Martin Grant

More information

Guidance for Industry Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics

Guidance for Industry Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics Guidance for Industry Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

More information

Issues Concerning Development of Products for Treatment of Non-Metastatic Castration- Resistant Prostate Cancer (NM-CRPC)

Issues Concerning Development of Products for Treatment of Non-Metastatic Castration- Resistant Prostate Cancer (NM-CRPC) Issues Concerning Development of Products for Treatment of Non-Metastatic Castration- Resistant Prostate Cancer (NM-CRPC) FDA Presentation ODAC Meeting September 14, 2011 1 Review Team Paul G. Kluetz,

More information

Management of low grade glioma s: update on recent trials

Management of low grade glioma s: update on recent trials Management of low grade glioma s: update on recent trials M.J. van den Bent The Brain Tumor Center at Erasmus MC Cancer Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands Low grades Female, born 1976 1 st seizure 2005,

More information

Avastin in Metastatic Breast Cancer

Avastin in Metastatic Breast Cancer Non-interventional study Avastin in Metastatic Breast Cancer ML 21165 / 2007 Clinical Study Report Synopsis ROCHE ML21165 / WiSP Project RH09 / V. 1.0 / 24.06.2013 ROCHE ML21165-2 - Name of Sponsor Roche

More information

Overview of Ovarian Cancer. Dr. Sinead Noonan 13/03/2012

Overview of Ovarian Cancer. Dr. Sinead Noonan 13/03/2012 Overview of Ovarian Cancer Dr. Sinead Noonan 13/03/2012 Ovarian Cancer 4 th most common cause of cancer death in women 15,000 deaths/year in the US Each year 300 new cases in Ireland 80% epithelial cell

More information

National Horizon Scanning Centre. Vandetanib (Zactima) for advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. December 2007

National Horizon Scanning Centre. Vandetanib (Zactima) for advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. December 2007 Vandetanib (Zactima) for advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer December 2007 This technology summary is based on information available at the time of research and a limited literature search.

More information

Is it time for a new drug development paradigm?

Is it time for a new drug development paradigm? Is it time for a new drug development paradigm? Robert McDonough, M.D. Senior Director, Clinical Policy Research and Development 1 The Aetna Way Our Cause To make quality health care more affordable and

More information

Summary of treatment benefits

Summary of treatment benefits Risk Management Plan PEMETREXED Powder for concentrate for Solution for infusion Pemetrexed is also indicated as monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non small cell

More information

Not All Clinical Trials Are Created Equal Understanding the Different Phases

Not All Clinical Trials Are Created Equal Understanding the Different Phases Not All Clinical Trials Are Created Equal Understanding the Different Phases This chapter will help you understand the differences between the various clinical trial phases and how these differences impact

More information

NOUVEAUTES THERAPEUTIQUES DANS LES TUMEURS NEUROENDOCRINES DIGESTIVES (Radiothérapie vectorisée et loco-régionale exclue) Philippe RUSZNIEWSKI

NOUVEAUTES THERAPEUTIQUES DANS LES TUMEURS NEUROENDOCRINES DIGESTIVES (Radiothérapie vectorisée et loco-régionale exclue) Philippe RUSZNIEWSKI NOUVEAUTES THERAPEUTIQUES DANS LES TUMEURS NEUROENDOCRINES DIGESTIVES (Radiothérapie vectorisée et loco-régionale exclue) Réunion APRAMEN, Paris, 2 février 2013 Philippe RUSZNIEWSKI Pôle des Maladies de

More information

(1)Faivre-Finn C, Bouvier AM, Mitry E et al. Chemotherapy for colon cancer in a well-defined French population: is it under- or over-prescribed?

(1)Faivre-Finn C, Bouvier AM, Mitry E et al. Chemotherapy for colon cancer in a well-defined French population: is it under- or over-prescribed? Colorectal cancer Chemotherapy for the elderly Dr Christophe TOURNIGAND Hôpital Saint Antoine France Hôpital Charles Lemoyne - Quebec GERCOR EPOG - UPMC Colorectal cancer ( CRC) : an Elderly Disease 3rd

More information

Endpoint Selection in Phase II Oncology trials

Endpoint Selection in Phase II Oncology trials Endpoint Selection in Phase II Oncology trials Anastasia Ivanova Department of Biostatistics UNC at Chapel Hill aivanova@bios.unc.edu Primary endpoints in Phase II trials Recently looked at journal articles

More information

Gilberto de Lima Lopes, MD, MBA, FAMS Chief Medical and Scientific Officer, Oncoclinicas Group Asst. Prof. of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University

Gilberto de Lima Lopes, MD, MBA, FAMS Chief Medical and Scientific Officer, Oncoclinicas Group Asst. Prof. of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University Gilberto de Lima Lopes, MD, MBA, FAMS Chief Medical and Scientific Officer, Oncoclinicas Group Asst. Prof. of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University Assoc. Editor ASCO University and JGO Progress Against

More information

Cancer research in the Midland Region the prostate and bowel cancer projects

Cancer research in the Midland Region the prostate and bowel cancer projects Cancer research in the Midland Region the prostate and bowel cancer projects Ross Lawrenson Waikato Clinical School University of Auckland MoH/HRC Cancer Research agenda Lung cancer Palliative care Prostate

More information

The Clinical Trials Process an educated patient s guide

The Clinical Trials Process an educated patient s guide The Clinical Trials Process an educated patient s guide Gwen L. Nichols, MD Site Head, Oncology Roche TCRC, Translational and Clinical Research Center New York DISCLAIMER I am an employee of Hoffmann-

More information

Communicating uncertainty about benefits and

Communicating uncertainty about benefits and Communicating uncertainty about benefits and harms of pharmaceutical products Lisa M. Schwartz, MD, MS Steven Woloshin, MD, MS The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth

More information

the standard of care 2009 5/1/2009 Mesothelioma: The standard of care take home messages PILC 2006 Jan.vanmeerbeeck@ugent.be Brussels, March 7, 2009

the standard of care 2009 5/1/2009 Mesothelioma: The standard of care take home messages PILC 2006 Jan.vanmeerbeeck@ugent.be Brussels, March 7, 2009 Mesothelioma: The standard of care Jan.vanmeerbeeck@ugent.be Brussels, March 7, 2009 take home messages PILC 2006 All patients should receive adequate palliation of dyspnea and pain before starting chemotherapy

More information

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HARMONISATION OF TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION OF PHARMACEUTICALS FOR HUMAN USE. Current Step 4 version

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HARMONISATION OF TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION OF PHARMACEUTICALS FOR HUMAN USE. Current Step 4 version INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HARMONISATION OF TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION OF PHARMACEUTICALS FOR HUMAN USE ICH HARMONISED TRIPARTITE GUIDELINE THE EXTENT OF POPULATION EXPOSURE TO ASSESS CLINICAL

More information

Practical experience from a reviewer. What do I expect?

Practical experience from a reviewer. What do I expect? Practical experience from a reviewer What do I expect? Giovanni Apolone Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan - Italy DIA-ERIQA Workshop Paris, May 10 2004 Overview The speaker The context

More information

Guidance for Industry

Guidance for Industry Guidance for Industry IND Exemptions for Studies of Lawfully Marketed Drug or Biological Products for the Treatment of Cancer U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center

More information

Sonneveld, P; de Ridder, M; van der Lelie, H; et al. J Clin Oncology, 13 (10) : 2530-2539 Oct 1995

Sonneveld, P; de Ridder, M; van der Lelie, H; et al. J Clin Oncology, 13 (10) : 2530-2539 Oct 1995 Comparison of Doxorubicin and Mitoxantrone in the Treatment of Elderly Patients with Advanced Diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Using CHOP Versus CNOP Chemotherapy. Sonneveld, P; de Ridder, M; van der Lelie,

More information

Recommendation Strength Strong, supported by the evidence and expert consensus. Recommendation Benefit/Harm Evidence Quality

Recommendation Strength Strong, supported by the evidence and expert consensus. Recommendation Benefit/Harm Evidence Quality CHEMO- AND TARGETED THERAPY FOR WOMEN WITH HER2 NEGATIVE (OR UNKNOWN) ADVANCED BREAST Benefit/Harm Evidence Quality 1: Endocrine therapy, rather than chemotherapy, should be offered as the standard firstline

More information

Metastatic Breast Cancer 201. Carolyn B. Hendricks, MD October 29, 2011

Metastatic Breast Cancer 201. Carolyn B. Hendricks, MD October 29, 2011 Metastatic Breast Cancer 201 Carolyn B. Hendricks, MD October 29, 2011 Overview Is rebiopsy necessary at the time of recurrence or progression of disease? How dose a very aggressive treatment upfront compare

More information

Guideline for Industry

Guideline for Industry Guideline for Industry The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety: For Drugs Intended for Longterm Treatment of Non-Life- Threatening Conditions ICH-E1A March 1995 GUIDELINE FOR INDUSTRY

More information

Bendamustine with rituximab for the first-line treatment of advanced indolent non-hodgkin's and mantle cell lymphoma

Bendamustine with rituximab for the first-line treatment of advanced indolent non-hodgkin's and mantle cell lymphoma LONDON CANCER NEW DRUGS GROUP RAPID REVIEW Bendamustine with rituximab for the first-line treatment of advanced indolent non-hodgkin's and mantle cell lymphoma Bendamustine with rituximab for the first-line

More information

MOLOGEN AG. Q1 Results 2015 Conference Call Dr. Matthias Schroff Chief Executive Officer. Berlin, 12 May 2015

MOLOGEN AG. Q1 Results 2015 Conference Call Dr. Matthias Schroff Chief Executive Officer. Berlin, 12 May 2015 Q1 Results 2015 Conference Call Dr. Matthias Schroff Chief Executive Officer Berlin, 12 May 2015 V1-6 Disclaimer Certain statements in this presentation contain formulations or terms referring to the future

More information

Two-Year Phase III Data Presented at AAN 61st Annual Meeting Show Positive Outcome of Cladribine Tablets in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

Two-Year Phase III Data Presented at AAN 61st Annual Meeting Show Positive Outcome of Cladribine Tablets in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis Your contact News Release Barbara Fry Phone +1 905 919 0163 April 29/30, 2009 Two-Year Phase III Data Presented at AAN 61st Annual Meeting Show Positive Outcome of Cladribine Tablets in Patients with Multiple

More information

FOLLOW UP OF TREATED NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER PATIENTS

FOLLOW UP OF TREATED NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER PATIENTS FOLLOW UP OF TREATED NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER PATIENTS THE ART AND THE SCIENCE GIOVANNI BATTISTA MORGAGNI 1682-1771 ITALIAN ANATOMIST FATHER OF PATHOLOGIC ANATOMY 1 ST DESCRIPTION OF LUNG CANCER IN 1761

More information

Cancer Treatments Subcommittee of PTAC Meeting held 2 March 2012. (minutes for web publishing)

Cancer Treatments Subcommittee of PTAC Meeting held 2 March 2012. (minutes for web publishing) Cancer Treatments Subcommittee of PTAC Meeting held 2 March 2012 (minutes for web publishing) Cancer Treatments Subcommittee minutes are published in accordance with the Terms of Reference for the Pharmacology

More information

Community Oncology 2.0 Information Technology A Practical Guide: Navigating from Today to Tomorrow

Community Oncology 2.0 Information Technology A Practical Guide: Navigating from Today to Tomorrow Community Oncology 2.0 Information Technology A Practical Guide: Navigating from Today to Tomorrow Lucio Gordan, MD Florida Cancer Specialists Medical Informatics and Integrated Clinical Services COA National

More information

Preliminary Results from a Phase 2 Study of ARQ 197 in Patients with Microphthalmia Transcription Factor Family (MiT) Associated Tumors

Preliminary Results from a Phase 2 Study of ARQ 197 in Patients with Microphthalmia Transcription Factor Family (MiT) Associated Tumors Preliminary Results from a Phase 2 Study of ARQ 197 in Patients with Microphthalmia Transcription Factor Family (MiT) Associated Tumors John Goldberg 1 *, George Demetri 2, Edwin Choy 3, Lee Rosen 4, Alberto

More information

Accurately Measuring (And Reporting) Cardiotoxicity: Pitfalls & Proposed Solutions

Accurately Measuring (And Reporting) Cardiotoxicity: Pitfalls & Proposed Solutions Accurately Measuring (And Reporting) Cardiotoxicity: Pitfalls & Proposed Solutions Ronald Witteles, MD October 6, 2011 Stanford University School of Medicine Four Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Product labeling

More information

EARLY ECONOMIC MODELS PAY OFF IN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

EARLY ECONOMIC MODELS PAY OFF IN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AN ARTICLE FROM PAREXEL ACCESS EARLY ECONOMIC MODELS PAY OFF IN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT Once drug developers have achieved regulatory approval with data from trials against the standard of care, they must

More information

Foundational Issues Related to Immunotherapy and Melanoma

Foundational Issues Related to Immunotherapy and Melanoma Transcript Details This is a transcript of a continuing medical education (CME) activity accessible on the ReachMD network. Additional media formats for the activity and full activity details (including

More information

Oncology Knowledge Bulletin. Strategies in oncology: Spotlight on clinical pathways

Oncology Knowledge Bulletin. Strategies in oncology: Spotlight on clinical pathways Strategies in oncology: Spotlight on clinical pathways 2 In response to rising healthcare costs, US payors have increased efforts to control drug costs, including through step edits or discounts for contracts.

More information

Clinical Trials and YOU

Clinical Trials and YOU Clinical Trials and YOU What are clinical trials? Controlled studies to determine how a particular anti-cancer strategy ( i.e. treatment ) affects the people who receive it Involve rigorous scientific

More information

CLINICAL TRIALS: Part 2 of 2

CLINICAL TRIALS: Part 2 of 2 CLINICAL TRIALS: Part 2 of 2 Lance K. Heilbrun, Ph.D., M.P.H. Professor of Medicine and Oncology Division of Hematology and Oncology Wayne State University School of Medicine Assistant Director, Biostatistics

More information

Cancer Treatment Planning: A Means to Deliver Quality, Patient-Centered Care

Cancer Treatment Planning: A Means to Deliver Quality, Patient-Centered Care Cancer Treatment Planning: A Means to Deliver Quality, Patient-Centered Care Patricia A. Ganz, M.D. Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center UCLA Schools of Medicine & Public Health Overview of Presentation

More information

Management of Platinum-Sensitive Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

Management of Platinum-Sensitive Recurrent Ovarian Cancer Management of Platinum-Sensitive Jacobus Pfisterer a and Jonathan A. Ledermann b The majority of patients with ovarian cancer will relapse despite state-of-the-art first-line surgery and chemotherapy.

More information

Lenalidomide (LEN) in Patients with Transformed Lymphoma: Results From a Large International Phase II Study (NHL-003)

Lenalidomide (LEN) in Patients with Transformed Lymphoma: Results From a Large International Phase II Study (NHL-003) Lenalidomide (LEN) in Patients with Transformed Lymphoma: Results From a Large International Phase II Study (NHL-003) Reeder CB et al. Proc ASCO 2010;Abstract 8037. Introduction > Patients (pts) with low-grade

More information

Adoption by CHMP for release for consultation November 2010. End of consultation (deadline for comments) 31 March 2011

Adoption by CHMP for release for consultation November 2010. End of consultation (deadline for comments) 31 March 2011 1 2 3 November 2010 EMA/759784/2010 Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use 4 5 6 7 Reflection paper on the need for active control in therapeutic areas where use of placebo is deemed ethical and

More information

Pharmacoeconomic Analyses and Oncology Pharmacy: Optimizing Multiple Myeloma Value for Patients and Plans

Pharmacoeconomic Analyses and Oncology Pharmacy: Optimizing Multiple Myeloma Value for Patients and Plans Pharmacoeconomic Analyses and Oncology Pharmacy: Optimizing Multiple Myeloma Value for Patients and Plans C. Daniel Mullins, PhD Professor Pharmaceutical Health Services Research Department University

More information

Treatment of Small Cell Lung Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology. Endorsement of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Guideline

Treatment of Small Cell Lung Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology. Endorsement of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Guideline Treatment of Small Cell Lung Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Endorsement of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Guideline Table of Contents Data Supplement 1: Summary of included

More information