Real-world evidence in the reassessment of oncology therapies: payer perceptions from five countries.

Aim: This study explored the perceived value of real-world evidence (RWE) in the reassessment of oncology therapies by collecting the perspectives of health technology assessment/payer decision-makers. Materials & methods: A web-based survey was conducted using the Market Access Transformation Rapid Payer Response online portal. 30 participants from France, Germany, Spain, the UK and the USA were recruited based on their expertise. Results: Participants agreed that the most common uses of RWE are to confirm efficacy and safety results from randomized controlled trials and to reevaluate the projected utilization of an oncology therapy. We found variability in other reported uses of RWE. Conclusion: The organizations developing RWE should ensure that their plans recognize the heterogeneity in payer perceptions.

Understanding Clinician Preferences for Treatment Attributes in Oncology: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Oncologists' and Urologists' Preferences for First-Line Treatment of Locally Advanced/Unresectable Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma in Five European Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Prior discrete choice experiments (DCE) in oncology found that, on average, clinicians rank survival as the most important treatment attribute. We investigate heterogeneity in clinician preferences within the context of first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma in Spain, France, Italy, Germany, and the UK. METHODS: The online DCE included 12 treatment choice tasks, each comparing two hypothetical therapy profiles defined by treatment attributes: grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), induction and maintenance administration schedules, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). We used a random parameters logit model to estimate attribute relative importance (RI) (0-100%) and generate preference shares for four treatment profiles. Results were stratified by country. Preference heterogeneity was evaluated by latent class analysis. RESULTS: In August and September 2022, 498 clinicians (343 oncologists and 155 urologists) completed the DCE. OS had the strongest influence on clinicians' preferences [RI = 62%; range, 51.6% (Germany) to 63.7% (Spain)] followed by frequency of grade 3/4 TRAEs (RI = 27%). Among treatment profiles, the chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint inhibitor maintenance therapy profile had the largest preference share [51%; range, 38% (Italy) to 56% (UK)]. Four latent classes of clinicians were identified (N = 469), with different treatment profile preferences: survival class (30.1%), trade-off class (22.4%), no strong preference class (40.9%), and aggressive treatment class (6.6%). OS was not the most important attribute for 30.0% of clinicians. CONCLUSION: While average sample results were consistent with those of prior DCEs, this study found heterogeneity in clinician preferences within and across countries, highlighting the diversity in clinician decision making in oncology.

Preferences for first-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma among US practicing oncologists and patients.

Aim: Investigate oncologist and patient preferences for the first-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. Materials & methods: A discrete-choice experiment was used to elicit treatment attribute preferences, including patient treatment experience (number and duration of treatments and grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events), overall survival and treatment administration frequency. Results: The study included 151 eligible medical oncologists and 150 patients with urothelial carcinoma. Both physicians and patients appeared to prefer treatment attributes related to overall survival, treatment-related adverse events and the number and duration of the medications in a regimen over frequency of administration. Overall survival had the most influence in driving oncologists' treatment preferences, followed by the patient's treatment experience. Patients found the treatment experience the most important attribute when considering options, followed by overall survival. Conclusion: Patient preferences were based on treatment experience, while oncologists preferred treatments that prolong overall survival. These results help to direct clinical conversations, treatment recommendations and clinical guideline development.

Different treatments are available for people with urothelial cancer that has spread to other parts of the body. Researchers wanted to find out what specialist cancer doctors and people with urothelial cancer think is important when choosing the first treatment. To do this, researchers asked 150 cancer specialists and 150 people with urothelial cancer to complete an internet questionnaire. It included questions about side effects, if treatment could help people live longer, and how often people would need to be treated. Researchers found that cancer specialists think that helping people live longer is the most important. However, people with advanced urothelial cancer think that having fewer severe side effects is the most important.

Patient and Caregiver Perceptions of Advanced Bladder Cancer Systemic Treatments: Infodemiology Study Based on Social Media Data.

BACKGROUND: In 2022, it was estimated that more than 80,000 new cases of bladder cancer (BC) were diagnosed in the United States, 12% of which were locally advanced or metastatic BC (advanced BC). These forms of cancer are aggressive and have a poor prognosis, with a 5-year survival rate of 7.7% for metastatic BC. Despite recent therapeutic advances for advanced BC, little is known about patient and caregiver perceptions of different systemic treatments. To further explore this topic, social media can be used to collect the perceptions of patients and caregivers when they discuss their experiences on forums and online communities. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess patient and caregiver perceptions of chemotherapy and immunotherapy for treating advanced BC from social media-posted data. METHODS: Public posts on social media in the United States between January 2015 and April 2021 from patients with advanced BC and their caregivers were collected. The posts included in this analysis were geolocalized to the United States; collected from publicly available domains and sites, including social media sites such as Twitter and forums such as patient association forums; and were written in English. Posts mentioning any line of chemotherapy or immunotherapy were qualitatively analyzed by two researchers to classify perceptions of treatments (positive, negative, mixed, or without perception). RESULTS: A total of 80 posts by 69 patients and 142 posts by 127 caregivers mentioning chemotherapy, and 42 posts by 31 patients and 35 posts by 32 caregivers mentioning immunotherapy were included for analysis. These posts were retrieved from 39 public social media sites. Among patients with advanced BC and their caregivers, treatment perceptions of chemotherapy were more negative (36%) than positive (7%). Most of the patients' posts (71%) mentioned chemotherapy factually without expressing a perception of the treatment. The caregivers' perceptions of treatment were negative in 44%, mixed in 8%, and positive in 7% of posts. In combined patient and caregiver posts, immunotherapy was perceived positively in 47% of posts and negatively in 22% of posts. Caregivers also posted more negative perceptions (37%) of immunotherapy than patients (9%). Negative perceptions of both chemotherapy and immunotherapy were mainly due to side effects and perceived lack of effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Despite chemotherapy being standard first-line therapy for advanced BC, negative perceptions were identified on social media, particularly among caregivers. Addressing these negative perceptions of treatment may improve treatment adoption. Strengthening support for patients receiving chemotherapy and their caregivers to help them manage side effects and understand the role of chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced BC would potentially enable a more positive experience.

Perceived Unmet Needs in Patients Living With Advanced Bladder Cancer and Their Caregivers: Infodemiology Study Using Data From Social Media in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer (BC), which is generally termed advanced BC (aBC), has a very poor prognosis, and in addition to its physical symptoms, it is associated with emotional and social challenges. However, few studies have assessed the unmet needs and burden of aBC from patient and caregiver perspectives. Infodemiology, that is, epidemiology based on internet health-related content, can help obtain more insights on patients' and caregivers' experiences with aBC. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to identify the main discussion themes and the unmet needs of patients with aBC and their caregivers through a mixed methods analysis of social media posts. METHODS: Social media posts were collected between January 2015 and April 2021 from US geolocalized sites using specific keywords for aBC. Automatic natural language processing (regular expressions and machine learning) methods were used to filter out irrelevant content and identify verbatim posts from patients and caregivers. The verbatim posts were analyzed to identify main discussion themes using biterm topic modeling. Difficulties or unmet needs were further explored using qualitative research methods by 2 independent annotators until saturation of concepts. RESULTS: A total of 688 posts from 262 patients and 1214 posts from 679 caregivers discussing aBC were identified. Analysis of 340 randomly selected patient posts and 423 randomly selected caregiver posts uncovered 33 unique unmet need categories among patients and 36 among caregivers. The main unmet patient needs were related to challenges regarding adverse events (AEs; 28/95, 29%) and the psychological impact of aBC (20/95, 21%). Other patient unmet needs identified were prognosis or diagnosis errors (9/95, 9%) and the need for better management of aBC symptoms (9/95, 9%). The main unmet caregiver needs were related to the psychological impacts of aBC (46/177, 26.0%), the need for support groups and to share experiences between peers (28/177, 15.8%), and the fear and management of patient AEs (22/177, 12.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of manual and automatic methods allowed the extraction and analysis of several hundreds of social media posts from patients with aBC and their caregivers. The results highlighted the emotional burden of cancer for both patients and caregivers. Additional studies on patients with aBC and their caregivers are required to quantitatively explore the impact of this disease on quality of life.

Real-world clinical outcomes with avelumab in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma treated in the USA: a multicenter chart review study.

BACKGROUND: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive, cutaneous neuroendocrine neoplasm with annual incidence rates of 0.13-1.6 cases/100,000/year worldwide as of 2018. Chemotherapy for metastatic MCC (mMCC) has high objective response rates (ORRs), but responses are not durable and overall survival (OS) is poor. Avelumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1) has demonstrated meaningful survival benefit and durable responses in clinical trials for mMCC. This study investigated real-world clinical outcomes in avelumab-treated patients with advanced (stage IIIB/IV) MCC in US academic medical centers. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with advanced MCC who initiated avelumab between March 1, 2017, and July 31, 2019, at six US academic centers. Data were requested for eligible patients from index date through December 31, 2020. Descriptive analyses were conducted to assess demographic and clinical characteristics, real-world ORR (rwORR), real-world duration of response, real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), and OS. RESULTS: Ninety patients with advanced MCC (82%, stage IV; 18%, stage IIIB) received avelumab. Median follow-up was 20.8 months (95% CI: 19.1 to 24.2). Median age was 68 years (range, 48-83), and the majority of patients were men (58%) and white (93%). The primary tumor was most commonly located on the lower limb (38%), with metastases mostly located in lymph nodes (68%), lung (52%), and viscera (52%). Approximately 42% and 26% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 and 3, respectively. Seventy-three patients (81%) received avelumab as first-line treatment of advanced MCC, while 17 (19%) received avelumab as second-line or later treatment. The median duration of avelumab treatment was 13.5 months (95% CI: 6.4 to 30.6), with 42% of patients still receiving avelumab by the end of follow-up. Patients with avelumab treatment had an rwORR of 73% (95% CI: 64 to 83), median rwPFS of 24.4 months (95% CI: 8.31 to not estimable (NE)), and median OS of 30.7 months (95% CI: 11.2 to NE). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study of patients with advanced MCC demonstrated that avelumab treatment resulted in a high response rate with durable responses and prolonged survival. The study findings validate the results demonstrated in prospective clinical trials and other observational studies.

Management of Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma in an Evolving Treatment Landscape: A Qualitative Study of Provider Perspectives of First-Line Therapies.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment landscape in locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC) has evolved with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the first line (1L) and platinum-refractory settings and with the recent approval of avelumab as 1L maintenance therapy for patients achieving disease control with platinum-containing regimens. Oncology provider perspectives and decision-making processes regarding aUC management, especially with the integration of recently approved strategies, such as maintenance therapy, have not been well-described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Qualitative interview study with US oncologists and oncology nurses in academic and community settings in August 2020. Interviews explored decision-making around aUC 1L treatment eligibility determinants and selection, programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) testing practices, and use of maintenance therapy. Thematic analysis was used to identify drivers of 1L treatment decisions. RESULTS: Eighteen oncologists (women, 11%; >15 years in practice, 55%; academic, 39%) and 18 oncology nurses (women, 94%; >15 years in practice, 34%; academic, 50%) participated. Providers preferred platinum-based regimens in 1L setting and reserved 1L ICI monotherapy for frail patients. Providers preferred chemotherapy followed by switch maintenance ICI, as opposed to concurrent combination chemotherapy and ICI, followed by ICI as continuation maintenance. Decision-making was driven by need to adhere to treatment decision-making guidelines, characteristics of the patient, treatment efficacy and patient preference. CONCLUSION: Providers adhered to guidelines and level I evidence in decision-making in the aUC 1L setting. Future studies should further evaluate barriers to the adoption of standard-of-care strategies and factors impacting decision-making in the real-world setting.

Systematic literature review of current treatments for stage I-III Merkel cell carcinoma.

Aim: There is a need to evaluate current treatments for stages I-III of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). Materials & methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to understand how patients with stage I-III MCC are treated and assess efficacy, safety, health-related quality of life and economic impact of current therapies. Embase was searched using the following inclusion criteria: publications from 2014 to 2019, in English, with adult patients (≥18 years) with early-stage MCC (i.e., stages I-III) and any interventions/comparators. Publications were excluded if they included only patients with stage IV MCC, had no distinction between early and advanced or metastatic MCC or had no extractable data. Results: A total of 18 retrospective studies were included. Few studies had evidence that surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy significantly increased survival versus surgery alone in early MCC. Limited safety data were reported in three studies. None of the studies reported data on health-related quality of life or economic impact of treatment in patients with early-stage MCC. Conclusion: Although surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy was a common treatment, no clear standard of care exists for stages I-III MCC and treatment outcomes need to be improved. All studies were retrospective with a high variability in sample sizes; hence, findings should be interpreted with caution.

How Assessment-Schedule Matching Limits Bias When Comparing Progression-Free Survival in Single-Arm Studies: An Application in Second-Line Urothelial Carcinoma Treatments.

OBJECTIVES: Population-adjusted comparisons of progression-free survival (PFS) from single-arm trials of cancer treatments can be derived using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs); however, results are still susceptible to bias, particularly if the trials had different tumor assessment schedules. This study aims to assess the effects of assessment-schedule matching (ASM) on the relative effectiveness on the PFS of avelumab versus approved comparator immunotherapies or chemotherapy after population matching in the second-line (2L) setting for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: The MAIC used patient-level data for avelumab from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial (NCT01772004). PFS was compared with published curves for other treatments to obtain population-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). The MAIC was repeated after conducting ASM for differences in tumor assessment scheduled first at 6 weeks for avelumab and durvalumab and at 8 or 9 weeks for other treatments. RESULTS: MAIC adjustment alone altered the HR estimates up to 23%, whereas MAIC plus ASM resulted in up to 32.7% reductions from naive comparisons. Even in cases in which MAIC had little effect, ASM brought an additional change of 11.1% to 15.4%. Overall, the HR range of avelumab versus other treatments changed from 0.83 to 1.25 for naive comparisons to 0.76 to 0.99 after ASM plus MAIC, numerically favoring avelumab. CONCLUSIONS: Small variations in assessment schedules can introduce bias in unanchored indirect treatment comparisons of interval-censored time-to-event outcomes. In this study, adjusted PFS was comparable across second-line urothelial carcinoma treatment options, numerically favoring avelumab versus immunotherapies and chemotherapy agents. Correcting this bias is especially important when HRs are applied in cost-effectiveness models to transition patients between states.

What is the Impact of the Analysis Method Used for Health State Utility Values on QALYs in Oncology? A Simulation Study Comparing Progression-Based and Time-to-Death Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Health state utility values ('utilities') are an integral part of health technology assessment. Though traditionally categorised by disease status in oncology (i.e. progression), several recent assessments have adopted values calculated according to the time that measures were recorded before death. We conducted a simulation study to understand the limitations of each approach, with a focus on mismatches between the way utilities are generated, and analysed. METHODS: Survival times were simulated based on published literature, with permutations of three utility generation mechanisms (UGMs) and utility analysis methods (UAMs): (1) progression based, (2) time-to-death based, and (3) a 'combination approach'. For each analysis quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated. Goodness of fit was assessed via percentage mean error (%ME) and mean absolute error (%MAE). Scenario analyses were performed varying individual parameters, with complex scenarios mimicking published studies. The statistical code is provided for transparency and to aid future work in the area. RESULTS: %ME and %MAE were lowest when the correct analysis form was specified (i.e. UGM and UAM aligned). Underestimates were produced when a time-to-death element was present in the UGM but not included in the UAM, while the 'combined' UAM produced overestimates irrespective of the UGM. Scenario analysis demonstrated the importance of the volume of available data beyond the initial time period, for example follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We show that the use of an incorrectly or over-specified UAM can result in substantial bias in the estimation of utilities. We present a flowchart to highlight the issues that may be faced.

Treatment Sequencing Patterns in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Treated in the Community Practice Setting in the United States: SPEAR-Bladder (Study informing treatment Pathway dEcision in bladder cAnceR).

PURPOSE: Clinical trial evidence has affirmed the role for immuno-oncology (IO) treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC). This Study informing treatment Pathway dEcision in bladder cAnceR (SPEAR-Bladder) aimed to provide insight into the optimal sequencing of IO treatments among la/mUC patients treated in the US Oncology Network. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of adult patients with la/mUC who initiated first-line chemotherapy followed by either IO therapy (C-IO subgroup) or chemotherapy (C-C subgroup) between 01/01/2015 and 04/30/2017 and included a potential follow-up period through 06/30/2017. Data were sourced from iKnowMed electronic health records. Patient and treatment characteristics were assessed descriptively, with Kaplan-Meier methods used to evaluate time-to-event outcomes, including overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 117 patients were included in this analysis (median age 69 years, 74.4% male, 88.0% Caucasian): 79 and 38 patients were in the C-IO and C-C subgroups, respectively. The median OS was 19.2 months among patients who received the C-IO sequence and 11.9 months among those who received the C-C treatment sequence. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that patients who received the C-IO treatment sequence had notable improvement in OS compared with those who received the C-C sequence. In light of the rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape, further investigation will be required to determine how best to select the optimal therapeutic regimen and sequencing for patients with la/mUC.

Health-related quality of life trajectory of treatment-naive patients with Merkel cell carcinoma receiving avelumab.

Aim: To evaluate changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a Phase II trial (NCT02155647) of treatment-naive patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma treated with avelumab (15-month follow-up). Materials & methods: Mixed-effect Models for Repeated Measures were applied to HRQoL data (FACT-M; EQ-5D-5L) to assess changes over time. Clinically derived progression-free survival was compared with HRQoL deterioration-free survival. Results: Overall, we saw relative stability in HRQoL among 116 included patients, with nonprogression associated with statistically and clinically meaningful better HRQoL compared with progressive disease. Deterioration-free survival rates (49-72% at 6 months, 40-58% at 12 months) were consistently higher/better compared with progression-free survival rates (41/31% at 6/12 months). Conclusion: These findings show unique longitudinal HRQoL data for treatment-naive metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma patients treated with avelumab. Clinical trial registration: NCT02155647 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Update on the psychometric properties and minimal important difference (MID) thresholds of the FACT-M questionnaire for use in treatment-naïve and previously treated patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: For valid and reliable assessment of patients' Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), it is crucial to use psychometrically robust instruments. In the context of rare diseases such as Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), validated disease-specific instruments are often not available. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Melanoma (FACT-M) was originally developed for use in melanoma. Its psychometric performance for use in MCC and minimal important difference (MID) thresholds have been previously reported based on a cohort of metastatic MCC patients who had disease progression following one or more prior line of chemotherapy (NCT02155647 Part A; n = 70). Since then, new data from the phase II JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial among treatment-naïve patients are available (NCT02155647 Part B; n = 102). This study aims to increase accuracy and precision of previously established psychometric properties and MID thresholds of FACT-M in metastatic MCC patients. METHODS: Published qualitative research suggests that patients with metastatic MCC had similar experiences and described similar concepts associated with their disease independent of whether they were treatment naïve or had prior treatment. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to pool FACT-M data from Part A (previously treated) and Part B (treatment-naïve) cohorts for this study. Construct validity was assessed by evaluating item-factor correlations (convergent validity) and known-groups validity using ECOG performance status 0 versus 1. Concurrent validity was assessed using EQ-5D items. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach's α. Anchor- and distribution-based approaches were used to derive MID thresholds. RESULTS: Overall, psychometric tests based on various validity (convergent, known-groups, concurrent) and reliability (Cronbach α) analyses confirmed previous findings in that FACT-M performs well in MCC patients. MID thresholds derived from this study are largely in line with previously established thresholds with some minor adjustments. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of rare diseases, which often have limited data available for psychometric testing, a reasonably large MCC patient sample was available for this study, enhancing accuracy and precision of previously established FACT-M psychometric properties and MID thresholds with only small deviations for use in metastatic MCC patients. Results suggest that the FACT-M is suitable for Merkel cell carcinoma regardless of patients' treatment status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is a pre-planned post-hoc analysis conducted on data collected in Part A and Part B of the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial. This trial was registered on 2 June 2014 with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02155647.

Evaluation of survival extrapolation in immuno-oncology using multiple pre-planned data cuts: learnings to aid in model selection.

BACKGROUND: Due to limited duration of follow up in clinical trials of cancer treatments, estimates of lifetime survival benefits are typically derived using statistical extrapolation methods. To justify the method used, a range of approaches have been proposed including statistical goodness-of-fit tests and comparing estimates against a previous data cut (i.e. interim data collected). In this study, we extend these approaches by presenting a range of extrapolations fitted to four pre-planned data cuts from the JAVELIN Merkel 200 (JM200) trial. By comparing different estimates of survival and goodness-of-fit as JM200 data mature, we undertook an iterative process of fitting and re-fitting survival models to retrospectively identify early indications of likely long-term survival. METHODS: Standard and spline-based parametric models were fitted to overall survival data from each JM200 data cut. Goodness-of-fit was determined using an assessment of the estimated hazard function, information theory-based methods and objective comparisons of estimation accuracy. Best-fitting extrapolations were compared to establish which one provided the most accurate estimation, and how statistical goodness-of-fit differed. RESULTS: Spline-based models provided the closest fit to the final JM200 data cut, though all extrapolation methods based on the earliest data cut underestimated the 'true' long-term survival (difference in restricted mean survival time [RMST] at 36 months: - 1.1 to - 0.5 months). Goodness-of-fit scores illustrated that an increasingly flexible model was favored as data matured. Given an early data cut, a more flexible model better aligned with clinical expectations could be reasonably justified using a range of metrics, including RMST and goodness-of-fit scores (which were typically within a 2-point range of the statistically 'best-fitting' model). CONCLUSIONS: Survival estimates from the spline-based models are more aligned with clinical expectation and provided a better fit to the JM200 data, despite not exhibiting the definitively 'best' statistical goodness-of-fit. Longer-term data are required to further validate extrapolations, though this study illustrates the importance of clinical plausibility when selecting the most appropriate model. In addition, hazard-based plots and goodness-of-fit tests from multiple data cuts present useful approaches to identify when a more flexible model may be advantageous. TRIAL REGISTRATION: JAVELIN Merkel 200 was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02155647 on June 4, 2014.

Patient Experiences with Avelumab in Treatment-Naïve Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma: Longitudinal Qualitative Interview Findings from JAVELIN Merkel 200, a Registrational Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Avelumab is approved for the treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma, a rare aggressive skin cancer with a poor prognosis. The aim of this qualitative study embedded in a clinical trial was to explore patient experiences while receiving avelumab. METHODS: All treatment-naïve patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma entering part B of the phase II, open-label, international, JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial (NCT02155647) were invited to participate in optional semi-structured phone interviews before avelumab administration (baseline) and at weeks 13 and 25. Interviews were conducted by trained professionals, audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed. Key concepts identified at baseline were assessed during follow-up interviews. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients completed the baseline interview; 19 had at least one follow-up interview. Baseline interviews described the patients' challenging journeys before being correctly diagnosed with Merkel cell carcinoma, the negative psychological burden of living with a symptomless disease and the hope for avelumab to be a successful therapy. During the trial, most patients reported an increased or continued sense of hope and willingness to fight metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. Patients who self-reported disease improvement (n = 12) also reported stability or improvement in physical well-being and ability to do daily activities, having more energy, worrying less and being optimistic. Six patients who reported their condition as stable (n = 4) or worsened (n = 3) reported a worsening of physical well-being. Nine patients reported fatigue/tiredness on the day of and after receiving avelumab. Baseline and longitudinal experiences were similar across countries. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that patients experience perceptible benefits in physical and psychological well-being following treatment success with first-line avelumab in metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma.

Budget Impact Of Including Avelumab As A Second-Line Treatment For Locally Advanced Or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer In The United States: Commercial And Medicare Payer Perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of introducing avelumab as a second-line (2L) treatment option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) from the perspective of a US third-party payer (commercial and Medicare). METHODS: A budget impact model (BIM) with a three-year time horizon was developed for avelumab. Efficacy and safety data were sourced from published literature and US package inserts. The analysis was conducted in collaboration with a specialist oncologist who validated clinical assumptions. Costs were based on the number of eligible patients, time-to-treatment failure, overall survival, adverse events (AEs), and projected market shares of various treatments. RESULTS: In a hypothetical commercial health plan of 30,000,000 members, 884 patients were estimated to be eligible for 2L treatment over a three-year time period. Without avelumab, the total cost for treating patients with mUC was estimated to be US$70,268,035. The introduction of avelumab increased total costs by $73,438 (0.10% increase). In a hypothetical Medicare health plan of 30,000,000 beneficiaries, a total of 4,705 patients were estimated to be eligible for 2L treatment. Without avelumab, the total cost for treating patients with mUC was estimated to be $292,923,098 from a Medicare perspective; however, with avelumab, there was an increase of $719,324 (0.25% increase) in total costs. Results of the sensitivity analyses demonstrated a cost-neutral impact across all tested scenarios from both perspectives. CONCLUSION: The BIM estimated that avelumab would have a cost-neutral impact within a US commercial and a Medicare health plan. Overall, avelumab can be an affordable and valuable treatment option for patients with locally advanced or mUC in the 2L setting. These findings demonstrate a consistently favorable budget impact in both populations. Further studies should be conducted to more comprehensively assess the clinical and economic implications of adding avelumab to the treatment armamentarium of 2L mUC.

Assessment-Schedule Matching in Unanchored Indirect Treatment Comparisons of Progression-Free Survival in Cancer Studies.

BACKGROUND: The timing of efficacy-related clinical events recorded at scheduled study visits in clinical trials are interval censored, with the interval duration pre-determined by the study protocol. Events may happen any time during that interval but can only be detected during a planned or unplanned visit. Disease progression in oncology is a notable example where the time to an event is affected by the schedule of visits within a study. This can become a source of bias when studies with varying assessment schedules are used in unanchored comparisons using methods such as matching-adjusted indirect comparisons. OBJECTIVE: We illustrate assessment-time bias (ATB) in a simulation study based on data from a recent study in second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and present a method to adjust for differences in assessment schedule when comparing progression-free survival (PFS) against a competing treatment. METHODS: A multi-state model for death and progression was used to generate simulated death and progression times, from which PFS times were derived. PFS data were also generated for a hypothetical comparator treatment by applying a constant hazard ratio (HR) to the baseline treatment. Simulated PFS times for the two treatments were then aligned to different assessment schedules so that progression events were only observed at set visit times, and the data were analysed to assess the bias and standard error of estimates of HRs between two treatments with and without assessment-schedule matching (ASM). RESULTS: ATB is highly affected by the rate of the event at the first assessment time; in our examples, the bias ranged from 3 to 11% as the event rate increased. The proposed method relies on individual-level data from a study and attempts to adjust the timing of progression events to the comparator's schedule by shifting them forward or backward without altering the patients' actual follow-up time. The method removed the bias almost completely in all scenarios without affecting the precision of estimates of comparative effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the increasing use of unanchored comparative analyses for novel cancer treatments based on single-arm studies, the proposed method offers a relatively simple means of improving the accuracy of relative benefits of treatments on progression times.

Psychometric Properties of EQ-5D-5L Scoring Algorithms for the United Kingdom in Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are 4 EQ-5D-5L scoring algorithms available for the United Kingdom that can be used to derive a utility score. OBJECTIVES: To perform a psychometric validation of the EQ-5D utility score in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) and to compare 4 EQ-5D-5L value sets currently available for the United Kingdom. METHODS: Data collected in the phase 2 trial JAVELIN Merkel 200 were analyzed, in which 88 patients with mMCC were treated with avelumab. Utility scores were calculated using the EQ-5D-5L valuation set by Devlin et al and 3 further algorithms that are based on EQ-5D-3L valuations. Criterion validity was assessed by Pearson correlations between utility and other HRQoL scales. Responsiveness was assessed by correlating change in utility scores with change in HRQoL scales and percentage change in tumor size. Effect sizes for change from baseline in utility were calculated in subgroups of patients with improving and deteriorating health based on clinically relevant changes in various external anchors. RESULTS: Devlin utilities were up to 0.10 points higher than utilities calculated from EQ-5D-3L valuations. Large correlations (0.45-0.72; P < .01) between utility and the EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale and FACT-G total, physical, and functional scores were found for all 4 algorithms. Large correlations between these measures were also found for change from baseline scores. In patients with health improvements, effect sizes were larger for the 3 EQ-5D-3L-based algorithms, whereas the Devlin utilities had larger effect sizes for health deteriorations, probably because of different levels of baseline utility. CONCLUSIONS: The English National Institute for Health and Care Excellence currently recommends use of the 3L valuation sets. Our analyses show that all 4 scoring algorithms have good and similar psychometric properties in patients with mMCC.

Survival Analysis in Patients with Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma Treated with Avelumab.

INTRODUCTION: Complex underlying risk functions associated with immuno-oncology treatments have led to exploration of different methods (parametric survival, spline, landmark, and cure-fraction models) to estimate long-term survival outcomes. The objective of this study was to examine differences in estimated short- and long-term survival in previously treated metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) patients receiving avelumab, when using alternative extrapolation approaches. METHODS: Efficacy data from the phase 2 JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial (part A) with at least 12 months of follow-up were analyzed. Standard parametric survival analyses and analyses of overall survival (OS) as a function of surrogate outcomes comprised of response (landmark analyses) and progression-free survival plus post-progression survival (PFS + PPS) were used to project OS. Overall survival throughout lifetime was projected and compared with the observed OS data with at least 24 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Estimated OS from all three approaches provided a good fit to the observed OS curve from at least 12 months of follow-up. However, performance compared with OS data from at least 24 months showed that the landmark approach followed by PFS + PPS provided a better fit to the data as compared to standard parametric analysis. Mean life expectancy estimated with avelumab was 2.48 years with best-fitting parametric function (a log-normal distribution), 3.15 years with the landmark approach, and 3.54 years with PFS + PPS. CONCLUSION: Although standard parametric survival analysis may provide a good fit to short-term survival, it appears to underestimate the long-term survival benefits associated with avelumab in mMCC. Extrapolations based on surrogate outcomes of response or progression predict OS outcomes from longer follow-up better and appear to provide more clinically plausible projections. FUNDING: EMD Serono Inc, Rockland, MA, a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Budget impact model of avelumab in patients with metastatic merkel cell carcinoma in the US.

Objective: To estimate the budget impact of avelumab as a treatment option for patients with treatment-naïve first-line (1L) and previously treated second-line or later (2L+) metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) in the US. Methods: A budget impact model was developed to evaluate the addition of avelumab for the treatment of mMCC patients using a hypothetical 30 million-member US health plan over a 3-year time horizon (2019-2021). The comparator treatments included in the analysis were pembrolizumab and nivolumab (other immuno-oncology agents); and the chemotherapies routinely used in the eligible mMCC population. Model inputs included market share uptake of avelumab and other comparators, duration of treatments, and costs (drugs, health care resource utilization, adverse events). The model was evaluated from a commercial payer perspective. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test uncertainties arising from the input values used in the model. Results: In a hypothetical commercial health plan of 30 million members, 285 patients with mMCC were identified over 3 years; 43 patients received avelumab as a 1L treatment over 3 years. In a world without avelumab, the total health care costs of treating patients with mMCC over 3 years were estimated to be US$11,710,115 from a commercial health plan perspective. With avelumab, there were estimated savings of $2,643,173 considering the total costs related to the treatment of mMCC over 3 years (23% reduction in the budget). The incremental cost per member per month over 3 years was -$0.0025. Conclusion: The model results indicate that the adoption of avelumab as a treatment option for mMCC would likely result in minimal budget impact from a US health plan perspective. Patients with mMCC, a rare condition with a poor prognosis and high unmet need, may benefit greatly from recently approved immunotherapies.