SEOM clinical guidelines for anaemia treatment in cancer patients (2020)

Anaemia is defined by the presence of haemoglobin (Hb) levels < 13 g/dL in men and 12 g/dL in women. Up to 39% of cancer patients present it at the time of diagnosis and up to 40% have iron deficiency. Anaemia causes fatigue, functional deterioration and a reduction in the quality of life; it has also been associated with a poorer response to anti-tumour treatment and lower survival. Basic diagnostic tests for anaemia are simple and should be a routine part of clinical practice. These guidelines review the available evidence on the use of different therapies for treating anaemia: erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, iron supplements, and transfusion of blood products (AU)

SEOM clinical guidelines for anaemia treatment in cancer patients (2020).

Anaemia is defined by the presence of haemoglobin (Hb) levels < 13 g/dL in men and 12 g/dL in women. Up to 39% of cancer patients present it at the time of diagnosis and up to 40% have iron deficiency. Anaemia causes fatigue, functional deterioration and a reduction in the quality of life; it has also been associated with a poorer response to anti-tumour treatment and lower survival. Basic diagnostic tests for anaemia are simple and should be a routine part of clinical practice. These guidelines review the available evidence on the use of different therapies for treating anaemia: erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, iron supplements, and transfusion of blood products.

Predictive and prognostic clinical and pathological factors of nivolumab efficacy in non-small-cell lung cancer patients

Background: Immunotherapy increases overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Prognostic and predictive factors are a high need. Patients and methods: Retrospective review of NSCLC patients treated with nivolumab was performed. Analyzed variables included age, sex, stage, performance status (PS), location of metastases, presence of tumour-related symptoms and comorbidities, number of metastasis locations, previous chemotherapy, anti-angiogenic and radiotherapy treatments, and analytical data from the standard blood count and biochemistry. Results: A total of 175 patients were included. Median age was 61.5 years, 73.1% were men, 77.7% were ECOG-PS 0-1, and 86.7% were included with stage IV disease. Histology was non-squamous in 77.1%. Sixty-five received nivolumab in second line (37.1%). Thirty-eight patients had brain metastasis (22%), and 39 (22.3%) liver metastasis and 126 (72%) had more than one metastatic location. The ORR was 15.7% with median Progression free survival (PFS) 2.8 months and median OS 5.81 months. Stage III vs IV and time since the beginning of the previous line of treatment ≥ 6 vs < 6 months were associated with better response. PS 2, time since the previous line of treatment < 6 vs ≥ 6 months, and more than one metastatic location were independently associated with shorter OS in multivariable analysis (7.8 vs 2.7 months, 11.2 vs 4.6 months, and 9.4 vs 5.1 month). Finally, time since the previous treatment < 6 vs ≥ 6 months and more than one metastatic location were independently associated with shorter PFS in multivariable analysis (4.3 vs 2.3 months and 4.7 vs 2.3 months). Conclusion: Poor PS, short period of time since the previous treatment, and more than one metastatic location were associated with poorer prognostic

No disponible

Correction to: Predictive and prognostic clinical and pathological factors of nivolumab efficacy in non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

Clinical and Translational Oncology.

Predictive and prognostic clinical and pathological factors of nivolumab efficacy in non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy increases overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Prognostic and predictive factors are a high need. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of NSCLC patients treated with nivolumab was performed. Analyzed variables included age, sex, stage, performance status (PS), location of metastases, presence of tumour-related symptoms and comorbidities, number of metastasis locations, previous chemotherapy, anti-angiogenic and radiotherapy treatments, and analytical data from the standard blood count and biochemistry. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients were included. Median age was 61.5 years, 73.1% were men, 77.7% were ECOG-PS 0-1, and 86.7% were included with stage IV disease. Histology was non-squamous in 77.1%. Sixty-five received nivolumab in second line (37.1%). Thirty-eight patients had brain metastasis (22%), and 39 (22.3%) liver metastasis and 126 (72%) had more than one metastatic location. The ORR was 15.7% with median Progression free survival (PFS) 2.8 months and median OS 5.81 months. Stage III vs IV and time since the beginning of the previous line of treatment ≥ 6 vs < 6 months were associated with better response. PS 2, time since the previous line of treatment < 6 vs ≥ 6 months, and more than one metastatic location were independently associated with shorter OS in multivariable analysis (7.8 vs 2.7 months, 11.2 vs 4.6 months, and 9.4 vs 5.1 month). Finally, time since the previous treatment < 6 vs ≥ 6 months and more than one metastatic location were independently associated with shorter PFS in multivariable analysis (4.3 vs 2.3 months and 4.7 vs 2.3 months). CONCLUSION: Poor PS, short period of time since the previous treatment, and more than one metastatic location were associated with poorer prognostic.

Social value of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in Spain: the point of view of oncologists

PURPOSE: The economic situation showed that the resources devoted to health spending are limited, making rationalisation of their consumption necessary. The relevance of pharmacoeconomic analyses is becoming crucial. The ECO Foundation, promoting the quality of oncology care, set out to analyse the consensus on the new therapeutic targets inclusion and the integration of pharmacoeconomics when evaluating their effectiveness. METHODS: Study about pharmacoeconomic estimations was performed during the first ECO-Seminar (2010). It was developed using a modified Delphi method, in four stages: (1) committee coordinator establishment, (2) expert-panel selection, (3) preparation and submission of survey (1 question) by email, and (4) analysis of the degree of consensus reached. RESULTS: Results were obtained from surveys completed by 35 experts. Regarding the tolerable annual cost for the approval of new drugs, 68.8 % of the respondents considered a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained between 30,000 and 100,000 acceptable (34.4 % 30,000-60,000; 34.4 % 60,000-100,000), 21.9 % of the respondents found costs between 100,000-150,000/QALY and 9.3 % of the respondents found costs above 150,000/QALY acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of new drugs are higher than traditional treatments, making it a priority to identify subgroups of patients with specific molecular profiles as candidates for higher-efficiency-targeted therapies. The allocation of the available resources to the most effective interventions, to achieve the best clinical outcomes with lower costs and best subjective profile possible, allows expenditure to be rationalised. Pharmacoeconomic studies are a basic tool for obtaining better health outcomes according to the available resources, while also considering the other needs of the population (AU)

No disponible

Social value of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in Spain: the point of view of oncologists.

PURPOSE: The economic situation showed that the resources devoted to health spending are limited, making rationalisation of their consumption necessary. The relevance of pharmacoeconomic analyses is becoming crucial. The ECO Foundation, promoting the quality of oncology care, set out to analyse the consensus on the new therapeutic targets inclusion and the integration of pharmacoeconomics when evaluating their effectiveness. METHODS: Study about pharmacoeconomic estimations was performed during the first ECO-Seminar (2010). It was developed using a modified Delphi method, in four stages: (1) committee coordinator establishment, (2) expert-panel selection, (3) preparation and submission of survey (1 question) by email, and (4) analysis of the degree of consensus reached. RESULTS: Results were obtained from surveys completed by 35 experts. Regarding the tolerable annual cost for the approval of new drugs, 68.8 % of the respondents considered a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained between €30,000 and 100,000 acceptable (34.4 % €30,000-60,000; 34.4 % €60,000-100,000), 21.9 % of the respondents found costs between €100,000-150,000/QALY and 9.3 % of the respondents found costs above €150,000/QALY acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of new drugs are higher than traditional treatments, making it a priority to identify subgroups of patients with specific molecular profiles as candidates for higher-efficiency-targeted therapies. The allocation of the available resources to the most effective interventions, to achieve the best clinical outcomes with lower costs and best subjective profile possible, allows expenditure to be rationalised. Pharmacoeconomic studies are a basic tool for obtaining better health outcomes according to the available resources, while also considering the other needs of the population.

[Pharmacoeconomics and cost of cancer drugs]. / Farmacoeconomía y los costes de los medicamentos contra el cáncer.

Cancer is a disease of high incidence, which determines that the health systems will be forced to allocation a significant amount of resources. In an era of evidence-based medicine and increasing cost pressures, it is important to understand the relative clinical and economic impact of the many drug treatment strategies available for cancer patients. Currently, resources that may be spent in pharmacoeconomics expenditure are limited so it is necessary to rationalize their consumption and priorize in the allocation of these resources to the options with higher economic advantages. Pharmacoeconomic studies will permit us to know what is the efficiency of different therapeutic alternatives so they will help to determine the therapeutic options that we should use in routine medical practice.

Farmacoeconomía y los costes de los medicamentos contra el cáncer / Pharmacoeconomics and cost of cancer drugs

El cáncer es una enfermedad de elevada incidencia, lo que condiciona que los sistemas de salud se vean obligados a destinarle un importante volumen de recursos. En la era de la medicina basada en la evidencia, y de las presiones de un gasto sanitario en aumento, es necesario comprender el impacto clínico y económico de las diferentes estrategias disponibles para los pacientes oncológicos. En la actualidad, los recursos que pueden ser destinados al gasto farmacéutico son limitados, por lo que es necesario racionalizar su consumo y priorizar en la asignación de estos recursos a las opciones que presenten mayores ventajas económicas. Los estudios de farmacoeconomía nos van a permitir conocer cuál es la eficiencia de las diferentes alternativas terapéuticas disponibles y, por lo tanto, nos ayudarán a determinar qué opciones terapéuticas deberían emplearse de forma rutinaria (AU)

Cancer is a disease of high incidence, which determines that the health systems will be forced to allocation a significant amount of resources. In an era of evidence-based medicine and increasing cost pressures, it is important to understand the relative clinical and economic impact of the many drug treatment strategies available for cancer patients. Currently, resources that may be spent in pharmacoeconomics expenditure are limited so it is necessary to rationalize their consumption and priorize in the allocation of these resources to the options with higher economic advantages. Pharmacoeconomic studies will permit us to know what is the efficiency of different therapeutic alternatives so they will help to determine the therapeutic options that we should use in routine medical practice (AU)