Global Landscape of the Attack of Predatory Journals in Oncology.

PURPOSE: Open-access publishing expanded opportunities to give visibility to research results but was accompanied by the proliferation of predatory journals (PJos) that offer expedited publishing but potentially compromise the integrity of research and peer review. To our knowledge, to date, there is no comprehensive global study on the impact of PJos in the field of oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 29 question-based cross-sectional survey was developed to explore knowledge and practices of predatory publishing and analyzed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty-six complete responses to the survey were reported. Almost half of the responders reported feeling pressure to publish from supervisors, institutions, and funding and regulatory agencies. The majority of authors were contacted by PJos through email solicitations (67.8%), with fewer using social networks (31%). In total, 13.4% of the responders confirmed past publications on PJo, convinced by fast editorial decision time, low article-processing charges, limited peer review, and for the promise of academic boost in short time. Over half of the participants were not aware of PJo detection tools. We developed a multivariable model to understand the determinants to publish in PJos, showing a significant correlation of practicing oncology in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and predatory publishing (odds ratio [OR], 2.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 4.03]; P = .04). Having previous experience in academic publishing was not protective (OR, 3.81 [95% CI, 1.06 to 13.62]; P = .03). Suggestions for interventions included educational workshops, increasing awareness through social networks, enhanced research funding in LMICs, surveillance by supervisors, and implementation of institutional actions against responsible parties. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of predatory publishing poses an alarming problem in the field of oncology, globally. Our survey identified actionable risk factors that may contribute to vulnerability to PJos and inform guidance to enhance research capacity broadly.

Perspective on oral cancer screening: Time for implementation research and beyond.

Screening aims to detect cancer in asymptomatic populations. In oral cancer, clinical oral examination is the current standard method for screening. Oral cancer screening may be performed by a physician or a healthcare workers and is an affordable and feasible method. There is some evidence that this low-cost method is effective in decreasing mortality from oral cancer in high risk population. The cluster-randomised trial in India that had 15 years of follow-up reported an 81 % mortality reduction in high-risk populations of tobacco and/or alcohol users who adhered to four screening rounds. The observational studies similarly reported 21-22 % reduction in advanced oral cancer and 24-26 % reduction in oral cancer mortality among high risk population. Implementation and evaluation of oral cancer screening programmes in high risk population will support the goals of the World Health Organisation on global oral health.

Effectiveness of screening for oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD): A systematic review.

Oral cancer (OC) is a debilitating disease with a high mortality rate when diagnosed in advanced stage. Conversely, early-stage OC has a high survival rate, supporting a need for early detection programmes. A previous systematic review of clinical trials evaluating efficacy of screening for OC was inconclusive. This systematic review aimed to determine the impact of screening for oral lesions on reducing mortality and incidence of OC by looking at a broader spectrum of evidence. The search for randomized controlled trials and observational studies with a control group was conducted in PubMed, OVID, Cochrane, CINAHL and grey literature sources. Risk of bias for included studies was assessed with the tools developed by the Cochrane collaboration. Six out of two identified randomized trials and five observational studies had moderate to high risk of bias. Nevertheless, the predictions on impact of OC screening on incidence and mortality were similar across the majority of the studies. The meta-analysis concluded on a 26% decrease in OC mortality, and an 19% decrease in advanced OC cases as a result of OC screening in high-risk population. Three out of four studies did not identify an impact of screening on OC incidence. No positive impact of OC screening on incidence or mortality among general population was identified in the only available randomized trial. Consistency in the outcomes and the limitations of the few available studies suggest a need for real-life setting research to evaluate the overall effectiveness of screening for OC in high-risk population.

Evolution of the joint International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and WHO cancer control assessments (imPACT Reviews).

Before 2005, cancer and other non-communicable diseases were not yet health and development agenda priorities. Since the 2005 World Health Assembly Resolution, which encouraged WHO, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to jointly work on cancer control, progress was achieved in low-income and middle-income countries on a small scale. Recently, rapid acceleration in UN collaboration and global cancer activities has focused attention in global cancer control. This Policy Review presents the evolution of the IAEA, IARC, and WHO joint advisory service to help countries assess needs and capacities throughout the comprehensive cancer control continuum. We also highlight examples per country, showcasing a snapshot of global good practices to foster an exchange of experiences for continuous improvement in the integrated mission of Programme of Action for Cancer Therapy (imPACT) reviews and follow-up support. The future success of progress in cancer control lies in the high-level political and financial commitments. Linking the improvement of cancer services to the strengthening of health systems after the COVID-19 pandemic will also ensure ongoing advances in the delivery of care across the cancer control continuum.

Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments.

BACKGROUND: Advances in cancer medicines have resulted in tangible health impacts, but the magnitude of benefits of approved cancer medicines could vary greatly. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process used to inform resource allocation through a systematic value assessment of health technology. This paper reviews the challenges in conducting HTA for cancer medicines arising from oncology trial designs and uncertainties of safety-efficacy data. METHODS: Multiple databases (PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar) and grey literature (public health agencies and governmental reports) were searched to inform this policy narrative review. RESULTS: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data from clinical trials and other relevant sources of evidence has made HTA for cancer medicines challenging. The approval of cancer medicines through expedited pathways has increased in recent years, in which surrogate endpoints or biomarkers for patient selection have been widely used. Using these surrogate endpoints has created uncertainties in translating surrogate measures into patient-centric clinically (survival and quality of life) and economically (cost-effectiveness and budget impact) meaningful outcomes, with potential effects on diverting scarce health resources to low-value or detrimental interventions. Potential solutions include policy harmonization between regulatory and HTA authorities, commitment to generating robust post-marketing efficacy-safety data, managing uncertainties through risk-sharing agreements, and using value frameworks. CONCLUSION: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data is a central problem for conducting HTA of cancer medicines, potentially resulting in misinformed resource allocation.

Cancer Medicines: What Is Essential and Affordable in India?

PURPOSE: The WHO essential medicines list (EML) guides selection of drugs for national formularies. Here, we evaluate which medicines are considered highest priority by Indian oncologists and the extent to which they are available in routine practice. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of an electronic survey developed by the WHO EML Cancer Medicine Working Group. The survey was distributed globally using a hierarchical snowball method to physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy. The survey captured the 10 medicines oncologists considered highest priority for population health and their availability in routine practice. RESULTS: The global study cohort included 948 respondents from 82 countries; 98 were from India and 67 were from other low- and middle-income countries. Compared with other low- and middle-income countries, the Indian cohort was more likely to be medical oncologist (70% v 31%, P < .001) and work exclusively in the private health system (52% v 17%, P < .001). 14/20 most commonly selected medicines were conventional cytotoxic drugs. Universal access to these medicines was reported by a minority of oncologists; risks of significant out-of-pocket expenditures for each medicine were reported by 19%-58% of oncologists. Risk of catastrophic expenditure was reported by 58%-67% of oncologists for rituximab and trastuzumab. Risks of financial toxicity were substantially higher within the private health system compared with the public system. CONCLUSION: Most high-priority cancer medicines identified by Indian oncologists are generic chemotherapy agents that provide substantial improvements in survival and are already included in WHO EML. Access to these treatments remains limited by major financial burdens experienced by patients. This is particularly acute within the private health system. Strategies are urgently needed to ensure that high-quality cancer care is affordable and accessible to all patients in India.

Defining Essential Childhood Cancer Medicines to Inform Prioritization and Access: Results From an International, Cross-Sectional Survey.

PURPOSE: Access to essential cancer medicines is a major determinant of childhood cancer outcomes globally. The degree to which pediatric oncologists deem medicines listed on WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (EMLc) essential is unknown, as is the extent to which such medicines are accessible on the front lines of clinical care. METHODS: An electronic survey developed was distributed through the International Society of Pediatric Oncology mailing list to members from 87 countries. Respondents were asked to select 10 cancer medicines that would provide the greatest benefit to patients in their context; subsequent questions explored medicine availability and cost. Descriptive and bivariate statistics compared access to medicines between low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), and high-income countries (HICs). RESULTS: Among 159 respondents from 44 countries, 43 (27%) were from LMICs, 79 (50%) from UMICs, and 37 (23%) from HICs. The top five medicines were methotrexate (75%), vincristine (74%), doxorubicin (74%), cyclophosphamide (69%), and cytarabine (65%). Of the priority medicines identified, 87% (27 of 31) are represented on the 2021 EMLc and 77% (24 of 31) were common to the lists generated by LMIC, UMIC, and HIC respondents. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability for each of the top medicines ranged from 9% to 46% for LMIC, 25% to 89% for UMIC, and 67% to 100% for HIC. Risk of catastrophic expenditure was more common in LMIC (8%-20%), compared with UMIC (0%-28%) and HIC (0%). CONCLUSION: Most medicines that oncologists deem essential for childhood cancer treatment are currently included on the EMLc. Barriers remain in access to these medicines, characterized by gaps in availability and risks of catastrophic expenditure for families that are most pronounced in low-income settings but evident across all income contexts.

Access to cancer medicines deemed essential by oncologists in 82 countries: an international, cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) identifies priority medicines that are most important to public health. Over time, the EML has included an increasing number of cancer medicines. We aimed to investigate whether the cancer medicines in the EML are aligned with the priority medicines of frontline oncologists worldwide, and the extent to which these medicines are accessible in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This international, cross-sectional survey was developed by investigators from a range of clinical practice settings across low-income to high-income countries, including members of the WHO Essential Medicines Cancer Working Group. A 28-question electronic survey was developed and disseminated to a global network of oncologists in 89 countries and regions by use of a hierarchical snowball method; each primary contact distributed the survey through their national and regional oncology associations or personal networks. The survey was open from Oct 15 to Dec 7, 2020. Fully qualified physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy to adults were eligible to participate in the survey. The primary question asked respondents to select the ten cancer medicines that would provide the greatest public health benefit to their country; subsequent questions explored availability and cost of cancer medicines. Descriptive statistics were used to compare access to medicines between low-income and lower-middle-income countries, upper-middle-income countries, and high-income countries. FINDINGS: 87 country-level contacts and two regional networks were invited to participate in the survey; 46 (52%) accepted the invitation and distributed the survey. 1697 respondents opened the survey link; 423 were excluded as they did not answer the primary study question and 326 were excluded because of ineligibility. 948 eligible oncologists from 82 countries completed the survey (165 [17%] in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 165 [17%] in upper-middle-income countries, and 618 [65%] in high-income countries). The most commonly selected medicines were doxorubicin (by 499 [53%] of 948 respondents), cisplatin (by 470 [50%]), paclitaxel (by 423 [45%]), pembrolizumab (by 414 [44%]), trastuzumab (by 402 [42%]), carboplatin (by 390 [41%]), and 5-fluorouracil (by 386 [41%]). Of the 20 most frequently selected high-priority cancer medicines, 19 (95%) are currently on the WHO EML; 12 (60%) were cytotoxic agents and 13 (65%) were granted US Food and Drug Administration regulatory approval before 2000. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability of each top 20 medication was 9-54% in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 13-90% in upper-middle-income countries, and 68-94% in high-income countries. The risk of catastrophic expenditure (spending >40% of total consumption net of spending on food) was more common in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, with 13-68% of respondents indicating a substantial risk of catastrophic expenditures for each of the top 20 medications in lower-middle-income countries versus 2-41% of respondents in upper-middle-income countries and 0-9% in high-income countries. INTERPRETATION: These data demonstrate major barriers in access to core cancer medicines worldwide. These findings challenge the feasibility of adding additional expensive cancer medicines to the EML. There is an urgent need for global and country-level policy action to ensure patients with cancer globally have access to high priority medicines. FUNDING: None.

Thyroid collision tumor containing oncocytic carcinoma, classical and hobnail variants of papillary carcinoma and areas of poorly differentiated carcinoma

SUMMARY Collision tumors are rare and may comprise components with different behavior, treatments, and prognosis. We report an unprecedented case of aggressive thyroid collision tumor containing widely invasive oncocytic carcinoma (OC), classical and hobnail (HPTC) variants of papillary carcinoma, and poorly differentiated carcinoma (PDTC). The patient underwent total thyroidectomy, radioactive iodine therapy, and within months progressed with local recurrence, and pulmonary metastases requiring neck dissection, external radiotherapy and systemic treatment with sorafenib. The rapid progression, dedifferentiated metastatic lesions, and failure to treatments resulted in the patient´s death. The great variety of histological types and the evolution of this case were a challenge for the management of metastatic disease. Widely invasive OC, HPTC and PDTC are considered to have a worse prognosis. HPTC has never been reported as a component of a collision tumor. HPTC and PDTC should call attention to a possible higher-grade transformation.

Thyroid collision tumor containing oncocytic carcinoma, classical and hobnail variants of papillary carcinoma and areas of poorly differentiated carcinoma.

Collision tumors are rare and may comprise components with different behavior, treatments, and prognosis. We report an unprecedented case of aggressive thyroid collision tumor containing widely invasive oncocytic carcinoma (OC), classical and hobnail (HPTC) variants of papillary carcinoma, and poorly differentiated carcinoma (PDTC). The patient underwent total thyroidectomy, radioactive iodine therapy, and within months progressed with local recurrence, and pulmonary metastases requiring neck dissection, external radiotherapy and systemic treatment with sorafenib. The rapid progression, dedifferentiated metastatic lesions, and failure to treatments resulted in the patient's death. The great variety of histological types and the evolution of this case were a challenge for the management of metastatic disease. Widely invasive OC, HPTC and PDTC are considered to have a worse prognosis. HPTC has never been reported as a component of a collision tumor. HPTC and PDTC should call attention to a possible higher-grade transformation.

Tracking the Workforce 2020-2030: Making the Case for a Cancer Workforce Registry.

Existing literature has described the projected increase in cancer incidence and the associated deficiencies in the cancer workforce. However, there is currently a lack of research into the necessary policy and planning steps that can be taken to mitigate this issue. Herein, we review current literature in this space and highlight the importance of implementing oncology workforce registries. We propose the establishment of cancer workforce registries using the WHO Minimum Data Set for Health Workforce Registry by adapting the data set to suit the multidisciplinary nature of the cancer workforce. The cancer workforce registry will track the trends of the workforce, so that evidence can drive decisions at the policy level. The oncology community needs to develop and optimize methods to collect information for these registries. National cancer societies are likely to continue to lead such efforts, but ministries of health, licensing bodies, and academic institutions should contribute and collaborate.

Effectiveness and toxicity of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) improves survival of patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen has been associated with a significant risk of clinically relevant toxicity. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and feasibility of AC for NSCLC patients in a real-world setting. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients with stage I-III NSCLC undergoing surgery with curative intent between 2009 and 2018. AC was administered at the discretion of physicians. The patients were divided into two groups: AC group and no AC (control) group. Study outcomes included overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS), as well as the safety profile and feasibility of the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen in a real-world setting. RESULTS: The study involved 231 patients, 80 of whom received AC. Of those, 55 patients received the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen. Survival analyses stratified by tumor stage showed that patients with stage II NSCLC in the AC group had better RFS (p = 0.036) and OS (p = 0.017) than did those in the no AC group. Among patients with stage III NSCLC in the AC group, RFS was better (p < 0.001) and there was a trend toward improved OS (p = 0.060) in comparison with controls. Of those who received the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen, 29% had grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia, and 9% died of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the benefit of AC for NSCLC patients in a real-world setting. However, because the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen was associated with alarming rates of toxicity, more effective and less toxic alternatives should be investigated.

Impact of Strategies for Mitigating Delays and Disruptions in Cancer Care Due to COVID-19: Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Delays and disruptions in health systems because of the COVID-19 pandemic were identified by a previous systematic review from our group. For improving the knowledge about the pandemic consequences for cancer care, this article aims to identify the effects of mitigation strategies developed to reduce the impact of such delays and disruptions. METHODS: Systematic review with a comprehensive search including formal databases, cancer and COVID-19 data sources, gray literature, and manual search. We considered clinical trials, observational longitudinal studies, cross-sectional studies, before-and-after studies, case series, and case studies. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by specific tools. The mitigation strategies identified were described in detail and their effects were summarized narratively. RESULTS: Of 6,692 references reviewed, 28 were deemed eligible, and 9 studies with low to moderate methodological quality were included. Five multiple strategies and four single strategies were reported, and the possible effects of mitigating delays and disruptions in cancer care because of COVID-19 are inconsistent. The only comparative study reported a 48.7% reduction observed in the number of outpatient visits to the hospital accompanied by a small reduction in imaging and an improvement in radiation treatments after the implementation of a multiple organizational strategy. CONCLUSION: The findings emphasize the infrequency of measuring and reporting mitigation strategies that specifically address patients' outcomes and thus a scarcity of high-quality evidence to inform program development. This review reinforces the need of adopting standardized measurement methods to monitor the impact of the mitigation strategies proposed to reduce the effects of delays and disruptions in cancer health care because of COVID-19.

Delays and Disruptions in Cancer Health Care Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: There has been noteworthy concern about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on health services including the management of cancer. In addition to being considered at higher risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, people with cancer may also experience disruptions or delays in health services. This systematic review aimed to identify the delays and disruptions to cancer services globally. METHODS: This is a systematic review with a comprehensive search including specific and general databases. We considered any observational longitudinal and cross-sectional study design. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by specific tools. The delays and disruptions identified were categorized, and their frequency was presented. RESULTS: Among the 62 studies identified, none exhibited high methodological quality. The most frequent determinants for disruptions were provider- or system-related, mainly because of the reduction in service availability. The studies identified 38 different categories of delays and disruptions with impact on treatment, diagnosis, or general health service. Delays or disruptions most investigated included reduction in routine activity of cancer services and number of cancer surgeries; delay in radiotherapy; and delay, reschedule, or cancellation of outpatient visits. Interruptions and disruptions largely affected facilities (up to 77.5%), supply chain (up to 79%), and personnel availability (up to 60%). CONCLUSION: The remarkable frequency of delays and disruptions in health care mostly related to the reduction of the COVID-19 burden unintentionally posed a major risk on cancer care worldwide. Strategies can be proposed not only to mitigate the main delays and disruptions but also to standardize their measurement and reporting. As a high number of publications continuously are being published, it is critical to harmonize the upcoming reports and constantly update this review.

Effectiveness and toxicity of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer / Eficácia e toxicidade da quimioterapia adjuvante em pacientes com câncer de pulmão de células não pequenas

ABSTRACT Objective: Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) improves survival of patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen has been associated with a significant risk of clinically relevant toxicity. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and feasibility of AC for NSCLC patients in a real-world setting. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients with stage I-III NSCLC undergoing surgery with curative intent between 2009 and 2018. AC was administered at the discretion of physicians. The patients were divided into two groups: AC group and no AC (control) group. Study outcomes included overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS), as well as the safety profile and feasibility of the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen in a real-world setting. Results: The study involved 231 patients, 80 of whom received AC. Of those, 55 patients received the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen. Survival analyses stratified by tumor stage showed that patients with stage II NSCLC in the AC group had better RFS (p = 0.036) and OS (p = 0.017) than did those in the no AC group. Among patients with stage III NSCLC in the AC group, RFS was better (p < 0.001) and there was a trend toward improved OS (p = 0.060) in comparison with controls. Of those who received the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen, 29% had grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia, and 9% died of toxicity. Conclusions: These results support the benefit of AC for NSCLC patients in a real-world setting. However, because the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen was associated with alarming rates of toxicity, more effective and less toxic alternatives should be investigated.

RESUMO Objetivo: A quimioterapia adjuvante melhora a sobrevida de pacientes com câncer pulmonar de células não pequenas (CPCNP) ressecado. No entanto, o esquema cisplatina-vinorelbina está relacionado com risco significativo de toxicidade clinicamente relevante. Nosso objetivo foi avaliar a eficácia, segurança e viabilidade da quimioterapia adjuvante para pacientes com CPCNP em um cenário de mundo real. Métodos: Estudo retrospectivo de coorte realizado em um único centro com pacientes com CPCNP em estágio I-III submetidos a cirurgia com intuito curativo entre 2009 e 2018. A quimioterapia adjuvante foi administrada a critério dos médicos. Os pacientes foram divididos em dois grupos: quimioterapia adjuvante e sem quimioterapia adjuvante (grupo controle). Os desfechos estudados foram sobrevida global (SG) e sobrevida livre de recidiva (SLR), bem como o perfil de segurança e viabilidade do esquema cisplatina-vinorelbina em um cenário de mundo real. Resultados: O estudo envolveu 231 pacientes, 80 dos quais receberam quimioterapia adjuvante. Destes, 55 receberam o esquema cisplatina-vinorelbina. As análises de sobrevida estratificadas pelo estágio do tumor mostraram que os pacientes com CPCNP em estágio II que receberam quimioterapia adjuvante apresentaram melhor SLR (p = 0,036) e SG (p = 0,017) do que os do grupo controle. Entre os pacientes com CPCNP em estágio III que receberam quimioterapia adjuvante, a SLR foi melhor (p < 0,001) e houve uma tendência a melhor SG do que no grupo controle (p = 0,060). Dos que receberam o esquema cisplatina-vinorelbina, 29% apresentaram neutropenia febril de grau 3-4, e 9% morreram em virtude de toxicidade. Conclusões: Os resultados confirmam o efeito benéfico da quimioterapia adjuvante em pacientes com CPCNP em um contexto real. No entanto, o esquema cisplatina-vinorelbina relacionou-se com taxas alarmantes de toxicidade e alternativas mais eficazes e menos tóxicas devem ser investigadas.

Distinct models to assess the cost-effectiveness of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the context of the Brazilian Unified Health Care System.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer is an important health problem due to its high incidence and mortality. The treatment of metastatic disease improved after the molecular pathways of cancer came to be known. However, targeted therapy is unavailable to many patients treated within the Brazilian Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS, Unified Health Care System). Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib versus that of chemotherapy for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in the context of the SUS. METHODS: Different analytical models were developed based on data in the literature. The outcomes were presented in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY gained. All costs related to treatment and supportive therapies were included in the models. RESULTS: In one model, data from retrospective studies showed 2.01 life-years saved and a mean QALY gain of 1.169. The ICER per QALY gained ranged from R$48,451.29 (for gefitinib) to R$85,559.22 (for erlotinib). In another model, data from a meta-analysis showed -0.01 life-years saved and a mean QALY gain of 0.178. The ICER per QALY gained ranged from R$27,028.30 (for gefitinib) to R$75,203.26 (for erlotinib). CONCLUSIONS: There is no ideal analytical model for the SUS. However, targeted therapy with EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors has been shown to be cost-effective in various scenarios. The adoption of drug price discounts will improve the cost-effectiveness of treatment.

Distinct models to assess the cost-effectiveness of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the context of the Brazilian Unified Health Care System / Diferentes modelos para avaliar a relação custo-efetividade de inibidores de tirosina quinase do EGFR no tratamento do câncer de pulmão não pequenas células metastático no contexto do Sistema Único de Saúde

ABSTRACT Objective: Lung cancer is an important health problem due to its high incidence and mortality. The treatment of metastatic disease improved after the molecular pathways of cancer came to be known. However, targeted therapy is unavailable to many patients treated within the Brazilian Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS, Unified Health Care System). Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib versus that of chemotherapy for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in the context of the SUS. Methods: Different analytical models were developed based on data in the literature. The outcomes were presented in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY gained. All costs related to treatment and supportive therapies were included in the models. Results: In one model, data from retrospective studies showed 2.01 life-years saved and a mean QALY gain of 1.169. The ICER per QALY gained ranged from R$48,451.29 (for gefitinib) to R$85,559.22 (for erlotinib). In another model, data from a meta-analysis showed −0.01 life-years saved and a mean QALY gain of 0.178. The ICER per QALY gained ranged from R$27,028.30 (for gefitinib) to R$75,203.26 (for erlotinib). Conclusions: There is no ideal analytical model for the SUS. However, targeted therapy with EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors has been shown to be cost-effective in various scenarios. The adoption of drug price discounts will improve the cost-effectiveness of treatment.

RESUMO Objetivo: O câncer de pulmão é um importante problema de saúde pela sua alta incidência e mortalidade. O tratamento da doença metastática melhorou após o conhecimento de vias moleculares tumorais. Contudo, a terapia-alvo está indisponível para muitos pacientes do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Nosso objetivo foi avaliar a relação custo-efetividade de erlotinibe, gefitinibe e afatinibe vs. quimioterapia no tratamento do câncer de pulmão não pequenas células no contexto do SUS. Métodos: Foram desenvolvidos modelos analíticos distintos baseados em dados da literatura. Os desfechos foram apresentados em quality-adjusted life years (QALY, anos de vida ajustados pela qualidade) e incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, relação custo-efetividade incremental). Todos os custos relacionados ao tratamento e terapias de suporte foram incluídos nos modelos. Resultados: No primeiro modelo, dados de estudos retrospectivos apontaram 2,01 anos de vida salvos e uma média de ganho de QALY de 1,169. O ICER variou entre R$ 48.451,29 (gefitinibe) e R$ 85.559,22 (erlotinibe). No segundo modelo, dados de uma meta-análise evidenciaram −0,01 ano de vida salvos e uma média de ganho de QALY de 0,178. O ICER foi de R$ 27.028,30 (gefitinibe) a R$ 75.203,26 (erlotinibe). Conclusões: Não existe um modelo analítico ideal para o SUS. Contudo, diferentes cenários disponíveis na literatura mostram que a terapia-alvo com o uso dessas drogas é custo-efetiva. A adoção de descontos nos preços dos medicamentos melhorará a relação custo-efetividade do tratamento.