Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a value assessment tool designed to help support complex decision-making by incorporating multiple factors and perspectives in a transparent, structured approach. We developed an MCDA rating tool, consisting of seven criteria evaluating the importance and feasibility of conducting potential real-world evidence (RWE) studies aimed at addressing uncertainties stemming from initial cancer drug funding recommendations. In collaboration with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health’s Provincial Advisory Group, a validation exercise was conducted to further evaluate the application of the rating tool using RWE proposals varying in complexity. Through this exercise, we aimed to gain insight into consensus building and deliberation processes and to identify efficiencies in the application of the rating tool. An experienced facilitator led a multidisciplinary committee, consisting of 11 Canadian experts, through consensus building, deliberation, and prioritization. A total of nine RWE proposals were evaluated and prioritized as low (n = 4), medium (n = 3), or high (n = 2) priority. Through an iterative process, efficiencies and recommendations to improve the rating tool and associated procedures were identified. The refined MCDA rating tool can help decision-makers prioritize important and feasible RWE studies for research and can enable the use of RWE for the life-cycle evaluation of cancer drugs.

Background: Ontario publicly funds reference trastuzumab (Herceptin) and four biosimilar trastuzumab products for adjuvant treatment of HER2+ breast cancer. We assessed the real-world safety and effectiveness of biosimilar trastuzumab compared to Herceptin for adjuvant treatment of patients with HER2+ breast cancer. Methods: This was a population-based, retrospective study comparing the safety and effectiveness of biosimilar trastuzumab and Herceptin for neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment of HER2+ breast cancer from 2016 to 2021. Treatment patients started biosimilar trastuzumab from November 2019 to June 2021; historical comparator patients started Herceptin from June 2016 to October 2019. Safety outcomes death within 30 days of last dose of trastuzumab, direct hospitalization, emergency department visit leading to hospitalization, early treatment discontinuation, and in-patient admission for congestive heart failure were measured using logistic/negative binomial regression. Overall survival (OS) was measured using Kaplan–Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression. Propensity score matching was applied. Results: From June 2016 to 2021, 5071 patients with breast cancer were treated with neoadjuvant/adjuvant trastuzumab. The rate of direct hospitalization (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.74–0.98, p-value: 0.032) was significantly lower in biosimilar compared to Herceptin patients. OS (log-rank test p = 0.98) and risk of mortality (HR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.72–2.30, p-value = 0.39) did not significantly differ between treatment groups. Conclusions: Biosimilar trastuzumab demonstrated similar safety and effectiveness to Herceptin. The findings can help improve confidence in and use of biosimilars and demonstrate the value of real-world evidence generation for supporting biosimilar implementations and reassessments.

Take-home cancer drugs (THCDs) have become a standard treatment of many cancers. Robust guidelines have been developed for intravenous chemotherapy drugs, but few exist for THCDs with a focus on decentralized models. Hence, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) established the Oncology Pharmacy Task Force (OPTF) to develop consensus-based recommendations on best practices for THCDs to ensure that patients receive safe, consistent, high-quality care in the community once they leave the cancer center/practice with a prescription. The OPTF included 34 members with comprehensive representation. Guidance from leading authorities was extracted through literature review, thematically analyzed, and synthesized to develop 29 recommendations. The consensus process (> 70% agreement) included a three-step modified Delphi method followed by an extensive review process. Sixteen recommendations were developed: training and education for providers (2), drug access (1), prescribing (4), patient and family/caregiver education (3), communication (1), dispensing (3), monitoring for patient adherence and adverse effects (1), and incident reporting (1). Through a rigorous methodology, the OPTF derived a robust set of recommendations similar to the ASCO/Oncology Nursing Society and ASCO/National Community Oncology Dispensing Association guidelines, further validating and strengthening the applicability across multiple jurisdictions, including those with decentralized models. Unique aspects in a decentralized model include the need for two pharmacy professionals, with one doing cognitive verification of the script and the other dispensing the medication; moreover, they optimize interprofessional communication between community providers and the cancer center/practice health care team.

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration developed an MCDA rating tool to assess and prioritize potential post-market real-world evidence (RWE) questions/uncertainties emerging from public drug funding decisions in Canada. In collaboration with a group of multidisciplinary stakeholders from across Canada, the rating tool was developed following a three-step process: (1) selection of criteria to assess the importance and feasibility of an RWE question; (2) development of rating scales, application of weights and calculating aggregate scores; and (3) validation testing. An initial MCDA rating tool was developed, composed of seven criteria, divided into two groups. Group A criteria assess the importance of an RWE question by examining the (1) drug’s perceived clinical benefit, (2) magnitude of uncertainty identified, and (3) relevance of the uncertainty to decision-makers. Group B criteria assess the feasibility of conducting an RWE analysis including the (1) feasibility of identifying a comparator, (2) ability to identify cases, (3) availability of comprehensive data, and (4) availability of necessary expertise and methodology. Future directions include partnering with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health’s Provincial Advisory Group for further tool refinement and to gain insight into incorporating the tool into drug funding deliberations.

Niraparib was recently funded in Canada for the maintenance treatment of ovarian cancer following platinum-based chemotherapy. However, the drug’s safety profile in the real world remains uncertain. We conducted a cohort study to describe the patient population using niraparib and the proportion that experienced adverse events between June 2019 and December 2022 in four Canadian provinces (Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia [BC], and Quebec). We used administrative data and electronic medical records from Ontario Health, Alberta Health Services, and BC Cancer, and registry data from Exactis Innovation. We summarized baseline characteristics using descriptive statistics and reported safety outcomes using cumulative incidence. We identified 514 patients receiving niraparib. Mean age was 67 years and most were initiated on a daily dose of 100 or 200 mg/day. Grade 3/4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 11–16% of the cohort. In Ontario, the three-month cumulative incidence of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was 11.6% (95% CI, 8.3–15.4%), neutropenia was 7.1% (95% CI, 4.6–10.4%), and anemia was 11.3% (95% CI, 8.0–15.2%). Cumulative incidences in the remaining provinces were similar. Initial daily dose and proportions of hematological adverse events were low in the real world and may be related to cautious prescribing and close monitoring by clinicians.

375 Background: FFX has been universally publicly funded in Ontario, Canada, for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) and unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (uLAPC) since 11/2011 and 04/2015, respectively. GnP has been publicly funded for uLAPC and mPC (APC) since 04/2015. We examined the real world comparative effectiveness and safety of implementing funding of FFX and GnP for patients with APC. Methods: Patients with APC who received first-line FFX, GnP, or G from 01/2008-03/2016 were identified in CCO’s New Drug Funding Program database and divided into 3 periods: 01/2008-10/2011 (P1), 11/2011-03/2015 (P2), and 04/2015-03/2016 (P3). Data were linked with the Ontario Cancer Registry and others to ascertain demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes. Matching weights of propensity score to simultaneously compare three periods were generated using multinomial logistic regression. Crude and adjusted survival analyses were conducted to assess overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox regression methods.Weighted negative binomial models were used to estimate rate ratios (RR) for all-cause hospitalization (H) and ED visits. Results: We identified 3696 patients (1250 in P1, 1891 in P2, 555 in P3) (overall mean age 65, female 46%). In P2, 49% received FFX. In P3, 53% received FFX and 35% received GnP. Median OS was 5.7, 7.0, and 7.5 months for P1, P2, and P3, respectively. Median OS for FFX and GnP in mPC were 8.8 and 5.5 months, respectively. OS was improved in P2 vs. P1 (HR = 0.84, 0.78-0.90) and in P3 vs. P2 (HR = 0.82, 0.73-0.92). ED visits were similar compared P2 vs. P1 (RR=1.02, p = 0.75) and P3 vs. P2 (RR=1.04, p = 0.48), and H was reduced in P2 vs. P1 (RR = 0.86, p = 0.01), but similar in P3 vs. P2 (RR = 0.98, p = 0.78). H for febrile neutropenia (FN) was increased in P2 vs. P1 (RR = 2.18, p = 0.04) but not in P3 vs. P2 (RR = 1.32, p = 0.45). Conclusions: Implementation of universal public funding of FFX for mPC improved OS and reduced the rates H overall, but increased FN-related H. Funding of FFX for uLAPC and GnP for APC improved OS without increased in ER and H.