Purpose: Evaluate inter-country variability in the reimbursement of publically funded cancer drugs, and identify factors such as cost containment measures that may contribute to variability. Methods: As of February 28, 2010, licensed indications for 10 cancer drugs (bevacizumab, bortezomib, cetuximab, erlotinib, imatinib, pemetrexed, rituximab, sorafenib, sunitinib, and trastuzumab) were obtained from the drug registries of 6 licensing authorities corresponding to 13 countries or regions: Australia, Canada (Ontario), England, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States (Medicare Parts B and D). Number of licensed indications reimbursed by public payers and the use of cost containment measures were obtained by survey of health authorities involved in reimbursement and through public documents. Results: The 48 identified licensed indications varied between agencies (range: 36–44 indications). Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, and the United States reimbursed the highest percentage of indications (range: 90%–100%). Canada (54%), Australia (46%), Scotland (40%), England (38%), and New Zealand (25%) reimbursed the least. All 5 countries with the lowest rate of reimbursement incorporated a cost-effectiveness analysis into reimbursement decisions and rejected submissions for reimbursement mainly because of lack of cost effectiveness; in New Zealand, lack of cost effectiveness was the second leading cause of rejection after excessive cost. In 9 countries, risk-sharing agreements were used to contain costs. Indications initially not recommended for reimbursement (9 in Australia, 5 in Canada, and 3 in England, New Zealand, and Scotland) were subsequently approved with risk-sharing agreements or special pricing arrangements. Conclusions: Reimbursement of publically funded cancer drugs varies globally. The cause is multifactorial.

Background: Current treatment of diffuse-large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) includes rituximab, an expensive drug, combined with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) chemotherapy. Economic models have predicted rituximab plus CHOP (RCHOP) to be a cost-effective alternative to CHOP alone as first-line treatment of DLBCL, but it remains unclear what its real-world costs and cost-effectiveness are in routine clinical practice. Methods: We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study from 1997 to 2007, using linked administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, to evaluate the costs and cost-effectiveness of RCHOP compared to CHOP alone. A historical control cohort (n = 1,099) with DLBCL who received CHOP before rituximab approval was hard-matched on age and treatment intensity and then propensity-score matched on sex, comorbidity, and histology to 1,099 RCHOP patients. All costs and outcomes were adjusted for censoring using the inverse probability weighting method. The main outcome measure was incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG). Results: Rituximab was associated with a life expectancy increase of 3.2 months over 5 years at an additional cost of $16,298, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $61,984 (95% CI $34,087‒$135,890) per LYG. The probability of being cost-effective was 90% if the willingness-to-pay threshold was $100,000/LYG. The cost-effectiveness ratio was most favourable for patients less than 60 years old ($31,800/LYG) but increased to $80,600/LYG for patients 60–79 years old and $110,100/LYG for patients ≥80 years old. We found that post-market survival benefits of rituximab are similar to or lower than those reported in clinical trials, while the costs, incremental costs and cost-effectiveness ratios are higher than in published economic models and differ by age. Conclusions: Our results showed that the addition of rituximab to standard CHOP chemotherapy was associated with improvement in survival but at a higher cost, and was potentially cost-effective by standard thresholds for patients <60 years old. However, cost-effectiveness decreased significantly with age, suggesting that rituximab may be not as economically attractive in the very elderly on average. This has important clinical implications regarding age-related use and funding decisions on this drug.

Purpose: Anthracyclines are a component of breast cancer chemotherapy regimens in both adjuvant and metastatic settings. Anthracycline rechallenge for metastatic disease, for those previously exposed to adjuvant anthracyclines, may not be considered because of concerns about efficacy, tolerability, and cumulative cardiotoxicity. Patients and Methods: This prospective, multicenter, single-arm, phase II trial examined the efficacy and safety of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) 35 mg/m² plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m² as first-line therapy, delivered every 3 weeks, in 70 patients who developed metastatic disease more than 12 months after completion of an adjuvant anthracycline-containing regimen. Seven patients discontinued treatment early and were excluded from the efficacy analysis. Results: After a median of six cycles, the objective response rate was 38%. An additional 33% of patients achieved stable disease lasting more than 6 months, for an overall clinical benefit rate of 71%. The estimated median time to progression was 12.2 months. Median overall survival time was 16.5 months. Clinical response was equally robust in patients with and without prior taxane exposure. Treatment was well tolerated. The most common grade 3 to 4 toxicities were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE; 10%), dyspnea (9%), and neutropenia (9%). One (1.4%) of 70 patients discontinued treatment as a result of PPE. One patient (1.4%) experienced an infusion reaction requiring discontinuation. No symptomatic cardiac events were observed. Conclusion: PLD plus cyclophosphamide is effective and well tolerated in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have received prior adjuvant anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. The majority of patients experienced a clinical benefit without any significant impact on cardiac function.

Background: Preclinical studies have demonstrated that tumour cell death can be enhanced 10- to 40-fold when radiotherapy is combined with focussed ultrasound-stimulated microbubble (FUS-MB) treatment. The acoustic exposure of microbubbles (intravascular gas microspheres) within the target volume causes bubble cavitation, which induces perturbation of tumour vasculature and activates endothelial cell apoptotic pathways responsible for the ablative effect of stereotactic body radiotherapy. Subsequent irradiation of a microbubble-sensitised tumour causes rapid increased tumour death. The study here presents the mature safety and efficacy outcomes of magnetic resonance (MR)-guided FUS-MB (MRgFUS-MB) treatment, a radioenhancement therapy for breast cancer. Methods and findings: This prospective, single-center, single-arm Phase 1 clinical trial included patients with stages I–IV breast cancer with in situ tumours for whom breast or chest wall radiotherapy was deemed adequate by a multidisciplinary team (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04431674). Patients were excluded if they had contraindications for contrast-enhanced MR or microbubble administration. Patients underwent 2 to 3 MRgFUS-MB treatments throughout radiotherapy. An MR-coupled focussed ultrasound device operating at 800 kHz and 570 kPa peak negative pressure was used to sonicate intravenously administrated microbubbles within the MR-guided target volume. The primary outcome was acute toxicity per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0. Secondary outcomes were tumour response at 3 months and local control (LC). A total of 21 female patients presenting with 23 primary breast tumours were enrolled and allocated to intervention between August/2020 and November/2022. Three patients subsequently withdrew consent and, therefore, 18 patients with 20 tumours were included in the safety and LC analyses. Two patients died due to progressive metastatic disease before 3 months following treatment completion and were excluded from the tumour response analysis. The prescribed radiation doses were 20 Gy/5 fractions (40%, n = 8/20), 30 to 35 Gy/5 fractions (35%, n = 7/20), 30 to 40 Gy/10 fractions (15%, n = 3/20), and 66 Gy/33 fractions (10%, n = 2/20). The median follow-up was 9 months (range, 0.3 to 29). Radiation dermatitis was the most common acute toxicity (Grade 1 in 16/20, Grade 2 in 1/20, and Grade 3 in 2/20). One patient developed grade 1 allergic reaction possibly related to microbubbles administration. At 3 months, 18 tumours were evaluated for response: 9 exhibited complete response (50%, n = 9/18), 6 partial response (33%, n = 6/18), 2 stable disease (11%, n = 2/18), and 1 progressive disease (6%, n = 1/18). Further follow-up of responses indicated that the 6-, 12-, and 24-month LC rates were 94% (95% confidence interval [CI] [84%, 100%]), 88% (95% CI [75%, 100%]), and 76% (95% CI [54%, 100%]), respectively. The study’s limitations include variable tumour sizes and dose fractionation regimens and the anticipated small sample size typical for a Phase 1 clinical trial. Conclusions: MRgFUS-MB is an innovative radioenhancement therapy associated with a safe profile, potentially promising responses, and durable LC. These results warrant validation in Phase 2 clinical trials. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04431674.

Https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28002 Christopher Kolios, Lakshmanan Sannachi, Archya Dasgupta, Harini Suraweera, Daniel DiCenzo, Gregory Stanisz, Arjun Sahgal, Frances Wright, Nicole Look-Hong,...