Blase N. Polite

Predictors of Competing Mortality in Advanced Head and Neck Cancer

PURPOSE Death from noncancer causes (competing mortality) is an important event in head and neck cancer, but studies identifying predictors of this event are lacking. We sought to identify predictors of competing mortality and develop a risk stratification model for competing events. PATIENTS AND METHODS Cohort study of 479 patients with stage III to IV carcinoma of the head and neck diagnosed between August 1993 and November 2004. Patients were treated on consecutive prospective clinical trials involving organ-preserving chemoradiotherapy and surgery. We used multivariable competing risks regression models to analyze factors associated with the cumulative incidence of competing mortality, locoregional and distant failure, and second malignancies as first events. Results Median follow-up was 52 months median for survivors. The 5-year cumulative incidence of competing mortality was 19.6% (95% CI, 15.8 to 23.4). On multivariable analysis, competing mortality was associated with female sex (hazard ratio [HR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.63), increasing age (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.62), increasing Charlson Comorbidity Index (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.47), decreasing body mass index (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.84), and decreasing distance traveled to the treating center (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.98). Patients with zero, one, two, and > or = three risk factors had 5-year competing mortality of 8.9% (95% CI, 3.0% to 14.8%), 12.4% (95% CI, 7.0% to 17.8%), 22.1% (95% CI, 14.5% to 29.7%), and 39.3% (95% CI, 28.6% to 50.1%), respectively. CONCLUSION Competing mortality in advanced head and neck cancer is associated with several demographic and health status characteristics. Analyses of risk factors for competing mortality may be useful in outcomes reporting and designing clinical trials.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: A Conceptual Framework to Assess the Value of Cancer Treatment Options

Health care costs in the United States present a major challenge to the national economic well being. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has projected that US health care spending will reach

CALGB/SWOG 80405: Phase III trial of irinotecan/5-FU/leucovorin (FOLFIRI) or oxaliplatin/5-FU/leucovorin (mFOLFOX6) with bevacizumab (BV) or cetuximab (CET) for patients (pts) with KRAS wild-type (wt) untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum (MCRC).

4.3 trillion and account for 19.3% of the national gross domestic product by 2019.1 This growth in spending—both in absolute terms and as a proportion of our gross domestic product—has not been accompanied by commensurate improvements in health outcomes, despite expenditures far exceeding those of other countries.2–4 One of the fastest growing components of US health care costs is cancer care, the cost of which is now estimated to increase from

Phase II, Open-label Study of Brivanib as Second-line Therapy in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

125 billion in 2010 to

Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework: Revisions and Reflections in Response to Comments Received

158 billion in 2020.1 Although cancer care represents a small fraction of overall health care costs, its contribution to health care cost escalation is increasing faster than those of most other areas because of several factors: the increasing prevalence of cancer due to the overall aging of the population and better control of some causes of competing mortality; the introduction of costly new drugs and techniques in radiation therapy and surgery; and the adoption of more expensive diagnostic tests. In some cases, the adoption of newer, more expensive diagnostic and therapeutic interventions may not be well supported by medical evidence, thereby raising costs without improving outcomes.5 Coupled with, or even driving, some of these rising costs are sometimes unrealistic patient and family expectations that lead clinicians to offer or recommend some of these services, despite the lack of supporting evidence of utility or benefit.6 Historically, most individuals in the United States were shielded from the acute economic impact of expensive care because they had health insurance. However, current trends suggest that patients will find themselves increasingly responsible for a greater proportion of the cost of their health care. Cost shifting or sharing can occur through the increased use of high-deductible policies and larger copayments. These increased costs are already commonplace and may not be affordable for many families. Indeed, health care expenditures are cited as a major cause of personal bankruptcy,7 and the term financial toxicity has entered the vernacular as a means of describing the financial distress that now often accompanies cancer treatment.8 Like other toxicities of cancer treatment, financial toxicity resulting from out-of-pocket treatment expenses can reduce quality of life and impede delivery of high-quality care.9,10 Patients experiencing high out-of-pocket costs have reported reducing their spending on food and clothing, reducing the frequency with which they take prescribed medications, avoiding recommended procedures, and skipping physician appointments to save money.10,11 These unintended consequences risk an increase in health disparities, which runs counter to some of the key goals of health care reform. In many communities, the high costs associated with cancer care have created a difficult situation for patients and the oncologists who care for them. Addressing this situation will require greater understanding of all the risks and benefits of various treatment options as well as the consequences of specific choices. In this regard, studies have shown that patients specifically want financial information about treatment alternatives along with information about medical effectiveness and treatment toxicity. However, they often do not receive it. Closing this knowledge gap will require educated providers who are able to sensitively initiate a dialogue about the cost of care with their patients when appropriate.12,13 Patients with cancer are often surprised by and unprepared for the high out-of-pocket costs of treatments. They also overestimate the benefits of treatments that sometimes extend life by only weeks or months or not at all. Oncologists are generally aware of this conundrum but uncertain about whether and how the cost of care should affect their recommendations.14 Although raising awareness of costs and providing tools to assess value may help to manage costs while maintaining high-quality care, some oncologists see this as being in conflict with their duty to individual patients.15 Recent American Society of Clinical Oncology Efforts Motivated by our responsibility to help oncologists deliver the highest-quality care to patients everywhere, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) formed the Task Force on the Cost of Cancer Care in 2007. Its mission includes educating oncologists about the importance of discussing costs associated with recommended treatments, empowering patients to ask questions pertaining to the anticipated costs of their treatment options, identifying the drivers of the rising costs of cancer care, and ultimately developing policy positions that will help Americans move toward more equal access to the highest-quality care at the lowest cost.16 In 2012, through the work of the Task Force, ASCO responded to the Choosing Wisely Campaign of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation and identified specific instances of overuse in the delivery of cancer care. ASCO used a deliberative consensus process to identify five common clinical practices that are not supported by high-level evidence. A second list of five was developed using the same process and submitted to the Choosing Wisely Campaign in 2013. ASCO amplified the evidence basis for both top-five lists in two publications17,18 and is now developing measures to evaluate the use of these practices as part of its Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. These exercises have provided opportunities to develop a rigorous but flexible approach to assessing efficacy across diagnostic and treatment domains.

Colorectal Cancer Model of Health Disparities: Understanding Mortality Differences in Minority Populations

LBA3 Background: Irinotecan/5-FU/leucovorin (FOLFIRI) or oxaliplatin/5-FU/leucovorin (mFOLFOX6), combined with bevacizumab (BV) or cetuximab (CET), are first-line treatments for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum (MCRC). The optimal antibody combination is unknown. METHODS Patients (pts) with KRAS wild-type (wt)(codons 12 and 13) MCRC and performance status 0-1 received FOLFIRI or mFOLFOX6 (MD/pt choice at enrollment) and randomized to either CET 400 mg/m2 X 1, then 250 mg/m2 qw or BV 5 mg/kg q2w. The original study included unselected MCRC pts receiving FOLFIRI or mFOLFOX6 and randomized to CET, BV, or both. After 1,420 pts accrued the study amended as follows: only pts with KRAS wt tumors (codon 12 and 13) were included and the combination CET + BV arm was deleted. Rx continued until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, curative surgery; treatment holidays of 4 wks permitted. Subsequent Rx not mandated. Accrual goal was 1,142 pts. One° endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS Between November 2005 and March 2012, 3,058 unselected pts enrolled, 2,334 KRAS wt pts randomized; final N =1137 (333 pre-amend eligible retrospective KRAS test, 804 post-amend), median f/u = 24 mos; Median age - 59 y; 61% male. Chemo/BV - 559; chemo/CET - 578. FOLFIRI = 26.6%, mFOLFOX6 = 73.4%. OS analysis planned at 849 events; efficacy futility boundary crossed at 10th interim analysis on 1/29/14. OS - chemo/BV v. chemo/CET = 29.04 (25.66 - 31.21) v. 29.93 (27.56 - 31.21) mos; HR = 0.92 (0.78, 1.09) (p value = 0.34). PFS (by investigator): chemo/BV v. chemo/CET: 10.84 (9.86 - 11.4) v. 10.45 (9.66 - 11.33) mos. There were 94 pts free of disease following surgery, median f/u 40 mos (range 8.0 - 86.0). Outcomes similar by gender. On-study toxicity and deaths as expected. Analyses underway: Expanded RAS, FOLFOX v. FOLFIRI, subsequent therapies, long-term survivors, correlates. CONCLUSIONS Chemo/CET and chemo/BV equivalent in OS in pts KRAS wt (codons 12 + 13) MCRC; either is appropriate in first line. Overall OS of 29 + mos and 8% long-term survivors confirms progress in MCRC. The preference for FOLFOX limits chemotherapy comparison. Expanded RAS and other molecular and clinical analyses may identify subsets of pts who get more or less benefit from specific regimens. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION NCT00265850.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Policy Statement: Opportunities in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to Reduce Cancer Care Disparities

Purpose: Brivanib, a selective dual inhibitor of fibroblast growth factor and VEGF signaling, has recently been shown to have activity as first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This phase II open-label study assessed brivanib as second-line therapy in patients with advanced HCC who had failed prior antiangiogenic treatment. Experimental Design: Brivanib was administered orally at a dose of 800 mg once daily. The primary objectives were tumor response rate, time to response, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), disease control rate, time to progression (TTP), and safety and tolerability. Results: Forty-six patients were treated. Best responses to treatment with brivanib (N = 46 patients) using modified World Health Organization criteria were partial responses for two patients (4.3%), stable disease for 19 patients (41.3%), and progressive disease for 19 patients (41.3%). The tumor response rate was 4.3%; the disease control rate was 45.7%. Median OS was 9.79 months. Median TTP as assessed by study investigators following second-line treatment with brivanib was 2.7 months. The most common adverse events were fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and hypertension. Conclusion: Brivanib had a manageable safety profile and is one of the first agents to show promising antitumor activity in advanced HCC patients treated with prior sorafenib. Clin Cancer Res; 18(7); 2090–8. ©2012 AACR.

Eliminating Racial Disparities in Colorectal Cancer in the Real World: It Took a Village

The mission of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is to conquer cancer through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality patient care. Toward fulfillment of this goal and at the direction of its board of directors, the ASCOValue in Cancer Care Task Force set out to develop a framework that would enable a physician and patient to assess the value of a particular cancer treatment regimen given the patient’s individual preferences and circumstances. The rationale that served as the impetus for this initiative is many faceted. Substantial progress has been made in translating our knowledge of the biologic characteristics of cancer into novel therapies. Some of these therapies have led to major improvements in outcomes for specific diseases, and others have produced only modest advances. There is now a wide array of choices for treating many cancer types, and these treatment choices often differ by only small degrees in clinical effectiveness and toxicity. Yet, there is often a wide disparity in cost to patients and payers. Because patients are often confronted with enormous expenses when receiving cancer care, the goal of describing a relationship between the cost of an agent or regimen and the clinical benefits it delivers takes on great importance. As the primary advisor to the patient, the oncologist has an important role in providing a comparative assessment of the various treatment options available; in the spirit of shared decision making, the patient should have transparent information about the clinical impact that can be expected from the different options presented and their relative financial implications. The value framework has been constructed as a conceptual model that incorporates the elements of clinical benefit, toxicity, and symptom palliation as derived from a comparative clinical trial and combines these elements into a score termed the net health benefit (NHB). Ultimately, deployment of the framework as a software application is planned, enabling a patient to modify the weight attributed to any of the elements included in the NHB depending on his or her personal preferences and circumstances. The final NHB will therefore reflect the priorities that are most important to the patient and will be arrived at through guidance from the physician. Information on the cost of the regimens will also be presented so the patient can consider the relative financial impact of his or her treatment options. Two versions of the framework have been created: one for advanced disease and the other for potentially curable (adjuvant therapy) clinical presentations. The original framework versions are shown in Appendix Tables A1 and A2 (online only). The key elements included in the framework— namely, clinical benefit and toxicity—are also those that are regularly reported in the scientific literature when discussing the outcome of a clinical trial that compares two or more therapies. The importance of relying on high-quality, quantifiable evidence cannot be overstated, and this is most often provided by a well-designed, well-conducted prospective randomized trial. The task force recognizes that a limitation of this approach is that it does not readily permit cross-trial comparisons. Such analyses are important to patients and remain a goal for future versions of the value framework. The task force is well aware that there are many elements that might be important to individual patients in assessing the relative value of their treatment options that are not taken into account in our model. These include the convenience of receiving therapy, the avoidance of interrupting the flow of activities of daily living, and the impact of a treatment on quality of life

Effect of first-line chemotherapy combined with cetuximab or bevacizumab on overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer a randomized clinical trial

African Americans are more likely to be diagnosed with and die as a result of colorectal cancer than white patients. This review briefly documents these differences and explores the factors that may contribute to advanced stage at diagnosis and reduced survival once African Americans are diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Attention is focused on what is known about the role of socioeconomic status, cancer screening, comorbidities and lifestyle factors, tumor biology and genetics, and the differences in the receipt of and benefit of appropriate therapy. Finally, areas of ongoing and future research and policy initiatives aimed at reducing disparities are discussed.

Molecular Analysis of Colorectal Tumors within a Diverse Patient Cohort at a Single Institution

Patients in specific vulnerable population groups suffer disproportionately from cancer. The elimination of cancer disparities is critically important for lessening the burden of cancer. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides both opportunities and challenges for addressing cancer care disparities and access to care. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) advocates for policies that ensure access to cancer care for the underserved. Such policies include insurance reform and the reduction of economic barriers to quality health care. Building on ASCOs prior statement on disparities in cancer care (2009), this article summarizes elements of the health care law that are relevant to cancer disparities and provides recommendations for addressing major provisions in the law. It outlines specific strategies to address insurance reform, access to care, quality of care, prevention and wellness, research on health care disparities, and diversity in the health care workforce. ASCO is committed to leading efforts toward the improvement of cancer care among the most vulnerable patients.