Department of Internal Medicine, Inha University Hospital, Incheon, Republic of Korea.
Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Jul 11;22(1):900. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08279-6.
Rapid development of novel therapeutics in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has led to financial burden for patients and society. Value including clinical benefit, toxicity affecting quality of life and cost-effectiveness are a concern, prompting the need for tools to facilitate value assessment of therapeutics. This study reviews the value assessment tools, and evaluates the value of emerging therapeutics in RCC.
Two medical oncologists used American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework (ASCO VF) v2.0 and European Society for Medical Oncology-magnitude of clinical benefit scale (ESMO-MCBS) v1.1 to phase 3 trials evaluating first-line therapy in patients with metastatic RCC. Follow-up (FU) reports and extended survival data were included. Equivocal aspects and limitations of the tools were discussed.
Six trials (COMPARZ, CheckMate 214, JAVELIN renal 101, Keynote 426, CLEAR, and CheckMate 9ER) were assessed. The control arm was standard-of-care sunitinib in all trials. ASCO VF's net health benefit, calculated as clinical benefit, toxicity and other bonus point was 11 in pazopanib, 41.9 in nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 22.4 in axitinib plus avelumab, 48.7 in axitinib plus pembrolizumab, 35.2 in lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, and 50.8 in cabozantinib plus nivolumab. A higher score means a greater treatment benefit. ESMO-MCBS gave grade 5 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 4 to pazopanib, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and cabozantinib plus nivolumab, 3 to axitinib plus avelumab or pembrolizumab. Both tools had unclear aspects to be applied to clinical practice, and should be more clearly defined, such as endpoint for determining survival benefits or how to standardize quality of life and toxicity.
ASCO VF and ESMO-MCBS were applied to evaluate the newly emerging drugs in RCC and assessed their value. In-depth discussion by experts in various fields is required for appropriate clinical application in a real-world setting.
肾细胞癌 (RCC) 新型治疗方法的快速发展给患者和社会带来了经济负担。包括临床获益、影响生活质量的毒性和成本效益在内的价值备受关注,这促使人们需要工具来促进治疗方法的价值评估。本研究综述了价值评估工具,并评估了 RCC 新兴治疗方法的价值。
两位肿瘤内科医生使用美国临床肿瘤学会价值框架 (ASCO VF) v2.0 和欧洲肿瘤内科学会-临床获益量表 (ESMO-MCBS) v1.1 评估了评估转移性 RCC 患者一线治疗的 III 期试验。纳入了随访 (FU) 报告和延长生存数据。讨论了工具的不确定方面和局限性。
评估了 6 项试验(COMPARZ、CheckMate 214、JAVELIN renal 101、KeyNote 426、CLEAR 和 CheckMate 9ER)。所有试验的对照组均为标准治疗药物舒尼替尼。ASCO VF 的净健康获益,计算为临床获益、毒性和其他加分,帕唑帕尼为 11,纳武利尤单抗联合伊匹单抗为 41.9,阿昔替尼联合avelumab 为 22.4,阿昔替尼联合 pembrolizumab 为 48.7,仑伐替尼联合 pembrolizumab 为 35.2,卡博替尼联合纳武利尤单抗为 50.8。分数越高意味着治疗获益越大。ESMO-MCBS 对纳武利尤单抗联合伊匹单抗给予 5 级评分,对帕唑帕尼、仑伐替尼联合 pembrolizumab 和卡博替尼联合纳武利尤单抗给予 4 级评分,对阿昔替尼联合avelumab 或 pembrolizumab 给予 3 级评分。这两种工具在应用于临床实践时都有不明确的方面,应该更明确地定义,例如确定生存获益的终点,或如何标准化生活质量和毒性。
ASCO VF 和 ESMO-MCBS 用于评估 RCC 中新兴药物,并评估其价值。需要各领域专家进行深入讨论,以便在实际环境中进行适当的临床应用。