Comparative and combined effectiveness of innovative therapies in cancer: a literature review
Abstract
To achieve therapeutic innovation in oncology, already expensive novel medicines are often concomitantly combined to potentially enhance effectiveness. While this aggravates the pricing problem, comparing effectiveness of novel yet expensive (concomitant) treatments is much needed for healthcare decision-making to deliver effective but affordable treatments. This study reviewed published clinical trials and real-world studies of targeted and immune therapies. In total, 48 studies compared and/or combined multiple novel products on breast, colorectal, lung and melanoma cancers. To a great extent, products evaluated in each study were owned by one manufacturer. However, cross-manufacturer assessments are also needed. Next to costs and intensive market competition, the absence of a regulatory framework enforcing real-world multiproduct studies prevents these from being conducted. Trusted third parties could facilitate such real-world studies, for which appropriate and efficient data access is needed.
Supplementary Material
File (appendix.docx)
- Download
- 65.13 KB
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
De Bono JS, Ashworth A. Translating cancer research into targeted therapeutics. Nature 467(7315), 543 (2010).
• Paper regarding a new era of innovative medicines in oncology: targeted therapy.
2.
Khalil DN, Smith EL, Brentjens RJ, Wolchok JD. The future of cancer treatment: immunomodulation, CARs and combination immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 13, 273–290 (2016).
• Paper regarding a new era of innovative medicines in oncology: immune therapy.
3.
Aronson JK, Ferner RE, Hughes DA. Defining rewardable innovation in drug therapy. Nat. Rev. Drug Disc. 11(4), 253–254 (2012).
4.
DeVita VT Jr, Young RC, Canellos GP. Combination versus single agent chemotherapy: a review of the basis for selection of drug treatment of cancer. Cancer 35(1), 98–110 (1975).
5.
Chabner BA, Roberts TG Jr. Timeline: chemotherapy and the war on cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 5(1), 65–72 (2005).
6.
Swain SM, Baselga J, Kim SB et al. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 372(8), 724–734 (2015).
• Well-known example of a study on improved therapeutic benefits when combining targeted therapies.
7.
Durkee BY, Qian Y, Pollom EL et al. Cost-effectiveness of pertuzumab in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive metastatic breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(9), 902–909 (2016).
8.
Dakin H, Gray A. Decision-making for healthcare resource allocation: joint v. separate decisions on interacting interventions. Med. Decis. Mak. 38(4), 476–486 (2018).
•• Demonstrates the importance of making separate decisions for combinatory treatments.
9.
Kelly RJ, Smith TJ. Delivering maximum clinical benefit at an affordable price: engaging stakeholders in cancer care. Lancet Oncol. 15, e112–e118 (2014).
10.
Hill A, Redd C, Gotham D et al. Estimated generic prices of cancer medicines deemed cost-ineffective in England: a cost estimation analysis. BMJ Open 7, e011965 (2017).
11.
DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J. Health Econ. 22(2), 151–185 (2003).
• Study on the high costs of innovative medicinal products.
12.
Sleijfer S, Verweij J. Health policy: affordability of drugs used in oncology health care. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 13(6), 331–332 (2016).
13.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J. Clin. 68(1), 7–30 (2018).
14.
Gelmon KA, Boyle FM, Kaufman B et al. Lapatinib or trastuzumab plus taxane therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced breast cancer: final results of NCIC CTG MA.31. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(14), 1574–1583 (2015).
15.
Piccart-Gebhart M, Holmes E, Baselga J et al. Adjuvant lapatinib and trastuzumab for early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: results from the randomized Phase III adjuvant lapatinib and/or trastuzumab treatment optimization trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(10), 1034–1042 (2016).
16.
Verma S, Miles D, Gianni L et al. Trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 367(19), 1783–1791 (2012).
17.
Dieras V, Miles D, Verma S et al. Trastuzumab emtansine versus capecitabine plus lapatinib in patients with previously treated HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (EMILIA): a descriptive analysis of final overall survival results from a randomised, open-label, Phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 18(6), 732–742 (2017).
18.
Von Minckwitz G, Procter M, de Azambuja E et al. Adjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in early HER2-positive breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 377(2), 122–131 (2017).
19.
Blackwell KL, Burstein HJ, Storniolo AM. Overall survival benefit with lapatinib in combination with trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: final results from the EGF104900 study. J. Clin. Oncol. 30(21), 2585–2592 (2012).
20.
Gianni L, Romieu GH, Lichinitser M et al. AVEREL: a randomized Phase III trial evaluating bevacizumab in combination with docetaxel and trastuzumab as first-line therapy for HER2-positive locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 31(14), 1719–1725 (2013).
21.
Iwata H, Im S-A, Masuda N et al. PALOMA-3: Phase III trial of fulvestrant with or without palbociclib in premenopausal and postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer that progressed on prior endocrine therapy—safety and efficacy in Asian patients. J. Global Oncol. 3(4), 289–303 (2017).
22.
Sledge GW, Toi M, Neven P et al. MONARCH 2: abemaciclib in combination with fulvestrant in women with HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer who had progressed while receiving endocrine therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 35(25), 2875–2884 (2017).
23.
Gamucci T, Mentuccia L, Sperduti I et al. Efficacy of pertuzumab in combination with trastuzumab and a taxane in first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC): a multicenter, retrospective, observational study. J. Clin. Oncol. 35(15 Suppl), e12504 (2017).
24.
De Placido S, Giuliano M, Schettini F et al. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 dual blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in real life: Italian clinical practice versus the CLEOPATRA trial results. Breast 38, 86–91 (2018).
25.
Robert NJ, Goertz H-P, Chopra P et al. HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients receiving pertuzumab in a community oncology practice setting: treatment patterns and outcomes. Drugs Real World Outcomes 4(1), 1–7 (2017).
26.
Ricciardi G, Ficorella C, Iezzi et al. Efficacy and safety of the combination of pertuzumab (P) plus trastuzumab (T) plus docetaxel (D) for HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in pretreated patients (pts) with trastuzumab in the neo/adjuvant setting: a real-life study. J. Clin. Oncol. 35(15 Suppl.), e12516 (2017).
27.
Tiwari SR, Mishra P, Raska P et al. Retrospective study of the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab/pertuzumab (TCH-P) in nonmetastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 158(1), 189–193 (2016).
28.
Beitsch P, Whitworth P, Baron P et al. Pertuzumab/trastuzumab/CT versus trastuzumab/CT therapy for HER2+ breast cancer: results from the prospective neoadjuvant breast registry symphony trial (NBRST). Ann. Surg. Oncol. 24(9), 2539–2546 (2017).
29.
Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Nordlinger B, Arnold D. Metastatic colorectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 25(Suppl. 3, iii), 1–9 (2014).
30.
Heinemann V, von Weikersthal LF, Decker T et al. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, Phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 15(10), 1065–1075 (2014).
31.
Venook AP, Niedzwiecki D, Lenz H et al. 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. JAMA 317(23), 2392–2401 (2017).
32.
Price T, Kim TW, Li J et al. Final results and outcomes by prior bevacizumab exposure, skin toxicity, and hypomagnesaemia from ASPECCT: randomized Phase 3 non-inferiority study of panitumumab versus cetuximab in chemorefractory wild-type KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 68, 51–59 (2016).
33.
Hagman H, Frodin JE, Berglund A et al. A randomized study of KRAS-guided maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, erlotinib or metronomic capecitabine after first-line induction treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the Nordic ACT2 trial. Ann. Oncol. 27(1), 140–147 (2016).
34.
Johnsson A, Hagman H, Frodin JE et al. A randomized Phase III trial on maintenance treatment with bevacizumab alone or in combination with erlotinib after chemotherapy and bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: the Nordic ACT Trial. Ann. Oncol. 24(9), 2335–2341 (2013).
35.
Tournigand C, Chibaudel B, Samson B et al. Bevacizumab with or without erlotinib as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (GERCOR DREAM; OPTIMOX3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 16(15), 1493–1505 (2015).
36.
Hecht JR, Mitchell E, Chidiac T et al. A randomized Phase IIIB trial of chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and panitumumab compared with chemotherapy and bevacizumab alone for metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 27(5), 672–680 (2009).
37.
Van Cutsem E, Cuyle P-J, Huijberts S et al. BEACON CRC study safety lead-in (SLI) in patients with BRAFV600E metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): efficacy and tumor markers. J. Clin. Oncol. 36(4 Suppl.), 627 (2018).
38.
Tol J, Koopman M, Cats A et al. Chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 360(6), 563–572 (2010).
39.
Siu LL, Shapiro JD, Jonker DJ et al. Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study of cetuximab plus brivanib alaninate versus cetuximab plus placebo in patients with metastatic, chemotherapy-refractory, wild-type K-RAS colorectal carcinoma: the NCIC clinical trials group and AGITG CO.20 trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 31(19), 2477–2484 (2013).
40.
Bai L, Wang F, Li Z et al. Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab versus chemotherapy plus cetuximab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a registry-based cohort analysis. Medicine 95(51), e4531 (2016).
41.
Gettinger S (Ed.). Targeted therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Semin. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 29(3), 291–301 (2008).
42.
Topalian SL, Hodi FS, Brahmer JR et al. Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 366(26), 2443–2454 (2012).
43.
Lynch TJ, Bondarenko I, Luft A et al. Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line treatment in stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase II study. J. Clin. Oncol. 30(17), 2046–2054 (2012).
44.
Nie K, Zhongfa Z, Chunling Z et al. Osimertinib compared docetaxel–bevacizumab as third-line treatment in EGFR T790M mutated non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 121, 5–11 (2018).
45.
Camidge R, Kim HR, Ahn MJ et al. Brigatinib versus crizotinib in ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. (2018) (Epub ahead of print).
46.
Peters S, Cambridge RD, Shaw AT et al. Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 829–838 (2017).
47.
Soria JC, Felip E, Cobo M et al. Afatinib versus erlotinib as second-line treatment of patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung (LUX-Lung 8): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 16(8), 897–907 (2015).
48.
Yuankai S, Zhang L, Xiaoqing L et al. Icotinib versus gefitinib in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ICOGEN): a randomised, double-blind phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 14(10), 953–961 (2013).
49.
Hellmann MD, Ciuleanu TE, Pluzanski A et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in lung cancer with a high tumor mutational burden. N. Engl. J. Med. 378(22), 2093–2104 (2018).
50.
Socinski MA, Jotte RM, Cappuzzo F et al. Atezolizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. N. Engl. J. Med. 378(24), 2288–2301 (2018).
51.
Herbst RS, Ansari R, Bustin F et al. Efficacy of bevacizumab plus erlotinib versus erlotinib alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer after failure of standard first-line chemotherapy (BeTa): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 trial. Lancet 377(9780), 1846–1854 (2011).
52.
Dennehy C, Mullally W, Goggin C et al. Real world experience with pembrolizumab and nivolumab for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in an Irish regional cancer center. J. Clin. Oncol. 36(15 Suppl.), e21196 (2018).
53.
Sanoyan DA, Siebenhüner A, Delaloye R, Bankel L, Paulino TDL, Curioni A. 23P Real-life experience with nivolumab and pembrolizumab in patients(pts) with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): efficacy and safety analysis at the University Hospital Zurich. Ann. Oncol. 28(Suppl. 11), xi7 (2017).
54.
Zhang F, Huang D, Zhang Y, Wang G, Cai S, Hu Y. The efficacy and safety of PD-1 inhibitors in combination with or without chemotherapy and/or bevacizumab as second line treatment or beyond in non-small cell lung cancer: preliminary data from a real-world setting. J. Clin. Oncol. 36(15 Suppl.), e21129 (2018).
55.
Brochez L, Myny K, Bleyen L et al. The melanoma burden in Belgium: premature morbidity and mortality make melanoma a considerable health problem. Melanoma Res. 9(6), 614–618 (1999).
56.
Wolchok JD, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R et al. Overall survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 377(14), 1345–1356 (2017).
57.
Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 372(26), 2521–2532 (2015).
58.
Dummer R, Ascierto PA, Gogas HJ et al. Encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised Phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 19(5), 603–615 (2018).
59.
Robert C, Karaszewska B, Schachter J et al. Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib. N. Engl. J. Med. 372(1), 30–39 (2015).
60.
Long GV, Stroyakovskiy D, Gogas H et al. Dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib and placebo for Val600 BRAF-mutant melanoma: a multicentre, double-blind, Phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 386(9992), 444–451 (2015).
61.
Long GV, Hauschil A, Santinami M et al. Adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutated melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 377(19), 1813–1823 (2017).
62.
Ascierto PA, McArthur GA, Dréno B et al. coBRIM: a Phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of vemurafenib versus vemurafenib + cobimetinib in previously untreated BRAF(V600) mutation-positive patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic melanoma (NCT01689519). J. Transl. Med. 13(Suppl. 1), O4 (2015).
63.
Kirchberger MC, Moreira A, Erdmann M, Schuler G, Heinzerling L. Real world experience in low-dose ipilimumab in combination with PD-1 blockade in advanced melanoma patients. Oncotarget 9(48), 28903–28909 (2018).
64.
Ocvirk J, Rebersek M, Boc M, Mesti T. Patients with metastatic melanoma treated with vemurafenib as monotherapy or in combination with cobimetinib. J. Clin. Oncol. 35(15 Suppl.), e21016 (2017).
65.
Algarra SM, Soriano V, Fernandez-Morales L et al. Dabrafenib plus trametinib for compassionate use in metastatic melanoma: a STROBE-compliant retrospective observational postauthorization study. Medicine 96(52), e9523 (2017).
66.
Schaumberg DA, McDonald L, Shah S, Stokes M, Nordstrom BL, Ramagopalan SV. Evaluation of comparative effectiveness research: a practical tool. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 7(5), 503–515 (2018).
•• Review on comparative effectiveness research to critically identify high-quality studies.
67.
Kleijnen S, Lipska I, Leonardo AT et al. Relative effectiveness assessments of oncology medicines for pricing and reimbursement decisions in European countries. Ann. Oncol. 27(9), 1768–1775 (2016).
68.
Berger ML, Sox H, Willke RJ et al. Good practices for real-world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: recommendations from the joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on real-world evidence in health care decision making. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 26(9), 1033–1039 (2017).
•• Good procedural practice recommendations for real-world studies.
69.
Eichler HG, Baird LG, Barker R et al. From adaptive licensing to adaptive pathways: delivering a flexible life-span approach to bring new drugs to patients. Clin. Pharmacol. Therapeut. 97(3), 234–246 (2015).
• Explains the concept of adaptive pathways and the importance of real-world evidence.
70.
Katkade VB, Sanders KN, Zou KH. Real world data: an opportunity to supplement existing evidence for the use of long-established medicines in health care decision making. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2(11), 295–304 (2018).
71.
Es-Skali IK, Spoort J. Analysis of indirect treatment comparisons in national health technology assessment assessments and requirements for industry submissions. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 7(4), 397–409 (2018).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2019 Future Medicine Ltd.
History
Received: 22 November 2018
Accepted: 13 December 2018
Published online: 8 January 2019
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
Comparative and combined effectiveness of innovative therapies in cancer: a literature review. (2019) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2018-0131
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- Nitin Sharma, Akshita Arora, Amit Chaudhary, Anjana Sharma, Namita Aggarwal, Nanofibers for the Management of Allergic Airway Disease, Understanding Allergic Airway Diseases, 10.1007/978-981-97-1953-2_13, (231-240), (2024).
- Beynon Abrahams, Anthonie Gerber, Donavon Charles Hiss, Combination Treatment with EGFR Inhibitor and Doxorubicin Synergistically Inhibits Proliferation of MCF-7 Cells and MDA-MB-231 Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Cells In Vitro, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 10.3390/ijms25053066, 25, 5, (3066), (2024).
- Bolin Wang, Jinli Pei, Shengnan Xu, Jie Liu, Jinming Yu, Recent advances in mRNA cancer vaccines: meeting challenges and embracing opportunities, Frontiers in Immunology, 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1246682, 14, (2023).
- Martina Cirillo, Daria Giacomini, Molecular Delivery of Cytotoxic Agents via Integrin Activation, Cancers, 10.3390/cancers13020299, 13, 2, (299), (2021).