6624 Background: Although the development of CIs has led to a dramatic change in the oncology landscape, these agents are associated with significant costs and toxicity. ASCO and ESMO have developed separate frameworks to define the value of emerging cancer treatments in order to encourage cost-effective therapies. We apply these frameworks to trials supporting FDA approvals of CIs and explore the correlation between these two scoring systems. Methods: We searched the FDA database for CIs and indications approved between January 1, 2011 and January 1, 2019. Only randomized phase II/III trials for solid tumors were included. Data on survival, toxicity and quality of life were extracted from the most recent publications by two reviewers independently. A trial showing a substantial benefit was defined as an ASCO score of ≥ 45, or ESMO Grade 4-5 (palliative setting) or Grade A/B (curative setting). Concordance for substantial benefit was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa while Spearman coefficients were used to determine the degree of correlation in individual scores. Results: We identified 40 FDA indications for 7 CIs. Of these, 18 indications based on Phase I/II single-arm trials were excluded. The remaining 22 indications were based on 21 randomized phase II/III trials (3 adjuvant, 18 metastatic). In the palliative setting, 73% and 86% trials showed substantial benefit based on ASCO and ESMO frameworks respectively [median ASCO score: 54.8, interquartile range (IQR) 46.2-64.0; median ESMO score: 5, IQR: 4-5]. 27% of trials were scored intermediate or low benefit by ASCO, while 9% were ineligible for ESMO scoring. Weighted kappa was 0.719 between the two frameworks. Spearman rho was 0.84. All 3 adjuvant trials were assigned ESMO grade A but low benefit with ASCO (median 37.7, IQR 20.5-40.9). Conclusions: In the palliative setting, the majority of trials supporting FDA approved CI indications demonstrated substantial benefit using both ASCO and ESMO frameworks. There was a strong correlation between the two frameworks. However, in the curative setting scores were discordant. The ASCO framework may require further refinement for adjuvant trials.
Is Short-Term Palliative Care Cost-Effective in Multiple Sclerosis? A Randomized Phase II Trial
