Per-patient OA costs are considerable and a patient's quality of life remains poor. Variations in costing methods are a barrier to understanding the true differences in the costs of OA between studies. Standardizing healthcare resource items, the definition of OA-relevant costs, and productivity loss measures would facilitate the comparison.

IMPORTANCE Progression-free survival (PFS) has become a commonly used outcome to assess the efficacy of new cancer drugs. However, it is not clear if delay in progression leads to improved quality of life with or without overall survival benefit. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association between PFS and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in oncology through a systematic review and quantitative analysis of published randomized clinical trials. Eligible trials addressed oral, intravenous, intraperitoneal, or intrapleural chemotherapy or biological treatments, and reported PFS or health-related quality of life. DATA SOURCES For this systematic review and quantitative analysis of randomized clinical trials of patients with cancer, we searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 2000, through May 4, 2016. STUDY SELECTION Paired reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS We examined the association of difference in median PFS duration (in months) between treatment groups with difference in global, physical, and emotional HRQoL scores between groups (standardized to a range of 0-100, with higher scores representing better HRQoL) using weighted simple regressions. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE The association between PFS duration and HRQoL. RESULTS Of 35 960 records screened, 52 articles reporting on 38 randomized clinical trials involving 13 979 patients across 12 cancer types using 6 different HRQoL instruments were included. The mean (SD) difference in median PFS between the intervention and the control arms was 1.91 (3.35) months. The mean (SD) differences in change of HRQoL adjusted to per-month values were −0.39 (3.59) for the global domain, 0.26 (5.56) for the physical domain, and 1.08 (3.49) for the emotional domain. The slope of the association between the difference in median PFS and the difference in change for global HRQoL (n = 30 trials) was 0.12 (95% CI, −0.27 to 0.52); for physical HRQoL (n = 20 trials) it was −0.20 (95% CI, −0.62 to 0.23); and for emotional HRQoL (n = 13 trials) it was 0.78 (95% CI, −0.05 to 1.60). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE We failed to find a significant association between PFS and HRQoL in cancer clinical trials. These findings raise questions regarding the assumption that interventions prolonging PFS also improve HRQoL in patients with cancer. Therefore, to ensure that patients are truly obtaining important benefit from cancer therapies, clinical trial investigators should measure HRQoL directly and accurately, ensuring adequate duration and follow-up.

Bevacizumab has only limited effectiveness and is therefore not likely to be cost effective in treating adult patients with newly diagnosed GBM.

IntroductionThere is an increasing number of new oncology drugs being studied, approved and put into clinical practice based on improvement in progression-free survival, when no overall survival benefits exist. In oncology, the association between progression-free survival and health-related quality of life is currently unknown, despite its importance for patients with cancer, and the unverified assumption that longer progression-free survival indicates improved health-related quality of life. Thus far, only 1 study has investigated this association, providing insufficient evidence and inconclusive results. The objective of this study protocol is to provide increased transparency in supporting a systematic summary of the evidence bearing on this association in oncology.Methods and analysisUsing the OVID platform in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases, we will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled human trials addressing oncology issues published starting in 2000. A team of reviewers will, in pairs, independently screen and abstract data using standardised, pilot-tested forms. We will employ numerical integration to calculate mean incremental area under the curve between treatment groups in studies for health-related quality of life, along with total related error estimates, and a 95% CI around incremental area. To describe the progression-free survival to health-related quality of life association, we will construct a scatterplot for incremental health-related quality of life versus incremental progression-free survival. To estimate the association, we will use a weighted simple regression approach, comparing mean incremental health-related quality of life with either median incremental progression-free survival time or the progression-free survival HR, in the absence of overall survival benefit.DiscussionIdentifying direction and magnitude of association between progression-free survival and health-related quality of life is critically important in interpreting results of oncology trials. Systematic evidence produced from our study will contribute to improvement of patient care and practice of evidence-based medicine in oncology.

Purpose PI3K/AKT pathway alterations are frequent in hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancers. IPATunity130 Cohort B investigated ipatasertib–paclitaxel in PI3K pathway-mutant HR+ unresectable locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer (aBC). Methods Cohort B of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 IPATunity130 trial enrolled patients with HR+ HER2-negative PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered measurable aBC who were considered inappropriate for endocrine-based therapy (demonstrated insensitivity to endocrine therapy or visceral crisis) and were candidates for taxane monotherapy. Patients with prior chemotherapy for aBC or relapse < 1 year since (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy were ineligible. Patients were randomized 2:1 to ipatasertib (400 mg, days 1–21) or placebo, plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15), every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results Overall, 146 patients were randomized to ipatasertib–paclitaxel and 76 to placebo–paclitaxel. In both arms, median investigator-assessed PFS was 9.3 months (hazard ratio, 1.00, 95% CI 0.71–1.40) and the objective response rate was 47%. Median paclitaxel duration was 6.9 versus 8.8 months in the ipatasertib–paclitaxel versus placebo–paclitaxel arms, respectively; median ipatasertib/placebo duration was 8.0 versus 9.1 months, respectively. The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were diarrhea (12% with ipatasertib–paclitaxel vs 1% with placebo–paclitaxel), neutrophil count decreased (9% vs 7%), neutropenia (8% vs 9%), peripheral neuropathy (7% vs 3%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (3% vs 5%) and hypertension (1% vs 5%). Conclusion Adding ipatasertib to paclitaxel did not improve efficacy in PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered HR+ HER2-negative aBC. The ipatasertib–paclitaxel safety profile was consistent with each agent’s known adverse effects. Trial registration NCT03337724.

Idasanutlin, an MDM2 antagonist, showed clinical activity and rapid reduction in JAK2 V617F allele burden in patients with polycythemia vera (PV) in a phase 1 study. This open-label, phase 2 study evaluated idasanutlin in patients with hydroxyurea (HU)-resistant/intolerant PV, per the European LeukemiaNet criteria, and phlebotomy dependence; prior ruxolitinib exposure was permitted. Idasanutlin was administered once daily, days 1-5 of each 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was composite response (hematocrit control and spleen volume reduction &gt;35%) in patients with splenomegaly, and hematocrit control in patients without splenomegaly at week 32. Key secondary endpoints included safety, complete hematologic response (CHR), patient-reported outcomes, and molecular responses. All patients (n=27) received idasanutlin; 16 had response assessment (week 32). Among responders with baseline splenomegaly (n=13), 9 (69%) attained any spleen volume reduction and 1 achieved composite response. Nine patients (56%) achieved hematocrit control, and 8 patients (50%) achieved CHR. Overall, 43% of evaluable patients (n=6/14) showed a ≥50% reduction in the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score (week 32). Nausea (93%), diarrhea (78%), and vomiting (41%) were the most common adverse events, with grade ≥3 nausea and vomiting experienced in 3 patients (11%) and 1 patient (4%), respectively. Reduced JAK2 V617F allele burden occurred early (after 3 cycles), with a median reduction of 76%, and associated with achieving CHR and hematocrit control. Overall, the idasanutlin dosing regimen showed clinical activity and rapidly reduced JAK2 allele burden in patients with HU-resistant/intolerant PV but was associated with low-grade gastrointestinal toxicity, leading to poor long-term tolerability. Registration: NCT03287245.

No abstract

Background PV is a clonal myeloid neoplasm characterized by activating mutations in JAK2 and increased red blood cell production. Reduction of thrombosis risk through lowering of hematocrit (Hct) and thus blood viscosity is critical, but management of constitutional symptoms is also important. HU is an effective and well-tolerated first-line treatment (tx) for PV, but pts who develop resistance to or intolerance of HU have limited tx options. A Phase I study of idasanutlin, an MDM2 antagonist leading to increased p53 activity, showed encouraging efficacy and potential disease-modifying effects via rapid reduction in JAK2 V617F variant allele frequency in 11 pts with PV. These results prompted the larger, international Phase II study of idasanutlin in HU-resistant/intolerant PV (NCT03287245); data from the initial phase of the study are reported here. Methods Pts meeting the 2016 WHO criteria for PV were eligible for inclusion if they had HU-resistant/intolerant disease according to the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria and were phlebotomy dependent (≥ 1 phlebotomy in the 16-wk period prior to screening). Prior PV tx with ruxolitinib (rux) or interferon was allowed. Idasanutlin was given orally once daily on days 1-5 of 28-day cycles for up to 24 mo. The starting dose was 150 mg; increase to 200 mg was allowed for non-responders at cycle 3, day 28, and reduction to 100 mg was permitted for toxicity and for pts treated beyond cycle 12. Antiemetic prophylaxis was mandatory in cycle 1 throughout the study and later became mandatory in all cycles. The primary endpoint (wk 32) was the composite response of Hct control (HTC) and spleen volume reduction &gt; 35% by CT/MRI in pts with splenomegaly (&gt; 450 cm3) and HTC alone in pts without splenomegaly. Key secondary endpoints included safety, complete hematologic response (CHR; defined as HTC and normalization of platelets/leukocytes) and ELN response. Results A total of 27 pts were included in this study and received tx with idasanutlin. Median age was 56 years (range, 34-74) and 16 pts (59.3%) were male (Table 1). All pts had JAK2 V617F mutation; 7 had previous exposure to rux. Median tx duration was 257 days (range, 5-677); the median number of treatment cycles was 8 (range, 1-23). Dose modifications occurred in 17 pts (63.0%; Table 2). A total of 3 serious AEs occurred: atrial flutter, atrial fibrillation and nausea/vomiting (n = 1 each). The serious cardiac AEs occurred in pts with pre-existing hypertension and a past incident of heart failure not symptomatic upon enrollment, respectively. No deaths, transformation to acute myeloid leukemia, progression to myelofibrosis or thrombotic events occurred during the study. AEs occurring in ≥ 15% of pts are listed in Table 3; gastrointestinal toxicity and fatigue were the most common events. The population for primary endpoint evaluation consisted of pts with response assessed at wk 32 (n = 16). One of 13 pts with baseline splenomegaly achieved a composite response (7.7%; Table 4). Nine of 16 pts (56.3%) among all evaluable pts achieved HTC: 6 of 11 rux-naive pts (54.5%) and 3 of 5 rux-exposed pts (60.0%). Eight of 13 pts (61.5%) among all pts had HTC duration ≥ 12 wk beyond wk 32: 5 of 9 rux-naive pts (55.6%) and 3 of 4 rux-exposed pts (75.0%). At wk 32, 8 of 16 pts (50.0%) achieved a CHR, with 6 of 13 (46.2%) having a CHR duration ≥ 12 wk beyond wk 32. Overall response rates per modified ELN response criteria in pts with baseline splenomegaly, pts without baseline splenomegaly and in all pts were 69.2% (9 of 13), 66.7% (2 of 3) and 68.8% (11 of 16), respectively; 9 of 15 pts (60%) among all pts had a response duration ≥ 12 wk beyond wk 32. Median (range) laboratory value changes at wk 32 were: platelets, −253 × 109/L (−2083 to +175) and leukocytes, −4.8 × 109/L (−25.3 to +3.4). At wk 32, 6 of 14 pts (42.9%) had a ≥ 50% reduction in the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score. Conclusions Idasanutlin showed relevant clinical activity in pts with HU-resistant/intolerant PV and also in a subset of pts with prior rux tx. However, the low-grade gastrointestinal toxicity profile of idasanutlin was not effectively mitigated with antiemetic prophylaxis and led to frequent discontinuations. These results iterate the importance of tolerability of novel therapies administered over the long term for pts with PV. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Celgene, Prelude, Galecto, Promedior, Geron, Constellation, and Incyte: Consultancy; Incyte, Kartos, Roche, Promedior, Merck, Merus, Arog, CTI Biopharma, Janssen, and PharmaEssentia: Other: Research funding (institution). Higgins:Roche: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Anders:Roche: Current Employment, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Burbury:Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. El-Galaly:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Gerds:Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; AstraZeneca/MedImmune: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gupta:Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol MyersSquibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kovic:Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Maffioli:Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Mesa:AbbVie: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; LaJolla Pharmaceutical Company: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding. Rambaldi:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Received travel support., Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Advisory board and speaker fees from Pfizer.; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); University of Milan: Current Employment; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support from Gilead.; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Omeros: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Astellas: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Research grant from Amgen Inc.. Vannucchi:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Blueprint: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Yacoub:Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support; Dynavax: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Current equity holder in private company; Cara Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.