Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network最新文献

Background: The breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) facilitates the development of drugs with a large preliminary benefit in treating serious or life-threatening diseases. This study analyzes the FDA approval, trials, benefits, unmet needs, and pricing of breakthrough and nonbreakthrough therapy cancer drugs and indications.

Patients and methods: We analyzed 355 cancer indications with FDA approval (2012-2022). Breakthrough and nonbreakthrough indications were compared regarding their FDA approval, innovativeness, clinical trials, epidemiology, and price. Data were extracted from FDA labels, the Global Burden of Disease study, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and relative risk (RR) of tumor response were meta-analyzed across randomized controlled trials. Objective response rates (ORRs) were meta-analyzed for single-arm trials.

Results: We identified 137 breakthrough and 218 nonbreakthrough cancer indications. The median clinical development time was 3.2 years shorter for breakthrough drugs than for nonbreakthrough drugs (5.6 vs 8.8 years; P=.002). The BTD was more frequently granted to biomarker-directed indications (46% vs 34%; P=.025) supported by smaller trials (median, 149 vs 326 patients; P<.001) of single-arm (53% vs 27%; P<.001) and phase I or II design (61% vs 31%; P<.001). Breakthrough indications offered a greater OS (HR, 0.69 vs 0.74; P=.031) and tumor response (RR, 1.48 vs 1.32; P=.006; ORR, 52% vs 40%; P=.004), but not a PFS benefit (HR, 0.53 vs 0.58; P=.212). Median improvements in OS (4.8 vs 3.2 months; P=.002) and PFS (5.4 vs 3.3 months; P=.005) but not duration of response (8.7 vs 4.7 months; P=.245) were higher for breakthrough than for nonbreakthrough indications. The BTD was more frequently granted to first-in-class drugs (42% vs 28%; P=.001) and first-in-indication treatments (43% vs 29%; P<.001). There were no differences in treatment and epidemiologic characteristics between breakthrough and nonbreakthrough drugs. Breakthrough drugs were more expensive than nonbreakthrough drugs (mean monthly price, $38,971 vs $22,591; P=.0592).

Conclusions: The BTD expedites patient access to effective and innovative, but also expensive, new cancer drugs and indications.

Background: The health care industry spends more on lobbying than any other industry, with more than $700 million spent in 2022. However, health care lobbying related to cancer has not been characterized. In this study, we sought to describe overall health sector lobbying spending and oncology-related lobbying spending across patient and clinician organizations.

Methods: We obtained lobbying data from OpenSecrets.org and the Federal Election Commission. Overall health sector lobbying spending was categorized by OpenSecrets into 4 groups: pharmaceuticals/health products, health services/health maintenance organizations (HMOs), hospitals/nursing homes, and health professionals. We then identified and categorized 4 oncology-related lobbying groups: oncology physician professional organizations (OPPOs), prospective payment system (PPS)-exempt cancer hospitals, patient advocacy organizations, and provider networks (eg, US Oncology Network). We described temporal trends in lobbying spending from 2014 to 2022, in both overall dollar value (inflation-adjusted 2023 dollars) and in per-physician spending (using American Association of Medical Colleges [AAMC] data for number of hematologists/oncologists) using a Mann-Kendall trend test.

Results: Among the overall health sector lobbying, pharmaceuticals/health products had the greatest increase in lobbying spending, with an increase from $294 million in 2014 to >$376 million in 2022 (P=.0006). In contrast, lobbying spending by health professionals did not change, remaining at $96 million (P=.35). Regarding oncology-related lobbying, OPPOs and PPS-exempt cancer hospitals had a significant increase of 170% (P=.016) and 62% (P=.009), respectively. Per-physician spending also demonstrated an increase from $60 to $134 for OPPOs and from $168 to $226 for PPS-exempt cancer hospitals. Overall, OPPO lobbying increased as a percentage of overall physician lobbying from 1.16% in 2014 to 3.76% in 2022.

Conclusions: Although overall health sector lobbying has increased, physician/health professional lobbying has remained relatively stable in recent years, spending for lobbying by OPPOs has increased. Continued efforts to understand the utility and value of lobbying in health care and across oncology are needed as the costs of care continue to increase.

Background: Racial disparities in lung cancer screening (LCS) are well established. Black Veterans are among those at the highest risk for developing lung cancer but are less likely to complete LCS. We sought to identify barriers and facilitators to LCS uptake among Black Veterans.

Patients and methods: A qualitative study using semistructured interviews was conducted with 32 Black Veterans to assess for barriers, facilitators, and contextual factors for LCS and strategies to improve screening. Veterans were purposively sampled by age, sex, and LCS participation status (ie, patients who received a low-dose CT [LDCT], patients who contacted the screening program but did not receive an LDCT, and patients who did not connect with the screening program nor receive an LDCT). Interview guides were developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework and Health Belief Model. Data were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis.

Results: Barriers of LCS uptake among Black Veterans include self-reported low LCS knowledge and poor memory, attention, and decision processes associated with the centralized LCS process. Facilitators of LCS uptake among Black Veterans include social/professional role; identity and social influences; perceived susceptibility, threat, and consequences due to smoking status and military or occupational exposures; emotion, behavioral regulation, and intentions; and high trust in providers. Environmental context and resources (eg, transportation) and race and racism serve as contextual factors that did not emerge as having a major impact on LCS uptake. Strategies to improve LCS uptake included increased social messaging surrounding LCS, various forms of information dissemination, LCS reminders, balanced and repeated shared decision-making discussions, and streamlined referrals.

Conclusions: We identified addressable barriers and facilitators for LCS uptake among Black Veterans that can help focus efforts to improve disparities in screening. Future studies should explore provider perspectives and test interventions to improve equity in LCS.

Background: Germline genetic testing is a vital component of guideline-recommended cancer care for males with pancreatic, breast, or metastatic prostate cancers. We sought to determine whether there were racial disparities in germline genetic testing completion in this population.

Patients and methods: This retrospective cohort study included non-Hispanic White and Black males with incident pancreatic, breast, or metastatic prostate cancers between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021. Two nationwide cohorts were examined: (1) commercially insured individuals in an administrative claims database, and (2) Veterans receiving care in the Veterans Health Administration. One-year germline genetic testing rates were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to test the association between race and genetic testing completion. Causal mediation analyses were performed to investigate whether socioeconomic variables contributed to associations between race and germline testing.

Results: Our cohort consisted of 7,894 males (5,142 commercially insured; 2,752 Veterans). One-year testing rates were 18.0% (95% CI, 16.8%-19.2%) in commercially insured individuals and 14.2% (95% CI, 11.5%-15.0%) in Veterans. Black race was associated with a lower hazard of testing among commercially insured individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.91; P=.005) but not among Veterans (aHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.75-1.32; P=.960). In commercially insured individuals, income (aHR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96) and net worth (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98) mediated racial disparities, whereas education (aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94-1.01) did not.

Conclusions: Overall rates of guideline-recommended genetic testing are low in males with pancreatic, breast, or metastatic prostate cancers. Racial disparities in genetic testing among males exist in a commercially insured population, mediated by net worth and household income; these disparities are not seen in the equal-access Veterans Health Administration. Alleviating financial and access barriers may mitigate racial disparities in genetic testing.