Evaluation of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Submitted for Reimbursement Recommendation Decisions in Canada | Oncology | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Saluja  R, Arciero  VS, Cheng  S,  et al.  Examining trends in cost and clinical benefit of novel anticancer drugs over time.   J Oncol Pract. 2018;14(5):e280-e294. doi:10.1200/JOP.17.00058 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science. Global oncology trends 2019: therapeutics, clinical development and health system implications. May 2019. Accessed July 25, 2020. https://www.iqvia.com/insights/the-iqvia-institute/reports/global-oncology-trends-2019
Fojo  T, Mailankody  S, Lo  A.  Unintended consequences of expensive cancer therapeutics—the pursuit of marginal indications and a me-too mentality that stifles innovation and creativity: the John Conley Lecture.   JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;140(12):1225-1236. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2014.1570 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kumar  H, Fojo  T, Mailankody  S.  An appraisal of clinically meaningful outcomes guidelines for oncology clinical trials.   JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(9):1238-1240. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.0931 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kim  C, Prasad  V.  Cancer drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate end point and subsequent overall survival: an analysis of 5 years of US Food and Drug Administration approvals.   JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(12):1992-1994. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5868 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Davis  C, Naci  H, Gurpinar  E, Poplavska  E, Pinto  A, Aggarwal  A.  Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13.   BMJ. 2017;359:j4530. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4530 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Chen  EY, Haslam  A, Prasad  V.  FDA acceptance of surrogate end points for cancer drug approval: 1992-2019.   JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(6):912-914. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1097 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Haslam  A, Hey  SP, Gill  J, Prasad  V.  A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses measuring the strength of association between surrogate end-points and overall survival in oncology.   Eur J Cancer. 2019;106:196-211. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2018.11.012 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Hwang  TJ, Gyawali  B.  Association between progression-free survival and patients’ quality of life in cancer clinical trials.   Int J Cancer. 2019;144(7):1746-1751. doi:10.1002/ijc.31957 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Booth  CM, Eisenhauer  EA.  Progression-free survival: meaningful or simply measurable?   J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(10):1030-1033. doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.38.7571 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Ellis  LM, Bernstein  DS, Voest  EE,  et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology perspective: raising the bar for clinical trials by defining clinically meaningful outcomes.   J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(12):1277-1280. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.53.8009 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Darrow  JJ, Avorn  J, Kesselheim  AS.  FDA approval and regulation of pharmaceuticals, 1983-2018.   JAMA. 2020;323(2):164-176. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.20288 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Procedures for the CADTH Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. April 2020. Accessed June 10, 2020. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/pCODR%27s%20Drug%20Review%20Process/pcodr-procedures.pdf
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Reimbursement review reports. Accessed July 25, 2020. https://www.cadth.ca/reimbursement-review-reports
European Society for Medical Oncology. ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale: evaluation forms version 1.1. Accessed May 5, 2020. https://www.esmo.org/guidelines/esmo-mcbs/scale-evaluation-forms-v1.0-v1.1/scale-evaluation-forms-v1.1
Cherny  NI, Dafni  U, Bogaerts  J,  et al.  ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1.   Ann Oncol. 2017;28(10):2340-2366. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx310 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
European Society for Medical Oncology. ESMO-MCBS scorecards. Accessed September 23, 2020. https://www.esmo.org/guidelines/esmo-mcbs/esmo-magnitude-of-clinical-benefit-scale
Pesarin  F, Salmaso  L.  Permutation Tests for Complex Data: Theory, Applications and Software. John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2010. doi:10.1002/9780470689516
Gyawali  B, Sharma  S, Booth  CM.  Is the number of cancer drug approvals a surrogate for regulatory success?   J Cancer Policy. 2019;22:100202. doi:10.1016/j.jcpo.2019.100202Google Scholar
Mailankody  S, Prasad  V.  Five years of cancer drug approvals: innovation, efficacy, and costs.   JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(4):539-540. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.0373 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Tibau  A, Molto  C, Ocaña  A,  et al.  Magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(5):486-492. doi:10.1093/jnci/djx232 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Tibau  A, Molto  C, Borrell  M,  et al.  Magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration based on single-arm trials.   JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(11):1610-1611. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.4300 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Niraula  S, Nugent  Z.  New cancer drug approvals from the perspective of a universal healthcare system: analyses of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review recommendations.   J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018;16(12):1460-1466. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2018.7084 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
European Society for Medical Oncology. ESMO-MCBS and the World Health Organisation (WHO) model list of essential medicines. Accessed September 10, 2020. https://www.esmo.org/guidelines/esmo-mcbs/esmo-mcbs-and-the-who
Kemp  R, Prasad  V.  Surrogate endpoints in oncology: when are they acceptable for regulatory and clinical decisions, and are they currently overused?   BMC Med. 2017;15(1):134-137. doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0902-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kovic  B, Jin  X, Kennedy  SA,  et al.  Evaluating progression-free survival as a surrogate outcome for health-related quality of life in oncology: a systematic review and quantitative analysis.   JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(12):1586-1596. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4710 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Raymakers  AJN, Regier  DA, Peacock  SJ.  Health-related quality of life in oncology drug reimbursement submissions in Canada: a review of submissions to the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review.   Cancer. 2020;126(1):148-155. doi:10.1002/cncr.32455 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Masucci  L, Beca  J, Sabharwal  M, Hoch  JS.  Methodological issues in economic evaluations submitted to the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR).   Pharmacoecon Open. 2017;1(4):255-263. doi:10.1007/s41669-017-0018-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Skedgel  C, Wranik  D, Hu  M.  The relative importance of clinical, economic, patient values and feasibility criteria in cancer drug reimbursement in Canada: a revealed preferences analysis of recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011-2017.   Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(4):467-475. doi:10.1007/s40273-018-0610-0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Lexchin  J.  Association between commercial funding of Canadian patient groups and their views about funding of medicines: an observational study.   PLoS ONE. 2019;14(2):e0212399. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0212399 PubMedGoogle Scholar
Lexchin  J.  Financial conflicts of interest of clinicians making submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review: a descriptive study.   BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):e030750. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030750 PubMedGoogle Scholar
Naci  H, Davis  C, Savović  J,  et al.  Design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting of randomised controlled trials supporting approvals of cancer drugs by European Medicines Agency, 2014-16: cross sectional analysis.   BMJ. 2019;366:l5221. doi:10.1136/bmj.l5221 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Hilal  T, Gonzalez-Velez  M, Prasad  V.  Limitations in clinical trials leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration.   JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(8):1108-1115. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2250 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Views 2,016
    Citations 0
    Original Investigation
    February 22, 2021

    Evaluation of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Submitted for Reimbursement Recommendation Decisions in Canada

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    • 2School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
    • 3Leeds, Greenville and Lanark District Health Unit, Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    • 4Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    • 5Department of Oncology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    • 6Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(4):499-508. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.8588
    Key Points

    Question  What are the differences in the clinical evidence and benefit between cancer drugs that received a positive vs those that received a negative reimbursement recommendation from the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR)?

    Findings  In this cohort study of 104 reimbursement recommendation decisions, 78 received a positive recommendation from the pCODR. Of these, 72 were based on phase 3 randomized clinical trials and 39 had proven overall survival benefit with median gains of 3.7 months.

    Meaning  Results of this study found that only half of the pCODR-recommended cancer drugs showed improved survival, and the survival gains were usually modest; these findings suggest that, despite the pCODR framework, cancer drugs without meaningful patient benefit continue to be reimbursed in the Canadian market.


    Importance  Cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration have come under scrutiny for marginal clinical benefits; however, the clinical benefits of cancer drugs recommended for reimbursement in Canada have not been adequately studied.

    Objective  To assess the differences in the clinical evidence and benefit of cancer drugs that received a positive vs a negative recommendation for provincial reimbursement in Canada.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This cohort study obtained publicly available regulatory documents from the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) and corresponding clinical trial documentation. All cancer drugs with a solid tumor indication that were submitted from the inception of the pCODR (July 2011) to February 2020 were evaluated. To be included, submissions had to have a final reimbursement recommendation; submissions that were incomplete, were withdrawn, or had a pending decision were excluded.

    Exposures  A completed reimbursement recommendation decision from the pCODR.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Final reimbursement recommendation (positive vs negative); trial characteristics; and relevant clinical outcomes (ie, overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS]), including the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores available at the time of pCODR assessment.

    Results  Between 2011 and 2020, the pCODR issued 104 reimbursement recommendation decisions for cancer drugs with a solid tumor indication. Among these drug submissions, 78 (75.0%) received a positive recommendation, of which 72 (92.3%) were conditional. Drugs that received a positive recommendation compared with those with a negative recommendation were more likely to have phase 3 randomized clinical trial design (92.3% [72 of 78] vs 53.8% [14 of 26]; P < .001) and have substantial benefit according to the ESMO-MCBS scores (61.5% [48 of 78] vs 19.2% [5 of 26]; P < .001). The most common primary end points associated with the successful submissions were PFS (53.9%) and OS (32.1%). Overall, 39 of 78 submissions (50.0%) that received a positive recommendation had shown OS benefit, with median (interquartile range) OS gains of 3.7 (2.7-6.5) months.

    Conclusions and Relevance  This cohort study found that, although the pCODR takes into account the magnitude of clinical benefit, only half of the cancer drugs that received a positive recommendation had evidence of improved OS and the survival gains were usually modest. These results suggest that, although the pCODR helps filter out some cancer drugs with low quality of evidence and low magnitude of benefit, cancer drugs without meaningful patient benefit continue to enter the Canadian market; these findings are important for making reimbursement policy decisions globally.