BACKGROUND: Kidney cancer exerts significant disease burden in the United States and possesses a rapidly evolving treatment landscape. The expansion of novel systemic treatment approaches and the use of immunotherapy has been accompanied by increased costs over time. However, the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has not been fully assessed. The current study presents a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of immunotherapy-based treatment in the context of RCC. METHODS: A literature search utilizing PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was undertaken to find articles related to the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy treatment in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The inclusion criteria for articles were as follows: English, published between 1983 and 2020 and evaluated cost-effectiveness in any of the currently approved immunotherapies for RCC. Exclusion criteria included being a review article, commentary or editorial, as well as possessing no specific cost-effectiveness evaluation or analysis relevant to the current review. RESULTS: The current review identified 23 studies, published between 2008 and 2020, across 9 different countries. The studies identified tended to focus on patients with locally advanced or metastatic RCC and examined the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy across various lines of treatment (first-line treatment (n = 13), second-line treatment (n = 8), and first-line and beyond (n = 2). Eight studies examined the use of interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha), with some reports supporting the cost-effectiveness of these agents and an equal number of studies demonstrating the opposite, with sunitinib often demonstrating superior cost bases. The majority, fourteen studies, included the use of novel immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab, ipilimumab, pembrolizumab), half of which found that checkpoint inhibitors were more cost-effective when compared to oral systemic therapies (sunitinib, everolimus, axitinib, pazopanib, and cabozantinib). DISCUSSION: Novel immune checkpoint inhibitors constituted the most frequently examined agents and were likely to be deemed cost-effective as compared to other treatments; although this often required higher willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds or healthcare systems that possessed more cost-constraints. These observations have clinical and health system applicability, with the ability to potentially reduce the cost of treatment for locally advanced or metastatic RCC.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the 2nd leading cause of cancer death in the United States. The American Cancer Society (ACS) Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines are associated with longer survival among CRC survivors, but few report behaviors consistent with the guidelines. METHODS: The Tools To Be Fit study, based on the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) framework, is a full factorial experimental to optimize a remotely delivered 48-week diet and physical activity intervention for non-metastatic CRC survivors. The intervention includes a core component (booklet and personal report). CRC survivors (N = 400) are additionally randomly assigned to one of 16 combinations of four candidate components, each with 2 options: 1) text messaging (on/off); 2) self-monitoring modality (digital/paper); 3) health coaching (on/off); and 4) support person coaching (on/off). OUTCOMES: Our primary outcome is adherence to the ACS guidelines after 48 weeks using a score that includes physical activity from accelerometers, dietary intake from a food frequency questionnaire, and body mass index (BMI) measured by a technician. Secondary outcomes include the ACS score after 24 weeks and score components at 24 and 48 weeks. Exploratory outcomes include adherence and change in Social Cognitive Theory constructs. We will explore moderation by sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological/behavioral factors; and change in the ACS score in relation to change in levels of insulin, insulin sensitivity, inflammation, gut microbiome structure, fatigue, depression, and sleep disturbance. DISCUSSION: The proposed study aims to inform a randomized controlled trial to determine whether an optimized intervention reduces risk of recurrence among CRC survivors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) can achieve durable responses in a subset of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC). The use of tumor genomic profiling in clinical practice may help suggest biomarkers to identify patients most likely to benefit from ICI. We undertook a retrospective analysis of patients treated with an ICI for aUC at a large academic medical center. Patient clinical and histopathological variables were collected. Responses to treatment were assessed for all patients with at least one post-baseline scan or clear evidence of clinical progression following treatment start. Genomic profiling information was also collected for patients when available. Associations between patient clinical/genomic characteristics and objective response were assessed by logistic regression; associations between the characteristics and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were examined by Cox regression. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify independent prognostic factors. We identified 119 aUC patients treated with an ICI from December 2014 to January 2020. Genomic profiling was available for 78 patients. Overall response rate to ICI was 29%, and median OS (mOS) was 13.4 months. Favorable performance status at the start of therapy was associated with improved OS (HR 0.46, p=0.025) after accounting for other covariates. Similarly, the presence of a TERT promoter mutation was an independent predictor of improved PFS (HR 0.38, p=0.012) and OS (HR 0.32, p=0.037) among patients who had genomic profiling available. Patients with both a favorable performance status and a TERT promoter mutation had a particularly good prognosis with mOS of 21.1 months as compared with 7.5 months in all other patients (p=0.03). The presence of a TERT promoter mutation was an independent predictor of improved OS in a cohort of aUC patients treated with an ICI who had genomic data available. Most of the clinical and laboratory variables previously shown to be prognostic in aUC patients treated with chemotherapy did not have prognostic value among patients treated with an ICI. Genomic profiling may provide important prognostic information and affect clinical decision making in this patient population. Validation of these findings in prospective patient cohorts is needed.

Purpose

A metastatic cancer diagnosis is associated with high levels of distress in patients and caregivers, which may be alleviated by mindfulness interventions. Research on scalable, tailored, online mindfulness training programs is needed. We sought to test the feasibility and acceptability of a remotely delivered 8-week mindfulness-based intervention, Being Present 2.0 (BP2.0).

Methods

We performed a single-arm feasibility study of BP2.0 among patients with any metastatic gastrointestinal cancer receiving chemotherapy, with or without an informal caregiver. Participants were instructed to practice mindfulness using pre-recorded guided meditations 5 times per week using a study-specific website and to attend a weekly live, interactive virtual meeting facilitated by a trained instructor. The web-based platform enabled direct measurement of adherence.

Results

The study enrolled 46 of 74 (62%) patients contacted, together with 23 caregivers (69 participants total), from May to October 2018. Median patient age was 52 (range 20-70 years), 39% were male, 67% non-Hispanic white, 65% had colorectal cancer, and 78% lived outside of San Francisco. The top reasons cited for participation were to reduce stress/anxiety and learn how to meditate. Mean baseline National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (NCCN DT) scores were 4.7 (patients) and 5.8 (caregivers). The study discontinuation rate was 20% (eight patients and six caregivers). Among the remaining 55 participants, 43 (78%) listened to at least one audio recording and/or attended at least one virtual meeting, although adherence data was incomplete. The retention rate was 71%, with 39 participants completing at least one follow-up assessment. In post-intervention qualitative interviews, 88% of respondents reported a positive experience. Compared to baseline, participants reported significantly reduced post-intervention NCCN DT scores (mean 3.1; P = .012).

Conclusion

The BP2.0 online mindfulness-based program is feasible and acceptable for patients with metastatic gastrointestinal cancer and caregivers. These results will guide plans for a follow-up efficacy study. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03528863.