A 20-year follow-up study has revealed a dramatic drop in liver cancer cases among six- to 19-year-olds who were vaccinated for hepatitis B (HBV) at birth. In July 1984, a universal vaccination programme was initiated among newborn children in Taiwan to prevent HBV infection, which can predispose to the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
HCC is responsible for approximately 90 per cent of the primary malignant liver tumours in adults. It is the sixth most common cancer in the world and the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. More than 600,000 cases are diagnosed worldwide each year (>400,000 in China, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, 54,000 in the EU and 15,000 in the US) and the incidence is increasing. In 2002, approximately 600,000 people died of HCC, including approximately 370,000 in China, South Korea and Japan, 57,000 in the EU and 13,000 in the US.
For the study, which was published in the 16th September online edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (10.1093/jnci/djp288), scientists from the National Taiwan University Department of Pediatrics collected data on 1,958 patients with HCC who were aged six to 29 years at diagnosis in Taiwan between 1983 and 2004 from two national HCC registries. Age- and sex-specific incidence among vaccinated and unvaccinated birth cohorts were analysed by using Poisson regression models. All statistical tests were two-sided. Records of 64 HCC patients and 5,524,435 HBV vaccinees who were born after the initiation of the vaccination programme were compared for HBV immunisation characteristics during infancy and prenatal maternal HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) and e antigen (HBeAg) serostatus.
Results showed that HCC incidence was statistically significantly lower among children aged six to 19 years in the vaccinated cohort compared with the unvaccinated birth cohorts (64 HCCs among vaccinees in 37,709,304 person-years vs 444 cancers in unvaccinated subjects in 78,496,406 person-years, showing an age- and sex-adjusted relative risk of 0.31, p<0.001, for persons vaccinated at birth).
The risk of developing HCC for vaccinated cohorts was statistically significantly associated with: incomplete HBV vaccination (for those who received fewer than three doses of HBV vaccine, odds ratio [OR]=4.32, 95% CI, 2.34 to 7.91); prenatal maternal HBsAg seropositivity (OR=29.50, 95% CI, 13.98 to 62.60); and prenatal maternal HBeAg seropositivity (with administration of HBV immunoglobulin at birth, OR=5.13, 95% CI, 2.24 to 11.71; and without it, OR=9.43, 95% CI, 3.54 to 25.11).
These data suggest that the effectiveness of the universal HBV immunisation programme to prevent HCC has extended beyond childhood and into young adulthood over the past two decades. With regard to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recently refusing Bayer HealthCare/Onyx Pharmaceuticals' Nexavar (sorafenib) for the treatment of patients in England and Wales with HCC, despite being the only systemic treatment option that could potentially extend the survival of patients with the disease, it seems that currently, prevention is better than the cure.
Alice Rossiter
Cancer Drug News Editor
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
MDS patients failed by NHS
Adding weight to a previous editorial published in Cancer Drug News (see Issue No. 377 - "Is NICE depriving UK patients' options?"), the results of a new survey, launched by the UK MDS Patient Support Group, have shown that almost one-fifth (18 per cent) of patients suffering from myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) could have lived for longer if they had been able to access treatments that are currently not approved by the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for treatment on the NHS. According to current estimates, just fewer than 2,000 new cases of MDS are diagnosed in the UK each year.
The survey of 100 haematologists from England, Wales and Scotland revealed that 56 per cent of blood cancer (BC) experts believe that less priority is given to rarer cancers versus other common cancers. The majority of BC experts (89 per cent) surveyed have faced situations where they have been unable to provide treatments for their BC patients that could have potentially extended their patients' survival as these treatments were not readily available on the NHS or not yet approved by NICE.
David Hall, Chairman of MDS UK Patient Support Group, commented: "these results are alarming and distressing. Denying any patient access to life-extending, blood cancer drugs is immoral and contradicts the very principles upon which the NHS was founded. These new treatments have been thoroughly tested and their efficacy demonstrated. It is ironic that the perceived constraints to availability in the UK seem to be based exclusively on inadequate finance."
The MDS UK Patient Support Group has called upon the Department of Health to re-address this inequality by making proven treatments available to all patients whose life span may otherwise be unnecessarily curtailed. These results have highlighted the gaps in access to treatments that can prolong and improve the lives of patients living with MDS and other BCs. Despite significant advances in the treatment of MDS, the majority of patients cannot get access to and, in some cases, are not even informed about new life-extending drugs until they have been appraised and approved by NICE. The impact of waiting even a month for treatment for MDS can result in a life or death situation.
Hilary Jackson, Cancer Research UK's policy manager, noted that: "where NICE has not provided advice on a particular drug, it is up to Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) to decide which they will fund...without NICE approval, we need a fair approach to ensure that doctors, patients and the PCTs themselves are clear about how funding decisions will be made."
It seems concerning that patients are not getting access to drugs that could extend their lives, which have been thoroughly investigated and their efficacy shown, and, in some cases, are available in comparable countries.
Alice Rossiter
Cancer Drug News Editor
The survey of 100 haematologists from England, Wales and Scotland revealed that 56 per cent of blood cancer (BC) experts believe that less priority is given to rarer cancers versus other common cancers. The majority of BC experts (89 per cent) surveyed have faced situations where they have been unable to provide treatments for their BC patients that could have potentially extended their patients' survival as these treatments were not readily available on the NHS or not yet approved by NICE.
David Hall, Chairman of MDS UK Patient Support Group, commented: "these results are alarming and distressing. Denying any patient access to life-extending, blood cancer drugs is immoral and contradicts the very principles upon which the NHS was founded. These new treatments have been thoroughly tested and their efficacy demonstrated. It is ironic that the perceived constraints to availability in the UK seem to be based exclusively on inadequate finance."
The MDS UK Patient Support Group has called upon the Department of Health to re-address this inequality by making proven treatments available to all patients whose life span may otherwise be unnecessarily curtailed. These results have highlighted the gaps in access to treatments that can prolong and improve the lives of patients living with MDS and other BCs. Despite significant advances in the treatment of MDS, the majority of patients cannot get access to and, in some cases, are not even informed about new life-extending drugs until they have been appraised and approved by NICE. The impact of waiting even a month for treatment for MDS can result in a life or death situation.
Hilary Jackson, Cancer Research UK's policy manager, noted that: "where NICE has not provided advice on a particular drug, it is up to Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) to decide which they will fund...without NICE approval, we need a fair approach to ensure that doctors, patients and the PCTs themselves are clear about how funding decisions will be made."
It seems concerning that patients are not getting access to drugs that could extend their lives, which have been thoroughly investigated and their efficacy shown, and, in some cases, are available in comparable countries.
Alice Rossiter
Cancer Drug News Editor
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Is NICE depriving UK patients' options?
During the past week, the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has issued mixed recommendations on the use of drugs for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC).
NICE has not recommended Genentech's (Roche) Avastin (bevacizumab), Bayer HealthCare/Onyx Pharmaceuticals' Nexavar (sorafenib) and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals' Torisel (temsirolimus) as first-line treatment options for advanced and/or metastatic RCC. In addition, Nexavar and Pfizer's Sutent (sunitinib) are not recommended for second-line treatment, although both are licensed in the EU for this therapy. According to NICE, the evidence to support the use of the first- and second-line treatments is not strong enough to justify using NHS funds, which could be used for other cancer treatment programmes or in other treatment areas.
In response to this NICE decision, Roche is considering all options. The Appraisal Committee accepted that Avastin in combination with interferon has a similar clinical and cost-effectiveness profile to the already-approved Sutent, but turned it down because it has a licence in other indications, despite the fact that these indications are not currently routinely reimbursed on the NHS.
John Melville, General Manager of Roche UK, commented: "this decision is entirely illogical and neither addresses the needs of patients with renal cancer, nor advances the innovation agenda. Avastin demonstrates the same value to the NHS as sunitinib and this guidance goes against the spirit of end-of-life criteria, which were devised for this very setting."
On a positive note, NICE has recommended the use of Merck Serono's (Merck KGaA) Erbitux (cetuximab) in combination with FOLFOX for the first-line treatment of MCRC, but only when all of the following criteria are met: (a) the primary colorectal tumour has been resected or is potentially operable; (b) the metastatic disease is confined to the liver and is unresectable; (c) the patient is fit enough to undergo surgery to resect the primary colorectal tumour and to undergo liver surgery if the metastases become resectable after treatment with Erbitux; and (d) the manufacturer rebates 16 per cent of the amount of Erbitux used on a per patient basis.
Further, NICE recommended that patients who meet the above criteria should receive treatment with Erbitux for no more than 16 weeks. After this period, treatment with Erbitux should stop and the patient should be assessed for resection of liver metastases. It was also recommended that people with MCRC with metastatic disease confined to the liver who receive Erbitux should have their treatment managed only by multidisciplinary teams that involve highly-specialised liver surgical services. The Appraisal Committee concluded that under the specific circumstances outlined in the guidance, the cost of Erbitux in relation to how well it works is an effective use of NHS resources.
Although the NICE guidance on the use of Erbitux means many MCRC patients will have a new treatment opinion, the decision not to recommend Avastin, Nexavar or Torisel as a first-line therapy for RCC will reduce treatment options for UK patients who are fighting this disease, yet is available for the same indication in comparable countries.
Alice Rossiter - Cancer Drug News Editor
NICE has not recommended Genentech's (Roche) Avastin (bevacizumab), Bayer HealthCare/Onyx Pharmaceuticals' Nexavar (sorafenib) and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals' Torisel (temsirolimus) as first-line treatment options for advanced and/or metastatic RCC. In addition, Nexavar and Pfizer's Sutent (sunitinib) are not recommended for second-line treatment, although both are licensed in the EU for this therapy. According to NICE, the evidence to support the use of the first- and second-line treatments is not strong enough to justify using NHS funds, which could be used for other cancer treatment programmes or in other treatment areas.
In response to this NICE decision, Roche is considering all options. The Appraisal Committee accepted that Avastin in combination with interferon has a similar clinical and cost-effectiveness profile to the already-approved Sutent, but turned it down because it has a licence in other indications, despite the fact that these indications are not currently routinely reimbursed on the NHS.
John Melville, General Manager of Roche UK, commented: "this decision is entirely illogical and neither addresses the needs of patients with renal cancer, nor advances the innovation agenda. Avastin demonstrates the same value to the NHS as sunitinib and this guidance goes against the spirit of end-of-life criteria, which were devised for this very setting."
On a positive note, NICE has recommended the use of Merck Serono's (Merck KGaA) Erbitux (cetuximab) in combination with FOLFOX for the first-line treatment of MCRC, but only when all of the following criteria are met: (a) the primary colorectal tumour has been resected or is potentially operable; (b) the metastatic disease is confined to the liver and is unresectable; (c) the patient is fit enough to undergo surgery to resect the primary colorectal tumour and to undergo liver surgery if the metastases become resectable after treatment with Erbitux; and (d) the manufacturer rebates 16 per cent of the amount of Erbitux used on a per patient basis.
Further, NICE recommended that patients who meet the above criteria should receive treatment with Erbitux for no more than 16 weeks. After this period, treatment with Erbitux should stop and the patient should be assessed for resection of liver metastases. It was also recommended that people with MCRC with metastatic disease confined to the liver who receive Erbitux should have their treatment managed only by multidisciplinary teams that involve highly-specialised liver surgical services. The Appraisal Committee concluded that under the specific circumstances outlined in the guidance, the cost of Erbitux in relation to how well it works is an effective use of NHS resources.
Although the NICE guidance on the use of Erbitux means many MCRC patients will have a new treatment opinion, the decision not to recommend Avastin, Nexavar or Torisel as a first-line therapy for RCC will reduce treatment options for UK patients who are fighting this disease, yet is available for the same indication in comparable countries.
Alice Rossiter - Cancer Drug News Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)