Introduction While no direct comparative data exist for crizotinib in ROS1+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), studies have suggested clinical benefit with this targeted agent. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of crizotinib compared to standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy for first-line treatment of ROS1+ advanced NSCLC. Methods A Markov model was developed with a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of the Canadian publicly-funded health care system. Health states included progression-free survival (PFS), up to two further lines of therapy post-progression, palliation and death. Given a lack of comparative data and small study samples, crizotinib or chemotherapy studies with advanced ROS1+ NSCLC patients were identified and time-to-event data from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves were collected to pool PFS data. Costs of drugs, treatment administration, monitoring, adverse events and palliative care were included in 2018 Canadian dollars, with 1.5% discounting. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated probabilistically using 5000 simulations. Results In the base-case probabilistic analysis, crizotinib produced additional 0.885 life-years and 0.772 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $238,077, producing an ICER of $273,286/QALY gained. No simulations were found to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained. A scenario analysis assuming efficacy equivalent to the ALK+ NSCLC population showed a slightly more favorable cost-effectiveness profile for crizotinib. Conclusions Available data appear to support superior activity of crizotinib compared to chemotherapy in ROS1+ advanced NSCLC. At the list price, crizotinib was not cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds across a wide range of sensitivity analyses.

103 Title: Impact Of Novel Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Drugs On Public Spending Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a common hematologic malignancy that mainly affects the elderly. Over the past five years, the treatment pathway for CLL has dramatically changed with the emergence of multiple novel agents. In Ontario, Canada, the Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) program and the New Drug Funding Program (NDFP) primarily provide public coverage for CLL drugs. Given advances in treatment, we evaluated utilization trends for publicly-funded CLL drugs over a five year period (fiscal years 2012/13 to 2016/17). Methods: Drugs with primary CLL indications funded under the two public funding programs (i.e., ODB and NDFP) by 16/17 were included (n = 6). Claims and costs data were obtained from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and Cancer Care Ontario‘s datasets. Results: Over five years, expenditures on CLL drugs have increased approximately ten-fold (1000 percent), reaching nearly CAD 43 million (i.e., USD 32.8 million) in 16/17. In the front-line setting, spending on rituximab remained consistent over the five years. Spending on single agent bendamustine decreased with the introduction of obinutuzumab which became the main cost driver by 16/17. In the previously-treated CLL population, ibrutinib has dominated expenditures since it was funded in July 2015. By 16/17, ibrutinib accounted for approximately ninety eight percent of spending in the previously-treated population. Conclusions: In the past five years, public spending on CLL drugs increased rapidly and substantially with the introduction of four novel agents, and may continue to evolve as Canadian provinces consider funding additional indications or newer agents. These findings warrant exploring whether the incremental spending is providing survival benefit or improvement in patients’ quality of life in a real-world setting. Declaration of funding: None

Background In Canada, requests for public reimbursement of cancer drugs are predominately initiated by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Clinician-led submissions provide a mechanism to initiate the drug funding process when industry does not submit a request for funding consideration. Although such requests are resource-intensive to produce, Cancer Care Ontario (cco) has the capacity to facilitate clinician-led submissions. In 2014, cco began developing a cancer drug prioritization framework that allocates resources to systematically address a growing number of clinician-identified funding gaps with clinician-led submissions.Methods Cancer site–specific drug advisory committees established by cco consist of health care practitioners whose roles include identifying and prioritizing funding gaps. The committees submit their identified gaps to a cross-cancer-site prioritization exercise in which the requests are ranked based on a set of guiding principles derived from health technology assessment. The requests are then sequentially allocated the resources needed to meet submission requirements. Whether the funding gap is of provincial or pan-Canadian relevance determines where the submission is filed for assessment.Results Since its inception, the cco framework has identified 17 funding gaps in 9 cancer sites. In 4 prioritizations, the framework supported 6 submissions. As of June 2018, the framework had contributed to the eventual funding of more than 9 new drug–indication pairs, with more awaiting funding consideration.Conclusions The cco prioritization framework has enabled clinicians to effectively and systematically identify, prioritize, and fill funding gaps not addressed by industry. Ultimately, the framework helps to ensure that patients can access evidence-informed and cost-effective therapies. The framework will continue to evolve as it encounters new challenges, including funding requests for rare indications.

Objectives The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) evaluates new cancer drugs for public funding recommendations. While pCODR's deliberative framework evaluates overall clinical benefit and includes considerations for exceptional circumstances, rarity of indication is not explicitly addressed. Given the high unmet need that typically accompanies these indications, we explored the impact of rarity on oncology HTA recommendations and funding decisions. Methods We examined pCODR submissions with final recommendations from 2012 to 2017. Incidence rates were calculated using pCODR recommendation reports and statistics from the Canadian Cancer Society. Indications were classified as rare if the incidence rate was lower than 1/100,000 diagnoses, a definition referenced by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Each pCODR final report was examined for the funding recommendation/justification, level of supporting evidence (presence of a randomized control trial [RCT]), and time to funding (if applicable). Results Of the ninety-six pCODR reviews examined, 16.6 percent were classified as rare indications per above criteria. While the frequency of positive funding recommendations were similar between rare and nonrare indication (78.6 vs. 75 percent), rare indications were less likely to be presented with evidence from RCT (50 vs. 90 percent). The average time to funding did not differ significantly across provinces. Conclusion Rare indications appear to be associated with weaker clinical evidence. There appears to be no association between rarity, positive funding recommendations, and time to funding. Further work will evaluate factors associated with positive recommendations and the real-world utilization of funded treatments for rare indications.