Toripalimab plus chemotherapy in American patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Toripalimab, combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin, has been approved as the first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (RM-NPC), representing a significant milestone as the first FDA-approved innovative therapy for this condition. Despite this achievement, there's a lack of data on the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab for RM-NPC patients in the American context. METHODS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, a 3-state partitioned survival model was constructed. The study involved participants with characteristics matching those in the JUPITER-02 trial. Cost and utility inputs were collected from literature. Main outcomes measured were quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of results. RESULTS: The study found that the toripalimab regimen resulted in 4.390 QALYs at a cost of $361,813, while the chemotherapy-only regimen yielded 1.685 QALYs at a cost of $161,632. This translates to an ICER of $74,004/QALY, below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated that utility values, discount rate, and the price of toripalimab significantly impact INMB. With an 87.10% probability of being cost-effective at a $150,000/QALY threshold, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis supports toripalimab plus chemotherapy as a viable option. Scenario analysis showed that toripalimab remains cost-effective unless its price increases by 125%. Additionally, a simulated 15-year study period increases the ICER to $88,026/QALY. Subgroup analysis revealed ICERs of $76,538/QALY for PD-L1 positive and $70,158/QALY for PD-L1 negative groups. CONCLUSIONS: Toripalimab in combination with chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to standard chemotherapy for American patients with RM-NPC. This evidence can guide clinical and reimbursement decision-making in treating RM-NPC patients.

Social and Clinical Correlates of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Medicare Beneficiaries With Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer From 2004-2015.

OBJECTIVE: To assess social and clinical correlates of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) utilization among Medicare beneficiaries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of SEER-Medicare (2004-2015) patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer treated by radical cystectomy were stratified into 3-groups: standard of care NAC (cisplatin-based combination), non-standard of care NAC, and upfront cystectomy. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess social, demographic and clinical correlates of each treatment category. Survival analyses were performed to compare propensity matched treatment groups. RESULTS: In total, 6214 patients were identified with a median follow-up of 21 [IQR 7-54] months. NAC utilization increased from 10.7% to 39.1%, between 2004 and 2015, largely due to increased use of standard of care regimens. The most commonly used nonstandard regimen was gemcitabine/carboplatin (50.2%). Older age, Hispanic and Black race, lower socioeconomic status, and contraindications to cisplatin were associated with increased odds of receiving nonstandard of care NAC compared to standard of care. Standard of care NAC was associated with improved overall survival HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.76, 0.94) and HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.63, 0.89) compared to both upfront cystectomy and nonstandard of care NAC, respectively. CONCLUSION: NAC utilization has increased to nearly 40%; however, the use of non-standard of care NAC regimen have persisted (~8%). Cisplatin-ineligibility, older age, race/ethnicity, and lower socioeconomic status were correlated with nonstandard of care NAC, which provided no clinical benefit at the risk of potential harm. In accordance with current clinical guidelines, cisplatin-ineligible patients should be considered for timely upfront cystectomy or novel clinical trials.

IAP Chemotherapy Regimen Is a Viable and Cost-effective Option in Children and Adolescents With Osteosarcoma: A Comparative Analysis With MAP Regimen on Toxicity and Survival.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin and doxorubicin are integral components of chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of osteosarcoma. Choice of third agent high-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) or an alkylating agent such as ifosfamide is debatable. The present study compared the impact of MAP (HDMTX-doxorubicin-cisplatin) and IAP (ifosfamide-doxorubicin-cisplatin) chemotherapy regimens on toxicity and survival in children and adolescents with osteosarcoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study including patients 18 years and younger with osteosarcoma during the study period. Clinical, demographic, chemotherapy regimen, and surgical details and treatment-related toxicity were retrieved from hospital medical records. Prognostic factors affecting overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 102 patients included in the study, 59 (57.8%) and 43 (42.2%) patients were treated with MAP and IAP regimens, respectively. Two groups were comparable in terms of pretreatment characteristics and surgical treatment. Overall, 95.9% patients underwent limb salvage surgery. There was a statistically increased incidence in supportive care admissions and delay in starting the next cycle of chemotherapy in the MAP group. Among the MAP cohort, the 5-year OS and EFS were 62% and 55% compared with 47% and 44%, respectively, in the IAP cohort (P=0.143 and 0.316, respectively). On univariate and multivariate analyses, statistically significant factors affecting EFS of the whole group included tumor size, stage, site of metastasis, histologic necrosis, and type of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: OS and EFS with both regimens were similar. However, the MAP regimen was associated with a statistically significant increase in incidence of supportive care admissions, delay in next cycle of chemotherapy, and predicted higher cost of treatment.

Low-cost oral metronomic chemotherapy versus intravenous cisplatin in patients with recurrent, metastatic, inoperable head and neck carcinoma: an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Regimens for palliation in patients with head and neck cancer recommended by the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have low applicability (less than 1-3%) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) because of their cost. In a previous phase 2 study, patients with head and neck cancer who received metronomic chemotherapy had better outcomes when compared with those who received intravenous cisplatin, which is commonly used as the standard of care in LMICs. We aimed to do a phase 3 study to substantiate these findings. METHODS: We did an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial at the Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Center, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India. We enrolled adult patients (aged 18-70 years) who planned to receive palliative systemic treatment for relapsed, recurrent, or newly diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1 and measurable disease, as defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. We randomly assigned (1:1) participants to receive either oral metronomic chemotherapy, consisting of 15 mg/m2 methotrexate once per week plus 200 mg celecoxib twice per day until disease progression or until the development of intolerable side-effects, or 75 mg/m2 intravenous cisplatin once every 3 weeks for six cycles. Randomisation was done by use of a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with a block size of four, and patients were stratified by primary tumour site and previous cancer-directed treatment. The primary endpoint was median overall survival. Assuming that 6-month overall survival in the intravenous cisplatin group would be 40%, a non-inferiority margin of 13% was defined. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done. All patients who completed at least one cycle of the assigned treatment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India, CTRI/2015/11/006388, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 16, 2016, and Jan 17, 2020, 422 patients were randomly assigned: 213 to the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 209 to the intravenous cisplatin group. All 422 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, and 418 patients (211 in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 207 in the intravenous cisplatin group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. At a median follow-up of 15·73 months, median overall survival in the intention-to-treat analysis population was 7·5 months (IQR 4·6-12·6) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group compared with 6·1 months (3·2-9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·773 [95% CI 0·615-0·97, p=0·026]). In the per-protocol analysis population, median overall survival was 7·5 months (4·7-12·8) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 6·1 months (3·4-9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·775 [95% CI 0·616-0·974, p=0·029]). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 37 (19%) of 196 patients in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group versus 61 (30%) of 202 patients in the intravenous cisplatin group (p=0·01). INTERPRETATION: Oral metronomic chemotherapy is non-inferior to intravenous cisplatin with respect to overall survival in head and neck cancer in the palliative setting, and is associated with fewer adverse events. It therefore represents a new alternative standard of care if current NCCN-approved options for palliative therapy are not feasible. FUNDING: Tata Memorial Center Research Administration Council. TRANSLATIONS: For the Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati, Kannada, Malayalam, Telugu, Oriya, Bengali, and Punjabi translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Economic Evaluation of Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine Versus Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine for the Treatment of First-Line Advanced Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in China: Using Markov Model and Partitioned Survival Model.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cisplatin plus gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as a first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in China. METHODS: The Markov model and partitioned survival (PS) model were used, and the study included three health states over the period of a lifetime. Transition probabilities and safety data were derived from the CBCSG006 trial (cisplatin plus gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients who had acquired metastatic triple-negative breast cancer). Cost and utility values were derived from previous studies, the Chinese Drug Bidding Database, and healthcare documents. Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe model stability. RESULTS: In the Markov model, compared with paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, cisplatin plus gemcitabine yielded an additional 0.15 QALYs, with an incremental cost of 1976.33 USD. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 12,826.98 USD/QALY (quality-adjusted life year). In the PS model, cisplatin plus gemcitabine yielded an additional 0.17 QALYs with an incremental cost of 2384.63 USD; the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 13,867.7 USD/QALY. In the first scenario analysis, in which the 3-year time horizon was used in both arms, the total QALYs in the cisplatin plus gemcitabine group were larger and the costs were lower, indicating that cisplatin plus gemcitabine was superior to paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. In the second scenario, in which the progression-free (PF) utility (during chemotherapy) was 0.76, the PF utility was 0.96, and the post-progression (PP) utility was 0.55, the result obtained with the Markov model showed that the ICUR was 11,063.68 USD/QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) on the Markov model, the probabilities that cisplatin plus gemcitabine would be cost-effective were 48.94-78.72% if the willingness-to-pay threshold was 9776.8 to 29,330.4 USD/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present analysis suggest that cisplatin plus gemcitabine might be much more cost-effective than paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients receiving first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus docetaxel, cisplatin and fluorouracil for induction chemotherapy of locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Recently, patients who received induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma were found to have survival advantages compared with those receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in two large randomized trials. Based on these two trials, we present a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare gemcitabine and cisplatin (GP) versus cisplatin, fluorouracil, and docetaxel (TPF) for induction chemotherapy to treat locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. METHODS: We constructed a Markov model to compare the cost and effectiveness of GP versus TPF. Clinical data including the frequency of adverse events, recurrence and death obtained from two randomized phase III trials were used to calculate transition probabilities and costs. Health utilities were estimated from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expressed as dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), were calculated, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios less than $27,534.25/QALY (3 × the per capita GDP of China, 2018) were considered cost-effective. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Our base case model found that the total cost was $53,082.68 in the GP group and $45,482.66 in the TPF group. The QALYs were 6.82 and 4.11, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favoured the GP regimen, at an incremental cost of $2,804.44 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that treatment with the GP regimen was cost-effective 100% of the time at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $27,534.25‬/QALY. CONCLUSION: In this model, GP was estimated to be cost-effective compared with cisplatin, fluorouracil, and docetaxel for patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma from the payer's perspectives in the China.

Cost-Utility Analysis of First-Line Pemetrexed Plus Cisplatin in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Thailand.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy regimens for non-small cell lung cancer patients in Thailand. METHODS: A Markov model comprising 3 health states (progression-free survival, progression, death) was used to estimate the long-term costs and health outcomes under a societal perspective with a lifetime horizon. Intervention was the combination of pemetrexed and cisplatin, AND the comparators were gemcitabine plus cisplatin and carboplatin plus paclitaxel. The efficacy and toxicity were obtained from landmark clinical trials, and the costs were based on a local Thai database. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%. The findings were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in both Thai baht (THB) and USD per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A series of sensitivity analyses, including 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, were performed. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was generated with a threshold of 160 000 THB/QALY or 4987 USD/QALY. RESULTS: Under the base-case analysis, pemetrexed plus cisplatin had the greatest total cost among 3 regimens, yielding an ICER of 64 369.97 USD/QALY (2 064 989 THB/QALY) compared with gemcitabine plus cisplatin, and ICER of 8649.16 USD/QALY (277 465 THB/QALY) compared with carboplatin plus paclitaxel. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis results indicated that at the local Thai threshold, gemcitabine plus cisplatin was likely to be the most cost-effective regimen. CONCLUSIONS: At the current price of pemetrexed, the combination of pemetrexed plus cisplatin was not found to be a cost-effective first-line regimen for patients with non-small cell lung cancer at the local Thai threshold compared with the gemcitabine plus cisplatin and carboplatin plus paclitaxel regimens.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in the first-line setting for Chinese patients with metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A randomized phase III trial demonstrated that gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival compared with fluorouracil plus cisplatin (FP) as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The cost-effectiveness analysis was designed to identify the economic option for metastatic NPC from a Chinese societal perspective. METHODS: We established a Markov model that involved three health states representing the stages of disease to simulate therapy. Survival data of clinical outcomes were derived from the trial and adjusted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Transition probabilities and health utilities were obtained from the clinical trial and published literatures. The cost-effective strategy was estimated for these treatments using a willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold. A one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to study the influences of parameters. RESULTS: GP treatment group produced a gain of 0.37 QALYs with an incremental cost of $2520.80, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $6812.97 per QALY, compared with FP treatment ($15,530.96 versus $13,010.16). The ICER was lower than the accepted WTP threshold, which was 3 times gross domestic product per capita of China ($25,749 per QALY). CONCLUSION: GP regimen is more cost-effective compared with FP regimen as the first-line treatment for Chinese patients with metastatic NPC.

Concurrent cisplatin or cetuximab with radiotherapy for HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer: Medical resource use, costs, and quality-adjusted survival from the De-ESCALaTE HPV trial.

BACKGROUND: The De-ESCALaTE HPV trial confirmed the dominance of cisplatin over cetuximab for tumour control in patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). Here, we present the analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), resource use, and health care costs in the trial, as well as complete 2-year survival and recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Resource use and HRQoL data were collected at intervals from the baseline to 24 months post treatment (PT). Health care costs were estimated using UK-based unit costs. Missing data were imputed. Differences in mean EQ-5D-5L utility index and adjusted cumulative quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and linear regression, respectively. Mean resource usage and costs were compared through two-sample t-tests. RESULTS: 334 patients were randomised to cisplatin (n = 166) or cetuximab (n = 168). Two-year overall survival (97·5% vs 90·0%, HR: 3.268 [95% CI 1·451 to 7·359], p = 0·0251) and recurrence rates (6·4% vs 16·0%, HR: 2·67 [1·38 to 5·15]; p = 0·0024) favoured cisplatin. No significant differences in EQ-5D-5L utility scores were detected at any time point. At 24 months PT, mean difference was 0·107 QALYs in favour of cisplatin (95% CI: 0·186 to 0·029, p = 0·007) driven by the mortality difference. Health care costs were similar across all categories except the procurement cost and delivery of the systemic agent, with cetuximab significantly more expensive than cisplatin (£7779 [P < 0.001]). Consequently, total costs at 24 months PT averaged £13517 (SE: £345) per patient for cisplatin and £21064 (SE: £400) for cetuximab (mean difference £7547 [95% CI: £6512 to £8582]). CONCLUSIONS: Cisplatin chemoradiotherapy provided more QALYs and was less costly than cetuximab bioradiotherapy, remaining standard of care for nonsurgical treatment of HPV-positive OPSCC.

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib as a Second-line Treatment in Patients With EGFR-mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China.

PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib used as a second-line treatment after failure of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China. METHODS: From the perspective of China's health care system, a Markov model was used for estimating the costs and health outcomes of osimertinib and 4 platinum-based chemotherapies, including pemetrexed + platinum (PP), gemcitabine + platinum (GP), docetaxel + platinum (DP), and paclitaxel + platinum (TP). Two scenarios were considered, one in all confirmed patients with T790M-positive disease (scenario 1) and the other in all patients whose disease progressed after epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, which consisted of patients with T790M-positive or T790M-negative NSCLC (scenario 2). Clinical data for transition probabilities and treatment effects were obtained from published clinical trials. Health care resource utilization and costs were derived from local administrative databases and published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the results. FINDINGS: In the base-case analysis, compared with the 4 platinum-based chemotherapies, osimertinib yielded an additional 0.671 to 0.846 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with incremental costs of 15,943 to 20,299 USD in scenario 1, and an additional 0.376 to 0.808 QALY with incremental costs of 9710 to 15,407 USD in scenario 2. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities that osimertinib would be cost-effective were 57.7% in scenario 1 and 58.4% in scenario 2 if the willingness-to-pay threshold were 30,000 USD/QALY, and probabilities would be more than 75 % in both scenarios if the willingness-to-pay threshold were 50,000 USD/QALY. IMPLICATIONS: Osimertinib is likely to be cost-effective when used as a second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC in China based on the latest reimbursement price of osimertinib through National Reimbursement Drug List negotiation.

The economic impact of the transition from branded to generic oncology drugs.

Background: Economic evaluations are an integral component of many clinical trials. Costs used in those analyses are based on the prices of branded drugs when they first enter the market. The effect of genericization on the cost-effectiveness (ce) or cost-utility (cu) of an intervention is unknown because economic analyses are rarely updated using the costs of generic drugs. Methods: We re-examined the ce or cu of regimens previously evaluated in Canadian Cancer Trials Group (cctg) studies that included prospective economic evaluations and where genericization has occurred or is anticipated in Canada. We incorporated the new costs of generic drugs to characterize changes in ce or cu. We also determined acceptable cost levels of generic drugs that would make regimens reimbursable in a publicly funded health care system. Results: The four randomized controlled trials included (representing 1979 patients) were cctg br.10 (early lung cancer, adjuvant vinorelbine-cisplatin vs. observation, n = 172), cctg br.21 (metastatic lung cancer, erlotinib vs. placebo, n = 731), cctg co.17 (metastatic colon cancer, cetuximab vs. best supportive care, n = 557), and cctg ly.12 (relapsed or refractory lymphoma, gemcitabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin vs. cytarabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin, n = 619). Since the initial publication of those trials, the genericization of vinorelbine, erlotinib, cetuximab, and cisplatin has taken place or is expected in Canada. Costs of generics improved the ces and cus of treatment significantly. For example, genericization of erlotinib ($1460.25 per 30 days) resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) of $45,746 per life-year gained compared with $94,638 for branded erlotinib. Likewise, genericization of cetuximab ($275.80 per 100 mg) produced an icer of $261,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (qaly) gained compared with $299,613 for branded cetuximab. Decreases in the cost of generic cetuximab to $129.39 and $63.51 would further improve the icer to $150,000 and $100,000 per QALY respectively. Conclusions: Genericization of a costly oncology drug can modify the ce and cu of a regimen significantly. Failure to revisit economic analyses with the costs of generics could be a missed opportunity for funding bodies to optimize value-based allocation of health care resources. At current levels, the costs of generics might not be sufficiently low to sustain publicly funded health care systems.

Comparing outcomes of concurrent chemotherapy regimens in patients 65 years old or older with locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy of cisplatin (CDDP), carboplatin, and cetuximab (CTX) delivered concurrently with radiation for locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma continues to be evaluated. METHODS: The linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was used to identify and compare patient and disease profiles, mortality, toxicity, and overall cost for patients with oropharynx cancer undergoing definitive concurrent chemoradiation with CDDP, carboplatin, or CTX between 2006 and 2011. The human papillomavirus status was unknown. The primary outcome was 2-year overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Four hundred nine patients receiving concurrent CDDP (n = 167), carboplatin (n = 69), or CTX (n = 173) were included. Those who were older, those who were nonwhite, and those with a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 2 were less likely to receive CDDP. Two-year OS was inferior with CTX (hazard ratio [HR], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-2.60; P = .020) and no different with carboplatin (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.73-2.35; P = .362) in a Cox proportional hazards model (reference CDDP). There was no statistically significant difference between carboplatin and CTX (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.77-2.14; P = .891). Rates of antiemetic use and hospital visits for nausea/emesis/diarrhea or dehydration were statistically higher with CDDP. Pneumonia rates were higher with carboplatin. In the multivariate model, the corrected mean per-patient spending was significantly higher for CTX and carboplatin than CDDP ($61,133 and $65,721 vs $48,709). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received CDDP had improved OS. CDDP was also associated with slightly lower overall costs and higher antiemetic usage and hospital visit rates, although a strong selection bias was observed because those receiving CTX and carboplatin were older and had higher comorbidity scores.

The Budget Impact of Including Necitumumab on the Formulary for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: U.S. Commercial Payer and Medicare Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab (Neci) was the first biologic approved by the FDA for use in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin (Neci + GCis) in first-line treatment of metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (msqNSCLC). The potential financial impact on a health plan of adding Neci + GCis to drug formularies may be important to value-based decision makers in the United States, given ever-tightening budget constraints. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of introducing Neci + GCis for first-line treatment of msqNSCLC from U.S. commercial and Medicare payer perspectives. METHODS: The budget impact model estimates the costs of msqNSCLC before and after adoption of Neci + GCis in hypothetical U.S. commercial and Medicare health plans over a 3-year time horizon. The eligible patient population was estimated from U.S. epidemiology statistics. Clinical data were obtained from randomized clinical trials, U.S. prescribing information, and clinical guidelines. Market share projections were based on market research data. Cost data were obtained from online sources and published literature. The incremental aggregate annual health plan, per-patient-per-year (PPPY), and per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs were estimated in 2015 U.S. dollars. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the effect of model parameters on results. RESULTS: In a hypothetical 1,000,000-member commercial health plan with an estimated population of 30 msqNSCLC patients receiving first-line chemotherapy, the introduction of Neci + GCis at an initial market share of approximately 5% had an overall year 1 incremental budget impact of $88,394 ($3,177 PPPY, $0.007 PMPM), representing a 2.9% cost increase and reaching $304,079 ($10,397 PPPY, $0.025 PMPM) or a 7.4% cost increase at a market share of 14.7% in year 3. This increase in total costs was largely attributable to Neci drug costs and, in part, due to longer survival and treatment duration for patients treated with Neci+GCis. Overall, treatment costs increased by $81,812 (13.5%), and disease costs increased by $7,951 (0.4%), whereas adverse event costs decreased by $1,368 (0.5%) in year 1. From the Medicare perspective, the overall year 1 incremental budget impact was $438,056 ($0.037 PMPM, $3,112 PPPY), representing a 3.0% cost increase. The higher incremental budget in Medicare, compared with commercial plans, was due to higher msqNSCLC incidence in the older Medicare patients (154 vs. 30 patients, respectively). Results were most sensitive to Neci drug costs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on projected market shares, coverage for first-line therapy with Neci + GCis appeared to modestly affect overall U.S. health care budgets for msqNSCLC-related care. Given the small eligible patient population, the PMPM budgetary impact on a commercial health plan of reimbursing Neci + GCis in the first year was less than $0.01, rising with increased use of Neci + GCis to $0.025 in the third year. The real-world effect of Neci + GCis needs to be evaluated to validate this analysis; however, these findings may help policymakers in making coverage decisions for Neci + GCis. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Molife, Brown, Tawney, and Cuyun Carter are equity holders and employees of Eli Lilly and Company. Bly, Cinfio, and Klein are employees of Medical Decision Modeling, which received funding from Eli Lilly and Company to conduct this research and prepare this manuscript.

Effects of nutritional support on short-term clinical outcomes and immune response in unresectable locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

This retrospective study investigated the efficiency of nutritional support in unresectable locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (LAOSCC) patients who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) based on 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin. In the routine care group, 63 patients served as historical controls and received nutrition support in a reactive manner. In addition, 57 patients in the nutritional support group received timely diet counselling, oral nutritional supplements, enteral nutrition and/or parenteral nutrition during CCRT. This support was based on scores from nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS-2002) after June 2014. The nutritional support group had significant advantages over the routine care group with respect to the incidence of neutropenia, the objective response rate, the change in serum albumin and the lengths of hospital stay. In addition, the nutritional support group had significantly higher levels of IgG and IL-2, higher proportions of NK, CD3+ and CD4+ cells as well as a higher ratio of CD4+ /CD8+ cells than the routine care group (p < .05). In contrast, the nutritional support group had a significantly lower level of IL-6. In conclusion, the current nutritional care programme could bring benefits of improving treatment compliance, reducing toxicity and lengths of hospital stay and enhancing the immune response.

Time-Series Modeling and Simulation for Comparative Cost-Effective Analysis in Cancer Chemotherapy: An Application to Platinum-Based Regimens for Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

The purpose of this study was to propose a time-series modeling and simulation (M&S) strategy for probabilistic cost-effective analysis in cancer chemotherapy using a Monte-Carlo method based on data available from the literature. The simulation included the cost for chemotherapy, for pharmaceutical care for adverse events (AEs) and other medical costs. As an application example, we describe the analysis for the comparison of four regimens, cisplatin plus irinotecan, carboplatin plus paclitaxel, cisplatin plus gemcitabine (GP), and cisplatin plus vinorelbine, for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The factors, drug efficacy explained by overall survival or time to treatment failure, frequency and severity of AEs, utility value of AEs to determine QOL, the drugs' and other medical costs in Japan, were included in the model. The simulation was performed and quality adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. An index, percentage of superiority (%SUP) which is the rate of the increased cost vs. QALY-gained plots within the area of positive QALY-gained and also below some threshold values of the ICER, was calculated as functions of threshold values of the ICER. An M&S process was developed, and for the simulation example, the GP regimen was the most cost-effective, in case of threshold values of the ICER=$70000/year, the %SUP for the GP are more than 50%. We developed an M&S process for probabilistic cost-effective analysis, this method would be useful for decision-making in choosing a cancer chemotherapy regimen in terms of pharmacoeconomic.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin Versus Gemcitabine Alone for Treatment of Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of combination treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin compared to treatment with gemcitabine alone for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) in Japan. METHODS: A monthly transmitted Markov model of three states was constructed based on the Japan BT-22 trial. Transition probabilities among the health states were derived from a trial conducted in Japan and converted to appropriate parameters for our model. The associated cost components, obtained from a receipt-based survey undertaken at the Aichi Medical University Hospital, were those related to inpatient care, outpatient care, and treatment for BTC. Costs for palliative care and treatment of adverse events were obtained from the National Health Insurance price list. We estimated cost-effectiveness per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a time horizon of 36 months. An annual discount of 3 % for both cost and outcome was considered. RESULTS: The base case outcomes indicated that combination therapy was less cost-effective than monotherapy when the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was approximately 14 million yen per QALY gained. The deterministic sensitivity analysis of the ICER revealed that the ICER of the base case was robust. A probabilistic analysis conducted with 10,000-time Monte Carlo simulations demonstrated efficacy at the willingness to pay threshold of 6 million yen per QALY gained for approximately 33 % of the population. CONCLUSION: In Japan, combination therapy is less cost-effective than monotherapy for treating advanced BTC, regardless of the statistical significance of the two therapies. Useful information on the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy is much needed for the treatment of advanced BTC in Japan.

Cost analysis of cetuximab (Erbitux) plus radiotherapy (ERT) versus concomitant cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CRT) within an NHS oncology unit (single institution): a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this feasibility study is to define the resource effectiveness of cetuximab vs cisplatin given concomitantly with radiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma within a National Health Service clinical oncology unit. METHODS: 20 patients with Stage 3 or 4 head and neck squamous cell cancers were randomized to receive either cetuximab with radiotherapy (ERT) or cisplatin with radiotherapy concurrent with external beam radiotherapy 70 Gy in 35 fractions on a 1 : 1 basis over a 12-month duration. The study compared the resource utilization of ERT vs cisplatin with radiotherapy taking into account drug costs, clinical management and the costs of managing treatment-related toxicity from first fraction of radiotherapy to 6 months after the completion of therapy. Outcome measures were quality of life (recorded at the entry, end of radiotherapy, 6 weeks post treatment and 6 months post treatment), admissions to hospital, delays to radiotherapy, locoregional control and survival. RESULTS: Total drug costs including cost of nutritional supplements for patients treated with cetuximab were £7407.45 compared with £3959.07 for patients treated with cisplatin. Unscheduled admissions for toxicity management were significantly more common in the ERT arm. Healthcare personnel spent significantly more time delivering unscheduled outpatient care for patients receiving cisplatin than for those receiving cetuximab (p = 0.01). No significant difference in the quality of life was suggested at baseline, 6 weeks and 6 months. The mean time to removal of percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG) after completion of radiotherapy was 49.7 weeks in the cisplatin arm and 18.5 weeks in the cetuximab arm (p = 0.04). There was a statistically significant difference in patient-reported use of PEG between the cisplatin and cetuximab arms at 6 months following completion of treatment (p = 0.04). At 21 months, overall survival was 80% in the cisplatin arm vs 50% in the cetuximab (p = 0.332), with disease-free survival being 80% in the cisplatin arm vs 40% in the cetuximab (p = 0.097). CONCLUSION: Cetuximab is still more expensive in simple drug cost terms than cisplatin when delivered with radiotherapy taking into account costs of drugs for toxicity management and nutritional supplements but other resource implications such as inpatient admission, time spent delivering unscheduled care and cost of additional investigations to manage toxicity for patients treated with cisplatin significantly reduce differential. The study suggested significant differences in patient-reported PEG use at 6 months and in time to PEG removal in favour of the cetuximab arm. Advances in knowledge: There is paucity of randomized data on cost analysis for cisplatin vs cetuximab radiotherapy; this trial informs on the cost analysis between the two approaches.

Cisplatin for testicular germ cell tumors: a rapid review.

OBJECTIVE: Cisplatin is one of efficacious medicines for TGCT, but is not in 18th WHO EML now. The Union for International Cancer Control recommended cisplatin to the 19th WHO EML for TGCT. To evaluate the effectiveness, safety and cost of cisplatin for TGCT according to the requirements of WHO EML Expert Committee, and to provide the evidence whether cisplatin should be included in WHO EML. METHOD: We searched The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, NHS EED, US National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) and WHO guidelines. Guidelines and systematic reviews (SRs) on cisplatin for TGCT were included. Two reviewers selected studies and extracted relevant information independently. Quality of SRs was appraised through AMSTAR. RESULTS: Seven guidelines and four SRs were included in this rapid review. Quality of SRs was moderate according to AMSTAR. The results showed that: (a) effectiveness: cisplatin-based chemotherapy significantly improved in response rates and overall survival for more advanced disease (stage II and stage III). Bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP)-one of the most widely used of cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens should be considered as the standard treatment of good-prognosis patients with survival rates of 90% and as the best option for intermediate- or poor-prognosis patients with survival rates of 75% and 50%, respectively. (b) Safety: nephrotoxicity, ototoxicity and peripheral neuropathy are common adverse effects of cisplatin. (c) Cost: there was no relevant study about cost of cisplatin for TGCT. But the affordability of cispaltin is good for Chinese patients, due to it is in health insurance directory of China. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend cisplatin to be listed in 19th WHO EML for TGCT, due to adequate evidence of effectiveness and good affordability.

An economic analysis of cisplatin alone versus cisplatin doublets in the treatment of women with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer.

PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION: Randomized trials have demonstrated improvements in overall survival when using platinum doublets com- pared to single agent platinum in the treatment of women with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer. The authors sought to evaluate the cost effectiveness of these regimens. METHODS: A decision model was developed based on Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocols 179 and 204. Cisplatin alone was compared to cisplatin/paclitaxel (CP), cisplatin/topotecan (CT), cisplatin/gemcitabine (GC), cisplatin/vinorelbine (CV), and a hypothetical novel agent. Parameters included overall survival (OS), cost, and complications. One way sensitivity analyses were performed. In further sensitivity analysis, a hypothetical agent that added 3.7 months survival to CP's survival was studied. RESULTS: The chemotherapy drug costs for six cycles of cisplatin was 89 USD while for cisplatin/paclitaxel it was 489 USD. The highest chemotherapy cost was for GC at 18,306 USD. The average total cost of six cycles CP was 13,250 USD while the average cost of cisplatin alone was 14,573 USD. The highest average cost for six cycles was for GC at 33,559 USD. With cisplatin/paclitaxel being the most effective, the cost effectiveness analysis showed that cisplatin, CT, GC, and VC were all dominated by CP. Because of the regimens being dominated, no baseline ICERs compared to CP were calculable. Sensitivity analyses demonstrate that even all of the chemotherapies were given for free, CP would still be the regimen of choice. CONCLUSIONS: In this model, CP is the most cost effective regimen for the treatment of these patients with an average cost of 13,250 USD. With the fact that GOG 204 also showed statistically significantly improved survival for CP, CP should be considered the regimen of choice.

Oral vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus pemetrexed plus cisplatin as first-line treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: cost minimization analysis in 12 European countries.

OBJECTIVE: A combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin is a standard treatment in non-small-cell lung cancer; oral vinorelbine is registered in 45 countries. Pemetrexed and cisplatin are recommended in front-line chemotherapy of non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC). The objective of this study was to conduct a cost minimization analysis from the perspective of the national health service (NHS) in each of 12 European countries, based on a randomized phase II study in NS-NSCLC (NAVoTRIAL01), with 100 oral vinorelbine plus cisplatin patients (arm A) and 51 pemetrexed plus cisplatin patients (arm B). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Country-specific costs and DRG codes considered included those relating to anticancer drugs, administration settings (out-patient/in-patient/at home), serious adverse events (defined as involving hospitalization and considered due to anticancer drugs) and concomitant medications. Relevant costs were calculated based on country-specific reimbursement procedures and official tariffs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost and savings per patient. RESULTS: Using the NHS perspective, savings per patient treated with oral vinorelbine ranged from €1317 (Denmark) to €35,001 (Germany). Expressed as percentages, savings per patient treated with oral vinorelbine compared with pemetrexed ranged between 5% (France) and 83% (Czech Republic). Pooled average costs for each treatment arm across the 12 countries resulted in cost savings for payers of €12,871, favoring oral vinorelbine plus cisplatin. CONCLUSIONS: Given the reported efficacy with both regimens, this pan-European economic analysis provides compelling evidence supporting oral vinorelbine use over pemetrexed for the treatment of NS-NSCLC. Oral vinorelbine provides similar efficacy and an easily manageable safety profile at lower overall cost per patient treated, combined with an easier/more convenient mode of administration. Sensitivity analysis across varied scenarios demonstrated the robustness of the results. The principle weakness of our study was its reliance upon a single small scale study to provide efficacy data, since this is the only study conducted in this specific population of patients. Further large scale trials are needed to confirm these results.