Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters








Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Cancer ; 125(2): 278-289, 2019 01 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30343509

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) show a significant response to checkpoint inhibitor therapies, but the economic impact of these therapies is unknown. A decision analytic model was used to explore the effectiveness and cost burden of MSI-H/dMMR mCRC treatment. METHODS: The treatment of hypothetical patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC was simulated in 2 treatment scenarios: a third-line treatment and an exploratory first-line treatment. The treatments compared were nivolumab, ipilimumab and nivolumab, trifluridine and tipiracil (third-line treatment), and mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (first-line treatment). Disease progression, drug toxicity, and survival rates were based on the CheckMate 142, study of TAS-102 in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapies (RECOURSE), and Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Southwest Oncology Group 80405 trials. The analyzed outcomes included survival (life-years), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Ipilimumab with nivolumab was the most effective strategy (10.69 life-years and 9.25 QALYs for the third line; 10.69 life-years and 9.44 QALYs for the first line) in comparison with nivolumab (8.21 life-years and 6.76 QALYs for the third line; 8.21 life-years and 7.00 QALYs for the first line), trifluridine and tipiracil (0.74 life-years and 0.07 QALYs), and mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (2.72 life-years and 1.63 QALYs). However, neither checkpoint inhibitor therapy was cost-effective in comparison with trifluridine and tipiracil (nivolumab ICER, $153,000; ipilimumab and nivolumab ICER, $162,700) or mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (nivolumab ICER, $150,700; ipilimumab and nivolumab ICER, $158,700). CONCLUSIONS: This modeling analysis found that both single and dual checkpoint blockade could be significantly more effective for MSI-H/dMMR mCRC than chemotherapy, but they were not cost-effective, largely because of drug costs. Decreases in drug pricing and/or the duration of maintenance nivolumab could make ipilimumab and nivolumab cost-effective. Prospective clinical trials should be performed to explore the optimal duration of maintenance nivolumab.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/economics , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/therapeutic use , Colorectal Neoplasms/drug therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/economics , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Colorectal Neoplasms/economics , Colorectal Neoplasms/genetics , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Cost-Benefit Analysis , DNA Mismatch Repair , Drug Costs , Female , Fluorouracil/economics , Fluorouracil/therapeutic use , Humans , Ipilimumab/administration & dosage , Ipilimumab/economics , Leucovorin/economics , Leucovorin/therapeutic use , Male , Microsatellite Instability , Middle Aged , Nivolumab/administration & dosage , Nivolumab/economics , Organoplatinum Compounds/economics , Organoplatinum Compounds/therapeutic use , Quality-Adjusted Life Years
2.
BMC Cancer ; 17(1): 646, 2017 Sep 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28899363

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3) is important in maintaining epidermal growth factor receptor-driven cancers and mediating resistance to targeted therapy. A phase I study of anti-HER3 monoclonal antibody LJM716 was conducted with the primary objective to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended dose for expansion (RDE), and dosing schedule. Secondary objectives were to characterize safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary antitumor activity. METHODS: This open-label, dose-finding study comprised dose escalation, followed by expansion in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck or esophagus, and HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer or gastric cancer. During dose escalation, patients received LJM716 intravenous once weekly (QW) or every two weeks (Q2W), in 28-day cycles. An adaptive Bayesian logistic regression model was used to guide dose escalation and establish the RDE. Exploratory pharmacodynamic tumor studies evaluated modulation of HER3 signaling. RESULTS: Patients received LJM716 3-40 mg/kg QW and 20 mg/kg Q2W (54 patients; 36 patients at 40 mg/kg QW). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported during dose-escalation. One patient experienced two DLTs (diarrhea, hypokalemia [both grade 3]) in the expansion phase. The RDE was 40 mg/kg QW, providing drug levels above the preclinical minimum effective concentration. One patient with gastric cancer had an unconfirmed partial response; 17/54 patients had stable disease, two lasting >30 weeks. Down-modulation of phospho-HER3 was observed in paired tumor samples. CONCLUSIONS: LJM716 was well tolerated; the MTD was not reached, and the RDE was 40 mg/kg QW. Further development of LJM716 is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registry number NCT01598077 (registered on 4 May, 2012).


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/administration & dosage , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/drug therapy , Esophageal Neoplasms/drug therapy , Head and Neck Neoplasms/drug therapy , Stomach Neoplasms/drug therapy , Adult , Aged , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/adverse effects , Bayes Theorem , Breast Neoplasms/genetics , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/genetics , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/pathology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Esophageal Neoplasms/genetics , Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology , Female , Head and Neck Neoplasms/genetics , Head and Neck Neoplasms/pathology , Humans , Male , Maximum Tolerated Dose , Middle Aged , Receptor, ErbB-2/genetics , Receptor, ErbB-3/genetics , Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and Neck , Stomach Neoplasms/genetics , Stomach Neoplasms/pathology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL