Taxane versus vinorelbine in combination with trastuzumab and pertuzumab for first-line treatment of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer: a retrospective two-center study.

BACKGROUND: The combination of a taxane with trastuzumab and pertuzumab is standard of care for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer. The combination of vinorelbine with trastuzumab and pertuzumab showed anti-tumor activity in a phase 2 trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The databases of two tertiary medical centers were retrospectively searched for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who underwent first-line treatment in 2013-2019 with a taxane or vinorelbine in combination with trastuzumab and pertuzumab. Groups were compared for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity profile. RESULTS: The study included 87 patients in the taxane group and 65 in the vinorelbine group. Overall median PFS was significantly longer in the taxane group [HR 0.56 (0.36-0.88), P = 0.01], but on multivariate analysis the difference was not statistically significant [HR 0.68 (0.4-1.1, P = 0.11)]. PFS was comparable in both groups of patients with recurrent disease [HR 0.94 (0.5-1.79), P = 0.85]. However, in patients with de novo metastatic disease, the difference in favor of the taxane group was pronounced [HR 0.4 (0.2-0.78), P = 0.007] and maintained significance on multivariate analysis [HR 0.46 (0.2-0.97, P = 0.04)]. There was no statistical significant difference in OS in the whole cohort [HR 0.69 (0.39-1.23)] or the subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer had similar survival with first-line treatment of taxane or vinorelbine combined with trastuzumab and pertuzumab. When the analysis was adjusted for prognostic factors, there was no PFS benefit for taxanes except in the subgroup with de novo disease.

A real-world analysis of cancer drug wastage due to oversized vials.

OBJECTIVES: A recent theoretical economic model suggested that oversized vials of cancer drugs lead to $1.8 billion of drug wastage annually in the United States. It is currently unknown how precisely this theoretical model is consistent with the real world. We performed a real-world analysis to assess the economic impact of drug wastage. METHODS: We performed a systematic examination of the usage and wastage of all intravenous cancer drugs in the cancer center of a large tertiary care hospital in Israel. During a period of 1 month, we collected usage and wastage data from the hospital's pharmacy dispensing computerized logs. We calculated the local financial impact using Israeli drug prices list (June 2016) from the ministry of health. We performed an additional analysis using discounted U.S. prices, using the October 2016 Average Sales Prices from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services. RESULTS: Seventy-four injectable anticancer drugs were used during March 2016, and 68 Israeli drug prices were available. The total amount spent on wasted drugs in 1 month was then extrapolated to calculate the annual spending, which was $141,196 per month (5.11% of the total cost) or $1,694,352 per year. Using U.S. prices, the total wastage would be $2,208,876 annually. The 5 drugs that led to the highest expenditure on wastage were bortezomib, trastuzumab, azacytidine, pemetrexed and carfilzomib. There was no wastage of 24 of the 74 drugs. CONCLUSION: This real-world study demonstrates the economic impact of wastage of anticancer drugs on health systems. To decrease wastage, particular attention should be paid to drugs with high usage rates, high cost, and oversized vials.