Cost-effectiveness of first-line vs third-line ibrutinib in patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The ALLIANCE A041202 trial found that continuously administered ibrutinib in the first-line setting significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with a fixed-duration treatment of rituximab and bendamustine in older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In this study, we created a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in the first-line setting, compared with a strategy of using ibrutinib in the third-line after failure of time-limited bendamustine and venetoclax-based regimens. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from a US payer perspective. First-line ibrutinib was associated with an improvement of 0.26 QALYs and 0.40 life-years compared with using ibrutinib in the third-line setting. However, using ibrutinib in the first-line led to significantly higher health care costs (incremental cost of $612 700), resulting in an ICER of $2 350 041 per QALY. The monthly cost of ibrutinib would need to be decreased by 72% for first-line ibrutinib therapy to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. In a scenario analysis where ibrutinib was used in the second-line in the delayed ibrutinib arm, first-line ibrutinib had an incremental cost of $478 823, an incremental effectiveness of 0.05 QALYs, and an ICER of $9 810 360 per QALY when compared with second-line use. These data suggest that first-line ibrutinib for unselected older adults with CLL is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying ibrutinib for most patients with CLL until later lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit health care costs without compromising clinical outcomes.

Cost drivers of locally advanced rectal cancer treatment-An analysis of a leading healthcare insurer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the economic burden of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) treatment from a society perspective through analysis of health insurance-derived data of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage (MA) patients. METHODS: Retrospective cost analysis of patients undergoing rectal resection within a multimodal (neoadjuvant chemoradiation + adjuvant chemotherapy) treatment strategy between January 1, 2010 and October 31, 2018, using the claims OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. RESULTS: In total, 1738 (935 commercial and 803 MA) patients were included. Overall treatment costs totaled $230,881,746 (on average $183 653 ± 82 384 per commercially insured and $73 681 ± 32 917 per MA patient). Cost distribution according to category (commercially insured patients) was: 29.92% related to outpatient care (follow-up visits/diagnostics), radiotherapy: 21.83%, index resection: 20.62%, chemotherapy: 17.44%, surgical inpatient: 6.32%, medical inpatient: 3.28%, emergency room: 0.58%. Relative cost distribution of the index resection itself differed marginally between the three approaches and was 21.49% for open, 19.30% for laparoscopic, and 20.93% for robotic surgery. Relative cost distributions of neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and outpatient treatments remained unchanged, independently of the surgical approach. This representation was similar in MA patients. CONCLUSION: Index-surgery related costs were outweighed by costs related to oncological and outpatient workup/follow-up treatments independently of both surgical approach and insurance type.

Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for HER2-positive breast cancer: cost-effectiveness and quality of life outcomes.

PURPOSE: Achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) with neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer is associated with less recurrence and improved clinical outcomes compared to having residual cancer at surgery. However, recent data have demonstrated favorable outcomes for patients with residual HER2-positive cancer who received adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (TDM-1). Therefore, we sought to determine the optimal chemotherapy/anti-HER2 treatment strategy. METHODS: We created a decision-analytic model for patients with stage II-III HER2-positive cancer that incorporated utilities based on toxicity and recurrence. We separately modeled hormone receptor-negative (HR-) and positive (HR+) disease and calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs through 5 years. Simulated patients received one of the following neoadjuvant treatments: three 'intensive' regimens (TCHP: docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, pertuzumab; THP + AC: taxol, trastuzumab, pertuzumab then doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide; THP: taxol, trastuzumab, pertuzumab) and two 'de-escalated' regimens (TH: taxol, trastuzumab; TDM-1) followed by adjuvant treatment based on pathologic response. RESULTS: Among 'intensive' neoadjuvant strategies, treatment with THP was more effective and less costly than TCHP or THP + AC. When 'de-escalated' strategies were included, TH became the most cost-effective. For HR-negative cancer, TH had 0.003 fewer quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than THP but was less costly by $55,831, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of over $18M/QALY for THP, well above any threshold. For HR-positive cancer, neoadjuvant TH dominated the THP strategy. CONCLUSION: An adaptive-treatment strategy beginning with neoadjuvant THP or TH followed by tailoring post-operative therapy reduces treatment costs, and spares toxicity compared to more intensive chemotherapy regimens for women with HER2-positive breast cancer.

Total and out-of-pocket costs of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Communicating healthcare costs to patients is an important component of delivering high-quality value-based care, yet cost data are lacking. This is especially relevant for ovarian cancer, where no clinical consensus on optimal first-line treatment exists. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to generate cost estimates of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer. STUDY DESIGN: All women who underwent treatment for ovarian cancer from 2006-2015 were identified from the MarketScan database (n=12,761) in this observational cohort study. Total and out-of-pocket costs were calculated with the use of all claims within 8 months from initial treatment and normalized to 2017 US dollars. The generalized linear model method was used to assess cost by strategy. RESULTS: Among patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those who underwent primary debulking, mean adjusted total costs were $113,660 and $107,153 (P<.001) and mean out-of-pocket costs were $2519 and $2977 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for patients who had intravenous standard, intravenous dose-dense, and intraperitoneal/intravenous chemotherapy were $105,047, $115,099, and $121,761 (P<.001); and out-of-pocket costs were $2838, $3405, and $2888 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for regimens that included bevacizumab were higher than those without it ($171,468 vs $104,482; P<.001); out-of-pocket costs were $3127 vs $2898 (P<.001). Among patients who did not receive bevacizumab, 25% paid ≥$3875, and 10% paid ≥$6265. For patients who received bevacizumab, 25% paid ≥$4480, and 10% paid ≥$6635. Among patients enrolled in high-deductible health plans, median out-of-pocket costs were $4196, with 25% paying ≥$6680 and 10% paying ≥$9751. CONCLUSION: Costs vary across different treatment strategies, and patients bear a significant out-of-pocket burden, especially those enrolled in high-deductible health plans.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy Followed by Radical Resection Versus Conventional Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Definitive surgery with total mesorectal excision is the mainstay of treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. Multimodality therapy improves long-term survival. Current standards advise neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by radical surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Nationally, compliance with adjuvant chemotherapy is only 32%. New research evaluates the effectiveness of total neoadjuvant therapy: complete chemotherapy and chemoradiation before surgery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine the favored treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer by comparing the cost-effectiveness of total neoadjuvant therapy and the current standard of care. DESIGN: Decision analytical modeling using long-term costs and 5-year disease-free survival was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness after total neoadjuvant therapy and the current standard of care. Sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in model parameters. SETTINGS: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services billing data perspective was adopted and outcomes modeled according to local and national databases and literature consensus. PATIENTS: Adult patients with stage II or III rectal cancer were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness in disease-free life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net monetary benefit were determined over a 5-year posttreatment period. The favored strategy was determined based on cost-effectiveness and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness for total neoadjuvant therapy was 40,708 $/life-year, and, for conventional therapy, cost-effectiveness was 44,248 $/life-year. Sensitivity analysis showed that, for an estimated total neoadjuvant therapy completion rate of 90%, total neoadjuvant therapy would remain the dominant strategy for any adjuvant chemotherapy completion rate of less than 93%. LIMITATIONS: The samples used to calculate completion rates are small, and survival probabilities are based on existing literature, local database values, and consensus estimates. The model encompasses a 5-year time period from diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analysis shows that a strategy of total neoadjuvant therapy followed by radical surgery is favored over the current standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. Sensitivity analysis shows that a low rate of adjuvant chemotherapy administration plays a key role in decreasing the cost-effectiveness of the current standard of care. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A942.

Cost effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery versus primary cytoreductive surgery for patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer during the initial treatment phase.

OBJECTIVE: Advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) can be treated with either neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS). Although randomized controlled trials show that NACT is non-inferior in overall survival compared to PCS, there may be improvement in short-term morbidity. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of NACT relative to PCS for AEOC from the US Medicare perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model with a 7-month time horizon comparing (1) 3cycles of NACT with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CT), followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, then 3 additional cycles of CT, or (2) PCS followed by 6cycles of CT. Input parameters included probability of chemotherapy complications, surgical complications, treatment completion, treatment costs, and utilities. Model outcomes included costs, life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), in terms of cost per life-year gained and cost per QALY gained. We accounted for differences in surgical complexity by incorporating the cost of additional procedures and the probability of undergoing those procedures. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed via Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: NACT resulted in a savings of $7034 per patient with a 0.035 QALY increase compared to PCS; therefore, NACT dominated PCS in the base case analysis. With PSA, NACT was the dominant strategy more than 99% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: In the short-term, NACT is a cost-effective alternative compared to PCS in women with AEOC. These results may translate to longer term cost-effectiveness; however, data from randomized control trials continues to mature.

Modelling cost-effectiveness of a biomarker-based approach to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To model the cost-effectiveness of a biomarker-based approach to select patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) before radical cystectomy (RC) in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We obtained data from the most recent clinical studies on patients with locally advanced MIBC treated by RC, including stage distributions, overall survival (OS) estimates, associated costs, and utilisation/response to NAC. Additionally, we estimated the putative efficacy of three biomarkers to select patients for NAC: DNA-repair gene panel [ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), retinoblastoma 1 (RB1), and Fanconi anaemia complementation group C (FANCC)], excision repair cross-complementation group 2 (ERCC2), and ribonucleic acid (RNA) subtypes. A decision analysis model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of biomarker-based approaches to select patients with MIBC for NAC. Comparison of cost-effectiveness included RC alone, unselected NAC plus RC, and NAC based on the three aforementioned biomarkers. RESULTS: The DNA-repair gene panel-based approach to NAC was the most cost-effective strategy (mean OS of 3.14 years, $31 482/life year). Under this approach, 38% would undergo NAC, about twice the number of patients who are currently receiving NAC for MIBC. Such an approach would improve mean OS by 5.2, 1.6, and 4.4 months compared to RC alone, a hypothetical scenario where all patients received NAC, and compared to current estimates of NAC utilisation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A biomarker-based strategy to identify patients with MIBC who should undergo NAC was more cost-effective than unselected use of NAC or RC alone. As further data becomes available, such a model may serve as a basis for incorporating biomarkers into clinical decision making.

Milestones over the development of SB3, a trastuzumab biosimilar.

The development of a biosimilar requires large extensive preclinical and clinical comparability exercises to demonstrate equivalence to the reference medical product. The holistic results from this large assessment should be taken into account to appreciate the validity of the development and the interpretations. SB3 is the first trastuzumab biosimilar approved for routine use in Europe. The present manuscript reviews the development and the results of SB3, including clinical assessment and the clinical Phase I, as well as the large randomized Phase III comparing efficacy between SB3 versus Herceptin® containing regimen in neoadjuvant setting. Key points of the design and interpretations of the findings are extensively discussed in this review of SB3 development.

Economic Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Versus Primary Debulking Surgery for Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Using an Aggressive Surgical Paradigm.

OBJECTIVES: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus primary debulking surgery (PDS) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) remains controversial in the United States. Generalizability of existing trial results has been criticized because of less aggressive debulking procedures than commonly used in the United States. As a result, economic evaluations using input data from these trials may not accurately reflect costs and outcomes associated with more aggressive primary surgery. Using data from an ongoing trial performing aggressive debulking, we investigated the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of NACT versus PDS for AEOC. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed to estimate differences in short-term outcomes and costs for a hypothetical cohort of 15,000 AEOC patients (US annual incidence of AEOC) treated with NACT versus PDS over a 1-year time horizon from a Medicare payer perspective. Outcomes included costs per cancer-related death averted, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Base-case probabilities, costs, and utilities were based on the Surgical Complications Related to Primary or Interval Debulking in Ovarian Neoplasms trial. Base-case analyses assumed equivalent survival; threshold analysis estimated the maximum survival difference that would result in NACT being cost-effective at $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay thresholds. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to characterize model uncertainty. RESULTS: Compared with PDS, NACT was associated with $142 million in cost savings, 1098 fewer cancer-related deaths, and 1355 life-years and 1715 QALYs gained, making it the dominant treatment strategy for all outcomes. In sensitivity analysis, NACT remained dominant in 99.3% of simulations. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy remained cost-effective at $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay thresholds if survival differences were less than 2.7 and 1.4 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the short term, NACT is cost-saving with improved outcomes. However, if PDS provides a longer-term survival advantage, it may be cost-effective. Research is needed on the role of patient preferences in tradeoffs between survival and quality of life.

Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy as diagnostic tool before primary cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a diagnostic laparoscopy prior to primary cytoreductive surgery to prevent futile primary cytoreductive surgery (i.e. leaving >1cm residual disease) in patients suspected of advanced stage ovarian cancer. METHODS: An economic analysis was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial in which patients suspected of advanced stage ovarian cancer who qualified for primary cytoreductive surgery were randomized to either laparoscopy or primary cytoreductive surgery. Direct medical costs from a health care perspective over a 6-month time horizon were analyzed. Health outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and utility was based on patient's response to the EQ-5D questionnaires. We primarily focused on direct medical costs based on Dutch standard prices. RESULTS: We studied 201 patients, of whom 102 were randomized to laparoscopy and 99 to primary cytoreductive surgery. No significant difference in QALYs (utility=0.01; 95% CI 0.006 to 0.02) was observed. Laparoscopy reduced the number of futile laparotomies from 39% to 10%, while its costs were € 1400 per intervention, making the overall costs of both strategies comparable (difference € -80 per patient (95% CI -470 to 300)). Findings were consistent across various sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: In patients with suspected advanced stage ovarian cancer, a diagnostic laparoscopy reduced the number of futile laparotomies, without increasing total direct medical health care costs, or adversely affecting complications or quality of life.

Identifying accessible prognostic factors for breast cancer relapse: a case-study on 405 histologically confirmed node-negative patients.

BACKGROUND: Histologically, node-negative breast cancer generally have a good prognosis. However, 10 to 30% of the cases present local relapses or metastasis. This group of people has high chances of remission if detected early. The aim of this study is to identify financial affordability for developing countries to adjust treatment. METHODS: We selected 405 patients with histologically confirmed node-negative breast cancer in our institution between January 2001 and December 2003. Patients with metastasis were excluded. The statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS ver. 18 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Illinois). RESULTS: The medial age was 51 years old. The medial tumor size was 35.4 mm. Clinically, 67.2% of the patients were staged cT2 and 63.2%, cN1i. Breast conservation was achieved in 41% of cases. In the histologic examination, the medial size was 30 mm. Grade III tumors were found in 50.1% of patients and positive hormonal receptors in 53.4%. The mean number of lymph nodes was 14. Eight patients had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Adjuvant locoregional radiation and adjuvant chemotherapy were prescribed respectively in 70.6 and 64.4% of cases. 59.7% had adjuvant hormonal therapy. The follow-up showed 17.7% cases of relapse either locally or in a metastatic way in a mean time of 57.4 months. The disease-free survival at 5 years was 82.1%, and the overall survival for the same period was 91.5%. The histologic tumor size and the grade and number of lymph node dissected were shown to be influencing the disease-free survival. Radiation therapy and hormone therapy showed improved disease-free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSION: Our study found interesting results that may help personalize the treatment especially for patient living in underdeveloped countries, but further studies are needed to evaluate those and more accessible prognostic factors for a more accessible healthcare.

[Clinical efficacy of ladder neoadjuvant therapy in treatment of advanced mid-low rectal cancer].

Objective: To explore the clinical efficacy of ladder neoadjuvant therapy in treatment of advanced mid-low rectal cancer. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of one hundred and eighty mid and low rectal cancer patients who underwent ladder neoadjuvant therapy(neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery if neoadjuvant chemotherapy was effective; neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy if neoadjuvant chemotherapy was ineffective)(n=90) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n=90). Results: In the ladder neoadjuvant therapy group, the descent stage rate was 85.6% (77/90), the anastomosis rate was 50.0% (45/90), the pre-sacral infection rate was 4.4% (4/90), the pathological complete remission (pCR) was 13.3%(12/90), R0 resection rate was 85.6% (77/90), the 2-year disease control rate was 76.7% (69/90), and the 2-year survival rate was 90.0% (81/90). In the control group, the descent stage rate was 88.9% (80/90), The anastomosis rate was 45.6% (41/90), the rate of pre-sacral infection was 11.1% (10/90), pCR was 16.7% 15/90), R0 resection rate was 88.9% (80/90), the 2-year disease control rate was 78.9% (71/90), and the 2-year survival rate was 87.8% (79/90). The difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The ladder neoadjuvant therapy group had lower prophylactic transverse colostomyrate(10.0% vs 34.4%), lower radiation injury rate (6.7% vs 27.8%), and lower sexual dysfunction rate (38.9% vs 87.8)compared to the control group. Conclusions: The ladder neoadjuvant therapy might reduce side injury caused by radiotherapy, improve compliance of patients, and reduce treatment costs. Moreover, the RO resection rate, 2-year local control rate and 2-year survival rate of ladder neoadjuvant therapy group was comparable with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness and resource use of implementing MRI-guided NACT in ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancers in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Response-guided neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RG-NACT) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is effective in treating oestrogen receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (ER-positive/HER2-negative) breast cancer. We estimated the expected cost-effectiveness and resources required for its implementation compared to conventional-NACT. METHODS: A Markov model compared costs, quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) and costs/QALY of RG-NACT vs. conventional-NACT, from a hospital perspective over a 5-year time horizon. Health services required for and health outcomes of implementation were estimated via resource modelling analysis, considering a current (4 %) and a full (100 %) implementation scenario. RESULTS: RG-NACT was expected to be more effective and less costly than conventional NACT in both implementation scenarios, with 94 % (current) and 95 % (full) certainty, at a willingness to pay threshold of €20.000/QALY. Fully implementing RG-NACT in the Dutch target population of 6306 patients requires additional 5335 MRI examinations and an (absolute) increase in the number of MRI technologists, by 3.6 fte (full-time equivalent), and of breast radiologists, by 0.4 fte. On the other hand, it prevents 9 additional relapses, 143 cancer deaths, 23 congestive heart failure events and 2 myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukaemia events. CONCLUSION: Considering cost-effectiveness, RG-NACT is expected to dominate conventional-NACT. While personnel capacity is likely to be sufficient for a full implementation scenario, MRI utilization needs to be intensified.

Frontline rituximab monotherapy induction versus a watch and wait approach for asymptomatic advanced-stage follicular lymphoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: A watch and wait (WW) strategy is the standard of care for patients with asymptomatic advanced-stage follicular lymphoma. Recent data have demonstrated an improvement in the time to progression with rituximab induction (RI) with or without rituximab maintenance (RM) in comparison with a WW strategy wait in such patients. It remains unclear whether this is a cost-effective strategy. METHODS: A Markov decision analysis model was developed to compare the clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of RI (4 weekly doses) plus RM (12 doses every 2 months), RI (4 weekly doses), and a WW strategy for patients newly diagnosed with low-burden, asymptomatic advanced-stage follicular lymphoma over a lifetime horizon. Baseline probabilities and utilities were derived from a systematic review of published studies, and they were evaluated on a 6-month cycle. A Canadian public health payer's perspective was adopted, and costs were presented in 2012 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: RI was the cheapest strategy. It was less costly at $59,953 versus $67,489 for the RM arm and $75,895 for the WW arm. It was also associated with a slightly lower quality-adjusted life expectancy at 6.16 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus 6.28 QALYs for the RM strategy but was superior to WW (5.71 QALYs). In sensitivity analyses of key variables, this effectiveness was sensitive to the probability of first and second progression in the RI arm, and this indicated relatively neutral effectiveness between the 2 rituximab arms. CONCLUSIONS: RI without maintenance for asymptomatic advanced-stage follicular lymphoma is the preferred strategy: it minimizes costs per patient over a lifetime horizon.

Cost-utility comparison of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus primary debulking surgery for treatment of advanced-stage ovarian cancer in patients 65 years old or older.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) includes primary debulking surgery (PDS) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). A randomized controlled trial comparing these treatments resulted in comparable overall survival (OS). Studies report more complications and lower chemotherapy completion rates in patients 65 years old or older receiving PDS. We sought to evaluate the cost implications of NACT relative to PDS in AEOC patients 65 years old or older. STUDY DESIGN: A 5 year Markov model was created. Arm 1 modeled PDS followed by 6 cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel (CT). Arm 2 modeled 3 cycles of CT, followed by interval debulking surgery and then 3 additional cycles of CT. Parameters included OS, surgical complications, probability of treatment initiation, treatment cost, and quality of life (QOL). OS was assumed to be equal based on the findings of the international randomized control trial. Differences in surgical complexity were accounted for in base surgical cost plus add-on procedure costs weighted by occurrence rates. Hospital cost was a weighted average of diagnosis-related group costs weighted by composite estimates of complication rates. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Assuming equal survival, NACT produces a cost savings of $5616. If PDS improved median OS by 1.5 months or longer, PDS would be cost effective (CE) at a $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold. If PDS improved OS by 3.2 months or longer, it would be CE at a $50,000 threshold. The model was robust to variation in costs and complication rates. Moderate decreases in the QOL with NACT would result in PDS being CE. CONCLUSION: A model based on the RCT comparing NACT and PDS showed NACT is a cost-saving treatment compared with PDS for AEOC in patients 65 years old or older. Small increases in OS with PDS or moderate declines in QOL with NACT would result in PDS being CE at the $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold. Our results support further evaluation of the effects of PDS on OS, QOL and complications in AEOC patients 65 years old or older.

Cost-Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy versus Primary Surgery in Elderly Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer has increased in recent years. There is uncertainty about NAC's effectiveness and no study of its cost-effectiveness compared with that of standard primary debulking surgery (PDS). OBJECTIVES: To seek answers to three important questions: 1) What is the lifetime cost of treating elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer, based on the primary treatment received? 2) Are the extra costs expended by the NAC group worth any extra survival advantage? 3) Would NAC potentially benefit a particular subgroup and serve as a cost-effective first-line treatment approach? METHODS: A cohort of elderly women (≥65 years) with stage III/IV ovarian cancer was identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked database from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2009. Cost analysis was conducted from a payer perspective, and direct medical costs incurred by Medicare were integrated for each patient. Cumulative treatment costs were estimated with a phase-of-care approach, and effectiveness was measured as years of survival. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and propensity-score-adjusted net monetary benefit regression was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of NAC per life-year gained. Analyses were further stratified by risk group categorization on the basis of tumor stage, patient age, and comorbidity score. RESULTS: Average lifetime cost for treatment with NAC was $17,417 more than with PDS. With only 0.1 incremental life-year gained, the ICER estimate was $174,173. Stratification, however, helped to delineate the treatment effect. Patients in the high-risk subgroup incurred $34,390 and 0.8 life-years more than did patients in the PDS subgroup, with a corresponding ICER of $42,987. In the non-high-risk subgroup, NAC use was dominated by PDS (more costly, less effective). CONCLUSIONS: Administering NAC before surgery to patients in the high-risk subgroup was cost-effective at "normal" levels of willingness to pay, but not for the overall sample or for patients in the non-high-risk subgroup.

Clinical Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness of Primary Prophylaxis of Febrile Neutropenia During Adjuvant Docetaxel and Cyclophosphamide Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.

Docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) is a widely used breast cancer adjuvant regimen. We sought to compare the rates of febrile neutropenia (FN) between patients receiving no primary prophylaxis (PP) and those receiving PP with either granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) or antibiotics. We also analyzed cost-effectiveness of TC with and without either G-CSF or antibiotics. Charts were reviewed of all 340 patients who received adjuvant TC between January 2008 and December 2012 at two major cancer centers. Rates of FN in the three groups - no PP, PP with G-CSF and PP with antibiotics were compared. A Markov model was constructed comparing cost-effectiveness of PP with G-CSF, PP with antibiotics, and secondary prophylaxis (SP) with G-CSF after an episode of FN in a previous cycle. Costs were based on actual resource utilization and supplemented by the published literature, adjusted to 2012 Canadian dollars. Of the 73 (21%) patients who did not receive any PP, 23 (32%) of patients developed FN. Of the 192 (57%) patients receiving PP with G-CSF alone, only two (1%; p < 0.0001) developed FN; and of the 53 (16%) receiving PP with antibiotics alone, six (11%; p < 0.01) developed FN. From a cost-standpoint, PP with G-CSF was less cost-effective than PP with antibiotics. The rate of FN with TC chemotherapy exceeds 30%, and American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend PP with G-CSF in this situation. PP with antibiotics is more cost-effective, and is a reasonable option in resource-limited settings or for patients who decline or do not tolerate G-CSF.

Economic Evaluation of Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: In the absence of evidence on whether neoadjuvant (NAC) or adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is more beneficial for various tumor treatments, economic evaluation (EE) can assist medical decision making. There is limited evidence on their cost-effectiveness and their prospective evaluation is less likely in the future. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis about EE for NAC versus AC in solid tumor help compare these therapies from various perspectives. METHODS: Various databases were searched for studies published from inception to 2021. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines and economic-specific guidelines. The data were pooled using a random effects model when possible. RESULTS: The retrieval identified 15 EE studies of NAC versus AC in 8 types of cancer. NAC is the dominant strategy for pancreatic, head and neck, rectal, prostate cancers and colorectal liver metastases. For ovarian cancer, NAC is cost-effective with a lower cost and higher or similar quality-adjusted life-year. There were no significant differences in cost and outcomes for lung cancer. For stage IV or high-risk patients with ovarian or prostate cancer, NAC was cost-effective but not for patients who were not high risk. CONCLUSIONS: The EEs results for NAC versus AC were inconsistent because of their different model structures, assumptions, cost inclusions, and a shortage of studies. There are multiple sources of heterogeneity across EEs evidence synthesis. More high-quality EE studies on NAC versus AC in initial cancer treatment are necessary.

Assessing the fiscal consequences of novel and existing treatments for triple negative breast cancer in Switzerland by applying a government perspective framework.

BACKGROUND: Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer that can impact patients' employment and workforce participation. This study estimates how the employment effects of TNBC impact government tax revenue and public benefits expenditure in Switzerland, representing the fiscal burden of disease (FBoD), and likely consequences of introducing new treatment options. METHODS: A four-state cohort model was used to calculate fiscal effects for two treatments: Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab monotherapy (P + C→P) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (C). Lifetime present values of tax revenue, social benefit payments, and healthcare costs were calculated for the average population and those undergoing treatment to assess the FBoD. RESULTS: An average TNBC patient treated with C and P + C→P is expected to generate CHF128,999 and CHF97,008 less tax than the average population, respectively, and require increased social benefit payments. Compared to C, 75% of the incremental healthcare costs of P + C→P are estimated to be offset through tax revenue gains. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that 75% of the additional costs of a new TNBC treatment option can be offset by gains in tax revenue. Fiscal analysis can be a useful tool to complement existing methods for evaluating new treatments.