RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes and cost-effectiveness of targeted therapy sequencing for metastatic and recurrent cervical cancer. METHOD: Models were simulated based on phase II and III trials on bevacizumab (bev) from GOG-240, cemiplimab (cemi) from GOG 3016, pembrolizumab (pembro) from KEYNOTE-826, and tisotumab vedotin (tiso) from GOG 3023. Costs were based on IBM Micromedex RED BOOK™ and company listed costs. RESULTS: For [chemo + bev â chemo], total cost was $125,918.04, with median overall survival (mOS) of 21.8 months, and cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of $119,835.79. For [chemo + bev â cemi], total cost was $187,562.99 with mOS of 28.5 months and CER of $162,039.16. For [chemo + bev + pembro â chemo], total cost was $319,963.78 with mOS 32.9 months and CER of $249,930.10. For [chemo + bev + pembro â tiso], total cost was $455,204.45, with mOS 36.5 months and CER of $320,072.99. CONCLUSION: The combination of immunotherapies and biologics have significantly increased overall survival, but with associated higher costs, primarily related to drug costs.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/tratamiento farmacológico , Análisis de Costo-Efectividad , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/tratamiento farmacológico , Bevacizumab/uso terapéutico , Análisis Costo-BeneficioRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial found that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy compared to open radical hysterectomy compromised oncologic outcomes and was associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in early-stage cervical carcinoma. We sought to assess oncologic outcomes at multiple centers between minimally invasive (MIS) radical hysterectomy and OPEN radical hysterectomy. METHODS: This is a multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of patients with 2009 FIGO stage IA1 (with lymphovascular space invasion) to IB1 cervical carcinoma from 1/2007-12/2016. Patients who underwent preoperative therapy were excluded. Squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous carcinomas were included. Appropriate statistical tests were used. RESULTS: We identified 1093 cases for analysis-715 MIS (558 robotic [78%]) and 378. OPEN procedures. The OPEN cohort had more patients with tumors >2 cm, residual disease in the hysterectomy specimen, and more likely to have had adjuvant therapy. Median follow-up for the MIS and OPEN cohorts were 38.5 months (range, 0.03-149.51) and 54.98 months (range, 0.03-145.20), respectively. Three-year PFS rates were 87.9% (95% CI: 84.9-90.4%) and 89% (95% CI: 84.9-92%), respectively (P = 0.6). On multivariate analysis, the adjusted HR for recurrence/death was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.47-1.03; P = 0.07). Three-year OS rates were 95.8% (95% CI: 93.6-97.2%) and 96.6% (95% CI: 93.8-98.2%), respectively (P = 0.8). On multivariate analysis, the adjusted HR for death was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.43-1.52; P = 0.5). CONCLUSION: This multi-institutional analysis showed that an MIS compared to OPEN radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer did not appear to compromise oncologic outcomes, with similar PFS and OS.