An economic evaluation of cabazitaxel versus a second androgen receptor-targeted agent (ARTA) for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and an ARTA: the United States payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Cabazitaxel significantly improves clinical outcomes compared with a second androgen receptor-targeted agent (ARTA) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with docetaxel and an ARTA (abiraterone or enzalutamide), as demonstrated in the CARD trial (NCT02485691). We aimed to estimate healthcare costs avoided with the use of cabazitaxel as a third-line (3 L) treatment versus a second ARTA from a US payer perspective. METHODS: Model inputs were based on the CARD trial, published sources, and estimates of typical clinical care patterns by genitourinary oncologists (n = 3). Assessed time points were 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), radiographic PFS (rPFS), and overall survival (OS); hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) days; and costs (reported in 2020 US dollar [USD] and converted into Euro) to manage symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs), adverse events (AEs), and end-of-life care. RESULTS: At 18 months, in a cohort of 100 patients, the use of cabazitaxel was estimated to result in 9 more patients achieving rPFS, 2 more patients achieving PFS, and 17 more survivors versus a second ARTA. The costs of SSEs, AEs, and end-of-life care were $498,909 (€424,073), $276,198 (€234,768), and $808,785 (€687,468), respectively, for cabazitaxel and $627,569 (€533,434), $251,124 (€213,455), and $1,028,294 (€874,050), respectively, for a second ARTA. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be associated with a 21% reduction in both SSE management and end-of-life care costs. Hospitalization cost was $1,442,870 (€1,226,440) for cabazitaxel and $1,728,394 (€1,469,135) for a second ARTA, representing an estimated 17% reduction in these costs. Cabazitaxel, as compared with a second ARTA, was associated with 58 fewer hospitalization days and 2 fewer ICU days and was estimated to avoid $323,095 (€274,630, 17%) in total costs, driven by SSEs management and end-of-life care. CONCLUSION: The use of cabazitaxel as a 3 L treatment after docetaxel and an ARTA in patients with mCRPC is estimated to result in clinical benefits (longer rPFS, PFS, and OS) and lower healthcare resource utilization (fewer hospitalization and ICU days), compared with a second ARTA.

Veterans Affairs Prostate Cancer Treatment Sequencing (VAPCaTS): A Real-World Evidence Study of Men with Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Limited real-world data are available on treatment sequences for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel or abiraterone who progress to castrate resistance. METHODS: Veterans Health Affairs electronic medical records were used to analyze 240 men treated for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with androgen deprivation therapy plus either docetaxel ("docetaxel cohort," 208 patients, selected to be overrepresented, July 2014 to August 2018) or abiraterone ("abiraterone cohort," 32 patients, December 2016 to September 2018) who received at least 1 treatment after progressing to castrate resistance. RESULTS: For docetaxel and abiraterone cohorts, respectively, mean age at androgen deprivation therapy initiation was 65 and 72 years, and median followup was 2.2 and 1.4 years. Overall, the maximum number of metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer treatment lines was 6; 106 patients (44%) had 1, 71 (30%) had 2, and 63 (26%) had 3 or more lines. Most patients received an androgen receptor targeted agent for initial metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer treatment (94% vs 78% in docetaxel vs abiraterone cohort). Androgen receptor targeted agents were given consecutively to 62% of the docetaxel cohort receiving second line therapy, and to 78% of the abiraterone cohort. Across all metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer treatment lines 72 (30%) received a taxane (47 docetaxel and 41 cabazitaxel). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients received androgen receptor targeted agents as first metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer treatment regardless of initial metastatic hormone-sensitive treatment. Moreover, a large proportion were treated with consecutive androgen receptor targeted agents. Given recent evidence suggesting poorer outcomes with this treatment in some patients, longer followup is needed to assess the association between treatment sequence and optimal outcomes.

Clinical and cost outcomes of pre-emptive plerixafor administration in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing stem cell mobilization.

PURPOSE: The stem cell mobilization agent plerixafor significantly improves CD34+ stem cell procurement in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous stem cell transplant. We compared mobilization success rates and costs of two regimens of plerixafor administration: pre-emptive (P-PL, initiated the evening prior to the first day of stem cell collection) and standard (S-PL, initiated the evening prior to the second day of stem cell collection in the event of inadequate collection on the first day). METHODS: Patients with multiple myeloma undergoing mobilization were categorized as either P-PL or S-PL. Stem cell collection success was evaluated using logistic regression models. Associated costs were aggregated in terms of average collections per patient in each mobilization option (patient level), and escalated to a panel of 5000 patients (population level). RESULTS: 299 patients were evaluable; 241 received P-PL and 58 received S-PL. Patients receiving P-PL had higher median CD34+ count pre-collection and higher median total CD34+ cell harvest on the first collection (6.75 × 106/kg for P-PL, 1.96 × 106/kg for S-PL; P<0.01). In multivariable analyses, P-PL remained significantly associated with the ability to collect ≥2 × 106/kg CD34+ on the first day (OR = 4.05, 95% CI, 1.19-13.83, P = 0.03) and ≥5 × 106/kg CD34+ in total (OR = 3.09, 95% CI, 1.04-9.23, P = 0.04). P-PL saved $11,248 (46%) per patient compared with S-PL. CONCLUSION: P-PL significantly enhanced collection efficiency, with most patients completing collection in 1 day, resulting in substantial cost savings.

Aflibercept Plus FOLFIRI for Second-line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Observations from the Global Aflibercept Safety and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Program (ASQoP).

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the safety profile of aflibercept and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) provided with aflibercept access before marketing authorization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received aflibercept followed by FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan) on day 1 of a 2-week cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, or patient/investigator decision to discontinue. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated, and HRQL was assessed at baseline, cycle 3, and every other cycle using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-CR29, and EuroQol 5-Dimensions 3-Levels questionnaires (NCT01571284). RESULTS: Overall, 779 adult patients with mCRC, who received ≥ 1 prior oxaliplatin-based regimen and had disease progression during or following their last administration of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, were enrolled. At data cutoff, all patients had discontinued treatment, mainly owing to disease progression (51.7%). The most common TEAEs of any grade were diarrhea (61.6%), hypertension (48.4%), and nausea (43.3%). The most common grade 3/4 TEAEs were hypertension (24.1%), neutropenia (23.1%), and diarrhea (15.3%). Clinically meaningful changes in HRQL were reported for all measures. Most patients either had an improvement in their HRQL scores or remained stable during the treatment period based on patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: The data from this study support the tolerability of the combination of aflibercept and FOLFIRI in a setting that more closely approximates real life in patients with mCRC who failed to respond to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, and also suggest an improvement in HRQL.

Real-world outcomes in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving second-line chemotherapy versus an alternative androgen receptor-targeted agent (ARTA) following early progression on a first-line ARTA in a US community oncology setting.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective observational study assessed if second-line chemotherapy vs. androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTAs; abiraterone/enzalutamide) is associated with improved outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRCaP) patients who experience early progression on first-line ARTAs in a US community setting. METHODS: Patients with mCRCaP (n = 345) who progressed ≤ 12 months after first-line ARTA and received second-line chemotherapy (docetaxel/cabazitaxel; n = 147) or ARTA (n = 198) between May 2011 and October 2014 were identified. Overall survival (OS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response and progression, and clinical response were compared for second-line chemotherapy vs. ARTA, using one-sided tests from second-line therapy initiation. Multivariate analyses were adjusted for: year, age, metastases, opioid use, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, PSA, hemoglobin, alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and albumin levels. RESULTS: Patients receiving second-line chemotherapy vs. ARTA were younger (median: 74 vs. 79 years) and had a poorer prognosis in terms of PSA, LDH, alkaline phosphatase, albumin and hemoglobin levels, opioid use, and Halabi risk score (P < 0.05). Response rates were higher for chemotherapy vs. ARTA (PSA: adjusted odds ratio = 2.27, P = 0.005; clinical: adjusted odds ratio = 1.78; P = 0.020) and time to PSA progression was longer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.66; P = 0.010). A trend favored chemotherapy vs. ARTA for OS (aHR = 0.81, P = 0.148). Among patients with poor prognostic features, those receiving chemotherapy had significantly improved OS (Halabi intermediate-/high-risk score: aHR = 0.55, P = 0.009; hemoglobin < 11 g/dl: aHR = 0.41, P = 0.002; LDH > upper limit of normal: aHR = 0.18, P = 0.014; albumin < lower limit of normal: aHR = 0.42, P = 0.020). CONCLUSION: Following early progression on first-line ARTA, second-line chemotherapy may be more beneficial in mCRCaP compared with second-line ARTA in patients with a poor prognosis.