Update of survival and cost of metastatic melanoma with new drugs: Estimations from the MelBase cohort.

PURPOSE: Since 2011, significant progress was observed in metastatic melanoma (MM), with the commercialisation of seven immunotherapies or targeted therapies, which showed significant improvement in survival. In France, in 2004, the cost of MM was estimated at €1634 per patient; this cost has not been re-estimated since. This study provided an update on survival and cost in real-life clinical practice. METHODS: Clinical and economic data (treatments, hospitalisations, radiotherapy sessions, visits, imaging and biological exams) were extracted from the prospective MelBase cohort, collecting individual data in 955 patients in 26 hospitals, from diagnosis of metastatic disease until death. Survival was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Costs were calculated from the health insurance perspective using French tariffs. For live patients, survival and costs were extrapolated using a multistate model, describing the 5-year course of the disease according to patient prognostic factors and number of treatment lines. RESULTS: Since the availability of new drugs, the mean survival time of MM patients has increased to 23.6 months (95%confidence interval [CI] :21.2;26.6), with 58% of patients receiving a second line of treatment. Mean management costs increased to €269,682 (95%CI:244,196;304,916) per patient. Drugs accounted for 80% of the total cost. CONCLUSION: This study is the first that evaluated the impact of immunotherapies and targeted therapies both on survival and cost in real-life conditions. Alongside the introduction of breakthrough therapies in the first and subsequent lines, MM has been associated with a significant increase in survival but also in costs, raising the question of financial sustainability.

Piezoosteotomy in orthognathic surgery versus conventional saw and chisel osteotomy.

INTRODUCTION: Piezoosteotomy was assessed as alternative osteotomy method in orthognathic surgery regarding handling, time requirement, nerve and vessel impairment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this comparative clinical experience, 90 patient's orthognathic surgery procedures were performed in typical distribution prospectively by piezoosteotomy: 34 (38%) monosegment, 47 (52%) segmented LeFortI osteotomies, 94 (52%) sagittal split osteotomies, 11 (12%) symphyseal, and 4 (2%) mandibular body osteotomies. As controls served 90 retrospective patients with conventional saw and chisel osteotomy: 58 (64%) monosegment, 27 (30%) segmented LeFortI osteotomies, 130 (72%) sagittal split, and 4 (4%) symphyseal osteotomies. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Piezoosteotomies were individually designed to interdigitate the jaw segments after repositioning. The pterygomaxillary suture weakened angulated tools; auxiliary chisels were required in 100% of cases for the nasal septum and lateral nasal walls, in 33% for pterygoid processes. The dorsal maxilla as the pterygoid process were easily reduced; 15% mandibular osteotomies required sawing, while the lingual dorsal osteotomy was performed by manual feedback due to limited visibility. Bloodloss decreased from average 537 +/- 208 ml vs. 772 +/- 338 ml (p = 0.0001). Operation time remained unchanged: 223 +/- 70 min vs. 238 +/- 60 min (p = 0.2) for a conventional bimaxillary procedure. Clinical courses and reossification were unobtrusive. Alveolar inferior nerve sensitivity was retained in 98% of the piezoosteotomy collective versus 84% of controls (p = 0.0001) at 3 months postoperative testing. CONCLUSION: Piezoelectric osteotomy did not prolong the operation and reduced blood loss as alveolar nerve impairment. A few patients required additional sawing or chisel. Piezoelectric screw insertion as complex osteotomies may be initiated to simplify the procedure and increase segment interdigitation after repositioning as to minimize the osteofixation time and dimensions.