A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Nivolumab for Patients with Resected Esophageal Cancer or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer in France.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer (EC/GEJC) is a poor prognosis disease with a high risk of recurrence even in patients curatively resected. Adjuvant nivolumab is currently used for patients with completely resected (R0) EC/GEJC who have residual pathologic disease following prior neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. This study aimed to determine the cost effectiveness of nivolumab in this indication in France according to the collective perspective excluding indirect costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A simplified four-health-state semi-Markov model was developed to model EC/GEJC patients who have residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by R0 over a 15-year time horizon, comparing adjuvant nivolumab versus surveillance, which was the recommended French clinical practice before immunotherapy arrival. Time-to-recurrence (TTR) from CheckMate 577 was used to inform transition from disease-free to post-recurrence health state; patients who recurred were split according to the distribution of type of recurrence observed during the trial. Post-recurrence survival (PRS) according to the type of recurrence was derived from a real-world registry. RESULTS: Adjuvant treatment with nivolumab led to an incremental survival gain of 1.19 years (+ 34%), mostly in the disease-free state, an incremental cost of €48,634 and QALY of 0.98 resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of €49,572/QALY with limited uncertainty. 'Cure assumption' at 5 years had an important impact on the results (€41,115/QALY; - 17%), as that tends to increase life-years and QALYs while costs remain the same. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed reference ICUR (€52,542/QALY) with 80% probability of nivolumab being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €75,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that adjuvant nivolumab is cost effective in the treatment of EC/GEJC patients who have residual disease after neoadjuvant CRT followed by R0 resection. Compared with previously evaluated cost-effectiveness analyses for other immune-checkpoint inhibitors indicated in metastatic settings, ICUR appears particularly low in this early setting thanks to the important impact on health outcomes and capped treatment duration.

Pattern of Clinical Progression Until Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: An Epidemiological Study from the European Prostate Cancer Registry.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in men in Europe. The impact of PCa natural history and therapeutic management on the outcomes of castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with metastasis (mCRPC) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe retrospectively patterns of clinical progression through diagnosis sequences before the mCRPC stage and to assess how these sequences impacted patients' disease progression and overall survival at mCRPC stage. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mCRPC were identified from the Prostate Cancer Registry (PCR), an observational study in a real-world setting in 16 countries between 2013 and 2016. Patients were grouped in diagnosis sequences before mCRPC and defined by date of PCa diagnosis, first metastasis, and castration resistance. Distribution of time-to-event variables were estimated using Kaplan-Meier product-limit survival curves for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Non-adjusted Cox models were conducted for efficacy endpoints (OS, PFS) to estimate hazard ratios between diagnosis sequences. RESULTS: At the end of study, 2859 mCRPC patients were included in this analysis. Among mCRPC four diagnosis sequences were identified: 35% developed metastases (mHSPC) before becoming castration resistant (sequence 1, metachronous mHSPC), 10% developed castration resistance (nmCRPC) before metastases (sequence 2), 27% developed metastases and castration resistance within 4 months (sequence 3) and 28% of patients were de novo mHSPC (sequence 4). Median OS was 17.7 months (interquartile range (IQR): 8.8-29.9) and PFS was 6.4 months (IQR: 3.2-12.0). The univariate analyses showed no correlation between mCRPC patients' OS or PFS and the diagnosis sequence. CONCLUSION: This large European study describe four different patterns of prostate cancer progression to mCRPC stage. Our results indicate that patient survival becomes comparable after progression to mCRPC, regardless of the diagnosis sequence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02236637; registered September 2014.

Organised screening for cervical cancer in France: a cost-effectiveness assessment.

OBJECTIVE: According to the third cancer plan, organised screening (OS) of cervical cancer (CC) among women aged 25-65 years should be implemented in France in the forthcoming years. The most efficient way to implement OS in the French healthcare system is yet to be determined. METHODS: A microsimulation model was developed adopting a collective 'all payers' perspective. A closed cohort of women eligible for CC screening and representative in terms of age and participation in individual screening (IndScr) by annual Papanicolaou (Pap) testing every 3 years was modelled on a lifetime horizon. Different OS strategies, additive to IndScr with a 61.9% participation rate based on mailed invitations to non-participant women to perform OS were assessed. Similar modalities were applied to OS and IndScr participants. Strategies implied different screening tests (Papanicolaou (Pap) test, human papillomavirus (HPV) test and p16/Ki67 double staining) and OS periodicity. RESULTS: Compared with IndScr only, all OS strategies were associated with decreased cancer incidence/mortality (from 14.2%/13.5% to 22.9%/25.8%). Most strategies generated extra costs ranging from €37.9 to €1607 per eligible woman. HPV testing every 10 and 5 years were cost saving. HPV tests every 10 and 5 years were the most efficient strategies, generating more survival at lower costs than Pap-based strategies. Compared to IndScr only, an HPV test every 10 years was cost saving. The most effective strategies were p16/Ki67 as primary or HPV positive confirmation tests, with respective incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €6 541 250 and €101 391 per life year. Pap-based strategies generated intermediary results. CONCLUSION: OS strategies based on the HPV test appear highly efficient. However, our results rely on the assumption that women and practitioners comply with the recommended OS periodicities (3, 5, 10 years). Implementing these OS modalities will require major adaptations to the current CC screening organisation. Pap test-based strategies might be simpler to setup while preparing an appropriate implementation of more efficient OS screening modalities.