Within-trial hospitalization resource utilization and budget impact analysis for darolutamide in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer using ARASENS.

BACKGROUND: ARASENS was a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial comparing darolutamide + docetaxel + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with placebo + docetaxel + ADT in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). OBJECTIVE: To use clinical trial data from ARASENS to understand whether the addition of darolutamide to docetaxel + ADT leads to increased hospitalizations and to estimate the budget impact on the US health care system. METHODS: We used mixed-effects negative binomial regression to estimate hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates and length of hospital stay (LoHS) counts. Hospitalization rates were estimated per treatment arm for the period during and after administration of docetaxel. Based on these estimates, a budget impact analysis evaluated the hospitalization costs (including ICU admissions) and standalone ICU hospitalization costs for the totality of the US population over a 5-year time horizon. The analysis compared a scenario without darolutamide vs one with darolutamide included in the US payer formulary. Hospitalization estimates were varied in a one-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The first 4 months of treatment (when patients were receiving docetaxel) were associated with increased hospitalizations across both arms. The addition of darolutamide was associated with a numerical reduction in the rate of hospitalization (per year) due to any reason both during docetaxel treatment (1.01 visits per year [95% CI = 0.82-1.20] vs 1.18 visits per year [95% CI = 0.96-1.41]) and after docetaxel treatment (0.28 visits per year [95% CI = 0.23-0.34] vs 0.33 visits per year [95% CI = 0.27-0.40]). Darolutamide was associated with a marginally longer LoHS per hospitalization compared with placebo (+1.90 days per year) both during and after docetaxel treatment. ICU admissions were low in the ARASENS data; admission rates were assumed to be the same during and after docetaxel treatment. ICU admission rate estimates were equivalent across arms (0.02 visits per year [95% CI = 0.01-0.03]). The budget impact per treated member per month represents a cost-neutral option after Year 5 with a cumulative budget impact of -$9.71. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of darolutamide to docetaxel + ADT was associated with a numerically lower rate of hospitalization but marginally longer LoHS compared with docetaxel + ADT alone. Darolutamide represents a cost-neutral alternative per treated member per month compared with docetaxel + ADT with regard to hospitalizations at the end of a 5-year time horizon.

Prognostic Value of Neurotrophic Tyrosine Receptor Kinase Gene Fusions in Solid Tumors for Overall Survival: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions in solid tumors are predictive biomarkers for targeted inhibition across a number of adult and pediatric tumor types. However, despite robust clinical response to tyrosine receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors, the natural history and prognostic implications of NTRK fusions in solid tumors are poorly understood. It is important to evaluate their prognostic significance on survival to provide some context to the clinical effectiveness observed in clinical trials of TRK-targeted therapies. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed to identify studies comparing the overall survival (OS) of patients with NTRK fusion-positive (NTRK+) versus NTRK fusion-negative (NTRK-) tumors. Five retrospective matched case-control studies published before 11 August 2022 were assessed for inclusion, and three were selected for the meta-analysis (sample size: 69 NTRK+, 444 NTRK-). Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies tool. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Bayesian random-effects model. RESULTS: In the meta-analysis, the median follow-up ranged from 2 to 14 years and the median OS was between 10.1 and 12.7 months (where reported). Comparing patients with tumors NTRK+ and NTRK-, the pooled HR estimate for OS was 1.51 (95% credible interval, 1.01 to 2.29). The patients analyzed had no previous or current exposure to TRK inhibitors. CONCLUSION: In patients not treated with TRK inhibitor therapies, those with NTRK+ solid tumors have a 50% increased risk of mortality within 10 years from diagnosis or the start of standard therapy compared with those with NTRK- status. Although this is the most robust estimate of the comparative survival rate to date, further studies are required to reduce uncertainty.

Supporting Biomarker-Driven Therapies in Oncology: A Genomic Testing Cost Calculator.

BACKGROUND: Adoption of high-throughput, gene panel-based, next-generation sequencing (NGS) into routine cancer care is widely supported, but hampered by concerns about cost. To inform policies regarding genomic testing strategies, we propose a simple metric, cost per correctly identified patient (CCIP), that compares sequential single-gene testing (SGT) vs. multiplex NGS in different tumor types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A genomic testing cost calculator was developed based on clinically actionable genomic alterations identified in the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets. Using sensitivity/specificity data for SGTs (immunohistochemistry, polymerase chain reaction, and fluorescence in situ hybridization) and NGS and marker prevalence, the number needed to predict metric was monetarized to estimate CCIP. RESULTS: At base case, CCIP was lower with NGS than sequential SGT for advanced/metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, colorectal, gastric cancers, and cholangiocarcinoma. CCIP with NGS was also favorable for squamous NSCLC, pancreatic, and hepatic cancers, but with overlapping confidence intervals. CCIP favored SGT for prostate cancer. Alternate scenarios using different price estimates for each test showed similar trends, but with incremental changes in the magnitude of difference between NGS and SGT, depending on price estimates for each test. CONCLUSIONS: The cost to correctly identify clinically actionable genomic alterations was lower for NGS than sequential SGT in most cancer types evaluated. Decreasing price estimates for NGS and the rapid expansion of targeted therapies and accompanying biomarkers are anticipated to further support NGS as a preferred diagnostic standard for precision oncology.

Survival Outcomes of Patients With Tropomyosin Receptor Kinase Fusion-Positive Cancer Receiving Larotrectinib Versus Standard of Care: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Using Real-World Data.

PURPOSE: Larotrectinib, a highly specific tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitor, previously demonstrated high response rates in single-arm trials of patients with TRK fusion-positive cancer, but there are limited data on comparative effectiveness against standard-of-care (SoC) regimens used in routine health care practice, before widespread adoption of TRK inhibitors as SoC for TRK fusion-positive cancers. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison, a validated methodology that balances population characteristics to facilitate cross-trial comparisons, was used to compare the overall survival (OS) of larotrectinib versus non-TRK-inhibitor SoC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from three larotrectinib trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02122913, NCT02637687, and NCT02576431) were compared with published aggregate real-world data from patients with locally advanced/metastatic TRK fusion-positive cancer identified in the Flatiron Health/Foundation Medicine database. OS was defined as the time from advanced/metastatic disease diagnosis to death. After matching population characteristics, the analyses included (1) a log-rank test of equality to test whether the two groups were similar before larotrectinib initiation; and (2) estimation of treatment effect of larotrectinib versus non-TRK-inhibitor SoC. These analyses are limited to prognostic variables available in real-world data. RESULTS: Eighty-five larotrectinib patients and 28 non-TRK-inhibitor SoC patients were included in the analyses. After matching, log-rank testing showed no difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups (P = .31). After matching, larotrectinib was associated with a 78% lower risk of death, compared with non-TRK-inhibitor SoC (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.52]; P = .001); median OS was 39.7 months (95% CI: 16.4, NE [not estimable]) for larotrectinib and 10.2 months (95% CI: 7.2, 14.1) for SoC. CONCLUSION: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison analyses suggest longer OS with larotrectinib, compared with non-TRK-inhibitor SoC, in adult patients with TRK fusion-positive cancer.

Comparison of Alternative Methods to Assess the Cost-Effectiveness of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: A Triangulation Approach Using Larotrectinib as a Case Study.

OBJECTIVES: The study objective was to investigate the economic value of tumor-agnostic therapies when only single-arm effectiveness data are available at launch by applying multiple methodologies to establish comparative effectiveness. METHODS: In the absence of direct comparative data, 3 methods were used to estimate the counterfactual: (1) a historical control based on a systematic literature review for each tumor site from the larotrectinib trials, (2) an intracohort comparison using the previous line of therapy time to progression from larotrectinib trials, and (3) a nonresponder control that applied outcomes for larotrectinib nonresponders. Cost-effectiveness was modeled using the partitioned survival approach. Stochastic parameter uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). A triangulated estimate of the mean cost-effectiveness result was generated combining all 3 counterfactual estimates. RESULTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were similar across the 3 methodologies in the deterministic analysis ranging from £83 868 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] £65 698-£107 668) to £104 922 per quality-adjusted life-year (95% UI £80 132-£139 658). PSA results for each method substantially overlapped when plotted on the cost-effectiveness plane. Weighting PSA results for each method equally in the triangulation method produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £95 587 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (95% UI £70 449-£137 431). CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of direct comparative data, different methods of estimating a counterfactual are possible, each with strengths and limitations. Triangulating results across the methods provides a composite view of the total uncertainty and a more consistent estimation of the cost-effectiveness of the tumor-agnostic intervention compared with choosing a single method.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Larotrectinib versus Entrectinib in Treating Patients with TRK Gene Fusion Cancers.

Information regarding the comparative efficacy of first-generation receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors is limited. This matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) evaluated differences in efficacy and safety across larotrectinib and entrectinib trials. Data from clinical trials for larotrectinib (LOXO-TRK-14001 (NCT02122913), SCOUT (NCT02637687), and NAVIGATE (NCT02576431)) and entrectinib (ALKA-372-001 (EudraCT 2012-000148-88), STARTRK-1 (NCT02097810), and STARTRK-2 (NCT02568267)) were used. Adults (≥18 years) across trials were matched on available baseline characteristics. Outcomes evaluated included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, duration of response (DoR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), any serious treatment-related adverse events of grade ≥ 3 (TRAEs), and TRAEs leading to treatment discontinuation. The MAIC included 74 patients from entrectinib trials and 117 and 147 patients for the larotrectinib efficacy and safety populations, respectively. Post-matching, larotrectinib was associated with a significantly longer median duration of OS than entrectinib (p < 0.05) and a numerically longer median PFS (p = 0.07). ORR was similar for both agents (p = 0.63). The CR rate was higher (p < 0.05) and the DoR was longer for larotrectinib (p < 0.05). Safety outcomes were comparable and low for both treatments. Results were consistent in sensitivity analyses. These findings suggest favorable efficacy for larotrectinib and comparable safety profiles versus entrectinib in treating tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion cancer.

Estimating Long-Term Survival Outcomes for Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: Larotrectinib Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Larotrectinib is a precision oncology treatment for solid tumors with neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions. Larotrectinib efficacy has been evaluated in single-arm basket trials with limited follow-up and sample sizes at the initial regulatory approval due to the rarity of solid tumors with NTRK gene fusion. OBJECTIVES: We aim to demonstrate that trends in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in survival data with longer follow-up may be predicted from long-term survival estimates from survival data with shorter follow-up, including predictions for median survival when it is not observed in the trial. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from 3 clinical trials (NCT02122913, NCT02576431, and NCT02637687) using the 2018 and 2020 data cuts for the same subset of pediatric and adult patients. The Weibull distribution was selected for survival models. Survival predictions using 2018 data were compared to 2020 Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients representing 15 tumor types were included in the analysis, with a mean age of 37 years. When comparing PFS from the 2018 survival prediction to observed 2020 KM data, the 12-month PFS rate was identical (66.6%). The 36-month PFS rate was lower for the 2018 prediction (35.3%) compared to 2020 KM data (44.4%). The median OS had not yet been reached in either data cut but was predicted to be 90 months using the 2018 data. When comparing OS from the 2018 survival prediction to the observed 2020 KM data, the 12-month OS rate was 89.0% and 86.6% and the 48-month OS rate was 67.2% and 63.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Long-term PFS predictions deviated from observed PFS rates due to response differences across tumor types and heavy censoring towards the end of the survival curve. However, for OS, the 48-month survival prediction was consistent with the observed 2020 KM estimate.

Estimating Treatment-Switching Bias in a Randomized Clinical Trial of Ovarian Cancer Treatment: Combining Causal Inference with Decision-Analytic Modeling.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab is efficacious in delaying ovarian cancer progression and controlling ascites. The ICON7 trial showed a significant benefit in overall survival for bevacizumab, whereas the GOG-218 trial did not. GOG-218 allowed control group patients to switch to bevacizumab upon progression, which may have biased the results. Lack of data on switching behavior prevented the application of g-methods to adjust for switching. The objective of this study was to apply decision-analytic modeling to estimate the impact of switching bias on causal treatment-effect estimates. METHODS: We developed a causal decision-analytic Markov model (CDAMM) to emulate the GOG-218 trial and estimate overall survival. CDAMM input parameters were based on data from randomized clinical trials and the published literature. Overall switching proportion was based on GOG-218 trial information, whereas the proportion switching with and without ascites was estimated using calibration. We estimated the counterfactual treatment effect that would have been observed had no switching occurred by denying switching in the CDAMM. RESULTS: The survival curves generated by the CDAMM matched well with the ones reported in the GOG-218 trial. The survival curve correcting for switching showed an estimated bias such that 79% of the true treatment effect could not be observed in the GOG-218 trial. Results were most sensitive to changes in the proportion progressing with severe ascites and mortality. LIMITATIONS: We used a simplified model structure and based model parameters on published data and assumptions. Robustness of the CDAMM was tested and model assumptions transparently reported. CONCLUSIONS: Medical-decision science methods may be merged with empirical methods of causal inference to integrate data from other sources where empirical data are not sufficient. We recommend collecting sufficient information on switching behavior when switching cannot be avoided.

Mixture Cure Models in Oncology: A Tutorial and Practical Guidance.

Novel cancer therapies are associated with survival patterns that differ from established therapies, which may include survival curves that plateau after a certain follow-up time point. A fraction of the patient population is then considered statistically cured and subject to the same mortality experience as the cancer-free general population. Mixture cure models have been developed to account for this characteristic. As compared to standard survival analysis, mixture cure models can often lead to profoundly different estimates of long-term survival, required for health economic evaluations. This tutorial is designed as a practical introduction to mixture cure models. Step-by-step instructions are provided for the entire implementation workflow, i.e., from gathering and combining data from different sources to fitting models using maximum likelihood estimation and model results interpretation. Two mixture cure models were developed to illustrate (1) an "uninformed" approach where the cure fraction is estimated from trial data and (2) an "informed" approach where the cure fraction is obtained from an external source (e.g., real-world data) used as an input to the model. These models were implemented in the statistical software R, with the freely available code on GitHub. The cure fraction can be estimated as an output from ("uninformed" approach) or used as an input to ("informed" approach) a mixture cure model. Mixture cure models suggest presumed estimates of long-term survival proportions, especially in instances where some fraction of patients is expected to be statistically cured. While this type of model may initially seem complex, it is straightforward to use and interpret. Mixture cure models have the potential to improve the accuracy of survival estimates for treatments associated with statistical cure, and the present tutorial outlines the interpretation and implementation of mixture cure models in R. This type of model will likely become more widely used in health economic analyses as novel cancer therapies enter the market.

Evaluating the clinical effectiveness and safety of various HER2-targeted regimens after prior taxane/trastuzumab in patients with previously treated, unresectable, or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: In the absence of head-to-head trial data, network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to compare trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with other approved treatments for previously treated patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer (BC). METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted of published controlled trials of treatments for unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive BC with early relapse (≤ 6 months) following adjuvant therapy or progression after trastuzumab (Tras) + taxane published from January 1998 to January 2018. Random-effects NMA was conducted for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety endpoints. RESULTS: The NMA included regimens from seven randomized controlled trials: T-DM1 and combinations of Tras, capecitabine (Cap), lapatinib (Lap), neratinib, or pertuzumab (Per; unapproved). OS results favored T-DM1 over approved comparators: hazard ratio (HR) (95% credible interval [95% CrI]) vs Cap 0.68 (0.39, 1.10), LapCap 0.76 (0.51, 1.07), TrasCap 0.78 (0.44, 1.19). PFS trends favored T-DM1 over all other treatments: HR (95% CrI) vs Cap 0.38 (0.19, 0.74), LapCap 0.65 (0.40, 1.10), TrasCap 0.62 (0.34, 1.18); ORR with T-DM1 was more favorable than with all approved treatments. In surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analysis T-DM1 ranked highest for all efficacy outcomes. Discontinuation due to adverse events was less likely with T-DM1 than with all comparators except neratinib. In general, gastrointestinal side effects were less likely and elevated liver transaminases and thrombocytopenia more likely with T-DM1 than with comparators. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and tolerability profiles of T-DM1 are generally favorable compared with other treatments for unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive BC.

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus docetaxel and nivolumab in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer as a second line in France.

Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel and nivolumab for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as a second-line treatment, in a French setting.Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, death) based on the phase IIIOAK trial on a 10-year time horizon. The comparison between nivolumab and atezolizumab came from a network meta-analysis. Utilities were estimated from the OAK trial EQ-5D applying the French utility tariffs. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment duration were estimated using parametric models selected using Akaike and Bayesian information criterion. Extrapolation beyond the trial duration followed NICE DSU TSD 14. Economic perspective was the one of all payers, discount rate fixed at 4% on benefits and costs. This analysis was aligned with French Haute Autorité de Santé recommendations. Results were expressed in total cost (2019) and €/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year). Model robustness was checked through sensitivity analyses, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted.Results: In comparison to docetaxel, atezolizumab costs 49,429€ more and increased life expectancy by 8 months, generating 0.47 QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at 104,835€/QALY. When comparing nivolumab to atezolizumab, a cost minimization analysis was conducted since no clear evidence supporting a difference in terms of survival benefit was reported. Using list price, and the Market Access Authorization regimens, atezolizumab saved approximately 6,000€, 9.5% of its total costs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our findings.Conclusion: Atezolizumab is more efficient and more costly than docetaxel in the second-line treatment of NSCLC of stage IIIB or IV, in France, with results consistent to previous French authorities' evaluation of immunotherapies in similar indication. Lastly, atezolizumab is a cost saving alternative to nivolumab, based on list price.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line atezolizumab in Canada for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness in Canada of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel or nivolumab for the treatment of advanced NSCLC after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed. Clinical inputs were obtained from the phase III OAK trial comparing atezolizumab with docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC who progressed after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were extrapolated beyond the trial period using parametric models. A cure model assuming a 1% cure fraction was fitted to the OS data for atezolizumab. Outcomes for nivolumab were informed by a network meta-analysis (NMA) vs atezolizumab. Resource use and costs were informed by clinical expert opinion and published Canadian sources. Utility values were obtained from the OAK trial. The perspective of the analysis was that of the Canadian publicly-funded healthcare system. The base case time horizon was 10 years, and the discount rate was 1.5% annually for both costs and effects. Scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results and all analyses were performed probabilistically. Results: Atezolizumab demonstrated a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.60 compared with docetaxel at an incremental cost of $85,073, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $142,074/QALY. Atezolizumab dominated nivolumab (regardless of dosing regimen), based on modest differences in both QALYs and costs. Docetaxel was most likely to be cost effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds below $125,000/QALY gained, while atezolizumab was most likely to be cost effective beyond this WTP threshold. In most scenario analyses, the results remained robust to changes in parameters. A reduced time horizon and alternative approaches to the NMA had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness results. Conclusion: Atezolizumab represents a cost-effective therapeutic option in Canada for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC who progress after first-line platinum doublet chemotherapy.

Systematic review of health state utility values in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with a focus on previously treated patients.

BACKGROUND: Health state utility values (HSUVs) are an important input to economic evaluations and the choice of HSUV can affect the estimate of relative cost-effectiveness between interventions. This systematic review identified utility scores for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), as well as disutilities or utility decrements relevant to the experience of patients with mNSCLC, by treatment line and health state. METHODS: The MEDLINE®, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched (September 2016) for publications describing HSUVs in mNSCLC in any treatment line. The EQ-5D website, the School of Health and Related Research Health Utilities Database (ScHARRHUD) and major pharmacoeconomic and clinical conferences in 2015-2016 were also queried. Studies in adults with previously treated mNSCLC were selected for further analysis. The information extracted included study design, description of treatment and health state, respondent details, instrument and tariff, HSUV or (dis) utility decrement estimates, quality of study, and appropriateness for use in economic evaluations. RESULTS: Of 1883 references identified, 36 publications of 34 studies were included: 19 reported EQ-5D scores; eight reported HSUVs from valuations of vignettes made by members of the public using standard gamble (SG) or time trade-off (TTO); two reported SG or TTO directly elicited from patients; two reported EQ-5D visual analogue scale scores only; one reported Assessment of Quality of Life instrument scores; one reported HSUVs for caregivers to patients with mNSCLC using the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey; and one estimated HSUVs based on expert opinion. The range of HSUVs identified for comparable health states showed how differences in study type, tariff, health state and the measures used can drive variation in HSUV estimates. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides a set of published HSUVs that are relevant to the experience of adult patients previously treated for mNSCLC. Our review begins to address the challenge of identifying reliable estimates of utility values in mNSCLC that are suitable for use in economic evaluations, and also highlights how varying estimates result from differences in methodology.

Accounting for Uncertainty in Decision Analytic Models Using Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time Modeling: Application to Parametric Survival Models.

OBJECTIVES: Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time models are one of the most commonly used statistical methods to adjust for treatment switching in oncology clinical trials. The method is often applied in a decision analytic model without appropriately accounting for additional uncertainty when determining the allocation of health care resources. The aim of the study is to describe novel approaches to adequately account for uncertainty when using a Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time model in a decision analytic model. METHODS: Using two examples, we tested and compared the performance of the novel Test-based method with the resampling bootstrap method and with the conventional approach of no adjustment. In the first example, we simulated life expectancy using a simple decision analytic model based on a hypothetical oncology trial with treatment switching. In the second example, we applied the adjustment method on published data when no individual patient data were available. RESULTS: Mean estimates of overall and incremental life expectancy were similar across methods. However, the bootstrapped and test-based estimates consistently produced greater estimates of uncertainty compared with the estimate without any adjustment applied. Similar results were observed when using the test based approach on a published data showing that failing to adjust for uncertainty led to smaller confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Both the bootstrapping and test-based approaches provide a solution to appropriately incorporate uncertainty, with the benefit that the latter can implemented by researchers in the absence of individual patient data.

Health state utility values in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer by treatment line: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with late-stage (metastatic) breast cancer, the impact of treatment on health-related quality of life is a key factor in decision-making. A systematic review was conducted to identify health state utility values (HSUVs) for late-stage breast cancer, derived using methods preferred by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, by treatment line. The aim was to generate a list of HSUVs, that could help to justify the values used to populate cost-utility models. Areas covered: Ten electronic databases, international congress websites and online HSUV databases were searched (January 1995-May 2014) for HSUVs for adults with late-stage breast cancer that had been derived from methods favoured by HTA agencies. Publications were included only if they reported studies that originated HSUVs. Expert commentary: Large numbers of HSUVs are available for late-stage breast cancer in the published literature. Contrary to expectations, the HSUVs reported in the literature vary greatly for some health states. As a result, the choice of HSUV can have considerable implications for the outcomes of economic evaluations. Standardization of HSUV methodology is expected to reduce variability; however, further research is recommended for assessing the sensitivity of generic preference-based measures in late-stage (metastatic) breast cancer.

Raltitrexed plus cisplatin is cost-effective compared with pemetrexed plus cisplatin in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

INTRODUCTION: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has previously recommended pemetrexed plus cisplatin for the treatment of patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and WHO performance status 0-1. Subsequent to this appraisal, randomised controlled trial (RCT) data for raltitrexed plus cisplatin and comparing chemotherapy to active symptom control (ASC) has become available, allowing a more complete analysis of the comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy in MPM. METHODS: An adjusted indirect comparison is used to estimate the relative efficacy of raltitrexed plus cisplatin and pemetrexed plus cisplatin. A cost-effectiveness model is used to assess the lifetime costs and health outcomes associated with these comparators and ASC. Patient level data from the EORTC 08983 trial are used to estimate baseline progression and survival rates. Relative treatment effects are taken from RCTs; cost and utility data from the literature. RESULTS: Raltitrexed plus cisplatin and pemetrexed plus cisplatin were not found to be statistically significantly different with respect to overall response, progression free survival or overall survival. The cost-effectiveness analysis found raltitrexed plus cisplatin to be cost-effective at a cost per quality adjusted life year of £13,454 compared to cisplatin and £27,360 compared to ASC. Pemetrexed plus cisplatin is dominated by raltitrexed plus cisplatin as the raltitrexed combination offers marginally higher quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and life years (LYs) at a substantially lower total cost. CONCLUSION: Raltitrexed plus cisplatin is a cost-effective first-line treatment for MPM. This conclusion was maintained across a number of sensitivity analyses.