Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients at low surgical risk in France: a model-based analysis of the Evolut LR trial.

BACKGROUND: In the recent Evolut Low Risk randomized trial, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was shown to be non-inferior to surgery (SAVR) regarding the composite end point of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 24 months. AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of self-expandable TAVI in low-risk patients, using the French healthcare system as the basis for analysis. METHODS: Mortality, health-related quality of life, and clinical event rates through two-year follow-up were derived from trial data (N = 725 TAVI and N = 678 SAVR; mean age: 73.9 years; mean STS-PROM: 1.9%). Cost inputs were based on real-world data for TAVI and SAVR procedures in the French healthcare system. Costs and effectiveness as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were projected to lifetime via a decision-analytic model under assumption of no mortality difference beyond two years. The discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was evaluated against a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, including assumptions about differential long-term survival. RESULTS: For the base case, mean survival was 13.69 vs 13.56 (+ 0.13) years for TAVI and SAVR, respectively. Discounted QALYs were 9.34 vs. 9.21 (+ 0.13) and discounted lifetime costs €52,267 vs. €51,433 (+ €833), resulting in a lifetime ICER of €6368 per QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, TAVI was found dominant or cost-effective in 74.4% of samples. CONCLUSION: TAVI in patients at low surgical risk is a cost-effective alternative to SAVR in the French healthcare system. Longer follow-up data will help increase the accuracy of lifetime survival projections.

Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the inter-B-NHL ritux 2010 trial: rituximab in children and adolescents with B cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

OBJECTIVES: The randomized controlled trial Inter-B-NHL ritux 2010 showed overall survival (OS) benefit and event-free survival (EFS) benefit with the addition of rituximab to standard Lymphomes Malins B (LMB) chemotherapy in children and adolescents with high-risk, mature B cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Our aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of rituximab-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the French setting. METHODS: We used a decision-analytic semi-Markov model with four health states and 1-month cycles. Resource use was prospectively collected in the Inter-B-NHL ritux 2010 trial (NCT01516580). Transition probabilities were assessed from patient-level data from the trial (n = 328). In the base case analysis, direct medical costs from the French National Insurance Scheme and life-years (LYs) were computed in both arms over a 3-year time horizon. Incremental net monetary benefit and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were computed through a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Deterministic sensitivity analysis and several sensitivity analyses on key assumptions were also conducted, including one exploratory analysis with quality-adjusted life years as the health outcome. RESULTS: OS and EFS benefits shown in the Inter-B-NHL ritux 2010 trial translated into the model by rituximab-chemotherapy being the most effective and also the least expensive strategy over the chemotherapy strategy. The mean difference in LYs between arms was 0.13 [95% CI 0.02; 0.25], and the mean cost difference € - 3 710 [95% CI € - 17,877; € 10,525] in favor of rituximab-chemotherapy group. For a € 50,000 per LY willingness-to-pay threshold, the probability of the rituximab-chemotherapy strategy being cost-effective was 91.1%. All sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Adding rituximab to LMB chemotherapy in children and adolescents with high-risk mature B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is highly cost-effective in France. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01516580.

LACE-Bio: Validation of Predictive and/or Prognostic Immunohistochemistry/Histochemistry-based Biomarkers in Resected Non-small-cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Complete resection of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) offers the potential for cure after surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients may not benefit and may experience severe toxicity. There are no validated molecular tools to allow better patient selection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The LACE-Bio (LACE [Lung Adjuvant Cisplatin Evaluation]) project includes 4 trials (International Adjuvant Lung Cancer Trial [IALT], Adjuvant Navelbine International Trialist Association [ANITA], JBR10, and Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB)-9633). Immunohistochemistry biomarkers shown in one trial to have a prognostic/predictive effect on overall survival were tested. RESULTS: The majority of the promising biomarkers could not be validated; the prognostic effect of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and ß-tubulin was confirmed. Potential causes include tissue fixation, storage, the use of tissue microarrays, and varying reagent/antibody batches. CONCLUSIONS: Immunohistochemistry assays from single trials may be misleading and require validation before being used for patient selection. LACE-Bio-2 is evaluating potential genomic biomarkers that may allow more precise selection of patients with NSCLC for adjuvant chemotherapy in NSCLC.

[Economic analysis of multinational clinical trials in oncology]. / Analyse économique des essais cliniques internationaux en cancérologie.

In oncology, as in other fields of medicine, international multicentre clinical trials came into being so as to include a sufficient number of subjects to investigate a clinical situation. The existence of tight budgetary constraints and the desire to make the best use of the resources available have resulted in the development of economic evaluations associated with these trials, which, thanks to their level of evidence and their size, provide particularly relevant material. Nonetheless, economic evaluations alongside international clinical trials raise specific questions of methodology with regard to both the design and the analysis of the results. Indeed, the costs of goods and services consumed, the types and quantities of resources, and medical practices vary from one country to another and within an individual country. Economic data from the different countries involved must be available so as to study and to take into account this variability, and appropriate techniques for cost estimations and analysis must be implemented to aggregate the results from several countries. From a review of the literature, the aim of this work was to provide an overview of the specific methodological features of economic evaluations alongside international clinical trials: analysis of efficacy data from several countries, collection of resources and real costs, methods to establish the monetary value of resources, methods to aggregate results accounting for the trial effect.

Prognostic value of HLA-A2 status in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: The class I human leucocyte antigen (HLA) molecules play a critical role as an escape mechanism of antitumoral immunity. HLA-A2 status has been evaluated as a prognostic factor in lung cancer, mostly in localized disease and with inconsistent findings. We evaluated the role of HLA-A2 status as a prognostic factor in a large and homogeneus cohort of advanced NSCLC patients. METHODS: Advanced NSCLC patients eligible for platinum-based chemotherapy were consecutively included in a single center between October 2009 and July 2015 in the prospective MSN study (NCT02105168). HLA-A2 status was analysed by flow cytometry. Clinical, pathological and molecular data were collected. A Cox model was used for prognostic analyses. RESULTS: Of 545 stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients included, 344 (63%) were male, 466 (85%) were smokers, 447 (83%) had PS 0-1, 508 (93%) had stage IV, 407 (75%) had an adenocarcinoma and median age was 61 years (range, 21-84). Incidence of patients with EGFRmut, ALK-positive and KRASmut was 14% (49/361), 9% (29/333) and 31% (107/350), respectively. The overall rate of HLA-A2 positivity was 48%. No association was observed between HLA-A2 status and any patient or tumor characteristics analyzed. With a median follow-up of 27.1 months, median OS was 12.8 months [95%CI 11.0-14.6] in HLA-A2+ vs. 12.5 months [95%CI 10.4-15.3] in HLA-A2- patients (HR 1.05 [95%CI 0.86-1.29], p=0.61). Median progression-free survival was similar in the two cohorts. CONCLUSION: HLA-A2 status was not identified as prognostic for benefit in a large advanced NSCLC population treated with platinum-based chemotherapy.

[New applications for individual participant data meta-analyses of randomized trials]. / Les nouvelles applications des méta-analyses d'essais randomisés sur données individuelles.

Meta-analyses of randomized trials using individual-participant data, which represent the highest level of evidence for the evaluation of a treatment effect, are now used in different contexts in clinical research. This article aims at reviewing some of these new applications. Meta-analyses are increasingly used in economic evaluation, which implies new measure outcomes of the treatment effect, as well as in biomarkers evaluations thanks to their higher statistical power and the possibility to validate findings on independent data. This article also considers the perspectives opened up by new data sources, such as randomized trials registers, and data sharing policies.

Extrapolation of Survival Curves from Cancer Trials Using External Information.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of life expectancy are a key input to cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) models for cancer treatments. Due to the limited follow-up in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), parametric models are frequently used to extrapolate survival outcomes beyond the RCT period. However, different parametric models that fit the RCT data equally well may generate highly divergent predictions of treatment-related gain in life expectancy. Here, we investigate the use of information external to the RCT data to inform model choice and estimation of life expectancy. METHODS: We used Bayesian multi-parameter evidence synthesis to combine the RCT data with external information on general population survival, conditional survival from cancer registry databases, and expert opinion. We illustrate with a 5-year follow-up RCT of cetuximab plus radiotherapy v. radiotherapy alone for head and neck cancer. RESULTS: Standard survival time distributions were insufficiently flexible to simultaneously fit both the RCT data and external data on general population survival. Using spline models, we were able to estimate a model that was consistent with the trial data and all external data. A model integrating all sources achieved an adequate fit and predicted a 4.7-month (95% CrL: 0.4; 9.1) gain in life expectancy due to cetuximab. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term extrapolation using parametric models based on RCT data alone is highly unreliable and these models are unlikely to be consistent with external data. External data can be integrated with RCT data using spline models to enable long-term extrapolation. Conditional survival data could be used for many cancers and general population survival may have a role in other conditions. The use of external data should be guided by knowledge of natural history and treatment mechanisms.

Bias and precision of methods for estimating the difference in restricted mean survival time from an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The difference in restricted mean survival time ([Formula: see text]), the area between two survival curves up to time horizon [Formula: see text], is often used in cost-effectiveness analyses to estimate the treatment effect in randomized controlled trials. A challenge in individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses is to account for the trial effect. We aimed at comparing different methods to estimate the [Formula: see text] from an IPD meta-analysis. METHODS: We compared four methods: the area between Kaplan-Meier curves (experimental vs. control arm) ignoring the trial effect (Naïve Kaplan-Meier); the area between Peto curves computed at quintiles of event times (Peto-quintile); the weighted average of the areas between either trial-specific Kaplan-Meier curves (Pooled Kaplan-Meier) or trial-specific exponential curves (Pooled Exponential). In a simulation study, we varied the between-trial heterogeneity for the baseline hazard and for the treatment effect (possibly correlated), the overall treatment effect, the time horizon [Formula: see text], the number of trials and of patients, the use of fixed or DerSimonian-Laird random effects model, and the proportionality of hazards. We compared the methods in terms of bias, empirical and average standard errors. We used IPD from the Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Nasopharynx Carcinoma (MAC-NPC) and its updated version MAC-NPC2 for illustration that included respectively 1,975 and 5,028 patients in 11 and 23 comparisons. RESULTS: The Naïve Kaplan-Meier method was unbiased, whereas the Pooled Exponential and, to a much lesser extent, the Pooled Kaplan-Meier methods showed a bias with non-proportional hazards. The Peto-quintile method underestimated the [Formula: see text], except with non-proportional hazards at [Formula: see text]= 5 years. In the presence of treatment effect heterogeneity, all methods except the Pooled Kaplan-Meier and the Pooled Exponential with DerSimonian-Laird random effects underestimated the standard error of the [Formula: see text]. Overall, the Pooled Kaplan-Meier method with DerSimonian-Laird random effects formed the best compromise in terms of bias and variance. The [Formula: see text] estimated with the Pooled Kaplan-Meier method was 0.49 years (95% CI: [-0.06;1.03], p = 0.08) when comparing radiotherapy plus chemotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone in the MAC-NPC and 0.59 years (95% CI: [0.34;0.84], p < 0.0001) in the MAC-NPC2. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the Pooled Kaplan-Meier method with DerSimonian-Laird random effects to estimate the difference in restricted mean survival time from an individual-patient data meta-analysis.

Difference in Restricted Mean Survival Time for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis: Evidence from a Case Study.

OBJECTIVE: In economic evaluation, a commonly used outcome measure for the treatment effect is the between-arm difference in restricted mean survival time (rmstD). This study illustrates how different survival analysis methods can be used to estimate the rmstD for economic evaluation using individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. Our aim was to study if/how the choice of a method impacts on cost-effectiveness results. METHODS: We used IPD from the Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Lung Cancer concerning 2,000 patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer, included in ten trials. We considered methods either used in the field of meta-analysis or in economic evaluation but never applied to assess the rmstD for economic evaluation using IPD meta-analysis. Methods were classified into two approaches. With the first approach, the rmstD is estimated directly as the area between the two pooled survival curves. With the second approach, the rmstD is based on the aggregation of the rmstDs estimated in each trial. RESULTS: The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and acceptability curves were sensitive to the method used to estimate the rmstD. The estimated rmstDs ranged from 1.7 month to 2.5 months, and mean ICERs ranged from € 24,299 to € 34,934 per life-year gained depending on the chosen method. At a ceiling ratio of € 25,000 per life year-gained, the probability of the experimental treatment being cost-effective ranged from 31% to 68%. CONCLUSIONS: This case study suggests that the method chosen to estimate the rmstD from IPD meta-analysis is likely to influence the results of cost-effectiveness analyses.

Cost effectiveness of molecular profiling for adjuvant decision making in patients with node-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To conduct an economic evaluation of the 70-gene signature used to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decision making both in patients with node-negative breast cancer (NNBC) and in the subgroup of estrogen receptor (ER) -positive patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a mixed approach combining patient-level data from a multicenter validation study of the 70-gene signature (untreated patients) and secondary sources for chemotherapy efficacy, unit costs, and utility values. Three strategies on which to base the decision to administer adjuvant chemotherapy were compared: the 70-gene signature, Adjuvant! Online, and chemotherapy in all patients. In the base-case analysis, costs from the French National Insurance Scheme, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were computed for the three strategies over a 10-year period. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves using the net monetary benefit were computed, combining bootstrap and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The mean differences in LYs and QALYs were similar between the three strategies. The 70-gene signature strategy was associated with a higher cost, with a mean difference of €2,037 (range, €1,472 to €2,515) compared with Adjuvant! Online and of €657 (95% CI, -€642 to €3,130) compared with systematic chemotherapy. For a €50,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, the probability of being the most cost-effective strategy was 92% (76% in ER-positive patients) for the Adjuvant! Online strategy, 6% (4% in ER-positive patients) for the systematic chemotherapy strategy, and 2% (20% in ER-positive patients) for the 70-gene strategy. CONCLUSION: Optimizing adjuvant chemotherapy decision making based on the 70-gene signature is unlikely to be cost effective in patients with NNBC.

Cost effectiveness of modified fractionation radiotherapy versus conventional radiotherapy for unresected non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Modified fractionation radiotherapy (RT), delivering multiple fractions per day or shortening the overall treatment time, improves overall survival for non -small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients compared with conventional fractionation RT (CRT). However, its cost effectiveness is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to examine and compare the cost effectiveness of different modified RT schemes and CRT in the curative treatment of unresected NSCLC patients. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was developed based on individual patient data from the meta-analysis of radiotherapy in lung cancer (N = 2000). Dutch health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and net monetary benefits (NMBs) were compared between two accelerated schemes (very accelerated RT [VART] and moderately accelerated RT [MART]), two hyperfractionated schemes (using an identical (HRT) or higher (HRT) total treatment dose than CRT) and CRT. RESULTS: All modified fractionations were more effective and costlier than CRT (1.12 QALYs, &OV0556;24,360). VART and MART were most effective (1.30 and 1.32 QALYs) and cost &OV0556;25,746 and &OV0556;26,208, respectively. HRT and HRT yielded less QALYs than the accelerated schemes (1.27 and 1.14 QALYs), and cost &OV0556;26,199 and &OV0556;29,683, respectively. MART had the highest NMB (&OV0556;79,322; 95% confidence interval [CI], &OV0556;35,478-&OV0556;133,648) and was the most cost-effective treatment followed by VART (&OV0556;78,347; 95% CI, &OV0556;64,635-&OV0556;92,526). CRT had an NMB of &OV0556;65,125 (95% CI, &OV0556;54,663-&OV0556;75,537). MART had the highest probability of being cost effective (43%), followed by VART (31%), HRT (24%), HRT (2%), and CRT (0%). CONCLUSION: Implementing accelerated RT is almost certainly more efficient than current practice CRT and should be recommended as standard RT for the curative treatment of unresected NSCLC patients not receiving concurrent chemo-radiotherapy.