Discrete-Choice Experiment to Understand the Preferences of Patients with Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in the USA, Canada, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) have broadened, and treatment decisions can have a long-lasting impact on patients' quality of life. Data on patient preferences can improve therapeutic decision-making by helping physicians suggest treatments that align with patients' values and needs. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to quantify patient preferences for attributes of chemohormonal therapies among patients with mHSPC in the USA, Canada, and the UK. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment survey instrument was developed and administered to patients with high- and very-high-risk localized prostate cancer and mHSPC. Patients chose between baseline androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) alone and experimentally designed, hypothetical treatment alternatives representing chemohormonal therapies. Choices were analyzed using logit models to derive the relative importance of attributes for each country and to evaluate differences and similarities among patients across countries. RESULTS: A total of 550 respondents completed the survey (USA, 200; Canada, 200; UK, 150); the mean age of respondents was 64.3 years. Treatment choices revealed that patients were most concerned with treatment efficacy. However, treatment-related convenience factors, such as route of drug administration and frequency of monitoring visits, were as important as some treatment-related side effects, such as skin rash, nausea, and fatigue. Patient preferences across countries were similar, although patients in Canada appeared to be more affected by concomitant steroid use. CONCLUSION: Patients with mHSPC believe the use of ADT alone is insufficient when more effective treatments are available. Efficacy is the most significant driver of patient choices. Treatment-related convenience factors can be as important as safety concerns for patients.

Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX in CLDN18.2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: the randomized, phase 3 GLOW trial.

There is an urgent need for first-line treatment options for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (mG/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Claudin-18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2) is expressed in normal gastric cells and maintained in malignant G/GEJ adenocarcinoma cells. GLOW (closed enrollment), a global, double-blind, phase 3 study, examined zolbetuximab, a monoclonal antibody that targets CLDN18.2, plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) as first-line treatment for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Patients (n = 507) were randomized 1:1 (block sizes of two) to zolbetuximab plus CAPOX or placebo plus CAPOX. GLOW met the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (median, 8.21 months versus 6.80 months with zolbetuximab versus placebo; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.687; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.544-0.866; P = 0.0007) and key secondary endpoint of overall survival (median, 14.39 months versus 12.16 months; HR = 0.771; 95% CI, 0.615-0.965; P = 0.0118). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were similar with zolbetuximab (72.8%) and placebo (69.9%). Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX represents a potential new first-line therapy for patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03653507 .

Zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, untreated, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (SPOTLIGHT): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Zolbetuximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting claudin-18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2), has shown efficacy in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. We report the results of the SPOTLIGHT trial, which investigated the efficacy and safety of first-line zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 (modified folinic acid [or levofolinate], fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin regimen) versus placebo plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. METHODS: SPOTLIGHT is a global, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients from 215 centres in 20 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with CLDN18.2-positive (defined as ≥75% of tumour cells showing moderate-to-strong membranous CLDN18 staining), HER2-negative (based on local or central evaluation), previously untreated, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, with radiologically evaluable disease (measurable or non-measurable) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1; and adequate organ function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology and stratified according to region, number of organs with metastases, and previous gastrectomy. Patients received zolbetuximab (800 mg/m2 loading dose followed by 600 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) plus mFOLFOX6 (every 2 weeks) or placebo plus mFOLFOX6. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent review committee in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03504397, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between June 21, 2018, and April 1, 2022, 565 patients were randomly assigned to receive either zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 (283 patients; the zolbetuximab group) or placebo plus mFOLFOX6 (282 patients; the placebo group). At least one dose of treatment was administered to 279 (99%) of 283 patients in the zolbetuximab group and 278 (99%) of 282 patients in the placebo group. In the zolbetuximab group, 176 (62%) patients were male and 107 (38%) were female. In the placebo group, 175 (62%) patients were male and 107 (38%) were female. The median follow-up duration for progression-free survival was 12·94 months in the zolbetuximab group versus 12·65 months in the placebo group. Zolbetuximab treatment showed a significant reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·75, 95% CI 0·60-0·94; p=0·0066). The median progression-free survival was 10·61 months (95% CI 8·90-12·48) in the zolbetuximab group versus 8·67 months (8·21-10·28) in the placebo group. Zolbetuximab treatment also showed a significant reduction in the risk of death versus placebo (HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·60-0·94; p=0·0053). Treatment-emergent grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 242 (87%) of 279 patients in the zolbetuximab group versus 216 (78%) of 278 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were nausea, vomiting, and decreased appetite. Treatment-related deaths occurred in five (2%) patients in the zolbetuximab group versus four (1%) patients in the placebo group. No new safety signals were identified. INTERPRETATION: Targeting CLDN18.2 with zolbetuximab significantly prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival when combined with mFOLFOX6 versus placebo plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 might represent a new first-line treatment in these patients. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma, Inc.

The economic value of knowing BRCA status: universal BRCA testing for breast cancer prevention.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to estimate the incremental lifetime effects, costs, and net monetary benefit (NMB) of knowing BRCA information by universal genetic testing of all US women without breast cancer turning 40 in a given year, and the cumulative savings or losses of yearly cohort testing over 16 years. We compared two strategies: (1) 'with BRCA information' and (2) 'without BRCA information.' METHODS: Incremental NMB (INMB) was calculated as the monetized benefit per person of knowing BRCA status. The net monetized value (cumulated INMB) of knowing BRCA information was estimated by multiplying the INMB with the eligible population or the year 2020 cohort of US women age 40 and extended for a total of 16 yearly cohorts. RESULTS: Universal testing of the female population at the age of 40 in a given year provided aan INMB of $663/person (payer) and $1,006/person (society).Escalated to the U.S. population of women age 40 , knowing BRCA status resulted in lifetime cumulated INMB of $1.3 billion (payer) and $2.0 billion (society) for the 2020 cohort; and yielded accumulated monetized value of $18.3 billion (payer) and $27.6 billion (society) over 16 yearly cohorts of 40-year-old women. CONCLUSIONS: The universal testing for BRCA status of all US women at age 40 provides compelling short-term and long-term economic value.

The economic value of knowing BRCA status: BRCA testing for optimizing treatment in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to estimate the incremental lifetime effects, costs, and net monetary benefit (NMB) of knowing BRCA information for recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) patients in a given year and the cumulative savings of yearly hypothetical cohort testing over 16 years. We compared two strategies: (1) 'with BRCA information' and (2) 'without BRCA information.' METHODS: Incremental NMB (INMB) was calculated as the average net monetized benefit of knowing BRCA status. The net monetized value (cumulative INMB) of knowing BRCA information was estimated by multiplying the INMB with the eligible ROC patients in year 2020 and extended for potential ROC patients over 16 yearly hypothetical cohorts of ROC patients. RESULTS: Knowing BRCA information for ROC patients provided an additional monetized value of $3,528 in (payer) and $3,194 (society). Escalated to all ROC patients in the U.S. and future incidence ROC estimates, knowing BRCA information resulted in a lifetime cumulative INMB of $35.6 million (payer) and $32.2 million (society) for the 2020 cohort; and yielded an accumulated value of $97.3 million (payer) and $88.0 million (society) over 16 yearly hypothetical cohorts of ROC patients. CONCLUSIONS: The economic value of knowing BRCA status of all U.S. ROC patients provides short-term and long-term evidence for optimizing treatment.

Economic value of knowing BRCA status: BRCA testing for prostate cancer prevention and optimal treatment.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to estimate the incremental lifetime effects, costs, and net-monetary-benefit (NMB) of knowing BRCA information by testing of patients with low-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa) in the US and guiding subsequent screening and treatment, and the cumulative savings or losses of yearly cohort testing over 16 years. We compared two strategies: (1)'with BRCA information' and (2)'without BRCA information.' We also estimated the expected value of perfect information. METHODS: The incremental NMB (INMB) quantified the monetized benefit per person of knowing BRCA status. The net-monetized-value of knowing BRCA information was estimated by multiplying the INMB with the eligible population. RESULTS: The INMBs of knowing BRCA information were $43,357 (payer) and $43,487 (society). in payer and societal perspectives, respectively. Escalated to the eligible patients in 2020, knowing BRCA status resulted in net monetized lifetime value of $1.7 billion (payer and society) for the 2020 cohort; and yielded accumulated net-monetized-value of $28.0 billion (payer) and $28.1 billion (society) over 16 yearly cohorts of eligible PCa patients. CONCLUSIONS: The economic value of knowing BRCA status for all low-risk localized PCa patients in the US provides short-term and long-term evidence for BRCA testing to screen early and optimize treatment.

Meta-Analysis of Same-Day Pegfilgrastim Administration Stratified by Myelotoxic Febrile Neutropenia Risk and Tumor Type.

Background: Pegfilgrastim is recommended to be administered at least 24 hours following the completion of chemotherapy, yet some clinicians use a same-day administration protocol. In this meta-analysis, we compared the incidence of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) as well as CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disruptions in cancer patients provided with pegfilgrastim same-day vs. next-day. Methods: Six databases were searched for comparative studies of same-day vs. next-day pegfilgrastim administration. Fixed or random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Thirteen studies were included in this meta-analysis. The FN OR for same-day vs. next-day administration was 1.48 (95% CI = 1.06-2.08) across all cycles, attributable mainly to studies of high FN risk (OR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.04-5.83) vs. intermediate FN risk regimens (OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.95-2.10), and breast cancer (OR = 3.15, 95% CI = 1.24-8.01) vs. non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL; OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 0.98-2.23) and gynecologic cancers (OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.11-3.85). Where available, ORs for first cycle of chemotherapy, grades 3 and/or 4 CIN, and chemotherapy dose delays or reductions were in line with these findings. Conclusion: In this independent study, same-day pegfilgrastim administration may or may not increase the likelihood of FN, grades 3 and/or 4 CIN, and chemotherapy dose reductions or delays; and this may be a function of the myelotoxicity of the regimens (elevated in high-risk but not intermediate-risk regimens) and tumor type (elevated in breast but not in NHL or gynecologic cancers). With due caution, same-day pegfilgrastim administration may be safe and beneficial in intermediate-risk regimens and selected tumor types.

Exposure to proton pump inhibitors and risk of pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis.

Objectives: To estimate the pancreatic cancer risk among subjects exposed versus not exposed to proton pump inhibitors.Methods: The authors searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov to identify relevant studies. The authors quantified pancreatic cancer risk among subjects exposed versus not exposed to PPIs, expressed as the pooled (adjusted) odds ratio (OR/aOR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) in overall and sensitivity analyses.Results: One randomized trial, two cohort, four case-control, and five nested case-control studies with 700,178 subjects (73,985 cases; 626,193 controls) were retained. PPI exposure was associated with pancreatic cancer risk (OR = 1.75, 95%CI = 1.12-2.72, I2 = 99%); confirmed in sensitivity analyses for high-quality studies, observational studies, case-control studies, studies with pancreatic cancer as the primary outcome, and in sensitivity analyses for diabetes and obesity but not for pancreatitis and smoking. This association was independent of the duration and Defined Daily Dose of PPI exposure. Rabeprazole had a singular significant association with pancreatic cancer (OR = 5.40, 95%CI = 1.98-14.703, I2 = 87.9%).Conclusion: The class of PPIs is associated with a 1.75-fold increase in pancreatic cancer risk, confirmed in sensitivity analyses.

The association of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with prostate cancer risk, frequency, and mortality: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A prior meta-analysis found no association between BRCA1 mutation and prostate cancer (PCa). Subsequent BRCA2 mutation studies have shown an association with PCa risk and mortality. We conducted a meta-analysis of overall BRCA mutation carriers and in subgroups to (1) estimate PCa risk in BRCA mutation carriers, (2) evaluate the frequency of BRCA mutation carriers in patients with PCa, and (3) compare cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) among BRCA mutation carriers and noncarriers. METHODS: We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Unadjusted odds ratio (OR), percentage (%), and hazard ratio (HR) were used to calculate pooled estimates for PCa risk, frequency, and survival, respectively. Subgroup analyses by mutation type ( BRCA1 or BRCA2) were conducted for the three objectives. Further subgroup analyses by study design (age-sex-adjusted or crude), ascertainment method (ascertained or inferred genotyping), population (Ashkenazi Jewish or general population), and survival outcomes (CSS or OS) were conducted. The associations were evaluated using random-effects models, in two-sided statistical tests. RESULTS: A total of 8 cohort, 7 case-control, 4 case-series, 28 frequency, and 11 survival studies were included. Being a BRCA mutation carrier ( BRCA1 and/or BRCA2) was associated with a significant increase in PCa risk (OR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.58-2.29), with BRCA2 mutation being associated with a greater risk of PCa (OR = 2.64, 95% CI = 2.03-3.47) than BRCA1 (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.03-1.76). The frequency of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers in patients with PCa was 0.9% and 2.2%, respectively. OS (HR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.64-2.30) and CSS (HR = 2.63, 95% CI = 2.00-3.45) were significantly worse among BRCA2 carriers compared to noncarriers, whereas OS (HR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.11-1.99) and CSS (HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.38-2.96) were statistically not significant when comparing BRCA1 carriers and noncarriers. CONCLUSIONS: There is a 1.90-fold greater risk of PCa in overall BRCA mutation carriers. This elevated PCa risk is attributable mainly to a 2.64-fold greater risk of PCa in BRCA2 carriers compared to a moderate 1.35-fold greater risk in BRCA1 carriers. The frequency of BRCA2 mutations was higher than BRCA1 mutations among patients with PCa. BRCA2 but not BRCA1 mutations were associated with higher PCa mortality. The BRCA mutation may be a clinical factor to stratify high-risk patients and guide clinical strategies for more effective treatments for patients with PCa.

Economic Evaluation of Talimogene Laherparepvec Plus Ipilimumab Combination Therapy vs Ipilimumab Monotherapy in Patients With Advanced Unresectable Melanoma.

Importance: A phase 2 trial comparing talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab vs ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with advanced unresectable melanoma found no differential benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) but noted objective response rates (ORRs) of 38.8% (38 of 98 patients) vs 18.0% (18 of 100 patients), respectively. Objective: To perform an economic evaluation of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab combination therapy vs ipilimumab monotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: For PFS, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses using a 2-state Markov model (PFS vs progression or death) was performed. For ORRs, cost-effectiveness analysis of the incremental cost of 1 additional patient achieving objective response was performed. In this setting based on a US payer perspective (2017 US dollars), participants were patients with advanced unresectable melanoma. Main Outcomes and Measures: The PFS life-years and PFS quality-adjusted life-years were determined, and the associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were estimated. Also estimated was the ICER per 1 additional patient (out of 100 treated patients) achieving objective response. Base-case analyses were validated by sensitivity analyses. Results: In PFS analyses, the cost of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab ($494 983) exceeded the cost of ipilimumab monotherapy ($132 950) by $362 033. The ICER was $2 129 606 per PFS life-years, and the ICUR was $2 262 706 per PFS quality-adjusted life-year gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses yielded an ICER of $1 481 208 per PFS life-year gained and an ICUR of $1 683 191 per PFS quality-adjusted life-year gained. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, the PFS hazard ratio and the utility of response were the most influential parameters. Talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab has a 50% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1 683 191 per PFS quality-adjusted life-year gained. In ORR analyses, talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab ($474 904) vs ipilimumab alone ($132 810), a $342 094 difference, yielded an ICER of $1 629 019 per additional patient achieving objective response. In subgroup analyses by disease stage and BRAFV600E mutation status, ICERs ranged from $1 069 044 to $17 104 700 per 1 additional patient achieving objective response. Conclusions and Relevance: The cost to gain 1 additional progression-free quality-adjusted life-year, 1 additional progression-free life-year, or to have 1 additional patient attain objective response is about $1.6 million. This amount may be beyond what payers typically are willing to pay. Combination therapy of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab does not offer an economically beneficial treatment option relative to ipilimumab monotherapy at the population level. This should not preclude treatment for individual patients for whom this regimen may be indicated.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 Gene Mutations and Colorectal Cancer Risk: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Investigations of the associations with colorectal cancer have yielded conflicting results. The aim of our study was to synthesize the research on colorectal cancer risks in BRCA mutation carriers by means of a systematic review and quantitatively by means of meta-analyses overall and in subgroups of BRCA mutation carriers. Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) were used to derive pooled estimates of colorectal cancer risk overall and in subgroups defined by mutation type (BRCA1 or BRCA2), cancer type (colorectal or colon cancer), study design (age-sex-adjusted or crude), and ascertainment method (ascertained or inferred genotyping). The associations were evaluated using random-effect models. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Eighteen studies were included in the systematic review: five cohort studies with ascertained BRCA mutation, six cohort studies involving pedigree analysis, five case-control studies, and two kin-cohort studies. Of these, 14 were used in the meta-analysis, which revealed a statistically significant increased risk of colorectal cancer in overall BRCA mutation carriers (OR = 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.02 to 1.51, P = .03). In subgroup meta-analyses by BRCA type, BRCA1 mutation was associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.85, P < .001), but BRCA2 was not (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.77 to 1.58, P = .61). In subgroup meta-analyses of studies reporting estimates adjusted for age and sex, an increased risk of colorectal cancer for BRCA1 (OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.23 to 1.98, P < .001), but not for BRCA2 (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.58, P = .66) was observed. Analyses stratified by ascertainment method found no association between BRCA mutation and colorectal cancer risk. Conclusion: The meta-analysis results provide clinicians and health-care regulatory agencies with evidence of the increased risk of colorectal cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers, but not in BRCA2.