RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Melanoma/tratamento farmacológico , Terapias em Estudo/economia , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Antineoplásicos/economia , Estudos de Coortes , Análise Custo-Benefício , Custos de Medicamentos , Feminino , França , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Custos Hospitalares , Humanos , Imunoterapia/economia , Imunoterapia/estatística & dados numéricos , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Melanoma/economia , Melanoma/mortalidade , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Terapia de Alvo Molecular/economia , Terapia de Alvo Molecular/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos Prospectivos , Taxa de Sobrevida , Terapias em Estudo/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Transformed mycosis fungoides (TMF) large cells may express CD30 antigen, and because of this, the differential diagnosis between CD30-rich TMF and primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (cALCL) may be difficult, and especially in distinguishing cALCL associated with MF vs. CD30-rich TMF. OBJECTIVES: To find clinical, histological and molecular diagnostic features useful for differential diagnosis between cALCL and CD30-rich TMF. To analyse and compare the prognostic value of clinical and pathological factors in these two diseases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study (1999-2012) of 32 patients with cALCL and 34 with CD30-rich TMF, seen in reference centres of the French Study Group of Cutaneous Lymphoma. Clinical, histological and molecular features were analysed and compared to determine their diagnostic and prognostic value. RESULTS: Comparison of the two groups showed that age Ë 60 years, ≥ 5 skin lesions, early progression, absence of spontaneous regression and trunk involvement were significantly associated with the diagnosis of TMF. Abnormal T-cell phenotype and perforin expression were significantly more frequent in cALCL (both P < 0·001). Overall survival (OS) at 5 years was 77·4% for cALCL and 20·7% for CD30-rich TMF. Stage T3, ≥ 5 skin lesions, lower limb involvement for cALCL and stage T4, extracutaneous involvement, B symptoms, high levels of lactate dehydrogenase for CD30-rich TMF were associated with poor OS and progression-free survival. DUSP22 gene rearrangement had no diagnostic or prognostic value. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical features and outcome are the most discriminative to differentiate the two entities. Even histological and molecular markers were not fully specific; abnormal vs. normal T-cell phenotype and perforin expression may constitute helpful tools.