Clinical and economic outcomes of adding [18F]FES PET/CT in estrogen receptor status identification in metastatic and recurrent breast cancer in the US.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Correct identification of estrogen receptor (ER) status in breast cancer (BC) is crucial to optimize treatment; however, standard of care, involving biopsy and immunohistochemistry (IHC), and other diagnostic tools such as 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose or 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ([18F]FDG), can yield inconclusive results. 16α-[18F]fluoro-17ß-fluoroestradiol ([18F]FES) can be a powerful tool, providing high diagnostic accuracy of ER-positive disease. The aim of this study was to estimate the budget impact and cost-effectiveness of adding [18F]FES PET/CT to biopsy/IHC in the determination of ER-positive status in metastatic (mBC) and recurrent breast cancer (rBC) in the United States (US). METHODS: An Excel-based decision tree, combined with a Markov model, was developed to estimate the economic consequences of adding [18F]FES PET/CT to biopsy/IHC for determining ER-positive status in mBC and rBC over 5 years. Scenario A, where the determination of ER-positive status is carried out solely through biopsy/IHC, was compared to scenario B, where [18F]FES PET/CT is used in addition to biopsy/IHC. RESULTS: The proportion of true positive and true negative test results increased by 0.2 to 8.0 percent points in scenario B compared to scenario A, while re-biopsies were reduced by 94% to 100%. Scenario B resulted in cost savings up to 142 million dollars. CONCLUSIONS: Adding [18F]FES PET/CT to biopsy/IHC may increase the diagnostic accuracy of the ER status, especially when a tumor sample cannot be obtained, or the risk of a biopsy-related complication is high. Therefore, adding [18F]FES PET/CT to biopsy/IHC would have a positive impact on US clinical and economic outcomes.

Cost-efficiency and expanded access modeling of conversion to biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst with or without pertuzumab in metastatic breast cancer.

AIMS: To investigate the cost-efficiency and budget-neutral expanded access of biosimilar intravenous trastuzumab-dkst versus reference intravenous (trastuzumab-IV) and subcutaneous trastuzumab (trastuzumab-SC) (with/without pertuzumab) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: Economic simulation modeling in a panel of 1,000 MBC patients to estimate: 1) cost-savings by conversion from trastuzumab-IV or trastuzumab-SC to trastuzumab-dkst at 10-100% conversion rates in 3 weight groups: first quartile (Q1:62.2 kg), median (73.1 kg), third quartile (Q3:88.6 kg), and 2) budget-neutral expanded access to trastuzumab-dkst from cost-savings. RESULTS: In monotherapy, conversion (%) from trastuzumab-IV generates one-year cost-savings from $2,272,189 (Q1;10%) to $31,506,804 (Q3;100%) and from trastuzumab-SC monotherapy savings range from $2,071,277 (Q3;10%) to $35,775,475 (Q1;100%). In combination with pertuzumab, trastuzumab-dkst is cost-efficient in all patient weights with one-year savings over trastuzumab-IV up to $32,662,714 (Q3;100%) and over trastuzumab-SC up to $35,322,461 (Q1;100%). Savings from conversion from trastuzumab-IV monotherapy could provide between 3,087 (Q1;10%) and 30,911 (Q3;100%) additional trastuzumab-dkst doses-enough to treat 58 to 583 patients for one year. Conversion from trastuzumab-SC monotherapy could provide between 1,559 (Q3;10%) and 48,598 (Q1;100%) additional trastuzumab-dkst doses or 38 to 918 additional one-year treatments with trastuzumab-dkst. In combination with pertuzumab, conversion from trastuzumab-IV could provide from 311 (Q1;10%) to 3,939 (Q3;100%) maintenance doses (pertuzumab + trastuzumab-dkst) or 17 to 210 additional one-year regimens (all agents). Savings from conversion from trastuzumab-SC could expand access to 226 (Q3;10%) to 4,782 (Q1;100%) additional maintenance doses or 12 to 254 one-year regimens. CONCLUSIONS: This first cost-efficiency and expanded access study of biosimilar therapeutic cancer agents shows that trastuzumab-dkst is cost-efficient over trastuzumab-IV and trastuzumab-SC across all patient weights in both monotherapy and combination with pertuzumab and paclitaxel. These cost savings could provide more patients with trastuzumab-dkst treatment on a budget-neutral basis.

Conversion from pegfilgrastim with on-body injector to pegfilgrastim-jmdb: cost-efficiency analysis and budget-neutral expanded access to prophylaxis and treatment.

AIMS: Therapeutic guidelines recommend prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN). Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), biosimilar pegfilgrastim-jmdb (Fulphila), and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector (OBI; Neulasta Onpro) are options for CIN/FN prophylaxis. We aimed to simulate the cost-savings and budget-neutral expanded access to CIN/FN prophylaxis or anticancer treatment achieved through conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to pegfilgrastim-jmdb and to evaluate the economic impact of FN-related hospitalization costs due to pegfilgrastim-OBI failure. METHODS: Cost-savings from conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-jmdb were simulated in a panel of 15,000 patients with cancer from the US payer perspective. The primary analyses included conversion rates of 10% to 100%. Adjusted analyses also considered OBI device failure rates of 1% to 7% and associated costs of FN-related hospitalization. Simulations of budget-neutral expanded access to prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim-jmdb or to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) were also performed. RESULTS: In a 15,000-patient panel, conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to pegfilgrastim-jmdb resulted in cost-savings ranging from $481,259 (10% conversion) to $4,812,585 (100% conversion) in a single cycle. Over 6 cycles at 100% conversion, savings were $28,857,510 and could provide 9,191 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 4,463 cycles of R-CHOP to patients with DLBCL. Adjusted for OBI failure, cost-savings over 6 cycles ranged from $2,935,565 (10% conversion; pegfilgrastim-OBI failure rate of 1%) to $32,236,499 (100% conversion; 7% failure). These cost-savings could provide 943 doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 454 doses of R-CHOP (10% conversion; 1% pegfilgrastim-OBI failure) or provide 10,261 doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 4,982 cycles of R-CHOP (100% conversion; 7% failure). CONCLUSION: Conversion from pegfilgrastim to pegfilgrastim-jmdb is associated with significant cost-savings which increase markedly when also accounting for pegfilgrastim-OBI failure and associated FN-related hospitalizations. These general and failure-related cost-savings could be allocated on a budget-neutral basis to provide more patients with additional CIN/FN prophylaxis or antineoplastic treatment.

Intravenous and subcutaneous formulations of trastuzumab, and trastuzumab biosimilars: implications for clinical practice.

Trastuzumab is a biologic therapy indicated for the treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer and metastatic gastric cancer. Trastuzumab was originally approved as an intravenous (IV) formulation but has since been developed for subcutaneous (SC) administration for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Both formulations demonstrate generally comparable pharmacological and clinical profiles. Therefore, when deciding between treatment options, factors such as the route of administration, patient preference, value and cost must be considered. Studies comparing IV with SC trastuzumab indicate that each formulation offers unique advantages to patients depending on their individual needs. Concurrent with the development of SC trastuzumab, IV trastuzumab biosimilars comprise another treatment option that, in view of their reduced cost, might improve patient access and increase cost-effectiveness for healthcare providers and payers. In this review, we seek to raise awareness of the current options available for trastuzumab so that healthcare providers can optimally treat patients according to their individual situations and preferences.