Plain language summary: Does the amount of time it takes for prostate-specific antigen to double affect how long men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer live and their healthcare costs?

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of a research article originally published in Clinical Genitourinary Cancer. The original article described the effect of rapidly rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels on how long men with a type of advanced prostate cancer live and their healthcare costs. The prostate is a part of the male body that helps make semen. PSA is a protein produced by the prostate that can show how advanced prostate cancer has become. One measure of prostate cancer growth is assessing how quickly a patient's PSA level doubles. This is known as the PSA doubling time (PSADT). People with a shorter PSADT usually have faster-growing prostate cancer compared with people who have a longer PSADT of more than 12 months (long PSADT). Researchers wanted to know if PSADT can predict cancer spread (known as metastasis) or death for people with a type of advanced prostate cancer called non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). Researchers also wanted to know if PSADT can predict healthcare costs. This could help doctors choose the right treatment for their patients with nmCRPC. This was a real-world study, not a clinical trial. This means that researchers looked at what happened when men received the treatments prescribed by their own doctor as part of their usual healthcare treatment. In this study, researchers used insurance claim information. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers looked at information for 2800 men with nmCRPC. Six out of every 10 men (60%) had a long PSADT of more than 12 months. Researchers found that it took longer for the cancer to spread to other parts of the body in men with a longer PSADT than men with PSADT of 12 months or less. Researchers also found that men with a longer PSADT lived longer than men with PSADT of 12 months or less. The long PSADT group had fewer healthcare visits overall than men with PSADT of 10 months or less. Over time, it cost less to treat men with a long PSADT than men with PSADT of 10 months or less. Generally, if PSADT was shorter, patients tended to do worse. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: In this real-world study, researchers found that men with nmCRPC lived longer and had lower healthcare costs if they had a long PSADT of more than 12 months compared with men who had a shorter PSADT. Men with nmCRPC and a shorter PSADT may benefit from approved treatments that slow cancer spread and help them live longer. However, these treatments may have side effects and cost more than standard treatment. Doctors take all these things into account when choosing treatments for their patients. Most men in this study had a long PSADT of more than 12 months. Standard treatment may be the right choice for them because they are more likely to have better outcomes than men with a shorter PSADT.

Survival and Economic Impact of Rapid Prostate-Specific Antigen Doubling Time in Patients With Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) is associated with risk of metastasis and survival. This study evaluated the association of PSADT with clinical and economic outcomes in a real-world setting among patients with nmCRPC not receiving novel hormonal therapy (NHT), using 2-month PSADT thresholds. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified Veterans Health Administration patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer and ≥2 PSA increases after medical/surgical castration (2012-2016). The third measurement was the index (CRPC) date. Patients with ≥3 postindex PSA measurements, including index, were followed until death or ≥12 months until disenrollment, study end, or death, and grouped into 2-month cohorts based on postindex PSADT. Cox regression models assessed association between PSADT, time to metastasis, and death. Healthcare resource utilization and costs were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 2800 evaluable patients, median follow-up was 30 months and median PSADT was 17 months. Relative to the reference cohort (PSADT >12 months), all cohorts had significantly higher metastasis risk. PSADT ≤10-month cohorts had significantly greater mortality risk than the reference; hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) ranged from 12.3 (9.2, 16.4) in the PSADT ≤2-month cohort to 1.3 (0.9, 2.0) in the >10 to ≤12-month cohort. Total costs were significantly higher for cohorts up to and including the PSADT >8 to ≤10-month cohort, than for the reference cohort. Mean per patient per month all-cause medical plus pharmacy costs were $6623, $4768, and $4049 in the PSADT ≤2-month, >2 to ≤4-month cohort, and >4 to ≤6-month cohorts, respectively, versus $1911 in the PSADT >12-month cohort (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: Most patients with nmCRPC have PSADT >12 months and a long natural history. For those with shorter PSADT, the risk of metastasis, death, and costs increased. These data can help select patients for NHT and conversely those who can safely delay NHT for nmCRPC.

Clinical and economic burden of HPV-related cancers in the US veteran population.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States and can lead to cervical, vulvovaginal, anal, penile, and oropharyngeal cancers. Compared with the general population, US military members are at a higher risk of HPV-related conditions, yet vaccination rates are relatively low in this population. As many service members may not be diagnosed with HPV-related cancers until after they leave active service, the objective of this study was to determine the incidence, prevalence, and economic burden of HPV-related cancers among US veterans. METHODS: The study used the 2014-2018 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) database to identify newly diagnosed adult patients (cases) with HPV-related cancers, including cervical, vulvovaginal, anal, penile, and oropharyngeal cancers. Cases were matched by age, race, and sex to patients without HPV related cancer (controls). Outcome measures included annual incidence, prevalence, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs. These outcomes were calculated from the index date (first cancer diagnosis) through the earliest of 24 months, death, or end of study period. Adjusted results were examined using generalized linear models. RESULTS: The annual prevalence and incidence rates of HPV-related cancers ranged from 43 (anal) to 790 (oropharyngeal) cases per million (CPM), and four (anal) to 131 (cervical) CPM, respectively. Compared with controls, cases had significantly higher annual HCRU. Mean numbers of annual inpatient hospitalizations were several times higher compared to controls (cervical: 6.7-times (×); vulvovaginal: 2.7×; penile: 6.6×; oropharyngeal: 10.2×; and anal: 14.9×; all p < 0.01). Similarly, cases had significantly higher all-cause healthcare costs vs. matched controls across all cancer types: cervical ($24,252 vs. $10,402), vulvovaginal ($34,801 vs. $10,913), penile ($42,772 vs. $9,139), oropharyngeal ($82,763 vs. $10,017), and anal ($98,146 vs. $8,339); (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: HPV-related cancers may cause significant clinical and economic burden within the VHA system. Given the consequences of HPV-related cancers among veterans who did not have access to the vaccine, HPV vaccination of active military and eligible veterans should be considered a healthcare priority.

Time to Next Treatment, Health Care Resource Utilization, and Costs Associated with Ibrutinib Use Among U.S. Veterans with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma: A Real-World Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) is the most common adult leukemia, accounting for ≈ 37% of all leukemias in the United States. Limited real-word evidence is available on the outcomes of ibrutinib use among previously untreated patients in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) population diagnosed with CLL/SLL. OBJECTIVES: To (a) evaluate time to next treatment (TTNT) among U.S. veterans with CLL/SLL who initiated ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in first line (1L) and 1L ibrutinib versus ibrutinib in later lines (2L+) and (b) compare health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs between the 1L ibrutinib and CIT cohorts. METHODS: Adults with CLL/SLL and claims for 1L single-agent ibrutinib or CIT (index date = first prescription claim date) were included from Veterans Health Administration Data (April 1, 2013-March 31, 2018). A subset of the CIT 1L cohort with evidence of ibrutinib in 2L/3L was defined as the ibrutinib 2L+ cohort. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate TTNT, and generalized linear models were used to determine all-cause per patient per month (PPPM) HRU and costs during 1L among propensity score-matched (PSM) cohorts. RESULTS: After PSM, 614 patients were included in each of the 1L ibrutinib and 1L CIT cohorts, and 149 were included in each of the 1L ibrutinib and 2L+ ibrutinib cohorts. The 1L ibrutinib cohort had significantly longer TTNT compared with each of the 1L CIT and 2L+ ibrutinib cohorts (P <0.0001 and P =0.0001, respectively) and was less likely to have a next line of treatment than the CIT 1L cohort (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.42-0.65; P < 0.0001) and the 2L+ ibrutinib cohort (HR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.22-0.69; P = 0.0012). The 1L ibrutinib cohort had significantly fewer inpatient visits (rate ratio [RR] = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.28-0.52; P ≤ 0.05) and outpatient visits PPPM (RR =0.72; 95% CI = 0.68-0.77; P ≤ 0.5) compared with the CIT 1L cohort. Additionally, the 1L ibrutinib cohort had $7,308 significantly lower monthly medical costs (95% CI = -$9,892 to -$4,895; P ≤ 0.05) versus the 1L CIT cohort, resulting in comparable monthly total health care cost (medical and pharmacy) between real-world 1L patients treated by ibrutinib and CIT (-$2,160; 95% CI = -$4,840-$347; P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that among U.S. veterans with CLL/SLL, 1L ibrutinib use was associated with significantly longer TTNT versus that of 1L CIT. Similarly, early treatment with ibrutinib was associated with longer TTNT as compared to ibrutinib use in later lines of therapy. Moreover, 1L ibrutinib was associated with lower HRU and medical costs compared with 1L CIT, completely offsetting the higher pharmacy costs related to 1L ibrutinib treatment. DISCLOSURES: This research was sponsored by Janssen Scientific Affairs. The analyses were performed by STATinMED Research. Huang is an employee of Janssen Scientific Affairs and may own company stock. Sundaram was an employee of Janssen Scientific Affairs at the time this study was conducted. Borra and Janjan are employees of STATinMED Research, a paid consultant to the study sponsor. Wang, Li, and Shrestha were employees of STATinMED Research at the time this study was conducted.

Health Services Utilization and Payments in Patients With Cancer Pain: A Comparison of Intrathecal Drug Delivery vs. Conventional Medical Management.

INTRODUCTION: To compare health services utilization and payments for cancer patients who received an implantable intrathecal drug delivery (IDD) system, consisting of a pump and catheter, vs. conventional medical management (CMM) for the treatment of cancer-related pain. METHODS: This retrospective claims-data analysis compared health services utilization and payments in a population of patients receiving either IDD or CMM for treatment of cancer pain. Patients were propensity score-matched 1:1 based on characteristics including, but not limited to, age, gender, cancer type, comorbid conditions, and health care utilization and payments. RESULTS: From a sample of 142 IDD patients and 3188 CMM patients who met all inclusion/exclusion criteria, 73 matched pairs were obtained. In the year following implant, IDD patients had a consistent trend of lower medical utilization, and total payments that were $3195 lower compared to CMM. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high initial cost of IDD, this analysis suggests that patients with IDD incur lower medical utilization and payments over the first year post-implant. Further analysis comprised of a larger, longitudinal sample would contribute to health economics and outcomes research, and assist with future practice guideline development.

Improving cancer pain control with NCCN guideline-based analgesic administration: a patient-centered outcome.

Improving the control of cancer-related pain (CRP) is a clinical and ethical imperative. Clinical research has documented improved treatment tolerance and survival rates among patients with cancer who have effective pain control. Barriers to CRP control include inadequate patient and physician education. Meta-analyses of patient education studies correlate improvements in CRP control with improved communications with health care providers and the implementation of strategies that assist with adherence to medication schedules. These strategies build patient confidence, allowing better self-management of pain and reduced psychological consequences. For physicians, ample educational resources exist in CRP management. However, in both the inpatient and outpatient settings, compliance with NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Adult Cancer Pain continues to be less than 70%, and more than one-third of patients continue to receive inadequate doses of analgesics. Patient-centered outcomes have become an integral end point in health policy, and the nation's medical training, research, and delivery systems are transforming to a value-based accreditation and reimbursement system. Pain control is a significant patient-centered outcome in cancer care, because pain adversely impacts function and affects all domains of quality of life. Agreement is clear on the value of health care interventions that relieve suffering from cancer pain and restore personal dignity.

Economic analysis of radiation therapy oncology group 97-14: multiple versus single fraction radiation treatment of patients with bone metastases.

INTRODUCTION: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 97-14 concluded that a single fraction of radiation was as effective in relieving pain as multiple fractions in the treatment of patients with bone metastases. A statistically significant higher retreatment rate, however, was noted in patients undergoing a single fraction treatment. The purpose of the analysis was to determine whether multiple fraction treatment is cost-effective in treating patients with bone metastasis, by preventing further retreatment. METHODS AND MATERIAL: A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 30 Gy in 10 fractions in comparison with 8 Gy in 1 fraction. Transition probabilities, cost, and utilities were obtained from the clinical trial. Costs and outcomes were not discounted because of the short time line for the study. RESULTS: The expected mean cost and quality-adjusted survival in months for patients receiving 8 Gy in 1 fraction and 30 Gy in 10 fractions was 998 US dollars and 7.26 months and 2316 US dollars and 9.53 months, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 6973 US dollars/quality-adjusted life year. The results were sensitive to the utility of the posttreatment state for both single and multiple fraction treatments. CONCLUSION: Single fraction treatment was the less expensive treatment in the treatment of patients with bone metastasis treated on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 97-14.

Therapeutic guidelines for the treatment of bone metastasis: a report from the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria Expert Panel on Radiation Oncology.

Bone metastases remain a therapeutic challenge because of the diversity of the problems they cause, the relative paucity of data regarding their treatment, and the necessity for management by a multidisciplinary palliative care team. The American College of Radiology convened an Appropriateness Criteria Expert Panel on Radiation Oncology for the treatment of bone metastasis to create representative clinical case scenarios and then rank the appropriate use of treatment modalities as well as the most reasonable radiotherapy dose schema and treatment planning methods. Here we present both the resulting Appropriateness Criteria and the rationale for making these decisions. The treatment recommendations are placed within the larger framework of the role of radiation in palliative care by discussing the efficiency of palliative radiotherapy schedules, cost effectiveness issues, and the need for additional research regarding the proper multidisciplinary care of patients with symptomatic bone metastasis.

Palliation and supportive care in radiation medicine.

The treatment of bone metastases represents a paradigm for evaluating palliative care in terms of symptom relief, toxicities of therapy, and the financial burden to the patient, caregivers, and society. Despite enormous expenditures to treat metastases, patients continue to sustain symptoms of the disease, and uninterrupted aggressive therapies are pursued until death that incur toxicity in approximately 25% of patients. This approach is inconsistent with the goals of palliative care, which should efficiently provide comfort using antineoplastic therapies or supportive care approaches to the patient with the fewest treatment-related side effects, recognizing that the patient will die of the disease.The development of therapies such as bisphosphonates is important in advancing options for palliative care; however, clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of bisphosphonates have not addressed important issues for clinical practice. The primary study endpoints should primarily address pertinent patient outcomes such as pain relief rather than asymptomatic radiographic findings. These studies should define clear indications of when to start and stop the therapy, the appropriate patient populations to receive the therapy, and the cost effectiveness of the treatment relative to other available therapies such as radiation. Cost-utility analyses, which account for a broader domain of cost effectiveness, need to be performed as part of clinical trials, especially for palliative care endpoints. Clinical trials that include these criteria are critical to future practice guideline development. As health care resources continue to become more limited, the criteria for care must be better defined to avoid administration of therapy with limited benefit. Leadership must come from the specialty as clinical trials and clinical practice increasingly interface with health care policy. Goals of therapy must remain clear for the benefit of the individual and all patients.

Survey on use of palliative radiotherapy in hospice care.

PURPOSE: Radiation oncologists and hospice professionals both provide end-of-life care for oncology patients, and little has been written about the interface between these two groups of specialists. Hospice professionals were surveyed to assess the perceived need for palliative radiotherapy in the hospice setting, to investigate factors that limit the access of hospice patients to radiotherapy, and to suggest areas of future collaboration on education, research, and patient advocacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Members of the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO) and American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology jointly authored a questionnaire to investigate the beliefs of hospice professionals toward the use of radiotherapy for oncology patients in hospice. The questionnaire was distributed to all NHPCO member institutions, and the results were compiled and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty of more than 1,800 surveyed facilities responded to the questionnaire. The findings suggest that the majority of hospice professionals feel that radiotherapy is important in palliative oncology and that radiotherapy is widely available in the United States. Yet less than 3% on average of hospice patients served by hospices responding to the survey actually received radiotherapy in 2002. The most common barriers to radiotherapy in hospice care include radiotherapy expense, transportation difficulties, short life expectancy, and educational deficiencies between the specialties. CONCLUSION: Multiple barriers act to limit the use of palliative radiotherapy in hospice care. Finding ways to surmount these obstacles will provide opportunity for improvement in the end-of-life care of cancer patients.