Healthcare Costs for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Abiraterone or Enzalutamide.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the real-world healthcare resource use and direct medical costs for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide, in whom chemotherapy is not yet indicated (pre-chemotherapy) or who had previously received docetaxel-based chemotherapy (post-chemotherapy), before commencing these medicines. METHODS: A retrospective cost analysis of mCRPC patients who commenced abiraterone or enzalutamide between 2012 and 2015 was conducted. Routinely collected datasets from the largest health board in Scotland and the UK, Greater Glasgow and Clyde, were linked. They contained information on patient demographics, diagnosis, outpatient consultations, hospital admissions, treatments (abiraterone and enzalutamide), and supportive medicines. Unit costs were obtained from the Scottish Health Service Costs, Personal Social Services Research Unit, and British National Formulary. Generalised linear model-based regression was used to estimate total mean direct costs, and two-part models were used to estimate separate cost components. All models were adjusted for propensity score and key variables. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the impact of hypothetical patient access scheme discounts. RESULTS: Estimated total mean direct medical costs of treating mCRPC patients were similar, albeit with wide and overlapping confidence intervals. Across both treatments, patients who received abiraterone or enzalutamide in a pre-chemotherapy setting incurred the highest total mean direct medical costs. However, post-chemotherapy patients were associated with higher outpatient clinic visits, inpatient hospital admissions, and supportive medicines. Regarding relative contribution to the total mean direct medical cost, the treatment costs were the main contributor, followed by inpatient admissions, outpatient clinic visits, and supportive medicines. CONCLUSION: The total mean direct medical costs were similar for abiraterone and enzalutamide patients. The costs were not driven by the choice of treatment regimen, but treatment setting (pre-chemotherapy or post-chemotherapy indications) and related healthcare resource utilisation. Future studies should focus on economic evaluations, such as cost-effectiveness analyses, using real-world data.

Do clinical trials change practice? A longitudinal, international assessment of colorectal cancer prescribing practices.

INTRODUCTION: Over half of the 1.5 million individuals globally who are diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) present with stage II-III disease. Understanding clinician attitudes towards treatment for this group is paramount to contextualise real-world outcomes and plan future trials. The aim of this study was to assess clinician awareness of trials assessing the optimal duration of CRC adjuvant therapy, their attitudes towards shorter treatment and their self-reported practice. METHODS: A survey was developed using OnlineSurveys® and distributed to clinicians in April 2019, with a follow-up survey disseminated to a subset of respondents in August 2020. Microsoft Excel® and Stata® were used for analysis. RESULTS: 265 clinicians replied to the first survey, with the majority aware of findings from the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Therapy collaboration and contributory trials. Practice change was greatest for patients under 70 with low-risk stage III CRC, with most uncertainty around using 3-months of doublet chemotherapy for high-risk stage II disease. In August 2020, clinicians (n = 106) were more likely to use 3-months of FOLFOX for low-risk stage III disease and 3-months of CAPOX for stage II disease compared to April 2019. There was no indication that the COVID-19 pandemic had enduring changes on treatment decisions beyond those made in response to trial evidence. DISCUSSION: Clinicians use a risk-stratified approach to treat CRC the adjuvant setting. Lower utilisation of doublet chemotherapy for older and stage II patients has affected the extent of trial implementation. Active dialogue regarding how trial results apply to these groups may improve consensus.

Creation of the first national linked colorectal cancer dataset in Scotland: prospects for future research and a reflection on lessons learned.

INTRODUCTION: Current understanding of cancer patients, their treatment pathways and outcomes relies mainly on information from clinical trials and prospective research studies representing a selected sub-set of the patient population. Whole-population analysis is necessary if we are to assess the true impact of new interventions or policy in a real-world setting. Accurate measurement of geographic variation in healthcare use and outcomes also relies on population-level data. Routine access to such data offers efficiency in research resource allocation and a basis for policy that addresses inequalities in care provision. OBJECTIVE: Acknowledging these benefits, the objective of this project was to create a population level dataset in Scotland of patients with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: This paper describes the process of creating a novel, national dataset in Scotland. RESULTS: In total, thirty two separate healthcare administrative datasets have been linked to provide a comprehensive resource to investigate the management pathways and outcomes for patients with CRC in Scotland, as well as the costs of providing CRC treatment. This is the first time that chemotherapy prescribing and national audit datasets have been linked with the Scottish Cancer Registry on a national scale. CONCLUSIONS: We describe how the acquired dataset can be used as a research resource and reflect on the data access challenges relating to its creation. Lessons learned from this process and the policy implications for future studies using administrative cancer data are highlighted.

Three Versus Six Months of Adjuvant Doublet Chemotherapy for Patients With Colorectal Cancer: A Multi-Country Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Short Course Oncology Treatment (SCOT) trial demonstrated non-inferiority, less toxicity, and cost-effectiveness from a UK perspective of 3 versus 6 months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for patients with colorectal cancer. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of shorter treatment and the budget impact of implementing trial findings from the perspectives of all countries recruited to SCOT: Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual cost-utility analyses were performed from the perspective of each country. Resource, quality of life, and survival estimates from the SCOT trial (N = 6065) were used. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and subgroup analyses were undertaken. Using undiscounted costs from these cost-utility analyses, the impact on country-specific healthcare budgets of implementing the SCOT trial findings was calculated over a 5-year period. The currency used was US dollars (US$), and 2019 was the base year. One-way and scenario sensitivity analysis addressed uncertainty within the budget impact analysis. RESULTS: Three months of treatment were cost saving and cost-effective compared to 6 months from the perspective of all countries. The incremental net monetary benefit per patient ranged from US$8972 (Spain) to US$13,884 (Denmark). The healthcare budget impact over 5 years for the base-case scenario ranged from US$3.6 million (New Zealand) to US$61.4 million (UK) and totaled over US$150 million across all countries. CONCLUSION: This study has widened the transferability of results from the SCOT trial, showing that shorter treatment is cost-effective from a multi-country perspective. The vast savings from implementation could fully justify the investment in conducting the SCOT trial.

Evaluating cancer research impact: lessons and examples from existing reviews on approaches to research impact assessment.

BACKGROUND: Performing cancer research relies on substantial financial investment, and contributions in time and effort from patients. It is therefore important that this research has real life impacts which are properly evaluated. The optimal approach to cancer research impact evaluation is not clear. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review of review articles that describe approaches to impact assessment, and to identify examples of cancer research impact evaluation within these reviews. METHODS: In total, 11 publication databases and the grey literature were searched to identify review articles addressing the topic of approaches to research impact assessment. Information was extracted on methods for data collection and analysis, impact categories and frameworks used for the purposes of evaluation. Empirical examples of impact assessments of cancer research were identified from these literature reviews. Approaches used in these examples were appraised, with a reflection on which methods would be suited to cancer research  impact evaluation going forward. RESULTS: In total, 40 literature reviews were identified. Important methods to collect and analyse data for impact assessments were surveys, interviews and documentary analysis. Key categories of impact spanning the reviews were summarised, and a list of frameworks commonly used for impact assessment was generated. The Payback Framework was most often described. Fourteen examples of impact evaluation for cancer research were identified. They ranged from those assessing the impact of a national, charity-funded portfolio of cancer research to the clinical practice impact of a single trial. A set of recommendations for approaching cancer research impact assessment was generated. CONCLUSIONS: Impact evaluation can demonstrate if and why conducting cancer research  is worthwhile. Using a mixed methods, multi-category assessment organised within a framework, will provide a robust evaluation, but the ability to perform this type of assessment may be constrained by time and resources. Whichever approach is used, easily measured, but inappropriate metrics should be avoided. Going forward, dissemination of the results of cancer research impact assessments will allow the cancer research community to learn how to conduct these evaluations.

Assessment of the Safety of Glucocorticoid Regimens in Combination With Abiraterone Acetate for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Randomized, Open-label Phase 2 Study.

IMPORTANCE: Abiraterone acetate is combined with prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and with prednisone, 5 mg, once daily for newly diagnosed, high-risk, metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. Understanding the physiological effects of these and other regimens is important. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of abiraterone acetate with 4 glucocorticoid regimens. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, randomized clinical trial (1:1:1:1) of 164 men with mCRPC from 22 hospitals in 5 countries who were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 intervention groups between June 2013 and October 2014. Analyses were conducted from August 2017 to June 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Abiraterone acetate, 1000 mg, once daily with prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily (n = 41), 5 mg once daily (n = 41), 2.5 mg twice daily (n = 40), or dexamethasone, 0.5 mg, once daily (n = 42). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary end point was no mineralocorticoid excess (grade ≥1 hypokalemia or grade ≥2 hypertension) through 24 weeks (6 cycles) from treatment. RESULTS: Of 164 men (median [range] age, 70 [50-90] years) randomized to receive abiraterone acetate, 1000 mg, daily with prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily, once daily, or 2.5 mg twice daily, or dexamethasone, 0.5 mg, once daily, 24 (70.6%) of 34 patients (95% CI, 53.8%-83.2%), 14 (36.8%) of 38 patients (95% CI, 23.4%-52.7%), 21 (60.0%) of 35 patients (95% CI, 43.6%-74.4%), and 26 (70.3%) of 37 patients (95% CI, 54.2%-82.5%), respectively, had no mineralocorticoid excess. Plasma adrenocorticotrophic hormone and urinary mineralocorticoid metabolites after 8 weeks were higher with prednisone, 2.5 mg, twice daily and 5 mg once daily than with 5 mg twice daily or dexamethasone, 0.5 mg, once daily. The level of urinary glucocorticoid metabolites appeared higher in patients who did not meet the primary end point, regardless of glucocorticoid regimen. Total lean body mass decreased in the prednisone groups and total body fat increased in the prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily and dexamethasone groups. In the dexamethasone group, there was an increase in serum insulin and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance, while total bone mineral density decreased. In the prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily, 5 mg once daily, 2.5 mg twice daily, and dexamethasone groups, median radiographic progression-free survival was 18.5, 15.3, 12.8, and 26.6 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Abiraterone acetate with prednisone, 5 mg, twice daily or dexamethasone, 0.5 mg, once daily met the prespecified threshold for the primary end point (95% CI excluded 50% mineralocorticoid excess); abiraterone acetate with prednisone, 5 mg, once daily or 2.5 mg twice daily did not meet the threshold. Abiraterone acetate in combination with dexamethasone appeared to be particularly active but may be associated with adverse metabolic consequences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01867710.

Characterizing the variation of propagation constants in multicore fiber.

We demonstrate a numerical technique that can evaluate the core-to-core variations in propagation constant in multicore fiber. Using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo process, we replicate the interference patterns of light that has coupled between the cores during propagation. We describe the algorithm and verify its operation by successfully reconstructing target propagation constants in a fictional fiber. Then we carry out a reconstruction of the propagation constants in a real fiber containing 37 single-mode cores. We find that the range of fractional propagation constant variation across the cores is approximately ± 2 × 10(-5).