Caregiver burden by treatment and clinical characteristics of patients with glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma is an incurable disease with a poor prognosis. For caregivers of people with glioblastoma, the burden of care can be high. Patients often present with different clinical characteristics, which may impact caregiver burden in different ways. This study aimed to evaluate associations between patient clinical characteristics and caregiver burden/quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Caregiver-patient dyads were enrolled at 7 academic cancer centers in the United States. Eligible caregiver participants were self-reported as the primary caregiver of an adult living with glioblastoma and completed a caregiver burden survey. Eligible patients were age ≥ 18 years at glioblastoma diagnosis and alive when their respective caregiver entered the study, with the presence of cognitive dysfunction confirmed by the caregiver. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: The final cohort included 167 dyads. Poor patient performance status resulted in patient difficulty with mental tasks, more caregiving tasks, and increased caregiving time. Language problems were reported in patients with left-sided lesions. Patient confusion was negatively associated with all caregiver domains: emotional health, social health, general health, ability to work, confidence in finances, and overall QoL. Better caregiver QoL was observed in patients with frontal lobe lesions versus non-frontal lobe lesions. CONCLUSION: This study reinforced that patient performance status is a critical clinical factor that significantly affects caregiver burden, caregiving tasks, and caregiver time. Additionally, patient confusion affects multiple facets of caregiver burden/QoL. These results could be used to support guided intervention for caregiver support, customized to the patient experience.

Survival, costs, and health care resource use by line of therapy in US Medicare patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is associated with poor prognosis, large morbidity burden, and limited treatment options. This analysis evaluated real-world treatment patterns, overall survival, resource use, and costs among Medicare patients with GBM. METHODS: This retrospective observational study evaluated Medicare patients age 66 years or older with newly diagnosed GBM using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data from 2007 through 2013. Patients were followed from diagnosis to death or end of follow-up. An algorithm defined treatment patterns as lines of therapy (LOTs). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival for the full sample as well as by LOT, surgical resection, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), tumor size, and age. Resource use and costs during the follow-up period were reported in terms of total and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) estimates. RESULTS: A total of 4308 patients with GBM were identified (median age, 74 years; CCI of 0, 52%). The most commonly used first LOT was temozolomide (82%), whereas chemotherapy + bevacizumab was most prevalent for second-line (42%) and third-line (58%) therapy. The median overall survival was 5.9 months for resected patients and 3 months for unresected patients, with considerable heterogeneity depending on patient characteristics. A great proportion of patients had claims for an ICU admission (86.2%), skilled nursing facility (76.9%), and home health (56.0%) in the postdiagnosis period. The cumulative mean cost was $95 377 per patient and $18 053 PPPM, mostly attributed to hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Limited treatment options, poor survival, and economic burden emphasize the need for novel interventions to improve care for Medicare patients with GBM.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in the United States.

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy for recurrent/metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) in the US.Methods: We constructed a cohort-based partitioned survival model for three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death). Using overall survival and progression-free survival data from the nivolumab and investigator's choice (IC) arms of the CheckMate 141 study, the proportion of patients in each health state was estimated by parametric modeling over a 25-year period. Cost, utility, adverse event, and disease management data inputs were obtained from relevant literature and applied to patients in each health state. A scenario analysis was conducted assuming increased uptake of subsequent immunotherapies. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of variation in multiple parameters. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis in which probabilistic distributions were applied to each input during 1,000 model iterations was also conducted.Results: Total costs incurred were higher with nivolumab ($101,552) than with IC ($38,067). Nivolumab was associated with a higher number of life-years (LY; 1.21) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 0.89), compared with IC (0.68 and 0.42, respectively). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for nivolumab compared with IC was $134,438 per QALY, and this remained qualitatively similar when increased uptake of subsequent immunotherapies was assumed ($129,603 per QALY). Sensitivity analyses supported these findings.Conclusions: These results suggest that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, nivolumab is a cost-effective option for therapy of SCCHN in the US.

Treatment Patterns and Economic Burden by Lines of Therapy Among Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Systemic Cancer Therapy.

PURPOSE: This study examined clinical and economic outcomes among patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with systemic agents by line of therapy. METHODS: Adults with ≥ 2 medical claims for primary diagnosed HCC (from January 1, 2008, through September 30, 2015) and ≥ 1 claim for systemic HCC-related therapy were identified in the IBM MarketScan® Research Databases. Continuous enrollment was required 6 months before and 1 month after diagnosis. Patients were categorized into first- (1L) and second-line (2L) treatment cohorts; those receiving sorafenib as 1L were evaluated. Treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization, costs, and survival during 1L and 2L therapy were measured. Survival was assessed for patients linked to the Social Security Administration Master Death File. RESULTS: 1459 patients, 758 with death data, met the 1L cohort criteria; 163 patients, 87 with death data, later received 2L therapy. 77.1% had 1L sorafenib, alone or in combination. Median 1L treatment duration was 3.0 months; median survival time from start of 1L to death or censor was 6.8 months. There was no predominant 2L agent. Median 2L treatment duration was 3.0 months; median survival time from start of 2L was 9.3 months. Median total healthcare costs per patient per month were $13,297 for 1L (all), $13,471 for 1L (sorafenib), and $11,786 for 2L. CONCLUSIONS: Findings confirm high 1-year mortality for advanced HCC, suggesting a high cost burden. While no 2L therapy was available during this analysis, recently approved 2L agents have the potential to improve survival after sorafenib failure or intolerance.

Real-world treatment patterns, cost of care and effectiveness of therapies for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck pre and post approval of immuno-oncology agents.

Aims: In 2016, nivolumab and pembrolizumab were approved for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) following progression after initial platinum-based therapy. We sought to explore the uptake, effectiveness, and impact on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and total costs of care pre and post introduction of immuno-oncology (IO) agents.Materials and Methods: Recurrent/metastatic SCCHN patients were identified from a healthcare claims clearinghouse by selecting patients with a claim for distant metastases or who initiated systemic therapy at least 120 days following discontinuation of platinum-based therapy. Two cohorts were created according to the date of post-platinum therapy (PPT) initiation: pre-IO = 08/01/2014-07/31/2015; post-IO = 08/01/2016-07/31/2017. Treatment patterns and effectiveness (duration of treatment, time to next treatment) during first-line (1 L) PPT, HRU, and costs were compared between propensity-score matched patients from each cohort.Results: Of 716 patients identified (pre-IO = 265, post-IO = 451) 46.3% of post-IO patients received IO post-platinum. In 229 matched patients 20.0% of the post-IO compared to 10.7% of the pre-IO (p=.02) had at least a 6 month duration of 1 L PPT. Inpatient admissions during 1 L PPT: 34.1% post-IO versus 48.0% pre-IO (p= <.01). PPPM total costs of care in 1 L PPT were significantly greater post-IO ($11,535) compared to pre-IO ($9,054, p=.002). Time to next treatment (from 1 L PPT start) was 6.1 months pre-IO versus 7.4 months post-IO (p=.046).Limitations: Recurrent SCCHN patients were identified using a validated claims-based algorithm but misclassification may occur. Requiring patients to have received 1 L PPT the pre-IO cohort may be systematically different that the post-IO cohort as pre-IO patients were more likely to have not received further treatment beyond 1 L PPT.Conclusions: The significant uptake of IO therapy resulted in longer durations of therapy, lower rates of hospitalizations although higher treatment costs. The results suggest IO treatment provides additional clinical benefits to recurrent/metastatic SCCHN patients.

A Real-World Claims Analysis of Costs and Patterns of Care in Treated Patients with Glioblastoma Multiforme in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) have a poor prognosis and high likelihood of recurrence. Routine care for incident cases in the United States involves surgical resection, followed by radiation therapy (RT) with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide. Real-world data reporting the treatments and health care burden associated with GBM are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess patterns of care, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs associated with treatment of GBM in the United States. METHODS: This study is a retrospective claims database analysis. Adult patients with a GBM diagnosis (index date) between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2016, who had undergone brain surgery within 90 days of the index date, had received temozolomide and/or RT up to 90 days after index date, and had at least 6 months of continuous enrollment before the index date, were identified. Patients were excluded if they had (a) another primary cancer within 6 months pre-index, (b) secondary brain metastases, or (c) received temozolomide and/or RT pre-index. Baseline characteristics, treatments, HCRU, and costs were reported. First-line therapy began upon first receipt of RT and/or temozolomide after index date; second-line therapy began when a new drug was added > 28 days after initiation of first-line therapy or when there was a treatment gap > 90 days. Treatment regimens, duration of treatment (corrected group prognosis method), HCRU, and costs were reported descriptively in the 0- to 6-month and 7- to 12-month periods following initiation of first-line and second-line therapy. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between patients receiving temozolomide and/or RT. Patients receiving RT without chemotherapy tended to be older, be retired, and have more baseline comorbidities. Of the 4,071 patients receiving first-line therapy for GBM, most (73.0%) received temozolomide + RT; 24.4% received RT; and 2.5% received temozolomide monotherapy. Of those receiving first-line therapy, 1,283 (31.5%) patients subsequently received second-line therapy: 39.4% received bevacizumab monotherapy; 28.9% received bevacizumab combination therapy (temozolomide, 45.2% of patients; irinotecan, 24.3%; and temozolomide + lomustine, 15.4%); 15.5% received temozolomide monotherapy; and 13.7% received other systemic cancer therapies. The proportion of patients with hospitalizations increased from 2.9% (4-6 months pre-index) to 20.8% in the 3 months before the index date (likely due to diagnostic procedures) and 28.1% in the first 6 months after index (likely due to surgery) and then decreased to 13.3% in the 7- to 12-month period after index. Mean total per-patient costs at 6 and 12 months were $117,325 and $162,550 (first line) and $126,128 and $243,833 (second line). Costs in all time periods were largely driven by costs of RT/systemic cancer therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with newly diagnosed GBM received treatment according to recommendations. However, relatively few patients received second-line therapy, and the HCRU burden and costs associated with both lines of therapy were substantial. Novel therapies for GBM are required to improve treatment options and outcomes in these patients. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb (Princeton Pike, NJ). Neither honoraria nor payments were provided for authorship. Norden received consultancy fees relating to this study from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dastani, Korytowsky, Le, Singh, and You are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dastani and Korytowsky are shareholders of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Bobiak was an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb at the time of this study. Preliminary data from this study were previously presented at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 22nd Annual International Meeting in Boston, MA, May 20-24, 2017.

Understanding total cost of care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer pre- and postapproval of immuno-oncology therapies.

This study assesses resource utilization and total direct medical cost among patients in the United States starting systemic antineoplastic therapy (ST) pre- and postapproval of immuno-oncology (IO) agents for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Adults diagnosed with lung cancer initiating first-line ST within 6 months of diagnosis during either the pre- (March 2013-March 2014) or post-IO (March 2015-December 2016) approval period were identified in a US-based multipayer administrative claims database. Excluded were patients with small cell lung cancer, secondary malignancies, less than 1 month follow-up, and those in clinical trials. Total cost (TC) was calculated from the date of initiation of treatment until the last follow-up. Propensity score matching was adjusted for differences in patient cohorts, including follow-up time. Binary multiple logistic regression assessed predictors of high TC (above mean) pre- and post IO. Mean TC per patient was higher pre-IO versus post IO in both unmatched ($165,548 vs $95,715) and matched analyses($129,977 vs $113,177). Hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visit rates were higher pre-IO versus postapproval. Predictors of high TC pre-IO included use of first-line combination therapy, radiation, targeted therapy, maintenance therapy, biomarker testing, more comorbidities, longer follow-up, first-line hospitalization, first-line cost above mean, and age 65 years and older. In the post-IO period, additional predictors of higher TC included use of IO, having mild liver disease or hemiplegia, and longer time to ST initiation. Early data show lower ED visit and hospitalization rates and associated lower TC in the post-IO era.

Methods for adjusting for bias due to crossover in oncology trials.

Trials of new oncology treatments often involve a crossover element in their design that allows patients receiving the control treatment to crossover to receive the experimental treatment at disease progression or when sufficient evidence about the efficacy of the new treatment is achieved. Crossover leads to contamination of the initial randomized groups due to a mixing of the effects of the control and experimental treatments in the reference group. This is further complicated by the fact that crossover is often a very selective process whereby patients who switch treatment have a different prognosis than those who do not. Standard statistical techniques, including those that attempt to account for the treatment switch, cannot fully adjust for the bias introduced by crossover. Specialized methods such as rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) models and inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) analyses are designed to deal with selective treatment switching and have been increasingly applied to adjust for crossover. We provide an overview of the crossover problem and highlight circumstances under which it is likely to cause bias. We then describe the RPSFT and IPCW methods and explain how these methods adjust for the bias, highlighting the assumptions invoked in the process. Our aim is to facilitate understanding of these complex methods using a case study to support explanations. We also discuss the implications of crossover adjustment on cost-effectiveness results.