Assessment of second primary malignancies among treated and untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia using real-world data from the USA.

Aim: Improved management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has resulted in a growing population of CLL survivors; these patients have a higher risk of developing second primary malignancies (SPMs) versus the general population. This retrospective cohort study aims to assess the timing, frequency, incidence and types of SPMs in treated and untreated patients with CLL in the USA, using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare database, which links a nationally representative cancer registry with Medicare claims data. Patients & methods: Patients aged ≥66 years with newly diagnosed CLL between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2016, who were enrolled in Parts A and B of Medicare for ≥12 months pre-diagnosis of CLL were selected from the database. Patients were assessed for ≥36 months until the end of continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B and D, a switch to a health maintenance organization, death, or end of the study period (December 2019). Results: Of 3053 patients included in the analyses, 620 (20.3%) were treated and 2433 (79.7%) were untreated within 36 months of diagnosis. Overall, 638 (20.9%) patients developed a SPM, 26.8% of patients in the treated cohort and 19.4% of patients in the untreated cohort. The most common SPMs for both cohorts were squamous cell carcinoma and acute myeloid leukemia. Among the 166 treated patients who developed a SPM, a greater proportion developed their first SPM after treatment initiation versus those who developed their first SPM prior to treatment initiation (p < 0.001). A significantly lower percentage of patients who received targeted therapy developed a SPM (p < 0.05) versus patients treated with anti-CD20 + chemotherapy. Conclusion: Findings indicate that treatment type and timing can affect SPM development in patients with CLL. Combined with previous findings, this can help inform best practices in monitoring for SPM in patients with CLL.

Real-world adherence and discontinuation among Medicare beneficiaries initiating venetoclax vs. BTKis in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The treatment landscape for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has been transformed by the availability of Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) and the B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitor venetoclax. Despite clinical trial data supporting these novel oral agents, evidence evaluating real-world adherence is limited. This study used 2015-2019 Medicare claims data for elderly patients with relapsed/refractory CLL to assess differences in real-world adherence and discontinuation in the 12 months after treatment initiation. In the final sample of 711 venetoclax patients and 1,566 BTKi patients, we found that those initiating venetoclax tended to be younger (mean age 75.6 [SD 6.0] vs 77.6 [SD 6.9] years, p < .001) but had poorer clinical characteristics. After risk-adjustment, the venetoclax group had higher adherence (61.9% vs. 45.4%, p < .0001) and lower discontinuation when compared to the BTKi group (28.5% vs. 47.4%, p < .001). These favorable real-world findings underscore the importance of developing well-tolerated novel combinations for older adults.

Fostering a High-Functioning Team in Cancer Care Using the 4R Oncology Model: Assessment in a Large Health System and a Blueprint for Other Institutions.

PURPOSE: Delivering cancer care by high-functioning multidisciplinary teams promises to address care fragmentation, which threatens care quality, affects patient outcomes, and strains the oncology workforce. We assessed whether the 4R Oncology model for team-based interdependent care delivery and patient self-management affected team functioning in a large community-based health system. METHODS: 4R was deployed at four locations in breast and lung cancers and assessed along four characteristics of high-functioning teams: recognition as a team internally and externally; commitment to an explicit shared goal; enablement of interdependent work to achieve the goal; and engagement in regular reflection to adapt objectives and processes. RESULTS: We formed an internally and externally recognized team of 24 specialties committed to a shared goal of delivering multidisciplinary care at the optimal time and sequence from a patient-centric viewpoint. The team conducted 40 optimizations of interdependent care (22 for breast, seven for lung, and 11 for both cancers) at four points in the care continuum and established an ongoing teamwork adaptation process. Half of the optimizations entailed low effort, while 30% required high level of effort; 78% resulted in improved process efficiency. CONCLUSION: 4R facilitated development of a large high-functioning team and enabled 40 optimizations of interdependent care along the cancer care continuum in a feasible way. 4R may be an effective approach for fostering high-functioning teams, which could contribute to improving viability of the oncology workforce. Our intervention and taxonomy of results serve as a blueprint for other institutions motivated to strengthen teamwork to improve patient-centered care.

Cost-effectiveness of a 12-month fixed-duration venetoclax treatment in combination with obinutuzumab in first-line, unfit chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a significant health and economic burden in the United States. Treatments include chemoimmunotherapy, such as obinutuzumab (G) plus chlorambucil (Clb) or bendamustine plus rituximab (BR), and chemotherapy-free regimens incorporating oral targeted therapies such as ibrutinib (Ibr), acalabrutinib (Acala), or venetoclax (Ven). Most chemotherapy-free regimens require continuous treatment to progression, while Ven plus G (VenG) is given for a fixed duration of 12 months, based on the CLL14 trial that led to its approval. Fixed-duration VenG has the potential for cost savings compared with treat-to-progression chemotherapy-free regimens. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 12 months fixed-duration VenG in first-line treatment of unfit patients with CLL from a US health care payer perspective compared with GClb, BR, Ibr, Ibr + G, Ibr + R, Acala, and Acala + G. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed with 3 health states: progression-free survival (PFS), postprogression survival, and dead. The patient population, as based on the CLL14 trial, comprised previously untreated unfit patients with CLL (mean age 71.1 years, 33.1% female). The distribution of patients in each health state over time was estimated using extrapolated PFS and overall survival (OS) curves for VenG and GClb, based on CLL14 data 2 or more years after treatment cessation. PFS and OS for the other comparators were estimated using hazard ratios vs VenG, based on a network metaanalysis. Adverse events, utility values, and costs were obtained from published literature. The model estimated life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and costs. The time horizon was 20 years, with a cycle time of 28 days. Outcomes and costs were discounted at 3.0% per year, and costs were estimated from a US health care payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In this cross-trial analysis of unfit CLL patients, in the base case, VenG had lower projected total costs than all comparators investigated. VenG also had larger projected health benefits (more QALYs gained) than GClb, BR, Ibr, and Ibr + R. VenG was therefore more effective and less costly than these comparators (dominant). Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G showed higher QALYs gained vs VenG (0.022, 0.672, and 0.961, respectively), and substantially higher projected costs vs VenG ($1,488,400, $1,579,737, and $1,656,154, respectively). Thus, Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G would cost more than $1,000,000 per QALY gained vs VenG. At the commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained, Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G were not cost-effective compared with VenG. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed-duration VenG for 12 months is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for unfit CLL patients compared with other available options and provides value for money to US health care payers at a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Future studies with longer trial follow-up and more mature survival data may help to confirm longer-term cost benefits of VenG. DISCLOSURES: Genentech Inc. and AbbVie provided financial support for this study. Genentech Inc., AbbVie, and Pharmerit - An OPEN Health Company participated in the design, study conduct, analysis, and interpretation of data, as well as the writing, review, and approval of the manuscript. Venetoclax is being developed in a collaboration between Genentech Inc. and AbbVie. Ravelo and Shapouri are employed by Genentech Inc. and have ownership interests. Manzoor and Sail are employed by AbbVie and have ownership interests. Chatterjee, van de Wetering, and Qendri, employees of Pharmerit - An OPEN Health Company, received consultancy fees from AbbVie. Davids has received consultancy fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Genentech Inc., Janssen, MEI Pharma, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Verastem; research funding from Ascentage Pharma, Genentech Inc., MEI Pharma, Pharmacyclics, Surface Oncology, TG Therapeutics, and Verastem; and has served on board of directors or advisory committees for AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Genentech Inc., Janssen, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, and Verastem. This study was presented as a poster at ASH 61st Annual Meeting and Exposition; December 7-10, 2019; Orlando, FL.

Evaluation of the Novel 4R Oncology Care Planning Model in Breast Cancer: Impact on Patient Self-Management and Care Delivery in Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Centers.

PURPOSE: Optimal cancer care requires patient self-management and coordinated timing and sequence of interdependent care. These are challenging, especially in safety-net settings treating underserved populations. We evaluated the 4R Oncology model (4R) of patient-facing care planning for impact on self-management and delivery of interdependent care at safety-net and non-safety-net institutions. METHODS: Ten institutions (five safety-net and five non-safety-net) evaluated the 4R intervention from 2017 to 2020 with patients with stage 0-III breast cancer. Data on self-management and care delivery were collected via surveys and compared between the intervention cohort and the historical cohort (diagnosed before 4R launch). 4R usefulness was assessed within the intervention cohort. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 63% (422/670) in intervention and 47% (466/992) in historical cohort. 4R usefulness was reported by 79.9% of patients receiving 4R and was higher for patients in safety-net than in non-safety-net centers (87.6%, 74.2%, P = .001). The intervention cohort measured significantly higher than historical cohort in five of seven self-management metrics, including clarity of care timing and sequence (71.3%, 55%, P < .001) and ability to manage care (78.9%, 72.1%, P = .02). Referrals to interdependent care were significantly higher in the intervention than in the historical cohort along all six metrics, including primary care consult (33.9%, 27.7%, P = .045) and flu vaccination (38.6%, 27.9%, P = .001). Referral completions were significantly higher in four of six metrics. For safety-net patients, improvements in most self-management and care delivery metrics were similar or higher than for non-safety-net patients, even after controlling for all other variables. CONCLUSION: 4R Oncology was useful to patients and significantly improved self-management and delivery of interdependent care, but gaps remain. Model enhancements and further evaluations are needed for broad adoption. Patients in safety-net settings benefited from 4R at similar or higher rates than non-safety-net patients, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities.

Real-World Assessment of Patient Care and Practice Efficiency With the Introduction of Subcutaneous Rituximab.

INTRODUCTION: A subcutaneous (SC) formulation of the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab (Rituxan), is approved in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Rituximab-SC (R-SC) has been associated with time and clinic resource savings vs the original intravenous formulation (R-IV). Insight into the resource implications of widening R-SC adoption in a US oncology setting is needed. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective observational analysis was conducted in adult patients with DLBCL, FL, or CLL. The primary outcome measure was chair occupancy time (difference between patient room-in and room-out times). Prescribing patterns were a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 1190 patients were analyzed (treatment time frame: pre-R-SC adoption: n = 490 [41%], pre- and post R-SC adoption: n = 189 [16%], post R-SC adoption: n = 511 [43%]). Of the patients in the post-R-SC period, 374 (73%) received R-IV, 52 (10%) received R-IV and R-SC, and 85 (17%) received R-SC. When administered, R-SC reduced combination therapy chair time vs R-IV by a mean 37% (93.2 minutes; P < .001). Monotherapy (any route) reduced chair time vs combination by a mean 35.2 minutes (P < .001), with a further 40.2-minute reduction with R-SC (P < .001), a 62% (133.4-minute) total chair time savings vs R-IV. Doctors were more likely to prescribe R-SC to patients with FL than DLBCL. CONCLUSIONS: R-SC is associated with significantly reduced chair time vs R-IV in a US oncology setting. Widespread adoption would be expected to improve practice efficiency and patient access to care, and to reduce health care resource burden.

Budget Impact of 12-Month Fixed Treatment Duration Venetoclax in Combination with Obinutuzumab in Previously Untreated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the total cost of care (TCC) and budget impact of introducing 12-month fixed duration venetoclax + obinutuzumab (VEN+G) as first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) from the perspective of a US health plan with 1,000,000 (1M) members. METHODS: The 3-year model included the following comparators: fludarabine + cyclophosphamide + rituximab (FCR), bendamustine + rituximab (BR), obinutuzumab + chlorambucil (GClb), ibrutinib (Ibr), and Ibr+Rituximab/obinutuzumab [Ibr+R/Ibr+G]). TCC included US-specific costs associated with treatment (i.e., drug, administration, and wastage), adverse events, routine care, and monitoring. Dosing and safety data were drawn from clinical trials and US package inserts. Budget impact outcomes were presented on an absolute and per-member per-month (PMPM) basis. Sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty in influential parameters, including scenarios testing the duration of treat-to-progression agents. RESULTS: Over the 3-year time horizon, introducing VEN+G in a 1M-member health plan resulted in total cost savings of $1,550,663 (PMPM - $0.04), compared to a scenario without VEN+G. The fixed 12-month duration of VEN+G contributed to this cost saving by reducing cumulative treatment costs compared with Ibr-based regimens. By year 3, the cumulative difference in TCC of VEN+G compared with Ibr, Ibr+G, and Ibr+R amounted to - $300,942, - $367,001, and - $369,784, respectively. Extensive sensitivity analyses supported the base case findings. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing VEN+G among first-line CLL treatments to a US health plan resulted in cost savings compared to a plan with chemoimmunotherapies and Ibr-based therapies only. Economic benefits of VEN+G, a novel agent with fixed treatment duration, coupled with proven clinical benefits should help inform formulary adoption decisions and treatment recommendations.

Cost of Disease Progression in Patients with Metastatic Breast, Lung, and Colorectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: To reduce health care costs and improve care, payers and physician groups are piloting value-based and episodic or bundled-care payment models in oncology. Disease progression and associated costs may affect these models, particularly if such programs do not account for disease severity and progression risk across patient populations. This study estimated the incremental cost of disease progression in patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer (mBC), colorectal cancer (mCRC) and lung cancer (mLC) and compared costs among patients with and without progression. METHODS: This was a retrospective study using U.S. administrative claims data from commercial and Medicare Advantage health care enrollees with evidence of mBC, mCRC, and mLC and systemic antineoplastic agent use from July 1, 2006, to August 31, 2014. Outcome measures included disease progression, 12-month health care costs, and 3-year cumulative predictive health care costs. RESULTS: Of 5,709 patients with mBC, 3,707 patients with mCRC, and 5,201 patients with mLC, 56.8% of patients with mBC, 58.1% of those with mCRC, and 80.3% of those with mLC patients had evidence of disease progression over 12 months. Among patients with mBC and mCRC, adjusted and unadjusted health care costs were significantly higher among progressors versus nonprogressors. Per-patient-per-month costs, which accounted for variable follow-up time, were almost twice as high among progressors versus nonprogressors in patients with mBC, mCRC, and mLC. In each of the three cancer types, delays in progression were associated with lower health care costs. CONCLUSION: Progression of mLC, mBC, and mCRC was associated with higher health care costs over a 12-month period. Delayed cancer progression was associated with substantial cost reductions in patients with each of the three cancer types. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Data on the rates and incremental health care costs of disease progression in patients with solid tumor cancers are lacking. This study estimated the incremental costs of disease progression in patients diagnosed with lung cancer, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer and compared health care costs in patients with and without evidence of disease progression in a real-world population. The data obtained in our study quantify the economic value of delaying or preventing disease progression and may inform payers and physician groups about value-based payment programs.

Cost of Disease Progression in Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Acute Myeloid Leukemia, and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

INTRODUCTION: To reduce health care costs and improve care, payers and physician groups are switching to quality-based and episodic or bundled-care models. Disease progression and associated costs may affect these models, particularly if such programs do not account for differences in disease severity and progression risk within the cohort. This study estimated the incremental cost of disease progression in patients diagnosed with chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and compared costs among patients with and without progression. METHODS: This was a retrospective study using U.S. administrative claims data from commercial and Medicare Advantage health care enrollees with evidence of CLL, AML, and NHL and systemic antineoplastic agent use from July 1, 2006 to August 31, 2014. Outcome measures included disease progression, 12-month health care costs, and 3-year cumulative predictive health care costs. RESULTS: Of 1,056 patients with CLL, 514 patients with AML, and 7,601 patients with NHL, 31.1% of patients with CLL, 63.8% of those with AML, and 36.9% of those with NHL had evidence of disease progression. Among patients with CLL and NHL, adjusted and unadjusted health care costs were significantly higher among progressors versus nonprogressors. Per-patient-per-month costs, accounting for variable follow-up time, were almost twice as high among progressors versus nonprogressors in patients with CLL, AML, and NHL. In each of the three cancer types, the longer disease progression was delayed, the lower the health care costs. CONCLUSION: Progression of CLL, AML, and NHL was associated with higher health care costs over a 12-month period. Delaying cancer progression resulted in a substantial cost reduction in patients with all three cancer types. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Data on the rates and incremental health care costs of disease progression in patients with hematologic malignancies are lacking. This study estimated the incremental costs of disease progression in patients diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and compared health care costs in patients with and without evidence of disease progression in a real-world population. The data obtained in this study will assist future studies in quantifying the cost impact of decreased progression rates and will inform payers and physician groups about setting rates for episode and bundled payment programs.

Oncologists' Perceptions of Drug Affordability Using NCCN Evidence Blocks: Results from a National Survey.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of cancer coupled with approvals of new drugs and technologies used in therapy have brought increased scrutiny to the cost and value of treatments in oncology. To address the rising concern about oncology drug costs, several organizations have developed value frameworks to help assess the value of oncology regimens. The objective of this study was to assess oncologists' perceptions, awareness, and knowledge of all oncology value frameworks in the United States and to understand oncologists' perceptions of affordability in the context of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks. OBJECTIVES: To (a) assess oncologists' awareness, knowledge, perceptions, and ratings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (AVF), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) value framework, NCCN Evidence Blocks, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's DrugAbacus; (b) assess oncologists' knowledge and perceptions of drug affordability as defined by the NCCN Evidence Blocks methodology; and (c) determine the factors that influence drug affordability ratings. METHODS: Data were collected from an electronic cross-sectional survey of 200 U.S.-based oncologists from a variety of practice settings. Oncologists were asked about their knowledge and perceptions of 4 value frameworks-NCCN Evidence Blocks, AVF, the ICER value framework, and DrugAbacus. Using NCCN Evidence Blocks, oncologists were asked to rate a variety of hypothetical cancer therapies and assign costs (in U.S. dollars) to the 5 levels of affordability. Additional questions that assessed perceived patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and comfort level in assessing affordability were also included in the survey. RESULTS: Oncologists were most familiar with NCCN Evidence Blocks (90%), followed by the AVF (84%), ICER value framework (57%), and DrugAbacus (56%). Oncologists rated affordability higher (mean rating 3: moderately expensive) versus the actual NCCN panel affordability rating (mean rating 1: very expensive). The affordability rating was similar across a variety of hypothetical cancer therapies and tumor types (rating: 3). Oncologists estimated the costs for this rating of 3 to range from $4,600 to $6,000 per month, which was inconsistent with actual drug costs. Oncologists estimated the mean monthly OOP costs for patients with insurance to range from $1,260 for a new oral medication to $1,700 for a new infused medication. Only 26% of oncologists were comfortable or very comfortable with rating costs associated with affordability levels. CONCLUSIONS: Surveyed oncologists rated cancer therapies as more affordable (per NCCN Evidence Blocks criteria) than NCCN panel ratings. Costs associated with affordability were not consistent with actual treatment costs; however, most oncologists were not comfortable with rating affordability. Patient OOP costs had the biggest influence on affordability ratings; however, physicians overestimated patient OOP costs significantly. There is an opportunity to improve the value frameworks, especially with regard to affordability assessment. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Genentech. Shah-Manek is employed by Ipsos Healthcare, a health care consulting company that received funding from Genentech to conduct this study. DiBonaventura was employed by Ipsos Healthcare at the time of this study. Wong and Ravelo are employed by Genentech. Shah-Manek has consulted with Genentech, Merck, Alkermes, Avanis, Alnylam, Novo Nordisk, Teva, Lilly, and BMS. This work was presented as an oral presentation at the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois, on June 2-6, 2017.

Access to Cancer Specialist Care and Treatment in Patients With Advanced Stage Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Access to specialty care is critical for patients with advanced stage lung cancer. This study assessed access to cancer specialists and cancer treatment in a broad population of patients with advanced stage lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two study samples were extracted from 2 claims databases and analyzed independently: patients aged ≥ 18 years with de novo diagnosis of metastatic lung cancer in the MarketScan database between 2008 and 2014 (commercially insured adult patients; n = 22,268); and patients aged ≥ 65 years in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database with a diagnosis of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer between 2007 and 2011 (Medicare-insured elderly patients; n = 9651). The study period spanned from 6 weeks before the first lung biopsy tied to the initial lung cancer diagnosis until the end of continuous health insurance enrollment, or data availability, or death. RESULTS: Among the commercially insured adults (MarketScan), most patients were seen by a cancer specialist within a month of first lung biopsy (80%), 12% were never seen by a cancer specialist, and 6% did not receive cancer-directed therapy. Among the Medicare-insured elderly patients (SEER-Medicare), the proportions were 79%, 4%, and 10%, respectively. Patients seen by a cancer specialist were more likely to receive cancer-directed therapy (95% vs. 92%, P < .001 and 92% vs. 38%, P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Between 4% and 12% of patients with advanced stage lung cancer do not have appropriate access to cancer specialist, which appears to negatively affect access to optimal and timely treatment.

Survival Gains from First-Line Systemic Therapy in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the U.S., 1990-2015: Progress and Opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 190,000 Americans are diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) annually, and about half have metastatic (Stage IV) disease. These patients have historically had poor survival prognosis, but several new therapies introduced since 2000 provide options for improved outcomes. The objectives of this study were to quantify survival gains from 1990, when best supportive care (BSC) only was standard, to 2015 and to estimate the impact of expanded use of systemic therapies in clinically appropriate patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a simulation model to estimate survival gains for patients with metastatic NSCLC from 1990-2015. Survival estimates were derived from major clinical trials and extrapolated to a lifetime horizon. Proportions of patients receiving available therapies were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and a commercial treatment registry. We also estimated gains in overall survival (OS) in scenarios in which systemic therapy use increased by 10% and 30% relative to current use. RESULTS: From 1990-2015, one-year survival proportion increased by 14.1% and mean per-patient survival improved by 4.2 months (32,700 population life years). Increasing treated patients by 10% or 30% increased OS by 5.1 months (39,700 population life years) and 6.9 months (53,800 population life years), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although survival remains poor in metastatic NSCLC relative to other common cancers, meaningful progress in per-patient and population-level outcomes has been realized over the past 25 years. These advances can be improved even further by increasing use of systemic therapies in the substantial proportion of patients who are suitable for treatment yet who currently receive BSC only. The Oncologist 2017;22:304-310 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Approximately 93,500 Americans are diagnosed with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) annually. Historically, these patients have had poor survival prognosis, but newer therapies provide options for improved outcomes. This simulation modeling study quantified metastatic NSCLC survival gains from 1990-2015. Over this period, the one-year survival proportion and mean per-patient survival increased by 14.1% and 4.2 months, respectively. Though metastatic NSCLC survival remains poor, the past 25 years have brought meaningful gains. Additional gains could be realized by increasing systemic therapy use in the substantial proportion of patients who are suitable for treatment, yet currently receive only supportive care.

Projected Clinical, Resource Use, and Fiscal Impacts of Implementing Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening in Medicare.

PURPOSE: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently issued a national coverage determination that provides reimbursement for low-dose computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening for enrollees age 55 to 77 years with ≥ 30-pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or quit in the last 15 years. The clinical, resource use, and fiscal impacts of this change in screening coverage policy remain uncertain. METHODS: We developed a simulation model to forecast the 5-year health outcome impacts of the CMS low-dose CT screening policy in Medicare compared with no screening. The model used data from the National Lung Screening Trial, CMS enrollment statistics and reimbursement schedules, and peer-reviewed literature. Outcomes included counts of screening examinations, patient cases of lung cancer detected, stage distribution, and total and per-enrollee per-month fiscal impact. RESULTS: Over 5 years, we project that low-dose CT screening will result in 10.7 million more low-dose CT scans, 52,000 more lung cancers detected, and increased overall expenditure of $6.8 billion ($2.22 per Medicare enrollee per month). The most fiscally impactful factors were the average cost-per-screening episode, proportion of enrollees eligible for screening, and cost of treating stage I lung cancer. CONCLUSION: Low-dose CT screening is expected to increase lung cancer diagnoses, shift stage at diagnosis toward earlier stages, and substantially increase Medicare expenditures over a 5-year time horizon. These projections can inform planning efforts by Medicare administrators, contracted health care providers, and other stakeholders.

Comparison of survival and hospitalization rates between Medicare patients with advanced NSCLC treated with bevacizumab-carboplatin-paclitaxel and carboplatin-paclitaxel: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The use of bevacizumab in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is controversial among elderly patients. This study aimed to compare overall survival for Medicare patients diagnosed with NSCLC and treated with either first-line bevacizumab-carboplatin-paclitaxel (BCP) or carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP). METHODS: Patients ≥ 65 years old, first diagnosed with non-squamous NSCLC stage IIIB/IV between 2006 and 2009, and treated with either first-line BCP or CP, were selected from the SEER-Medicare database that links cancer registry and US Medicare claims data. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to evaluate survival. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the effect of BCP versus CP on the hazard of death. Age-stratified analyses were conducted for patients aged 65-74 and ≥ 75 years. RESULTS: Of 1706 patients in the study sample, 592 (34.7%) received BCP and 1114 (65.3%) received CP; 692 (40.6%) were ≥ 75 years. Adjusted median survival time in the BCP versus CP cohorts was 10.5 versus 8.5 months (p = 0.008). The difference in median survival favoring the BCP cohort was statistically significant for both patients aged ≥ 75 years (2.8 months, p = 0.019), and patients aged 65-74 years (1.5 months, p = 0.018). The adjusted hazard of death did not differ between the cohorts (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.86-1.06); however, during the first year of follow-up, when most deaths (>60%) occurred, the hazard of death was 18% lower for the BCP cohort (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.71-0.94). BCP patients also had 18% fewer hospital admissions than CP patients (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.82, 95% CI: 0.72-0.94) and 23% fewer inpatient days (IRR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.65-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of Medicare patients in the SEER database, first-line therapy with BCP was associated with longer survival and fewer hospitalizations than CP.

Cost analysis of interventions for antimuscarinic refractory patients with overactive bladder.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate average, initial, and cumulative procedure related costs from a US payer perspective extending up to 3 years for the overactive bladder (OAB) interventions: sacral neuromodulation (SNM), intra-detrusor botulinum toxin A (BoNTA), and augmentation cystoplasty (AC) for antimuscarinic refractory patients. METHODS: Costs (2007 US dollars) were calculated using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) codes; Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) payments, and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Level II Codes extracted from the literature and from the SNM device manufacturer. CPT codes were converted to costs using the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Relative Value Unit (RVU) fee schedule. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate assumptions and uncertainty of results based on plausible variation in estimates of key cost drivers. RESULTS: The initial treatment cost was $22,226, $1,313, and $10,252 for SNM, intra-detrusor injection of BoNTA, and AC respectively. The first-year cost was $23,614, $2626, and $11,637 respectively. Three years after initiating treatment, the cumulative cost was $26,269, $7651, and $14,337 respectively. Sensitivity analyses revealed that SNM persisted as the most costly intervention in all scenarios. The 3-year cumulative cost range produced by the sensitivity analyses for SNM, BoNTA, and AC was $25,384-$27,357, $4586-$11,476, and $12,315-$16,830, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All estimates of cost endpoints for SNM were greater than those for BoNTA and AC. These cost estimates, when combined with data on outcomes and risks, are important components of a robust health care technology assessment of antimuscarinic treatment failure options.

Resource use and costs associated with diabetic macular edema in elderly persons.

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in resource use and the effect of incident diabetic macular edema (DME) on 1- and 3-year total direct medical costs in elderly patients. METHODS: We used a nationally representative 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 through 2004 to identify patients with incident DME and a control cohort of patients with diabetes mellitus but no history of retinal disease. We summed Medicare reimbursement amounts for all claims and applied generalized linear models to estimate the effect of DME on 1- and 3-year costs. We also examined the use of select imaging techniques and treatments. RESULTS: After adjusting for demographic characteristics and baseline comorbid conditions, DME was associated with 31% higher 1-year costs and 29% higher 3-year costs. There were significant shifts in the use of testing and treatment modalities. From 2000 to 2004, use of intravitreal injection increased from 1% to 13% of patients; use of optical coherence tomography increased from 2.5% to more than 40%. Use of laser photocoagulation decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for demographic variables and baseline comorbid conditions, new-onset DME was a significant independent predictor of total medical costs after 1 and 3 years. Diagnostic and treatment modalities used for DME have changed significantly.

The relationships among age, chronic conditions, and healthcare costs.

OBJECTIVE: To learn how age and chronic illness affect costs in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system. STUDY DESIGN: Veterans Affairs patients 65 years or older were identified from administrative data. We noted their healthcare utilization, cost, and diagnosis of any of 29 common chronic conditions (CCs). We examined how those 80 years or older differed from the younger patients. RESULTS: The Department of Veterans Affairs spent dollars 8.5 billion to treat 1.6 million older patients in fiscal year 2000. Age was less important than chronic illness in explaining cost differences. The oldest patients incurred a mean of dollars 1295 greater costs than the younger patients, primarily because they were more likely to have a high-cost CC. The oldest patients incurred higher total costs than the younger patients in only 14 of 29 groups defined by CC. Long-term care accounted for most of the extra cost of the oldest patients. When this cost was excluded, the oldest patients incurred only dollars 266 more cost than the younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Growth in the population of the oldest patients will increase the number of individuals with CCs requiring long-term care. With its limited long-term care benefit, Medicare will avoid much of this financial consequence. In contrast, the financial risk of acute and long-term care gives the Department of Veterans Affairs an incentive to develop strategies to prevent CCs associated with long-term care.

Prevalence and costs of chronic conditions in the VA health care system.

Chronic conditions are among the most common causes of death and disability in the United States. Patients with such conditions receive disproportionate amounts of health care services and therefore cost more per capita than the average patient. This study assesses the prevalence among the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care users and VA expenditures (costs) of 29 common chronic conditions. The authors used regression to identify the marginal impact of these conditions on total, inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy costs. Excluding costs of contracted medical services at non-VA facilities, total VA health care expenditures in fiscal year 1999 (FY1999) were $14.3 billion. Among the 3.4 million VA patients in FY1999, 72 percent had 1 or more of the 29 chronic conditions, and these patients accounted for 96 percent of the total costs ($13.7 billion). In addition, 35 percent (1.2 million) of VA health care users had 3 or more of the 29 chronic conditions. These individuals accounted for 73 percent of the total cost. Overall, VA health care users have more chronic diseases than the general population.