Antigen rapid diagnostic test monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic and fully vaccinated cancer patients: Is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: Routine testing for cancer patients not presenting COVID-19-related symptoms and fully vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 prior to cancer treatment is controversial. METHODS: In this retrospective study we evaluated whether antigen-rapid-diagnostic-test (Ag-RDT) monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in a large cohort of consecutive asymptomatic (absence of SARS-CoV-2-related symptoms such as fever, cough, sore throat or nasal congestion) and fully vaccinated cancer patients enrolled in a short period during cancer treatment has an impact on the therapeutic path of cancer patients. RESULTS: From December 27, 2021, to February 11, 2022, 2439 cancer patients were screened through Ag-RDT for SARS-CoV-2 before entering the hospital for systemic treatment. Fifty-three patients (2.17%) tested positive, of whom 7 (13.2%) subsequently developed COVID-related symptoms, generally mild. Cancer treatment was discontinued, as a precaution, in 49 patients (92.5%) due to the test positivity. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 screening in asymptomatic and fully vaccinated cancer patients during systemic treatment appeared to be not cost-effective: the low rate of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients and the low percentage of overt associated infection do not seem proportional to the direct costs (nursing work for swabs, costs of materials and patient monitoring) and indirect costs (dedicated rooms, extension of waiting times for patients and oncologists in delivering therapy as well as its discontinuation in the positive ones). It can, on the other hand, be detrimental when systemic cancer treatment is suspended as a precaution. Given the small number of patients testing positive and the rapid and favorable trend of the infection, it is recommended to always consider continuing systemic oncological treatment, especially when this impacts patient survival as in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting.

Cost-effectiveness of a melanoma screening programme using whole disease modelling.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential impact of a melanoma screening programme, compared with usual care, on direct costs and life expectancy in the era of targeted drugs and cancer immunotherapy. METHODS: Using a Whole Disease Model approach, a Markov simulation model with a time horizon of 25 years was devised to analyse the cost-effectiveness of a one-time, general practitioner-based melanoma screening strategy in the population aged over 20, compared with no screening. The study considered the most up-to-date drug therapy and was conducted from the perspective of the Veneto regional healthcare system within the Italian National Health Service. Only direct costs were considered. Sensitivity analyses, both one-way and probabilistic, were performed to identify the parameters with the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness, and to assess the robustness of our model. RESULTS: Over a 25-year time horizon, the screening intervention dominated usual care. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. The key drivers of the model were the proportion of melanomas detected by the screening procedure and the adherence of the target population to the screening programme. CONCLUSIONS: The screening programme proved to be a dominant option compared with usual care. These findings should prompt serious consideration of the design and implementation of a regional or national melanoma screening strategy within a National Health Service.

Adverse events associated with encorafenib plus binimetinib in the COLUMBUS study: incidence, course and management.

BACKGROUND: Dual inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway with BRAF/MEK inhibitor (BRAFi/MEKi) therapy is a standard treatment for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma and has historically been associated with grade III pyrexia or photosensitivity depending on the combination used. The objective of this study was to fully describe adverse events from the COLUMBUS study evaluating the most recent BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination encorafenib+binimetinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma were randomised to receive encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, encorafenib 300 mg once daily or vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Adverse events that represent known effects of available BRAFi and/or MEKi were evaluated. RESULTS: The safety population included a total of 570 patients (encorafenib+binimetinib = 192; encorafenib = 192; vemurafenib = 186). Median duration of exposure was longer with encorafenib+binimetinib (51 weeks) than with encorafenib (31 weeks) or vemurafenib (27 weeks). Common BRAFi/MEKi toxicities with encorafenib+binimetinib were generally manageable, reversible and infrequently associated with discontinuation. Pyrexia was less frequent with encorafenib+binimetinib (18%) and encorafenib (16%) than with vemurafenib (30%) and occurred later in the course of therapy with encorafenib+binimetinib (median time to first onset: 85 days versus 2.5 days and 19 days, respectively). The incidence of photosensitivity was lower with encorafenib+binimetinib (5%) and encorafenib (4%) than with vemurafenib (30%). The incidence of serous retinopathy was higher with encorafenib+binimetinib (20%) than with encorafenib (2%) or vemurafenib (2%), but no patients discontinued encorafenib+binimetinib because of this event. CONCLUSION: Encorafenib+binimetinib is generally well tolerated and has a low discontinuation rate in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma, with a distinct safety profile as compared with other anti-BRAF/MEK targeted therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01909453) and with EudraCT (number 2013-001176-38).

Estimation of Direct Melanoma-related Costs by Disease Stage and by Phase of Diagnosis and Treatment According to Clinical Guidelines.

Cutaneous melanoma is a major concern in terms of healthcare systems and economics. The aim of this study was to estimate the direct costs of melanoma by disease stage, phase of diagnosis, and treatment according to the pre-set clinical guidelines drafted by the AIOM (Italian Medical Oncological Association). Based on the AIOM guidelines for malignant cutaneous melanoma, a highly detailed decision-making model was developed describing the patient's pathway from diagnosis through the subsequent phases of disease staging, surgical and medical treatment, and follow-up. The model associates each phase potentially involving medical procedures with a likelihood measure and a cost, thus enabling an estimation of the expected costs by disease stage and clinical phase of melanoma diagnosis and treatment according to the clinical guidelines. The mean per-patient cost of the whole melanoma pathway (including one year of follow-up) ranged from €149 for stage 0 disease to €66,950 for stage IV disease. The costs relating to each phase of the disease's diagnosis and treatment depended on disease stage. It is essential to calculate the direct costs of managing malignant cutaneous melanoma according to clinical guidelines in order to estimate the economic burden of this disease and to enable policy-makers to allocate appropriate resources.