Accounting for repeat intervention costs in the economic comparison of laser interstitial thermal therapy and anterior temporal lobectomy for treatment of refractory temporal lobe epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) is an alternative to anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) for the treatment of temporal lobe epilepsy that has been found by some to have a lower procedure cost but is generally regarded as less effective and sometimes results in a subsequent procedure. The goal of this study is to incorporate subsequent procedures into the cost and outcome comparison between ATL and LITT. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective cohort study includes 85 patients undergoing ATL or LITT for temporal lobe epilepsy during the period September 2015 to December 2022. Of the 40 patients undergoing LITT, 35 % (N = 14) underwent a subsequent ATL. An economic cost model is derived, and difference in means tests are used to compare the costs, outcomes, and other hospitalization measures. RESULTS: Our model predicts that whenever the percentage of LITT patients undergoing subsequent ATL (35% in our sample) exceeds the percentage by which the LITT procedure alone is less costly than ATL (7.2% using total patient charges), LITT will have higher average patient cost than ATL, and this is indeed the case in our sample. After accounting for subsequent surgeries, the average patient charge in the LITT sample ($103,700) was significantly higher than for the ATL sample ($88,548). A second statistical comparison derived from our model adjusts for the difference in effectiveness by calculating the cost per seizure-free patient outcome, which is $108,226 for ATL, $304,052 for LITT only, and $196,484 for LITT after accounting for the subsequent ATL surgeries. SIGNIFICANCE: After accounting for the costs of subsequent procedures, we found in our cohort that LITT is not only less effective but also results in higher average costs per patient than ATL as a first course of treatment. While cost and effectiveness rates will vary across centers, we also provide a model for calculating cost effectiveness based on individual center data.

Preconditioning with INC280 and LDK378 drugs sensitizes MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma to temozolomide: Pre-clinical assessment.

Temozolomide (TMZ) therapy is the standard of care for patients with glioblastoma (GBM). Clinical studies have shown that elevated levels of DNA repair protein O (6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) or deficiency/defect of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes is associated with TMZ resistance in some, but not all, GBM tumors. Another reason for GBM treatment failure is signal redundancy due to coactivation of several functionally linked receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), including anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) and c-Met (hepatocyte growth factor receptor). As such, these tyrosine kinases serve as potential targets for GBM therapy. Thus, we tested two novel drugs: INC280 (Capmatinib: a highly selective c-Met receptor tyrosine kinase-RTK inhibitor) and LDK378 (Ceritinib: a highly selective anaplastic lymphoma kinase-ALK inhibitor), aiming to overcome TMZ resistance in MGMT-unmethylated GBM cells in in vitro cell culture models. Treatments were examined using MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay, caspase-3 assay and western blot analysis. Results obtained from our experiments demonstrated that preconditioning with INC280 and LDK378 drugs exhibit increased MMR protein expression, specifically MMR protein MLH1 (MutL Homolog 1) and MSH6 (MutS Homolog 6) and sensitized TMZ in MGMT-unmethylated GBM cells via suppression of ALK and c-Met expression. INC280 and LDK378 plus TMZ also induced apoptosis by modulating downstream signaling of PI3K/AKT/STAT3. Taken together, this data indicates that co-inhibition of ALK and c-MET can enhance growth inhibitory effects in MGMT-unmethylated cells and enhance TMZ sensitivity in-vitro, suggesting c-Met inhibitors combined with ALK-targeting provide a therapeutic benefit in MGMT-unmethylated GBM patients.

Cost-effectiveness of the endoscopic versus microscopic approach for pituitary adenoma resection.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an endoscopic versus microscopic approach to pituitary adenoma resection. STUDY DESIGN: Markov decision tree economic evaluation. METHODS: An economic evaluation using a Markov decision tree model was performed. The economic perspective was that of the healthcare third-party payer. Effectiveness and probability data were obtained from a single meta-analysis of 38 studies. Costs were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and wholesale pharmaceutical pricing. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Comparative treatment groups were: 1) endoscopic approach and 2) microscopic approach to pituitary adenoma resection. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The time horizon was 25 years, and costs were discounted at a rate of 3.5%. RESULTS: The endoscopic approach cost a total of $17,244.63 and produced a total of 24.30 QALYs. The microscopic approach cost a total of $23,756.60 and produced a total of 24.20 QALYs. In the reference case, the endoscopic approach was a dominant intervention (both less costly and more effective); therefore, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not calculated. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated 79% certainty that the endoscopic approach is the cost-effective decision, at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This economic evaluation suggests that the endoscopic approach is the more cost-effective intervention compared to the microscopic approach for patients requiring a pituitary adenoma resection.