Long-Term Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Multiple Myeloma Treatment Strategies for Elderly Transplant-Ineligible Patients in Serbia.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence on long-term effectiveness and cost effectiveness of treatment sequences for multiple myeloma (MM) is sparse. We used published data and country-specific data to assess the cost effectiveness of four-line treatment sequences for elderly transplant-ineligible patients with MM in Serbia. METHOD: We developed a Markov cohort model to compare long-term effectiveness and cost effectiveness of five sequential MM treatment alternatives from the perspective of the national healthcare provider. Effectiveness parameters on progression, mortality and adverse events were extracted from published clinical trials. Costs were based on price lists of the National Health Insurance Fund. We compared life expectancy, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios among alternative courses of action. The model was analyzed over a lifelong time horizon applying a 3% annual discount rate for effectiveness outcomes and costs. Robustness of the model was tested in multiple deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The sequences were defined by the frontline treatment: MPT (melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide), MPV (melphalanprednisone-bortezomib), CTD (cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone), VCD (bortezomib-cyclophosphamidedexamethasone) and BP (bendamustine-prednisone). MPV sequence resulted in the highest remaining life expectancy (4.76 life years). Cost-effectiveness analysis resulted in three non-dominated strategies: MPT, VCD, and MPV sequences, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 35,300 per life-year gained (LYG) for VCD and EUR 47,200/LYG for MPV relative to MPT. CONCLUSION: MPV sequence was the most effective in terms of life expectancy for elderly transplant-ineligible MM patients in Serbia. Bortezomib-based strategies would be recommended for the frontline treatment of patients with MM in Serbia if the willingness-to-pay threshold is around EUR 35,000-60,000/LYG.

Visible and near-infrared hyperspectral imaging techniques allow the reliable quantification of prognostic markers in lymphomas: A pilot study using the Ki67 proliferation index as an example.

In this study, we examined the suitability of visible and infrared (Vis-NIR) hyperspectral imaging (HSI) for the quantification of prognostic markers in non-Hodgkin lymphoma on the example of the Ki67 proliferation index. Ki67 quantification was done on six follicular lymphomas (FLs) and 12 diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCLs) by applying classic immunohistochemistry. The Ki67 index was comparatively assessed visually, using HSI-based quantification and a digital imaging analysis (DIA) platform. There was no significant difference between visual assessment (VA), DIA, and HSI in FLs. For DLBCLs, VA resulted in significantly higher Ki67 values than HSI (p = 0.023) and DIA (p = 0.006). No such difference was seen comparing analysis by HSI and DIA (p = 0.724). Cohen's κ revealed a "substantial correlation" of Ki67 values for HSI and DIA in FLs and DLBCLs (κ = 0.667 and 0.657). Here we provide the first evidence that, comparably to traditional DIA, HSI can be used reliably to quantify protein expression, as exemplified by the Ki67 proliferation index. By covering the near-infrared spectrum, HSI might offer additional information on the biochemical composition of pathological specimens, although our study could not show that HSI is clearly superior to conventional DIA. However, the analysis of multiplex immunohistochemistry might benefit from such an approach, especially if overlapping immunohistochemical reactions were possible. Further studies are needed to explore the impact of this method on the analysis and quantification of multiple marker expression in pathological specimens.

Complementing clinical cancer registry data with patient reported outcomes: A feasibility study on routine electronic patient-reported outcome assessment for the Austrian Myelome Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Routinely assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as quality of life (QOL), are important to supplement clinical cancer data but requires rigorous implementation. This study aims at depicting the implementation procedure and evaluating the feasibility of routine electronic PRO monitoring (ePRO) for collecting data supplementing the Austrian Myeloma Registry (AMR). METHODS: Integration of ePRO monitoring into clinical routine was planned according to the Replicating Effective Programs framework. QOL data were assessed regularly during treatment and aftercare at the hematooncological outpatient unit at the Medical University of Innsbruck with the EORTC QLQ-C30/ +MY20 and the EQ-5D-5L. Feasibility and usability testing were performed via a multimethod approach. RESULTS: Within the first year, 94.4% of the MM patients (N = 142, mean age 65.4, SD 11.8, 60% male) provided 748 PRO assessment time points overall. Patients and clinicians were satisfied with ePRO monitoring and indicated no to little disruption in clinical routine. Patient preference on assessment time points and completion frequency became evident. CONCLUSIONS: Complementing the AMR with ePRO data proved to be feasible. Our findings provide useful insights for healthcare providers considering introducing ePRO monitoring to their units for informing clinical registries as well as individualised feedback to patients alike.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in four European countries: Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy.

Aim: The approved indication for denosumab (120 mg) was expanded in 2018 to include skeletal-related event (SRE) prevention in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Therefore, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing denosumab with zoledronic acid (ZA) for SRE prevention in patients with MM from the national healthcare system perspective in a representative sample of European countries: Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy. Methods: The XGEVA global economic model for patients with MM was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for denosumab vs ZA over a lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs were derived from the denosumab vs ZA randomized, phase 3 study ("20090482") in patients newly-diagnosed with MM, and comprised real-world adjusted SRE rates, serious adverse event (SAE) rates, treatment duration, dose intensity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Economic inputs comprised country-specific denosumab and ZA acquisition and administration costs, SRE and SAE management costs, and discount rates. Health utility decrements associated with MM disease progression, SRE and SAE occurrence, and route of administration were included. Results: Estimated ICERs (cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) for denosumab vs ZA in Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy were €26,294, €17,737, €6,982, and €27,228, respectively. Using 1-3 times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita per QALY as willingness to pay thresholds, denosumab was 69-94%, 84-96%, 79-96%, and 50-92% likely to be cost-effective vs ZA, respectively. Limitations: Economic inputs were derived from various sources, and time to event inputs were extrapolated from 20090482 study data. Conclusions: Denosumab is cost-effective vs ZA for SRE prevention in patients with MM in Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy, based on often-adopted World Health Organization thresholds. This conclusion is robust to changes in model parameters and assumptions. Cost-effectiveness estimates varied across the four countries, reflecting differences in healthcare costs and national economic evaluation guidelines.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in the United States of America.

OBJECTIVE: A large, pivotal, phase 3 trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) demonstrated that denosumab, compared with zoledronic acid, was non-inferior for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs), extended the observed median progression-free survival (PFS) by 10.7 months, and showed significantly less renal toxicity. The cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid in MM in the US was assessed from societal and payer perspectives. METHODS: The XGEVA Global Economic Model was developed by integrating data from the phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy of denosumab with zoledronic acid for the prevention of SREs in MM. SRE rates were adjusted to reflect the real-world incidence. The model included utility decrements for SREs, administration, serious adverse events (SAEs), and disease progression. Drug, administration, SRE management, SAEs, and anti-MM treatment costs were based on data from published studies. For the societal perspective, the model additionally included SRE-related direct non-medical costs and indirect costs. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$150,000. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, compared with zoledronic acid, the use of denosumab resulted in an incremental cost of US$26,329 and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.2439, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US$107,939 and a NMB of US$10,259 in favor of denosumab. Results were sensitive to SRE rates and PFS parameters. LIMITATIONS: Costs were estimated from multiple sources, which varied by tumor type, patient population, country, and other parameters. PFS and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. CONCLUSION: Denosumab's efficacy in delaying or preventing SREs, potential to improve PFS, and lack of renal toxicity make it a cost-effective option for the prevention of SREs in MM compared with zoledronic acid.

LOOKING BACK ON 5 YEARS OF HORIZON SCANNING IN ONCOLOGY.

OBJECTIVES: The regularly structured adaptation of health technology assessment (HTA) programs is of utmost importance to sustain the relevance of the products for stakeholders and to justify investment of scarce financial resources. This study describes internal adjustments and external measures taken to ensure the Horizon Scanning Programme in Oncology (HSO) is current. METHODS: Formal evaluation methods comprising a survey, a download, an environmental analysis, and a Web site questionnaire were used to evaluate user satisfaction. RESULTS: The evaluation showed that users were satisfied with HSO outputs in terms of timeliness, topics selected, and depth of information provided. Discussion of these findings with an expert panel led to changes such as an improved dissemination strategy and the introduction of an additional output, that is, the publication of a league table of emerging oncology drugs. The rather high level of international usage and the environmental analysis highlighted a considerable overlap in topics assessed and, thus, the potential for international collaboration. As a consequence, thirteen reports were jointly published based on eleven "calls for collaboration." To further facilitate collaboration and the usability of reports for other agencies, HSO reports will be adjusted according to tools developed at a European level. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the impact of HTA programs allows the tailoring of outputs to fit the needs of the target population. However, within a fast developing HTA community, estimates of impact will increasingly be determined by international collaborative efforts. Refined methods and a broader definition of impact are needed to ultimately capture the efficiency of national HTA programs.

Oncotyrol--Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine: Methods and Applications of Health Technology Assessment and Outcomes Research.

BACKGROUND: The Oncotyrol - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine is an international and interdisciplinary alliance combining research and commercial competencies to accelerate the development, evaluation and translation of personalized healthcare strategies in cancer. The philosophy of Oncotyrol is to collaborate with relevant stakeholders and advance knowledge "from bench to bedside to population and back". Oncotyrol is funded through the COMET Excellence Program by the Austrian government via the national Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG). This article focuses on the role of health technology assessment (HTA) and outcomes research in personalized cancer medicine in the context of Oncotyrol. METHODS: Oncotyrol, which currently comprises approximately 20 individual projects, has four research areas: Area 1: Biomarker and Drug Target Identification; Area 2: Assay Development and Drug Screening; Area 3: Innovative Therapies; Area 4: Health Technology Assessment and Bioinformatics. Area 4 translates the results from Areas 1 to 3 to populations and society and reports them back to Area 3 to inform clinical studies and guidelines, and to Areas 1 and 2 to guide further research and development. RESULTS: In a series of international expert workshops, the Oncotyrol International Expert Task Force for Personalized Cancer Medicine developed the Methodological Framework for Early Health Technology Assessment and Decision Modeling in Cancer and practical guidelines in this field. Further projects included applications in the fields of sequential treatment of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness evaluation of prostate cancer screening, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multiple cervical cancer screening strategies, and benefits and cost-effectiveness of genomic test-based treatment strategies in breast cancer. CONCLUSION: An interdisciplinary setting as generated in Oncotyrol provides unique opportunities such as systematically coordinating lab and bench research, product development, clinical studies and decision science/HTA and transparent joint planning of research and development with a partnership of researchers, manufacturers and health policy decision makers. However, generating a joint research and legal framework with numerous partners from different sectors can be challenging, particularly in the starting period of such an endeavor. The journey to translational personalized medicine through multidisciplinary collaborations may still be long and difficult, but it is evident that it must be continued to turn vision into reality.