Cost-effectiveness of ivosidenib versus chemotherapy for previously treated IDH1-mutant advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend ivosidenib followed by modified FOLFOX (mFOLFOX) for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) with isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations. Taiwan National Health Insurance covers only fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) chemotherapy for this ICC group, and there has been no prior economic evaluation of ivosidenib. Therefore, we aimed to assess ivosidenib's cost-effectiveness in previously treated, advanced ICC-presenting IDH1 mutations compared with mFOLFOX or 5-FU/LV. METHODS: A 3-state partitioned survival model was employed to assess ivosidenib's cost-effectiveness over a 10-year horizon with a 3% discount rate, setting the willingness-to-pay threshold at 3 times the 2022 GDP per capita. Efficacy data for Ivosidenib, mFOLFOX, and 5-FU/LV were sourced from the ClarIDHy, ABC06, and NIFTY trials, respectively. Ivosidenib's cost was assumed to be NT$10,402/500 mg. Primary outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefit. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were employed to evaluate uncertainty and explore price reduction scenarios. RESULTS: Ivosidenib exhibited ICERs of NT$6,268,528 and NT$5,670,555 compared with mFOLFOX and 5-FU/LV, respectively, both exceeding the established threshold. PSA revealed that ivosidenib was unlikely to be cost-effective, except when it was reduced to NT$4,161 and NT$5,201/500 mg when compared with mFOLFOX and 5-FU/LV, respectively. DSA underscored the significant influence of ivosidenib's cost and utility values on estimate uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: At NT$10,402/500 mg, ivosidenib was not cost-effective for IDH1-mutant ICC patients compared with mFOLFOX or 5-FU/LV, indicating that a 50-60% price reduction is necessary for ivosidenib to be cost-effective in this patient group.

CDX2 Biomarker Testing and Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: An Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended for patients with average-risk stage II (T3N0) colon cancer. Nevertheless, a subgroup of these patients who are CDX2-negative might benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of testing for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil combined with oxaliplatin [FOLFOX]) for patients with stage II colon cancer. METHODS: We developed a decision model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with average-risk stage II colon cancer with 7.2% of these patients being CDX2-negative under 2 different interventions: (1) test for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for CDX2-negative patients and (2) no CDX2 testing and no adjuvant chemotherapy for any patient. We derived disease progression parameters, adjuvant chemotherapy effectiveness and utilities from published analyses, and cancer care costs from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX for CDX2-negative patients had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5500/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with no CDX2 testing and no FOLFOX (6.874 vs 6.838 discounted QALYs and $89 991 vs $89 797 discounted US dollar lifetime costs). In sensitivity analyses, considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY, testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX on CDX2-negative patients remains cost-effective for hazard ratios of <0.975 of the effectiveness of FOLFOX in CDX2-negative patients in reducing the rate of developing a metastatic recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Testing tumors of patients with stage II colon cancer for CDX2 and administration of adjuvant treatment to the subgroup found CDX2-negative is a cost-effective and high-value management strategy across a broad range of plausible assumptions.

Do clinical trials change practice? A longitudinal, international assessment of colorectal cancer prescribing practices.

INTRODUCTION: Over half of the 1.5 million individuals globally who are diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) present with stage II-III disease. Understanding clinician attitudes towards treatment for this group is paramount to contextualise real-world outcomes and plan future trials. The aim of this study was to assess clinician awareness of trials assessing the optimal duration of CRC adjuvant therapy, their attitudes towards shorter treatment and their self-reported practice. METHODS: A survey was developed using OnlineSurveys® and distributed to clinicians in April 2019, with a follow-up survey disseminated to a subset of respondents in August 2020. Microsoft Excel® and Stata® were used for analysis. RESULTS: 265 clinicians replied to the first survey, with the majority aware of findings from the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Therapy collaboration and contributory trials. Practice change was greatest for patients under 70 with low-risk stage III CRC, with most uncertainty around using 3-months of doublet chemotherapy for high-risk stage II disease. In August 2020, clinicians (n = 106) were more likely to use 3-months of FOLFOX for low-risk stage III disease and 3-months of CAPOX for stage II disease compared to April 2019. There was no indication that the COVID-19 pandemic had enduring changes on treatment decisions beyond those made in response to trial evidence. DISCUSSION: Clinicians use a risk-stratified approach to treat CRC the adjuvant setting. Lower utilisation of doublet chemotherapy for older and stage II patients has affected the extent of trial implementation. Active dialogue regarding how trial results apply to these groups may improve consensus.

Effectiveness of adjuvant FOLFOX vs 5FU/LV in adults over age 65 with stage II and III colon cancer using a novel hybrid approach.

PURPOSE: Estimates of cancer therapy effects can differ in clinical trials and clinical practice, partly due to underrepresentation of certain patient subgroups in trials. We utilize a hybrid approach, combining clinical trial and real-world data, to estimate the comparative effectiveness of two adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for colon cancer. METHODS: We identified patients aged 66 and older enrolled in the Multicenter International Study of Oxaliplatin/5FU-LV in the Adjuvant Treatment of Colon Cancer. Similar patients were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, initiating adjuvant chemotherapy with either 5-fluorouracil (5FU) alone or in combination with oxaliplatin (FOLFOX). We used logistic regression to estimate the likelihood of trial enrollment as a function of age, sex, and substage. Using inverse odds of sampling weights (IOSW), we compared 5-year mortality in patients randomized to FOLFOX vs 5FU using weighted Cox proportional hazards regression, the Nelson-Aalen estimator for cumulative hazards, and bootstrapping for 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: There were 690 trial participants and 3834 SEER-Medicare patients. The SEER-Medicare population was older and had a higher proportion of stage IIIB and IIIC patients than the trial. After controlling for differences between populations, the IOSW 5-year HR was 1.21 (0.89, 1.65), slightly farther from the null than the trial estimate (HR = 1.14, 95%CI: 0.87, 1.49). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports mounting evidence of little to no incremental reduction in 5-year mortality for FOLFOX vs 5FU in older adults with stage II-III colon cancer, emphasizing the importance of combining clinical trial and real-world data to support such conclusions.

Longitudinal analysis of organ-specific tumor lesion sizes in metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving first line standard chemotherapy in combination with anti-angiogenic treatment.

The purpose of this work is to assess the heterogeneity across organs of response to treatment in metastatic colorectal patient based on longitudinal individual target lesion diameters (ILD) in comparison to sum of tumor lesion diameters (SLD). Data were from the McCAVE trial, in which 189 previously untreated patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC) received either bevacizumab (control, C) or vanucizumab (experimental, E), on top of standard chemotherapy. Bayesian hierarchical longitudinal non-linear mixed effect models were fitted to the data using Hamilton Monte Carlo algorithm to characterize the time dynamics of the tumor burden, and to obtain estimates of the tumor shrinkage and regrowth rates. The ILD model brought more nuanced results than to the SLD model. Besides substantial differences in tumor size at baseline (with lesions located in liver more than twice as large as the ones in lungs), it revealed a more durable response in lesions located in lymph nodes and 'other organs' compared to liver and lungs. Specifically, in lymph nodes and 'other organs', the projected time to nadir was doubled in group E (2.12 and 2.44 years respectively) compared to group C (1.07 and 1.20 years respectively). This long period of tumor shrinkage associated with a slightly larger change from baseline at nadir (- 51.4% in lymph nodes and - 62.6% in 'other organs' in the group E, compared to - 46.2% and - 46.9% in group C) resulted in a clinically meaningful difference in the tumor dynamics of patients in group E compared to the group C. The proportion of variance explained by the inter-lesion variability for each model parameter was large (ranging between 10 and 56%), reflecting the heterogeneity in tumor dynamics across organs. These findings suggest that there is value in understanding both within- and between-patient variability in tumor size's time dynamics using an appropriate modeling framework, as this information may help in pairing the right treatment with individual patient profile.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in pancreatic cancer: Retrospective claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer represents the third leading cause of US cancer deaths, with median survival <1 year. The goal of this study was to describe systemic treatments, healthcare utilization and costs, and overall survival among patients with unresectable/metastatic disease. METHODS: This study used healthcare claims for commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (at index date) during January 01 2010 to 31 May 2017. Included patients were aged ≥18 years, with continuous 6-month preindex enrollment. Patients were excluded by resectable disease, another primary cancer, or pregnancy. Cohorts were based on first-line (LOT1) chemotherapy regimen. RESULTS: Overall, 12 978 patients (mean age 70 years, 51% male) were included, among which 5610 (43%) received chemotherapy. Of those, 23% received gemcitabine monotherapy, 22% gemcitabine-nab paclitaxel, 22% FOLFIRINOX, 3% FOLFOX, and 29% received other regimens. Mean LOT1 duration was 112 days; 60% did not undergo subsequent lines of therapy. Moreover, 50% of patients had an emergency room visit and 45% were hospitalized during LOT1. Among treated and untreated patients, mean total 6-month costs were $52 101. We found that patients receiving FOLFIRINOX had the highest costs, whereas those who received gemcitabine monotherapy had the lowest. Median overall survival (mOS) was 335 days with any first-line treatment. FOLFIRINOX-treated patients had the highest mOS (492 days), whereas gemcitabine monotherapy-treated patients had the lowest (223 days). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion (57%) of patients with unresectable/metastatic pancreatic cancer did not receive chemotherapy. Healthcare costs were higher for fluorouracil-based regimens, while lower for gemcitabine-based regimens. Survival rates were within expectations for advanced pancreatic cancer.

Decision analysis for secondline maintenance treatment of platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: a review.

Most women with ovarian cancer experience disease relapse, presenting numerous treatment challenges for clinicians. Maintenance therapy in the relapsed setting aims to extend the time taken for a cancer to progress, thus delaying the need for additional treatments. Four therapies are currently approved in the USA for secondline maintenance treatment of platinum sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer: one antivascular endothelial growth factor agent (bevacizumab) and three poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib). In addition to efficacy, maintenance therapies must have a good tolerability profile and no significant detrimental impact on quality of life, as patients who receive maintenance are generally free from cancer related symptoms. Data from key bevacizumab trials (OCEANS, NCT00434642; GOG-0213, NCT00565851; MITO16B, NCT01802749) and PARP inhibitor trials (Study 19, NCT00753545; SOLO2, NCT01874353; NOVA, NCT01847274; ARIEL3, NCT01968213) indicate that bevacizumab and the PARP inhibitors are effective in patients with platinum sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer but differ in their tolerability profiles. In addition, the efficacy of PARP inhibitors is dependent on the presence of homologous recombination repair deficiency, with patients with the deficiency experiencing greater responses from treatment compared with those who are homologous recombination repair proficient. Allowing for caveats of cross trial comparisons, we advise that clinicians account for the following points when choosing whether and when to administer a secondline maintenance treatment for a specific patient: presence of a homologous recombination repair deficient tumor; the patient's baseline characteristics, such as platelet count and blood pressure; mode of administration of therapy; and consideration of future treatment options for thirdline and later therapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab combined with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer based on the TAILOR trial.

OBJECTIVES: Cetuximab plus leucovorin, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) is superior to FOLFOX-4 alone as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS wild-type (RAS wt mCRC), with significantly improved survival benefit by TAILOR, an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase III trial. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of these two regimens remains uncertain. The following study aims to determine whether cetuximab combined with FOLFOX-4 is a cost-effective regimen for patients with specific RAS wt mCRC in China. DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness model combined decision tree and Markov model was built to simulate pateints with RAS wt mCRC based on health states of dead, progressive and stable. The health outcomes from the TAILOR trial and utilities from published data were used respectively. Costs were calculated with reference to the Chinese societal perspective. The robustness of the results was evaluated by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. PARTICIPANTS: The included patients were newly diagnosed Chinese patients with fully RAS wt mCRC. INTERVENTIONS: First-line treatment with either cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 or FOLFOX-4. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes are costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Baseline analysis disclosed that the QALYs was increased by 0.383 caused by additional cetuximab, while an increase of US$62 947 was observed in relation to FOLFOX-4 chemotherapy. The ICER was US$164 044 per QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$28 106 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the survival benefit, cetuximab combined with FOLFOX-4 is not a cost-effective treatment for the first-line regime of patients with RAS wt mCRC in China. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: TAILOR trial (NCT01228734); Post-results.

Patient-based cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRI versus FOLFOX7 for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma in China: A 4-year prospective randomised phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Using data from the 4-year follow-up results of an open, randomised, phase II study, this patient-based cost-effectiveness analysis compares mFOLFIRI (irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin, the IRI arm) with mFOLFOX7 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin, the OXA arm) as first-line treatments in patients with locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma (GC). METHODS: A Markov model was created based on previous results reported at the 2016 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium to evaluate mFOLFIRI and mFOLFOX7 for advanced GC quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were examined as the primary outcomes. RESULTS: For the evaluable 128 patients, treatment efficacy was 0.59 QALYs for the IRI arm and 0.70 QALYs for the OXA arm, with a total cost of $13,861.34 for the IRI arm and $14,127.30 for the OXA arm. Hence, the ICER was $2,417.82 per QALY the OXA arm, which was below the threshold of 3 × per capita GDP of China. For subgroup analysis of those receiving mFOLFIRI followed by mFOLFOX7 (the IRI arm) and the reverse (the OXA arm), the OXA arm gained 0.44 more QALYs than the IRI arm with a total cost of $28,890.09 for the IRI arm and $31,147.30 for the OXA arm. However, the cost per QALY was also lower for the OXA arm than for the IRI arm, and the cost per QALY gained was $5,129.55 (below the Chinese WTP). CONCLUSION: mFOLFOX7 is a very high cost-effective alternative as the first-line treatment for those patients with advanced GC compared with mFOLFIRI.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of selective first-line use of biologics for unresectable RAS wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer.

Background: Evidence from a retrospective analysis of multiple large phase iii trials suggested that primary tumour location (ptl) in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (wtRAS mcrc) might have predictive value with respect to response to drug therapies. Recent studies also show a potential preferential benefit for epidermal growth factor inhibitors (egfris) for left-sided tumours. In the present study, we aimed to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) for the first-line use of an egfri for patients with left-sided wtRAS mcrc. Methods: We developed a state-transition model to determine the cost effectiveness of alternative treatment strategies in patients with left-sided mcrc:■ Standard of care■ Use of an egfri in first-line therapyThe cohort for the study consisted of patients diagnosed with unresectable wtRAS mcrc with an indication for chemotherapy and previously documented ptl. Model parameters were obtained from the published literature and calibration. The perspective was that of a provincial ministry of health in Canada. We used a 5-year time horizon and an annual discount rate of 1.5%. Results: Selecting patients for first-line egfri treatment based on left-sided location of their colorectal primary tumour was more effective than the standard of care, resulting in an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) of 0.226 (or 0.644 life-years gained). However, the strategy was also more expensive, costing an average of $60,639 more per patient treated. The resulting icer was $268,094 per qaly. A 35% price reduction in the cost of egfri would be needed to make this strategy cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold (wtp) of $100,000 per qaly. Conclusions: Selective use of an egfri based on ptl was more cost-effective than unselected use of those agents; however, based on traditional wtp thresholds, it was still not cost-effective. While awaiting the elucidation of more precise predictive biomarkers that might improve cost-effectiveness, the price of egfris could be reduced to meet the wtp threshold.

Fast-track multidisciplinary treatment versus conventional treatment for colorectal cancer: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery, fast-track perioperative treatment and XELOX chemotherapy are effective strategies for shortening the duration of hospital stay for cancer patients. This trial aimed to clarify the safety and efficacy of the fast-track multidisciplinary treatment (FTMDT) model compared to conventional surgery combined with chemotherapy in Chinese colorectal cancer patients. METHODS: This trial was a prospective randomized controlled study with a 2 × 2 balanced factorial design and was conducted at six hospitals. Patients in group 1 (FTMDT) received fast-track perioperative treatment and XELOX adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients in group 2 (conventional treatment) received conventional perioperative treatment and mFOLFOX6 adjuvant chemotherapy. Subgroups 1a and 2a had laparoscopic surgery and subgroups 1b and 2b had open surgery. The primary endpoint was total length of hospital stay during treatment. RESULTS: A total of 374 patients were randomly assigned to the four subgroups, and 342 patients were finally analyzed, including 87 patients in subgroup 1a, 85 in subgroup 1b, 86 in subgroup 2a, and 84 in subgroup 2b. The total hospital stay of group 1 was shorter than that of group 2 [13 days, (IQR, 11-17 days) vs. 23.5 days (IQR, 15-42 days), P = 0.0001]. Compared to group 2, group 1 had lower surgical costs, fewer in-hospital complications and faster recovery (all P < 0.05). Subgroup 1a showed faster surgical recovery than that of subgroup 1b (all P < 0.05). There was no difference in 5-year overall survival between groups 1 and 2 [87.1% (95% CI, 80.7-91.5%) vs. 87.1% (95% CI, 80.8-91.4%), P = 0.7420]. CONCLUSIONS: The FTMDT model, which integrates laparoscopic surgery, fast-track treatment, and XELOX chemotherapy, was the superior model for enhancing the recovery of Chinese patients with colorectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01080547 , registered on March 4, 2010.

FOLFOX and FOLFIRI Use in Stage IV Colon Cancer: Analysis of SEER-Medicare Data.

BACKGROUND: Shortly after the year 2000, randomized trials demonstrated that patients with metastatic colon cancer treated with infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin with either oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan (FOLFIRI) had a comparable progression-free survival benefit, superior to patients who received 5-FU/leucovorin alone. Factors associated with the initial receipt of the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI regimen are unknown. Our goal was to investigate the patterns and predictors of use for first-line FOLFOX and FOLFIRI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data set to identify patients with newly diagnosed stage IV colon cancer between the years 2005 and 2013 who received either first-line FOLFOX or FOLFIRI. We used logistic regression to assess demographic and clinical predictors for FOLFOX versus FOLFIRI. Survival was compared by Kaplan-Meier models. RESULTS: Overall, 3000 patients (79.3%) received FOLFOX and 785 (20.7%) FOLFIRI. FOLFOX was associated with later year of diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.82 for 2011-2013 vs. 2005-2007), being female (OR = 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98), and living in the southern region of the United States. FOLFIRI was associated with having a higher comorbidity index (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.67 for >1 comorbidity score vs. 0). There was no survival difference observed between the two treatments. CONCLUSION: The majority of SEER-Medicare patients received FOLFOX and not FOLFIRI as a first-line treatment for stage IV colon cancer. Several demographic and clinical factors were associated with the use of each specific regimen. No survival difference was detected for the 2 groups.

Variation in the Thoroughness of Pathologic Assessment and Response Rates of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancers After Chemoradiation.

BACKGROUND: Pathologic complete response (pCR) is associated with better prognosis and guides management for patients with advanced rectal cancer. Response rates vary between series for unclear reasons. We examine whether the thoroughness of pathologic assessment explains differences in pCR rates. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed pathology reports from patients with stage II/III rectal cancer who underwent chemoradiation and resection in a prospective, multicenter trial. We utilized a novel measure for the thoroughness of pathologic assessment by dividing residual tumor size by the number of cassettes evaluated (tumor size to cassette ratio, TSCR), and evaluated whether TSCR is associated with pCR. We validated our findings using a separate cohort. RESULTS: From the trial cohort, 71 of 247 (29%) patients achieved pCR. The pCR rate ranged from 0 to 45% and mean TSCR ranged 0.29 to 0.87 across 12 institutions. Within each institution, a lower TSCR was associated with pCR, demonstrating a higher degree of thoroughness used for tumors that achieved pCR. Moreover, across all samples, low TSCR was independently associated with pCR on multivariable analysis. This finding was corroborated in a separate cohort of 201 tumors evaluated by five pathologists; each pathologist had a lower mean TSCR for pCR calls compared with non-pCR calls. However, the mean TSCR for an institution was not associated with its overall pCR rate. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists assess rectal cancers that have responded significantly to neoadjuvant therapy more thoroughly. Thoroughness does not appear to explain differences in pCR rates between institutions. Our results suggest pCR is not a sampling artifact.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) show a significant response to checkpoint inhibitor therapies, but the economic impact of these therapies is unknown. A decision analytic model was used to explore the effectiveness and cost burden of MSI-H/dMMR mCRC treatment. METHODS: The treatment of hypothetical patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC was simulated in 2 treatment scenarios: a third-line treatment and an exploratory first-line treatment. The treatments compared were nivolumab, ipilimumab and nivolumab, trifluridine and tipiracil (third-line treatment), and mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (first-line treatment). Disease progression, drug toxicity, and survival rates were based on the CheckMate 142, study of TAS-102 in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapies (RECOURSE), and Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Southwest Oncology Group 80405 trials. The analyzed outcomes included survival (life-years), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Ipilimumab with nivolumab was the most effective strategy (10.69 life-years and 9.25 QALYs for the third line; 10.69 life-years and 9.44 QALYs for the first line) in comparison with nivolumab (8.21 life-years and 6.76 QALYs for the third line; 8.21 life-years and 7.00 QALYs for the first line), trifluridine and tipiracil (0.74 life-years and 0.07 QALYs), and mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (2.72 life-years and 1.63 QALYs). However, neither checkpoint inhibitor therapy was cost-effective in comparison with trifluridine and tipiracil (nivolumab ICER, $153,000; ipilimumab and nivolumab ICER, $162,700) or mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (nivolumab ICER, $150,700; ipilimumab and nivolumab ICER, $158,700). CONCLUSIONS: This modeling analysis found that both single and dual checkpoint blockade could be significantly more effective for MSI-H/dMMR mCRC than chemotherapy, but they were not cost-effective, largely because of drug costs. Decreases in drug pricing and/or the duration of maintenance nivolumab could make ipilimumab and nivolumab cost-effective. Prospective clinical trials should be performed to explore the optimal duration of maintenance nivolumab.

Circulating tumor cells criteria (CyCAR) versus standard RECIST criteria for treatment response assessment in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) as indicators of treatment response in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) needs to be clarified. The objective of this study is to compare the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) with the Cytologic Criteria Assessing Response (CyCAR), based on the presence and phenotypic characterization of CTCs, as indicators of FOLFOX-bevacizumab treatment response. METHODS: 77 mCRC blood samples from FOLFOX-bevacizumab treated patients were analyzed to isolate CTCs before and after (12 and 24 weeks) treatment, using an immunomagnetic separation method. VEGFR expression was identified by double immunostaining. RESULTS: We observed a decrease of CTCs (42.8 vs. 18.2%) and VEGFR positivity (69.7% vs. 41.7%) after treatment. According to RECIST, 6.45% of the patients did not show any clinical benefit, whereas 93.55% patients showed a favorable response at 12 weeks. According to CyCAR, 29% had a non-favorable response and 71% patients did not. No significant differences were found between the response assessment by RECIST and CyCAR at 12 or 24 weeks. However, in the multivariate analysis, RECIST at 12 weeks and CyCAR at 24 weeks were independent prognostic factors for OS (HR: 0.1, 95% CI 0.02-0.58 and HR: 0.35, 95% CI 0.12-0.99 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: CyCAR results were comparable to RECIST in evaluating the response in mCRC and can be used as an alternative when the limitation of RECIST requires additional response analysis techniques.

Economic impact of olaparib on maintenance treatment of patients with BRCA-mutation positive, platinum-sensitive relapsing high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the economic impact of the introduction of olaparib in  the Spanish National Health System as maintenance monotherapy in patients  with BRCA-mutation positive high-grade serous ovarian cancer. METHOD: A budget impact model was developed from the Spanish NHS perspective and a time horizon of 5 years for four treatment lines. The model included prevalent and incident patients estimated according to Spanish epidemiological data. Patients moved between treatment lines according to the progression-free survival and overall survival curves  obtained from the respective clinical trials. Only direct costs (€ 2017) were considered: pharmacological, administration, adverse effects and genetic tests. The robustness of the model was verified by a univariate  sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The use of olaparib meant that, after 5 years, 6% fewer patients progressed to later lines compared to scenario without olaparib,  remaining longer in the second line and delaying the initiation of subsequent lines. The total estimated budgetary impact ranged between € 1.6  and € 5.4 million (1-5 years). The economic impact associated to the  introduction of olaparib is partially offset by the lower cost of chemotherapy, related adverse events, and palliative care in patients with  olaparib than in patients without it. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib as maintenance treatment in patients with BRCA-mutation positive high-grade serous ovarian cancer increases progression-free  survival and delays the use of subsequent chemotherapy, with an budgetary  impact for the Spanish National Health System of 5.4 million euros after 5 years.

Objetivo: Estimar el impacto económico de la introducción de olaparib en el  Sistema Nacional de Salud como monoterapia de mantenimiento en pacientes  con cáncer de ovario seroso de alto grado y mutación BRCA.Método: Se desarrolló un modelo de impacto presupuestario desde la  perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud y un horizonte temporal de cinco años a lo largo de cuatro líneas de tratamiento. El modelo incluye pacientes  prevalentes e incidentes estimadas a partir de datos epidemiológicos españoles.  Las pacientes se mueven entre las líneas de tratamiento en función de las curvas de supervivencia libre de progresión y supervivencia global obtenidas de los  respectivos ensayos clínicos. Solo se consideraron costes directos (€ 2017):  farmacológicos, de administración, efectos adversos y test genéticos. La  robustez del modelo se ha comprobado a través de un análisis de sensibilidad  univariante.Resultados: El uso de olaparib conllevó que, tras cinco años, un 6% menos de  pacientes progresaran a líneas posteriores, en comparación al escenario sin  olaparib, permaneciendo más tiempo en segunda línea y retrasando el inicio de  líneas subsiguientes. El impacto presupuestario total estimado osciló entre 1,6 y  5,4 millones de euros (1-5 años). Este impacto económico se ve parcialmente  compensado por los costes de la quimioterapia, el manejo de sus efectos  adversos y los cuidados paliativos, los cuales producen ahorros para el Sistema  Nacional de Salud.Conclusiones: Olaparib como tratamiento de mantenimiento en pacientes con  cáncer de ovario seroso de alto grado y mutación del gen BRCA aumenta la  supervivencia libre de progresión y retrasa la utilización de quimioterapia  posteriores, con un impacto presupuestario para el Sistema Nacional de Salud de  5,4 millones de euros tras 5 año.

Economic Analysis of First-Line Treatment with Cetuximab or Panitumumab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in England.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapies with cetuximab (Erbitux®; Merck Serono UK Ltd) and panitumumab (Vectibix®; Amgen UK Ltd) are shown to be less effective in adults with metastatic colorectal cancer who have mutations in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and NRAS oncogenes from the rat sarcoma (RAS) family. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of these drugs in patients with previously untreated RAS wild-type (i.e. non-mutated) metastatic colorectal cancer, not eligible for liver resection at baseline, from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. METHODS: We constructed a partitioned survival model to evaluate the long-term costs and benefits of cetuximab and panitumumab combined with either FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin) or FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) vs. FOLFOX or FOLFIRI alone. The economic analysis was based on three randomised controlled trials. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were discounted at 3.5% per annum. RESULTS: Based on the evidence available, both drugs fulfil the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's end-of-life criteria. In the analysis, assuming discount prices for the drugs from patient access schemes agreed by the drug manufacturers with the Department of Health, predicted mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cetuximab + FOLFOX, panitumumab + FOLFOX and cetuximab + FOLFIRI compared with chemotherapy alone appeared cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold of £50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, applicable to end-of-life treatments. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab and panitumumab were recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with previously untreated RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, not eligible for liver resection at baseline, for use within the National Health Service in England. Both treatments are available via the UK Cancer Drugs Fund.

Comparison of treatment patterns and economic outcomes among metastatic pancreatic cancer patients initiated on nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is substantial while treatment options are limited. Little is known about the treatment patterns and healthcare costs among mPC patients who initiated first-line gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-P + G) and FOLFIRINOX. METHODS: The MarketScan® claims databases were used to identify adults with ≥2 claims for pancreatic cancer, 1 claim for a secondary malignancy, completed ≥1 cycle of nab-P + G or FOLFIRINOX during 4/1/2013 and 3/31/2015, and had continuous plan enrollment for ≥6 months pre- and 3 months after the first-line treatment. Duration of therapy, per patient per month (PPPM) costs of total healthcare, mPC-related treatment, and supportive care were measured during first-line therapy. RESULTS: 550 mPC patients met selection criteria (nab-P + G, n = 294; FOLFIRINOX, n = 256). There was no difference in duration of therapy (p = 0.60) between nab-P + G and FOLFIRINOX. Compared with FOLFIRINOX, patients with nab-P + G had higher chemotherapy drug costs but lower treatment administration costs and supportive care costs (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with nab-P + G (vs FOLFIRINOX) had similar treatment duration but lower costs of outpatient prescriptions, treatment administration and supportive care. Lower supportive care costs in the nab-P + G cohort were mainly driven by lower utilization of pegfilgrastim and anti-emetics.

Therapeutic response assessment using 3D ultrasound for hepatic metastasis from colorectal cancer: Application of a personalized, 3D-printed tumor model using CT images.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: To evaluate accuracy and reliability of three-dimensional ultrasound (3D US) for response evaluation of hepatic metastasis from colorectal cancer (CRC) using a personalized 3D-printed tumor model. METHODS: Twenty patients with liver metastasis from CRC who underwent baseline and after chemotherapy CT, were retrospectively included. Personalized 3D-printed tumor models using CT were fabricated. Two radiologists measured volume of each 3D printing model using 3D US. With CT as a reference, we compared difference between CT and US tumor volume. The response evaluation was based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. RESULTS: 3D US tumor volume showed no significant difference from CT volume (7.18 ± 5.44 mL, 8.31 ± 6.32 mL vs 7.42 ± 5.76 mL in CT, p>0.05). 3D US provided a high correlation coefficient with CT (r = 0.953, r = 0.97) as well as a high inter-observer intraclass correlation (0.978; 0.958-0.988). Regarding response, 3D US was in agreement with CT in 17 and 18 out of 20 patients for observer 1 and 2 with excellent agreement (κ = 0.961). CONCLUSIONS: 3D US tumor volume using a personalized 3D-printed model is an accurate and reliable method for the response evaluation in comparison with CT tumor volume.

Overcoming platinum resistance in ovarian cancer treatment: from clinical practice to emerging chemical therapies.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this review is to summarize results from clinical trials that tested cytotoxic drugs and target strategies for the treatment of platinum resistant (PR) recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) with particular attention to Phase III and ongoing trials. Areas covered: Since platinum free interval (PFI) represents the most important predictive factor for response to platinum re-treatment in ROC, non-platinum regimens are conventionally considered the most appropriate approaches. Impressive progress has been made in recent decades, resulting in the identification of most effective cytotoxic agents and in the development of new target strategies. However, the efficacy of most of these drugs for the treatment of PR disease is still limited. Expert opinion: The most favorable benefit for the treatment of PR disease, has been described by the AURELIA trial that showed a 3.3 months increase in progression free survival (PFS) when bevacizumab was combined with non-platinum single agent chemotherapy in bevacizumab-naïve patients. Nevertheless, the use of novel agents is associated to important costs for just little gains in survival. Thus, in our opinion the economic evaluation, such as the incorporation of quality of life into the clinical studies is crucial for the development of future trials for PR-ROC.